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

[Brietta]

That's because the window shown in the photo was closed.

The crime scene photos shows that all the windows in apartment 5A had a net curtain behind a heavier fabric curtain. 
The same arrangement can be seen in the bedroom where the children slept.
The nets are shorter, reaching only to the cill and have been pulled back almost out of sight behind the opaque curtain.

[G-Unit]

That's because the window shown in the photo was closed.

Sorry. What I meant was Kate didn't mention whooshing, slamming doors or wind in her first statement when the curtains were open. Only later, in media interviews and videos, did the curtains become closed, the door slammed and the wind whooshed.

[Mr Gray]

Sorry. What I meant was Kate didn't mention whooshing, slamming doors or wind in her first statement when the curtains were open. Only later, in media interviews and videos, did the curtains become closed, the door slammed and the wind whooshed.

The first statements only contained answers to questions asked by the PJ
Kate may well have mentioned the curtains and as the statement was not verbatim or recorded we don't know what she actually said

[pegasus]

The only curtains seen. ..(snip)

There are two pairs of curtains in that photo Pathfinder - the pair you can see, and the pair of net curtains which you can't see, but they are there, hidden behind the pair you can see.

[pegasus]

(snip)...The nets are shorter, reaching only to the cill and have been pulled back almost out of sight behind the opaque curtain...(snip)

Agreed, Brietta is right, in the child's bedroom the net curtains reach to a few mm above the cill.

[Alfred R Jones]

You would need to factor in 6 statements from outside the group which suggest the alarm was raised before 10pm as well as the 6 from the group which said (on 4th) that it was 10pm.

In the next set of interviews 5 people gave a time for the alarm;  2 said 10pm, two said between 9.50 and 10pm and one said 10.03.

In the rogs 1 person said 10pm and 3 said between 9.45 and 10pm.

In the first interviews everyone agreed on the time. Later the time given became earlier.

If we look at the written timeline everyone was at the Tapas restaurant at 8.45pm. Then the Payne's arrival was changed to almost 9pm in the statements. This was not supported by the waiter or by Steve Carpenter, the only independent witnesses.

Some see the differences as normal. I see times being moved to later than they happened, including the time of the alarm..

Yes, you would need to factor in how all these statements would marry up, allowing for humans' imperfect recollection and that is where HOLMES has come in useful, to enable the police to come up with a workable timeline,

"Research and Analysis combines the powerful facilities of the i2 Analysts Notebook and the Dynamic Reasoning Engine from Autonomy Ltd to produce sequence of events charts and association (link) charts" http://www.holmes2.com/holmes2/whatish2/investigations/#features

PS: I have noted that twice now you have refused to answer my question regarding exactly what sort of evidence of abduction you would accept.

[ShiningInLuz]

Yes, you would need to factor in how all these statements would marry up, allowing for humans' imperfect recollection and that is where HOLMES has come in useful, to enable the police to come up with a workable timeline,

"Research and Analysis combines the powerful facilities of the i2 Analysts Notebook and the Dynamic Reasoning Engine from Autonomy Ltd to produce sequence of events charts and association (link) charts" http://www.holmes2.com/holmes2/whatish2/investigations/#features

PS: I have noted that twice now you have refused to answer my question regarding exactly what sort of evidence of abduction you would accept.

Interesting link.  Thank you for that.

Hmmm, now the issues begin.  Development kicked off in 1994, doesn't say when it was rolled out.  Using Analysts Notebook, which appears to be one of the tools the JP used in 2007, and which corpsed on the volume of data.

This bit on the link worried me. "©2001-2005 by Unisys ..." followed by "Last Updated: September 2002".  Hopefully, it means the underlying document dates from Sep 2002, while the copyright notice was last updated in 2005".

The spec makes it look like a project management tool, and quite an old one at that.  Allocation of tasks to officers.  Tracking of exhibits.  Preparation of court records.  Fairly old in 2007, very old in 2016.  Why isn't there a Holmes 3?

