UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: AnneGuedes on February 23, 2014, 11:32:44 PM
-
How could Ms Tanner be more guilty for not having imagined that she was spotting an abduction than Mr McCann who saw a door abnormally open and didn't investigate behind the door ?
-
How could Ms Tanner be more guilty for not having imagined that she was spotting an abduction than Mr McCann who saw a door abnormally open and didn't investigate behind the door ?
If I found a door in my house more open than I had previously remembered it to be. The last thing I would think was that someone might be standing behind it.
Neither does it occur to me that every child I see being carried by an adult is being abducted.
Hindsight is such a wonderful thing. It never ceases to amaze me how many people fail to remember that the McCanns nor their friends had the same hindsight as they now have - and which is constantly and so unfairly used agaiinst them. imo.
-
How could Ms Tanner be more guilty for not having imagined that she was spotting an abduction than Mr McCann who saw a door abnormally open and didn't investigate behind the door ?
Guilt is not relative.
-
Guilt is not relative.
?
Actually it was Mr McCann who spoke of Ms Tanner's guilt for not stopping the abductor !
-
Guilt is not relative.
I think we have a problem in this respect with the way language is used. Guilt and innocence are strict absolutes. The issue becomes clouded by "guilty in the eyes of the law" and "innocent in the eyes of the law". "Guilty in the eyes of the law" may not satisfy the strict absolute. Hence miscarriages of justice which we are about!
-
?
Actually it was Mr McCann who spoke of Ms Tanner's guilt for not stopping the abductor !
I was speaking of the fact that Ms Tanner's account of bundleman cannot have been made up and furthermore must have been reasonably accurate, given that SY managed to match her testimony with that of the innocent parent meeting that description who presented himself.
She 'exonerated' herself as an accused illusionist.
-
I think we have a problem in this respect with the way language is used. Guilt and innocence are strict absolutes. The issue becomes clouded by "guilty in the eyes of the law" and "innocent in the eyes of the law". "Guilty in the eyes of the law" may not satisfy the strict absolute. Hence miscarriages of justice which we are about!
Miscarriages of justices also occur because of flaws within the system.
But in the above post I was referencing Anne's comment in which she compared the guilt of Gerry McCann in not spotting a (fictitious, according to Anne) abductor in his apartment, with the guilt of Jane Tanner in not apprehending a (fictitious, according to Anne) bundleman / abductor.
Hard to understand, logicians of the world, n'est-ce pas?
-
Miscarriages of justices also occur because of flaws within the system.
But in the above post I was referencing Anne's comment in which she compared the guilt of Gerry McCann in not spotting a (fictitious, according to Anne) abductor in his apartment, with the guilt of Jane Tanner in not apprehending a (fictitious, according to Anne) bundleman / abductor.
Hard to understand, logicians of the world, n'est-ce pas?
No, I wasn't discussing guilts, just referring to Mr McCann's comment in an interview. He explained Ms Tanner's feeling of guilt as a consequence of her having been so close to the abductor without reacting, as if himself was free of that feeling while he didn't react to the door more open that he left it, a fact that he underlined in his brief report to the PJ, on the ground and in the middle of the night.
It's as if guilt happens only to others.
-
No, I wasn't discussing guilts, just referring to Mr McCann's comment in an interview. He explained Ms Tanner's feeling of guilt as a consequence of her having been so close to the abductor without reacting, as if himself was free of that feeling while he didn't react to the door more open that he left it, a fact that he underlined in his brief report to the PJ, on the ground and in the middle of the night.
It's as if guilt happens only to others.
I see what you mean, Anne.
Gerry McCann's failure to confront his feelings of personal guilt takes many interesting forms in this case.
-
I see what you mean, Anne.
Gerry McCann's failure to confront his feelings of personal guilt takes many interesting forms in this case.
I don't think that Mr McCann feels like a guilty one, it's not in his nature, he feels like a saviour.
-
I don't think that Mr McCann feels like a guilty one, it's not in his nature, he feels like a saviour.
He is blocking it all out.
His denial here takes many forms.
-
No, I wasn't discussing guilts, just referring to Mr McCann's comment in an interview. He explained Ms Tanner's feeling of guilt as a consequence of her having been so close to the abductor without reacting, as if himself was free of that feeling while he didn't react to the door more open that he left it, a fact that he underlined in his brief report to the PJ, on the ground and in the middle of the night.
It's as if guilt happens only to others.
This is just not true. They all felt guilty for one reason or another. And they almost certainly still do. This is a normal reaction to any tragedy.
So suggesting that Gerry didn't feel guilty is a nasty thing to say.
-
I don't think that Mr McCann feels like a guilty one, it's not in his nature, he feels like a saviour.
Oh now we are quasi- psychologists too.
-
He is blocking it all out.
His denial here takes many forms.
No, it's not a denial issue. It's being convinced to do the right thing and to know better than anyone what the right thing is.
-
Oh now we are quasi- psychologists too.
Well why not, some on here pretend to be experts in all sorts of fields, all the time.
-
I see what you mean, Anne.
Gerry McCann's failure to confront his feelings of personal guilt takes many interesting forms in this case.
That is so unfair. You think that Gerry doesn't feel guilty about many things, irrational or otherwise?
He simply does not have to bare his soul to the likes of some of the people on this Forum so that they can tear his every word to shreds.
-
I don't think that Mr McCann feels like a guilty one, it's not in his nature, he feels like a saviour.
Phtt. You don't know what you are talking about. You know nothing about the human psyche. Or about Gerry McCann for that matter.
How dare you assume that he feels no guilt.
-
I think you might be right. I certainly seem to have more basic common sense that The PJ.
And then there was always The Phone Pings. But The PJ were more interested in the phone traffic between The McCanns and Friends.
Did they even look elsewhere? I don't think so somehow. And this was all basic detective work.
I don't understand why you can't see what a cock up they made of it all.
hahahhahhahahhah!!!!! Are you serious?>
of course you are....
pity your common sense doesnt stretch to explaining changing stories, false accusations and the efit of Gerry!
-
That is so unfair. You think that Gerry doesn't feel guilty about many things, irrational or otherwise?
He simply does not have to bare his soul to the likes of some of the people on this Forum so that they can tear his every word to shreds.
Perhaps I put it too harshly, Eleanor.
What I meant was that I don't think he confronts certain things. He therefore makes statements that sound a bit strange. Most certainly, he feels guilty.
But that is completely understandable in the circumstances and certainly not a reason for any kind of condemnation. It is far from a crime not to bear one's soul, though the modern media seems to have forgotten that fact.
-
Perhaps I put it too harshly, Eleanor.
What I meant was that I don't think he confronts certain things. He therefore makes statements that sound a bit strange. Most certainly, he feels guilty.
But that is completely understandable in the circumstances and certainly not a reason for any kind of condemnation. It is far from a crime not to bear one's soul, though the modern media seems to have forgotten that fact.
You cannot know what Gerry McCann 'feels'
When you say that he most certainly 'feels guilt' you are, in fact, merely expressing your own 'feelings' on the subject
Gerry McCann has, most certainly, never expressed the feelings of guilt you'intuitively attribe to him ... and that is indisputable
-
You cannot know what Gerry McCann 'feels'
When you say that he most certainly 'feels guilt' you are, in fact, merely expressing your own 'feelings' on the subject
Gerry McCann has, most certainly, never expressed the feelings of guilt you'intuitively attribe to him ... and that is indisputable
That's right - and it was precisely my point that he has never expressed them verbally.
He has very strongly expressed them, however, in other ways.
-
Perhaps I put it too harshly, Eleanor.
What I meant was that I don't think he confronts certain things. He therefore makes statements that sound a bit strange. Most certainly, he feels guilty.
But that is completely understandable in the circumstances and certainly not a reason for any kind of condemnation. It is far from a crime not to bear one's soul, though the modern media seems to have forgotten that fact.
I think that Gerry was probably advised not to. Blaming one's self is such a destructive waste of time, although no doubt we all do it.
-
That's right - and it was precisely my point that he has never expressed them verbally.
He has very strongly expressed them, however, in other ways.
I'm not very sharp when it comes to the subliminal
In what ways has Gerry McCann, non-verbally, strongly expressed his feelings of guilt ?
-
Permission to be cynical?
(The papers have the new investigation to create the headlines now).
'Permission' granted.
Though it's hardly the most cynical interpretation I can think of!
-
'Permission' granted.
Though it's hardly the most cynical interpretation I can think of!
>@@(*&) Shocking cynicism, SH.
?{)(**
-
>@@(*&) Shocking cynicism, SH.
?{)(**
Oh, yes. I can think cynical quite often.
Just don't always express it!
-
I'm not very sharp when it comes to the subliminal
In what ways has Gerry McCann, non-verbally, strongly expressed his feelings of guilt ?
I don't imagine you would give much credence to my psychobabbly answer, icabod, so I'll keep my thoughts to myself for now!
Ditto answer for Pat!
-
I don't imagine you would give much credence to my psychobabbly answer, icabod, so I'll keep my thoughts to myself for now!
Ditto answer for Pat!
Well, whether I give credence to it or not is besides the point
You have said that Gerry McCann has 'strongly' expressed his feelings of guilt in non verbal ways, and I am interested in knowing what you are refering to
-
Well, whether I give credence to it or not is besides the point
You have said that Gerry McCann has 'strongly' expressed his feelings of guilt in non verbal ways, and I am interested in knowing what you are refering to
His body language. There's lots on Youtube. He can't leave his ear alone when he's lying.
-
Well, whether I give credence to it or not is besides the point
You have said that Gerry McCann has 'strongly' expressed his feelings of guilt in non verbal ways, and I am interested in knowing what you are refering to
Well very broadly, I think his insistence in many different ways and in many contexts that he did nothing wrong in leaving his children; his shifting regularly the focus of attention, in the case in general, onto what other people are saying and doing rather than what he and his wife are / should have been doing; his pursuit of libel actions to the extent he has done; his focusing on the global 'sightings' of Madeleine whilst matters closer to home remained unexamined partly due to decisions made by the McCanns, are all examples of creating distance.
A person who feels pain and very often guilt will create a situation which contains elements of distance - real or imaginary as required - in order to buffer themselves from the pain.
Verbal distancing also comes into play quite a lot with GM ('we will always regret not being with Madeleine when she was taken') . Here, he 'removes' himself from the situation, and thereby sidelining from himself his feelings of guilt - creating nonsensical statements in the process.
Is that enough for now?
-
Forgot to add that I personally believe that the creation of global sightings of Madeleine is the strongest example.
He has projected Madeleine, and himself, literally all around the world, while there is no evidence whatsoever that she ever left Praia da Luz.
Distance.
-
Well very broadly, I think his insistence in many different ways and in many contexts that he did nothing wrong in leaving his children; his shifting regularly the focus of attention, in the case in general, onto what other people are saying and doing rather than what he and his wife are / should have been doing; his pursuit of libel actions to the extent he has done; his focusing on the global 'sightings' of Madeleine whilst matters closer to home remained unexamined partly due to decisions made by the McCanns, are all examples of creating distance.
A person who feels pain and very often guilt will create a situation which contains elements of distance - real or imaginary as required - in order to buffer themselves from the pain.
Verbal distancing also comes into play quite a lot with GM ('we will always regret not being with Madeleine when she was taken') . Here, he 'removes' himself from the situation, and thereby sidelining from himself his feelings of guilt - creating nonsensical statements in the process.
Is that enough for now?
Thanks Sherlock, that's an interesting line of thought
Would you say, then, that Gerry's readiness to 'blame' others might be sourced in his need avoid 'blaming' himself ?
-
Thanks Sherlock, that's an interesting line of thought
Would you say, then, that Gerry's readiness to 'blame' others might be sourced in his need avoid 'blaming' himself ?
That is a fair summary
-
What should he blame himself for?
And who did he blame?
-
That is a fair summary
Would that include Amaral and the Portuguese police do you think ?
Do you think Gerry's determined avoidance of taking responsibility ( blaming himself ) for what happened to his daughter was reflected in his heaping of blame on the Portuguese police, and Amaral in particular ?
-
What should he blame himself for?
And who did he blame?
I think if a parent loses a child then to a certain extent they blame themselves - regardless of the situation.
Not saying he did anything terrible - just that he feels natural feelings of guilt.
And he did not consciously 'blame' others. As above, it is my belief that he attempted to create distance in the situation by shifting focus away from himself onto external matters - and playing his part in snowballing those matters into the situation we have now.
This creation of a worldwide circus is what Pat Brown refers to as narcissism, but it is really the opposite. It is the desire not to look at one's own reflection.
-
I think if a parent loses a child then to a certain extent they blame themselves - regardless of the situation.
Not saying he did anything terrible - just that he feels natural feelings of guilt.
And he did not consciously 'blame' others. As above, it is my belief that he attempted to create distance in the situation by shifting focus away from himself onto external matters - and playing his part in snowballing those matters into the situation we have now.
This creation of a worldwide circus is what Pat Brown refers to as narcissism, but it is really the opposite. It is the desire not to look at one's own reflection.
There are 5 stages of grief: 1. denial. 2. anger 3. bargaining 4. depression. 5. acceptance.. - different people pass the stages at the different times.. but they all pass them..
-
There are 5 stages of grief: 1. denial. 2. anger 3. bargaining 4. depression. 5. acceptance.. - different people pass the stages at the different times.. but they all pass them..
Yes, that's the main theory on grief..though there are others.
Distance is part of the denial stage, and in this case that stage is being heavily prolonged by events.
-
Yes, that's the main theory on grief..though there are others.
Distance is part of the denial stage, and in this case this stage is being heavily prolonged by events.
Is Kate also in a prolonged denial stage do you think ?
She's never acknowledged any feelings of guilt either
-
Is Kate also in a prolonged denial stage do you think ?
She's never acknowledged any feelings of guilt either
She's on a magical mystery tour of her own.
-
These things are all true.
But Gerry McCann takes us all far away from Praia da Luz, not in an investigative sense, but in a psychological.
Gerry is a Gemini. He acts upon an advice of the specialists.. and so far he succeeded to get the professionals working on the case.
-
Yes, that's the main theory on grief..though there are others.
Distance is part of the denial stage, and in this case that stage is being heavily prolonged by events.
