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, 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!

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

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

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by Woofer on 28.05.14 12:45

Andrew77R wrote:
@Woofer wrote:Mrs. Fenn`s friend corroborated the long period of crying cos Mrs. Fenn phoned her to discuss her concern about it.
Yes i gather that.

Sorry, what i mean't was somebody else actually hearing the crying episode themselves.

I always thought it was a bit odd that a child cries for the best part of an hour and progressively louder, though nobody else apart from Mrs Fenn heard it...

ETA - i'm in no way implying that Mrs F is being untruthful.


But surely the friend heard it, albeit not as loudly, via the connection to Mrs. Fenn.  I`ve forgotten her name or whether she made a separate statement.
avatar
Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by TozerDerry on 28.05.14 12:52

The point is that having a series of people say 'me too' does not test the evidence. If you are already convinced that X is the case and all you do is search for more evidence, you are never likely to approach the truth. If however you seek contrary evidence and find none, then you are beginning to test the truth. Most of the above posts are 'me toos'.

TozerDerry

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 28.05.14 12:54

@russiandoll wrote:DougD,

       Thanks for doing what I should have done as soon as I commented on the excellent post by bobbin, which does indeed deserve a thread of its own.

 Re: the issue of a child crying for a long time in 5a. If this was Maddie, the prolonged crying is not evidence that she was alone imo. Evidence only that she could not be calmed for some reason

1. because of being alone and inconsolable
2. or being in the presence of a person who could not attend to her needs for whatever reason
3. ditto.............................................................................but who would not attend to her needs for whatever reason
4. or being with a person who was trying to calm her, speaking in a voice which was drowned out by the wailing and could not be heard by Mrs Fenn.
 If this last was the case, then Maddie, if it was her voice heard by Mrs Fenn, must have been in a bad way.

Excuse me for being pedantic, but it is evidence, it just isn't proof.  big grin 

Mrs Fenn referred to the 'parents' - plural - returning.  I'm not stating that she was correct, just that this was the content of her statement.  We can suggest that she didn't see the people or person who came through the patio doors, and so it may not have been the parents as she assumed.  I could suggest that maybe Mrs Fenn heard them speaking to each other, so could be sure that it was the parents, or at least more than one person.  This is just a valid a claim as the claim that it wasn't both McCanns entering at this point.

However, my own personal opinion is that Kate probably was in 5A, but not tending to the crying child's needs; I base this belief on:

- Gerry's attention to the well-endowed quiz lady;
- that Kate was reported to be not at the table that evening;
- that there was a flurry of mobile phone activity from Kate's phone,
- that at some point somebody slept in the bed in the children's room;
- that the child was reported to be calling for 'Daddy', rather than 'Mummy'.

I'll leave it there as I don't want to distract any further from bobbin's post, but the title of this thread isn't very specific so it is very likely to go off topic.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 28.05.14 12:54

@Woofer wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
@Woofer wrote:Mrs. Fenn`s friend corroborated the long period of crying cos Mrs. Fenn phoned her to discuss her concern about it.
Yes i gather that.

Sorry, what i mean't was somebody else actually hearing the crying episode themselves.

I always thought it was a bit odd that a child cries for the best part of an hour and progressively louder, though nobody else apart from Mrs Fenn heard it...

ETA - i'm in no way implying that Mrs F is being untruthful.
But surely the friend heard it, albeit not as loudly, via the connection to Mrs. Fenn.  I`ve forgotten her name or whether she made a separate statement.
Snipped from PJ files. Mrs F statement.

When questioned, she said that she did not know the cause of the crying, perhaps a nightmare or another destabilising factor.
As soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying.
That night she contacted a friend called EDNA GLYN, who also lives in Praia da Luz, after 23.00, telling her about the situation, who was not surprised at the childs crying.



Why would Mrs Fenn's friend not be surprised at the childs crying i wonder....?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by AndyB on 28.05.14 13:03

Back to the OP - Bobbin, are you suggesting that perhaps, because the McCanns claimed that Madeleine was abducted by paedophiles, the establishment paedophile ring launched their protection plan, even though the McCanns were not of their number?

Its an interesting idea, and one that would support the argument that the SY investigation is genuine: The paedo protectors have long since withdrawn because they have realised that there is nothing to protect leaving SY free to pursue the truth. Unfortunately I don't think that the McCanns crying "paedophile" would, on its own, be enough to invoke the response  from the higher echelons of power that it did. I think for the establishment to get involved that way would require a very serious risk that one of their own, or some other big secret, was at risk of being exposed. That risk couldn't be real if the only connection was the McCann's use of the word "paedophile".

Having said that, I can see it being a very useful opportunity for the various child protection experts, charities and the like and that many of them could be drawn in simply due to the McCanns claim

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Woofer on 28.05.14 13:09

@TozerDerry wrote:The point is that having a series of people say 'me too' does not test the evidence. If you are already convinced that X is the case and all you do is search for more evidence, you are never likely to approach the truth. If however you seek contrary evidence and find none, then you are beginning to test the truth. Most of the above posts are 'me toos'.

This has been done - the forum has always had posters with contradictory thoughts, many suggesting contradictory reasons and presenting contradictory `evidence`.  Of course there are posters that agree with each other - there`s nothing wrong with that - it`s a forum for discussion.

Why don`t you start a new thread to test a piece of evidence.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti
avatar
Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Woofer on 28.05.14 13:17

@AndyB wrote:Back to the OP - Bobbin, are you suggesting that perhaps, because the McCanns claimed that Madeleine was abducted by paedophiles, the establishment paedophile ring launched their protection plan, even though the McCanns were not of their number?

Its an interesting idea, and one that would support the argument that the SY investigation is genuine: The paedo protectors have long since withdrawn because they have realised that there is nothing to protect leaving SY free to pursue the truth. Unfortunately I don't think that the McCanns crying "paedophile" would, on its own, be enough to invoke the response  from the higher echelons of power that it did. I think for the establishment to get involved that way would require a very serious risk that one of their own, or some other big secret, was at risk of being exposed. That risk couldn't be real if the only connection was the McCann's use of the word "paedophile".

Having said that, I can see it being a very useful opportunity for the various child protection experts, charities and the like and that many of them could be drawn in simply due to the McCanns claim


Plus .... CM and MI5 jumping in.  I doubt CM went there just to be a spokesperson - as someone else pointed out GM was quite capable of dealing with the press. CM went there to control what GM said IMO.  Unfortunately he didn`t do a very good job.
avatar
Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by 1soapy on 28.05.14 13:22

Here here, me too.

Boo, rubbish idea.

Oh, I'm confused what to do.

So, if I come up with an idea (perhaps based on evidence), I should now look for contradictory evidence to refute it? Can't both or either be done? Even if a motive is to support one's own or other's theory, the findings are still in the arena to refute or otherwise. If one has time to look for pitfalls in one's own theories, great - and it will need doing at some stage anyway, but I'd want to pursue my ideas first and let others debunk it. Save's your own time too.

Also, the, 'me too' comments are a form of supporting evidence (as well as psychological confirmation that it isn't silly). For others to point out that an idea is good, supports any initial obvious errors in logic, especially if they are experienced in looking at this case.

1soapy

Posts : 126
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 28.05.14 13:26

Excellent piece bobbin, well thought out creative entertaining work but what's it got to do with the thread title?  Seems to me all you are doing is offering an alternative theory, one if I might say iiryc has been voiced before now by others of the more skeptical persuasion.

IMO 'Occam's 'friggin Razor' is a much over and inappropriately used buzzword, a politer way of saying 'I don't agree, what planet are you on' or if you like shouting from the rooftops 'conspiracy theorist'!!!

Nonetheless a good theory IMO but still more likely to actively involve persons of a higher standing in society such as politicians, media magnates, police chieftains, doctors etc.  Know what I mean 'arry?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by TozerDerry on 28.05.14 13:38

@1soapy wrote:Here here, me too.