Layer on a bit of Dynamic Reasoning Engine and you have marketing gobbledegook.  I wonder if they use DRE?  Or do they just draw up the timeline on a scrap of paper?

Holmes 2 is a step up on the JP filing system, the indexing system, and the search capability of the JP documentation.  And that's where the good news stops.

It won't sort out the timeline.

[slartibartfast]

Interesting link.  Thank you for that.

Hmmm, now the issues begin.  Development kicked off in 1994, doesn't say when it was rolled out.  Using Analysts Notebook, which appears to be one of the tools the JP used in 2007, and which corpsed on the volume of data.

This bit on the link worried me. "©2001-2005 by Unisys ..." followed by "Last Updated: September 2002".  Hopefully, it means the underlying document dates from Sep 2002, while the copyright notice was last updated in 2005".

The spec makes it look like a project management tool, and quite an old one at that.  Allocation of tasks to officers.  Tracking of exhibits.  Preparation of court records.  Fairly old in 2007, very old in 2016.  Why isn't there a Holmes 3?

Layer on a bit of Dynamic Reasoning Engine and you have marketing gobbledegook.  I wonder if they use DRE?  Or do they just draw up the timeline on a scrap of paper?

Holmes 2 is a step up on the JP filing system, the indexing system, and the search capability of the JP documentation.  And that's where the good news stops.

It won't sort out the timeline.

Probably produces nice Gannt charts.

[Alfred R Jones]

Interesting link.  Thank you for that.

Hmmm, now the issues begin.  Development kicked off in 1994, doesn't say when it was rolled out.  Using Analysts Notebook, which appears to be one of the tools the JP used in 2007, and which corpsed on the volume of data.

This bit on the link worried me. "©2001-2005 by Unisys ..." followed by "Last Updated: September 2002".  Hopefully, it means the underlying document dates from Sep 2002, while the copyright notice was last updated in 2005".

The spec makes it look like a project management tool, and quite an old one at that.  Allocation of tasks to officers.  Tracking of exhibits.  Preparation of court records.  Fairly old in 2007, very old in 2016.  Why isn't there a Holmes 3?

Layer on a bit of Dynamic Reasoning Engine and you have marketing gobbledegook.  I wonder if they use DRE?  Or do they just draw up the timeline on a scrap of paper?

Holmes 2 is a step up on the JP filing system, the indexing system, and the search capability of the JP documentation.  And that's where the good news stops.

It won't sort out the timeline.

NO?  I'm so glad we have you to put us straight on these matters.  So, how was the timeline sorted out then, in your view, or were the Met simply feeding us a line?

[G-Unit]

Yes, you would need to factor in how all these statements would marry up, allowing for humans' imperfect recollection and that is where HOLMES has come in useful, to enable the police to come up with a workable timeline,

"Research and Analysis combines the powerful facilities of the i2 Analysts Notebook and the Dynamic Reasoning Engine from Autonomy Ltd to produce sequence of events charts and association (link) charts" http://www.holmes2.com/holmes2/whatish2/investigations/#features

PS: I have noted that twice now you have refused to answer my question regarding exactly what sort of evidence of abduction you would accept.

A computer system is only as good as the information you put into it. Rubbish in, rubbish out. It can take all the statements and spit out an average, but it can't choose who's telling the truth and who isn't.

Six people unconnected with the case said the alarm was raised before 10pm. Six people connected with the case (who had also collaborated) said it was raised at 10pm.

Unless you check back with all concerned you are choosing to believe one group over the other group. The group you have chosen to believe didn't even stick with the time they gave initially. In later statements the time crept back as far as 9.45pm.

PS There is no proof of an abduction taking place and I see no point in speculation, so please stop repeating your speculative question. Unless, of course, you can produce a signed, witnessed statement from the 'abductor'? LOL

[ShiningInLuz]

NO?  I'm so glad we have you to put us straight on these matters.  So, how was the timeline sorted out then, in your view, or were the Met simply feeding us a line?

I'm glad your glad.  Surely gladness all round is good.

How was the timeline... becomes 'Has the timeline been sorted out then?'  Simple answer = No.

For a more detailed rationale, please read my blog.  Bottom line is no, neither Holmes nor DRE clarified the timeline.  The human beings did.  Andy and co.  As to whether they clarified ...

Were the Met (simply) feeding us a line?  Type of speculative territory bordering on libellous without proof, is it not?

[Carana]

A computer system is only as good as the information you put into it. Rubbish in, rubbish out. It can take all the statements and spit out an average, but it can't choose who's telling the truth and who isn't.

Six people unconnected with the case said the alarm was raised before 10pm. Six people connected with the case (who had also collaborated) said it was raised at 10pm.

Unless you check back with all concerned you are choosing to believe one group over the other group. The group you have chosen to believe didn't even stick with the time they gave initially. In later statements the time crept back as far as 9.45pm.

PS There is no proof of an abduction taking place and I see no point in speculation, so please stop repeating your speculative question. Unless, of course, you can produce a signed, witnessed statement from the 'abductor'? LOL

The PJ were only interested in a reconstruction of the T9's movements. If the various external witnesses were so important, why were they not also interested in bringing them back as well?

Whatever software the Met use, it can presumably work out the various permutations.

Some people are bound to give an approximate time unless there is a particular reason to note or be able to verify the precise time. There was no CCTV to check, but once the alarm had been given, there were phone records of the staff calling each other to put the missing child protocl into action.

[Mr Gray]

The police have to decide if the McCanns are telling the truth
Everything comes from there
Imo they must have done this otherwise further investigation is a waste of time

[pathfinder73]

The PJ were only interested in a reconstruction of the T9's movements. If the various external witnesses were so important, why were they not also interested in bringing them back as well?

Whatever software the Met use, it can presumably work out the various permutations.

Some people are bound to give an approximate time unless there is a particular reason to note or be able to verify the precise time. There was no CCTV to check, but once the alarm had been given, there were phone records of the staff calling each other to put the missing child protocl into action.

Too right they were. A few would have used their watches thank god and others just listened to what the loudest said. There's a big difference.




078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that''
MO 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me, but, erm, I just thought, oh, you know, I've just checked you don't really need to check and sort of, you know, sort of go back, but, erm, he sort of got up and went back to check on, erm, on his kids."

4078    “What time would this have been around?”
JT    “I’d say it was around ten past nine’ish”.

1578    “And at what time”'
ROB    “So about twenty five past nine I left the table”.

ROB  "I returned to the table about quarter to ten”.

The guest returned, at about 21.45. (Waiter who served ROB's steak -Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira)

Rusell said he returned at 9:45 (corroborated by the waiter who served his steak) NOT 9:55 as on the timeline named GERALD. Matt has disappeared from that check. There's a 10 minute discrepancy like I said and that is proved from English recorded interviews (No translation excuses!). My timeline is spot on and can reveal who did it, when and how. It suggests why the timeline has changed 10 minutes to rule somebody out of a sighting. SY should have no problems if they have truly done a forensic examination of the timeline that night. You cannot escape the truth.

[G-Unit]

The PJ were only interested in a reconstruction of the T9's movements. If the various external witnesses were so important, why were they not also interested in bringing them back as well?

Whatever software the Met use, it can presumably work out the various permutations.

Some people are bound to give an approximate time unless there is a particular reason to note or be able to verify the precise time. There was no CCTV to check, but once the alarm had been given, there were phone records of the staff calling each other to put the missing child protocl into action.

They may have brought the other witnesses back had the group agreed to return, we don't know.

Software can only work with the information it's given.

When I say 'alarm' I'm speaking of when Kate ran to the Tapas to get the others. MW were not formally informed, it was done informally by a creche mother between 10.05 and 10.15pm as far as I can tell.

The head chef who was in charge of all the kitchens came to the Tapas to check on things. This is what he said;

Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm