Re: "Fresh agony for the McCanns"

by Liz Eagles 06.05.16 18:41

Roidininki wrote:
aquila wrote:
Realist wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:

Of course, an entirely innocent couple would apply the same Game Theory, and would both elect option 4 - because they would know for a certainty that their stories match. The fact that the McCanns chose option 2 allows us to correctly infer that they are guilty of something that night.
By the same hypothesis, Bishop, surely any guilty couple would decide to adopt the same policy of refusing to answer any questions. If they are indeed guilty, the only way their stories would tally is if they both said nothing, thereby leaving plenty of time to prepare their accounts when it came to trial.

One simply cannot compile an effective defence without first knowing all the evidence against one, which can only be achieved after receiving what are commonly known as the deps(depositions) Even then, the prosecution can add further evidence right up to the trial and occasionally beyond.
Hey Realist, some of us here recognise a debate disguised as purporting to be intellectual when actually it's just someone pretending to know the law and playing devil's advocate. Why didn't GM accuse Paxman of playing devil's advocate and called him Jenemy instead of Jeremy whilst smirking at him and shifting in his chair!

I think you are going to have to declare any professional knowledge you have of the legal system to allow you to continue with your diatribe - we used to have a poster here called diatribe who had much the same outlook as yourself. It's a patronising old world for some innit.
Why do I see something of sound value and reasoning in Realist's posts yet you call it diatribe ?
None of us can understand why Kate McCann kept quiet apart from the reasoning given. What other could there possibly be?

You may well find something of sound value and reasoning, I don't. What I see is someone waxing lyrical about law, making profound, hard statements about law without declaring any basis other than their opinion.

ETA: Pompous diatribe isn't helpful.

ETA again: PR is based on this poop.

by Roidininki 06.05.16 19:11

Roidininki wrote:

Why do I see something of sound value and reasoning in Realist's posts yet you call it diatribe ?
None of us can understand why Kate McCann kept quiet apart from the reasoning given. What other could there possibly be?
You may well find something of sound value and reasoning, I don't. What I see is someone waxing lyrical about law, making profound, hard statements about law without declaring any basis other than their opinion.

ETA: Pompous diatribe isn't helpful.

We shall have to agree to differ on that then ? But tell me , why you think Kate McCann refused to answer ?

by Liz Eagles 06.05.16 19:14

Au contraire. You tell the forum why you think Kate McCann refused to answer.

by dottyaussie 06.05.16 19:23

I tend to lose interest in these long winded, overly intellectual posts that don't seem to go any where. Its easier just to skip the post altogether and move on. Its a shame as there may be something useful in the post but perhaps if it were put in laymans terms.....
Just my opinion anyway.

dontgetit

by Roidininki 06.05.16 19:27

aquila wrote:
Roidininki wrote:

We shall have to agree to differ on that then ? But tell me , why you think Kate McCann refused to answer ?
Au contraire. You tell the forum why you think Kate McCann refused to answer.

Because she had been advised by her lawyer not to answer.

by Liz Eagles 06.05.16 19:28

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

by Roidininki 06.05.16 19:33

Serves you right for putting the ball in my court when I asked you a question motto being never answer a question with a question laughat

by Liz Eagles 06.05.16 19:47

Some people like one-upmanship, survive on it, love to denigrate, love to annihilate their perceived opponent, ridicule them, tell them all about how they are intellectually inferior.

I get it. I do. I fully understand it.

What I don't understand is there is a 3 year old child at the heart of this crap one-upmanship.

I don't get that. I don't understand that.

PR is an evil thing. I worked in it for a whole six weeks before my conscience wouldn't allow me to continue. I had a mortgage to pay and walked out of a job that was all about advising the NHS how to cover up their 'blunders'. In those days the PR company of choice was called Westminster Consulting.

PR is an evil thing.

by Roidininki 06.05.16 19:55

aquila wrote:
Roidininki wrote:Serves you right for putting the ball in my court when I asked you a question motto being never answer a question with a question
Some people like one-upmanship, survive on it, love to denigrate, love to annihilate their perceived opponent, ridicule them, tell them all about how they are intellectually inferior.

I get it. I do. I fully understand it.

What I don't understand is there is a 3 year old child at the heart of this crap one-upmanship.

I don't get that. I don't understand that.

PR is an evil thing. I worked in it for a whole six weeks before my conscience wouldn't allow me to continue. I had a mortgage to pay and walked out of a job that was all about advising the NHS how to cover up their 'blunders'. In those days the PR company of choice was called Westminster Consulting.

PR is an evil thing.

Look I told you I agreed with what Realist said .You accused him/her of diatribe . I couldn't see that but you could . Have you perhaps taken it to heart that one or other or both of us are denigrating ,ridiculing ,telling others how intellectually inferior they are?
Not entirely sure why you think I don't understand there's a three year old child at the heart of it all .

by Guest 06.05.16 19:57

Back on topic, please.

by Liz Eagles 06.05.16 20:06

Roidininki wrote:
aquila wrote:
Roidininki wrote:Serves you right for putting the ball in my court when I asked you a question motto being never answer a question with a question
Some people like one-upmanship, survive on it, love to denigrate, love to annihilate their perceived opponent, ridicule them, tell them all about how they are intellectually inferior.

I get it. I do. I fully understand it.

What I don't understand is there is a 3 year old child at the heart of this crap one-upmanship.

I don't get that. I don't understand that.

PR is an evil thing. I worked in it for a whole six weeks before my conscience wouldn't allow me to continue. I had a mortgage to pay and walked out of a job that was all about advising the NHS how to cover up their 'blunders'. In those days the PR company of choice was called Westminster Consulting.

PR is an evil thing.
Look I told you I agreed with what Realist said .You accused him/her of diatribe . I couldn't see that but you could . Have you perhaps taken it to heart that one or other or both of us are denigrating ,ridiculing ,telling others how intellectually inferior they are?
Not entirely sure why you think I don't understand there's a three year old child at the heart of it all .

I couldn't give a monkey's what you think of my opinion.

What I dislike very much is that your opinion is bland. That's what PR is about when bad things happen.

by JohnyT 06.05.16 20:22

ok then.....forget the refusing to answer questions............why would anybody NOT want to do a reconstruction to help find the 'missing' child. Please don't insult me by saying it was from advice off their lawyers.
JohnyT

by Verdi 06.05.16 20:29

Columbo wrote:
pennylane wrote:They make it up as they go along, and due to their expensive sabre rattling are rarely challenged. But on the few occasions they have been asked a direct and relevant question, it's always proven disastrous for them.
Like "Did you know Robert Murat?"

Petulant toss of the head....

"I'm not going to comment on that"

.... coughs.

by Verdi 06.05.16 20:39

JohnyT wrote:ok then.....forget the refusing to answer questions............why would anybody NOT want to do a reconstruction to help find the 'missing' child. Please don't insult me by saying it was from advice off their lawyers.
JohnyT

Well..... the Tapas group couldn't see the point and thought they were being stitched-up and needed assurance from the Portuguese that they weren't walking into a trap and legal advice from their lawyer in Blighty - to be sure to be sure to be sure and the McCanns were having trouble finding a babysitter. Anyway - what good was a reconstruction without the presence of the whole blooming lot of 'em they said?

They demanded a full scale Crimewatch type reconstruction but they were refused - maybe because the crime was committed in Portugal and not the UK?
Still it makes for good media coverage.

Madeleine who?

by Roidininki 06.05.16 20:53

JohnyT wrote:ok then.....forget the refusing to answer questions............why would anybody NOT want to do a reconstruction to help find the 'missing' child. Please don't insult me by saying it was from advice off their lawyers.
JohnyT

I'm not going to . That was a decision as seen in the e mails from the others apart from the McCanns ?Scared of being trapped on foreign soil ? A disgraceful lot !

by Realist 06.05.16 21:19

JohnyT wrote:ok then.....forget the refusing to answer questions............why would anybody NOT want to do a reconstruction to help find the 'missing' child. Please don't insult me by saying it was from advice off their lawyers.
JohnyT

Well, Johny, I would be extremely surprised if they didn't consult with the lawyers on the matter of participating in a reconstruction and I would be even more surprised if their lawyers didn't advise them that it would not be in their interests to do so, wouldn't you?

The McCann's lawyers are not remotely interested in the welfare of their daughter, they already know she's dead, their sole interest is in averting a potential prosecution of their clients. How could participating in a reconstruction possibly further that cause.

The bottom line is, there are a million and one reasons that point to the McCanns being complicit in the probable death of their daughter, why single out refusing to answer questions or refusing to participate in a reconstruction process when there are far more salient examples.

by Liz Eagles 06.05.16 21:28

Roidininki wrote:
JohnyT wrote:ok then.....forget the refusing to answer questions............why would anybody NOT want to do a reconstruction to help find the 'missing' child. Please don't insult me by saying it was from advice off their lawyers.
JohnyT
I'm not going to . That was a decision as seen in the e mails from the others apart from the McCanns ?Scared of being trapped on foreign soil ? A disgraceful lot !

I can't ever recall the McCanns appealing directly to their daughter on any television screen.

Nine years on with all the publicity and all the media platforms across the globe what we get is some huge PR exercise.

The McCanns have never to my knowledge directly appealed to their daughter.

What a day for PR!

What a day for a cover up.

by Realist 06.05.16 21:49

Bishop Brennan wrote:

1. If they both refuse to answer -> they both appear guilty

This is a worse outcome than option 2 or 3 (just one of them appears guilty). And therefore they did not choose it. That's the beauty of his theory - it makes accurate predictions of behaviour based on the options and the outcomes.

The detail is not actually relevant. The key is that the Prisoners are separated; and that they don't know for sure what the Police know at the time of the interview. The McCann interviews were a text-book example of the Theory, and it explains why they did what they did.