Boo, rubbish idea.

Oh, I'm confused what to do.

So, if I come up with an idea (perhaps based on evidence), I should now look for contradictory evidence to refute it? Can't both or either be done? Even if a motive is to support one's own or other's theory, the findings are still in the arena to refute or otherwise. If one has time to look for pitfalls in one's own theories, great - and it will need doing at some stage anyway, but I'd want to pursue my ideas first and let others debunk it. Save's your own time too.

Also, the, 'me too' comments are a form of supporting evidence (as well as psychological confirmation that it isn't silly). For others to point out that an idea is good, supports any initial obvious errors in logic, especially if they are experienced in looking at this case.
Scientific Method points in the opposite direction. That is why science has made so many advances i understanding the world where faith has failed- the fact that it is self-testing. Same goes for the Judicial Process. The prosecution wishes to prove someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt- they must disprove any reasonable contention by the defence or lose the case. It is a universal process of discovery.

TozerDerry

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Angelique on 28.05.14 14:03

Was it Rachel's statement that said she never heard any crying or am I losing the plot! They were in the adjoining apartment and could hear the shower etc but not crying on the night Mrs. Fenn states she heard the crying.


____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
avatar
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by bobbin on 28.05.14 14:31

@AndyB wrote:Back to the OP - Bobbin, are you suggesting that perhaps, because the McCanns claimed that Madeleine was abducted by paedophiles, the establishment paedophile ring launched their protection plan, even though the McCanns were not of their number?

Its an interesting idea, and one that would support the argument that the SY investigation is genuine: The paedo protectors have long since withdrawn because they have realised that there is nothing to protect leaving SY free to pursue the truth. Unfortunately I don't think that the McCanns crying "paedophile" would, on its own, be enough to invoke the response  from the higher echelons of power that it did. I think for the establishment to get involved that way would require a very serious risk that one of their own, or some other big secret, was at risk of being exposed. That risk couldn't be real if the only connection was the McCann's use of the word "paedophile".

Having said that, I can see it being a very useful opportunity for the various child protection experts, charities and the like and that many of them could be drawn in simply due to the McCanns claim
I agree with your post AndyB and think something very interesting is emerging at higher levels in general.

The recent spate of actors/pop stars/ celebrities getting 'done' for alleged sex attacks etc. on younger persons, some time back in their past, is attracting a lot of media coverage.
The now dead Jimmy Savile has brought a bit of light onto long term abuse. As the dead can't sue, it would seem that one has to wait until a P has died before he/she can be investigated.

At the same time, there is much public perception of, but virtually no coverage of, nor impending court cases of, 'top' politicians, elite circles, in what is appearing to be today's 'untouchables zone' .

Yes, we have the 'deputy speaker' of the UK House of Commons, and maybe a few others, but they have been dealt with in a rather subdued, not sensationalising way.

In short, the 'medium' level of dabblers is getting the major attention, and the elite are somehow not getting onto the screen, in fact the opposite.

We have Jersey's Haut de la Garenne, Elm House, the children's homes etc. going right to the very top of the establishment, even Higher, to which allusion is made, but sweet little more in terms of perseverance and determination being shown by the authorities to get this all out into the open and through the courts of the land, which it clearly ought to be.

So, yes, I think that there was a 'blurring' at the margins in terms of PdL, who was there, at what time, and for what reasons.

I think with David Payne's alleged signalling reported by the doctors Gaspar, Yvonne ?Martin?  and those unfortunate photos of Madeleine, D.Payne cuddling the little girls etc. that a middle grade party could have been going on.
I think the 'empty' files on G McC, and the involvement of Jim Gamble, who has turned out to be rather more coarse mouthed than professional, are signals not to be overlooked.

Regarding Madeleine crying. I too had read at one time that it could have been a 'recorded loop' of child crying. However, at the risk of the authorities being called, breaking in and finding a 'hoax' I tend to think that too risky.

I also would like to determine who was on 'sick' leave that same night, because surely they too would have heard 'innocent' crying.

