Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

So it chooses to disregard statements & timings that doesn't suit it, & using completely imprecise data, based on guessed timings by the Tapas group, it comes up with a definitive conclusion? And you now consider that conclusion 'the truth'? That really is retarded.

I?m sorry Chat GPT isn?t completely illogical and biased and hasn?t given a thumbs up to your theory, I know it?s disappointing but there we are.  As I said in my post it allows for the possibility that Gerry dunnit prior to the alarm being raised so perhaps you could start promoting that theory instead?  Or at least tell us why you reject it out of hand.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So I asked chat...'what time did Kate raise the alarm?'

It replied 'around 10pm' so I asked 'who's statements are you relying on?'

It replied 'the 10pm figure comes primarily from the McCanns own account'.

So, AI trusts the word of the McCanns, who's daughter disappeared in suspicious circumstances & was seen being carried away by her father & was looking questionably incapacitated.

Well I put every relevant statement taken from people who were there that night, not just the McCanns and it said 10pm -10.10pm.  You seem very angry with Chat GPT, perhaps you should stop asking it questions as it?s only going to tell you stuff I?ve already told you a million times and infuriate you further.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Spam is angry that Chat GPT hasn?t agreed with his own timeline but why should we accept Spam?s timeline over Chat GPT?s?  Why does Spam think his timeline for the alarm being raised is the correct one?  There is only one reason and that is to allow for the (still highly unlikely given the tight timeframe) possibility that Gerry was seen by the Smiths after thr alarm was raised, based as it is on only one witness statement and by conveniently disregarding all the rest.  Imagine if Chat GPT had ignored all the witness statements and decided that only Matt?s second statement was worth considering for the time Kate raised the alarm.  One would have to wonder if Chat GPT had developed a serious malfunction.

[Lace]

A lock picking set was found amongst his other incriminating evidence.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So I asked chat...'what time did Kate raise the alarm?'

It replied 'around 10pm' so I asked 'who's statements are you relying on?'

It replied 'the 10pm figure comes primarily from the McCanns own account'.

So, AI trusts the word of the McCanns, who's daughter disappeared in suspicious circumstances & was seen being carried away by her father & was looking questionably incapacitated.

I uploaded the entire PJ files into Chat GPT.  I asked it to construct a timeline without using any of the McCanns? witness statements.  This is what it came up with:

3 MAY 2007 ? RECONSTRUCTED TIMELINE

This timeline uses accounts from witnesses other than Kate and Gerry McCann. It includes the Tapas Seven, Ocean Club/nursery staff, the Smith family and Maria Manuela Martins da Silva.

~20:45
Russell O?Brien arrives at the Tapas restaurant. Other members of the group are progressively arriving.

~20:55
Rachael Oldfield says the Payne family arrived at the Tapas restaurant. Matthew Oldfield left shortly beforehand to check the children.

~21:00
Matthew Oldfield makes his first check, listening from outside the apartments. He reports no disturbance.

~21:05?21:15
Gerry leaves the Tapas area. Jane Tanner subsequently sees Gerry talking to Jeremy Wilkins outside. Jeremy independently confirms meeting Gerry during this general period, although he cannot give the exact minute.

~21:10?21:15
Jane Tanner passes Gerry and Jeremy and sees a man carrying a young child. She cannot identify the man?s face. This is an independent sighting, but it does NOT establish that the child was Madeleine.

~21:15?21:20
Gerry returns to the Tapas restaurant according to the accounts of the other members of the group.

~21:25?21:30
Matthew Oldfield makes his second check. He enters 5A through the patio door, sees the twins but cannot see Madeleine?s bed. He notices the room appears brighter than expected and does not hear anything abnormal.

Crucially, this check does NOT establish that Madeleine was physically present in the apartment.

~21:30?21:50
The Tapas group continues eating. There is no independent evidence of a disturbance or of anyone in the group knowing that Madeleine was missing.

~21:50?22:00
Kate leaves the restaurant to check the children, according to the accounts of other members of the group. The exact minute is uncertain.

~21:55?22:00
The Smith family, walking back towards their accommodation, encounter a man carrying a small child. Several Smith family members see the encounter.

Martin Smith?s initial estimate was around 21:55?22:00. They describe an apparently ordinary father carrying a sleeping child.

They do NOT identify the child as Madeleine at the time.

21:58
Maria Manuela Martins da Silva leaves her friend?s apartment in Block 6.

This is a particularly valuable independent observation because she had no apparent connection with the McCanns or the Tapas group. She established the time by asking her friend, who checked her phone.

She drives past the McCann apartment and describes the area as very quiet, with virtually no movement. She reports no people moving around the McCann apartment and nothing abnormal. She notices a small grey car parked near the apartment.

This does NOT prove Madeleine was still inside 5A at 21:58. However, it is difficult to reconcile with a substantial search or general alarm already being underway at that time.

~22:00
Kate returns to the Tapas restaurant in distress and announces that Madeleine is missing.

This is NOT based solely on Kate?s account. Rachael Oldfield, Russell O?Brien and Dianne Webster independently describe Kate returning and announcing the disappearance at approximately this time.

~22:00 onwards
The Tapas group begins searching.

Gerry is among those involved in the immediate response.

Jane Tanner says she heard Rachael Oldfield calling out for Madeleine during the subsequent search, after the alarm had been raised. This provides another independent witness account of the immediate search response.

~22:15?22:20
Ocean Club staff begin to be drawn into the incident.

Emma Louise Knight states that at approximately 22:17 she received a telephone call from Lyndsay Johnson telling her that a little girl had gone missing.

Emma then met Lyndsay and Amy Tierney near the Tapas area and the missing-child procedure was initiated.

~22:20?22:30
Other Ocean Club/nursery staff become involved.

Amy Tierney, who had been responsible for the children?s activities, goes to 5A and searches for Madeleine. She describes seeing the shutter raised/window partly open and searching places where Madeleine might have been hiding.

~22:30+
Mrs Fenn hears the commotion, including Kate shouting.

She speaks to Gerry from her balcony. Gerry tells her that a little girl has been abducted and that the authorities have already been contacted.

~23:00 onwards
The response develops into a substantial resort-wide search and GNR/police involvement follows.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don?t have a copy of Stellander?s Brick but I?m sure his devotees over on Havern?s will have an electronic copy they can put into the AI chat model of their choice.  I think they may find it difficult to argue that Stellander?s central premise of death on May 2nd is remotely tenable, though they probably don?t want to hear it.

Here?s what Chat GPT thinks from gleaning the publicly available material from this book of nonsense.  It?s far too charitable and open-minded inits conclusions IMO but that probably makes it appear even more credible as a tool for examining the knowns and unknowns :

Stellander?s theory is an interesting challenge to the conventional account, but it falls short of establishing his own alternative.

The main weaknesses are:

* The 2 May death date isn?t demonstrated. His argument relies heavily on contradictions and anomalies in the 3 May timeline. Those may show that some witness accounts are inaccurate, but they don?t logically establish that Madeleine died the previous night.
* The independent creche evidence is a major problem. Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington both described direct contact with Madeleine on the morning of 3 May, shortly before her disappearance. Explaining that away requires assumptions for which there isn?t compelling evidence.
* He turns a possible explanation into a specific reconstruction. Even if one accepted that Madeleine died on 2 May, the additional propositions?that she suffered a fatal fall, that her parents discovered it, concealed her body, staged an abduction, and subsequently moved the body?require progressively more assumptions.
* The black-bag/2 May witness evidence isn?t strong enough by itself. Seeing someone carrying a bag isn?t evidence that it contained Madeleine, and the versions of the timing and circumstances need careful scrutiny.
* Suspicious circumstances aren?t necessarily proof of staging. Anomalies in photographs, records or statements can be genuine and important without demonstrating deliberate fabrication.
* His conclusion is vulnerable to confirmation bias. Once the 2 May theory is adopted, ambiguous evidence tends to acquire a meaning consistent with it. That?s precisely the investigative error Stellander warns against.

My overall view

I would separate Stellander?s criticism from Stellander?s solution.

I think he raises legitimate questions about some of the evidence and chronology, and some of his analysis is worth taking seriously. But the evidence does not come close to proving his complete scenario.

If I had to put it very simply:

Stellander may be better at demonstrating that parts of the established timeline are problematic than at demonstrating what actually happened instead.

And the independent evidence that Madeleine was alive on the morning of 3 May is probably the single biggest obstacle to his central 2 May theory.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have also put the English translation of Amaral?s book into Chat GPT.  Many interesting points raised and you can see for yourself by doing the same (or I can c&p it on here if you prefer) but a brief summation of ChT GPT?s verdict on the book is as follows (again, I think AI is being far too kind):

First-hand account of the early investigation - 8/10

Useful chronology and description of investigative thinking - 8/10

Identification of genuine anomalies - 7/10

Objective evaluation of competing hypotheses - 4/10

Treatment of evidence that supports abduction - 3/10

Treatment of the dogs/DNA evidence - 3/10

Treatment of witness discrepancies - 5/10

Evidence actually establishing parental involvement- 2/10

Overall evidential value today - 5/10

Value as a historical document of the investigation - 8/10

[Vertigo Swirl]

And for the benefit of any CMOMM members who happen to be reading here, just put any one of Peter Mac?s blog chapters into Chat GPT and ask it to analyse it.  I?d suggest starting with Chapter 14 ?The Last Photo?.  You probably wont like its conclusions but if you really are interested in truth and how to analyse and interpret evidence correctly then it?s something you owe youself to do.