Cuddlecat and those claimed alerts.

[Robittybob1]

I actually agree with you on this one, it wasn't his finest hour.

Hi John what I'm perplexed by is definition of what determines words as being speculation and what doesn't.
If I say things about IVF embryos which is backed up by actual cases on the internet (if required) why is that speculation? To me that is introducing the scope of possibilities.   
If I repeat statements made by others that the DNA matches had a similarity of 1 billion to 1. Why is that considered speculation when it is something I'm being informed of?
I could be misinformed but I feel it isn't any speculation on my part.
What can I say about IVF and DNA matches?

[Robittybob1]

Not sure I'd particularly agree with the part I underline. 

Human memory is fallible.

Different people are bound to have different recollections and memories of the same event.

Doesn't mean that any are lying.  All are trying (to the best of their ability) to recall and relate events as they remember them.

But there are bound to be variations in memory recall.

I think, when all accounts from separate sources are identical, you should begin to suspect collusion.

Nothing like that appears to apply in witnesses statements in PdL; the variations entirely normal and to be expected in circumstances such as those that gave rise to the exercise of taking the statements.

Yes, you wouldn't expect anyone to remember more than usual.  So if you were asked "what did everyone talk about around the dinner table?"  No one would be expected to be able to do that.
But if someone said XYZ called around to my apartment at 1:00 AM accompanied by ABC, I would expect XYZ and/or ABC to remember this especially when prompted to recall it.
Or if Kate says in her book that EFG came to talk to me, what happens would be similar to what EFG recounts in her statement.  I would want to know why EFG went into the kid's bedroom unaccompanied.  All this happening while Kate is deep in prayer and all happening before the Police are called.

[John]

Hi John what I perplexed by is what determines words as being speculation and what doesn't.
If I say things about IVF embryos which is backed up by actual cases on the internet (if required) why is that speculation?
If I repeat statements made by others that the DNA matches had a similarity of 1 billion to 1. Why is that considered speculation when it is something I'm being informed of?
I could be misinformed but I feel it isn't any speculation on my part.
What can I say about IVF and DNA matches?

What you cannot do is interject defamatory speculation without the slightest evidence to back it up.

[John]

Yes, you wouldn't expect anyone to remember more than usual.  So if you were asked "what did everyone talk about around the dinner table?"  No one would be expected to be able to do that.
But if someone said XYZ called around to my apartment at 1:00 AM accompanied by ABC, I would expect XYZ and/or ABC to remember this especially when prompted to recall it.
Or if Kate says in her book that EFG came to talk to me, what happens would be similar to what EFG recounts in her statement.  I would want to know why EFG went into the kid's bedroom unaccompanied.  All this happening while Kate is deep in prayer and all happening before the Police are called.

Off topic I know but you could also ask yourself why Kate's recall of Dave's visit to the apartment in the afternoon prior to Madeleine's disappearance was so at odds with his version?

[ferryman]

Have you been watching the MWT documentary on the disappearance of Veronica Packman?

I haven't, no.

Do you have a link?

[Alice Purjorick]

When I came across the quote I'm now using in my signature "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" I felt that is the logic I have applied in developing the new theory. 
I have eliminated the impossible, and what resulted was rather improbable, but it was the only option left, so is it the truth as Conan Doyle said.

[ groundless speculation removed ]

"In a recent judgement the English Court of Appeal has not only rejected the Sherlock Holmes doctrine shown above, but also denied that probability can be used as an expression of uncertainty for events that have either happened or not".
http://understandinguncertainty.org/court-appeal-bans-bayesian-probability-and-sherlock-holmes

[misty]

I haven't, no.

Do you have a link?

http://www.itv.com/hub/the-investigator-a-british-crime-story/2a4104a0001  Episode 1

http://www.itv.com/hub/the-investigator-a-british-crime-story/2a4104a0002  Episode 2

Episode 1 is a bit drawn out but events in episode 2 are rather interesting. Episode 3 is on next Thursday at 9pm on ITV.
There could be loose parallels drawn with Madeleine's case although the Packman case involves one of the few instances of a person  convicted of murder in the UK without a body.

[Robittybob1]

Off topic I know but you could also ask yourself why Kate's recall of Dave's visit to the apartment in the afternoon prior to Madeleine's disappearance was so at odds with his version?

Yes that would be a prime example of conflicting statements but as I asked with that thread that was waiting for approval, there are other people too that don't seem to get any attention.  OK I would have limited skill in talking about them.

[Robittybob1]

"In a recent judgement the English Court of Appeal has not only rejected the Sherlock Holmes doctrine shown above, but also denied that probability can be used as an expression of uncertainty for events that have either happened or not".
http://understandinguncertainty.org/court-appeal-bans-bayesian-probability-and-sherlock-holmes

Interesting.  I would say one couldn't be certain they had introduced all the possible causes or fully eliminated the impossibles, but it certainly introduces outlier events to consider.  I too started off thinking "the parents did it" or "David did it" but these in the end became impossible IMO.

[Robittybob1]

What you cannot do is interject defamatory speculation without the slightest evidence to back it up.

Would conflicting statements be considered a "slightest bit of evidence"?

[sadie]

Gawd strewth!

Unconventional yes, but very hard working, also new to the forum ... and altho most of us dont agree with much that s/he says, some things are very thought provoking.   So that's good.

[pegasus]

Eddie alerts twice in the villa dining area.
Immediately before one alert he sniffs something on the top surface of the sideboard



While giving the other alert he sniffs the seat of the dining chair - photo attached...

[Robittybob1]

Eddie alerts twice in the villa dining area.
Immediately before one alert he sniffs something on the top surface of the sideboard - photo link http://i.imgur.com/597EM34.jpg

While giving the other alert he sniffs the seat of the dining chair - photo attached...

What do you think it implies?

[Robittybob1]

In my opinion ANY dog would sniff out a dead body,   the whole idea that a cadaver dog is trained to alert is to NOT dig but to alert so that the evidence is not contaminated.

How exactly would that work if a body had not been there and just the scent of cadaver?   How would they know if when the dog dug there was no body?   They wouldn't think 'ah but no doubt there is a scent of cadaver as Eddie is digging'  would they?   That is why if Eddie didn't bark but played with something,   there is no alert.

Anyone digging the spot would soon tell whether the ground had been disturbed or not.

[Robittybob1]

There was one Cuddlecat, the cadaver dog did not alert to it but played with it.  Anything which occurred thereafter was and still is irrelevant.  End off!!

How can you be sure of that?