The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

Introduction and viewpoint.

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by rainbow-fairy on 26.12.11 21:45

@kikoraton wrote:"Do you, like GA, have faith that the case will be reopened and followed through to conclusion?
Also, can you mention the name of the recipient of Gerry's call?"

Hi rainbow-fairy. In my mind, your first question above depends on the second. No, I don't yet know the name of the recipient. I'm waiting for news, but sometimes I get paranoic and think that there's someone out there making things difficult for me!!! As if!!!! If the answer should turn out to be revealing, then yes, I think it would be enough to reopen the case.
And (just my paranoia again) if anyone out there with nasty motives thinks I'm the only one waiting for the news, think again - there are four of us in the know, and waiting...waiting.
In that case kiko, let's hope the answer is revealing, the case is re-opened and justice done!
I don't think you are being paranoid though kiko. I think there has been much obstruction going on since April 07. I just hope you and the other three safely get the info Wink
Oh, and to anyone with nasty motives? I may not like kiko be 'in the know' but I know what I know, and I'm going nowhere - I'm with this til the end. Sue me - I have no money! Jail me - it'd be a holiday! Threaten my life - carry on, whatever...

Can I just take this opportunity kiko, as I don't think I've been online with you before, for your tireless work on the lists and phone pings. I'm so techno-stupid I'm not even 100% sure what a phone ping is, though I'd love to know. Is it when phones activate mobile masts???
I know your work and conclusions have been really helpful, so - THANK YOU! Let's hope 2012 is good for you - and good for justice! Wink

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Maive on 26.12.11 21:47

@monkey mind wrote:On another thread I read two or three days ago a poster, can't remember who, made an interesting observation. The poster said one displayed the traits of a psychopath whilst the other Stockholm syndrome. Worth pondering for a while.

Why would it take more than one person to dismember a body?

VERY interesting point.

No need to be more than one person of course.. Hummm, very interesting!

Maive

Posts : 45
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by rainbow-fairy on 26.12.11 21:48

@kikoraton wrote:"Do you, like GA, have faith that the case will be reopened and followed through to conclusion?
Also, can you mention the name of the recipient of Gerry's call?"

Hi rainbow-fairy. In my mind, your first question above depends on the second. No, I don't yet know the name of the recipient. I'm waiting for news, but sometimes I get paranoic and think that there's someone out there making things difficult for me!!! As if!!!! If the answer should turn out to be revealing, then yes, I think it would be enough to reopen the case.
And (just my paranoia again) if anyone out there with nasty motives thinks I'm the only one waiting for the news, think again - there are four of us in the know, and waiting...waiting.
In that case kiko, let's hope the answer is revealing, the case is re-opened and justice done!
I don't think you are being paranoid though kiko. I think there has been much obstruction going on since April 07. I just hope you and the other three safely get the info Wink
Oh, and to anyone with nasty motives? I may not like kiko be 'in the know' but I know what I know, and I'm going nowhere - I'm with this til the end. Sue me - I have no money! Jail me - it'd be a holiday! Threaten my life - carry on, whatever...

Can I just take this opportunity kiko, as I don't think I've been online with you before, for your tireless work on the lists and phone pings. I'm so techno-stupid I'm not even 100% sure what a phone ping is, though I'd love to know. Is it when phones activate mobile masts???
I know your work and conclusions have been really helpful, so - THANK YOU! Let's hope 2012 is good for you - and good for justice! Wink

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by monkey mind on 26.12.11 22:03

Kikoratton, I was playing around with the sand theory but I still lean toward freezing. Working on the theory that the main event was the 28/29th then I find the 30th a very interesting day. 16 pages in K’s book devoted to the 28th to 2nd but only 6 lines to the 30th very little in her diary including no mention of G and no phone calls for either. It’s almost as though that day didn’t actually happen.

I’m sure you are fully aware of this but it was interesting to note on the “Sequencial numbering and OC printer problems” thread that in a document displayed on page 1 of that thread it shows the Naylors of G4N with an arrival date of 26/4/07 depart 5/5/07, 9 days which is unusual in itself. If this were another ‘error’ and in fact the figure should be a tidy 7 days as with most of them, then this would mean an arrival date of the 28th or alternatively a departure on the 3rd. Very interesting.

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Ross on 26.12.11 22:05

@monkey mind wrote:On another thread I read two or three days ago a poster, can't remember who, made an interesting observation. The poster said one displayed the traits of a psychopath whilst the other Stockholm syndrome. Worth pondering for a while.

Why would it take more than one person to dismember a body?

I thought this picture of them arriving at the Levenson enquiry was very revealing. They did not have their 'camera faces' on, and the difference between the two was stark. He had a real look of contempt on his face, a man who believes he has won, and I suppose on his terms, he has. She however looks like a woman who knows she has lost everything, and I do mean everything.

____________________
"Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, no matter who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

Buddha

Ross

Posts : 205
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by rainbow-fairy on 26.12.11 22:42

@Maive wrote:
@monkey mind wrote:On another thread I read two or three days ago a poster, can't remember who, made an interesting observation. The poster said one displayed the traits of a psychopath whilst the other Stockholm syndrome. Worth pondering for a while.

Why would it take more than one person to dismember a body?

VERY interesting point.

No need to be more than one person of course.. Hummm, very interesting!
I haven't read the thread in question, so I don't know the context, but I am very very confused - who displays these traits , psychopath and Stockholm Syndrome? Stockholm Syndrome is an emotional and psychological attachment that grows between a kidnapped person and their kidnapper. Almost love for the kidnapper. This happens when the kidnapper is the only source of human contact, foodgiver etc. Usually they are brutally unkind to the detainee, but every so often will throw in random acts of 'kindness' such as a special meal, bath, brushing hair. The detainee grows reliant on these kindnesses and will do anything to earn more. They excuse the brutal behaviours and become very attached and sometimes 'in love' with those holding them.
This doesn't seem to apply here, so yes, I'm very confused. If anyone could. Enlighten me that'd be great thanks.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Maive on 26.12.11 22:50

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@Maive wrote:
@monkey mind wrote:On another thread I read two or three days ago a poster, can't remember who, made an interesting observation. The poster said one displayed the traits of a psychopath whilst the other Stockholm syndrome. Worth pondering for a while.

Why would it take more than one person to dismember a body?

VERY interesting point.

No need to be more than one person of course.. Hummm, very interesting!
I haven't read the thread in question, so I don't know the context, but I am very very confused - who displays these traits , psychopath and Stockholm Syndrome? Stockholm Syndrome is an emotional and psychological attachment that grows between a kidnapped person and their kidnapper. Almost love for the kidnapper. This happens when the kidnapper is the only source of human contact, foodgiver etc. Usually they are brutally unkind to the detainee, but every so often will throw in random acts of 'kindness' such as a special meal, bath, brushing hair. The detainee grows reliant on these kindnesses and will do anything to earn more. They excuse the brutal behaviours and become very attached and sometimes 'in love' with those holding them.
This doesn't seem to apply here, so yes, I'm very confused. If anyone could. Enlighten me that'd be great thanks.

You are right. But it could also be applied to some wives who are in a domination or abusive relationship.

«Many researchers believe that Stockholm syndrome helps to explain certain behaviors of survivors of World War II concentration camps; members of religious cults; battered wives; incest survivors; and physically or emotionally abused children as well as persons taken hostage by criminals or terrorists

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stockholm+Syndrome

«The military commonly use this form of brainwashing to produce loyalty and strengthen bonds between individuals in units. Stockholm syndrome is also used to describe some forms of domestic abuse. Battered husbands and wives who remain loyal to the abuser can be said to be brainwashed in this way. Many abused people remain inexplicably loyal to the abuser even if offered a safer alternative

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-stockholm-syndrome.htm

Maive

Posts : 45
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by monkey mind on 26.12.11 23:52

That observation was made on page 23 of "Would this account for the unprecedented high level of political support?" thread. Anders.

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by aquila on 27.12.11 6:04

@monkey mind wrote:That observation was made on page 23 of "Would this account for the unprecedented high level of political support?" thread. Anders.

