UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: ShiningInLuz on February 17, 2016, 08:25:25 PM
-
HOLMES 2 appears to be the software used by Operation Grange.
Your introductory article to Holmes 2 is Wikipedia.
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOLMES_2
Info at this point in time.
“HOLMES 2 (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System) is an information technology system that is predominantly used by UK police forces for the investigation of major incidents such as serial murders and multimillion-pound frauds.
The system is a single application which was developed by Unisys for the Police Information Technology Organisation under the Private Finance Initiative. It provides total compatibility and consistency between all the Police forces of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as well as the Royal Military Police. The name of the system is a reference to the fictional private detective Sherlock Holmes.”
“History of development
HOLMES
HOLMES was introduced in 1985 and enabled law enforcement agencies to improve effectiveness and productivity in crime investigations. Like the later HOLMES 2, it was an administrative support system which was primarily designed to assist Senior Investigation Officers in their management of the complexity of investigating serious crime. To this end, HOLMES carefully processed the mass of information it was provided with and ensured that no vital clues were overlooked.
HOLMES was also used to support the Police UK Casualty Bureau providing facilities to record reported missing persons, casualties, survivors and evacuees. The application provides matching facilities to aid the reconciliation of missing persons with those involved in the incident.
But the system had crucial weaknesses, too. It provided very little support to the investigation of the crime per se and had only very limited opportunities to link separate incidents, especially across police force boundaries. What was needed was a solution that allowed an increased amount of information exchange combined with a better use of the information.
Replacement
Against this background, the British police forces started a plan to replace the existing system with a new, improved version in 1994. The new version, HOLMES 2, overcame the known weaknesses of HOLMES. Additionally, it is more flexible for future changes and provides a speedier and more efficient access to information. The system was finally released to the first forces in 2000, while the last forces became operational in early 2004.
Applications
As mentioned above, HOLMES 2's most important function is the one as a crime investigation tool. For this purpose, it is based on an organised and methodical approach, whose structure concentrates on the major incident room (MIR). This is the administrative centre where further investigation actions are coordinated and all the information from members of public, enquiry officers and other sources is gathered. With the help of input masks, HOLMES 2 is provided with the relevant information and used by the senior investigating officer to direct and control the course of the enquiry. In this respect, the system uses a combination of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components and purpose-built software to provide the most cost-effective system for the police service. Furthermore, the improved HOLMES embeds computer intelligence for the first time. The Dynamic Reasoning Engine (DRE), for example, makes it possible to combine the skills and experiences of crime investigators with the acquired knowledge of the system in order to identify new lines of enquiry.
Another important use of HOLMES 2 lies in disaster management. The reason for this can be seen in the similarities that exist between the investigation of a major incident and a major disaster. In case of a disaster, HOLMES 2 collaborates with the facilities for disaster management via the Casualty Bureau.[2] The additional functions required for Casualty Bureau operations, like recording Interpol data and specific action management facilities, are fully integrated into the HOLMES 2. HOLMES 2 also provides the ability to pool resources in order to handle more effectively the initial peak load of missing person calls from the public.
There is also a fully mobile version of HOLMES 2 which can be run on a laptop for use in courts or while travelling.
Technical details
The client/server architecture of HOLMES 2 is based on Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional or NT 4.0 workstations with UNIX servers running either Solaris or UnixWare. The system network communicates by using TCP/IP network protocols for LAN and WLAN communication.
Furthermore, HOLMES 2 uses a two-tier approach for local database access and a 3-tier approach for remote database access, whereby remote database access is user-configurable from the front end. A freetext database allows users to ask unstructured questions and to present the results in order of relevance. Apart from that, a dual operation was adopted to increase the speed of the system. While searches themselves were tuned at the SQL (Structured Query Language) level, additional indexes on the RDBMS (relational database management system) tables were deployed.”
21
-
Here is a good link to information, including a downloadable example of how the system was used in a murder case;
http://www.holmes2.com/holmes2/sampleinv/
-
Why have you started a thread about HOLMES when it's only as good as the rubbish you feed into it and years out of date anyway?
-
Perhaps the resident HOLMES experts could debunk each of these outrageous claims from Jouranl De noticias with their evidence and reasoning:
1)Scotland Yard possesses software designed to reconstruct, in a virtual way, the facts that have been reported by the various witnesses who have intervened in the process of Maddie's disappearance.
2)The versions of those involved may be cross referenced, and after the data is processed by the software, one can understand what adds up – and what does not.
3)In this software, one can insert photos and the description of the apartment, including Maddie's bedroom, drawings or photos of the entries, routes to the restaurant – and a description thereof – where the parents and friends were dining, their table and the localization and position of each person.
4)The software will also receive the statements that everyone has made and will be making (the English will hear the McCann couple's friends again), as these people may recall facts, as small as they may be, and even add objects that may give their descriptions more veracity.
5) From there on, the investigators may reach more precise conclusions, which, very often, belies the testimonies that have been described in their statements.
-
Also, it would be great if you could poo-poo this idiocy to within an inch of its life, as it's about the even more laughable notion that the Portuguese also possess similar timeline reconstruction- assisting software:
The only known virtual reconstruction was made by the professors Paulo Sargento (Criminal psychology) and by Pedro Gamito (IT department) of the Lusófona University, using as its basis the statements of the McCanns and their friends. By means of specific software, the statements given to the PJ were evaluated and cross-checked. Thus, one can now understand better the possibilities of each one of them being at a certain place and time, as stated by them.
-
Why have you started a thread about HOLMES when it's only as good as the rubbish you feed into it and years out of date anyway?
HOLMES was being discussed at length on a thread not covering HOLMES, thus taking that thread off-topic.
I have simply enabled those who are interested to form their own opinion of the tool.
If your starting position is that "it's only as good as the rubbish you feed into it and years out of date anyway", you are of course entitled to your opinion.
The opinion of the mod who approved the thread was that the topic was worthy of its own thread.
Having settled the basics, can we move on?
-
If 3 or 4 people give conflicting times or positions at a certain time, how does Holmes resolve this, or does it just flag it up as a discrepancy and leave to to human intervention to resolve?
-
Some people seem to want to worship at the altar of technology, as stated elsewhere, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-
Some people seem to want to worship at the altar of technology, as stated elsewhere, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
strange post...have you ever stopped to think where we would be without new technology
-
It may help to explain HOLMES with reference to the PJ Files. If they were put into HOLMES, which I'm sure they have been, they can be searched. To give a simple example the police may want to check the time the police were called. They type in the search term 'Calls to GNR' (or similar) and all the information connected to the calls appears on-screen. That could include the receptionist's statement, the printout of the calls received, Matthews statement that he went to reception, Fiona's statement that she asked him to go etc. In other words, everything connected to that incident.
That allows the police to compare all the information in the files relating to a particular incident quickly and easily. They can print out everything they find and compare it on paper too.
It's easy to see how having everything in HOLMES makes life easier. Once it's all in there it's less likely that an important piece of information will be missed because they're all connected. Whatever search term you put in, all the information connected to that search will be brought up. When you have thousands of pieces of information that makes life much easier.
What HOLMES can't do is choose who's right or wrong. That still has to be decided by human beings, HOLMES just makes it quicker and easier to find all the relevant information. So if ten people say they saw something at a certain time and one person says it was an hour earlier, a policeman has to decide who is correct. His job is made easier because he can find all the information relating to the incident quickly and bring it up on screen to compare it all.
-
Some people seem to want to worship at the altar of technology, as stated elsewhere, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Certainly the technologies of phone tracking and DNA have proved disappointing in this case.
-
strange post...have you ever stopped to think where we would be without new technology
If we didn't have our wonderful mobile phones we might be talking to the people we're with instead of to someone we're not with. On the other hand life is much easier when we can keep in touch with each other. There are always pluses and minuses.
-
If we didn't have our wonderful mobile phones we might be talking to the people we're with instead of to someone we're not with. On the other hand life is much easier when we can keep in touch with each other. There are always pluses and minuses.
i'm well aware there are pluses and minuses but the alternative is living in the dark ages...my mobile makes my life a lot easier
-
i'm well aware there are pluses and minuses but the alternative is living in the dark ages...my mobile makes my life a lot easier
Exactly. Just as HOLMES makes life easier for detectives. It's a tool which helps them to be more efficient, it doesn't replace them. Detectives solve cases, not computers.
-
Exactly. Just as HOLMES makes life easier for detectives. It's a tool which helps them to be more efficient, it doesn't replace them. Detectives solve cases, not computers.
Has anyone said computers do solve cases
-
Unisys Limited
Holmes 2 Application
The Unisys HOLMES 2 application is the only accredited national application for investigating complex crimes/incidents at the upper end of the investigative continuum, and provides a disaster management capability to control incident-handling of any man-made or natural disaster.
Features
Configurable indexes and entities to manage investigations and disasters.
Document Management- Document processing, adding attachments, online document typing
Tasking and co-ordination of resources; graphical representation of outstanding actions
Searching– Supports Boolean, stemming, phrases, synonyms, association and wildcards
Associations– Maintains relevant links between all records, documents and tasks
Wizards capture multiple data record types under a single workflow
Auditing of all activities and operations
Role-Based Access Control & Record Level Security
Information exchange with external systems via SOAP based web services
Reporting & Printing in a variety of formats
Benefits
Intuitive and easy-to-use screens
Rich set of predefined entities
Capability to add and immediately use new entities, or attributes
Exposes standard web services for access by third party applications
Comprehensive search facility to query structured and unstructured data
Access controls to restrict the visibility of a document
Analytics including the facility to perform Link and Geospatial analysis.
A single source of truth to prevent data duplication.
Browser based, n-tier “service based” architecture using current tools.
Component-based approach maximising organisational agility and reducing life-cycle costs
https://www.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/g-cloud/services/7685490505215704
-
From the earlier link, it can do geospatial analysis.
It can also export results to other applications.
http://www.holmes2.com/holmes2/ontheroad/Copy%20of%20IDOL%20Presentation.pps.
-
If 3 or 4 people give conflicting times or positions at a certain time, how does Holmes resolve this, or does it just flag it up as a discrepancy and leave to to human intervention to resolve?
I would imagine that among all the hundreds of other statements fed into the programme there might be information either to confirm or to call a statement into question.
For example ... without prejudice ... there are a few statements from people who saw a man who they identified as Robert Murat at the scene.
Robert Murat is adamant that he was not there.
There are at least two men who could easily be mistaken for him; collating all the information from eye witnesses about bystanders might prove useful, particularly if like the tapas three they did not know him at the time.
For example a witness says ... "I was standing exactly at this spot with three or four other people who I knew to be guests and staff, there was one person with us who had just appeared ... I never saw him before or since."
This is corroborated by another statement from someone in the group.
If the description matches Robert Murat and the two lookalikes but other corroborated witness statements place them in another location ... I think it is very obvious there must have been an unknown person on the street whose description fitted those three and it would be worthwhile to trace who that person was to find out who and what his business was.
A system like HOLMES would only need to be fed the information to spit things like that out for analysis.
-
I would imagine that among all the hundreds of other statements fed into the programme there might be information either to confirm or to call a statement into question.
For example ... without prejudice ... there are a few statements from people who saw a man who they identified as Robert Murat at the scene.
Robert Murat is adamant that he was not there.
There are at least two men who could easily be mistaken for him; collating all the information from eye witnesses about bystanders might prove useful, particularly if like the tapas three they did not know him at the time.
For example a witness says ... "I was standing exactly at this spot with three or four other people who I knew to be guests and staff, there was one person with us who had just appeared ... I never saw him before or since."
This is corroborated by another statement from someone in the group.
If the description matches Robert Murat and the two lookalikes but other corroborated witness statements place them in another location ... I think it is very obvious there must have been an unknown person on the street whose description fitted those three and it would be worthwhile to trace who that person was to find out who and what his business was.
A system like HOLMES would only need to be fed the information to spit things like that out for analysis.
That's a good example.
-
Certainly the technologies of phone tracking and DNA have proved disappointing in this case.
There is an assumption amongst some that technology will solve everything, having spent a career in IT, it is really good at doing silly things very quickly.
-
I suppose we must be thankful that Holmes et al will have helped to eliminate most of the dross and red herrings that plagued this case.
-
HOLMES 2 appears to be the software used by Operation Grange.
Your introductory article to Holmes 2 is Wikipedia.
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOLMES_2
Info at this point in time.
“HOLMES 2 (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System) is an information technology system that is predominantly used by UK police forces for the investigation of major incidents such as serial murders and multimillion-pound frauds.
The system is a single application which was developed by Unisys for the Police Information Technology Organisation under the Private Finance Initiative. It provides total compatibility and consistency between all the Police forces of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as well as the Royal Military Police. The name of the system is a reference to the fictional private detective Sherlock Holmes.”
“History of development
HOLMES
HOLMES was introduced in 1985 and enabled law enforcement agencies to improve effectiveness and productivity in crime investigations. Like the later HOLMES 2, it was an administrative support system which was primarily designed to assist Senior Investigation Officers in their management of the complexity of investigating serious crime. To this end, HOLMES carefully processed the mass of information it was provided with and ensured that no vital clues were overlooked.
HOLMES was also used to support the Police UK Casualty Bureau providing facilities to record reported missing persons, casualties, survivors and evacuees. The application provides matching facilities to aid the reconciliation of missing persons with those involved in the incident.
But the system had crucial weaknesses, too. It provided very little support to the investigation of the crime per se and had only very limited opportunities to link separate incidents, especially across police force boundaries. What was needed was a solution that allowed an increased amount of information exchange combined with a better use of the information.
Replacement
Against this background, the British police forces started a plan to replace the existing system with a new, improved version in 1994. The new version, HOLMES 2, overcame the known weaknesses of HOLMES. Additionally, it is more flexible for future changes and provides a speedier and more efficient access to information. The system was finally released to the first forces in 2000, while the last forces became operational in early 2004.
Applications
As mentioned above, HOLMES 2's most important function is the one as a crime investigation tool. For this purpose, it is based on an organised and methodical approach, whose structure concentrates on the major incident room (MIR). This is the administrative centre where further investigation actions are coordinated and all the information from members of public, enquiry officers and other sources is gathered. With the help of input masks, HOLMES 2 is provided with the relevant information and used by the senior investigating officer to direct and control the course of the enquiry. In this respect, the system uses a combination of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components and purpose-built software to provide the most cost-effective system for the police service. Furthermore, the improved HOLMES embeds computer intelligence for the first time. The Dynamic Reasoning Engine (DRE), for example, makes it possible to combine the skills and experiences of crime investigators with the acquired knowledge of the system in order to identify new lines of enquiry.
Another important use of HOLMES 2 lies in disaster management. The reason for this can be seen in the similarities that exist between the investigation of a major incident and a major disaster. In case of a disaster, HOLMES 2 collaborates with the facilities for disaster management via the Casualty Bureau.[2] The additional functions required for Casualty Bureau operations, like recording Interpol data and specific action management facilities, are fully integrated into the HOLMES 2. HOLMES 2 also provides the ability to pool resources in order to handle more effectively the initial peak load of missing person calls from the public.
There is also a fully mobile version of HOLMES 2 which can be run on a laptop for use in courts or while travelling.
Technical details
The client/server architecture of HOLMES 2 is based on Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional or NT 4.0 workstations with UNIX servers running either Solaris or UnixWare. The system network communicates by using TCP/IP network protocols for LAN and WLAN communication.
Furthermore, HOLMES 2 uses a two-tier approach for local database access and a 3-tier approach for remote database access, whereby remote database access is user-configurable from the front end. A freetext database allows users to ask unstructured questions and to present the results in order of relevance. Apart from that, a dual operation was adopted to increase the speed of the system. While searches themselves were tuned at the SQL (Structured Query Language) level, additional indexes on the RDBMS (relational database management system) tables were deployed.”
I fear that even the best specialist software will struggle to interpret the various conflicting timings and sightings which have been reported and recorded on official statements in the Madeleine McCann investigation. You only have to read some of the tapas waiter statements to find timing conflicts which are wholly irreconcilable. For a system like Holmes 2 to succeed the data being fed in has to be competent in the first place.
-
There is an assumption amongst some that technology will solve everything, having spent a career in IT, it is really good at doing silly things very quickly.
If the alternative is scribbled notes on bits of paper that can be easily mislaid, which do you find more potentially efficient?
-
May we have a threads on SAP and Artemis as well?
-
Exactly. Just as HOLMES makes life easier for detectives. It's a tool which helps them to be more efficient, it doesn't replace them. Detectives solve cases, not computers.
who here has ever stated otherwise?
-
Perhaps the resident HOLMES experts could debunk each of these outrageous claims from Jouranl De noticias with their evidence and reasoning:
1)Scotland Yard possesses software designed to reconstruct, in a virtual way, the facts that have been reported by the various witnesses who have intervened in the process of Maddie's disappearance.
2)The versions of those involved may be cross referenced, and after the data is processed by the software, one can understand what adds up – and what does not.
3)In this software, one can insert photos and the description of the apartment, including Maddie's bedroom, drawings or photos of the entries, routes to the restaurant – and a description thereof – where the parents and friends were dining, their table and the localization and position of each person.
4)The software will also receive the statements that everyone has made and will be making (the English will hear the McCann couple's friends again), as these people may recall facts, as small as they may be, and even add objects that may give their descriptions more veracity.
5) From there on, the investigators may reach more precise conclusions, which, very often, belies the testimonies that have been described in their statements.
could resident HOLMES experts and IT boffins please confirm that the above is pure bollocks by the PT press, as is the claim made by another PT paper that the PJ used similar software to help create a timeline, many thanks.
-
I would like to have seen the police when they were attempting to enter the various rogatory statements @)(++(*
-
I would like to have seen the police when they were attempting to enter the various rogatory statements @)(++(*
Something akin to this possibly?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/88/10/06/8810060f2e25f918f481eb46e7a71792.jpg)
-
Interesting stuff. Could see how software would be extremely useful in any crime. Most would simply replace pen and paper and whiteboards I assume but with added analytical tools. Other then this software I assume they have built a 3D model of the area similar to google maps... They had a flyby over a 3D model in the crimewatch programme...
-
I fear that even the best specialist software will struggle to interpret the various conflicting timings and sightings which have been reported and recorded on official statements in the Madeleine McCann investigation. You only have to read some of the tapas waiter statements to find timing conflicts which are wholly irreconcilable. For a system like Holmes 2 to succeed the data being fed in has to be competent in the first place.
I still don't see the issue.
Obviously at some point there will be human analysis.
1. HOLMES2 is criminal / disaster management software.
2. Is there any logical reason why people assume that conflicting times can't be spotted and further analysed?
3. The data can be exported to other applications (whether needed or not)
4. If you can export data concerning supposed alibis (corroborated or not), what the phone records state, descriptions of various people, known distances, a supposed timeline, and the capacity to present permutations based on the variables...
What's the issue?
-
There is an assumption amongst some that technology will solve everything, having spent a career in IT, it is really good at doing silly things very quickly.
Pretty much. There were a few state of the art software packages for drybolics that needed you to insert a "false reservoir" in order to make the things analyse. Of course one had to remember not to build the bloody thing because it was only needed by the computer !
They could spew out calcs at an impressive rate though. I melted several slide rules trying to keep up.
DIS SUM DAT n DIS SUM DOC
8(0(*
-
Perhaps the resident HOLMES experts could debunk each of these outrageous claims from Jouranl De noticias with their evidence and reasoning:
1)Scotland Yard possesses software designed to reconstruct, in a virtual way, the facts that have been reported by the various witnesses who have intervened in the process of Maddie's disappearance.
2)The versions of those involved may be cross referenced, and after the data is processed by the software, one can understand what adds up – and what does not.
3)In this software, one can insert photos and the description of the apartment, including Maddie's bedroom, drawings or photos of the entries, routes to the restaurant – and a description thereof – where the parents and friends were dining, their table and the localization and position of each person.
4)The software will also receive the statements that everyone has made and will be making (the English will hear the McCann couple's friends again), as these people may recall facts, as small as they may be, and even add objects that may give their descriptions more veracity.
5) From there on, the investigators may reach more precise conclusions, which, very often, belies the testimonies that have been described in their statements.
In general, HOLMES would speed up the ability to do this, after the system has been very laboriously loaded up. Most armchair detectives have probably laboured over finding out where things are, and thinking, 'hmm, there was something on that somewhere, but can I remember where it was?'.
HOLMES cuts through that, based on the system as described.
As to things like inconsistencies in timings, I suspect HOLMES does not try to reach a conclusion, but merely flags up this type of stuff as something that a human may prioritise for investigation, or may not.
One issue that has been commented on is the nightmare of the rogatories. I'd love to know what they did to those. Did they go in raw and in their entirety? Or did someone clean them up somehow?
If you actually think through how the system must have been loaded up, the rogs are far from the only obstacle.
What I'm confident of is that there is no way HOLMES is going to crack this through artificial intelligence. Should the case be cracked it will be by human (police) intelligence, with HOLMES positioned as merely an assistant office administrator.
-
If the alternative is scribbled notes on bits of paper that can be easily mislaid, which do you find more potentially efficient?
In what format does the data entry operative receive the data from the originator and what is the trail ? Or do you think the guy up the sharp end punches it into a phd as it happens?
-
In general, HOLMES would speed up the ability to do this, after the system has been very laboriously loaded up. Most armchair detectives have probably laboured over finding out where things are, and thinking, 'hmm, there was something on that somewhere, but can I remember where it was?'.
HOLMES cuts through that, based on the system as described.
As to things like inconsistencies in timings, I suspect HOLMES does not try to reach a conclusion, but merely flags up this type of stuff as something that a human may prioritise for investigation, or may not.
One issue that has been commented on is the nightmare of the rogatories. I'd love to know what they did to those. Did they go in raw and in their entirety? Or did someone clean them up somehow?
If you actually think through how the system must have been loaded up, the rogs are far from the only obstacle.
What I'm confident of is that there is no way HOLMES is going to crack this through artificial intelligence. Should the case be cracked it will be by human (police) intelligence, with HOLMES positioned as merely an assistant office administrator.
Is this perhaps what took so much of the time. Would data be entered by experienced detectives, or secretarial type people. Subject to human error, whichever.
-
May we have a threads on SAP and Artemis as well?
I've used SAP and Oracle (HOLMES is an enhanced Oracle database). I've not used Artemis.
-
I STILL don't see the issue. Obviously there is going to be human intervention to assess the state of affairs (red flags, back burner issues or resolved ones).
HOLMES2 (or any other project management system) speeds up the process. Data can be exported if needed to feed into other software.
What's the issue?
-
Is this perhaps what took so much of the time. Would data be entered by experienced detectives, or secretarial type people. Subject to human error, whichever.
Back in the old days it was punched in on a Friday afternoon after the weekly lunch time sojourn down the battle !
-
I've used SAP and Oracle (HOLMES is an enhanced Oracle database). I've not used Artemis.
In what capacity?
-
In general, HOLMES would speed up the ability to do this, after the system has been very laboriously loaded up. Most armchair detectives have probably laboured over finding out where things are, and thinking, 'hmm, there was something on that somewhere, but can I remember where it was?'.
HOLMES cuts through that, based on the system as described.
As to things like inconsistencies in timings, I suspect HOLMES does not try to reach a conclusion, but merely flags up this type of stuff as something that a human may prioritise for investigation, or may not.
One issue that has been commented on is the nightmare of the rogatories. I'd love to know what they did to those. Did they go in raw and in their entirety? Or did someone clean them up somehow?
If you actually think through how the system must have been loaded up, the rogs are far from the only obstacle.
What I'm confident of is that there is no way HOLMES is going to crack this through artificial intelligence. Should the case be cracked it will be by human (police) intelligence, with HOLMES positioned as merely an assistant office administrator.
Just a refined very easily accessed filing system. Initially labour consuming but ultimately worth its weight in gold.
-
HOLMES has been quoted as the answer to questions raised about the 'forensic examination' of the timeline. The system can examine the timeline and identify gaps which could have allowed time for an abduction.
What it cannot do is decide if the times given and entered are correct or not. If the times entered are not correct, the gaps identified are also not correct.
-
I've used SAP and Oracle (HOLMES is an enhanced Oracle database). I've not used Artemis.
Artemis was a bit of a trail blazer in that it was I think the first system of its kind not to need a main frame to run off.
-
Just a refined very easily accessed filing system. Initially labour consuming but ultimately worth its weight in gold.
Certainly easier than having to find scribbles of "furto" on bits of paper, I would have thought.
I have no doubt that numerous PT police officers did their very best under the circumstances. It's not their fault if they didn't have adequate resources at the time.
However, I find that very different to the constant stream of half-baked leaks and subsequent assertions by certain people.
-
HOLMES has been quoted as the answer to questions raised about the 'forensic examination' of the timeline. The system can examine the timeline and identify gaps which could have allowed time for an abduction.
What it cannot do is decide if the times given and entered are correct or not. If the times entered are not correct, the gaps identified are also not correct.
As has been said before, only as good as the data entered into it.
-
I didn't want to add off-topic comments to a thread, but I did ask if Blonk's "reasons" insinuating that M had disappeared prior to the alert could be the subject of a new thread.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2817.msg308212#msg308212
What's the situation on that? As it stands, it appears as undisputed fact.
-
In what capacity?
As accounting packages. They are very powerful databases used by (usually) very big multinational companies. They can store and process data for many different company names (the companies I worked for had many subsidiaries all over the world). The last one I used was SAP and people world-wide were entering data. Depending on your access permission you could look at the entries being made by all those people. Searches can be carried out and bespoke reports scheduled. Obviously the information extracted was only as correct as the information entered. If a human entered the wrong Vat code, for example, that transaction would be under the wrong heading on a Vat report.
-
In what format does the data entry operative receive the data from the originator and what is the trail ? Or do you think the guy up the sharp end punches it into a phd as it happens?
Sorry, can't remember the thread.
In the one where Martin Smith's additional information is noted, our evidence comes from Braunstone (???), just outside Leicester. It was keyed in by a 'HOLMES indexer'.
That suggests to me they have folk at the front end whose expertise is sticking info into HOLMES in a way that HOLMES can make the most of it.
Quite how one can do that without a good understanding of the case, the incident, or the incident scene is defeating me at the moment.
However, the info on HOLMES makes it clear that once rolled out fully in 2004, the HOLMES of every police force in the UK was connected to the HOLMES of every other. Work carried out by LP should have been one of the easier bits to load up. Unless OG wanted it indexed in quite a different manner.
-
Just a refined very easily accessed filing system. Initially labour consuming but ultimately worth its weight in gold.
I suspect several of us on here would like to get a day pass to play with the system.
-
As accounting packages. They are very powerful databases used by (usually) very big multinational companies. They can store and process data for many different company names (the companies I worked for had many subsidiaries all over the world). The last one I used was SAP and people world-wide were entering data. Depending on your access permission you could look at the entries being made by all those people. Searches can be carried out and bespoke reports scheduled. Obviously the information extracted was only as correct as the information entered. If a human entered the wrong Vat code, for example, that transaction would be under the wrong heading on a Vat report.
Are you suggesting that there is no validation process once someone has typed in an entry?
-
How might it be validated, other than double entry?
-
Certainly easier than having to find scribbles of "furto" on bits of paper, I would have thought.
I have no doubt that numerous PT police officers did their very best under the circumstances. It's not their fault if they didn't have adequate resources at the time.
However, I find that very different to the constant stream of half-baked leaks and subsequent assertions by certain people.
Just my opinion, but I am entitled to my opinion.
If the PJ had HOLMES at the very start, they would have sunk without trace under the bureaucracy.
It takes one heck of a lot of manpower to get data into HOLMES. It takes one heck of a lot of lead time to get the amount of data the PJ produced on 4 May 2007 into HOLMES.
What would the priority have been? Surely the initial statements of the T9 on 4 May. What would HOLMES churned out on those? Surely, that there were issues with the timeline. The PJ managed that without HOLMES.
Personally, I would like to have seen something a bit more automated than paper in a filing folder. I would have preferred to see something much more agile than HOLMES.
IMO
-
Sorry, can't remember the thread.
In the one where Martin Smith's additional information is noted, our evidence comes from Braunstone (???), just outside Leicester. It was keyed in by a 'HOLMES indexer'.
That suggests to me they have folk at the front end whose expertise is sticking info into HOLMES in a way that HOLMES can make the most of it.
Quite how one can do that without a good understanding of the case, the incident, or the incident scene is defeating me at the moment.
However, the info on HOLMES makes it clear that once rolled out fully in 2004, the HOLMES of every police force in the UK was connected to the HOLMES of every other. Work carried out by LP should have been one of the easier bits to load up. Unless OG wanted it indexed in quite a different manner.
First let's be clear on my terminology:
sharp end= the guy on the street doing the real business.
blunt end= the chap or chappess feeding info into the macheeny.
How does the info get from the sharp end to the blunt end ?
Does the guy at the sharp end hand over his pocket book to the blunt end when he is off duty, the blunt end transcribes then hands back the pocket book next time the guy has to go on duty? (unlikely)
Does he write a report and hand it over either electronically or scribe then cleft stick runner? (probably)
Does he have a PHD connected to HOLMES so he can input data as it happens. (this would be best)
I ask this simply because the more links the more chance of error and there seems to be the idea that we should sneer at a police force that using something other HOLMES.
So fundamentally it is a system that is historical which has a fast retrieval rate and may have some contemporaneous whizzy bits in it.
So far so good. Nothing earth shattering there. Multi national corporations have been using similar for 20 years or so.
-
First let's be clear on my terminology:
sharp end= the guy on the street doing the real business.
blunt end= the chap or chappess feeding info into the macheeny.
How does the info get from the sharp end to the blunt end ?
Does the guy at the sharp end hand over his pocket book to the blunt end when he is off duty, the blunt end transcribes then hands back the pocket book next time the guy has to go on duty? (unlikely)
Does he write a report and hand it over either electronically or scribe then cleft stick runner? (probably)
Does he have a PHD connected to HOLMES so he can input data as it happens. (this would be best)
I ask this simply because the more links the more chance of error and there seems to be the idea that we should sneer at a police force that using something other HOLMES.
So fundamentally it is a system that is historical which has a fast retrieval rate and may have some contemporaneous whizzy bits in it.
So far so good. Nothing earth shattering there. Multi national corporations have been using similar for 20 years or so.
So between the sharp end and the blunt end there is no pencil sharpener in any major incident room?
-
Sorry, can't remember the thread.
In the one where Martin Smith's additional information is noted, our evidence comes from Braunstone (???), just outside Leicester. It was keyed in by a 'HOLMES indexer'.
That suggests to me they have folk at the front end whose expertise is sticking info into HOLMES in a way that HOLMES can make the most of it.
Quite how one can do that without a good understanding of the case, the incident, or the incident scene is defeating me at the moment.
However, the info on HOLMES makes it clear that once rolled out fully in 2004, the HOLMES of every police force in the UK was connected to the HOLMES of every other. Work carried out by LP should have been one of the easier bits to load up. Unless OG wanted it indexed in quite a different manner.
I would suggest the person inputting the data would require no understanding of the case, the incident or the incident scene. Just accurate and fast typing skills.
They could not alter by one iota anything said by a witness ... all they would be doing would be entering the facts as they appeared on whatever medium had been used to record them.
Have I misunderstood what your post is saying?
-
So between the sharp end and the blunt end there is no pencil sharpener in any major incident room?
I cannot conceive of any organisation that could operate without FLYNs
-
I would suggest the person inputting the data would require no understanding of the case, the incident or the incident scene. Just accurate and fast typing skills.
They could not alter by one iota anything said by a witness ... all they would be doing would be entering the facts as they appeared on whatever medium had been used to record them.
Have I misunderstood what your post is saying?
I believe you have understood my post, and that we merely have different opinions of what may be happening here.
I get from the Martin Smith/HOLMES post that someone has had some training in using HOLMES before data entry. That is pretty standard. People generally get training in the use of a major software system, before they are allowed to run rampant.
I don't think HOLMES indexes itself. Clue 1, there would be no need for a 'HOLMES indexer'. Clue 2. It appears HOLMES needed to be told that Portugal was out of country. There are other clues, but I don't want to be pedantic.
The thread is about the general capabilities of HOLMES. I have no particular expertise or experience re how OG deploys it.
Sorry, still can't get Smileys to work. Consider this a thumbs-up.
-
Are you suggesting that there is no validation process once someone has typed in an entry?
I can say there is definitely no validation process. That would involve another person looking at the source of every entry to make sure a mistake hadn't been made. When thousands of transactions are entered each day that's not possible. Staff are trained, but mistakes happen. I once worked on the helpdesk of a very large company. A supplier rang in a panic. His bank account had been swollen considerably by a payment he definitely wasn't expecting. The person entering the transaction had made a mistake entering the currency. I think the invoice was in Portuguese Escudos, funnily enough, and it had been entered as British pounds. Th exchange rate was something like one pound = 250 Escudos.
-
I can say there is definitely no validation process. That would involve another person looking at the source of every entry to make sure a mistake hadn't been made. When thousands of transactions are entered each day that's not possible. Staff are trained, but mistakes happen. I once worked on the helpdesk of a very large company. A supplier rang in a panic. His bank account had been swollen considerably by a payment he definitely wasn't expecting. The person entering the transaction had made a mistake entering the currency. I think the invoice was in Portuguese Escudos, funnily enough, and it had been entered as British pounds. Th exchange rate was something like one pound = 250 Escudos.
I can imagine the panic...
HOLMES2 does have a validation process, according to the powerpoint presentation, unless that function had never had the parameters filled in to enable it to function.
What did Leicester Police use to manage the Major Incident Room?
-
I can imagine the panic...
HOLMES2 does have a validation process, according to the powerpoint presentation, unless that function had never had the parameters filled in to enable it to function.
What did Leicester Police use to manage the Major Incident Room?
I've no doubt HOLMES 2 has validation, but the question is, how useful is it? It would reject 25.15 as a time of day. It would not be able to tell if someone had turned 10.41 into 10.14.
The site says HOLMES 2 was rolled out to every police force in the UK by 2004. The Martin Smith entry says LP entered it into HOLMES.
-
I've no doubt HOLMES 2 has validation, but the question is, how useful is it? It would reject 25.15 as a time of day. It would not be able to tell if someone had turned 10.41 into 10.14.
The site says HOLMES 2 was rolled out to every police force in the UK by 2004. The Martin Smith entry says LP entered it into HOLMES.
Typos are no doubt a problem.
However, correlation with phone records would be able to distinguish 10:14 from 10:41, I would have thought, except when anomalies also appear in phone records. In such cases, perhaps figuring out the issues may be a task to assign to an officer or even to a sub-team if time was of the essence?
-
Not just typos... but misunderstandings or errors that can creep in.
This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and
no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the
vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the
boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a
forensic laboratory in the U.K.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
That's not correct, is it?
Keela alerted behind the passenger's side (i.e., the right-hand side of the boot when looking in from the boot. The driver's side is on the left).
-
For those who are fussy about times in the PJ files:
How can a PJ report (signed off by several people) on a search that allegedly started at 21:16, then state that Eddie alerted at 20:20 in that same location?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2054.jpg
-
Or what about Tavares de Almeida's report that Eddie had reacted to the boot, when Grime had clearly said that he didn't intend to place Eddie in it (and that's on video).
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2596.jpg
-
The above examples would demonstrate the difficulites in inputting accurate data into Holmes
-
Typos are no doubt a problem.
However, correlation with phone records would be able to distinguish 10:14 from 10:41, I would have thought, except when anomalies also appear in phone records. In such cases, perhaps figuring out the issues may be a task to assign to an officer or even to a sub-team if time was of the essence?
We are now WAY into aspects of OG and HOLMES that I do not have a clue about.
I have got zero idea whether the phone records were entered into HOLMES. I doubt someone on data entry would have worked out that 10.14 makes no sense. If someone from the Telegraph can inform us, for years, that there is only one fact we can be sure of, is that the alarm was raised at 10.14, what chance did the data operator have? What chance did HOLMES have? What chance does the general public have?
I have seen one report, tabloid, that Madeleine disappeared from block 6, complete with a photo of block 6. That was attributed to two of the tabloid's writers.
-
The above examples would demonstrate the difficulites in inputting accurate data into Holmes
I've never disputed that. Some red flags may turn out to be simply mistakes, typos, or perhaps something relevant. However, a system that can show red flags across a multitude of criteria may be a step forward from one that can't.
-
Maybe, though it may also result in wasted time and increased costs.
-
Maybe, though it may also result in wasted time and increased costs.
What other solution would you find viable for a major inquiry?
-
In what format does the data entry operative receive the data from the originator and what is the trail ? Or do you think the guy up the sharp end punches it into a phd as it happens?
The MS one came in by phone and may well have been typed up during the convo. No idea how that would get reviewed by anyone unless convos are recorded and double-checked.
-
This is all getting a bit silly. I don't think anyone would deny that Holmes is a useful tool for criminal investigation. What it isn't is a magic system that churns out criminals.
-
This is all getting a bit silly. I don't think anyone would deny that Holmes is a useful tool for criminal investigation. What it isn't is a magic system that churns out criminals.
Again, who has made such a claim?
-
Again, who has made such a claim?
The bottom line is that SY, utilising Holmes as a forensic tool - have established a window of opportunity for an abduction to have happened.
This is not what some sceptics want to hear - therefore the use of Holmes must be 'trashed'. The end.
IMO
-
The bottom line is that SY, utilising Holmes as a forensic tool - have established a window of opportunity for an abduction to have happened.
This is not what some sceptics want to hear - therefore the use of Holmes must be 'trashed'. The end.
IMO
8@??)(
-
The bottom line is that SY, utilising Holmes as a forensic tool - have established a window of opportunity for an abduction to have happened.
This is not what some sceptics want to hear - therefore the use of Holmes must be 'trashed'. The end.
IMO
I can demonstrate a window of opportunity in a couple of hours without needing a computer system, but Holmes can do it quicker. There are many things that Holmes helps with once all the available information has been loaded into the system. It's a good tool and no-one is trashing it.
What it cannot do is tell SY whether the timeline they have examined is correct or not. That's the point.
-
I can demonstrate a window of opportunity in a couple of hours without needing a computer system, but Holmes can do it quicker. There are many things that Holmes helps with once all the available information has been loaded into the system. It's a good tool and no-one is trashing it.
What it cannot do is tell SY whether the timeline they have examined is correct or not. That's the point.
It can map out where all he protagonists were in relation to each other and help the Met to put together as accurate as possible a timeline as you're ever going to get, without time stamped CCTV.
-
I can demonstrate a window of opportunity in a couple of hours without needing a computer system, but Holmes can do it quicker. There are many things that Holmes helps with once all the available information has been loaded into the system. It's a good tool and no-one is trashing it.
What it cannot do is tell SY whether the timeline they have examined is correct or not. That's the point.
I understand your point, but the times given by those outside of the group often don't tally between them. Whether staff or holidaymakers, in the absence of any particular reason to have noted a precise time, there would be nothing to situate any particular time beyond an approximation.
-
I understand your point, but the times given by those outside of the group often don't tally between them. Whether staff or holidaymakers, in the absence of any particular reason to have noted a precise time, there would be nothing to situate any particular time beyond an approximation.
Yup which is where HOLMES or any one of a number of systems can help by rapidly doing processes of iteration.
Although by inspection one can identify two windows of opportunity but it necessitates knowing precisely how long the abductor needs to go from out of sight to performing the act to out of sight again. That also would need a guess at where he started and where he was heading.
-
I understand your point, but the times given by those outside of the group often don't tally between them. Whether staff or holidaymakers, in the absence of any particular reason to have noted a precise time, there would be nothing to situate any particular time beyond an approximation.
In fact, some of the timings given by staff for Kate's alert are frankly absurd.
-
I understand your point, but the times given by those outside of the group often don't tally between them. Whether staff or holidaymakers, in the absence of any particular reason to have noted a precise time, there would be nothing to situate any particular time beyond an approximation.
Having worked most of my life I would be more likely to have an idea what time it was when I was working than when I was out for a meal. The people should have been re-interviewed and checks carried out. Did others know what time the Executive chef returned to the Millenium area, for example? We don't know because no-one followed up on any of those statements. There are many problems. No statements from any holidaymakers at the Tapas that evening apart from Carpenter. The Irwins were booked in at 8.30pm. The PJ asked the T9 about them but don't seem to have interviewed them.
-
In fact, some of the timings given by staff for Kate's alert are frankly absurd.
Which ones?
-
The bottom line is that SY, utilising Holmes as a forensic tool - have established a window of opportunity for an abduction to have happened.
This is not what some sceptics want to hear - therefore the use of Holmes must be 'trashed'. The end.
IMO
HOLMES as an admin tool for large team enquiries has not been trashed, or anything like it. The thread has been largely supportive of its use in that respect.
What has been clarified is that HOLMES cannot possibly resolve ambiguities and inconsistencies in the data. It can flag up some of these, just as forum members have flagged up odd statements and timeline issues.
It cannot resolve them. That takes human action.
HOLMES as an admin tool lives on.
HOLMES as a wizard, an expert, or a superior form of intelligence, is a non-starter. And if it took this entire thread to establish that single point, it was worth it.
-
HOLMES as an admin tool for large team enquiries has not been trashed, or anything like it. The thread has been largely supportive of its use in that respect.
What has been clarified is that HOLMES cannot possibly resolve ambiguities and inconsistencies in the data. It can flag up some of these, just as forum members have flagged up odd statements and timeline issues.
It cannot resolve them. That takes human action.
HOLMES as an admin tool lives on.
HOLMES as a wizard, an expert, or a superior form of intelligence, is a non-starter. And if it took this entire thread to establish that single point, it was worth it.
With respect I think many of us already knew that
-
I once worked on the first such computer ever, and saw it flick out what was requested at the most amazing rate. And then again and again to narrow things down.
Probably not relevant, but never underestimate the speed and accuracy.
-
HOLMES as an admin tool for large team enquiries has not been trashed, or anything like it. The thread has been largely supportive of its use in that respect.
What has been clarified is that HOLMES cannot possibly resolve ambiguities and inconsistencies in the data. It can flag up some of these, just as forum members have flagged up odd statements and timeline issues.
It cannot resolve them. That takes human action.
HOLMES as an admin tool lives on.
HOLMES as a wizard, an expert, or a superior form of intelligence, is a non-starter. And if it took this entire thread to establish that single point, it was worth it.
I completely agree. Occasionally it has been referred to in debates as if it was some kind of secret weapon which SY had access to. Now we all know what it is, what it can do and what it cannot do.
-
Yup which is where HOLMES or any one of a number of systems can help by rapidly doing processes of iteration.
Although by inspection one can identify two windows of opportunity but it necessitates knowing precisely how long the abductor needs to go from out of sight to performing the act to out of sight again. That also would need a guess at where he started and where he was heading.
Agreed. I have no problem with that.
Whether HOLMES itself has the capability to examine potential scenarios (using corroborated information and variables on unknowns), or whether the data can be exported to other software capable of doing so is neither here nor there.
If a timeline analysis had shown that there were NO windows of opportunity via any means of entry / exit (and not just via the window), then there would be an elephant-sized red flag.
This doesn't appear to have been the conclusion.
-
I completely agree. Occasionally it has been referred to in debates as if it was some kind of secret weapon which SY had access to. Now we all know what it is, what it can do and what it cannot do.
Where did you get that idea?
-
Where did you get that idea?
By reading posts. If you want a cite I haven't got any, but I know what I've seen. Irrelevant now as it won't happen in future now we've done this exercise.
-
By reading posts. If you want a cite I haven't got any, but I know what I've seen. Irrelevant now as it won't happen in future now we've done this exercise.
Strange because I haven't seen it
-
Where did you get that idea?
I know where I got the idea because, frankly, I was getting a bit tired of HOLMES being trotted out as a black box of amazing capability. I made clear at the start of the thread that I had separated the topic out, as the issue of HOLMES as an intelligent detective was derailing a different thread.
I have no interest whatsoever in identifying the poster who was doing this. Such an act would not aid the cause.
One small myth has been slain by establishing the truth. HOLMES does not have the capacity to solve this incident. It is a support tool, not some form of superior knowledge, intellect or experience.
It is akin to my PC. I can find things faster with it, than without it. HOLMES has the advantage of being able to xref and highlight discrepancies, as I understand it. My PC does not have that capacity. I have to do that bit myself.
-
I know where I got the idea because, frankly, I was getting a bit tired of HOLMES being trotted out as a black box of amazing capability. I made clear at the start of the thread that I had separated the topic out, as the issue of HOLMES as an intelligent detective was derailing a different thread.
I have no interest whatsoever in identifying the poster who was doing this. Such an act would not aid the cause.
One small myth has been slain by establishing the truth. HOLMES does not have the capacity to solve this incident. It is a support tool, not some form of superior knowledge, intellect or experience.
It is akin to my PC. I can find things faster with it, than without it. HOLMES has the advantage of being able to xref and highlight discrepancies, as I understand it. My PC does not have that capacity. I have to do that bit myself.
Anyone claiming that someone on this forum cited HOLMES as a magical box that could solve this case is lying, quite frankly. Several times when I have mentioned HOLMES in the recent past as an aid in the Met's toolbox for forensically examining the timeline it ( and by extension I) have been ridiculed and I have been told in no uncertain terms that the system is only as good as the data that is put into it - rubbish in, rubbish out (another inference being that the McCanns witness statements about the timeline are rubbish). My contention is that this is a gross and absurd oversimplification of the merits and abilities of the system as a tool at the Met's disposal in helping to get the best understanding possible on the events surrounding this case. I hope that is clear now too.
-
Agreed. I have no problem with that.
Whether HOLMES itself has the capability to examine potential scenarios (using corroborated information and variables on unknowns), or whether the data can be exported to other software capable of doing so is neither here nor there.
If a timeline analysis had shown that there were NO windows of opportunity via any means of entry / exit (and not just via the window), then there would be an elephant-sized red flag.
This doesn't appear to have been the conclusion.
We don't know what the conclusion was. As I recall DCI Redwood in his usual syntax implied a window of opportunity had been identified and if someone had used that window of opportunity it would have been abduction by stranger or some such. I don't want to get hung up all that though, I prefer the mechanics and mass flow as it were.
Taking the timeline by the T9 as a datum point it can be determined by inspection there are two periods when an abduction may have been possible. Note I say may. Using suitable software, it does not have to be HOLMES, one can do a series of iterations using the time spans quoted and statements by others to fine tune the two slots identified by inspection giving a max and min for each.
Then one needs to guess how long the abductor needs. That could be through on site to give reasonable max and min figure for the time required. Best do it for the obvious four possible flows in direction of your man. Then compare meerkats the max and min figures for the activity and the max and min figures for the time slot available.
Then Tom or George as the case may be.
But already scarcely before we have put a stake in the ground on site all sorts of questions are coming out the woodwork which will have a fundamental impact.
-
Anyone claiming that someone on this forum cited HOLMES as a magical box that could solve this case is lying, quite frankly. Several times when I have mentioned HOLMES in the recent past as an aid in the Met's toolbox for forensically examining the timeline it ( and by extension I) have been ridiculed and I have been told in no uncertain terms that the system is only as good as the data that is put into it - rubbish in, rubbish out (another inference being that the McCanns witness statements about the timeline are rubbish). My contention is that this is a gross and absurd oversimplification of the merits and abilities of the system as a tool at the Met's disposal in helping to get the best understanding possible on the events surrounding this case. I hope that is clear now too.
I was clear on your view beforehand, but thank you for expanding on it.
It remains the fact that HOLMES is not going to flag up anything any of the forum participators cannot. It just takes the forum participators longer to do so. Well, if you omit the months or years needed to load up HOLMES in the first place.
So, do the forum participants place their faith in HOLMES? Judging by the feedback in this thread, it would appear not.
-
I was clear on your view beforehand, but thank you for expanding on it.
It remains the fact that HOLMES is not going to flag up anything any of the forum participators cannot. It just takes the forum participators longer to do so. Well, if you omit the months or years needed to load up HOLMES in the first place.
So, do the forum participants place their faith in HOLMES? Judging by the feedback in this thread, it would appear not.
Of course it would take longer, but the Met would also have access to a substantial amount of information not available to the general public (the presence of paedos in the vicinity, for example).
-
Of course it would take longer, but the Met would also have access to a substantial amount of information not available to the general public (the presence of paedos in the vicinity, for example).
Including all sorts of red herrings. Do you think this is what they meant by 'all sorts of new leads' ?
-
Of course it would take longer, but the Met would also have access to a substantial amount of information not available to the general public (the presence of paedos in the vicinity, for example).
You mean if the time available is 2 1/2 minutes and the job takes 3 1/2 minutes being a paedo is relevant?
Are paedos Timelords as well?
-
Including all sorts of red herrings. Do you think this is what they meant by 'all sorts of new leads' ?
Known or suspected paedos / other criminals of any sort whose whereabouts at the time weren't verified may well be part of what is contained in the HOLMES database.
As well as innocent people who may have been in the vicinity and contacted Crimestoppers or provided information via any other anonymous means.
Or anyone else who may be of interest and who needed to be ruled out for whatever reason.
If the HOLMES database is able to connect with other crimes (which I believe it can do, although cross-jurisdiction info may be a pain to obtain), whether committed in Portugal or elsewhere, then there is much more information to sort out and eliminate than what is in the public domain.
-
You mean if the time available is 2 1/2 minutes and the job takes 3 1/2 minutes being a paedo is relevant?
Are paedos Timelords as well?
Naughty. I didn't say that, did I?
-
Naughty. I didn't say that, did I?
Just checking.
When using getting out of bed, dressed and fed before going to work as an example for planning and parallel activities you would be surprised at the number of people who think they put their socks on after their shoes. If you follow my drift.
-
Known or suspected paedos / other criminals of any sort whose whereabouts at the time weren't verified may well be part of what is contained in the HOLMES database.
As well as innocent people who may have been in the vicinity and contacted Crimestoppers or provided information via any other anonymous means.
Or anyone else who may be of interest and who needed to be ruled out for whatever reason.
If the HOLMES database is able to connect with other crimes (which I believe it can do, although cross-jurisdiction info may be a pain to obtain), whether committed in Portugal or elsewhere, then there is much more information to sort out and eliminate than what is in the public domain.
HOLMES can cross connect to other forces running HOLMES. That rules in the whole of the UK. It rules out Portugal, which does not have HOLMES.
Paedo info was investigated in the Portuguese investigation. Paedo info was investigated in the OG operation. Neither has put a paedo in the frame.
-
HOLMES can cross connect to other forces running HOLMES. That rules in the whole of the UK. It rules out Portugal, which does not have HOLMES.
Paedo info was investigated in the Portuguese investigation. Paedo info was investigated in the OG operation. Neither has put a paedo in the frame.
Do you have special access to what is actually on this HOLMES database or are you relying on what is in the public domain?
There are chunks of the files that remain under judicial secrecy - both from the UK and the PT sides, including information related to known or suspected criminals, the sexual assaults on children and whatever else may not have been deemed to be relevant to reveal to the public at that time.
-
Do you have special access to what is actually on this HOLMES database or are you relying on what is in the public domain?
There are chunks of the files that remain under judicial secrecy - both from the UK and the PT sides, including information related to known or suspected criminals, the sexual assaults on children and whatever else may not have been deemed to be relevant to reveal to the public at that time.
I assume that SY would be given information which came from the UK in the first place, assuming no copies were kept by LP. Whether they were given Portuguese information, collected by the PJ and relating to Portuguese citizens, who knows?
-
Do you have special access to what is actually on this HOLMES database or are you relying on what is in the public domain?
There are chunks of the files that remain under judicial secrecy - both from the UK and the PT sides, including information related to known or suspected criminals, the sexual assaults on children and whatever else may not have been deemed to be relevant to reveal to the public at that time.
I am relying on what is on the public domain.
I cannot say what is on this particular HOLMES database, in this particular instance. I have not had access to it.
Known or suspected criminals may well be. I hope that if OG has managed to rule out 650 paedophiles, those 650 paedophiles were in HOLMES to begin with.
-
I am relying on what is on the public domain.
I cannot say what is on this particular HOLMES database, in this particular instance. I have not had access to it.
Known or suspected criminals may well be. I hope that if OG has managed to rule out 650 paedophiles, those 650 paedophiles were in HOLMES to begin with.
There is no way of knowing which known or suspected criminals (of any type) are on the HOLMES database, nor how many have been cleared as regards Madeleine's disappearance but who may still be in the "dunno" area as regards other loosely related crimes.
-
I was clear on your view beforehand, but thank you for expanding on it.
It remains the fact that HOLMES is not going to flag up anything any of the forum participators cannot. It just takes the forum participators longer to do so. Well, if you omit the months or years needed to load up HOLMES in the first place.
So, do the forum participants place their faith in HOLMES? Judging by the feedback in this thread, it would appear not.
Makes you wonder why the Met bother investing millions in software and manpower when they'd get just as good results using members of this forum instead... @)(++(*
-
Makes you wonder why the Met bother investing millions in software and manpower when they'd get just as good results using members of this forum instead... @)(++(*
No it doesn't. Not for a second. Most major enquiries do not have a vast amount of official documents in the public domain. I am not aware of any other than Madeleine. They use HOLMES for the donkey work on other enquiries. They use HOLMES for the donkey work of OG.
There is a lot of donkey work going on in HOLMES that is not going on here. I have yet to see a thread arranging the court records side of things.
As to whether the people here can or cannot come up with issues in the timeline, any idea that they cannot and HOLMES can is of course @)(++(*
-
No it doesn't. Not for a second. Most major enquiries do not have a vast amount of official documents in the public domain. I am not aware of any other than Madeleine. They use HOLMES for the donkey work on other enquiries. They use HOLMES for the donkey work of OG.
There is a lot of donkey work going on in HOLMES that is not going on here. I have yet to see a thread arranging the court records side of things.
As to whether the people here can or cannot come up with issues in the timeline, any idea that they cannot and HOLMES can is of course @)(++(*
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
As they referred to 'the timeline' being examined and not what you said that's just your belief, not something you know.
LOL. So perhaps he meant they forensically examined the piece of paper upon which the timeline was written, rather than the information that fed into it. Yes, I'm sure that's it! 8((()*/
-
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.
Do you know what prompted them to dig in the areas they did, and if so how? Did they share that information with you? Or are you ASSuming?
-
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.
What exactly do you know better than OG or HOLMES? And how do you know that you know so?
Confused.com
-
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.
you have absolutely no idea why SY dug in that area...non whatsoever.
-
LOL. So perhaps he meant they forensically examined the piece of paper upon which the timeline was written, rather than the information that fed into it. Yes, I'm sure that's it! 8((()*/
Well, they have been called 'plod' before, so who knows?
-
Well, they have been called 'plod' before, so who knows?
You obviously hold Operation Grange in great esteem. @)(++(* If you think my description of what they meant by "forensic examination" is far of the mark, perhaps you could give us your view, seeing has how you seem to believe you are far more knowledgeable and logical than me.
-
What exactly do you know better than OG or HOLMES? And how do you know that you know so?
Confused.com
The mound happens to be on 2 roads that look like nothing roads, but in reality are an integral part of the Luz 1-way system. They are both important roads.
The mound happens to be next to 2 restaurants and a take-away. I can't prove the 2 restaurants were open for business at that time, so I will not claim them. The take-away was.
The NE road is one of the key routes to get into the Chinese restaurant in Crimewatch 2013. And to the Bull, Kelly's, Fernando's, the Dolphin, the 4 restaurants south east of the church, the Fortaleza, the convenience store, and much, much more.
Statement by one of the searchers. She went up a hill the night Madeleine disappeared. She does not know where. On the top of the hill there was a van parked with a man inside. He said he had not seen a little girl.
Plug in local knowledge. There are two sites within Luz itself where folks 'camp' overnight, for free. One is totally flat, beside the sea, and cannot possibly be described as a hill. The other is the top of the mound.
By the way, the man has been investigated and cleared. That is a dead end.
Sanity check #1. Should the searcher have known about this hill? No, she should have been unaware of it. She should have been unaware it was used for people sleeping overnight in Luz. Her knowledge at that time appears to be restricted primarily to the east half of Luz.
Sanity check #2. Would OG have been aware of it? This area was not mentioned in Crimewatch 2013. Did someone volunteer this local knowledge? That someone would have had to have both a detailed understanding of the files AND a very good knowledge of Luz. At the time of the dig, I had a very good knowledge of Luz. I had basically no knowledge of the files. If I knew then what I know now, I would have made sure OG was informed very early in the dig, for them to do as they saw fit.
Sanity check #3. The near impossibility of digging a grave in central Luz by hand. I mean by that OG using what looked like very expensive pickaxes and shovels, as opposed to mechanised effort. By May, the rainy season has long passed and the ground is pretty close to concrete. Digging even a shallow grave is ultra hard work. It would take a long time. It would be extremely noisy. All in the heart of Luz. OG obviously thought this was a possibility. The evidence is that OG did not have a clue on this one.
Neither did HOLMES.
Why do I think I know better? Because something that makes zero sense took place.
-
The mound happens to be on 2 roads that look like nothing roads, but in reality are an integral part of the Luz 1-way system. They are both important roads.
The mound happens to be next to 2 restaurants and a take-away. I can't prove the 2 restaurants were open for business at that time, so I will not claim them. The take-away was.
The NE road is one of the key routes to get into the Chinese restaurant in Crimewatch 2013. And to the Bull, Kelly's, Fernando's, the Dolphin, the 4 restaurants south east of the church, the Fortaleza, the convenience store, and much, much more.
Statement by one of the searchers. She went up a hill the night Madeleine disappeared. She does not know where. On the top of the hill there was a van parked with a man inside. He said he had not seen a little girl.
Plug in local knowledge. There are two sites within Luz itself where folks 'camp' overnight, for free. One is totally flat, beside the sea, and cannot possibly be described as a hill. The other is the top of the mound.
By the way, the man has been investigated and cleared. That is a dead end.
Sanity check #1. Should the searcher have known about this hill? No, she should have been unaware of it. She should have been unaware it was used for people sleeping overnight in Luz. Her knowledge at that time appears to be restricted primarily to the east half of Luz.
Sanity check #2. Would OG have been aware of it? This area was not mentioned in Crimewatch 2013. Did someone volunteer this local knowledge? That someone would have had to have both a detailed understanding of the files AND a very good knowledge of Luz. At the time of the dig, I had a very good knowledge of Luz. I had basically no knowledge of the files. If I knew then what I know now, I would have made sure OG was informed very early in the dig, for them to do as they saw fit.
Sanity check #3. The near impossibility of digging a grave in central Luz by hand. I mean by that OG using what looked like very expensive pickaxes and shovels, as opposed to mechanised effort. By May, the rainy season has long passed and the ground is pretty close to concrete. Digging even a shallow grave is ultra hard work. It would take a long time. It would be extremely noisy. All in the heart of Luz. OG obviously thought this was a possibility. The evidence is that OG did not have a clue on this one.
Neither did HOLMES.
Why do I think I know better? Because something that makes zero sense took place.
so you think you know better...enough said...no wonder team mccann gave you short shrift
-
The mound happens to be on 2 roads that look like nothing roads, but in reality are an integral part of the Luz 1-way system. They are both important roads.
The mound happens to be next to 2 restaurants and a take-away. I can't prove the 2 restaurants were open for business at that time, so I will not claim them. The take-away was.
The NE road is one of the key routes to get into the Chinese restaurant in Crimewatch 2013. And to the Bull, Kelly's, Fernando's, the Dolphin, the 4 restaurants south east of the church, the Fortaleza, the convenience store, and much, much more.
Statement by one of the searchers. She went up a hill the night Madeleine disappeared. She does not know where. On the top of the hill there was a van parked with a man inside. He said he had not seen a little girl.
Plug in local knowledge. There are two sites within Luz itself where folks 'camp' overnight, for free. One is totally flat, beside the sea, and cannot possibly be described as a hill. The other is the top of the mound.
By the way, the man has been investigated and cleared. That is a dead end.
Sanity check #1. Should the searcher have known about this hill? No, she should have been unaware of it. She should have been unaware it was used for people sleeping overnight in Luz. Her knowledge at that time appears to be restricted primarily to the east half of Luz.
Sanity check #2. Would OG have been aware of it? This area was not mentioned in Crimewatch 2013. Did someone volunteer this local knowledge? That someone would have had to have both a detailed understanding of the files AND a very good knowledge of Luz. At the time of the dig, I had a very good knowledge of Luz. I had basically no knowledge of the files. If I knew then what I know now, I would have made sure OG was informed very early in the dig, for them to do as they saw fit.
Sanity check #3. The near impossibility of digging a grave in central Luz by hand. I mean by that OG using what looked like very expensive pickaxes and shovels, as opposed to mechanised effort. By May, the rainy season has long passed and the ground is pretty close to concrete. Digging even a shallow grave is ultra hard work. It would take a long time. It would be extremely noisy. All in the heart of Luz. OG obviously thought this was a possibility. The evidence is that OG did not have a clue on this one.
Neither did HOLMES.
Why do I think I know better? Because something that makes zero sense took place.
So which part of this search as described by the Guardian do you find completely untenable?
One of the sites is a concealed shaft in the ground discovered by detectives beneath a sheet of corrugated iron. Forensic officers wearing protective clothing and face masks examined the site for several hours on Wednesday, erecting a white tent to shield their work from the media.
Portuguese newspapers reported on Thursday that this site was a disused storage box where children used to play. The shaft, measuring around 150cm x 90cm (5ft x 3ft), was covered by mounds of earth and a corrugated iron sheet, which is thought to have concealed the hole for years.
Another key area of interest for detectives was the grave-like hole, where officers used ground-penetrating radar before erecting a white tent and carrying out digging work.
Under the headline "False grave deceives geo-radar", the newspaper Correia da Manhã reported that a site "with characteristics similar to a grave" was discovered but officers later concluded that it was "not compatible with that of a body".
---------------------
Police need to move earth covering a corrugated iron sheet and use shovels to do so - problem?
Police discover the presence of what appears to be a grave-like hole using ground penetrating radar - are they just supposed to ignore it? Should they not have bothered to use such radar at all on the basis that digging a hole in central PdL would be hard work and noisy?
-
you have absolutely no idea why SY dug in that area...non whatsoever.
Oh dear, where do I start with this?
I have already stated that I do not know what idea sparked OG to dig in an area that makes no sense. So why do you keep banging on about it?
I note that your debating style has been called into question today. IMO, your debating style is lacking. You have added nothing of substance whatsoever with this post.
-
Oh dear, where do I start with this?
I have already stated that I do not know what idea sparked OG to dig in an area that makes no sense. So why do you keep banging on about it?
I note that your debating style has been called into question today. IMO, your debating style is lacking. You have added nothing of substance whatsoever with this post.
so you admit you do not know why SY dug there...my debating style was called into question by someone I had proved wrong...looks like you need to join the club
-
so you think you know better...enough said...no wonder team mccann gave you short shrift
Another retort that adds absolutely nothing to the debate.
-
Another retort that adds absolutely nothing to the debate.
it adds to the debate...you criticise SY for digging in a certain area....but you do not have all the information they do
-
Another retort that adds absolutely nothing to the debate.
His major ology is in doing that.
-
Another retort that adds absolutely nothing to the debate.
Another retort that adds absolutely nothing to the debate.
-
His major ology is in doing that.
Another retort that adds absolutely nothing to the debate.
-
both replies by slart and al were ad hom remarks that add nothing to the debate...the irony is they cannot see it...oh the irony...feel free to critique the logic in my posts...you will not be able
-
Oh dear, where do I start with this?
I have already stated that I do not know what idea sparked OG to dig in an area that makes no sense. So why do you keep banging on about it?
I note that your debating style has been called into question today. IMO, your debating style is lacking. You have added nothing of substance whatsoever with this post.
How can you know that a dig in a certain area makes no sense (to you), if by your own admission you don't know what intelligence OG were working with in the first place?
-
His major ology is in doing that.
if my ology was such I would be a pauper like some on this forum...do you understand how much it costs to put seven children through independent education
-
So which part of this search as described by the Guardian do you find completely untenable?
---------------------
Police need to move earth covering a corrugated iron sheet and use shovels to do so - problem?
Police discover the presence of what appears to be a grave-like hole using ground penetrating radar - are they just supposed to ignore it? Should they not have bothered to use such radar at all on the basis that digging a hole in central PdL would be hard work and noisy?
Can I find a part of it that is completely untenable? I do believe I can.
Is it all completely untenable? Nope, I can't claim that.
Let me see. Do I think OG spent, was it 6 working days investigating central Luz, to examine one site, complete with corrugated tin roof, complete with it being obscured from view by a mound of what on 3 May 2007, was fresh earth? No, I think this is completely untenable.
First, I don't think OG would have pratted around for that length of time if they were aware in advance that a pre-dug hole existed there.
Second, I don't think OG typed into HOLMES, we have had a tip off there is a pre-dug hole in this location, what should we to do? To which HOLMES replied, go forth and dig it. That strikes me as insulting OG, so I will duck out of that one.
Third, on 4 May, that hole was either covered by fresh earth, or it was packed earth, or it was vegetation. The latter two rule out any connection with Madeleine. Unless you are contending that some dimwit came back later, to use a pre-dug hole in the centre of Luz. Sorry, but that is getting too surreal for words.
Fourth, I happened to live in St James, the development on the NE of the mound. I also spent just under a year in the Paraíso, the development immediately to the west of the mound. The development was looked after by a person currently residing elsewhere in Luz. He pops up, unnamed, in one of the media stories relating to the mound dig. The mound was one of his dog-walking areas of choice in those days, being next door to his property. His information is that the mound was searched by locals in the days after Madeleine's disappearance.
Fifth, the scenario changes only slightly. There was a pre-dug hole. It was covered over. The Guardian suggests the hole was around for a long time, so the children could play in it. Someone now needs to truck in fresh earth. Or to spend hours in a laborious and noisy dig in central Luz.
To summarise. Do I believe that someone used a pre-dug hole, packed it over with earth, and that this was not noticed in the searches? I find this idea untenable.
-
Can I find a part of it that is completely untenable? I do believe I can.
Is it all completely untenable? Nope, I can't claim that.
Let me see. Do I think OG spent, was it 6 working days investigating central Luz, to examine one site, complete with corrugated tin roof, complete with it being obscured from view by a mound of what on 3 May 2007, was fresh earth? No, I think this is completely untenable.
First, I don't think OG would have pratted around for that length of time if they were aware in advance that a pre-dug hole existed there.
Second, I don't think OG typed into HOLMES, we have had a tip off there is a pre-dug hole in this location, what should we to do? To which HOLMES replied, go forth and dig it. That strikes me as insulting OG, so I will duck out of that one.
Third, on 4 May, that hole was either covered by fresh earth, or it was packed earth, or it was vegetation. The latter two rule out any connection with Madeleine. Unless you are contending that some dimwit came back later, to use a pre-dug hole in the centre of Luz. Sorry, but that is getting too surreal for words.
Fourth, I happened to live in St James, the development on the NE of the mound. I also spent just under a year in the Paraíso, the development immediately to the west of the mound. The development was looked after by a person currently residing elsewhere in Luz. He pops up, unnamed, in one of the media stories relating to the mound dig. The mound was one of his dog-walking areas of choice in those days, being next door to his property. His information is that the mound was searched by locals in the days after Madeleine's disappearance.
Fifth, the scenario changes only slightly. There was a pre-dug hole. It was covered over. The Guardian suggests the hole was around for a long time, so the children could play in it. Someone now needs to truck in fresh earth. Or to spend hours in a laborious and noisy dig in central Luz.
To summarise. Do I believe that someone used a pre-dug hole, packed it over with earth, and that this was not noticed in the searches? I find this idea untenable.
what did OG spend 6 days in PdL doing then? Just how many holes can you dig in 6 days, taking into account the fact that the earth is like concrete and they only had expensive picks and shovels at their disposal?
-
what did OG spend 6 days in PdL doing then? Just how many holes can you dig in 6 days, taking into account the fact that the earth is like concrete and they only had expensive picks and shovels at their disposal?
Back to you.
You can't dig many holes in Luz. The idea that you can dig many holes in central Luz in the midst of a search by MW, in the midst of a busy part of Luz, on a scale of zero to 10, defines a perfect zero.
Hang on. "They only had expensive picks and shovels at their disposal"? I thought they had ground-penetrating radar. And sniffer dogs of the highest quality? Horses. Armed GNR officers. That's what I saw. Did they have any intelligence breaks you can quote. Or were they just lumped with HOLMES?
Credit to the OG team. I know for a fact that on one lunchtime break they turned up in what in the files is the Vale Verde restaurant. Now a Brazilian buffet. It has a good reputation for decent food at a reasonable price. Well worth a visit. I doubt this intelligence came out of HOLMES 2.
-
Back to you.
You can't dig many holes in Luz. The idea that you can dig many holes in central Luz in the midst of a search by MW, in the midst of a busy part of Luz, on a scale of zero to 10, defines a perfect zero.
Hang on. "They only had expensive picks and shovels at their disposal"? I thought they had ground-penetrating radar. And sniffer dogs of the highest quality? Horses. Armed GNR officers. That's what I saw. Did they have any intelligence breaks you can quote. Or were they just lumped with HOLMES?
Credit to the OG team. I know for a fact that on one lunchtime break they turned up in what in the files is the Vale Verde restaurant. Now a Brazilian buffet. It has a good reputation for decent food at a reasonable price. Well worth a visit. I doubt this intelligence came out of HOLMES 2.
So if they didn't dig many holes then there must have been quite a few hours (between lunches) in which they must have been doing other stuff - any ideas what ?
-
Back to you.
You can't dig many holes in Luz. The idea that you can dig many holes in central Luz in the midst of a search by MW, in the midst of a busy part of Luz, on a scale of zero to 10, defines a perfect zero.
Hang on. "They only had expensive picks and shovels at their disposal"? I thought they had ground-penetrating radar. And sniffer dogs of the highest quality? Horses. Armed GNR officers. That's what I saw. Did they have any intelligence breaks you can quote. Or were they just lumped with HOLMES?
Credit to the OG team. I know for a fact that on one lunchtime break they turned up in what in the files is the Vale Verde restaurant. Now a Brazilian buffet. It has a good reputation for decent food at a reasonable price. Well worth a visit. I doubt this intelligence came out of HOLMES 2.
Isn't the Vale Verde almost opposite the campsite where someone had a job as a night watchman on 3rd May?
-
Isn't the Vale Verde almost opposite the campsite where someone had a job as a night watchman on 3rd May?
Vale Verde was basically opposite the campsite. Sorry, I know nothing about a night watchman.
-
re the searches:
"Police have not spoken about the intelligence that led them to the scrubland, which is thought to be one of three sites of interest in Praia da Luz".
-
Vale Verde was basically opposite the campsite. Sorry, I know nothing about a night watchman.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS_ANTONIO.htm
05-Processo Vol V pages 1214 to 1218
Witness testimony of Joao Crisostomo Vieira Olim Junior 2007.05.14
*snipped*
- He explains that on that date he was in Almadena in the morning doing his part-time work described above.
--- Having spent the morning cleaning and disinfecting several private pools in that area he stopped work at 12h00.
--- Then he will have gone to L.A.'s house to park the car there, then he will have walked home on foot to Rua da Estrema ... in Lagos, where he will have rested, as usual, given that he had a night shift from 24h00 to 08h00 as nightw..ch at the Valverde campsite.
--- Later, at 18h30, he would have prepared himself for a Jehovah's Witness meeting which he attended between 20h30 and 22h30.
--- He states that at a time he does recall exactly, but between 18h30 and 20h00, he will have eaten his dinner at home.
--- The above [prayer] meeting being over, he will have returned home where he changed into his uniform and left for the Valverde campsite where he would have been the entire early morning of 4 May fulfilling his job as nightw..ch
========================================================================
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS_ANTONIO.htm
05-Processo Vol V pages 1214 to 1218
Witness testimony of Joao Crisostomo Vieira Olim Junior 2007.05.14
*snipped*
- He explains that on that date he was in Almadena in the morning doing his part-time work described above.
--- Having spent the morning cleaning and disinfecting several private pools in that area he stopped work at 12h00.
--- Then he will have gone to L.A.'s house to park the car there, then he will have walked home on foot to Rua da Estrema ... in Lagos, where he will have rested, as usual, given that he had a night shift from 24h00 to 08h00 as nightw..ch at the Valverde campsite.
--- Later, at 18h30, he would have prepared himself for a Jehovah's Witness meeting which he attended between 20h30 and 22h30.
--- He states that at a time he does recall exactly, but between 18h30 and 20h00, he will have eaten his dinner at home.
--- The above [prayer] meeting being over, he will have returned home where he changed into his uniform and left for the Valverde campsite where he would have been the entire early morning of 4 May fulfilling his job as nightw..ch
========================================================================
Thank you, I now remember reading this statement before.
I cannot connect this statement to the case in any significant way.
It does describe a facet of life over here though. There are many people who have to take up two s****y jobs just to scrape by.
Oddly, that may be significant, but as I cannot come close to proving it, I will not go there.
-
You obviously hold Operation Grange in great esteem. @)(++(* If you think my description of what they meant by "forensic examination" is far of the mark, perhaps you could give us your view, seeing has how you seem to believe you are far more knowledgeable and logical than me.
Operation Grange may be made up of extremely talented officers, it may not. It may be carrying out a ground-up investigation or it may be restricted to investigating an abduction. The Metropolitan Police have a mixed track record in recent years. I take anything DCI Redwood said as partly PR. The story of crecheman damaged Redwood's credibility for anyone with knowledge of the Ocean Club layout, it had an air of hammering a square peg into a round hole. If the parents and their friends are not suspects then why wouldn't he take their timeline at
face value?
-
Operation Grange may be made up of extremely talented officers, it may not. It may be carrying out a ground-up investigation or it may be restricted to investigating an abduction. The Metropolitan Police have a mixed track record in recent years. I take anything DCI Redwood said as partly PR. The story of crecheman damaged Redwood's credibility for anyone with knowledge of the Ocean Club layout, it had an air of hammering a square peg into a round hole. If the parents and their friends are not suspects then why wouldn't he take their timeline at
face value?
So what do you understand he meant by the term "forensic examination"?
-
So what do you understand he meant by the term "forensic examination"?
I think it might be something like this, Alfie ;)