Facts
1) I have nothing to do with the disappearance and possible death of Cécile Denise Acosta Reynaud.
2) The police performed practically no investigation at all.
3) Almost all evidence against me is put up (fake). That which is not put up, is absolutely irrelevant. Even if all the evidence presented by the police were real, that would be by no means enough to render me guilty.
4) My trial has been conducted in an extremely unfair and partial way by Madurai District Court as an institution.
5) The behavior of some of the judges who have been in charge of my trial was extremely partial against me, that of other judges has been impartial. Some judges have been dedicated to the case, others seem to not have even read the file of the case.
6) The prosecution prolonged the case as much as it could.
Conjectures
What Happened to Cécile?
I do not have the slightest idea. She is not the kind of person who could plan to hide for several years in order to send an innocent person to jail. I am absolutely sure of that, and therefore I am convinced that something happened to her.
I believe it is very probable that members of Madurai police are involved in her disappearance. This is not an accusation, since I do not have any proof of such statement. The reasons which lead me to believe so are the following:
1) There was no investigation whatsoever. The police just took me prisoner, obtained a “confession” under physical torture and threats, and submitted put up evidence against me (including a different confession than the two they forced me to sign).
2) Apparently, the police lied to Cécile’s family in order to turn them against me. Otherwise, why is there such a discrepancy between the formal accusation at court and the statements made by Cécile’s mother, even at court?
3) The evidence in my case is not enough, by far, the render me guilty at a court of law, even if all of it were accepted as it was submitted. It would seem that the police was only interested in finding a scapegoat.
I insist: this is not proof of such statement, but just conjectures. To get a scapegoat instead of performing an investigation could correspond to an immoral behavior due to laziness, and not necessarily to the fact that the police was involved in Cécile’s disappearance.
What could then have actually happened? I have thought a lot about it. There are two or three options which I consider the most probable. Since I have no concrete element pointing toward any of them, I will not mention any at the moment.
Corruption
There seems to have been corruption at several moments and levels in the course of my legal process. I cannot prove it in any case. I will mention what seems remarkable to me in such regard:
1) The deformed image used for the cranial superimposition test. It would seem that the image was altered on purpose to match a skull that does not belong to Cécile.
2) Such image is completely darkened in the copy of the charge sheet given to me. I would have read the results of the test anyway, and I would have found the irregularities, but 99% of the accused people would have not (of course, I also had the image sent to me by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
3) To accept a petition for all witnesses to be re-examined without stating any grounds, is something that not even the most ignorant of judges can consider within the law. Upon receiving such petition, this judge decided to restart the trial (that is, to invalidate all previous depositions by witnesses and their examinations). One can imagine a lazy and irresponsible judge who works as little as possible, but to add to his work load in order to accomplish an unfair result actually leads to suspect bribery.
4) The judge who accepted a petition to re-examine some witnesses in the absence of that defense council, and called such witnesses immediately in order to avoid an appeal at the High Court. Such petition stated no grounds for the recall. Similar to the previous one, this is someone who makes an extra effort in order to accomplish an unfair result.
5) The judge who threatened to revoke my bail because I did something that is not forbidden by any law, and used that as an excuse to add a document to the file of the case stating that I had tried to tamper with the witnesses. He also modified the deposition of one witness in a subtle but significant way. Just as the other two, he made a special effort in order to favor an unfair result.
6) The death certificate of Cécile Denise Acosta Reynaud which, although it could not have been helpful to the defense, it could seem to be an important piece of evidence in my favor for someone not well-versed in law matters. Said certificate was created not long after my arrest, but later “disappeared”. The years-long efforts to obtain such document, even by the Embassy of Mexico in India, have not been successful.
7) The email address I use for the sole purpose of communicating with the Embassy of Mexico in India and the Dirección General de Protección a Mexicanos en el Exterior (dependent on the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs) was hacked. Soon afterwards, that email address I used to communicate with Cécile was hacked as well.