The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Who Could Break First (and why?)

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

WHO DO YOU THINK MIGHT BREAK FIRST???

12% 12% 
[ 6 ]
2% 2% 
[ 1 ]
27% 27% 
[ 14 ]
21% 21% 
[ 11 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
2% 2% 
[ 1 ]
6% 6% 
[ 3 ]
8% 8% 
[ 4 ]
22% 22% 
[ 12 ]
 
Total Votes : 52

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Inspectorfrost on 17.02.13 23:25

@Jenns wrote:
@Inspectorfrost wrote:
@Jenns wrote:I don`t believe any of them will break....It will have to be down to external efforts ; pinning them down and making them accountable by the sheer weight of facts and discrepancies coming to the fore more and more.

The almost automatic belief by our "establishment" in the story presented by a bunch of apparently upright British medics, followed up by the increasing prospect of loss of face abroad by those same bodies who fell for it hook line and sinker is a major part of what underpins this case, in my view......easier to cover up and hope it will all go away.

I wonder what stopped the Portuguese arresting and charging them and taking them to court in the first place, and even now, with a EAW. Even S Prior had said we have arrested people on LESS! when 15 out of 19 of Madeleines DNA markers were found in the boot of the car. Unless the lot of them are dragged into a court the truth wont come out, whatever it is.

It was in the earlier months, though............pre Eddie and Keela .........when the abduction theory , the diplomatic support and the suspicion about Mr Murat seemed in full swing that the family and friends seemed "off the hook" in a way............almost as if the scene was set, in my view. That seemed to be what happened in the first place.

But the public prosecutor said all suspicion around murat vanished and was tripe but the mccanns still had suspicion over their heads
They even filed the crime as U KNOWN ergo not definitely an abduction, there u have it


Not forgetting they failed to prove their innocence

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Lostfridge on 18.02.13 16:14

I am surprised more people think Kate, I would say she would be the absolute LAST person to crack. Look at each of them when they come out the police station after being made arguidos!. Who refused to answer the questions

Lostfridge

Posts : 149
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by PeterMac on 18.02.13 16:54

@Woofer wrote:For Peter Mac - are you saying that the first one to come clean will get the lightest sentence?
Pretty well, yes.
The days of Turning Queen's Evidence have gone, but imagine the QC trying to mitigate in the cases of all those who have conspired to keep quiet for 5 years, refused to help, exacerbated the situation, run funds, trotted round the world and told all sorts of conflicting stories, and pleaded Not Guilty,
against the one who comes clean, lays it all down, and helps the Police and other investigators as far as he or she is able, pleads Guilty to all the charges, and explains the emotional and psychological duress under which she or he was placed.

It is known as the Prisoner's dilemma
Two criminals have been arrested for a heinous crime and are being interrogated separately. Each knows that if neither of them talks, the case against them is weak and they will be convicted and punished for lesser charges. If this happens, each will get one year in prison. If both confess, each will get 20 years in prison. If only one confesses and testifies against the other, the one who did not cooperate with the police will get a life sentence and the one who did cooperate will get parole. The table below illustrates the structure of payoffs.

Given this set of payoffs, there is a strong tendency for each to confess, which you can be see by considering the choices and payoffs of either one.
If prisoner A remains silent, prisoner B is better off confessing (because parole is better than a year in jail).
However, B is also better off confessing if A confesses (because 20 years is better than life).
Hence, B will tend to confess regardless of what A will do; and by an identical argument, A will also tend to confess.

In the present case, however, they were not interviewed separately. Collusion was allowed, even hand signals and shoulder squeezing in one of the interviews, and they were allowed to confer after the first arguido interview.
That was the PJ's greatest mistake IMHO/

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Casey5 on 20.02.13 15:51

Inspectorfrost on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:59 pmAnd I would like to know what a distraught parent finds so funny a few days later, he is laughing and / or mocking there IMO
KM
said in that Jane Hill interview it was the first 48 hours that were
really bad, then they got strength from somewhere, I agree, it could be
they felt safe and out of the woods for some reason, the reason being a
mystery


Ispectorfrost, I've read that after a couple of days, if Madeleine's body had been found, there would be less evidence of cause of death, especially if she was given an accidental sedative overdose. Small bodies deteriorate quickly I think and maybe it was just relief when she wasn't found and a belief that they were in the clear. After all, unless there was clear evidence that Madeleine had been sedated on a specific date, the McCanns' could always claim the abductordid it. The more time that passed the safer they would feel.
And it showed on their faces.

Casey5

Posts : 325
Reputation : 23
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by tiny on 20.02.13 16:21

I see jane tanners in the lead,well i wish she would get a move on and tell all as Madeleine needs justice now.

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Guest on 20.02.13 19:18

@PeterMac wrote:
@Woofer wrote:For Peter Mac - are you saying that the first one to come clean will get the lightest sentence?
Pretty well, yes.
The days of Turning Queen's Evidence have gone, but imagine the QC trying to mitigate in the cases of all those who have conspired to keep quiet for 5 years, refused to help, exacerbated the situation, run funds, trotted round the world and told all sorts of conflicting stories, and pleaded Not Guilty,
against the one who comes clean, lays it all down, and helps the Police and other investigators as far as he or she is able, pleads Guilty to all the charges, and explains the emotional and psychological duress under which she or he was placed.

It is known as the Prisoner's dilemma
Two criminals have been arrested for a heinous crime and are being interrogated separately. Each knows that if neither of them talks, the case against them is weak and they will be convicted and punished for lesser charges. If this happens, each will get one year in prison. If both confess, each will get 20 years in prison. If only one confesses and testifies against the other, the one who did not cooperate with the police will get a life sentence and the one who did cooperate will get parole. The table below illustrates the structure of payoffs.

Given this set of payoffs, there is a strong tendency for each to confess, which you can be see by considering the choices and payoffs of either one.
If prisoner A remains silent, prisoner B is better off confessing (because parole is better than a year in jail).
However, B is also better off confessing if A confesses (because 20 years is better than life).
Hence, B will tend to confess regardless of what A will do; and by an identical argument, A will also tend to confess.

In the present case, however, they were not interviewed separately. Collusion was allowed, even hand signals and shoulder squeezing in one of the interviews, and they were allowed to confer after the first arguido interview.
That was the PJ's greatest mistake IMHO/

Their only mistake.

And quite pardonable, what with a British Ambassador breathing fire & brimstone down your neck.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Guest on 20.02.13 19:20

@Casey5 wrote:Inspectorfrost on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:59 pmAnd I would like to know what a distraught parent finds so funny a few days later, he is laughing and / or mocking there IMO
KM
said in that Jane Hill interview it was the first 48 hours that were
really bad, then they got strength from somewhere, I agree, it could be
they felt safe and out of the woods for some reason, the reason being a
mystery


Ispectorfrost, I've read that after a couple of days, if Madeleine's body had been found, there would be less evidence of cause of death, especially if she was given an accidental sedative overdose. Small bodies deteriorate quickly I think and maybe it was just relief when she wasn't found and a belief that they were in the clear. After all, unless there was clear evidence that Madeleine had been sedated on a specific date, the McCanns' could always claim the abductordid it. The more time that passed the safer they would feel.
And it showed on their faces.

The household dirtbins in the streets had been removed

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Inspectorfrost on 20.02.13 21:15

@Casey5 wrote:Inspectorfrost on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:59 pmAnd I would like to know what a distraught parent finds so funny a few days later, he is laughing and / or mocking there IMO
KM
said in that Jane Hill interview it was the first 48 hours that were
really bad, then they got strength from somewhere, I agree, it could be
they felt safe and out of the woods for some reason, the reason being a
mystery


Ispectorfrost, I've read that after a couple of days, if Madeleine's body had been found, there would be less evidence of cause of death, especially if she was given an accidental sedative overdose. Small bodies deteriorate quickly I think and maybe it was just relief when she wasn't found and a belief that they were in the clear. After all, unless there was clear evidence that Madeleine had been sedated on a specific date, the McCanns' could always claim the abductordid it. The more time that passed the safer they would feel.
And it showed on their faces.
I am no pathologist so dont know about this but something made them happy relieved and secure within a few days!!!! I wonder if the body was put in the house that was demolished as per Mr Harrisons report.




Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Inspectorfrost on 20.02.13 21:16

@Casey5 wrote:Inspectorfrost on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:59 pmAnd I would like to know what a distraught parent finds so funny a few days later, he is laughing and / or mocking there IMO
KM
said in that Jane Hill interview it was the first 48 hours that were
really bad, then they got strength from somewhere, I agree, it could be
they felt safe and out of the woods for some reason, the reason being a
mystery


Ispectorfrost, I've read that after a couple of days, if Madeleine's body had been found, there would be less evidence of cause of death, especially if she was given an accidental sedative overdose. Small bodies deteriorate quickly I think and maybe it was just relief when she wasn't found and a belief that they were in the clear. After all, unless there was clear evidence that Madeleine had been sedated on a specific date, the McCanns' could always claim the abductordid it. The more time that passed the safer they would feel.
And it showed on their faces.
I am no pathologist so dont know about this but something made them happy relieved and secure within a few days!!!! I wonder if the body was put in the house that was demolished as per Mr Harrisons report. No dates given here though:



An inhibiting factor is that since the disappearance of the child an old empty house adjacent to the Trig Point on the Rocha Negra has been demolished and all rubble removed, If she was concealed within this property the search would be unlikely to detect her now.


Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Guest on 20.02.13 21:23

@Inspectorfrost wrote:[...]

An inhibiting factor is that since the disappearance of the child an old empty house adjacent to the Trig Point on the Rocha Negra has been demolished and all rubble removed, If she was concealed within this property the search would be unlikely to detect her now.

***
I'd say: "Bring in the dogs again ...".

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Inspectorfrost on 20.02.13 21:26

Châtelaine wrote:
@Inspectorfrost wrote:[...]

An inhibiting factor is that since the disappearance of the child an old empty house adjacent to the Trig Point on the Rocha Negra has been demolished and all rubble removed, If she was concealed within this property the search would be unlikely to detect her now.

***
I'd say: "Bring in the dogs again ...".

YES! if they had not been taken there initially

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Nina on 20.02.13 21:45

Looking at the results, Jane Tanner and partner are taking nearly 50% of the strain. Must be terrible living day in day out with that level of stress breaking you.
So come on tell all and feel the utter relief of having done the correct thing, and actually maybe even earn some appreciation and forgiveness.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2694
Reputation : 236
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Lostfridge on 21.02.13 10:38

you only have to look at the footage of Gerry and Kate coming out of the police stations after being made arguidos to know that Gerry would break first! under decent interrogation. Kate is hard as nails , no chance she would break

Lostfridge

Posts : 149
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Woofer on 21.02.13 11:21

@PeterMac wrote:
@Woofer wrote:For Peter Mac - are you saying that the first one to come clean will get the lightest sentence?
Pretty well, yes.
The days of Turning Queen's Evidence have gone, but imagine the QC trying to mitigate in the cases of all those who have conspired to keep quiet for 5 years, refused to help, exacerbated the situation, run funds, trotted round the world and told all sorts of conflicting stories, and pleaded Not Guilty,
against the one who comes clean, lays it all down, and helps the Police and other investigators as far as he or she is able, pleads Guilty to all the charges, and explains the emotional and psychological duress under which she or he was placed.

It is known as the Prisoner's dilemma
Two criminals have been arrested for a heinous crime and are being interrogated separately. Each knows that if neither of them talks, the case against them is weak and they will be convicted and punished for lesser charges. If this happens, each will get one year in prison. If both confess, each will get 20 years in prison. If only one confesses and testifies against the other, the one who did not cooperate with the police will get a life sentence and the one who did cooperate will get parole. The table below illustrates the structure of payoffs.

Given this set of payoffs, there is a strong tendency for each to confess, which you can be see by considering the choices and payoffs of either one.
If prisoner A remains silent, prisoner B is better off confessing (because parole is better than a year in jail).
However, B is also better off confessing if A confesses (because 20 years is better than life).
Hence, B will tend to confess regardless of what A will do; and by an identical argument, A will also tend to confess.

In the present case, however, they were not interviewed separately. Collusion was allowed, even hand signals and shoulder squeezing in one of the interviews, and they were allowed to confer after the first arguido interview.
That was the PJ's greatest mistake IMHO/

Thanks for that Peter - love hearing your logic. And I suppose the longer the lie is perpetuated the less likely it is that one of them will confess.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by tiny on 21.02.13 13:50

I expect the tapas 7 are jumping through hoops with delight now another disbeliever of the mccanns so called abduction has been silenced.

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by guest. on 25.02.13 10:05

I've always thought the Olfields were the couple who were going to change their statements.

IMO ROB and JT are up to their necks in it and I think it's out of loyalty to them that the Oldfields went along with it, eventually they decided to tell the truth regardless of who it affected, however the power of team McCann stopped them

I have also wondered if there was a flirtation between Kate and Matthew which also originally clouded his decision

They are all very vague about the Wednesay 2 May although MO says he went jogging with KM, RO stayed in that night because she'd been ill the night before, sulking maybe?

The McCanns appear to have only really known the Paynes well and therefore JT and ROB IMO are directly involved and saving themselves




guest.

Posts : 322
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Miraflores on 25.02.13 10:35

@tiny wrote:I expect the tapas 7 are jumping through hoops with delight now another disbeliever of the mccanns so called abduction has been silenced.

Although it has brought the matter to people's attention, so more are beginning to question. The judge did make comments about Tony's belief in the parent's involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, which neither the McCanns nor Carter-Ruck will be able to whoosh.

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who Could Break First (and why?)

Post by Pershing36 on 25.02.13 10:47

@tiny wrote:I expect the tapas 7 are jumping through hoops with delight now another disbeliever of the mccanns so called abduction has been silenced.

Or treating it as a warning of what will happen to them if they step out of line. They have shown the power of their legal backing, which to even remotely match would probably cost more money than they could muster all together.


Pershing36

Posts : 671
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum