Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity

AndyB wrote:I don't need to reread your post. I read it clearly and you quoted nglfi. If you're not arguing with nglfi why quote them, especially considering that they didn't make the point that you disagree with?

Because one often quotes a poster when agreeing with them, or when they have mentioned something that you wish to develop, it's a reminder to others which previous point you are referring to.

My posts are intended for everyone, they aren't private messages to one poster. Maybe you thought the point I made was specifically directed at nglfi. It wasn't.

Back to this interesting topic now, with apologies to the mods for this minor diversion.

nobodythereeither wrote:
My reference to Occam's Razor was in relation to whether or not the investigation is a whitewash.

It is far simpler and more straightforward to view it as a genuine investigation into the disappearance of a child (however complex the actual investigation itself may be) than to view it as a very over-the-top, expensive, lengthy and complicated whitewash involving many people including the police of at least two countries.

The problem is that Occams razor isn’t a rule. It merely states that the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one not that it always is and applying it in this way ignores two very important aspects of what’s happening. The first is that there are two distinct investigations going on, one by the Met and one by the Portuguese. It is entirely possible that one is corrupt and the other is genuine and all that follows relates only to the Met. The second aspect that it ignores is the context, which is this.

The police have, over recent years, been revealed to be corrupt in a number of different cases, and the full truth of most of them has never come out. No-one has been punished in any way for the Hillsborough cover up for example. I am sure that, had this forum existed at the time, there would be many on here arguing that occams razor suggested that that investigation was genuine.

But perhaps its all historic, the corruption that lead to the police lying about Charles de Menezes behaviour on the day he was killed has been rooted out and they are now the squeaky clean coppers we’d all like them to be. Is there any evidence either way? Well, yes there is actually. You may have read that a former conservative cabinet minister is going to be arrested as a result of allegations made to Fernbridge (or it might be Yewtree, I’m not sure which but its an investigation into allegations of historic sexual abuse of children). The story has appeared several times over the past year or so but the arrest hasn’t happened. He hasn’t even been questioned yet, leading Tom Watson to write a very angry letter to the DPP. From this it should be obvious that the Met are prepared to ignore – cover-up - allegations of paedophilia against members of the establishment. If they're capable of covering-up allegations of criminal behaviour as horrific as this just what aren't they capable of covering up?

Clearly there is no evidence that anything like paedophilia is connected to the Madeleine McCann case, although if there were, and it were to involve, say, a former Conservative cabinet minister, I think its clear that the Met would go into whitewash mode and that occams razor would suggest cover-up.

David Payne is connected to (but not responsible for) the disappearance of  Madeleine by virtue of the fact that he was part of the same holiday group as the McCanns. In their statements the doctors Gasper allege that he made crude sexually suggestive comments about Madeleine. Yvonne Martin the social worker holidaying in PDL when Madeleine disappeared thought she recognised David Payne, although she couldn’t recall exactly why he seemed familiar.

The most recent reconstruction in crime watch did not feature David Payne. This must have been approved by the Met, if not directed by them, and its difficult to understand why a genuine Met investigation should be trying to airbrush him out of the picture.

To apply Occams razor as justification for the current Met investigation being genuine is surely to ignore all the historic and ongoing corrupt behaviour there, and all the Met's behaviour and announcements in connection with their investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. For me the simplest explanation is that the Met are covering up some big secret connected to the McCanns, or the T7, and that this cover-up may extend to framing one or other of the McCanns for a murder that they didn't commit.

ETA There's an update on the met corruption in respect of the former cabinet minister at Exaro (link below). It includes the following

Exaro wrote:Police launched a smear campaign against the woman who alleges that a
former cabinet minister raped her as a student, Exaro can reveal.

[...]

The Met was also behind a false story in one national newspaper that it
had referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging
decision. In truth, it had merely consulted the CPS last summer for
advice on whether to continue the investigation by arresting and
questioning the alleged attacker.

Link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mirage wrote:Ref the DM article I posted on page 56 about a meeting in Lisbon last October:
------------------------------------------------

"Portugal’s Attorney General confirmed on Thursday that the probe was being reopened at the request of police based in Porto who have spent the last two and a half years reviewing the case.

The McCanns’ Portuguese lawyer, Rogerio Alves, said local police have finally admitted to the couple they no longer regard them as suspects, more than five years after the original investigation was shelved.

The couple were told in a police briefing last week in Lisbon, new lines of inquiry which have led to the reopening of the investigation in Portugal, absolve them of any responsibility.

Mr Alves said: 'The McCanns were already informed about the reopening of the inquiry and the reasons why it was being reopened.

'They also know that this new line of inquiry excludes any responsibility of the parents.

'The Portuguese police told them this at a meeting in Lisbon last week at which British police were also present.'What it means is that the police understand there are new avenues that should be explored.

'This brings Madeleine’s parents a legitimate expectation not only that the truth will be discovered but also that it will be possible to find Madeleine alive which is the sole aim of all the efforts they’ve been making."[/

-----------------------------------
Is there any evidence to show the Mcs were not given assistente status? I mean, the libel trial got a long way in before anyone even queried the WOC anomaly.

I appreciate this is Rogerio Alves talking, but f you reverse the situation and a lawyer deliberately mis-quoted Dominic Greave to a foreign newspaper on a case of global importance I  cannot imagine it going uncorrected and the lawyer not hauled over the coals.

Whether or not the Mcs were granted assistente status, the information they were given at that meeting chimes with the messages coming from OG ever since, with one exception: They have closed down the expectation of finding a live child and are now looking for a body. This also chimes with the KH's preparatory press article - We just want too know the truth and put an end to it all.

Enter the helicopter search and the digs.

This is designed to wear people down to the point where they lose interest IMO. Now OG are going into purdah for an unspecified period. A prequel, I suspect, to announcing the result I'm afraid we are not going to like.

This is designed to wear people down to the point where they lose interest IMO. 


Apologies Mirage, but nonsense!  If you want something to go away, you don't start out by increasing the audience with a fanfare of tabloid headlines and promises.  Thing that disappear do so quietly,we know nothing about them unless they reappear once the 30 year state secret rule is up, and then we all go Ooer, I didn't know that.  Imo, they are doing the opposite of covering up, in fact they are making life for the McCanns very difficult indeed.  As Blacksmith said, if the McCanns had something tangible that excluded them from any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine they would have produced it at the start of the Lisbon libel trial.  The McCanns are looking for a live child and Tannerman.  The police are looking for a body.  If a coverup were underway they would not be at odds with each other.  A cover up is a risky enough business as it is, without the main players co-operation, it is impossible.

AndyB wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:
My reference to Occam's Razor was in relation to whether or not the investigation is a whitewash.

It is far simpler and more straightforward to view it as a genuine investigation into the disappearance of a child (however complex the actual investigation itself may be) than to view it as a very over-the-top, expensive, lengthy and complicated whitewash involving many people including the police of at least two countries.

The problem is that Occams razor isn’t a rule. It merely states that the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one not that it always is and applying it in this way ignores two very important aspects of what’s happening. The first is that there are two distinct investigations going on, one by the Met and one by the Portuguese. It is entirely possible that one is corrupt and the other is genuine and all that follows relates only to the Met. The second aspect that it ignores is the context, which is this.

The police have, over recent years, been revealed to be corrupt in a number of different cases, and the full truth of most of them has never come out. No-one has been punished in any way for the Hillsborough cover up for example. I am sure that, had this forum existed at the time, there would be many on here arguing that occams razor suggested that that investigation was genuine.

But perhaps its all historic, the corruption that lead to the police lying about Charles de Menezes behaviour on the day he was killed has been rooted out and they are now the squeaky clean coppers we’d all like them to be. Is there any evidence either way? Well, yes there is actually. You may have read that a former conservative cabinet minister is going to be arrested as a result of allegations made to Fernbridge (or it might be Yewtree, I’m not sure which but its an investigation into allegations of historic sexual abuse of children). The story has appeared several times over the past year or so but the arrest hasn’t happened. He hasn’t even been questioned yet, leading Tom Watson to write a very angry letter to the DPP. From this it should be obvious that the Met are prepared to ignore – cover-up - allegations of paedophilia against members of the establishment. If they're capable of covering-up allegations of criminal behaviour as horrific as this just what aren't they capable of covering up?

