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: Miss Taken Identity on March 26, 2016, 12:32:43 PM
-
I was having an interesting conversation the other day and found myself quoting from Kate Healy/McCann about their claim that there was no evidence Maddie has come to any harm with regards her disappearance.
I still struggle to comprehend this answer to the question...
A deaf, dumb, blind person would have laughed this off and found a way to commuicate: "Yeah she has been harmed! DUH"
What reason would K & G have, to make this bloody silly claim 'no evidence'? Well, it is a play on words. there is no evidence Maddie was harmed, but that is not the same as: she must have been harmed even if only psychological- concluded much the same way it is claimed she must have been abducted. ( as their is no evidence of that either)
The play on words goes on, as it is claimed she was not harmed in her disapearance. It is claimed by the parents she was harmed by what was written in a book, by a person close to the investigation, a claim for money was the order of the day- however, this time there was NO evidence their daughter was harmed as it was strange to even think a child could read such a book if she was given a copy or understand its meaning.
Having explained this I won over everyone at the table!
There are two issues which concern me about the parents.
Dissassociation from their daughters dissapearnce - to the new found enterprise/business which they found VERY early on in the 'dissappearance'saga.
It never ceases to amaze me the comments the parents made to remove themselves from Maddies disappearance.
1. They were not anywhere near her when she dissappeared
2. They constanly said there is a 'little girl missing' ( not their daughter) (I found that creepy).
3. would it be their fault, if they were in the apartment when she dissapeared
4. blaming others( took to name calling) for not finding 'the little missing girl'
5. refusing point blank to concede, that anything other than stranger abduction from the bed was the only scenario to explain 'little missing girl'
The business
1. The smiles displayed at puplic gatherings, receiving money and support based on the 'story' they told.
2. the speed at which the business was set up, and it was for the long term ( how did they know Maddie as not going to JUST turn up?)
3. The sheer pleasrue on their faces and mentioned in blog entries about phone calls with Prime minsters and other'influential' people. IT BECAME ALL ABOUT THEM. THEY, and not their daughter, became famous celebrities and they used their daughter to keep this stautus.
Hence why they had to say there is no evidence she was harmed because, if the truth was outed from the start, no money would have poured in and zero support for the pair and their Tapas friends woud have been wholly negative, and besides, this is their reputation we are talking about- not money.
There is overwhelming evidence that Maddie was harmed,Either she has been isolated from her family and kept somewhere against her will or has been murdered= HARMED.
There is absolutely no evidence that Maddie was harmed by a book written by someone close to the investigation.
In my opinion this claim was done out of malicious intent to blame someone for their short commings, and THEIR greed for money.
A clincal psychologist of 25 years experience said he was intruiged to hear that Maddie would be reunited with her 'loving' family and that she would be hapPy about this, he seemed to think that would not be the case. He also claimed that if she was found alive, she would indeed have been harmed in some way.
So, to keep the money flowing, and to keep the parents 'innocent' ,absolved of any assumed guilt of any part they played, even for facilitating their daughterds disappearance, We need a Maddie alive,happy and unharmed.
So what are the chances...?
-
MOD NOTE
I am going to step into the front and say that this topic has the potential to generate posts that fall foul of the forum rules.
Would you please think doubly hard about what you post in this topic? Before you post? Thanks in advance!
-
MOD NOTE
I am going to step into the front and say that this topic has the potential to generate posts that fall foul of the forum rules.
Would you please think doubly hard about what you post in this topic? Before you post? Thanks in advance!
Well said. Thank You.
-
A little guidance might help. What in particular do you have in mind?
-
I was having an interesting conversation the other day and found myself quoting from Kate Healy/McCann about their claim that there was no evidence Maddie has come to any harm with regards her disappearance.
I still struggle to comprehend this answer to the question...
A deaf, dumb, blind person would have laughed this off and found a way to commuicate: "Yeah she has been harmed! DUH"
What reason would K & G have, to make this bloody silly claim 'no evidence'? Well, it is a play on words. there is no evidence Maddie was harmed, but that is not the same as: she must have been harmed even if only psychological- concluded much the same way it is claimed she must have been abducted. ( as their is no evidence of that either)
The play on words goes on, as it is claimed she was not harmed in her disapearance. It is claimed by the parents she was harmed by what was written in a book, by a person close to the investigation, a claim for money was the order of the day- however, this time there was NO evidence their daughter was harmed as it was strange to even think a child could read such a book if she was given a copy or understand its meaning.
Having explained this I won over everyone at the table!
There are two issues which concern me about the parents.
Dissassociation from their daughters dissapearnce - to the new found enterprise/business which they found VERY early on in the 'dissappearance'saga.
It never ceases to amaze me the comments the parents made to remove themselves from Maddies disappearance.
1. They were not anywhere near her when she dissappeared
2. They constanly said there is a 'little girl missing' ( not their daughter) (I found that creepy).
3. would it be their fault, if they were in the apartment when she dissapeared
4. blaming others( took to name calling) for not finding 'the little missing girl'
5. refusing point blank to concede, that anything other than stranger abduction from the bed was the only scenario to explain 'little missing girl'
The business
1. The smiles displayed at puplic gatherings, receiving money and support based on the 'story' they told.
2. the speed at which the business was set up, and it was for the long term ( how did they know Maddie as not going to JUST turn up?)
3. The sheer pleasrue on their faces and mentioned in blog entries about phone calls with Prime minsters and other'influential' people. IT BECAME ALL ABOUT THEM. THEY, and not their daughter, became famous celebrities and they used their daughter to keep this stautus.
Hence why they had to say there is no evidence she was harmed because, if the truth was outed from the start, no money would have poured in and zero support for the pair and their Tapas friends woud have been wholly negative, and besides, this is their reputation we are talking about- not money.
There is overwhelming evidence that Maddie was harmed,Either she has been isolated from her family and kept somewhere against her will or has been murdered= HARMED.
There is absolutely no evidence that Maddie was harmed by a book written by someone close to the investigation.
In my opinion this claim was done out of malicious intent to blame someone for their short commings, and THEIR greed for money.
A clincal psychologist of 25 years experience said he was intruiged to hear that Maddie would be reunited with her 'loving' family and that she would be hapPy about this, he seemed to think that would not be the case. He also claimed that if she was found alive, she would indeed have been harmed in some way.
So, to keep the money flowing, and to keep the parents 'innocent' ,absolved of any assumed guilt of any part they played, even for facilitating their daughterds disappearance, We need a Maddie alive,happy and unharmed.
So what are the chances...?
That is certainly one way to look at it Miss Taken Identity. The bit I have always found strange was the speed to set up a Limited Company when Maddie could have very well been found at any time.
The parents ability to put on a false persona when confronted by the media has always bothered me. Didn't some psychology geek advise them not to show their real feelings on camera?
-
I think the opening post is just plain silly.
The McCanns are using the word harmed as a euphemism for killed or even murdered.
Of course, if Madeleine is alive, she is likely to have been traumatised by whatever sequence of events occurred after May 3rd, and in that sense, harmed.
But I would say the McCanns are fully entitled to exercise (and even ask of others) a little tact and sensitivity ....
-
A little guidance might help. What in particular do you have in mind?
If this is directed at me, here is my reply.
I have no issue whatsoever with posts that fall within the forum rules. I will not delete, alter or flag up posts that are within the rules of the forum.
This topic has, IMO, the potential to generate a lot of posts that may breach the forum rules.
I am not asking anyone to do anything other than respect the forum rules.
Easter Saturday night. Hot topic. Could this be my first knees-up?
-
So is it fair to say that she will have been seriously harmed as a consequence of her disappearance?
-
So is it fair to say that she will have been seriously harmed as a consequence of her disappearance?
Absolutely
-
I think the opening post is just plain silly.
The McCanns are using the word harmed as a euphemism for killed or even murdered.
Of course, if Madeleine is alive, she is likely to have been traumatised by whatever sequence of events occurred after May 3rd, and in that sense, harmed.
But I would say the McCanns are fully entitled to exercise (and even ask of others) a little tact and sensitivity ....
Rubbish.
It is very clear what the mccanns said, and why they did it.
To pass on responsibility for their actions to an unproved third party.
-
Rubbish.
It is very clear what the mccanns said, and why they did it.
To pass on responsibility for their actions to an unproved third party.
So you are now directly accusing the McCanns of harming Madeleine (and all the other things Amaral accuses them of)?
-
So you are now directly accusing the McCanns of harming Madeleine (and all the other things Amaral accuses them of)?
Try reading more carefully ferryman, and don't twist words.
I said no such thing.
Keep to the facts.
-
The McCanns have accused no one named.
But someone (unknown to the wider public, certainly) was responsible for Madeleine's abduction.
-
The McCanns have accused no one named.
But someone (unknown to the wider public, certainly) was responsible for Madeleine's abduction.
Abduction, what abduction ?
Nae evidence.
-
The shelved enquiry ruled out woke and wandered and also found no evidence against the McCanns or any of their friends (as having harmed Madeleine)
What does that leave?
-
The shelved enquiry ruled out woke and wandered and also found no evidence against the McCanns or any of their friends (as having harmed Madeleine)
What does that leave?
Undiscovered evidence, obviously, as they have no evidence of abduction either.
-
Undiscovered evidence, obviously, as they have no evidence of abduction either.
Witness sightings of Jane Tanner and the Smiths.
Madeleine's only pair of outdoor shoes found in the villa.
Ruling out of 'woke and wandered'.
Ruling out of the McCanns or any of their friends having directly harmed Madeleine.
All evidence of abduction ....
-
Witness sightings of Jane Tanner and the Smiths.
Madeleine's only pair of outdoor shoes found in the villa.
Ruling out of 'woke and wandered'.
Ruling out of the McCanns or any of their friends having directly harmed Madeleine.
All evidence of abduction ....
The crime is unknown.
Why do you omit this every time ?
There is no evidence of abduction that can't be explained by other scenarios.
-
Witness sightings of Jane Tanner and the Smiths.
Madeleine's only pair of outdoor shoes found in the villa.
Ruling out of 'woke and wandered'.
Ruling out of the McCanns or any of their friends having directly harmed Madeleine.
All evidence of abduction ....
1 and 2 are not evidence at all (just possible leads) and 2 is factually wrong
-
1 and 2 are not evidence at all (just possible leads) and 2 is factually wrong
What is factually wrong?
-
What is factually wrong?
We have seen at least two photos outdoors of Madeleine wearng different footwear
-
@MTI OP
I reckon there was a strategy from the start to say certain things and not say others, that is why so many of their tv interviews are so wooden.
If you compare all the interviews,you will find the exact same words and phrases repeated in exactly the same way over and over, and very often not answering a direct question directly but with a prescripted utterance of a message they wanted to repeat and repeat.
eg (as per your OP) "there is no (not a shred) of evidence Madeleine has come to any significant harm was said over and over by the Mccanns as well as a couple other famly members.
Your post contains many good points and many of them are perfect examples of why so many people thought them "off!
-
Witness sightings of Jane Tanner and the Smiths.
Madeleine's only pair of outdoor shoes found in the villa.
Ruling out of 'woke and wandered'.
Ruling out of the McCanns or any of their friends having directly harmed Madeleine.
All evidence of abduction ....
Jane Tanner saw someone carrying a child that was not Madeleine (according the MPS)
The Smiths saw someone carrying a child that was not Madeleine (as the top the child was wearing was wrong).
What fresh evidence have either police force found? we don't know because they ain't tellin'.
-
Jane Tanner saw someone carrying a child that was not Madeleine (according the MPS)
The Smiths saw someone carrying a child that was not Madeleine (as the top the child was wearing was wrong).
What fresh evidence have either police force found? we don't know because they ain't tellin'.
Evidence (as opposed to proof).
The Tanner efit remains on the McCann website with an explanation as to why.
We cannot be wholly reliant on the files (we read on line).
-
We seem to have wandered Off Topic.
-
Evidence (as opposed to proof).
The Tanner efit remains on the McCann website with an explanation as to why.
We cannot be wholly reliant on the files (we read on line).
But it is still not evidence as Tanner only saw a pair of feet and flowery girls pyjama bottoms, did not see anything else, so could have been anyone and there is nothing to say if MM was abducted it was at that time
-
Deleting Off Topic Posts from now on.
-
But it is still not evidence as Tanner only saw a pair of feet and flowery girls pyjama bottoms, did not see anything else, so could have been anyone and there is nothing to say if MM was abducted it was at that time
You may be confusing evidence and proof. On the FindMadeleine website is an explanation of why Jane Tanner's sighting remains up there and I can't remember what that is now.
But proof (at least of a crime) is what definitively leads to a conviction.
-
The concise answer to the opening post is that, one or way or another (even if still alive) Madeleine is likely to have come to substantial harm.
But the McCanns used the word as a euphemism for killed or murdered.
There is no evidence for either, and in that sense, no evidence she was 'harmed'.
-
The concise answer to the opening post is that, one or way or another (even if still alive) Madeleine is likely to have come to substantial harm.
But the McCanns used the word as a euphemism for killed or murdered.
There is no evidence for either, and in that sense, no evidence she was 'harmed'.
A child can be "significantly harmed" even if not killed, so your assertion (like you KNOW thats what they meant) they used that phrase for that only must be wrong IMO
Besides why not just say no evidence she is dead? Whats with all the extraneous language if thats all they meant?
-
A child can be "significantly harmed" even if not killed, so your assertion (like you KNOW thats what they meant) they used that phrase for that only must be wrong IMO
Besides why not just say no evidence she is dead? Whats with all the extraneous language if thats all they meant?
Why must it be wrong?
I say exactly the same as you say in the first 9 words of your opening sentence.
-
Why must it be wrong?
I say exactly the same as you say in the first 9 words of your opening sentence.
You seem to have decided you know how/why they used the term even if its wrong
Never mind, happy easter, Im off
-
I think it is a particularly unpleasant Opening Post. Whether or not it is libellous is debatable.
I personally would not have approved it. But I am not in a position to delete it.
-
Does it really?
-
The opening post was checked for any breach of the forum rules several days ago and found to be acceptable as it represents a members opinion and makes no defamatory claim. However, I am always prepared to edit any post if a member makes a specific complaint and backs that complaint up with a reasoned argument.
To answer another point, a staff member monitors the forum constantly during normal UK working hours and into the evening. The only time when the forum is not monitored is after midnight.
Admin
-
I was having an interesting conversation the other day and found myself quoting from Kate Healy/McCann about their claim that there was no evidence Maddie has come to any harm with regards her disappearance.
I still struggle to comprehend this answer to the question...
A deaf, dumb, blind person would have laughed this off and found a way to commuicate: "Yeah she has been harmed! DUH"
What reason would K & G have, to make this bloody silly claim 'no evidence'? Well, it is a play on words. there is no evidence Maddie was harmed, but that is not the same as: she must have been harmed even if only psychological- concluded much the same way it is claimed she must have been abducted. ( as their is no evidence of that either)
The play on words goes on, as it is claimed she was not harmed in her disapearance. It is claimed by the parents she was harmed by what was written in a book, by a person close to the investigation, a claim for money was the order of the day- however, this time there was NO evidence their daughter was harmed as it was strange to even think a child could read such a book if she was given a copy or understand its meaning.
Having explained this I won over everyone at the table!
There are two issues which concern me about the parents.
Dissassociation from their daughters dissapearnce - to the new found enterprise/business which they found VERY early on in the 'dissappearance'saga.
It never ceases to amaze me the comments the parents made to remove themselves from Maddies disappearance.
1. They were not anywhere near her when she dissappeared
2. They constanly said there is a 'little girl missing' ( not their daughter) (I found that creepy).
3. would it be their fault, if they were in the apartment when she dissapeared
4. blaming others( took to name calling) for not finding 'the little missing girl'
5. refusing point blank to concede, that anything other than stranger abduction from the bed was the only scenario to explain 'little missing girl'
The business
1. The smiles displayed at puplic gatherings, receiving money and support based on the 'story' they told.
2. the speed at which the business was set up, and it was for the long term ( how did they know Maddie as not going to JUST turn up?)
3. The sheer pleasrue on their faces and mentioned in blog entries about phone calls with Prime minsters and other'influential' people. IT BECAME ALL ABOUT THEM. THEY, and not their daughter, became famous celebrities and they used their daughter to keep this stautus.
Hence why they had to say there is no evidence she was harmed because, if the truth was outed from the start, no money would have poured in and zero support for the pair and their Tapas friends woud have been wholly negative, and besides, this is their reputation we are talking about- not money.
There is overwhelming evidence that Maddie was harmed,Either she has been isolated from her family and kept somewhere against her will or has been murdered= HARMED.
There is absolutely no evidence that Maddie was harmed by a book written by someone close to the investigation.
In my opinion this claim was done out of malicious intent to blame someone for their short commings, and THEIR greed for money.
A clincal psychologist of 25 years experience said he was intruiged to hear that Maddie would be reunited with her 'loving' family and that she would be hapPy about this, he seemed to think that would not be the case. He also claimed that if she was found alive, she would indeed have been harmed in some way.
So, to keep the money flowing, and to keep the parents 'innocent' ,absolved of any assumed guilt of any part they played, even for facilitating their daughterds disappearance, We need a Maddie alive,happy and unharmed.
So what are the chances...?
In response to the part I underline:
We are very pleased and relieved with the judge’s decision in Lisbon today.
By upholding the injunction against Goncalo Amaral’s book and DVD, the judge has rightly agreed that there has been significant, ongoing damage to the search for our beloved daughter Madeleine and to the rights of our family.
(Gerry McCann)
Are there any examples of what the poster alleges?
-
"there is no evidence to suggest that she has been harmed, in any way, whatsoever" (source CM)
-
Since the Opening Poster hasn't shown any interest in the debate or appeared to answer any question, is there any point to this Thread?
-
"there is no evidence to suggest that she has been harmed, in any way, whatsoever" (source CM)
There is "no evidence".
There isn't.
There is (however) a reasonable inference that (psychological) harm may have come to Madeleine from her abduction (if she is still alive).
Just no evidence of it.
In the meantime, returning to my original point, context is all:
From a newspaper article:
Gerry vowed to keep up the search for their little girl, who vanished from their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz as they ate nearby with friends.
He said: “There is a little girl missing who still needs to be found.
And the all-important follow-up:
“We will keep going until Madeleine is found and until whoever has taken her is brought to justice. It’s not good enough that the search stops.”
Nothing creepy or abnormal about that at all ....
-
''It’s not good enough that the search stops.”
The cheek of that after what they did, in leaving their children in danger.
NIGHT after NIGHT.
....and in the judgement before the appeal, what was said about the book ?
-
Since the Opening Poster hasn't shown any interest in the debate or appeared to answer any question, is there any point to this Thread?
My absence has got nothing to do with you I am not on a contract! Your posts about me being missing are OFF TOPIC as well.
back on topic:
I have hit a nerve and I make no apologies for that however it is important to point out that I find the behaviour of the parents to be strange, I have no problem saying that.
The point I was making however was quite simple:
Kate N Gerry claimed there was no evidence that their daughter had come to harm claimed it would be difficult to accept that she didn't- regardless of evidence. The facts being that she was removed against her will from the care of her family! Any psychologist would agree. Kate n Gerry then claimed in a court case that their daughter was harmed in some way, by comments in a book, and were demanding money for and on behalf of the child even though there was no evidence of any harm in this instance either! AND to add insult to anyones intelligence, The judge could not award any money to a person who's mortal state was not known !
So the thread titles says it ...... harmed or not harmed... That was the question. The answer according to her parents: she was not harmed by her parents leaving her alone on an unlocked apartment from whence she was removed ( believed to be against her will). She was harmed by words in a book.
No evidence of either 'harm' but one involved no money being mentioned to one which was used to obtain money.
This is my observation of the behaviour of the parents and I am commenting on it.
-
Granted the opening post is somewhat disjointed but that in itself was not a reason to disallow it.
Miss Taken Identity raised an interesting point though as to harm which Madeleine has or has not come to. She quotes Kate McCann when she states that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm. In reality however, has there ever been a case of child abduction where the victim has not suffered harm?
-
The answer according to her parents: she [Madeleine] was not harmed by her parents ...
Correct.
. She was harmed by words in a book.
That encouraged people to believe Madeleine was dead, and therefore discouraged them from looking for her.
Correct again ....
-
The answer according to her parents: she [Madeleine] was not harmed by her parents ...
Correct.
. She was harmed by words in a book.
That encouraged people to believe Madeleine was dead, and therefore discouraged them from looking for her.
Correct again ....
Madeleine was not harmed by words in a book.
That is pure rubbish.
Let's stick to the facts.
She and her siblings were left by themselves with occasional checks, not all verified. In a country and with a language they did not know. They claimed it was locked, until it became unlocked.
There is no evidence of a break in, even Mitchell admitted that.
She disappeared, cause unknown.
Everything is supposition until proved otherwise.
To say Madeleine did not come to harm is an insult to her.
-
My absence has got nothing to do with you I am not on a contract! Your posts about me being missing are OFF TOPIC as well.
back on topic:
I have hit a nerve and I make no apologies for that however it is important to point out That I find the behaviour of the parents to be strange, I have no problem saying that.
The point I was making however was quite simple:
Kate N Gerry claimed there was no evidence that their daughter had come to harm claimed it would be difficult to accept that she didn't- regardless of evidence. The facts being that she was removed against her will from the care of her family! Any psychologist would agree. Kate n Gerry then claimed in a court case that their daughter was harmed in some way, by comments in a book, and were demanding money for and on behalf of the child even though there was no evidence of any harm in this instance either! AND to add insult to anyones intelligence, The judge could not award any money to a person who's mortal state was not known !
So the thread titles says it ...... harmed or not harmed... That was the question. The answer according to her parents: she was not harmed by her parents leaving her alone on an unlocked apartment from whence she was removed ( believed to be against her will). She was harmed by words in a book.
No evidence of either 'harm' but one involved no money being mentioned to one which was used to obtain money.
This is my observation of the behaviour of the parents and I am commenting on it.
Excellent response. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
This is another argument based on semantics.
-
This is another argument based on semantics.
You are therefore implying implicitly anyone disappearing has not come to harm.
-
You are therefore implying implicitly anyone disappearing has not come to harm.
No I am not implying anything implicitly, because I don't know what has happened to Madeleine.
Children of 3 or 4 years are adopted without coming to any great harm mentally or physically.
-
I notice I've had 2 or3 posts purged and expunged tonight, for no apparent reason.
Perhaps the mods are falling below their quota 8(0(*
-
for the record I have already posted on this thread that simply by being abducted Maddie has come to harm. The McCanns comments are being taken out of context ...it is a s simple as that.
-
No I am not implying anything implicitly, because I don't know what has happened to Madeleine.
Children of 3 or 4 years are adopted without coming to any great harm mentally or physically.
More supposition.
You don't know she is alive, let alone been adopted.
-
More supposition.
You don't know she is alive, let alone been adopted.
And nor do you.
-
And nor do you.
Balance of probability, and no trace of her since she disappeared.
-
"there is no evidence to suggest that she has been harmed, in any way whatsoever"
http://youtu.be/gFZy2f2yQJA?t=3m44s
-
Balance of probability, and no trace of her since she disappeared.
the balance of probability has nothing to do with certainty
-
One description can be interpreted as being pejorative particularly to those it refers to ... the other refers to those who are sceptical of some key aspects of Madeleine's case.
I may be wrong but I have seen no one objecting to the latter.
Perhaps it is about time to find terms acceptable to both sides of the divide for preferred name options?
-
Please remain on topic.
Please refrain from making 'goading' posts.
Thank you.
-
One description can be interpreted as being pejorative particularly to those it refers to ... the other refers to those who are sceptical of some key aspects of Madeleine's case.
I may be wrong but I have seen no one objecting to the latter.
Perhaps it is about time to find terms acceptable to both sides of the divide for preferred name options?
Of course not, why should we ? Sticks & stones etc.
In my opinion some people are just far too sensitive.
-
Of course not, why should we ? Sticks & stones etc.
In my opinion some people are just far too sensitive.
I agree..... but those who insist that forum rules must be applied should ensure rules are applied fairly...they want their cake
-
Of course not, why should we ? Sticks & stones etc.
In my opinion some people are just far too sensitive.
My opinion is that if members object to a particular sobriquet ... it is merely good manners to to observe and act on that objection.
-
My opinion is that if members object to a particular sobriquet ... it is merely good manners to to observe and act on that objection.
it is not just that it is the claim that forum rules are being applied fairly
-
I have avoided issuing sanctons tonight so far but my patience is limited. The name calling will cease forthwith.
Admin
-
as you have asked for help then I will oblige..
why is it acceptable for miss taken to refer to me as a McCann lover but not acceptable for me to refer to her as a McCann h a t e r
Didn't realise it wasn't. I haven't built up a complete (or near complete) dictionary of the terms automatically edited out by the forum software.
Technically, aren't both terms in breach of rules? 'Sceptic' as a description strikes me as ad hom, but is bandied about freely.
So if one gets confined to the cutting room floor, surely the other should too?
-
Didn't realise it wasn't. I haven't built up a complete (or near complete) dictionary of the terms automatically edited out by the forum software.
Technically, aren't both terms in breach of rules? 'Sceptic' as a description strikes me as ad hom, but is bandied about freely.
So if one gets confined to the cutting room floor, surely the other should too?
I don't see why you should object to sceptic....just as supporter is acceptable
-
I have avoided issuing sanctons tonight so far but my patience is limited. The name calling with cease forthwith.
Admin
#
I see the phrase that has caused all this trouble has now been removed. If mods would do their job properly and remove offensive posts when asked the forum would run a lot smoother
-
Personally, I like 'believer' and 'non-believer' as that leaves room for the agnostics as well ?{)(**
-
I think it is important to read the statement made by Madeleine's father in context.
The belief that Madeleine had not left apartment 5A had been heavily promoted ... we have been told that it is still the perception of many in Portugal nine years later that she died there.
There is no evidence to that effect as the released files made clear.
In my opinion Dr McCann used 'harm' as opposed to 'deceased'.
**Snip
Gerry McCann today reaffirmed his belief that official Portuguese police files showed there was 'absolutely no evidence' his missing daughter Madeleine had been seriously harmed.
He also said his family 'strongly believed' that the little girl was alive and could still be found.
His comments follow the release of thousands of documents from the massive dossier of evidence assembled by detectives over more than 14 months.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1045187/Police-dossier-shows-absolutely-evidence-Madeleine-harmed-says-Gerry-McCann.html#ixzz44E9uCKR3
-
Didn't realise it wasn't. I haven't built up a complete (or near complete) dictionary of the terms automatically edited out by the forum software.
Technically, aren't both terms in breach of rules? 'Sceptic' as a description strikes me as ad hom, but is bandied about freely.
So if one gets confined to the cutting room floor, surely the other should too?
as far as I am aware sceptic is acceptable...perhaps admin could help you out with some advice
-
"there is no evidence to suggest that she has been harmed, in any way whatsoever"
http://youtu.be/gFZy2f2yQJA?t=3m44s
Thank you for this Peggs.
Bring the thread back...This was my issue: no harm being abducted vs harm by book.
-
Thank you for this Peggs.
Bring the thread back...This was my issue: no harm being abducted vs harm by book.
infamy infamy they have all got it infamy.
harm by abduction...harm to the family and search by the book...imo
-
Posters are reminded to please stay on topic.
-
as far as I am aware sceptic is acceptable...perhaps admin could help you out with some advice
Supporter and sceptic will do nicely.
-
harm by abduction...harm to the family and search by the book...imo
The book did not harm the search.
-
for the record I have already posted on this thread that simply by being abducted Maddie has come to harm. The McCanns comments are being taken out of context ...it is a s simple as that.
Yep.
-
Yep.
Yet there is nae evidence to show abduction.
Starting with no evidence of a break in.
-
The book did not harm the search.
you forgot to put in your opinion
-
you forgot to put in your opinion
What was the judges pronouncement in court before the appeal ?
-
I think it is important to read the statement made by Madeleine's father in context.
The belief that Madeleine had not left apartment 5A had been heavily promoted ... we have been told that it is still the perception of many in Portugal nine years later that she died there.
There is no evidence to that effect as the released files made clear.
In my opinion Dr McCann used 'harm' as opposed to 'deceased'.
**Snip
Gerry McCann today reaffirmed his belief that official Portuguese police files showed there was 'absolutely no evidence' his missing daughter Madeleine had been seriously harmed.
He also said his family 'strongly believed' that the little girl was alive and could still be found.
His comments follow the release of thousands of documents from the massive dossier of evidence assembled by detectives over more than 14 months.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1045187/Police-dossier-shows-absolutely-evidence-Madeleine-harmed-says-Gerry-McCann.html#ixzz44E9uCKR3
Having an interpretation of what one wants to believe was meant and in what context, does not change anything.
There was claims of no evidence of harm and then claims of evidence where there was none.
-
What was the judges pronouncement in court before the appeal ?
#
tell me please
-
Thank you for this Peggs.
Bring the thread back...This was my issue: no harm being abducted vs harm by book.
Physically harmed; obviously harmed by Amaral's book, because that encouraged people to believe Madeleine is dead, and hence discouraged people from looking for her.
A (pretty appalling) semantic quibble.
-
#and your opinions and views of zero importance...don't delude yourself that they are
It is not my opinion that the parents said what hey said that is ACTUAL FACT. wee difference.
-
Physically harmed; obviously harmed by Amaral's book, because that encouraged people to believe Madeleine is dead, and hence discouraged people from looking for her.
A (pretty appalling) semantic quibble.
People do not need the book to believe Madeleine has died.
-
What was the judges pronouncement in court before the appeal ?
100 % you have misunderstood the judgement...it did not say the book did not harm the search
-
Physically harmed; obviously harmed by Amaral's book, because that encouraged people to believe Madeleine is dead, and hence discouraged people from looking for her.
A (pretty appalling) semantic quibble.
What people? name some? evidence? I would say the family would want their daughter found regardless of her mortal state ( although, alive would be everyones choice).
With regards to your remark semantic quibble. I and many others find it quite revealing.
Think on this: it took many years to catch the Yorkshire Ripper- how was he caught? something unimportant and not worth bothering about caught the attention of two beat bobbies...
-
What people? name some? evidence? I would say the family would want their daughter found regardless of her mortal state ( although, alive would be everyones choice).
With regards to your remark semantic quibble. I and many others find it quite revealing.
Think on this: it took many years to catch the Yorkshire Ripper- how was he caught? something unimportant and not worth bothering about caught the attention of two beat bobbies...
So now you are comparing the McCanns to the Yorkshire Ripper?
-
What people? name some? evidence? I would say the family would want their daughter found regardless of her mortal state ( although, alive would be everyones choice).
With regards to your remark semantic quibble. I and many others find it quite revealing.
Think on this: it took many years to catch the Yorkshire Ripper- how was he caught? something unimportant and not worth bothering about caught the attention of two beat bobbies...
I will tell you how he was caught...by a very ...very expensive police operation...I know this first hand... I was actually interviewed by police
-
I will tell you how he was caught...by a very ...very expensive police operation...I know this first hand... I was actually interviewed by police
It was not the very expensive police operation which caught him. It was two beat bobbies, quiet night, saw something of no importance and thought to make something of it...
This is a point which is missing in this mystery- I believe the devil is in the detail and it will be something quite silly which will spring open this case. Maybe not get a conviction but something small with kick things off. That is why the police are looking through everything apparently.
-
100 % you have misunderstood the judgement...it did not say the book did not harm the search
The book did not harm the search.
It is a myth.
-
Thank you for this Peggs.
Bring the thread back...This was my issue: no harm being abducted vs harm by book.
http://youtu.be/gFZy2f2yQJA?t=3m44s says "there is no evidence to suggest that she has been harmed, in any way whatsoever" but soon after oddly gives as example a case in california where the victim was harmed
-
of course if maddie was alive she would have been harmed both physically and emotionally why is there so much denial by people with this case? maddie was 3 years old
-
http://youtu.be/gFZy2f2yQJA?t=3m44s says "there is no evidence to suggest that she has been harmed, in any way whatsoever" but soon after oddly gives as example a case in california where the victim was harmed
Indeed Pegs! that is what got me thinking, talking about it and why I produced this thread I thought it very strange.
___________________________________________________________________________
-
of course if maddie was alive she would have been harmed both physically and emotionally why is there so much denial by people with this case? maddie was 3 years old
have you read any of the posts,,,,no one is denying it ...try reading the posts forst
-
The book did not harm the search.
It is a myth.
that isn't what the court judgement said ..is it
-
The book did not harm the search.
It is a myth.
most people cant read portugese so most people couldnt read his book?
-
Indeed Pegs! that is what got me thinking, talking about it and why I produced this thread I thought it very strange.
Yes why couldn't their spokesperson think of an appropriate example, instead of the Garrido case?
-
that isn't what the court judgement said ..is it
The book did not harm the search.
She was searched for.
Nothing has been found.
FACTS.
-
The book did not harm the search.
She was searched for.
Nothing has been found.
FACTS.
that isn't what the court judgement said..is it
-
that isn't what the court judgement said..is it
Madeleine was searched for.
She was not found.
That has not changed.
Just the FACTS.
-
Yes why couldn't their spokesperson think of an appropriate example, instead of the Garrido case?
Because...there is no available data which states people who are abducted then returned to families were not harmed (in some way).
There are cases where abductees become emotianally attached to their abductors, Some who are sexually,physically or emotionally abused over a long period of time. This is a type of harm caused due to the controlled behaviour endured by the abductee- they become subservant and are rewared for 'good behaviour' etc.
-
Because...there is no available data which states people who are abducted then returned to families were not harmed (in some way).
There are cases where abductees become emotianally attached to their abductors, Some who are sexually,physically or emotionally abused over a long period of time. This is a type of harm caused due to the controlled behaviour endured by the abductee- they become subservant and are rewared for 'good behaviour' etc.
stockholm sydrome
-
Madeleine was searched for.
She was not found.
That has not changed.
Just the FACTS.
#what has changed is the contents of your posts,,,read back...it's quite funny
-
most people cant read portugese so most people couldnt read his book?
Even if they could, there is nothing to say
A) they were convinced by the book, which I find an erroneous argument, and even if they were, would report a sightng IMO
B) anyone was actually looking still in summer 2008 and beyond whether convnced or not
Not quanitifable and not qualifiable, to say who was looking, how many and when, just a claim
-
Even if they could, there is nothing to say
A) they were convinced by the book, which I find an erroneous argument, and even if they were, would report a sightng IMO
B) anyone was actually looking still in summer 2008 and beyond whether convnced or not
Not quanitifable and not qualifiable, to say who was looking, how many and when, just a claim
exactly most people dont need books to make up their minds about things its called free thinking
-
#what has changed is the contents of your posts,,,read back...it's quite funny
Nope.
The judge said the book had not hindered the search or had caused damage to the twins.
-
Even if they could, there is nothing to say
A) they were convinced by the book, which I find an erroneous argument, and even if they were, would report a sightng IMO
B) anyone was actually looking still in summer 2008 and beyond whether convnced or not
Not quanitifable and not qualifiable, to say who was looking, how many and when, just a claim
Indeed! and I keep asking the question.... who was looking for a child from the pictures we were being fed? it was a global search EVERYBODY was supposed to be looking. I know I wasn't and I never read the book!
-
Nope.
The judge said the book had not hindered the search or had caused damage to the twins.
the twins dont remmeber maddie or anything about that night the part of the brain that has memories etc develops when a child is about 4 or 5 clear memories anyway the twins only remeber what they have been told
-
exactly most people dont need books to make up their minds about things its called free thinking
Seems the mccanns decided not only every person is gullible but that they should be compensated for said claim with no evidence and no proof
-
that isn't what the court judgement said ..is it
Depends whose version (of the judgement) you read, Dave.
If you read Anne Guide's version, then then the book didn't harm the search for Madeleine.
But if you read the mainstream press, the book didn't harm the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
The version of the mainstream press would seem to have the truer ring of logic, because, of course, the book was published after the investigation was shelved.
But who knows ....
-
Indeed! and I keep asking the question.... who was looking for a child from the pictures we were being fed? it was a global search EVERYBODY was supposed to be looking. I know I wasn't and I never read the book!
no one knows what maddie really looked like remmeber gerry said confusion is good?
-
that isn't what the court judgement said..is it
What court judgement and what did it say?
-
Indeed! and I keep asking the question.... who was looking for a child from the pictures we were being fed? it was a global search EVERYBODY was supposed to be looking. I know I wasn't and I never read the book!
Thats why the judge thought it was nonsense too
Who looks for a missing chld a year and later, there are others and other adults and all sorts of horrible happenings in the world whch engage people
-
What court judgement and what did it say?
Read my post no.115 of this thread.
-
Depends whose version (of the judgement) you read, Dave.
If you read Anne Guide's version, then then the book didn't harm the search for Madeleine.
But if you read the mainstream press, the book didn't harm the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
The version of the mainstream press would seem to have the truer ring of logic, because, of course, the book was published after the investigation was shelved.
But who knows ....
Thing is... The judgement was the parents were naturally upset by reading the book BUT it did not harm the investigation for the search for Maddie Nor did it stop people searching for her as was claimed by the parents.
And let us look at that, The parents make a claim their child was harmed by the book's contents even though they did not show any evidence- did they know if she were alive or dead? They were claiming financial compensation to this effect in her name. If she were dead they would be making a fraudulent claim. Just something to ponder...
-
Depends whose version (of the judgement) you read, Dave.
If you read Anne Guide's version, then then the book didn't harm the search for Madeleine.
But if you read the mainstream press, the book didn't harm the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
The version of the mainstream press would seem to have the truer ring of logic, because, of course, the book was published after the investigation was shelved.
But who knows ....
Difference being that Anne Guedes and the other translators produced a verbatim version of the court proceedings which they witnessed whereas the journalists produced a story based on secondhand infomation and added their own slant to it to attract the best price. I know which version I would believe.
-
Thing is... The judgement was the parents were naturally upset by reading the book BUT it did not harm the investigation for the search for Maddie Nor did it stop people searching for her as was claimed by the parents.
And let us look at that, The parents make a claim their child was harmed by the book's contents even though they did not show any evidence- did they know if she were alive or dead? They were claiming financial compensation to this effect in her name. If she were dead they would be making a fraudulent claim. Just something to ponder...
It's not something to ponder at all.
A book sold to an audience (across countries of Europe) of hundreds of thousands (or possibly more) were told (in the book) that Madeleine was dead, that her parents were directly responsible for her death, covered up the (alleged) "fact" of her death and launched a (fraudulent) "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name.
How can that message, read and believed by hundreds of thousands across Europe, have done other than harm the search for Madeleine?
-
Difference being that Anne Guedes and the other translators produced a verbatim versio of the court proceedings whereas the journalists produced a story based on what they were told.
Don't accept that as a difference, at all.
Anne Guides screwed up on the testimony of Alan Pike.
Journalists writing for mainstream newspapers are legally accountable for what they write (about court proceedings)
-
It's not something to ponder at all.
