What has Redwood achieved in the Mccann case ?

[faithlilly]

No  - I do not accept it is possible that the McCanns will ever be suspected of being involved in their daughter's removal from 5A.

This is my explanation as requested:-

If you want me to believe they may be complicit in this crime  - then first of all you would have to prove that they are both psychopaths.

Then you would have to prove that their 7 friends are either all mentally deranged or as thick as two planks that they would happily make themselves accomplices to an horrendous crime as if it was  no big deal whatsoever for them to become involved.

Then you would have to prove that every single expert in their field  who have actually met/observed/spent time with the McCanns which include police officers, FLO's, trauma counsellors, psychologists to name but a few - are all incompetent/completely wrong.      Especially the Detectives in this case who do have ALL the professionally translated files at their disposal - and the ability to interview people as and when they wish.

Then having proved that none of the above know what they are talking about you would then have to convince me that with only SOME of the available information - ( mainly from files translated by amateurs), people with NO expertise, who have never met or spoken to the McCanns, know more about them and the details of this case than the professionals.

Then you would need to explain why everything the McCanns have done in the last 7 years is the exact opposite of what guilty people would do.      No guilty person would press so strongly to have a case re-opened and meticulously examined - including having themselves examined by SY if they knew they were the guilty parties . It would also need to be explained why their 7 accomplices would sit back and allow the McCanns to put all of them in the horrific position of 'waiting for a knock on the door' every day of their lives - especially knowing that they had the option of simply keeping their heads down and waiting for it all to die away naturally.

IMO nothing which can happen in the meantime can change any of the above.  In the light of that - coupled with the fact that I am not a conspiracy theorist -  I do not believe the McCanns or their friends will ever be made suspects in this case.

It's worth remembering a few things. The police officers who spent most time with the McCanns, those from the PJ including their Portuguese FLO Pavia, thought it was possible that they were guilty. As to the trauma counsellor, who was not a qualified psychologist and in fact the McCanns as far as we know have never called on the services of a qualified psychologist,  he wouldn't have been too hard to dupe, I myself have seen it done and besides the McCanns had suffered the trauma of their child's accidental death so would naturally be displaying much the same behaviour as they would have done if she'd been abducted.

[ferryman]

It's worth remembering a few things. The police officers who spent most time with the McCanns, those from the PJ including their Portuguese FLO Pavia, thought it was possible that they were guilty. As to the trauma counsellor, who was not a qualified psychologist and in fact the McCanns as far as we know have never called on the services of a qualified psychologist,  he wouldn't have been too hard to dupe, I myself have seen it done and besides the McCanns had suffered the trauma of their child's accidental death so would naturally be displaying much the same behaviour as they would have done if she'd been abducted.

It's worth remembering one thing.

Some people spout fiction (interspersed with the odd factually accurate statement).

[faithlilly]

It's worth remembering one thing.

Some people spout fiction (interspersed with the odd factually accurate statement).

Excellent article on the therapist/client relationship and it taints objective analysis.

http://www.psychiatristexpertwitness.com/articles/the-therapist-as-expert-witness

The Therapist as Expert Witness? The Dual Agency Conflict

Stephen M. Raffle, M.D.
Tel. 415.461.4845
Contact us
Curriculum Vitae
By Stephen M. Raffle, M.D.

Reasons the Treating Psychotherapist Should Not Be the Expert Witness

In civil cases where emotional distress is alleged, it often occurs that the plaintiff’s attorney designates the treater as his expert. Usually the argument is that the plaintiff’s own therapist (“the treater”) has spent many more hours with the plaintiff than the defense expert and therefore “knows” the plaintiff better.  The treater often agrees with this reasoning.
I believe a number of fallacies exist in this conclusion:

If the patient is conniving, then the therapist is being duped into undertaking a sham therapy.
If the patient believes the therapist is going to be his expert witness, then consciously or unconsciously the patient will withhold information detrimental to his case and over-emphasize facts favorable to it.

Therapists undertake therapy with the implicit understanding that the relationship is private and privileged under almost all circumstances. This enables the patient to divulge embarrassing or damaging information which he wouldn’t want revealed. After the fact, how can the patient give an informed consent when he doesn’t know what personal information will be divulged.

Once the therapist is perceived as an advocate, I believe the therapist’s impartiality and non-judgmental attitude is replaced with the perception of approval and advocacy. A therapeutic boundary is crossed. Therapy is damaged. Being an expert witness for one’s patient does not further the therapy. The Hippocratic Oath “above all do not harm” is disregarded.

Setting these reasons to the side, is the assumption true that a comprehensive structured forensic psychiatric exam including a review of all records, relevant depositions, expert reports and psychological testing less reliable than a psychotherapy which is defined by the patient’s transference, unstructured free association, therapeutic process, and non-judgmental therapeutic attitude of the therapist where the therapeutic task is to help the patient understand emotional conflicts and resolve them. It is not far-fetched to imagine the therapist-expert developing opinions during discovery which might be damaging to the therapeutic process. He can’t withdraw because doing so damages the therapy, he shouldn’t lie because that damages his therapeutic impartiality, and he becomes the patient’s advocate in the patient’s mind which also introduces a non-therapeutic parameter into the therapy. The therapist is now a dual agent (dual agency) and cannot serve the single purpose of treating a patient.

Psychotherapy does not involve weighing all of the clinical facts and rendering a medical-legal opinion with a reasonable medical probability. It doesn’t involve being an impartial evaluator who has no vested interest in the outcome of the case. Psychotherapy isn’t about assuming a skeptical mind set in order to weigh the plaintiff’s statements with other facts and reconcile the conflicted information within the context of the lawsuit. Undertaking a real, impartial forensic psychiatry evaluation is not therapeutic. The content of therapy is part of the basis of an expert opinion but there is much more to the evaluative process which is beyond the scope of therapy. Once the therapist crosses the line to expert, he can’t go back. The bell cannot be unrung.
This article has previously appeared on the TASA (Technical Advisory Group for Attorneys) website and HGExperts.com as “When Therapists Aren’t Experts.”

[Albertini]

Exonerated?

I used that word, once, and Jean-Pierre (on this board!) corrected me.

To be exonerated, you first have to be charged and tried in court.

The McCanns have never been charged ....

Rock solid evidence would exonerate them from suspicion and eliminate them from the enquiry forever.

You're trying the semantic argument without going near the core points.

I knew that would come from at least one supporter of the group.

[Albertini]

So, if the Met once again reiterated that the McCanns were not suspects, how long would that pronouncement be valid for "sceptics"?  More or less than the time it takes you to spin it into something that means the complete opposite is the answer!

It would technically be valid right up to that point in the investigation, wouldn't it?

For example they may not be considered suspects today on the evidence uncovered, but then let's say one of the group confessed the following day.

Do you think the Yard would then turn round and refuse to accept the confession just because they had said the day before they weren't suspects?

Do you at least accept this basic principle?

[Albertini]

SY have declared McCanns not suspects...fact

But you yourself have said in this very thread:

of course if new evidence comes to light that implicates the McCanns then their status may change

So what information from the last 15-18 months of the investigation (since that statement was made by Redwood) do you have that that hasn't happened.

Or is it simply your opinion?

[ferryman]

Excellent article on the therapist/client relationship and it taints objective analysis.

http://www.psychiatristexpertwitness.com/articles/the-therapist-as-expert-witness

The Therapist as Expert Witness? The Dual Agency Conflict

Stephen M. Raffle, M.D.
Tel. 415.461.4845
Contact us
Curriculum Vitae
By Stephen M. Raffle, M.D.

Reasons the Treating Psychotherapist Should Not Be the Expert Witness

In civil cases where emotional distress is alleged, it often occurs that the plaintiff’s attorney designates the treater as his expert. Usually the argument is that the plaintiff’s own therapist (“the treater”) has spent many more hours with the plaintiff than the defense expert and therefore “knows” the plaintiff better.  The treater often agrees with this reasoning.
I believe a number of fallacies exist in this conclusion:

If the patient is conniving, then the therapist is being duped into undertaking a sham therapy.
If the patient believes the therapist is going to be his expert witness, then consciously or unconsciously the patient will withhold information detrimental to his case and over-emphasize facts favorable to it.

Therapists undertake therapy with the implicit understanding that the relationship is private and privileged under almost all circumstances. This enables the patient to divulge embarrassing or damaging information which he wouldn’t want revealed. After the fact, how can the patient give an informed consent when he doesn’t know what personal information will be divulged.

Once the therapist is perceived as an advocate, I believe the therapist’s impartiality and non-judgmental attitude is replaced with the perception of approval and advocacy. A therapeutic boundary is crossed. Therapy is damaged. Being an expert witness for one’s patient does not further the therapy. The Hippocratic Oath “above all do not harm” is disregarded.

Setting these reasons to the side, is the assumption true that a comprehensive structured forensic psychiatric exam including a review of all records, relevant depositions, expert reports and psychological testing less reliable than a psychotherapy which is defined by the patient’s transference, unstructured free association, therapeutic process, and non-judgmental therapeutic attitude of the therapist where the therapeutic task is to help the patient understand emotional conflicts and resolve them. It is not far-fetched to imagine the therapist-expert developing opinions during discovery which might be damaging to the therapeutic process. He can’t withdraw because doing so damages the therapy, he shouldn’t lie because that damages his therapeutic impartiality, and he becomes the patient’s advocate in the patient’s mind which also introduces a non-therapeutic parameter into the therapy. The therapist is now a dual agent (dual agency) and cannot serve the single purpose of treating a patient.

Psychotherapy does not involve weighing all of the clinical facts and rendering a medical-legal opinion with a reasonable medical probability. It doesn’t involve being an impartial evaluator who has no vested interest in the outcome of the case. Psychotherapy isn’t about assuming a skeptical mind set in order to weigh the plaintiff’s statements with other facts and reconcile the conflicted information within the context of the lawsuit. Undertaking a real, impartial forensic psychiatry evaluation is not therapeutic. The content of therapy is part of the basis of an expert opinion but there is much more to the evaluative process which is beyond the scope of therapy. Once the therapist crosses the line to expert, he can’t go back. The bell cannot be unrung.
This article has previously appeared on the TASA (Technical Advisory Group for Attorneys) website and HGExperts.com as “When Therapists Aren’t Experts.”

In civil cases where emotional distress is alleged ...

In Madeleine's disappearance, emotional distress is not alleged.

It is a fact deriving from their daughter's abduction and (possible!) death ...

[ferryman]

But you yourself have said in this very thread:
So what information from the last 15-18 months of the investigation (since that statement was made by Redwood) do you have that that hasn't happened.

Or is it simply your opinion?

Clutching at straws on the part of those hoping for an outcome favourable to Amaral ...

[Brietta]

It would technically be valid right up to that point in the investigation, wouldn't it?

For example they may not be considered suspects today on the evidence uncovered, but then let's say one of the group confessed the following day.

Do you think the Yard would then turn round and refuse to accept the confession just because they had said the day before they weren't suspects?

Do you at least accept this basic principle?

In the highly unlikely event, I think the first thing they would do would be to check the evidence;  voluntarily making a false confession is a well known syndrome and I doubt if there is a murder inquiry or a high profile case that doesn't have an instance.

For example the recent knife attack in Portugal when the attacker allegedly claimed to have killed Madeleine McCann, wonder if he repeated it to the police and if it was checked out?

[Albertini]

In the highly unlikely event, I think the first thing they would do would be to check the evidence;  voluntarily making a false confession is a well known syndrome and I doubt if there is a murder inquiry or a high profile case that doesn't have an instance.

For example the recent knife attack in Portugal when the attacker allegedly claimed to have killed Madeleine McCann, wonder if he repeated it to the police and if it was checked out?

Yes and if they then checked the evidence uncovered as a result of the confession and it checked out. Then what? Do you think they then could never be made suspects?

A simple yes or no is all that's needed.

[Brietta]

Yes and if they then checked the evidence uncovered as a result of the confession and it checked out. Then what? Do you think they then could never be made suspects?

A simple yes or no is all that's needed.

Please do not dictate my response ... in the wake of a belief in Freedom of Speech ... that is my prerogative and ultimately if it is allowed to stand or not the prerogative of the mods.

The amazing thing about this conversation is the myopia which dictates that people, who have been investigated and scrutinised for nearly eight years without any evidence being forthcoming against them, are hoped to be involved in the crime against Madeleine McCann.

This, despite the fact that there are at present arguidos in the case.

There is nothing that DCI Redwood could possibly have said ... there is nothing that he could have done ... which would have shaken that block of wilful ignorance.

In any event I think it safe to assume that the original SY announcement stands ... if not, we would have seen charges being laid here and if not here they would have been constituted arguidos in Portugal.

Since that obviously hasn't happened, the rest of the world will continue wondering what the outcome will be regarding the information obtained from those interviewed as part of the new investigation in Portugal as witnesses and arguidos ... leaving a few others to their fond time warp fantasies.

I think the PJ and SY are determined to conclude Madeleine's case if at all possible ... and to do so they are relying on actualities and evidence ... not myth and innuendo.

[Anna]

We appear to be wandering off topic. Please adhere to the topic of the thread. Thank you

[Anna]

None of us know what has been achieved or, who and what, they may now be investigating….it’s a matter of …. it could be, anything and anybody, with no exclusions. 
So of all the possible things to discuss, we are talking about the McCanns again. Why?
If they are thought to be suspects or not, as the case may be, we will hear about it soon enough.

Mr Redwood, appears to have been very thorough in his searches, digs, interviews, phone trails, forensic checks, police file scanning and the many other jobs entailed in the investigation.

It doesn’t matter how good someone is at their job. They can only achieve what is possible to achieve and no more.
It makes one, no less capable of being successful in the task undertaken, if the job at hand, proves impossible to give the results, one hoped for.

He is no more a miracle worker, than you or I, after all.

[Alice Purjorick]

Before i answer i will say i have no idea what happened, i really am still on fence regardless of what people might think...i sway from one way to the other.

The one thing why would anyone need to prove they Psychopaths?

Psychopath.

a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as Amaral and [ censored word]ocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.

IF they accidentally harmed their daughter or one of them did, why would it make them a Psychopath?

I would say if someone killed a child say because they were being naughty, and perhaps hit them too hard, and the child died and showed these injuries....what would you do....If you were trained to deal with these types of emergencies you wouldnt panic and perhaps self preservation would kick in.

I personally dont think ANY of the others were involved if it did happen. I think they unwittingly became involved.....

As to the experts that doesnt wash as the police thought they were implicit and so did other EXPERTS ..... and its easy to fool people especially if you are a professional and used to dealing with other people....

I can explain about the last 7 years, if you just dont bother to keep on looking surely it feeds the fodder for the ones who think they are guilty, but if you keep going then you are showing everyone you must be innocent.

How often do you see Ben Needhams mum on the T.V...or going on about Ben being missing, she hardly ever did......

I think anyway it will never be resolved, and this case will stay the same for ever even when the twins have their own children.....i dont think we will ever know what happened.

Sadly...anyway thought i would just put my twopenneth in....

P.S I dont think Redwood or SY have acheived anything...

I removed your emboldened bit to make it clear what I was on about 

I have long inclined to that view myself.

[Anna]

Friggin post Nazi.

If your going to delete responses then you should be deleting the posts they respond to. In fairness.

But you're not fair, because you have an agenda.



If you want me to believe they may be complicit in this crime  - then first of all you would have to prove that they are both psychopaths.


The old 'they would have to be psychopaths' yarn.

Sherlock used to say that, & Gilletta said the same just the other day, funnily enough.

Lee Rainbow didn't think so.

I am neither a Nazi nor do I have an agenda. I have asked nicely for you all to get back on topic...Not too difficult to understand.
Now can we please get back on the Topic of the thread.