|It had been 26 years, and the bullshit written about the creche registers continued to grow|
It's an interesting question, is it not?
So when is a researcher not a researcher?
Well, for starters when they ignore all the evidence which does not fit with their world view
When they challenge people to prove them wrong, people prove them wrong, and they run into the night, bleating that they have been disrespected.
When they suggest the evidence is right because they have worked so hard, rather than understanding that all research stands or falls by how robust the data and the methods are.
Hi de ho is the worst kind of researcher:
She's a terrible researcher who thinks she's great
Let's summarise her ''research'', shall we?
If you are a detective and you want to determine when someone was last seen, what kind of evidence do you look for?
Well, you look for the following:
When were they last seen by someone who could make a positive identification?
When did they last use credit cards, entry-system swipe cards, or any other activity which creates an electronic signature tying them to time and place?
Do they appear on CCTV or any other image-capture technology?
Were they carrying a mobile phone which may have connected with bases, showing their position?
In Madeleine's case, we have eyewitness ID from people who knew her
We have no image capture such as CCTV, but we have indications that she and her family have been captured in the background of pictures taken by holidaymakers. There are also photographs taken during the holiday by members of her own party.
We have a partial record of her movements in the form of the creche registers
All of the above fully support the fact that Madeleine was alive and well until some time on the evening of 3rd May 2007
The only way to prove she was not is to prove beyond doubt that all the above are mistaken, forged, innaccurate, open to other interpretations.
And that is what Hi de ho attempts to do.
Conveniently, all the witnesses who knew her by sight become confused, mixing her up with another child because ''they all look the same''
Here's the thing : they do not all look the same, in particular they do not all look the same to teachers and nursery workers who interact with them all day, who have to take them out and account for them all, who have to sign them in and sign them out again.
|No matter how she tried, Lizzie couldn't understand why people laughed at her "They all look the same" theory|
Likewise, suddenly the registers become a gold mine of irregularities to whet her little busybody appetite - all deeply suspicious of course
Anyone who has ever kept a signing in book at reception knows that sometimes people write in the wrong column, or can't remember their car reg, and have no clue what the bloody date is - it is rarely a perfectly annotated, 100% accurate document|
But the standard of the analysis is frankly laughable. Take this, for example
One major 'lightbulb' moment that struck me in the above scenario, is that Tuesday lunchtime, Jez, Russell and Gerry all walked together to the creche, but Russell did not sign his child out.Is it POSSIBLE that Gerry signed and it was Ella that was picked up, therefore establishing that the child Gerry was associated with was Ella (keeping in mind the names were possibly not important to the nannies) and because Russell was with him, Ella would have gone with them easily?Initially I saw the possibility for only Tuesday but yesterday I realised how the whole week can be explained in a similar way!For me... this is a huge discovery!
I'm sure it is, dear.
But this is your problem. Everything to you is ''possible''
What you NEVER consider is "Is it likely, reasonable or plausible?"
And this is the absolute nub of the problem. You are very quick to ''find'' another possible interpretation, but you never ever consider how likely or unlikely it is.
You and your idiot friends have a vested interest here - you have a fully-developed scenario that Madeleine died days before she disappeared. The problem is, there is plenty of evidence to say that simply wasn't the case.
So what do you do? You try to make the evidence fit your theory
And it should always be the other way round.
I am not surprised people laugh at you, make fun of your pious nonsense. I well remember how you wrote absolute bollocks about "15 out of 19" markers, literally for years, despite being repeatedly corrected. Once an idea has cracked it's way inside your narrow skull, it's a bastard to shift, isn't it?
So here's the thing.
Why don't the police agree with you? Because they don't agree with you, let's be quite adamant about that.
It's because none of the evidence supports it
There are eyewitnesses
There are creche records
There are fucking photographs, for crying out loud.
And what is really telling about the dumbfuck scenario you and Baldytwat have come up with is that it only works if ALL the evidence is manipulated or dismissed.
Proper researchers don't do that. That's why you are not one.
It's also why you offend anyone who is.
So here's a thought - leave the research to people who have honesty, integrity and the required expertise.
And stick to what you're good at
|Also available in Maple|