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: Holly Goodhead on June 18, 2019, 09:45:20 AM
-
Hi. I'm new to this case and as such know very little. I'm interested in understanding why some believe the parents had a direct hand in MM's disappearance and would be grateful if you could explain, as short or as long as you wish, why you hold such beliefs. Many thanks.
-
- The evidence of the dogs and forensics do not point to an abduction. I've pointed out the remarkable coincidence of 'corroborative' dog alerts to DNA being found, coupled with a small child disappearing - what's the chances? Even if we allow that they employed the world's worst EVRD dogs, they still managed to be successful and only at the scenes of crime.
-
- The evidence of the dogs and forensics do not point to an abduction. I've pointed out the remarkable coincidence of 'corroborative' dog alerts to DNA being found, coupled with a small child disappearing - what's the chances? Even if we allow that they employed the world's worst EVRD dogs, they still managed to be successful and only at the scenes of crime.
What DNA was found of any significance?
-
Sceptics revealing themselves as sceptics - this might be an interesting thread! Several times I've started a thread on a similar theme and there seemed a reluctance to make a stand "why some believe the parents had a direct hand in MM's disappearance".
Let's see if you have better luck at drawing them out.
-
What DNA was found of any significance?
The inconclusive DNA.
-
The inconclusive DNA.
Oh yes, the DNA that could have come from pretty much anyone and from any human secretion. .
-
Sceptics revealing themselves as sceptics - this might be an interesting thread! Several times I've started a thread on a similar theme and there seemed a reluctance to make a stand "why some believe the parents had a direct hand in MM's disappearance".
Let's see if you have better luck at drawing them out.
Well this is the point. It's a very pointed question and, given the mountain of circumstantial evidence for and against, and the relative paucity of corroborative evidence, it's not one I can answer. But I've provided one reason why some sceptics think as they do, but it's not answering the original question.
-
Sceptics revealing themselves as sceptics - this might be an interesting thread! Several times I've started a thread on a similar theme and there seemed a reluctance to make a stand "why some believe the parents had a direct hand in MM's disappearance".
Let's see if you have better luck at drawing them out.
I did start a thread some time ago about sceptic beliefs.
Perhaps a new one is a good idea.
As you suggest........Why some believe the parents had a direct hand in Madeleine's disappearance......may be a much better title thread than mine.
-
Sceptics revealing themselves as sceptics - this might be an interesting thread! Several times I've started a thread on a similar theme and there seemed a reluctance to make a stand "why some believe the parents had a direct hand in MM's disappearance".
Let's see if you have better luck at drawing them out.
So those who believe the parents are directly responsible are referred to as "sceptics". Are those who believe the opposite referred to as anything? I need to familiarize myself with the terminology!
-
Oh yes, the DNA that could have come from pretty much anyone and from any human secretion. .
Yes. I've qualified that already. I'm happy at this point to state that the forensic evidence establishes nothing. But there's the absence of evidence in 'alerts' elsewhere - so, again, looking at probability, as we have been discussing recently, seems quite a stretch.
-
So those who believe the parents are directly responsible are referred to as "sceptics". Are those who believe the opposite referred to as anything? I need to familiarize myself with the terminology!
Yes, I'm happy to labelled as a 'sceptic'. I wouldn't have it any other way.
You have sceptics and supporters, labels that were established prior to my arrival certainly. The fact that there are many subsets to each seems to be lost on most here.
-
So those who believe the parents are directly responsible are referred to as "sceptics". Are those who believe the opposite referred to as anything? I need to familiarize myself with the terminology!
I support the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. Apparently this makes me a McCann supporter too.
-
I support the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. Apparently this makes me a McCann supporter too.
Splitter.....
-
I did start a thread some time ago about sceptic beliefs.
Perhaps a new one is a good idea.
As you suggest........Why some believe the parents had a direct hand in Madeleine's disappearance......may be a much better title thread than mine.
I think it all boils down to the same and as the General notes there are many subsets. One of which I think may be people who care nothing either way but have homed in on a jolly good trolling opportunity and the despicable opportunity to be as thoroughly nasty (in the main anonymously) as it is possible to be and have immediate back up for it.
-
I support the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. Apparently this makes me a McCann supporter too.
Me too!!
-
Me too!!
Another splitter!
-
Interesting that a thread investigating “Why do some believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance?”, instead of being a list of reasons immediately becomes a list of why supporters disbelieve those reasons.
-
Splitter.....
Better a splitter than a spitter.
-
Interesting that a thread investigating “Why do some believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance?”, instead of being a list of reasons immediately becomes a list of why supporters disbelieve those reasons.
What's stopping the sceptics putting their case? Off you go.
-
Interesting that a thread investigating “Why do some believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance?”, instead of being a list of reasons immediately becomes a list of why supporters disbelieve those reasons.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. No doubt there will be tears before bedtime 8(0(*
-
Interesting that a thread investigating “Why do some believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance?”, instead of being a list of reasons immediately becomes a list of why supporters disbelieve those reasons.
As yet I don't see many sceptics contributing to the thread about why they believe the parents were directly involved.
Obviously when they do, then supporters will respond!
-
As yet I don't see many sceptics contributing to the thread about why they believe the parents were directly involved.
Obviously when they do, then supporters will respond!
Why, that's not what the topic is asking..
-
I was thinking exactly the same thing. No doubt there will be tears before bedtime 8(0(*
Let's here from you then - why o you believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance?
-
Why, that's not what the topic is asking..
Oh? What is the topic asking?
-
Interesting that a thread investigating “Why do some believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance?”, instead of being a list of reasons immediately becomes a list of why supporters disbelieve those reasons.
Yeah I'm more interested in understanding beliefs held by "sceptics" rather than why "supporters" disbelieve the reasons. May I ask are you a sceptic or supporter? Is there any middle ground and if so are such individuals given terms of reference?
Re your tagline I found myself humming the 70's classic yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sCGSionl0
Lol @)(++(*
-
Let's here from you then - why o you believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance?
I prefer to make comment and ask questions, but thank you for the offer. ?{)(**
-
Better a splitter than a spitter.
People's Front of Praia.
-
Yeah I'm more interested in understanding beliefs held by "sceptics" rather than why "supporters" disbelieve the reasons. May I ask are you a sceptic or supporter? Is there any middle ground and if so are such individuals given terms of reference?
Re your tagline I found myself humming the 70's classic yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sCGSionl0
Lol @)(++(*
I am sceptical of the abduction narrative.
-
I will be taking no prisoners today if this sniping continues.
-
I prefer to make comment and ask questions, but thank you for the offer. ?{)(**
Haha, say no more. 8(0(*
-
I am sceptical of the abduction narrative.
