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

[ShiningInLuz]

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%...

The fact that I would like Kate to take a lie detector test does not make me sceptical or a sceptic.  It means I believe the situation would be improved, therefore I would like Kate to take a (properly conducted) lie detector test.

Who would benefit from such a test, given that I have already said such a test has no standing in a court of law?  Well, Madeleine would, given that the state of the incident scene has been called into question.  Kate would, given that the state of the incident scene has been called into question.  The twins would, given that they are in the firing line of something that cannot possibly be attributed to them.

The PIs would.  Their option is simple.  Work for the McCanns blindly accepting the McCann explanation of events.  Precisely the rancour heaped upon Operation Grange.  Or to be able to say, we have conducted additional checks, and on the basis on these checks, we have concluded that the McCanns are not persons of interest.

OG has not clarified why the remit does not include investigating the McCanns.  It is simply that the remit is restricted to abduction.

I made this same error on another forum, and Blonk corrected me, namely that the McCanns are off limits for OG.  We then disagreed about whether Nicola Wall should accept a 'poisoned chalice' or not.

What I learned from the exchange is that starting off with the assumption that the incident scene is as per Kate's description, without verifying this, and in the face of so much speculation, is indeed a poisoned chalice.

Please, I don't need to think simply.  I have a brain capable of advanced and deep thought.  As it happens, I have an Honours degree in Science and as post graduate degree on top.  I have no interest whatsoever in discussing my intellectual capabilities with you.  THE FORUM READERS CAN ASSESS MY POINTS FOR THEMSELVES (apologies for caps, still not getting a better method of emphasis to work).

If you think that one can take a model, which when evaluated does not give a good explanation, and then simply bash it into shape, you are wrong, but go for it.  I would, if I followed your advice, increase the probability of the McCanns dun it from my opinion of highly unlikely.  Please remember, I think it is highly unlikely the McCanns dun it, whilst you are classifying me as a sceptic.

So where does your recommendation lead me.  I would have to upgrade the possibility that the McCanns dun it from 'highly unlikely' to at the minimum 'unlikely' or more likely to 'quite possible'.

I think I prefer reality, which is that I know for certain that there is a lot I do not know.  Feel free to run with your version of certainty.  I am not learning a lot from it.

[slartibartfast]

if we consider all possibilities then some will be so unlikely as to be insignificant.......therefore if you want to be pedantic then all the major possibilities need to add up to close to 100%....no significant difference

I think that post is the definition of pedantic.

[Carana]

(snip)

OG has not clarified why the remit does not include investigating the McCanns.  It is simply that the remit is restricted to abduction.

I made this same error on another forum, and Blonk corrected me, namely that the McCanns are off limits for OG.  We then disagreed about whether Nicola Wall should accept a 'poisoned chalice' or not.

What I learned from the exchange is that starting off with the assumption that the incident scene is as per Kate's description, without verifying this, and in the face of so much speculation, is indeed a poisoned chalice.

Blonk has yet to explain why a) the McCanns would have continued to push for the case to be re-examined when it had already been shelved and b) why the scoping exercise (which preceded the Op Grange review) would not even so have examined the possibility of the McCanns' involvement.

[Mr Gray]

I think that post is the definition of pedantic.

probably because you don't understand it

[slartibartfast]

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

To get a full picture you would have to include children killed by family members and hidden.

[Mr Gray]

To get a full picture you would have to include children killed by family members and hidden.

the evidence suggests that stephen meant to say children harmed...rather than children taken

[Alfred R Jones]

The fact that I would like Kate to take a lie detector test does not make me sceptical or a sceptic.  It means I believe the situation would be improved, therefore I would like Kate to take a (properly conducted) lie detector test.

Who would benefit from such a test, given that I have already said such a test has no standing in a court of law?  Well, Madeleine would, given that the state of the incident scene has been called into question.  Kate would, given that the state of the incident scene has been called into question.  The twins would, given that they are in the firing line of something that cannot possibly be attributed to them.

The PIs would.  Their option is simple.  Work for the McCanns blindly accepting the McCann explanation of events.  Precisely the rancour heaped upon Operation Grange.  Or to be able to say, we have conducted additional checks, and on the basis on these checks, we have concluded that the McCanns are not persons of interest.

OG has not clarified why the remit does not include investigating the McCanns.  It is simply that the remit is restricted to abduction.

I made this same error on another forum, and Blonk corrected me, namely that the McCanns are off limits for OG.  We then disagreed about whether Nicola Wall should accept a 'poisoned chalice' or not.

What I learned from the exchange is that starting off with the assumption that the incident scene is as per Kate's description, without verifying this, and in the face of so much speculation, is indeed a poisoned chalice.

Please, I don't need to think simply.  I have a brain capable of advanced and deep thought.  As it happens, I have an Honours degree in Science and as post graduate degree on top.  I have no interest whatsoever in discussing my intellectual capabilities with you.  THE FORUM READERS CAN ASSESS MY POINTS FOR THEMSELVES (apologies for caps, still not getting a better method of emphasis to work).

