Montag, 26. September 2011

Dear Clarence...


The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell had said: "There is constant activity by these ghouls. They have accused Kate and Gerry of child neglect and worse, and covering up Madeleine's death.

"The trouble is that it is very hard to stop these people. They hide away behind their computer screens, blogging away." 

...yes, it is very hard to stop us. But the reason is not that we love to hurt grieving parents in general or have no jobs, friends or family to occupy us. The reason is that you, Clarence, have done a terrible job in the past 4 years and have forced us to make sense of the utter bollocks you have dished out to the world. Of course a job like yours depends on the material you have got to work with and that is indeed more than poor. Still no reason good enough to blame us for the failure of selling the abduction to the thinking masses.

Lets put it in a nutshell where we are standing:

Evidence FOR an abduction:
The witness Jane Tanner sees the abductor while flip-flopping up a narrow street where two men are chatting none of which either sees or hears Jane passing by. She only sees his back, not his face but is pretty sure later on that he is Murat, Cooperman or any other new suspect dragged along. THE END

Evidence AGAINST an abduction:
- Shutters could not be opened from the outside
- No fingerprints on the shutters, window pane or ledge
- Plant material on the window sill was not disturbed
- No DNA evidence at all inside the apartment
- No break-in signs on the front door
- Cadaver odour detected by Britains top cadaver dog in various places two of which got corroborated by an additional CSI dog indicating the same places. Both alerts got corroborated by findings of DNA from "bodily fluid" with markers that contain Madeleine's DNA but allegedly were from more than one person.
- An impossible "window of opportunity" of maximum 3 minutes during which the shutters were allegedly opened without any noise being heard by the two people standing at the side of the apartment, let alone the flip-flopping Tanner.
- The statement of Mr. Smith who was 80% sure that the person he and his family saw carrying a "sleeping" girl towards the coast was Gerry McCann.
- The statement of Mr. Brooks who saw a couple carrying a child in the early morning hours of May 4th at the same time the couple McCann was out and about allegedly doing their very first "search"
- The changes of statements and discrepancies of the couple McCann and their friends too numerous to mention including such marvels as the door through which they left the apartment or the completely wrong description of apartment 5A given by Matt Oldfield indicating he was never inside.
- The unexplainable complete trust in the group of friends that never waivered once although some of them were merely acquaintances.
- Outright lies in the rogatories like the checks by Russell O'Brien INSIDE the apartments 5A and 5B on the Sunday while 5B was allegedly occupied by Matt Oldfield due to "sickness"
- Another outright lie regarding the positioning of a cot in the parent's bedroom during the week that was repositioned after Wednesday morning
- The refusal to answer the questions of the Portuguese Police by Kate McCann in September
- The grieving process clearly to be seen on the 4th May that got gradually less and less in complete contrast to the reactions of parents in an abduction case that starts off with a lot of hope and gets gradually worse as time passes.
- The evidently planted false sightings like the one in India where the local police were never involved
- The sourcing of private detectives that clearly never had any experience in abduction cases like Metodo3
..........

You see Clarence, it is not us, the ghouls, that are weird in our disbelief of the official theory but those that cling to the one single argument FOR an abduction. The cultists. But their numbers are small although their heads seem many. And the reason for their minority lies in your poor work. Reduced to abuse against those that just won't accept your stories and the need to plant yet another of the now ridiculous numbers of sighting I do pity you sometimes. One argument is just not enough.

Flip flop, flip flop.....

Montag, 19. September 2011

Balloons


During my weeks holiday a new Commissioner of the Metropolitain Police was appointed. Needless to say that a very early supporter of Kate and Gerry in Liverpool is not the best choice to guarantee an independent "review" of the case.

Due to work issues and a lack of trust in the British police in general I will for now take a backseat in the case and reduce my efforts to that of a well informed onlooker. Until some obvious progress is being made or Goncalo Amaral drags them to the witness stand I will leave you with my theory. Please do continue to discuss and question it. Preferably with evidence from the files.

Bye for now and may the (proper) force be with us...







Mittwoch, 7. September 2011

No Judge and no Jury

Recently my humble blog has been visited more and more frequently, mostly due to my controversal theory. There are heated discussions on various forums some well informed and constructive, on others it only serves as an example of the ludicrous writings of the mentaly disturbed nutters that don't want Madeleine found. Since I can not write on all these forums and blogs I am using this space to elaborate on my attitude towards the theory and how I arrived at it.

In a court of law you will need foolproof evidence for a conviction. The terms and conditions under which this evidence is allowed in a court of law vary greatly from country to country depending on its legislature. E.g. the required number of matching alleles in a DNA sample can vary or whether dog alerts are admitted as circumstantial evidence. Sometimes it even varies from case to case as we can just witness in the trial of little Caylee Anthony's mother.

Now I am neither Judge nor Jury. My opinion does not have to follow the rules of the courts of a certain country. An opinion can be solely based on "gut feeling" but imo should at least be based on common sense and the available facts. The more facts and research are the basis of an opinion the better. I am entitled to one and I am entitled to express it publicly as long as I make it clear that it is an opinion or a theory. Slander without basis is libel but an opinion developed on facts is just that, an opinion. And we should not forget that the opinion of the PJ is close to mine, only that the evidence was not sufficient for charges in said court of law.

Having cleared that point I would like to describe how I arrived at the main point of interest in my blog, my theory regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

My interest in the case initially was minute, an abduction in a foreign country did not capture my curiosity. Only when a German journalist addressed the parents at a press conference in Germany and expressed her suspicion I got baited. How could she accuse the grieving parents?

The first year I visited the Mirror Forum and tried to get hold of the most basic facts, a difficult task because everything was tainted either by good or bad spin. Only when the files were released was it possible to form an unbiased opinion.

After wading through the translated parts and waiting for new translations it soon became obvious that there were three distinct factors that justified the suspicion of the PJ. The dogs on the one hand, signalling at 10 different locations and items all related to the family and not once at one of the other apartments or cars. The discrepancies and changes in their statements that were so plenty and bold that they could just not be put down to translation errors or normal discrepancies. An example: If there is an initial statement that access for the check of the children was via the front door with a key and later changed to the open patio doors, then this is no mistake. One of both is an untruth.

So I started off with the statements one by one, of Kate, Gerry and the 7 friends. Especially in relation to the timeline of the evening it soon became clear that the friends had not always been telling the truth and nothing but. For example a comparison with the interior of the apartments 5A and 5D in connection with the statement of Matthew Oldfield showed the possibility that he had never been inside 5A but had used the description of 5D in his rogatory interview. One by one the accounts of the friends fell apart.

The last person I looked at was the turning point in my research. Going through the statements of Dianne Webster I could not find any discrepancies. She even contradicted important pillars of the course of events stated by the others. I came to the conclusion that she was the one person telling the truth. With this I had the fixed point in the sea of confusion with which the case could be cracked. Her most important statement was the time she gave for her last sighting of Madeleine. Whereas the others all remained amazingly vague she was pretty sure it had been the Wednesday evening. From there it was child's play. Puzzle pieces slid into place where confusion had reigned before. All the changes in routine for the Thursday suddenly made sense in so far as to avoid Dianne noticing that one person was missing. The previously as unimportant regarded statement by Jane about a tantrum on the playground and a child having hysterics in the apartment led the way.

Having explained all this, I have still not addressed the third point that to me indicates a very probable involvement of the Tapas 8 in the cover-up of the death of a little girl. And the malice and ruthlessness frightens me. The way in which an innocent man whose only fault was his helpfulness had been drawn into the sorry saga with the help of the media, overenthusiastic profiling by CEOP and at least 3 of the friends is something that makes me shudder. My analysis of the computer logs of Robert Murat shows clearly that he was at home that evening on May 3rd when almost 2 weeks later three of the friends in a concerted effort claimed he had been at the Ocean's Club although nobody else had seen him there. And I don't give any credence to the nannie and the sisters who SEVEN months later, after having been visited by the crooks from Metodo 3, suddenly remembered having seen him there as well.

For further questions and discussions please refer to the comment section. Thank you