Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?

[stephen25000]

We're talking about hairs found in that apartment when the forensic people checked for them the following day. Only one was postively identified.

and how long had they been there for ?

There are no indications of any other person in that apartment on the night in question.

Now again, what did Mitchell say Carana ?

[ferryman]

Still throwing in character evaluation?  I thought this had been discussed elsewhere on the forum recently.  And that is was generally regarded as a poor debating technique.  Perhaps I am wrong.

What you say about your opinion of what SY would have done wrt to the McCanns remains just that i.e. what your opinion is on this point.  If you have any evidence to support your opinion, this would be a very good time to bring such evidence to the forum.

The remit of OG requires that the McCanns are not to be investigated.  DCI Redwood has made statements that are in support of this remit, and I have no intention of debating this, or whether such apposition may have changed since Redwood's pronouncements.  In the absence of evidence, would, should, probably and might are fillers that get us nowhere.

The remit of OG requires that the McCanns are not investigated, whether by DCI Andy Redwood or DCI Nicola Wall.

Frankly, I have limited interest in how the archiving report went on certain topics, and I am not cherry picking here.  One forum member has now been kind enough to initiate action relating to the woke and wandered theory.  Now we have multiple ifs.  If the information can be obtained.  If the information is relevant.  If the information confirms one possibility.  THEN it will increase the possibility of W&W from a very small percentage, to something quite bigger.  Just an awful lot of conditionals in there.  It probably will not come to pass, but I am grateful to the forum member for trying to uncover fresh information.

I wish to split 'abduction' into unplanned abduction (i.e. burglary gone wrong) and planned abduction. 

Unplanned abduction is something I currently rate as low probability.  Roughly speaking, person tries the shutter, finds out to his delight the window is also open, then for some reason a burglary turns to unplanned abduction, complete with no evidence of such an act.

Planned abduction happens to be the one most likely.  This is not based on an evaluation that the McCanns did not 'dun it' i.e. ruling them out.  It is based on an evaluation of the evidence in the files, ruling in the possibility of a planned abduction.

Now here's the tricky bit folks, so please get your head wrapped around this.

The level of evidence I have would not pass muster in a criminal court of law.  It would not pass muster in a civil court.  Like I said, my model covers 40%, and that passes neither test.

So I can lay my assessment of all the options out for all to see.  When I get to planned abduction, I run the risk of libel, not just on this forum, but in real life.  Even if I turn out to be correct, I am running the risk of seriously damaging a live, on-going investigation.  That investigation happens to be the best current chance for Madeleine.  So I have no intent of bringing the forum into disrepute, of opening myself up to the possibility of libel, or of potentially derailing Madeleine's best chance.

What is so difficult about understanding that I said my model adds up to about 40%, which tells me my model is far from perfection?

The lie detector test is something I have clearly stated would have no standing in law.  Curiously, one of the PI reports mentions lie detector information, but I am not going to spend my life trying to find out further information about this.

Kate taking a lie detector test has 2 benefits.

1) Any further PI team taking on the case would then start from a position of being reasonably confident that Kate described the incident scene correctly.  Note I used the word 'reasonably', as I am aware that lie detector tests do not pass legal requirements.  Before this is tucked into, I am aware that the McCanns would set a remit for the PIs, in much the same way that a remit was set for OG.

2) Amelie and Sean are about 11 now.  I would guess they are still at primary school at this time.  They are about to go to secondary school.  I remember secondary school as a not particularly nice place to be, as my fellow schoolchildren established leaders, followers, camps, territory and much more c**p.  And I went to one of the best secondary schools for many a mile.

Those twins are easy targets in a culture where kids can be cruel.  They definitely will be associated with Madeleine, Kate and Gerry.  What will that association be?

Please feel free to give me your take on the following.  I'm interested, genuinely interested.

There will be a camp that states that Kate did not answer the 48 questions.  That Kate and Gerry left the children in the crèche at every opportunity.  That Kate and Gerry went out and left the 3 kids at risk while they wined, dined and socialised.  That Kate and Gerry left the patio doors open.  That Kate and Gerry lied about the checking arrangements.  About the checking routine ...  About, about, about.

Here's the one that crucifies me.  They twins will have to explain, to their tormentors, why Kate concluded abduction, then left them in an open, unguarded, unsafe apartment while she put Madeleine top of the agenda.

So where does a lie detector test fit?  Not into court evidence, certainly.

But the primary battle surely is for Madeleine?

Take your pick as to where the secondary battle lies. In my instance, it does not lie with the McCann parents.  It lies with Amelie and Sean, totally innocent casualties of something over which they had zero control.

Don't they deserve to be able to say that Kate passed a lie detector test?  Or should they simply be made to suffer outrageous allegations?

Very interesting post.  Not sure I agree with your conclusion about the lie-detector test, because I think the twins (justly) which have much more solid grounds than the arbiter of a piece of electronic equipment for believing the truth of what their parents say (and may, well, have told them).

But I wanted to pick up on a different point.

You say:

So I can lay my assessment of all the options out for all to see.  When I get to planned abduction, I run the risk of libel, not just on this forum, but in real life.  Even if I turn out to be correct, I am running the risk of seriously damaging a live, on-going investigation.  That investigation happens to be the best current chance for Madeleine.  So I have no intent of bringing the forum into disrepute, of opening myself up to the possibility of libel, or of potentially derailing Madeleine's best chance.

On the point of libel, that would only be true (Portuguese or English law) if you named anyone specific or who could be identified by others in what you say.

But your point about (potentially) damaging a live investigation is certainly true, and (itself) an excellent reason not to go down that road.

[Carana]

and how long had they been there for ?

There are no indications of any other person in that apartment on the night in question.

Now again, what did Mitchell say Carana ?

Are you suggesting that all those hairs were there since the apartment block was built?

[jassi]

Who knows how long they may have been there. Is it known exactly where they were lifted from?

As a side issue, did all the Tapas group give their DNA for elimination purposes?

[stephen25000]

Are you suggesting that all those hairs were there since the apartment block was built?

Well, the expression clutching at straws now has an obvious replacement.

[G-Unit]

If you read my post you will see that is exactly what I have said.....
But the probability must add up to one

I'm not into probabilities really. The innocence of the McCanns is being presented by you as a fact. Just because you believe it's true doesn't mean it is.

[Carana]

Who knows how long they may have been there. Is it known exactly where they were lifted from?

As a side issue, did all the Tapas group give their DNA for elimination purposes?

Yes... as did the other people known to have been there that night.

[ferryman]

I'm not into probabilities really. The innocence of the McCanns is being presented by you as a fact. Just because you believe it's true doesn't mean it is.

Let's see:

1. People who actually know how to read body-language insist the body language of the McCanns screamed innocent!

2.  The Portuguese prosecutors noted that even if, hypothetically, we entertain the notion of the McCanns' guilt, quite how they are supposed to have dunit (or motve they might have had) remains to be explained.

3. The phenomenon (of child-abuction), though thankfully rare, is certainly precedented and documented.

4. (Noted by the prosecutors), before 10.000pm on May 3rd, the McCanns were noted by countless independent witnesses to be relaxed and carefree, suggesting they were not carrying a heavy burden. 

All evidence of abduction.

[G-Unit]

Let's see:

1. People who actually know how to read body-language insist the body language of the McCanns screamed innocent!

2.  The Portuguese prosecutors noted that even if, hypothetically, we entertain the notion of the McCanns' guilt, quite how they are supposed to have dunit (or motve they might have had) remains to be explained.

3. The phenomenon (of child-abuction), though thankfully rare, is certainly precedented and documented.

4. (Noted by the prosecutors), before 10.000pm on May 3rd, the McCanns were noted by countless independent witnesses to be relaxed and carefree, suggesting they were not carrying a heavy burden. 

All evidence of abduction.

1. Other experts say they show signs of guilt, so take your pick.
2. Something being unexplained isn't evidence that it didn't happen.
3. Some children are abducted, but that's not evidence that Madeleine was. Some parents harm their children but that's not evidence that the McCanns did so.
4. That's not evidence of anything. Some people are good at hiding things, some aren't.

[ferryman]

1. Other experts say they show signs of guilt, so take your pick.
2. Something being unexplained isn't evidence that it didn't happen.
3. Some children are abducted, but that's not evidence that Madeleine was. Some parents harm their children but that's not evidence that the McCanns did so.
4. That's not evidence of anything. Some people are good at hiding things, some aren't.

Would the inference be fair from your second point that you tacitly acknowledge the possibility of abduction?

[ferryman]

I'm not into probabilities really. The innocence of the McCanns is being presented by you as a fact. Just because you believe it's true doesn't mean it is.

The innocence of the McCanns is presented in law as fact, because there is no evidence to contradict it.

[ShiningInLuz]

Very interesting post.  Not sure I agree with your conclusion about the lie-detector test, because I think the twins (justly) which have much more solid grounds than the arbiter of a piece of electronic equipment for believing the truth of what their parents say (and may, well, have told them).

But I wanted to pick up on a different point.

You say:

On the point of libel, that would only be true (Portuguese or English law) if you named anyone specific or who could be identified by others in what you say.

But your point about (potentially) damaging a live investigation is certainly true, and (itself) an excellent reason not to go down that road.

Yup.

I've got, maybe, a 40% chance of being right.  So should I stick my head above the parapet on a public forum? Risk a multi-year trial in Portugal?  Risk scuppering a chance for Madeleine?  Or should I keep my gob shut?

I have a specific, named individual in the frame.  I can come nowhere close to proving this.  Therefore, my gob is definitely firmly shut.

[G-Unit]

Would the inference be fair from your second point that you tacitly acknowledge the possibility of abduction?

No. I was answering your points. Point 2 isn't about abduction. Point 3 is.

[G-Unit]

The innocence of the McCanns is presented in law as fact, because there is no evidence to contradict it.

Doesn't mean it's true.

[Mr Gray]

You should have been a groundsman, always changing the goalposts.

not really..you were on the wrong pitch....I was discussing probability with sil and evidence with stephen....you then criticised one of my answers for possibility of evidence...confused U R