Clearly there is no evidence that anything like paedophilia is connected to the Madeleine McCann case, although if there were, and it were to involve, say, a former Conservative cabinet minister, I think its clear that the Met would go into whitewash mode and that occams razor would suggest cover-up.

David Payne is connected to (but not responsible for) the disappearance of  Madeleine by virtue of the fact that he was part of the same holiday group as the McCanns. In their statements the doctors Gasper allege that he made crude sexually suggestive comments about Madeleine. Yvonne Martin the social worker holidaying in PDL when Madeleine disappeared thought she recognised David Payne, although she couldn’t recall exactly why he seemed familiar.

The most recent reconstruction in crime watch did not feature David Payne. This must have been approved by the Met, if not directed by them, and its difficult to understand why a genuine Met investigation should be trying to airbrush him out of the picture.

To apply Occams razor as justification for the current Met investigation being genuine is surely to ignore all the historic and ongoing corrupt behaviour there, and all the Met's behaviour and announcements in connection with their investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. For me the simplest explanation is that the Met are covering up some big secret connected to the McCanns, or the T7, and that this cover-up may extend to framing one or other of the McCanns for a murder that they didn't commit.

The climate is changing/has changed.

There has been much publicity about historic police corruption of late, including Theresa May's widely reported comments at the Police Federation conference, or whatever it was.

I would have said that that would mean  that this high profile investigation would be taking a massive risk if it was corrupt in any way. But of course I recognise that some people on here are convinced of its corrupt nature.

Crimewatch could not possibly have covered every aspect of the investigation, and the focus was on eliminating the "abductor" seen by Jane Tanner, and emphasising the "abductor" seen by Martin Smith. Given that focus, I don't see anything strange about the omission of David Payne.

I think until there is some sort of conclusion to this case - ie either there are charges or SY say they do not have sufficient evidence to bring charges - then we will have to agree to disagree, no? Since none of us actually knows exactly what SY are doing or why.

I am still of the opinion that the investigation is genuine. Time will tell, eh.

Absolutely, and I hope you're right. The problem with leaving Payne out of the reconstruction is that it was portrayed as an accurate reconstruction of the events of the evening. That cannot be the case without Payne and, given the claims made by the Gaspers in particular, his omission strikes me as being suspicious.

BTW I think I addressed the climate has changed argument with the reference to existing corruption in respect of a former Conservative cabinet minister. I've also updated the post with the latest on that from Exaro.

I wonder if we're both right, and there is a battle going on between the cover-up people and those who want an honest investigation with Tom Watson's letter and Mays attack on the Police Federation being examples of the latter

Snifferdog wrote:Sixmillionquid said:

Ah but this is all a trick to fool the T9 into thinking they're of no interest. They'll make a wrong move and then they'll be arrested. Watch you'll see!.

____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

hi sixmillionquid. Have you then changed your mind as to whether it is a whitewash or no?

My mind hasn't been changed, but I have been told there is no evidence of whitewash, and what SY is doing behind the scenes is compiling further evidence not available during the original investigation. So I'm expecting members of the T9 to be arrested soon...at some point.

AndyB wrote:Absolutely, and I hope you're right. The problem with leaving Payne out of the reconstruction is that it was portrayed as an accurate reconstruction of the events of the evening. That cannot be the case without Payne and, given the claims made by the Gaspers in particular, his omission strikes me as being suspicious.

Making such a significant change to events for the purposes of a reconstruction shows that they weren't really looking to jog the memory of anybody who was present in the Tapas restaurant that night.

Speaking as a Philosopher and a Scientist, I would say that more important in determining truth than Occam's Razor is a use of the Null Hypothesis.

I have only drifted here, but in my reading here and elsewhere the zeitgeist here is that The McCanns were probably involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. I have found other sites that are equally convinced that they are innocent.

One of the problems of Scientific and Philosophical investigation is Participant Bias. If, for instance, one is researching Cold Fusion (as happened a decade ago) one is likely to be pulled continually in the direction of accepting it and desiring data to support it. This happened and a group of scientists talked themselves into a corner, producing an experiment with results that proved incorrect in that they were not replicable by any other team.

They had ignored one of the tenets of Science- testing using refutation. In order to test your firmly held belief, you should name as your goal the opposite of your goal and call this the null hypothesis. So if you were trying to prove Cold Fusion, you should create a Null Hypothesis that Cold Fusion is Impossible and attempt to disprove that, rather than assuming Cold Fusion and trying to prove it as true.
This is used as a technique to avoid particpant bias and assuming a conclusion. It also works against group think where being surrounded by many other people sharing the same mindset tends to exclude radical thinking and clear insight into what is happening. It is also use in long lasting police investigations where a new team is put in to assume the opposite of the main team and seek evicence independently when the original team has failed in its majority assumptions.

So, rather than applying Occams Razor (which is valuable but slightly sterile), it is more productive to use a Null Hypothesis technique. That would involve this forum having a section with the intention to seek out every reason why the McCanns were innocent as driven snow, and other pro-McCann Fora having sections with the intention of proving the McCanns guilty as sin.

It is probably never going to happen, but it is the way that science and philosophy approaches difficult questions.

SixMillionQuid wrote:
My mind hasn't been changed, but I have been told there is no evidence of whitewash, and what SY is doing behind the scenes is compiling further evidence not available during the original investigation. So I'm expecting members of the T9 to be arrested soon...at some point.

Every time I hear any mention on MBM on the TV or radio I dare to hope just for a second that the obvious people, who by nature of their connection to her,  may hold the key to opening up the secrets of this case,  may have been rounded up and at very least questioned again,  if not more.......

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I saw this programme when it was on TV.

It transpired that she was actually insured - at least that's what was said at the end.

Apparently so, but without going too far off topic, I doubt that you or I would be given the opportunity to prove it. When it comes to the ordinary public, that database is considered infallible.

Too right we wouldn't! 3 years ago I was stopped for doing 35 in a 30 and was horrified to be told I had no insurance! 
Despite calls to my mum who confirmed direct debits were leaving her account for it, my car was impounded and I was left with myself and a puppy in a crate to get home.

Renewal error, it turned out but I STILL Had to go to court (armed with a grovelling apology from ins company, stating their mistake and they WOULD have paid out had I had an accident).

So yes us mortals don't get the same treatment... anyway   so I'll shut up now 

At the risk of being labelled 'boring' i'll ask again:

HOW does 'finding' anything, in the upcoming 'digs', possibly related to Madeleine's 'disappearance' irrefutably 'eliminate' the McCanns from any possibly involvement in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?

THEY and all their 'friends' were IN PDL at the exact 'time' of Madeleine's 'disappearance'

I'll post later on the MET's, 'overly KEEN eagerness', imo, to 'help' their Portuguese collegues in specific 'searches/digs'

TozerDerry wrote:. . That would involve this forum having a section with the intention to seek out every reason why the McCanns were innocent as driven snow . .

Excellent post.
The only problem is when we actually try it
1 The parents told the truth and assisted the Police in every way they could - errrm, No.
2 The parents actively searched the entire village looking for their missing child - errrm, No.
3 The parents can prove that they were eternaly vigilant about the safety and security of their children and although they were not with them, ensured the doors and windows were secure. - errrm, No.

Not quite so easy !

PeterMac wrote:

TozerDerry wrote:. .  That would involve this forum having a section with the intention to seek out every reason why the McCanns were innocent as driven snow . .

Excellent post.
The only problem is when we actually try it
1  The parents told the truth and assisted the Police in every way they could  -  errrm, No.
2  The parents actively searched the entire village looking for their missing child   - errrm, No.
3  The parents can prove that they were eternaly vigilant about the safety and security of their children and although they were not with them, ensured the doors and windows were secure. - errrm, No.

Not quite so easy !

Too true PeterMac - I think the 'Pro-boards' would have much more to work with

IIRC, didn't a thread here attempt it? Was it 'White Flags'?

I can't find one thing to point to their innocence at all

PeterMac wrote:

TozerDerry wrote:. .  That would involve this forum having a section with the intention to seek out every reason why the McCanns were innocent as driven snow . .

Excellent post.
The only problem is when we actually try it
1  The parents told the truth and assisted the Police in every way they could  -  errrm, No.
2  The parents actively searched the entire village looking for their missing child   - errrm, No.
3  The parents can prove that they were eternaly vigilant about the safety and security of their children and although they were not with them, ensured the doors and windows were secure. - errrm, No.

Not quite so easy !

#1 is technically true.
They did tell the truth and assist the police in every way they could.
However there were limitations in how they could based on guilt and guilty knowledge and consequences.

They could only tell the truth in so far as it didn;t implicate them or any of the group and they could only assist in as far as it didn't lead police to suspect or prove their involvement in either the death, the disposal or  subsequent coverup.

It is something i often see in cases where 'suspects' often parents of the missing child tell us they are doing everything they can to help find their missing child, indicating there are things they can't do to find their child.

When you see we / i am/are doing everything i /we can it means their are limits to what they can do.

Innocent parents will generally place no limits on how or what they can do and it needs to be looked at closer if we see limitis being placed.

"So, wee Lorraine, WHY is it absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that the McCanns were not somehow involved in Madeleine's disappearance?"

LK: "er, umm, err, because, .....they are both lovely?"

Hobs wrote:
#1 is technically true.
They did tell the truth and assist the police in every way they could.
However there were limitations in how they could based on guilt and guilty knowledge and consequences..

And they gave several conflicting "Versions of the truth" to quote Kate's strange statement

PeterMac wrote:

TozerDerry wrote:. .  That would involve this forum having a section with the intention to seek out every reason why the McCanns were innocent as driven snow . .

Excellent post.
The only problem is when we actually try it
1  The parents told the truth and assisted the Police in every way they could  -  errrm, No.
2  The parents actively searched the entire village looking for their missing child   - errrm, No.
3  The parents can prove that they were eternaly vigilant about the safety and security of their children and although they were not with them, ensured the doors and windows were secure. - errrm, No.

Not quite so easy !

You miss the entire point. It is necessary to drop the mindset of guilt and change to innocent (or vice versa for another site.) You are in the position of a Cold Fusion Scientist still looking to prove Cold Fusion rather than disprove it.

By continually seeking support for a theory (even by stating it negatively) it continues to allow confirmation bias which is the problem. this is not specific to this case but to any problem that is difficult to sort out.

TozerDerry wrote:
You miss the entire point. It is necessary to drop the mindset of guilt and change to innocent (or vice versa for another site.) You are in the position of a Cold Fusion Scientist still looking to prove Cold Fusion rather than disprove it.

By continually seeking support for a theory (even by stating it negatively) it continues to allow confirmation bias which is the problem. this is not specific to this case but to any problem that is difficult to sort out.

I thought your original post was excellent, and made a lot of sense. The problem is that, as PeterMac points out, even trying to apply it to this case is practically futile. It's like trying to look for redeeming features in an individual but then finding out that they have none. This whole charade started on a lie and has continued in the same vein for seven long years.

TozerDerry wrote:So, rather than applying Occams Razor (which is valuable but slightly sterile), it is more productive to use a Null Hypothesis technique. That would involve this forum having a section with the intention to seek out every reason why the McCanns were innocent as driven snow, and other pro-McCann Fora having sections with the intention of proving the McCanns guilty as sin.

It is probably never going to happen, but it is the way that science and philosophy approaches difficult questions.

I think you'll find that this and other forums have been doing that for the last seven (?) years!

The trouble is that we are not in possession of all the information - we only have what has been released into the public domain via the PJ files, unless you count a load of dross reported in the MSM and of course Mrs McCann's book - so we may be able to prove for example that the McCanns have lied, but we can't prove that they are innocent or guilty of any crime involving the death of their daughter.

And nor, it seems, can SY or the PJ. Yet.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

TozerDerry wrote:
You miss the entire point. It is necessary to drop the mindset of guilt and change to innocent (or vice versa for another site.) You are in the position of a Cold Fusion Scientist still looking to prove Cold Fusion rather than disprove it.

By continually seeking support for a theory (even by stating it negatively) it continues to allow confirmation bias which is the problem. this is not specific to this case but to any problem that is difficult to sort out.

I thought your original post was excellent, and made a lot of sense. The problem is that, as PeterMac points out, even trying to apply it to this case is practically futile. It's like trying to look for redeeming features in an individual but then finding out that they have none. This whole charade started on a lie and has continued in the same vein for seven long years.

What you need to see is that people arguing from the other side would be making exactly the same type of remarks about the certainty of their position and would say that there was no evidence of guilt. It is necessary to step out of the mindset and try to critique ones own view rather than support it. It is either that or Occams Razor which is not nearly so sharp. This technique is what makes science work- the continual attempt to undermine ones own position.

jeanmonroe wrote:At the risk of being labelled 'boring' i'll ask again:

HOW does 'finding' anything, in the upcoming 'digs', possibly related to Madeleine's 'disappearance' irrefutably 'eliminate' the McCanns from any possibly involvement in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?

THEY and all their 'friends' were IN PDL at the exact 'time' of Madeleine's 'disappearance'

I'll post later on the MET's, 'overly KEEN eagerness', imo, to 'help' their Portuguese collegues in specific 'searches/digs'

Sorry but I don't understand this.

Do you mean that you're expecting the Met to plant something, or alternatively to "disappear" what they may find? Or to (falsely?) deny that it has any connection to the McCanns?

Of course they were in PDL, they were on holiday! Sorry to be dim but I don't understand what you're getting at.

My understanding was that it was the Portuguese police who were going to be doing the actual digging?

nobodythereeither wrote:

TozerDerry wrote:So, rather than applying Occams Razor (which is valuable but slightly sterile), it is more productive to use a Null Hypothesis technique. That would involve this forum having a section with the intention to seek out every reason why the McCanns were innocent as driven snow, and other pro-McCann Fora having sections with the intention of proving the McCanns guilty as sin.

It is probably never going to happen, but it is the way that science and philosophy approaches difficult questions.

I think you'll find that this and other forums have been doing that for the last seven (?) years!

The trouble is that we are not in possession of all the information - we only have what has been released into the public domain via the PJ files, unless you count a load of dross reported in the MSM and of course Mrs McCann's book - so we may be able to prove for example that the McCanns have lied, but we can't prove that they are innocent or guilty of any crime involving the death of their daughter.

And nor, it seems, can SY or the PJ. Yet.

I tend to agree. But it does work to aggressively question ones own view if one is to get as close to the truth as possible. As human beings we are fallible and need all the help we can get to overcome those mental mechanisms that stop us from reaching a valid conclusion.

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.

TozerDerry wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

TozerDerry wrote:So, rather than applying Occams Razor (which is valuable but slightly sterile), it is more productive to use a Null Hypothesis technique. That would involve this forum having a section with the intention to seek out every reason why the McCanns were innocent as driven snow, and other pro-McCann Fora having sections with the intention of proving the McCanns guilty as sin.

It is probably never going to happen, but it is the way that science and philosophy approaches difficult questions.

I think you'll find that this and other forums have been doing that for the last seven (?) years!

The trouble is that we are not in possession of all the information - we only have what has been released into the public domain via the PJ files, unless you count a load of dross reported in the MSM and of course Mrs McCann's book - so we may be able to prove for example that the McCanns have lied, but we can't prove that they are innocent or guilty of any crime involving the death of their daughter.

And nor, it seems, can SY or the PJ. Yet.

I tend to agree. But it does work to aggressively question ones own view if one is to get as close to the truth as possible. As human beings we are fallible and need all the help we can get to overcome those mental mechanisms that stop us from reaching a valid conclusion.

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.

That is very useful work, of course, but I do feel that this is a rather different case (no pun intended).

Also, can I just repeat that my introduction of Occam's Razor was specifically in the context of whether or not the SY investigation was a corrupt whitewash, not as some way of deciding how likely it is that the McCanns are innocent or guilty of some crime! It wouldn't be at all appropriate to apply it to that!

So I do not see it as a less useful  alternative to your Null Hypothesis method, which is doing something else completely.

nobodythereeither wrote:

TozerDerry wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

TozerDerry wrote:So, rather than applying Occams Razor (which is valuable but slightly sterile), it is more productive to use a Null Hypothesis technique. That would involve this forum having a section with the intention to seek out every reason why the McCanns were innocent as driven snow, and other pro-McCann Fora having sections with the intention of proving the McCanns guilty as sin.

It is probably never going to happen, but it is the way that science and philosophy approaches difficult questions.

I think you'll find that this and other forums have been doing that for the last seven (?) years!

The trouble is that we are not in possession of all the information - we only have what has been released into the public domain via the PJ files, unless you count a load of dross reported in the MSM and of course Mrs McCann's book - so we may be able to prove for example that the McCanns have lied, but we can't prove that they are innocent or guilty of any crime involving the death of their daughter.

And nor, it seems, can SY or the PJ. Yet.

I tend to agree. But it does work to aggressively question ones own view if one is to get as close to the truth as possible. As human beings we are fallible and need all the help we can get to overcome those mental mechanisms that stop us from reaching a valid conclusion.

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.

That is very useful work, of course, but I do feel that this is a rather different case (no pun intended).

Also, can I just repeat that my introduction of Occam's Razor was specifically in the context of whether or not the SY investigation was a corrupt whitewash, not as some way of deciding how likely it is that the McCanns are innocent or guilty of some crime! It wouldn't be at all appropriate to apply it to that!

So I do not see it as a less useful  alternative to your Null Hypothesis method, which is doing something else completely.

All cases of fixed ideas are similar with similar mental mechanisms in play.

The Null Hypothesis also works for deciding whether there is evidence for a Police Whitewash. Occams Razor is much misunderstood and does not actually say what it has come to mean in everyday discussion, whereas the null hypothesis works in any situation.

TozerDerry wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

TozerDerry wrote:. .  That would involve this forum having a section with the intention to seek out every reason why the McCanns were innocent as driven snow . .

Excellent post.
The only problem is when we actually try it
1  The parents told the truth and assisted the Police in every way they could  -  errrm, No.
2  The parents actively searched the entire village looking for their missing child   - errrm, No.
3  The parents can prove that they were eternaly vigilant about the safety and security of their children and although they were not with them, ensured the doors and windows were secure. - errrm, No.

Not quite so easy !

You miss the entire point. It is necessary to drop the mindset of guilt and change to innocent (or vice versa for another site.) You are in the position of a Cold Fusion Scientist still looking to prove Cold Fusion rather than disprove it.

By continually seeking support for a theory (even by stating it negatively) it continues to allow confirmation bias which is the problem. this is not specific to this case but to any problem that is difficult to sort out.

I think when the time warrants it , until then we will leave the McCanns to work out there own defence !!!!

As over the years they / there supporters have picked up on posts for there own ends . 

I years ago, informed the 3as site via a PM, that  THE Documentary was going to be made in Portugal , it was also news to them !!!

TozerDerry wrote:
All cases of fixed ideas are similar with similar mental mechanisms in play.

The Null Hypothesis also works for deciding whether there is evidence for a Police Whitewash. Occams Razor is much misunderstood and does not actually say what it has come to mean in everyday discussion, whereas the null hypothesis works in any situation.

From Wikipedia:

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] used in problem-solving devised by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (c. 1287 – 1347).

It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.


Anyway, all this is a bit of a diversion, isn't it.

Pleasant as it may be to discuss philosophy (in my case after a gap of, oh, forty years   since I studied it).

nobodythereeither wrote:

TozerDerry wrote:
All cases of fixed ideas are similar with similar mental mechanisms in play.

The Null Hypothesis also works for deciding whether there is evidence for a Police Whitewash. Occams Razor is much misunderstood and does not actually say what it has come to mean in everyday discussion, whereas the null hypothesis works in any situation.

From Wikipedia:

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] used in problem-solving devised by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (c. 1287 – 1347).

It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.


Anyway, all this is a bit of a diversion, isn't it.

Pleasant as it may be to discuss philosophy (in my case after a gap of, oh, forty years   since I studied it).

You see Occams Razor would suggest that Police Corruption in this case was unlikely on the grounds that although there have been enquiries in the past that have been marred by Police Corruption, the great majority of cases have not. Assuming Corruption when it is so rarae is multiplying causes, therefore it should be assumed that the first assumption should be that the enquiry is honest.

Is that what you want.

If the contention is that the enquiry IS NOT honest and IS meant to result in a whitewash, without assuming any end, the null hypothesis method would require the conspiracy theorist to try to undermine his/her own thesis by gathering contrary evidence. Can such evidence be found and does it dispute the hypothesis that there is a whitewash.

theer is a subtle difference, although both are based on disproof.

nobodythereeither wrote:

Pleasant as it may be to discuss philosophy (in my case after a gap of, oh, forty years   since I studied it).

It's not pleasant, it's boring to read! And that goes for Schrondinger's cat or whoever it is that has the cat.   

Not getting at anyone, but can we get back on topic pleeeeease?

I know I'm more of an observer than a contributor, but here's my nickel's worth... 

First, I see a lot of people looking at the track record of 'corrupt' police investigations and feeling cynical. However... If a handful of well-publicised 'corrupt' cases are enough to conclude that this investigation must be a whitewash why is the converse not true? How many cases have the police investigated successfully and without 'corruption'? Surely we can accept that THEY are the statistical rule. . 

Second, I noticed that all the 'corrupt' cases cited had something in common, generally: that they involved the police covering up their own failure, compromise or poor judgement FROM THE OUTSET. They existed, that is that they were known as instances, predominantly because of the implications of the police involvement at outset. 

I'm unaware of other examples of investigations into missing or murdered children being 'corrupted' by police, rather than pursued - mostly to the point of justice. 

Now, I've no doubt some would argue that there are cases to cite where police allegedly covered up high-level child abuse. Savile. Smith. And other notable allegations. I would not argue that high level political interference was not a pernicious source of influence which has been acted upon by jolly boys clubs within police and judiciary. I would, however, argue that doing so has always been a fools errand. These 'covering ups' have done such a pitifully poor job that the internet age is bringing everything out in the wash. We can, in fact, cite Savile, Smith and other alleged examples not because they've been well covered but because they weren't, and because informants sing like canaries eventually. 

Where am I going with this? 

First, for this to be a cover up it would have to be a cover up from outset. You can't get toothpaste back in a tube. If it were a cover up from outset, it could have stopped with PJ and Leicestershire. SY did not need to be engaged to facilitate a cover up. Second, it is an exercise in futility to close the stable door after the horse legged it. You let sleeping dogs lie. 

So, if the investigation is not genuine - rather I should say that if it is not a lure, a trap, a diversion, a ruse, a cover aimed at affording a rational conclusion to this matter and is instead designed to cover up - then qui bene? Who benefits? 

IF the Tory government and SY are dancing to the tune of the implausibly impowered Mc's, or anyone else, to do this pitifully transparentjob of whitewashing, then both will end up crucified when the veneer cracks. The risk is not worth any possible benefit. Now, I know some will argue that corruption and the need to cover up complicity can inspire strange and extreme reactions. I agree. Usually murder disguised as suicide. High profile people over such a precarious  barrel would hardly go to such length to keep those who endanger them alive and making audacious amounts of noise. 

Is David really at the beckoned call of Rebekah? If Emperor Murdoch is so powerful, why the pragmatic allegiances,  why the mood changes, why did TNOTW get sunk, if Rupy is titanium? Does Rupe not owe a favour back to DavCam for the BSkyB gig? You see... So much more going on, so much more at stake, so much more to play politics with, which makes Maddiegate so utterly inconsequential as anything other than an albeit confused effort at hanging the guilt where it rightly belongs.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I saw this programme when it was on TV.

It transpired that she was actually insured - at least that's what was said at the end.

Apparently so, but without going too far off topic, I doubt that you or I would be given the opportunity to prove it. When it comes to the ordinary public, that database is considered infallible.

The database is not infallible.  My daughter was in her apartment and looked out the kitchen window and saw her car, which was parked in the apartments car park, about to be loaded onto a tow truck.  She ran out and asked what they were doing, a policeman said there was no insurance on her vehicle so they were taking it. She told them it was insured and the police said they didn't believe her, they rang her insurance company who confirmed that the car was insured.  They didn't even apologize.

Sorry to go off topic.