I probably fall more into the group of thinking that Madeleine may have been visited by undesirable personnel, and her crying could well have been linked to pain, fear, discomfort.

It could equally be due to damage from a previous fall, injury or other blow, and maybe a brain haemorrhage or swollen meninges due to exarcerbation of pre-existing medical condition and which preceded her death.

I am of the view that her death did occur in 5A, and that the dogs signalled blood which was then found to have been damaged by bleach, an act of sabotage which can only be seen as an attempt to destroy forensic evidence.

I am dismayed by the actions and reversal of findings by what was then the most highly respected of authorities, the FFS.

I find it interesting that the FFS was disbanded, and more recently that CEOP was also disbanded, by Theresa May, much to the chagrin of Jim Gamble.

I have some renewed faith in the latest Theresa May attack on the MET and the corruption in the Police.

In terms of whitewash, it may be a subtlety only, but I do feel there is a serious risk that the top members of government / establishment, allegedly involved in the P ring scandals which are failing to reach any juridical procedure or exposure, will continue.

Regarding the McCs, I believe that their calling the P number, may have shown them up to be 'low level players' but that this was not identified, as a NON-THREAT to the elite rings, until some way down the line. Maybe the party-jumping pink-person served a necessary 'controlling' role here. Certainly the blurring of lines between Coulson, Mitchel, Cameron, Murdoch etc. is not whiter than white.

With the titian-haired lady, her boss, and her friends in the highest places, calling for a review to be set up, followed now by an investigation and search for a 'dead child' enough time seems to have has passed for a line of distinction and separation to be drawn between the McCs and their minor circle, and any higher circle, making it possible to pursue the McCs without automatically involving those who 'must be protected' at all costs, because those are the very people that have something on all the others, and there can be no letting of cats out of bags without the whole house of cards falling down.

I am dismayed that Tom Watkins MP can make such little progress, in spite of his questions in the House, but believe that persistence (from the public too) is the only method for erosion, even of the hardest of things such as rock and that which has been set, for the time being, in stone, for it is the cracks that break first.

The McCs however, showing all the signs of the slipperiness of eels will I believe be the target of a serious attempt by AR to find justice for Madeleine, and that this particular case and investigation, isolated now from the more sophisticated P rings, will leave the other, higher, 'protected zone' immune from investigation leaving them and their status quo unaffected.

Now that a ring of confidence has been (re)-placed around those who must be protected at all costs, the McCs can be thrown to the vultures.
Once their slippery coating has been breached, I believe the police will move on in.

A whitewash at the highest levels of P rings is still on the cards, it's not just national, it's global, but a whitewash for the McCs ? I somehow don't think they have enough grip on any persons of high enough stature to be able to call for that level of protection.

bobbin

Posts : 2051
Reputation : 142
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by AndyB on 28.05.14 15:04

@bobbin wrote:
I agree with your post AndyB and think something very interesting is emerging at higher levels in general.
Damn! I thought I was disagreeing with you and was looking forward to an interesting discussion :-)

There's nothing I can take issue with in the rest of your post as it pretty much represents my current thinking. I think the only subtle difference between us
is that I suspect involvement in some way at the highest levels as I believe it is only this that would evoke the response that we see. Any evidence for this involvement will now have been extinguished leaving the McCanns in exactly the same position as they would be if your theory is correct, which is good for nether them nor those of us that would like to know the truth of what happened

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 28.05.14 15:34

@TozerDerry I fail to see the null in the hypothesis, when the most questionable evidence, that's the stories told by the parents as witness statements, is taken as assumed, while better evidence, even some proof of lies been told, is ignored.
 
That ain't null. That's full. Of it.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by TozerDerry on 28.05.14 16:03

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

Like it or not, that is how Science and the Law proceed.

TozerDerry

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by russiandoll on 28.05.14 16:08

TD  :  what do you make of the following?


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

 So said her statement.

____________________



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

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by TozerDerry on 28.05.14 16:11

@1soapy wrote:Here here, me too.

Boo, rubbish idea.

