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

by MayMuse 20.02.17 17:49

BlueBag wrote:The McCanns must think think Eddie and Keela are exceptional dogs.

Exceptional because it it quite an (unheard of) achievement for these dogs to give false indications for all of the following items/locations:

1 Cadaver dog ALERTING behind sofa (McCANN'S apartment)
2 Blood dog ALERTING behind sofa (McCANN'S apartment)
3 Matter FOUND behind sofa containing DNA (McCANN'S apartment)
4 DNA re 3 ALL FIVE MARKERS found are 100% COMPATIBLE with MADDIE'S DNA profile
5 Cadaver dog ALERTING to hired car (McCANN'S hire car)
6 Blood dog ALERTING to hired car (McCANN'S hire car)
7 Matter FOUND in hired car containing DNA (McCANN'S hire car)
8 DNA re 7 FIFTEEN OF THE MARKERS are 100% compatible with MADDIE'S DNA profile (McCANN'S hire car)
9 Cadaver dog ALERTING in PARENT'S bedroom near wardrobe (McCANN'S apartment)
10 Cadaver dog ALERTING in flowerbed (McCANN'S apartment)
11 Cadaver dog ALERTING on McCANNS car key (McCANN'S hire car)
12 Cadaver dog ALERTING at WHITE TOP belonging to MOTHER (McCANN'S clothes)
13 Cadaver dog ALERTING at CHECKED trousers of MOTHER (McCANN'S clothes)
14 Cadaver dog ALERTING at RED T-SHIRT with PLANES MOTIF (McCANN'S clothes)
15 Cadaver dog ALERTING at CUDDLE CAT (MADDIE'S toy she was never seen with)
16 Blood dog ALERTING to car key (McCANN'S hire car)
17 Neither CADAVER dog nor BLOOD dog ALERTING at ANY OTHER APARTMENT or CAR

They also didn't indicate anything in apartments 5D, H5, 4G.
They also didn't indicate any other car in the car compound.

Yes they must think these dogs are exceptional.

I think the odds of false indications so many times in a row are astronomical.
Even the worse dogs in academic research give 9% false indication rate and a 75% positive indication rate - that's the worse!,
The best give 0% false indications.

Exceptional.

Exceptional and extraordinarily clever hounds, successfully hounding what they are trained to do!
Thanks for this @BlueBag

by **Tony Bennett** 20.02.17 17:57

In the light of the excellent research done on this thread, and in view of the discovery today that this totally flawed paper has appeared in arguably the world's most-read popular scientific journal (Nature), I do not think that the appearance of this article at this time is 'just one of those things'.

It has a most definite feel of having been planned a long time ago.

The involvement of a student researcher who works in the same Portsmouth University department as Dr Sharon 'The-Mcanns-are-100%-innocent' Leal must be regarded as doubly suspect.

The one thing they may not have anticipated is the Portuguese Supreme Court ruling that the McCanns has 'not been cleared' and adjudging Amaral's book to be 'not lbelous' just as they were getting ready to promote the article.

It's hard to know which of the many serious flaws in this article is the most serious, but I can't get out of my head the ludicrous idea that they confronted the 'anti-McCann trolls' with so-called 'science' about the alleged unreliability of cadaver dogs.

Had the researchers also been talking to Dr Gerry McCann?

ETA: @ Roxyroo You credited BlueBag with finding the so-called 'scientific' article about the cadaver dogs quoted in this flawed article, but we should also credit ChippyM who at Post No #48 had also looked up the reference and found it to be anything but what was claimed. But praise be that we have two such dedicated researchers on the forum PLUS the excellent work done by loopzadaloop in cutting-and-pasting the entire load of garbage for us to examine in the first place and also to sallypelt for her help.

The forum-owner is very clear that we should point out to all the editors, publishers, promoters and researchers associated with this article the sheer scale of dishonesty and departure from academic standards that it reveals. We probably have sufficient material already on this matter to formulate a good response to it.

But please don't let that deter any other member here from contributing further to the discussion

by MayMuse 20.02.17 17:57

Hashtagifyme

An analytic correlation site reporting the all time 10 hashtags, trends, popularity etc
This one is for McCann

http://hashtagify.me/hashtag/mccann

What Jamaica has to do with it is anyones guess?
Or Bob Marley?

by Guest 20.02.17 18:57

ETA: @ Roxyroo You credited BlueBag with finding the so-called 'scientific' article about the cadaver dogs quoted in this flawed article, but we should also credit ChippyM who at Post No #48 had also looked up the reference and found it to be anything but what was claimed. But praise be that we have two such dedicated researchers on the forum PLUS the excellent work done by loopzadaloop in cutting-and-pasting the entire load of garbage for us to examine in the first place and also to sallypelt for her help.

Absolutely!!!!!

I'm a chronic serial poster (short burst machine gunner) but I think others made better contributions.

Thanks to all.

(The 17 points about indications I made were not my own work either, I think they were on Facebook - sorry I didn't credit it).

by ChippyM 20.02.17 19:14

Thanks Tony and everyone else for the kind words and research.

by Roxyroo 20.02.17 21:38

Thankyou ChippyM and BlueBag.
I.m hopeful today the tide is turning.
roses

by plebgate 21.02.17 10:32

Will Tony be sending a copy of his letter to editors of scientific papers to the governing body of Psychologists?

by woodbine 21.02.17 12:54

This 'research' stinks of desperation. The Mccanns are losing the public relations battle. Every day more and more people become aware of what a farce this case is. Even a master of spin cannot control the internet, and they are left with labeling all people who question the case as incurable trolls. I

by **Tony Bennett** 21.02.17 17:27

plebgate wrote:Will Tony be sending a copy of his letter to editors of scientific papers to the governing body of psychologists?

At the moment I am gathering information about the article, its contents, its flaws and its genesis.

It's not been decided if any letter will be sent by me or by Jill or by someone else.

I think the proper way of proceeding is to put all the serious flaws to all of the researchers, all of those peers who presumably peer-reviewed this travesty of a research study, and all the publishers of it.

Both the Universities of Huddersfield and Portsmouth have academic boards and other procedures for dealing with flawed academic articles.

We will be writing to Nature and asking why on earth they published it.

Part of my research will be to see if any of the researchers belong to any professional bodies; I don't know at present if there is, for example, an Associaition of Chartered Forensic Psychologists.

I will report back on this thread when we have decided how to proceed, but in the meantime, for anyone new visiting this thread, please look upthread at loopzdaloop's posting of the actual article, and at ChippyM's masterly analysis of the article's major flaws...and please add any more suggestions and comments.

Thanks

by plebgate 21.02.17 17:40

Thanks for the info. Tony. Very much appreciated.

by sallypelt 21.02.17 17:49

I have dipped my toe into this threat, but haven't read it in depth, so I don't know if the answer to my question is somewhere on this thread. And my question is, is Elsevier the publishers of this article?

Elsevier is now a part of the RELX Group, known until 2015 as Reed Elsevier, with its headquarters in Amsterdam.

Revenue: 2.07 billion GBP (2015)

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier, except certain content provided by third party Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy

When persecuted scholars sought to be heard, Elsevier chose to follow its unceasing commitment to advance knowledge.

https://www.elsevier.com/

by willowthewisp 21.02.17 17:59

MayMuse wrote:Hashtagifyme

An analytic correlation site reporting the all time 10 hashtags, trends, popularity etc
This one is for McCann

http://hashtagify.me/hashtag/mccann

What Jamaica has to do with it is anyones guess?
Or Bob Marley?

Jamaica,is the Country that one DCI Hamish Campbell,Operation Grange, has chosen to further his Police expertise to after retiring from the Metropolitan Police Service,perhaps they need to investigate the former unsolved Murder cases that Hamish has worked on for meeting the Policing standards in Jamaica?

by ChippyM 22.02.17 13:35

I've noticed some similarities in the Discussion and Conclusion part of the paper with what Gerry McCann said on radio 4 in 2014. ( in the Guardian 2014)

"He also blamed the press for inciting trolls, renewing his calls for the new industry-backed regulator Ipso to be scrapped and replaced by an official body established by royal charter.
“I think some of the internet trolling is fuelled partly by the newspaper reporting. If it was more responsible I think we would have less of the former,” McCann said."

And the 'Research' says;

"trolls are “cultural scavengers” who essentially feast on existing issues of controversy which first pass through the media filter. This was particularly evident in the case of the anti-McCanns given that the trolling was preceded by a series of equally provocative and unsubstantiated news reports implicating the McCanns in Madeleine’s disappearance, and was thereafter fed by media reports condemning the trolls’ actions"

Gerry McCann in this same 2014 interview talks about 'damage' being done by the trolls and in the 'research' conclusion we have the same word.

“I’m glad to see the law around this area is being reviewed, but I do think we need to make examples of people who are causing damage.”

The research concludes;

" What remains clear, however, is the damaging impact the McCann trolls’ behaviour has had on those victimised, both online and offline, necessitating the continuation of research exploring the way in which aggressive forms of trolling materialise, so that we might consequently establish ways in which to effectively deal with them."

So have the researchers read Gerry McCanns interview, paraphrased it and turned it in to their discussion and conclusion....without referencing it?
Now why would they do that? A whole PHD research project that just happens to comes to the same conclusions about trolls Gerry McCann did in 2014.

by MayMuse 22.02.17 13:47

ChippyM wrote:I've noticed some similarities in the Discussion and Conclusion part of the paper with what Gerry McCann said on radio 4 in 2014. ( in the Guardian 2014)

"He also blamed the press for inciting trolls, renewing his calls for the new industry-backed regulator Ipso to be scrapped and replaced by an official body established by royal charter.
“I think some of the internet trolling is fuelled partly by the newspaper reporting. If it was more responsible I think we would have less of the former,” McCann said."

And the 'Research' says;

"trolls are “cultural scavengers” who essentially feast on existing issues of controversy which first pass through the media filter. This was particularly evident in the case of the anti-McCanns given that the trolling was preceded by a series of equally provocative and unsubstantiated news reports implicating the McCanns in Madeleine’s disappearance, and was thereafter fed by media reports condemning the trolls’ actions"

Gerry McCann in this same 2014 interview talks about 'damage' being done by the trolls and in the 'research' conclusion we have the same word.

“I’m glad to see the law around this area is being reviewed, but I do think we need to make examples of people who are causing damage.”

The research concludes;

" What remains clear, however, is the damaging impact the McCann trolls’ behaviour has had on those victimised, both online and offline, necessitating the continuation of research exploring the way in which aggressive forms of trolling materialise, so that we might consequently establish ways in which to effectively deal with them."

So have the researchers read Gerry McCanns interview, paraphrased it and turned it in to their discussion and conclusion....without referencing it?
Now why would they do that? A whole PHD research project that just happens to comes to the same conclusions about trolls Gerry McCann did in 2014.

Yes and that "damage" was Brenda Leylands death!

It's all about "free speech"

by Guest 22.02.17 14:14

woodbine wrote:This 'research' stinks of desperation. The Mccanns are losing the public relations battle. Every day more and more people become aware of what a farce this case is. Even a master of spin cannot control the internet, and they are left with labeling all people who question the case as incurable trolls. I

I wanted to add that GM is now a professor, mixing in national and international academic circles. According to his own profile statement "Professor McCann directs a very active imaging research programme with funding of £9M from the British Heart Foundation, MRC the NIHR and industry. In 2016 the British Heart Foundation advertised the position of personal chair at Huddersfield, looking for an individual with 'outstanding cardiovascular research achievements and leadership qualities' According to their own blurb, 'The University of Huddersfield has a string of partnerships with industry and practice, 3M Buckley Innovation Centre, Astra Zeneca and the NHS.

by beejay 22.02.17 14:19

Unfortunately there are some pretty unpleasant people surfing the internet who indulge in vitriolic abuse and can rightly be described as "trolls", but Twitter is by far the worst social medium for this type of behaviour, partly because it is instant and reactive.

The frustrating aspect of this particular research study is that it does not make any attempt to differentiate between the genuine trolls, who we all condemn, and web-based forums such as this where in general the contributors are serious, inquisitive and measured in their postings on such a controversial subject.

Instead the authors of the study have unfairly banded together all those who do not subscribe to their own perceived wisdom of an abduction into one amorphous mass of "anti-McCanns" and then are selective in finding those posts that conform to their trolling subtext.

That is not an impartial academic paper, it is a self-fulfilling parody that completely ignores the fact that 10 years on, there is still a large body of people who are drawn to this case simply because it is one of the biggest unsolved mysteries of our time.

by ChippyM 22.02.17 14:32

What's_up_doc? wrote:
woodbine wrote:This 'research' stinks of desperation. The Mccanns are losing the public relations battle. Every day more and more people become aware of what a farce this case is. Even a master of spin cannot control the internet, and they are left with labeling all people who question the case as incurable trolls. I
I wanted to add that GM is now a professor, mixing in national and international academic circles. According to his own profile statement "Professor McCann directs a very active imaging research programme with funding of £9M from the British Heart Foundation, MRC the NIHR and industry. In 2016 the British Heart Foundation advertised the position of personal chair at Huddersfield, looking for an individual with 'outstanding cardiovascular research achievements and leadership qualities' According to their own blurb, 'The University of Huddersfield has a string of partnerships with industry and practice, 3M Buckley Innovation Centre, Astra Zeneca and the NHS.

I didn't realise he would had such an active, public role. It says he has mentored students in their doctorates too.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/colleges/medbiopsych/events-1/past-events/another

by tinkier 22.02.17 14:47

ChippyM wrote:
What's_up_doc? wrote:
woodbine wrote:This 'research' stinks of desperation. The Mccanns are losing the public relations battle. Every day more and more people become aware of what a farce this case is. Even a master of spin cannot control the internet, and they are left with labeling all people who question the case as incurable trolls. I
I wanted to add that GM is now a professor, mixing in national and international academic circles. According to his own profile statement "Professor McCann directs a very active imaging research programme with funding of £9M from the British Heart Foundation, MRC the NIHR and industry. In 2016 the British Heart Foundation advertised the position of personal chair at Huddersfield, looking for an individual with 'outstanding cardiovascular research achievements and leadership qualities' According to their own blurb, 'The University of Huddersfield has a string of partnerships with industry and practice, 3M Buckley Innovation Centre, Astra Zeneca and the NHS.

I didn't realise he would had such an active, public role. It says he has mentored students in their doctorates too.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/colleges/medbiopsych/events-1/past-events/another

Using your link above,scroll down to the 4th picture….a few well known faces? Must have needed a few more bums on seats.

by sallypelt 22.02.17 15:27

I believe that this research paper was published by Elsevier. I have asked for this to be confirmed, as I don’t have enough time, at the moment, to go into this thread in depth. However, here are a few comments about Elsevier:

Elsevier is one of the most profitable companies in the world,
- profit is the money that remains after all the production and reproduction has been paid,
- Elsevier's profit comes mostly from the funds of Universities, research agencies and research projects (any penny saved there means additional research being paid from it),
- the entire business of finding the appropriate peers to review, of making decisions about publications and of attracting the researchers to submit is done by volunteering scientists, hence does not depend on Elsevier's profit, not even of its return of investment, but rather amounts to another donation from the scientific community to this same profit.

Same old, same old: Elsevier justifying their crazily inflated prices by taking credit for the work done by volunteer academic editors and peer-reviewers.

Next time we see a pro-Elsevier puff-piece like this, I'd like to see them explain why being "sustainable" for them costs an order of magnitude more than it does for newer born-digital publishers like Ubiquity Press, Hindawi and PeerJ. And yes, I do mean literally an order of magnitude: income of about $5000 US per published paper for Elsevier and its contemporaries, income around $500 per paper for the new open-access publishers.

http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-in-germany-peru-and-taiwan-to-lose-access-to-elsevier-journals-1.21223

by MayMuse 22.02.17 15:30

tinkier wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
What's_up_doc? wrote:
woodbine wrote:This 'research' stinks of desperation. The Mccanns are losing the public relations battle. Every day more and more people become aware of what a farce this case is. Even a master of spin cannot control the internet, and they are left with labeling all people who question the case as incurable trolls. I
I wanted to add that GM is now a professor, mixing in national and international academic circles. According to his own profile statement "Professor McCann directs a very active imaging research programme with funding of £9M from the British Heart Foundation, MRC the NIHR and industry. In 2016 the British Heart Foundation advertised the position of personal chair at Huddersfield, looking for an individual with 'outstanding cardiovascular research achievements and leadership qualities' According to their own blurb, 'The University of Huddersfield has a string of partnerships with industry and practice, 3M Buckley Innovation Centre, Astra Zeneca and the NHS.

I didn't realise he would had such an active, public role. It says he has mentored students in their doctorates too.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/colleges/medbiopsych/events-1/past-events/another
Using your link above,scroll down to the 4th picture….a few well known faces? Must have needed a few more bums on seats.

How many other parents of a missing child have had their own career ( or life) propelled in such a way?
Progress has not been thwarted in Gerry's profession has it?
Remind me, how much time has he spent on searching for his daughter, Madeleine ?

by ChippyM 22.02.17 15:45

tinkier wrote:Snipped...........Using your link above,scroll down to the 4th picture….a few well known faces? Must have needed a few more bums on seats.

The McCanns out in force. They respect him and are proud of his achievements obviously. It's no wonder they wouldn't want to believe he could have lied about what happened. It would be hard for them. I don't have much sympathy when it comes to the hounding to death of people with the 'dossier' though.

by IAmNotMerylStreep 22.02.17 16:36

I'm surprised the Professor of Cardiovascular Sciences doesn't seem to have given Philomena a lecture about the damage she's doing to her heart.

But then the Dossier proved she doesn't have one.

by **sandancer** 22.02.17 16:56

Has all that work he's been doing not " hindered the search for Madeleine " ?

Can't see Kate sitting there proudly , can anyone else ?

by MayMuse 22.02.17 19:40

Perhaps these forensic psychologists could look at sick perverts who harm children! The latest is a volunteer from the MET!

A volunteer Met Police officer has admitted sexually assaulting a child.
Serving special sergeant Craig Keane, 28, pleaded guilty to nine counts of sexual assault of a child aged under 13.
Keane, who worked at a school in Chelmsford, Essex, admitted the offences at Snaresbrook Crown Court on Monday.
He was caught after Met officers in the Sexual Offences Exploitation and Child Abuse Command launched an investigation.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-special-sergeant-admits-sexually-abusing-a-child-a3472981.html

Sorry, slightly off-topic but a better use of time and "expertise" for these so called psychologists, me thinks.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.03.17 19:49

I have not yet finished compiling a letter of complaint to the University of Huddersfield about this seriously flawed research project.

Meanwhile , @MayMuse (thank you) has posted on the Twitter thread this scarcely believable news.

This utterly flawed research report that we've discussed on four pages of this thread has now made the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/03/02/how-researchers-tried-to-understand-one-of-twitters-oldest-trolling-groups/?postshare=6431488478372073&tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.b5e2db15429b

So it has not only been published in one of the world's leading scientific journals, Nature (see upthread), but has now been published in one of the world's leading broadsheet newspapers.

Not only that, but the Washington Post has given the whole story a still more sinister twist by referring to 'anti-McCann internet trolls' as "One of Twiter's Oldest Trolling Groups".

I don't know what other members and guests think about this, but it seems clear to me at least that the average Washington Post reader (and there are millions of them), will make these simple links:

Maddie was abducted >> very nasty people doubt the story >> and for 10 years have been abusing the McCanns on Twitter >> these people who doubt the McCanns are so psychologically disturbed that they are beyond cure.

This tiny, flawed research project at the University of Huddersfield is now being used worldwide to promote the abduction narrative and at the same time brand all doubters as 'nasty, disturbed trolls'. It's possible that some British newspapers may now pick up and run with this story.

I hope that others here will share my outrage at this development, and can also see the sinister significance of it, and, if so, please express your thoughts here about the implications of this new article

Thank you

by Phoebe 02.03.17 20:50

What's most surprising to me is that these eminent scientists of psychology, given their obvious interest false stories and fake news, have never bothered to examine the labyrinth of the McCanns and Tapas friends statements in the P.J. files. Now that is a psychological study worth carrying out! Perhaps they could give me an insight into the mind of an allegedly sane and intelligent person who can't remember what door he used to enter his apartment a mere 24 hours later, cant remember who had high tea for the last time ever with their child, who read her a story, who bathed her. Nor can he remember if or why he sent his friend to visit the apartment ( remember, these events are fresh when he gives his statement). His equally learned friend can't remember that Kate was wearing a towel and dripping water when she shooed him away, can't recall the colour of the kids pyjamas or what they talked about. Gerry and Jez cant remember seeing Jane Tanner passing them, and according to their reconstruction, they agree that she cant remember which side of the road she was on. I could go on with more but Id say that's enough for our erudite psychologists to start with. "Is selective amnesia contagious around the McCanns?" Perhaps that could be their working title. spin

by petunia 02.03.17 21:41

I have read this report and re read this report and IMO It could apply to Anti and Pro McCanns.

-------

Maybe, petunia, but there's no doubt, is there, about the media spin, slant and hype about this flawed piece of research, witness the first headline we saw: 'Anti-McCann trolls can't be cured'.

And that's the way this research is now being promoted - far and wide - Mod

.

by **sandancer** 02.03.17 21:44

Maybe they could also consider why a group of well educated individuals when giving their statements became inarticulate , gibbering fools ?

One couldn't even remember how old she was !

by **Tony Bennett** 02.03.17 21:49

ALERT! ALERT!

Bits in red bold below:

----

Exploring the world of the Madeleine McCann trolls

Phys.Org

A decade has passed since the disappearance of toddler Madeleine McCann on holiday in Portugal, but activity online regarding the case is constant, ...

A decade has passed since the disappearance of toddler Madeleine McCann on holiday in Portugal, but activity online regarding the case is constant, with some of this commentary being directed in the form of abuse, a behaviour commonly referred to as 'trolling'. It is estimated that every hour there are more than 100 tweets posted using the McCann hashtag.
Now, University of Huddersfield psychology researchers have entered the world of internet trolls and their abusive, aggressive language, directed towards those who disagree with them.

Described in a new journal article, the project has led to a call for measures - including an end to pseudonyms on Twitter - that would curb the anonymity that enables cyber-trolling.

The work is featured in an online editorial headed: ‘The dark side of social media’ for the prestigious journal, Nature, and the research reinforces newly-revealed UK Government plans to curb cyber abuse.

The University of Huddersfield's Dr John Synnott - who co-authored the new article in Computers in Human Behaviour - commented that: "It is encouraging to see that ministers have called the major social media platforms to Whitehall to demand that they do more to protect people online from cyber bullying and trolling or face sanctions. This is a step in the right direction by making these platforms responsible for negative behaviour that they unfortunately enable."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-exploring-world-madeleine-mccann-trolls.html#jCp

by plebgate 02.03.17 21:50

Thanks Tony - I am outraged by this and yet again am impressed by the way you seek to make sure there is fair play on all sides.

I agree that there is way too much negativity being used to describe so-called anti-McCann questioners and I think it should be pointed out that many thousands of people prefer to be seen as "pro Maddie" who are simply responding to her parents plea to the general public for help in finding their daughter. Without these questions being asked and answered many people will continue to think that something isn't right about the whole case I believe.

As for the ridiculous phrase one of Twitters oldest trolling groups it can to me only be seen as inflammatory and unfair language.

In 2004 or thereabouts questions were starting to be asked about Lance Armstrong.

In 2006 Twitter was launched so did anyone actually investigate to see whether any so-called trolls were asking questions on twitter about him before writing this article and if they were why didn't these psychologists research that?

I certainly do believe that this is bias of the highest order against pro Maddie posters and we are seeing far too much of it for my liking.

The internet allows us all to see a lot of what would have in the past been able to be printed in journals without a "target" group even being aware of it.

I am glad to see that these people can be challenged thanks to the internet and people like Tony and others who exchange information in the interests of fair play.

If they don't like it tough. ARRRGGGHHHH.

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