Author Topic: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence  (Read 194592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #660 on: March 11, 2018, 10:49:57 AM »
Faithlilly contended that the Met believe the dog evidence held considerable weight (though actually doesn't provide any evidence of this).  The fact that the Met have made several statements clearly indicating they believe Madeleine may have left the apartment alive and may even yet BE alive shows that whatever weight they have placed on the alerts it is not a particularly weighty weight.

To be fair to the initial PJ team, they had no prior experience of the use of such dogs, therefore they may have been reliant on whatever they were told, as opposed to the UK police who have post-mortems on investigations to determine what went well, what screwed up and why with a view to improving future practice.

The GNR did ask around if anyone had heard of someone who'd died in the flat, so they were aware of that possibility, but I've found no indication that it went beyond that to enquiring about what may or may not have been second-hand furniture, for example.

Neither have I found any indication (prior to a later question by the Rebelo team concerning blood and the expression of some bewilderment over the CC episode) that they'd asked for specifics as to what exactly was within Eddie's "training parameters" so as to exclude other potential explanations.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #661 on: March 11, 2018, 11:00:16 AM »
Where is the reference to the weight given to the dog alerts in this statement?  Consider this:  the Met has spent £11m+ on an investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.  If they were in any way convinced that the dog alerts were correct, then what do you think they have been spending their money on?  If the McCanns were behind Madeleine's disappearance then by now the only way to prove this would be to elicit a confession as we know that there is no forensic evidence to link them to any foul play.  What better way to put pressure on them than for the Met to signal to them (indirectly) that they believed them responsible by giving great weight to the dog alerts.  If the Met said we are almost certain Madeleine died in the apartment then that very much narrows it down to the McCanns without outright accusing them.  The pressure on them would be immense.  But they haven't done that have they?  Instead they have spent £11+ million on investigating numerous other lines of investigation - why have they done that, in your opinion?

No idea. All we do know for certain is what the various police officers have said over the years and Redwood said abduction may not be the lead OG is following.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline jassi

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #662 on: March 11, 2018, 11:11:43 AM »
Where is the reference to the weight given to the dog alerts in this statement?  Consider this:  the Met has spent £11m+ on an investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.  If they were in any way convinced that the dog alerts were correct, then what do you think they have been spending their money on?  If the McCanns were behind Madeleine's disappearance then by now the only way to prove this would be to elicit a confession as we know that there is no forensic evidence to link them to any foul play.  What better way to put pressure on them than for the Met to signal to them (indirectly) that they believed them responsible by giving great weight to the dog alerts.  If the Met said we are almost certain Madeleine died in the apartment then that very much narrows it down to the McCanns without outright accusing them.  The pressure on them would be immense.  But they haven't done that have they?  Instead they have spent £11+ million on investigating numerous other lines of investigation - why have they done that, in your opinion?

A very pertainant  question that many have asked before.
One has to assume that they are looking for additional evidence to support their theory - whatever that is.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #663 on: March 11, 2018, 11:16:11 AM »
No idea. All we do know for certain is what the various police officers have said over the years and Redwood said abduction may not be the lead OG is following.

What was the context?

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #664 on: March 11, 2018, 11:21:16 AM »
A very pertainant  question that many have asked before.
One has to assume that they are looking for additional evidence to support their theory - whatever that is.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. Donald Rumsfeld
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/donald_rumsfeld_148142

Offline jassi

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #665 on: March 11, 2018, 11:28:33 AM »
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. Donald Rumsfeld
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/donald_rumsfeld_148142

I think that sums up this case very nicely.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #666 on: March 11, 2018, 11:52:40 AM »
I think that sums up this case very nicely.

You've only highlighted one, though, Jassi. ;)

I find the whole of that to be pertinent as we aren't privy to all of the details.

Offline jassi

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #667 on: March 11, 2018, 12:05:10 PM »
You've only highlighted one, though, Jassi. ;)

I find the whole of that to be pertinent as we aren't privy to all of the details.

Yeah, but there are things we know we know
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #668 on: March 11, 2018, 12:12:21 PM »
What was the context?

I provided a link Carana which explains the context.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #669 on: March 11, 2018, 12:23:38 PM »
I provided a link Carana which explains the context.

Just looked back, Yes, thanks, Faith.

So it was indeed in the context of the as yet unidentified peretrators in the other child molestation / assault cases in the area.


Offline faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #670 on: March 11, 2018, 12:30:17 PM »
Just looked back, Yes, thanks, Faith.

So it was indeed in the context of the as yet unidentified peretrators in the other child molestation / assault cases in the area.

I think this better explains the context Carana.

• This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #671 on: March 11, 2018, 01:22:00 PM »
I think this better explains the context Carana.

• This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.

Clear as mud as to what that correction was actually about.

If he'd said that she might still be alive, but was THEN asked questions re Smellyman (or al. ) and whether that had implications as to whether police thinking was that she could indeed have died prior to a removal from the flat, that would make sense to me in the context of a presser.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #672 on: March 11, 2018, 01:52:58 PM »
Clear as mud as to what that correction was actually about.

If he'd said that she might still be alive, but was THEN asked questions re Smellyman (or al. ) and whether that had implications as to whether police thinking was that she could indeed have died prior to a removal from the flat, that would make sense to me in the context of a presser.

I believe that may also be the reason for the ‘McCanns are not suspects’ statements. I believe that if an array of police officers had not been pressed for an answer regarding the status of the parents within the investigation they never would have made any pronouncement.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #673 on: March 11, 2018, 02:39:11 PM »
We've been informed on this thread that the Met know the weight of the dogs' so-called evidence, the implication being that they consider the alerts highly significant. Is there any verbatim reference to the dog alerts in this case by any member of the Met that supports this contention?  If so, what was said and by whom?

Why does that matter?
1) Has a crime been committed in this case within the jurisdiction of the MPS?
2) With respect to weighting that would only come into consideration should a case be heard in court in which case the judge and jury would be the arbiters of weighting with the judge directing the jury where appropriate.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Carana

Re: Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence
« Reply #674 on: March 11, 2018, 04:04:10 PM »
Why does that matter?
1) Has a crime been committed in this case within the jurisdiction of the MPS?
2) With respect to weighting that would only come into consideration should a case be heard in court in which case the judge and jury would be the arbiters of weighting with the judge directing the jury where appropriate.

There might be a reason as to why the police force deemed most suitable to take up the case wasn't one with the least experience...