If you think that one can take a model, which when evaluated does not give a good explanation, and then simply bash it into shape, you are wrong, but go for it.  I would, if I followed your advice, increase the probability of the McCanns dun it from my opinion of highly unlikely.  Please remember, I think it is highly unlikely the McCanns dun it, whilst you are classifying me as a sceptic.

So where does your recommendation lead me.  I would have to upgrade the possibility that the McCanns dun it from 'highly unlikely' to at the minimum 'unlikely' or more likely to 'quite possible'.

I think I prefer reality, which is that I know for certain that there is a lot I do not know.  Feel free to run with your version of certainty.  I am not learning a lot from it.

As lie detector tests have been deemed to be not much more accurate than the flip of a coin perhaps you can explain why you think Kate taking one would change anything?

[stephen25000]

I think that post is the definition of pedantic.

It was done by someone who clearly doesn't understand stats.

They also need to refer to the stats they are using and/or the statistical model employed.

Stats is one branch of Maths, which for today's students post G.C.S.E. comes under 4 categories :

Core; Decision; Mechanics and Stats.

 

[Mr Gray]

It was done by someone who clearly doesn't understand stats.

no it wasn't...it was done by an someone educated to a high level in maths...s level to be precise...the maths involved here is however extremely simple

[Carana]

As lie detector tests have been deemed to be not much more accurate than the flip of a coin perhaps you can explain why you think Kate taking one would change anything?

That was going to be my next point.

[Mr Gray]

That was going to be my next point.

a point I have made several times...which sil seems to have taken offence at

[ShiningInLuz]

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

I do hope that your 7 children have no experience of bullying at school. 

I'm trying hard to come up with an example of someone I know who has had a similar experience to yours.

Let me see.  I personally, was the subject of attempted bullying at secondary school.  My partner was subjected to bullying in senior school.  The grandchildren we relocated to Portugal were subjected to bullying.  Their mother was the subject of attempted bullying.  (She's a tough nut.)

We have new neighbours.  One of the reasons they have come out here, not the only one, is that their kids were subject to bullying at school.

English law has a specific law related to bullying, and what schools are legally obliged to do about it.  I got into that one when my grandson was about to be expelled from school, in an incident where there was little evidence, apart from a computer record that the school bully had issued a death threat to my grandson.

So it heartens me no end that your children have no experience of bullying.

However, the idea that the McCann twins will have a free ride through secondary school requires rose-tinted glasses.

They deserve better.

[Alfred R Jones]

I do hope that your 7 children have no experience of bullying at school. 

I'm trying hard to come up with an example of someone I know who has had a similar experience to yours.

Let me see.  I personally, was the subject of attempted bullying at secondary school.  My partner was subjected to bullying in senior school.  The grandchildren we relocated to Portugal were subjected to bullying.  Their mother was the subject of attempted bullying.  (She's a tough nut.)

We have new neighbours.  One of the reasons they have come out here, not the only one, is that their kids were subject to bullying at school.

English law has a specific law related to bullying, and what schools are legally obliged to do about it.  I got into that one when my grandson was about to be expelled from school, in an incident where there was little evidence, apart from a computer record that the school bully had issued a death threat to my grandson.

So it heartens me no end that your children have no experience of bullying.

However, the idea that the McCann twins will have a free ride through secondary school requires rose-tinted glasses.

They deserve better.

If the twins are bullied it will be because their classmates have read some of the complete crap that has been posted about their parents on the internet not because their parents didn't take a lie detector test.  if they took such a test it would not make the slightest bit of difference to the sceptics and their agenda to denigrate these parents at every opportunity, and that is a fact.

[Mr Gray]

I do hope that your 7 children have no experience of bullying at school. 

I'm trying hard to come up with an example of someone I know who has had a similar experience to yours.

Let me see.  I personally, was the subject of attempted bullying at secondary school.  My partner was subjected to bullying in senior school.  The grandchildren we relocated to Portugal were subjected to bullying.  Their mother was the subject of attempted bullying.  (She's a tough nut.)

We have new neighbours.  One of the reasons they have come out here, not the only one, is that their kids were subject to bullying at school.

English law has a specific law related to bullying, and what schools are legally obliged to do about it.  I got into that one when my grandson was about to be expelled from school, in an incident where there was little evidence, apart from a computer record that the school bully had issued a death threat to my grandson.

So it heartens me no end that your children have no experience of bullying.

However, the idea that the McCann twins will have a free ride through secondary school requires rose-tinted glasses.

They deserve better.

didn't say my children had no experience of bullying...they have to a minor extent. Fortunately they are all at or were at very nice independent schools so they have been lucky...the eldest of my younger children is now at a Rudolph Steiner School and the others will follow... Schools hands are tied to a certain extent by their inability to discipline children.

What I see on these forums is adults behaving as bullies towards the McCanns....Brenda Leyland being a prime example......they are not setting a very good example to their children

[Mr Gray]

If the twins are bullied it will be because their classmates have read some of the complete crap that has been posted about their parents on the internet not because their parents didn't take a lie detector test.  if they took such a test it would not make the slightest bit of difference to the sceptics and their agenda to denigrate these parents at every opportunity, and that is a fact.

very well put Alfred...the lie detector is an absolutely ridiculous idea....false results abound...what if kate gave a false positive...what would the online bullies do then