Dianne Webster

[peter claridge]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

"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?

[peter claridge]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[peter claridge]

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.

[Chinagirl]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[debunker]

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.