^^^^^^^

jesus,he's come to ruin this forum now

now so far we have all sorts of cranks and phoney experts without qualifications and UFO followers and chit chat fantasists who think they know what happened... and ask them for proof and there is none .

If there was someone who told them he had a degree in unreliable imaginings and that if he told them no no he was not telling lies but had a 100% record in a pseudo science and that they had to obey him and believe his theory's ...without any evidence, that's ok. There are plenty of mugs who will.

Do they realise that words and theory's without evidence can destroy, that by staying silent they can avoid causing the least damage and harm, no , not k@nts like the failed detective writing his book and making money out of people's misery.

I watched it last night, not all of it , I don't like to listen to that sort of ****. Now if I have missed anything that was said by Hyatt that was not known by the police but had since been proven to be true then that might be a start.

Now if you have watched it all you will be able to point to one or even 2 or 3 such things ,
It shouldn't take long to think of them .
Enlighten us.

My statement analysis of Peter Hyatt's self confessed credentials ......  I could quite easily dissect his comments and offer a plausible "self confession" of the fallibility of his trade.  It's a bit like accusing someone of being a witch based on subjective interpretation of their words.  Everyone is different and acts differently.  Most people might act in a certain way but this assumption that everyone reacts in the same way I just think is BS.

As for whether just saying no is much more compelling of innocence than saying more than no I think is BS too.  If I was guilty I'd likely say as little as possible.  In all likelihood I'd likely say as little as possible if I was innocent too.  That's just my personality.

Jailhouse Lawyering 101A:

An incriminating statement includes any statement that tends to increase the danger that the person making the statement will be accused, charged or prosecuted – even if the statement is true, and even if the person is innocent of any crime. Thus, even a person who is innocent of any crime who testifies truthfully can be incriminated by that testimony.

The United States Supreme Court has stated that the Fifth Amendment privilege:

protects the innocent as well as the guilty.... one of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men . . . who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances..... truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth

Thats all very well but your child is missing and obfuscation does nothing to help the situation. Plead the Fifth all you want but you can`t incriminate yourself if you`re innocent.

still no answer.

People in today's world have to be very careful what they say to the police under interview, i some foreign countries they will be prepared to do anything
In Britain also anything that might be said that is totally innocent can be twisted by the police and police staff to mean something else and gat a conviction.
This is the nature of today's world, it is good advice to say nothing, and I mean nothing to the police without being very careful.
The most innocent remark can have you hung

And there is no suggestion of them not fully co-operating until they were made formal suspects and formally questioned, well after the event.

lfc  there is no new evidence. We have the opinion of an individual who is trained and respected in his field. You may not consider him to be so, but the police use him and companies are happy to pay him to do what he does. It`s also clear from the video that he doesn`t have an extensive knowledge of the case so he is clearly not a nut coming to the party with a predisposition one way or the other.

kkkatt I think almost all of your last post is nonsense, of course if you are not able to answer my question just say so
That's fine, I don't know if you can answer it or not

The bottom line is there is no evidence to say they did it.  If they did the chances of there being no evidence seem very slim to me.  This isn't someone who allegedly fell off an isolated cliff, this is someone who disappeared from a busy resort, in a limited timeframe and whose disappearance was reported quickly.

It's very easy for people to lapse into the prosecutors fallacy in this case, namely that because the chances of a child dying accidentally under certain circumstances seems incredibly remote(say 1 in 1,000,000), all the remaining probability (999,999 times out of 1,000,000) must be attributed to another explanation, namely abduction.

The fact is, that you have to compare all the very remote scenarios and then weight them in proportion. I would say that the chance of an abduction is AT LEAST about 1 in 2 million.

It is a perfectly valid to arrive at the opinion that there is a greater than 50% chance that Madeleine McCann is dead and that Kate and Gerry and aware of the circumstances of her death. In the case of the probabilities I use above, it's 66%.

you do not answer questions that are trying to convict you if a crime, questions that will not help to find your child, there was not one question that was unanswered that could have done anything but impede the investigation.
And why ? because they were a means not of getting to the truth but of implicating the McCanns.
The lawyer was right to advice them to say nothing at this time.

The police knew the answers to all the questions, the McCanns had answered them in the course of the investigation, the answers the police knew and had seen for themselves.

I've (or rather the Supreme Court have) already explained that to you kkk.  Kindly re-read the post above

You need to reread mine .  You cannot incriminate yourself if you are innocent. It is an impossibility.

That's very good kkkatt, Hyatt has no new evidence, none whatsoever ever.  But he is s great talent.
I would say beware of these types of great talent , sooner or later you will have to set a revolver on your desk to protect yourself from them

DStyle the 3rd alternative which is perhaps the most likely is an accident similar to Ben Needham.  I think the chances of her being killed by her parents who then disposed of her body to be by far the least likely scenario of there being no evidence.  If I knew more about the case I suspect I would conclude it would be almost impossible, as I've seen no theory on when and how they could have disposed of the body.  Given the number of conspiracy theories online, that's the first issue that should be addressed.  No DNA, no sign of an accident, no sign of a body, no witnesses.  All of that is easily more likely if a third party abducted her or she went walkabout and met a third party accident.

Given her death at the initial stage, of course the parents being involved would be the most likely scenario.  But when there's no evidence to back that up.

The case received huge publicity (the impressions I've got was the McCanns were the main drivers) they hired a PI, and the UK police investigated it.  If you are guilty you don't want the publicity, you don't hire a PI, and you don't want the case reopened.

tobermory


That's ok, understand. No problem

yep, that's a perfectly reasonable suggestion Clydebank.

fwiw, my take is:

p(accidental death the parents were in some way partially culpable for) >
p(accident caused by third party, parents unaware of how she died)>
p(abduction) >
p(murder by parents)

they have spent far too much time defending themselves and detailing parts of the narrative which makes no contribution to helping people find a missing child.

As for the police and the PI, it merely supports the narrative of abduction.