Do you believe the parents were directly involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
-
Do you believe the parents were directly involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
Depends what you mean by directly.
-
Depends what you mean by directly.
How many different definitions of "directly" are there? I mean directly. As in "hands on" involved in removing the child from the apartment on the night of 3rd May. Can you give a direct answer?
-
Yeah I'm more interested in understanding beliefs held by "sceptics" rather than why "supporters" disbelieve the reasons. May I ask are you a sceptic or supporter? Is there any middle ground and if so are such individuals given terms of reference?
Re your tagline I found myself humming the 70's classic yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sCGSionl0
Lol @)(++(*
No-one is allowed to occupy the middle ground here. If you continue to post you'll be labelled to.
-
No-one is allowed to occupy the middle ground here. If you continue to post you'll be labelled to.
The middle ground is for fence sitters. It seems on the face of it that there are quite a few sceptics here that fall into that category. The problem with this brand of fencesitters is that their observations are almost always those which attempt to cast doubt on the McCanns version of events, and never seem to look at things from a wholly balanced perspective.
-
You mean like wot you do ? @)(++(*
-
The middle ground is for fence sitters. It seems on the face of it that there are quite a few sceptics here that fall into that category. The problem with this brand of fencesitters is that their observations are almost always those which attempt to cast doubt on the McCanns version of events, and never seem to look at things from a wholly balanced perspective.
Surely fence sitters must by definition be balanced?
Otherwise they would fall off the fence into the sceptic or supporter category, where balance is not a requirement?
&^^&*
-
Surely fence sitters must by definition be balanced?
Otherwise they would fall off the fence into the sceptic or supporter category, where balance is not a requirement?
&^^&*
By definition fencesitters are sceptics... They are, sceptical of the mccanns....
I've balanced all the evidence and decided the mccanns are not involved
-
You mean like wot you do ? @)(++(*
No, I am not a fence sitter, like some people on here pretend to be.
-
Surely fence sitters must by definition be balanced?
Otherwise they would fall off the fence into the sceptic or supporter category, where balance is not a requirement?
&^^&*
Where do you sit?
-
The middle ground is for fence sitters. It seems on the face of it that there are quite a few sceptics here that fall into that category. The problem with this brand of fencesitters is that their observations are almost always those which attempt to cast doubt on the McCanns version of events, and never seem to look at things from a wholly balanced perspective.
A lot of posters on here rely on opinion, not evidence. If the evidence contradicts or casts doubt on their opinions it should be pointed out imo. That's balance.
-
A lot of posters on here rely on opinion, not evidence. If the evidence contradicts or casts doubt on their opinions it should be pointed out imo. That's balance.
I've answerred this point countless times... A jury verdict is often opinion based on evidence.
Based on the evidence I come to the conclusion the McCanns are not involved... That leaves the involvement of a stranger... Either in or out of the apartment
-
Where do you sit?
I am not fond of the terms sceptic, supporter or fence-sitter, so how about I liken the forum to the House of Commons? An equal amount of nonsense is bandied about. In HoC parlance, I'm an Independent.
-
By definition fencesitters are sceptics... They are, sceptical of the mccanns....
I've balanced all the evidence and decided the mccanns are not involved
Not necessarily. Holly has admitted to knowing very little and is now gathering information. Ergo, Holly is currently impartial and 'on the fence' due to lack of data to form a judgement.
-
I've answerred this point countless times... A jury verdict is often opinion based on evidence.
Based on the evidence I come to the conclusion the McCanns are not involved... That leaves the involvement of a stranger... Either in or out of the apartment
I wasn't talking about opnions based on evidence.
-
Not necessarily. Holly has admitted to knowing very little and is now gathering information. Ergo, Holly is currently impartial and 'on the fence' due to lack of data to form a judgement.
We were all fencesitters originally I would say... A decision is, then made on looking at the evidence
-
I am not fond of the terms sceptic, supporter or fence-sitter, so how about I liken the forum to the House of Commons? An equal amount of nonsense is bandied about. In HoC parlance, I'm an Independent.
You either believe the mccanns do not know what happened to Maddie... As they say... Or you don't believe them..
Posters might not like the label but it's totally factual
-
I wasn't talking about opnions based on evidence.
Then you accept there's nothing wrong with opinions based on evidence...
-
We were all fencesitters originally I would say... A decision is, then made on looking at the evidence
That's what I just said. I qualified your assertion that fence sitters are sceptical.
-
That's what I just said. I qualified your assertion that fence sitters are sceptical.
They are sceptical... They may change... But if they do not believe the mccanns they are sceptics
-
You either believe the mccanns do not know what happened to Maddie... As they say... Or you don't believe them..
Posters might not like the label but it's totally factual
I'm not interested in beliefs. Not the McCann beliefs nor any poster's beliefs.
Nor am I interested in labels or your apparent belief it is 'totally factual'. *&^^&
-
They are sceptical... They may change... But if they do not believe the mccanns they are sceptics
Kinell, here we go.
Terry Waite, fresh from being chained to a radiator for 6 years in a toilet in Beirut.
He comes back and decides to reprise himself of the McCann case (timescales not correct at time of typing).
He's been in solitary for 2 years, so he knows nothing.
He's on the fence. He's not sceptical, he hasn't a clue what's going on, he's collecting data.
-
I'm not interested in beliefs. Not the McCann beliefs nor any poster's beliefs.
Nor am I interested in labels or your apparent belief it is 'totally factual'. *&^^&
I can't write everything out every post.. My beliefs are based on evidence... That's how the justice, system works..
What is, factual is that if you don't believe the mccanns you are, a, sceptic.. Like it or not
-
You either believe the mccanns do not know what happened to Maddie... As they say... Or you don't believe them..
Posters might not like the label but it's totally factual
You have decided that you definitely believe them. Others have decided they definitely don't. Why can't you acknowledge that there may be some who haven't decided?
-
You have decided that you definitely believe them. Others have decided they definitely don't. Why can't you acknowledge that there may be some who haven't decided?
Because he's never wrong, even when he is.
-
I've answerred this point countless times... A jury verdict is often opinion based on evidence.
Based on the evidence I come to the conclusion the McCanns are not involved... That leaves the involvement of a stranger... Either in or out of the apartment
I like that Davel - is that the first time you have conceded that woke and wandered is a possibility?
-
Because he's never wrong, even when he is.
I can't comment on that.
-
Kinell, here we go.
Terry Waite, fresh from being chained to a radiator for 6 years in a toilet in Beirut.
He comes back and decides to reprise himself of the McCann case (timescales not correct at time of typing).
