10 Comments

The Rebuttals

rebutalRead Everything

And ignore nothing.  One factual site that everybody should read is the Rebuttals that dispel many myths that have circulated around the internet with regards to the disappearance of Madeleine.  As you click on each rebuttal you will read the truth behind many of the myths that surround the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  These are rebuttals to various leaflets and books that are out there, telling you the parents “did it”.

Each rebuttal is resourced and each rebuttal will give you the links to the true facts not the myths that some people want you to believe.

When there is a case like the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, two sides form, one side thinking the parents did it and the other side in support of the parents.

And as a person you have to make an informed choice, you have to decide what you think. You must be interested in what happened to even be reading the various articles out there. But never allow yourself to become biased or refuse to open your mind to the fact that your gut instinct could be wrong.

One of the things that was always a niggling doubt to me, and kept cropping up time and time again, was this:

If the parents were involved, why did the dogs only mark clothing belonging to Kate and the on of the twins and not Gerry?

Surely if they were committing such a heinous crime, the fear of getting caught would have played so heavily on their minds, that if Gerry was involved and destroyed his clothes why did he not make Kate do the same?

If you as a person refuse to listen to the arguments from the other side you allow yourself to become blinkered and biased.  And by not reading everything and ignoring the stuff that can prove a persons’s innocence you are adding to their pain.  And in the McCann case, the pain they are already suffering because their child is missing.

In a court of law a prosecution barrister or lawyer will put forward the argument as to why this person is guilty of the crime.  The defence will then put forward their rebuttal to the evidence offered by the prosecution which will prove their client is innocent.

The jury that reside and listen to all the evidence from both sides or the Magistrates that sit on the bench then have the task to question the evidence put forward from both sides and determine who is speaking the truth and whether this person did commit this crime.

If they jury have a shadow of doubt that this person could be guilty they have to say so, they have to return a not guilty verdict.  The prosecution has lost the case. If the evidence is so compelling that it is clearly evident this person committed this crime then the jury have to find the defendant guilty.  If they can’t decide then the prosecution have the right to ask for a re-trial where a whole new jury will sit and hear the evidence once again in hope that they can reach a verdict.

Kate and Gerry McCann are not in a Court of Law, they are slap bang in the middle of a public trial on forums and blogs.  Each blog or forum refuting what the other is saying.  But when you get a group of people who source their material and present the facts to you then you can clearly see who is right or wrong.

That is exactly what Jayelles and her team have done, they have taken the 50 facts leaflet produced by the Madeleine Foundation and the e-book profile written by Pat Brown and then given you the arguments against what these people have written.

They have not abused, got into any slanging matches, they have clearly and concisely put the facts forward that refute what the other person has said.

So to anyone who is starting to read about this case, forget about what side people are on and read everything, forget about the opinions written on various forums and blogs, read the files, read the books, and most of all read the rebuttals.  And if you think you may have got it so wrong initially, then have the courage to speak out.  This is not some armchair detective cluedo game being played out on forums and blogs, this is real people with real lives and feelings and a real-life little girl who is missing.

It will be then and only then that you can truly decide who is right and who is wrong.  Facts and evidence lead you to one conclusion only, and they have led me to that conclusion. But it is not down to me to try to persuade anyone what to think, I can only say read everything and ignore nothing.

And it is only by taking that stance did I realise that  my original opinions in this case were so, so wrong.

It is down to research, reading while ignoring assumptions, speculations and innuendos. And reading things for what they are and only reading and using facts to form your opinion. That is when you will get to the truth.  You will never get to the truth if you ignore the other side of the argument and you will become is another person that fails to comprehend there are always three sides to a story.  Theirs, yours and, in between those two sides, lies the truth. And the rebuttals lead you to the facts.

Advertisements

10 comments on “The Rebuttals

  1. Hello Sarah, I put it down to selective reading.  Ignore the parts that dispute their arguments, brush them under the carpet as if they are not true.

    It is only when you read all parts and digest them and accept what is being said do you then start to see the facts and truth.

  2. Always baffled me that people seem unable to accept the dog handler’s own words. The dogs do NOT exclusively alert to cadaver odour – BOTH dogs alert to a variety of human secretions from LIVE people, such as blood. He says so in his statements in the files. He also explained it further after the Jersey Case (where BOTH dogs alerted to tissues used to clean up after sexual activity). So if HE can’t determine exactly what the dogs alerted to – then neither can we.

  3. Jayelles wrote:Thank you.It really does beggar belief to
    think that the McCanns kept moving their daughter’s decomposing body around
    Europe. Yet Pat Brown seems to think that’s “more believable” than Matt Oldfield
    offering to check the McCann kids on his way to check his own.On her
    blog she also argues that the McCanns could have carried Madeleine’s body home
    to the UK in their luggage because it would have “mummified” in the Portuguese
    climate. Ehm…. noooo. She also waffled on about how being buried in the sand
    would help mummification. LOL In a desert maybe. Dig down a few inches in the
    sand at Praia da Luz and the sand will only be wet and cold.IMO, the
    woman is out of touch with reality.

    ——————————————————————————————

     

     

    I guess PB must have read thentherewere4’s theory re. the
    body being brought back on an EJ flight.

     

    OR

     

    read Amaral’s mummification twaddle..

     
    Q: Do you think the body was
    refrigerated?
     
    A: Yes. The bodily fluid in the car show that. If the body had been buried
    there would have been mummification. The fact that there were fluids points to
    refrigeration.

     

  4. Welcome Samantha, to be honest I have not even paid for Pat Brown’s book, I have read the snippets that have been made available and decided my £2.12 would be best spent in buying a bull-shite meter. LOL

    I was only talking to someone last night about this case and we were talking about how Kate and Gerry have acted.  Now I may be totally wrong, but I think Gerry took a clinical approach to what had happened.

    When you think about things, doctors, policemen, firemen, soldiers are taught not to let things get to them or become emotional over things. Soldiers are taught that their emotions could end up killing them if they let it get in way of their job.  Doctors are taught to treat a human body as a piece of machinery, and when it goes wrong fix it and sometimes things are beyond repair and there is nothing you can do.  If a doctor got upset and grieved for every patient they could not save they would be emotional wrecks.  They learn to distance themselves and I am beginning to wonder if that mechanism kicked in with Gerry.  That is why he seemed so aloof, so matter of fact.  He knew, as Kate said so in her book, if he gave into his emotions it would have destroyed both of them.  

    Kate said in the interview about the search and how it must continue, if she had thought for one minute she would be in the same position 4 years down the line, she would not have coped.

    And the truth is none of us saw them away from the cameras.  And what does the world expect them to do, never laugh again, never smile.  Sometimes even in drastic, sad times, something happens that is light-hearted that makes you smile.  It is not a crime and it is not a sin and if people really think about it, it is far better for the twins to see their parents with a smile than having to see them breaking down and not being able to cope.  These two little people, were still babies and they did not understand what was going on and still don’t in many respects.

    One thing you have to admire the McCanns for, is holding it all together, so many families part when there has been a tragedy like this.  Their marriage must have been strong and resolute for it to survive. These two people have battled hell and earth and are still together, when it might have been so easy for one of them to try to walk away from it all or tried to blame the other for what happened.  They have kept their family unit, solid and firm and that can only be beneficial to the twins.  They had already lost their sister the last thing these poor children ever needed was to lose a parent through divorce.

  5. Very true, all we can do is speculate what a person might do.  I can remember  we had just moved to our house and my dog was still a puppy.  Anyway the other half had taken him for a walk and was in the porch taking his lead off when the door must have not been shut properly and the dog done a runner.

    I grabbed my car keys, legged it out of the house to drive round looking for him.  My other half went running after him but that made the dog run further. As we live on a bus route we were in a state of panic.  Anyway I caught up with the dog he was sitting in my friends garden two streets away.  He jumped in the car and came home.  But when I got back with dog and after driving to collect OH who was in a state of panic, I had realised I had left the front door wide open in my panic.  Anyone could have come in and taken anything.  I just went did not think about shutting doors or anything.

  6. People deal with trauma and grief in different ways. 

  7. No one is ever in anyone else’s shoes. We can all think “Now, if that had been me…” or “Yes, I remember a vaguely similar situation…” but that’s it. 

  8. Kudos to the team on the latest rebuttal and I can well imagine the time it took. I find it sad that these rebuttals were needed in the first place. 

  9. Hi. Dropping a few research abstracts.The Criminal Profiling IllusionWhat’s Behind the Smoke and Mirrors?Brent SnookMemorial University of Newfoundland, [e-mail redacted]Richard M. CullenMemorial University of NewfoundlandCraig BennellCarleton UniversityPaul J. TaylorLancaster UniversityPaul GendreauUniversity of New Brunswick -Saint JohnAbstractThere is a belief that criminal profilers can predict a criminal’s characteristics from crime scene evidence. In this article, the authors argue that this belief may be an illusion and explain how people may have been misled into believing that criminal profiling (CP) works despite no sound theoretical grounding and no strong empirical support for this possibility. Potentially responsible for this illusory belief is the information that people acquire about CP, which is heavily influenced by anecdotes, repetition of the message that profiling works, the expert profiler label, and a disproportionate emphasis on correct predictions. Also potentially responsible are aspects of information processing such as reasoning errors, creating meaning out of ambiguous information, imitating good ideas, and inferring fact from fiction. The authors conclude that CP should not be used as an investigative tool because it lacks scientific support.http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/35/10/1257.abstract–Criminal Profiling and Criminal InvestigationChristopher DeveryNew South Wales Police Force College, Goulburn, Australia,[e-mail redacted]AbstractA review of the development of criminal profiling demonstrates that profiling has never been a scientific process. It is essentially based on a compendium of common sense intuitions and faulty theoretical assumptions, and in practice appears to consist of little more than educated guesses and wishful thinking. While it is very difficult to find cases where profiling made a critical contribution to an investigation, there exist a number of cases where a profile, combined with investigative and prosecutorial enthusiasm, derailed the investigation and even contributed to serious miscarriages of justice. As a result, police agencies should carefully consider whether the development of in-house profiling capability, or use of external consultants to provide such services, is justified.http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/26/4/393.abstract—A longer article. Mentions David Canter.http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal.aspx

  10. Ah. Just realised that it’s when I get asked for a captcha thingy that the para spacing disappears. How odd. LOL

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: