Abduction versus kidnap

Apologies if this is on wrong thread. It has always struck me as suspicious that the McCanns and their friends immediately began to refer to Madeleine's disappearance as an "abduction" rather than the more commonly used term "kidnap". One would expect, under immediate stress and shock, colloquial terminology to dominate. Given the "umming and ahhing" in their statements and the "you knows", it jars that such an oddly technical term is always used. IMO this is because kidnap is, more often that not, for ransom, leverage or revenge and one expects the kidnappers to make contact. The McCanns immediately seemed to cast doubt on the hope that any contact would be made by those who had taken their daughter, instantly introducing the idea of "snatched by paedophiles" who would be unlikely to ever return her. If they were truly hoping that she could be returned surely they would have clung to the notion, however illogical, that a large enough ransom or reward would lead to her recovery yet they seemed to discount this idea from the moment she was announced missing.

Very good point. Subconscious leakage.

Phoebe wrote:Apologies if this is on wrong thread. It has always struck me as suspicious that the McCanns and their friends immediately began to refer to Madeleine's disappearance as an "abduction" rather than the more commonly used term "kidnap". One would expect, under immediate stress and shock, colloquial terminology to dominate. Given the "umming and ahhing" in their statements and the "you knows", it jars that such an oddly technical term is always used. IMO this is because kidnap is, more often that not, for ransom, leverage or revenge and one expects the kidnappers to make contact. The McCanns immediately seemed to cast doubt on the hope that any contact would be made by those who had taken their daughter, instantly introducing the idea of "snatched by paedophiles" who would be unlikely to ever return her. If they were truly hoping that she could be returned surely they would have clung to the notion, however illogical, that a large enough ransom or reward would lead to her recovery yet they seemed to discount this idea from the moment she was announced missing.

And not only abduction but by paedophiles too according to Gerry.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It always struck me as odd that they would assume she was abducted/kidnapped.  Most parents first words on finding a child not where they expect them to be would be she is Missing!  First thoughts are usually wandered off and you immediately start searching and ask people if they have seen the child.  
Kidnap is very rare children wandering off is not

I agree with Phoebe. This is an important point actually. The words we choose automatically at a time of stress come from the mind-set that reflects our view of the truth or of how we see what is happening.  Thus Kate seeing Madeleine as being"abducted" strongly suggests she had an internal reference in her mind that this was something she associated with Madeleine.  Most mothers are terrified of losing their children.  Of my three daughters all three have disappeared briefly at some time while young. The smallest was a two year old who was in her bedroom all the time but I just could not see her behind her toys and panicked and ran all round the garden looking for her. I never thought she was kidnapped or abducted, I thought she had wandered past me unnoticed somehow.  The older child disappeared briefly, playing hide and seek in sand-dunes. She was eight. She hid just a bit too long. In that time I had time to realise she was assailable by the wrong kind of wicked man and I screamed to her to come back.  She did so - bemused at my giving up the game.  The middle one was seven and I lost her in a large Boots the Chemist so I asked an Assistant and simultaneously so  did my daughter ask another assistant and we were reunited immediately.  My daughter  said I had walked past her! I did not have any upsetting fears on this occasion but it was very short-lived.  Back to the McCanns. I do not think we have kept our minds open enough to the possibility of some kind of most evil and highly organised abduction. The local Portuguese Police could have been complicit.  There is some evidence which would explain the quick involvement of the Interpol and George Brown. From [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] quote:
 
"It was confirmed on August 7, 2007 by the Metropolitan Police of London that Madeleine McCann was abducted on orders by a paedophile organisation based in Belgium.  We have been informed that the way this depraved activity operates is by the 'client' receiving three photographs of different children who chooses one and is then provided with the child to meet his depraved requirements.  The individual who selected Madeleine McCann is a high ranking official at the European Commission in Brussels, and his name has been reported to this service." 
   

Ellie wrote:I agree with Phoebe. This is an important point actually. The words we choose automatically at a time of stress come from the mind-set that reflects our view of the truth or of how we see what is happening.  Thus Kate seeing Madeleine as being"abducted" strongly suggests she had an internal reference in her mind that this was something she associated with Madeleine.  Most mothers are terrified of losing their children.  Of my three daughters all three have disappeared briefly at some time while young. The smallest was a two year old who was in her bedroom all the time but I just could not see her behind her toys and panicked and ran all round the garden looking for her. I never thought she was kidnapped or abducted, I thought she had wandered past me unnoticed somehow.  The older child disappeared briefly, playing hide and seek in sand-dunes. She was eight. She hid just a bit too long. In that time I had time to realise she was assailable by the wrong kind of wicked man and I screamed to her to come back.  She did so - bemused at my giving up the game.  The middle one was seven and I lost her in a large Boots the Chemist so I asked an Assistant and simultaneously so  did my daughter ask another assistant and we were reunited immediately.  My daughter  said I had walked past her! I did not have any upsetting fears on this occasion but it was very short-lived.  Back to the McCanns. I do not think we have kept our minds open enough to the possibility of some kind of most evil and highly organised abduction. The local Portuguese Police could have been complicit.  There is some evidence which would explain the quick involvement of the Interpol and George Brown. From [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] quote:
 
"It was confirmed on August 7, 2007 by the Metropolitan Police of London that Madeleine McCann was abducted on orders by a paedophile organisation based in Belgium.  We have been informed that the way this depraved activity operates is by the 'client' receiving three photographs of different children who chooses one and is then provided with the child to meet his depraved requirements.  The individual who selected Madeleine McCann is a high ranking official at the European Commission in Brussels, and his name has been reported to this service." 
   

