HOLMES 2 and the search for Madeleine McCann.

[ShiningInLuz]

You managed a smiley! The only difference between us examining the timeline and OG doing it is that they may have tracked down witnesses that we don't know about who had input into the times. They may, for example, have interviewed those holidaymakers who were at the restaurant that evening. They may have interviewed the Moyes about what they saw as they returned home.

I managed the smiley by copying the code from the post I was replying to, and pasted it on the end of my reply.

Your point about OG potentially having more information than we do, and clarifying puzzles, is correct.  We don't need HOLMES to work out what information is problematic and requires clarifying.   We don't have the ability to do the clarifying.

The actions you are suggesting make sense.  We don't know if they were done.

[Carana]

The Met would obviously have access to all the LP files. The McCanns appear to have had access to more of the PJ files than was made accessible on the DVD, therefore LP would do as well. The Met also obtained the files of the various PIs.

I don't have the quote to hand, but there were around 30 rogatory requests sent out (some of which were evidently to Portugal). They may therefore have quite a bit of information from whichever other countries they requested assistance from to add to the pot.

We don't know the nature of those other rogatory requests, but I'm guessing that it could be checking if certain indidivuals had a criminal record and requesting access to them if so, or assistance in locating certain people of potential interest.

It's not clear to me whether they would have needed to send out a rogatory letter if they simply wanted an informal interview with any holidaymaker or former resident (as opposed to a formal one under caution) who happened to reside in or had moved to a third country.

That's potentially a lot of information that isn't in the public domain to sift through.

[ShiningInLuz]

The Met would obviously have access to all the LP files. The McCanns appear to have had access to more of the PJ files than was made accessible on the DVD, therefore LP would do as well. The Met also obtained the files of the various PIs.

I don't have the quote to hand, but there were around 30 rogatory requests sent out (some of which were evidently to Portugal). They may therefore have quite a bit of information from whichever other countries they requested assistance from to add to the pot.

We don't know the nature of those other rogatory requests, but I'm guessing that it could be checking if certain indidivuals had a criminal record and requesting access to them if so, or assistance in locating certain people of potential interest.

It's not clear to me whether they would have needed to send out a rogatory letter if they simply wanted an informal interview with any holidaymaker or former resident (as opposed to a formal one under caution) who happened to reside in or had moved to a third country.

That's potentially a lot of information that isn't in the public domain to sift through.

I agree wholeheartedly they had and have access to a vast pile of information that I do not, and as far as I am aware the other members of this forum do not.

I am not sure why the McCanns had more info from the PJ Files than the general public have got.  The Files were pruned in accordance with the law, and why the McCanns would have a version that does not fit this process seems unlikely to me.

While LP have information  that I do not, did they not explicitly refuse to reveal all but a few crumbs to the McCanns?  I'm not sure if that is relevant.  LP were using HOLMES.  OG were using HOLMES.  HOLMES has the capacity to converse with other instances of HOLMES, so OG should have got that quite easily.

I would assume, but I do not know, that one of the ILORS was to Portugal, to pick up a non-pruned version of the PJ Files.  That would give OG access to much that was explicitly withheld from the public.

Then OG had access to the work of the McCann PIs, which we do not.

Then OG should have access to UK databases, on burglars, paedophiles and the such like, that I do not.  Possibly, through international co-operation or ILORS, they have access to similar material from other countries, including further statements.  I don't know how other European countries work.

We have seen how Portugal works.  There are a few informal statements on file.  The vast majority of info givers are made witnesses, obliging them in law to give a fully truthful version of what they know.  We've got no evidence of OG asking for or getting informal information from Portugal, AFAIK.

However, it is clear from the stats of statements made and sex offenders investigated, they have amassed more data than I have.

They also have the response to two or more TV appeals asking the public for information.

It has been noted on here that CEOP amassed over 1,000 photos of people in and around this area.  It is reasonable to assume that OG has done work in this area that I have not.

I have seen elsewhere, from Blonk, that DCI Andy Redwood met or was in communication with Martin Smith on two occasions.  I do not have access to the results of that.

Then there were the 74,104 calls/texts in/out of Luz on 2-4 May 2007.  I am prevented by law from getting my hands on that.  Whether that is inside HOLMES for analysis is a moot point.  I can see nothing in the spec to suggest it is a number cruncher, but it hardly maters, when one can do it in free software.

If I thought about it for a while, I could probably add about the same number of sources again, all that should be available to OG while I do not have access to them.

I'm not claiming I have an equal access to the raw data, because I don't.

I can explain why the Luz 2014 dig was senseless, so it is not always a 1-way street.  If HOLMES could predict such a thing then why was the dig undertaken?

The crunch topic was the time line.  Anyone can go through the Tapas 9 statements, and a handful of others, and draw up a time line, and in doing so highlight inconsistencies.  That bit isn't hard.  It doesn't take HOLMES or its artificial intelligence to do that.  A paper and pen are sufficient.  Perhaps OG has worked on the time line.  Perhaps not.  Perhaps it has simply been accepted, as part of the remit.

But it does not take a computer system to work out the conflicts in the timings.  The PJ apparently reached that position on 4 May 2007, without recourse to any form of computer system. 

[Alfred R Jones]

I agree wholeheartedly they had and have access to a vast pile of information that I do not, and as far as I am aware the other members of this forum do not.

I am not sure why the McCanns had more info from the PJ Files than the general public have got.  The Files were pruned in accordance with the law, and why the McCanns would have a version that does not fit this process seems unlikely to me.

While LP have information  that I do not, did they not explicitly refuse to reveal all but a few crumbs to the McCanns?  I'm not sure if that is relevant.  LP were using HOLMES.  OG were using HOLMES.  HOLMES has the capacity to converse with other instances of HOLMES, so OG should have got that quite easily.

I would assume, but I do not know, that one of the ILORS was to Portugal, to pick up a non-pruned version of the PJ Files.  That would give OG access to much that was explicitly withheld from the public.

Then OG had access to the work of the McCann PIs, which we do not.

Then OG should have access to UK databases, on burglars, paedophiles and the such like, that I do not.  Possibly, through international co-operation or ILORS, they have access to similar material from other countries, including further statements.  I don't know how other European countries work.

We have seen how Portugal works.  There are a few informal statements on file.  The vast majority of info givers are made witnesses, obliging them in law to give a fully truthful version of what they know.  We've got no evidence of OG asking for or getting informal information from Portugal, AFAIK.

However, it is clear from the stats of statements made and sex offenders investigated, they have amassed more data than I have.

They also have the response to two or more TV appeals asking the public for information.

It has been noted on here that CEOP amassed over 1,000 photos of people in and around this area.  It is reasonable to assume that OG has done work in this area that I have not.

I have seen elsewhere, from Blonk, that DCI Andy Redwood met or was in communication with Martin Smith on two occasions.  I do not have access to the results of that.

Then there were the 74,104 calls/texts in/out of Luz on 2-4 May 2007.  I am prevented by law from getting my hands on that.  Whether that is inside HOLMES for analysis is a moot point.  I can see nothing in the spec to suggest it is a number cruncher, but it hardly maters, when one can do it in free software.

If I thought about it for a while, I could probably add about the same number of sources again, all that should be available to OG while I do not have access to them.

I'm not claiming I have an equal access to the raw data, because I don't.

I can explain why the Luz 2014 dig was senseless, so it is not always a 1-way street.  If HOLMES could predict such a thing then why was the dig undertaken?

The crunch topic was the time line.  Anyone can go through the Tapas 9 statements, and a handful of others, and draw up a time line, and in doing so highlight inconsistencies.  That bit isn't hard.  It doesn't take HOLMES or its artificial intelligence to do that.  A paper and pen are sufficient.  Perhaps OG has worked on the time line.  Perhaps not.  Perhaps it has simply been accepted, as part of the remit.

But it does not take a computer system to work out the conflicts in the timings.  The PJ apparently reached that position on 4 May 2007, without recourse to any form of computer system.

Re: the above in bold.  You can give reasons why you think it was senseless but as you have no idea why the Met conducted the searches they did, you can not be sure.  Were they, for example, acting on a tip off that you know nothing about?

[Alfred R Jones]

I agree wholeheartedly they had and have access to a vast pile of information that I do not, and as far as I am aware the other members of this forum do not.

I am not sure why the McCanns had more info from the PJ Files than the general public have got.  The Files were pruned in accordance with the law, and why the McCanns would have a version that does not fit this process seems unlikely to me.

While LP have information  that I do not, did they not explicitly refuse to reveal all but a few crumbs to the McCanns?  I'm not sure if that is relevant.  LP were using HOLMES.  OG were using HOLMES.  HOLMES has the capacity to converse with other instances of HOLMES, so OG should have got that quite easily.

