McCannfiles
EXCLUSIVE
to mccannfiles.com
LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS
By Dr Martin Roberts
12 January 2011
Unfortunately, these are the hallmarks of the McCann case The first two in particular. But let's start by allowing McCann with a professional interest in the epidemiology of dispensing with the third.
Gerry McCann (Ian Woods of Sky News): "... if you think about the millions and millions of British families who come each year to the Mediterranean, in reality the chances of this happening are around hundred million to one. "
or more than seven times the odds of winning the jackpot on the UK national lottery (1 in 13,983,816).
Is it true that the McCanns have bad luck?
Let
more topical issues.
Finally, for anyone with the hope that the McCann brought to justice, that desire is about to be granted. A facebook recent statement made by the couple said:
"we have pushed back the release Of Our book to Madeleine's birthday. May 12, 2011. as much We Need Exposure for the book so we CAN get Madeleine home. "
" We delayed the release of our book to Madeleine's birthday. On May 12, 2011. need much publicity for the book so that we can bring Madeleine home. "
" I can ask as much publicity as what? "For" = "in order". Hence the purpose of advertising the book is " bring Madeleine home. "Put another way, the return of Madeleine McCann on the number of people are familiar / the number of people who have purchased / number of people who have read the next work of the McCanns. How does that work? How many people should read the Book of Revelation before his prophecies to be represented?
appears that you need some clarification.
Clarence Mitchell (Stephen Nolan, BBC Radio Five Live, 07.01.2011): "No, it will be the story of Kate. Kate is writing. Gerry, of course, is ... is helping but will essentially be a work of Kate. To ... almost from the first day it happened, err ... I have been under pressure from several publishers, some of them very polite, very persistent, saying they should write a book, or that someone else wrote for them. Kate and Gerry have always said that they would not do that, they felt it was the right time, had more important things to do in the search for her daughter. They have decided now, and has largely been driven by the need to raise money for ... so the search continues, that this is the right time to be writing the book. Kate has been writing for several months. 've Probably written about sixty or seventy thousand words, and errm ... will be released on May 12 is the eighth Madeleine's birthday. It is designed to keep your search going. That's the simple reason. "
Very noble by Clarence resist pressure from the publishers from" the first day that happened. " Being a great teacher experience, no doubt found the days when it happened rather easier to tackle. Whatever the case. The official line, through the ubiquitous "source close to the McCanns" clearly is that the book is being written to raise money (no surprise in that), not as a catalyst precursor to the safe return of Madeleine, which in any case difficult would be contingent on "the story of Kate."
Clarence Mitchell: "Errr ... All kinds of inquiries, requests for interviews, suggested activities, possible sightings of Madeleine. All sorts of things. All must either be given to private investigators or we decide how we will treat them. "
The search for Madeleine should continue. But notice how it should be credited warning now, not with the probability of sighting of Madeleine, whose possible presence was previously done, but categorical watching someone who could be Madeleine. It's a subtle change of emphasis, but "possible" is less than an attribute of a sighting in itself that the existence of the object. Clearly there are two main actors in this process of investigation, private investigators and the "team" decision-making. No other body is included in the list. So how does Mitchell make the following statement?
Clarence Mitchell: "Anything that develops a profile, errr ... as high as it has done this event attracts all kinds of people. You're absolutely right. Errm ... the vast majority of them are well intended and whether the information can be checked and potentially credible or believable then passes through, not only of the British police, passed by the Portuguese police and private investigators to be evaluated, prioritized. It is largely a police operation. Are former British police who are working on it and therefore they will act. But between them (the people), of course, occasionally say things slightly more crazy. "
Here the" private investigators "are on the third line and still carry out the assessment and prioritize the information. Neither the British nor the Portuguese police receive information before it is "proven" and deemed credible or even potentially credible. So the rule still resides in private. The batting order has been neatly reversed. This was highlighted earlier in another place (Peter Levy - BBC Radio Humberside - 01/06/2011)
"But today, errm ... is ... research is a private research is led by Dave Edgar, who is a former RUC officer, errr ... retired ... and requests support errr, errr ... their teammates, former teammates of several police forces as and when needed. Errr ... And work is underway in England and Portugal at different times but, because to the sensitive nature of that obviously I can not go into details, but it is very consistent. "
is not a police operation that is carried out by former members of the RUC does not make one.
"Follow the money" they say. At the moment we should follow the grammar - the logic.
Stephen Nolan: "But how do you think might be, Clarence ... what are the chances that Madeleine is still alive given that level of advertising?"
Clarence Mitchell: "Although you may be alive because there is no evidence to suggest that it is and that's the whole basis on which the investigation, private investigation, continues to this day. In the absence of anything to suggest that has been damaged or, as you suggest, have been killed, and there is no evidence to suggest that, then not only Kate and Gerry but everyone who works with them will go on until it finds a answer. "
not forget that this is an interview with the media, not a court of justice, hence the word" test "should entail far fewer constraints, one is entitled to consider indicators beyond completely tangible. That being the case, Mitchell's opening statement here is false and "the whole basis on which the private investigation continues," is itself a falsehood. Mitchell continues to reiterate the logic of the absurd - and more than once.
Stephen Nolan: "What is now your instinct of what happened? Do you feel comfortable sharing? "
Clarence Mitchell:" My instinct has been, and remains, that there is a possibility that you are alive and on that basis we are all doing this. We would not do ... if we thought there was no hope, you know, what reasons would have to move forward? But because there is this absence of anything to suggest what has happened, it is equally logical to move forward. That surely is what Kate and Gerry keeps working. Obviously, as parents, they maintain that. Yet for all his followers, people who are trying to help, including myself, honestly do not know what happened and therefore I have to move, while they want to help them I will be happy to do it. "
" test "has become" no suggestion "and anyone who has followed this case even with a minimum degree of care know that there is much to suggest what did not happen and what happened. Something happened. Something did not happen. Kate McCann tells everyone publicly that she "knows what happened" because he was there. Mitchell may have been out of the loop for too long. "
Peter Levy:" What do you think they (the McCann), what they believe is the strongest possibility ... what happened to the small Madeleine? "
Clarence Mitchell:" Kate and Gerry know Mad ... know their daughter well enough to know that it left the apartment on his own feet, as often been speculated. The only assumption you can make is that someone took the apartment. That is the working hypothesis which is also based private research. That someone, maybe one, or just two or three people out there who know what happened and there was an element of premeditation in planning. Possibly because of the location of the apartment, was in a rather remote corner of this complex in particular. Errm ... I would have kids going back and forth for months / weeks in advance and then ... the ... private research think there is a degree of premeditation and planning, errm ... and the fact that it has found nothing of Madeleine since then, not a single trace, tends to suggest that has been carried elsewhere and has been ... wait, is being treated, or at least cared for, errr ... with someone. Errr ... That's ... that's the hypothesis. In some cases, if ... God forbid, had been damaged, probably would have been found long ago but has not been and why they keep going. "
Had you ever heard such nonsense? The McCanns, who know what happened ("I knew immediately, was taken" - Kate McCann) are reduced to make a single assumption, which in turn becomes the fulcrum of research (British police) private, and the belief that there was an element of planning is assumed, because of the comings and goings of children in Praia da Luz weeks and months ahead! ("We had been watching for several days I'm sure" - Kate McCann). Oh, and "the fact that it has found nothing of Madeleine since then, not a single trace, tends to suggest that has been taken somewhere else." Do not tell me.
Peter Levy: "So why the belief is that it is ... she is alive and being cared for and probably even Portugal?
Clarence Mitchell: "As ... as Kate and Gerry have always said, until they have the answer to what happened and until they present irrefutable evidence that has been damaged, they will believe, as is logical without any evidence to counter that she could easily still be alive. "
Surely someone with professional credentials enough to have seen it moved to the Foreign Office should realize that" belief "and" logic "are not stable mates. Clarence Mitchell probably realizes that. As probably he, like the McCanns, is confident that the rest of us are not doing it.
Clarence Mitchell: "... Today is a very small minority but that is heard in line, the joys of the Internet. Internet is a wonderful thing but it has its disadvantages, as we all know. There is a very noisy but very small minority of people who believe that Kate and Gerry were negligent and today they cry and rant. Not important / can not do anything, and do not know anything and is ... is completely irrelevant. But keep a watchful eye ... what they are saying and whether actions should be taken, in some cases, well done. "
idealism Oh! Mitchell Lurkio time ("Oh, woe and thrice woe") could return to haunt him. The "very small minority ... can not do anything (wrong), does not know anything (wrong), and is totally irrelevant." (Wrong again.)
So as we progress to the blatantly misleading insincere
Stephen Nolan: "It took a lot of money the campaign?"
Clarence Mitchell: "... Everything was spent in research and maintenance private research in two countries, sometimes on several continents where there were things that should be investigated around the world, is an expensive business. This has been spent on various contracts, several private agencies, errm ... since ... since it happened. "
lawyers with experience in extradition and defamation were safely employed after" occurred ", having these past quite far longer in the endzone, but the launches are far from over and may even be the turn of the auctioneers.
Stephen Nolan: "And presumably, Clarence, you're on the phone with the editors of these newspapers warning them of legal threats. The lawyers are on the phone. "You're on the phone trying to stop this and keep doing this?"
(We interrupt this broadcast to offer a preliminary exchange on the topic of "negligence", a previously defined facto Stephen Nolan as "irrelevant" )
Peter Levy: "Why captured the imagination?"
Clarence Mitchell: "Oh, how long is your program? There all sorts of reasons but essentially, errm ... this ... this ... was influenced by every parent's nightmare of losing your child while you're on vacation, errr ... raised the whole question of parental responsibility. Kate and Gerry felt that they and their friends were putting together a control system perfectly right and proper about ... about ... ... given the lack of resources available at the time, but made a mistake and they ... they were wrong.
"... there is a very small vocal minority found that ... the attack for being negligent. That is completely out of place and totally wrong. "
How did it come to pose a question as "irrelevant"? Parents chose not to pay an additional supplement for the care of children does not imply lack of resources - the same resource that had been used daily. And if a stranger steals a child, how can that be a mistake of the parents? Unless, of course, commit the error of "contributing to neglect." But then the issue would not be totally irrelevant, totally out of place or wrong is not it?
(We return to find the answer I gave to Stephen Nolan Clarence Mitchell)
Clarence Mitchell: "... the whole issue was silly but it was boosting sales of newspapers ... obviously had legitimate questions about the safety of children and parental responsibility ... errr ... would talk to reporters on the ground and talk to the editors . Sometimes made the difference. In general, in some cases, under one iota, not a shred of difference. "
Well I will return what was said earlier about Mitchell's knowledge of belief versus logic. Anyone able to match the general with a specific ad hoc so probably will not notice the difference between empiricism and blind faith, after all. Far more importantly, CM makes it clear that questions relating to child safety and responsibility, that is, issues of negligence, were both legitimate and inevitable. And you've lost this tortuous observation on the subject, here it is again:
"... there is a very small vocal minority found that ... the attack for being negligent. This is completely out of place and totally wrong. "
So it is not misplaced. And when one takes into account the parents' own admissions, for example, "Extremely went to the Tapas Bar ", by way of explanation for having left three children under five years alone and unattended for over an hour," completely wrong "does not seem to fit into the question later. However, something must be done about that information maverick right? We will conclude with the opinion of a professional Public Relations, as an expert in the use of "shirking" as anyone else in his line of work.
Stephen Nolan: "So, Clarence, what ... what has to happen? Does ... does the PCC, the Complaints Committee of the Press? Errr ... Should there be a change in legislation? What should happen?
Clarence Mitchell: "Well, we ... we try to appeal to the PCC, at times, and were very helpful in terms of logistical things, like keeping the photographers away from the home of the McCanns. There were photographers camped outside his home at the end of your street for six months. We even had paparazzi, who normally works with celebrities did ... in Los Angeles, appearing there looking. And, you know, we had to explain patiently that the McCanns were not celebrities, they do not deserve this this type of intrusion and photographers should be removed. The PCC was fantastic in that case, they were really helpful. But in terms of getting to sit and really listen to editors and publishers of certain newspapers, I fear that we had to, reluctantly, take the deck of the defamation claim and say, "you apologize, fix it, errr ... on our terms or go beyond. " And fortunately, after much discussion - Express Group being the best example - finally agreed with us. Errrm ... But it was an action reluctantly. You know, I should not have reached that point. But it was not our decision. "
For those unfamiliar with the techniques of copywriters," We try to use the PCC sometimes "means exactly what it says. Most of the time did not appeal to the PCC at all, and on those occasions when they could have just tried.
For its part, the PCC has long explained that his role is not to prejudge the outcome of a story but to take action if they receive a complaint. McCann did not complain to the PCC on the coverage of Express Group, for example. The "big deck of defamation" was not an instrument of last resort, except in the chronological sense. Most of what was written in the press during a torrid period for which the McCanns claimed damages, could have easily nipped in the bud from the beginning. It was not. The "history" of Kate so important to bring Madeleine home, could have been written and published long before now, the existence of a sense of urgency related to the disappearance of any child, or that of an adult. It was not.
Four years later. We traveled with the McCanns and their spokespersons from "blinds forced" to want the case under review (as a precursor to its reopening.) And there are no closer to the truth.
Mercedes Translation
0 comments:
Post a Comment