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: ChloeR on February 14, 2017, 03:33:56 PM
-
My opinions on abduction are this
Of course it is a possibility. I feel though, it is more likely with the checking timeframes that Madeleine left the apartment on her own and was then picked up by an opportunistic criminal. I feel if someone had been watching the family, they would be extremely unlikely to enter the apartment given the checking regime was so erratic and there were so many checks and pretty much at any given time there would be a member of the group passing apartment 5A. I also feel DNA evidence of an abductor is not really needed. Someone could have been in there for seconds, taken Madeleine and left, entering and leaving via the open door. Footprints may well have existed however there were a huge amount of people trampling through the apartment before the police even arrived, so any footprints or whatever would have been long gone, so in that respect, if there was an abductor..they were very lucky that the police weren't called immediately and that so many people were allowed into the crime scene. I think leaving/entering via the window is ridiculously unlikely.
Now onto the part of my post that really does open up the possibility of someone who had been watching the families specifically targeting them rather than it being someone opportunistic. I also feel this possibility clears up a lot of the discrepancies in statements, the crying incident 2 days prior where a child was crying for over an hour, the unlikely theory of someone watching then taking when checks were so regular...also makes a possibility that the abductor was long gone before the alarm was even raised and opens up a much larger timeframe than the few minutes that currently exists.
I think there is a large possibility that the checks did not happen as some have claimed. That the children were left and checked on maybe once or twice throughout the night. IF this happened then someone watching the families would know they could most definitely get in and out without being caught. All they would need to do is wait for one check to be done, or go in right after the parents left for the Tapas. It would definitely explain the oddity of the Tapas group sitting down writing timelines of checks rather than going out to actually search. i always thought that was such a weird thing to do...a child is missing and your primary concern is writing down what you were doing at that time?
This theory does (IMO) make so much sense given the circumstances. It gives both reason for the changes in timeline, the weirdness of writing out the timeline in the first place, Mrs Fenns statement about a long period of crying..
I am in no way suggesting the parents had a hand in the actual disappearance, nor accusing the rest of the group of anything.
-
It would certainly make abduction more feasible and less risky.
-
My opinions on abduction are this
Of course it is a possibility. I feel though, it is more likely with the checking timeframes that Madeleine left the apartment on her own and was then picked up by an opportunistic criminal. I feel if someone had been watching the family, they would be extremely unlikely to enter the apartment given the checking regime was so erratic and there were so many checks and pretty much at any given time there would be a member of the group passing apartment 5A. I also feel DNA evidence of an abductor is not really needed. Someone could have been in there for seconds, taken Madeleine and left, entering and leaving via the open door. Footprints may well have existed however there were a huge amount of people trampling through the apartment before the police even arrived, so any footprints or whatever would have been long gone, so in that respect, if there was an abductor..they were very lucky that the police weren't called immediately and that so many people were allowed into the crime scene. I think leaving/entering via the window is ridiculously unlikely.
Now onto the part of my post that really does open up the possibility of someone who had been watching the families specifically targeting them rather than it being someone opportunistic. I also feel this possibility clears up a lot of the discrepancies in statements, the crying incident 2 days prior where a child was crying for over an hour, the unlikely theory of someone watching then taking when checks were so regular...also makes a possibility that the abductor was long gone before the alarm was even raised and opens up a much larger timeframe than the few minutes that currently exists.
I think there is a large possibility that the checks did not happen as some have claimed. That the children were left and checked on maybe once or twice throughout the night. IF this happened then someone watching the families would know they could most definitely get in and out without being caught. All they would need to do is wait for one check to be done, or go in right after the parents left for the Tapas. It would definitely explain the oddity of the Tapas group sitting down writing timelines of checks rather than going out to actually search. i always thought that was such a weird thing to do...a child is missing and your primary concern is writing down what you were doing at that time?
This theory does (IMO) make so much sense given the circumstances. It gives both reason for the changes in timeline, the weirdness of writing out the timeline in the first place, Mrs Fenns statement about a long period of crying..
I am in no way suggesting the parents had a hand in the actual disappearance, nor accusing the rest of the group of anything.
I suggest that the timeline would have been the logical suggestion of one of the Tapas group other than the McCanns, possibly recalling what the police told Kevin Wells to do in the Soham murders case. It was quite sensible to work out early on when Madeleine was last seen, who had been to the apartment, who had walked past the apartment etc to look for the window of opportunity. Had the McCanns been isolated, i.e, not surrounded by intelligent friends, then the preparation of a timeline would have been very questionable given their state of panic.
IMO the group were watched but possibly for only one or two nights max. There was always a chance the routine could change, which we were told it did on the Thursday. IMO the abductor was nearly caught in the act.
I'm afraid I take Mrs Fenn's statement about the crying with a pinch of salt. She spoke with her niece, Carole Tranmer, a few days after the disappearance & mentioned nothing about the crying episode as far as I can see in Carole's statement.
-
I think if we take the Tapas Group at their word, there was a window of opportunity of approximately 10 minutes between 9.45 and 9.55 pm, ample time in which to remove a sleeping child from an unlocked ground floor apartment with easy access to the road.
-
Yet with an investigation running into millions of pounds getting on towards six years Britain's supposed finest the MET just can't make it that simple.
-
Yet with an investigation running into millions of pounds getting on towards six years Britain's supposed finest the MET just can't make it that simple.
the Met already identified a window of opportunity, now they just need to find out who seized that opportunity which is obviously easier said than done.
-
This window of opportunity was identified several years ago and since then SY have presumably been deploying competent officers to identify a culprit - so far to no avail.
Unless they are given more money to continue, they will wind up with no abductor. Even with additional funding, they may still fail.
An opportunity to do something does not mean that something was done.
-
This window of opportunity was identified several years ago and since then SY have presumably been deploying competent officers to identify a culprit - so far to no avail.
Unless they are given more money to continue, they will wind up with no abductor. Even with additional funding, they may still fail.
An opportunity to do something does not mean that something was done.
Something happened so it seems like something was done.
-
Something happened so it seems like something was done.
Yes, but not necessarily during that time window. It is a possibility but not a certainty.
-
Yes, but not necessarily during that time window. It is a possibility but not a certainty.
True. Only one knows. If Smithman was carrying Madeleine you would think the event was close to 10:00 for where he was seen is only minutes from the Ocean Club. I wonder if SIL could tell us how long it would take to get there from Apartment 5A.
-
True. Only one knows. If Smithman was carrying Madeleine you would think the even was close to 10:00 for where he was seen is only minutes from the Ocean Club. I wonder if SIL could tell us how long it would take to get there from Apartment 5A.
Measure it on Google Earth, or similar.
Calculate the time at Smithman's reported normal walking pace. That's 4mph or about 100m per minute.
The last time I was asked to do this I was requested to factor in carrying a 30lb sack of spuds.
Just do the distance check. Smithman was, allegedly, much younger than me.
-
Smithman could have hidden somewhere while waiting for a pickup, possibly at the beach.
-
Smithman could have hidden somewhere while waiting for a pickup, possibly at the beach.
He could have been parked up in a car somewhere - waiting for instructions, especially if it was planned to remove her by sea.
-
He could have been parked up in a car somewhere - waiting for instructions, especially if it was planned to remove her by sea.
What I think.
-
Of course Smithman may have nothing to do with the drama at all. OG haven't publicly ruled him in or out.
-
An abductor usually means a getaway vehicle is involved close to the crime scene not walking so that suggests another theory from the timeline and regular checks. It does lead to one man who was carrying a child that eye witnesses believe was Madeleine but that doesn't mean she left the apartment minutes before she was seen. Gotta think outside the box.
-
If we are to entertain for one moment that an organised gang were involved, which I believe Scotland Yard is investigating then I think it's fair to assume that they are going to be very good as such activities. Especially if she was stolen to order as has been suggested. How long would it reasonably take for someone proficient in child abductions to find the unlocked patio door, locate Madeleine and be out of there without anyone seeing or hearing? Even with the checking routine the parents were using, anything over 5 minutes I would suspect gives someone looking to abduct Madeleine more than enough time.
The only thing that contradicts here is that Madeleine is not likely to have gone quietly should she have been able to realise what was happening. Which leads to the theory that she was in someway incapacitated making it far easier for the abductor to remain silent and low profile
-
If we are to entertain for one moment that an organised gang were involved, which I believe Scotland Yard is investigating then I think it's fair to assume that they are going to be very good as such activities. Especially if she was stolen to order as has been suggested. How long would it reasonably take for someone proficient in child abductions to find the unlocked patio door, locate Madeleine and be out of there without anyone seeing or hearing? Even with the checking routine the parents were using, anything over 5 minutes I would suspect gives someone looking to abduct Madeleine more than enough time.
The only thing that contradicts here is that Madeleine is not likely to have gone quietly should she have been able to realise what was happening. Which leads to the theory that she was in someway incapacitated making it far easier for the abductor to remain silent and low profile
I disagree with your point bolded above. Given that a child can be lifted asleep from its bed and removed from the apartment in under a minute, I think it's highly unlikely that Madeleine would have made much noise unless she was wide awake when abducted. Sleeping children do not start shrieking the moment they awake.
-
I disagree with your point bolded above. Given that a child can be lifted asleep from its bed and removed from the apartment in under a minute, I think it's highly unlikely that Madeleine would have made much noise unless she was wide awake when abducted. Sleeping children do not start shrieking the moment they awake.
Yes, I'm quite willing to accept that is also the case here, I only mention the possibility of incapacitation because of what has been said about Madeleine and how loud and lively she could be. However a deep sleeping child could easily be carried away negating the need for any method of subduing her. Very possible.
-
If we are to entertain for one moment that an organised gang were involved, which I believe Scotland Yard is investigating then I think it's fair to assume that they are going to be very good as such activities. Especially if she was stolen to order as has been suggested. How long would it reasonably take for someone proficient in child abductions to find the unlocked patio door, locate Madeleine and be out of there without anyone seeing or hearing? Even with the checking routine the parents were using, anything over 5 minutes I would suspect gives someone looking to abduct Madeleine more than enough time.
The only thing that contradicts here is that Madeleine is not likely to have gone quietly should she have been able to realise what was happening. Which leads to the theory that she was in someway incapacitated making it far easier for the abductor to remain silent and low profile
Two ten year old girls were abducted on their way to school, one describes the effect the trauma had on her ...
"I just froze ~ I couldn't talk ~ couldn't scream ~ couldn't do nothing. The whole time I was just looking at Lisa and her face was bright red and she was screaming and he just chucked her in and then - I know it's unbelievable but I just got in with her ... "
The Girls Who Were Found Alive (Documentary) - Real Stories
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWLtvMdf4F0
-
Some people may wish to wax lyrical about 'abduction', and try to connect other cases to Madeleine's disappearance, but after virtually 10 years, and millions spent, nothing has been achieved , since the original investigation was shelved.
-
Some people may wish to wax lyrical about 'abduction', and try to connect other cases to Madeleine's disappearance, but after virtually 10 years, and millions spent, nothing has been achieved , since the original investigation was shelved.
I question the validity of shelving the investigation just because they failed to get sufficient evidence against the McCanns.
-
The PJ thought it would be difficult to fit an abduction into the checking regime, which is why they wanted the reconstitution;
believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
-
The PJ thought it would be difficult to fit an abduction into the checking regime, which is why they wanted the reconstitution;
believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
I wanted to know what they meant by "posterior exit". From the full paragraph the window in Madeleine's room is on the posterior side (same side a the front door!).
Also they are assuming if there was an abductor it was Tannerman.
"The establishing of a timeline and of the effective checking of the minors that were left alone inside the apartments, given the fact that, believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child, namely through a window with little space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass that window holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that was visualized by witness JANE TANNER (horizontal)."
Changing the position one is carrying a child takes only a matter of moments and is no real barrier.
-
The PJ thought it would be difficult to fit an abduction into the checking regime, which is why they wanted the reconstitution;
believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
If that was what they wanted to check they could have done that using actors. Who was going to do the role of the abductor? The results would depend on the skill and courage of the person or persons doing an abduction. The analysis by the English Documentary (name always eludes me, was it Dispatches??), they said an abductor could get in and out in a matter of minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE
-
If that was what they wanted to check they could have done that using actors. Who was going to do the role of the abductor. It would depend on the skill and courage of the person or persons doing an abduction. The analysis by the English Documentary (name always eludes me, was it Dispatches??), they said to get in and out in a matter of minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE
What people say and what can be done are two different things. It would have been much more interesting if they had demonstrated the 'abduction' on film, with the same internal lighting conditions and with someone who was unfamiliar with the layout of the apartment.
-
What people say and what can be done are two different things. It would have been much more interesting if they had demonstrated the 'abduction' on film, with the same internal lighting conditions and with someone who was unfamiliar with the layout of the apartment.
Could it ever produce a definitive result? The PJ could make it seem it was impossible if that is what they wanted.
-
If that was what they wanted to check they could have done that using actors. Who was going to do the role of the abductor? The results would depend on the skill and courage of the person or persons doing an abduction. The analysis by the English Documentary (name always eludes me, was it Dispatches??), they said an abductor could get in and out in a matter of minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE
Why would you need someone to act as abductor?
-
Why would you need someone to act as abductor?
Why not have an abductor if you are going to demonstrate how possible it was?
-
Could it ever produce a definitive result? The PJ could make it seem it was impossible if that is what they wanted.
That might have been the reason for wanting the Tapas group there - to ensure that the PJ got it right according to the players.
-
That might have been the reason for wanting the Tapas group there - to ensure that the PJ got it right according to the players.
The actors could follow the times in the statements as it was. I don't think you could have got Jez to turn up. So it was always going to fail.
-
The actors could follow the times in the statements as it was. I don't think you could have got Jez to turn up. So it was always going to fail.
And if it hadn't actually worked on the ground, what then ?
-
And if it hadn't actually worked on the ground, what then ?
What do you mean?
-
The actors could follow the times in the statements as it was. I don't think you could have got Jez to turn up. So it was always going to fail.
We know the timelines were created by the group which would probably be reflected in the statements. Group dynamics would likely result in some Members recollections having more weight than others who in turn would conform to the group will. IMO, the accuracy of the group timeline is not likely to be high.
-
The actors could follow the times in the statements as it was. I don't think you could have got Jez to turn up. So it was always going to fail.
The times in the statements weren't definite, that's the problem. Jez wasn't vital because he couldn't give a fixed time for his meeting with Gerry.
-
What people say and what can be done are two different things. It would have been much more interesting if they had demonstrated the 'abduction' on film, with the same internal lighting conditions and with someone who was unfamiliar with the layout of the apartment.
How do you know the (alleged) abductor was unfamiliar with the layout? You are assuming which is against your own rules.
-
The times in the statements weren't definite, that's the problem. Jez wasn't vital because he couldn't give a fixed time for his meeting with Gerry.
You are just making that up, for AFAIK there was never any official reasons given for Jez being asked to attend.
In fact that would be the best reason for him to attend, to get some more definition in Jez' timeline.
-
The times in the statements weren't definite, that's the problem. Jez wasn't vital because he couldn't give a fixed time for his meeting with Gerry.
So what would have been the point of a reconstitution then, if none of the timings could be fixed? How many opportunities to re-enact the events of 3rd May would you have given the participants? There must surely be almost unlimited variations.
-
How do you know the (alleged) abductor was unfamiliar with the layout? You are assuming which is against your own rules.
That is right the abductor may have been a current or former employee.
-
That is right the abductor may have been a current or former employee.
That still wouldn't enable him/her to know which bedroom, which bed and so on. Kate couldn't see in that bedroom, remember, and she knew where to look.
-
That is right the abductor may have been a current or former employee.
Or even someone previously there on holiday.
-
I question the validity of shelving the investigation just because they failed to get sufficient evidence against the McCanns.
Absolutely right.
Madeleine's parents had been thoroughly investigated and there was no case found against them. Therefore the investigation should have progressed to the next stage.
I wonder had the McCanns never been declared suspects in the midst of the propaganda war to which they were subjected if that progression would happened as a matter of course.
-
Absolutely right.
Madeleine's parents had been thoroughly investigated and there was no case found against them. Therefore the investigation should have progressed to the next stage.
I wonder had the McCanns never been declared suspects in the midst of the propaganda war to which they were subjected if that progression would happened as a matter of course.
There was, according to the PJ, nothing else to do, so no 'next stage';
Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process, I submit it to your consideration, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
-
So what would have been the point of a reconstitution then, if none of the timings could be fixed? How many opportunities to re-enact the events of 3rd May would you have given the participants? There must surely be almost unlimited variations.
From memory but IIRC the recon was to take place over two days.
Day 1 for the actual recon - between 5.00p.m. and 11.00p.pm
and Day 2 for the PJ to study the events of Day 1.
IMO that would strongly suggest that those involved in recreating their movements of 3rd May would only have one go at it.
In view of the massive no. of different possible variations - because only approx times of 9 people's movements were known - the whole idea that anything meaningful could be established is preposterous IMO.
I still have no idea how a recon could establish the McCanns innocence. Their innocence of what?
-
There was, according to the PJ, nothing else to do, so no 'next stage';
Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process, I submit it to your consideration, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
The next stage should not have involved shutting down the investigation into a missing child and placing the onus to keep the search for her and investigating on her behalf, on her parents.
Portuguese police held their own Madeleine McCann reconstruction
A RECONSTRUCTION by Portuguese detectives of key events on the day Madeleine McCann went missing has helped persuade the country's legal officials to re-open the case, we reveal today.
By JAMES MURRAY
PUBLISHED: 04:43, Sun, Oct 27, 2013
The detectives, who have been reviewing the case files for two years, went to Praia da Luz on the Algarve a month ago to pursue secret inquiries.
They spent hours walking around the Ocean Club working out where certain people were seen at particular times and at Apartment 5a, from where threeyear-old Madeleine went missing on May 3, 2007.
The exercise was the culmination of months of work by four Portuguese detectives based in Porto in the north of the country, who are directly working for the highly respected senior officer Helen Monteiro, an expert on abduction cases.
It is thought her elite team of dedicated officers has recently been concentrating on statements from witnesses who say they saw unknown people acting suspiciously in the resort around the time the child was missed. The work in Luz came before Scotland Yard released photofits of potential suspects on the BBC's Crimewatch show this month.
Ms Monteiro has insisted all her officers work in absolute secrecy to prevent leaks of their inquiries. It was decided officers in Porto should conduct the review as none had any direct involvement in the first Madeleine McCann investigation and would therefore approach the case with fresh eyes and open minds.
In Portugal, Ms Monteiro is seen as the driving force finally to get the Madeleine case files re-opened after five years, rather than through the efforts of Scotland Yard. She and her team are working separately from the Yard, although there is close liaison between the two.
Yesterday Portuguese Justice Minister Paula Teixeira da Cruz said the decision to reopen the case, taken last week, was due to the work of the Policia Judiciaria and not because of pressure from Scotland Yard. She said: "The PJ developed diligences that allowed for this process to be reopened. Often there are almost perfect crimes and not all of them are discovered all over the world. If the PJ requested the reopening, it has good motives to do so."
Portuguese law officials and senior officers in the PJ have been acutely aware of criticism of the initial police investigation and insist they are determined to solve the case.
Ms Teixeira da Cruz urged people to be "proud" of the work being done by the PJ, which she insisted had not been idle in seeking to solve the mystery.
For a time Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were seen as arguidos or suspects but that status was lifted. Now they are being kept fully informed of all developments and were given a personal briefing of the work of the PJ in Lisbon last week.
The McCann's Portuguese lawyer, Rogerio Alves, is reportedly seeking for his clients to be "assistants" in the case. This would allow their lawyer to work closely with state prosecutors.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/439464/Portuguese-police-held-their-own-Madeleine-McCann-reconstruction
-
We know the timelines were created by the group which would probably be reflected in the statements. Group dynamics would likely result in some Members recollections having more weight than others who in turn would conform to the group will. IMO, the accuracy of the group timeline is not likely to be high.
I have to agree with this. I am aware that reconstructions can prove vital to progress investigations and have contributed in crimes being solved. The more time passes from the crime, the more recollections can somewhat fade and become less accurate.
Unfortunately I feel that a reconstruction would not further the investigation into finding Madeleine at this point.
-
From memory but IIRC the recon was to take place over two days.
Day 1 for the actual recon - between 5.00p.m. and 11.00p.pm
and Day 2 for the PJ to study the events of Day 1.
IMO that would strongly suggest that those involved in recreating their movements of 3rd May would only have one go at it.
In view of the massive no. of different possible variations - because only approx times of 9 people's movements were known - the whole idea that anything meaningful could be established is preposterous IMO.
I still have no idea how a recon could establish the McCanns innocence. Their innocence of what?
God knows. A reconstruction would have been a complete and utter waste of time. Would it have proven that Madeleine wasn't given an overdose of sedative and fell off the balcony? would it have proven that Gerry didn't hide her body later that evening? Utter nonsense.
-
There was, according to the PJ, nothing else to do, so no 'next stage';
Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process, I submit it to your consideration, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
They seem to have failed to consider Ocean Club staff and or the rest of the Tapas group.
-
...Would it have proven that Madeleine wasn't given an overdose of sedative and fell off the balcony? would it have proven that Gerry didn't hide her body later that evening? Utter nonsense.
From your comment I can assume that you believe a conspiracy to deny a body of legal burial is afoot? This theory has been around since the very moment Madeleine disappeared. I am somewhat surprised that after almost ten years people still entertain this despite the evidence that such a conspiracy would need is woefully lacking.
For me the most damning indictment for this premise is that it is hinging everything on the fact that Mr or Mrs McCann, or both suddenly had a complete character change and dismissed basic primeval urges to protect their offspring. Such a massive character swing, and essentially a fundamental character flaw would have certainly been evident prior to and after the disappearance of Madeleine. Prior behavior indicating that they were capable of this would have been so defining that a first year criminal psychology student would be flagging it up. In the rare instance that both parents, as is theorised, were involved then the fundamental character defects would be alarmingly apparent as they would feed off each other and there would be prior incidents reflecting this.
The only way this premise can function through to it's alleged conclusion is if you are willing to take on faith that either or both parents are capable of such disregard for human life and empathy without one single prior incident to sustain it.
It's massive ask, so big that at present without any supporting historical or crime scene evidence I cannot entertain it.
-
From your comment I can assume that you believe a conspiracy to deny a body of legal burial is afoot? This theory has been around since the very moment Madeleine disappeared. I am somewhat surprised that after almost ten years people still entertain this despite the evidence that such a conspiracy would need is woefully lacking.
For me the most damning indictment for this premise is that it is hinging everything on the fact that Mr or Mrs McCann, or both suddenly had a complete character change and dismissed basic primeval urges to protect their offspring. Such a massive character swing, and essentially a fundamental character flaw would have certainly been evident prior to and after the disappearance of Madeleine. Prior behavior indicating that they were capable of this would have been so defining that a first year criminal psychology student would be flagging it up. In the rare instance that both parents, as is theorised, were involved then the fundamental character defects would be alarmingly apparent as they would feed off each other and there would be prior incidents reflecting this.
The only way this premise can function through to it's alleged conclusion is if you are willing to take on faith that either or both parents are capable of such disregard for human life and empathy without one single prior incident to sustain it.
It's massive ask, so big that at present without any supporting historical or crime scene evidence I cannot entertain it.
Why is a prior incident essential?
-
From your comment I can assume that you believe a conspiracy to deny a body of legal burial is afoot? This theory has been around since the very moment Madeleine disappeared. I am somewhat surprised that after almost ten years people still entertain this despite the evidence that such a conspiracy would need is woefully lacking.
For me the most damning indictment for this premise is that it is hinging everything on the fact that Mr or Mrs McCann, or both suddenly had a complete character change and dismissed basic primeval urges to protect their offspring. Such a massive character swing, and essentially a fundamental character flaw would have certainly been evident prior to and after the disappearance of Madeleine. Prior behavior indicating that they were capable of this would have been so defining that a first year criminal psychology student would be flagging it up. In the rare instance that both parents, as is theorised, were involved then the fundamental character defects would be alarmingly apparent as they would feed off each other and there would be prior incidents reflecting this.
The only way this premise can function through to it's alleged conclusion is if you are willing to take on faith that either or both parents are capable of such disregard for human life and empathy without one single prior incident to sustain it.
It's massive ask, so big that at present without any supporting historical or crime scene evidence I cannot entertain it.
I think you'll find Alfie would fully concur with your critique of the premise, but was rather arguing that a reconstruction would not help establish any of it.
-
Why is a prior incident essential?
Criminal psychologists look for any indications to explain, confirm or dismiss apparent behaviour. And given what is being asked here, it is such a monumental flip in character that something would have been evident in their past to indicate that either or both were capable of such an essentially disturbing course of action. Even if it manifested only towards the weak, for example children, then family, friends, anyone who had an insight into their private lives would throw any sort of loyalty out of the window to protect the children.
These people are not monsters, and to entertain the theory they were involved in any capacity would mean such a disregard for Madeleine's life that to look at them just doesn't justify the suspicion.
-
I think you'll find Alfie would fully concur with your critique of the premise, but was rather arguing that a reconstruction would not help establish any of it.
My sincere apologies to Alfie for misunderstanding their post. I do agree as well, that I feel little would be benefited from a reconstruction now sadly.
-
From your comment I can assume that you believe a conspiracy to deny a body of legal burial is afoot? This theory has been around since the very moment Madeleine disappeared. I am somewhat surprised that after almost ten years people still entertain this despite the evidence that such a conspiracy would need is woefully lacking.
For me the most damning indictment for this premise is that it is hinging everything on the fact that Mr or Mrs McCann, or both suddenly had a complete character change and dismissed basic primeval urges to protect their offspring. Such a massive character swing, and essentially a fundamental character flaw would have certainly been evident prior to and after the disappearance of Madeleine. Prior behavior indicating that they were capable of this would have been so defining that a first year criminal psychology student would be flagging it up. In the rare instance that both parents, as is theorised, were involved then the fundamental character defects would be alarmingly apparent as they would feed off each other and there would be prior incidents reflecting this.
The only way this premise can function through to it's alleged conclusion is if you are willing to take on faith that either or both parents are capable of such disregard for human life and empathy without one single prior incident to sustain it.
It's massive ask, so big that at present without any supporting historical or crime scene evidence I cannot entertain it.
Well said (apart from assuming I'm into some cover-up conspiracy - quite the reverse!)
-
Criminal psychologists look for any indications to explain, confirm or dismiss apparent behaviour. And given what is being asked here, it is such a monumental flip in character that something would have been evident in their past to indicate that either or both were capable of such an essentially disturbing course of action. Even if it manifested only towards the weak, for example children, then family, friends, anyone who had an insight into their private lives would throw any sort of loyalty out of the window to protect the children.
These people are not monsters, and to entertain the theory they were involved in any capacity would mean such a disregard for Madeleine's life that to look at them just doesn't justify the suspicion.
You have therefore ruled out the possibility this could have been the first or only incident?
On what basis have you done that?
-
You have therefore ruled out the possibility this could have been the first or only incident?
On what basis have you done that?
Partly because there is a precedent for such behaviour, to be able to become so lacking in empathy and disregard for life is a process that generally has historic indications. Granted there are going to be exceptions however I don't see either Mr or Mrs McCann falling into that particular small subset.
Secondly, generally on the whole a parent to deny their child life, or in this proposed case, to willfully dispose of them, for me, that takes a mind set that is so dark I can't relate to. I would suggest that it is so dark that someone would not simply start with such a twisted act as it would need a severe counter to our inherent and need to protect, especially children.
-
Partly because there is a precedent for such behaviour, to be able to become so lacking in empathy and disregard for life is a process that generally has historic indications. Granted there are going to be exceptions however I don't see either Mr or Mrs McCann falling into that particular small subset.
Secondly, generally on the whole a parent to deny their child life, or in this proposed case, to willfully dispose of them, for me, that takes a mind set that is so dark I can't relate to. I would suggest that it is so dark that someone would not simply start with such a twisted act as it would need a severe counter to our inherent and need to protect, especially children.
I agree. If I had left my kids alone and one of them had died in my absence, my own job security, social standing and liberty would be the very last thing on my mind. I would WANT to be held to account, the guilt would be all-consuming. But then that's a normal reaction (I am pretty normal I think) - we are constantly being asked to believe that not one, but BOTH parents were (are) severely abnormal. Where is the evidence for this being the case?
-
Criminal psychologist read books,people watch, not all of them spot the behaviour of such people. Jamie Bulger was tortured and murdered by first time killers, also many first time killers only get spotted,identified of certain behaviour after the event. ie after they are caught! So your theory doesn't quite hold much water . Sorry.
-
Partly because there is a precedent for such behaviour, to be able to become so lacking in empathy and disregard for life is a process that generally has historic indications. Granted there are going to be exceptions however I don't see either Mr or Mrs McCann falling into that particular small subset.
Secondly, generally on the whole a parent to deny their child life, or in this proposed case, to willfully dispose of them, for me, that takes a mind set that is so dark I can't relate to. I would suggest that it is so dark that someone would not simply start with such a twisted act as it would need a severe counter to our inherent and need to protect, especially children.
1,What behaviour? you seem to have prejudged a behavioural characteristic to suit your argument. On what basis have you done that?
2 It being beyond your ken renders it neither impossible nor improbable.
-
1,What behaviour? you seem to have prejudged a behavioural characteristic to suit your argument. On what basis have you done that?
2 It being beyond your ken renders it neither impossible nor improbable.
8@??)( Well said indeed!
-
1,What behaviour? you seem to have prejudged a behavioural characteristic to suit your argument. On what basis have you done that?
2 It being beyond your ken renders it neither impossible nor improbable.
The personal incredulity fallacy.
-
Criminal psychologist read books,people watch, not all of them spot the behaviour of such people. Jamie Bulger was tortured and murdered by first time killers, also many first time killers only get spotted,identified of certain behaviour after the event. ie after they are caught! So your theory doesn't quite hold much water . Sorry.
Were the two children who killed Jamie Bulger completely normal kids who had never displayed any worrying characteristics or traits or [ censored word]ocial tendencies in their lives before the murder?
-
You have therefore ruled out the possibility this could have been the first or only incident?
On what basis have you done that?
None of the family liaison officers appointed to the case noticed anything which might indicate any such behaviour.
Prior to that neither friends or family had anything but positive comment to make about the couple and their relationship with their family.
-
Criminal psychologist read books,people watch, not all of them spot the behaviour of such people. Jamie Bulger was tortured and murdered by first time killers, also many first time killers only get spotted,identified of certain behaviour after the event. ie after they are caught! So your theory doesn't quite hold much water . Sorry.
You are exhibiting a total ignorance of the background to James Bulger's murder.
-
Criminal psychologists look for any indications to explain, confirm or dismiss apparent behaviour. And given what is being asked here, it is such a monumental flip in character that something would have been evident in their past to indicate that either or both were capable of such an essentially disturbing course of action. Even if it manifested only towards the weak, for example children, then family, friends, anyone who had an insight into their private lives would throw any sort of loyalty out of the window to protect the children.
These people are not monsters, and to entertain the theory they were involved in any capacity would mean such a disregard for Madeleine's life that to look at them just doesn't justify the suspicion.
I don't know why you think the parents would have had to be monsters to be involved in some way. You also seem to think that you can judge a persons character just by looking at them. I don't think it works like that.
-
None of the family liaison officers appointed to the case noticed anything which might indicate any such behaviour.
Prior to that neither friends or family had anything but positive comment to make about the couple and their relationship with their family.
1 FLOs work for the police. Why would they make public comment?
2 That could be explained by bias and /or being unable to recognise signs even if there were any.
-
I don't know why you think the parents would have had to be monsters to be involved in some way. You also seem to think that you can judge a persons character just by looking at them. I don't think it works like that.
Of course they would have to be monsters. We are talking about (HYPOTHETICALY SPEAKING) one parent discovering the corpse of their eldest child and rather than doing what any normal person would do and alert the necessary authorities, call the police, ambulance etc, instead went and hatched a plan with the other parent (a monster for agreeing to this plan in the first place, when they should have been ripped to pieces with grief), a plan which involved finding a hiding place or burial spot for the corpse, thus denying the child a proper burial, and the child's extended family the opportunity to grieve properly, and ALL to save their own skins. Not only that, but these monsters then went on to set up a million pound fund to swindle pocket money from ickle children, and pensions from impoverished OAPS. They then spend the next 10 years carrying off this crime without the merest hint of a crack in their armour, ALL TO SAVE THEIR OWN SKINS.
They would HAVE to be monsters, no question at all about it. The question is, do you believe the McCanns are these monsters?
-
Criminal psychologist read books,people watch, not all of them spot the behaviour of such people. Jamie Bulger was tortured and murdered by first time killers...
Venables and Thompson had already shown a alarming disregard for life. Yes unfortunately their first time at abduction resulted in the torture and death of Jamie. However, warning signs were there, and remain so which is why it is a point of contention in giving them new identities because their character traits are likely to reveal their true identities.
Also a big difference is Jamie was a stranger to them, with Madeleine's parents you have to factor in their parental status to Madeleine and the monumental shift in their characters required to dispose of their first born in such a brutal way.
-
Of course they would have to be monsters. We are talking about (HYPOTHETICALY SPEAKING) one parent discovering the corpse of their eldest child and rather than doing what any normal person would do and alert the necessary authorities, call the police, ambulance etc, instead went and hatched a plan with the other parent (a monster for agreeing to this plan in the first place, when they should have been ripped to pieces with grief), a plan which involved finding a hiding place or burial spot for the corpse, thus denying the child a proper burial, and the child's extended family the opportunity to grieve properly, and ALL to save their own skins. Not only that, but these monsters then went on to set up a million pound fund to swindle pocket money from ickle children, and pensions from impoverished OAPS. They then spend the next 10 years carrying off this crime without the merest hint of a crack in their armour, ALL TO SAVE THEIR OWN SKINS.
They would HAVE to be monsters, no question at all about it. The question is, do you believe the McCanns are these monsters?
Alfie - I can't read the post for looking at the avatar. @)(++(*
-
Partly because there is a precedent for such behaviour, to be able to become so lacking in empathy and disregard for life is a process that generally has historic indications. Granted there are going to be exceptions however I don't see either Mr or Mrs McCann falling into that particular small subset.
Secondly, generally on the whole a parent to deny their child life, or in this proposed case, to willfully dispose of them, for me, that takes a mind set that is so dark I can't relate to. I would suggest that it is so dark that someone would not simply start with such a twisted act as it would need a severe counter to our inherent and need to protect, especially children.
You go into an investigation with an open mind so all options are on the table. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in la la land. You don't rule anything out.
But tell me more about the past behaviour of SHY hot lips? Or I'm not here to enjoy myself?
"In the early 1970s, Ted Bundy worked for a suicide hotline in Seattle. His co-workers, including author Ann Rule, remember him as a skilled volunteer who helped ease troubled callers and saved lives. Talk about irony."
-
I don't know why you think the parents would have had to be monsters to be involved in some way. You also seem to think that you can judge a persons character just by looking at them. I don't think it works like that.
No I don't believe for one minute you can judge a person simply by looking at them. And no, it certainly does work like that. That is why people undertake evaluations, why victim support is sometimes necessary.
-
Alfie - I can't read the post for looking at the avatar. @)(++(*
My last avatar was abducted - I wasn't allowed to give the thumbs down to those who hate, so this is my response to that decision. 8(0(*
-
Of course they would have to be monsters. We are talking about (HYPOTHETICALY SPEAKING) one parent discovering the corpse of their eldest child and rather than doing what any normal person would do and alert the necessary authorities, call the police, ambulance etc, instead went and hatched a plan with the other parent (a monster for agreeing to this plan in the first place, when they should have been ripped to pieces with grief), a plan which involved finding a hiding place or burial spot for the corpse, thus denying the child a proper burial, and the child's extended family the opportunity to grieve properly, and ALL to save their own skins. Not only that, but these monsters then went on to set up a million pound fund to swindle pocket money from ickle children, and pensions from impoverished OAPS. They then spend the next 10 years carrying off this crime without the merest hint of a crack in their armour, ALL TO SAVE THEIR OWN SKINS.
They would HAVE to be monsters, no question at all about it. The question is, do you believe the McCanns are these monsters?
I think that some human beings. faced with a situation they can't change, are capable of weighing up their options and making choices. No-one knows, until they face such a situation, how they would react. What seems like a monstrous choice may, to the one(s) making the choice, seem like the only or the best choice possible.
-
I think that some human beings. faced with a situation they can't change, are capable of weighing up their options and making choices. No-one knows, until they face such a situation, how they would react. What seems like a monstrous choice may, to the one(s) making the choice, seem like the only or the best choice possible.
I'm sorry dress it up however you like, the actions I have described are those of individuals with serious personality defects and no moral compass whatsoever. You believe the McCanns fit that profile obviously.
-
I am going off topic here, so moderators please delete if this is in appropriate. It is with regards to the Jamie Bulger abduction and murder for which John Venables and Robert Thompson.
Please review this link regarding prior warnings that were evident alas only with hindsight regarding the murderers lack of empathy and value of human life.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257614/The-police-sure-James-Bulgers-year-old-killers-simply-wicked-But-parents-dock.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257614/The-police-sure-James-Bulgers-year-old-killers-simply-wicked-But-parents-dock.html)
-
I'm sorry dress it up however you like, the actions I have described are those of individuals with serious personality defects and no moral compass whatsoever. You believe the McCanns fit that profile obviously.
You, on the other hand seem unable to accept that people can'r be divided into 'good' and 'evil' or 'monsters' and 'normal'. People find themselves in situations where decisions have to be made all the time. Most people know what they should decide, but that doesn't mean they will always choose that path, particularly if they think it will harm them more than another choice.
-
But tell me more about the past behaviour of SHY hot lips? Or I'm not here to enjoy myself?
What has Kate McCann's nickname during her student days have to do with this? As with most students, I believe she enjoyed her freedom that university offers. In the past I have seen this offered up as some sort of way of detracting from Kate's credibility. To this day I remain bemused by it because from my personal experience of higher education, Kate was doing nothing out of the ordinary.
I should make it clear that I am only referring to her nickname that was given to her because:
'Renowned for frequently indulging in alcoholic binges and "dance till you drop" nocturnal activities, she immediately led the rest of her fellow colleagues astray. 'Hot Lips Healy maintained a consistent Friday night appearance in the Union throughout the whole of first year.'
As opposed to the salacious rumours that were circulated on the back of this that were manufactured initially to detract her witness credibility, and when that failed was regurgitated in an attempt to prop up another manufactured lie that everyone on that holiday was involved in swinging parties. A complete and utter lie.
The quote above comes from a report that shows that investigation teams went back to basics and checked both Mr and Mrs McCann for historical events that were likely to indicate major character flaws or as is reported "It's a back-to-basics check. We've been asked to trawl the backgrounds of the McCanns to build up a full picture of their lives right back to university.'It is a full check on their lives to see exactly what type of people they are."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487592/Police-dig-Kate-Gerry-McCanns-past.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487592/Police-dig-Kate-Gerry-McCanns-past.html)
-
My last avatar was abducted - I wasn't allowed to give the thumbs down to those who hate, so this is my response to that decision. 8(0(*
To either we would expect nothing less.... 8(>((
-
You, on the other hand seem unable to accept that people can'r be divided into 'good' and 'evil' or 'monsters' and 'normal'. People find themselves in situations where decisions have to be made all the time. Most people know what they should decide, but that doesn't mean they will always choose that path, particularly if they think it will harm them more than another choice.
If your child died and you believed it was as a result of a poor decision you'd made, do you think there are any circumstances under which you would strive to cover up the death?
-
You, on the other hand seem unable to accept that people can'r be divided into 'good' and 'evil' or 'monsters' and 'normal'. People find themselves in situations where decisions have to be made all the time. Most people know what they should decide, but that doesn't mean they will always choose that path, particularly if they think it will harm them more than another choice.
What words would you use to describe a couple who behaved in the following manner, if not evil or monstrous or morally bereft:
"one parent discovered the corpse of their eldest child and rather than doing what any normal person would do and alert the necessary authorities, call the police, ambulance etc, instead went and hatched a plan with the other parent (a monster for agreeing to this plan in the first place, when they should have been ripped to pieces with grief), a plan which involved finding a hiding place or burial spot for the corpse, thus denying the child a proper burial, and the child's extended family the opportunity to grieve properly, and ALL to save their own skins. Not only that, but the couple then went on to set up a million pound fund to swindle pocket money from ickle children, and pensions from impoverished OAPS. They then spend the next 10 years carrying off this crime without the merest hint of a crack in their armour, ALL TO SAVE THEIR OWN SKINS".
-
Of course they would have to be monsters. We are talking about (HYPOTHETICALY SPEAKING) one parent discovering the corpse of their eldest child and rather than doing what any normal person would do and alert the necessary authorities, call the police, ambulance etc, instead went and hatched a plan with the other parent (a monster for agreeing to this plan in the first place, when they should have been ripped to pieces with grief), a plan which involved finding a hiding place or burial spot for the corpse, thus denying the child a proper burial, and the child's extended family the opportunity to grieve properly, and ALL to save their own skins. Not only that, but these monsters then went on to set up a million pound fund to swindle pocket money from ickle children, and pensions from impoverished OAPS. They then spend the next 10 years carrying off this crime without the merest hint of a crack in their armour, ALL TO SAVE THEIR OWN SKINS.
They would HAVE to be monsters, no question at all about it. The question is, do you believe the McCanns are these monsters?
You missed the "best" bit, though. (You didn't, actually. You missed the worst).
Kate has just made the most devastating discovery of her life, the body of her loved and cherished daughter.
Gerry is oblivious and unaware in the restaurant.
Kate saunters back to the restaurant, imparts devastating news to Gerry and together they hatch a plan (without anyone else noticing).
Kate leaves the restaurant a second time, returns to the restaurant a second time; Gerry leaves the restaurant (without anyone else noticing); saunters back to the apartment, scoops the remains of Madeleine, saunters down to the beach past the noses of the Smiths and deposits the remains of Madeleine; saunters back to the restaurant; whereupon Kate takes her leave, only to return to raise a fake 'alarm'. And all hell breaks loose from there on.
It's easy when you know how ....
-
You missed the "best" bit, though. (You didn't, actually. You missed the worst).
Kate has just made the most devastating discovery of her life, the body of her loved and cherished daughter.
Gerry is oblivious and unaware in the restaurant.
Kate saunters back to the restaurant, imparts devastating news to Gerry and together they hatch a plan (without anyone else noticing).
Kate leaves the restaurant a second time, returns to the restaurant a second time; Gerry leaves the restaurant (without anyone else noticing); saunters back to the apartment, scoops the remains of Madeleine, saunters down to the beach past the noses of the Smiths and deposits the remains of Madeleine; saunters back to the restaurant; whereupon Kate takes her leave, only to return to raise a fake 'alarm'. And all hell breaks loose from there on.
It's easy when you know how ....
And yet despite the absolute scathing criticism of the McCanns over the last 10 years for pretty much everything they have ever said or done, apparently it is not right to describe their supposed involvement in a cover up which would almost certainly involve actions such as those you describe above as either evil, monstrous or morally bereft. Weird innit!!
-
You are exhibiting a total ignorance of the background to James Bulger's murder.
Oh I don't think I am. The reasosn being, before they tortured and murdered little Jamie NO ONE saw that coming did they now? Oh with hindsight they all came crawling out with 'how to find an axe murderer with psychology books'. As I said, This was only discovered after. You know a bit like me telling my children after they woke up that they had been in bed sleeping- didn't take much to know that .
-
And of course the one thing I was forgetting from my scenario above is the overdosing of sedatives malarkey. So, on top of it all we;ve got these parents that we mustn't call evil and we mustn't call monsters who have been over-sedating their kids all holiday so that they can go and eat and drink with their mates,which is the cause directly or indirectly of one of the kids' deaths. The death that they then plot together to cover up by furtively digging a hole somewhere and burying the body or tossing it in the garbage or hiding it under a rock and then claiming a million quid in pensioner and kiddies money to enrich themselves. Oh no, we mustn't say that such people are monsters, only a bit misguided perhaps. Caught up in the moment. In a bit of a pickle poor things. Is that better?
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LIBEL. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE MCCANNS DID ANY OF THE ABOVE. I AM SIMPLY HIGHLIGHTING THE ABSURDITY OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY WERE CAPABLE OF THESE MONSTROUS ACTS WHILST ALSO BEING NORMAL LOVING PARENTS WITH NO PREVIOUS HISTORY OF SUSPECT BEHAVIOUR,
-
If your child died and you believed it was as a result of a poor decision you'd made, do you think there are any circumstances under which you would strive to cover up the death?
Why not email Mr and Mrs Philpot. They murdered 6 of their by burning them alive! By the way... they loved thier kids too!
How about Mrs West?
-
Oh I don't think I am. The reasosn being, before they tortured and murdered little Jamie NO ONE saw that coming did they now? Oh with hindsight they all came crawling out with 'how to find an axe murderer with psychology books'. As I said, This was only discovered after. You know a bit like me telling my children after they woke up that they had been in bed sleeping- didn't take much to know that .
So the two boys in question had not one single behavioural problem that had been identified prior to the murder, and they were considered the most normal well-adjusted children up until that point were they?
-
Why not email Mr and Mrs Philpot. They murdered 6 of their by burning them alive! By the way... they loved thier kids too!
How about Mrs West?
Oh my. I've seen it all now. The Philpots?!! How about "Mrs" West?!!! Are you for real?! ALl perfectly well adjusted individuals about whom no one had had a bad word to say about, nor had ever troubled the social services in all their born days until they committed their crimes?? Is that your position?
-
What has Kate McCann's nickname during her student days have to do with this? As with most students, I believe she enjoyed her freedom that university offers. In the past I have seen this offered up as some sort of way of detracting from Kate's credibility. To this day I remain bemused by it because from my personal experience of higher education, Kate was doing nothing out of the ordinary.
I should make it clear that I am only referring to her nickname that was given to her because:
As opposed to the salacious rumours that were circulated on the back of this that were manufactured initially to detract her witness credibility, and when that failed was regurgitated in an attempt to prop up another manufactured lie that everyone on that holiday was involved in swinging parties. A complete and utter lie.
The quote above comes from a report that shows that investigation teams went back to basics and checked both Mr and Mrs McCann for historical events that were likely to indicate major character flaws or as is reported "It's a back-to-basics check. We've been asked to trawl the backgrounds of the McCanns to build up a full picture of their lives right back to university.'It is a full check on their lives to see exactly what type of people they are."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487592/Police-dig-Kate-Gerry-McCanns-past.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487592/Police-dig-Kate-Gerry-McCanns-past.html)
I thought you liked look back at charachter traits... Kate loved her freedom mmaybe she didn't like being burdened by kids and that is why she was determined to have a a good fun holiday in the evening without them bothering her. Just saying. She also displayed sighns and was treated for depression. And she also told the world that whoever has Madeliene she would give them her tuppance worth.... aways good to get a wee joke in there for the audience. Oh look Maddie has been abducted by paedophiles lets have a birthday party for her.. what? like really?
-
Why not email Mr and Mrs Philpot. They murdered 6 of their by burning them alive! By the way... they loved thier kids too!
How about Mrs West?
So you're basically saying that if you'd deliberately set your house on fire with your children in it then that's an occasion when you may strive to cover up their deaths? OK, fair enough. Great example. Is deliberately setting your house on fire with your children in it something you can see yourself doing one day?
-
Oh my. I've seen it all now. The Philpots?!! How about "Mrs" West?!!! Are you for real?! ALl perfectly well adjusted individuals about whom no one had had a bad word to say about, nor had ever troubled the social services in all their born days until they committed their crimes?? Is that your position?
No they almost got away with murder by.... acting normal.
I don't have a position! I am just pointing out to you. But how about Dr Shipman, nice little ordiary well liked by everybody doctor.
Some men in prison have had very difficult lives.... they never tortured and murdered kids! so that kills that idea of.
-
I thought you liked look back at charachter traits... Kate loved her freedom mmaybe she didn't like being burdened by kids and that is why she was determined to have a a good fun holiday in the evening without them bothering her. Just saying. She also displayed sighns and was treated for depression. And she also told the world that whoever has Madeliene she would give them her tuppance worth.... aways good to get a wee joke in there for the audience. Oh look Maddie has been abducted by paedophiles lets have a birthday party for her.. what? like really?
So in your opinion Kate McCann is some sort of psychopath right?
-
Oh my. I've seen it all now. The Philpots?!! How about "Mrs" West?!!! Are you for real?! ALl perfectly well adjusted individuals about whom no one had had a bad word to say about, nor had ever troubled the social services in all their born days until they committed their crimes?? Is that your position?
I don't think you have seen it all yet Alfie ... Karen Matthews??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4266966/Karen-Matthews-scathing-attack-Kate-McCann-Dreadful-Mum.html#ixzz4a14oovqq
-
No they almost got away with murder by.... acting normal.
I don't have a position! I am just pointing out to you. But how about Dr Shipman, nice little ordiary well liked by everybody doctor.
Some men in prison have had very difficult lives.... they never tortured and murdered kids! so that kills that idea of.
You are completely missing the point over and over again. ALL the examples you have given bar none are of individuals who displayed serious documented anti-social or criminal behaviour PRIOR to their crimes being committed. Can the same be said for the McCanns? NO.
-
So you're basically saying that if you'd deliberately set your house on fire with your children in it then that's an occasion when you may strive to cover up their deaths? OK, fair enough. Great example. Is deliberately setting your house on fire with your children in it something you can see yourself doing one day?
Oh stop being obtuse. they tried to covered up their involvement... cried on TV too!
-
Why not email Mr and Mrs Philpot. They murdered 6 of their by burning them alive! By the way... they loved thier kids too!
How about Mrs West?
Ted Bundy was a multiple killer by the time Anne Rule, the crime writer and ex policewoman met him while they were both working as volunteers on a student helpline and she thought he was a nice, regular guy. No one he worked with as a lawyer suspected his true nature either.
-
So in your opinion Kate McCann is some sort of psychopath right?
She may well be, I don't know.
-
Oh stop being obtuse. they tried to covered up their involvement... cried on TV too!
I asked the question of G-Unit (not the Philpotts) but you can answer it too - could you ever foresee an occasion when you would cover up the accidental death of your child (and deliberately setting the house on fire in which your child is sleeping does not count as an accident) to save your own skin?
-
I don't think you have seen it all yet Alfie ... Karen Matthews??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4266966/Karen-Matthews-scathing-attack-Kate-McCann-Dreadful-Mum.html#ixzz4a14oovqq
Yep, I've seen it - I don't suppose it will be long before Rosemary West pipes up with "well at least I never left my kids alone" too. It seems that leaving your kids unattended for 30 minutes at a time ranks as the worst thing you can ever do to a child, worse than abuse, kidnap, murder (but only if your name is Kate McCann).
-
She may well be, I don't know.
In which case you would have to agree that she is some sort of monster then.
-
You are completely missing the point over and over again. ALL the examples you have given bar none are of individuals who displayed serious documented anti-social or criminal behaviour PRIOR to their crimes being committed. Can the same be said for the McCanns? NO.
No Alfie you are missing the point here over and over. People who display worrying behaviour in some parts of their lives .Don't always end up killing their children! They move on get their lives in some order. and people who act 'normal' during and after killing someone is a very well known train missed. going by face value or job description to judge is someone is a killer or not Just doesn't always work it is a hit and a miss. As I said, psychologists know after the even it was likely but not guaranteed that people who display certain traits will kill.
-
I asked the question of G-Unit (not the Philpotts) but you can answer it too - could you ever foresee an occasion when you would cover up the accidental death of your child (and deliberately setting the house on fire in which your child is sleeping does not count as an accident) to save your own skin?
Yes. I do know. I am not at liberty to say on this forum.
-
No Alfie you are missing the point here over and over. People who display worrying behaviour in some parts of their lives .Don't always end up killing their children! They move on get their lives in some order. and people who act 'normal' during and after killing someone is a very well known train missed. going by face value or job description to judge is someone is a killer or not Just doesn't always work it is a hit and a miss. As I said, psychologists know after the even it was likely but not guaranteed that people who display certain traits will kill.
Re: the bit in bold. I didn't say that people who display worrying behaviour always go on to kill their children. You seem to be having difficulty understanding my posts. I'll try again. All the individuals you have mentioned who HAVE killed children, had PREVIOUSLY exhibited anti-social or criminal behaviour. Do either of the McCanns have a history or anti-social or criminal behaviour? Prior to Madeleine's disappearance had they been brought to the attention of social services or the police, in the way that ALL the people you have so far mentioned have been?
-
In which case you would have to agree that she is some sort of monster then.
I do not have to agree to any words you type. I don't use the monster word.
-
Yes. I do know. I am not at liberty to say on this forum.
You can't say whether or not you would ever consider covering up the death of your own child? Why in heaven's name not? Surely the answer is no, unless there is something very morally dubious about you indeed?
-
Re: the bit in bold. I didn't say that people who display worrying behaviour always go on to kill their children. You seem to be having difficulty understanding my posts. I'll try again. All the individuals you have mentioned who HAVE killed children, had PREVIOUSLY exhibited anti-social or criminal behaviour. Do either of the McCanns have a history or anti-social or criminal behaviour? Prior to Madeleine's disappearance had they been brought to the attention of social services or the police, in the way that ALL the people you have so far mentioned have been?
Again, previous behavour is not a given sign for people who kill children. I have no idea if Kate and Gerry were involved in behaviour which would flagg up worries. But the fact remains it means nothing because their daughter is missing and those two were the last known people to see her alive.
-
You can't say whether or not you would ever consider covering up the death of your own child? Why in heaven's name not? Surely the answer is no, unless there is something very morally dubious about you indeed?
I wasn't talking about me. I would never harm or abuse my children I never even smacked them! They would disagree by telling you about that time I removed the TV from the dining room= the mother from hell I was !
-
I don't believe for a moment that the McCanns were in any way involved in the disappearance of Madeleine, or of covering up her death.
I have wondered, however, whether they and their friends checked on the children less often than they have said.
-
What has Kate McCann's nickname during her student days have to do with this? As with most students, I believe she enjoyed her freedom that university offers. In the past I have seen this offered up as some sort of way of detracting from Kate's credibility. To this day I remain bemused by it because from my personal experience of higher education, Kate was doing nothing out of the ordinary.
I should make it clear that I am only referring to her nickname that was given to her because:
As opposed to the salacious rumours that were circulated on the back of this that were manufactured initially to detract her witness credibility, and when that failed was regurgitated in an attempt to prop up another manufactured lie that everyone on that holiday was involved in swinging parties. A complete and utter lie.
The quote above comes from a report that shows that investigation teams went back to basics and checked both Mr and Mrs McCann for historical events that were likely to indicate major character flaws or as is reported "It's a back-to-basics check. We've been asked to trawl the backgrounds of the McCanns to build up a full picture of their lives right back to university.'It is a full check on their lives to see exactly what type of people they are."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487592/Police-dig-Kate-Gerry-McCanns-past.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487592/Police-dig-Kate-Gerry-McCanns-past.html)
SHY she calls herself and her nickname at Uni was Hot Lips LOL. You don't know them and that's the point. Her own mother didn't call her very religious and she is demanding a priest that night instead of being out searching. Some people believe everything they say and independent witnesses like Pamela Fenn and 5A cleaner are mistaken. Police don't ask questions like this if there's nothing behind it.
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
-
There is a lot of use of the Personal Incredulity Fallacy in this thread, can we try to bring a bit more evidence to the discussion please.
-
There is a lot of use of the Personal Incredulity Fallacy in this thread, can we try to bring a bit more evidence to the discussion please.
we were discussing the likelihood of two parents with no previous history on [ censored word]ocial or criminal behaviour being able to drug their children repeatedly, coolly dispose of the body of their first-born and deceive the public into handing over millions of pounds, and if so whether or not this behaviour could be called monstrous or evil. The opinion of some sceptics seems to be "yes they could" and "no it couldn't" which I find rather bizarre!
-
we were discussing the likelihood of two parents with no previous history on [ censored word]ocial or criminal behaviour being able to drug their children repeatedly, coolly dispose of the body of their first-born and deceive the public into handing over millions of pounds, and if so whether or not this behaviour called rightly be called monstrous or evil. The opinion of some sceptics seems to be "yes they could" and "no it couldn't" which I find rather bizarre!
...and you keep demonstrating the fallacy.
-
...and you keep demonstrating the fallacy.
So, are you saying we are not allowed to discuss this subject?
-
SHY she calls herself and her nickname at Uni was Hot Lips LOL. You don't know them and that's the point. Her own mother didn't call her very religious and she is demanding a priest that night instead of being out searching. Some people believe everything they say and independent witnesses like Pamela Fenn and 5A cleaner are mistaken. Police don't ask questions like this if there's nothing behind it.
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
Do people usually give themselves nicknames? I may be guilty of some sort of logical fallacy here but I assumed she was given the nickname "Hotlips" after the blonde medic in M*A*S*H* not because she was necessarily a slapper.
-
I agree it was probably an alliteration thing, though it may have been used to describe other skills as well.
-
I agree it was probably an alliteration thing, though it may have been used to describe other skills as well.
And it would certainly be a logical fallacy (though Slarti is the arbiter of these things and don't want to tread on his or her toes in this department) that being a hot kisser means you're more likely to drug your kids, dump their bodies and cash in after the event...
-
And it would certainly be a logical fallacy (though Slarti is the arbiter of these things and don't want to tread on his or her toes in this department) that being a hot kisser means you're more likely to drug your kids, dump their bodies and cash in after the event...
I think you are trying to make too much of it 8)--))
-
Re: the bit in bold. I didn't say that people who display worrying behaviour always go on to kill their children. You seem to be having difficulty understanding my posts. I'll try again. All the individuals you have mentioned who HAVE killed children, had PREVIOUSLY exhibited anti-social or criminal behaviour. Do either of the McCanns have a history or anti-social or criminal behaviour? Prior to Madeleine's disappearance had they been brought to the attention of social services or the police, in the way that ALL the people you have so far mentioned have been?
The newspapers would have paid an absolute fortune for a 'juicy' story from the McCanns past - (and probably still would). However, it would seem the only 'revelation' they could come up with was that when Kate was a student - then shock horror - she behaved like ......... a student! AFAIK in 10 years no-one has topped that 'sensational' news.
That would not be the case if one or both of them were the psychopaths they would have to be - in order to be guilty of what some sceptics want them to be. Psychopaths leave a trail of destruction behind them as they go through life. Once the case became public there would have been plenty of people eager to come forward to relate their own very nasty experiences with them - and yet in 10 years not a single person has emerged.
The idea that they both suffer from undetected serious personality disorders is barmy IMO.
The power of 'wishful thinking' never ceases to amaze me.
AIMHO
-
If you are referring to the stories involving oral sex and dark rooms, this was a manufactured lie born on a then popular internet forum and used to attempt to discredit her because apparently, it makes you dishonest. This attempt like so many other hideous character assassinations failed.
Goodness.
I have never heard of those stories and was referring to her possible kissing prowess , which I think is what the original Hot Lips was about.
-
Goodness.
I have never heard of those stories and was referring to her possible kissing prowess , which I think is what the original Hot Lips was about.
I just remember the salacious lies that were made up to try and discredit Kate, and believe me, that is about the only rumour I could post, the rest were truly perverse and conjured up by some really sick minded people who would go to any lengths to discredit Madeleine's parents purely because of irrational hatred for them
-
The newspapers would have paid an absolute fortune for a 'juicy' story from the McCanns past - (and probably still would). However, it would seem the only 'revelation' they could come up with was that when Kate was a student - then shock horror - she behaved like ......... a student! AFAIK in 10 years no-one has topped that 'sensational' news.
That would not be the case if one or both of them were the psychopaths they would have to be - in order to be guilty of what some sceptics want them to be. Psychopaths leave a trail of destruction behind them as they go through life. Once the case became public there would have been plenty of people eager to come forward to relate their own very nasty experiences with them - and yet in 10 years not a single person has emerged.
The idea that they both suffer from undetected serious personality disorders is barmy IMO.
The power of 'wishful thinking' never ceases to amaze me.
AIMHO
The people suggesting they had to have 'serious personality disorders' to be involved in their daughter's disappearance seem to be those who support them. I have posted a scenario requiring no 'disorders' at all, simply very very difficult decisions.
-
Goodness.
I have never heard of those stories and was referring to her possible kissing prowess , which I think is what the original Hot Lips was about.
Major Margaret Houlihan and Major Frank Burns having a snog when "the tent" was rigged up to the compound PA system. "Margaret you have hot lips". There after know as Major Hotlips.
See the book by Richard Hooker. See MASH goes to Maine. Almost as funny especially when the Rollers* move in.
* Holy not Bay City.
-
The problem is that you are describing behaviour as a whole. You're ignoring the timeline element. Many parents have admitted to sedating their children on flights and long road trips, so sedating them so the parents can have a trouble-free night out isn't beyond the bounds of possibility. Neither does it make a parent into a 'monster'.
Sedation can, like any other choice, lead to unexpected consequences. Some children can have adverse reactions, even death. This could present parents with another choice. Medical attention, such as an autopsy, may reveal the sedation; it may even have caused or contributed to the death. Now something that wasn't a big deal has become a potential disaster. The parents could lose their jobs, their remaining children and the love and respect of family and friends. The choice now is own up or not. Owning up won't help the child, but could destroy the remaining family. Deciding not to own up has got to be considered, and if that becomes the decision it still doesn't make the parents into 'monsters'. In their eyes they have been forced to take a decision they don't want to take because the alternative is ruin.
Other unexpected consequences follow, including the Fund. The parents are now trapped by their previous choices and have to keep going because owning up has now become pretty much impossible. The consequences will be even worse than they expected earlier.
Taking the timeline into account shows how things could develop and lead to people making unpalatable decisions.
It isn't bizarre and it doesn't mean they are monsters. Just people making very difficult decisions under duress.
If
My point which I have already made (and which will have Slarti reaching for the Logical Fallacy klaxon again no doubt) is that the very last thing on the mind of a normal loving parent on discovering one of their children dead possibly as a result of a poor decision they (the parent) has made, is their career, social standing and liberty UNLESS they are quite pyschologically flawed or morally bereft in some way. Covering up the death of a much loved child, which would involve physically disposing of its remains in some way is a monumental act of deceit and criminality far outweighing the initial action of supposedly sedating a child and leaving it unattended for 30 minutes. Taking such a decision (and also agreeing to go a long with a spouse's actions) would indicate a callous disregard for the child and the family as a whole.
PS: I take it from your attempt to excuse such extraordinary behaviour as merely "a difficult decision" that you could envisage yourself in such a scenario and considering a similar cover up? Or do you put yourself on a higher moral plane than the McCanns?
-
The people suggesting they had to have 'serious personality disorders' to be involved in their daughter's disappearance seem to be those who support them. I have posted a scenario requiring no 'disorders' at all, simply very very difficult decisions.
As far as I am concerned there are NO difficult decisions for normal loving parents to make on discovering their beloved child is dead. To decide to do anything other than call for an ambulance etc etc is proof in itself that those characteristics which exist in all psychopaths must have been present in the parents imo.
Only abnormal people would hesitate in those circumstances and instead decide to weigh up their options - as if they had come home and found their camera had been stolen - and had to decide whether or not to tell the ins. co they had left the doors unlocked.
This was their beloved daughter FGS, who they had waited years for and who they adored. I can't believe there are people who can't understand the enormity of that - or the immediate massive effect that such a nightmare discovery would have on them - but who do believe that their dead daughter was now nothing more than a potential 'problem' to them - which apparently left them with difficult decisions to make. i.e. Shall we call an ambulance or shall we dump the body? What??
IMO that scenario is not an option to any reasonable minded person anyway - but especially to anyone knowing just how loved and wanted this particular little girl was. It is not humanly possible IMO for people to suddenly change from being normal parents one minute to being raging psychopaths the next.
AIMHO
-
As far as I am concerned there are NO difficult decisions for normal loving parents to make on discovering their beloved child is dead. To decide to do anything other than call for an ambulance etc etc is proof in itself that those characteristics which exist in all psychopaths must have been present in the parents imo.
Only abnormal people would hesitate in those circumstances and instead decide to weigh up their options - as if they had come home and found their camera had been stolen - and had to decide whether or not to tell the ins. co they had left the doors unlocked.
This was their beloved daughter FGS, who they had waited years for and who they adored. I can't believe there are people who can't understand the enormity of that - or the immediate massive effect that such a nightmare discovery would have on them - but who do believe that their dead daughter was now nothing more than a potential 'problem' to them - which apparently left them with difficult decisions to make. i.e. Shall we call an ambulance or shall we dump the body? What??
IMO that scenario is not an option to any reasonable minded person anyway - but especially to anyone knowing just how loved and wanted this particular little girl was. It is not humanly possible IMO for people to suddenly change from being normal parents one minute to being raging psychopaths the next.
AIMHO
I think the fact that people can somehow empathise with the position the McCanns allegedly fonnd themselves in and understand and rationalise the decision to allegedly dump their own child's body says very much more about themselves than it does about the McCanns - quite shocking really.
-
I have proposed a scenario where people could possibly find themselves in a nightmare situation where they had to make a decision which would change their lives forever.
People seem to think my scenario is outside the realms of possibility. Why? Because they can't imagine that others may have different responses and thought processes than they think they would have.
When it is suggested that leaving children alone in an unlocked apartment is careless or neglectful, there's a rush to post the opinion that it's a matter of opinion and not everyone approaches parental responsibility in the same way.
Now is the time, perhaps, to realise that different people react in different ways all the time. Most people know what's right, but not everyone chooses to do what's right if the consequences for themselves will be catastrophic.
-
I have proposed a scenario where people could possibly find themselves in a nightmare situation where they had to make a decision which would change their lives forever.
People seem to think my scenario is outside the realms of possibility. Why? Because they can't imagine that others may have different responses and thought processes than they think they would have.
When it is suggested that leaving children alone in an unlocked apartment is careless or neglectful, there's a rush to post the opinion that it's a matter of opinion and not everyone approaches parental responsibility in the same way.
Now is the time, perhaps, to realise that different people react in different ways all the time. Most people know what's right, but not everyone chooses to do what's right if the consequences for themselves will be catastrophic.
WRONG. I don't think your scenario is outside the realms of possibility. I thinks it's quite possible for people with low or no moral principles and a callous and cruel disregard for their loved ones and a desire to profit and seek worldwide fame from their criminal actions to behave in such a manner. The question is - are the McCanns those sort of people? What evidence tends to suggest that they would be the sort of people to make such a morallly bereft decision as to cover up a child's death, toss the body into a hole or a trash can and make money out of it all to save their own skins? You seem to have no problem with this idea, and given you think them capable of this, then surely it follows that they could also be capable of much worse - pre-meditated murder or manslaughter even, for example?
-
I have proposed a scenario where people could possibly find themselves in a nightmare situation where they had to make a decision which would change their lives forever.
People seem to think my scenario is outside the realms of possibility. Why? Because they can't imagine that others may have different responses and thought processes than they think they would have.
When it is suggested that leaving children alone in an unlocked apartment is careless or neglectful, there's a rush to post the opinion that it's a matter of opinion and not everyone approaches parental responsibility in the same way.
Now is the time, perhaps, to realise that different people react in different ways all the time. Most people know what's right, but not everyone chooses to do what's right if the consequences for themselves will be catastrophic.
You talk as if deciding to call an ambulance or to dump their own child's body is something which would present many people with a difficult decision to make. - depending on their circumstances - almost as if here was an equal no. of people on both sides.
I do not know of a single person who on finding their child dead would even begin to consider disposing of their beloved child's body as an option - no matter what their circumstances were. Would you consider doing it? If not why not?
Therefore your comparison between people's different opinions re the Listening method of childcare doesn't wash because although thousands do find it unacceptable- there are also thousands who don't.
-
Now is the time, perhaps, to realise that different people react in different ways all the time. Most people know what's right, but not everyone chooses to do what's right if the consequences for themselves will be catastrophic.
With the best will in the world, what you are asking of Madeleine's parents goes far beyond an emotional and rational response. Yes people do react differently in times of crises, however for someone to react to the extreme of covering up the death of their four year old daughter (nine days shy) and disposing of her body; that can in no way can be considered a rational thought or act. People who do think this way, think that way for a very good reason and normally display increasing character flaws.
-
I'm baffled by some sceptics' desire to try and justify or excuse the unjustifiable actions they believe the McCanns are capable of.
-
WRONG. I don't think your scenario is outside the realms of possibility. I thinks it's quite possible for people with low or no moral principles and a callous and cruel disregard for their loved ones and a desire to profit and seek worldwide fame from their criminal actions to behave in such a manner. The question is - are the McCanns those sort of people? What evidence tends to suggest that they would be the sort of people to make such a morallly bereft decision as to cover up a child's death, toss the body into a hole or a trash can and make money out of it all to save their own skins? You seem to have no problem with this idea, and given you think them capable of this, then surely it follows that they could also be capable of much worse - pre-meditated murder or manslaughter even, for example?
My scenario didn't include 'a callous and cruel disregard for their loved ones and a desire to profit and seek worldwide fame'. It portrayed a 'normal' couple doing something not uncommon so they could have a bit of 'me' time.
The result was a situation whereby they were in danger of losing everything they cared about. That was a huge punishment for doing something that many others do. A potential disaster of epic proportions.
Still, someone with 'moral principles' would, you argue, have held their hands up and accepted the consequences of their actions. Maybe, maybe not if they could see another way out.
-
My scenario didn't include 'a callous and cruel disregard for their loved ones and a desire to profit and seek worldwide fame'. It portrayed a 'normal' couple doing something not uncommon so they could have a bit of 'me' time.
The result was a situation whereby they were in danger of losing everything they cared about. That was a huge punishment for doing something that many others do. A potential disaster of epic proportions.
Still, someone with 'moral principles' would, you argue, have held their hands up and accepted the consequences of their actions. Maybe, maybe not if they could see another way out.
I'm sorry but I have a real problem with this. You don't seem to grasp that ANYONE with moral principles would have accepted the consequences of their actions and that taking the course of action you are suggesting the McCanns took would require a complete ABSENCE of moral principles. It would require the parents to put their own self-preservation above the well-being of their children, their family and the law. Looking for a way out of facing up to the responsibility of causing or facilitating your own child's death indicates a complete absence of decency or morality. I'm amazed I need to point this out to you, but perhaps your moral code is different to mine.
-
My scenario didn't include 'a callous and cruel disregard for their loved ones and a desire to profit and seek worldwide fame'. It portrayed a 'normal' couple doing something not uncommon so they could have a bit of 'me' time.
The result was a situation whereby they were in danger of losing everything they cared about. That was a huge punishment for doing something that many others do. A potential disaster of epic proportions.
Still, someone with 'moral principles' would, you argue, have held their hands up and accepted the consequences of their actions. Maybe, maybe not if they could see another way out.
I'm loving the way you're now becoming an apologist for parents who sedate their children, normalizing it in fact. Once again, shocked and amazed!
Can I point out that if sedating your child with some innocuous substance as piriton or calpol is legal and normal, why the need for a cover up in the first place?
-
I'm loving the way you're now becoming an apologist for parents who sedate their children, normalizing it in fact. Once again, shocked and amazed!
Can I point out that if sedating your child with some innocuous substance as piriton or calpol is legal and normal, why the need for a cover up in the first place?
Sentence two. Are you trying to sink the McCanns? The answer is blindingly obvious.
-
Before I get accused of working against the McCanns by SIL can I point out the way this discussion has gone thus far:
G-Unit has posited that sedating your kids in order to enjoy a bit of "me" time is something that thousands of parents do and is therefore not morally reprehensible behaviour or the action of monsters. Well, if true then whatever these "normal" non-morally reprehenisble parents are routinely and "normally"sedating their kids with is going to be something available over the counter and suitable for children.
If however the suggestion is that something was used on the McCann children that was NOT available over the counter, and NOT suitable for giving to children then I'm afraid we have strayed from "normal, non-monstrous"parental behaviour into rather more sinister and dangerous territory. Agreed?
-
I'm loving the way you're now becoming an apologist for parents who sedate their children, normalizing it in fact. Once again, shocked and amazed!
Can I point out that if sedating your child with some innocuous substance as piriton or calpol is legal and normal, why the need for a cover up in the first place?
Please point out which post G-Unit mentioned sedation in this thread?
-
Before I get accused of working against the McCanns by SIL can I point out the way this discussion has gone thus far:
G-Unit has posited that sedating your kids in order to enjoy a bit of "me" time is something that thousands of parents do and is therefore not morally reprehensible behaviour or the action of monsters. Well, if true then whatever these "normal" non-morally reprehenisble parents are routinely and "normally"sedating their kids with is going to be something available over the counter and suitable for children.
If however the suggestion is that something was used on the McCann children that was NOT available over the counter, and NOT suitable for giving to children then I'm afraid we have strayed from "normal, non-monstrous"parental behaviour into rather more sinister and dangerous territory. Agreed?
Sorry, your logic is more convoluted than the spag in spag bol. Didn't get it.
I have no wish to comment on G-Unit's position. I will leave that to G-Unit.
Is it possible to come up with a hypothesis in which the McCanns, nay the T9, felt the need to cover up an accidental death? It requires about a mental age of 8 to do so. Of course, just because such a reason can be easily constructed does not mean it happened that way.
Agreed?
-
Sorry, your logic is more convoluted than the spag in spag bol. Didn't get it.
I have no wish to comment on G-Unit's position. I will leave that to G-Unit.
Is it possible to come up with a hypothesis in which the McCanns, nay the T9, felt the need to cover up an accidental death? It requires about a mental age of 8 to do so. Of course, just because such a reason can be easily constructed does not mean it happened that way.
Agreed?
it may well be possible to come up with a hypothesis but it would be very obvious it came from an 8 yr old
-
it may well be possible to come up with a hypothesis but it would be very obvious it came from an 8 yr old
And?
-
And?
and there is no thesis that holds water to explain why they would cover up an accidental death......in fact there hasnt been a thesis that expalins an accidental death. a fall off the sofa wouldnt do it
-
and there is no thesis that holds water to explain why they would cover up an accidental death......in fact there hasnt been a thesis that expalins an accidental death. a fall off the sofa wouldnt do it
But a fall from a twizzing might be enough.
-
Please point out which post G-Unit mentioned sedation in this thread?
Quote from: G-Unit on Today at 09:32:05 AM
The problem is that you are describing behaviour as a whole. You're ignoring the timeline element. Many parents have admitted to sedating their children on flights and long road trips, so sedating them so the parents can have a trouble-free night out isn't beyond the bounds of possibility. Neither does it make a parent into a 'monster'.
Sedation can, like any other choice, lead to unexpected consequences. Some children can have adverse reactions, even death. This could present parents with another choice. Medical attention, such as an autopsy, may reveal the sedation; it may even have caused or contributed to the death. Now something that wasn't a big deal has become a potential disaster. The parents could lose their jobs, their remaining children and the love and respect of family and friends. The choice now is own up or not. Owning up won't help the child, but could destroy the remaining family. Deciding not to own up has got to be considered, and if that becomes the decision it still doesn't make the parents into 'monsters'. In their eyes they have been forced to take a decision they don't want to take because the alternative is ruin.
Other unexpected consequences follow, including the Fund. The parents are now trapped by their previous choices and have to keep going because owning up has now become pretty much impossible. The consequences will be even worse than they expected earlier.
Taking the timeline into account shows how things could develop and lead to people making unpalatable decisions.
It isn't bizarre and it doesn't mean they are monsters. Just people making very difficult decisions under duress.
-
Sorry, your logic is more convoluted than the spag in spag bol. Didn't get it.
I have no wish to comment on G-Unit's position. I will leave that to G-Unit.
Is it possible to come up with a hypothesis in which the McCanns, nay the T9, felt the need to cover up an accidental death? It requires about a mental age of 8 to do so. Of course, just because such a reason can be easily constructed does not mean it happened that way.
Agreed?
My logic is perfect, if you don't get it then that's not my problem. I don't engage with rude moderators so consider this my last response to you.
-
Quote from: G-Unit on Today at 09:32:05 AM
The problem is that you are describing behaviour as a whole. You're ignoring the timeline element. Many parents have admitted to sedating their children on flights and long road trips, so sedating them so the parents can have a trouble-free night out isn't beyond the bounds of possibility. Neither does it make a parent into a 'monster'.
Sedation can, like any other choice, lead to unexpected consequences. Some children can have adverse reactions, even death. This could present parents with another choice. Medical attention, such as an autopsy, may reveal the sedation; it may even have caused or contributed to the death. Now something that wasn't a big deal has become a potential disaster. The parents could lose their jobs, their remaining children and the love and respect of family and friends. The choice now is own up or not. Owning up won't help the child, but could destroy the remaining family. Deciding not to own up has got to be considered, and if that becomes the decision it still doesn't make the parents into 'monsters'. In their eyes they have been forced to take a decision they don't want to take because the alternative is ruin.
Other unexpected consequences follow, including the Fund. The parents are now trapped by their previous choices and have to keep going because owning up has now become pretty much impossible. The consequences will be even worse than they expected earlier.
Taking the timeline into account shows how things could develop and lead to people making unpalatable decisions.
It isn't bizarre and it doesn't mean they are monsters. Just people making very difficult decisions under duress.
In reply to posts suh as this one, of course;
Reply #83 on: February 28, 2017, 11:22:46 PM »
Quote
And of course the one thing I was forgetting from my scenario above is the overdosing of sedatives malarkey. So, on top of it all we;ve got these parents that we mustn't call evil and we mustn't call monsters who have been over-sedating their kids all holiday so that they can go and eat and drink with their mates,which is the cause directly or indirectly of one of the kids' deaths. The death that they then plot together to cover up by furtively digging a hole somewhere and burying the body or tossing it in the garbage or hiding it under a rock and then claiming a million quid in pensioner and kiddies money to enrich themselves. Oh no, we mustn't say that such people are monsters, only a bit misguided perhaps. Caught up in the moment. In a bit of a pickle poor things. Is that better?
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LIBEL. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE MCCANNS DID ANY OF THE ABOVE. I AM SIMPLY HIGHLIGHTING THE ABSURDITY OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY WERE CAPABLE OF THESE MONSTROUS ACTS WHILST ALSO BEING NORMAL LOVING PARENTS WITH NO PREVIOUS HISTORY OF SUSPECT BEHAVIOUR,
-
In reply to posts suh as this one, of course;
Reply #83 on: February 28, 2017, 11:22:46 PM »
Quote
And of course the one thing I was forgetting from my scenario above is the overdosing of sedatives malarkey. So, on top of it all we;ve got these parents that we mustn't call evil and we mustn't call monsters who have been over-sedating their kids all holiday so that they can go and eat and drink with their mates,which is the cause directly or indirectly of one of the kids' deaths. The death that they then plot together to cover up by furtively digging a hole somewhere and burying the body or tossing it in the garbage or hiding it under a rock and then claiming a million quid in pensioner and kiddies money to enrich themselves. Oh no, we mustn't say that such people are monsters, only a bit misguided perhaps. Caught up in the moment. In a bit of a pickle poor things. Is that better?
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LIBEL. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE MCCANNS DID ANY OF THE ABOVE. I AM SIMPLY HIGHLIGHTING THE ABSURDITY OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY WERE CAPABLE OF THESE MONSTROUS ACTS WHILST ALSO BEING NORMAL LOVING PARENTS WITH NO PREVIOUS HISTORY OF SUSPECT BEHAVIOUR,
Great post, thanks for re-posting. 8((()*/
-
Great post, thanks for re-posting. 8((()*/
It's certainly a great example of this;
1. describe something in the worst possible terms you can.
2. point out how absolutely beyond the pale your description is.
3. argue that only monsters could do what you described.
4. conclude that there are no monsters so your scenario didn't happen.
Of course if your description was wrong, you've achieved nothing.
-
It's certainly a great example of this;
1. describe something in the worst possible terms you can.
2. point out how absolutely beyond the pale your description is.
3. argue that only monsters could do what you described.
4. conclude that there are no monsters so your scenario didn't happen.
Of course if your description was wrong, you've achieved nothing.
And if you are wrong, you are falsely accusing someone innocent.
-
And if you are wrong, you are falsely accusing someone innocent.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, unlike some.
-
It's certainly a great example of this;
1. describe something in the worst possible terms you can.
2. point out how absolutely beyond the pale your description is.
3. argue that only monsters could do what you described.
4. conclude that there are no monsters so your scenario didn't happen.
Of course if your description was wrong, you've achieved nothing.
Nothing that I described is anything more than I have heard mooted repeatedly by many sceptics, it's certainly no worse than what you yourself have suggested. And yes, you would have to be morally bereft, a monster, to repeatedly and often sedate your own children with some illicit substance, the discovery of which in the body of your dead child would cause you such a serious problem that skulking about in the night with her body looking for a hidey hole is a preferable course of action. I have NOT concluded there are no monsters, I have simply asked you if you consider the McCanns capable of such monstrous, morally reprehensible and criminal behaviour? Rhetorically of course, as I know that the answer is yes you do.
-
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, unlike some.
I recommend you read defamation law in the UK which explains two types of innuendo ...
- false innuendo: which is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
- legal innuendo: is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
Using the device of a disclaimer regarding an innuendo made, would I imagine be no defence in law against in an accusation for defamation.
-
I recommend you read defamation law in the UK which explains two types of innuendo ...
- false innuendo: which is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
- legal innuendo: is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
Using the device of a disclaimer regarding an innuendo made, would I imagine be no defence in law against in an accusation for defamation.
Another member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because....................
My reply said that their reason for rejecting the scenario was flawed because................
The discussion was never about whether the scenario actually took place, it was about whether the member's reason for rejecting the scenario was valid or not valid.
-
Another member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because....................
My reply said that their reason for rejecting the scenario was flawed because................
The discussion was never about whether the scenario actually took place, it was about whether the member's reason for rejecting the scenario was valid or not valid.
Perhaps you would like to quote the bit where the member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because...?
-
Another member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because....................
My reply said that their reason for rejecting the scenario was flawed because................
The discussion was never about whether the scenario actually took place, it was about whether the member's reason for rejecting the scenario was valid or not valid.
PS: this is laughably disingenuous also. We all know where you're coming from, and to try and pretend you're not accusing anybody just won't wash I'm afraid.
-
Perhaps you would like to quote the bit where the member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because...?
Have you forgotten already?
-
Another member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because....................
My reply said that their reason for rejecting the scenario was flawed because................
The discussion was never about whether the scenario actually took place, it was about whether the member's reason for rejecting the scenario was valid or not valid.
I did not refer to any specific posts ... merely posted the legal definition of defamation using innuendo ... posters may not be aware such constitutes libel.
I do.
If I see it and cannot modify it ... I delete it.
-
PS: this is laughably disingenuous also. We all know where you're coming from, and to try and pretend you're not accusing anybody just won't wash I'm afraid.
I have explained my position. If you are unable to understand/accept it that's up to you.
-
Oh dear. People don't have to be 'monsters' to make bad decisions.
Repeatedly drugging your kids with some inappropriate substance so that you can enjoy some "me" time, then covering up the death of one of these children by carrying her body to some unmarked grave and then spending the next 10years lying about it and making money from the disappearance constitutes more than a "bad decision" in my book, but you keep on trying to defend the indefensible, it's an interesting volte face. You don't consider the issue of leaving the kids alone for 30 minutes alone. a bad decision, I think you described it as an act of lunacy, so the McCanns were mentally ill when leaving the kids alone, but just normal loving parents who made a bad decision when they were drugging them and hiding one of the kid's body. Hmm....I think you're a bit confused aren't you?
-
Quote from: G-Unit on February 28, 2017, 02:18:33 PM
Anyone can make a mistake. Sometimes mistakes cause suffering. Very often we can empathise because the mistake is one that anyone could have made. In those cases I agree, criticism doesn't help; although I wouldn't go so far as to bring morality into the equation.
The problem with the Madeleine McCann case is that many people cannot empathise with the parent's actions because they can't make sense of them. They can't understand the logic of their decision-making process. Why lock up in the daytime but not at night? To allow a small child to negotiate an exit via a balcony where she should always have been supervised? To allow her to find her parents at night in a strange place in the dark?
That, in my opinion, isn't a mistake, it's sheer lunacy.
-
The staggeringly bizarre thing is that there is understanding being shown here for parents who drug their kids, find one dead, hide the body and then go on to set up a fraudulent fund, deceiving their family, friends and the world for 10 years, but no empathy or understanding whatsoever for parents leaving their kids in an unlocked apartment in the evening whilst they dine, checking on them every 30 minutes or so.
-
PS: this is laughably disingenuous also. We all know where you're coming from, and to try and pretend you're not accusing anybody just won't wash I'm afraid.
You seem to be trying to create both sides of the argument to ensure you win.
-
I did not refer to any specific posts ... merely posted the legal definition of defamation using innuendo ... posters may not be aware such constitutes libel.
I do.
If I see it and cannot modify it ... I delete it.
You posted the information in reply to a post of mine, so I took it as being aimed at my posts. I do apologise if I was mistaken.
-
I recommend you read defamation law in the UK which explains two types of innuendo ...
- false innuendo: which is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
- legal innuendo: is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
Using the device of a disclaimer regarding an innuendo made, would I imagine be no defence in law against in an accusation for defamation.
It is explained in here:
https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-help/definition-of-defamatory
"Though a civil case, defamation relies on the judgement of a jury. If a judge decides that the communication has the possibility of being damaging then the jury must consider firstly what the meaning of the words or imagery is in its normal context, then they need to decide if its use can be defamatory. The jury should not consider the intention of the defendant, nor the knowledge that they have.
There are two different kinds of meaning that can be considered in a case of defamation – the normal meaning, which includes all the alternative, figurative and connotative meanings that can be derived from the word or imagery, and the innuendo meaning. An innuendo meaning is subdivided again into false innuendo and true innuendo. False innuendo is when the meaning suggested through innuendo is generally available to most people and does not require any other knowledge. True innuendo is when the innuendo intended requires special knowledge to understand and make it defamatory. For example if the defendant congratulated the plaintiff on their expectation of a baby this would not be viewed as being defamatory, until or unless you have the knowledge that the plaintiff is an 18 year old devout Christian, who is unwed and regards her own body as pure and chaste. In this case the seemingly amiable congratulations on a pregnancy can be seen, with special knowledge, to make an innuendo that the plaintiff is not as sexually ascetic and religiously principled as they are generally considered to be. This would be defamatory".
This should be read in conjunctione with the 2013 Defamation Act 8(0(*
-
You posted the information in reply to a post of mine, so I took it as being aimed at my posts. I do apologise if I was mistaken.
You are not mistaken that I was aware that I was replying to your post.
-
The staggeringly bizarre thing is that there is understanding being shown here for parents who drug their kids, find one dead, hide the body and then go on to set up a fraudulent fund, deceiving their family, friends and the world for 10 years, but no empathy or understanding whatsoever for parents leaving their kids in an unlocked apartment in the evening whilst they dine, checking on them every 30 minutes or so.
I can differentiate between voluntarily making a choice and being forced into making a choice.
-
You seem to be trying to create both sides of the argument to ensure you win.
What utter nonsense.
-
I can differentiate between voluntarily making a choice and being forced into making a choice.
Well done you. No one in the scenario we are discussing was FORCED into abandoning their sense of decency and morals, they chose to put their own well-being and liberty above the feelings and well-being of their family and friends, and above the law. Decent people with a reasonably developed view of what is right and what is wrong would not have chosen this course of action - you wouldn't, I wouldn't, or are you actually able to picture yourself in that situation, making those choices? Because if you are, I would say that was rather alarming to say the least.
-
Well done you. No one in the scenario we are discussing was FORCED into abandoning their sense of decency and morals, they chose to put their own well-being and liberty above the feelings and well-being of their family and friends, and above the law. Decent people with a reasonably developed view of what is right and what is wrong would not have chosen this course of action - you wouldn't, I wouldn't, or are you actually able to picture yourself in that situation, making those choices? Because if you are, I would say that was rather alarming to say the least.
Sometimes people choose to leave their children unsupervised and unprotected so they can go out and enjoy themselves. That is a freely taken decision and the motivation is selfishness.
Other people may find themselves faced with much more difficult decisions. Doing the right thing according to morality and social norms means that someone's liberty may be curtailed, careers may be ruined, a family may be destroyed, wider family may be seriously hurt and those involved will be vilified and ostracised. Doing the wrong thing means there's a chance that all those consequences can be avoided. Choosing to do the wrong thing in that situation has an element of selfishness, but also concern for others too.
I sincerely hope that I would be brave enough to always choose the right course of action regardless of the consequences for myself and my family. Owning up is an important part of my personal integrity and something I insisted that my children took on board.
-
It is explained in here:
https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-help/definition-of-defamatory
"Though a civil case, defamation relies on the judgement of a jury. If a judge decides that the communication has the possibility of being damaging then the jury must consider firstly what the meaning of the words or imagery is in its normal context, then they need to decide if its use can be defamatory. The jury should not consider the intention of the defendant, nor the knowledge that they have.
There are two different kinds of meaning that can be considered in a case of defamation – the normal meaning, which includes all the alternative, figurative and connotative meanings that can be derived from the word or imagery, and the innuendo meaning. An innuendo meaning is subdivided again into false innuendo and true innuendo. False innuendo is when the meaning suggested through innuendo is generally available to most people and does not require any other knowledge. True innuendo is when the innuendo intended requires special knowledge to understand and make it defamatory. For example if the defendant congratulated the plaintiff on their expectation of a baby this would not be viewed as being defamatory, until or unless you have the knowledge that the plaintiff is an 18 year old devout Christian, who is unwed and regards her own body as pure and chaste. In this case the seemingly amiable congratulations on a pregnancy can be seen, with special knowledge, to make an innuendo that the plaintiff is not as sexually ascetic and religiously principled as they are generally considered to be. This would be defamatory".
This should be read in conjunctione with the 2013 Defamation Act 8(0(*
Malice is a prosecution's argument; it works to counter a defence of fair comment or qualified privilege. If it can be proved that the defendant acted with defamation due to malicious intent then those defences would not be operative.
Malice is defined as the act of defamation performed with the intent to harm the party being defamed. An absence of belief in the defamatory statement, or a reckless disregard for whether or not the statement was true, is usually enough to conclude that the defamation was performed with "actual malice".
In England, the intent in Amaral's book would invalidate the defence of 'honest comment'.
-
Sometimes people choose to leave their children unsupervised and unprotected so they can go out and enjoy themselves. That is a freely taken decision and the motivation is selfishness.
Other people may find themselves faced with much more difficult decisions. Doing the right thing according to morality and social norms means that someone's liberty may be curtailed, careers may be ruined, a family may be destroyed, wider family may be seriously hurt and those involved will be vilified and ostracised. Doing the wrong thing means there's a chance that all those consequences can be avoided. Choosing to do the wrong thing in that situation has an element of selfishness, but also concern for others too.
I sincerely hope that I would be brave enough to always choose the right course of action regardless of the consequences for myself and my family. Owning up is an important part of my personal integrity and something I insisted that my children took on board.
The loss of a beloved child means that at a stroke - the parents lives and future happiness have been destroyed forever anyway. And nothing they could do would ever change that.
There is no way that normal loving parents would consider the death of their child to be an appropriate situation where they could sit down and basically look for ways 'to make the best out of a bad job' unless neither of them were normal loving parents and both them were psychopaths.
Only psychopaths could be so cold, calculating and totally devoid of conscience to be able to downgrade the death of their child to a level equivalent to that of an inconvenient bag of rubbish.
AIMHO
-
Sometimes people choose to leave their children unsupervised and unprotected so they can go out and enjoy themselves. That is a freely taken decision and the motivation is selfishness.
Other people may find themselves faced with much more difficult decisions. Doing the right thing according to morality and social norms means that someone's liberty may be curtailed, careers may be ruined, a family may be destroyed, wider family may be seriously hurt and those involved will be vilified and ostracised. Doing the wrong thing means there's a chance that all those consequences can be avoided. Choosing to do the wrong thing in that situation has an element of selfishness, but also concern for others too.
I sincerely hope that I would be brave enough to always choose the right course of action regardless of the consequences for myself and my family. Owning up is an important part of my personal integrity and something I insisted that my children took on board.
I despair, truly.
-
This discussion rather puts me in mind of one of the leading lights of the sceptic community who once confessed that he could envisage a situation in which he might find himself prepared to fling the corpse of one of his grandkids off a cliff (I paraphrase) - I know some of you will know who I am talking about.
-
I despair, truly.
Not sure why. The logic in G-Unit's premise is solid.
Against this appears to be 1 or more posters believing that the McCanns were good parents and believing good parents would never do such a thing.
With all the different religions in the world, most of the people who believe have got it wrong, however much they believe.
-
Not sure why. The logic in G-Unit's premise is solid.
Against this appears to be 1 or more posters believing that the McCanns were good parents and believing good parents would never do such a thing.
With all the different religions in the world, most of the people who believe have got it wrong, however much they believe.
gunits logic is rock solid....in your opinion
-
Not sure why. The logic in G-Unit's premise is solid.
Against this appears to be 1 or more posters believing that the McCanns were good parents and believing good parents would never do such a thing.
With all the different religions in the world, most of the people who believe have got it wrong, however much they believe.
I fail to see the logic in the suggestions made. In my opinion the fact the totally unsupported proposition is still being discussed X years down the line with the virulence it commands is indicative of something extraordinary.
What a pity though that you are unable to appreciate the diversity and aspiration to inner goodness of most of those who follow and believe in the religions of the world ... none of whom I think have "got it wrong" but are merely seeing things according to the culture they were born into.
Unfortunately there are those who utilise their religion as a weapon to go out of their way to damage others. Just as there are those who utilise their logic to go out of their way to damage others. Both examples of aberration.
Logic dictates that the chances that Madeleine McCann was abducted far outweighs any other option ... what the religious believe is a matter entirely for them
-
gunits logic is rock solid....in your opinion
SIL's unfailing support of G-Unit's posts is another major bafflement for me.
-
In England, the intent in Amaral's book would invalidate the defence of 'honest comment'.
I don't recall passing comment on it one way or another. I don't really give a rats ass whichever is true.
-
I fail to see the logic in the suggestions made. In my opinion the fact the totally unsupported proposition is still being discussed X years down the line with the virulence it commands is indicative of something extraordinary.
What a pity though that you are unable to appreciate the diversity and aspiration to inner goodness of most of those who follow and believe in the religions of the world ... none of whom I think have "got it wrong" but are merely seeing things according to the culture they were born into.
Unfortunately there are those who utilise their religion as a weapon to go out of their way to damage others. Just as there are those who utilise their logic to go out of their way to damage others. Both examples of aberration.
Logic dictates that the chances that Madeleine McCann was abducted far outweighs any other option ... what the religious believe is a matter entirely for them
I am not aware of G-Unit proposing that this is THE solution, the most likely solution, or indeed a solution of any sufficient probability to convince a jury that this is what happened.
But to repeat, the opposition to this premise is based on belief. Both in the nature of the McCanns (and presumably Matthew Oldfield) and that being good people, they would not do such a thing. What you are asking the forum to accept is that both these beliefs are true.
Roughly speaking, it is like saying the belief the Earth was flat means exploration across the oceans should not have been permitted.
-
Not sure why. The logic in G-Unit's premise is solid.
Against this appears to be 1 or more posters believing that the McCanns were good parents and believing good parents would never do such a thing.
With all the different religions in the world, most of the people who believe have got it wrong, however much they believe.
Unless there is a God, in which case the atheists have it wrong.
G-Unit's 'premiss' is devoid of logic.
-
The loss of a beloved child means that at a stroke - the parents lives and future happiness have been destroyed forever anyway. And nothing they could do would ever change that.
There is no way that normal loving parents would consider the death of their child to be an appropriate situation where they could sit down and basically look for ways 'to make the best out of a bad job' unless neither of them were normal loving parents and both them were psychopaths.
Only psychopaths could be so cold, calculating and totally devoid of conscience to be able to downgrade the death of their child to a level equivalent to that of an inconvenient bag of rubbish.
AIMHO
The tabloids are very fond of writing emotive copy which leaves readers in no doubt where their sympathies lie;
'suffering' 'agonised' brave' 'hounded' are adjectives often used to describe the McCanns.
'bumbling' 'blundering' 'disgraced' 'sacked' are adjectives often used to describe Amaral and the PJ.
Their ploy may work on casual readers with no knowledge of the facts of the case, but has no effect on those who understand that it is a ploy.
It definitely doesn't work on a forum, so using that ploy in a debate is a waste of time.
-
The tabloids are very fond of writing emotive copy which leaves readers in no doubt where their sympathies lie;
'suffering' 'agonised' brave' 'hounded' are adjectives often used to describe the McCanns.
'bumbling' 'blundering' 'disgraced' 'sacked' are adjectives often used to describe Amaral and the PJ.
Their ploy may work on casual readers with no knowledge of the facts of the case, but has no effect on those who understand that it is a ploy.
It definitely doesn't work on a forum, so using that ploy in a debate is a waste of time.
Adjectives apposite to their chosen subjects.
-
In England, the intent in Amaral's book would invalidate the defence of 'honest comment'.
Once more your opinion is at odds with the SC judge's;
Page 67
Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi.
-
Once more your opinion is at odds with the SC judge's;
Page 67
Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi.
What does the ignorance of the opinion of Portuguese judges have to do with English law (what my post was about)?
-
The tabloids are very fond of writing emotive copy which leaves readers in no doubt where their sympathies lie;
'suffering' 'agonised' brave' 'hounded' are adjectives often used to describe the McCanns.
'bumbling' 'blundering' 'disgraced' 'sacked' are adjectives often used to describe Amaral and the PJ.
Their ploy may work on casual readers with no knowledge of the facts of the case, but has no effect on those who understand that it is a ploy.
It definitely doesn't work on a forum, so using that ploy in a debate is a waste of time.
Tabloids do exactly that, and a whole lot more to manipulate, insidiously persuade and even completely whitewash. I don't think it can be considered objective anymore. The people behind the news agencies have their agendas and at times this comes to the forefront over the actual events, or they become skewed.
However I do feel that Benice made salient points, the major one being the kind of person who is able to throw away three years of parental care for a child they struggled to have, sought medical help with to conceive. To simply accept they are capable of doing this without any real indicators does seem a big ask of people.
The bottom line here is after all the interviews, TV coverage of Madeleine's parents, has there been anything to indicate that one, or both are capable of such an act?
-
Set against ruination of a promising medical career and ofa family life with two other children, disposal of a body might seem the best option at the time.
-
Set against ruination of a promising medical career and ofa family life with two other children, disposal of a body might seem the best option at the time.
If the child was found dead and a cover up deemed necessary it would surely be because of some nefarious reason that had caused the death - this in itself (drugs, abuse whatever) would point to serious personality flaws and criminal behaviour in the parents even before adding in the illegal disposal of a corpse, faked abduction and fraudulent fund.
-
If the child was found dead and a cover up deemed necessary it would surely be because of some nefarious reason that had caused the death - this in itself (drugs, abuse whatever) would point to serious personality flaws and criminal behaviour in the parents even before adding in the illegal disposal of a corpse, faked abduction and fraudulent fund.
If you say so.
-
If the child was found dead and a cover up deemed necessary it would surely be because of some nefarious reason that had caused the death - this in itself (drugs, abuse whatever) would point to serious personality flaws and criminal behaviour in the parents even before adding in the illegal disposal of a corpse, faked abduction and fraudulent fund.
Not necessarily. It requires no more than a decision that was not wise at a prior point in time, coupled with panic upon finding Madeleine dead. I'm am NOT saying this happened, but that is all it requires.
It doesn't require monstrous anything nor does it require previous nefarious activity.
Under such circumstances, the fund would be fraudulent, as Amaral pointed out in his book. In the scheme of things it matters very little.
You cannot use character as a shield, just as detractors cannot use behaviour as a sword.
-
If you say so.
Well wouldn't it? You find your child dead for reasons that are not immediately clear and you instantly spring into fake abduction mode doesn't exactly ring true does it? Unless you're some sort of head case.
-
I am not aware of G-Unit proposing that this is THE solution, the most likely solution, or indeed a solution of any sufficient probability to convince a jury that this is what happened.
But to repeat, the opposition to this premise is based on belief. Both in the nature of the McCanns (and presumably Matthew Oldfield) and that being good people, they would not do such a thing. What you are asking the forum to accept is that both these beliefs are true.
Roughly speaking, it is like saying the belief the Earth was flat means exploration across the oceans should not have been permitted.
I responded to your post in which you expressed your opinion regarding the logic of a belief system which was introduced and came into being in 2007.
Its adherents, in the main it's original proponent cannot give any valid explanation of its tenets. Without which there is no substance to the theory.
Therefore the theory which should have rested on the visibility of the evidence of which there is none, has been promoted by some at the expense of the theory in which the absence of evidence is tangible.
How often is it possible to carry out assessments of the McCanns and Matthew Oldfield before having that pang of regret that a competent initial investigation exercising just a little more vision beyond the nine might have produced a result for Madeleine?
-
Not necessarily. It requires no more than a decision that was not wise at a prior point in time, coupled with panic upon finding Madeleine dead. I'm am NOT saying this happened, but that is all it requires.
It doesn't require monstrous anything nor does it require previous nefarious activity.
Under such circumstances, the fund would be fraudulent, as Amaral pointed out in his book. In the scheme of things it matters very little.
You cannot use character as a shield, just as detractors cannot use behaviour as a sword.
It requires a hell of a lot more than that.
By 'theMcCannsdunit' theories, what are the McCanns supposed to have done with 'the body' (ghastly term!) in the 3 three weeks between May 3rd and them hiring a car?
And leaving for Huelva in a blaze of publicity, how come no one noticed them slip a three-week-old cadaver into the car before they left?
-
I responded to your post in which you expressed your opinion regarding the logic of a belief system which was introduced and came into being in 2007.
Its adherents, in the main it's original proponent cannot give any valid explanation of its tenets. Without which there is no substance to the theory.
Therefore the theory which should have rested on the visibility of the evidence of which there is none, has been promoted by some at the expense of the theory in which the absence of evidence is tangible.
How often is it possible to carry out assessments of the McCanns and Matthew Oldfield before having that pang of regret that a competent initial investigation exercising just a little more vision beyond the nine might have produced a result for Madeleine?
I have no idea of the history of this option, nor who was the original proponent. As far as I can see, neither matters.
The question is whether the position outlined by G-Unit is possible or not. It is. As long as no-one makes the leap from 'it is possible' to stating or implying in the absence of evidence that this is what happened, then it remains merely a possibility.
I assume from your post that the original proponent made that leap.
Aside from the fact that Madeleine is missing, there is no evidence to prove any of the alternatives, otherwise someone would have been locked up by now.
-
Not necessarily. It requires no more than a decision that was not wise at a prior point in time, coupled with panic upon finding Madeleine dead. I'm am NOT saying this happened, but that is all it requires.
It doesn't require monstrous anything nor does it require previous nefarious activity.
Under such circumstances, the fund would be fraudulent, as Amaral pointed out in his book. In the scheme of things it matters very little.
You cannot use character as a shield, just as detractors cannot use behaviour as a sword.
You are promoting an assumption based on a total misinterpretation of events ... if Kate's request for a priest was interpreted as a sign of Madeleine's death is anything to go by ... later reinforced by another grieving mother's marking of a passage in the bible she lent to Kate.
It is akin to naval gazing. Whether or not the checking regime rendered abduction unlikely ... there is a reluctance to discuss that or even the probability of abduction. Maybe it is programming or Pavlov's dogs salivating at working out yet another way of revisiting the same theory.
When will the penny drop that it doesn't matter how often it is reworked the end result is going to be exactly the same as it was in 2007 when investigators couldn't see the wood for the trees.
-
If previous character and behaviour of a suspect was of no relevance in a police investigation why do police investigate it in the first place?
-
It requires a hell of a lot more than that.
By 'theMcCannsdunit' theories, what are the McCanns supposed to have done with 'the body' (ghastly term!) in the 3 three weeks between May 3rd and them hiring a car?
And leaving for Huelva in a blaze of publicity, how come no one noticed them slip a three-week-old cadaver into the car before they left?
If you feel the need to incorporate 'retrieved-and-subsequently-disposed' into your argument re McCannsdunnit, so be it. I don't. A far simpler option is 'disposed-with-no-retrieval'. Though 'retrieved-and-subsequently-disposed' can also be made to fly, albeit it is a layer more complex.
You seem to build Huelva up as an essential test in 'retrieved-and-subsequently-disposed'. I'm not sure why. To the best of my knowledge, the other people on that trip make it as unlikely as me becoming the next monarch of Patagonia.
I take it you meant 3 month old cadaver?
-
If we were to discover that one of the parents had been found guilty of domestic violence would that make any difference to the case against the parents, as far as "sceptics" on here are concerned, or would it be totally irrelevant?
-
If you feel the need to incorporate 'retrieved-and-subsequently-disposed' into your argument re McCannsdunnit, so be it. I don't. A far simpler option is 'disposed-with-no-retrieval'. Though 'retrieved-and-subsequently-disposed' can also be made to fly, albeit it is a layer more complex.
You seem to build Huelva up as an essential test in 'retrieved-and-subsequently-disposed'. I'm not sure why. To the best of my knowledge, the other people on that trip make it as unlikely as me becoming the next monarch of Patagonia.
I take it you meant 3 month old cadaver?
Portuguese detectives are investigating a trip Kate and Gerry McCann made to Spain, it has emerged.
In full: The Madeleine McCann case
A day after a possible sighting of four-year-old Madeleine was ruled out, police re-focused on her parents, who are formal suspects in her disappearance.
They are believed to be studying CCTV footage of their journey to Huelva, across the Spanish border on August 3 where they went to raise their daughter’s profile.
Related Articles
Madeleine McCann: Gerry certain he was in bedroom with kidnapper 21 Sep 2007
McCanns hired detective firm with ex-SAS men 24 Sep 2007
Madeleine McCann police 'must find her body' 24 Sep 2007
It is understood police are suspicious of the trip because the McCanns changed their plans at the last minute and did not have any formal meetings while there. Detectives are said to be working on the theory, dismissed as ludicrous by the McCanns, that Mrs McCann may have accidentally killed her daughter and relied on her husband to help cover it up.
