Sonntag, 5. Oktober 2014

Don't judge a book by it's cover

No, I am not going to dwell again on the impossibility of the "last photo" being taken on Thursday 3rd of May. I am not going to mention the difficulty of losing ones hard earned tan within hours or gaining the same on a rainy day. Not on the tantrums little girls can throw when they are not going to get to wear their new dresses until the 6th day of their holiday or the meteorological facts in the western Algarve in May 2007.

Instead I am going to start with those things that are NOT in the book. A book with the claim of being the "most definite account possible" should cover all aspects of the case. One would think....

The first thing you notice missing is the word "NEGLECT". It appears only once in connection with a person who had the audacity to ask that the parents be investigated by Leicestershire police for child neglect. Something that would be normal had Maddie gone missing in the UK. Nine adults, leaving eight children, aged from 1-3, on five consecutive nights alone in apartments outside a confined resort without proper supervision, with at least one child crying on one night for at least 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) should be challenged by investigative authors about their parental conscience. At least once.

The next thing that is missing is everything surrounding the person of David Payne that might in any way be deemed libelous although it is part of the police files the summerswaning couple are so eager to cite, albeit, I fear, from translations they appear to use from unpaid authors firmly placed in the nutter box by the almost-Pulitzer-Winners... still unpaid, but used...

Neither the statements by Mr. and Mrs. Gaspar about an alleged incident in Mallorca on a previous holiday is mentioned, nor the alleged recognition of David Payne by Yvonne Martin, nor is the incident properly described where David Payne visits Kate McCann in/out of the apartment on May 3rd at 17:00/17:30/19:00 with/without his wife and with/without Gerry being present. Would the vision of Kate wrapped in a towel after her shower have distracted Anthony, the old rascal?

Also prominently missing is every statement from the police files that contradicts the version of the parents. Like the statement by the cleaner of the Ocean Club who was very certain that one of the cots had been placed in the parent's bedroom and NOT in the children's bedroom as the authors/parents claimed. Nor the statement of the Ocean Club receptionist who claims the reservation for the Tapas Bar was made by a man who was accompanied by a child that she thought had been Madeleine.

Missing is also the clear fact that after prolonged discussions there are emails in the files by all friends of the McCanns clearly rejecting the participation in the proposed reconstruction. The authors simply claim that the Public Prosecutor had given up on the notion of a reconstruction without mentioning their clear refusal.

And it goes on. The many inconsistencies in their statements like the point of entry/exit, the curtains, how they left Madeleine, who she claimed had cried the night of Wednesday - all brushed away with one declaration that everybody that has to deal with statements including the acclaimed authors KNOWS that statements are notoriously fallible. Oh well, that revelation will revolutionise the judicial system.

But what I found even worse than the many omissions that would be necessary to give an unbiased and independent account of the disappearance of a little girl are the slight twists of the evidence at hand. Deliberate little "amendmends to the truth" that might fool those that haven't spent months of real research of the files.

An example regarding the search Eddie the cadaver dog did on the items taken from the villa of the parents:

"When these items were taken to another location for examination, the dog Eddie alerted to clothing in one of the boxes. Again, Grime thought it possible that the cadaver dog was reacting to cadaver scent contamination."
Eddie did not react to the clothing IN "one of the boxes ". He reacted to Kate's white top and checkered trousers and one t-shirt of Madeleine that had been laid out on the floor together with the rest of the contents of that box. By saying he reacted to clothing IN the box and not to clothing FROM the box it is insinuated that this scent might have resulted from some sort of transferance, which could not have been the case since it was only three explicit items from the box he reacted to. Had transference been the cause every item would have rendered an alert.

Another example of twisting the evidence comes from the description of the already mentioned visit by David Payne in 5A:

"David, who had stopped by the McCanns' apartment earlier, said as he sat down that Madeleine and the twins had "looked like perfect children ... all clean in their pyjamas, having a story""

Now this quote does not come from any statement by David Payne but rather from the statement by Fiona Payne, his wife. His comment had run like this:
The three children were all you know dressed you know in their pyjamas, you know they looked immaculate, you know they were just like angels, they all looked so happy and well looked after and content and I said to Kate, you know it's a bit early for the you know, for the three of them to be going to bed, she said ah they've had such a great time, they're really tired and you know err so I say, you know I can't remember exactly what, what you know the night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour
Why was David's recollection not allowed to enter the most definite account possible? Why had Fiona's statement to be used? One explanation could be the mention of the colour white in the pyjamas which was the colour Aoife Smith remembered instead of the predominantly pink with floral aspects that was presented to the world.

One last example is at least questionable regarding its origin. With the sighting by George Brooks of a couple carrying a child on the early morning of May 4th we don't see any evidence that the authors have actually spoken to George. They refer more than once to the files and not to a personal interview with him. Nevertheless we find an exact description of the said couple whereby the man has a remarkable similarity whith the man Jane Tanner allegedly saw the night before thought to be the abductor for almost 7 years:

 "...Brooks said, he thought the couple were both in their thirties. The man was "less than 6 foot tall", had "shoulder-length hair and looked quite tanned". The woman was "dark-haired and slim". To him, they did not look British, or like tourists."
This description is nowhere to be found in the files. It is simply copied and pasted from a Daily Express article from May 7th as if it was gospel truth...

I could go on dissecting the most definite account possible but since it's world-wide distribution looks to be only marginal, it would be time wasted. The notion is clear. The almost sickening repetition of the mantra that there is not a shred of evidence against the parents had to brush over the fact that indeed there are plenty of indications and possible circumstantial evidence that at least raise legitimate doubt.

1 Kommentar:

  1. Thanks

    I have read the book. I have not read any of their previous books, so I have no idea of their format. But as a factual account of this case, I was very surprised at their stance from the start.

    If they have to draw any conclusions, it should be at the end, leading the reader to their summarization, but it's not.

    Obfuscation by sequencing and omission, would not allow the reader with no knowledge to understand fully, why some have reviewed this book badly. Although a new reader to the subject would be suitably impressed. However, they would be equally impressed to know that all that information is FREELY available on the internet.

    If DNA analysis can not prove certain samples as belonging to Madeleine, then they certainly can't prove who else they might belong to, who had frequented the apartment previously. Considerable effort, as published in the official files, lists the dna samples attributed to other occupants. Their argument was lost.

    Equally, was the mention Mrs Fenn; the owner of the apartment above 5A who heard child\children crying for an hour plus, on the Tuesday night. Mrs Fenn, is mentioned here, there and everywhere, but never verbatim of her essential piece of information, the book actually suggests that Mrs Fenn heard child\children from another apartment!

    An authoritive account of this case will be written one day, but now is still probably too soon, until the current British and Portuguese reviews\investigations either draw a conclusion or merely close down.

    RIP Mrs Fenn