Why do some believe the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance?

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Carana]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

 

[Carana]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[G-Unit]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[The General]

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]

[Vertigo Swirl]

"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

[Carana]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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

[G-Unit]

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?