He's been in solitary for 2 years, so he knows nothing.
He's on the fence. He's not sceptical, he hasn't a clue what's going on, he's collecting data.
Does he believe the parents account... Or is he sceptical of them
-
Because he's never wrong, even when he is.
I haven't said I definitely believe them.... But Im 99.9 % sure they are not involved
-
I like that Davel - is that the first time you have conceded that woke and wandered is a possibility?
No it isn't the first time.... I've said it from the start... Look at my interpretation of the odds
-
Does he believe the parents account... Or is he sceptical of them
That's my point Davel; there's a 3rd state - he's really interested, but doesn't have any information, certainly not enough to form an opinion. He can't make his mind up. He's in a creosotic state.
-
I can't write everything out every post.. My beliefs are based on evidence... That's how the justice, system works..
What is, factual is that if you don't believe the mccanns you are, a, sceptic.. Like it or not
That appears to be your belief system. Merely repeating it ad nauseam does not make it correct.
What might be interesting to know is if OG or Oporto work according to your simplistic belief system, or whether they are more professional.
&^^&*
-
That appears to be your belief system. Merely repeating it ad nauseam does not make it correct.
What might be interesting to know is if OG or Oporto work according to your simplistic belief system, or whether they are more professional.
&^^&*
I'm sure they work to exactly the same system as me... What other system us there..
Look at the evidence... See where it points and follow it.. That is absolutely correct
-
No it isn't the first time.... I've said it from the start... Look at my interpretation of the odds
Well one way or the other if you can accept woke and wandered followed by the actions of a stranger, you and I are fellow supporters, except that the McCanns have yet to accept woke and wandered afaik.
-
That's my point Davel; there's a 3rd state - he's really interested, but doesn't have any information, certainly not enough to form an opinion. He can't make his mind up. He's in a creosotic state.
Then he's not a fence sitter... He's uninformed..
A fencesitter is someone who cannot make their mind up based on the evidence
-
Well one way or the other if you can accept woke and wandered followed by the actions of a stranger, you and I are fellow supporters, except that the McCanns have yet to accept woke and wandered afaik.
I see it as a possibility...
-
I see it as a possibility...
Even when the McCanns (Kate in particular) seems to totally reject the idea. So you are willing to go against Kate as a "possibility". Not a die hard supporter then?
-
Even when the McCanns (Kate in particular) seems to totally reject the idea. So you are willing to go against Kate as a "possibility". Not a die hard supporter then?
You seem to be getting the picture..
-
Then he's not a fence sitter... He's uninformed..
A fencesitter is someone who cannot make their mind up based on the evidence
I refuse to be drawn in to your perpetual loop of futility, for fear of ending up barking at the curtains like Rob the other day. Good day to you sir.
-
I refuse to be drawn in to your perpetual loop of futility, for fear of ending up barking at the curtains like Rob the other day. Good day to you sir.
I thought we were going down the boozer
-
I thought we were going down the boozer
Can't decide.
....let's do it!
-
Sp what we have are people who believe that others believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance.
I think there are people who believe it, but I'm not convinced they post on this forum regularly.
-
Sp what we have are people who believe that others believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance.
I think there are people who believe it, but I'm not convinced they post on this forum regularly.
Just to clarify.
You are not convinced that any regularly posting posters on this forum believe that Madeleine's parents were not directly involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
Does this include the disposal of her body?
-
Sp what we have are people who believe that others believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance.
I think there are people who believe it, but I'm not convinced they post on this forum regularly.
R u serious...... Of course, there are posters, here who think the mccanns are directly involved.... And disposed of the body
-
R u serious...... Of course, there are posters, here who think the mccanns are directly involved.... And disposed of the body
Evidence?
-
Just to clarify.
You are not convinced that any regularly posting posters on this forum believe Madeleine's parents were not directly involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
Does this include the disposal of her body?
There are definitely posters on this forum who believe Madeleine's parents were not directly involved in Madeleine's disappearance. They are known as supporters.
-
There are definitely posters on this forum who believe Madeleine's parents were not directly involved in Madeleine's disappearance. They are known as supporters.
I omitted the word sceptic .
Do you mean that there are no regularly posting sceptic posters who do not believe that Madeleines parents were involved directly in her disappearance including disposal of her body?
On my useless little phone!
-
Evidence?
Read the posts of faith, pathfinder and spam....
-
There are definitely posters on this forum who believe Madeleine's parents were not directly involved in Madeleine's disappearance. They are known as supporters.
And there are those who question the mccanns version of events... Aka... Sceptics
-
Read the posts of faith, pathfinder and spam....
Up to you to provide, you made the claim.
-
Please keep on topic.
-
Up to you to provide, you made the claim.
I think we are, all familiar, with the posts..
-
That's my point Davel; there's a 3rd state - he's really interested, but doesn't have any information, certainly not enough to form an opinion. He can't make his mind up. He's in a creosotic state.
He’d end up in one camp or the other before you could say Islamic Jihad Organization.
-
Sp what we have are people who believe that others believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance.
I think there are people who believe it, but I'm not convinced they post on this forum regularly.
There are at least two who post regularly on this forum but both have remained silent so far.
-
Please keep on topic.
I asked you an on topic question earlier which you swerved. I clarified what I meant by “directly” and received no answer. I await your on-topic reply.
-
Up to you to provide, you made the claim.
Spam reckons the McCanns murdered Madeleine, there is a whole thread for Pathfinder’s theory which makes it clear that he believes they are directly involved and Faithlilly has also admitted being convinced the parents threw Madeleine’s body in the bin. I’m surprised you didn’t already know all this, being a forum mod?
-
Spam reckons the McCanns murdered Madeleine, there is a whole thread for Pathfinder’s theory which makes it clear that he believes they are directly involved and Faithlilly has also admitted being convinced the parents threw Madeleine’s body in the bin. I’m surprised you didn’t already know all this, being a forum mod?
You should be able to provide cites then.
-
You should be able to provide cites then.
Cites are not needed here. We all with the exception of very late new members, KNOW these things.
Tbh Slarti, you seem to be just trying to waste VS's time.
I wonder why? Was he onto a tricky subject for you, or maybe he was outarguing your side ?
-
You should be able to provide cites then.
Yes no problem, I shall do so just as soon as any or all of the afore mentioned members post on this thread to deny the claim.
-
Cites are not needed here. We all with the exception of very late new members, KNOW these things.
Tbh Slarti, you seem to be just trying to waste VS's time.
I wonder why? Was he onto a tricky subject for you, or maybe he was outarguing your side ?
Cites are required here, I’m surprised you didn’t know.
