Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

prinz

hondasam wrote: »

was madeline made a ward of court before or after she went missing?

After.

dark crystal

hondasam wrote: »

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2247-rogues-gallery-mccanns-friends

Don't think this has been posted.

was madeline made a ward of court before or after she went missing?

Afterwards (although the date is not specified):

Madeleine was made a ward of court, during summer 2007, on application by her parents because they wanted the court's statutory powers to act on her behalf in legal disputes.[206] Mrs Justice Hogg has effectively been Madeleine's legal guardian since then

maebee

hondasam wrote: »

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2247-rogues-gallery-mccanns-friends

Don't think this has been posted.

was madeline made a ward of court before or after she went missing?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028169/McCanns-asked-missing-Madeleine-ward-court.html

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A third option is the abductor put Madeleine into the sports bag and removed them both from the apartment.

Then what about Jane Tanner's eyewitness account?

maebee

prinz wrote: »

Then what about Jane Tanner's eyewitness account?

Which of her accounts? As you know, there were several.

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Apparently a sports bag of Gerry's went missing from the apartment at the same time as Madeleine( some-one will have to find link to it, I only heard for the first time here).

The obvious conotation for some is Gerry stuffed Madeleine in the bag after her death and dumped her somewhere.

Dont put words in peoples mouths . No one has yet said that so dont presume its what we are saying ,It could well be that it was used by someone else .

hondasam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Apparently a sports bag of Gerry's went missing from the apartment at the same time as Madeleine( some-one will have to find link to it, I only heard for the first time here).

The obvious conotation for some is Gerry stuffed Madeleine in the bag after her death and dumped her somewhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573575/Gerry-McCanns-tennis-bag-is-focus-of-inquiry.html

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

I agree 'the've taken her' is not evidence, nor is contaminating the abduction site, nor washing her child's toy that Kate claims an abductor must have moved up to the window-ledge, nor are all the inconsistencies in the timeline, or the children not waking during the commotion, or a missing sports bag. One of these things may be strange but ALL of them together.... to dismiss them is naive in my opinion.

What you are doing to taking lots of things and saying if you add them all up, they must amount to something. Not so IMO. You need to take each element in turn, estimate its merit as evidence, and if you find it doesn’t have any, then you discard it. And when you have finished, then see what you are left with.

For example, the first thing in the list 'they’ve taken her'. Some would process this by asking: is this a likely thing for an innocent person to say? The answer is no, so they go on to conclude that a more plausible explanation is that they are guilty. This is flawed thinking IMO.

What you need to so is ask a second question: is this a likely thing for a guilty person to say? And of course the answer is also no.

And so you end up with something that is not something you would expect from an innocent person. But neither would you expect it from a guilty person. So you have nothing in the way of evidence, you just have a rather bizarre choice of words.

Do a similar analysis with each piece of information individually, rather than lazily say: there must be something there if you mix them all up together, and just see what you have at the end.

And in the list you provided, I think only the missing sports bag is likely to amount to what might constitute evidence. But if you disagree, feel free to make the argument that individual aspects are indicative of guilt and we can debate them.
But to simply ask: don’t all of these things together seem suspicious? They may certainly seem suspicious, but to credibly assert that they actually are suspicious requires a bit more rigour.

Now, I am aware that I am completely failing to convince most people here that this is a reasonable way to assess evidence. But perhaps if you take the time to look at this video from a professional statistician, it might at least persuade some of the logical flaw in saying that if an explanation involves an unlikely event, then the other explanation (assuming only two) is probably what happened. Coincidently, he discussed a case where a woman was wrongfully convicted of murdering her children.

As an aside, there is also a discussion earlier on the clip which might pertains to how much faith you should put in the dog evidence. He talks about a medical test rather than a sniffer dog, but the principle is the same. In short, and to paraphrase, the dog could be astonishingly accurate, yet almost always wrong! (Though probably not in this case, the prosecution will be pleased to hear!)

AudreyHepburn

prinz wrote: »

Then what about Jane Tanner's eyewitness account?

Perhaps she was mistaken in what she saw, or the child was not Madeleine?

AudreyHepburn

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Dont put words in peoples mouths . No one has yet said that so dont presume its what we are saying ,It could well be that it was used by someone else .

I was basing that off the fact that it's Gerry's bag and on how people feel about the McCanns.

I would have though that would be the first thing people thought?

Not a critique, just an observation.

Turpentine

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Perhaps she was mistaken in what she saw, or the child was not Madeleine?

Tanner's statement(s) is the only "evidence" of abduction. If you disregard that there is zero evidence of abduction.

Turpentine

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I was basing that off the fact that it's Gerry's bag and on how people feel about the McCanns.

I would have though that would be the first thing people thought?

Not a critique, just an observation.

Seeing as you were the first person here to propose that about Gerry's bag, you must regard that theory as possible even if you do not consider it probable.

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

What you are doing to taking lots of things and saying if you add them all up, they must amount to something. Not so IMO. You need to take each element in turn, estimate its merit as evidence, and if you find it doesn’t have any, then you discard it. And when you have finished, then see what you are left with.

For example, the first thing in the list 'they’ve taken her'. Some would process this by asking: is this a likely thing for an innocent person to say? The answer is no, so they go on to conclude that a more plausible explanation is that they are guilty. This is flawed thinking IMO.

What you need to so is ask a second question: is this a likely thing for a guilty person to say? And of course the answer is also no.

And so you end up with something that is not something you would expect from an innocent person. But neither would you expect it from a guilty person. So you have nothing in the way of evidence, you just have a rather bizarre choice of words.

Do a similar analysis with each piece of information individually, rather than lazily say: there must be something there if you mix them all up together, and just see what you have at the end.

And in the list you provided, I think only the missing sports bag is likely to amount to what might constitute evidence. But if you disagree, feel free to make the argument that individual aspects are indicative of guilt and we can debate them.
But to simply ask: don’t all of these things together seem suspicious? They may certainly seem suspicious, but to credibly assert that they actually are suspicious requires a bit more rigour.

Now, I am aware that I am completely failing to convince most people here that this is a reasonable way to assess evidence. But perhaps if you take the time to look at this video from a professional statistician, it might at least persuade some of the logical flaw in saying that if an explanation involves an unlikely event, then the other explanation (assuming only two) is probably what happened. Coincidently, he discussed a case where a woman was wrongfully convicted of murdering her children.

As an aside, there is also a discussion earlier on the clip which might pertains to how much faith you should put in the dog evidence. He talks about a medical test rather than a sniffer dog, but the principle is the same. In short, and to paraphrase, the dog could be astonishingly accurate, yet almost always wrong! (Though probably not in this case, the prosecution will be pleased to hear!)

Obviously I have looked at each piece of strange circumstances on their own. We weren't all bombarded with them on the one day.:p

It's not lazy to assume together as a whole it adds up to even more weirdness. You are by far in the minority here, so I think calling my approach lazy is insulting to everyone that has drawn a similar conclusion - that the parents are most certainly hiding something and Madeleine was not abducted out a window (or front door if you do want to accept they lied about the window).

Oh, and the refusal to answer questions... that's another one I forgot about... there are just so many strange circumstances that it is difficult to remember them all off the top of my head.

iamwhoiam

sunflower27 wrote: »

Obviously I have looked at each piece of strange circumstances on their own. We weren't all bombarded with them on the one day.:p

It's not lazy to assume together as a whole it adds up to even more weirdness. You are by far in the minority here, so I think calling my approach lazy is insulting to everyone that has drawn a similar conclusion - that the parents are most certainly hiding something and Madeleine was not abducted out a window (or front door if you do want to accept they lied about the window).

Oh, and the refusal to answer questions... that's another one I forgot about... there are just so many strange circumstances that it is difficult to remember them all off the top of my head.

I fully agree with you and have posted the same somewhere buried in the thread . One little niggle is understandable , two makes you look up , three makes you take heed, four makes you a little wary , five makes you think , six makes you sceptical and all together the rolloing stone gathers moss and makes you pay more attention be alert and for some it makes us doubt
If that is lazy to some so be it , I know its not lazy to be curious and ask questions and do research and uncover untruths .

Just a few pieces of moss I can think of off the top of my head
Dogs, window , timelines , Tapas 9 stories, phones cleared , twins not checked out in A+E , stories changing according to proven evidence .Travelling to see Pope , Morroco , Germany , etc etc while twins looked after , Gerrys body language , Kates body language , cadaver smell off Kates clothes , jogging , blogging , friends in high places getting in on the action . Refusal to co operate , ..............

dark crystal

Turpentine wrote: »

Tanner's statement(s) is the only "evidence" of abduction. If you disregard that there is zero evidence of abduction.

Zero evidence of abduction....again, what "evidence" of abduction are you seeking exactly? Tanner may have been mistaken, or seen something completely innocuous. We just don't know.

As I've stated before, the crime scene was contaminated, so any DNA evidence would have been literally trampled on. Although, there was seperate DNA found in the apartment that could not be attributed to the McCanns.

No witnesses? Just because there were no witnesses to a crime, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Although, there were witnesses who saw an unidentified man carrying a child towards the marina shortly after Madeleine went missing.

