Why People who suspect the McCanns get so angry at People who do not.

[Rogerandout]

Time and time again we see arguments here about what did or did not happen.

Most of these arguments rely on assumptions about what evidence there is for any possibility. Those that strongly believe the McCanns to have been more involved in the case than leaving the children alone need to build a water tight case that would convince people (whether neutral observers, the public, or the judicial system. This is a massive wall to climb.

People who doubt the McCanns were so involved need do no more than point out the myriad possibilities that could have caused the disappearance of Madeleine; they do not have to prove anything.

One of the biggest myths built up falsely by the McCann doubters was 'Abduction is impossible'. This is chanted regularly and on some fora is a shibboleth- if you do not believe it, you are banned. Yet it is logically impossible to prove such a negative, and no attempt to do so is ever going to be successful because whatever the circumstances whilst the full story is unknown, any outcome remains possible, even if against the flow of evidence. This is the problem of induction. The case of the Black Swans shows this to be true and induction to be incomplete.

Because people who tend to believe the McCanns to be innocent (or hold it to be the case as a matter of justice) have so little to do to uphold their position, people who accuse the McCanns feel as if those that do not are in some way cheating. They do not realise that it is not a level playing field, but a large mountain to climb if they are to have their case accepted as being near the truth.

[slartibartfast]

Opinions are polarised. There is no legally admissible evidence either way. It then falls to the credibility each person puts on those involved in the case.

For me, the dogs are the biggest obstacle to the abduction theory.

[Eleanor]

The day on which someone gets convicted on so called Dog's Evidence would be a very sad day indeed.

[AnneGuedes]

One of the biggest myths built up falsely by the McCann doubters was 'Abduction is impossible'.

What's highly implausible, according to forensic results, is abduction from bed.
Why is it the only type of abduction admitted by the parents ? That is the real question.

[Rogerandout]

Opinions are polarised. There is no legally admissible evidence either way. It then falls to the credibility each person puts on those involved in the case.

For me, the dogs are the biggest obstacle to the abduction theory.

You are of course free to believe that, however erroneous your belief may be, but to rebut it, all I need to say is that there are well referenced scientific sources showing that dogs make errors; you have no way to disprove that, other than to cast doubt on the findings, whereas my case is supported with minimal effort- my case being that there is too little information for anyone to make a rational or legal decision.

[Rogerandout]

What's highly implausible, according to forensic results, is abduction from bed.
Why is it the only type of abduction admitted by the parents ? That is the real question.

No.

Any sort of abduction is possible. It is not possible tp prove that abduction was impossible.

[stephen25000]

You are of course free to believe that, however erroneous your belief may be, but to rebut it, all I need to say is that there are well referenced scientific sources showing that dogs make errors; you have no way to disprove that, other than to cast doubt on the findings, whereas my case is supported with minimal effort- my case being that there is too little information for anyone to make a rational or legal decision.

Once again, you do not know the dogs got it wrong.

[Rogerandout]

Once again, you do not know the dogs got it wrong.
[/quotExactly. I do not have to prove that the dogs got it wrong, merely introduce evidence that they are nowhere near a definitive test. If you rely on the dogs, you have to show that they are highly accurate- a situation for which there is no convincing evidence!

That is what this thread is about.

[slartibartfast]

Once again, you do not know the dogs got it wrong.

Exactly. I do not have to prove that the dogs got it wrong, merely introduce evidence that they are nowhere near a definitive test. If you rely on the dogs, you have to show that they are highly accurate- a situation for which there is no convincing evidence!

That is what this thread is about.

There is no "evidence" either way. The only indications are Smithman  and the dogs, which may not be mutually exclusive.

[Rogerandout]

Exactly. I do not have to prove that the dogs got it wrong, merely introduce evidence that they are nowhere near a definitive test. If you rely on the dogs, you have to show that they are highly accurate- a situation for which there is no convincing evidence!

That is what this thread is about.


There is no "evidence" either way. The only indications are Smithman  and the dogs, which may not be mutually exclusive.

Again, you miss the point. There is no evidence to throw doubt on the McCann's. I need no evidence to support my belief that the McCann's are not legally or forensically responsible for what happened to Madeleine. If you want to successfully cast real doubt on the McCann's, you need to produce evidence.

[colombosstogey]

I dont get angry with people who believe the McCanns no way.

I just get frustrated because in general the people who believe the McCanns only come onto the forums to disrupt the threads.

When you ask them a question it is usally answered by another question. They dont seem to have a mind of their own sadly and just go on verbatim all the time about the dogs and the DISGRACED AMARAL.

It does get tiring.

What really annoys me is I am on the fence and would quite like to have a proper grown up discussion sometimes with people who support them, but it never works that way, as the pros always end up being rude in the end.

Again your subject: Why People who suspect the McCanns get so angry at People who do not.


IS INCITFUL as usual.

Why?

I end up ignoring most of you as you cant have a decent discussion without be personal.

Its YOU or nothing...pro McCann or nothing.

There must be no room for doubters...its almost like a cult or relgion it is quite bizarre.

Even though i am on the fence, I am still open minded to evidence and ideas etc, and could be swayed if the right arguement was used.

[stephen25000]

Once again, you do not know the dogs got it wrong.
[/quotExactly. I do not have to prove that the dogs got it wrong, merely introduce evidence that they are nowhere near a definitive test. If you rely on the dogs, you have to show that they are highly accurate- a situation for which there is no convincing evidence!

That is what this thread is about.

Irrelevant.

You accuse others of bias, yet yours as always is very apparent.

Dogs are used extensively because of their reliability around the world as you know, but you and your fellow believers would have it otherwise. Especially in all things mccann.

[slartibartfast]

Again, you miss the point. There is no evidence to throw doubt on the McCann's. I need no evidence to support my belief that the McCann's are not legally or forensically responsible for what happened to Madeleine. If you want to successfully cast real doubt on the McCann's, you need to produce evidence.

No, I think you miss the point.  Someone is responsible for Maddies disappearance. No evidence either way, just sightings and dog alerts. We all put our own interpretations on it.

I will agree it is much safer to believe the McCanns.

[Rogerandout]

No, I think you miss the point.  Someone is responsible for Maddies disappearance. No evidence either way, just sightings and dog alerts. We all put our own interpretations on it.

I will agree it is much safer to believe the McCanns.

The McCann's being uninvolved is the moral, rational and legal assumption, and no evidence is necessary to maintain this. If one believes in the possible guilt of the McCann's, one needs to produce evidence; I do not have to do so for my belief.

[Wonderfulspam]

The McCann's being uninvolved is the moral, rational and legal assumption, and no evidence is necessary to maintain this. If one believes in the possible guilt of the McCann's, one needs to produce evidence; I do not have to do so for my belief.

My beliefs require no evidence, my mind is free.
Yours is hindered by morals & political correctness it would seem.