# Disclaimer on Conspiracies

## Definitions

In any criminal case one may be confronted with a conspiracy or conspiracy-theory. Why is this the case? For this we first have to deal with the according definitions:

A →criminal Conspiracy is:

“In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.”

A →civil Conspiracy is:

“A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective. A conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furthance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy. A conspiracy may exist whether legal means are used to accomplish illegal results, or illegal means used to accomplish something legal. “Even when no crime is involved, a civil action for conspiracy may be brought by the persons who were damaged.” In the law of tort, the legal elements necessary to establish a civil conspiracy are substantially the same as for establishing a criminal conspiracy, i.e. there is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future or to achieve a lawful aim by unlawful means. The criminal law often requires one of the conspirators to take an overt step to accomplish the illegal act to demonstrate the reality of their intention to break the law, whereas in a civil conspiracy, an overt act towards accomplishing the wrongful goal may not be required. Etymologically, the term comes from Latin con- “with, together”, and spirare “to breathe”.”

Conspiracies may be an illegal offence related to the →Criminal Law Act 1977 :

“The Criminal Law Act 1977 (c.45) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Most of it only applies to England and Wales. It creates the offence of conspiracy in English law. It also created offences concerned with criminal trespass in premises, made changes to sentencing, and created an offence of falsely reporting the existence of a bomb.”

You may see further also at the relating terms →“Common Purpose” and for Scotland at →“Art and Part” .

So from definition we have always to deal with a conspiracy if e.g. more than one (secret or known) offender is under our witnesses. There is no upper limit but indeed.

A → “Conspiracy Theory” then is of course any theory or hypothesis of an alleged (secret) conspiracy.

“A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation.….Although the term “conspiracy theory” has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies, it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate. Conspiracy theories are sometimes proven correct, such as the theory that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate, as well as the theory that some of President Ronald Reagan's aides conspired to cover up the Iran-Contra affair. Katherine K. Young writes that “every real conspiracy has had at least four characteristic features: groups, not isolated individuals; illegal or sinister aims, not ones that would benefit society as a whole; orchestrated acts, not a series of spontaneous and haphazard ones; and secret planning, not public discussion. Some historians have put forward the idea that more recently the United States has become the home of conspiracy theories because so many high-level prominent conspiracies have been undertaken and uncovered since the 1960s”. The existence of such real conspiracies helps feed the belief in conspiracy theories.”

As conspiracies are always some secret agreements between some people such agreements are not easily been investigated. Thus on the other side also every seemingly not easily explainable fact in the world may be explained by a more or less →ridiculous Conspiracy Theory. The nicely list at Wikipedia shows some of the widespread mostly unsustainable such theories.

The ridiculousness of most such common conspiracy theories but unfortunately give those who actually indeed do conspire the possibility to ridicule any assignable accusation presented as a ludicrous (Conspiracy-)Theory. So there is of course a large difference in the credibility of Conspiracy Theories, depending on how much they are provable. An incomplete list of yet proven political Conspiracies may also be found at →Wikipedia. A nice article is also to be found at →My Little Underground: When Conspiracy Theory Becomes Real Thanks To Leon Brittan

## Alleged Conspiracies in the Maddie-Case

Regardles if one prefers the Accidential Killing Theory or the Abduction of Madeleine Hypothesis we will have to deal with Conspiracies.

In the case version 1 the Accidential Killing Theory we have to deal at least with:

1. conspiracy of the Tapas 9 to cover up the death of Maddie (see also Some oddities)
2. possible conspiracy of UK establishment to help them in cover up.

In the case version 2 Abduction of Madeleine Hypothesis we have to deal at least with:

1. conspiracy of the PJ against the McCanns (as alleged by McCann's Trust: biased and alleged ineptness)
2. conspiracy of the British sniffer-dog team against the mccann's (see Cadaver Dogs and Smoking Gun).
3. conspiracy of British (in 2007) and Portuguese media (until today) against the parents

## The Investigators Problem

In practically all cases a criminal investigator will be confronted with at least some witnesses who lie. And just from definition, in virtually more than 90% of cases he will also be confronted at least with a small conspiracy. So after collecting all evidence and combining them in a logical way, one has to find out

- which witnesses are (seemingly) reliable?
- who is (seemingly) lying?
- why is he/she lying (motive)
- who is also involved and possibly lying too (conspiracy?) .

So is the first question: Why do People lie?

1. First of all if they are indeed an offender searched for
2. Second if the are also a co-offender.
3. Third if they are related in any way to the offender and may lie to do him/her a favour (e.g. friends, relatives, colleagues, comrades etc.).
4. Fourth if they have to hide also something else, which but is not related directly to the crime being actually investigated
5. Fifth unintentional through bad memory or mental (sanitary, racial or whatever) bias.

Second question is, how do we find out?

- Material evidence doesn't lie. But must be always scientifically interpreted. If witness statements are in contrast to material evidence they must be doubted.
- Lies are constructed reality. In practically all cases thus there will be a lot of contradiction in the statements themselves as also in comparison to other reliable statements or material evidence to be found.
- Within conspiring liars there will be found a lot of contradiction in cross-examination too.
- Experienced psychologists and criminal investigators know the differences in the behaviour and kind of story telling of independent and dependent witnesses.
- A dependent witness e.g. will tell crucial things (which are of high risk for an offender) not freely but concentrated (to make no mistake). This will mostly result in special kind of body talking. What one will observe but is very often that they try to get away from the crucial parts to something unimportant which then but is explained in detail exaggerated. Details of the crucial parts but are avoided as being highly dangerous to get in contradiction with evidence. Also a liar often tries to get the discussion down from analytics to emotions. Emotions but are not facts but will let fall anybody, including the investigator, for somebody's line to widely open grounds. Feelings are good to write love-stories but not to get criminal cases been investigated.
- Independent witnesses usually tell freely, natural and without being anxious to make mistakes at crucial points. They but will like very much to tell exactly on the main things. They usually will not be distracted on unimportant things or unnecessary appeal to emotions.

## Scapegoating

A →scapegoat is a person unfairly blamed for some misfortune, or an actual goat “Azazel” used in a Jewish ritual. The act of scapegoating is a recent coinage for the practice of singling out a party →as a scapegoat, i.e. for unmerited negative treatment or blame. The Ancient Greeks practiced a scapegoating rite in which a cripple or beggar or criminal was cast out of the community, either in response to a natural disaster (such as a plague, famine or an invasion) or in response to a calendrical crisis (such as the end of the year). In psychology and sociology, the practice of selecting someone as a scapegoat has led to the concept of scapegoating.

→Scapegoating is the practice of singling out any party for unmerited negative treatment or blame as a scapegoat. Scapegoating may be conducted by individuals against individuals (e.g. “he did it, not me!”), individuals against groups (e.g., “I couldn't see anything because of all the tall people”), groups against individuals (e.g., “Jane was the reason our team didn't win”), and groups against groups. A scapegoat may be an adult, sibling, child, employee, peer, ethnic or religious group, or country. A whipping boy, identified patient or “fall guy” are forms of scapegoat.

In criminal investigations presenting Scapegoats to the public is unfortunately not that seldom. Sometimes it happens when Police forces and Prosecutors are under a high level of public scrutiny and thus heavily stressed. Another reason of course is given if somebody influential related to the investigation doesn't want a special suspect to be under severe scrutiny. Today in the age of computers and large criminal data banks, car driving and mobile phones it is quite easy to find scapegoats.

As from criminal statistics we know that around 5% of the population have a criminal record. If we think e.g. that a possible offender should be in the range of about one hours drive (around 50 miles) we will always find a large quantity of people with a criminal record in this region (especially in crowded areas like London it is an easy task anyway). With the help of databases we then can sort out individuals with arbitrary profiles, like which may be profession, sex, race, past crimes etc. what ever one likes. Through phone, credit card and/or car driving records, IP numbers and internet use, etc. also an at least rough pattern of the individuals movements and alleged behaviour may be found out. The next thing then is to find, or simply to construct, a seemingly relation to the crime under investigation.

Such kinds of Not-Cause-related by evidence investigations are more or less forbidden in most democratic countries. The reason is that by this way of investigations a lot of innocent people are pestered and the risk of false accusations are extremely high. Also every investigator and prosecutor knows from experience, that mentally weak or ill persons may be forced to even false confessions under such severe stress. A well known sample related to our investigation is e.g. given in the case of the Jill Dando (→see wikipedia) murder. Not-Case-related by evidence investigations therefore are only lawful (laws differ very much by country) if in cases of a very severe crime there is indeed not any direct evidence to be found and thus the individual rights in a democracy may be overruled in a special case by decision of an appropriate judge.

Through hundreds of →alleged sightings of Madeleine McCann, the range of “possible” suspects was extended to any distance. See: e.g. →"tractor-man", suspects, →Creepy Man, →Barcelona-woman (see her also at official FindMadeleine →Suspects-Page [14.Dec.2014] with alleged Tanner-Sighting suspect too.) , latest →Brazilian couple and inummerable more. For 2014 see a pictured list of tabloids at →Anorak.