Last year, I contributed to this forum under the name ‘gadfly.’
First, I would like to apologise to S. M, a person of interest in this case. I contributed to a thread that compiled evidence on this individual from the released PJ files. I now believe that S.M. played no serious role in this case. Equally, I would also like to apologise to JCDS who I also highlighted on this forum. I also now believe that this individual had no substantive role in this case. I’d also like to reaffirm that this speculation — done with such little regard for the privacy of the said individuals - was wrong.
Second, after studying the case in greater detail, I have reached some firm conclusions. First, my initial belief that intelligent, decent people are to be believed, especially in cases of such gravity, has been shaken. I’ve come to a conclusion — after thoroughly studying the evidence of the case and the evolution of public statements made in relation to it — that good people will rationalise away completely unacceptable behaviour if their reputation, finances and family life are in peril.
And further to this, I’ve been shocked as a deep sense of reality has sunk in. Some people are willing to promote a lie with such strategic effectiveness, and to such a shocking extent, that many good people across the country suspend their own logic and critical faculties when reaching initial judgements on the case. Indeed, politicians and journalists alike have been taken in along the way — including Prime Ministers and many national newspaper editors. Even though the said people that I refer to have attempted to make amends by doing many good deeds since the terrible news of the mid-2000s, which are again partly an attempt to rationalise away the long-standing error in judgement back then, the sheer scale of public money spent on this case alongside the death of a woman — however misguided her online activities were — must ensure that the case is brought to a serious and just end.
On that note, I’d like to also apologise to the lead detective who initially oversaw the case. Again, I wrote some strong stuff about him — mainly because I was shocked that someone would profit from the death of a young girl (that is indeed my belief). But on the big calls, I now believe he was right. While the PJ never doubted their initial judgements, I also believe that Scotland Yard are now also of this view — a view that unfortunately is unavoidable when the evidence is critically studied.
On these forums, I was sceptical of both sides of the argument but particularly found myself repelled by the so called ‘anti’ crowd. While I believe that some of the charges levied online against the parents are borderline insane — and their methods are generally repetitive, boring and obsessive — I do now feel that the evidence even included in the initial PJ files, not to mention the new investigation, points in a very clear direction.
The key pieces of evidence I believe are now key are:
The Smith sighting.
The EVRD alerts.
Inconsistencies in the statements made in public by past arguidos — which if studied alongside other developments in the case can actually be analysed to produce a worrying conclusion, with a sinking feeling in the gut.
The Renault evidence.
DNA evidence from the holiday apartment.
Unfortunately, I now cannot get past this. I believe the coming months may well create a deep sense of shock as the case nears its conclusion. A sad but understandable tale.
A final thing is that however shocked we all may well be in the end, it is never an excuse to resort to conspiracy theories, online abuse, or the vilification of people who acted in a rational manner (at least in terms of their own lives).
Thanks, Gadfly.