Wednesday, 15 September 2010

"We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling"



From top British citizen, promoter of learning over superstition, an oasis of light in the darkness, National Treasure and Englishman Extraordinaire, Professor Richard Dawkins.

"We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth."

Something you might wish to consider, given the job you are in.

Needless to say, we consider greatly, those who would obscure the truth.



And of course, not least, my dear friend Dr Martin Roberts.

Be Careful What You Wish For

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
14 September 2010

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

In much the same way as the 'Tommies' of 1914-18 turned to their copies of The Wipers Times for relief from the grim absurdity of their trench-bound circumstance, we in our intermittent moments of gloom have our own paper-based comforters. It must have been a comfort to the McCanns when John Bull's various rags adopted their conclusion that Madeleine had been skilfully extracted from the family's holiday apartment by agents of paedophilia. If the unbiased opinion of academics followed suit then it had to be right, didn’t it?

On behalf of the Telegraph, Caroline Gammell in Portimao and Nick Allen in Amsterdam, announced in August of 2008:

Madeleine McCann 'snatched by international paedophile ring'

'British police believe Madeleine McCann was snatched by an international paedophile ring after she was photographed three days before she vanished, files have disclosed.

'The concern was raised in an email sent by the Metropolitan Police's intelligence unit dealing with Clubs and Vice, CO14 on March 4 this year.

'It said: "Intelligence suggests that a paedophile ring in Belgium made an order for a young girl three days before Madeleine McCann was taken.

'"Somebody connected to this group saw Maddie, took a photograph of her and sent it to Belgium. The purchaser agreed that the girl was suitable and Maddie was taken."

'The astonishing revelation supports Kate and Gerry McCann's theory that their eldest child may have been taken by a child smuggling ring.

'Written by a police officer called John Shord, it was sent to DC John Hughes at Leicestershire Police and passed on to Portuguese detectives.'

Well, the story seems to have been something of a 'slow burner', but Mademoiselles Smith and Lazzeri each remained convinced nearly a year later, both publishing in May 2009, with Lazzeri turning to none other than a top criminologist, Professor David Canter, in support of her own faith in the McCann postulate.


Paedo Shame - News of the World

Anna Smith
31/05/2009

'The more I hear about the Algarve, the sicker I feel. Investigators hunting for Madeleine McCann say the area is awash with paedophiles, with seven sex attacks on kids in the last 4 years.

'Perhaps that's why those thicko cops pointed the finger at the McCanns - by blaming them and moving on, nobody would dig up their dirt. They continue to ignore new evidence and hope what they always hoped - that this case would just go away.'


If Maddie is alive she may not answer to that name or remember who she was - The Sun

By Antonella Lazzeri
Published: 04 May 2009

Britain's top criminologist Professor David Canter….

'After studying the case closely, Prof Canter, director of The Centre for Investigative Psychology at the University of Liverpool, concluded Maddie was taken by a gang of traffickers.

'She had been left in the family holiday apartment with her twin brother and sister Sean and Amelie while her parents went to dinner with friends.

'The professor said: "Child traffickers are very quick at hiding a child's identity. In one case they managed to drug a girl, dye her hair and dress her as a boy within an hour of taking her.

"She was quickly found in the arms of an abductor but her parents barely recognised her.

"I believe Maddie was skilfully targeted. It is very unlikely that someone would break into the apartment on the off-chance.

"I don't believe it was a lone paedophile. They're very unlikely to carry out a crime like this.

"Child trafficking is a growing, very profitable industry. There is a good chance Maddie is alive."

Eventually then, a degree of credibility is bestowed upon the McCann view. But is it a starred first, garnered through diligent research, or a hasty third scribbled after 'last orders' at the local?

Representatives of diverse religious communities have, as we know, spoken out recently in opposition to certain views expressed by Professor Richard Dawkins. It is a moot point as to whether they fear the wrath of their Gods more than the prospect of redundancy, but here is one of Dawkins' sage (and televised) comments concerning 'evidence':

"We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth."

Dawkins' concern for the primacy of evidential argument is widely shared. One discovers, deep in vaults of the internet, such comments as the following:

"The Casa Pia court ruling has given fresh venom for all those primarily concerned with their disgust at Madeleine's parents. With no evidence to support their hatred, they are blind with rage and remain a fixated darker side to the internet that can only be usurped by the criminal activities of the paedophiles they willingly defend in preference to admitting to themselves that they are wholly wrong." (Dr Stein's Chaosraptors.com)

Venomous hatred is surely an emotional state of mind, hardly governed by 'evidence.' Unlike the author here I would rather only speak for myself, but my primary concern is not with my own disgust, however manifest. If it were I'd be in serious need of a 'shrink'. Nor does any failure on my part to admit that I am in error as regards my understanding of the McCann case, or anything else, imply that I am a willing defender of paedophiles. Like so many others, I am simply reluctant to accept an explanation of events for which there is no evidence, especially when there is evidence to support an alternative interpretation.

Anyway, so long as we're all agreed that evidence is paramount, let us turn now to the Sunday Express story of September 5.

Paedophile ring with link to Madeleine McCann jailed

By James Murray

"One of the abused boys, Pedro Namora, is now a lawyer and was a key witness in the case.

"He wants Portuguese detectives to continue their probe as he believes the ring may be connected to the disappearance of Madeleine at the Praia da Luz resort on the Algarve in May 2007."

In Dr Stein's opinion:

"This recent criminal convictions (sic) in Portugal opens up the question as to how endemic child abuse rings actually are, not just in Portugal but in other countries as well. The parents of missing British child Madeleine McCann will take little comfort in learning that such prominent figures have been involved with child abuse. In a somewhat guarded comment, Clarence Mitchell, the McCann's official spokesman said that they had been following this case but had found no link to Madeleine's disappearance and a paedophile gang."

Well, well, well.

So there are sophisticated paedophile networks operating in Portugal after all. It wasn't just a figment of the McCanns' imagination. How could they have guessed?

There is a hint here of the McCanns having pinned their theoretical prospects on something in the ether, which, now that it has been publicly distilled, has suddenly become a politically dangerous association, and one from which they are better off 'distanced'. Retreat brings with it its own problems however.

There is apparently no evidence of any link between the Casa Pia investigation, Madeleine's disappearance and a paedophile gang. Clarence says so. It must be true. But James Murray's 'header' clearly refers to the accused in the Case Pia case as having a link to Madeleine McCann (is that libellous?). Unless we've all been seriously misinformed, those prosecuted in Portugal were not simply 'linked' with a paedophile ring, they formed one. So the Mitchell claim here that there is nothing to link the Casa Pia case with a paedophile gang is nonsense. But is that part of what he said? Not really. Mitchell's remark appears to imply that there is no connection between the child molesters of Casa Pia notoriety with 'the gang', (i.e. another gang) that took Madeleine.

Are we here contemplating a paedophile analog of the mafia, with several 'families' in contention for the available business, or territories of abuse, defined like the protected 'trading patches' in the vicinity of football stadia known to have provoked 'hot dog wars' in the past? It all seems a bit extreme somehow, inclining to the rife end of the endemic spectrum. And yet... these are the words of a commentator after all - a paraphrase of some remark or other made by Clarence Mitchell, which could just as easily have taken the form employed by a genuine journalist, James Murray, in his on-line version of events published Sept. 5:

"Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, said they had been closely following the Casa Pia case but did not have a lead linking Madeleine's disappearance to the paedophile ring."

On this view there is only one ring - the ring. And Madeleine's disappearance is not connected with it.

Since we know from the testimony of an acknowledged expert in his field that Madeleine would not have been taken by a 'lone wolf', the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn, based on the available evidence, is that Madeleine was not abducted by or on behalf of any paedophile whatsoever.

Which brings us necessarily to the question of motive. If someone abducts a child it is for a reason, and the case of missing Madeleine is unquestionably one of abduction, by definition (O.E.D: abduction, n. Illegal carrying off, esp. of a child, ward;). There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that Madeleine McCann, alive or dead, was illegally carried off. And now that we may dispense with the paedophile hypothesis as an obscuration of the truth, we can justifiably contemplate some alternative explanation(s) as to why, even at the risk of igniting venomous hatred.

With thanks to the mccannfiles.com. No permanent link, reproduced in its entirety.