Friday, 24 September 2010

The Importance of the Inexistent Witness

As you know, I’ve pointed David Payne as the probable person that killed Maddie McCann. I believe by accident, and I don't think it had anything to do with child abuse.

I know many disagree with me on all statements, but I'm also aware that through patience, methodology and resilience, this blog has helped to diminish that number.

Initially, this for me was just a case of a British couple, by chance doctors and rather attractive, whose daughter had accidentally died, and that went then on a lying rampage to hide the fact.

As simple as that. They weren’t the first, wouldn’t be the last.

On those first days I followed the issue as the rest of us: spoonfed by the media. Not even after the McCanns became arguidos, did my mind change a bit.

They had staged the abduction, and now the Police had caught up.

But the day I read Amaral’s book, and as soon as I turned to, like a child, the pictures pages, I immediately understood that we were in the presence of something of a magnitude few would or could understand.

You see, when I envisioned the whole mock up, I thought, honestly, that they‘d at least given an honest try to make the abduction scenario minimally credible.

One look pictures of the room and of the infamous shutters, it was clear that they didn’t even make THAT effort.

But this post is not about that. It’s about, as the title says, an inexistent person. One very, very important person in this entire story.

The first detail that pointed me into David Payne's direction was exactly the path taken by this gentleman when worried about the well being of one of his friend’s wife, which, to this day, we’re yet to understand what ailed her and worried him so:
 
Making an effort to be benign with the man, after all he was being completely altruistic, I accepted, or better, made a conscious effort to accept, that he had gone into the Ocean Club all the way to the tennis court just to clarify, with the “sick” lady’s husband where she might be exactly at that moment in time.

Yes, I know that one could assume immediately that she was in the apartment, as if the husband was in the tennis courts, and the children weren’t at the crèche nor at the pool, the mother could only be where they were supposed to be: in the apartment.

But let’s us let him ask whoever he wishes to ask, shall we?

So now he goes back, out of the Ocean Club, up the street, up the stairs and… well, some (David Payne, to be exact) say he went in, while others (Kate McCann) say he didn’t, but all agree that Kate McCann came to meet David Payne wrapped only in a towel.

This is followed by another discrepancy and that is the one that one (Kate McCann) says they hardly talked while the other (David Payne) states that he not only talked for half an hour as he saw children that reminded him of angels.

Yes, our imagination does picture these heavenly entities in white, but pink is also an heavenly color after all, isn’t it?

But we all agree, including both these two individuals, that when, and why, David Payne decides to leave the Apartment 5A he’s standing at, or very near the patio door.

He leaves, goes up the street and around the parking lot, down a few steps, around the corner and up to his apartment. This is consensual.

And this is where our inexistent witness makes its appearance.
 
You see, why on earth would David Payne walk out of that apartment via the RED Route, when he had a much, much shorter one, the BLUE, to go to his house?

After all he was intimate enough with the lady in question, and I’m not saying, at this point, sexually, but to the point of being FRANKLY worried about her well being (one day, maybe we'll all know what may befall upon a healthy jogger to go FRANKLY out of his way to check up on her, so, NATURALLY, he would be familiar enough to just ask, or not even that, “may I just pass through?”, and leave via the front door, the nearest and most comfortable way to reach his own apartment.

No, he had to go the long way.

Odd behaviour, isn’t it?

But what does it tell us? A lot.

Firstly, that he left the apartment not thinking rationally, probably because something had happened that had made him leave in haste.

The same haste could have made him head for the front door of the apartment, but, unfortunately for him, it didn’t, most likely because it was the nearest apartment's exit to the mishap's location.

Secondly, the fact that he tells it, is very revealing.

Nobody needs to know that he had been there.

Besides the statements made by him and Kate, nobody else saw this visit.

So, if I’m right in stating that David Payne was the one that killed Maddie, and having the cooperation of the victims parents (more precisely that of the ONLY other witness to the mishap), it would be to his FULL advantage to simply hide this fact.

We know know many other "visits" happened that same evening/night between these people, and none are reported.

As is understandable. Not right, but understandable. Yet they BOTH decide to spill the beans about this particular visit.

Why?

Because, and this is what is important, he could have been seen exiting the apartment.

He could have been seen, before that, going into the Ocean Club.

He could have been seen, after leaving the apartment, walking around the parking lot before heading home.

We never know who’s watching us, and someone could have been looking. Not on purpose, just looking.

In this case, apparently, nobody saw the gentleman. But someone could have. A someone that could but didn't which I call as "the inexistent witness".