A book sold to an audience (across countries of Europe) of hundreds of thousands (or possibly more) were told (in the book) that Madeleine was dead, that her parents were directly responsible for her death, covered up the (alleged) "fact" of her death and launched a (fraudulent) "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name.
How can that message, read and believed by hundreds of thousands across Europe, have done other than harm the search for Madeleine?
Maybe the line of thinking was that the official police investigation had been archived, one lot of PI's had been elbowed and another was in the departure lounge so no real searching going on.
-
Thing is... The judgement was the parents were naturally upset by reading the book BUT it did not harm the investigation for the search for Maddie Nor did it stop people searching for her as was claimed by the parents.
And let us look at that, The parents make a claim their child was harmed by the book's contents even though they did not show any evidence- did they know if she were alive or dead? They were claiming financial compensation to this effect in her name. If she were dead they would be making a fraudulent claim. Just something to ponder...
The claims were dismissed anyway
See iv
Given the above, on balance of fact and law, the decision is to :
I. judge remedied the representation irregularity of the claimant MADELEINE BETH McCann in accordance with article 29, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, to dismiss the objection raised by the defendant GONCALO AMARAL .
II. declare partly proceeding the claims made in the main action by the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MCCANN and GERALD PATRICK MCCANN against the defendant GONCALO AMARAL and, to that extent, condemn the second to pay to each of the first the indemnity amount of 250.000 € increased by default interests at the rate of civil interests, since January 5, 2010 until full payment.
III. dismiss the other requests, made in the same action by the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MCCANN and GERALD PATRICK MCCANN against the defendant GONCALO AMARAL and of those claims acquit the defendant.
IV. fully dismiss the requests, made in the same action, by the claimants MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN against the defendant GONCALO AMARAL and of those claims acquit the defendant.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm
-
Maybe the line of thinking was that the official police investigation had been archived, one lot of PI's had been elbowed and another was in the departure lounge so no real searching going on.
What?
Whose line of thinking?
-
It's not something to ponder at all.
A book sold to an audience (across countries of Europe) of hundreds of thousands (or possibly more) were told (in the book) that Madeleine was dead, that her parents were directly responsible for her death, covered up the (alleged) "fact" of her death and launched a (fraudulent) "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name.
How can that message, read and believed by hundreds of thousands across Europe, have done other than harm the search for Madeleine?
You do not think it strange that parents would seek financial compensation on behalf of a child they did not know was dead or alive, or could prove the book caused her harm? ok then.
The book as far as I am aware does not accuse the parents of her death, it is about a thesis that the child had an accident of some kind.
And the truth is the parents did have a duty of care of their children which was found lacking and was seen to facilitate their daughters disappearance by some.
even the judge asked which was worse, can you guess the reply?
-
It's not something to ponder at all.
A book sold to an audience (across countries of Europe) of hundreds of thousands (or possibly more) were told (in the book) that Madeleine was dead, that her parents were directly responsible for her death, covered up the (alleged) "fact" of her death and launched a (fraudulent) "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name.
How can that message, read and believed by hundreds of thousands across Europe, have done other than harm the search for Madeleine?
Youd have to prove it was believed by hundreds of thousands and anyone reading the book actively stopped looking.......its not possible, thats why it was NOT PROVEN and thats why at least half their claim was thrown out
-
The McCanns believed that the book harmed the search. And I understand why.
-
Youd have to prove it was believed by hundreds of thousands and anyone reading the book actively stopped looking.......its not possible, thats why it was NOT PROVEN and thats why at least half their claim was thrown out
The judge said it was not proven that book harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
That is because she disappeared before the book was written (or even conceived)
Common sense.
-
The McCanns believed that the book harmed the search. And I understand why.
of course you do
-
of course you do
Glad you understand.
-
The judge said it was not proven that book harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
That is because she disappeared before the book was written (or even conceived)
Common sense.
Did she? Well, that scuppers arguments that it did. As for the search, as I said, no evidence proof, just a belief and claim IMO for whch they wanted financial compensation....err, for something which could never be evidenced or proved...and thry also claimed it wasnt about the money, it was just to shut mr amaral up, well why didnt they sue for one euro? Instead of over a million? And please dont say it was for PIs....Im sure they had realised by then NO PI could help them having been through have a dozen already...and the rest of the help
-
Did she? Well, that scuppers arguments that it did. As for the search, as I said, no evidence proof, just a belief and claim IMO for whch they wanted financial compensation....err, for something which could never be evidenced or proved...and thry also claimed it wasnt about the money, it was just to shut mr amaral up, well why didnt they sue for one euro? Instead of over a million? And please dont say it was for PIs....Im sure they had realised by then NO PI could help them having been through have a dozen already...and the rest of the help
We know what the judge said, We also know that a completely different impression of the ruling was given by the McCanns. They are being truthful - the action they brought was about the children and the damage to the search. They just didn't bother explaining that those parts of the action were dismissed and that the payout was purely based on the damage to themselves. No UK media explained the judgement properly either. No wonder people prefer using the internet if they wish to be properly informed.
"We want to emphasise that the action was never about money. It has always been focused on the effects of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine," they said in a statement.
http://news.sky.com/story/1473806/mccanns-delighted-with-433k-libel-victory
-
the judge was quite clera...she said it had not been proved that the book harmed the search...not that it did not harm the search.
-
the judge was quite clera...she said it had not been proved that the book harmed the search...not that it did not harm the search.
I said that last night and you denied it.
-
no one knows what maddie really looked like remmeber gerry said confusion is good?
No I don't remember. Please explain - otherwise you are perpetuating a myth.
-
the judge was quite clera...she said it had not been proved that the book harmed the search...not that it did not harm the search.
She said it was not proved that the book harmed the investigation, which is quite different.
The book was published after the investigation was shelved .....
-
She said it was not proved that the book harmed the investigation, which is quite different.
The book was published after the investigation was shelved .....
NOT AT ALL.
They could not prove it damaged the search.
However, it does show the mccanns and backers operating procedure....
ALWAYS BLAME SOMEONE ELSE.
-
Nope.
The judge said the book had not hindered the search or had caused damage to the twins.
No she didn't.
It was not possible to prove whether or not the book harmed the search - because there was no way of knowing what every person out of the thousands who read the book believed as a result of reading it. So it could not be proved either way.
Therefore it was unproven - and that is a million miles away from your claim that it was proved in court that the book did no damage to the search or the twins.
-
No she didn't.
It was not possible to prove whether or not the book harmed the search - because there was no way of knowing what every person out of the thousands who read the book believed as a result of reading it. So it could not be proved either way.
Therefore it was unproven - and that is a million miles away from your claim that it was proved in court that the book did no damage to the search or the twins.
Madeleine was searched for extensively well before the book came out.
There was and remains no trace of her.
The book was one man's view, but shared by others.
On the basis that Madeleine had been searched for already, it was a ludicrous assertion for the McCann's to say the book hindered the search, especially as they hadn't done it themselves, except for the brief 'search' the morning after she disappeared.
-
Is the thread about "harm to Madeleine" or "harm to the search/investigation" call it what you will ?
What ever the judge was trying she did not find in favour for more than 50% of it (59 point something if you want to be picky).
-
Madeleine was searched for extensively well before the book came out.
There was and remains no trace of her.
The book was one man's view, but shared by others.
On the basis that Madeleine had been searched for already, it was a ludicrous assertion for the McCann's to say the book hindered the search, especially as they hadn't done it themselves, except for the brief 'search' the morning after she disappeared.
It's not clear from your post whether or not you are still claiming that it was proved in court that the book did not harm the search or Madeleine. That is what you were claiming isn't it? Could you please clarify.
-
No she didn't.
It was not possible to prove whether or not the book harmed the search - because there was no way of knowing what every person out of the thousands who read the book believed as a result of reading it. So it could not be proved either way.
Therefore it was unproven - and that is a million miles away from your claim that it was proved in court that the book did no damage to the search or the twins.
In which case it's merely a matter of opinion. The McCanns said the book harmed the search and it was part of their list of complaints against Amaral. They're entitled to their opinion even if there's no evidence to support it.
The question for me is whether it's acceptable to suggest that the payout the judge ordered had anything to do with 'the harm to the search'. We know that the payout was to compensate the two of them for the damage to their reputations, but we didn't learn that from the McCanns or the media.
-
In which case it's merely a matter of opinion. The McCanns said the book harmed the search and it was part of their list of complaints against Amaral. They're entitled to their opinion even if there's no evidence to support it.
The question for me is whether it's acceptable to suggest that the payout the judge ordered had anything to do with 'the harm to the search'. We know that the payout was to compensate the two of them for the damage to their reputations, but we didn't learn that from the McCanns or the media.
Personally - I've never thought that the payout was anything to do with 'harm to the search' as that was not proved in court.
IMO the only concern the McCanns had regarding 'money' is that they did not want Amaral to profit by one penny from his book. I would feel exactly the same in their position.
-
Personally - I've never thought that the payout was anything to do with 'harm to the search' as that was not proved in court.
IMO the only concern the McCanns had regarding 'money' is that they did not want Amaral to profit by one penny from his book. I would feel exactly the same in their position.
Yet the mccanns have made money.
Now where has the money gone , for example, from the serialization rights of kate mccanns book in the Sun ?
Have they by the way complained about Summers and Swan making money from Madeleine ?
-
No she didn't.
It was not possible to prove whether or not the book harmed the search - because there was no way of knowing what every person out of the thousands who read the book believed as a result of reading it. So it could not be proved either way.
Therefore it was unproven - and that is a million miles away from your claim that it was proved in court that the book did no damage to the search or the twins.
It was not proved that the book harmed the search, therefore according to received wisdom is didn't (innocent).
-
It's not clear from your post whether or not you are still claiming that it was proved in court that the book did not harm the search or Madeleine. That is what you were claiming isn't it? Could you please clarify.
The McCanns first sent in a body finder a year before Amaral's book was released to try and find her which was prior to the dogs. Everyone knows she could be deceased but that doesn't stop the public from reporting sightings. They don't think, "I'm certain that's Maddy but it can't be because Almighty God Amaral said she's dead." People can think for themselves hopefully 8(>((
-
The McCanns first sent in a body finder a year before Amaral's book was released to try and find her which was prior to the dogs. Everyone knows she could be deceased but that doesn't stop the public from reporting sightings. They don't think, "I'm certain that's Maddy but it can't be because Almighty God Amaral said she's dead." People can think for themselves hopefully 8(>((
Do you have a cite for the sentence in quotation marks PF?
-
Do you have a cite for the sentence in quotation marks PF?
Is that a joke? What's that got to do with anything. People can think for themselves. Hopefully they aren't sheep.
-
Is that a joke? What's that got to do with anything. People can think for themselves. Hopefully they aren't sheep.
No, it isn't a joke ... some might consider it disrespectful to Mr Amaral, some might consider it disrespectful to God. If it is not a direct quote from someone it might be worth considering rephrasing it.
-
Is that a joke? What's that got to do with anything. People can think for themselves. Hopefully they aren't sheep.
Mr Amaral's book did not harm the search at all - the Find Madeleine phone line in 2009/10 received many hundreds of calls with potentially important information
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html
-
Personally - I've never thought that the payout was anything to do with 'harm to the search' as that was not proved in court.
IMO the only concern the McCanns had regarding 'money' is that they did not want Amaral to profit by one penny from his book. I would feel exactly the same in their position.
And in their position, would you have wanted him to win the Olhao election?
-
Mr Amaral's book did not harm the search at all - the Find Madeleine phone line in 2009/10 received many hundreds of calls with potentially important information
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html
There is little doubt of the potential for harm embodied in the neglect and misappropriation associated with this firm.
All the more surprising therefore that at a later date the Sunday Times investigative team took the word of associates without it seems proper scrutiny which deflected somewhat from the reopening of the investigation of Madeleine's case while costing their newspaper a considerable sum in damages.
**Snip
Halligen and Oakley International, based in Washington, failed to listen to a single call received on the hotline set up for potential informants by Kate and Gerry McCann last year.
Johan Selle, the director of operations at iJet, the US firm that managed the Find Madeleine phone line, revealed that for a year nobody even asked his company if they could listen to any of the calls received.
Mr Selle said his operators, in Annapolis, Virginia, had answered 'hundreds of calls', but the information seemed wasted - possibly squandering valuable leads.
He said: 'We delivered Oakley a report with a summary of the calls and said if they wanted to come back they could listen to the recording, but nobody did.
'For someone with an understanding of the case it would be very easy for some to say that maybe 80 or 90 per cent of the calls were hogwash, but there may be a percentage where one would say maybe we should listen to this one or listen to that one. But our understanding is that this never took place.
'We are not sure whether Halligen provided our report to the family or to the trust or to those working with them or to the teams working after him, because no one came back to us.
'We sent the report to Oakley group and our assumption was that they were using it as a piece in the puzzle. But it appears that wasn't the case.'
The firm says it was not paid for it services by Halligen or Oakley International.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html#ixzz44Hrc60O0
-
Can we have some examples of cases in which the person was not harmed "in any way whatsoever"?
And is it acceptable for someone with no counselling qualifications to propose it as a realistic outcome?
-
There is little doubt of the potential for harm embodied in the neglect and misappropriation associated with this firm.
All the more surprising therefore that at a later date the Sunday Times investigative team took the word of associates without it seems proper scrutiny which deflected somewhat from the reopening of the investigation of Madeleine's case while costing their newspaper a considerable sum in damages.
**Snip
Halligen and Oakley International, based in Washington, failed to listen to a single call received on the hotline set up for potential informants by Kate and Gerry McCann last year.
Johan Selle, the director of operations at iJet, the US firm that managed the Find Madeleine phone line, revealed that for a year nobody even asked his company if they could listen to any of the calls received.
Mr Selle said his operators, in Annapolis, Virginia, had answered 'hundreds of calls', but the information seemed wasted - possibly squandering valuable leads.
He said: 'We delivered Oakley a report with a summary of the calls and said if they wanted to come back they could listen to the recording, but nobody did.
'For someone with an understanding of the case it would be very easy for some to say that maybe 80 or 90 per cent of the calls were hogwash, but there may be a percentage where one would say maybe we should listen to this one or listen to that one. But our understanding is that this never took place.
'We are not sure whether Halligen provided our report to the family or to the trust or to those working with them or to the teams working after him, because no one came back to us.
'We sent the report to Oakley group and our assumption was that they were using it as a piece in the puzzle. But it appears that wasn't the case.'
The firm says it was not paid for it services by Halligen or Oakley International.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html#ixzz44Hrc60O0
The majority of the Sunday Times story went unchallenged of course.
-
the judge was quite clera...she said it had not been proved that the book harmed the search...not that it did not harm the search.
Thats the last post from me until something worth discussing happens.
I have always said that Amaral's book, far from hampering the search, actually brought the case of missing Madeleine McCann to the attention of many more people in Portuguese and French speaking regions of the world, areas which would have otherwise never have heard of the case. In my opinion the thesis within the book had little or no impact on any search for Madeleine, the parents behaviour towards the Portuguese investigation having managed that on their own.
I find it very hard to believe that Madeleine has come to no harm in the circumstances.
-
I have always said that Amaral's book, far from hampering the search, actually brought the case of missing Madeleine McCann to the attention of many more people in Portuguese and French speaking regions of the world, areas which would have otherwise never have heard of the case. In my opinion the thesis within the book had little or no impact on any search for Madeleine, the parents behaviour towards the Portuguese investigation having managed that on their own.
I find it very hard to believe that Madeleine has come to no harm in the circumstances.
The notion that Madeline was dead was firmly implanted in the mind of the reader of TTotL. It was put there by the words of someone very well-placed to make such an assertion.
There was once a memo from someone in a well-placed position who told us Iraq had WMDs......that didn't cause much harm either........
-
Kate McCann claimed recently that Maddie never left the Algarve so if that is true she is deceased and probably has been since she disappeared. Personally I think she makes it up as she goes along.
-
Kate McCann claimed recently that Maddie never left the Algarve so if that is true she is deceased and probably has been since she disappeared. Personally I think she makes it up as she goes along.
On this I agree with her.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/madeleine-mccann/53972/madeleine-mccann-still-in-algarve-says-mother-kate
-
The notion that Madeline was dead was firmly implanted in the mind of the reader of TTotL. It was put there by the words of someone very well-placed to make such an assertion.
There was once a memo from someone in a well-placed position who told us Iraq had WMDs......that didn't cause much harm either........
1.Of that there is no doubt. The "someone" however is merely repeating a similar comment made in the archiving report and here I paraphrase "......or dead as seems more likely".
Back end of 2007 I thought MM was dead and at that time I was not an anorak on the case. Becoming an anorak happened back end of 2013 and only read Amarals book about three months ago. There must be more with similar views who have never read the book.
2. They did have but they were either used by then or well hidden; we sold them to the Iraqis mid to late 1980s when they were fighting a war against Iran when the Iranians were the bad guys and the Iraqis were honorary good guys cos the were fightin' the bad guys. See esp. Matrix Churchill and also Forgemasters.
-
1.Of that there is no doubt. The "someone" however is merely repeating a similar comment made in the archiving report and here I paraphrase "......or dead as seems more likely".
Back end of 2007 I thought MM was dead and at that time I was not an anorak on the case. Becoming an anorak happened back end of 2013 and only read Amarals book about three months ago. There must be more with similar views who have never read the book.
2. They did have but they were either used by then or well hidden; we sold them to the Iraqis mid to late 1980s when they were fighting a war against Iran when the Iranians were the bad guys and the Iraqis were honorary good guys cos the were fightin' the bad guys. See esp. Matrix Churchill and also Forgemasters.
The book was a best seller. The author being perceived to have had a particularly authoritative position in the case no doubt had a disproportionate effect in the public mind particularly in Portugal where it mattered most.
In my opinion that had to cause harm. However that harm was reinforced by the media career and the documentaries he fronted. The author appears to have made a very comfortable career out of discussing and putting his particular slant on Madeleine's case.
He has authored other books which have not had the impact his Madeleine book had ... you may not have read the truth of the lie until recently (I am told it is a good read) but at the time I think it was very well read and it could be said that was the time when its effect was more keenly apparent.
-
(snip) There was once a memo from someone in a well-placed position who told us Iraq had WMDs......that didn't cause much harm either........
I'm glad you mentioned WMDs Misty.
Wasn't it the WMD prime minister who was phoning GM offering to do anything to help for example 17 Jun 2007?
And wasn't it a WMD-illusion-spreading journo who wrote the most pathetic ever anti-Amaral article?
-
The book was a best seller. The author being perceived to have had a particularly authoritative position in the case no doubt had a disproportionate effect in the public mind particularly in Portugal where it mattered most.
In my opinion that had to cause harm. However that harm was reinforced by the media career and the documentaries he fronted. The author appears to have made a very comfortable career out of discussing and putting his particular slant on Madeleine's case.
He has authored other books which have not had the impact his Madeleine book had ... you may not have read the truth of the lie until recently (I am told it is a good read) but at the time I think it was very well read and it could be said that was the time when its effect was more keenly apparent.
I thought I read on here somewhere the book was an abject failure? no matter, the key but unanswerable question of course is "did the book make anyone think what they weren't thinking already"?
I hold no brief for Sr Amaral but he appears to be no different from many other retired police officers with a bee in their bonnet about an unsolved case. Retired cops, politicians and military types should "zip it" the instant they retire and go fishing or sailing instead of doing the "if only tour".
-
I thought I read on here somewhere the book was an abject failure? no matter, the key but unanswerable question of course is "did the book make anyone think what they weren't thinking already"?
I hold no brief for Sr Amaral but he appears to be no different from many other retired police officers with a bee in their bonnet about an unsolved case. Retired cops, politicians and military types should "zip it" the instant they retire and go fishing or sailing instead of doing the "if only tour".
So you won't have any beefs if Amaral's appeal (against the decision of the first-instance court in the libel trial) fails?
-
So you won't have any beefs if Amaral's appeal (against the decision of the first-instance court in the libel trial) fails?
......and you won't if the appeal succeeds ? 8)-)))
-
......and you won't if the appeal succeeds ? 8)-)))
Plenty.
But I think Portuguese justice won't let the McCanns down (if it hasn't already, by rejecting Amaral's appeal) ...
-
Plenty.
But I think Portuguese justice won't let the McCanns down (if it hasn't already, by rejecting Amaral's appeal) ...
Let the McCann's down ?
It is the McCann's who let Madeleine down.
Never forget that.
-
So you won't have any beefs if Amaral's appeal (against the decision of the first-instance court in the libel trial) fails?
Why would I have ?
-
Why would I have ?
You seem quite keen to play down the notion that Madeleine was harmed by Madeleine's book?
Ah!
Miss Taken identity.
I was muddling you with the opening poster.
But I (imagine!) you broadly agree with the tenor of the opening post (of this thread)?
-
You seem quite keen to play down the notion that Madeleine was harmed by Madeleine's book?
Ah!
Miss Taken identity.
I was muddling you with the opening poster.
But I (imagine!) you broadly agree with the tenor of the opening post (of this thread)?
It wasn't a book which harmed Madeleine.
Nor was it a mythical abductor.
-
It wasn't a book which harmed Madeleine.
Nor was it a mythical abductor.
Nor have I ever read anywhere how any of their private investigators harmed the search when it is on record that either a) they couldnt be bothered to question key persons of interest on at least two occasions (Edgar and Cowley) or else b) leave dozens of hotline calls to just sit there unlistened to (Oakley). Im sure Metodo have a few failings as well.
-
Nor have I ever read anywhere how any of their private investigators harmed the search when it is on record that either a) they couldnt be bothered to question key persons of interest on at least two occasions (Edgar and Cowley) or else b) leave dozens of hotline calls to just sit there unlistened to (Oakley). Im sure Metodo have a few failings as well.
Pertinent points Mercury.
-
Pertinent points Mercury.
The real question there is: did the decisions made by those people who selected the private investigators harm the search?
-
Pertinent points Mercury.
Thanks stephen. Of course they are because trying to fleece a policeman off of a million euros and destroy his life on an extremely questionable and often unproven argument whilst in the same breath paying for people who demonstrably let potential leads go down the drain is a bit hypocritical at best
-
The real question there is: did the decisions made by those people who selected the private investigators harm the search?
Who hired alpha investigations?
-
It was quite obvious to me from the start that when the McCann's used the term 'no harm' they meant that they believed Madeleine had not been murdered.
-
It was quite obvious to me from the start that when the McCann's used the term 'no harm' they meant that they believed Madeleine had not been murdered.
No it's not.
-
It was quite obvious to me from the start that when the McCann's used the term 'no harm' they meant that they believed Madeleine had not been murdered.
I agree Lace. But what the McCanns didn't know is that a group of sceptics on the internet were going to spend their time picking over every word they ever uttered - with the sole aim of finding fault. This is just one example IMO.
-
I agree Lace. But what the McCanns didn't know is that a group of sceptics on the internet were going to spend their time picking over every word they ever uttered - with the sole aim of finding fault. This is just one example IMO.
Of course you agree.
You weren't going to say anything else.
-
Of course you agree.
You weren't going to say anything else.
What do you mean? Please explain.
-
It was quite obvious to me from the start that when the McCann's used the term 'no harm' they meant that they believed Madeleine had not been murdered.
That is an interesting proposition.
Presuming Madeleine had been kidnapped then murder was not the only harm that could befall her. So in your opinion the McCanns meant murder when they said harm. What word do you believe they used to describe the other possible harms? and do you think that having said no harm ( meaning murder ) had befallen her they then accepted that the other harms had or would?
-
That is an interesting proposition.
Presuming Madeleine had been kidnapped then murder was not the only harm that could befall her. So in your opinion the McCanns meant murder when they said harm. What word do you believe they used to describe the other possible harms? and do you think that having said no harm ( meaning murder ) had befallen her they then accepted that the other harms had or would?
I believe Gerry said 'had come to no harm' meaning that he didn't think Madeleine was dead.
-
I believe the phrase used was 'serious harm' so presumably the possibility of sexual abuse is not considered as serious.
-
We will not pursue the Sexual Abuse Theory any further. Thank You.
-
We will not pursue the Sexual Abuse Theory any further. Thank You.
Horrendous thought isn't it ?
Imagine the guilt if you had enabled that horrendous injustice to a child.
-
Horrendous thought isn't it ?
Imagine the guilt if you had enabled that horrendous injustice to a child.
i wouldnt be able to live with it would you??
-
Horrendous thought isn't it ?
Imagine the guilt if you had enabled that horrendous injustice to a child.
Yes, a guilt that the McCann's carry every day, and some people love to keep reminding them of it.
-
i wouldnt be able to live with it would you??
They have to carry on they have two other children, that is what probably keeps them from crumbling and the hope that Madeleine will be found alive.
-
Yes, a guilt that the McCann's carry every day, and some people love to keep reminding them of it.
Really ?
Jenny: 'And how will you deal with the guilt that will probably stay with you forever of having left Madeleine alone?'
Kate: 'Well, I have actually come to terms a little bit with... with that, Jenny, I mean, you know... I know the, errm, I know the situation that we were in that night and uh, I've said all along, I didn't feel I was taking a risk. Errm, yeah, I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken. Errm, I'd also like to mention I've had so much support from so many people. I've had so many letters and comments sent me.. sent to me from other families, and particularly other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over, do not blame yourself.'
-
Really ?
Jenny: 'And how will you deal with the guilt that will probably stay with you forever of having left Madeleine alone?'
Kate: 'Well, I have actually come to terms a little bit with... with that, Jenny, I mean, you know... I know the, errm, I know the situation that we were in that night and uh, I've said all along, I didn't feel I was taking a risk. Errm, yeah, I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken. Errm, I'd also like to mention I've had so much support from so many people. I've had so many letters and comments sent me.. sent to me from other families, and particularly other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over, do not blame yourself.'
So you think the McCann's are not blaming themselves? It's etched on Kate McCann's face faithlily, the drive to find Madeleine is keeping them going.
-
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann admitted yesterday they would feel guilty for the rest of their lives about leaving her alone in her bed as Portuguese police finally issued a description of a man they believe may be her kidnapper.
-
So you think the McCann's are not blaming themselves? It's etched on Kate McCann's face faithlily, the drive to find Madeleine is keeping them going.
Are you a confidant of the McCanns then Lace or a you just projecting onto them the way you would feel if you were in their situation ?
-
Really ?
Jenny: 'And how will you deal with the guilt that will probably stay with you forever of having left Madeleine alone?'
Kate: 'Well, I have actually come to terms a little bit with... with that, Jenny, I mean, you know... I know the, errm, I know the situation that we were in that night and uh, I've said all along, I didn't feel I was taking a risk. Errm, yeah, I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken. Errm, I'd also like to mention I've had so much support from so many people. I've had so many letters and comments sent me.. sent to me from other families, and particularly other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over, do not blame yourself.'
"I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken." And then Kate leaves the twins alone again so they too could be taken. &%+((£
-
I believe Gerry said 'had come to no harm' meaning that he didn't think Madeleine was dead.
You seem not to have addressed the question and continue to put your interpretation forward as fact.
Never mind.
-
"I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken." And then Kate leaves the twins alone again so they too could be taken. &%+((£
Why wouldn't you lift them up and take them with you ?
Did she even check to see if the twins were okay ?
-
"I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken." And then Kate leaves the twins alone again so they too could be taken. &%+((£
Hardly likely. Unless the abductor wanted to be caught. How far do you think he would have got with everyone running around screaming.
Let's have a bit of common sense here.
-
Hardly likely. Unless the abductor wanted to be caught. How far do you think he would have got with everyone running around screaming.
Let's have a bit of common sense here.
......and that assumes there was an abductor.
Mmm.
-
Why wouldn't you lift them up and take them with you ?
Did she even check to see if the twins were okay ?
Most would ring the police straight away if they knew their child had been abducted like she always claims but she didn't call the police at all. "I know more than you I was there." KM. Yes Kate but you didn't call the police but were most keen to call a priest. In her statement there is nothing about looking through the open window for any sign of an abductor or Madeleine. If Madeleine got through the window she could have fell onto the ground below. Her statement doesn't include these simple first checks and then the twins were left again.
-
Are you a confidant of the McCanns then Lace or a you just projecting onto them the way you would feel if you were in their situation ?
I am giving you quotes from the McCann's, just as you are, but the one I give said they would feel guilt for the rest of their lives.
-
I am giving you quotes from the McCann's, just as you are, but the one I give said they would feel guilt for the rest of their lives.
Do you have the direct quote ?
-
Most would ring the police straight away if they knew their child had been abducted like she always claims but she didn't call the police at all. "I know more than you I was there." KM. Yes Kate but you didn't call the police but were most keen to call a priest. In her statement there is nothing about looking through the open window for any sign of an abductor or Madeleine. If Madeleine got through the window she could have fell onto the ground below. Her statement doesn't include these simple first checks and then the twins were left again.
You have no idea how you would react if a child of yours went missing, its fine looking back at something and thinking what they should have done and when they should have done it, but as you weren't in their position you can't judge.
-
Do you have the direct quote ?
Here's one -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-regrets-over-night-maddy-285440
-
Here's one -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-regrets-over-night-maddy-285440
From the article :
"But Gerry still refuses to accept he and Kate acted irresponsibly.
He snapped: "At the time we did it, it was not irresponsible"
Doesn't sound like guilt to me.
-
You have no idea how you would react if a child of yours went missing, its fine looking back at something and thinking what they should have done and when they should have done it, but as you weren't in their position you can't judge.
Kate didn't call the police straight away knowing her daughter was taken. As she said, "I know what happened I was there!" I look at the facts not speculation. No glove marks anywhere from an alleged burglar. The bedroom door moved three times from their statements, finger prints on window, crime scene tampered with, Madeleine's tidy bed, window closed when the police arrived much later, shutter slightly raised, curtain trapped behind the sofa and bed next to the window etc.
-
From the article :
"But Gerry still refuses to accept he and Kate acted irresponsibly.
He snapped: "At the time we did it, it was not irresponsible"
Doesn't sound like guilt to me.
At the time they left the children they felt it was safe and so to them they didn't act irresponsibly. Madeleine disappeared however and they feel guilty about what they did, as they said they will feel guilt for the rest of their lives.
-
At the time they left the children they felt it was safe and so to them they didn't act irresponsibly. Madeleine disappeared however and they feel guilty about what they did, as they said they will feel guilt for the rest of their lives.
They didn't lock the apartment at night, but they did during the day when the flat was empty.
The word 'responsible' is not apical to the mccanns behaviour.
-
......and that assumes there was an abductor.
Mmm.
I always go for hope, Stephen. It's in the genes. You might think that this is stupid, but it hasn't so far proved to be for me.
And I find it really easy to forgive people, rather than fester.
-
Kates's guilt
.......however unwittingly we'd given this predator an opportunity.. We had not been there for Madeleine. And, as I've said before and will say again, our guilt over that is a heavv cross we will bear for the rest of our lives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was very upset and I went out to the rocks on the beach. I cried a lot and spoke to Madeleine and to God. I’m so sorry if I/we let you down. I hope you know how fond of you we are and that we would NEVER do anything intentionally that would put you in danger—of any kind. You are so precious to me. You make me so happy and I miss you so much. Please God, please Mary, keep watch over our sweet Madeleine. Keep her safe and sound and bring her back to us soon! X X
--------------------------------------------------------------------
''Whatever we had or had not done right, we were Madeleine's 'parents and in our own eyes we had failed to keep her safe. We struggled to bear that sense of guilt and we always will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Heartbroken mum Kate McCann quietly sobs as she speaks for the first time of her guilt about leaving little daughter Madeleine alone the night she was snatched. "I feel desperately sorry to her that we weren't there," she says.
"Every hour now, I still ask myself, 'Why did I think that was safe?' But it did feel safe and so right. I do feel regret. I've gone through all my life and said I never want to have any regrets, but you can't not regret something like that."
Speaking without her husband Gerry at her side for the first time, Kate, 38, reveals how she is haunted by the unbearable regret that she wasn't there to protect her daughter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Coral Jones' guilt
Since that night, the estate is quiet, as the children are no longer allowed to go out to play as they used to.
"As April’s mother I will live with the guilt of letting her go out to play on the estate that night for the rest of my life."
-
@benice
I was very upset and I went out to the rocks on the beach. I cried a lot and spoke to Madeleine and to God. I’m so sorry if I/we let you down. I hope you know how fond of you we are and that we would NEVER do anything intentionally that would put you in danger—of any kind. You are so precious to me. You make me so happy and I miss you so much. Please God, please Mary, keep watch over our sweet Madeleine. Keep her safe and sound and bring her back to us soon! X X
fond.......fond of you we are...fgs........where ever you got this from .......it was wrote to be read..and used as you are doing now............that is not wrote from the heart
they put them at harm the minute they closed that door ..........and walked away
-
Kates's guilt
.......however unwittingly we'd given this predator an opportunity.. We had not been there for Madeleine. And, as I've said before and will say again, our guilt over that is a heavv cross we will bear for the rest of our lives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was very upset and I went out to the rocks on the beach. I cried a lot and spoke to Madeleine and to God. I’m so sorry if I/we let you down. I hope you know how fond of you we are and that we would NEVER do anything intentionally that would put you in danger—of any kind. You are so precious to me. You make me so happy and I miss you so much. Please God, please Mary, keep watch over our sweet Madeleine. Keep her safe and sound and bring her back to us soon! X X
--------------------------------------------------------------------
''Whatever we had or had not done right, we were Madeleine's 'parents and in our own eyes we had failed to keep her safe. We struggled to bear that sense of guilt and we always will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Heartbroken mum Kate McCann quietly sobs as she speaks for the first time of her guilt about leaving little daughter Madeleine alone the night she was snatched. "I feel desperately sorry to her that we weren't there," she says.
"Every hour now, I still ask myself, 'Why did I think that was safe?' But it did feel safe and so right. I do feel regret. I've gone through all my life and said I never want to have any regrets, but you can't not regret something like that."
Speaking without her husband Gerry at her side for the first time, Kate, 38, reveals how she is haunted by the unbearable regret that she wasn't there to protect her daughter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Coral Jones' guilt
Since that night, the estate is quiet, as the children are no longer allowed to go out to play as they used to.
"As April’s mother I will live with the guilt of letting her go out to play on the estate that night for the rest of my life."
Kate McCann always adds the excuses in though;
however unwittingly
if I/we let you down.
Whatever we had or had not done right,
it did feel safe and so right.
-
@benice
I was very upset and I went out to the rocks on the beach. I cried a lot and spoke to Madeleine and to God. I’m so sorry if I/we let you down. I hope you know how fond of you we are and that we would NEVER do anything intentionally that would put you in danger—of any kind. You are so precious to me. You make me so happy and I miss you so much. Please God, please Mary, keep watch over our sweet Madeleine. Keep her safe and sound and bring her back to us soon! X X
fond.......fond of you we are...fgs........where ever you got this from .......it was wrote to be read..and used as you are doing now............that is not wrote from the heart
they put them at harm the minute they closed that door ..........and walked away
Agree, fond is not a word you would tend to use about your child.
-
Agree, fond is not a word you would tend to use about your child.
I'm quite fond of mine ... most of the time that is.
-
I'm quite fond of mine ... most of the time that is.
Love is the normal word.....imo too
-
Agree, fond is not a word you would tend to use about your child.
Certainly a strange word to use in that context.
You might say you were fond of a nephew or niece, or a grandchild, or even a dog, but not your own child
-
Certainly a strange word to use in that context.
You might say you were fond of a nephew or niece, or a grandchild, or even a dog, but not your own child
'fraid Oxford Dictionaries, amongst others, would tend to disagree with your interpretation.
Synonyms of fond in English:
adjective
1 she was fond of dancing I'm very fond of Chris
keen on, partial to, addicted to, enthusiastic about, passionate about;
attached to, attracted to, enamoured of, in love with, with a soft spot for
informal into, hooked on, gone on, wild about, nuts about, potty about, dotty about, crazy about, sweet on, struck on
[ANTONYMS] indifferent to
2 his fond father plied him with cakes
adoring, devoted, doting, loving, caring, affectionate, warm, tender, kind, attentive, solicitous;
indulgent, overindulgent, overfond
[ANTONYMS] unfeeling
-
Oxford dictionary ? Pah, what do they know ? @)(++(*
-
'fraid Oxford Dictionaries, amongst others, would tend to disagree with your interpretation.
Synonyms of fond in English:
adjective
1 she was fond of dancing I'm very fond of Chris
keen on, partial to, addicted to, enthusiastic about, passionate about;
attached to, attracted to, enamoured of, in love with, with a soft spot for
informal into, hooked on, gone on, wild about, nuts about, potty about, dotty about, crazy about, sweet on, struck on
[ANTONYMS] indifferent to
2 his fond father plied him with cakes
adoring, devoted, doting, loving, caring, affectionate, warm, tender, kind, attentive, solicitous;
indulgent, overindulgent, overfond
[ANTONYMS] unfeeling
i don't care what you say ...you do not say you are fond of your child .its a matter of fact term .....
or are you saying ..kmcc ...looks up the meaning of love in the Oxford dictionary.... @)(++(*
-
i don't care what you say ...you do not say you are fond of your child .its a matter of fact term .....
or are you saying ..kmcc ...looks up the meaning of love in the Oxford dictionary.... @)(++(*
I sincerely doubt that Dr McCann requires to look up a dictionary to find words to express herself, she speaks eloquently enough.
What would you have made of it had she used a colloquial expression used frequently in my neck of the woods which expresses the deepest love and affection ... even fondness ...
quote I love the very bones of (name as applicable) end quote
Now there is one to be playing with.
Whichever wording Dr McCann cares to use to illustrate her love for her children is inconsequential in my opinion.
The English language is no more difficult than Finnish or even Portuguese which seems to be particularly difficult to translate accurately.
It is the failure by English speakers to understand fairly innocuous expressions such as the belief that Madeleine has 'come to no harm' to mean that she has not died that I find odd. Just a euphemism and we all use them.
Even journalists who make their living as wordsmiths use them.
**snip
To me, the McCanns are genuine people in the grip of despair – the accusations against them are ludicrous and a cruel distraction from the search for their daughter.
That’s why I put the quotation marks around the word "death" at the top of the article.
Madeleine may be dead, it may even be more likely she is dead, but nobody knows for sure. Nobody, not even the PJ, as we will see, can produce any persuasive evidence that she has come to harm.
David James Smith December 16, 2007
TIMES ON LINE
Kate and Gerry McCann: Beyond the smears Timesonline
-
i don't care what you say ...you do not say you are fond of your child .its a matter of fact term .....
or are you saying ..kmcc ...looks up the meaning of love in the Oxford dictionary.... @)(++(*
We are already aware of the 'eloquence' demonstrated by kate mccann in some of her choice phraseology.
As to the choice of 'there is no evidence she has come to harm', they could have made it quite clear it did not refer to death.
-
We've had from the father she was almost perfect and if she hurt herself in the apartment, why would that be our fault?