-
There are at least two who post regularly on this forum but both have remained silent so far.
I'm on 20% warning & being watched, so, I'm not allowed to say that I believe the parents dunnit.
Presently I don't believe they did do it, well, at least for the next 4 days anyway, until my warning expires, after that I might start believing that they did again.
-
I'm on 20% warning & being watched, so, I'm not allowed to say that I believe the parents dunnit.
Presently I don't believe they did do it, well, at least for the next 4 days anyway, until my warning expires, after that I might start believing that they did again.
You’re allowed to say you think the parents dunnit, as long as you don’t state it as fact.
-
You’re allowed to say you think the parents dunnit, as long as you don’t state it as fact.
You're kidding, right? I was 'watched' for typing the word 'sh4g'.
-
You're kidding, right? I was 'watched' for typing the word 'sh4g'.
Well if you’re not allowed to say it then why has this thread been allowed?
-
Well if you’re not allowed to say it then why has this thread been allowed?
True. Maybe I'll test it.
-
You're kidding, right? I was 'watched' for typing the word 'sh4g'.
Yes I wrote 'sh1t' using those specific characters & got a warning for it.
-
Yes I wrote 'sh1t' using those specific characters & got a warning for it.
Bowlax. Cite!
-
I omitted the word sceptic .
Do you mean that there are no regularly posting sceptic posters who do not believe that Madeleines parents were involved directly in her disappearance including disposal of her body?
On my useless little phone!
I said I'm not convinced that there are regular posters here who believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance.
What we do have are regular posters who are willing to accept and discuss the possibility that they were.
Accepting that something's possible isn't the same as believing it happened.
-
It is odd that not one single sceptic is prepared to say why the believe the parents were directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. Can it really be true that there is no one posting on this forum who is persuaded by the evidence that the McCanns are as guilty as sin? We have an assertion on another thread that the odds of Madeleine being abducted are 4.124 billion to one, that leaves parental involvement vs woke and wandered. Surely someone here is prepared to put their neck on the line and own up to thinking the McCanns were directly involved?
-
I said I'm not convinced that there are regular posters here who believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance.
What we do have are regular posters who are willing to accept and discuss the possibility that they were.
Accepting that something's possible isn't the same as believing it happened.
I'm convinced there are at least three posters who I have named who believe the parents are directly involved.... You consider it a possibility... Well so do I... The difference is you are unwilling to put any figures on your opinion wheras I'm happy to openly discuss it
-
It is odd that not one single sceptic is prepared to say why the believe the parents were directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. Can it really be true that there is no one posting on this forum who is persuaded by the evidence that the McCanns are as guilty as sin? We have an assertion on another thread that the odds of Madeleine being abducted are 4.124 billion to one, that leaves parental involvement vs woke and wandered. Surely someone here is prepared to put their neck on the line and own up to thinking the McCanns were directly involved?
And then what is achieved by this disclosure? Is there a party, cheese and pineapple on little sticks? What happens next? I don't understand the fascination of getting someone to admit to an opinion. It serves no purpose other than 'see, I knew it, see, he went and said it!'
-
And then what is achieved by this disclosure? Is there a party, cheese and pineapple on little sticks? What happens next? I don't understand the fascination of getting someone to admit to an opinion. It serves no purpose other than 'see, I knew it, see, he went and said it!'
Well it’s the only way to progress this thread on topic. Perhaps you’d prefer it to be deleted as it seems to be a rather awkward question for sceptics to answer? I don’t really give a monkey’s either way.
-
Well it’s the only way to progress this thread on topic. Perhaps you’d prefer it to be deleted as it seems to be a rather awkward question for sceptics to answer? I don’t really give a monkey’s either way.
See what you did there. I think the problem is that it's a very specific question, so the subset of people with that opinion is naturally small.
If the question was couched in such a way as to factor in 'acts or omissions', then you may get your much sought-after patsy.
-
@)(++(*
I'm on 20% warning & being watched, so, I'm not allowed to say that I believe the parents dunnit.
Presently I don't believe they did do it, well, at least for the next 4 days anyway, until my warning expires, after that I might start believing that they did again.
-
See what you did there. I think the problem is that it's a very specific question, so the subset of people with that opinion is naturally small.
The question is WHY do some posters believe... Monkey actually actually answered that precise question but his post was, deleted as off topic
-
It is odd that not one single sceptic is prepared to say why the believe the parents were directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. Can it really be true that there is no one posting on this forum who is persuaded by the evidence that the McCanns are as guilty as sin? We have an assertion on another thread that the odds of Madeleine being abducted are 4.124 billion to one, that leaves parental involvement vs woke and wandered. Surely someone here is prepared to put their neck on the line and own up to thinking the McCanns were directly involved?
What difference does it make to your life what people think?- members are not obliged to post about something they have no direct knowledge of.
-
The question is WHY do some posters believe... Monkey actually actually answered that precise question but his post was, deleted as off topic
So the question may be asked but the answers must be deleted.
-
deleted
-
The question is WHY do some posters believe... Monkey actually actually answered that precise question but his post was, deleted as off topic
I was berated the other week for paring down other members posts, despite it being common practice on forums to do exactly as you have and highlight the specific line, which is fine by me.......
Well why indeed. I think it's because we have your 100% probabilistic state, with only 3 viable theories. If, in the mind of the member, the evidence isn't ringing true, then we have to make it fit in to one of the other two.
-
What difference does it make to your life what people think?- members are not obliged to post about something they have no direct knowledge of. Putting a neck on the line for your entertainment says what you are really all about.
Have you seen the title of this thread? it makes f.a. difference to my life what people think, Glad you acknowledge that no one is qualified enough to comment on it though. 8(0(*
-
Have you seen the title of this thread? it makes f.a. difference to my life what people think, Glad you acknowledge that no one is qualified enough to comment on it though. 8(0(*
For someone who doesn't care you sure are making a fuss about it. ^*&&
I never said NO one is qualified enough. I wasn't there so I DON'T KNOW. Oher people were not there so they don't know either. However, this is about belief not outright accusations.
-
I was berated the other week for paring down other members posts, despite it being common practice on forums to do exactly as you have and highlight the specific line, which is fine by me.......
Well why indeed. I think it's because we have your 100% probabilistic state, with only 3 viable theories. If, in the mind of the member, the evidence isn't ringing true, then we have to make it fit in to one of the other two.
Very sensible.... So if we believe both police forces the parents are not involved... The archiving report said woke and wandered was highly unlikely.... Which leaves abduction odds on
-
For someone who doesn't care you sure are making a fuss about it. ^*&&
I never said NO one is qualified enough. I wasn't there so I DON'T KNOW. Oher people were not there so they don't know either. However, this is about belief not outright accusations.
