Harmed or not harmed ...that is the question

[ferryman]

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.

[mercury]

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

[Eleanor]

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.

[jassi]

Does it really?

[Admin]

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

[ferryman]

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?

[pegasus]

"there is no evidence to suggest that she has been harmed, in any way, whatsoever" (source CM)

[Eleanor]

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?

[ferryman]

"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 ....

[stephen25000]

''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 ?

[Miss Taken Identity]

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.

[Admin]

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?

[ferryman]

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 ....

[stephen25000]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.