"Psychopath avec Stockholm Syndrome partner" still doesn't add up why the unprecented high level of political support IMO. Why would so many people jump into the support ring unless it is either to further their careers, make money or (more than likely) to cover up something? Makes me wonder who's got what on who?

Whatever the reason, someone is going to crack. Circumstances change, health changes, relationships change, conscience is a real burden and fear is tiring. Somewhere along the line the smallest person will let the cat well and truly out of the bag. I'm hoping it will be this year. I believe someone somewhere has kept a personal account to ease their conscience (or maybe to exonerate themselves when the faecal matter hits the fan) but there is no guaranteed solidarity in dishonesty. The truth WILL out.

Like Maive, I'm very grateful to all the people who work so hard to find the truth.

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by tigger on 27.12.11 8:30

[quote="rainbow-fairy"]Just wanted to pick up on something from an earlier post, about loving the children. Now obviously I don't know because I don't know them BUT I have never picked up on feelings of love at all. There seems no warmth there, a detachment I find quite chilling. When you watch Kate 'interact' with the twins on video, its like she's never spent more than five minutes in ANY child's company, let alone her own! She looks stiff, awkward and just plain 'off'. The bits of her book I have read that talk of the children disturb me. Praise and description of them seems to just be in the form of the physical appearance, 'perfection'. In fact, she spoke of them in the way that I'd talk about a really fancy car I've wanted for ages. The crux of what I'm saying is this - I feel the children were considered more possessions, something to be 'dealt with'. I even got the impression that the IVF and desperation for a child was less with wanting children as much as having a life list, an item to tick off. Uni, check. Career, check. Marriage, check. House, check. Kids, check..... And perhaps when they were there they were only interested if they were 'perfect'.
[quote]^

Totally agree with all of that. They just seemed starstruck by what's ladled out in Hello Magazine. Even the house is a proto-mansion for the stars.
I don't think the Stockholm syndrome applies here at all. History has plenty of examples of couples who aid and abet each other in various crimes.
Both definitely have some of the software for normal human emotion missing. It's easy to see that they feel very hard done by, perhaps that's what convinces people they're speaking the truth. But imo it's because nothing has panned out the way they thought. For me they're much more like the Macbeths.

Their behaviour and emotions in the early days were very different: 'Rome is preparing itself for out visit'. The private plane wasn't up to scratch , etc. Gordon Brown was at their beck and call and Gerry told MP's what to think.
The psychopath is always right, always.
There is a thread on perfection of children and Kate, some months back. I think, and quite a few photographs prove it, that Maddie wasn't perfect. One of the most 'emotional' bits in the book tells us that she wouldn't stop crying and sometimes the three of them would all sit in the kitchen, crying. That is, Gerry, Kate an Maddie. These are doctors, with contacts for superb medical help! Crying in the kitchen?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by aquila on 27.12.11 8:56

[quote="tigger"][quote="rainbow-fairy"]Just wanted to pick up on something from an earlier post, about loving the children. Now obviously I don't know because I don't know them BUT I have never picked up on feelings of love at all. There seems no warmth there, a detachment I find quite chilling. When you watch Kate 'interact' with the twins on video, its like she's never spent more than five minutes in ANY child's company, let alone her own! She looks stiff, awkward and just plain 'off'. The bits of her book I have read that talk of the children disturb me. Praise and description of them seems to just be in the form of the physical appearance, 'perfection'. In fact, she spoke of them in the way that I'd talk about a really fancy car I've wanted for ages. The crux of what I'm saying is this - I feel the children were considered more possessions, something to be 'dealt with'. I even got the impression that the IVF and desperation for a child was less with wanting children as much as having a life list, an item to tick off. Uni, check. Career, check. Marriage, check. House, check. Kids, check..... And perhaps when they were there they were only interested if they were 'perfect'.
^

Totally agree with all of that. They just seemed starstruck by what's ladled out in Hello Magazine. Even the house is a proto-mansion for the stars.
I don't think the Stockholm syndrome applies here at all. History has plenty of examples of couples who aid and abet each other in various crimes.
Both definitely have some of the software for normal human emotion missing. It's easy to see that they feel very hard done by, perhaps that's what convinces people they're speaking the truth. But imo it's because nothing has panned out the way they thought. For me they're much more like the Macbeths.