One line of inquiry is whether they could have hidden her body and used their silver Renault Scenic -hired 25 days after she disappeared - to dispose of the body. Traces of Madeleine’s DNA were allegedly found in the vehicle.
Police are puzzled by the high mileage, with 1,700km added to the clock between May 27 and July 3. They are sceptical about the Spanish visit because the couple did not arrange any meetings with dignitaries and two hours are unaccounted for, it was claimed. A
police source told Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha: "The trip to Spain on a national holiday raised suspicion and investigators have been to the country trying to find out where the McCanns went."
The couple’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell insisted the journey was innocent: "The trip to Huelva was organised on behalf of the Find Madeleine Campaign.
"It was conducted in the full glare of journalists from all over Europe and beyond. Kate and Gerry McCann are entirely innocent and have nothing to hide."
It is less than 24 hours since a little girl with striking similarities to Madeleine in Morocco was identified as Bouchra Ben Aisa, a farmer’s daughter. There were concerns that the authorities were slow to act after she was traced by journalists rather than police.
A source close to the couple said: "Frankly it is a sign of the times that journalists can locate a relatively obscure child in the Moroccan mountains and one would hope that the authorities were able to locate a child as quickly as that."
But Mrs McCann’s aunt Janet Kennedy said the McCanns were "philosophical".
"Inevitably it is a disappointment, but I think they are very philosophical about it because it’s happened so many times.
"Just suppose Madeleine is in Morocco, what does that mean? You just have to keep on."
Mrs Kennedy spoke as she helped parcel up more than 2,000 toys and gift given to the McCanns which they have decided to send to underprivileged children in Belarus.
They were left at the war memorial near the family’s home in Rothley, Leicestershire, alongside thousands of green and yellow ribbons.
They will be sent to Zhodina, some 20 miles from the capital Minsk, and Bobrusk in the south of the former Russian republic, next week.
The family has spent nearly £300,000 of the fund set up to help find Madeleine, which has now raised £1,041,697.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1564401/Madeleine-McCann-Parents-suspicious-trip.html
-
Child checking system discussed McCann's Irish RTE Late Late Show Interview May 13 2011
-
If previous character and behaviour of a suspect was of no relevance in a police investigation why do police investigate it in the first place?
What police investigate and what I can lay my hands on are two different things completely.
I can assemble a minor amount of independent evidence that Madeleine was not maltreated in the past, albeit questions remain.
We have a bit more evidence about how Madeleine was treated during the holiday. Overall, I would assess that as not great, whilst I accept the archiving report says they could not be prosecuted for neglect.
Their behaviour after the event I would characterise as extremely odd. However, I do not know what normal behaviour would be if the McCanns are entirely blameless, nor can I characterise their behaviour if they are guilty of a serious crime. I am not a criminal psychologist.
Perhaps the police have capabilities in character analysis and behavioural analysis. I know that I do not.
-
What police investigate and what I can lay my hands on are two different things completely.
I can assemble a minor amount of independent evidence that Madeleine was not maltreated in the past, albeit questions remain.
We have a bit more evidence about how Madeleine was treated during the holiday. Overall, I would assess that as not great, whilst I accept the archiving report says they could not be prosecuted for neglect.
Their behaviour after the event I would characterise as extremely odd. However, I do not know what normal behaviour would be if the McCanns are entirely blameless, nor can I characterise their behaviour if they are guilty of a serious crime. I am not a criminal psychologist.
Perhaps the police have capabilities in character analysis and behavioural analysis. I know that I do not.
The Prosecutors would not have trifled to make reference to 'neglect' if they thought it most likely Madeleine had come to the end of her days at the hands of her parents, or any of their friends.
-
You are promoting an assumption based on a total misinterpretation of events ... if Kate's request for a priest was interpreted as a sign of Madeleine's death is anything to go by ... later reinforced by another grieving mother's marking of a passage in the bible she lent to Kate.
It is akin to naval gazing. Whether or not the checking regime rendered abduction unlikely ... there is a reluctance to discuss that or even the probability of abduction. Maybe it is programming or Pavlov's dogs salivating at working out yet another way of revisiting the same theory.
When will the penny drop that it doesn't matter how often it is reworked the end result is going to be exactly the same as it was in 2007 when investigators couldn't see the wood for the trees.
No I am not. I am saying that the logic used by G-Unit stands up to scrutiny.
And I have made it clear that I am not into behavioural analysis, so I have no interest in Kate's request for a priest, or any passages marked in a Bible, or Murat's curiosity re phone analysis etc. etc. etc.
-
I am not aware of G-Unit proposing that this is THE solution, the most likely solution, or indeed a solution of any sufficient probability to convince a jury that this is what happened.
But to repeat, the opposition to this premise is based on belief. Both in the nature of the McCanns (and presumably Matthew Oldfield) and that being good people, they would not do such a thing. What you are asking the forum to accept is that both these beliefs are true.
Roughly speaking, it is like saying the belief the Earth was flat means exploration across the oceans should not have been permitted.
It's not about being 'good people' per se - it's about the unique, deeply profound and indestructable love that all normal people feel for their child from the moment their baby is born and they become parents. It is not like any other kind of love. The idea that it can be 'managed' or 'switched off' to suit changing circumstances is incomprehensible to me.
There is not a shred of evidence that the McCanns are not normal people.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1564401/Madeleine-McCann-Parents-suspicious-trip.html
I am not saying the Huelva trip/missing kms story did not surface. I am saying that knowing who else went on that trip and why, the body-in-the-boot tale to Huelva leaves me totally unimpressed.
From memory, Kate's book claims they were able to reconcile the 'missing' mileage. That equally leaves me unimpressed for a couple of reasons.
-
If you feel the need to incorporate 'retrieved-and-subsequently-disposed' into your argument re McCannsdunnit, so be it. I don't. A far simpler option is 'disposed-with-no-retrieval'. Though 'retrieved-and-subsequently-disposed' can also be made to fly, albeit it is a layer more complex.
You seem to build Huelva up as an essential test in 'retrieved-and-subsequently-disposed'. I'm not sure why. To the best of my knowledge, the other people on that trip make it as unlikely as me becoming the next monarch of Patagonia.
I take it you meant 3 month old cadaver?
Even a 'disposed-with-no-retrieval' option presents logistical problems.
That is why the 'retrieved-and-subsequently-disposed' option was introduced. Which led to the importance given to the car boot. Forensics did not support that theory ... which does not dissuade the firm believers one iota.
-
What police investigate and what I can lay my hands on are two different things completely.
I can assemble a minor amount of independent evidence that Madeleine was not maltreated in the past, albeit questions remain.
We have a bit more evidence about how Madeleine was treated during the holiday. Overall, I would assess that as not great, whilst I accept the archiving report says they could not be prosecuted for neglect.
Their behaviour after the event I would characterise as extremely odd. However, I do not know what normal behaviour would be if the McCanns are entirely blameless, nor can I characterise their behaviour if they are guilty of a serious crime. I am not a criminal psychologist.
Perhaps the police have capabilities in character analysis and behavioural analysis. I know that I do not.
What do you know of their behaviour after the event which enables your pejorative assessment of "extremely odd"?
-
What do you know of their behaviour after the event which enables your pejorative assessment of "extremely odd"?
How many do you need?
-
No I am not. I am saying that the logic used by G-Unit stands up to scrutiny.
And I have made it clear that I am not into behavioural analysis, so I have no interest in Kate's request for a priest, or any passages marked in a Bible, or Murat's curiosity re phone analysis etc. etc. etc.
The huge problem with that is that on such opinion was the initial investigation's conduct of the case coloured. Yours does not matter ... unfortunately theirs did,
-
How many do you need?
I would be interested in what influences formed your opinion.
For example, Lizzie Taylor had a formative influence on mine.
-
How many do you need?
perhaps you could give us three and see if they stand up to scrutiny
-
For example, Lizzie Taylor had a formative influence on mine.
May I ask in what way were they informative for example?
-
May I ask in what way were they informative for example?
They were an insult to my intelligence. Clearly manipulative. Clearly propaganda.
Any agenda which has as its basis for promotion a tissue of obvious lies and deceit is an agenda which is intrinsically wrong if not inherently evil.
-
They were an insult to my intelligence. Clearly manipulative. Clearly propaganda.
Any agenda which has as its basis for promotion a tissue of obvious lies and deceit is an agenda which is intrinsically wrong if not inherently evil.
Ok thank you, I suspected as much as I have read mixed opinions on her and the majority are highly critical and pretty much say the same things you have. My reason for asking was because Richard D Hall includes her several times in his videos and I wanted to know more about this person and their credibility.
-
perhaps you could give us three and see if they stand up to scrutiny
I'm happy that they stand up to my scrutiny.
-
I would be interested in what influences formed your opinion.
For example, Lizzie Taylor had a formative influence on mine.
Never heard of her. Judging by what you have written elsewhere, I'm not missing much.
-
Never heard of her. Judging by what you have written elsewhere, I'm not missing much.
Wasn't she that film star who had multiple husbands?
-
It's not about being 'good people' per se - it's about the unique, deeply profound and indestructable love that all normal people feel for their child from the moment their baby is born and they become parents. It is not like any other kind of love. The idea that it can be 'managed' or 'switched off' to suit changing circumstances is incomprehensible to me.
There is not a shred of evidence that the McCanns are not normal people.
Well, at least we're learning about your view of what a 'normal person' is. Your view, of course, is not necessarily correct. Did you know that not all 'normal people' bond immediately with their babies? Or do you think that such people are abnormal in some way?
Bonding is that feeling of unconditional love and attachment between you and your baby. Some mums feel it the moment their baby is born, others can take weeks or months – so don’t panic.
http://www.bounty.com/baby-0-to-12-months/postnatal-depression-and-bonding/bonding
-
What do you know of their behaviour after the event which enables your pejorative assessment of "extremely odd"?
the behavioural experts who encountered the McCanns first hand assessed their behaviour as entirely in keeping with those of other parents in similar situations so I don't really think we need the benefit of a non-expert opinion from someone who wasn't there at the time and who in any case professes to not being very good with empathy.
-
the behavioural experts who encountered the McCanns first hand assessed their behaviour as entirely in keeping with those of other parents in similar situations so I don't really think we need the benefit of a non-expert opinion from someone who wasn't there at the time and who in any case professes to not being very good with empathy.
Don't worry, I wasn't giving you the benefit of anything other than my right to free speech.
Didn't you say you were putting me on ignore?
-
the behavioural experts who encountered the McCanns first hand assessed their behaviour as entirely in keeping with those of other parents in similar situations so I don't really think we need the benefit of a non-expert opinion from someone who wasn't there at the time and who in any case professes to not being very good with empathy.
Who were these behavioural experts?
-
Never heard of her. Judging by what you have written elsewhere, I'm not missing much.
Hmmm ... neat sidestep there ... I may have expressed an interest in what may have formed your opinion ... but it seems that is information you prefer not to divulge.
No worries. I find that nonetheless informative and interesting too.
-
the behavioural experts who encountered the McCanns first hand assessed their behaviour as entirely in keeping with those of other parents in similar situations so I don't really think we need the benefit of a non-expert opinion from someone who wasn't there at the time and who in any case professes to not being very good with empathy.
And again, the prosecutors made reference to behaviour:
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements,
Of course, by afterwards, the prosecutors mean, behaviour that would be consistent with that of any parent who had discovered his or her child had just vanished.
-
I'm happy that they stand up to my scrutiny.
If their behaviour was so odd, why did Ricardo Paiva allow these "strange individuals" to spend time with his family (which included his young children)?
-
Don't worry, I wasn't giving you the benefit of anything other than my right to free speech.
Didn't you say you were putting me on ignore?
He says that to everyone.
-
Who were these behavioural experts?
I don't know why you ask me questions that you, being a total expert on the files, already know the answer to but still. Here's one.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ALAN-PIKE.htm
-
I don't know why you ask me questions that you, being a total expert on the files, already know the answer to but still. Here's one.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ALAN-PIKE.htm
Their comportment did not surprise me. It was a comportment which I have witnessed a lot at times when a trauma is suffered. In my opinion, their reaction relative to the disappearance of Madeleine, as already stated above, was completely within the bounds of what one would expect of parents whose daughter was taken from them against their will.
But then, what would he know?
Or the Leicestershire Police liaison officers who all testified that nothing in the behaviour of the McCanns raised, in them, the slightest suspicions.
The pool of real expertise rests on this board, and in the insight of such luminaries as G-Unit ....
-
I'm happy that they stand up to my scrutiny.
then its purely your own opinion which has no value to anyone but you
-
I don't know why you ask me questions that you, being a total expert on the files, already know the answer to but still. Here's one.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ALAN-PIKE.htm
I knew about that one, it's the others I was wondering about. As you said experts there must be another or others?
-
Hmmm ... neat sidestep there ... I may have expressed an interest in what may have formed your opinion ... but it seems that is information you prefer not to divulge.
No worries. I find that nonetheless informative and interesting too.
I haven't sidestepped anything.
I have made it clear I am not a behavioural expert. Accordingly I have little basis on which to properly evaluate supposed analysis of the behaviour of those involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.
So my opinion was formed by me without reference to anyone else.
-
But then, what would he know?
Or the Leicestershire Police liaison officers who all testified that nothing in the behaviour of the McCanns raised, in them, the slightest suspicions.
The pool of real expertise rests on this board, and in the insight of such luminaries as G-Unit ....
The liaison officers were not completely unanimous as I recall, and they weren't asked the questions the PJ wanted asked. Not forgetting that the McCanns dispensed with their services, of course.
-
The liaison officers were not completely unanimous as I recall, and they weren't asked the questions the PJ wanted asked. Not forgetting that the McCanns dispensed with their services, of course.
The UK Leicestershire Police officers.
Forget Paivia .....
-
If their behaviour was so odd, why did Ricardo Paiva allow these "strange individuals" to spend time with his family (which included his young children)?
I wouldn't hesitate for a second to have the McCanns spend time with my family, which includes young children. So I see this as somewhat of a non-point. I am more concerned that the kids have a particularly strong and now aging dog around their little ones. Since our house move finally appears to be on, I will be keeping my eye on the b*tch, sorry doggy!
IMO, the McCanns are more welcome in my household than the family dog is. I dare say if we were ever to meet, they would find my behaviour just as odd as I found theirs. It doesn't make me guilty of anything, does it?
-
I wouldn't hesitate for a second to have the McCanns spend time with my family, which includes young children. So I see this as somewhat of a non-point. I am more concerned that the kids have a particularly strong and now aging dog around their little ones. Since our house move finally appears to be on, I will be keeping my eye on the b*tch, sorry doggy!
IMO, the McCanns are more welcome in my household than the family dog is. I dare say if we were ever to meet, they would find my behaviour just as odd as I found theirs. It doesn't make me guilty of anything, does it?
You have the luxury of knowledge gleaned from almost 10 years of McCann-related information which helps you to determine whether or not they are child killers/cadaver concealers. Paiva was dealing with suspects in a Missing Child case & as the Portuguese FLO had to use his own professional & personal judgement.
-
I knew about that one, it's the others I was wondering about. As you said experts there must be another or others?
How many professional people - doctors, FLOs, etc - stating that the McCanns' behaviour was normal and to be expected will it take before you accept it, if I know in advance it will make no difference to your opinion whatsoever it will save me the trouble of searching out the relevant cites, thanks.
-
RANSLATIONS BY INES
05-Cartas Rogatorias Vol V Page 13
cr5_13
LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE FORCE
Witness Statement by Neil Holden
Occupation: Police Officer
This statement, consisting of one page, signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief .
Date: 25 April 2008
Signature:
I am police inspector 607 Holden of the Leicestershire police, currently based in the criminal unit.
In 2007 in relation to the Portuguese investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, I was sent to Portugal in the official role of liaison officer to the McCann family.
According to the Letters of Request from the Portuguese police, I was asked to respond to the following question:
Was anything said or done by Kate or Gerry McCann in your presence or during your contacts that may have raised any suspicion that they had knowledge of what happened to Madeleine, besides the circumstances described to the Portuguese investigators?
My response to the above question is: No.
-
EICESTERSHIRE POLICE FORCE
Witness Statement by Michael Graham
Occupation: Police Officer
This statement, consisting of one page, signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief .
Date: 21 April 2008
Signature:
I am police inspector 1127 Graham of the Leicestershire police, currently based in the criminal unit.
In 2007 in relation to the Portuguese investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, I was sent to Portugal in the official role of liaison officer to the McCann family.
According to the Letters of Request from the Portuguese police, I was asked to respond to the following question:
Was anything said or done by Kate or Gerry McCann in your presence or during your contacts that may have raised any suspicion that they had knowledge of what happened to Madeleine, besides the circumstances described to the Portuguese investigators?
My response to the above question is: No.
This statement was made by me and is in accordance with my understanding.
-
You weren't there, so how would you know ?
-
How many professional people - doctors, FLOs, etc - stating that the McCanns' behaviour was normal and to be expected will it take before you accept it, if I know in advance it will make no difference to your opinion whatsoever it will save me the trouble of searching out the relevant cites, thanks.
Or, in other words, you can find only one behavioural expert?
-
Or, in other words, you can find only one behavioural expert?
Childish, pedantic. I found one. There may be only one. There are statements from doctors and FLOs too which describe normal, understandable behaviour, nevertheless you win, congratulations.
-
Statement by Jim McGarvey
This statement consisting of two pages is true and consistent with my understanding.
Date: 25th April 2008
I am police Inspector McGarvey of the Leicestershire police force, currently based in the criminal unit.
In 2007 and in relation to the Portuguese investigation carried out into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, I was detached to Portugal in the role of communication officer for the family.
In accordance with the Portuguese PJ Letter of Request I was asked to respond to the following question:
Was there anything done or said by Kate or Gerry McCann in your presence or during various contacts that could raise any suspicion that they could have had any knowledge of what could have happened to Madeleine, beyond the circumstances described to the Portuguese investigators.
My reply to the question: No.
In relation to the above I would like to mention that at approximately 20.00 on the 5th May, I arrived at the McCann apartment with other family communications officers. We were asked several times during this meeting about questions that Gerald and Kate would like to have followed up and responded to by the PJ.
I remember that during the meetings, Kate revealed that Madeleine had spoken with her in the morning of her disappearance and said that she remembered the twins had cried during the night and that she wanted to know why neither her mother or father had appeared. Kate asked herself whether this fact could have any relation with Madeleine’s disappearance.
Gerry and Kate also questioned whether there was any suggestion that pointed to the use of drugs to facilitate Madeleine's abduction.
This statement was made by me and is truthful in accordance with my knowledge.
-
Other than your fellow supporters, you won't find anyone who will agree with you.
-
Other than your fellow supporters, you won't find anyone who will agree with you.
Apart from all the liaison officers assigned to work with Kate and Gerry (barring Paivia ....), Alan Pike, real experts in reading body-language, such as Sharon Leal ....
People like that.
Oh, and Mark Harrison, who made plain that no incriminating inference could, or should, be drawn from the dog-alerts, and concluded that if Madeleine is dead, it is most likely Madeleine's remains were disposed of into the sea, but he really didn't know .....
-
Apart from all the liaison officers assigned to work with Kate and Gerry (barring Paivia ....), Alan Pike, real experts in reading body-language, such as Sharon Leal ....
People like that.
Oh, and Mark Harrison, who made plain that no incriminating inference could, or should, be drawn from the dog-alerts, and concluded that if Madeleine is dead, it is most likely Madeleine's remains were disposed of into the sea, but he really didn't know .....
Alan Pike, PAID FOR by the Mccanns.
Sharon Leal, just one name.
You will have to do better than that.
-
Alan Pike, PAID FOR by the Mccanns.
Sharon Leal, just one name.
You will have to do better than that.
A post of blatant libel against Alan Pike, which you will doubtless get away with ....
-
Alan Pike, PAID FOR by the Mccanns.
Sharon Leal, just one name.
You will have to do better than that.
You have to pay for your own witnesses in a Portuguese court.
-
A post of blatant libel against Alan Pike, which you will doubtless get away with ....
The McCann employed him.
They paid for him.
As to Pike, please remind me of his professional qualifications, with a cite.
Hold on, here it is.............
' The Manchester Metropolitan University
BA (Hons) Social Science, Psychology
1986 – 1989 '
8((()*/
-
Alan Pike, PAID FOR by the Mccanns.
Sharon Leal, just one name.
You will have to do better than that.
This one ?
http://www.port.ac.uk/department-of-psychology/staff/dr-sharon-leal.html
-
The McCann employed him.
They paid for him.
As to Pike, please remind me of his professional qualifications, with a cite.
Hold on, here it is.............
' The Manchester Metropolitan University
BA (Hons) Social Science, Psychology
1986 – 1989 '
8((()*/
https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/march/reading-people-behavioral-anomalies-and-investigative-interviewing
"When reading people, one important distinction interviewers must make is the difference between validated and nonvalidated indicators. Those that are validated have scientific and field evidence documenting the association between the behavior and specific cognitions or emotions. These anomalies are laboratory tested under strict scientific conditions and vetted in the field by practitioners. Nonvalidated indicators lack such data—either in scientific evidence, field operations, or both.[1]
Validation provides evidence for accuracy and consistency across various people in different contexts. Noticing that a suspect’s hands were held in a certain way when describing an incident that later turned out to be a lie is not evidence that the behavior is indicative of lying for other people in varying situations. Observation alone is not sufficient to label a certain behavior as a validated indicator because it has not withstood the scrutiny of rigorous testing in the laboratory and the field. Such testing would require establishing the conditions in which the indicator may or may not occur with multiple people. If the behavior ensued that would be evidence for its validation, and if it did not that would be verification for its nonvalidation".
-
I haven't sidestepped anything.
I have made it clear I am not a behavioural expert. Accordingly I have little basis on which to properly evaluate supposed analysis of the behaviour of those involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.
So my opinion was formed by me without reference to anyone else.
Opinions are rarely formed in a Damascene moment. It is my experience they are formed as a result of outside information of one type or another.
-
So when professionals with first-hand knowledge of the situation say the McCanns behaved as expected, normal for parents in their position, then these professionals must be smeared and ridiculed.
When non-expert anonymous internet users of a chatroom with only third-hand knowledge of the situation say that the McCanns' behaviour was extremely odd then these views must be respected as valid opinion.
It's really quite laughable.
-
So when professionals with first-hand knowledge of the situation say the McCanns behaved as expected, normal for parents in their position, then these professionals must be smeared and ridiculed.
When non-expert anonymous internet users of a chatroom with only third-hand knowledge of the situation say that the McCanns' behaviour was extremely odd then these views must be respected as valid opinion.
It's really quite laughable.
Not really. It is how the game is played out in court. Each side has its own experts and its own briefs. The brief of one side then tries to shred the credibility of the opposing sides experts. It is all part and parcel of the rules of engagement.
-
Interesting but what's it all about?
-
If we are to entertain for one moment that an organised gang were involved, which I believe Scotland Yard is investigating then I think it's fair to assume that they are going to be very good as such activities. Especially if she was stolen to order as has been suggested. How long would it reasonably take for someone proficient in child abductions to find the unlocked patio door, locate Madeleine and be out of there without anyone seeing or hearing? Even with the checking routine the parents were using, anything over 5 minutes I would suspect gives someone looking to abduct Madeleine more than enough time.
The only thing that contradicts here is that Madeleine is not likely to have gone quietly should she have been able to realise what was happening. Which leads to the theory that she was in someway incapacitated making it far easier for the abductor to remain silent and low profile
The claimed open window causes problems here too IMO. What reason would the abductor have to open the window when it would literally take seconds to enter via the unlocked door, grab the child and leave the same way they came (as you say). Why spend precious time shuffling round the apartment between the two cots risking waking the babies, just to open a window for reasons unknown?
And if the window was not open, one has to wonder why Kate said it was.
-
I question the validity of shelving the investigation just because they failed to get sufficient evidence against the McCanns.
Failed to find sufficient evidence of any crime, surely. No solid evidence of involvement by anyone. Crime cannot be determined.
-
The claimed open window causes problems here too IMO. What reason would the abductor have to open the window when it would literally take seconds to enter via the unlocked door, grab the child and leave the same way they came (as you say). Why spend precious time shuffling round the apartment between the two cots risking waking the babies, just to open a window for reasons unknown?
And if the window was not open, one has to wonder why Kate said it was.
It was open but why was it opened? Kate read that as someone abducted Madeleine via the window, but it may be just a diversion.
-
It was open but why was it opened? Kate read that as someone abducted Madeleine via the window, but it may be just a diversion.
Why indeed? Normal people probably wouldn't be able to work it out ... it seems to be an 'abductor' thing.
Quote
Security footage at an Elyria residence shows doors and windows being opened at the house between 5:08 a.m. and 5:23 a.m. on the day before the attempted kidnapping.
On the day of the attack, the footage shows multiple windows, including the victim’s, being opened between 3:16 a.m. and 3:37 a.m.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1988653/chilling-footage-of-serial-child-abductor-who-entered-victims-homes-in-early-hours-as-parents-slept/
-
Why indeed? Normal people probably wouldn't be able to work it out ... it seems to be an 'abductor' thing.
Quote
Security footage at an Elyria residence shows doors and windows being opened at the house between 5:08 a.m. and 5:23 a.m. on the day before the attempted kidnapping.
On the day of the attack, the footage shows multiple windows, including the victim’s, being opened between 3:16 a.m. and 3:37 a.m.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1988653/chilling-footage-of-serial-child-abductor-who-entered-victims-homes-in-early-hours-as-parents-slept/
..and absolutely no proven connection to the Mccann case.
-
..and absolutely no proven connection to the Mccann case.
Stalking the premises.
Opening windows.
Missing child.
The geographical distance between Cleveland and Praia da Luz doesn't appear to have affected the aberrant behaviour of perpetrators of home invasion and child abduction.
-
Stalking the premises.
Opening windows.
Missing child.
The geographical distance between Cleveland and Praia da Luz doesn't appear to have affected the aberrant behaviour of perpetrators of home invasion and child abduction.
People standing outside a building, or looking at one, does not prove anything.
Try harder.
-
People standing outside a building, or looking at one, does not prove anything.
Try harder.
Seems I don't have to. The Cleveland CCTV footage confirms witness statements from Praia da Luz. You are intelligent enough to see that even if you really, really don't like it one teensy bit.
-
Seems I don't have to. The Cleveland CCTV footage confirms witness statements from Praia da Luz. You are intelligent enough to see that even if you really, really don't like it one teensy bit.
Nothing you have come up with shows the Mccann's apartment was watched in pre-planning a burglary or otherwise.
In fact if someone had been watching during the day and checked, they would have known the apartment was locked.
I presume that salient fact has occurred to you.
-
Stalking the premises.
Opening windows.
Missing child.
The geographical distance between Cleveland and Praia da Luz doesn't appear to have affected the aberrant behaviour of perpetrators of home invasion and child abduction.
Cleveland; independent evidence of the opened windows
Luz; no independent evidence of an open window
Cleveland; evidence showing child being taken away.
Luz; no evidence showing child being taken away.
Cleveland; offender seen 'casing the joint'
Luz; 'casing of the joint' suggested, but not proved.
Still, they're very similar, right? Wrong.
-
They were an insult to my intelligence. Clearly manipulative. Clearly propaganda.
Any agenda which has as its basis for promotion a tissue of obvious lies and deceit is an agenda which is intrinsically wrong if not inherently evil.
Let's talk about propaganda.
Some time ago the OFM Facebook webmaster posted a piece of research by a young lady called Erin Buckels about trolling. I contacted Miss Buckels and asked her if she knew that her research was being used to discredit questioners of the McCanns. She promptly sent back an email saying that not only did asking questions 'not fit the standard definition
of trolling' but sounded more like 'cyber-activism' to her. She went on to say that in general she did not support censorship and did not think it was appropriate to censor comments like the ones desribed and that you should not
label someone a troll just because they have a dissenting viewpoint.
I contacted the webmaster and informed her of Miss Buckel's email and comments and that I would make those comments public if she did not withdraw the thread. It was immediately withdrawn.
Now that's propaganda.
-
Cleveland; independent evidence of the opened windows
Luz; no independent evidence of an open window
Cleveland; evidence showing child being taken away.
Luz; no evidence showing child being taken away.
Cleveland; offender seen 'casing the joint'
Luz; 'casing of the joint' suggested, but not proved.
Still, they're very similar, right? Wrong.
Everything that happened in one case could equally plausibly have happened in the other with or without evidence to support it. Now tell me why not.
-
Let's talk about propaganda.
Some time ago the OFM Facebook webmaster posted a piece of research by a young lady called Erin Buckels about trolling. I contacted Miss Buckels and asked her if she knew that her research was being used to discredit questioners of the McCanns. She promptly sent back an email saying that not only did asking questions 'not fit the standard definition
of trolling' but sounded more like 'cyber-activism' to her. She went on to say that in general she did not support censorship and did not think it was appropriate to censor comments like the ones desribed and that you should not
label someone a troll just because they have a dissenting viewpoint.
I contacted the webmaster and informed her of Miss Buckel's email and comments and that I would make those comments public if she did not withdraw the thread. It was immediately withdrawn.
Now that's propaganda.
Incomplete research by Huddersfield University is being used by the tabloids and even by some on this forum to similar ends... ?{)(**
-
Incomplete research by Huddersfield University is being used by the tabloids and even by some on this forum to similar ends... ?{)(**
Indeed Alice. It would appear that particular academic has a somewhat different agenda. It will be interesting to see his take on the supporters.
-
Nothing you have come up with shows the Mccann's apartment was watched in pre-planning a burglary or otherwise.
In fact if someone had been watching during the day and checked, they would have known the apartment was locked.
I presume that salient fact has occurred to you.
Not an issue if they had a key to the apartment.
-
Not an issue if they had a key to the apartment.
You assume such a person or persons existed.
-
You assume such a person or persons existed.
There was an if in my sentence, if the person with the key existed and if they had a key, if you think it is necessary to have the two ifs listed in full.
-
There was an if in my sentence, if the person with the key existed and if they had a key, if you think it is necessary to have the two ifs listed in full.
So you by the same token have to accept the possibility of accidental death in the apartment.
-
So you by the same token have to accept the possibility of accidental death in the apartment.
I do and you should know that. But who caused the accident and who was aware of it? If the McCanns were not aware there had been an accident what happens then? Could the bungling burglar have caused an accidental death? Or another of the checkers?
-
I do and you should know that. But who caused the accident and who was aware of it? If the McCanns were not aware there had been an accident what happens then? Could the bungling burglar have caused a accidental death? Or another of the checkers?
'Could the bungling burglar...' ?
That sounds like an assumption. Certainly not proven.
-
'Could the bungling burglar...' ?
That sounds like an assumption. Certainly not proven.
The whole thing is still in the realms of possibilities. Nothing is proven as yet.
-
Cleveland; independent evidence of the opened windows
Luz; no independent evidence of an open window
Cleveland; evidence showing child being taken away.
Luz; no evidence showing child being taken away.
Cleveland; offender seen 'casing the joint'
Luz; 'casing of the joint' suggested, but not proved.
Still, they're very similar, right? Wrong.
Without the benefit of CCTV footage in Cleveland the police would have had nothing to go on ... not even a timeline of any sort because the parents and siblings were asleep throughout.
The first they would have know about the 'evidence of absence' would have been in the morning when the family woke up.
If a window had been left open ... no-one in residence could have 'proved' they didn't open it.
No-one could have 'proved' where they were while everyone else slept, or what they did during the night.
There would have been nothing to witness the Cleveland child being carried way from the scene.
Therefore the Cleveland abduction runs exactly parallel with Praia da Luz with the exception that in Cleveland there was CCTV recording the event.
-
Without the benefit of CCTV footage in Cleveland the police would have had nothing to go on ... not even a timeline of any sort because the parents and siblings were asleep throughout.
The first they would have know about the 'evidence of absence' would have been in the morning when the family woke up.
If a window had been left open ... no-one in residence could have 'proved' they didn't open it.
No-one could have 'proved' where they were while everyone else slept, or what they did during the night.
There would have been nothing to witness the Cleveland child being carried way from the scene.
Therefore the Cleveland abduction runs exactly parallel with Praia da Luz with the exception that in Cleveland there was CCTV recording the event.
It still has nothing to tell us about Luz. We know an abduction could have happened without being told about one in Cleveland.
-
It still has nothing to tell us about Luz. We know an abduction could have happened without being told about one in Cleveland.
Interesting how similar they could be.
-
It still has nothing to tell us about Luz. We know an abduction could have happened without being told about one in Cleveland.
Try to draw comparisons between a holiday resort on the Algarve and a small town in rural Ohio including the reasons for people "hanging around" is tenuous at best.
-
Try to draw comparisons between a holiday resort on the Algarve and a small town in rural Ohio including the reasons for people "hanging around" is tenuous at best.
What would you say were the key differences then that invalidate the comparison?
-
Imagine a news report about a family in Cleveland. The parents leave their kids unattended to eat next door. When they return home after periodic checks they find their eldest child missing. Later it turns out the parents had been drugging the kids, one of them died falling off the balcony and the parents hatched an abduction plot. Not relevant to this case though right? No sceptic would have referenced it on this forum I guess right?
-
Imagine a news report about a family in Cleveland. The parents leave their kids unattended to eat next door. When they return home after periodic checks they find their eldest child missing. Later it turns out the parents had been drugging the kids, one of them died falling off the balcony and the parents hatched an abduction plot. Not relevant to this case though right? No sceptic would have referenced it on this forum I guess right?
That would be too similar.
-
Interesting how similar they could be.
Or how different they could be.
-
Or how different they could be.
Praia da Luz a rather small tourist resort on the Algarve with a population of 3500 plus transients.
Cleveland Ohio a bloody great and important port on the Great Lakes shipping runs with a population of around 400,000.
Amazingly similar.
-
It still has nothing to tell us about Luz. We know an abduction could have happened without being told about one in Cleveland.
The innuendo and misunderstanding of Praia da Luz couldn't have happened in Cleveland for the simple reason that in Cleveland each step of the abduction had been captured on camera from inception and planning through to removal of the child who was carried from the scene.
Because there was no CCTV covering the McCann apartment the Portuguese police did not have the advantage the Cleveland police enjoyed. The fact that it took them seven months to track down a suspect in the case is an indication of how difficult it is to investigate a stranger abduction, despite CCTV footage of an escape vehicle being to hand.
Your claim that "We know an abduction could have happened" is not true of everyone who chooses to comment about Madeleine McCann's case.
In particular it is not true of Amaral. Who has assured that his version of events ~ or a variation thereof ~ is the one preferred by those who spend a lot of their 'me' time posting their opprobrium about Madeleine's parents wherever they can.
-
Praia da Luz a rather small tourist resort on the Algarve with a population of 3500 plus transients.
Cleveland Ohio a bloody great and important port on the Great Lakes shipping runs with a population of around 400,000.
Amazingly similar.
We truly have moved into the world of reality TV big-style.
If it doesn't happen live on TV it is not happening at all. The Cleveland child's disappearance happened in front of a TV camera ... Madeleine's did not.
The fact it did not ~ really is not an argument that the abduction did not happen.
-
We truly have moved into the world of reality TV big-style.
If it doesn't happen live on TV it is not happening at all. The Cleveland child's disappearance happened in front of a TV camera ... Madeleine's did not.
The fact it did not ~ really is not an argument that the abduction did not happen.
...........................and not one iota of real proof that an abduction occurred in this case.
-
We truly have moved into the world of reality TV big-style.
If it doesn't happen live on TV it is not happening at all. The Cleveland child's disappearance happened in front of a TV camera ... Madeleine's did not.
The fact it did not ~ really is not an argument that the abduction did not happen.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why?
WTF has reality TV to do with anything? I don't recall mentioning it or even alluding to it.
The question you should perhaps address is "did the abduction occur?". As it sits at present in the case of MM abduction can be neither proved nor disproved......roughly where it sat nine to ten years ago.
CCTV in a bloody great Great Lakes port not withstanding. Next week it will something else somewhere else.
-
...........................and not one iota of real proof that an abduction occurred in this case.
It seems that it might have been established that an abductor opening windows from within for no known reason seems to be part of the modus operandi. It might be worth asking the question at some time in the future ... it is so seldom we have a masterclass in stranger abduction for reference.
Worth learning from it I think.
-
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why?
WTF has reality TV to do with anything? I don't recall mentioning it or even alluding to it.
The question you should perhaps address is "did the abduction occur?". As it sits at present in the case of MM abduction can be neither proved nor disproved......roughly where it sat nine to ten years ago.
CCTV in a bloody great Great Lakes port not withstanding. Next week it will something else somewhere else.
Hmmm ... what an intemperate post. Perhaps that is the "why" of the question you might address to yourself.
-
It seems that it might have been established that an abductor opening windows from within for no known reason seems to be part of the modus operandi. It might be worth asking the question at some time in the future ... it is so seldom we have a masterclass in stranger abduction for reference.
Worth learning from it I think.
That is maybe what you want to have happened.
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't make it a reality.
..and 'masterclass' ?
Now that seems a rather strange word to apply.
-
Hmmm ... what an intemperate post. Perhaps that is the "why" of the question you might address to yourself.
I don't see why the size of the connnurbation where the disappearance occurred has any bearing on whether or not an abduction of a child could occur from a private residence, an occurrence which involves a window being left open, do you? Alice seems very cross about this, I wonder why...?
-
conurbation: An extended urban area, typically consisting of several towns merging with the suburbs of a central city.
-
It seems that it might have been established that an abductor opening windows from within for no known reason seems to be part of the modus operandi. It might be worth asking the question at some time in the future ... it is so seldom we have a masterclass in stranger abduction for reference.
Worth learning from it I think.
It is what a person who has a key might do to deflect attention away from a potential key holder, which becomes a much narrower group of perpetrators.
-
It is what a person who has a key might do to deflect attention away from a potential key holder, which becomes a much narrower group of perpetrators.
Are they not just as likely to have opened the patio door wider - a much more likely mode of entry than a window ?
-
Are they not just as likely to have opened the patio door wider - a much more likely mode of entry than a window ?
If the bungling burglar had the key to the front door they might not even be aware the patio door was unlocked all the time. Why would he need to check the other doors if he had a key? But definitely open a window to make it look as if that was the entry point.
-
Hmmm ... what an intemperate post. Perhaps that is the "why" of the question you might address to yourself.
That does not detract from the two questions I posed to you which you have seen fit to dodge by suggesting I lack self control or am pissed or both. I would have thought as a mod you would have known better as I believe such things are against forum rules no matter how seemingly eruditely they are put.
-
The fascination McCann supporters have for either an 'abduction and/or burglary' seems to have no bounds.
For good reason of course, since without either of those, all roads lead to the McCann's.
-
The fascination McCann supporters have for either an 'abduction and/or burglary' seems to have no bounds.
For good reason of course, since without either of those, all roads lead to the McCann's.
have you forgotten woke and wandered
-
have you forgotten woke and wandered
Nope, because the McCann's would still bear responsibility for not taking care of their children.
Neglect, pure and simple.
-
That does not detract from the two questions I posed to you which you have seen fit to dodge by suggesting I lack self control or am pissed or both. I would have thought as a mod you would have known better as I believe such things are against forum rules no matter how seemingly eruditely they are put.
As a mod, may I suggest you bring your concerns to Admin. Thank you.
-
As a mod, may I suggest you bring your concerns to Admin. Thank you.
You are stll ducking the questions though.
Rest assured I do complain to Admin .... 8(>((
-
It seems that it might have been established that an abductor opening windows from within for no known reason seems to be part of the modus operandi. It might be worth asking the question at some time in the future ... it is so seldom we have a masterclass in stranger abduction for reference.
Worth learning from it I think.
And what might that be with checkers passing through the car park. To get caught? @)(++(*
-
And what might that be with checkers passing through the car park. To get caught? @)(++(*
Do you think there was an unbroken stream of individuals passing through the car park keeping continual eyeball contact on the McCann children's window?
The abductor in Cleveland opened windows. He was picked up by the CCTV camera doing so.
Madeleine's bedroom window was open; no-one in the apartment legitimately opened it. Just as there is no explanation for the windows in Cleveland to be opened and closed ... there is no explanation why Madeleine's window was found to be open after Madeleine was found to be gone.
Something along the lines of it being noted in retrospect that Madeleine's bedroom door was positioned differently between checks, despite no-one legitimately within the apartment moving it.
-
Do you think there was an unbroken stream of individuals passing through the car park keeping continual eyeball contact on the McCann children's window?
The abductor in Cleveland opened windows. He was picked up by the CCTV camera doing so.
Madeleine's bedroom window was open; no-one in the apartment legitimately opened it. Just as there is no explanation for the windows in Cleveland to be opened and closed ... there is no explanation why Madeleine's window was found to be open after Madeleine was found to be gone.
Something along the lines of it being noted in retrospect that Madeleine's bedroom door was positioned differently between checks, despite no-one legitimately within the apartment moving it.
The window may indeed have been open and the door may indeed have moved, but neither are proven facts.
-
Do you think there was an unbroken stream of individuals passing through the car park keeping continual eyeball contact on the McCann children's window?
The abductor in Cleveland opened windows. He was picked up by the CCTV camera doing so.
Madeleine's bedroom window was open; no-one in the apartment legitimately opened it. Just as there is no explanation for the windows in Cleveland to be opened and closed ... there is no explanation why Madeleine's window was found to be open after Madeleine was found to be gone.
Something along the lines of it being noted in retrospect that Madeleine's bedroom door was positioned differently between checks, despite no-one legitimately within the apartment moving it.
Somebody would notice shutters raised and that open window and if locked it had to be opened from the inside so you look for evidence there and evidence was found. Jane passed through that car park at around 9:40 and Russell 5 minutes after. They saw and heard nowt. It wasn't long after that Kate went to the apartment and found the window was open. Must have been a lucky night as they did more checks that night than any other. That abductor must love a challenge 8(>((
-
Do you think there was an unbroken stream of individuals passing through the car park keeping continual eyeball contact on the McCann children's window?
The abductor in Cleveland opened windows. He was picked up by the CCTV camera doing so.
Madeleine's bedroom window was open; no-one in the apartment legitimately opened it. Just as there is no explanation for the windows in Cleveland to be opened and closed ... there is no explanation why Madeleine's window was found to be open after Madeleine was found to be gone.
Something along the lines of it being noted in retrospect that Madeleine's bedroom door was positioned differently between checks, despite no-one legitimately within the apartment moving it.
I can't find that amongst the FBI, Cleveland PD and Clevaland media stuff will you post it please ?
-
Somebody would notice shutters raised and that open window and if locked it had to be opened from the inside so you look for evidence there and evidence was found. Jane passed through that car park at around 9:40 and Russell 5 minutes after. They saw and heard nowt. It wasn't long after that Kate went to the apartment and found the window was open. Must have been a lucky night as they did more checks that night than any other. That abductor must love a challenge 8(>((
which do you think is more of a challenge - a stranger abducting a child from an unlocked unattended apartment, or a father disposing of a corpse in the middle of a holiday resort at 10pm and inventing an abuduction plot with the co-operation of his wife?
-
which do you think is more of a challenge - a stranger abducting a child from an unlocked unattended apartment, or a father disposing of a corpse in the middle of a holiday resort at 10pm and inventing an abuduction plot with the co-operation of his wife?
I follow evidence and the only credible evidence of an abductor is Smithman. A partner in crime would explain the moving door (Madeleine being asleep in the same position according to her father and the door had moved) so probably more than one is involved for a door to keep moving. So your looking for at least two being involved Alfie. Put your thinking cap on...........
-
Are they not just as likely to have opened the patio door wider - a much more likely mode of entry than a window ?
Only if they don't have a key.
-
Only if they don't have a key.
If a key was used they could have locked the patio door and kept the checkers out and used the same door to exit - it was the safer exit being hidden behind the wall. To waste time, risk leaving evidence and put yourself in more danger by raising noisy shutters and opening a window which anyone could see is a nonsensical theory if you had a KEY.
-
If a key was used they could have locked the patio door and kept the checkers out and used the same door to exit - it was the safer exit being hidden behind the wall. To waste time, risk leaving evidence and put yourself in more danger by raising noisy shutters and opening a window which anyone could see is a nonsensical theory if you had a KEY.
Not if you didn't want anyone to know you had a key.
-
Not if you didn't want anyone to know you had a key.
That could be an important issue.
-
What if Smithman was indeed just another tourist and the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check? He could have opened the window as a precaution in case he was cornered and having opened it just before Kate checked no one would have noticed it open when passing, the apartment wouldn't have been too cold either for the twins to wake up.
-
What if Smithman was indeed just another tourist and the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check? He could have opened the window as a precaution in case he was cornered and having opened it just before Kate checked no one would have noticed it open when passing, the apartment wouldn't have been too cold either for the twins to wake up.
We have been told not to post opinion as fact Lace.
An 'abductor' is not a fact.
-
We have been told not to post opinion as fact Lace.
An 'abductor' is not a fact.
Lace doesn't claim it was a fact. It was simply a proposal. a "what if".
-
Lace doesn't claim it was a fact. It was simply a proposal. a "what if".
Read again.
-
Read again.
"What if" and "could have"; the post is not describing a fact but a hypothetical scenario.
-
"What if" and "could have"; the post is not describing a fact but a hypothetical scenario.
The 'what if' is in connection to Smithman. The 'could have in in connection to the abductor's actions, not his existence.
-
Incorrect.
Lace asked: "What if Smithman was indeed just another tourist and the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?" That "what if" applies to both statements
"What if Smithman was indeed just another tourist" and what if the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?"
-
Lace asked: "What if Smithman was indeed just another tourist and the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?" That "what if" applies to both statements
"What if Smithman was indeed just another tourist" and what if the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?"
'..and the abductor..'
Who are you trying to kid ?
-
'..and the abductor..'
Who are you trying to kid ?
He/she is a "what if abductor".
-
He/she is a "what if abductor".
Don't bandy words with me Rob, it says 'and the abductor'.
-
Don't bandy words with me Rob, it says 'and the abductor'.
Well as the title to this thread has 'abduction' in it, how can one not use the word abductor in a scenario?
-
He/she is a "what if abductor".
Exactly, 'what if' is not stating anything as fact.
-
Well as the title to this thread has 'abduction' in it, how can one not use the word abductor in a scenario?
I suggest you ask Brietta.
She said the other day, don't state opinions as fact.
So, I suggest you add that to your post......
-
He/she is a "what if abductor".
Do you learn English grammar at school in NZ?
"What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?" I've taken Smithman out as he wasn't necessary to the sentence. Including 'the' before 'abductor' means that 'what if' doesn't mean the poster is uncertain about the existence of the abductor. They're uncertain about what he did. Using 'an abductor' instead of 'the abductor' would have been better.
-
What if Smithman was indeed just another tourist and the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check? He could have opened the window as a precaution in case he was cornered and having opened it just before Kate checked no one would have noticed it open when passing, the apartment wouldn't have been too cold either for the twins to wake up.
A very credible scenario IMO Lace.
-
It has always struck me as strange that two almost identical men carrying an almost identical child could still be without positive identification after nearly ten years. Add to this the tourist who suggests that it was he whom Tanner saw and that makes three.
A coincidence too far? &%+((£
-
A very credible scenario IMO Lace.
Another tourist carrying a child whose build and clothing were similar to Madeleine, who also had no covering or shoes on her feet ? Another tourist whose clothing was almost identical to Crechman ? Really ? Do you actually think that's not one coincidence too far ?
-
Do you learn English grammar at school in NZ?
"What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?" I've taken Smithman out as he wasn't necessary to the sentence. Including 'the' before 'abductor' means that 'what if' doesn't mean the poster is uncertain about the existence of the abductor. They're uncertain about what he did. Using 'an abductor' instead of 'the abductor' would have been better.
From the sightings we already have I find it extremely difficult to believe a stranger could enter 5a and abduct a child and carry her off without being seen by the numerous persons who were also wandering around blocks 4-6 that night.
-
It has always struck me as strange that two almost identical men carrying an almost identical child could still be without positive identification after nearly ten years. Add to this the tourist who suggests that it was he whom Tanner saw and that makes three.
A coincidence too far? &%+((£
Snap 8(0(*
-
From the sightings we already have I find it extremely difficult to believe a stranger could enter 5a and abduct a child and carry her off without being seen by the numerous persons who were also wandering around blocks 4-6 that night.
Indeed.
-
From the sightings we already have I find it extremely difficult to believe a stranger could enter 5a and abduct a child and carry her off without being seen by the numerous persons who were also wandering around blocks 4-6 that night.
SY certainly seem to think it's possible
-
It has always struck me as strange that two almost identical men carrying an almost identical child could still be without positive identification after nearly ten years. Add to this the tourist who suggests that it was he whom Tanner saw and that makes three.
A coincidence too far? &%+((£
The fact that a creche was in the area increases the chances of people being seen carrying children - as opposed to an area where there was no creche.
If you rule out Crecheman then it's quite possible the man seen by the Smiths was carrying Madeleine. The timing of that sighting would tie in with Lace's suggested scenario of an intruder entering 5A just before Kate did her check. So - just one man - not three imo.
-
The fact that a creche was in the area increases the chances of people being seen carrying children - as opposed to an area where there was no creche.
If you rule out Crecheman then it's quite possible the man seen by the Smiths was carrying Madeleine. The timing of that sighting would tie in with Lace's suggested scenario of an intruder entering 5A just before Kate did her check. So - just one man - not three imo.
But that one man has almost exactly the same clothing on as Crecheman and the child he is carrying looks amazingly similar too. Do you really believe that ?
-
But that one man has almost exactly the same clothing on as Crecheman and the child he is carrying looks amazingly similar too. Do you really believe that ?
The part where I have a bone to pick is:
For six years supporters swore black was white that Jane Tanner saw MM being abducted at about 21:15 hrs. The PJ thought otherwise and to this day are called all the vainquers under The Sun.
Then in October (ish) 2013 came Andy "The Fragger" Redwood and ooops Tannerman gorn. Seamelessly and quite unashamedly the supporters say oh well yes it must have been "New Man"................................. fickle or what?, not to mention being back to Abductor Whicker Island.
-
Another tourist carrying a child whose build and clothing were similar to Madeleine, who also had no covering or shoes on her feet ? Another tourist whose clothing was almost identical to Crechman ? Really ? Do you actually think that's not one coincidence too far ?
If it had turned out that Crecheman's child was the same age as the child the Smiths saw and was wearing identical pajamas then that would really be a coincidence that could not be ignored. However, as we now know - that wasn't the case. IIRC his child was 2? and the pajamas were different to those described by the Smiths. So that dispensed with the similarities about age and clothing previously thought to exist between the child JT saw and smithman's child - and also ruled Crecheman out as a suspect.
However, it's not impossible that the man JT saw was the same person seen by the Smiths. SY did say they were 'almost certain' and not 'completely certain' that tannerman was crecheman, an innocent tourist.
Unless smithman comes forward or is otherwise identified - we shall never know imo.
-
If it had turned out that Crecheman's child was the same age as the child the Smiths saw and was wearing identical pajamas then that would really be a coincidence that could not be ignored. However, as we now know - that wasn't the case. IIRC his child was 2? and the pajamas were different to those described by the Smiths. So that dispensed with the similarities about age and clothing previously thought to exist between the child JT saw and smithman's child - and also ruled Crecheman out as a suspect.
However, it's not impossible that the man JT saw was the same person seen by the Smiths. SY did say they were 'almost certain' and not 'completely certain' that tannerman was crecheman, an innocent tourist.
Unless smithman comes forward or is otherwise identified - we shall never know imo.
Tanner only saw the child's legs so there is no way those could exclude the child being two. Kate in her book specifically claims that the similarities between Tannerman and Smithman make it virtually impossible that it was not the same man
-
From the sightings we already have I find it extremely difficult to believe a stranger could enter 5a and abduct a child and carry her off without being seen by the numerous persons who were also wandering around blocks 4-6 that night.
Despite any toing and froing which may have occurred around the environs of the apartment that evening as far as I know, the only recorded encounter between anyone was the meeting of Jez and Gerry.
Jez also saw a man described as 'rastaman'. Jane saw the man carrying a barefoot child at the junction ahead of her.
I think that is it.
Mr and Mrs Carpenter ... no.
Mr and Mrs Moyes ... no.
People going to or coming from work ... no.
I think intrusion and departure could have been achieved speedily and discretely.
Particularly when dark areas around 5A are taken into consideration. If anyone other than Jane Tanner had witnessed anyone carrying a child we have been told it was a usual sight to see and the carrier would have avoided challenge as a result.
How any transient visitor could know that is not explained ... but residents and the local population probably wouldn't think it odd enough for alarm bells to sound.
Danger points for an abductor
- being discovered within the apartment
- exiting with the child
- getting far enough away from the immediate environs not to cause suspicion if seen
Had Jane Tanner seen the stranger carrying a child either in the outside passageway or at the opening to the apartments or even in the parking area
(a) I think her suspicions would have been immediately aroused and she may have challenged him.
(b) She would have been close enough to recognise the child and would have raised the alarm.
As it was the stranger she saw was on the public highway and thus allowed to pass by without challenge.
-
Despite any toing and froing which may have occurred around the environs of the apartment that evening as far as I know, the only recorded encounter between anyone was the meeting of Jez and Gerry.
Jez also saw a man described as 'rastaman'. Jane saw the man carrying a barefoot child at the junction ahead of her.
I think that is it.
Mr and Mrs Carpenter ... no.
Mr and Mrs Moyes ... no.
People going to or coming from work ... no.
I think intrusion and departure could have been achieved speedily and discretely.
Particularly when dark areas around 5A are taken into consideration. If anyone other than Jane Tanner had witnessed anyone carrying a child we have been told it was a usual sight to see and the carrier would have avoided challenge as a result.
How any transient visitor could know that is not explained ... but residents and the local population probably wouldn't think it odd enough for alarm bells to sound.
Danger points for an abductor
- being discovered within the apartment
- exiting with the child
- getting far enough away from the immediate environs not to cause suspicion if seen
Had Jane Tanner seen the stranger carrying a child either in the outside passageway or at the opening to the apartments or even in the parking area
(a) I think her suspicions would have been immediately aroused and she may have challenged him.
(b) She would have been close enough to recognise the child and would have raised the alarm.
As it was the stranger she saw was on the public highway and thus allowed to pass by without challenge.
You forgot the loiterer out for a puff and the Spanish girl who was visiting her boyfriend not to mention OC staff who were coming and going.
-
SY certainly seem to think it's possible
It is but highly unlikely imo.
-
The fact that a creche was in the area increases the chances of people being seen carrying children - as opposed to an area where there was no creche.
If you rule out Crecheman then it's quite possible the man seen by the Smiths was carrying Madeleine. The timing of that sighting would tie in with Lace's suggested scenario of an intruder entering 5A just before Kate did her check. So - just one man - not three imo.
If Crecheman was there wandering about at that time how come he never saw an abductor? It has never been explained why this man was walking towards the creche and not from it as he claims. I have a feeling that all is not as it seems with this mystery participant.
-
It is but highly unlikely imo.
SY have been there and have all the info. They have examined the timeline....they see abduction as a real possibility.
-
If Crecheman was there wandering about at that time how come he never saw an abductor? It has never been explained why this man was walking towards the creche and not from it as he claims. I have a feeling that all is not as it seems with this mystery participant.
just because the actor in crimewatch was walking towards the creche does not mean crecheman was in reality
-
You forgot the loiterer out for a puff and the Spanish girl who was visiting her boyfriend not to mention OC staff who were coming and going.
Lol ... I should have added etc. etc.
Anyway, only the Smiths and Jane Tanner reported seeing a man and child.
Jane Tanner saw the man, immediately outside the apartment block. Amaral tied Murat into the equation because of his direction of travel but it is more likely he was heading not to a villa but to a parked up vehicle. Which was probably well away from Luz before the alarm that Madeleine was missing was even raised.
-
If Crecheman was there wandering about at that time how come he never saw an abductor? It has never been explained why this man was walking towards the creche and not from it as he claims. I have a feeling that all is not as it seems with this mystery participant.
DCI Redwood didn't convince me, John.
Initially I was delighted that at last Jane Tanner was vindicated in the face of the vitriol and untruths she had to suffer for years.
Then I read the way the statement was worded.
-
just because the actor in crimewatch was walking towards the creche does not mean crecheman was in reality
He told Redwood he was returning from the crèche.
-
SY have been there and have all the info. They have examined the timeline....they see abduction as a real possibility.
I wonder what DCI Walls believes if anything?
-
DCI Redwood didn't convince me, John.
Initially I was delighted that at last Jane Tanner was vindicated in the face of the vitriol and untruths she had to suffer for years.
Then I read the way the statement was worded.
He didn't convince me either, eureka moment or not.
-
I wonder what DCI Walls believes if anything?
if the investigation closes we may find out. It would be good if there was a public statement re the parents as has already happened and I think that will quite possibly happen
-
just because the actor in crimewatch was walking towards the creche does not mean crecheman was in reality
No, but Jane Tanner's rog does.
-
Tanner only saw the child's legs so there is no way those could exclude the child being two. Kate in her book specifically claims that the similarities between Tannerman and Smithman make it virtually impossible that it was not the same man
That really does make it interesting.
Tannerman = Crecheman=Smithman.
But The Met have identified Crecheman (they say).
The Met remain in the position of wanting information that leads to the identification of Smithman.
The Met , in that case, clearly do not believe that Crecheman = Smithman.
Unless of course they are playing the old "little does he know that I know that he knows that I know he knows" game.
Yeah riiiiight Nobby.
-
Don't bandy words with me Rob, it says 'and the abductor'.
And the first two words of the sentence were "what if".
-
He didn't convince me either, eureka moment or not.
Nor me, which raises the question of why he made such an obviously lame attempt to do so. I can only suggest that Tannerman needed to be eliminated for some reason, Redwood hadn't a clue about the layout of the Ocean Club or the night creche was not where we were told it was.
-
I suggest you ask Brietta.
She said the other day, don't state opinions as fact.
So, I suggest you add that to your post......
And "what if" scenarios aren't facts but suggestions.
-
Do you learn English grammar at school in NZ?
"What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?" I've taken Smithman out as he wasn't necessary to the sentence. Including 'the' before 'abductor' means that 'what if' doesn't mean the poster is uncertain about the existence of the abductor. They're uncertain about what he did. Using 'an abductor' instead of 'the abductor' would have been better.
I would teach my teacher at school. If you are uncertain what the abductor did you are uncertain if the abductor is part of the equation altogether.
-
That really does make it interesting.
Tannerman = Crecheman=Smithman.
But The Met have identified Crecheman (they say).
The Met remain in the position of wanting information that leads to the identification of Smithman.
The Met , in that case, clearly do not believe that Crecheman = Smithman.
Unless of course they are playing the old "little does he know that I know that he knows that I know he knows" game.
Yeah riiiiight Nobby.
your logic is flawed....smithman is very unlikely to be crecheman as crecheman has been interviewed and would have been asked if he walked the route where smithman was seen
-
From the sightings we already have I find it extremely difficult to believe a stranger could enter 5a and abduct a child and carry her off without being seen by the numerous persons who were also wandering around blocks 4-6 that night.
Good point; so who was seen "wandering around blocks 4-6 that night"?
-
Tanner only saw the child's legs so there is no way those could exclude the child being two. Kate in her book specifically claims that the similarities between Tannerman and Smithman make it virtually impossible that it was not the same man
That is just an opinion. And we know from Amaral's examples how badly wrong opinions can be.
-
your logic is flawed....smithman is very unlikely to be crecheman as crecheman has been interviewed and would have been asked if he walked the route where smithman was seen
Andy The Fragger said the man Jane Tanner saw has been identified aka Crecheman. So Tannerman =Crecheman.
Kate M, in her book says approximatively or tharaboots Tannerman = Smithman.
So on the basis of info I am being fed Tannerman=Crecheman=Smithman.
Which way they were walking didn't come into either of the statements made by the info providers.
-
your logic is flawed....smithman is very unlikely to be crecheman as crecheman has been interviewed and would have been asked if he walked the route where smithman was seen
Have you understood the concept of lying?
-
Andy The Fragger said the man Jane Tanner saw has been identified aka Crecheman. So Tannerman =Crecheman.
Kate M, in her book says approximatively or tharaboots Tannerman = Smithman.
So on the basis of info I am being fed Tannerman=Crecheman=Smithman.
Which way they were walking didn't come into either of the statements made by the info providers.
just because kate believes smithman is tannerman doesnt mean he is and doesnt mean thats what redwood believes. redwood would ahve known if crecheman was ever near Kelly's and at what time...hence your logic is flawed
-
just because kate believes smithman is tannerman doesnt mean he is and doesnt mean thats what redwood believes. redwood would ahve known if crecheman was ever near Kelly's and at what time...hence your logic is flawed
Your comment is totally irrelevant to the point I made.
-
I would teach my teacher at school. If you are uncertain what the abductor did you are uncertain if the abductor is part of the equation altogether.
You'll know all about definite and indefinite articles then. 'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists. 'What if' questions when he did something, not whether he did it.
-
It is hardly worth reading The Comments anymore. They are all so frightfully deja vu. hasn't anyone got anything to say that is worth debating?
However, I will be deleting any comments containing Goading, and any answers to such comments.
-
You'll know all about definite and indefinite articles then. 'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists. 'What if' questions when he did something, not whether he did it.
'What if' questions when he did something, not whether he did it. How can you prove to me it is restricted to that?
-
It is but highly unlikely imo.
Given that you believe Madeleine woke and wandered, how do you explain all these similar men carrying children sightings?
-
You'll know all about definite and indefinite articles then. 'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists. 'What if' questions when he did something, not whether he did it.
Originally it was stated "What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?"
You say "'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists." So that leads me to question you could the original morph?
"What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?"
morphs into "What if......the abductor didn't exist?"
How can you say then "'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists'" if the abductor didn't exist?
-
Given that you believe Madeleine woke and wandered, how do you explain all these similar men carrying children sightings?
None of the sightings were of a man carrying the child (Madeleine?) in or directly away from the apartment. So therefore it is possible the child was lifted after she left the apartment by some other means (woke and wandered possibly).
Both were carrying a child a further distance from the apartment but whether it was directly away from the apartment was not established.
-
Originally it was stated "What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?"
You say "'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists." So that leads me to question you could the original morph?
"What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?"
morphing into ""What if......the abductor didn't exist?"
How can you say "'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists'" if the abductor didn't exist?
Semantic, Love. Some people are very good at this. Or at least they think they are.
-
Originally it was stated "What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?"
You say "'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists." So that leads me to question you could the original morph?
"What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?"
morphs into "What if......the abductor didn't exist?"
How can you say then "'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists'" if the abductor didn't exist?
What do you think the "What if" is questioning.
-
What do you think the "What if" is questioning.
It is questioning us to consider another variant of many possible scenarios.
-
Originally it was stated "What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?"
You say "'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists." So that leads me to question you could the original morph?
"What if......the abductor snatched Madeleine just before Kate did her check?"
morphs into "What if......the abductor didn't exist?"
How can you say then "'The' is a definite article and it is the word which says 'the abductor' exists'" if the abductor didn't exist?
You are arguing about 'what if'. Those words apply to Smithman as in 'what if he was a holidaymaker...'. They also apply to the abductor as in 'what if the abductor snatched...'. Trying to argue that they cast doubt on the abductor's existence just doesn't work. The abductor is presented as a fact.
-
You are arguing about 'what if'. Those words apply to Smithman as in 'what if he was a holidaymaker...'. They also apply to the abductor as in 'what if the abductor snatched...'. Trying to argue that they cast doubt on the abductor's existence just doesn't work. The abductor is presented as a fact.
Well that is how I read it. Take it or leave it.
-
Well that is how I read it. Take it or leave it.
There's a lot of it about. The misunderstandings of reports and court judgements are particularly common.
-
There's a lot of it about. The misunderstandings of reports and court judgements are particularly common.
As we have found out.