I’m not mKing a fuss, I’m merely making an observation, what’s the problem?
-
Very sensible.... So if we believe both police forces the parents are not involved... The archiving report said woke and wandered was highly unlikely.... Which leaves abduction odds on
But we have this 'very narrow window of opportunity', plus those infernal dogs to factor in. It's not as simplistic as we're making it.
-
Very sensible.... So if we believe both police forces the parents are not involved... The archiving report said woke and wandered was highly unlikely.... Which leaves abduction odds on
Yet Do Carmo won't commit to any scenario.
-
And then what is achieved by this disclosure? Is there a party, cheese and pineapple on little sticks? What happens next? I don't understand the fascination of getting someone to admit to an opinion. It serves no purpose other than 'see, I knew it, see, he went and said it!'
It provides an excuse for attack...
-
It provides an excuse for attack...
...which is what I was not so subtly driving at.
-
It is odd that not one single sceptic is prepared to say why the believe the parents were directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. Can it really be true that there is no one posting on this forum who is persuaded by the evidence that the McCanns are as guilty as sin? We have an assertion on another thread that the odds of Madeleine being abducted are 4.124 billion to one, that leaves parental involvement vs woke and wandered. Surely someone here is prepared to put their neck on the line and own up to thinking the McCanns were directly involved?
Sp you firmly believe that sceptics here believe in parental involvement? Has it never occured to you that your belief may be wrong?
-
Sp you firmly believe that sceptics here believe in parental involvement? Has it never occured to you that your belief may be wrong?
It would be very intresting to read VS and other supporters explain blow by blow acount how the abduction from the bedroom took place. using the timeline offered by t9. and explaining expertly the anomolies along the way.
Kate saying she put MBM to bed under the covers all snuggled up because it was a cold night- JT said it was a cold night. Gerry says he saw his dauaghter as he left her on top of the covers as it was a warm night..
^*&&
-
Sp you firmly believe that sceptics here believe in parental involvement? Has it never occured to you that your belief may be wrong?
Your continual accusations of the Si called changing of stories... Your support that the alerts are evidence suggests to me you believe the mccanns are directly involved
-
Sp you firmly believe that sceptics here believe in parental involvement? Has it never occured to you that your belief may be wrong?
No I am absolutely positive I am right thanks.
-
It provides an excuse for attack...
Why have you permitted this thread to stand if you think anyone answering the question will be attacked? What are you so scared of?
-
Here’s absolute proof that nearly 40% of the forum suspects the McCanns were directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2832.30
OK it’s 6 years out of date so maybe time to re-poll?
-
No I am absolutely positive I am right thanks.
Why do you want people to confirm your belief then?
-
Why do you want people to confirm your belief then?
a) I value candour and courage of convictions in a debating opponent and b) I don’t seek confirmation of my belief I seek those with the honesty and balls to answer the question posed by this thread which no one appears prepared to answer.
-
a) I value candour and courage of convictions in a debating opponent and b) I don’t seek confirmation of my belief I seek those with the honesty and balls to answer the question posed by this thread which no one appears prepared to answer.
So even though I've always been honest about my views you absolutely refuse to believe me? There's no point in further discussion then, is there?
-
So even though I've always been honest about my views you absolutely refuse to believe me? There's no point in further discussion then, is there?
Are you the only sceptic on this forum? Have I said I refused to believe you? I am simply expressing curiosity as to why those who believe the parents to be directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance are unprepared to explain why, further if it’s such a reprehensible question, then I am also curious to know why it was allowed to be posed in the first place. I fully accept you do not necessarily believe that the McCanns were directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance though you have stated that in your opinion abduction was almost impossible. That does narrow the field somewhat.
-
My belief is that sceptics simply can't admit they believe the mccanns are involved because it would expose the fact that they believe in something without evidence
-
So, Holly. The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance. There may be people here who haven't ruled it out, but that's a different question.
There are people here who have ruled the parents out. They believe passionately that the parents are completely innocent.
-
So, Holly. The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance. There nay be people here who haven't ruled it out, but that's a different question.
There are people here who have ruled the parents out. They believe passionately that the parenrs are completely innocent.
You obviously ignored the results of the poll which contradict your post above completely.
-
So, Holly. The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance. There nay be people here who haven't ruled it out, but that's a different question.
There are people here who have ruled the parents out. They believe passionately that the parenrs are completely innocent.
I think it's best to keep an open mind but imo I think it's unlikely the parents were involved but I see why others are 'skeptical' mainly I think because the aftermath was surreal coupled with imo the bizarre and crazy "childcare arrangements".
I've explained what I learned about the science of sleep on my psychology course and the fact certain stages are difficult to wake from, more so for small children. I put a link up for the video clip of SM being carried down the aircraft steps by GM where he then spoke into a microphone with the aircraft engines whirring in the background. SM remained fast asleep. So for me the idea the children were drugged or given massive doses of Calpol to knock them out by either the McCanns or a some would be abductor doesn't ring true.
Afaik no forensic service provider in the UK offers tests using detection dogs. No one has been able to cite any other UK case where they've been used in a criminal trial. In this case I think they amount to junk science on par with say lie detector tests.
I know from my research into the Bamber case where the same DNA tests were carried ie LCN DNA that this type of DNA testing is capable of producing a result from a sample the size of one millionth of the size of a grain of salt and in most cases is not even capable of confirming the biological material eg skin cells, sweat, saliva. Its fraught with problems over contamination and statistical analysis. In the Bamber case three appeal court judges ruled the results were "completely meaningless" because the possibility of all sorts of contamination could not be ruled out. MM's DNA would be all over the place and transferred to other places too even after her disappearance so meaningless imo.
-
Holly, in light of the rather surprising claim from the most learned McCann sceptic of the forum that no one here believes the parents were directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance, perhaps you could start a new thread asking the question “why does no one on this forum believe the McCanns were directly involved in madeleine’s disappearance?” I’m sure that would be a very interesting thread to which not a single sceptic would reply explaining their reasons.
-
So, Holly. The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance. There may be people here who haven't ruled it out, but that's a different question.
There are people here who have ruled the parents out. They believe passionately that the parents are completely innocent.
I'm not sure if you understand the posts made by posters here... I believe... Based on the evidence... That it is highly... Highly ...unlikely the mccanns are involved..
I think that's, a fairly sensible viewpoint
-
I think it's best to keep an open mind but imo I think it's unlikely the parents were involved but I see why others are 'skeptical' mainly I think because the aftermath was surreal coupled with imo the bizarre and crazy "childcare arrangements".
I've explained what I learned about the science of sleep on my psychology course and the fact certain stages are difficult to wake from, more so for small children. I put a link up for the video clip of SM being carried down the aircraft steps by GM where he then spoke into a microphone with the aircraft engines whirring in the background. SM remained fast asleep. So for me the idea the children were drugged or given massive doses of Calpol to knock them out by either the McCanns or a some would be abductor doesn't ring true.
Afaik no forensic service provider in the UK offers tests using detection dogs. No one has been able to cite any other UK case where they've been used in a criminal trial. In this case I think they amount to junk science on par with say lie detector tests.
I know from my research into the Bamber case where the same DNA tests were carried ie LCN DNA that this type of DNA testing is capable of producing a result from a sample the size of one millionth of the size of a grain of salt and in most cases is not even capable of confirming the biological material eg skin cells, sweat, saliva. Its fraught with problems over contamination and statistical analysis. In the Bamber case three appeal court judges ruled the results were "completely meaningless" because the possibility of all sorts of contamination could not be ruled out. MM's DNA would be all over the place and transferred to other places too even after her disappearance so meaningless imo.
Dog alert evidence was allowed in one UK case.. Susan Pillay... There was lots of other evidence to support his conviction
According to the family after his appeal... The, appeal court was critical if the admissibilty of the dog evidence
Based on extensive reading around the topic it's clear to me that the digs, are, excellent at finding evidence... According to grime that's, what he trains them fir.. But the alerts themselves are not reliable
-
So, Holly. The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance. There may be people here who haven't ruled it out, but that's a different question.
There are people here who have ruled the parents out. They believe passionately that the parents are completely innocent.
Why don’t you believe the parents were directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance? Moreover, why do you believe you can speak for all sceptics on the forum?
-
Holly, in light of the rather surprising claim from the most learned McCann sceptic of the forum that no one here believes the parents were directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance, perhaps you could start a new thread asking the question “why does no one on this forum believe the McCanns were directly involved in madeleine’s disappearance?” I’m sure that would be a very interesting thread to which not a single sceptic would reply explaining their reasons.
Blimey its all a bit of a minefield and I need to tread carefully! I guess this whole skeptic/supporter thing is akin to the Bamber boards, here and elsewhere, where someone coined the phrases pro-guilt and pro-innocence. People will believe what they want to believe. I'm happy to debate/discuss the case with anyone whatever their views providing they're reasonably civil. I'm really only interested in learning more about the case. I'm seeing sniping from skeptics and supporters and just ignoring the posts as it doesn't interest me or further my understanding of the case. In terms of moderating I only intervene if I consider the high level rules have been broken as stated on the homepage.
-
Blimey its all a bit of a minefield and I need to tread carefully! I guess this whole skeptic/supporter thing is akin to the Bamber boards, here and elsewhere, where someone coined the phrases pro-guilt and pro-innocence. People will believe what they want to believe. I'm happy to debate/discuss the case with anyone whatever their views providing they're reasonably civil. I'm really only interested in learning more about the case. I'm seeing sniping from skeptics and supporters and just ignoring the posts as it doesn't interest me or further my understanding of the case. In terms of moderating I only intervene if I consider the high level rules have been broken as stated on the homepage.
I think you will find from careful reading of the forum including the hidden bit is that there are several sceptics who certainly do admit to believing the parents are directly involved in madeleine’s disappearance. Their reticence in coming forward may be due to the punishing libel rules on the forum, or they may simply be hiding behind them so as not to commit themselves to stating their beliefs.
-
So, Holly. The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance. There may be people here who haven't ruled it out, but that's a different question.
There are people here who have ruled the parents out. They believe passionately that the parents are completely innocent.
Hmmm. Not quite sure about that G-Unit. ;)
My impression is that we have the whole spectrum on this forum, but that the sceptic extremists are more careful in how they express their views.
I'd agree that there are quite a few "moderate" views here.
However, anyone defending the innocence of someone (justified or not) isn't a moderating headache from a legal perspective. Defamatory statements presented as "fact" are.
And then there are the other moderating headaches of trying to establish clarity over what's "fact" and opinion, calming down personal squabbles, and to somehow keep the forum on an even keel.
IMO.
-
I think it's best to keep an open mind but imo I think it's unlikely the parents were involved but I see why others are 'skeptical' mainly I think because the aftermath was surreal coupled with imo the bizarre and crazy "childcare arrangements".
I've explained what I learned about the science of sleep on my psychology course and the fact certain stages are difficult to wake from, more so for small children. I put a link up for the video clip of SM being carried down the aircraft steps by GM where he then spoke into a microphone with the aircraft engines whirring in the background. SM remained fast asleep. So for me the idea the children were drugged or given massive doses of Calpol to knock them out by either the McCanns or a some would be abductor doesn't ring true.
Afaik no forensic service provider in the UK offers tests using detection dogs. No one has been able to cite any other UK case where they've been used in a criminal trial. In this case I think they amount to junk science on par with say lie detector tests.
I know from my research into the Bamber case where the same DNA tests were carried ie LCN DNA that this type of DNA testing is capable of producing a result from a sample the size of one millionth of the size of a grain of salt and in most cases is not even capable of confirming the biological material eg skin cells, sweat, saliva. Its fraught with problems over contamination and statistical analysis. In the Bamber case three appeal court judges ruled the results were "completely meaningless" because the possibility of all sorts of contamination could not be ruled out. MM's DNA would be all over the place and transferred to other places too even after her disappearance so meaningless imo.
In the end it's all down to opinion because there's no definitive evidence imo.
It was their mother who thought it strange that the twins didn't wake up and who suggested sedation was the reason. That's the only reason others have discussed it. I would be very interested to hear more from her; like what she thinks would have put them to sleep for 12 hours and how she thinks it was administered.
I don't think the dogs are 'junk science' because I don't think they claim to be scientific.
DNA testing can sometimes provide answers and sometimes it can't. In this case it didn't. All it did was confirm that Keela alerted to places where DNA was present. If she was as well-trained as was claimed, she was alerting to human blood.
-
Blimey its all a bit of a minefield and I need to tread carefully! I guess this whole skeptic/supporter thing is akin to the Bamber boards, here and elsewhere, where someone coined the phrases pro-guilt and pro-innocence. People will believe what they want to believe. I'm happy to debate/discuss the case with anyone whatever their views providing they're reasonably civil. I'm really only interested in learning more about the case. I'm seeing sniping from skeptics and supporters and just ignoring the posts as it doesn't interest me or further my understanding of the case. In terms of moderating I only intervene if I consider the high level rules have been broken as stated on the homepage.
Hello Holly,
I really don't know much about the Bamber case. I skim-read a few threads years ago, but then got lost in wading through the squabbles to find what the facts actually were and... gave up.
I guess that it's similar on other boards.
-
In the end it's all down to opinion because there's no definitive evidence imo.
It was their mother who thought it strange that the twins didn't wake up and who suggested sedation was the reason. That's the only reason others have discussed it. I would be very interested to hear more from her; like what she thinks would have put them to sleep for 12 hours and how she thinks it was administered.
I don't think the dogs are 'junk science' because I don't think they claim to be scientific.
DNA testing can sometimes provide answers and sometimes it can't. In this case it didn't. All it did was confirm that Keela alerted to places where DNA was present. If she was as well-trained as was claimed, she was alerting to human blood.
According to grime keela can alert to a blood sample that is so small it's impossible to collect for analysis. DNA is present almost everywhere so it doesn't mean what was recovered is what, was, alerted to
In jersey a piece if coconut was, recovered at the alert site but we can't presume that's, what Eddie was, alerting to..
So as with all the, alerts.. We, simply don't know... I think junk science is a good description
-
Blimey its all a bit of a minefield and I need to tread carefully! I guess this whole skeptic/supporter thing is akin to the Bamber boards, here and elsewhere, where someone coined the phrases pro-guilt and pro-innocence. People will believe what they want to believe. I'm happy to debate/discuss the case with anyone whatever their views providing they're reasonably civil. I'm really only interested in learning more about the case. I'm seeing sniping from skeptics and supporters and just ignoring the posts as it doesn't interest me or further my understanding of the case. In terms of moderating I only intervene if I consider the high level rules have been broken as stated on the homepage.
If you wish to learn about this case then sticking to factual questions is probably the way forward. The question you posed in this thread contained an assumption. You assumed that there are people here who believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance.
-
If you wish to learn about this case then sticking to factual questions is probably the way forward. The question you posed in this thread contained an assumption. You assumed that there are people here who believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance.
A correct assumption, as it happens.
-
Why don’t you believe the parents were directly involved in Madeleine’s disappearance? Moreover, why do you believe you can speak for all sceptics on the forum?
I don't know what happened to MM, so how can I form any firm beliefs? I apologise to any sceptic I may have misrepresented. When they confirm that I have I'll apologise to them individually. As yet none of them have protested.
-
I don't know what happened to MM, so how can I form any firm beliefs? I apologise to any sceptic I may have misrepresented. When they confirm that I have I'll apologise to them individually. As yet none of them have protested.
Now there's a surprise. The fact that you continue to ignore the poll that is stuck to the top of this forum speaks volumes about your ability to be selective with the evidence.
-
A correct assumption, as it happens.
"Cite, cite, cite, cite!" [lights tiki torch, marches off down the pedestrianised zone in the direction of Bargain Booze, tipping bins over and banging on shutters]
-
"Cite, cite, cite, cite!" [lights tiki torch, marches off down the pedestrianised zone in the direction of Bargain Booze, tipping bins over and banging on shutters]
Here you go you little hoodlum
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2832.0
-
Davel, I wouldn't qualify it as "junk science" as such, but I do find that there are so many unanswered questions that the alerts seem meaningless.
-
Davel, I wouldn't qualify it as "junk science" as such, but I do find that there are so many unanswered questions that the alerts seem meaningless.
Hmm... https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/us/04scent.html
-
Now there's a surprise. The fact that you continue to ignore the poll that is stuck to the top of this forum speaks volumes about your ability to be selective with the evidence.
So what do you believe that poll shows?
-
So what do you believe that poll shows?
That nearly 40% of forum members believed the parents are involved in MM's disappearance
I suspect the McCanns of involvement but given enough further information I may change my mind.
12 (30.8%)
I suspect the McCanns of involvement and nothing is likely to change my mind. 3 (7.7%)
"suspect. A suspect is a person who is believed to be guilty of a crime. ... If others believe you have committed a crime, you are a suspect. The word can also be used as a verb and an adjective. To suspect someone of something is to believe that they probably did it".
-
That nearly 40% of forum members believed the parents are involved in MM's disappearance
I suspect the McCanns of involvement but given enough further information I may change my mind.
12 (30.8%)
I suspect the McCanns of involvement and nothing is likely to change my mind. 3 (7.7%)
"suspect. A suspect is a person who is believed to be guilty of a crime. ... If others believe you have committed a crime, you are a suspect. The word can also be used as a verb and an adjective. To suspect someone of something is to believe that they probably did it".
Sispecting and believing are two different things. I suspect that the Conservatives may choose Rory Stewart as their leader, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I believe they will.
-
Sispecting and believing are two different things. I suspect that the Conservatives may choose Rory Stewart as their leader, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I believe they will.
I went to the liberty of supplying the definition of "to suspect" in my previous post. Here it is again:
. The word can also be used as a verb and an adjective. To suspect someone of something is to believe that they probably did it".
I think you're grasping at straws to claim that to suspect is different to to believe.
-
Sispecting and believing are two different things. I suspect that the Conservatives may choose Rory Stewart as their leader, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I believe they will.
I went to the liberty of supplying the definition of "to suspect" in my previous post. Here it is again:
. The word can also be used as a verb and an adjective. To suspect someone of something is to believe that they probably did it".
I think you're grasping at straws to claim that to suspect is different to to believe.
-
SUSPECT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/suspect
suspect definition: 1. to think or believe something to be true or probable: 2. to think that someone has committed a crime or done something wrong: 3. to not trust ...
-
Suspect | Definition of Suspect at Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/suspect
Suspect definition, to believe to be guilty, false, counterfeit, undesirable, defective, bad, etc., with little or no proof: to suspect a person of murder. See more.
-
G-Unit suspects Rory Steawart will be the next British PM, but doesn't believe he will be. *%87
-
Hmm... https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/us/04scent.html
It's an interesting article that I had not seen before so *&(+(+
However, I don't see the relevance to the disappearance of MBM.
-
It's an interesting article that I had not seen before so *&(+(+
However, I don't see the relevance to the disappearance of MBM.
I posted in response to the claim that dog alerts are considered by some to be junk science.
-
Why do some people suspect the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance whilst simultaneously not believing that they were?
-
Hmm... https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/us/04scent.html
Yeah, I know. I've read about quite a few of those cases.
On the other hand, I've also read of cases in which they've really been an asset... but when remains were indeed likely to be physically present in nearby, but often dangerous, terrain to venture into without a positive alert. Natural disasters, for example.
I can also see a use in potential homicide cases, if a corpse has been concealed somewhere nearby or even in those in which someone has confessed to depositing a body somewhere but can't remember exactly where.
I am far more sceptical about sometimes waffly anecdotal evidence of a dog having alerted where a dead body was expected to be found and subsequently finding that it had been, or may have been, at that location at some point in time.
-
Yeah, I know. I've read about quite a few of those cases.
On the other hand, I've also read of cases in which they've really been an asset... but when remains were indeed likely to be physically present in nearby, but often dangerous, terrain to venture into without a positive alert. Natural disasters, for example.
I can also see a use in potential homicide cases, if a corpse has been concealed somewhere nearby or even in those in which someone has confessed to depositing a body somewhere but can't remember exactly where.
I am far more sceptical about sometimes waffly anecdotal evidence of a dog having alerted where a dead body was expected to be found and subsequently finding that it had been, or may have been, at that location at some point in time.
These dogs are only sent to places where a dead body is suspected... How often have the dogs not alerted at a, potential murder scene... Thats, an in interesting question
-
I posted in response to the claim that dog alerts are considered by some to be junk science.
Thank you for clarifying.
I watch lots of true crime programmes, usually late at night. I have yet to see one where anyone got 'banged up' over a dog alert.
Your article describes or implies a failure of the police in those cases to progress beyond the dog alerts.
The McCanns have not been 'banged up', AFAIK.
Police failure does not equate to dogs are junk science.
-
Thank you for clarifying.
I watch lots of true crime programmes, usually late at night. I have yet to see one where anyone got 'banged up' over a dog alert.
Your article describes or implies a failure of the police in those cases to progress beyond the dog alerts.
The McCanns have not been 'banged up', AFAIK.
Police failure does not equate to dogs are junk science.
Of course any failure in justice is a human failure not a canine failure. They are just dogs after all, and don't make value judgements about innocence or guilt.
-
Sispecting and believing are two different things. I suspect that the Conservatives may choose Rory Stewart as their leader, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I believe they will.
It’s a poor indictment of politics today that Rory Stewart is getting support simply for being the least swivel-eyed of the politicians running for PM.
-
Davel, I wouldn't qualify it as "junk science" as such, but I do find that there are so many unanswered questions that the alerts seem meaningless.
When I have referred to alerts as meaningless... As, I have done over the past few years I have, received a lot of abuse.... But meaningless is what they are
-
Hello Holly,
I really don't know much about the Bamber case. I skim-read a few threads years ago, but then got lost in wading through the squabbles to find what the facts actually were and... gave up.
I guess that it's similar on other boards.
Hi Carana
The Bamber case got really nasty with posters even taking their arguments into the real world. Complete madness.
-
Hi Carana
The Bamber case got really nasty with posters even taking their arguments into the real world. Complete madness.
Oh that has happened in this case too...aided and abetted by the MSM.
-
In the end it's all down to opinion because there's no definitive evidence imo.
It was their mother who thought it strange that the twins didn't wake up and who suggested sedation was the reason. That's the only reason others have discussed it. I would be very interested to hear more from her; like what she thinks would have put them to sleep for 12 hours and how she thinks it was administered.
I don't think the dogs are 'junk science' because I don't think they claim to be scientific.
DNA testing can sometimes provide answers and sometimes it can't. In this case it didn't. All it did was confirm that Keela alerted to places where DNA was present. If she was as well-trained as was claimed, she was alerting to human blood.
you will find Grime does claima scientific basis for the alerts...from his training programme
History
Foundational Science
Resource capability
Search strategy
Intelligence gathering
Case examples
Canine search training principles
Odour discrimination
Testing and accreditation
-
you will find Grime does claima scientific basis for the alerts...from his training programme
History
Foundational Science
Resource capability
Search strategy
Intelligence gathering
Case examples
Canine search training principles
Odour discrimination
Testing and accreditation
Do you have a link please?
-
Do you have a link please?
https://www.pact-dogs.com/members-area/product/forensic-canine-foundation-with-martin-grime/
-
When I have referred to alerts as meaningless... As, I have done over the past few years I have, received a lot of abuse.... But meaningless is what they are
What a meaningless post. "But meaningless is what they are." Well said.
-
Sispecting and believing are two different things. I suspect that the Conservatives may choose Rory Stewart as their leader, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I believe they will.
Well you’d be both wrong in the first instance and right in the last!
-
Well you’d be both wrong in the first instance and right in the last!
Isn't there other threads discussing this?
-
https://www.pact-dogs.com/members-area/product/forensic-canine-foundation-with-martin-grime/
Thanks!
-
What a meaningless post. "But meaningless is what they are." Well said.
thats goading Rob...none of my posts are meaningless.....and to suggest they are ...is goading
-
When I have referred to alerts as meaningless... As, I have done over the past few years I have, received a lot of abuse.... But meaningless is what they are
They were suggestive of cadaver odour which in anyone's book isn't exactly meaningless. If you equate meaningless with evidential reliability however, maybe they are meaningless.
-
They were suggestive of cadaver odour which in anyone's book isn't exactly meaningless.
holly said they were junk science...carana i beleive said they were meaningless....why is it only me being criticised for having the same opinion.
why is it fair for Rob to refer to all my psots as being meaningless
-
according to Grime the alerts show where to look for evidence...harrison said no inference can be drawn from them....i think describing allerts taht are not corroboated as meaningless is reasonable...far to much reliance has been placed on the alerts...as in the jersey case...they hve added nothing to the case and are therefore meaningless
-
They were suggestive of cadaver odour which in anyone's book isn't exactly meaningless. If you equate meaningless with evidential reliability however, maybe they are meaningless.
I see you have now edited your post to agree that meaningless is a reasonable description
-
thats goading Rob...none of my posts are meaningless.....and to suggest they are ...is goading
I'm moderating here. I judge posts on their merit.
-
holly said they were junk science...carana i beleive said they were meaningless....why is it only me being criticised for having the same opinion.
why is it fair for Rob to refer to all my posts as being meaningless
Talk of fairness - I have never said anything like "all your posts are meaningless". Why exaggerate the fact?
-
I'm moderating here. I judge posts on their merit.
more goading
-
more goading
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10808.msg537989#msg537989 answer that one.
-
Talk of fairness - I have never said anything like "all your posts are meaningless". Why exaggerate the fact?
you implied my reference to meaningless applied to my posts...thats goading
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10808.msg537989#msg537989 answer that one.
I think you are apoor judge of goading
-
I think you are a poor judge of goading
That was definitely goading! See I'm not that blind I can't see goading when it is obvious.
-
Hmm... https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/us/04scent.html
NYT. The only 'newspaper' I read. Not every day. Good crossword too.