I would assume, but I do not know, that one of the ILORS was to Portugal, to pick up a non-pruned version of the PJ Files.  That would give OG access to much that was explicitly withheld from the public.

Then OG had access to the work of the McCann PIs, which we do not.

Then OG should have access to UK databases, on burglars, paedophiles and the such like, that I do not.  Possibly, through international co-operation or ILORS, they have access to similar material from other countries, including further statements.  I don't know how other European countries work.

We have seen how Portugal works.  There are a few informal statements on file.  The vast majority of info givers are made witnesses, obliging them in law to give a fully truthful version of what they know.  We've got no evidence of OG asking for or getting informal information from Portugal, AFAIK.

However, it is clear from the stats of statements made and sex offenders investigated, they have amassed more data than I have.

They also have the response to two or more TV appeals asking the public for information.

It has been noted on here that CEOP amassed over 1,000 photos of people in and around this area.  It is reasonable to assume that OG has done work in this area that I have not.

I have seen elsewhere, from Blonk, that DCI Andy Redwood met or was in communication with Martin Smith on two occasions.  I do not have access to the results of that.

Then there were the 74,104 calls/texts in/out of Luz on 2-4 May 2007.  I am prevented by law from getting my hands on that.  Whether that is inside HOLMES for analysis is a moot point.  I can see nothing in the spec to suggest it is a number cruncher, but it hardly maters, when one can do it in free software.

If I thought about it for a while, I could probably add about the same number of sources again, all that should be available to OG while I do not have access to them.

I'm not claiming I have an equal access to the raw data, because I don't.

I can explain why the Luz 2014 dig was senseless, so it is not always a 1-way street.  If HOLMES could predict such a thing then why was the dig undertaken?

The crunch topic was the time line.  Anyone can go through the Tapas 9 statements, and a handful of others, and draw up a time line, and in doing so highlight inconsistencies.  That bit isn't hard.  It doesn't take HOLMES or its artificial intelligence to do that.  A paper and pen are sufficient. Perhaps OG has worked on the time line.  Perhaps not.  Perhaps it has simply been accepted, as part of the remit.

But it does not take a computer system to work out the conflicts in the timings.  The PJ apparently reached that position on 4 May 2007, without recourse to any form of computer system.

Re; the above in bold - as the Met have explicitly stated that the timeline has been "forensically examined" can I ask why you are doubting the veracity of this statement?

[Carana]

Re: the above in bold.  You can give reasons why you think it was senseless but as you have no idea why the Met conducted the searches they did, you can not be sure.  Were they, for example, acting on a tip off that you know nothing about?

SIL has produced some interesting insights into PdL traffic and the state of likely activity in the area at the time.

However, I agree that there may have been intelligence leading to checking out specific areas for reasons not disclosed to the public.

[G-Unit]

Re; the above in bold - as the Met have explicitly stated that the timeline has been "forensically examined" can I ask why you are doubting the veracity of this statement?

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think that means exactly?

[Carana]

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think that means exactly?

Interesting question.

Richard Hall deems himself qualified to present a "forensic" analysis (as did Enid O'Dowd), yet the possibility that legitimate law enforcement agencies investigating the case (with far more access than is in the public domain) may have established a forensic timeline is considered by some to be rubbish.

Why would that be?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6981.0

[Alfred R Jones]

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think that means exactly?

Well, let's see, in this context I would take the word "forensically" to mean the following:

  Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law: a forensic laboratory.

And so I would take it to mean that, through utilisation of technology at their disposal (in this case HOLMES2 which the Met have name checked as being the technology they have used in this case) they have examined closely and thoroughly all the information pertaining to the timeline of events.  I don't think it means they just decided to accept the McCanns' friends scribbled timeline from the night without question or further ado.  What do you think it means?

[ShiningInLuz]

Re: the above in bold.  You can give reasons why you think it was senseless but as you have no idea why the Met conducted the searches they did, you can not be sure.  Were they, for example, acting on a tip off that you know nothing about?

No, it is senseless for information contained in the Files combined with a knowledge of Luz.

It is clear that the dig was carried out despite the fact that the PJ files contain information to indicate its worthlessness.

It is clear that the dig was carried out in one of the most unintelligent locations possible.

Even if they had a tip-off, it is still senseless.

Presumably they have seen the story that went round that an ex-policeman of senior rank saying there is a well to the east of Luz.  It is located near dig site 3.  It is used by local criminals to dispose of evidence.  It was not searched at the time.  All according to the policeman.  The press explained exactly where the well was located, and went so far as to print a photo of it.

Perhaps he should move in better circles than local criminals.  Perhaps local criminals should do better than tell ex-policemenn their secrets.  Perhaps OG should feed all the info into HOLMES, upon which it will surely deduce that the well should be searched by frogmen.  Do I feel anther field trip is in the offing?  We didn't have frogmen last time round.

One local journalist went to look for that well and found that .... there isn't a well in that location.

There's garbage in, garbage out.

There is the other end of the spectrum, where you make a completely inaccurate decision based on a lack of knowledge.  The Luz dig falls into that category.  Poor old HOLMES never stood a chance.

[Mr Gray]

No, it is senseless for information contained in the Files combined with a knowledge of Luz.

It is clear that the dig was carried out despite the fact that the PJ files contain information to indicate its worthlessness.

It is clear that the dig was carried out in one of the most unintelligent locations possible.

Even if they had a tip-off, it is still senseless.

Presumably they have seen the story that went round that an ex-policeman of senior rank saying there is a well to the east of Luz.  It is located near dig site 3.  It is used by local criminals to dispose of evidence.  It was not searched at the time.  All according to the policeman.  The press explained exactly where the well was located, and went so far as to print a photo of it.

Perhaps he should move in better circles than local criminals.  Perhaps local criminals should do better than tell ex-policemenn their secrets.  Perhaps OG should feed all the info into HOLMES, upon which it will surely deduce that the well should be searched by frogmen.  Do I feel anther field trip is in the offing?  We didn't have frogmen last time round.

One local journalist went to look for that well and found that .... there isn't a well in that location.

There's garbage in, garbage out.

There is the other end of the spectrum, where you make a completely inaccurate decision based on a lack of knowledge.  The Luz dig falls into that category.  Poor old HOLMES never stood a chance.

you have no idea on what intelligence the decision to dig was taken...you seem to assume you know it all

[ShiningInLuz]

you have no idea on what intelligence the decision to dig was taken...you seem to assume you know it all

I don't need to know what 'intelligence' prompted them to dig there.

I know one heck of a lot more about Luz, and why that dig was senseless, than you or OG do.

I don't assume I know it all.  There are certain bits that I definitely know better than OG or HOLMES.

[G-Unit]

Well, let's see, in this context I would take the word "forensically" to mean the following:

  Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law: a forensic laboratory.

And so I would take it to mean that, through utilisation of technology at their disposal (in this case HOLMES2 which the Met have name checked as being the technology they have used in this case) they have examined closely and thoroughly all the information pertaining to the timeline of events.  I don't think it means they just decided to accept the McCanns' friends scribbled timeline from the night without question or further ado.  What do you think it means?

As they referred to 'the timeline' being examined and not what you said that's just your belief, not something you know.

[Carana]

I don't need to know what 'intelligence' prompted them to dig there.

I know one heck of a lot more about Luz, and why that dig was senseless, than you or OG do.

I don't assume I know it all.  There are certain bits that I definitely know better than OG or HOLMES.

Did you inform OG or the PJ of your findings prior to, or after, the dig?

[Alfred R Jones]

No, it is senseless for information contained in the Files combined with a knowledge of Luz.

It is clear that the dig was carried out despite the fact that the PJ files contain information to indicate its worthlessness.

It is clear that the dig was carried out in one of the most unintelligent locations possible.

Even if they had a tip-off, it is still senseless.

Presumably they have seen the story that went round that an ex-policeman of senior rank saying there is a well to the east of Luz.  It is located near dig site 3.  It is used by local criminals to dispose of evidence.  It was not searched at the time.  All according to the policeman.  The press explained exactly where the well was located, and went so far as to print a photo of it.

Perhaps he should move in better circles than local criminals.  Perhaps local criminals should do better than tell ex-policemenn their secrets.  Perhaps OG should feed all the info into HOLMES, upon which it will surely deduce that the well should be searched by frogmen.  Do I feel anther field trip is in the offing?  We didn't have frogmen last time round.

One local journalist went to look for that well and found that .... there isn't a well in that location.

There's garbage in, garbage out.

There is the other end of the spectrum, where you make a completely inaccurate decision based on a lack of knowledge.  The Luz dig falls into that category.  Poor old HOLMES never stood a chance.

So, the Met get a tip off that Madeleine, or parts thereof or personal effects pertaining to the child and / or abductor (clothing / phone etc) are buried in certain places in PdL and you think that the Met should simply have ignored them why exactly?