The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as many of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Forensics Revisited

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by skyrocket on 15.11.17 20:23

I think that @Phoebe's post (thank you) makes Martin Grime's position on the cuddlecat issue 100% clear. Eddie 'signalled the toy'.

I don't think anyone is qualified to question Martin's opinion on any indications either of his dogs made in Luz. He was brought in because of his reputation and past results. The results Martin and the dogs produced in Portugal are mutually inclusive - accept one, accept them all. Question one, question them all (and question Martin's competence and/or integrity).
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 631
Reputation : 612
Join date : 2015-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 15.11.17 20:38

@polyenne wrote:Verdi - I thought you’d barred personal attack ? Oh well, if it’s good for the goose.........

In my “comparatively short membership” (as if this is some sort of bragging right) it hasn’t escaped my notice that you appear to be a common denominator in any discord.
You think using the words 'comparatively short membership' is a form of personal attack?  I see it as a statement of fact.

Never mind, as it causes you offence I will immediately edit my post.

So moving on, what suggestions do you have for helping the forum move forward?  If it's not related directly to forensics, would you please post on the appropriate thread or, as I proposed, start a new thread with your observations on the subject as an introduction.

thumbup

NB:  CMoMM does not encourage gang banging.  If that's what you're looking for I strongly suggest you confine your time to twitter and/or facebook where such behaviour seems to be acceptable.  I will edit the 'Forum Etiquette' to include this in due course.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 7407
Reputation : 3691
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 15.11.17 20:39

@worriedmum wrote:
@worriedmum wrote:Verdi, just come on to the forum tonight and catching up on this topic.
Could you just cut to the chase and tell me if you are trying to rubbish, Eddie, Keela and Martin Grimes?
Verdi?
Yes?

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 7407
Reputation : 3691
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 15.11.17 21:34

@Mark Willis wrote:What do they say, Mr Verdi? The Devil is in the detail?
Quote: "Over the years following this case, I've learned that nothing, nothing is cast iron.." end quote.
It is inherently easy to accept facets of this case which fit in neatly with one's current theory. Not so obliging when details emerge that queer that theory's pitch. However frustrating, we must adhere to the pieces that fit, not those we want to hammer into place.
I have had to rip up some encouraging lines of inquiry when met with, what at first, seemed a trivial detail, yet turns out to be the fly in the ointment.
No aspect of this case, or person thought to be involved, is inviolable. 
It may just be, that some long accepted standing pillars of the case, crumble, revealing they had no substantial foundation after all, and have served to inadvertently deflect us from a more beneficial route of inquiry.
The waters remain very muddy, so we need continue to pan what we have unearthed with ever increasingly finer sieves and eschew the Fool's Gold.
Quite so!  As they say - every man has his price. 

Just looking at Operation Grange alone, I don't believe for a moment the 40'ish strong team were doing anything untoward but following orders from their superiors.  Amazing what people will do to safeguard their careers or are in total ignorance of what's going on around them.

In forum world and to a certain extent outside forum world, over the years it has become an established fact that Madeleine McCann's disappearance is not straightforward and is the subject of a massive powerful conspiratorial blanket cover-up.  How can anyone say with any degree of certainty that anyone involved with the case, directly or on the periphery, are 100% straight?  How can anyone gauge a total strangers motive or actions just because of what they read, see or hear.   Even those nearest and dearest in real life can surprise you - it's impossible to second guess anyone.

Clearly across the board, there is a blinkered element of believing what you want to believe and dismissing anything that might rock the very foundation of that belief.  I've no particular truck with the attitude but it would be extremely helpful if the deluded would/could at least provide a solid argument to justify their belief rather than a vapid hysterical response without reasoned justification.

I used to work alongside London politicians, I had some working knowledge of them but it was years later I learned how many were implicated in the nationwide institutional child sex abuse scandal.  Utter filth but you would never know by superficial contact. 

Trust nobody until they earn your trust - even then, don't trust them.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 7407
Reputation : 3691
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by worriedmum on 15.11.17 21:40

quote''
Clearly across the board, there is a blinkered element of believing what you want to believe and dismissing anything that might rock the very foundation of that belief.  I've no particular truck with the attitude but it would be extremely helpful if the deluded would/could at least provide a solid argument to justify their belief rather than a vapid hysterical response without reasoned justification.''


Wow
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1862
Reputation : 453
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by plebgate on 15.11.17 22:12

@Verdi wrote:
@Mark Willis wrote:What do they say, Mr Verdi? The Devil is in the detail?
Quote: "Over the years following this case, I've learned that nothing, nothing is cast iron.." end quote.
It is inherently easy to accept facets of this case which fit in neatly with one's current theory. Not so obliging when details emerge that queer that theory's pitch. However frustrating, we must adhere to the pieces that fit, not those we want to hammer into place.
I have had to rip up some encouraging lines of inquiry when met with, what at first, seemed a trivial detail, yet turns out to be the fly in the ointment.
No aspect of this case, or person thought to be involved, is inviolable. 
It may just be, that some long accepted standing pillars of the case, crumble, revealing they had no substantial foundation after all, and have served to inadvertently deflect us from a more beneficial route of inquiry.
The waters remain very muddy, so we need continue to pan what we have unearthed with ever increasingly finer sieves and eschew the Fool's Gold.
Quite so!  As they say - every man has his price. 

Just looking at Operation Grange alone, I don't believe for a moment the 40'ish strong team were doing anything untoward but following orders from their superiors.  Amazing what people will do to safeguard their careers or are in total ignorance of what's going on around them.

In forum world and to a certain extent outside forum world, over the years it has become an established fact that Madeleine McCann's disappearance is not straightforward and is the subject of a massive powerful conspiratorial blanket cover-up.  How can anyone say with any degree of certainty that anyone involved with the case, directly or on the periphery, are 100% straight?  How can anyone gauge a total strangers motive or actions just because of what they read, see or hear.   Even those nearest and dearest in real life can surprise you - it's impossible to second guess anyone.

Clearly across the board, there is a blinkered element of believing what you want to believe and dismissing anything that might rock the very foundation of that belief.  I've no particular truck with the attitude but it would be extremely helpful if the deluded would/could at least provide a solid argument to justify their belief rather than a vapid hysterical response without reasoned justification.

I used to work alongside London politicians, I had some working knowledge of them but it was years later I learned how many were implicated in the nationwide institutional child sex abuse scandal.  Utter filth but you would never know by superficial contact. 

Trust nobody until they earn your trust - even then, don't trust them.
Wow to this whole post.

Have you taken ownership of this forum Verdi - I only ask because you have started one thread headed forum etiquette and in this thread you told one poster that you would go and add another rule to the etiquette thread. FYI the rules of this forum were posted up before you became moderator/researcher and I do not need to be reminded of them.

I haven't seen one vapid, hysterical response on this thread and I think your response is arrogance gone mad.

We all know that we can' trust anyone.  We are not school children and I do not like being spoken down to.

Why not comment on Phoebe's last post instead of ignoring it and lecturing to the contributors of this thread about what goes on in the outside world - which has no relevance to Martin Grimes and the dogs' findings.

BTW I hope that verdi replies without the back up of Mark Willis joining in.

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
roll

plebgate

Posts : 6146
Reputation : 1815
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Julie on 15.11.17 22:20

Why was my reply whooshed?

Julie

Posts : 43
Reputation : 51
Join date : 2016-04-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 15.11.17 23:04

@plebgate wrote:Wow to this whole post.
I can't understand why you make such an issue about a generalization as regards attitudes past and present concerning the case of Madeleine McCann and/or a generalization about a phenomenal nationwide scandal.  You're a long standing member of CMoMM and well versed with the case, you of all people will know how forum adversaries demonize CMoMM because of their radical thinking - why are you knocking me for being a radical thinker?

Is it really such a problem for you to know another member actually agrees with my general line of thinking?  You champion those who don't so why not give some credence to those who do?

As regards my responding to another members post, if I have something to say I will of course reply.  Otherwise I've made my stance on this particular subject well known, I have nothing further to add.

If you have a grievance about my position on the admin/mod team, please take it to PM.  Thank you.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 7407
Reputation : 3691
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 15.11.17 23:07

@Julie wrote:Why was my reply whooshed?
Julie, I'm not aware of any post of yours being deleted by admin/mods. 

Can you be more precise so we can look into it please?

ETA:  Julie, you are online.  I can't help you if you don't reply.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 7407
Reputation : 3691
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Verdi on 16.11.17 1:09

@kaz wrote:I have always thought it strange that Mark Harrison MBE , National Search Adviser, ( Ex Chief Inspector ) )  suggested the use of sniffer dogs to the PJ. Remember this was the man who allegedly told Amaral that he had a meeting with MI5.  According to the  PJ Files Harrison only speaks of murder and concealment  of the child not accidental death and abduction. Again according to the PJ Files  Harrison admitted that anything that the dogs alerted to could only be viewed as intelligence, not evidence. 
I don't think that any one is suggesting that Grimes or Eddie the dog were in any way faking their  findings but there would be a fairly simple way of getting the desired results without implicating the pair in any wrongdoing. Likewise the car which is such a confusing factor in this case.  It's certainly a gift for the McCanns' protestations of innocence.
I think your summation here kaz is 100% spot on.  There is a reason behind everything in this case - nothing can be taken for granted.

As a member questioned up-page, if there was anything suspicious going on, why did Martin Grime film the dogs inspection -  a very good question!  Well, he didn't - at least not all of it.  I venture to suggest the inspection was videoed to add credence to it's authenticity, not by Martin Grime (why would he unless instructed to do so) but the UK authorities behind the deployment of the dogs.  On the surface Martin Grime had no need to fabricate anything, the UK authorities however had every reason to stage the dogs inspection - more importantly to fabricate the forensic evidence generally.

What became of the dog alerts in apartment 5a, the villa occupied by the McCanns, the surrounding terrain, the personal items of clothing, cuddlecat?  Nothing!  I firmly believe from the very beginning cuddlecat was a stage prop, not only from the McCanns point of view but also the UK establishment who have been controlling the case from the beginning.  As I said previously, like Eddie and Keela, if only cuddlecat could talk.  He still leaves a trail of evidence however.

Martin Grime was not an independent entity, he was in Portugal with the dogs on the instruction of the UK authorities, ostensibly the police.  He was working under orders so to speak - all part of the convoluting conspiracy.

Cuddlecat's paw print trail, like the general subject of forensics, has a unique story to tell.  I was in the process of writing a 'cuddlecat chronicle' for forumotion mag (Publications) and hoping for member contribution.  Epic failure!  The project is now abandoned - clearly I'm wasting my time.

Good to see you've got your finger on the pulse - the wider agenda to coin a phrase!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 7407
Reputation : 3691
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by plebgate on 16.11.17 7:04

@Verdi wrote:
@plebgate wrote:Wow to this whole post.
I can't understand why you make such an issue about a generalization as regards attitudes past and present concerning the case of Madeleine McCann and/or a generalization about a phenomenal nationwide scandal.  You're a long standing member of CMoMM and well versed with the case, you of all people will know how forum adversaries demonize CMoMM because of their radical thinking - why are you knocking me for being a radical thinker?

Is it really such a problem for you to know another member actually agrees with my general line of thinking?  You champion those who don't so why not give some credence to those who do?

As regards my responding to another members post, if I have something to say I will of course reply.  Otherwise I've made my stance on this particular subject well known, I have nothing further to add.

If you have a grievance about my position on the admin/mod team, please take it to PM.  Thank you.
Another post where you conveniently ignore questions and give a blustering reply but fail to see how arrogant your previous posts was.

Maybe it is you verdi who is incapable of reading (your own) posts properly.

I have no grievance about your position.   Jill as the owner decides but I will make my views clear on the board and not by PM - following your stance of saying what you believe in public and not by PM.

Are you ready to comment on phoebe's last post?

Worriedmum also asked a question which has been ignored.

I stand by my view that your previous post deserved a WOW (for the wrong reasons) and imo is not good enough for a moderator representing the forum.

End of AFAIAC.

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
roll

plebgate

Posts : 6146
Reputation : 1815
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by plebgate on 16.11.17 7:16

@Verdi wrote:
@kaz wrote:I have always thought it strange that Mark Harrison MBE , National Search Adviser, ( Ex Chief Inspector ) )  suggested the use of sniffer dogs to the PJ. Remember this was the man who allegedly told Amaral that he had a meeting with MI5.  According to the  PJ Files Harrison only speaks of murder and concealment  of the child not accidental death and abduction. Again according to the PJ Files  Harrison admitted that anything that the dogs alerted to could only be viewed as intelligence, not evidence. 
I don't think that any one is suggesting that Grimes or Eddie the dog were in any way faking their  findings but there would be a fairly simple way of getting the desired results without implicating the pair in any wrongdoing. Likewise the car which is such a confusing factor in this case.  It's certainly a gift for the McCanns' protestations of innocence.
I think your summation here kaz is 100% spot on.  There is a reason behind everything in this case - nothing can be taken for granted.

As a member questioned up-page, if there was anything suspicious going on, why did Martin Grime film the dogs inspection -  a very good question!  Well, he didn't - at least not all of it.  I venture to suggest the inspection was videoed to add credence to it's authenticity, not by Martin Grime (why would he unless instructed to do so) but the UK authorities behind the deployment of the dogs.  On the surface Martin Grime had no need to fabricate anything, the UK authorities however had every reason to stage the dogs inspection - more importantly to fabricate the forensic evidence generally.

What became of the dog alerts in apartment 5a, the villa occupied by the McCanns, the surrounding terrain, the personal items of clothing, cuddlecat?  Nothing!  I firmly believe from the very beginning cuddlecat was a stage prop, not only from the McCanns point of view but also the UK establishment who have been controlling the case from the beginning.  As I said previously, like Eddie and Keela, if only cuddlecat could talk.  He still leaves a trail of evidence however.

Martin Grime was not an independent entity, he was in Portugal with the dogs on the instruction of the UK authorities, ostensibly the police.  He was working under orders so to speak - all part of the convoluting conspiracy.

Cuddlecat's paw print trail, like the general subject of forensics, has a unique story to tell.  I was in the process of writing a 'cuddlecat chronicle' for forumotion mag (Publications) and hoping for member contribution.  Epic failure!  The project is now abandoned - clearly I'm wasting my time.

Good to see you've got your finger on the pulse - the wider agenda to coin a phrase!
Oh well let's forget what we can see on the video and let's forget Martin Grimes rog. (posted by Phoebe).  Martin Grimes and the dogs were used by the UK authorities as part of the convoluting conspiracy.   As you so often tell us verdi.  Evidence is required before making such firm assertions and name calling those who do not agree with you just aint cricket.

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
roll

plebgate

Posts : 6146
Reputation : 1815
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by skyrocket on 16.11.17 7:52

Perhaps new members on here are now seeing the light.

@Verdi - once again, and I'll shout this time:

MARTIN GRIME STATED FOR THE RECORD THAT EDDIE INDICATED CUDDLECAT.


 
There is nothing on the released video to suggest Martin Grime or anyone else was involved in any wrongdoing. So unless you have PROOF to the contrary it would be a good idea if you stopped suggesting otherwise. You are extremely fond of telling other members (usually with a lot less justification) that they are not experts in a particular field - is it a case of don't do as I do, do as I say? There is no problem with having an opinion but if it's about an individual (professional) rather than an idea or concept, it would be a good idea to put up proof; keep it to private converstion; or, zip up!

Right now, you are damaging the reputation of this forum (IMO) and you seem to be hell bent on annoying as many members as you can (please don't come back with some less than smart remark such as this forum isn't a popularity contest).

You make the comment, 'every man has his price', not naming Martin Grime, but in a discussion directly about him. Less than wise, I would say. As my old chemistry teacher used to say, 'Watch your mouth young man!"
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 631
Reputation : 612
Join date : 2015-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 16.11.17 8:00

Verdi,

I've been here a long time like yourself and many other posters in this thread.

I've respect your contributions to this forum, they have been excellent in the main. We don't always agree on stuff but that's life.

I'm finding your responses a little odd here though.

I haven't seen any hysterical responses, my own responses have been reasoned and not in line with your own position.

I don't believe Martin Grime is "in on it".

If he was then it would be much easier for him to find nothing. I don't buy the idea that he did what he did in the videos to discredit the dogs process 10 years down the line.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4486
Reputation : 2312
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by kaz on 16.11.17 8:48

@BlueBag wrote:Verdi,

I've been here a long time like yourself and many other posters in this thread.

I've respect your contributions to this forum, they have been excellent in the main. We don't always agree on stuff but that's life.

I'm finding your responses a little odd here though.

I haven't seen any hysterical responses, my own responses have been reasoned and not in line with your own position.

I don't believe Martin Grime is "in on it".

If he was then it would be much easier for him to find nothing. I don't buy the idea that he did what he did in the videos to discredit the dogs process 10 years down the line.
Martin Grimes could well be a fine upstanding man and Eddie, a fine upstanding dog. Certainly I'm not implying they weren't but is it not possible that they followed a set trail?
Do you not think that it's strange the dogs were brought in at the suggestion of the British ......................................the very people who appear to be doing everything to thwart the truth from entering the light of day?
Had Amaral ( in all good faith )  already set the scene of the child's death before Eddie usefully confirmed it?
How do you explain the car?
It's certainly strange that Cuddlecat was in a prime location when Kate was constantly seen carrying it around. Did she wash it before or after Eddie's manhandling?
Like setting the events on the 'Thursday ', the cadaver trail  certainly closes our minds to other possibilities.

kaz

Posts : 434
Reputation : 369
Join date : 2014-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 16.11.17 8:57

"It's certainly strange that Cuddlecat was in a prime location when Kate was constantly seen carrying it around."
It was in a bag when Eddie picked it up and threw it.

On top in a bag.

Most probably Kate's bag.

Not strange at all.

You think the PJ allowed them to take stuff with them when asked to vacate the apartment for the search?
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4486
Reputation : 2312
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by polyenne on 16.11.17 9:01

According to Gerry's Blog, Kate washed CC 5 days after Madeleine's disappearance "because it smelt of suntan lotion and everything". Gerry's sister, Aunty Phil, allegedly said it was cleaned again two months later because it was filthy after being carried around.
avatar
polyenne

Posts : 485
Reputation : 332
Join date : 2017-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Mark Willis on 16.11.17 9:05

@plebgate wrote:

BTW I hope that verdi replies without the back up of Mark Willis joining in.
Excuse me? What I say is my opinion!
avatar
Mark Willis

Posts : 363
Reputation : 140
Join date : 2014-05-14
Age : 62
Location : Beverley

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by BlueBag on 16.11.17 9:07


Bag.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4486
Reputation : 2312
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Mark Willis on 16.11.17 9:32

@Verdi wrote:
@Mark Willis wrote:What do they say, Mr Verdi? The Devil is in the detail?
Quote: "Over the years following this case, I've learned that nothing, nothing is cast iron.." end quote.
It is inherently easy to accept facets of this case which fit in neatly with one's current theory. Not so obliging when details emerge that queer that theory's pitch. However frustrating, we must adhere to the pieces that fit, not those we want to hammer into place.
I have had to rip up some encouraging lines of inquiry when met with, what at first, seemed a trivial detail, yet turns out to be the fly in the ointment.
No aspect of this case, or person thought to be involved, is inviolable. 
It may just be, that some long accepted standing pillars of the case, crumble, revealing they had no substantial foundation after all, and have served to inadvertently deflect us from a more beneficial route of inquiry.
The waters remain very muddy, so we need continue to pan what we have unearthed with ever increasingly finer sieves and eschew the Fool's Gold.
Quite so!  As they say - every man has his price. 

Just looking at Operation Grange alone, I don't believe for a moment the 40'ish strong team were doing anything untoward but following orders from their superiors.  Amazing what people will do to safeguard their careers or are in total ignorance of what's going on around them.

In forum world and to a certain extent outside forum world, over the years it has become an established fact that Madeleine McCann's disappearance is not straightforward and is the subject of a massive powerful conspiratorial blanket cover-up.  How can anyone say with any degree of certainty that anyone involved with the case, directly or on the periphery, are 100% straight?  How can anyone gauge a total strangers motive or actions just because of what they read, see or hear.   Even those nearest and dearest in real life can surprise you - it's impossible to second guess anyone.

Clearly across the board, there is a blinkered element of believing what you want to believe and dismissing anything that might rock the very foundation of that belief.  I've no particular truck with the attitude but it would be extremely helpful if the deluded would/could at least provide a solid argument to justify their belief rather than a vapid hysterical response without reasoned justification.

I used to work alongside London politicians, I had some working knowledge of them but it was years later I learned how many were implicated in the nationwide institutional child sex abuse scandal.  Utter filth but you would never know by superficial contact. 

Trust nobody until they earn your trust - even then, don't trust them.
That is a pertinent fact of life. That and "Never meet your heroes"
The point here is, we may forever reach a block end if we take too much as a given.
We all do it. This whole case is analogous to a coder writing a massive software program for the NHS. A million lines in he realises that he is bolting on bad practice patches to make it all work. Eventually he has to admit he started off from the wrong place, and either scraps it and starts again or ends up with a poor, bug-ridden product, no use to man nor beast.
Therefore, I would recommend going right to the beginning (again, a given, being 03:05:2007) and before that time, and re-examine/question everything. I would always advise against accepting anything purely based solely on an "expert's" point of view. No one gets it right all the time. Trust your own nous.
I may sound misanthropic but I'd rather call it realistic.
avatar
Mark Willis

Posts : 363
Reputation : 140
Join date : 2014-05-14
Age : 62
Location : Beverley

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by polyenne on 16.11.17 9:42

Occam's Razor springs to mind..................
avatar
polyenne

Posts : 485
Reputation : 332
Join date : 2017-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Mark Willis on 16.11.17 9:47

@polyenne wrote:Occam's Razor springs to mind..................
I try a lot of 'brute force' theorising, that is, "What if such and such...?" until that falls to ashes. So I repeat the process with another avenue of thought. Again and again. And still get nowhere.
I have tried applying Occam's Razor to this case as a whole and end up with about half a dozen possible scenarios. It refuses to break down simply. For me, at least.
avatar
Mark Willis

Posts : 363
Reputation : 140
Join date : 2014-05-14
Age : 62
Location : Beverley

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by polyenne on 16.11.17 9:50

It's been done well, hasn't it ? Either intentionally or by sheer good luck (and a huge dose of obfuscation)
avatar
polyenne

Posts : 485
Reputation : 332
Join date : 2017-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by skyrocket on 16.11.17 10:11

@TB - thank you for your input.

@MayMuse - very glad to hear from @GeG that you're still here! thumbup
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 631
Reputation : 612
Join date : 2015-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensics Revisited

Post by Mark Willis on 16.11.17 10:11

@polyenne wrote:It's been done well, hasn't it ? Either intentionally or by sheer good luck (and a huge dose of obfuscation)
It reminds me of the Warren Commission and JFK. My first taste of TPTB deliberately muddying the waters, that very phrase, to forever leave any investigator deluged by too much (dis)information. I think the term "conspiracy theorist" was coined same time, ostensibly as a pejorative to tar every one with an alternative theory as a total nutter rendering their POV as worthless.
I think this case may have evolved into utter confusion, but even so, that evolution was rapid. So I'd err on the side of it being deliberate.
It remains opaque. Still baffles me why the Mcs didn't just stay out of the limelight after September 9, 2007, but especially after the Press volte face mid-late 2008 and let the whole affair fade.
avatar
Mark Willis

Posts : 363
Reputation : 140
Join date : 2014-05-14
Age : 62
Location : Beverley

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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