Sceptics beliefs ?

[faithlilly]

re the statements...colin sutton suggested that the room for error was huge...it was also suggested by the PJ when amaral left that the statements my not be accurate...so your claim is...untrue...you may even feel you are lying in your opinion

I thought Sutton’s opinion wasn’t to be trusted.

[Brietta]

And good luck to him. Money made honestly by writing a best selling book.....or certainly when compared to raiding the fund to find  your child to pay for your mortgage.

Sandra Felgueras is adamant that Goncalo Amaral lied to her in leaks about the evidence in Madeleine's case.

There was no blood!

What is "honest" about repeating the lies he told journalists in his best selling book?

[G-Unit]

Let's get it right, there's 11,000+ pages of report and undoubtedly many more somewhere, plus some relative rigor being displayed in the statement taking process i.e. a demonstrable, transparent process is clearly being used and the output freely available - so this isn't some tin pot, despotic regime where kangaroo courts are holding sway and people are being marched in to the courtyard and shot from 10 paces - there's a legal process. I mean, I saw the video of the woman with the gloves and the fingerprint kit, look at the rigor right there.....(it's imperfect, most criminal investigations are)
There are always variables when taking statements; the very nature of eye witness testimony is flawed, as it's commonly known that the brain is unreliable when recalling detail. Couple that with the 'Portuguese dude thinks of a question in Portuguese, translates in to English, Scottish guy answers in English, Portuguese guy writes English down and Portuguese dude translates....etc...

I have no problem accepting that statements can be inaccurate. In my opinion what we see here is selectivity. Some people seem happpy to accept some of the statements and reject others. Either all the statements are unreliable or none of them are imo.

[Mr Gray]

I thought Sutton’s opinion wasn’t to be trusted.

depends if hes talking about things he understands

[The General]

I have no problem accepting that statements can be inaccurate. In my opinion what we see here is selectivity. Some people seem happpy to accept some of the statements and reject others. Either all the statements are unreliable or none of them are imo.

We can't discount them all, nor can we accept them all as a definitive account, mainly because of the proliferate incongruity - one would expect an element of incongruity, given the fallibility of the human mind to recall detail, but even factoring this in, the level of discrepancy is incredible.
I can see why some may cherry pick seemingly corroborative accounts though, depending on your leaning.

[The General]

depends if hes talking about things he understands

I doubt he's going to be engaged to give his opinion on EU Agricultural Subsidies.

[G-Unit]

I thought Sutton’s opinion wasn’t to be trusted.

Opinions of Sutton seem to vary depending on what he is saying.

[The General]

Opinions of Sutton seem to vary depending on what he is saying.

I'll be honest, as soon as they take the coin to give expert opinion on 'Infotainment' on the telly, then they're tainted. I'm sure he was an excellent copper and he does have a lot of useful info and opinion, but he's getting paid and the producers will be able to re-context / cut / edit to their narrative and he'll be made contractually aware of that.

Besides, he went on tour with the Armchair Detective barnpot, so perhaps there's a financial pinch he's feeling, but not exactly his finest decision.

[ShiningInLuz]

Opinions of Sutton seem to vary depending on what he is saying.

If I had my dining table of 6 MBM experts assembled, Colin Sutton would be invited for one reason and one reason only.

As far as I can tell, Mr Sutton has limited knowledge of the MBM case, so he is not an 'MBM expert'.

But also as far as I can tell, he is indeed an expert in how to conduct major police criminal investigations.  He might well get an invite on that basis.

As far as I have seen, that expertise is what he restricts himself to, as a 'talking head'.

[Mr Gray]

If I had my dining table of 6 MBM experts assembled, Colin Sutton would be invited for one reason and one reason only.

As far as I can tell, Mr Sutton has limited knowledge of the MBM case, so he is not an 'MBM expert'.

But also as far as I can tell, he is indeed an expert in how to conduct major police criminal investigations.  He might well get an invite on that basis.

As far as I have seen, that expertise is what he restricts himself to, as a 'talking head'.

I agree he is an expert on how to conduct s criminal investigation... But as, we know experts differ in their approach.  It's obvious he is not an expert in DNA however... And that's, where, I would question sone of his, recent statements

[Mr Gray]

I have no problem accepting that statements can be inaccurate. In my opinion what we see here is selectivity. Some people seem happpy to accept some of the statements and reject others. Either all the statements are unreliable or none of them are imo.

All statements, are potentially unreliable and all may contain errors

[ShiningInLuz]

I agree he is an expert on how to conduct s criminal investigation... But as, we know experts differ in their approach.  It's obvious he is not an expert in DNA however... And that's, where, I would question sone of his, recent statements

I don't doubt for a second that he would not be considered an 'expert' in DNA, however ...

I don't doubt for a second that his understanding of pertinent DNA evidence exceeds the capability of anyone on this forum.

It was an integral part of his whole career.   

[Mr Gray]

I don't doubt for a second that he would not be considered an 'expert' in DNA, however ...

I don't doubt for a second that his understanding of pertinent DNA evidence exceeds the capability of anyone on this forum.

It was an integral part of his whole career.   

i wouldnt say it does...his understanding of transference is very poor and I would say there are several here who understand it bette....you probably havent heard what he has to say about in on the podcast

[ShiningInLuz]

i wouldnt say it does...his understanding of transference is very poor and I would say there are several here who understand it bette....you probably havent heard what he has to say about in on the podcast

I'll stick with Colin Sutton until you provide anything more concrete or persuasive than your opinion.  Such is life.

[Mr Gray]

I'll stick with Colin Sutton until you provide anything more concrete or persuasive than your opinion.  Such is life.

you can stick with him...doesnt make a scrap of difference....as I said you probably havent heard the rubbish he came out with on teh podcast re transference