Madeleine McCann's parents

[estebanrey]

How do you know exactly how many assumptions are on each side of the debate?.

I don't need to know 'exactly' how many assumptions there are, only that one side is making more than the other.

The most basic assumption could be that the parents killed her, as it's statistically the most probable

Really? Where are these stats to back the claim that more children are murdered by their parents than being kidnapped.

Without having a full list of all the known variables (with a weighing on each one based on the probability) then it's hardly constitutes a visit to tinfoil city to think the parents may have done it.

Again OR doesn't say you have to know all the variables, only which claim makes more assumptions and I'd argue the "cover-up" hypothesis requires a lot more. By using "may" you again show you haven't followed the OR argument which isn't about definitively ruling out a theory, it concerns which one you should back.

Madeline McCann was probably kidnapped != Madeline McCann definitely wasn't killed by her parents.

 

[NeilF]

Here is the Lancashire police dog report:

Classic!

 

[Destination]

I'm as certain as I can be given what has transpired since her disappearance. Obviously I don't know what happened as I was not there, but the burden of proof is not mine to defend. The burden of proof is on the tin foil hat brigade, who I'm pleased to find are a minority, but insist that her parents are guilty.

You can not just assert that 'X' is true, you need to provide evidence to back up that assertion.

In Western society, we address only one prong of an accusation in a court of law. This is Guilt. We do not address Innocence. The same applies to evaluating truth claims in a logical and rational way. Until something asserted has sufficient evidence, we reject it. In this case, all we know is that Madeleine went missing while her parents were at dinner. Anything else asserted from that point onwards needs to have sufficient evidence to be accepted. Right now, nobody knows yet.

You've completely avoided what I asked.

 

[Sliver]

You've completely avoided what I asked.

No. You've completely avoided my reply.

 

[estebanrey]

You've completely avoided what I asked.

Maybe because your question was leading and contrary to what Sliver was saying. You were asking how he was "certain" when he never claimed to be in the first place.

It's a pretty dumb question given if anyone was 'certain' then the case would have been solved already (or they are the kidnapper).

 

[Django x2]

Plenty of people deny the moon landings.

I just don't share your opinion and dispute the evidence that you claim exists. You may be correct, but you seem to be 100% convinced and i'm not sure how you can be in this instance.

I'm far from convinced, but I fail to see how, a car, rented 3 weeks later, has the "smell of death" and DNA from Maddy in it. Therefore, I remain objective, and I've always felt uneasy about the Mcanns. Their presence and conduct on the TV is not that of someone who has lost a child, abducted or dead. Perhaps if it was the steely resolve of one parent, maybe, but it's both.

 

[arknor]

Obviously I don't know what happened as I was not there

so how can you be certain?

 

[Django x2]

OK here's a question for you...

"If the McCanns are responsible for Maddy's death then why do they continue to push the story in the media, why did they push for the MET to investigate?"

Think about it for a second, the McCanns could have easily ridden out the first few months of crying for the cameras then just said "we want to be left alone" and the story would have gone away. It is them that keeps it in the media and keeps pushing for further investigations. That would be utterly stupid if you did it given every new investigation could find the smoking gun that points at them.

Easy, because it takes focus away from them. Literally, not hard to understand. They get the compassion of those that believe this to be a genuine cut and dry case

 

[Slam62]

They definitely behaved very differently to your average parents

 

[Sliver]

so how can you be certain?

Please stop quote mining. It's a very dishonest form of forum argument.

I'm as certain as I can be given what has transpired since her disappearance.

 

[feedtheram]

Are you certain that they haven't covered anything up? Such as the potential for giving the kids some medicine at bedtime to make sure they slept quite thoroughly?
Mightn't be related to the later disappearance, but are you certain such a thing didn't occur?

In the same way we can't be certain that aliens didn't beam down and pinch her. I think that's the point. We cannot be certain of anything sitting here in front of our computers. We have to use the evidence available to us to make the best decision possible on what may have happened.

 

[arknor]

Please stop quote mining. It's a very dishonest form of forum argument.

dishonest? you said you were certain and then tried to backtrack?

Thanks for the logical lesson, but I do understand the premise of Occam's Razor as it applies to a hobby of mine, theological debates.

There is certainly no cover up on the McCann's part. Anyone who suggests that is wearing a tin foil hat.

 

[elmarko]

Really? Where are these stats to back the claim that more children are murdered by their parents than being kidnapped.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_298904.pdf

Page 4 at the bottom, excel sheet.

For 62 recorded homicide's against children in the sample, 40 were at the hands of the parents, 9 other family members with only 13 being strangers/no suspects (in reality - some of the no suspects may be family).

This trend continues over 10 years.

For child abduction (Another study).

◦Of the children reported missing, 350,000 are family abductions. That is, they are taken away by family members in violation of custody agreements.

◦Non – family abductions amount to 204,000. These include kidnappers who are acquaintances or complete strangers to the victims.

◦Only 115 of non-family abductions are stereotypical abductions, defined as those in which a child is detained overnight, transported atleast 50 miles, held for ransom or intended to be kept permanently or killed.

(other source)

•Based on the identity of the perpetrator, there are three distinct types of kidnapping:
kidnapping by a relative of the victim or "family kidnapping" (49 percent),
kidnapping by an acquaintance of the victim or "acquaintance kidnapping" (27 percent),
kidnapping by a stranger to the victim or "stranger kidnapping" (24 percent).

Don't get me wrong, I'm most certainly not saying they definitely did it (I don't have access to anymore information than the rest of us) - just statistically it's a more probable explanation.

 

[deaglecat]

..

 

[RDM]

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_298904.pdf

Page 4 at the bottom, excel sheet.

For 62 recorded homicide's against children in the sample, 40 were at the hands of the parents, 9 other family members with only 13 being strangers/no suspects (in reality - some of the no suspects may be family).

This trend continues over 10 years.

For child abduction (Another study).

◦Of the children reported missing, 350,000 are family abductions. That is, they are taken away by family members in violation of custody agreements.

◦Non – family abductions amount to 204,000. These include kidnappers who are acquaintances or complete strangers to the victims.

◦Only 115 of non-family abductions are stereotypical abductions, defined as those in which a child is detained overnight, transported atleast 50 miles, held for ransom or intended to be kept permanently or killed.

(other source)

•Based on the identity of the perpetrator, there are three distinct types of kidnapping:
kidnapping by a relative of the victim or "family kidnapping" (49 percent),
kidnapping by an acquaintance of the victim or "acquaintance kidnapping" (27 percent),
kidnapping by a stranger to the victim or "stranger kidnapping" (24 percent).

Don't get me wrong, I'm most certainly not saying they definitely did it - just statistically it's a more probable explanation.

Not really sure that is the case, 200,000 kidnappings vs 40 murders? Even using the lowest value of 105 kidnappings vs 40 murders the kidnappings are statistically more likely.

 

[elmarko]

Which means absolutely nothing.

All you are really saying is that if they were unfortunate enough to find themselves in the less statistically likely demographic then they were probably actually guilty...

Do you even understand basic statistics?

Not really sure that is the case, 200,000 kidnappings vs 40 murders? Even using the lowest value of 105 kidnappings vs 40 murders the kidnappings are statistically more likely.

The kidnapping was a different study (ergo the different data sample size, different region - the second study was in the US or an organisation in the view of the WHO) - hence why I said "Another study" - you can't cut & dice data from two different studies (you will get odd results).

She was either kidnapped (which the family are the most likely to be responsible), or she was murdered (Which the family are also most likely to be responsible).

 

[feedtheram]

I'm far from convinced, but I fail to see how, a car, rented 3 weeks later, has the "smell of death" and DNA from Maddy in it. Therefore, I remain objective, and I've always felt uneasy about the Mcanns. Their presence and conduct on the TV is not that of someone who has lost a child, abducted or dead. Perhaps if it was the steely resolve of one parent, maybe, but it's both.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/23/ukcrime.internationalcrime

The dogs were brought in partly due to McCanns requesting that they were used as they were worried the police were losing momentum. Again this backs up the argument of why would the McCanns want this to happen if they were involved in her murder.

The article goes on to mention that "Police sources close to the investigation said yesterday that, although the sniffer dogs 'reacted' to some of Kate's clothes, 'no usable evidence' could be extracted for DNA testing, meaning there was no forensic corroboration for the dogs' reaction."

I feel all the 'evidence' that connects them to involvement in her disappearance has been hammed up over the years by the media and these conspiracy sites and doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

What i am surprised to find (as mentioned a few times) while investigating the information available to me, is the numerous mistakes the Portuguese police made over the course of the investigation. These seem to be well documented, with even the inspector in charge admitting they had been "hasty" in naming the McCanns as suspects.

That was the second chief by the way - the first one (who wrote that book) was removed and had previously headed up an investigation which oversaw the beating of a suspect by police officers in a child abduction case.

 

[estebanrey]

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_298904.pdf

Page 4 at the bottom, excel sheet.

For 62 recorded homicide's against children in the sample, 40 were at the hands of the parents, 9 other family members with only 13 being strangers/no suspects (in reality - some of the no suspects may be family).

This trend continues over 10 years.

For child abduction (Another study).

◦Of the children reported missing, 350,000 are family abductions. That is, they are taken away by family members in violation of custody agreements.

◦Non – family abductions amount to 204,000. These include kidnappers who are acquaintances or complete strangers to the victims.

◦Only 115 of non-family abductions are stereotypical abductions, defined as those in which a child is detained overnight, transported atleast 50 miles, held for ransom or intended to be kept permanently or killed.

(other source)

•Based on the identity of the perpetrator, there are three distinct types of kidnapping:
kidnapping by a relative of the victim or "family kidnapping" (49 percent),
kidnapping by an acquaintance of the victim or "acquaintance kidnapping" (27 percent),
kidnapping by a stranger to the victim or "stranger kidnapping" (24 percent).

Don't get me wrong, I'm most certainly not saying they definitely did it (I don't have access to anymore information than the rest of us) - just statistically it's a more probable explanation.

You made the claim that the parents killing Maddie then covering it up was statistically more likely than her being kidnapped (given the two hypothesis being discussed).

Those stats suggest you are far more likely to be kidnapped/go missing than murdered by your own parents.

 

[Sliver]

dishonest? you said you were certain and then tried to backtrack?

Wow. I'm saying 'certainly' as an example of how I voice my opinion. It's not 100%, it's not a logical absolute, it's not a tautology, it is a polemic expression of my view.

 

[deaglecat]

..