Have we learnt anything from the Maddie case?

[Robittybob1]

Good one   

OR

 Occam's razor.

Definition  :a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

In other words: The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Detectives use it to deduce who's the likeliest suspect in a murder case -  Doctors use it to determine the illness behind a set of symptoms. This line of reasoning is called Occam's razor.

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-occam-s-razor.html

As far as I can see the simplest is to believe Kate.  Occam's razor then why complicate it?  It doesn't account for everything that's why.

[Miss Taken Identity]

As far as I can see the simplest is to believe Kate.  Occam's razor then why complicate it?  It doesn't account for everything that's why.

Ah but you see... believe what part of her story? the science doesn't fit, the story is not concise or match other versions. There is no real,accurate  time - line. and when was the last time anyone physically checked those children
after they were put to bed? HUGE difference in abductor being seen at 9.30 with the father outside the apartment not noticing an abductor walking-not running- off with his daughter.. oh please god no...

[pathfinder73]

As far as I can see the simplest is to believe Kate.  Occam's razor then why complicate it?  It doesn't account for everything that's why.

The only evidence found on the open window is the simplest explanation i.e. Kate opened the window.

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

KM: No comment

[Robittybob1]

The only evidence found on the open window is the simplest explanation i.e. Kate opened the window.

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

KM: No comment

So we will never know.

[pathfinder73]

So we will never know.

Evidence will prove what happened and you don't spend 12+ million on a case with no evidence.

[Mr Gray]

Evidence will prove what happened and you don't spend 12+ million on a case with no evidence.

I totally agree

[sadie]

I totally agree

Just a matter of time IMO

To gather suffient evidence together for the charges to defeat the world class Lawyers on their side imo

[G-Unit]

As far as I can see the simplest is to believe Kate.  Occam's razor then why complicate it?  It doesn't account for everything that's why.

One of the things I have learned from this case is that every media story should be read with a lorry-load of salt.

[Brietta]

One of the most important issues I have learned from Madeleine's case is that when in a foreign country never to sign a document written only in that language, but only to sign a translation in which every single word and nuance is clearly unserstood.

There really should have been no concerns regarding this as far as Kate was concerned had the Policia Judiciaria followed European protocols safeguarding the rights of people being questioned: particularly as neither she nor Gerry had benefit of a lawyer until they were to be constituted arguidos.

[John]

I think SY will have learned a hard lesson at the British taxpayers expense on how not to solve a case by proxy in a foreign country.  They still have to work out their end game because at nearly £12 million there will be questions to answer.

The first question being, on what basis did DCI Redwood undertake digs in Praiua da Luz prior to his departure?

[jassi]

Certainly I think it shows how difficult it can be to conclude a case where forensics and technology don't provide a lot of the evidence.

[Mr Gray]

Certainly I think it shows how difficult it can be to conclude a case where forensics and technology don't provide a lot of the evidence.

Of course its far easier to solve a case where the guilty party is known to the victim....much more difficult if it a case where the guilty party is a stranger

[Mr Gray]

I think SY will have learned a hard lesson at the British taxpayers expense on how not to solve a case by proxy in a foreign country.  They still have to work out their end game because at nearly £12 million there will be questions to answer.

The first question being, on what basis did DCI Redwood undertake digs in Praiua da Luz prior to his departure?

I dont think any blame can be put on SY...it was the politicians who decided that SY should investigate. They then have 40,000 pieces of information to translate and analyse....that is a massive task and where as I understand most of the money has gone. I doubt Redwood would ahve orgainised the digs without very good reason but I
 agree with you that it would be good to get some answers and hopefully we will

[Benice]

I think SY will have learned a hard lesson at the British taxpayers expense on how not to solve a case by proxy in a foreign country.  They still have to work out their end game because at nearly £12 million there will be questions to answer.

The first question being, on what basis did DCI Redwood undertake digs in Praiua da Luz prior to his departure?

I think it is money well spent -  as even if Madeleine isn't found -  at least her parents know that everything that could be done has been done and don't have to spend the rest of their  lives wondering if some vital piece of evidence was missed because of an investigation disadvantaged by having no official protocol/procedures in place on how to deal with such cases.

If the investigations have resulted in greatly improved knowledge and/or new methods which can now be implemented which improve the chances of recovering a missing child -  then as a taxpayer that's fine by me.

£12m is peanuts in the scheme of things imo.    Just In London alone it costs taxpayers £100m per year to remove graffiti.

AIMHO

[G-Unit]

I dont think any blame can be put on SY...it was the politicians who decided that SY should investigate. They then have 40,000 pieces of information to translate and analyse....that is a massive task and where as I understand most of the money has gone. I doubt Redwood would ahve orgainised the digs without very good reason but I
 agree with you that it would be good to get some answers and hopefully we will

According to Sir Paul Stephenson the Met were under no obligation to accept the case. Not only did they accept it, they appear to have worked to a restrictive remit. The responsibility for those decisions is theirs.