Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: Duhhhh… more 'news' in the McCann case from the media Mensa Society

By Paul Wallis     Sep 14, 2007 in Crime
Having not been theoretically killed by any other possible source in the last 24 hours, missing toddler Madeline McCann is now a victim of an overdose of sleeping tablets. This theory is based on the “bodily fluids” found so belatedly.
Those "fluids" are about all that's holding together the reporting of the case, and the reporting's looking a bit "fluid" itself.
This news from the Sydney Morning Herald deserves a bit of vivisection:
French newspaper France Soir said scientific analysis of the bodily fluids found in the boot of the car hired by parents Kate and Gerry McCann proved "the little girl had ingested medicines, without doubt sleeping pills, in large quantities".”
1. This assumes that the bodily fluids are Madeleine’s, based on DNA matching, and then leaps to a cause of death.
2. A DNA match, by definition, isn’t a chemical analysis of specific toxins.
3. Commercial medicines aren’t that hard to identify, either, even with low grade samples.
4. Yes, an overdose could have caused bladder failure, (however badly expressed), and there’s evidence of “bodily fluids” elsewhere.
5. However, if that’s the case, there should be a list of matching pathology and evidence as long as the case has been so far. A court wouldn’t arrive at the conclusion “bodily fluids = overdose of sleeping pills” quite so blithely, and would need a bit more qualification.
6. The theory itself lacks a few things. Madeline is supposed to have ingested "large amounts" of sleeping pills. It’s not that easy for a little kid to do that. It does happen, tragically, but it’s not that often.
7. Nor is it plausible that a child would eat “large amounts” of foul tasting sleeping tablets. They’re not sweets.
8. Relative to body size, "large amounts" aren't necessary. A few could easily be fatal.
There's any number of possible reasons for the "bodily fluids", but in terms of a criminal investigation, you're not supposed to just make them up as you go along. Unless there's hard evidence, this isn't news, or anything resembling news. This is like gossip by committee, newspapers quoting each other.
We know move on to the rest of Einstein’s previously unknown work in criminal investigation. Pausing only to mention that France Soir said that a report of Madeleine's "death" (still not official) was now with authorities, the article scurries on. Despite a few lines from other sources throwing doubt on the quality of the DNA and forensic evidence, there dredges from the depths this helpful bit of information:
The report supports theories published in Portugal that Kate McCann was involved in Madeleine's death while on holiday in Portugal, and that her husband helped her dispose of their daughter's body.”
Oh, how informative. Intellectual orgasms all round. Forget Shakespeare, the dictionary, or the laws of defamation, we have these guys, taking up space using someone unspecified, to promote theories from third parties:
1. The report doesn’t actually support those theories because it doesn’t even mention them, according to the article.
2. “Involved”- that’s nice and definitive. Does it mean anything?
3. Her husband is automatically made an accessory to a crime that hasn’t even been proved to have occurred.
When this story first started, I decided to stay clear. I don’t find the disappearance of little kids pleasant to think about. However, seeing the conceptual dog’s breakfast being made of the logic, something woke up my strenuously self-repressed satirical instincts. I wonder why.
More about Mccann, Media, Evidence
Latest News
Top News