That someone doesn't exist, but could've, so is very real.

Ask the McCanns.

I’ve heard that some 11/12 year old girl, smoking a cigarette saw Gerry and Jez talking. I honestly do not know if this girl is real or not and, honestly I couldn’t care less.

But what is important about this real/ficticious girl, is that if she doesn’t exist, she could have. And if not this girl, someone enjoying a cigarette in window nearby... why not?  

Inexistent witnesses, by the fact that they could have seen what would be very inconvenient to be seen or later very difficult to explain a possible denial or contradiction, FORCE liars into telling the truth.

Just in case...

So do go back and check out again why some people in this saga say what they say, and see if you can determine where and why they’re lying and where and why they’re not.

It’s a fascinating exercise, and quite a clarifying one. Can you now understand why Tanner’s description of the “Abductor” is a very precise and a very truthful one in terms of posture and attire?

10 comments:

  1. D. Payne and his wife fade in silence with a very low profile after May 3, 2007. Tanner become the main clown on the saga to distort the story and divert the attention of the police, the Media and the public.
    Tanner came back to PDL for Gerry Mockmentary.
    D. Payne never came back to Portugal but Fiona was the one who went to Lisbon Court with Kate and Gerry and stayed there with Kate. Why her and not Jane?
    D. Payne resemble Murat.
    There is a high possibility of Murat being known by the group before the fatal incident ( he had participate in an active political campaign in UK with O' Brien, I think, and he use to come to the OC frequently). Murat could be dragged into the saga because of his resemblance with Payne, just in case that somebody spoted Payne.
    Madeleine was removed from the flat before the raising of the bells. We talk about the car rented by the Mccann's more then 20 days after this day but very little is known about the vehicles the Tapas 9 were using during their stay in PDL. None rented a Car?
    Kate said that they went to Sagres with Madeleine. How they get there? There is a gap of motor vehicles on that saga. An important rented car or a friend ( out of the group) with a car, is missing and can hold some clues of the mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm off to enjoy the weekend, so comments will only be posted on my return.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why are DP's contradictory statements of the last time he was in 5A constantly being referred to without being challenged?

    1 5pm and both G and K in the apartment with the children
    2 Being asked by G, when they were both on the tennis court, to go to the apartment check on K about 6pm.

    Then immediately two more contradictions about the length of time he was in 5A.

    1 K says 30 seconds
    2 DP says 30 minutes

    Which is true considering there is a small grain of truth in much of what T9 say?
    Sometimes it is what is NOT said (explained)that is more important.

    I agree with you Textusa, DP has to change the facts to suit his purpose for a reason. Therefore he is heavily involved.

    Could he have witnessed an accident and being known for his 'interest' in children is frightened of being implicated in the death of a child so a hasty cover up has to be put in place?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello Textusa,
    Regarding the blue Route.
    I do not understand it.
    I can not see any path.
    We would have to climb along the wall/house...

    Or not?

    Kind regards,
    Lilemor

    ReplyDelete
  5. You are always way ahead of me with my slow brain, Textusa. I didn't understand the McStroller for a long time, but I do know, and I know one day I will understand how someone could kill someone else's child by accident and get the parents to cover up. But I am so impatient to know more now - please tell me you will make me understand soon!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kate's aunt arrived couple of days after M went missing and borrowed a car from her friend- see her statement-Patricia Cameron

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lilemor,

    I hope with the update on the pics, it's clearer now.

    Anon 8:12,

    It's all about understanding what what was there at stake. Maybe it was not the friendship, maybe it was a whole lifestyle, and I'm not talking about swinging. That house in Rothley, for example, how many Brits are able to have one like that? Not that many... and losing that and all associtaed with it, be a good enough reason for you to "overlook" the official condemnation of a person who acidently killed your child. You be the judge...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Utter rubbish and completely baseless. Let me ask honestly, who the hell do you think you're convincing with all this, McCanns?!?

    Textusa, keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't have a fixed opinion on DP's role, but he knows what happened. He seems to be the one to give clues not all was as it seemed- Kate's pre-holiday premonition, the FO, I'm not here to enjoy myself video of Gerry, the "We have a pact" comment. His original statement does not fit in with the McCann's story either Was also said by one site to have secretly returned to Portugal to change his statement. What this all means, I'm not sure, but was pressure applied to him?

    ReplyDelete
  10. DP is a cardiologist ... has Madeleine any medical condition..? Did anything got wrong? Was because they let her down....?

    In my opinion that's the only reason why parents would cover up ... was an accident...

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa