Re: New from PeterMac! Chapter 30: Forget Facts, Focus on the Fallacies

by Sundance 10.10.18 8:49

Verdi wrote:
Sundance wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Sundance wrote:
Verdi wrote:PeterMac, a former senior police officer, has studied this case since the beginning , through the forensic lens of a seasoned cop - a cop who knows all the tricks of the trade.
Like DI Edgar.
What is?
....a former senior police officer, who has studied this case since the beginning, through the forensic lens of a seasoned cop - a cop who knows all the tricks of the trade.
You really do need to brush up on the case if you think David Edgar is an honourable gent.

The bloke is a buffoon. A paid accomplice, I'd go so far as to say a crook - a perverter of justice. Use the forum search function and all will be revealed.

I never mentioned his abilities or otherwise, I simply stated that he is a former senior police officer, has studied this case since the beginning , through the forensic lens of a seasoned cop - a cop who knows all the tricks of the trade.
I don't need to 'brush up on the case' or 'use the search function' to assert this.

by Verdi 10.10.18 13:26

@Sundance

With respect, your comments past and present indicate a painful ignorance as regards facts and documented information appertaining to the case of missing Madeleine McCann. You present information to imply fact when indeed it's totally inaccurate, as you make sweeping geenral statements that are misleading to forum members and readers.

I ask that you be mindful of the forum's reputation and integrity. This is primarily an investigative forum with a genuine goal, it's not a place for general garden fence chit-chat; this is the reason I recommend you brush-up on the finer detail before opining on the open forum.

Such a casual attitude towards fact, evidence and accuracy is seriously detrimental to the work of CMoMM. The forum is visited daily by many many people, the genuine come here because it's the right place for factual information, informed opinion, exemplary research and analysis in addition to being a comprehensive reference point, expanded daily. It's taken many years to get where CMoMM is today, fine tuning to rid the forum of erroneous information and idle hands, to achieve the dedication necessary for a professional presentation of research and investigation.

I'm confident in saying, sometime in the future, CMoMM will be a reference source for academics across the globe - I don't wish to see that future jeopardised by careless commentary.

Please respect the forum as the forum respects you. Thank you.

by Sundance 10.10.18 13:33

Verdi wrote:With respect, your comments past and present indicate a painful ignorance as regards facts and documented information appertaining to the case of missing Madeleine McCann. You present information to imply fact when indeed it's totally inaccurate, as you make sweeping geenral statements that are misleading to forum members and readers.

Could you post a couple of examples?

I ask that you be mindful of the forum's reputation and integrity.

Such a casual attitude towards fact, evidence and accuracy is seriously detrimental to the work of CMoMM. The forum is visited daily by many many people, the genuine come here because it's the right place for factual information, informed opinion, exemplary research and analysis in addition to being a comprehensive reference point, expanded daily. It's taken many years to get where CMoMM is today, fine tuning to rid the forum of erroneous information and idle hands, to achieve the dedication necessary for a professional presentation of research and investigation.

Like this libelous statement, you mean? : The bloke is a buffoon. A paid accomplice, I'd go so far as to say a crook - a perverter of justice.

by Phoebe 10.10.18 14:02

What I have difficulty in understanding is why there is appears to be such a negative reaction to any suggestion that Peter Mac might not be correct in his conclusion that the P.J. were duped!

Peter Mac has stated in his e-book that he believes Madeleine was sedated and that this contributed to her fatal accident. He also states that he believes the children were left alone and unsupervised while the adults dined, and that, this too, contributed to Madeleine's death. There seems to be no problem with people who express disagreement with Peter on these points, but great issue is taken with those disagreeing with him on the "duping" issue. Such inconsistency is most odd.

Verdi has rightly stated that Peter M. is -

"A former seasoned police officer who has studied this case since the beginning through the forensic lens of a seasoned cop- a cop who knows all the tricks of the trade".

And yet such qualities do not prevent people, including Verdi himself, from disagreeing with Peter over issues such as neglect and sedation.
Therefore it seems inconsistent and rather unfair to deny other posters their right to disagree with Peter on any other issue.

I am also constantly mindful of the fact that Dr. Amaral, (whom some allege was duped) is also a -

"former seasoned police officer who has studied this case since the beginning (indeed, he alone, was ACTUALLY there on the scene!) through the forensic lens of a seasoned cop - a cop who knows all the tricks of the trade"

If the above attributes render someone credible and unlikely to be tricked, then logically, Dr. Amaral is credible and unlikely to have been tricked.

by Liz Eagles 10.10.18 14:50

Dear Pheobe,

Thou doth ptotest too much.

Why not take a little time to consider this forum is dedicated to finding justice for a little girl instead of snipping at the heels of anyone who takes issue with your well written and flowery posts.

Stop having a go at Verdi because Verdi does much more than you could ever hope to achieve on the forum.

by Phoebe 10.10.18 15:16

aquila wrote:Dear Pheobe,

Thou doth ptotest too much.

Why not take a little time to consider this forum is dedicated to finding justice for a little girl instead of snipping at the heels of anyone who takes issue with your well written and flowery posts.

Stop having a go at Verdi because Verdi does much more than you could ever hope to achieve on the forum.

I assure you I am not "sniping at Verdi". I don't admire or engage in verbal "sniping" and have never sought to belittle or disrespect any poster's integrity, intent, intelligence or style of expressing themselves. I am merely pointing out (politely) that if it is permissible to raise questions re. some of Peter's theories then, logically, it should be permissible to also question other theories.
I am well aware that this forum's aim is to seek justice for a little girl and anything I say is designed to further that aim.

by Liz Eagles 10.10.18 15:31

Keep going Pheobe but always remember the folk on this forum who have experienced the vast array of tactics used to disrupt.

I hope you will not be offended if I liken your posts to a Marian Keyes novel.

by Phoebe 10.10.18 18:20

aquila wrote:Keep going Pheobe but always remember the folk on this forum who have experienced the vast array of tactics used to disrupt.

I hope you will not be offended if I liken your posts to a Marian Keyes novel.

I invite all admin. on this forum - and anyone else who cares to - to trawl back through my every post. I have never sought to disrupt. Nor will you ever find that I was sarcastic, scathing or sought to put down or belittle any other poster for his or her opinions. I have never offended anyone over their religious beliefs (nor indeed lack of same) or their political persuasion. I have never accused anyone of ignorance nor lack of intelligence. I seek to keep my discourse polite, free of personal attack and grounded in evidence and logic.

I can't say I am familiar with Marian Keyes' writing, having never read her. I believe she pens "chic lit" for easy, holiday-type reading. Not my style I fear! Who knows - maybe my posts are the perfect pool-side companions. I'll bow to your obvious, superior knowledge of chic-lit styles on this matter. Pax m1264

by polyenne 10.10.18 18:29

The issue that is starting to run through a number of recent threads is that there is a cabal of members who believe their understanding of the available information leads to a particular theory. And that’s all it is, a theory.
Anyone with a differing theory, even though they’ve reached that point by their own interpretation of the available information, is subjected to a coordinated effort of dissuasion, shouted down and sometimes even ridiculed.
Regular observers will recognise the differing camps.
Why can’t there be more than one theory if it is backed up by the theorist’s interpretation ?

by Liz Eagles 10.10.18 20:42

I think you will find Kate McCann's bewk was pitched as chic lit holiday reading.

by Verdi 10.10.18 21:32

polyenne wrote:Why can’t there be more than one theory if it is backed up by the theorist’s interpretation ?

It's not a matter of interpretation, it's all about hard facts and evidence studiously researched and analyzed to reach a specific conclusion.

Members and guest readers alike, with any degree of intelligence, will recognize the true purpose of the forum. That purpose is seriously jeopardized by this kind of interruption.

The thread is about PeterMac's new e-book chapter - please keep with the subject matter.

by Verdi 10.10.18 21:38

@Phoebe

What exactly are you trying to prove? The thread is, no ifs buts or maybes, is about PeterMac's book - it's not about your wounded pride. This kind of argumentative, I'll go so far as to say provocative or goading, attitude is unacceptable.

Please stay on topic or your comments will be deleted. Thank you.

by polyenne 10.10.18 22:05

Verdi @ 21:32.
Thank you, you’ve perfectly ratified my point.

by Phoebe 10.10.18 22:18

@ Verdi Since you have opted to pose a direct question to me, I will be polite and respond. I say this lest I am later accused of having sniped at you or sought to draw you into a conversation which you did not initiate.

This thread is indeed about Peter Mac's latest chapter in his e-book in which he suggests that the P.J. were duped.
It is an inescapable fact that Peter, in this book, has previously put forward theories with which members, including yourself, have disagreed. Therefore, it would seem to follow logically, that agreement with everything Peter Mac suggests is not "de rigueur".
With this understanding, I expressed my disagreement over whether the P.J. were duped. I gave my reasons, seeking as always to ground them in logic and evidence. For some inexplicable reason this has drawn your ire!
I fail to understand how such action on my part can be deemed by you to be "provocative or goading".
If you check back over the history of this post you will see that I began by addressing the topic, and have continued in that vein. I have only digressed in direct response to others - namely - "Aquila" who addressed me "off the topic" of the thread. I felt it only good manners to respond and, as there had been no admonishment to us for wandering off topic, I felt free to reply.

by Verdi 10.10.18 23:20

polyenne wrote:Verdi @ 21:32.
Thank you, you’ve perfectly ratified my point.

@polyenne

You have contributed very little to CMoMM but negativity since registering at the beginning of 2017. Curiously during the same period as a number of other members with much the same attitude.

If CMoMM is not to your liking, no one is forcing you to stay - you are free to leave whenever you like.

by Verdi 10.10.18 23:30

@Phoebe

If I might remind you, this was your intitial response to PeterMac's new e-book chapter..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15598-new-from-petermac-chapter-30-forget-facts-focus-on-the-fallacies#391941

You're becoming very tedious with your argumentative comments. Your time would be put to better use if not wasted trawling through my posting history just to try and prove a point.

This is the last time - back on topic or comments will be deleted.

by Phoebe 10.10.18 23:45

Off topic - post deleted. Mod

by **Jill Havern** 11.10.18 9:30

Email from PeterMac:

The discussion is interesting.
Already a "straw man" has been set up and is diverting the conversation.

The purpose of a 'Red Herring' is to temporarily divert or confuse the hounds.
Hunt saboteurs used it in the early days before they became violent, and started using the 'ad baculum' argument
Dragging an aniseed trail took the hounds away, and confused them, so by the time they could be brought back the fox has gone to ground
A human fugitive may run through water, so that the dogs have to spend time getting back on track.

The intention is to slow, or divert for a shorter or longer time
Not to DUPE totally.

In that sense it worked. In the first days the PJ had no option but to continue to investigate what they were being told by so many 'authoritative' people
We know that deep down their experience told them something was very wrong, but could not put their finger on what is was.
This is clear from the request for weather reports.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/WEATHER_CONDITIONS.htm

P.J. POLICE FILES: WEATHER CONDITIONS PRAIA DA LUZ 3/4 MAY 07
This information belongs to the Ministério Público in Portimão, Portugal. It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk

It asks only for 3/4 May. Not for the entire week. (The report itself does not appear to be in the files released.)

So they were still 'stuck' with that date, and even though they knew knew that the abduction in the way described was impossible, ludicrous,
they had not yet been brought back onto the original trail.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.10.18 10:29

Jill Havern wrote:Email from PeterMac:

The discussion is interesting.
Already a "straw man" has been set up and is diverting the conversation.

The purpose of a 'Red Herring' is to temporarily divert or confuse the hounds.
Hunt saboteurs used it in the early days before they became violent, and started using the 'ad baculum' argument
Dragging an aniseed trail took the hounds away, and confused them, so by the time they could be brought back the fox has gone to ground
A human fugitive may run through water, so that the dogs have to spend time getting back on track.

The intention is to slow, or divert for a shorter or longer time
Not to DUPE totally.

In that sense it worked. In the first days the PJ had no option but to continue to investigate what they were being told by so many 'authoritative' people
We know that deep down their experience told them something was very wrong, but could not put their finger on what is was.
This is clear from the request for weather reports.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/WEATHER_CONDITIONS.htm

P.J. POLICE FILES: WEATHER CONDITIONS PRAIA DA LUZ 3/4 MAY 07
This information belongs to the Ministério Público in Portimão, Portugal. It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk
It asks only for 3/4 May. Not for the entire week. (The report itself does not appear to be in the files released.)

So they were still 'stuck' with that date, and even though they knew knew that the abduction in the way described was impossible, ludicrous, they had not yet been brought back onto the original trail.

What a truly brilliant observation once again by PeterMac.

"The P J only asked for the weather reports for 3/4 May. Not for the entire week".

I really believe that even now we still do not understand and comprehend just how cunning was the preparation for the raising of the alarm at around 10pm on 3 May and how devious and very very sticky was the huge web of lies, deceptions and changes of story that bedevilled Goncalo Amaral and his team in those first 5 months of the PJ investigation.

The cause of Madeleine McCann and the wider pursuit of truth and justice in this case has been brilliantly served by PeterMac and we should all thank him very warmly for his single-minded devotion to the case and his dogged attention to detail.

He may have decided not to post here any more, but we all know he sends his best research and analysis just here to CMOMM for Jill to put on the forum.

The forum is very fortunate to be able to receive his observations

by Phoebe 11.10.18 11:25

I wonder what would have happened if the P.J. had suspected in that first week or two that Madeleine might have died before May 3rd. How would or could they have proceeded and would it have made any material change to the conclusions reached in the interim report (other than the date).
Various witnesses, creche workers, nannies, Ocean Club workers and guests had testified that they had seen Madeleine at various time during the week, up to and including May 3rd. Suppose that the P.J. decided they were all lying or mistaken - what would they do.
Most likely they would have got them all (in so far as possible) back in for interview and put it to them that they had NOT seen Madeleine. What would have been the outcome if these witnesses confirmed that their original statements were correct. If they were lying for the McCanns in the first place, it is unlikely they would suddenly change their stories and admit to giving false testimony. None did in their rogatory statements!
In the absence of CCTV footage the P.J. would have had no other way of disproving their claims, so, I'm not sure what difference it would have made. From the files it appears the P.J. had checked whether and when the McCanns had left the O.C. complex during the week, whether they had hired or had access to a car, whether they turned up for tennis lessons, whether anyone noticed anything odd about their behaviour during the week. When none of the statements suggested that Madeleine was missing, or that anything was amiss earlier that week, how could they possibly hope to proceed with demonstrating that she may have been dead on an earlier date.

by Liz Eagles 11.10.18 14:20

Off topic post deleted - admin.

by Liz Eagles 11.10.18 16:42

When a seasoned senior police professional presents facts in a logical, straightforward manner there is little room to wax lyrical.

Well done Petermac.

by **Jill Havern** 12.10.18 10:21

aquila wrote:When a seasoned senior police professional presents facts in a logical, straightforward manner there is little room to wax lyrical.

Well done Petermac.

For yoohoo aquila from Peter:

But that might lead people to accuse me of the fallacy of Argument by authority. (qv. Chapter 30)
The fact that I am a retired police officer and have legal training and qualifications allows me only to order my thoughts in a particular forensic way – and to follow the squirrel.
That is why I try hard to evidence and reference everything I write; every statement; every conclusion, even though sometimes this makes the References and Appendices three or four times as long as the essay.
I hope I have never used words to the effect "I am a retired officer and therefore I know . . ." and that no one has ever taken them to imply this
If I have, I take it back unreservedly.