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

[slartibartfast]

i would say "put up or shut up" is a reasonable term...far less insulting than your own use of the word "liar"

Shut up or of put up has a different connotation.

[Mr Gray]

Shut up or of put up has a different connotation.

not at all it is a well used phrase in the business world...i'm happy not to use it if it offends but would hope the same courtesy would be extended to me

[G-Unit]

as I said...considering you continually accusing the mccanns on the basis of things you think they said...but have no proof that they said ...your criticism is more than a little weak

I can prove what Redwood said, read my signature line if you ever need reminding in the future. You may like to correct yours btw.

[Mr Gray]

I can prove what Redwood said, read my signature line if you ever need reminding in the future. You may like to correct yours btw.

you cannot prove what he means and have put your own inference on it...if we are now going to only use quotes we can prove then i will alter my signature line and you can alter several hundred of your posts

[stephen25000]

The person making the 1% claim is still giving an opinion.

That is not using statistics, as they are several possibilities on the table.

There is no more evidence for abduction than for any other scenario, and certainly no forensic indications to support abduction.

It is abundantly clear SY have failed to find Madeleine, and have had more time than any of those so called detective agencies employed by team mccann to investigate the case.

[Mr Gray]

The person making the 1% claim is still giving an opinion.

That is not using statistics, as they are several possibilities on the table.

There is no more evidence for abduction than for any other scenario, and certainly no forensic indications to support abduction.

It is abundantly clear SY have failed to find Madeleine, and have had more time than any of those so called detective agencies employed by team mccann to investigate the case.

If the parents are ruled out there are only two major possibilities...they must add up to close to a hundred...where is the fault in taht logic...there isn't any

[stephen25000]

When has accidental death been disproved ?

Answer, it hasn't.

It remains a possibility.

No one on here has said the parents killed Madeleine.

[slartibartfast]

If the parents are ruled out there are only two major possibilities...they must add up to close to a hundred...where is the fault in taht logic...there isn't any

If the abduction is ruled out there are only two major possibilities...they must add up to close to a hundred...where is the fault in that logic...there isn't any

[ferryman]

There is no other option than abduction ....

[G-Unit]

you cannot prove what he means and have put your own inference on it...if we are now going to only use quotes we can prove then i will alter my signature line and you can alter several hundred of your posts

You read something and decided what it meant. I read it and decided it meant something different. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is you altered what he said and put his name to your altered quote. I have quoted him correctly.

[Alice Purjorick]

If the abduction is ruled out there are only two major possibilities...they must add up to close to a hundred...where is the fault in that logic...there isn't any

Isn't that the text book example of  "How to shaft a logical fallacy" ?

[faithlilly]

That is a very limited view of professional conduct ... at the time of the scoping review he conducted for the then home secretary Jim Gamble certainly knew of Madeleine's case. Is it your suggestion that had he found evidence to implicate Madeleine's parents he would have ignored that; recommend a very expensive review gets under way; only to have that review uncover the evidence he had 'missed'?

How dare you impugn his - or anyone's - professionalism because of your personal bias.



Former senior Scotland Yard investigator, Jim Gamble, has led the British National Crime Intelligence Service fight against child sex abuse, and he was the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre within the UK police, which did some analysis for the Portuguese police early in the investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance. He subsequently did a scoping study for a review of the case in 2009 for the previous Labour government. Jim Gamble had since got to know the McCann’s personally, and he joins me now from London.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm

Yet you seem to easily believe that Amaral ignored evidence that would have proved that the McCanns were innocent.

[Carana]

Yet you seem to easily believe that Amaral ignored evidence that would have proved that the McCanns were innocent.

What do you make of this?

Moita Flores interviews Gonçalo Amaral TV Guia (no online link, appears in paper edition only)
 
Interview: 02 October 2008, Published: Satruday 18 October 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
 
MF - What about other countries?

GA - It will be published in Italy, in the Netherlands and in Denmark. I'm going over there soon, because the Danish editor has mentioned the possibility of distributing it into Norway and Sweden. We'll see…

MF - Your determination is to get even with those who worked for the McCanns. They've mistreated you.

GA - Believe me, I feel no rage, I'm not even angry. I have understood their game and you also know how this game works. The lies about me, the manipulation is not exactly against the citizen Gonçalo Amaral. They were against the investigator who knew their weaknesses and was going to catch them sooner or later. It was all a matter of time. The McCanns knew that I was going to get them. As you could see, all it took was for the process to be archived in order for everything to be finished. At this moment in time, I'm convinced that they don't even remember my name anymore. So the game is always the same. We want to catch them, they want to escape, and that's it. Sometimes the bandits win, sometimes the policemen do. This time around, and concerning this case, it was how it was. They stopped insulting me, they stopped the campaigns to find their daughter, it's over. They got what they wanted and therefore, peace is back.
 
MF – And you launch a "grenade" that is called The Truth of the Lie into the midst of that peace. Whoever reads your testimony is left with few doubts about the little girl's destiny. She died in the apartment.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html

[ShiningInLuz]

Honours degree in science doesn't mean a lot unfortunately..... you were spoonfed information information...told what books and papers to read. It isn't until you move on from undergraduate level that you start to educate yourself...deciding which scientific papers are valid as evidence and which are not... I have no intention of revealing my professional background...too many clues and my identity may be easy to find...

you certainly have  a poor understanding of lie detectors for someone with such a background

Is it only when you move on from undergraduate level that you cease to be spoonfed information? What a pile of senseless, arrogant nonsense.

I happen to have a post graduate degree, also from a top university.  By your standards, I am now in the perfect position to pronounce ....

I don't think I can now pronounce what it is I can now pronounce and stick within the posting rules.

So let me try a milder version.

You haven't got a clue how probability theory works.

I happen to have an honours degree, and a post-graduate degree.  Neither of these makes me in any way or shape or form superior to any other member of this forum, just IMPO.  You seem to think differently.  If you think my degree and my post-graduate degree actually elevates my status on this forum, make your case.  Otherwise, kindly stop rattling empty cans, as the noise is very loud.

If your reason for not identifying your professional background is aka The Divinci Code, then fine.  OK by me.  Not a problem.  BUT STOP BANGING ON ABOUT YOUR PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND.

[faithlilly]

What do you make of this?

Moita Flores interviews Gonçalo Amaral TV Guia (no online link, appears in paper edition only)
 
Interview: 02 October 2008, Published: Satruday 18 October 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
 
MF - What about other countries?

GA - It will be published in Italy, in the Netherlands and in Denmark. I'm going over there soon, because the Danish editor has mentioned the possibility of distributing it into Norway and Sweden. We'll see…

MF - Your determination is to get even with those who worked for the McCanns. They've mistreated you.

GA - Believe me, I feel no rage, I'm not even angry. I have understood their game and you also know how this game works. The lies about me, the manipulation is not exactly against the citizen Gonçalo Amaral. They were against the investigator who knew their weaknesses and was going to catch them sooner or later. It was all a matter of time. The McCanns knew that I was going to get them. As you could see, all it took was for the process to be archived in order for everything to be finished. At this moment in time, I'm convinced that they don't even remember my name anymore. So the game is always the same. We want to catch them, they want to escape, and that's it. Sometimes the bandits win, sometimes the policemen do. This time around, and concerning this case, it was how it was. They stopped insulting me, they stopped the campaigns to find their daughter, it's over. They got what they wanted and therefore, peace is back.
 
MF – And you launch a "grenade" that is called The Truth of the Lie into the midst of that peace. Whoever reads your testimony is left with few doubts about the little girl's destiny. She died in the apartment.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html

Not sure of the relevance of your quotes Carana.