The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

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.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Introduction and viewpoint.

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Guest on 25.12.11 10:48

@jd wrote:
Stella wrote:
@jd wrote:If it was the day of arrival or early hours of the 29th then I strongly suspect that the Burgau Somilar apartment was used to hide the body and possibly the Garrods helped transport it to a different location away from PDL. This was certainly something the PJ were looking into.

jd, you really cannot accuse anyone of transporting the body, with no proof whatsoever, to back it up. The PJ questioned many people, but they never accused the Gorrods of doing this. Can you please think about what you post in future and the implications it will have on this forum please.

I did say possibly Stella which falls in line with many of the theories on here including many of yours, that some scenarios/theories are possible taken from facts. I know you have a thing about the Gorrods as every time I have ever mentioned them in the past you have always brought me up about them, so was fully expecting this reply from you tbh

Which can only mean your post was intended to cause trouble does it not? Using the word possibly whilst accusing anyone of moving a body, is not good enough. Talking about theories without naming and libelling anyone is completely different thing altogether and you know it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by jd on 25.12.11 11:06

If you seriously think I am trying to cause trouble I really resent this. Why would I try to cause trouble, I am merely trying to make the facts fit into a scenario & exploring all possibilities to get to the truth. You say the creche records have been altered & gone to great lengths, isn't this accusing MW? and accusing the mccanns? Its the same thing. You and many others name bankers at the resort, for example, and go further saying how they could involved in a cover up. Infact, I think it was you, on Friday you named the daughter of one of the bankers there that was a possible Maddie sub, isn't this libelling her? if you care to look at my post on that topic I blanked out the childs name...so don't you dare ever accuse me of causing trouble!!!!!

The Gorrods disappeared for 36 hours and it has never been explained why or where they went. So you are saying then we can't dare question where they could have been in this window of disappearance? especially considering their relationship with the tanners & the possible situation the T9 found themselves in. If you care to read fully my post I did also say that maybe their 36 hour disappearance was a totally innocent explanation, and your reaction is like CR tbh

Everything I have said about the Gorrods is nothing new and has been looked at by the PJ. There has also been press reports about them being accused along the same lines too and we all know where the sources came from, its all out there in the public domain so I am not saying anything new

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Guest on 25.12.11 11:35

Whoa, tis the season to be jolly and goodwill to all men.

jd, Stella is correct, we have to be ultra careful in what we post. Please don't take things the wrong way, when mods are only trying to do a job and keep the forum running. None of us know what happened to Madeleine, and as GM says it is okay to puport a theory, but naming names and accusations are likely to get us into serious hot water, and I'm sure you don't want that. Even though you said possibly, it is possible that it could have been anyone or no-one, we simply don't know.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Guest on 25.12.11 11:49

@jd wrote:If you seriously think I am trying to cause trouble I really resent this. Why would I try to cause trouble, I am merely trying to make the facts fit into a scenario & exploring all possibilities to get to the truth.

By accusing the Gorrods of moving the body, without any proof of this. There is not one single shred of evidence that points to this, but you are just "trying to make the facts fit".

You say the creche records have been altered & gone to great lengths, isn't this accusing MW?

I have not accused MW of doing anything. I have merely pointed out the discrepencies, which I am perfectly entitled to do.

and accusing the mccanns? Its the same thing.

Arh !! I wondered when this was going to pop up. Are you offended then that everyone is accusing the McCann's?

You and many others name bankers at the resort, for example, and go further saying how they could involved in a cover up.

Yes, other guests have been named, but no one has ever accused them of being involved. Other than you.

Infact, I think it was you, on Friday you named the daughter of one of the bankers there that was a possible Maddie sub, isn't this libelling her?

I have never said the sub is the daughter of a banker. I certainly have never named her either, as I do not know her correct name, so you are making this up.

if you care to look at my post on that topic I blanked out the childs name...so don't you dare ever accuse me of causing trouble!!!!!

How can you blank out a name that is not known. That is absolutely ridiculous.

The Gorrods disappeared for 36 hours and it has never been explained why or where they went. So you are saying then we can't dare question where they could have been in this window of disappearance?

I am saying no such thing. Of course it needs to be explored, but you cannot just turn round and libel them, in the absence of proof, which is exactly what you are doing. That is very dangerous for you and for this forum and I will be asking for this thread to be cleaned up.

especially considering their relationship with the tanners & the possible situation the T9 found themselves in. If you care to read fully my post I did also say that maybe their 36 hour disappearance was a totally innocent explanation, and your reaction is like CR tbh

My only reaction is to protect this forum from further litigation.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by jd on 25.12.11 11:54

candyfloss wrote:Whoa, tis the season to be jolly and goodwill to all men.

jd, Stella is correct, we have to be ultra careful in what we post. Please don't take things the wrong way, when mods are only trying to do a job and keep the forum running. None of us know what happened to Madeleine, and as GM says it is okay to puport a theory, but naming names and accusations are likely to get us into serious hot water, and I'm sure you don't want that. Even though you said possibly, it is possible that it could have been anyone or no-one, we simply don't know.


I totally agree with you Candyfloss but how can I be accused of causing trouble and brought up for naming names when in this instance its been in the press and on the PJ radar before, which is along the exact same lines of many theories on here, and on the point of the forum... people have named a child only a few days ago (at least I blanked the childs name out which should say something & not put me in the causing trouble basket)...To me this is far worse naming a child and nothing was said about this

Still does not stop the question where were they for 36 hours?

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by jd on 25.12.11 12:01

Stella wrote:
@jd wrote:If you seriously think I am trying to cause trouble I really resent this. Why would I try to cause trouble, I am merely trying to make the facts fit into a scenario & exploring all possibilities to get to the truth.

By accusing the Gorrods of moving the body, without any proof of this. There is not one single shred of evidence that points to this, but you are just "trying to make the facts fit".

You say the creche records have been altered & gone to great lengths, isn't this accusing MW?

I have not accused MW of doing anything. I have merely pointed out the discrepencies, which I am perfectly entitled to do.

and accusing the mccanns? Its the same thing.

Arh !! I wondered when this was going to pop up. Are you offended then that everyone is accusing the McCann's?

You and many others name bankers at the resort, for example, and go further saying how they could involved in a cover up.

Yes, other guests have been named, but no one has ever accused them of being involved. Other than you.

Infact, I think it was you, on Friday you named the daughter of one of the bankers there that was a possible Maddie sub, isn't this libelling her?

I have never said the sub is the daughter of a banker. I certainly have never named her either, as I do not know her correct name, so you are making this up.

if you care to look at my post on that topic I blanked out the childs name...so don't you dare ever accuse me of causing trouble!!!!!

How can you blank out a name that is not known. That is absolutely ridiculous.

The Gorrods disappeared for 36 hours and it has never been explained why or where they went. So you are saying then we can't dare question where they could have been in this window of disappearance?

I am saying no such thing. Of course it needs to be explored, but you cannot just turn round and libel them, in the absence of proof, which is exactly what you are doing. That is very dangerous for you and for this forum and I will be asking for this thread to be cleaned up.

especially considering their relationship with the tanners & the possible situation the T9 found themselves in. If you care to read fully my post I did also say that maybe their 36 hour disappearance was a totally innocent explanation, and your reaction is like CR tbh

My only reaction is to protect this forum from further litigation.

Except for your last answer which I would totally agree with, your answers are totally rubbish. The name is known and is on here and said on here. Offended that the mccanns are being accused...I shall refrain from answering this. I haven't wasted 6 months of my life trying to get them brought to justice to be offended that they are being accused, you don't know what I have been doing away from the forum. I merely said this as an example to prove my point of accusing

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Guest on 25.12.11 12:20

@jd wrote:
Except for your last answer which I would totally agree with,

At least we can agree on something.

your answers are totally rubbish. The name is known and is on here and said on here.

Wrong. Kiko believes the substitute child was staying in G4N and we do not know any of the occupants names for that booking, as they are not listed on the MW booking sheets, or anywhere else for that matter.

You are thinking about the 'other' Naylor booking in BP01, whose names are listed in the files. Their daughter's name is all over the creche sheets, which are on full view to the world.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by jd on 25.12.11 12:37

Stella wrote:
@jd wrote:
Except for your last answer which I would totally agree with,

At least we can agree on something.

your answers are totally rubbish. The name is known and is on here and said on here.

Wrong. Kiko believes the substitute child was staying in G4N and we do not know any of the occupants names for that booking, as they are not listed on the MW booking sheets, or anywhere else for that matter.

You are thinking about the 'other' Naylor booking in BP01, whose names are listed in the files. Their daughter's name is all over the creche sheets, which are on full view to the world.


I am calling a truce here, we are giving the pro's a xmas present and this is something I don't wish to do in any circumstances. I wished you had PM'd me instead and said something on the lines that though you can understand what I am thinking but to be careful, instead of trying to out me in public making me feel compelled to defend myself. We both are on the same side and both feel very strongly about exposing this scam and bringing justice to Maddie and freedom of speech, so emotions can sometimes overspill and we are both guilty of this today. But the good thing about the forum is there are people analysing from all different angles to make a team, some are good at records, others are good about reading statements & complex ones (not the T9 ones that for sure!), some are good at human circumstances and motivations etc etc

I wish you a great Xmas day Stella roses and on some points we will have to agree to disagree but above anything else, we will work together to expose the truth wherever it may lead us and within the bounds of freedom of speech

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Guest on 25.12.11 12:47

@jd wrote:
Stella wrote:
@jd wrote:
Except for your last answer which I would totally agree with,

At least we can agree on something.

your answers are totally rubbish. The name is known and is on here and said on here.

Wrong. Kiko believes the substitute child was staying in G4N and we do not know any of the occupants names for that booking, as they are not listed on the MW booking sheets, or anywhere else for that matter.

You are thinking about the 'other' Naylor booking in BP01, whose names are listed in the files. Their daughter's name is all over the creche sheets, which are on full view to the world.


I am calling a truce here, we are giving the pro's a xmas present and this is something I don't wish to do in any circumstances. I wished you had PM'd me instead and said something on the lines that though you can understand what I am thinking but to be careful, instead of trying to out me in public making me feel compelled to defend myself. We both are on the same side and both feel very strongly about exposing this scam and bringing justice to Maddie and freedom of speech, so emotions can sometimes overspill and we are both guilty of this today. But the good thing about the forum is there are people analysing from all different angles to make a team, some are good at records, others are good about reading statements & complex ones (not the T9 ones that for sure!), some are good at human circumstances and motivations etc etc

I wish you a great Xmas day Stella and on some points we will have to agree to disagree but above anything else, we will work together to expose the truth wherever it may lead us and within the bounds of freedom of speech

May you also have a great Christmas day jd.

I hope you have taken everything on board about what is needed to protect this forum, that is what comes first. Integrity, accuracy where possible and sticking to what we can see in the files, is the best foot forward. I apologise if there has been any misunderstanding.

I'm off now as the guests are about to arrive.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Badboys on 25.12.11 16:08

Assuming i have got right robert naylor,he set up real estate opportunities on 27 april 2007 located in jersey.

thoses mentioned in connection with firm also worked at landskanki/matrixgroup.

also worked as an advisor on company takeovers.

see biography at matrixgroup.

Badboys

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Maive on 26.12.11 5:25

@monkey mind wrote:
I’m not saying in this hypothetical situation we are discussing here it hadn’t been frozen it is indeed a likely scenario, but it isn't as straighforward as first appears, that for there to be an effect there must be a cause and for a frozen body to produce that cause and effect certain odd things have to happen. The primary purpose of freezing is to hide until a later date, but the frozen state also has advantages during transportation. Would you transport it frozen or wait until it has thawed and the decomposition process started anew??


I agree with you. Nobody would wait before transporting it, it doesn't make sens. And if you don't wait, why the smell? Why the body fluids?