Oh, I'm confused what to do.

So, if I come up with an idea (perhaps based on evidence), I should now look for contradictory evidence to refute it? Can't both or either be done? Even if a motive is to support one's own or other's theory, the findings are still in the arena to refute or otherwise. If one has time to look for pitfalls in one's own theories, great - and it will need doing at some stage anyway, but I'd want to pursue my ideas first and let others debunk it. Save's your own time too.

Also, the, 'me too' comments are a form of supporting evidence (as well as psychological confirmation that it isn't silly). For others to point out that an idea is good, supports any initial obvious errors in logic, especially if they are experienced in looking at this case.
Let me give you an example pertinent to this case:

You collect all the evidence you believe:

Dogs,
Changing statements
Assertions of Paedophilia
Refusal to answer questions
Failing to return for a reconstruction
The Fund 

and so on.

You continue collecting information and remain convinced that the McCanns did it.

What you don't do is the opposite-

collect contrary evidence and explanations that explain some of the above assumptions.

You conclude that you 'Know' what happened.

The careful thinker ends up knowing that they do not 'Know' what happened but can see alternatives.

Who looks stupid when Madeleine is found with a family in Argentina in 2020 and her DNA matches!

A failure to consider the null hypothesis leads to begging the question and assuming the answer.

This is not specific to this investigation but is gneralised to ANY investigation, forensic or scientific.

If you want to find the truth, you need to stop trying to add evidence of guilt, but remove evidence of innocence- that is how criminal defences win!

TozerDerry

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by TozerDerry on 28.05.14 16:12

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


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

 So said her statement.
So...?

It is a statement given about an event. What are you getting at; you will have to be more specific.

TozerDerry

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by 1soapy on 28.05.14 16:49

I do understand the logic, concept and purpose of how one should go about resolving a case. I just don’t think that most of us stick that carefully to it. Most of us (I believe, and posts seem to support this) in their presentations of a particular theory, don’t think (or at least share) too much of the arguments against it than the arguments for it, and try to make it more powerful in so doing. Yes, a few arguments/red herrings against, may be thrown in to refute for good measure (perhaps to show that some thought has gone into looking at the whole thing and all the opposing evidence), but I’m not convinced of this.


The evidence for this conclusion is a lack of theory explanations, ‘from start to finish’. How many of us have a pretty good theory which accounts for everything we know and have, as of today, presented it for the record? Better to argue that theory x takes account of most of the facts in the best way. But even then, if one fact or new fact gets in the way, it is very tempting to stick to your theory and try to hide the awkward fact.


I think examples abound on photo threads for example (where I myself sometimes venture and may be guilty to a degree) where we flog dead or dying horses in pursuit of a theory and miss more important stuff.


Hands up who has a theory with a significant obstacle(s), but are sticking to it? It is quicker and easier and nicer to stick to our theory than cast it aside. Not sure all of us will accept this (slight bias or one-sidedness of ourselves though, but hardening does have this effect. I maintain that this site, whilst seeking the truth, is more concerned with the prosecution that the defense, and spends a lot more time on evidence towards this end. That is not a partuicular criticism btw, given the remit of other sites.



I only ever said and meant that theory and practice and what is optimally best aren’t always the same.


The same goes for our own philosophies and beliefs. We hold biases, be it from upbringing, experience, culture, geography, family, studies, the books we read and the lifestyles of people we see or respect or otherwise. In fact that’s how and why we can have opposing academics of equal repute, offer different explanations to the same evidence. They go beyond the facts and add, often subtle overtones to highlight a point or infer something. Isn’t that what even lawyers try to do – persuade, over and above the evidence?

1soapy

Posts : 126
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by 1soapy on 28.05.14 17:00

I think RD is trying to challenge you. Shows simple statement. How would you, with your logic, interpret it?

