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

[Mr Gray]

I see mccann supporters still rely on Redwood, despite the fact he achieved nothing at all.

Again, a question asked before.

What was Redwood's expertise in missing childminder cases ?

and there is no  sufficient evidence that has been found to charge anyone with abduction.

If there was, it would have happened. Claiming otherwise to say the least is rather foolish, if not ridiculous.

I am not claiming anything which you would realise if you read my posts accurately...I am stating facts..it is a fact Redwood made this statement...he talks of evidence...that would more than suggest there is evidence

[ShiningInLuz]

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

Still the lack of logic and the dollop of personal emotive evaluation.

Quote "The remit is to instigate abduction."  This cannot possibly be twisted, by any stretch of the imagination, into abduction could be proved to be impossible.  Let me, in one short post, point out you have 'could be' (no evidence), 'may well be' (no evidence), 'possible' (no evidence).

So, you quote the line that the remit does not include investigating the McCanns.  You stick in 3 conditionals.  You stick in 2 emotional slurs.  And you elevate Team McCann.

That was a total disaster, IMO.  Madeleine deserves better, IMO.

PS I cannot stand the Jeremy Kyle show.  I will leave it to other members of the forum to make up their own minds on this.

[Mr Gray]

Still the lack of logic and the dollop of personal emotive evaluation.

Quote "The remit is to instigate abduction."  This cannot possibly be twisted, by any stretch of the imagination, into abduction could be proved to be impossible.  Let me, in one short post, point out you have 'could be' (no evidence), 'may well be' (no evidence), 'possible' (no evidence).

So, you quote the line that the remit does not include investigating the McCanns.  You stick in 3 conditionals.  You stick in 2 emotional slurs.  And you elevate Team McCann.

That was a total disaster, IMO.  Madeleine deserves better, IMO.

PS I cannot stand the Jeremy Kyle show.  I will leave it to other members of the forum to make up their own minds on this.

I would say the remit was decided upon once SY had ruled out the parents. My opinion ..you have yours. It makes perfect sense as I have pointed out that once the parents are ruled out abduction is odds on. You might want to think 11 million has been spent without following proper procedure....I don't

[Mr Gray]

Still the lack of logic and the dollop of personal emotive evaluation.

Quote "The remit is to instigate abduction."  This cannot possibly be twisted, by any stretch of the imagination, into abduction could be proved to be impossible.  Let me, in one short post, point out you have 'could be' (no evidence), 'may well be' (no evidence), 'possible' (no evidence).

So, you quote the line that the remit does not include investigating the McCanns.  You stick in 3 conditionals.  You stick in 2 emotional slurs.  And you elevate Team McCann.

That was a total disaster, IMO.  Madeleine deserves better, IMO.

PS I cannot stand the Jeremy Kyle show.  I will leave it to other members of the forum to make up their own minds on this.

Madeleine deserves better than having her family continually attacked on the net...Maddie deserves  a proper investigation into her disappearance and if that costs 12 million that's ok with me

[ShiningInLuz]

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

Frankly, I have no interests in your beliefs.

The reason we ended up in this bit of the Algarve was to get two grandchildren out of the UK school system, where they were both being bullied big time and the school was not interested in fulfilling it's legal responsibilities.

So, feel free to trust in your belief, as long as it is your family involved.

Speaking personally, as a practical person, I would be into that school in advance of any bullying of the twins, to get an assurance that anything on this front would be approached with foresight, not hindsight, and appropriate checks put into place.

If you, or the McCanns, wish to leave it to hope, then so be it.  The story will continue as it started.

[Mr Gray]

Frankly, I have no interests in your beliefs.

The reason we ended up in this bit of the Algarve was to get two grandchildren out of the UK school system, where they were both being bullied big time and the school was not interested in fulfilling it's legal responsibilities.

So, feel free to trust in your belief, as long as it is your family involved.

Speaking personally, as a practical person, I would be into that school in advance of any bullying of the twins, to get an assurance that anything on this front would be approached with foresight, not hindsight, and appropriate checks put into place.

If you, or the McCanns, wish to leave it to hope, then so be it.  The story will continue as it started.

the overwhelmingly vast majority of  children do not get bullied at school although I accept this is a problem for some. As a father of 7 I do have some experience of children and schools.

I doubt many children will know about the 48 questions and other internet rubbish

[ShiningInLuz]

I have explained my calculations and how I have arrived at them...if you cannot understand it that is your problem.....the starting point is that all the major possibilities need to add up to 100%...the best the sceptics can do is 40%...which highlights a major flaw in their model

I think if I retorted with an accurate word for this post I might actually get my first warning/points from the mods.

I am not now, nor ever have been, a sceptic.  (Yet another emotive connotation.  Is it actually possible for you to do a post without the emotive connotation?  Just curious.)

Therefore my 40% model is NOT a sceptic model.  Do not hand my model over to some bunch of 'sceptics'.  It is my model, not theirs, whoever 'they' are.

I highlighted the problem with my model right at the start.  You were actually quite tardy in getting round to understanding the issue.

Your model is based on assigning a 1% probability to the McCanns, erroneously deciding you can invent the rest, and filling the vacuum with 99% abduction.  If you were sitting a GCSE on the topic, that approach defines a fail.

[pathfinder73]

Madeleine deserves better than having her family continually attacked on the net...Maddie deserves  a proper investigation into her disappearance and if that costs 12 million that's ok with me

It's lucky SY released those efits 5 years later or they may never have been released to the world. And you will be happy to know they are at the same place Amaral was in 2007 when removed - the Smiths sighting. That's the only real credible lead in this whole case. Blonk's suggestion that a whole family of 9 would cover for their great friend RM has no credibility at all. Actually it's embarrassing. We know who was trying to connect those two separate sighting from the start and that would rule somebody out of the later one. That is crystal clear to anyone with an open mind!

[Mr Gray]

I think if I retorted with an accurate word for this post I might actually get my first warning/points from the mods.

I am not now, nor ever have been, a sceptic.  (Yet another emotive connotation.  Is it actually possible for you to do a post without the emotive connotation?  Just curious.)

Therefore my 40% model is NOT a sceptic model.  Do not hand my model over to some bunch of 'sceptics'.  It is my model, not theirs, whoever 'they' are.

I highlighted the problem with my model right at the start.  You were actually quite tardy in getting round to understanding the issue.

Your model is based on assigning a 1% probability to the McCanns, erroneously deciding you can invent the rest, and filling the vacuum with 99% abduction.  If you were sitting a GCSE on the topic, that approach defines a fail.

first...the fact that you would like Kate to take a lie detector test means you are sceptical...ie a sceptic

I have said...IF the McCanns are ruled out then abduction is odds on. I have explained all this in the last 24 hrs...you cannot seem to grasp probability.....think simply...if the Mccanns are ruled out there are only two real major possibilities..abduction and woke and wandered...you can't just asign these a 10% value ........all possibilities have to add up to 100%...

[stephen25000]

As I said earlier, some mccann supporters need to read up on probability, and not make wild unsubstantiated estimations of probability based on bias.

They should also look up the stats on the percentages of missing children who are taken by family members or people who know the families.

[G-Unit]

it is your opinion there is no evidence....Redwood said..

as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

as you can see he was not only speaking for himself

If you have a direct quote for your statement above it would be interesting to see it.

This is what Redwood said on GMTV;

 He said they were working on two key elements; that Madeleine left the apartment alive or that she left it dead. He then says there's an opportunity in the timeline (identified by 'forensically examining it) for a live removal, which is a criminal act by a stranger.

So the criminal act by a stranger is the most likely explanation for Madeleine's disappearance only if she was alive when she left the apartment.

He didn't offer any opinion of what may have happened if she was not alive when she left the apartment.

[xtina]

seems Metodo three or five is in the news again





For reasons not immediately clear, social media has started buzzing again over the allegedly corrupt practices of one of the private detective agencies hired by the parents of Madeleine McCann, shortly after the little girl vanished from a tourist complex in Praia da Luz, Portugal.

Much has already been written - both in the UK and abroad - of the money billed to the Madeleine Fund by Barcelona agency Metodo 3.

Quoting Spanish newspaper ABC, Diário de Notícias confirmed two years ago that Metodo 3 detectives “affirmed that they had clues pointing to a pedophile ring which had kidnapped the child, and for the journeys made to Portugal, Morocco and the United Kingdom, the agency charged 70,000 euros, without presenting any results - because in reality there never was any investigation”.

A source from ABC told the paper that Metodo 3 “guaranteed and charged for five investigators” on the case, “when in reality there weren’t even three”.

For the journeys to Portugal, “the agency charged as if four people were travelling”, when only one had, and this person “did not even speak Portuguese”.

As DN affirmed in 2013, Metodo 3’s practices eventually came under police scrutiny - not over the agency’s handling of the Madeleine case, but over allegedly illegal wire taps on political parties “and other irregularities”.

What seems to have stirred up new controversy is the online publishing of a previously banned book in Spanish by former Metodo 3 private eyes Julián Peribañez and Antonio Tamarjit.

- See more at: http://portugalresident.com/smokescreen-book-by-former-maddie-private-eyes-sparks-social-media-furore?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.sbfVFB9Y.dpuf



http://portugalresident.com/smokescreen-book-by-former-maddie-private-eyes-sparks-social-media-furore?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Mr Gray]

As I said earlier, some mccann supporters need to read up on probability, and not make wild unsubstantiated estimations of probability based on bias.

They should also look up the stats on the percentages of missing children who are taken by family members or people who know the families.

You need to have another look at the statistics you THINK you are quoting.....provide a link......children TAKEN by family members are those involved in custody battles and taken by one parent...not the case here...you are probably confused with children HARMED by family memebers

[Mr Gray]

If you have a direct quote for your statement above it would be interesting to see it.

This is what Redwood said on GMTV;

 He said they were working on two key elements; that Madeleine left the apartment alive or that she left it dead. He then says there's an opportunity in the timeline (identified by 'forensically examining it) for a live removal, which is a criminal act by a stranger.

So the criminal act by a stranger is the most likely explanation for Madeleine's disappearance only if she was alive when she left the apartment.

He didn't offer any opinion of what may have happened if she was not alive when she left the apartment.

mine is far closer to an exact quote...he never mentioned maddie leaving the apartment dead..you are making things up...please provide a link to the video to prove me wrong

[Mr Gray]

Interestingly Redwood said they approached the case with a completely open mind which would indicate taht the remit was not written up at the start of the review