Their behaviour and emotions in the early days were very different: 'Rome is preparing itself for out visit'. The private plane wasn't up to scratch , etc. Gordon Brown was at their beck and call and Gerry told MP's what to think.
The psychopath is always right, always.
There is a thread on perfection of children and Kate, some months back. I think, and quite a few photographs prove it, that Maddie wasn't perfect. One of the most 'emotional' bits in the book tells us that she wouldn't stop crying and sometimes the three of them would all sit in the kitchen, crying. That is, Gerry, Kate an Maddie. These are doctors, with contacts for superb medical help! Crying in the kitchen?

I agree. There is something missing. Look at their backgrounds. The achievers. The ones who did their working class families proud. The Catholic upbringing. The youngest and the only child became medics (second to becoming a priest or a nun etc). The flash house. The constant pressure of 'we've made it...aren't we doing everything that was asked of us...aren't we doing our families proud'. I'm afraid I think this is a case of a cross between one class and another. I actually feel sorry for the Mc's in some ways. I envisage them as young people having their heads constantly in books whilst their families muddled along and they didn't have the joy of being teenagers because they were the 'clever ones'. I envisage them gaining their well-earned status in the medical profession...and their parents being so proud of them. It's a lot to live up to.

I imagine that dealing with the 'networking' for want of a better word with their pier group in the medical profession (a lot of whom come from priveliged backgrounds) and then having to go home is very difficult to adjust to. A Glaswegian and Liverpulian accent must have been a problem on both sides. Temper the accents for professional purposes and then jack it back up when you visit/speak to your family.

Then there's the expectation to have children - Catholic families remember. I think the pressure on them has been enormous. I'm not excusing their neglect of their children but I bet I hit a raw nerve here. I could write much more.

I could write much more on this.



aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by rainbow-fairy on 27.12.11 10:03

[quote="aquila"][quote="tigger"]
@rainbow-fairy wrote:Just wanted to pick up on something from an earlier post, about loving the children. Now obviously I don't know because I don't know them BUT I have never picked up on feelings of love at all. There seems no warmth there, a detachment I find quite chilling. When you watch Kate 'interact' with the twins on video, its like she's never spent more than five minutes in ANY child's company, let alone her own! She looks stiff, awkward and just plain 'off'. The bits of her book I have read that talk of the children disturb me. Praise and description of them seems to just be in the form of the physical appearance, 'perfection'. In fact, she spoke of them in the way that I'd talk about a really fancy car I've wanted for ages. The crux of what I'm saying is this - I feel the children were considered more possessions, something to be 'dealt with'. I even got the impression that the IVF and desperation for a child was less with wanting children as much as having a life list, an item to tick off. Uni, check. Career, check. Marriage, check. House, check. Kids, check..... And perhaps when they were there they were only interested if they were 'perfect'.
^

Totally agree with all of that. They just seemed starstruck by what's ladled out in Hello Magazine. Even the house is a proto-mansion for the stars.
I don't think the Stockholm syndrome applies here at all. History has plenty of examples of couples who aid and abet each other in various crimes.
Both definitely have some of the software for normal human emotion missing. It's easy to see that they feel very hard done by, perhaps that's what convinces people they're speaking the truth. But imo it's because nothing has panned out the way they thought. For me they're much more like the Macbeths.

Their behaviour and emotions in the early days were very different: 'Rome is preparing itself for out visit'. The private plane wasn't up to scratch , etc. Gordon Brown was at their beck and call and Gerry told MP's what to think.
The psychopath is always right, always.
There is a thread on perfection of children and Kate, some months back. I think, and quite a few photographs prove it, that Maddie wasn't perfect. One of the most 'emotional' bits in the book tells us that she wouldn't stop crying and sometimes the three of them would all sit in the kitchen, crying. That is, Gerry, Kate an Maddie. These are doctors, with contacts for superb medical help! Crying in the kitchen?

I agree. There is something missing. Look at their backgrounds. The achievers. The ones who did their working class families proud. The Catholic upbringing. The youngest and the only child became medics (second to becoming a priest or a nun etc). The flash house. The constant pressure of 'we've made it...aren't we doing everything that was asked of us...aren't we doing our families proud'. I'm afraid I think this is a case of a cross between one class and another. I actually feel sorry for the Mc's in some ways. I envisage them as young people having their heads constantly in books whilst their families muddled along and they didn't have the joy of being teenagers because they were the 'clever ones'. I envisage them gaining their well-earned status in the medical profession...and their parents being so proud of them. It's a lot to live up to.

I imagine that dealing with the 'networking' for want of a better word with their pier group in the medical profession (a lot of whom come from privileged backgrounds) and then having to go home is very difficult to adjust to. A Glaswegian and Liverpulian accent must have been a problem on both sides. Temper the accents for professional purposes and then jack it back up when you visit/speak to your family.

Then there's the expectation to have children - Catholic families remember. I think the pressure on them has been enormous. I'm not excusing their neglect of their children but I bet I hit a raw nerve here. I could write much more.

I could write much more on this.


Seems like the quoting has messed up again - part of your post tigger is now in with aquila's ...
tigger I agree, I don't believe even after reading that Stockholm Syndrome is now being applied to those other than the kidnapped, that it applies here. I've always been good at picking up on the signs of domestic abuse, minute signs. I don't see any here - I think Kate is as bad as Gerry. The pressure of spinning so many plates is obviously getting to her but I don't believe she is abused or controlled. Only by the lie...
aquila, I do agree with some of your post, maybe the were under pressure but so too are many if not most people.
The Catholic thing and having kids just doesn't sit right. The Catholic view is that children are a privilege, NOT a right. If, for whatever reason they don't arrive, you would accept it as God's plan, however sad. Then, maybe, foster or adopt - never IVF! If you read the doctrine, it can actually be classed as a mortal sin!
Only a very loose Catholic would even dream of it, so that rules out our 'deeply devout, committed Catholics the McCanns' doesn't it?
Oh oops, no it doesn't - Susan Healy (Kate's Mum) has already told us they 'weren't particularly religious'. Thanks Mrs H!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Happy families?

Post by Marian on 27.12.11 16:36

Talking of how Kate does not appear natural in the way she interacts with children, how about Gerry? To me he seems no better and, like everything else about him, it's just an act for the camera. Take a look at this extract from the "Madeleine was here" programme in 2009 from about five minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpaiVpHOFKg&feature=related

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by tigger on 27.12.11 17:42

@Marian wrote:Talking of how Kate does not appear natural in the way she interacts with children, how about Gerry? To me he seems no better and, like everything else about him, it's just an act for the camera. Take a look at this extract from the "Madeleine was here" programme in 2009 from about five minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpaiVpHOFKg&feature=related

Quite right, Maid Marian, Gerry has no idea how to be a father. One of the things that struck me are early videos in PdL, G and K walking with the twins, NO attention is paid to the twins, only when they wander too far. The way they hold their hands too, it's just not loving and parental. They looked to me like accessories - that was my thought four years ago! Before I knew all this.
Gerry read the children a story on the 3rd? Later saw Maddie lying in bed in 'the recovery position' and thought how lucky he was. Hmm. Quite a lot wrong with that. Why use that term, because you are so proud of being a doctor? Or because you need to cram it down people's throats?
Another thing Gerry said was that Maddie was 'very articulate'. I remember reading a long time ago that she was slow in developing speech. The few videos do nothing to contradict it, I think - as far as her parents were concerned - Maddie was far from perfect. She only became perfect after the 3rd May 2007.

Also re other posts here, I don't think there is a victim/abuser situation in that marriage. Still interesting to read Dr. Ludke again, with his experience of such behaviour. Fairly equal, with facilitating and controlling behaviour on both parts. I'll never forget Gerry dragging a stumbling Kate after him when he refused to answer the question if he knew Murat.
Then there is Kate, cool as a cucumber when Gerry blows up and leaves an interview.
I nearly agree with Ross, that G looks like he's won and Kate like she's lost everything. But I think Gerry is blustering, he still has to fight for every bit of news and it's no longer front page. Gerry is the one imo most likely to collapse as indeed he did in Portugal.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by rainbow-fairy on 27.12.11 19:14

@tigger wrote:
@Marian wrote:Talking of how Kate does not appear natural in the way she interacts with children, how about Gerry? To me he seems no better and, like everything else about him, it's just an act for the camera. Take a look at this extract from the "Madeleine was here" programme in 2009 from about five minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpaiVpHOFKg&feature=related

Quite right, Maid Marian, Gerry has no idea how to be a father. One of the things that struck me are early videos in PdL, G and K walking with the twins, NO attention is paid to the twins, only when they wander too far. The way they hold their hands too, it's just not loving and parental. They looked to me like accessories - that was my thought four years ago! Before I knew all this.
Gerry read the children a story on the 3rd? Later saw Maddie lying in bed in 'the recovery position' and thought how lucky he was. Hmm. Quite a lot wrong with that. Why use that term, because you are so proud of being a doctor? Or because you need to cram it down people's throats?
Another thing Gerry said was that Maddie was 'very articulate'. I remember reading a long time ago that she was slow in developing speech. The few videos do nothing to contradict it, I think - as far as her parents were concerned - Maddie was far from perfect. She only became perfect after the 3rd May 2007.

Also re other posts here, I don't think there is a victim/abuser situation in that marriage. Still interesting to read Dr. Ludke again, with his experience of such behaviour. Fairly equal, with facilitating and controlling behaviour on both parts. I'll never forget Gerry dragging a stumbling Kate after him when he refused to answer the question if he knew Murat.
Then there is Kate, cool as a cucumber when Gerry blows up and leaves an interview.
I nearly agree with Ross, that G looks like he's won and Kate like she's lost everything. But I think Gerry is blustering, he still has to fight for every bit of news and it's no longer front page. Gerry is the one imo most likely to collapse as indeed he did in Portugal.
tigger, I 100% agree. I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't agree with the abuser/abused scenario between K+G.
There are also the people wondering if they are so inept because of their respective places in the family - only child and youngest - therefore no contact with younger siblings? I don't think so but some do... I just believe they are both wired up wrong. Badly wrong.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by monkey mind on 27.12.11 20:06

I'm not sure many people do think there was an abuser/abused scenario here, certainly not in the physical sense. I simply noticed someone make the statement and found it an interesting one, particularly when one considers that in a Stockholm syndrom type situation it is all about control and the most successful and long lasting method of control is through the mind rather than the body.

On another note, I couldn't tolerate too much of these two clowns inthe above video, it was at the minute mark or just before when the facial reconstruction guy was about to show them how Madeleine would look a couple years further on and the pair of them seemed captivated by their own pictures and how well their genes mixed......BARF. Or was that just me?

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by rainbow-fairy on 27.12.11 20:17

@monkey mind wrote:I'm not sure many people do think there was an abuser/abused scenario here, certainly not in the physical sense. I simply noticed someone make the statement and found it an interesting one, particularly when one considers that in a Stockholm syndrom type situation it is all about control and the most successful and long lasting method of control is through the mind rather than the body.

On another note, I couldn't tolerate too much of these two clowns inthe above video, it was at the minute mark or just before when the facial reconstruction guy was about to show them how Madeleine would look a couple years further on and the pair of them seemed captivated by their own pictures and how well their genes mixed......BARF. Or was that just me?
I can't tolerate much of those two at the best of times. The thought of their genes mixing at all - ewww!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by aquila on 27.12.11 20:37

@monkey mind wrote:I'm not sure many people do think there was an abuser/abused scenario here, certainly not in the physical sense. I simply noticed someone make the statement and found it an interesting one, particularly when one considers that in a Stockholm syndrom type situation it is all about control and the most successful and long lasting method of control is through the mind rather than the body.

On another note, I couldn't tolerate too much of these two clowns inthe above video, it was at the minute mark or just before when the facial reconstruction guy was about to show them how Madeleine would look a couple years further on and the pair of them seemed captivated by their own pictures and how well their genes mixed......BARF. Or was that just me?

What I objected to was the 'educational' sharing of it. Their looks of awe and their narcissism were too much to bear. Transparency was definitely present. Now, could they give us sheeples a transparent and educational lesson on how to manage a Fund....grrrrr

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Maive on 27.12.11 21:01

@monkey mind wrote:I'm not sure many people do think there was an abuser/abused scenario here, certainly not in the physical sense. I simply noticed someone make the statement and found it an interesting one, particularly when one considers that in a Stockholm syndrom type situation it is all about control and the most successful and long lasting method of control is through the mind rather than the body.


I so agree with this sentence, it's all about control and psychological domination. Physical violence doesn't apply here (I don't know but I don't think so), it's much more subtle than that.

For me, Gerry and Kate McCann are not on the same «level». One is much more dominant than the other. Kate is not just cold, she is like «off», no life in her, quiet, empty.. IMO she has all the caracteritics of a weak woman, that kind of women who are very caring about their abusive husband (even over the children), the kind of woman that will always find «excuses» for their husband. Also, the kind of women who is always in control of herself, her appearance. How they are perceived is very important for them, it's all about appearance.. They are used to «save appearance».. She was publicly humiliated at that bar/restaurant, when Gerry invited the other young woman at their table. This kind of action from Gerry speaks volume, as well as many other actions where is dominant side is obvious.. Yes he cracked at the police station (when he says «my life is over.. my life is over», or something like that) but again, this is typical of dominant people, who «lost it» when they are confronted with situation/people they cannot control, or have difficulty to control.. They are used to be in control, and it's why they become «angry» when they lost it. Also, during an interview, when he was confronted about the dogs, he «lost it» in front of the camera.. He was not in control of the interview thus he was not able to control himself. It's not because he «cracked» that he is not stronger than her.. Dominant people are not always in control of themselves, it's quite the opposite.

Maive

Posts : 45
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by tigger on 27.12.11 21:33

Maive, I agree partly with your analyses. Gerry is like a bully boy, all right until he comes up against something he can't handle. He broke down when they were made arguidos as well.
The boy who deserves to have everything and stamps his feet and throws a tantrum when he can't have it.
But the dynamics vary according to the circumstances imo. Kate certainly has her moments too.

As far as their places in the family go: there is twenty years between Gerry and brother John. Brother John, who played a vital part at the beginning.
Gerry had red hair when he was about ten as I saw on a photograph. That doesn't turn black/brown without help. I find it interesting that he has consistently dyed his hair, probably as early as his late teens. Getting away from his roots, so to speak.
Kate isn't a natural blonde, but the case is different for women I think. She was the best and only child. Didn't have to compete, but neither, as the youngest, did Gerry. They were entitled to the first and best of everything, most likely.
I find Kate rather masculine looking, the square jaw and heavy neck muscles. Gerry, whatever he thinks of himself, is simply unattractive.
I'd like to find the photos of the Madrid promo for the book - there's one where Gerry looks at her in a most peculiar way.
Imo, they are averagely intelligent, enough to qualify in the medical profession, but I'm afraid passing exams doesn't necessarily mean you're very good in practice.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Happy families?

Post by Marian on 27.12.11 21:41

@Marian wrote:Talking of how Kate does not appear natural in the way she interacts with children, how about Gerry? To me he seems no better and, like everything else about him, it's just an act for the camera. Take a look at this extract from the "Madeleine was here" programme in 2009 from about five minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpaiVpHOFKg&feature=related[/quote[/url" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">]

For those with strong stomachs here are the links to the other four parts.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRQQWmpiO3s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXtBWNCFt7U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY@feature=related

There are some hilarious bits with Dave Edgar and his sidekick.

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Marian on 27.12.11 21:44

Tigger: there's 9 years (not 20!) between John and Gerry - born 1959 and 1968 respectively.

P.S. Link to Madrid book signing photos.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADRID.htm

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Maive on 27.12.11 21:45

@tigger wrote:Maive, I agree partly with your analyses. Gerry is like a bully boy, all right until he comes up against something he can't handle. He broke down when they were made arguidos as well.
The boy who deserves to have everything and stamps his feet and throws a tantrum when he can't have it.
But the dynamics vary according to the circumstances imo. Kate certainly has her moments too.


I agree. But IMO, she has her moments mainly «over the children».. I would not be surprised if Madeleine died in her hands.. Who knows..

Maive

Posts : 45
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum