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

Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by Guest on 29.05.14 14:52

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@aquila wrote:
There are only two people currently on this forum to my knowledge that call Sharonl 'sharoni'.

I must admit that I've always read it as "Sharoni", but as I don't think I've ever referred to her by name then I can't be sure if I've inadvertently stumbled into your sights or not.

Shall we stay on topic and not the outing of people. Aquila contact mods if you have concerns.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by tigger on 29.05.14 17:31

candyfloss wrote:
johnknox wrote:

If we are now doubting the evidence of Mrs. Fenn then the rabbits have truly taken over the cabbage patch.

Firstly who is this we, and secondly opinions and theories are being discussed, that's what this forum is about.  I would expect any future posts to be rather nicer in their tone.

I  do think that the crying can truly be reduced to the bare bones of that event?
Applying Occam's razor:
Mrs, Fenn  heard a child crying. This fact was passed on to a friend who would corroborate this.
She gives as her opinion that it was an older child and that she heard the words 'Daddy, Daddy'.
As no test has been done to ascertain if Mrs. fenn could tell the difference between a child of 2 yrs and 3 months and one just a week short of 4 years, it is not a reliable indicator.
Both the McCanns were very keen that the PJ would be aware of 'a' crying episode which Maddie told them about,
However in both their statements of 4/5 it was Sean crying.

For me it boils down to:
Mrs. Fenn heard a child crying on the first of May. backed up by independent witness.

The McCanns were keen to promote a crying episode of unknown duration with only Sean crying.
They say it happened on the 2 nd of May, related by Maddie on the third, thus proving her alive to have one of only two reported conversations with her parents. both on Thursday, proving her 'aliveness' that day and thus all of the other days.
Imo the constant changes in this story, the crying was in order of  appearance: Sean, the twins, Sean and Maddie and finally, by September , Maddie alone.  Constantly changing statement, enhanced to their advantage can be ignored, leaving the first statements of 4/5.

We now have:
A crying child - witness plus confirmed conversation and time.
Sean was crying.  Date of crying changed for reason supporting parents' statements.

That's what I think it is, Sean  was a chunky toddler, perfectly capable of shouting Daddy and crying loudly.

So how do the grumpy newbies feel about that?  big grin

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by TozerDerry on 29.05.14 17:52

@aquila wrote:I'm supposed to be on 'eyesight rest' ....that's keeping away from screens. I'm trying...I'm really trying.

I'd like to ask TozerDerry a question and in order to do that I need to quote a part of his initial post.

"I work in practical moral philosophy with schools, hospitals and companies, trying to help people understand what can and should be done in various circumstances and often meet closed minds and fixed opinions in opposing groups- Cliical vs Admin, Teachers vs Governors, Directors vs stakeholders and so on. Asking people to try to critique their own assumptions often results in a fuller understanding of the problem before the group. This has been part of the Peace Process in various bodies in the North of Ireland- resuing people from entrenched position that have resulted in serious injury and death."

I'd like to know what 'practical moral philosophy' is?

does it work?

how much do you bill schools, hospitals and companies for this 'vital service'?

what drew you to this forum to give the benefit of your wisdom (for free)?

and why do you not answer direct questions from posters? (or are posters on this forum all of a 'closed mind')?

Deleted.  
I do not like to think what you deleted when I look at the stuff you actually left up.

If you want to be so unpleasant and challenging, then you surely will not expect me to waste time replying to someone so rude as to post in that manner.

TozerDerry

Posts : 54
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by TozerDerry on 29.05.14 17:54

@russiandoll wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:TD  :  what do you make of the following?


 Pamela Fenn heard the opening of patio doors.
 The child's crying stopped.
 The parents or someone else had entered 5a [ result, the child stopped crying].

 So said her statement.

 Thanks for your reply, TD . I was not trying to be cryptic, but given the way you appear to think, I was wondering if you were reading the statement by Mrs Fenn and particularly the part I have referred to, would you be using your mental highlighter pen on any of it? Because I would.
I know very little of this case. And nothing of the Fenn statement.

Given the personal abuse and antipathy shown by some people here I feel dislinclined to waste any more time- see the posts above by various people.

TozerDerry

Posts : 54
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by russiandoll on 29.05.14 18:16

I have not been abusive. You need not know very much of the Fenn statement to answer my question....I gave you a few bits of info from her statement and was wondering if you found anything you would query there...

 btw I do not think that she was saying anything other than what she heard, it is her interpretation I was thinking about.

 So please ignore the abusers and just tell me if you with your rational mindset see anything worth comment on the parts of her statement I noted.

 I was specifically referring to the doors.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by ultimaThule on 29.05.14 18:23

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@aquila wrote:
There are only two people currently on this forum to my knowledge that call Sharonl 'sharoni'.

I must admit that I've always read it as "Sharoni", but as I don't think I've ever referred to her by name then I can't be sure if I've inadvertently stumbled into your sights or not.

< puts hand up > I've also always read it as Sharoni or sharoni.   That makes two of us, Clay  - mystery solved; if only they were all that simple.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by TozerDerry on 29.05.14 18:40

@russiandoll wrote:I have not been abusive. You need not know very much of the Fenn statement to answer my question....I gave you a few bits of info from her statement and was wondering if you found anything you would query there...

 btw I do not think that she was saying anything other than what she heard, it is her interpretation I was thinking about.

 So please ignore the abusers and just tell me if you with your rational mindset see anything worth comment on the parts of her statement I noted.

 I was specifically referring to the doors.
It was the post from aquila that offended me.

If it settles down I will read the Fern statements tomorrow.

TozerDerry

Posts : 54
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by ultimaThule on 29.05.14 18:52

@tigger wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
johnknox wrote:

If we are now doubting the evidence of Mrs. Fenn then the rabbits have truly taken over the cabbage patch.

Firstly who is this we, and secondly opinions and theories are being discussed, that's what this forum is about.  I would expect any future posts to be rather nicer in their tone.

I  do think that the crying can truly be reduced to the bare bones of that event?
Applying Occam's razor:
Mrs, Fenn  heard a child crying. This fact was passed on to a friend who would corroborate this.
She gives as her opinion that it was an older child and that she heard the words 'Daddy, Daddy'.
As no test has been done to ascertain if Mrs. fenn could tell the difference between a child of 2 yrs and 3 months and one just a week short of 4 years, it is not a reliable indicator.
Both the McCanns were very keen that the PJ would be aware of 'a' crying episode which Maddie told them about,
However in both their statements of 4/5 it was Sean crying.

For me it boils down to:
Mrs. Fenn heard a child crying on the first of May. backed up by independent witness.

The McCanns were keen to promote a crying episode of unknown duration with only Sean crying.
They say it happened on the 2 nd of May, related by Maddie on the third, thus proving her alive to have one of only two reported conversations with her parents. both on Thursday, proving her 'aliveness' that day and thus all of the other days.
Imo the constant changes in this story, the crying was in order of  appearance: Sean, the twins, Sean and Maddie and finally, by September , Maddie alone.  Constantly changing statement, enhanced to their advantage can be ignored, leaving the first statements of 4/5.

We now have:
A crying child - witness plus confirmed conversation and time.
Sean was crying.  Date of crying changed for reason supporting parents' statements.

That's what I think it is, Sean  was a chunky toddler, perfectly capable of shouting Daddy and crying loudly.

So how do the grumpy newbies feel about that?  big grin

I agree, tigger I don't dispute that Mrs Fenn heard a child crying for a prolonged period on the night of Tuesday 1 May, however, as it cannot be stated with any certainty which child was crying, her statement cannot be seen as evidence that Madeleine was alive or that she was in apartment 5A on that night,

In recollection of a post I made on another thread some considerable time ago, as young children tend to cry for their 'Mummy' it could be that the child Mrs Fenn heard was calling for 'Maddy'.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

occam

Post by johnknox on 29.05.14 20:58

@ultimaThule wrote:
@tigger wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
johnknox wrote:

If we are now doubting the evidence of Mrs. Fenn then the rabbits have truly taken over the cabbage patch.

Firstly who is this we, and secondly opinions and theories are being discussed, that's what this forum is about.  I would expect any future posts to be rather nicer in their tone.

I  do think that the crying can truly be reduced to the bare bones of that event?
Applying Occam's razor:
Mrs, Fenn  heard a child crying. This fact was passed on to a friend who would corroborate this.
She gives as her opinion that it was an older child and that she heard the words 'Daddy, Daddy'.
As no test has been done to ascertain if Mrs. fenn could tell the difference between a child of 2 yrs and 3 months and one just a week short of 4 years, it is not a reliable indicator.
Both the McCanns were very keen that the PJ would be aware of 'a' crying episode which Maddie told them about,
However in both their statements of 4/5 it was Sean crying.

For me it boils down to:
Mrs. Fenn heard a child crying on the first of May. backed up by independent witness.

The McCanns were keen to promote a crying episode of unknown duration with only Sean crying.
They say it happened on the 2 nd of May, related by Maddie on the third, thus proving her alive to have one of only two reported conversations with her parents. both on Thursday, proving her 'aliveness' that day and thus all of the other days.
Imo the constant changes in this story, the crying was in order of  appearance: Sean, the twins, Sean and Maddie and finally, by September , Maddie alone.  Constantly changing statement, enhanced to their advantage can be ignored, leaving the first statements of 4/5.

We now have:
A crying child - witness plus confirmed conversation and time.
Sean was crying.  Date of crying changed for reason supporting parents' statements.

That's what I think it is, Sean  was a chunky toddler, perfectly capable of shouting Daddy and crying loudly.

So how do the grumpy newbies feel about that?  big grin

I agree, tigger  I don't dispute that Mrs Fenn heard a child crying for a prolonged period on the night of Tuesday 1 May, however, as it cannot be stated with any certainty which child was crying, her statement cannot be seen as evidence that Madeleine was alive or that she was  in apartment 5A on that night,

In recollection of a post I made on another thread some considerable time ago,  as young children tend to cry for their 'Mummy' it could be that the child Mrs Fenn heard was calling for 'Maddy'.
My original post was in response to the unfounded allegation by Sharonl that Mrs Fenn was lying based on guesswork and the hearsay evidence of an acknowledged liar,Robert Murat. To denigrate the character of the now deceased Mrs Fenn is as unfair as it is without merit.
UltimateThule,given your extensive legal knowledge,do close relatives have any protection to deter and where necessary provide redress in response to false posthumous allegations?

johnknox

Posts : 6
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by Guest on 29.05.14 21:05

I don't have extensive knowledge but I don't think you can libel a dead person.

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2012/news/mps-rule-that-you-still-cant-libel-the-dead/

snipped from article....
MPs rule that you still can’t libel the dead

by Media Lawyer Staff   Published 20 Jun 2012.


The House of Commons has rejected an attempt to amend the Defamation Bill so as to allow relatives of dead people to sue over ‘libellous’ stories about their loved ones.

Don't think there were allegations just opinions and theories.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

occam

Post by johnknox on 29.05.14 21:19

candyfloss wrote:I don't have extensive knowledge but I don't think you can libel a dead person.

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2012/news/mps-rule-that-you-still-cant-libel-the-dead/

snipped from article....
MPs rule that you still can’t libel the dead

by Media Lawyer Staff   Published 20 Jun 2012.


The House of Commons has rejected an attempt to amend the Defamation Bill so as to allow relatives of dead people to sue over ‘libellous’ stories about their loved ones.

Don't think there were allegations just opinions and theories.
As Mrs Fenn was a long term resident of PDL the civil code of Portugal may be more relevant.

johnknox

Posts : 6
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 29.05.14 21:25

I assume the same view is held re: Euclides Monteiro, John?

He's been trashed by SY/press etc...

TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by Guest on 29.05.14 22:44

After reading this and other threads of similar dysfunction. In summary:

The 'pros' are shitting themselves.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post by Guest on 30.05.14 1:58

@TozerDerry wrote:
MarcoG wrote:@TozerDerry I fail to see the null in the hypothesis, when the most questionable evidence, that's the stories told by the parents as witness statements, is taken as assumed, while better evidence, even some proof of lies been told, is ignored.
 
That ain't null. That's full. Of it.
The Null hypothesis is the opposite of what you belive to be the case. If you believe the McCanns were responsible, it is necessary in science and in law, to prove that they were not innocent, rather than to try to prove that they are guilty. This is the presumption of Innocence in the case of Forensics, and Falsifiability in the case of Science. However much apparent evidence is piled up against someone, a simple contrary fact can destroy that case.

Like it or not, that is how Science and the Law proceed.
Then start your "Null hypothesis" by removing all questionable assumptions. Right. And accept proven facts. That's what I wrote. 
 
For instance, importantly, you assume the parents left the children alone in 5a on the night of the third. You can do that, but if you do, don't try and lecture others about science and presumption of innocence.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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