1soapy

Posts : 126
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by plebgate on 28.05.14 17:46

@Woofer wrote:Terrydozer - This null hypothesis has been done before - taking everything the Mcs plus friends have stated at face value and it becomes a farce. And many of us have questioned every hypothesis.  Any searching mind would do that.  What are you trying to get this forum to do, apart from think up a good defence for the suspects.  Anyone would think you`re part of the defence team for the Mcs and need help with some new ideas.
 thumbup

plebgate

Posts : 6124
Reputation : 1795
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by puzzled on 28.05.14 17:51

@ TozerDerry
"You collect all the evidence you believe:

Dogs,
Changing statements
Assertions of Paedophilia
Refusal to answer questions
Failing to return for a reconstruction
The Fund 

and so on.

You continue collecting information and remain convinced that the McCanns did it.

What you don't do is the opposite-

collect contrary evidence and explanations that explain some of the above assumptions."



Hello


Interesting stuff above. As an aside, just like to mention that I've been married to a professional scientist for many years, and I know that while ideally, they would seek falsifying evidence for every hypothesis, in practice they don't and work within a framework of theory (usually a pretty coherent one) and interpret evidence in the light of that theory - whether they should do this is another matter. It's usually only when falsifying evidence becomes overwhelming that a theory changes. I think people sometimes get two things mixed up. Namely, that a theory has to be falsifiable (it does) and that scientists necessarily work by deliberately seeking out falsifying evidence (they don't). However, that's a side issue. But it illustrates that people are most likely to work within the framework of what they think is likely to be the case, which is going to be influenced by past experience, theoretical assumptions, etc.


Now, in a missing child investigation, we know that statistically it's most likely to be a family member who's involved. That doesn't prove that this is so in any particular case, but it is reasonable to to start off from what is the most likely scenario. If I understand the way the police work correctly, they also often suspect the last person to see the victim, and often, the person who reported the crime. I assume there are very good statistical reasons for this. And I guess that the police work initially with what is the most likely scenario, and only start looking for other evidence when that's been exhausted.


Now, with regard to the six things listed above, assertions of paedophilia and the fund are perhaps things that allow for another interpretation. They seem dodgy, but there is no clear proof one way or another. But as for the other four things, surely these are all things that are classic red flags to the police. In particular, how can we "explain away" the evidence of the dogs? It seems a matter of plain logic. The dogs alerted to a cadaver. We are told that there is no record of anyone dying in the apartment. So, where did the cadaver odour come from? Either the dogs are wrong (very unlikely) or somebody died in that apartment and if it wasn't the person reported missing from that apartment, who was it? Add to that, the 'red flags" of changing statements, etc. It's not being unreasonable to suspect the McCanns under these circumstances. They may turn out to be innocent - we all know that serious miscarriages of justice have occurred even on the basis of very good evidence - but it's not unreasonable to suspect them.


However, could you explain what sort of evidence of innocence you think there is in this case? I mean actual evidence, not speculation about what might have happened. And what alternative explanations there are for the facts listed above? The dogs in particular, I'd be particularly interested in. 


But of course, it's not what evidence we have that matters, it's what the police have.

____________________
...how did you feel the last time you squashed a bug? -psychopathic criminal, quoted in Robert Hare, Without Conscience

puzzled

Posts : 200
Reputation : 21
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by nobodythereeither on 28.05.14 18:11

Great post, Puzzled.

____________________


nobodythereeither

Posts : 273
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-11-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by bobbin on 28.05.14 18:22

@AndyB wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
I agree with your post AndyB and think something very interesting is emerging at higher levels in general.
Damn! I thought I was disagreeing with you and was looking forward to an interesting discussion :-)

There's nothing I can take issue with in the rest of your post as it pretty much represents my current thinking. I think the only subtle difference between us
is that I suspect involvement in some way at the highest levels as I believe it is only this that would evoke the response that we see. Any evidence for this involvement will now have been extinguished leaving the McCanns in exactly the same position as they would be if your theory is correct, which is good for nether them nor those of us that would like to know the truth of what happened

I think the McC discussion, which had become rather stultified over the past few months, is able to move on somewhat more now, due to Theresa May standing up and telling the 'corrupt' police reps to get their act sorted.

All the time the corrupt have been able to clean their net pages out, to clear their names of 'connections', like the now late collector of art works, and ex politicians having court records disappeared, there is a growing change in the air.

The EU results have just had a swingeing effect on the old established orders. The public is beginning to say, go put it, we've had enough.

One of the greatest errors, to my mind, was Kate McCann accusing Theresa May of 'fluffy words'. I don't think anyone at the Police Federation conference last week would accuse Theresa May of 'fluffy words'.

Perhaps even that far back Mrs. May was not delivering to Kate McCann the assurances that Kate McCann sought, and therefore dismissed what the good lady was saying. Perhaps Mrs. May has been watching the development of the McC saga and was already assessing the approach she would later take towards rooting corruption out of the police force and preventing future cover ups.

I hope she remains constant and does not buckle to pressure from those who may have a different agenda from her, and who nevertheless are very close working colleagues, one way or another.

So my point to your answer is that I agree, that the screeching of brakes, from media, ambassadors, Home Office, designated spokespersons, damage limitation guys etc. possibly also MI5/MI6 and others, all arriving in quiet PdL at the same time, indicates more than clearly, that a huge 'panic and fear' had emerged from the McC c**k up and cry of P abduction.

Yes, these main players have retreated, almost certainly with some sense of re-assurance that all is 'well'.

However, the mood is changing. The McCs are no longer flavour of the month. The police have been told, in no uncertain terms.

What is more important than all of this though is the Portuguese investigation continues, and shock of all shocks, they publish their findings.
It's the way they do it.

So although in spite of the fact that Theresa May has now done what the public have been craving for as long as Hillsborough, speaking out to tackle corruption where the public should least expect it, and having been 'challenged' by an arrogant insult from Kate McCann, the background mood for Andy Redwood is more encouragingly apparent in terms of a review, not having just become an investigation, but a homicide search for a dead child.

Something very big and very serious was obviously attached to Mark Warner's Ocean Club.

The question of Margaret Hodge's nephew being there, the 'sole possessor?' of photos of Madeleine on 3rd May, the letter he wrote to Tony stating that he was there and the account given by the McCs is the correct account, yet, this case is still being investigated, new dogs being brought in, the former dogs having signalled blood which had been deliberately sabotaged by bleach to prevent forensic discovery, poses questions than cannot just be dismissed.

The McCs may have limited knowledge of what deeper interconnections may have been going on, and may themselves have only been an independent group of 'interested practitioners', but the reaction/over-reaction of the political might that landed at their feet when they attempted the P word, would signify to K and G that they would be protected in the overall wrapper protecting those whose interests had elicited the over-reaction in the first place.

Yet we have Justine McGuiness leaving material behind with marks that have reportedly, by GA? been deemed too cryptic to be meaningful.

Nevertheless, that need not be the final decision made on these papers.

Presumably the PJ have a copy, if not the originals, and will be attending to them if they deem fit, that amongst many of the other documents that they still possess.





















bobbin

Posts : 2051
Reputation : 142
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by 1soapy on 28.05.14 18:25

‘And I guess that the police work initially with what is the most likely scenario, and only start looking for other evidence when that's been exhausted.’


That could be pretty dangerous, especially if time in of the essence (i.e. and could need investigation ASAP before things change) or witness statements are required or alternative scenarios are plausible. Scientists often have more time to look at a theory.


I believe science works very differently to the police, whilst many aspects are invaluable.


I’d have thought at a crime scene, theories are what someone does and at the SME time, evidence collecting (without an agenda) is done. E.g. interview everyone who was around at the time (irrespective of any theory). Get prints from all rooms, whatever we think about whether anyone used that room or not.


It is my view that the police and scientists (along with other  professions like profilers, psychologists, statisticians, magicians (can look for things we might not think of and should be involved more in many of the conspiracy/alien/ghost cases) and many local skills like historians, geographers, neighbours etc. all work differently in many ways (and similar in others) and can be complimentary.

1soapy

Posts : 126
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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