Ernie Allen: "She may not even realise she's missing"

CMOMM facebook admin Mikki Wells
6 hrs

"She may not even realise she's missing"

The McCanns have made many claims since May 2007. The most obvious and outrageous one, the claim that has been repeated ad nauseam and still remains largely unchallenged by the media or seemingly by anyone in authority, is that their daughter was abducted from her bed by an opportunistic predator. Not a trace of her, nor of her supposed kidnapper, has been found since, and we are also expected to accept that there's nothing suspicious about that, either. They have continually laboured the point about a "total lack of evidence" that their daughter is dead or has come to any harm, while glossing over the fact that there REALLY IS NO EVIDENCE to support their claim of abduction. They also freely admit that what happened to them (or more accurately, to their daughter) was a "100 million to one" chance, a freak occurrence. And that much is true of course.

So why are we not permitted to disbelieve an unbelievable and unsubstantiated story? Why should we unquestioningly accept something that is unacceptable?

When examining the McCanns' explanation of how their firstborn child mysteriously disappeared, even the most gullible person (and I am such a person) will find it literally impossible to reach any of the conclusions they are compelling us to reach. It's classic gaslighting in action (see my post: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The circumstances of the claimed abduction are known to all of us here and include:

1. Madeleine, nine days away from her fourth birthday, was left alone in a dark holiday apartment, sleeping in a room along with her younger brother and sister, twins who were just two years old
2. The parents checked on their sleeping children every half an hour
3. Somehow, between this vigilant system of checks, a stranger gained access to the apartment, took Madeleine, and vanished, leaving behind not a single clue or forensic trace

This post looks at what I believe to be the McCanns' second most outrageous claim: that their 'abducted' daughter has not come to any harm, indeed "she might not even know she's missing".

I have shared this footage of Gerry before. It is really quite something to behold, flabbergasting in both its content and its conduct:




He quotes Ernie Allen, who I have also written about:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ernie Allen is the Chief Executive of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. He did indeed tell the McCanns that their daughter might not be aware that she is missing. As Gerald boldly extrapolated: "kids are incredibly adaptable". (Of course: it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that an abducted child will readily 'adapt' to the horrifically nightmareish situation they find themselves in. But of course the McCanns' campaign has always relied heavily on the assumed existence of a live, intact child, out there somewhere just "waiting to be found".)

I really struggle to understand how a man in Ernie Allen's position can look at the McCann case in even the most cursory fashion and come out with all the unmitigated nonsense he spouted at them, including the cringingly sycophantic and irrelevant guff about how their daughter represented the "best of their genetics". Here it is again, if you can stomach it (the first three minutes):




Was it a case of giving the McCanns false hope? I don't think so. Neither one of them is stupid, a fact of which he was clearly aware. Everybody knows that a little girl who is abducted by a stranger is not taken away to be treated like a princess. So why would a man with knowledge and experience of 'missing and exploited children' tell parents of a missing child that their child might not have been harmed or exploited, and could well be living a charmed life, blissfully unaware of the global campaign to 'bring her home'?

Assuming Ernie Allen earned his position due to his intelligence, perspicacity and experience, I think it can only be case of playing them at their own game: feeding their egos and pandering to their patently preposterous delusions. He also knows damn well that in the vast majority of missing child cases, a family member is involved, typically the parents or at the very least an acquaintance of the parents.
NOBODY ever, in history, has targeted and stolen a three year old child from her bed in order to offer that child a lifetime of love and nurturing. It's a total, total nonsense and in fact represents an absolute contradiction in terms.

With stoical disingenuousness, and in his characteristically didactic and authoritarian fashion, Gerry seizes this outlandish "no harm" speculation offered up by Ernie Allen and informs us that "the younger the child, the less likely it is they were taken to be harmed or killed" (I'm paraphrasing, as I can't find the interview, but his words were to that effect).

The truth is, when a very young child or baby is taken by a stranger, as rare as it is, the stranger is almost invariably female and mentally ill and *specifically wants a baby*, preferably a newborn or at least as young as possible. (Many kidnappings of babies take place in maternity hospitals.) And yes, it is true that in those situations, although undoubtedly the baby is 'at risk', the kidnapper does not usually take the baby with the intention of hurting him/her.

Madeleine McCann was not a baby, in fact she was the eldest child in the T9's collection of progeny. Now, let's suspend our disbelief for a second: imagine that an abductor has broken into the McCanns' holiday apartment. They know what they want - a child, to give/sell to a loving home. (Keep suspending that disbelief, if you can.) What do they find? A child of almost four years old, and two-year-old twins.

Which do they choose?

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

Is it known when the first contact was made between Allen and/or ICMEC and the McCann's?