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

by Phoebe 10.10.18 15:16

aquila wrote:Dear Pheobe,

Thou doth ptotest too much.

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

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

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

by Liz Eagles 10.10.18 15:31

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

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

by Phoebe 10.10.18 18:20

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

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

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

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

by polyenne 10.10.18 18:29

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

by Liz Eagles 10.10.18 20:42

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

by Guest 10.10.18 21:32

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

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

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

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

by Guest 10.10.18 21:38

@Phoebe

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

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

by polyenne 10.10.18 22:05

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

by Phoebe 10.10.18 22:18

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

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

by Guest 10.10.18 23:20

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

@polyenne

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

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

by Guest 10.10.18 23:30

@Phoebe

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

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

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

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

by Phoebe 10.10.18 23:45

Off topic - post deleted. Mod

by **Jill Havern** 11.10.18 9:30

Email from PeterMac:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **Tony Bennett** 11.10.18 10:29

Jill Havern wrote:Email from PeterMac:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a truly brilliant observation once again by PeterMac.

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

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

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

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

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

by Phoebe 11.10.18 11:25

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

by Liz Eagles 11.10.18 14:20

Off topic post deleted - admin.

by Liz Eagles 11.10.18 16:42

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

Well done Petermac.

by **Jill Havern** 12.10.18 10:21

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

Well done Petermac.

For yoohoo aquila from Peter:

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

by Liz Eagles 12.10.18 12:32

Argument by authority is something belonging to the McCanns.

by Liz Eagles 12.10.18 12:37

I sincerely hope that authority is removed.

by **Jill Havern** 12.10.18 21:33

From Peter:

Fallacies

See how it works in practice.
The Deputy Commissioner Sir Craig Mackey is directly accused of 'Cowardice in the Face of the Enemy' by locking himself in his car at Westminster during the attack.
The Commissioner, Cressida Dick; the Head of Terrorism command, Assistant commissioner Niel Basu, and the Coroner
all use words to the effect . . .
"even if he had got out of the car, it is clear from the CCTV evidence he would not have reached Pc Palmer before Masood inflicted his fatal wounds."
which is beside the point.
Very neat. It diverts attention from the original argument which is whether he should have got out to try to help a colleague and member of the public or locked himself in, and whether his action amounts to cowardice or not.

Whether he could have saved anyones life can only be ascertained at post mortem, and after a full Coroner's inquest.

Ignoratio elenchi, and possibly a Straw Man, if anyone is interested !

I quote
"Ignoratio elenchi makes its brief, but usually successful, appearance wherever someone accused of doing something he did do is quite prepared to deny something else."
Here he is accused of cowardice, but people are denying on his behalf that he could have helped anyway.

by polyenne 13.10.18 11:33

Mr Mackey is not a policeman, was not wearing any protective equipment and had no truncheon/Taser/gun. What was he expected to do ?
Some folk need to engage brain before gobbing off

by Guest 13.10.18 12:36

And some people need to see the commentary for it's true worth before 'gobbing-off'.

An illustration of 'fallacies'.

by Rogue-a-Tory 13.10.18 12:37

polyenne wrote:Mr Mackey is not a policeman, was not wearing any protective equipment and had no truncheon/Taser/gun. What was he expected to do ?
Some folk need to engage brain before gobbing off

How can the Deputy Commissioner not be a policeman?

by polyenne 13.10.18 12:43

@ Verdi
Do you believe Mackey should have got out of the car and approached the assailant ?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Back on topic please. Any more distractions will be deleted.

Mod

by polyenne 13.10.18 13:12

It is clear that key members of the team have megalomania and, whilst happy to question posters, refuse to be questioned themselves. Poor show

by **Jill Havern** 13.10.18 14:35

polyenne wrote:Mr Mackey is not a policeman, was not wearing any protective equipment and had no truncheon/Taser/gun. What was he expected to do ?
Some folk need to engage brain before gobbing off

How bizarre. "Not a policeman".
He is just about to retire after 34 YEARS as a policeman

Mackey joined Wiltshire Constabulary in 1984. In 2001, he transferred to Gloucestershire Constabulary to become its Assistant Chief Constable - he later went on to be its Deputy Chief Constable.
In September 2007, Mackey joined Cumbria Constabulary as its Chief Constable, a post he remained in until his appointment as the Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner in 2012. Mackey served as the Acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police between 22 February and 10 April 2017.