So what do you expect them to do? Give up and accept it?
The searching is part of the guilt, but only a small part.
-
Gerry is a Gemini. He acts upon an advice of the specialists.. and so far he succeeded to get the professionals working on the case.
That may be part of it, but at the same time, specialists (the psychological ones, at least) would never have advised him to create something so big or have the fantasy last so long.
-
Would that include Amaral and the Portuguese police do you think ?
Do you think Gerry's determined avoidance of taking responsibility ( blaming himself ) for what happened to his daughter was reflected in his heaping of blame on the Portuguese police, and Amaral in particular ?
Missed this one, icabod.
Will address it in due course.
-
Is Kate also in a prolonged denial stage do you think ?
She's never acknowledged any feelings of guilt either
Quote from KMs book
.......however unwittingly we'd given this predator an opportunity.. We had not been there for Madeleine. And, as I've said before and will say again, our guilt over that is a heavv cross we will bear for the rest of our lives.
Page 202
Unquote
-
Well very broadly, I think his insistence in many different ways and in many contexts that he did nothing wrong in leaving his children; his shifting regularly the focus of attention, in the case in general, onto what other people are saying and doing rather than what he and his wife are / should have been doing; his pursuit of libel actions to the extent he has done; his focusing on the global 'sightings' of Madeleine whilst matters closer to home remained unexamined partly due to decisions made by the McCanns, are all examples of creating distance.
A person who feels pain and very often guilt will create a situation which contains elements of distance - real or imaginary as required - in order to buffer themselves from the pain.
Verbal distancing also comes into play quite a lot with GM ('we will always regret not being with Madeleine when she was taken') . Here, he 'removes' himself from the situation, and thereby sidelining from himself his feelings of guilt - creating nonsensical statements in the process.
Is that enough for now?
............and then again, very broadly, creating "distance" verbally or otherwise could also indicate a need to deflect suspicion elsewhere and attempt to manipulate the direction an investigation takes.
-
Quote from KMs book
.......however unwittingly we'd given this predator an opportunity.. We had not been there for Madeleine. And, as I've said before and will say again, our guilt over that is a heavv cross we will bear for the rest of our lives.
Page 202
Unquote
Note the self-absolution in the quote, though..........The guilt seems only with regard to "not being there.".........i.e. helpless and passive.......unwitting.
The guilt expressed does not, imo, seem to acknowledge any direct involvement due to actual parenting decisions.
-
Quote from KMs book
.......however unwittingly we'd given this predator an opportunity.. We had not been there for Madeleine. And, as I've said before and will say again, our guilt over that is a heavv cross we will bear for the rest of our lives.
Page 202
Unquote
This is saying "guilt" (with the excuse of not having ubiquity power), not expressing it, although she's writing..
Sorry, Carew, I hadn't read your post !
-
She's on a magical mystery tour of her own.
Could you elaborate a bit, SH ?
-
Note the self-absolution in the quote, though..........The guilt seems only with regard to "not being there.".........i.e. helpless and passive.......unwitting.
The guilt expressed does not, imo, seem to acknowledge any direct involvement due to actual parenting decisions.
I disagree Carew. April Jones parents 'unwittingly' allowed a scenario where their daughter could be abducted. Ben Needham's grandparents 'unwittingly' did the same.
It is the right word to use IMO as in none of those cases did the parents intentionally put their little ones in danger.
-
Well very broadly, I think his insistence in many different ways and in many contexts that he did nothing wrong in leaving his children...
I don't see any distance here. Mr McCann has been asked many times why they left the children alone and he had to provide an answer. Stricto senso, because of the ellipse on "resulting in Madeleine's abduction", his answer that he did nothing wrong is right. He never imagined that abduction could happen and nobody would have.
The reasons why they should never ever have left the children alone are far more serious and real than an abduction from bed risk with a quasi null probability. Then, logically, why should he feel guilty if none of the awful likely events occurred?
Mr McCann is taking no distance here, he rightly says he did nothing wrong on the topic of abduction, his feeling of guilt being limited to not being a superfather gifted with omnivision and omnihearing.
Though Mr McCann claimed he was surprised by the door that moved by itself, he never said he felt guilty not to have checked behind the door. There he had a very good opportunity to express guilt. But he never caught it. Was he taking a distance ? Or did he just lack of imagination ?
-
"Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand."
"An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended." (GM Blogs)
-
I disagree Carew. April Jones parents 'unwittingly' allowed a scenario where their daughter could be abducted. Ben Needham's grandparents 'unwittingly' did the same.
It is the right word to use IMO as in none of those cases did the parents intentionally put their little ones in danger.
An interesting defensive response , given the thread title !........
A sort of "Guilt Deflection Syndrome by Proxy" response on behalf of the McCanns ........by immediately removing direct scrutiny away from their " unwitting" actions by linking them with the "unwitting" actions surrounding two entirely different parenting situations, in a broad sweep of generalisation.
Isn`t this a form of distancing to avoid confronting awkward truths about the parenting of Madeleine as an individual on the night she disappeared.
-
I wonder what everyone thinks the words 'we let her down' mean? If not an expression of guilt.
-
I wonder what everyone thinks the words 'we let her down' mean? If not an expression of guilt.
Just observing a certain reality, or perhaps a built up reality.
-
So what do you expect them to do? Give up and accept it?
The searching is part of the guilt, but only a small part.
That's true; they are not searching mainly because of guilt, but because they want to find their daughter.
I am speaking of certain aspects of the search and the way it is conducted, together with the McCanns' reactions and responses to certain things, which show displaced feelings of guilt.
Guilt is not fueling the vehicle, but it is affecting how the vehicle is being driven.
-
Quote from KMs book
.......however unwittingly we'd given this predator an opportunity.. We had not been there for Madeleine. And, as I've said before and will say again, our guilt over that is a heavv cross we will bear for the rest of our lives.
Page 202
Unquote
Yes, Kate McCann has been slightly more forthcoming in this aspect than her husband. That is why I focused on Gerry's reaction to things.
She also refers to the fact that, never having been in a situation like it - in common with most people - she does not know, and cannot be expected to know, if the way she is handling everything is the best way or not, and is 'past caring' what people who criticise her think.
There is obviously much more candidness and emotional honesty here.
-
Guilty people usually look for others to blame for their own shortcomings.
-
That's true; they are not searching mainly because of guilt, but because they want to find their daughter.
I am speaking of certain aspects of the search and the way it is conducted, together with the McCanns' reactions and responses to certain things, which show displaced feelings of guilt.
Guilt is not fueling the vehicle, but it is affecting how the vehicle is being driven.
I'm curious of the idea you may have of their personal "search" vs the search that was allegedly hampered by GA's book. And by the way are you "searching" yourself as they asked people to ?
-
Would that include Amaral and the Portuguese police do you think ?
Do you think Gerry's determined avoidance of taking responsibility ( blaming himself ) for what happened to his daughter was reflected in his heaping of blame on the Portuguese police, and Amaral in particular ?
Yes.
Even though Amaral and his team made mistakes (by his own admission), this is a totally separate matter from his demonisation by the McCanns.
As we have discussed at length, the current libel action against Amaral rests on dubious and highly subjective premises: the premise that if people think Madeleine is dead they will not be interested in looking for a perpetrator; the premise that it is specifically Amaral's exposition of events that has convinced people that Madeleiene is dead (and that therefore that people should not look for her).. and so on. And we have discussed the difficulty of proving these things in court.
And we have discussed the fact that there are many other things that could have hampered the search for Madeleiene, including things that the McCanns themselves may have said or done. So why focus so heavily on Amaral?
Given that this is not a case where the McCanns would be likely to reap millions either, whatever the verdict, it is therefore questionable what the motive in bringing matters to trial should be. If not practical or financial, it may well be psychological, as it were.
-
I'm curious of the idea you may have of their personal "search" vs the search that was allegedly hampered by GA's book. And by the way are you "searching" yourself as they asked people to ?
Hope my post #60 to icabod answers the question about the book.
As to my searching, it would be nice (though possibly completely fantasisit as well) to imagine that discussing these matters with thought would bring some clarity to the situation.
But searching in the way Kate McCann suggests, no, I am not (though what she really means by asking people to search is another question again).
-
............and then again, very broadly, creating "distance" verbally or otherwise could also indicate a need to deflect suspicion elsewhere and attempt to manipulate the direction an investigation takes.
It could, theoretically.
Though those would be a deliberate acts of deception or obfuscation, and I believe that a lot of what Gerry and Kate say and do that appears deceptive or odd is unwittingly so.
To return to the statement ' we will always regret not being with Madeleine when she has taken', which had the effect of making people suspicious, it is not a lie. It is not an attempt to misrepresent something or mislead. It is simply a nonsensical collection of words bourne out of difficult feelings.
I do believe that much of what is said by Gerry and Kate McCann that has been described as lies or untruth, is, upon careful analysis, merely nonsense.
-
Could you elaborate a bit, SH ?
I think the international sightings and publicity campaign in general are really a diversion from reality. Chasing the rainbow's end rather than focusing on what is in front of you.
-
"Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand."
"An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended." (GM Blogs)
Platitudes: using the universal to avoid the personal.
-
I don't see any distance here. Mr McCann has been asked many times why they left the children alone and he had to provide an answer. Stricto senso, because of the ellipse on "resulting in Madeleine's abduction", his answer that he did nothing wrong is right. He never imagined that abduction could happen and nobody would have.
The reasons why they should never ever have left the children alone are far more serious and real than an abduction from bed risk with a quasi null probability. Then, logically, why should he feel guilty if none of the awful likely events occurred?
Mr McCann is taking no distance here, he rightly says he did nothing wrong on the topic of abduction, his feeling of guilt being limited to not being a superfather gifted with omnivision and omnihearing.
Though Mr McCann claimed he was surprised by the door that moved by itself, he never said he felt guilty not to have checked behind the door. There he had a very good opportunity to express guilt. But he never caught it. Was he taking a distance ? Or did he just lack of imagination ?
Nice terminologies!
But seriously, stricto senso, he was slightly at fault for leaving the children, not because of the (miniscule) risk of abduction, but because of the much greater risk of accidents.
So what was a minor mistake, snowballed, through events beyond Gerry's control, into a much greater 'mistake'.
Another point I would make, Anne, is that when using the word guilt, I am speaking obviously of feelings of guilt. These are quite separate things, and could even run contradictory to, questions of moral responsibility or legal culpability. Important distinctions to bear in mind.
-
Given that this is not a case where the McCanns would be likely to reap millions either, whatever the verdict, it is therefore questionable what the motive in bringing matters to trial should be. If not practical or financial, it may well be psychological, as it were.
It is financial, otherwise their lawyer wouldn't insist on invoices and receipts. I heard her tell the AFP journalist who knew almost nothing about the case that the McCanns were entitled to that amount of money, not GA.
I suspect that the lawyer here is exceeding her mission. I don't think that the McCanns decided to sue GA mainly for money (to invest in the fund, of course..).
-
Platitudes: using the universal to avoid the personal.
I suspect he knew what he was talking about.
-
It is financial, otherwise their lawyer wouldn't insist on invoices and receipts. I heard her tell the AFP journalist who knew almost nothing about the case that the McCanns were entitled to that amount of money, not GA.
I suspect that the lawyer here is exceeding her mission. I don't think that the McCanns decided to sue GA mainly for money (to invest in the fund, of course..).
What I mean is that the payout is not going to be enormous. Then there is the matter of the cost of bringing the actions. On balance it is hardly worth it financially for the McCanns, nomatter what the verdict.
-
I suspect he knew what he was talking about.
I am sure of it, too.
The point is the way he chose to frame it.
-
I think the international sightings and publicity campaign in general are really a diversion from reality. Chasing the rainbow's end rather than focusing on what is in front of you.
And then ?
Campaigns to maintain the feeling of guilt at a distance ?
-
And then ?
Campaigns to maintain the feeling of guilt at a distance ?
Yes. Keep the campaign going as long as possible to avoid reality. Not to address it.
A very sad perversity.
-
Just observing a certain reality, or perhaps a built up reality.
Sorry Anne don't understand what you mean by that.
-
What I mean is that the payout is not going to be enormous. Then there is the matter of the cost of bringing the actions. On balance it is hardly worth it financially for the McCanns, nomatter what the verdict.
How do you know ? Why is Isabel Duarte gathering proofs that GA and the other accused ones made that amount of money, an amount that should be invested in the "search" ?
-
Yes. Keep the campaign going as long as possible to avoid reality. Not to address it.
A very sad perversity.
What for ? To escape the feeling of guilt ?
-
Sorry Anne don't understand what you mean by that.
If what happened to Madeleine happened because her parents neglected to be nearby, then they can consider that they "let her down".
But what if the circumstances were different ?
-
How do you know ? Why is Isabel Duarte gathering proofs that GA and the other accused ones made that amount of money, an amount that should be invested in the "search" ?
It is normal in many court cases for applicants to be required to submit statements of net worth, etc., especially so in a case like this.
But that does not mean we are talking about big money.
I believe the McCanns were ill-advised in bringing this action - perhaps for all we know they went against the advice of their attorneys; it happens - the financial aspect (or lack thereof) being one good reason.
-
What for ? To escape the feeling of guilt ?
Yes, and to avoid working through the different stages of grief, including acceptance of the situation.
They are not ready to accept the situation, and are pushing the act of acceptance off.
-
It is normal in many court cases for applicants to be required to submit statements of net worth, etc., especially so in a case like this.
But that does not mean we are talking about big money.
I believe the McCanns were ill-advised in bringing this action - perhaps for all we know they went against the advice of their attorneys; it happens - the financial aspect (or lack thereof) being one good reason.
I don't think the McCann had any choice...if they had not sued then some would have said the accusations must be true...they have sued primarily to clear their name imo
-
Are you of the opinion that the McCann's are in it for the money SH ?
The opposite, Opposing Pat.
They can't be in it for the money here because I don't think there's much to be made out of this libel trial.
-
I don't think the McCann had any choice...if they had not sued then some would have said the accusations must be true...they have sued primarily to clear their name imo
Certainly a factor.
-
The opposite, Opposing Pat.
They can't be in it for the money here because I don't think there's much to be made out of this libel trial.
Then why is the claim for 1.2million euros?
-
The opposite, Opposing Pat.
They can't be in it for the money here because I don't think there's much to be made out of this libel trial.
The perspective was different in June 2009, when they launched the current action. They expected to have the book banned and they obtained it. They were told the book and the DVD had made a lot of money, and why not try to get it, for the search of Madeleine of course ?
-
Then why is the claim for 1.2million euros?
Maybe they thought that if they pitched it so high, Amaral would cave in and try to settle out of court. If so, they got that badly wrong.
-
Maybe they thought that if they pitched it so high, Amaral would cave in and try to settle out of court. If so, they got that badly wrong.
So very very wrong!
Not to mention the writ went from the sublime to the ridiculous....ah never mind, they tried it on, they failed
-
Then why is the claim for 1.2million euros?
You can make all the claims you want.
-
You can make all the claims you want.
but they werent in it for the money you said, so why not ask for 1000 say or 100,000 instead of 1000,000
?
Or was there another motive? IE take every penny out of spite
-
You can make all the claims you want.
It's not as simple as that. Their claim made their lawyer request freezing of GA's properties and, the worst if you think he has a young daughter, half of his pension.
-
Maybe they thought that if they pitched it so high, Amaral would cave in and try to settle out of court. If so, they got that badly wrong.
I think the total writ face value was 1.2MM Euros split 3 ways Dr Amaral, G & P + TVI; with an option to increase it [bizarre]. Some cynic (no not me honest) suggested that "they" reckoned Amaral had made about 360 grand out of it and "they" wanted it! 3 x 360 is approx 1.2mm if you round it up. Bearing in mind that Sra Duarte is losing 2:1 on aggregate it will be interesting to see whether she can finish up with a draw!
-
It's not as simple as that. Their claim made their lawyer request freezing of GA's properties and, the worst if you think he has a young daughter, half of his pension.
Thats positively spiteful, well after all, Kate does want hm to be miserable....bet it all backfires on them
-
Maybe they thought that if they pitched it so high, Amaral would cave in and try to settle out of court. If so, they got that badly wrong.
I agree that this could be a possibility...however it may well be that amaral SHOULD have settled out of court...but his pride would not let him...we will see
-
Thats positively spiteful, well after all, Kate does want hm to be miserable....bet it all backfires on them
He should not have written such a spiteful book...simple..everything that has happened to him is his own fault
-
I think the total writ face value was 1.2MM Euros split 3 ways Dr Amaral, G & P + TVI; with an option to increase it [bizarre]. Some cynic (no not me honest) suggested that "they" reckoned Amaral had made about 360 grand out of it and "they" wanted it! 3 x 360 is approx 1.2mm if you round it up. Bearing in mind that Sra Duarte is losing 2:1 on aggregate it will be interesting to see whether she can finish up with a draw!
A draw! thats what I call twisted logic...like leading 1..0 at half time against man united, losing 6 1 at full time and claiming a draw because each team won one half
-
Thats positively spiteful, well after all, Kate does want hm to be miserable....bet it all backfires on them
Yes Redblossom I totally agree.
kate mccanns 'book' is full of her self obsession and hatred.
How can anyone in their 'right mind' , forgive a mythical abductor, yet spew hatred to someone who tried to solve the disappearance of her beloved daughter ?
The mere fact that many other people don't believe her story seems to have escaped her as well.
-
Just to add...amaral has lost his case re perjury...the case against the lawyer Marcus Arageo and the fraud case against his brother...so hes not actually on a winning streak
-
Yes Redblossom I totally agree.
kate mccanns 'book' is full of her self obsession and hatred.
How can anyone in their 'right mind' , forgive a mythical abductor, yet spew hatred to someone who tried to solve the disappearance of her beloved daughter ?
The mere fact that many other people don't believe her story seems to have escaped her as well.
I doubt she was in her right mind when she said these things and once gain you have taken words out of context
-
Thats positively spiteful, well after all, Kate does want hm to be miserable....bet it all backfires on them
That's probably why there's just over £1/2MM in restricted funds on the books of the limited company. Just in case!;and we don't want to have to sell the family pile do we.................
.
-
Yes Redblossom I totally agree.
kate mccanns 'book' is full of her self obsession and hatred.
How can anyone in their 'right mind' , forgive a mythical abductor, yet spew hatred to someone who tried to solve the disappearance of her beloved daughter ?
The mere fact that many other people don't believe her story seems to have escaped her as well.
She was badly advised in that forgiving claim and the negative reactions made her step back quickly.
If there are things that are unforgivable, the abduction of a child is. How would she have known ?
-
She was badly advised in that forgiving claim and the negative reactions made her step back quickly.
If there are things that are unforgivable, the abduction of a child is. How would she have known ?
Precisely Anne.
It never made any sense, let alone exhibited logic in the first place.
Then, very little has in this case.
-
I wonder what everyone thinks the words 'we let her down' mean? If not an expression of guilt.
Apparently it is a medical phrase, used amongst surgical teams when the patients die.
I'm not sure where I read that.
-
Apparently it is a medical phrase, used amongst surgical teams when the patients die.
I'm not sure where I read that.
I don't think you read it...sounds like you just made it up...
-
Yes Redblossom I totally agree.
kate mccanns 'book' is full of her self obsession and hatred.
How can anyone in their 'right mind' , forgive a mythical abductor, yet spew hatred to someone who tried to solve the disappearance of her beloved daughter ?
The mere fact that many other people don't believe her story seems to have escaped her as well.
Yes, it was reported last year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310279/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-Kate-says-forgive-Maddies-abductor.html
And four years after events (her book) still hating Amaral, Im sure little has changed, thats a personal vendetta. IMO
-
Yes, it was reported last year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310279/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-Kate-says-forgive-Maddies-abductor.html
And four years after events (her book) still hating Amaral, Im sure little has changed, thats a personal vendetta. IMO
Yes, Vendetta sums it up very aptly and then some.
-
Yes, Vendetta sums it up very aptly and then some.
Sledge everyone but never ever yourself.
Thats the Team McCann motto.
If you lay down enough red herrings, you are going to confuse the bovine, which has been achieved admirably as we see on these pages.
-
From the Find Madeleine Website, Home page:
Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.
Madeleine is still missing and someone needs to be looking for her.
She is very young and vulnerable and needs our help.
We love her dearly and miss her beyond words.
The first two reasons given in answer to the question - and therefore presumably the most important - are another example of distancing / projection.
Point 1: This sentence is not about 'we', and is not really an answer to the question
Point 2: Someone needs to be looking for her
The third and fourth are more meaningful / personal, but they do not make it to the top of the list.
-
From the Find Madeleine Website, Home page:
Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.
Madeleine is still missing and someone needs to be looking for her.
She is very young and vulnerable and needs our help.
We love her dearly and miss her beyond words.
The first two reasons given in answer to the question - and therefore presumably the most important - are another example of distancing / projection.
Point 1: This sentence is not about 'we', and is not really an answer to the question
Point 2: Someone needs to be looking for her
The third and fourth are more meaningful / personal, but they do not make it to the top of the list.
Why they do continue ? Continue what actually ?
What if they put an end to "continuing" ?
"Nothing" is wishful thinking and "absolutely" is "insulting people's intelligence" to borrow one of their favourite expressions : Eddie picked it up as soon as the door was open.
The interesting part is "someone needs to be looking for her".
Who is someone ? Either she's alive (and necessarily well) or she's dead. In no case does someone (who?) need to look for her. If she's alive and didn't forget who she is, she'll pop up one day. If she's dead, let the dead bury the dead.
-
"Someone" needs to be looking for her. What an odd thing to state. Should it not be "we need help in finding her"? The word "someone" in this context implies anyone..but not us. At least it does to me. But then that has been their general attitude since day 1. So very strange.
-
"Someone" needs to be looking for her. What an odd thing to state. Should it not be "we need help in finding her"? The word "someone" in this context implies anyone..but not us. At least it does to me. But then that has been their general attitude since day 1. So very strange.
That's exactly what I though too.
-
"Someone" needs to be looking for her. What an odd thing to state. Should it not be "we need help in finding her"? The word "someone" in this context implies anyone..but not us. At least it does to me. But then that has been their general attitude since day 1. So very strange.
I dont know when that passage was written but theyve always had a police force and or private detectives looking havent they? Its not as if no one has ever been looking, but maybe thats the "inference"
Theyve had enough millions in the fund to pay searchers if they wanted to carry on after police exhausted their search.
-
"Someone" needs to be looking for her. What an odd thing to state. Should it not be "we need help in finding her"? The word "someone" in this context implies anyone..but not us. At least it does to me. But then that has been their general attitude since day 1. So very strange.
Someone needs to be looking for her.
I found that an odd turn of phrase to use. It implies that nobody is looking for her but then again isn't that true? Her parents most certainly aren't out looking for her which I find even stranger. One could be forgiven for thinking they know she is dead?
Then again that it the most likely situation. It is well recognised that abducted toddlers almost never return home after several years.
-
Someone needs to be looking for her.
I found that an odd turn of phrase to use. It implies that nobody is looking for her but then again isn't that true? Her parents most certainly aren't out looking for her which I find even stranger. One could be forgiven for thinking they know she is dead?
Then again that it the most likely situation.
The PJ stopped looking for her actively when the investigation was shelved. But they went on looking for her passively, as they checked all the informations they received after.
Dave Edgar and co looked for her actively for months, especially in PDL. Their conclusion was that Madeleine was in a lair in the lawless back region. What is the most plausible explanation for the fact that this small and sparsely populated region wasn't therefore systematically searched ?
-
Off topic posts removed in accordance with rules.