Author Topic: Sceptics beliefs ?  (Read 67856 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline The General

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #615 on: April 09, 2019, 09:12:26 AM »
You probably would , but it wouldn't exclude the possibility that you had staged the event and taken the watch for an insurance scam.
How dare you! [scuttles off down to the pawn shop, is offered £12 for the mass produced, non-working, late-Victorian, silver plate pocket watch, agrees, takes the money, nips to Gregg's for a sausage roll and trousers the remaining £11.20]
Most Deleted Posts 2019
Most Moderated Member 2019
Most Moderated Member 2020
On Perpetual Mod Watch

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #616 on: April 09, 2019, 09:36:19 AM »
. Perhaps you eould like to explain how my scenario ďmoves the goalpostsĒ? It is exactly the same as the Madeleine case, only difference is what was taken.

I'm not interested in that, it's the "what ifs" I was referring to. Originally you declared that the open window/shutters would be used in court in the trial of an abductor.

Let's begin at the beginning. No-one will ever be arrested because of that evidence because there's nothing to link anyone to the apartment. No sighting, no fingerprints and no DNA.

The only way an arrest can be made is by connecting the suspect to the child or her remains. Anyone found with her would be arrested but if they denied taking her from the apartment it would be difficult to prove they did. The evidence you mention wouldn't help at all because it  doesn't place then there.

If DNA evidence was found on remains and a match was found that person would be arrested. If they denied taking her from the apartment the evidence you mention wouldn't place them there either.

In both cases evidence placing the suspect in or near the apartment is needed, not evidence which suggests how they might have entered.

The open window/shutters were useful in suggesting what happened to the child but no use in  showing who did it.
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #617 on: April 09, 2019, 05:58:37 PM »
You might, but in reality I think you'd be blaming the wrong person.
Why, who should you be blaming?
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #618 on: April 09, 2019, 06:01:14 PM »
Let's apply that logic to the case in question: wouldn't you cite the fact that there was a total absence of evidence of any sort that an abduction had taken place as evidence that an abduction had not taken place?
Something / someone is missing, there's circumstantial evidence in one, there's none in the other.
No, because there is evidence, the open window and shutter and missing child are evidence of an abduction.  Had Alesha McPhails killer not been caught on CCTV there would have been even less evidence of abduction than in the McCann case, how does the old saying about absence of evidence go?
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #619 on: April 09, 2019, 06:01:55 PM »
You probably would , but it wouldn't exclude the possibility that you had staged the event and taken the watch for an insurance scam.
No youíre right but itís still evidence nonetheless.
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #620 on: April 09, 2019, 06:04:38 PM »
I'm not interested in that, it's the "what ifs" I was referring to. Originally you declared that the open window/shutters would be used in court in the trial of an abductor.

Let's begin at the beginning. No-one will ever be arrested because of that evidence because there's nothing to link anyone to the apartment. No sighting, no fingerprints and no DNA.

The only way an arrest can be made is by connecting the suspect to the child or her remains. Anyone found with her would be arrested but if they denied taking her from the apartment it would be difficult to prove they did. The evidence you mention wouldn't help at all because it  doesn't place then there.

If DNA evidence was found on remains and a match was found that person would be arrested. If they denied taking her from the apartment the evidence you mention wouldn't place them there either.

In both cases evidence placing the suspect in or near the apartment is needed, not evidence which suggests how they might have entered.

The open window/shutters were useful in suggesting what happened to the child but no use in  showing who did it.
Perhaps you could point to any post I have made where I suggested the open windows would provided evidence of who did it.  You can carry on like this until the cows come home, the fact is Kateís statement is evidence, she mentions the open window so thatís evidence, it would probably be repeated in a court of law as evidence, why do you continue to dispute this?
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline jassi

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #621 on: April 09, 2019, 06:06:20 PM »
No youíre right but itís still evidence nonetheless.

So would you agree that evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and so may not be a reliable indicator of anything?
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -   Into year 13 and still no solution.

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20869
  • Total likes: 3281
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • The Lord Jesus - search for Madeleine McCann
Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #622 on: April 09, 2019, 06:07:53 PM »
Why, who should you be blaming?
Another person who had access to the room.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20869
  • Total likes: 3281
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • The Lord Jesus - search for Madeleine McCann
Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #623 on: April 09, 2019, 06:10:31 PM »
No youíre right but itís still evidence nonetheless.
I would tend to call it a finding.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #624 on: April 09, 2019, 06:16:55 PM »
So would you agree that evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and so may not be a reliable indicator of anything?
Of course, as I think I pointed out yesterday in fact when I asked if Gerry was ever prosecuted for staging an abduction would not the open window and shutters not be used in court as evidence?  I donít seem to recall anyone commenting on that.   Can we therefore once and for all agree that the open window and shutters are evidence.  They are evidence of abduction, or of something else, but they feature in the statement narrative of at least one key witness so to suggest they are not evidence of anything is IMO absurd.
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20869
  • Total likes: 3281
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • The Lord Jesus - search for Madeleine McCann
Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #625 on: April 09, 2019, 06:21:38 PM »
So would you agree that evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and so may not be a reliable indicator of anything?
As the PJ report states faced with a situation of a missing child and an open window Kate is justified in thinking that they are linked, as in MBM was abducted and taken via the window.  That was her initial interpretation.  Later it was found no one climbed through the window, so it is not the full story.

Of course, as I think I pointed out yesterday in fact when I asked if Gerry was ever prosecuted for staging an abduction would not the open window and shutters not be used in court as evidence?  I donít seem to recall anyone commenting on that.   Can we therefore once and for all agree that the open window and shutters are evidence.  They are evidence of abduction, or of something else, but they feature in the statement narrative of at least one key witness so to suggest they are not evidence of anything is IMO absurd.

The open window and shutters "are evidence of something else" IMO.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #626 on: April 09, 2019, 06:25:23 PM »
The open windows evidence could be used in a prosecution (or defence)  of an alleged abductor to ascertain whether or not they acted alone
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline jassi

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #627 on: April 09, 2019, 06:26:53 PM »
In what way?
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -   Into year 13 and still no solution.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #628 on: April 09, 2019, 06:31:37 PM »
In what way?
An alleged abductor in the court could attempt to shift some of the blame onto another by revealing how the abduction took place, via the open window, one handing the child to another.  He could claim to have been a common or garden burglar working with another, expecting his mate to be handing out valuables theough the window and when he was passed the child he tried to protest, was forced into taking her, didnít want to, but the other guy made him.  Etc, etc etc.
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Online Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20869
  • Total likes: 3281
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • The Lord Jesus - search for Madeleine McCann
Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #629 on: April 09, 2019, 06:34:58 PM »
An alleged abductor in the court could attempt to shift some of the blame onto another by revealing how the abduction took place, via the open window, one handing the child to another.  He could claim to have been a common or garden burglar working with another, expecting his mate to be handing out valuables theough the window and when he was passed the child he tried to protest, was forced into taking her, didn’t want to, but the other guy made him.  Etc, etc etc.
OK if there were two abductors explain how the first one got into the room?  And while you're at it how did he leave?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.