Regarding your theory that Madeleine was buried in the sand, it was very interesting. You seem knowledgeable, may I ask what is your profession? And I agree with you, it explains the smell and the fluids in the boot in a better way than the frozen theory.

Also, she could have been kept in the cold sea, at the bottom of the cliffs, in the tennis bag. Which can explain the body fluids, the smell and the disapearance of the tennis bag.

If I were the McCanns, with a body to hide (or to get a rid off) the sea would have been very tempting.

The problem with too complicated theories is that many people are suspected to be involved. And involving too many people in a cover-up (or crime) is very dangerous, especially for the main actors (in that case the McCanns of course). But I agree with all of you, the creche records, RM-JT, the phone activities, the crying episode, the lack of photos, etc.. It points into the direction that Madeleine died before May 3rd.

I don't know, it's a complicated case that I followed since day 1. Madeleine has disapeared the day I gave birth to my daughter. On top of that, I read a lot about that kind of topic, but Madeleine is special for me, like all of us I suppose..

I apologize for my mistakes, Merry Christmas to all of you!

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 13:42

JD, thanks for the info on the Bergau apt, wasn't aware of this. Posts such as these help on get up to sped a little quicker. They also mean a lot more research :^) I need a day to be about 50 hours long LOL!

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 monkey mind on 26.12.11 13:53

Hi Maive,

I'm retired, I think I'd probably prefer to leave it at that for now.

I thought initially my sand theory had merit, and to a degree it does, but after posting it here and mulling it over I'm inclined to let it go on practical grounds for now in favour of freezing. The body would still have to have been almost totally defrosted to leave body fluid in the car,and if a couple of days had passed before it was frozen this may account for any smell. Someone earlier posted that it may have been defrosted in order for disposal in pieces. I wouldn't discount this.


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 jd on 26.12.11 14:15

@monkey mind wrote:JD, thanks for the info on the Bergau apt, wasn't aware of this. Posts such as these help on get up to sped a little quicker. They also mean a lot more research :^) I need a day to be about 50 hours long LOL!

The Burgeau apartment I believe is very significant and especially the relationship between Tanner & Murat. It could of course be an entirely innocent explanation this apartment, but nevertheless it is still important for one reason or another

There is much information and it going to take more than 50 hours! I am discovering new facts all the time! 50 hours will only get you as far as reading the T9 statements. I really struggle so much reading these because the use of English language is so awful and I have to keep re-reading to make any sense of what they are saying. If this is how NHS doctors command the English language then no wonder the NHS is in such a state...maybe all those millions New Labout spent on the NHS were not mainly spent on consultants and more consultants to tell the consultant how to consult. Maybe it was on English teachers to dissect and understand the paperwork!! you know you know, erm, yeah, you know you know

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Maive on 26.12.11 17:17

@monkey mind wrote:Hi Maive,

I'm retired, I think I'd probably prefer to leave it at that for now.

I understand

@monkey mind wrote:
I thought initially my sand theory had merit, and to a degree it does, but after posting it here and mulling it over I'm inclined to let it go on practical grounds for now in favour of freezing. The body would still have to have been almost totally defrosted to leave body fluid in the car,and if a couple of days had passed before it was frozen this may account for any smell. Someone earlier posted that it may have been defrosted in order for disposal in pieces. I wouldn't discount this.


Regarding the dismemberment, I would not go that far, not yet. IMO it's the kind of thing that someone does when you have NO choice, or when you have to get a rid of a BIG body, that you CAN'T hide.. A four years old is small, you can move it using a tennis bag, or a stroller, no need to dismember. Also, cutting in pieces for disposal requiert tools, and it's very messy.. I mean, who would want to let all that DNA, blood, tissues, etc, somewhere, where it could be found (even if you wash it). Also, dismember your own child requiert some mental predisposition. Although I think that the McCanns are evil and that they lack of parental abilities, I am sure that they are not psychopath and that they loved Madeleine and the twins. Weird way to express their love, I agree, but still..

However I agree that it's the BEST way to be sure that nobody will find her, ever.

I hope that we will know one day.. But I doubt that it will be the case, unfortunatly..

Maive

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by jd on 26.12.11 17:46

@jd wrote:50 hours will only get you as far as reading the T9 statements. I really struggle so much reading these because the use of English language is so awful and I have to keep re-reading to make any sense of what they are saying. If this is how NHS doctors command the English language then no wonder the NHS is in such a state...maybe all those millions New Labout spent on the NHS were not mainly spent on consultants and more consultants to tell the consultant how to consult. Maybe it was on English teachers to dissect and understand the paperwork!! you know you know, erm, yeah, you know you know

Just been trying to read David Payne statement from April 2008. Never seen so much bad command of the English language in my life, the rest of them are the same. This statement does somehow in its own way answer questions about the cots, rooms etc though he has had a year to prepare and know what arguments to counteract. Its doing my head in trying to read it so will try again later but anyone brave enough have a go!

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id251.html

In one straight forward short paragraph alone, there are 18 'you knows'!!!


"Yeah we had err you know a very good flight err from my, I can remember it wasn’t err, it was, the flight was about nine in the morning, nine, nine thirty. Err everyone you know seemed, it seemed to go without any event, we didn’t remember it as one of the worst flights we’d ever had going, I couldn’t say that about some of the other flights that we’ve been on so the kids you know I’m sure they’d, you know it was very easy you know they’d all behaved themselves and there’s as least hassle as possible err you know everyone’s excited, it’s you know that time of the year you’re all looking forward and err Lily you know and Madeleine you know had met many times before and you know they were happy to be together err I can remember you know them holding hands and you know getting on the plane and we’ve got the video footage on the, you know on the err phone of that you know when Madeleine, you know, slipped and banged her leg. Err you know it was as I say a very straight forward flight, got there with minimal hassle err at some stage you know there was some text messages with the rest of the group they’d you know already arrived before us. "

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by monkey mind on 26.12.11 17:58

Maive, have you ever met a true psychopath?
I have. Let me describe him for you. He was quite a formidable looking character, quite imposing looking, yet everyone who met him liked him, in fact, despite his looks and size women and men alike found him most charming. He was outgoing but surprisingly quietly spoken for such a big man. He was a compulsive and very convincing liar with the ability to convince many people that black was white. He had absolutely no empathy with his victims at all, nor any conscience. After spending some time with him it became quite obvious this man, if he thought it to his advantage or benefit or it meant acquiring something he wanted well he would simply take it. If it meant killing somebody to achieve his desire in whatever manner, he would, and it would make no difference to him if this were a total stranger, a loose relative, or a family member, a brother, a parent, or a child. And he would happily sit down and have a sandwich next to the body. All that mattered was himself, his own desires and his own hide.

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 Maive on 26.12.11 18:36

@monkey mind wrote:Maive, have you ever met a true psychopath?
I have. Let me describe him for you. He was quite a formidable looking character, quite imposing looking, yet everyone who met him liked him, in fact, despite his looks and size women and men alike found him most charming. He was outgoing but surprisingly quietly spoken for such a big man. He was a compulsive and very convincing liar with the ability to convince many people that black was white. He had absolutely no empathy with his victims at all, nor any conscience. After spending some time with him it became quite obvious this man, if he thought it to his advantage or benefit or it meant acquiring something he wanted well he would simply take it. If it meant killing somebody to achieve his desire in whatever manner, he would, and it would make no difference to him if this were a total stranger, a loose relative, or a family member, a brother, a parent, or a child. And he would happily sit down and have a sandwich next to the body. All that mattered was himself, his own desires and his own hide.

I agree, they look quite normal, intelligent and charming, and nothing can stop them to achieve their own desires. However, in that case, we are talking about a couple. So two psychopaths? Both doctors? Whom were living a normal life (so in perfect control of their psychopathology) and one day dismembered the body of their daughter? Honestly, if it was an action of one person, I would probably be most positive about a dismemberment.

And yes, I am aware of psychopath who work in «team», but they are most of the time serial killers, not parents who want to hide the body of their child in order to save their lives. IMO, dismemberment is the LAST possible option. But I understand that all possibilities should be considered. Actually, this case is so odd that anything is possible.

Are there many people on this forum who really consider dismemberment as quite probable? Am I the only one who thinks that it's a bit too far?

Again, I apologize for my mistakes

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 20:02

@Maive wrote:
@monkey mind wrote:Maive, have you ever met a true psychopath?
I have. Let me describe him for you. He was quite a formidable looking character, quite imposing looking, yet everyone who met him liked him, in fact, despite his looks and size women and men alike found him most charming. He was outgoing but surprisingly quietly spoken for such a big man. He was a compulsive and very convincing liar with the ability to convince many people that black was white. He had absolutely no empathy with his victims at all, nor any conscience. After spending some time with him it became quite obvious this man, if he thought it to his advantage or benefit or it meant acquiring something he wanted well he would simply take it. If it meant killing somebody to achieve his desire in whatever manner, he would, and it would make no difference to him if this were a total stranger, a loose relative, or a family member, a brother, a parent, or a child. And he would happily sit down and have a sandwich next to the body. All that mattered was himself, his own desires and his own hide.

I agree, they look quite normal, intelligent and charming, and nothing can stop them to achieve their own desires. However, in that case, we are talking about a couple. So two psychopath? Both doctors? Whom were living a normal life (so in perfect control of their psychopathy) and one day dismembered the body of their daughter? Honestly, if it was an action of one person, I would probably be most positive about a dismemberment.

And yes, I am aware of psychopath who work in «team», but they are most of the time serial killers, not parents who want to hide the body of their child in order to save their lives. IMO, dismemberment is the LAST possible option. But I understand that all possibilities should be considered. Actually, this case is so odd that anything is possible.

Are there many people on this forum who really consider dismemberment as quite probable? Am I the only one who thinks that it's a bit too far?

Again, I apologize for my mistakes
Why should it be surprising that two psychopaths would be together? Its only a psychological sub type, like sociopath, they are certainly not all killers!
The trait of lack of empathy is interesting. Something both K + G seem to lack.
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'.
Obviously this is only my opinion, that I have formed through watching and listening since 2007. I could be totally wrong...
As for dismemberment, it would explain Gerry's supreme arrogance - 'find the body, prove we killed her...'$
It does seem extreme to me, but then, I'm not a narcissistic psychopath!...

____________________
"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 kikoraton on 26.12.11 20:02

It's nice to meet new folks on here! Interesting debate.
I used to think burying in sand, at least in the first instance, was quite a possibility. Why? Three reasons. One, if it were I who had caused the death of a child and wanted to cover it up, in a place with a long sandy coastline, I imagine I'd give it serious thought. I'd need a car. I'd have plenty of time, darkness, and privacy.
Two, Michael Wright arrived early on the scene and gave absolutely no indication of how he passed his time during several days. Nor was he asked. He was photo'd with GM showing a great interest in the tide-line at PdL.
Three, GM made more than one reference in his (later removed) blog about playing "dig-a-hole-in-the-sand-and-cover-us-up" games.
Not much to go on, eh??
Telephone calls: there are a handful of calls, only, in the PJ records for the Tapas Group on 29 April. Two can be paired up - Gerry and Kate talking to (or texting) each other. One, on KM's mobile, the PJ records have been edited so that the other end is not known. The same applies to numerous calls of hers on 1 May. One, on GM's mobile, the other end is known and is potentially interesting.
There is no record of a single call for either of them on 30 April.
There is no record of any call for Gerry on 1 May. For Kate, see above. I think she had about 16 contacts in all on this date, but the other end is shown for none of them. I suspect the PJ meant to hide them all from public view, but slipped up, and gave us half the information.
Annex 37 is missing from the released report. Logically, it will show (wherever it is locked away) a full account of telephone activity for 1 May. I suspect the PJ have worked out that something had happened to Madeleine by 30 April. Whether they made the extra leap - to 29 April and the placing of a substitute for the entire creche period - I don't know, but I can't imagine they will have missed it, nor the near-identical McCann/Naylor handwriting.
To me, it suggests that they know practically everything, but have been told by over-arching political pressure, to drop it.

kikoraton
Researcher

Posts : 617
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-13
Location : Catalunya, Spain

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Maive on 26.12.11 20:32

[quote="rainbow-fairy"]Why should it be surprising that two psychopaths would be together? Its only a psychological sub type, like sociopath, they are certainly not all killers!
The trait of lack of empathy is interesting. Something both K + G seem to lack.
quote]

Yes, it could be both. It's possible, I agree.

I agree as well with the lack of empathy, it's obvious considering what they have said about «the situation Madeleine finds herself», «why would be our fault», etc.. It's not a normal behaviour, or normal words..

[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]^

I understand very well your point. And it's very interesting. It would explain many things.

@rainbow-fairy wrote:As for dismemberment, it would explain Gerry's supreme arrogance - 'find the body, prove we killed her...'$
It does seem extreme to me, but then, I'm not a narcissistic psychopath!...

Yes, in that case he would be sure that no body would be discovered. My god! I don't know if I am getting paranoïc but things seem to be getting worse as the years go by..

Yes, we are not narcissistic psychopaths!!! It's probably the reason why dismemberment seems extreme to me.. Also, if it's the case, we will never find her

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 20:35

@kikoraton wrote:It's nice to meet new folks on here! Interesting debate.
I used to think burying in sand, at least in the first instance, was quite a possibility. Why? Three reasons. One, if it were I who had caused the death of a child and wanted to cover it up, in a place with a long sandy coastline, I imagine I'd give it serious thought. I'd need a car. I'd have plenty of time, darkness, and privacy.
Two, Michael Wright arrived early on the scene and gave absolutely no indication of how he passed his time during several days. Nor was he asked. He was photo'd with GM showing a great interest in the tide-line at PdL.
Three, GM made more than one reference in his (later removed) blog about playing "dig-a-hole-in-the-sand-and-cover-us-up" games.
Not much to go on, eh??
Telephone calls: there are a handful of calls, only, in the PJ records for the Tapas Group on 29 April. Two can be paired up - Gerry and Kate talking to (or texting) each other. One, on KM's mobile, the PJ records have been edited so that the other end is not known. The same applies to numerous calls of hers on 1 May. One, on GM's mobile, the other end is known and is potentially interesting.
There is no record of a single call for either of them on 30 April.
There is no record of any call for Gerry on 1 May. For Kate, see above. I think she had about 16 contacts in all on this date, but the other end is shown for none of them. I suspect the PJ meant to hide them all from public view, but slipped up, and gave us half the information.
Annex 37 is missing from the released report. Logically, it will show (wherever it is locked away) a full account of telephone activity for 1 May. I suspect the PJ have worked out that something had happened to Madeleine by 30 April. Whether they made the extra leap - to 29 April and the placing of a substitute for the entire creche period - I don't know, but I can't imagine they will have missed it, nor the near-identical McCann/Naylor handwriting.
To me, it suggests that they know practically everything, but have been told by over-arching political pressure, to drop it.
kiko, I agree - I am positive that the PJ have it pretty much worked out, and they did say they had enough evidence to go to trial, didn't they? Which will be the withheld evidence. Despite what Team McCann would try have us believe, the PT police are amongst the highest-regarded force in the world. Kate, IIRC, was interviewed 'as a witness until presented with concrete evidence implicating her in the crime'.
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?

____________________
"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 kikoraton on 26.12.11 21:10

"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.

kikoraton
Researcher

Posts : 617
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-13
Location : Catalunya, Spain

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Introduction and viewpoint.

Post by Maive on 26.12.11 21:27

@kikoraton wrote:
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.



It reminds me The Da Vinci Code, where four top members of the Priory of Sion were in charge of keeping the secret.. If one disapears, the secret is not lost..

Take care and be careful.. We never know..

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 21:33

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?

monkey mind

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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