Reply to: Damned McCanns

[Mailman]

So wait a minute, you made your mind up on the very day you heard of it. Based on what exactly - how they looked on tv?

He probably based his gut feeling on;

1. Mrs McCann being hawt!
2. Mrs McCann doesnt have big taataas.
3. The McCanns are professionals and are thus tax avoiding scum!



Mailman

[WotNxt]

I still want to know why they had the DNA of emperor Hirohito in the boot.

Why is it when it comes to the DNA evidence in the HIRE car no-one is considering the possibility that the real abductor/murderer HIRED it BEFORE the McCanns did and that the evidence was ALREADY THERE by the time the McCanns hired it?

This seems a natural train of thought to me and if I was investigating the case I would want a list of all those who had hired/borrowed/used that car in the relevant time period. That is the complete list of suspects implicated by that particular evidence, not just the McCanns!

[wendigo100]

I still want to know why they had the DNA of emperor Hirohito in the boot.

[Bagpuss]

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing ...

In my own experience, even when a family member is 100% not a suspect and the identity of the perpetrator is known, statistics like these are used by the police and CPS not to bring charges and by others to cast aspersions on the family members. This has happened to me and my family!

I am quite certain though that if I were to take the law into my own hands that the police and CPS would suddenly be VERY keen to get me convicted.

What are the statistics for conviction rates against paedophiles and child murderers? I bet they are appalling - especially if you include all those cases where charges are never even brought. Doesn't mean they didn't do it though.

I was half agreeing with cowboy Bob. Most child murders (don't forget they are rare events) are commited by a family member or someone close, it's a fact, not hearsay, whether the detection rate is higher for those murders I don't know, but... The police need to bear that in mind when investigating, that doesn't mean they did it, it means it's an avenue that is worth pursuing in the case of no obvious leads.

[sasguru]

Why don’t we have poll on whether we think the McCans are guilty or innocent… when I was studying law (yes one of my degrees I was studying Science and Law, but stupidly I changed to do double honours in science, cuz I though as a FOREIGNER, it wont be easy for me to get a job as a solicitor (sorry Ferret ))

!

No, you would not have got a job as a solicitor because of the paucity of your logic.

[WotNxt]

He has a point, the menacing abductor/abuser stranger/paedo is very rare. Yet public perception is it's quite common. Not to say it doesn't happen but why not start with evidence based behaviour? Rather than what The Sun would like to be true, but is very often not.

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing ...

In my own experience, even when a family member is 100% not a suspect and the identity of the perpetrator is known, statistics like these are used by the police and CPS not to bring charges and by others to cast aspersions on the family members. This has happened to me and my family!

I am quite certain though that if I were to take the law into my own hands that the police and CPS would suddenly be VERY keen to get me convicted.

What are the statistics for conviction rates against paedophiles and child murderers? I bet they are appalling - especially if you include all those cases where charges are never even brought. Doesn't mean they didn't do it though.

[SandyDown]

Why don’t we have poll on whether we think the McCans are guilty or innocent… when I was studying law (yes one of my degrees I was studying Science and Law, but stupidly I changed to do double honours in science, cuz I though as a FOREIGNER, it wont be easy for me to get a job as a solicitor (sorry Ferret ))

Anyhow, in one of the classes we have to pretend to be jury, when we gave the outcome it was identical to other pretend juries, the lecturer told us it is soooooo amazing, their has been a reserches going on forming so many juries to judge the same case, and always always always the outcome of all Juries on one case is Identical, no matter who is in the jury!!

[Bagpuss]

He has a point, the menacing abductor/abuser stranger/paedo is very rare. Yet public perception is it's quite common. Not to say it doesn't happen but why not start with evidence based behaviour? Rather than what The Sun would like to be true, but is very often not.

[zeitghost]

Come on, if you are an IT contractor then you must surely be more intelligent than this?

[WotNxt]

Statistics show that the vast majority of murders (assuming she has been by now) are committed by close family members. I also remember reading somewhere that those people who are desperate to get in front of the media in this kind of situation immediately become suspects in the eyes of the investigating officers - the psychological profilers talk about using the public forum as a way of getting over guilt (think about how many times you've seen press conferences/interviews with the guilty involved - Harold Shipman, Ian Huntley, Fred & Rosemary West, etc etc). Statistical evidence demonstrates that the McCanns are highly likely to be the purpetrators...

Statistics are general rules of thumb derived from a large data set. They cannot be used to predict the outcome in one individual case with any meaningful degree of accuracy regardless of how much you would like them to.

Come on, if you are an IT contractor then you must surely be more intelligent than this?

[snaw]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and when used in an argument demonstrates the lack of a reasoned response.

Besides, you can't turn the words "highly likely to be" into "must be" no matter how much you want to read it that way.

Well if you could be bothered to read this tread you'd find, I believe, that I've gave a pretty thorough response to the argument of whether or not they're guilty, based on what we now know.

Your suggestion in itself goes against the very principle of the legal system we're brought up in, namely innocent until proven guilty, no matter how likely it is based on 'statistics'.

And sarcasm is funny as hell, and is one of the founding pillars of the British sense of humour. Then again maybe you're American with a name like cowboy boy. In which case I'm sorry (For you).

[Cowboy Bob]

Hey why let the facts get in the way of a good old fashioned witch hunt. Burn them I say, burn them.

Even better tie them up and throw them in water: if they float they're guilty as sin.

To be honest, I don't care who did it. There's certainly no witchhunt from me. I don't even read the papers so have no idea what people are talking about most of the time. I was merely pointing out the statistical facts as they relate to any murder. Now, are you going to try and refute those statistics, or not?

[Cowboy Bob]

Well then there you have it, they must be guilty, statistics say so.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and when used in an argument demonstrates the lack of a reasoned response.

Besides, you can't turn the words "highly likely to be" into "must be" no matter how much you want to read it that way.

[Cowboy Bob]

Erm, never in the case of Shipman and the Wests. None of them ever gave any kind of press conference or interview, or ever made any public statement relating in any way to their crimes other than in the course of court proceedings.

Yes they did. The Shipman one is particularly famous. He gave the interview out in the street when some TV cameras caught up with him. Though it is true that serial killers have a different psychology, so Shipman and the Wests were probably bad examples.

[snaw]

Erm, never in the case of Shipman and the Wests. None of them ever gave any kind of press conference or interview, or ever made any public statement relating in any way to their crimes other than in the course of court proceedings.

Hey why let the facts get in the way of a good old fashioned witch hunt. Burn them I say, burn them.

Even better tie them up and throw them in water: if they float they're guilty as sin.