His hereby shamed name is Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission."

Please note this is not my belief, all I ask is that we keep looking at all the angles and, very sadly, we have to be aware that there is wickedness everywhere in society.  I do hope some good comes from this agonising crime.  This website alone, I believe, makes it more difficult for children to just disappear.

Hi Ellie,I gave an answer to your question above in the letter to the Prime minister,hope this answers your inquiry,but it seems the Metropolitan Police Service has Two Tongues in this instance!

Eddie?
Keela?

And what do you think Gerry is doing on these photos on my avatar, for interest's sake?

worriedmum wrote:Eddie?
Keela?

And what do you think Gerry is doing on these photos on my avatar, for interest's sake?

Texting for Madeleine...looking for Madeleine...rock climbing, paddling or maybe searching for stones to unturn? 

Who knows, certainly looks a bit dodgy though along with his pal....Wright or Payne never could tell?

I believe that Kate's use of "abduction" rather than "Kidnap" is evidence of a pre-planned story. "Abduction" suggested she was taken by someone with no intent of seeking 1) a ransom, 2) to exert leverage over a situation 3) revenge . They were pushing stranger abduction - the big, bad bogey-man tale - from the off, having all agreed that this was how they would explain Madeleine no longer being around. I don't think anyone, paedophile or other, abducted a corpse which Eddie unequivocally told us had been in 5A.

I agree that we don't know HOW we would act in that kind of situation, but, since then, everything the McCann's have done has to be questioned doesn't it? The happy dance 3 days later? Kate and a friend seen laughing by staff? Putting the twins into the creche the next morning DESPITE the fact they could have been drugged AND any member of staff could have committed the crime AND their sister had been ''Abducted''? The fact the fund was set up within 48 hours, the so called, coloboma reveal despite the dangers and being warned of them, the fact they wanted NO involvement with the investigation looking for their daughter from the start! The fact that they've spend more money from their fraudulent fund on court costs suing others and Amaral than on looking for their daughter. They've smirked and belittled and been defiant and refuse to admit the one thing we think, NEGLECT. I know no neglect no abduction theory, but, if nothing else, if it were the case, it would have been for neglect, and also? After all of this, Gerry's achieved his PROFESSOR McCann degree, and Kate? AMBASSADOR for missing children. What's next? Knighthoods? Well done, you neglected your kids, lied, committed fraud, conned people out of millions, but that's fine, here, take a knee, we'll knight you for it may as well put the cherry on the cake for you eh? With all of the foot traffic, the change in routines, the no DNA, no sign, Matt could hear the McCann's talking in the living room of their apartment, he'd of heard the shutters, or Jane would have, or Russel would have they were that loud! Whilst abduction is one theory, kidnap another, the McCann's have been compared to the Ramsey's more than once. Only sadly JonBennet was found, Madeleine hasn't been, but JonBennet WAS kidnapped, the ransom note? But look at the odd actions of her parents? And Madeleine COULD and I mean that as a tiny tiny could have been abducted, but you HAVE to keep other options in there. No ransom note, No DNA, except for shutters with just Kate's fingerprint on, and no DNA even from their daughter. Gerry pushes forward the ''Abductor could be getting her over the border'' just 90 min away from the arrival of the GNR. Then they press the Jemmied shutters, oops, family or sources do! Then they push the Paedophile apparent haven, now, maybe it's just me, but after the lies told, the oddities, the actions, even in a kidnapped case, or abduction case, or murder case,  this case has to go down as the most bizarre and complex of our time surely?

silverdoe wrote:I agree that we don't know HOW we would act in that kind of situation,

Surprisingly enough, we do know how we would react in that kind of situation.
It is instinctive, especially in the mother.
We would call 911 and whilst waiting for LE to turn up we would be actively searching for our missing child.
We would be calling out to them.
We would be searching till we drop, regardless of time of day or weather.
Maternal instinct would be demanding the mother finds her child, the urge to protect and comfort overriding all other senses such as self preservation even to running back into a fire to rescue their trapped child.
We would cooperate with LE answering every question regardless of how intimate or embarrassing.
We would be  giving them the most recent photos even if they aren't picture perfect, even if not full face, Pictures that show their child as they are not as they were.
If on holiday then there would be plenty of recent pictures of the child having fun, playing on the beach, eating ice cream, riding a pony, paddling in the pool.
We would hand over items of their clothing worn that day in order for the search dogs to have a strong scent of their child.
WE would demanding more police, more searchers, to be allowed to get back to searching as even though the parents knows these questions must be asked in order to know and identify their child their instinct is demanding to be out there doing something practical.

WE would be demanding answers from those who were allegedly checking on the children.
What did they see?
What did they do?
What did they hear?
Was it them who removed their child?
Sleeping, eating, personal hygiene and appearance go out the window as the need to find our child becomes their sole priority.
We will also camp outside  police stations or constantly call investigators as we remember some small trivial piece of information that might help find our child.
We would talk to our other children to see if they saw or heard anything when our child went missing almost regardless of age (very young infants could not talk or indicate what they saw or heard)
If our remaining children slept on through the initial ruckus, we would be demanding they were taken to hospital for a head to toe examination in case something was done to them or they were given a medication which might cause them harm or death regardless of whether we ourselves were medical professionals.
We would not have the tools to tell if they were medicated and, if so, what with.
We appeal to the public, appealing to the abductor not to harm our child describing our child, their likes and dislikes, how to keep them comfortable perhaps with their favorite comforter or bedtime story, making them human, vulnerable a person rather than a thing or object.
We would call out to our child reassuring them that their parents are looking for them and love them.

All without the need to be prompted.

Our emotions would be raw and open, we could not hide them as the need to be with our child, the physical pain of being away from our child overrides all.
The public will see us as loving desperate parents who will do anything to get our child back.
The abductor may get their jollies from the parents pain, more likely though they would get their jollies from the victim.
Parents in agony  incites sympathy and also affects other parents who feel our pain and fret about what they would do in the same situation, making them also need to search to reunite the family.

As time passes we would demand all those who had contact with the child to be questioned, we would be demanding friends, neighbors be questioned and, if one of our friends refused to cooperate we would be on them like a ton of bricks demanding answers, especially if their story changes.

We would take part in any and all police reconstructions demanding our friends do the same, regardless of how painful as it could prompt a witness to come forward or some piece of forgotten memory to surface.
There would be no refusal or acceptance of refusals from anyone required.
Refusal to cooperate would imply guilt or guilty knowledge and we, the parent would be more than happy to beat the truth out of the person if it meant our child would be found.

All of this is parental instinct, no book is required, no instructions from LE  or anyone.
It is what drives the parent to find their child no matter how long it takes.
It can result in parents searching till they drop, a few hours sleep and back to searching.
In worse case examples a parent will have to be sedated in order for them not to kill themselves with exhaustion.
Parents would need to be reminded to eat.
There would be no return to normality the following day or so, there is no normality till the missing loved one is found.

There is no book that tells us specifically what to do in the situation of a missing person, especially a child.
There are decades if not centuries of records telling us what innocent parents did to find their missing loved one.

THIS IS KNOWN AS THE EXPECTED.

Guilty persons also act in a similar way.
They are deceptive about where they were.
What they were doing
When they saw the missing child last
Creating an alibi.
Refusing to cooperate with LE
Refusing to search
Refusing to call out to their missing child.
Praising LE and the searchers whilst their child is not found.
Continuing with life as normal
Refusing to take part in reconstructions.
Creating funds allegedly to help the search but instead using the money for other things such as new cars, mortgage payments, vacations and the like.
Threatening to sue any who disagree with their version of events.
Changing stories of what happened when they found their child missing, especially as time passes and they can't remember what they told to whom.
Using past tense in relation to the missing child especially if it is still a very short time after the disappearance.
What has caused them to think or believe their child may be dead so early on?
Information from the police or guilty knowledge?

There are plenty of books on how guilty people act, both police records, court records, true crime books, confessions.
Guilty persons all act in a particular way.

This too is THE EXPECTED


Both Innocent and Guilty persons act in a particular way.

Both are mutually exclusive

Hobs I could not agree more. How they acted is unique isn't it?
It's all ridiculous to the point of, we know they lied about EVERYTHING, 
so endangering an ongoing case. Lying to the police. The Fund is a business not a fund or charity, but many still think it is, but the stuff they've spend the fund on? Yep, fraud. And if you believe the neglect story, then that is ALSO breaking the law, neglect. So, four or more charges there all in all, and yet have they been charged with anything whatsoever? Nope. It would break most couples up, survivor's guilt or just guilt, should've would've could'ves yet did it Kate and Gerry? Nope. Nothing textbook applies to them, and apparently neither does guilt. Guilt can draw any normal couple apart. Not the McCann's. (If I remember rightly?) The McCann's and the Payne's are the only two couples still together? The rest aren't? The McCann's stand united as they grasp each others hands so tightly it must hurt and if one or the other say something bad, which to be fair in interviews, they usually do, that tight hand get's even tighter. And I've wondered something. IF they haven't been officially cleared because they couldn't prove innocence or guilt against the McCann's and it's freedom of expression, surely every one the McCann's have sued should now counter sue for their money and reputation back? I know I would do!