Three university forensic psychologists say > 'Anti-McCann Trolls Cannot be Cured'

 by Tony Bennett on 19.02.17 9:07

 

QUOTE

 

The case, however, took a turn on the 31st July 2007 following reports of biological traces in the holiday apartment by two UK sniffer dogs (Machado & Santos, 2009). The outcome of this search was one of the main reasons the McCann’s came to be regarded as suspects, despite widely held concerns surrounding the reliability of cadaver dogs…

 

End quote

 

It really annoys me when it is often stated that “the dogs” changed everything, and up until the dogs were brought in, the McCanns were as innocent as the day is long. The fact is THEY WERE NOT. The dogs only confirmed what anyone with an ounce of common sense already knew. The lies, inconsistencies, failure to cooperate with the PJ etc would have been more than enough to lock up someone from less fortunate backgrounds, for a very long time. But with the setting up of the fund, connections to celebs and people in VERY high places, an impenetrable wall of steel  was built around the McCanns & Co.



 



As for this piece of “academic research”, just look at the complaints against the publishers of the Magazine that  is, or  about to publish this subjective article.

loopzdaloop wrote:

loopzdaloop wrote:

The researcher, for instance, was told that they must be, “Thick as bricks. It’s so easy a child could work it out”.

and thanks to the medium of twitter, I've found the accounts that were referenced within that particular tweet:

HELP WANTED PLEASE !

The tweets of researcher Andria Coulias 

Way back on page 2 of this thread 'loopzdaloop' helpfully posted the whole research report and also some tweets in July 2015 on the #McCann hashtag by one of the three researchers, Andria Coulias (from the University of Portsmouth).

Readers of this thread may recall that Andria Coulias set up a Twitter account in order to conduct her research. She interacted with people on the #McCann hashtag.

In the sequence below, which I've completely reformatted for easy reading she mocks so-called 'anti-McCann trolls' for 'disbelieving' the 'science' that (she says) shows that cadaver and blood dogs easily make mistakes 'in hot weather'. She insinuates that anyone who believes that Martin Grime's dogs' alerts to the scent of a corpse were geunine is 'ignorant of the science'.

I am just now finishing off my draft letter by analysing Andria Coulias's intervention on the #McCann hashtag and would be grateful for any or all comments before I conclude my letter. Bear in mind that as a researcher for an academic paper, Andria Coulias MUST be strictly neutral - and that if she is casting a slur on 'anti-McCanns' for 'ignoring science', she must be very sure of her ground, because otherwise her conclusions on this issue are wholly false.

Read the tweets in date order from the bottom up >

-----------


ANDREA COULIS

TWEETS102
FOLLOWING121
FOLLOWERS18
LIKES1
 Follow

Andria Coulias @AndriaCoulias

Joined February 2015
Tweets - Tweets
Tweets & replies

Andria Coulias ‏ @AndriaCoulias to>>
5 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @NettyCox  They just don't want to listen. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/ … More scienfitic evidence if you're interested!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias ‏@AndriaCoulias
5 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @NettyCox I wouldn't bother, there's so much evidence showing that dog handlers beliefs influence dogs' identifications
0 replies 0 retweets1 like
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias @AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @Syn0nymph @CarlaSpade @fiorifan haha thank you
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply  Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias  @AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @CarlaSpade I have been, its a journal article i've been referring too this whole time
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias followed Quinton Sanchez, Barbara and Father Jack
 Follow
Quinton Sanchez
@quintontsanchez
TV Guru. Entertainment Nerd. Team Beach Body.
 Follow
Barbara
Protected Tweets
@19Barbara57
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. JFK

Andria Coulias ‏
@AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @CarlaSpade

or two different individuals.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias @AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @CarlaSpade and you dont think its a problem that these dogs sometimes cant distinguish between animal and human blood
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias @AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @Syn0nymph @CarlaSpade @fiorifan particularly under certain conditions i.e high temperatures in the algarve
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias @AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan Me too I've been waiting for an answer for a while now
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More
Andria Coulias ‏@AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan Thank you, likewise, only an open minded view such as yours can be truly unbiased
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias ‏@AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan precisely!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias ‏@AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan their accuracy is determined by their handler or the presence of a body/blood or dna evidence
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias ‏@AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @martin_liz @AdirenM @amsterdamkush if you actually readthe article the temperature is one of many factors
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias  @AndriaCoulias]
4 Jul 2015
@amsterdamkush @martin_liz @AdirenM and you are just making incessant uncorroborated claims with no scientific backing

@ TB

3.3. Trolling strategies

A number of strategies identified in previous research (Hardaker, 2013 and Phillips, 2015) as constituting trolling behaviour were observed when participating in this discussion. The main strategy employed was a tangential digression from the topic of conversation, most often expressed through spamming the conversation thread with non-sequiturs. Such statements often incorporated claims that the cadaver dogs Eddie and Keela had never been wrong and were sent in a succession of up to 20 messages irrespective of their relevance to the discussion topic at hand.
Any attempt to initiate a legitimate discussion about the McCann case was usually met with extreme hostility in the face of little provocation, often culminating in the person who had raised the point being personally attacked. Such verbal attacks typically involved insinuations that the individual to have broached the subject was stupid or incapable of comprehending that which they perceived to be glaringly obvious. The researcher, for instance, was told that they must be, “Thick as bricks. It’s so easy a child could work it out”.
Another interesting observation related to the way in which the word “shill” was used. As aforementioned this was a term used to refer to an individual they believed to be under the employ of the McCann’s. It was, however, used by the anti-McCann’s to refer to virtually everyone who they perceived to be group outsiders, even those who claimed to be neutral. Phillips (2015) suggested that individuals engaging in covert trolling may use subtle cues she refers to as calling cards, in order to inform other trolls of their success or identify someone who took the bait, so that other trolls might join in and cause further disruption. Whenever this term was used, anti-McCann users presented themselves in abundance and typically proceeded to mock the naivety or intelligence of the individual identified.
Many of the McCann trolls used images of Kate and Gerry McCann as their profile images, typically favouring images of Kate McCann jogging or the couple smiling after Madeleine’s abduction in order to reinforce the expressed group belief that they were in some way culpable. They also frequently distributed memes and offensive images in an apparent attempt to elicit a response from pro-McCann users. These memes typically depicted Kate or Gerry McCann with large sums of money and captions such as “it’s not about the money but please keep donating” and “I’ve been working really hard, says Kate #McCann who gave up her job 8 years ago after her daughter was ‘taken’.

Tony Bennett wrote:

loopzdaloop wrote:

loopzdaloop wrote:

The researcher, for instance, was told that they must be, “Thick as bricks. It’s so easy a child could work it out”.

and thanks to the medium of twitter, I've found the accounts that were referenced within that particular tweet:

HELP WANTED PLEASE !

The tweets of researcher Andria Coulias 

Way back on page 2 of this thread 'loopzdaloop' helpfully posted the whole research report and also some tweets in July 2015 on the #McCann hashtag by one of the three researchers, Andria Coulias (from the University of Portsmouth).

Readers of this thread may recall that Andria Coulias set up a Twitter account in order to conduct her research. She interacted with people on the #McCann hashtag.

In the sequence below, which I've completely reformatted for easy reading she mocks so-called 'anti-McCann trolls' for 'disbelieving' the 'science' that (she says) shows that cadaver and blood dogs easily make mistakes 'in hot weather'. She insinuates that anyone who believes that Martin Grime's dogs' alerts to the scent of a corpse were geunine is 'ignorant of the science'.

I am just now finishing off my draft letter by analysing Andria Coulias's intervention on the #McCann hashtag and would be grateful for any or all comments before I conclude my letter. Bear in mind that as a researcher for an academic paper, Andria Coulias MUST be strictly neutral - and that if she is casting a slur on 'anti-McCanns' for 'ignoring science', she must be very sure of her ground, because otherwise her conclusions on this issue are wholly false.

Read the tweets in date order from the bottom up >

-----------


ANDREA COULIS

TWEETS102
FOLLOWING121
FOLLOWERS18
LIKES1
 Follow

Andria Coulias @AndriaCoulias

Joined February 2015
Tweets - Tweets
Tweets & replies

Andria Coulias ‏ @AndriaCoulias to>>
5 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @NettyCox  They just don't want to listen. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/ … More scienfitic evidence if you're interested!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias ‏@AndriaCoulias
5 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @NettyCox I wouldn't bother, there's so much evidence showing that dog handlers beliefs influence dogs' identifications
0 replies 0 retweets1 like
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias @AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @Syn0nymph @CarlaSpade @fiorifan haha thank you
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply  Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias  @AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @CarlaSpade I have been, its a journal article i've been referring too this whole time
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias followed Quinton Sanchez, Barbara and Father Jack
 Follow
Quinton Sanchez
@quintontsanchez
TV Guru. Entertainment Nerd. Team Beach Body.
 Follow
Barbara
Protected Tweets
@19Barbara57
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. JFK

Andria Coulias ‏
@AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @CarlaSpade

or two different individuals.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias @AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @CarlaSpade and you dont think its a problem that these dogs sometimes cant distinguish between animal and human blood
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias @AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @Syn0nymph @CarlaSpade @fiorifan particularly under certain conditions i.e high temperatures in the algarve
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias @AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan Me too I've been waiting for an answer for a while now
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More
Andria Coulias ‏@AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan Thank you, likewise, only an open minded view such as yours can be truly unbiased
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias ‏@AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan precisely!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias ‏@AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan their accuracy is determined by their handler or the presence of a body/blood or dna evidence
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias ‏@AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @martin_liz @AdirenM @amsterdamkush if you actually readthe article the temperature is one of many factors
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1 Retweet Like More

Andria Coulias  @AndriaCoulias]
4 Jul 2015
@amsterdamkush @martin_liz @AdirenM and you are just making incessant uncorroborated claims with no scientific backing

It's great you're continuing the letter. The tone and the use of language within these tweets is dreadful. It certainly breaks ethics surrounding the research methodology.

''Andria Coulias @AndriaCoulias
4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @CarlaSpade and you dont think its a problem that these dogs sometimes cant distinguish between animal and human blood
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like More''


What animal blood?

Is she aware the dogs do not react to processed meat, or indeed any blood/flesh that isn't human or possibly a decomposing pig? Which they are sometimes trained on?

  Is she suggesting someone stored a pig carcass in the various rooms of 5a or in the hire car?  If you don't think the dogs smelled a human body then why try and suggest they DID pick up something....but not have the intelligence to look at ALL the research on dogs, which shows they don't pick up random animal blood?

What does this paper actually prove? Unless an attempt to do the same with the pro-McCann side - where I am quite convinced they'd have met with exactly the same obstinacy in the face of "facts" - surely it's completely meaningless?

What does this paper actually prove?

Unless an attempt to do the same with the pro-McCann side - where I am quite convinced they'd have met with exactly the same obstinacy and foul mouthed abuse in the face of "facts" - surely it's completely meaningless? But it's not is it? It's biased. It's ruthless and it's tainted with something so undemocratic that you want to vomit and ask yourself what a bloody society is anymore - the society our parents fought for.

My first reaction. It was a lot of acadaemic bluff. Then I realised I am wrong. The paper doesn't prove anything at all either way but what is important is it was so utterly biased from the off and it was posted in respectable acadaemic publications and once it is there it is open to be used by the law, the media and those who challenge factual things. I believe this paper to be absolutely heinous and disturbing to everything true that people expect from a fair society.

That's not bad for someone who thinks rallying is awful.

nomendelta wrote:What does this paper actually prove? Unless an attempt to do the same with the pro-McCann side - where I am quite convinced they'd have met with exactly the same obstinacy in the face of "facts" - surely it's completely meaningless?

well yes.  they are claiming they are looking at the behaviour of 'trolls' in Twitter and the psychology of those involved but why choose 'Anti McCann trolls' and not say football trolls, or sexist trolls that target female academics, or trolls that shame rape victims for coming forward?   

Their thinly veiled and almost non-existant reasoning for how they picked their 'trolls' doesn't seem to matter because they have referenced a few papers here and there to produce a 'study'  
The fact that they come to very similar conclusions as Gerry McCann on 'trolls' is just the icing on the cake. still, never mind, it's in an academic journal so it's as infallible as the Pope. 

And what Aquila said........a blatant attempt to put something 'official' together which can be used as propaganda!

ChippyM wrote:

nomendelta wrote:What does this paper actually prove? Unless an attempt to do the same with the pro-McCann side - where I am quite convinced they'd have met with exactly the same obstinacy in the face of "facts" - surely it's completely meaningless?

well yes.  they are claiming they are looking at the behaviour of 'trolls' in Twitter and the psychology of those involved but why choose 'Anti McCann trolls' and not say football trolls, or sexist trolls that target female academics, or trolls that shame rape victims for coming forward?   

Their thinly veiled and almost non-existant reasoning for how they picked their 'trolls' doesn't seem to matter because they have referenced a few papers here and there to produce a 'study'  
The fact that they come to very similar conclusions as Gerry McCann on 'trolls' is just the icing on the cake. still, never mind, it's in an academic journal so it's as infallible as the Pope. 

This is a very important point. Why pick 'trolls' whose interest lies in a topic which is far from undisputed by nature. I would have said the people who tweet about the McCann case could be used far more appropriately to demonstrate societal attitudes towards conspiracy, if anything.
Women who are victimised by sexist trolls, rape/abuse victims etc have done nothing wrong at all and the people targeting them clearly DO have some sort of mental illness.

https://thewest.com.au/news/crime/crime-expert-claims-madeleine-mccann-died-in-her-holiday-apartment-bc-5361159687001

With 'video'

Can someone 'grab it'?

Just looking at the first paragraph alone rings alarm bells.
 
Madeleine was abducted
Madeleine was taken
Widely held concerns surrounding the reliability of cadaver dogs
The McCann’s were never formally charged, and as such are considered innocent
 
I thought I would have a look at the research cited regarding the widely held concerns surrounding the reliability of cadaver dogs. There are just two references cited. The first is a study locating buried skeletons. The conclusions of the study found the cadaver dogs were reliable in finding buried human remains.
 
 
Cadaver dog and handler team capabilities in the recovery of buried human remains in the southeastern United States.
Lasseter AE(1), Jacobi KP, Farley R, Hensel L.
 
Abstract
The detection of human remains that have been deliberately buried to escape detection is a problem for law enforcement. Sometimes the cadaver dog and handler teams are successful, while other times law enforcement and cadaver dog teams are frustrated in their search. Five field trials tested the ability of four cadaver dog and handler teams to detect buried human remains. Human and animal remains were buried in various forested areas during the summer months near Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The remains ranged in decomposition from fresh to skeletonized. Cadaver dogs detected with varying success: buried human remains at different stages of decomposition, buried human remains at different depths, and buried decomposed human and animal remains. The results from these trials showed that some cadaver dogs were able to locate skeletonized remains buried at a significant depth. Fresh and skeletonized remains were found equally by the cadaver dogs along with some caveats. Dog handlers affected the reliability of the cadaver dog results. Observations and videotape of the cadaver dogs during field trials showed that they were reliable in finding buried human remains.
 
 
The second citation regarding the reliability of cadaver dogs is not a published scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal article. It is a book called ‘What the Dog Knows’ by Cat Warren, a professor of English and a journalist.
 
‘Warren interviews cognitive psychologists, historians, medical examiners, epidemiologists, and forensic anthropologists, as well as the breeders, trainers, and handlers who work with and rely on these intelligent and adaptable animals daily. Along the way, Warren discovers story after story that prove the capabilities--as well as the very real limits--of working dogs and their human partners. Clear-eyed and unsentimental, Warren explains why our partnership with working dogs is woven into the fabric of society, and why we keep finding new uses for the wonderful noses of our four-legged friends.’
 
So there we have it, this is the research cited that has created “widely held concerns surrounding the reliability of cadaver dogs.”

Experts: Cadaver dogs 95 percent accurate, can smell remains 15 feet underground
MEXICO, N.Y. -- A well-trained cadaver dog almost never gets it wrong, according to experts.
If the dog has the proper training in picking up the full range of scents of human decomposition, his accuracy rate is about 95 percent, said Sharon Ward, a cadaver dog trainer in Portland, Ore.
"So if a dog says it's there, there's a darn good chance it is," she said tonight. "They're pretty darn accurate."
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/expert_well-trained_cadaver_dogs_95_percent_accurate_can_smell_remains_15_feet_d.html

Cadaver Dogs Locate Underwater Corpses
Wed, 09/16/2015 - 1:52pm   1 Comment
by ‌‌The University of Huddersfield
Even when a body is submerged in deep and murky water, a specially-trained dog can sniff its whereabouts from the surface. This incredible level of canine capability is being investigated by University of Huddersfield researcher Lorna Irish (pictured right). Her thesis on cadaver detection dogs will make a powerful case for extending their use in cases of underwater corpses.
During her research for a Ph.D, Lorna has covered several aspects of the work of detection dogs and she has also developed a special fascination for the use of dogs to detect submerged bodies.
Globally, there are some 100,000 deaths annual from drowning — including accidents and suicides. Some countries, such as the USA, are ahead of the UK in using dogs to detect the submerged bodies.
http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2015/09/cadaver-dogs-locate-underwater-corpses

And in the case of Attracta Harron, the dogs (Eddie and Keela) were able to find her body and detect blood in a burn out car.

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/eddie-and-keela-find-body-and-blood-of.html

Get'emGonçalo wrote:And in the case of Attracta Harron, the dogs (Eddie and Keela) were able to find her body and detect blood in a burn out car.

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/eddie-and-keela-find-body-and-blood-of.html

Truly amazing dogs.

p

ChippyM wrote:

nomendelta wrote:What does this paper actually prove? Unless an attempt to do the same with the pro-McCann side - where I am quite convinced they'd have met with exactly the same obstinacy in the face of "facts" - surely it's completely meaningless?

well yes.  they are claiming they are looking at the behaviour of 'trolls' in Twitter and the psychology of those involved but why choose 'Anti McCann trolls' and not say football trolls, or sexist trolls that target female academics, or trolls that shame rape victims for coming forward?   

Their thinly veiled and almost non-existant reasoning for how they picked their 'trolls' doesn't seem to matter because they have referenced a few papers here and there to produce a 'study'  
The fact that they come to very similar conclusions as Gerry McCann on 'trolls' is just the icing on the cake. still, never mind, it's in an academic journal so it's as infallible as the Pope. 

It is very odd that they chose such a study. What is really the point of it all? Just the word "Troll" is so yesterday LOL. I think the current catchphrase now is "Haters", so these people need to get with the programme. Psychological/Psychiatric study into Trolls, too funny
I worked for quite a few years as a psyche nurse and sitting in on the group therapy sessions some of psychiatrist/psychologists were crazier than the patients, and it was a real eye opener for sure and we nurses used to shake our heads at some of the rubbish that was forthcoming. Talk about witchdoctors LOL.

The two cited articles in the publication claiming “widely held concerns surrounding the reliability of cadaver dogs” seemed to me to be an attempt to discredit them. So out of curiosity I thought I would have a look at their references provided expecting to see quite a few forensic papers which would back up their claim. There was one paper about skeletons and a book which I haven’t read but they don’t state in their reference which page of the book or particular studies have created “widely held concerns.”
 
I looked at some other forensic journals on the subject of cadaver dogs just to see if I could find much evidence that they are not reliable as claimed.
 
In Forensic Science International, Vol 244, November 2014, the conclusion was
 
“Previous studies have demonstrated that dogs may be able to detect explosives, flammable materials, land mines, molds, contrabands, and drugs. Other studies focus on the ability of specific detection canines to discover missing people, human cadavers, body parts, or body fluids. The available data demonstrates that detector dogs represent one of the fastest, most versatile, reliable and cost effective real-time detection devices available.”
 
So from what I read it doesn’t really seem that there are “widely held concerns” about the dogs performance and how accurate they are but rather
 
“Notwithstanding the rapidly increasing use of dogs in these various scenarios, the reliability of detector dog teams often comes into question in courts of law and in the mass media. This is due to limited peer reviewed research on error rates and a lack of common best practices for the certification of detection teams. The availability of a valid way to quantify the performance of dog/handler teams may acquire reliability in a court of law.”
 
This isn’t what the authors wrote in their paper. It appeared to me that they were suggesting a high error rate. If their research is poor and their references are weak it doesn’t make their paper appear very credible or respectable in my opinion.
 
I understand the article is about trolling but the authors appear to me to be quick to dismiss or discredit anything which doesn’t support the abduction theory and anyone who questions this or presents evidence to the contrary is a troll or mentally unwell.

What are Forensic Psychologists writing about anti McC trolls for?

Forensic psychology

Forensic psychology is the intersection between psychology and the justice system. It involves understanding fundamental legal principles, particularly with regard to expert witness testimony and the specific content area of concern, as well as relevant jurisdictional considerations in order to be able to interact appropriately with judges, attorneys, and other legal professionals. An important aspect of forensic psychology is the ability to testify in court as an expert witness, reformulating psychological findings into the legal language of the courtroom, providing information to legal personnel in a way that can be understood. Further, in order to be a credible witness, the forensic psychologist must understand the philosophy, rules, and standards of the judicial system. Primarily, they must understand the adversarial system. There are also rules about hearsay evidence and most importantly, the exclusionary rule. Lack of a firm grasp of these procedures will result in the forensic psychologist losing credibility in the courtroom. A forensic psychologist can be trained in clinical, social, organizational, or any other branch of psychology.

Think they're way out of their league here in assessing internet trolls,

Maybe we should be asking the Trio when they are going to testify at the McCann Trial?

Many thanks for all the very valuable contributions that members have made on this University of Huddersfield research project. Every single contribution is being worked into the final letter, which will suggest that the article is so poor that it should be formally withdrawn by the University and by the publishers of it in the journals 'Computers in Human Behaviour' and 'Nature'.

Dr John Synott is allegedly an expert in the 'science' of Forensic Psychology. And works in the University of Huddersfield Department of Forensic Psychology. I think it's probably time they all read the works of some of their fellow professionals, all of whom expressed very strong doubts over the McCanns' explanation for Madeleine's disappearance. I don't think these three Forensic Psychologists could fairly be called 'anto-McCann trolls':


Dr Christian Ludke, Forensic Psychologist: In a German forensic science journal, he suggested there were ‘numerous indications’ that the official story was untrue

Daniela Prousa, Psychiatrist and author, wrote: Analyse des Vermisstenfalles Madeleine McCann (An analysis of the case of missing Madeleine McCann). Using what she described as ‘Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis’, she also expressed severe doubts abot the official version of events  

Another Forensic Psychologist with major doubts is Dr Paulo Sargento, a University Professor, Forensic Psychologist and author in Portugal. He has published numerous articles supporting Dr Goncalo Amaral's analysis of what happened to Madeleine



============

Dr John Synnott and Dr Maria Ioannou from the University of Huddersfield: They demonised McCann doubters in their article, while their assistant Adrian Coulias tried to destroy Martin Grime's reputation by claiming his dogs were mistaken about their 17 alerts because it was too hot for them:  GUILTY OF SPREADING FAKE SCIENCE

 DR SYNNOTT


 DR MARIA IOANNOU

Well done Tony - good to see you have done thorough research before writing your letter. 

Having followed this case since day one (tho not ardently as some) I have read along the way that paedophiles cannot be cured, perhaps, who knows?
But surely one scrap of evidence pointing in the way of abduction would have us doubters cured in one fell swoop.