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

[Mr Gray]

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.

 I have never said it was fact..it's quite frustrating how posters don't read the posts properly

[Brietta]

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.

Anything that might harm an active investigation is most definitely not to be countenanced.  Shame really, it would have been interesting to see how much we could have raised in a gofundme defence appeal for you.

Congratulations on well considered,well argued posts.

[Mr Gray]

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?

Could you show where in the remit it says the McCanns should not be investigated...you are making things up and losing more credibility.....The remit is to investigate abduction...the result could be abduction is impossible...
it may well be that the McCanns were ruled out before the remit was drawn up... I would say that is perfectly possible...

your preoccupation with lie detectors is laughable...and is more in place with Jeremy Kyle...no wonder you had no response from team Mccann

[ferryman]

Doesn't mean it's true.

Unless credible evidence comes to light to contradict the assumption, it is legally true.

Have zero interest in getting sucked into a philosophical discussion about the status of legal truth ....

[Mr Gray]

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?

again I think your remark is ridiculous...you assume that people will torment the twins....I don't believe they will

[G-Unit]

 I have never said it was fact..it's quite frustrating how posters don't read the posts properly

What's the point of building an argument using a starting point which you can't verify?

I could say that if the McCanns are guilty there is x probability that she had an accident, y possibility that they harmed her deliberately and z possibility that they harmed her accidentally. You would immediately respond saying I have no evidence of their guilt. You have no evidence of their innocence.

[Eleanor]

What's the point of building an argument using a starting point which you can't verify?

I could say that if the McCanns are guilty there is x probability that she had an accident, y possibility that they harmed her deliberately and z possibility that they harmed her accidentally. You would immediately respond saying I have no evidence of their guilt. You have no evidence of their innocence.

Evidence of Innocence isn't required.

[Mr Gray]

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.

if you cannot come close to proving it you have no proper evidence and your claim is worthless...why should you worry about harming the investigation...amaral has written a book on it and he is supposed to be  a legal expert...the McCanns are libelled regularly on here so you should have no worries there either


I find it funny that posters here think they can solve the case

[Eleanor]

I have someone in particular in mind, but I'm not saying anything either.

[Mr Gray]

What's the point of building an argument using a starting point which you can't verify?

I could say that if the McCanns are guilty there is x probability that she had an accident, y possibility that they harmed her deliberately and z possibility that they harmed her accidentally. You would immediately respond saying I have no evidence of their guilt. You have no evidence of their innocence.

we cannot verify anything so therefore by your definition all debate is pointless... SY have said the parents are not supects...it is therefore reasonable to believe they are not

[ferryman]

Evidence of Innocence isn't required.

And x,y and z (as per G-Unit's post) are simply non-starters ...

[Mr Gray]

What's the point of building an argument using a starting point which you can't verify?

I could say that if the McCanns are guilty there is x probability that she had an accident, y possibility that they harmed her deliberately and z possibility that they harmed her accidentally. You would immediately respond saying I have no evidence of their guilt. You have no evidence of their innocence.

the whole point of probability which was the context in which my post was made is that the outcome is unknown

[Mr Gray]

This case is to a certain extent quite simple,,,,if Kate is telling the truth Maddie was probably abducted....so I would think that SY have interviewed Kate and Gerry and made their minds up...it really is that simple

[G-Unit]

Evidence of Innocence isn't required.

Maybe not, but not everyone who is presumed innocent under the law is actually innocent. Some of them just haven't been found out yet.

[Eleanor]

Maybe not, but not everyone who is presumed innocent under the law is actually innocent. Some of them just haven't been found out yet.

So you think that you have the right to decide?