I would have thought that where there is more than one person involved, the safest bet would be for all to remain silent, thereby ensuring that all options are open

You rightly state that the McCanns didn't know for sure all the evidence the police had acquired at the time which is exactly the reason I have have argued for not answering police questions at an early stage. No lawyer worth their salt would advise defendants to adopt the policy you have put forward, its either all or nothing in police interviews. The only logical reason for Gerry McCann ignoring legal advice is because he is arrogant and genuinely thought he could outwit the Portuguese police, who in his mind, would be of inferior intellect to his good self. This is a classic mistake which has led to many a conviction. Give a person enough rope--------

There was a similar example fairly recently where a high ranking Canadian Air Force Colonel being questioned about a series of rapes and murders adopted exactly the same stance, even attending the police station wearing the same boots as he had used to commit the offences. The police throughout the world use this interview as a text book example of interrogation. I can't remember exactly the length of sentence imposed upon him, but I very much doubt he will ever see daylight again, other than from a gaol exercise yard. big grin

by Realist 06.05.16 22:13

Verdi wrote:

They demanded a full scale Crimewatch type reconstruction but they were refused - maybe because the crime was committed in Portugal and not the UK?

The fact that crime wasn't committed in the UK and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the British police didn't stop the authorities wasting circa 12 £million of British taxpayers money on a bogus enquiry, Verdi. so why should the BBC baulk from putting on a Crimewatch reconstruction extravaganza big grin

by **Tony Bennett** 06.05.16 22:15

Realist wrote:
You rightly state that the McCanns didn't know for sure all the evidence the police had acquired at the time which is exactly the reason I have have argued for not answering police questions at an early stage.

I think if you knew a little more about the kind of advice iusually given by criminal lawyers to couples who have something to hide, you would be aware that the stock advice is for one of a couple (usually the brighter of the two) to answer questions, and the other partner to refuse to answer any questions.

Which is exactly what happened when the McCanns were questioned on 6 and 7 September 2007.

But on the general point of whether anyone whose child has gone missing, and who has nothing to hide, could ever refuse to answer police questions, surely Wendy Murphy had the best response on this YouTube vid - from 0 mins 35 secs to 1 min 25 secs>>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf4wVANuNRY

by Realist 06.05.16 22:32

aquila wrote:

Hey Realist, some of us here recognise a debate disguised as purporting to be intellectual when actually it's just someone pretending to know the law and playing devil's advocate.

If I'm wrong in any of my assumptions/opinions regarding legal matters, Aquila, you, or anyone else is perfectly at liberty to correct me. I'd like to pride myself on never being backward in coming forward to admit when I am wrong.

That's the golden rule of forum etiquette, never be afraid of admitting when one is wrong.

by Realist 06.05.16 22:46

Tony Bennett wrote:

I think if you knew a little more about the kind of advice iusually given by criminal lawyers to couples who have something to hide, you would be aware that the stock advice is for one of a couple (usually the brighter of the two) to answer questions, and the other partner to refuse to answer any questions.

Can you quote me an example of this type of advice being proffered, Tony, because in the 50 odd yrs. experience I have had with criminal lawyers, I've never heard of it

But on the general point of whether anyone whose child has gone missing, and who has nothing to hide, could ever refuse to answer police questions, surely Wendy Murphy had the best response on this YouTube vid - from 0 mins 35 secs to 1 min 25 secs>>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf4wVANuNRY

That is based on the assumption that Kate McCann had nothing to hide, but you above all others, are of the opinion that this is not the case.

by Verdi 06.05.16 23:25

Realist wrote:
Verdi wrote:

They demanded a full scale Crimewatch type reconstruction but they were refused - maybe because the crime was committed in Portugal and not the UK?
The fact that crime wasn't committed in the UK and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the British police didn't stop the authorities wasting circa 12 £million of British taxpayers money on a bogus enquiry, Verdi. so why should the BBC baulk from putting on a Crimewatch reconstruction extravaganza

I was being facetious I'm sure - I hope - your realise.

So putting on my more serious wig, they've actually made an ass of my mockery, as not only DID Crimewatch perform the legendary re-enactment at some fictional location during their show in October 2013 but previously the McCann production team also staged their own version on location at the Ocean Club.

So it wasn't so difficult was it? Maybe they objected to the original production team in the guise of the PJ.

by Realist 06.05.16 23:41

Verdi wrote:I was being facetious I'm sure - I hope - your realise.

But of course, dear boy, of course, hence the gargantuan grin:)

by Bishop Brennan 07.05.16 3:18

Realist wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
But on the general point of whether anyone whose child has gone missing, and who has nothing to hide, could ever refuse to answer police questions, surely Wendy Murphy had the best response on this YouTube vid - from 0 mins 35 secs to 1 min 25 secs>>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf4wVANuNRY

That is based on the assumption that Kate McCann had nothing to hide, but you above all others, are of the opinion that this is not the case.

Exactly. And so we are unanimous - even Realist now agrees : If Kate had nothing to hide she would have answered. That she refused meant that we can infer guilt and that she was likely following legal advice to avoid arrest and conviction.

Opinions seem to differ as to whether Gerry should have done the same or not. But on the central inference of guilt from Kate's silence and subsequent refusal to do the reconstruction - all are thankfully now in agreement. Yay!