Re: "Fresh agony for the McCanns"

by mysticmeg 05.05.16 6:58

lj wrote:
sami wrote:
Roidininki wrote:Thing is no sedating drugs were amongst the medications found ?

In the McCanns apartment only though. I don't recall the other apartments being searched, nothing to say medication was not present in the other apartments.

They might even have put it in their pockets. The absence of real sedatives says nothing. Plus wasn't there calpol and an anti allergy drug? Sedative enough to do damage.

I believe that both K and MBM suffer from allergy, judging by the "eye-bags" that are visible on them both. I found out that this is a sign of allergy when I began attending an allergy clinic myself in 2003. Another thing I discovered is that you can actually be allergic to allergy medication (which sounds paradoxical but it happens!) Shortly after the events in Portugal certain allergy medicines were withdrawn for children below a certain age on the grounds that they do not work. Also, Terfenadine is an antihistamine which G had brought with them. This drug has been withdrawn from general usage (not just in children) for some time. It causes heart arhythmias so why on earth G had it, being a cardiologist, I have no idea...........could these things be connected? Had such medicines also been self-prescribed? Doctors are subject to disciplinary action by GMC for doing so, I think.

by Doug D 05.05.16 9:52

Ij,

Craig Murray blog can be found here:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12659-the-strange-case-of-tony-blair-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns#335700

by suzyjohnson 05.05.16 11:30

mysticmeg wrote:
lj wrote:
sami wrote:
Roidininki wrote:Thing is no sedating drugs were amongst the medications found ?

In the McCanns apartment only though. I don't recall the other apartments being searched, nothing to say medication was not present in the other apartments.

They might even have put it in their pockets. The absence of real sedatives says nothing. Plus wasn't there calpol and an anti allergy drug? Sedative enough to do damage.
I believe that both K and MBM suffer from allergy, judging by the "eye-bags" that are visible on them both. I found out that this is a sign of allergy when I began attending an allergy clinic myself in 2003. Another thing I discovered is that you can actually be allergic to allergy medication (which sounds paradoxical but it happens!) Shortly after the events in Portugal certain allergy medicines were withdrawn for children below a certain age on the grounds that they do not work. Also, Terfenadine is an antihistamine which G had brought with them. This drug has been withdrawn from general usage (not just in children) for some time. It causes heart arhythmias so why on earth G had it, being a cardiologist, I have no idea...........could these things be connected? Had such medicines also been self-prescribed? Doctors are subject to disciplinary action by GMC for doing so, I think.

That could be it mysticmeg, supposing Madeleine needed some medication whilst on holiday which they had not brought with them, and she was given doses of Terfenadine instead?

by Realist 05.05.16 11:56

Fortunately, Verdi, there are no circumstances where a person can be forced to answer questions, unless of course, you are referring to interrogation by torture, where even there, depending on one's durability, one still cannot be forced to answer questions.

I've always been perplexed as to why defendants feel the need to answer incriminating questions whilst being interrogated, after all, its rarely, if ever to their advantage to do so. One could be faced with the best interrogator on the face of the planet, but he/she would be rendered as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike, if met with a mute response.

Whatever one may think of Dr. Shipman, one has to accord him a degree of credit for the way he handled his interrogators, because not only did he ignore them, he turned his chair around and refused to even acknowledge them. big grin

by Realist 05.05.16 12:01

whodunit wrote:

I'm sorry, refused to answer 48 too many questions,

But you have to take into account that at the time, she was under caution and being treated as a suspect, as opposed to a witness/victim.

by Roidininki 05.05.16 12:32

Realist wrote:
whodunit wrote:

I'm sorry, refused to answer 48 too many questions,
But you have to take into account that at the time, she was under caution and being treated as a suspect, as opposed to a witness/victim.

Agreed . In Portugal I understand Arguido doesn't actually mean suspect,more person of interest. An Arguido doesn't have to answer questions.

by Verdi 05.05.16 12:40

Realist wrote:Fortunately, Verdi, there are no circumstances where a person can be forced to answer questions, unless of course, you are referring to interrogation by torture, where even there, depending on one's durability, one still cannot be forced to answer questions.

Sorry, what post are you replying to?

by ChippyM 05.05.16 12:54

whodunit wrote:
Verdi wrote:@whodunit wrote: I do have some sympathy for KM. [Not Gerry though, never Gerry] To me she has the distinct feel of a woman who grew up in a certain type of abusive environment and likely thought it was 'normal'...

I can't see that at all. You only have to witness some of those tell tale momentary expressions on her face during interviews to get the idea that she's not much better than her other half. In it together in my opinion. I do wonder however, why Gerry McCann is so willing to allow his wife to be the one under suspicion in the eyes of the police and public alike - unless it's a sympathy pleas of sorts.

I do not absolve KM in any way but I do observe a sort of 'flat effect' I've seen in other abuse survivors when it comes to emotions.

It could be that and I have pondered things like one person having a hold over the other in some way or...I'll cover up X that I did, if you cover up Y that I did etc. So one person slightly resents the other person but keeps up the pretense.
There are also personality disorders, this is entirely speculative obviously;

"The need to project and maintain an image [the False Self that the narcissist wishes to portray] forces the narcissist to prevent any feeling from reaching consciousness that would contradict with the image." Since the False Self is perfect, of course, that means that a lot of feelings have to be suppressed.
Thus, narcissists feel emotions like vulnerability, sadness, empathy and compassion in a shallow way, if at all, and cover them up with rage, blame, manipulation and disdain for others.This coping mechanism has a heavy price: they don't feel secure enough to relax and really feel happiness and joy, although they may have fleeting moments of those emotions. As therapist Nina Brown says, "They may speak the words, but the feelings behind the words is missing," (p. 27 of Loving the Self Absorbed)."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201204/why-they-cant-feel-joy-narcissistic-shallow-emotions
This kind of thing can explain why people can look like 'good' parents on the surface but end up being abusive in some way, if you spend a lot of time with them their true self has to come through at some point.

by Realist 05.05.16 12:55

Verdi wrote:
Realist wrote:Fortunately, Verdi, there are no circumstances where a person can be forced to answer questions, unless of course, you are referring to interrogation by torture, where even there, depending on one's durability, one still cannot be forced to answer questions.

Sorry, what post are you replying to?

I apologise for the confusion, although I quoted the the excerpt, it didn't show up. I have found that sometimes the quotes work for me and sometimes they don't.

My riposte was in response to an earlier posting where you stated (I'm paraphrasing), 'the Mcanns et cie could only be forced to answer questions if put before a 'Beak' and that was never going to happen.'

by Realist 05.05.16 13:20

Vicky87 wrote:All of this publicity for Amarals book (or books..) is fantastic. Every story there is about it is going to lead more people to look further into the case. I welcome that. There are still a few who believe every word that comes out of the sun and such. The McCanns must be absolutely fuming with this.

Wasn't it Kelvin McKenzie, the former editor of the 'Sun' who once stated that its readers 'had the brains of an ant and a memory retention of 10 seconds.'

At the time, I thought he was being both diplomatic and flattering.

by lj 05.05.16 14:06

Doug D wrote:Ij,

Craig Murray blog can be found here:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12659-the-strange-case-of-tony-blair-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns#335700

Thanks Doug!!

by whodunit 05.05.16 16:55

Realist wrote:
whodunit wrote:

I'm sorry, refused to answer 48 too many questions,
But you have to take into account that at the time, she was under caution and being treated as a suspect, as opposed to a witness/victim.

So? That is to be expected. Innocent parents answer the questions because it's more important to find their child. KM was told she could be hindering the search for her daughter by refusing to answer but she didn't care. Self-preservation was more important to her than finding her child. It is 'natural and irresistible' for us and for the police to infer guilt from her refusal to answer the questions.

by Realist 05.05.16 17:02

plebgate wrote:

but I really do believe that Rocky A. will not give up until he feels he has some long awaited answers.

--- or, until he's sold enough books!

by Realist 05.05.16 17:12

whodunit wrote:
Realist wrote:
whodunit wrote:

It is 'natural and irresistible' for us and for the police to infer guilt from her refusal to answer the questions.

It isn't natural at all and it shouldn't be irresistible, au contraire, it is every accused person's right not to incriminate them self, that is the premise upon which the laws of evidence are based.

Just because a person isn't likeable, or the crime they are being accused of is abhorrent, doesn't detract from their being afforded the status of innocent until proven guilty.

by **Jill Havern** 05.05.16 17:18

Realist wrote:
plebgate wrote:

but I really do believe that Rocky A. will not give up until he feels he has some long awaited answers.
--- or, until he's sold enough books!

True colours coming out...

by whodunit 05.05.16 17:23

Realist wrote:
whodunit wrote:
Realist wrote:
whodunit wrote:

It is 'natural and irresistible' for us and for the police to infer guilt from her refusal to answer the questions.
It isn't natural at all and it shouldn't be irresistible, au contraire, it is every person's right not to incriminate them self, that is the premise upon which the laws of evidence are based.

Just because a person isn't likeable, or the crime they are being accused of is abhorrent, doesn't detract from their being afforded the status of innocent until proven guilty.

It's go nothing whatever to do with being likable. I am an adult and I have no need for innocent people to also be nice.
It has to do with her child. Her child was missing. Parents are always the first likely suspects. The innocent parents of missing children quickly learn to get over that fact and endure being questioned for the sake of finding their child. Ask Marc Klaas. The police had questions for KM, the answers to which could have eliminated her as a suspect so that they could move on to concentrate on finding her child. Her refusal to answer the questions is obviously her right, but it is also the right of the police, the jury, and curious observers to find this highly suspicious, even an indicator of guilt. If she won't answer the questions, ipso facto she's got something to hide.

by whodunit 05.05.16 17:24

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Realist wrote:
plebgate wrote:

but I really do believe that Rocky A. will not give up until he feels he has some long awaited answers.
--- or, until he's sold enough books!
True colours coming out...

by Realist 05.05.16 17:39

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

True colours coming out...

Not at all, whatever my feelings relating to parties involved in this case, doesn't detract from my belief that the McCann's version of events is totally spurious, further, that their daughter was the victim of either murder, or manslaughter.

With regards to Goncala's role in this matter, he's certainly got a nuisance value as far as the McCanns are concerned, but if he's to ever uncover any tangible evidence, he needs to progress from his accidental death theory, not to mention his belief in the Smith family's account of events.

by pennylane 05.05.16 17:51

whodunit wrote:
Realist wrote:
whodunit wrote:
Realist wrote:
whodunit wrote:

It is 'natural and irresistible' for us and for the police to infer guilt from her refusal to answer the questions.
It isn't natural at all and it shouldn't be irresistible, au contraire, it is every person's right not to incriminate them self, that is the premise upon which the laws of evidence are based.

Just because a person isn't likeable, or the crime they are being accused of is abhorrent, doesn't detract from their being afforded the status of innocent until proven guilty.

It's go nothing whatever to do with being likable. I am an adult and I have no need for innocent people to also be nice.
It has to do with her child. Her child was missing. Parents are always the first likely suspects. The innocent parents of missing children quickly learn to get over that fact and endure being questioned for the sake of finding their child. Ask Marc Klaas. The police had questions for KM, the answers to which could have eliminated her as a suspect so that they could move on to concentrate on finding her child. Her refusal to answer the questions is obviously her right, but it is also the right of the police, the jury, and curious observers to find this highly suspicious, even an indicator of guilt. If she won't answer the questions, ipso facto she's got something to hide.

KM not answering police questions, and the Home Office not sending the PJ basic information on the McCanns and Madeleine. One could be forgiven for thinking both the McCanns and the HO were more interested in stalling the investigation than finding Madeleine.

by Realist 05.05.16 18:02

whodunit wrote:
It has to do with her child. Her child was missing. Parents are always the first likely suspects.

Not in this case, they weren't, the police initially gave them the benefit of the doubt, even after determining that they lied about an alleged kidnapper's mode of entry.

The innocent parents of missing children quickly learn to get over that fact and endure being questioned for the sake of finding their child. Ask Marc Klaas.

I totally agree, but not when they are being treated as suspects.

The police had questions for KM, the answers to which could have eliminated her as a suspect so that they could move on to concentrate on finding her child.

At that stage, the police were looking to incriminate her, not eliminate her. The police do not place a person under caution. or treat them as an arguido for the purpose of eliminating them.

Her refusal to answer the questions is obviously her right, but it is also the right of the police, the jury, and curious observers to find this highly suspicious, even an indicator of guilt. If she won't answer the questions, ipso facto she's got something to hide.

In the case of the police, it isn't a right, its the way investigations are conducted. In the vein that most curious observers know nothing whatsoever about how the law works other than from what they read in the tabloid press, its probably excusable. From a juror's point of view, it is a defendant's prerogative to exercise their legal right to remain silent and shouldn't even come into the equation when deciding upon guilt or innocence.

I don't think I would want you as a jurist presiding over my guilt or innocence, not that I would have any choice in the matter here in the UK, because there is no right to peremptory juror challenge.

by hentie 05.05.16 18:04

@pennylane I agree and G 's words that 'confusion is good' adds further weight....then they accuse Amaral of harming the search for Madeleine.
Couldn't make it up could you....? But they do!

by pennylane 05.05.16 18:13

They make it up as they go along, and due to their expensive sabre rattling are rarely challenged. But on the few occasions they have been asked a direct and relevant question, it's always proven disastrous for them.

by whodunit 05.05.16 18:14

Realist wrote:
whodunit wrote:
It has to do with her child. Her child was missing. Parents are always the first likely suspects.

Not in this case, they weren't, the police initially gave them the benefit of the doubt, even after determining that they lied about an alleged kidnapper's mode of entry.

The innocent parents of missing children quickly learn to get over that fact and endure being questioned for the sake of finding their child. Ask Marc Klaas.

I totally agree, but not when they are being treated as suspects.

The police had questions for KM, the answers to which could have eliminated her as a suspect so that they could move on to concentrate on finding her child.

At that stage, the police were looking to incriminate her, not eliminate her. The police do not place a person under caution. or treat them as an arguido for the purpose of eliminating them.

Her refusal to answer the questions is obviously her right, but it is also the right of the police, the jury, and curious observers to find this highly suspicious, even an indicator of guilt. If she won't answer the questions, ipso facto she's got something to hide.

In the case of the police, it isn't a right, its the way investigations are conducted. In the vein that most curious observers knoww nothing whatsoever about how the law works other than from what they read in the tabloid press, its probably excusable. From a juror's point of view, it is a defendant's prerogative to exercise their legal right to remain silent and shouldn't even come into the equation when deciding upon guilt or innocence.

I don't think I would want you as a jurist presiding over my guilt or innocence, not that I would have any choice in the matter here in the UK, because there is no right to peremptory jury challenge.

You speak exactly like the McCanns defense attorneys. By your own admission, the McCs weren't suspects until later, but then you also insist that the police weren't out to eliminate them as suspects but to incriminate them. You can't have it both ways. Were they too lenient or were they too adversarial? [please don't answer. my questions are purely rhetorical as I have no further desire to engage with you after this]

I am not here as a juror. Like most everyone else on CMOMM I am here as a citizen speculating on a widely known case. As such we have more freedom to consider all aspects of the case and are not limited by the strict legal confines imposed on jurors.

You seem to be insisting that all of us here are obligated to presume the innocence of the McCanns. That is the job of the jurors, if it ever gets that far which it won't.

The police will most certainly infer guilt in the case of a parent who refuses to answer questions. It's not proof of anything, but it is certainly indicative of guilty knowledge.

Get over yourself.

by Realist 05.05.16 18:22

whodunit wrote:[quote= [please don't answer. my questions are purely rhetorical as I have no further desire to engage with you after this]]

I think that's a wise move on your behalf.

by pennylane 05.05.16 18:34

whodunit wrote:
Realist wrote:
whodunit wrote:
It has to do with her child. Her child was missing. Parents are always the first likely suspects.

Not in this case, they weren't, the police initially gave them the benefit of the doubt, even after determining that they lied about an alleged kidnapper's mode of entry.

The innocent parents of missing children quickly learn to get over that fact and endure being questioned for the sake of finding their child. Ask Marc Klaas.

I totally agree, but not when they are being treated as suspects.

The police had questions for KM, the answers to which could have eliminated her as a suspect so that they could move on to concentrate on finding her child.

At that stage, the police were looking to incriminate her, not eliminate her. The police do not place a person under caution. or treat them as an arguido for the purpose of eliminating them.

Her refusal to answer the questions is obviously her right, but it is also the right of the police, the jury, and curious observers to find this highly suspicious, even an indicator of guilt. If she won't answer the questions, ipso facto she's got something to hide.

In the case of the police, it isn't a right, its the way investigations are conducted. In the vein that most curious observers knoww nothing whatsoever about how the law works other than from what they read in the tabloid press, its probably excusable. From a juror's point of view, it is a defendant's prerogative to exercise their legal right to remain silent and shouldn't even come into the equation when deciding upon guilt or innocence.

I don't think I would want you as a jurist presiding over my guilt or innocence, not that I would have any choice in the matter here in the UK, because there is no right to peremptory jury challenge.

You speak exactly like the McCanns defense attorneys. By your own admission, the McCs weren't suspects until later, but then you also insist that the police weren't out to eliminate them as suspects but to incriminate them. You can't have it both ways. Were they too lenient or were they too adversarial? [please don't answer. my questions are purely rhetorical as I have no further desire to engage with you after this]

I am not here as a juror. Like most everyone else on CMOMM I am here as a citizen speculating on a widely known case. As such we have more freedom to consider all aspects of the case and are not limited by the strict legal confines imposed on jurors.

You seem to be insisting that all of us here are obligated to presume the innocence of the McCanns. That is the job of the jurors, if it ever gets that far which it won't.

The police will most certainly infer guilt in the case of a parent who refuses to answer questions. It's not proof of anything, but it is certainly indicative of guilty knowledge.

Get over yourself.

Give me a lie detector test, ask me any questions you wish, here's my bank and credit card statements, and my phone records, and my daughters health records, I've had them all faxed over immediately via my ace connections in the UK, is there any other information I've missed that you require? ..... oh and where are the twins test results I begged you for?

It's too simplistic and too much to expect I guess!

Log in for more topics