UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: peter claridge on April 07, 2013, 08:47:40 AM
-
Dianne Webster's original statements are clearly at odds with the other members of the group, causing many ammendments to the timelines and statements of others, notably Mathew Oldfield and Gerry McCann. In her rogatory statement she is finally on board and alters her version of events to suit that of the timelines. When do members think she was informed of the real events of that evening? Obviously it was after May 10th.
-
Dianne Webster's original statements are clearly at odds with the other members of the group, causing many ammendments to the timelines and statements of others, notably Mathew Oldfield and Gerry McCann. In her rogatory statement she is finally on board and alters her version of events to suit that of the timelines. When do members think she was informed of the real events of that evening? Obviously it was after May 10th.
WHen did you stop beating your wife. Your phrasing is accusatory and undocumented.
-
Let me rephrase the question in a neutral manner.
"Having read initial statements in Portugal and rogatory interviews many months later, there are many discrepancies. I especially noted the differences between Dianne Webster's statements which I clearly list below and which in my humble opinion make a credible case for her having changed her story to fit better with the rest of the group. Does my collected evidence show that or am I in error.
Now there's reasonable.
-
"That's one of their games," she should have said when she sat at the table when Kate raised alarm.
What did she mean by that?
Had it been a drama earlier in the holiday?
Is it only a myth or did she say this?
Cite?
-
Let me rephrase the question in a neutral manner.
"Having read initial statements in Portugal and rogatory interviews many months later, there are many discrepancies. I especially noted the differences between Dianne Webster's statements which I clearly list below and which in my humble opinion make a credible case for her having changed her story to fit better with the rest of the group. Does my collected evidence show that or am I in error.
Now there's reasonable.
So, when do you think she was given certain information that led her to altering her version of events to fall in line with the three different versions of the timelines and various altered statements? You're obviously aware of what I'm refering too.
-
Let me rephrase the question in a neutral manner.
"Having read initial statements in Portugal and rogatory interviews many months later, there are many discrepancies. I especially noted the differences between Dianne Webster's statements which I clearly list below and which in my humble opinion make a credible case for her having changed her story to fit better with the rest of the group. Does my collected evidence show that or am I in error.
Now there's reasonable.
So, when do you think she was given certain information that led her to altering her version of events to fall in line with the three different versions of the timelines and various altered statements? You're obviously aware of what I'm refering too.
NOt my area of expertise. My background in Psychology means that I have a low expectation of interviews taken at different times being exact or even similar. Consequently I see the aggresive textual analysis favored by [ censored word ]s to be worse than useless.
IF you want people to comment on such differences, please post the offending passages.
-
As I said, you're obviously aware of what I'm refering too but are unwilling to answer. I note that you are more than willing to post a lamentable excuse for Dianne Websters dramatic about turn.
-
You've been asked to quote the passages you're referring to. Without them it's impossible to reply to your questions or allegations.
as usual - put up or shut up.
-
As I said, you're obviously aware of what I'm refering too but are unwilling to answer. I note that you are more than willing to post a lamentable excuse for Dianne Websters dramatic about turn.
YOu seem to have problems with English- I posted a possible scientific explanation.
If you want to debate, put up or shut up.
Which passages conflict.
-
Dianne Webster's original statements are clearly at odds with the other members of the group, causing many ammendments to the timelines and statements of others, notably Mathew Oldfield and Gerry McCann. In her rogatory statement she is finally on board and alters her version of events to suit that of the timelines. When do members think she was informed of the real events of that evening? Obviously it was after May 10th.
I don't think she has ever been informed of all that happened that night but has been fed the changes on a 'need to know' basis by her daughter and son-in-law.
-
Dianne Webster's original statements are clearly at odds with the other members of the group, causing many ammendments to the timelines and statements of others, notably Mathew Oldfield and Gerry McCann. In her rogatory statement she is finally on board and alters her version of events to suit that of the timelines. When do members think she was informed of the real events of that evening? Obviously it was after May 10th.
I don't think she has ever been informed of all that happened that night but has been fed the changes on a 'need to know' basis by her daughter and son-in-law.
WHich is your unfounded and basically worthless opinion.
-
You've been asked to quote the passages you're referring to. Without them it's impossible to reply to your questions or allegations.
as usual - put up or shut up.
In Webster's initial statements she is asked whether she had met Matthew Oldfield on the way to the tapas onthe 3rd of May and categorically says no. By the time of the rogatory interviews she reveals her son-in-law has actually reminded her, or words to that effect, that yes, indeed, she had seen Oldfield.
-
You've been asked to quote the passages you're referring to. Without them it's impossible to reply to your questions or allegations.
as usual - put up or shut up.
In Webster's initial statements she is asked whether she had met Matthew Oldfield on the way to the tapas onthe 3rd of May and categorically says no. By the time of the rogatory interviews she reveals her son-in-law has actually reminded her, or words to that effect, that yes, indeed, she had seen Oldfield.
And that is how memory works. I have a very strong memory ability for specifics (but a very poor memory for faces and names; my wife is the opposite. Frequently one of us will say we cannot remember something, but when cued with a little additional information, the memory becomes available again.
It is how memory works- stored inodd snippets at different levels of accessibility.
-
You've been asked to quote the passages you're referring to. Without them it's impossible to reply to your questions or allegations.
as usual - put up or shut up.
In Webster's initial statements she is asked whether she had met Matthew Oldfield on the way to the tapas onthe 3rd of May and categorically says no. By the time of the rogatory interviews she reveals her son-in-law has actually reminded her, or words to that effect, that yes, indeed, she had seen Oldfield.
And that is how memory works. I have a very strong memory ability for specifics (but a very poor memory for faces and names; my wife is the opposite. Frequently one of us will say we cannot remember something, but when cued with a little additional information, the memory becomes available again.
It is how memory works- stored inodd snippets at different levels of accessibility.
[/
Webster would have to have been suffering from some kind of advanced senile dementia not to remember, and to be so categorical in her denial that the event didn't happen, just days after the actual event.
-
You've been asked to quote the passages you're referring to. Without them it's impossible to reply to your questions or allegations.
as usual - put up or shut up.
In Webster's initial statements she is asked whether she had met Matthew Oldfield on the way to the tapas onthe 3rd of May and categorically says no. By the time of the rogatory interviews she reveals her son-in-law has actually reminded her, or words to that effect, that yes, indeed, she had seen Oldfield.
And that is how memory works. I have a very strong memory ability for specifics (but a very poor memory for faces and names; my wife is the opposite. Frequently one of us will say we cannot remember something, but w
hen cued with a little additional information, the memory becomes available again.
It is how memory works- stored inodd snippets at different levels of accessibility.
Webster would have to have been suffering from some kind of advanced senile dementia not to remember, and to be so categorical in her denial that the event didn't happen, just days after the actual event.
ANd your knowledge of 'iconic memory' and ' memory stores" comes from where?
Common sense I assume.
TRy toback up general ignorance by actually reading about the psychology of memory.
-
One doesn't have to have a degree in psychology to know that Dianne Webster's first statement was more likely to be true than the 'memory' acquired by way of her relatives some time later.
-
One doesn't have to have a degree in psychology to know that Dianne Webster's first statement was more likely to be true than the 'memory' acquired by way of her relatives some time later.
THe science does not make that a certainty. On average more recent memories are better than those recalled later, but in many cases later statements willprove more accurate if differently cued.
AS i said,get a primer on modern approaches to human memory and educate yourself. Do notrely on common sense.
-
Start here, especially Craik and Lockhart.
http://www.human-memory.net/processes_recall.html
-
And here
http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/a/memory_retrival.htm
-
And you would agree that is also possible to convince someone that an event happened even though they have no memory of the event ?
-
And you would agree that is also possible to convince someone that an event happened even though they have no memory of the event ?
Agreed. That is fecovered memory syndrome or False memory syndrome.
THat said there is no guarantee that the first statement is more accurate than a later one.
IT depends on many factors- stress, fear, style of questioning, language used, language heard. Later statements are often more accurate than earlier ones as memories are integrated and self confirmed. They are also often worse. It all depends.
DOnot rely on common sense because all too often, common sense is a sum of your prejudices.
-
In a police investigation the first statement is always the most important and deemed the most accurate. Afterwards memory can be 'tainted' by many external influences, as we have seen with Webster being 'reminded' of what she had experienced.
-
In a police investigation the first statement is always the most important and deemed the most accurate. Afterwards memory can be 'tainted' by many external influences, as we have seen with Webster being 'reminded' of what she had experienced.
That is your view.
IT is not scientifically valid, nor does it comply with Judges' rules on summarising evidence to jury.
STop making up factoids- unless you have a cite to prove it.
-
Try reading and understanding this before sharing any more anecdotes.
-
Perhaps you can cite the section of the Judges rules that detail why a negative inference shouldn't be applied by a jury when a witness changes their statements many months later ?
-
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/judicial-college/Pre+2011/crown-court-bench-book-directing-the-jury
NOw caled the Bench Book
ABout p220
-
The pages you have referred me to concern Cross Admissibility and Bad Character. Care to explain how those rules help in this debate ?
-
Page 222
-
Nope, just more direction re: bad character and from 224 rules regarding hearsay which, as Dianne Webster's was direct evidence does not apply.
-
Page 222, top half, illustration.
-
Nope. I have already indicated what your reference says. Care to post the excerpt instead as there seems to be some confusion ?
-
Nope. I have already indicated what your reference says. Care to post the excerpt instead as there seems to be some confusion ?
Can't quote from a pdf on this tablet.
-
Nope. I have already indicated what your reference says. Care to post the excerpt instead as there seems to be some confusion ?
Can't quote from a pdf on this tablet.
Then as soon as you have access to a PC I look forward to reading it.
-
Nope. I have already indicated what your reference says. Care to post the excerpt instead as there seems to be some confusion ?
Can't quote from a pdf on this tablet.
Then as soon as you have access to a PC I look forward to reading it.
It is in the box at the top ofpage 222. It describes instructions when evidence given at different times varies.