People may claim there is no evidence of abduction, but nor there is there any shred of reliable evidence that the McCanns drugged, killed or disposed of their daughter, either.

sunflower27

In fact, what is lazy is dismissing all those things and then saying you think an abductor took Madeleine when there is no evidence at all that they actually did (because Tanner's changeable story is hardly credible).

Mistyeyes321

maebee wrote: »

Here you go Misty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akv01Y0pfNY

Thank's for this never heard this before or the supposed mccann conection to knowing someone whom the Apartment belonged too! All nothing on their own but it seem's these things just keep coming one after another...Coincedence? MMMM.

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

Obviously I have looked at each piece of strange circumstances on their own. We weren't all bombarded with them on the one day.:p

Ok. So presumably all the things you listed do amount to real evidence against the McCanns. I have offered my view on they the first one, Kate's odd choice of words when she discovered Madeleine missing is just that, odd. And doesn't really say anything about innocence or guilt. Presumably you interpret it differently and think it does indicate guilt. Would you like to explain what your reasoning is?

sunflower27 wrote: »

It's not lazy to assume together as a whole it adds up to even more weirdness.

I fully agree. It does indeed add up to a truck load of weirdness. I don't dispute that.

sunflower27 wrote: »

You are by far in the minority here, so I think calling my approach lazy is insulting to everyone that has drawn a similar conclusion - that the parents are most certainly hiding something and Madeleine was not abducted out a window (or front door if you do want to accept they lied about the window).

I didn't mean that to be personally offensive. But a lot of people are citing "weird" things as evidence but are not offering any kind of rational explanation as to why it is in fact evidence.

And nobody has yet offered a plausible explanation (or rather one that isn't totally implausible) as to how an accidental death might have happened. The deride my attempts to explain the awkward parts of a scenario where the McCanns are innocent but try to pretend that there are no such problems with the scenario that they are somehow involved. There are major problems with any possible accidental death explanation too.

sunflower27 wrote: »

In fact, what is lazy is dismissing all those things and then saying you think an abductor took Madeleine when there is no evidence at all that they actually did (because Tanner's changeable story is hardly credible).

There is the exact same amount of evidence that an abductor took Madeleine from the apartment as there is that one of the McCanns (or someone acting on their behalf) did, i.e. none. But one of those things (probably) did happen.

Chicke

As I said before,whomever Jane tanner saw would surely have come forward if innocent which leaves two scenarios,either she did either see the abductor or she is lying and a conspiracy exists.......?
Gerry mcann denied the blue bag existence.
If they were truly innocent and they wanted to protect the twins from endless suspicion about their parents,why don't they take a lie detector test.even if they are onky asked a few pre agreed questions re their innocence re the disappearance

sunflower27

But people ARE saying why they think the McCanns have done the things they did.

Wash cuddle cat because it had evidence on it (and why would a mother cleanse a toy of her missing child's scent?).

That the twins slept through the commotion because they were drugged and yet even though Kate thought it herself she felt no need to get them medical assistance.

The window theory - that the parent's said that to move the focus from the front door being open - and to focus the inquiry away from the more logical explanation that madeleine was taken out the front door (and there is no eviudence Gerry opened those windows as we all know so that was a lie).

Why the McCanns vowed to stay till she was found but bailed the moment they became suspects and outright refused to take lie detector tests...

That despite being obviously intelligent they totally destroyed the crime scene when they should have known not to touch anything.

There are many, many other things that TOGETHER don't add up. These are not little things.

The dogs, obviously.

Now, maybe you would like to explain yourself why all these things are not really worth any weight.

lugha

dark crystal wrote: »

Zero evidence of abduction....again, what "evidence" of abduction are you seeking exactly?

As there zero evidence of an abductor taking her from the apartment, dead or alive, and there is zero evidence of the McCanns taking her from the apartment, dead or alive, then she is obviously still in the apartment? Maybe they forgot to look under the bed? :pac:

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

As there zero evidence of an abductor taking her from the apartment, dead or alive, and there is zero evidence of the McCanns taking her from the apartment, dead or alive, then she is obviously still in the apartment? Maybe they forgot to look under the bed? :pac:

You can dismiss the sniffer dogs as much as you like, but I doubt even they would have missed that!!!!!

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

But people ARE saying why they think the McCanns have done the things they did.

I asked you first. :pac: Why does Kate's odd choice of words amount to evidence?

sunflower27 wrote: »

The dogs, obviously.

The evidence of the dogs is very strong. I have accepted that.

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

I asked you first. :pac: Why does Kate's odd choice of words amount to evidence?


The evidence of the dogs is very strong. I have accepted that.

I thought I made it clear when I said I didnt think her words were evidence. Just that it is a very strange reaction to finding a child missing.

It implies she knew that someone was watching the kids and if that was the case, why was the door open.

Again, it could mean that it was a finely chosen select few words to get the abduction ball rolling.

Only she knows why she said it so no, it is not evidence but it is strange (albeit one of the least strange things in this case in my mind).

maebee

lugha wrote: »

:pac: Why does Kate's odd choice of words amount to evidence?


The evidence of the dogs is very strong. I have accepted that.

I don't think anybody said that Kate's odd choice of words, indeed all the oddites by the McCanns amount to evidence. That's not possible. It's just highly suspicious. Evidence is something concrete that's presented in court. Oddities can't be called evidence but as KM wrote in her book

"As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two
coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence

."

sunflower27

sunflower27 wrote: »

And yet, it would have been a lot less obvious if a child was taken out in a bag and not out a window or door in a blanket and not been seen.

I agree 'the've taken her' is not evidence, nor is contaminating the abduction site, nor washing her child's toy that Kate claims an abductor must have moved up to the window-ledge, nor are all the inconsistencies in the timeline, or the children not waking during the commotion, or a missing sports bag. One of these things may be strange but ALL of them together.... to dismiss them is naive in my opinion.

Just to clarify that point.

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

Only she knows why she said it so no, it is not evidence but it is strange (albeit one of the least strange things in this case in my mind).

Fine, that's exactly what I would say. But quite a few people will throw this out and say, or imply, that it is evidence.

sunflower27 wrote: »

I don't think anybody said that Kate's odd choice of words, indeed all the oddites by the McCanns amount to evidence. That's not possible. It's just highly suspicious.

I am not sure how you distinguish between evidence and suspicion? Suspicious surely means you suspect her of having some involvement. And thus it is evidence. It is not evidence. It is not suspicious. It is just strange

maebee

http://www.wftv.com/caseytriallive1/index.html

In this live trial, the judge has just admitted the ERVD dogs' evidence, which is very similar to the findings of the ERVD dogs in the McCann case.

Trained with distractions such as ham bones, in a horse field with all the distracting smells. Dog not allowed a bone at home, or even a chew.
After initial training, more twice a month.
Dog gave two false alerts in one day of training, after working 31 searches and was tired. The normal rate of searches may be six a year.
Dog alerted to human bone in concrete, whilst training.
20 min video after recess, of dog working coming up. 19.55 approx.
Newsman saying now, how good the dog will be proved to be.

dark crystal

sunflower27 wrote: »

But people ARE saying why they think the McCanns have done the things they did.

Wash cuddle cat because it had evidence on it (and why would a mother cleanse a toy of her missing child's scent?).

Kate says cuddlecat was covered in sand, sweat and sun tan lotion and she wanted to keep it in good condition. The police had already taken DNA and fingerprint samples from the toy before she washed it.

That the twins slept through the commotion because they were drugged and yet even though Kate thought it herself she felt no need to get them medical assistance.

Both Kate and the twins hair was tested for traces of sedatives and none were found. According to police forensic tests, the twins were never drugged on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.

The window theory - that the parent's said that to move the focus from the front door being open - and to focus the inquiry away from the more logical explanation that madeleine was taken out the front door (and there is no eviudence Gerry opened those windows as we all know so that was a lie).

This is merely Gerry's theory. It doesn't make him a liar, it's what he believes happened, rightly or wrongly. He could well be wrong - doesn't make him guilty of a crime. He also says in another interview that he now believes the intruder was hiding in the apartment at one stage when he went to check on the children. Again, just pure speculation on his part, not a lie.

Why the McCanns vowed to stay till she was found but bailed the moment they became suspects and outright refused to take lie detector tests...

Lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable, that's why they are deemed inadmissable in court and used in lowbrow morning TV shows instead. Besides, their lawyer no doubt advised them against doing one.

That despite being obviously intelligent they totally destroyed the crime scene when they should have known not to touch anything.

Are you seriously suggesting the first thought the parents of a missing child would have would be to preserve the scene of the crime?? It was the police's job to seal off the crime scene, not two distraught people just having found their child missing. The PJ were highly critisised for not doing so.

There are many, many other things that TOGETHER don't add up. These are not little things.

The dogs, obviously.

Now, maybe you would like to explain yourself why all these things are not really worth any weight.

They are certainly not worth enough weight to warrant the police arresting or charging the McCanns with a crime.

maebee

http://www.wftv.com/caseytriallive1/index.html

Dog handler is giving his evidence right now.