Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

candyfloss wrote:Hi Stella, I agree with you that the item on the bed looks more like trousers. Didn't the blue blanket/comforter disappear too?

Hi Candyfloss. I've been trying to find the photograph of the inside of their wardobe where you could see a bag on the shelf. But cannot find it anywhere. I wanted to see if the forensic team that came in around 3am also took photographs and this is when the blue bag was captured. I can only see two sets of photo's.

As for the comforter, it was pink and was still on the bed when forensics arrived at 3pm, which can be seen in the photos. Goncalo Amaral said that it disappeared shortly after that.

This photo Stella. Yes pink blanket, sorry getting mixed up with the blue bag doh! With thanks to Pamalam

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

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

This photo is good because it shows Eddie sniffing the wardrobe where the blue bag was stored.

Garth, why do you appear to be personally attacking Tony again this morning, instead of debating the facts? Time and time again you are presented with evidence from the police files from numerous people, which you could at least try to counter argue, but you always seem to chose to insult instead. You seem to be wasting an opportune time to convince the rest of us how we have all misunderstood the case. What a shame.

candyfloss wrote:This photo Stella. Yes pink blanket, sorry getting mixed up with the blue bag doh! With thanks to Pamalam

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

Yes Candyfloss, that's the one, which section is that one in please?

It's what McCann supporters do best, Stella. They can't debate so they abuse and attack.

I have never once seen Tony abuse or attack someone. He always responds in a very professional manner. The McCann supporters should try it because then people will chat with them.

Stella wrote:

candyfloss wrote:This photo Stella. Yes pink blanket, sorry getting mixed up with the blue bag doh! With thanks to Pamalam

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

Yes Candyfloss, that's the one, which section is that one in please?

It's here Stella, exactly half way down the page....

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

ufercoffy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This photo is good because it shows Eddie sniffing the wardrobe where the blue bag was stored.

Exactly, although, if the dogs are trained to get close, but no to touch, could Eddie actually be indicating to the shelf where all the screwed up clothes was, just underneath the bag shelf? He may not have been able to idicate to the bag shelf without jumping up. I guess only Martin Grime can answer that one. Either way Eddie is telling us a dead body, or something that has come into contact with a dead body has been in that wardrobe.

I'm not attacking Tony, I'm merely making an observation and giving a little advice. I don't dislike the guy if that's what you think.
 
 
 
 

Bit about the blue bag here from Marin Brunt report...

[youtube][/youtube]

Ufercoffy wrote
 It's what McCann supporters do best, Stella. They can't debate so they abuse and attack.

I have never once seen Tony abuse or attack someone. He always responds in a very professional manner. The McCann supporters should try it because then people will chat with them.
 
Ufercoffy, I am not abusing my friend. I am critiquing, a bit like what you do regarding the McCanns actions.
 
 


 

candyfloss wrote:

Stella wrote:

candyfloss wrote:This photo Stella. Yes pink blanket, sorry getting mixed up with the blue bag doh! With thanks to Pamalam

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

Yes Candyfloss, that's the one, which section is that one in please?

It's here Stella, exactly half way down the page....

[url=http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ-PHOTOS.htm

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

Thank you Candyfloss, I can see now why I could not find it. I have been using the new website PJFiles, assuming Pamalams was no longer accessible. It's plain as day on Pamalam's, yet on the PJFiles, you have to know which volume to go into, ie Processo volume 10 and scroll through every page there. Interestingly, by going into the actual volume that picture is part of what appears to be many pictures that was presented to Kate McCann during her questioning and just below it is another photo where you can see it is still dark in the background, which means it was either Barrieras at 00.40 or the first set of forensics at 03.00.

Garth wrote:

We'd would do better to keep our rational heads on and stick to the facts we know of surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine on the night of May 3rd rather than meandering off track with all sorts of wild theories. And in that I'm talking about your suggestion that she possibly died prior to that evening, which, I have to say, appears to be a poor attempt to stifle the strong indications that the Smiths did infact observe Madeleine McCann that evening.

Sorry, but that's how it appears to me.

One of the McCann's friends claimed to know that the night of the 3rd was going to be the last night, way before the alarm was even raised. They were not due to fly home until the 5th. How do you account for that Garth?

From Matt Oldfield's statement:

4078 "And your normal priority was really to check G***e.”
Reply "Yeah.”
4078 "Which you and Rachael had been doing between you at natural intervals.”
Reply "Yeah, and it just fell to each couple to check each others and then, I think I might have mentioned in one of the previous ones they, Dave and Fiona had a monitor stretched the distance across from the, their apartment to ours and it was just that as the holiday went on and you knew from better, it seemed like the sort of nice thing to do, to, offer to do it on that last, on the last night, but it wasn’t usual routine err for us to check on each other’s children, it may be different for Dave and Fiona you know Gerry and Kate better and their children better but for us it only, during the holiday it didn’t seem appropriate at the beginning, it wouldn’t be our natural response to do it.”

Your suspicious mind playing overtime there Stella.
 
I can see quite clearly see that when he refers to the 'last night' he actually means the last night they went through the formality of checking. In other words, the last night when Madeleine was taken.

The British authorities have, since May 16, 2007, a complaint filed by Katherina G., a doctor and former friend of Payne and Gerry McCann. In that complaint, she explains the suspicions that she has had about David Payne since she spent a holiday with Payne and McCann in Mallorca. Gerry McCann is accused of inaction and complacency in the attitude of David Payne. "


Was Katherina Gasper's "suspicions" about David Payne unfounded & not worthy of further investigation? Not according to this Home Office press release:-

Greater protection for children as sex offender disclosure scheme goes national

Sunday, 27 Mar 2011

Children in all 43 police force areas in England and Wales are better
protected thanks to the final rollout of the child sex offender
disclosure scheme, the Home Secretary announced today.......

Donald Findlater statement

Donald Findlater, Director of Research and Development at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, said: 'It's vital that as many tools as possible are available to parents and carers to help them protect their children from sexual abuse and the Disclosure Scheme is one such tool. While we want people to go to the police when they have a concern – we also want all adults to do what they can to ensure children remain safe at all times.

'The police only know about known offenders, and if you have concerns about someone who the police do not know, this does not mean they are automatically ‘safe’. We should all remain vigilant to the warning signs so we can take action if necessary.

'Sex offenders are mostly not the monsters commonly portrayed in the media – they are people we know, often people we care for. Recognising that someone close to us could pose risk to children is not easy to think about. But, if we know what to look out for and where to go for help and advice we are much better placed to protect children from harm.'

Garth wrote:Your suspicious mind playing overtime there Stella.

I can see quite clearly see that when he refers to the 'last night' he actually means the last night they went through the formality of checking. In other words, the last night when Madeleine was taken.

No Garth, read his statement again. Matt clearly stated that on all of the previous nights, everyone only checked on their own children. BUT, as that was the last night, HE offered to check the McCann's children "as it was a nice thing to do". Matt entered the McCann apartment at 9.30 pm, some 30 minutes before the alarm was raised. He changed his pattern way before the alarm was raised, on what he is saying was "the last night".

It's an open and shut case. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What he means Stella is that as the holiday progressed it just felt right to offer to check on the others children and on the last night they did check. It's not the 'last night' as if they were going home the next day.
 
So no he doesn't say 'but on that last night' as you have interpreted it.
 
One thing which is interesting which you appear to have failed to notice is that he states Fiona and Dave knew the McCanns better than they did. So, for anyone to think that they would be in on a conspiracy cover up to conceal a dead little girl's body in order to protect the McCanns, must be completely off their trolley.

Stella wrote
No Garth, I had not failed to notice anything. I have never believed it is the McCann's who are being protected here. If it was, the 15/19 markers that matched to Madeleine found in their hire car some 21 days later would never of happened. The perfect circle of protection I suspect, is much larger than the named group we have all been allowed to see.
 
Wow Stella, are you saying that this case has an air of espionage, sabotage and subversion about it?
 
Exactly what and why have the McCanns been afforded such protection do you believe?
 
I and many others I'm sure, would love to know your reasons for these suspicions because they must be good!
 
Over to you.......... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 
 
 

Ask Greg the Groomer, Garth

And David Payne

I'm asking Stella, Ufercoffy.
 
What ever it is, it must be compounding! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 

Sorry that I'm responding to the first post.
To make it simpler I'll use the original words of the poster and respond/comment in caps


Suspicious Minds

We all have them, and usually we have them because of uncertainty in our own lives. [YOU CAN ONLY SPEAK ABOUT YOURSELF] There’s nothing wrong in being suspicious of certain things in life, but continued doubt or suspicion is nothing short of paranoia.[IT DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUNSTANCES - IF THE POLICE WAS AFTER YOU CONTINUOUSLY FOR 4 YEARS WOULDN'T YOU KEEP SUSPICIOUS?!]

Daniel Freeman, a consultant clinical psychologist, was queuing in the post office recently when he overheard a couple discussing the slight discrepancy between two clocks above the counter. "They're trying to confuse us," said the woman. "Yeah," replied the man, "that's typical of the government."

If the couple had noticed the man behind them in the dark suit scribbling down their subsequent conversation ("Now they're trying to stop us living so long and discovering the truth by making us eat genetically modified food"), they might well have hastened home, their conviction about government conspiracy more deeply entrenched. However, the eavesdropper was, in fact, one of the world's leading experts on paranoia. "Some people," says Freeman, "have become so cynical that they don't believe in anything any more. In them, healthy scepticism has been replaced by a total breakdown in trust, the belief that everybody lies. The post office encounter was a fascinating example of that."
[YOU COULD HAVE CHOSEN A BETTER STORY, THAT ONE IS RIDICULOUS]


We have here, on this forum, a spreader of suspicion in the form of one Tony Bennett. We only have to look back at the Lubbock case to evidence the forming of a distinct pattern. He demands answers of the McCanns as if they are somehow complicit in some complicated conspiracy to hide the death of their 3 year old daughter. But why would he ask or moreover, continue to question the McCanns when even the Portuguese police failed to find anything to link them to their daughters disappearance. Is it a simple case of a lack paranoia due to depression and anxiety? Because people with depression have higher levels of paranoia because of a sense of vulnerability and low self-esteem. Or is it purely just a lack of emotional intelligence? Google ‘emotional intelligence’ to get a better understanding.

[STARTING TO SOUND LIKE A PAIN IN THE ASHHHH, WHY ALWAYS GOING BACK?!]

The point I’m making regarding Tony’s continued doubt over the McCanns is the fact that no matter what or how many questions are asked, the underlying issue is that he believes the McCanns are covering the death of their daughter.  [NOT ONLY MR. BENNETT, MILLIONS ALL OVER THE WORLD SUSPECT THEM] And to have that suspicion you must have an idea or some logical thoughts of how and why they would carry out such a heinous crime…..or maybe he doesn't? [WHY DID SO MANY PSYCHOPATHS KILL THEIR VICTIMS? FOR THE THRILL?..NOBODY EVER SAID THE MCCANN KILLED THE CHILD, BUT ACCIDENTS HAPPEN, EVEN EXPECTED/ARRANGED ABDUCTIONS HAPPEN...«They've taken herrrrrr.....»] Anyone can produce leaflets to question events surrounding the McCanns in the hope of fulfilling your paranoia but can he put together a logical, rational or plausible thesis as to why and how they carried out such an act and manage to get away with it in front of the eyes of the world? Well, you’d have to believe in ‘the big conspiracy’ to make it all work. Friends, Freemasons and even the Government must have a hand in it somewhere to make it all work. Just like a certain Goncalo Amaral believed and the reason he was 'outed' from the case. [YOUR MIND IS VERY CONFUSED, KEEP IT SIMPLE. ACCIDENT (accident or arranged kidnap), ALARM, MEDIA & LIES, BLUNDERING INVESTIGATION, MONEY MAKING, STARDOM, wowwwww....]

Many people with paranoia may not believe - as one of Freeman's patients does - that the government is trying to kill them, or that security agencies have planted cameras in their eyes, but they may worry irrationally that people are gossiping about them, or intend to mug them.

Goncalo Amaral, a man convicted of perjury. [WRONG: AMARAL WAS CONVICTED FOR NOT DENNOUNCING THE MEN THAT WERE NOT CONVICTED FOR ASSAULT OR TORTURE - IMAGINE THAT? WHAT A CRIME FROM A MAN THAT WASN'T EVEN AT THE PLACE THE ALLEGED EVENTS TOOK PLACE!]  But, and to give him credit (if that’s the right word) he at least tried to explain away a thesis he believed to answer the why's and how's the McCanns might carry out such an act. He believes the reason for the ‘big conspiracy’ is because the McCanns neglected their children and Madeleine came to harm in their absence. He believes that Gerry must have discovered his dead daughter (as a result of falling from the back of the sofa) [WRONG. HE NEVER SAID IT WAS GERRY...READ "THE TRUTH OF THE LIE" AGAIN] What injury the child sustained that was so severe which resulted in her death would appear unusual but the belief behind the actual ‘cover up’ is even more intriguing. [EITHER YOU ARE A REAL IMBECILE OR YOU ARE TRYING TO LOOK LIKE ONE. A SIMPLE SLAP IN THE FACE/HEAD IS ENOUGH TO KILL  A CHILD,...USE YOUR IMAGINATION]

It is believed by Goncalo Amaral and his ‘like minded’ supporters that the McCanns needed to cover up the death of their little girl for fear of being charged with child neglect and possibly loosing custody of their other two children. [WRONG: THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS FOR THEIR CHILDREN, BUT YES THEY CARED FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR "CAREERS" - OTHERWISE WHY WOULD Mrs. MCCann BE SO ANNNOYED BY HER STATUS AS ARGUIDA JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE "WHAT WOULD THEIR FRIENDS THINK, WHAT WOULD HER PARENTS SAY?!!!", WHEN SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE WORRIED IN HELPING ABOUT GETTING HERSELF CLEAR WITH THE AUTHORITIES SO THEY WOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE PRETENDS IS THE RIGHT PATH]
If that’s not hard enough to believe the plot gets worse. It is believed that Gerry, on discovering his dead daughter, was able to have a conversation with a person he met on holiday, shortly after his horrific discovery, return to his apartment, pick her up, walk through the streets of Praia de Luz and hide his daughter in some temporary grave (believed to be a fridge if you believe the ‘transported in the hire car’ idea), go back to his table and carry on dining as if nothing had happened. Not only that, he managed to inform his wife in that short space of time and drum up the biggest ‘cover up’ the world has seen this century. [NOT SO STRANGE, BUT I THINK OUR DEAR GERRY HAD MORE EVOLVED METHODS TO GE RID OF POOR MADELEINE'S BODY]

I know what your thinking………… and you’d be right!

The continued questioning of the McCanns isn’t about the disappearance of Madeleine, it’s about the suspicion or pararnoia embedded in the minds of fools. [YOU MAY ACCUSE ANYONE OF PARANOIA, BUT IT'S YOU THAT DENNOUNCE ALL THE SYMPTOMS. YOU PERSECUTE EVERYONE THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE THE ARRANGED MCCVERSION OF THE EVENT]

And until the ‘doubters’ can put together a credible and coherrant account of the events surrounding that fateful night then any normal, logical thinking person is going to treat Tony Bennetts ‘questioning’ with the contempt it deserves.

NOBODY KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED, BUT WE CERTAINLY DON'T BELIEVE THE FAIRYTALE THE MCCANN INVENTED.

Has anyone wondered why Garth seems fearful of "suspicious minds" in this? Perhaps the following extract from a book I am currently reading might explain his fear of "suspicious minds" in this case:-

FAMILY AS A SITE OF ABUSE

A further factor complicating the picture of child sexual abuse in Western societies relates to our stereotypical notion of the family. Part of the reason that the family is so important in the context of abuse is that the sexual abuse usually takes place in private, often between just two people and commonly within a familial setting for the child.

The concept of the family means different things to different people, and there are many types of families: single parent, extended families, single-sex parents, adoptive parents, and foster parents. We need to recognise the wide variety of ethnicity, race, and culture that exists in the UK today. In spite of this, there is an image of the ‘ideal type’ family, comprising two parents and their children, that is used by government, among others, to establish values, moral standards, average incomes, tax concessions (Roberts 2001), and of course the law.

Furthermore, this ‘ideal type’ family is regarded as the embodiment of a safe private haven for children and adults against the public world of crime and disorder (Saraga 2001). While this perception implies that any danger lurks outside of the family stronghold, the home may not in fact be very safe for small children at all which researchers agree is the real place of danger (Jenks 1996; Saraga 2001; Thorne 1992). Of course, for most children the family is safe and secure and at least an adequate environment within which to grow and develop.

While some families, often single-parent or working-class, are more policed than others, for most, the family remains a private domain and an unregulated space (Duncan 1996). It is this private sanctuary that may act as a blessed retreat to some, but it can also silence children who are trapped behind closed doors. Barrettand McIntosh (1991) have illustrated the problems this isolation can create for women who suffer domestic violence and thus become ‘ensnared in a home that may itself become a place of danger for them’ (Barrett and McIntosh 1991, 57). Clearly, this is an issue for children as well.