ANOTHER TV programme about Madeleine - Tuesday 18 November, 7pm, Channel 5 - 'Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession'

missbeetle wrote:Small bruises/discolourations leading downwards under Kate's cheekbone :



(admittedly poor reproduction)

Fingermarks? I've a photograph of Gerry with much the same marks somewhere.

My observations only.

BlueBag wrote:

missbeetle wrote:Small bruises/discolourations leading downwards under Kate's cheekbone :



(admittedly poor reproduction)

Fingermarks? I've a photograph of Gerry with much the same marks somewhere.

My observations only.

Skin blemishes not bruises, perhaps zit scars (I have them myself).


She has smaller ones on her face as well.

aquila wrote:Seriously, I need someone to tell me why Kate's complexion is important.

BlueBag wrote:

aquila wrote:Seriously, I need someone to tell me why Kate's complexion is important.

It isn't important.

That was the point of my post.

missbeetle posted a very blurred image and asked if it was bruising.

A bit like the Madeleine "short hair" photo that was posted and I showed it wasn't. 

It isn't important.

Sceptic wrote:Ms Bachrach added: “They were told by child abduction experts ‘If you cry on television…the kidnapper might get off on that.’ Horrible though that sounds, so she (Kate, mother) had to keep a stoic face on television. She couldn’t weep, she couldn’t look distraught and so she looked kind of like a robot.”

sonic72 wrote:So they were supposedly advised to not show any emotions so the 'abductor' would not get off on them, yet they were advised for the safety of the child not to go to the media, but they went against that advice!

I dont buy the lack of emotions excuse at all, especially when they ignored the police's advice from the start.

PeterMac wrote:Many thanks for the YouTube link

Doug D wrote:New Textusa blog up this morning.

http://www.textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/11/haywhimee-roses-and-thorns.html#more

First half is typical Textusa, but the second half looks at the TV programme & highlights a large number of the comments made during the programme.

I also love the freeze frame of KM in church, looking out from behind her fringe to see if the camera is on her. Classic, even if it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. (Not saying if it does or doesn't!)

You can still get the programme up on Demand 5, and it says it will be available for the next twelve months.

http://www.channel5.com/shows/madeleine-mccann-a-global-obsession/episodes/madelaine-mccann-a-global-obsession

PeterMac wrote:mccannpjfiles ‏@mccannpjfiles  17m17 minutes ago
#McCann 19 Nov 2014 I had 170,439 hits. Little wonder I went off line my bandwidth allowance was all used up #mccannPJfiles

The public is beginning to educate itself.
Not even Mitchell and C-R can stop it.

ultimaThule wrote:

sonic72 wrote:So they were supposedly advised to not show any emotions so the 'abductor' would not get off on them, yet they were advised for the safety of the child not to go to the media, but they went against that advice!

I dont buy the lack of emotions excuse at all, especially when they ignored the police's advice from the start.

Moi aussi, Sonic

This would appear to be both an apt and authoritative definition of the difference between abduction and kidnapping:

"Abduction is when someone uses deceit or force in order to take a person or a child away from their home or relatives. The abductors do not reveal their motive for taking away the person or the child. Merriam Webster defines ‘abduction’ as, “to seize and take away (as a person) by force.” In legal definition, the victim knows or has some sort of relation with the abductor. The victim can be a minor or an adult.

The most common cases of abduction are seen in divorce cases, where one parent is given the sole custody of a child. The person who abducts is not holding the person for profit or any monetary gain from the victim. The laws for abduction crimes vary from state to state and country to country, depending on the severity of the crime.

Kidnapping is taking away or forcefully transporting a person against their will and holding them in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority. The kidnapping is usually done for a motive or for ransom. ‘Kidnapping’ is defined as, “to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with a demand for ransom."

As far as I'm aware in either case perceived wisdom is, as it was both in and pre-2007, for the victim(s) of such heinous crimes to make every effort to emotionally and otherwise engage with abductors/kidnappers.  

For the parents/close relatives of a victim of abduction or kidnapping to be advised to do anything less would appear to be on a par with asserting that leaving infants out of sight and earshot in unlocked premises, while those reponsible for their welfare comport themselves some considerable distance away, falls within the remit of  'responsible parenting'.

In cases of kidnapping in particular, it's not unusual for a total news blackout to be imposed in order that negotiations for the victim's return can be undertaken without spooking the perpetrator(s); in those rare cases of stranger abduction, the media can provide a conduit through which an attempt can be made to reach out to the perpetrator(s) and establish some common ground which may serve to facilitate the swift return of the abductee to the bosom of their family.  

As always, with regard to the disappearance of their daughter the McCanns' demeanour defies common logic and their behaviour cannot be supported in fact or in law.
.  

'

Lance De Boils wrote:I can't find a working video to watch. 

j.rob wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

sonic72 wrote:So they were supposedly advised to not show any emotions so the 'abductor' would not get off on them, yet they were advised for the safety of the child not to go to the media, but they went against that advice!

I dont buy the lack of emotions excuse at all, especially when they ignored the police's advice from the start.

Moi aussi, Sonic

This would appear to be both an apt and authoritative definition of the difference between abduction and kidnapping:

"Abduction is when someone uses deceit or force in order to take a person or a child away from their home or relatives. The abductors do not reveal their motive for taking away the person or the child. Merriam Webster defines ‘abduction’ as, “to seize and take away (as a person) by force.” In legal definition, the victim knows or has some sort of relation with the abductor. The victim can be a minor or an adult.

The most common cases of abduction are seen in divorce cases, where one parent is given the sole custody of a child. The person who abducts is not holding the person for profit or any monetary gain from the victim. The laws for abduction crimes vary from state to state and country to country, depending on the severity of the crime.

Kidnapping is taking away or forcefully transporting a person against their will and holding them in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority. The kidnapping is usually done for a motive or for ransom. ‘Kidnapping’ is defined as, “to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with a demand for ransom."

As far as I'm aware in either case perceived wisdom is, as it was both in and pre-2007, for the victim(s) of such heinous crimes to make every effort to emotionally and otherwise engage with abductors/kidnappers.  

For the parents/close relatives of a victim of abduction or kidnapping to be advised to do anything less would appear to be on a par with asserting that leaving infants out of sight and earshot in unlocked premises, while those reponsible for their welfare comport themselves some considerable distance away, falls within the remit of  'responsible parenting'.

In cases of kidnapping in particular, it's not unusual for a total news blackout to be imposed in order that negotiations for the victim's return can be undertaken without spooking the perpetrator(s); in those rare cases of stranger abduction, the media can provide a conduit through which an attempt can be made to reach out to the perpetrator(s) and establish some common ground which may serve to facilitate the swift return of the abductee to the bosom of their family.  

As always, with regard to the disappearance of their daughter the McCanns' demeanour defies common logic and their behaviour cannot be supported in fact or in law.
.  

'

This is what makes this case such a brazen and obvious hoax, imo. 

If this had been one of those very rare cases of abduction of a child (as opposed to kidnapping in which money is the incentive) then the motive is often (not always but often) sexual/violent. The child may be found alive but usually only if police can get a lead very quickly. Of course there are those very rare cases where children are abducted and live with their (often paedophile) abductors for years either hidden away or under a false identity. But in neither of these cases is money the primary motive.

In a case of kidnapping, by definition money is a motive. So if Madeleine's abductors had taken her away as part of a kidnap plot, then you would expect a demand for a ransom.

And often in cases where children have either been abducted or kidnapped parents will literally use up their life savings to try to find out what happened. They not untypically undergo incredibly traumatic life changes as a result of the loss of their beloved child. Giving up work, giving up their life savings in a painstaking attempt to find out what happened to their child. Especially if there has been incompetence and/or corruption within the police investigation. Or other authorities who wish to cover up what happened to the child as it would lead to adverse publicity, perhaps. Or prevent people from visiting the country. Or shine a bad light on people/organisations/a country.

And of course if it is a kidnapping and the child is held hostage for a ransom and the powers that be do not want to open up the flood-gates for a host of future kidnappings by giving in to the ransom, then, given that the child's life and certainly well-being will be at stake, then the parents', for fear of their child's life, might be driven to pay out a huge ransom, putting themselves into massive debt. What genuinely loving parent would rather see their child die than give up their life-savings and more? The kidnappers have taken what is most precious in a parent's life. 

So the parents are desperate and the kidnapper can lever the situation for maximum financial gain.

The grieving parent's relationships/marriages can break down under the stress. Or one or other may blame their partner for not being vigilant enough, for instance, or for making a decision that put the child at risk, even if completely inadvertently.

But the McCanns have reversed all this. Becoming parents who financially gained from the loss of their daughter.

In effect, this 'proves' the hoax. The McCanns are the kidnappers, imo. It was they and/or their accomplices who were responsible for the 'disappearance' of their daughter. It was they who demanded and financially gained from their own 'ransom' to the world - The Fund. Because 'out there' somewhere in 'the world' is the naughty man who 'stole' Madeleine from her bed that night. So every member of 'the world' - apart from the McCanns and their acolytes - has to contribute to the 'ransom' by donating to 'The Fund.'

Nice work if you can get it.

Con-artists. On such a grand scale!

Still, they are not the first people to have benefited  from the suspicious loss of a child (the Smarts and JonRamsay Bennett's parents in America, for instance, I believe are other very high profile examples. Albeit with totally different outcomes and motives. But still good examples,)

How ironic that a member of the McCann family said that 'nothing of value was stolen from the apartment'. That tells you everything you want to know. Madeleine was of no value to them per se, imo, her value lay in the potential to exhort a 'ransom' - The Fund. And trick a very gullible pubic, most of whom could not comprehend how anyone could be so brazenly duplicitous. Not to mention heartless.

IMO

j.rob wrote:Still, judging by the look on Brunt's face up there - not to mention Kate - I would say that the party is coming to an end.

One can but hope. 

Come on SY.