Consider this scenario - Would a guilty person keep their case alive for many years?

[G-Unit]

Thank goodness detective work (that counts!) is left to real policemen ....

True. Their results [with access to much more information than us] are impressive...............remind me, what have they achieved again?

[Alice Purjorick]

Make up your mind.  A few posts back you were admitting alternatives exist, now you are asserting they don't.

This strikes me as a thinly disguised attempt to put enough obstacles in the way that the end result must be that the parents in your scenario are innocent, but IMO it is backfiring, and actually quite damaging to your cause.

Basically, you are asserting that everything other than abduction must be incorrect, therefore abduction is correct.  And, IMO, you're not doing a good job of it.

Maybe we should post this again:

 United Kingdom February 20 2013

"The Court of Appeal recently handed down judgment in the case of Nulty v Milton Keynes Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 15. The case concerned an appeal from the 3 November 2011 decision of Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart in the Technology & Construction Court of the High Court. In upholding the first instance decision, the Court of Appeal reiterated the principle in cases where there are competing explanations for a particular loss that causation cannot be established only by a process of elimination such that the 'least unlikely' cause of a loss is identified. A claimant must demonstrate that the particular version of events that they rely upon is more likely to have happened than not, in order for the civil burden of proof to be satisfied".

[Alfie]

Make up your mind.  A few posts back you were admitting alternatives exist, now you are asserting they don't.

This strikes me as a thinly disguised attempt to put enough obstacles in the way that the end result must be that the parents in your scenario are innocent, but IMO it is backfiring, and actually quite damaging to your cause.

Basically, you are asserting that everything other than abduction must be incorrect, therefore abduction is correct.  And, IMO, you're not doing a good job of it.

Coming from you I take that as a compliment.

  If you think there are credible, plausible reasons why anyone in the scenario I have outlined would ask for a full and comrehensive review then that is your prerogative. Of course alternatives exist - the question is, how credible and plausible are they?  You don't seem very keen to consider this question, in fact it seems to cause you some major irritation.  It seems we're back to the old forum adage that all opinions are equally valid, as are all theories, however this is patent nonsense. 

[Alfie]

It's been entertaining watching you try to insist that the only plausible logical motive is the one you prefer. First you have to demonstrate that your hypothetical people have been plausible and logical from day one. If they haven't, why should their reasons for requesting a review be plausible and logical?

Then you have answered my scenario with the first option I gave - they must be f@@king mad. 

[ferryman]

True. Their results [with access to much more information than us] are impressive...............remind me, what have they achieved again?

I'm sure they haven't (even attempted) to stitch anyone up who is innocent ....

[Alfie]

If it made perfect sense I wouldn't be here. There is also the possibility that one of the people involved is completely innocent and that's the one who is driving the search and the review. Sometimes people really don't understand the nature of those they live with.

Hmm..would love to challenge that idea with reference to the case we're not allowed to mention on this thread, but sadly we wouldn't be allowed as it would inevitably breach forum libel rules.  Shame. 

[pegasus]

If it made perfect sense I wouldn't be here. There is also the possibility that one of the people involved is completely innocent and that's the one who is driving the search and the review. Sometimes people really don't understand the nature of those they live with.

Interesting post GUnit

[ShiningInLuz]

Coming from you I take that as a compliment.

  If you think there are credible, plausible reasons why anyone in the scenario I have outlined would ask for a full and comrehensive review then that is your prerogative. Of course alternatives exist - the question is, how credible and plausible are they?  You don't seem very keen to consider this question, in fact it seems to cause you some major irritation.  It seems we're back to the old forum adage that all opinions are equally valid, as are all theories, however this is patent nonsense.

I have already explained a credible and plausible alternative, but I believe you totally ignored it.  Here it is again.

You commit a crime.  You immediately plant stories in the media to show someone else did it.  You get away with the crime.  But the problem is the media, and the world has now turned against you, and your reputation is getting shredded.

Having got away with it once, in a foreign country, you decide that a review in your homeland has zero chance of catching you.  So you do some PR and request a review you are confident will find diddly squat.

It really is that simple.

The forum does consider opinions to be of equal value, so we can discard that point.

And as for theorems, what we have had so far, is that Alfie considers abduction to be the case, therefore it must be abduction.

It demonstrates a poor understanding of statistics, and it demonstrates a poor understanding of the way the forum works.  Thus far I am seeing little, possibly nothing, to support your hypothesis.  Perhaps you would like to swap from bald assertion to something solid?

[Alfie]

PS: wtf have statistics got to do with the price of fish...?

*shakes head, baffled, slouches off to bed*

[G-Unit]

Then you have answered my scenario with the first option I gave - they must be f@@king mad. 

My philosophy is that you can never predict what others might do or why.

[G-Unit]

A very simple suggestion as to why a review can be confidently requested. It is plausible and logical. Do you have an answer to it or not?

[ShiningInLuz]

I can see you have ducked the issue again.  I'm getting the impression you are unable to support your theorem, hence the lack of trying.

[Mr Gray]

I have already explained a credible and plausible alternative, but I believe you totally ignored it.  Here it is again.

You commit a crime.  You immediately plant stories in the media to show someone else did it.  You get away with the crime.  But the problem is the media, and the world has now turned against you, and your reputation is getting shredded.

Having got away with it once, in a foreign country, you decide that a review in your homeland has zero chance of catching you.  So you do some PR and request a review you are confident will find diddly squat.

It really is that simple.

The forum does consider opinions to be of equal value, so we can discard that point.

And as for theorems, what we have had so far, is that Alfie considers abduction to be the case, therefore it must be abduction.

It demonstrates a poor understanding of statistics, and it demonstrates a poor understanding of the way the forum works.  Thus far I am seeing little, possibly nothing, to support your hypothesis.  Perhaps you would like to swap from bald assertion to something solid?

of course if the media both in your country and elsewhere was supportive of you your idea would have no basis. If you were actually had lots of support and were made patron of a leading charity again your idea would have no basis.. Statistically abduction MUST rank very highly if the parents had been designated non suspects.....to understand the statistics you would have to understand that the sum of all varaibles would have to add up to one and you have shown this is something you simply do not understand and therefore any lectures from you on statistics must be seen in this light.

I have not seem any credible reason why a couple who were not considered suspects and were guilty should press so hard for a review of all the evidence. They would only do this if they knew their was no chance of them being implicated....that is unless they were totally innocent

[Alfie]

A very simple suggestion as to why a review can be confidently requested. It is plausible and logical. Do you have an answer to it or not?

I strongly disagree that S-I-L's suggestion is plausible and logical, in fact it had already been mooted by someone else and I have already given my reasons why I think that.

[LagosBen]

Scenario:

Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.

As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country. 

The police are suspicious, the media which was supportive in the early days has turned on you, printing all sorts of uncomfortable headlines heavily hinting that you have done something untoward with your child. 

Eventually you are made chief suspect in your child's disappearance and every aspect of your holiday, your relationship with your child and family and friends, your comings and goings etc is put under the microscope.  The police bust their guts trying to find some evidence that you hid your child's body.

Meanwhile most people in your home country and in the country in which you holidayed are convinced you're guilty of something.

Eventually, after months of investigation and trying to build a case against you, the police concede they lack any evidence against you, and you are no longer suspects.  The case is shelved indefinitely.  You sue the media for libel and settle out of court - a nice big juicy payment for your bank account.

Now, at this point you'd be forgiven for going to ground, issuing one final statement to the media along the lines of "we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone, and just want to be left alone to grieve", then slink away into obscurity to spend all that lovely lolly you screwed out of the public and the papers. 

But no.  This is not what you do.

Instead you spend a small fortune on various private investigators, you write a book which gets serialised in the country's biggest circulation newspaper, you appear on TV chat shows, all allegedly to keep your child's profile high in the public consciousness even though you know what happened.

Then to cap it all, three whole years after the case was shelved you go to the highest man in your land,  the prime minister, by sending him a letter demanding:

"a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to our child's disappearance".

You are granted your wish and the country's most esteemed police force is drafted in to sift through all the evidence all over again, at great cost to the public purse. 

You make yourself available for more TV appearances, BBC Crimewatch even, appealing for people to come forward who may have actually seen something.

The question I have to ask you is:

ARE YOU F@@KING MAD????

If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?

69

Excellent summation Alfie. This has been pointed out many times but for some reason people choose not to see the logic.
How people can think that relatively normal people could turn into devious child killers or cover up a fatal accident, hide a body in an unfamiliar place in a short space of time is hard to grasp.