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 start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Means and Motive etc

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by Autumn on 20.02.10 12:32

@justagrannynow 1 wrote:
Inyx wrote:It's Inyx, my name.
I-n-y-x ..... a Latin name for a girl. Not a lynx


So sorry :oops:

Me too flower

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by Cath on 20.02.10 13:02

S'okay flower

Cath

Posts : 597
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by Pascal on 20.02.10 18:47

@bunny wrote:
@Pascal wrote:
Now that I can comprehend that, although I don't believe that for one second. But as you say even that would be the extreme Then when you see that there is nothing else to support them being capable of that. no history etc then it IMO becomes highly unlikely.

So what? Crime starts somewhere. Why do you need a history to commit a crime? This is the bit that bothers me about that post. Why do we need something to support them being capable? Accidents happen Bunny. Tragic terrible accidents. No one meant it, it just happened. Human error.

Unless there was a spooks style operation in place to lift this little girl from her bed, I would expect an intruder to leave some trace behind, something which didn't need to be picked up by forensics. There was nothing.

How probable is that?

Terrible accidents happen, yes. But concealing the death of a child!

As for the forensics......the first sweep and the competence of that first sweep IMO is questionable. Therefore we are left with the fact that there could well have been forensic evidence missed at that point.


yes concealing the death of a child! Maybe they felt desperate? Perhaps they or one of them evaluated that they have already lost one child, why lose the other two? Why end up in prison, lose their livelihoods their professional integrity? Maybe they are hanging on by a thread just to protect the other children. Why wouldn't they? Maybe there is something else they wouldn't want coming out? Could be anything. I don't rule it out based on probabilities, simply because there is no evidence to support an abduction.

Whatever happened, I don't believe it was intentional.

The problem is they are not likeable people. That they are professionals who appear to be running roughshod over the media counts very much against them. Many NEED to see them proved guilty. It's not so much down to 'jealousy' as bandied about on the god awful blue forums, but by annoyance of their perceived privilege.

Keep an open mind, I say.

Pascal

Posts : 626
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by justagrannynow 1 on 21.02.10 6:54

I do believe that all the group were anxious to avoid neglect charges as all of them had very young children who were also left alone. Poor little Grace was not yet one year old and ill with diarrhoea, but her parents too left her unattended. It really isn't the sort of image any parent, let alone members of the medical profession would want to be widely known. Their dilemma, IMO, was that they were unable to deny leaving the children alone as there were many witnesses, other diners, staff etc who would be in a position to confirm that none of the children were with the group during the evening meal. The best thing they could do was to produce a checking system in order to limit the criticism, but the release of the PJ files containing the statement of Mrs Fenn cast doubt on that too.

justagrannynow 1

Posts : 966
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-26
Location : France

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by bunny on 21.02.10 17:08

They admitted they left all the children alone.....therefore as you say they were open to charges of neglect anyway by admitting that.

Unless of course you think they were not guilty of neglect for leaving the children but guilty of neglect for an accident involving madeleine. Hold on though, that wouldn't be classed as neglect either would it?

Sorry, neglect doesnt come into it according to your reasoning.

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by Pascal on 21.02.10 19:06

@bunny wrote:They admitted they left all the children alone.....therefore as you say they were open to charges of neglect anyway by admitting that.

Unless of course you think they were not guilty of neglect for leaving the children but guilty of neglect for an accident involving madeleine. Hold on though, that wouldn't be classed as neglect either would it?

Sorry, neglect doesnt come into it according to your reasoning.


The neglect argument is one that will go on for evermore. Based on what we are told, I see it as an appalling failure in their duty of care, brought on maybe by a false sense of security. It was certainly selfish behaviour as it stands, but perhaps they are lying about the frequency of the checks which would paint a much darker picture of a group of professionals, who many would expect to know better.

I do believe there are a few porkies being told.

Pascal

Posts : 626
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by Cath on 21.02.10 21:38

Possible.
But there's evidence (Wilkins) that Gerry went to the apartment around 9.
And there's evidence (the alarm) that Kate went to the apartment around 10.

So the only 'check' without any evidence that it actually took place is Oldfields.

Cath

Posts : 597
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by aliberte2 on 21.02.10 22:47

So no One Wishes to Actually take on the Post, because some, Like Pascal, Don't really Like the Poster and Feel It's an Attack. But they Know the McCanns are Lying Anyway.

lol!

aliberte2

Posts : 365
Reputation : -1
Join date : 2009-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by Snowy on 22.02.10 10:29

@justagrannynow 1 wrote:I do believe that all the group were anxious to avoid neglect charges as all of them had very young children who were also left alone. Poor little Grace was not yet one year old and ill with diarrhoea, but her parents too left her unattended. It really isn't the sort of image any parent, let alone members of the medical profession would want to be widely known. Their dilemma, IMO, was that they were unable to deny leaving the children alone as there were many witnesses, other diners, staff etc who would be in a position to confirm that none of the children were with the group during the evening meal. The best thing they could do was to produce a checking system in order to limit the criticism, but the release of the PJ files containing the statement of Mrs Fenn cast doubt on that too.

The checking system did actually exist, it is mentioned by several members of staff as well as other tourists. The only question is how often, not whether it existed at all.

Snowy

Posts : 64
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by Snowy on 22.02.10 10:36

@justagrannynow 1 wrote:
@bunny wrote: More significantly, there is absolutely no character history to indicate any of these people have the psychological mind set to both commit a terrible crime (perfectly) and then go on to parade their criminality in our faces though setting up a fraudulent fund and barefaced maintaining the lie over a substantial period of time. Any ‘normal’ person attempting to do this would have collapsed under the strain. Only a psychopath could maintain such a level of incongruity, and there is nothing in either character history (let alone both or more) to indicate psychopathy. Psychopaths cannot sustain careers, jobs, friendships, relationships; they lie, cheat and damage people around them. Anyone who has ever been ‘close’ to a psychopath knows it, even if they cannot put a diagnostic term upon it. Psychopaths are not created overnight, they leave a long history trail behind them, and there is nothing in the McCann family histories to indicate anything of the sort, and significant indicators to rule them out of this category. These are facts.

In response to Lynx post yesterday at 7.30pm, I cannot access my response to the OP as I am no longer a member of MM, but as I recall, it was this particular paragraph which caused me the most concern. Apart from the inaccurate description of psychopathy which I have answered in a previous post, the certainty with which Snoop claims that there is no character history to indicate psychopathy, alarmed me.

Psychopathy is an extremely complex condition, difficult to diagnose, requiring a prolonged assessment by a qualified practitioner who would be bound by the medical rule of confidentiality. If Snoop is so certain of his facts because he has access to the medical records, then he is a disgrace to his profession. If not, then he is in no better position than the rest of us who rely on speculation and state our opinions with a tad less pomposity and the occasional IMO. Snoop states these are facts, not opinions. For the sake of a profession which I devoted my working life to, and which I hold in high regard, I do so hope these are not facts.

Let me get this right, you spent your working life in psychiatry and yet actually concurr that the McCanns are, or could be, psychopaths?
I find THAT worrying - that someone supposedly an expert in their field could actually go along with all the tripe that has been written about the Mccanns on the subject of their supposed mental and personal disorders - sociopathy, psycopathy, narcissism, you name it, they are supposed to suffer from it.

It's about time that someone with some actual expereince spoke up and outed this for the total crap it is, rather than just going along with the lame 'well they could be' or dissing others who point out how stupid it all is.

You claim here that psycopathy needs a long period to be diagnosed and it can only be done by trained people.

Excuse me jagn, but isn't it time you used some of your expertise to point out the rubbish that's written about this on other sites? Or are you only interested in criticizing those who say the Mccanns cannot be psychopaths, rather than those who constantly assert like nodding dogs that they are?

Snowy

Posts : 64
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by justagrannynow 1 on 22.02.10 12:50

@Snowy wrote:
@justagrannynow 1 wrote: In response to Lynx post yesterday at 7.30pm, I cannot access my response to the OP as I am no longer a member of MM, but as I recall, it was this particular paragraph which caused me the most concern. Apart from the inaccurate description of psychopathy which I have answered in a previous post, the certainty with which Snoop claims that there is no character history to indicate psychopathy, alarmed me.

Psychopathy is an extremely complex condition, difficult to diagnose, requiring a prolonged assessment by a qualified practitioner who would be bound by the medical rule of confidentiality. If Snoop is so certain of his facts because he has access to the medical records, then he is a disgrace to his profession. If not, then he is in no better position than the rest of us who rely on speculation and state our opinions with a tad less pomposity and the occasional IMO. Snoop states these are facts, not opinions. For the sake of a profession which I devoted my working life to, and which I hold in high regard, I do so hope these are not facts.

Let me get this right, you spent your working life in psychiatry and yet actually concurr that the McCanns are, or could be, psychopaths?
I find THAT worrying - that someone supposedly an expert in their field could actually go along with all the tripe that has been written about the Mccanns on the subject of their supposed mental and personal disorders - sociopathy, psycopathy, narcissism, you name it, they are supposed to suffer from it.

It's about time that someone with some actual expereince spoke up and outed this for the total crap it is, rather than just going along with the lame 'well they could be' or dissing others who point out how stupid it all is.

You claim here that psycopathy needs a long period to be diagnosed and it can only be done by trained people.

Excuse me jagn, but isn't it time you used some of your expertise to point out the rubbish that's written about this on other sites? Or are you only interested in criticizing those who say the Mccanns cannot be psychopaths, rather than those who constantly assert like nodding dogs that they are?

I concur that it is possible for any human being to suffer from psychopathy, but that in no way implies that I believe that the McCanns, or any of the holiday group are afflicted with that condition. I do not know them and have no access to their medical records therefore am in no postion to know one way or the other, unlike Snoop.
As for the "rubbish that's written about this on other sites", I have no idea which sites you mean, but what I can say is that you will not be able to produce any posts of mine from anywhere where I have been foolish enough to make a diagnosis on anybody. Usually I avoid all threads discussing analysis of body language/personality disorders etc because I just do not know the people under discussion. The reason I commented on Snoops post on the MM forum and again on here is because members were specifically asked for their opinion on the article, and Snoop expressed certainty about what he was posting rather than speculation, which has to be either misleading or a breach of confidentiality. It is one thing for people to debate with each other as to various possibilities, but it is quite out of order to insist that ones opinion is a fact, no matter how strongly that person believes their opinion to be true.

justagrannynow 1

Posts : 966
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-26
Location : France

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by Pascal on 22.02.10 22:05

@aliberte2 wrote:So no One Wishes to Actually take on the Post, because some, Like Pascal, Don't really Like the Poster and Feel It's an Attack. But they Know the McCanns are Lying Anyway.

lol!

Sorry Alberte. I don't know what you're on about. Guess you are looking for a fight so just to let you know, I won't be biting.

Snoop is well known to be aggressive and dismissive of any 'anti' viewpoint. Oh and he loves a good scrap.

Pascal

Posts : 626
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by aliberte2 on 23.02.10 1:32

@Pascal wrote:
@aliberte2 wrote:So no One Wishes to Actually take on the Post, because some, Like Pascal, Don't really Like the Poster and Feel It's an Attack. But they Know the McCanns are Lying Anyway.

lol!

Sorry Alberte. I don't know what you're on about. Guess you are looking for a fight so just to let you know, I won't be biting.

Snoop is well known to be aggressive and dismissive of any 'anti' viewpoint. Oh and he loves a good scrap.

And this is Reason To Not Absorb and Respond to this Particular Well Written Post?
Is he a Member HEre Anyway?
Waht Are you Scared Of? being Shown up?

aliberte2

Posts : 365
Reputation : -1
Join date : 2009-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by Pascal on 23.02.10 13:28

@aliberte2 wrote:
@Pascal wrote:
@aliberte2 wrote:So no One Wishes to Actually take on the Post, because some, Like Pascal, Don't really Like the Poster and Feel It's an Attack. But they Know the McCanns are Lying Anyway.

lol!

Sorry Alberte. I don't know what you're on about. Guess you are looking for a fight so just to let you know, I won't be biting.

Snoop is well known to be aggressive and dismissive of any 'anti' viewpoint. Oh and he loves a good scrap.

And this is Reason To Not Absorb and Respond to this Particular Well Written Post?
Is he a Member HEre Anyway?
Waht Are you Scared Of? being Shown up?

What??!!

I've already commented. I can't offer any more than I have. The only issue I have with the poster, Snoop is that he is overly aggressive. His intelligent, thought provoking posts have been ruined by this character trait, imo. Indeed new 'anti' members on PFA have been cited as 'fresh meat' for him to gorge upon. I've always tried to read his posts objectively, and put aside his apparent and incessant urge to tear other (his opponents) posters' limbs off for mere sport. It would be good to see him apply his logic and skill to ending, once and for all the appalling inter forum attacks where innocent posters get themselves caught up in the fray. He won't. He enjoys the spectacle way too much.

Now. Why do you disguise your posts? What are YOU scared of?

Pascal

Posts : 626
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by twinkle on 23.02.10 21:11

@aliberte2 wrote:
@Pascal wrote:
@aliberte2 wrote:So no One Wishes to Actually take on the Post, because some, Like Pascal, Don't really Like the Poster and Feel It's an Attack. But they Know the McCanns are Lying Anyway.

lol!

Sorry Alberte. I don't know what you're on about. Guess you are looking for a fight so just to let you know, I won't be biting.

Snoop is well known to be aggressive and dismissive of any 'anti' viewpoint. Oh and he loves a good scrap.

And this is Reason To Not Absorb and Respond to this Particular Well Written Post?
Is he a Member HEre Anyway?
Waht Are you Scared Of? being Shown up?

Why would Pascal need to comment further?
Pascal has stated on more than one occasion that she is on the fence regarding this case.

twinkle

Posts : 452
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by bunnie1 on 24.02.10 14:45

Interesting thread.
Would it not have been easier for a group of intelligent people to set the stage up as an unfortunate accident.Let the search and matters fade away.

bunnie1

Posts : 126
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by WOODWARD on 24.02.10 15:19

We dont know the means ,that doesnt mean the means didnt exist,by definition ,if there was no abduction then the" means" clearly did exist,when perpetrators are determined to conceal the"means" and several "means" could exist,any attempt to define them is speculation,it is perfectly usual, in cases where a body has not been recovered that the means of disposal are not firmly established even post conviction.As to" motive",no motive is necessary for a fatal accident,again by definition,and as to the motive for covering up-wilful negligence leading to the death of a child,motive enough for any group of party lovers.

WOODWARD

Posts : 141
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by vaguely1 on 24.02.10 16:12

and opportunity? While you're on a roll popcornandcola

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?

vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Means and Motive etc

Post by bunny on 24.02.10 20:26

The means.........that you say are unknown actually means that it was vitally important that 5a was never re rented or at least for a good year IMO.

I beleive Police forces in some cases actually buy the property concerned so they can go back and do further forensics should anymore information come to light. Thats was never going to happen in PDL though never mind

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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