Re: Breaking News on Sky

by Ringo 17.05.11 17:25

Here, did you use this when making your diagnosis?

How to Identify Sociopathic Behavior

1

Notice if the person exhibits a lack of conscience. Signs of sociopathic behavior are usually present in childhood so take note if you witness this person torturing or killing [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], showing no emotions when something bad happens to someone else, or not showing any guilt or remorse for any of their actions.

Are there any accounts that you know of from people who knew Kate as a child about her killing or torturing animals? Or not showing any guilt or remorse for her actions?

2

See if there is a pattern of irresponsible or poor behavior including doing poorly in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Other behaviors to look for are recklessness, impulsivity, and participation in illegal activities.

Did Kate do poorly at school or at work? Any convictions for taking part in illegal activites? Any predisposition for habitually taking part in dangerous or reckless behviour?

3

Pay attention to the person's personal relationships. Many sociopathic people have an inability to love or have lasting personal relationships. This can be due to the fact that they are very manipulative.

Has Kate been unable to form any lasting relationships?

4

Recognize patterns of pathological lying. Sociopaths will continue to lie about things even if they are caught doing them. They can also be very charming and get others who are blind to their behaviors to side with them.

Any actual evidence of Kate lying? Let's see it. Let's see where she has continued to lie even after having been caught out.

5

Notice if they have an inflated sense of self-importance or narcissism. Sociopaths behave like they're the only people that matter and have complete disregard for everyone else. Although they have the ability to charm people, they take advantage of them at the same time.

Please give some examples of Kate's inflated sense of self-importance or narcissism and complete disregard for everyone else.

- 6
  
  See if they exhibit a need for stimulation by engaging in risky or dangerous behaviors. These behaviors can be sexual or just thrill seeking. Sociopaths tend to get bored easily which is why they seldom complete tasks and seek out forms of excitement.
Any evidence that Kate is unable to complete tasks, or takes part in thrill-seeking activities?

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

Please also let us know what qualifications you have for making this judgement - degree in psychology or psychiatry perhaps?

by RBxHN 17.05.11 18:36

Strange isn't it? There is nothing out there to suggest Kate or Gerry have had a 'dodgy' past. Yet here we are questioning them around the possibility of them covering up the death of their first born all because they didn't want to apparently loose their jobs. And futher, the McCanns have campaigned for a transparent review of the case so it convinces the world that they had nothing to do with her death....well, unless the new detectives discover something! I hope they thought about this long and hard because if it were me....i would just shut up and keep a low profile. But then I'm not as clever as them! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 17.05.11 19:32

How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

by lj 17.05.11 19:36

WOW was Wikipedia too difficult for you?

Let's say this: the fact you say you have to interview someone to come to the cloncusion he or she is a sociopath shows you don't know what you're talking about.

by lj 17.05.11 19:38

candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

They complain our theories are too outlandish while pushing the poor Kate was framed fairy tale.

by tiny 17.05.11 19:38

set up by the police,oh pleassssse. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] oh ringo what a stupid thing to say.

by RBxHN 17.05.11 19:45

candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

They could have if they were involved in her disappearance......................

by Guest 17.05.11 19:48

RBxHN wrote:
candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

They could have if they were involved in her disappearance......................

Now you've lost the plot!

by RBxHN 17.05.11 19:54

candyfloss wrote:
RBxHN wrote:
candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

They could have if they were involved in her disappearance......................

Now you've lost the plot!

Hi Candyfloss

Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that they (or someone they know) was involved in her kidnap? After all, it would certainly explain a lot of things which we all find hard to fathom, like for instance, the lack of DNA, the dogs, the fingerprints, the brazen way the abductor took the child, the info about the mccanns movements. It all fits!

by Guest 17.05.11 19:57

RBxHN wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
RBxHN wrote:
candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

They could have if they were involved in her disappearance......................

Now you've lost the plot!

Hi Candyfloss

Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that they (or someone they know) was involved in her kidnap? After all, it would certainly explain a lot of things which we all find hard to fathom, like for instance, the lack of DNA, the dogs, the fingerprints, the brazen way the abductor took the child, the info about the mccanns movements. It all fits!

Seriously RHxBN , you are taking the p*** now. Go and lie down in a darkened room for a while. big grin

by RBxHN 17.05.11 20:00

candyfloss wrote:
RBxHN wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
RBxHN wrote:
candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

They could have if they were involved in her disappearance......................

Now you've lost the plot!

Hi Candyfloss

Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that they (or someone they know) was involved in her kidnap? After all, it would certainly explain a lot of things which we all find hard to fathom, like for instance, the lack of DNA, the dogs, the fingerprints, the brazen way the abductor took the child, the info about the mccanns movements. It all fits!

Seriously RHxBN , you are taking the p*** now. Go and lie down in a darkened room for a while. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I'm RHxBN aka Xaus.......now you're taking the p***. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Anyway, why is it any more outlandish than the claims the parents are involved? And that's a serious question!

by Guest 17.05.11 20:07

My apologies RHxBN, I had just been typing a post to Ringo and got muddled. blushing1

I have ammended the posts.

by RBxHN 17.05.11 20:17

That's ok Candyfloss.............we all make mistakes.

by niknaks08 17.05.11 21:44

just read through this post , it amazes me the " right to remain silent " being told to keep quiet etc, still is being used in km s defence of not answerin the questions , if my child had gone missing (as any other parent who wouldnt dream of leaving 3 babies alone) i would answer any dam question they wanted to know (meaning those in charge of finding my lost child , who ur ment to call as soon as you notice not after other phone calls etc )and lets remember family is always the 1st port of call in a child case ,so why not cooparate to prove ur innocence quick so the police can move on to finding the truth ) id stay up nite after nite telling them every last detail i could . im not here to argue with the mccann supporters as the evidence speaks for itself , and its not just 1 discrepancy its a laughable amount , any1 whos seriously doesnt question the mccanns/ the fund or think they havnt been treated any different to normal evryday folk after looking through all the evidence is a twat , sorry to b blunt but thats my thoughts [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Ringo 18.05.11 9:32

lj wrote:WOW was Wikipedia too difficult for you?

Let's say this: the fact you say you have to interview someone to come to the cloncusion he or she is a sociopath shows you don't know what you're talking about.

To make a diagnosis of sociopath you do indeed need to spend some time in the subject's company interviewing them yes, you also need to be qualified to make such a diagnosis. Relying on tabloid newspapers and youtube clips just simply won't do. You have completely failed to demonstrate that Kate McCann is a sociopath, you are using a word of which you scarcely have any comprehension.

by Ringo 18.05.11 9:34

candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

Why would they need Madeleine's DNA to set them up? Were the dogs trained only to alert to Madeleine's DNA and cadaver odour?

by Ringo 18.05.11 9:35

RBxHN wrote:
Hi Candyfloss

Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that they (or someone they know) was involved in her kidnap? After all, it would certainly explain a lot of things which we all find hard to fathom, like for instance, the lack of DNA, the dogs, the fingerprints, the brazen way the abductor took the child, the info about the mccanns movements. It all fits!

I hope it is a line of inquiry that Scotland Yard don't overlook.

by lj 18.05.11 14:02

Ringo wrote:
lj wrote:WOW was Wikipedia too difficult for you?

Let's say this: the fact you say you have to interview someone to come to the cloncusion he or she is a sociopath shows you don't know what you're talking about.

To make a diagnosis of sociopath you do indeed need to spend some time in the subject's company interviewing them yes, you also need to be qualified to make such a diagnosis. Relying on tabloid newspapers and youtube clips just simply won't do. You have completely failed to demonstrate that Kate McCann is a sociopath, you are using a word of which you scarcely have any comprehension.

Ah, we are getting personal now. Which proves what I always thought you were not a hair better as your heroine Katie. You clearly have no idea about sociopathy other than what you can cut and paste of eHow or other simple worded programs depending on input of posters like you.

by Ringo 18.05.11 14:17

lj wrote:
Ringo wrote:
lj wrote:WOW was Wikipedia too difficult for you?

Let's say this: the fact you say you have to interview someone to come to the cloncusion he or she is a sociopath shows you don't know what you're talking about.

To make a diagnosis of sociopath you do indeed need to spend some time in the subject's company interviewing them yes, you also need to be qualified to make such a diagnosis. Relying on tabloid newspapers and youtube clips just simply won't do. You have completely failed to demonstrate that Kate McCann is a sociopath, you are using a word of which you scarcely have any comprehension.

Ah, we are getting personal now. Which proves what I always thought you were not a hair better as your heroine Katie. You clearly have no idea about sociopathy other than what you can cut and paste of eHow or other simple worded programs depending on input of posters like you.

OK, seeing as how you're the expert and are so skilled as to be able to confirm a diagnosis of sociopathy without even meeting the subject perhaps you can tell me how you arrived at this diagnosis?

Something you may wish to consider is the number of people Kate Healy / McCann has met and formed relationships both prior to Madeleine's disappearance and after. There must be hundreds by now - school friends, uni friends, boyfriends, neighbours, relatives, work colleagues, law enforcement officials, psychologists, counsellors, priests, interviewers, lawyers, the residents of th Ocean CLub, the staff at the Ocean CLub, the residents of PdL, the list goes on....

Now - how many of those people have come forward with information that has served to confirm your diagnosis? Where is the childhood acquaintance with tales of Kate's cruelty? The ex-boyfriend with stories of her cool, aloof detachment and penchant for risky sex games? The neighours who felt used and manipulated by her? The interviewers who remarked afterwards about her vanity and self-obsession? Where are they? Surely there would be one or two posting what they knew on forums or dishing the dirt to the Portuguese tabloids like if Kate really was a dangerous, risk-addicted, narcissit sociopath - so where are they? Or is it only the really clever ones like you who have never met her that can spot it?

by lj 19.05.11 1:08

I would love to discuss sociopathy, but with someone who has a better background than eHow. Just the examples you give now shows you think like the tabloids that sociopaths are ugly looking loners that burn cats and kill.
Read some real material on it. The sociopath next door is an excellent book for the layman, and this time I am not being sarcastic.

For me this subject is closed.

by ufercoffy 19.05.11 8:07

Ringo wrote:
lj wrote:
Ringo wrote:
lj wrote:WOW was Wikipedia too difficult for you?

Let's say this: the fact you say you have to interview someone to come to the cloncusion he or she is a sociopath shows you don't know what you're talking about.

To make a diagnosis of sociopath you do indeed need to spend some time in the subject's company interviewing them yes, you also need to be qualified to make such a diagnosis. Relying on tabloid newspapers and youtube clips just simply won't do. You have completely failed to demonstrate that Kate McCann is a sociopath, you are using a word of which you scarcely have any comprehension.

Ah, we are getting personal now. Which proves what I always thought you were not a hair better as your heroine Katie. You clearly have no idea about sociopathy other than what you can cut and paste of eHow or other simple worded programs depending on input of posters like you.

OK, seeing as how you're the expert and are so skilled as to be able to confirm a diagnosis of sociopathy without even meeting the subject perhaps you can tell me how you arrived at this diagnosis?

Something you may wish to consider is the number of people Kate Healy / McCann has met and formed relationships both prior to Madeleine's disappearance and after. There must be hundreds by now - school friends, uni friends, boyfriends, neighbours, relatives, work colleagues, law enforcement officials, psychologists, counsellors, priests, interviewers, lawyers, the residents of th Ocean CLub, the staff at the Ocean CLub, the residents of PdL, the list goes on....

Now - how many of those people have come forward with information that has served to confirm your diagnosis? Where is the childhood acquaintance with tales of Kate's cruelty? The ex-boyfriend with stories of her cool, aloof detachment and penchant for risky sex games? The neighours who felt used and manipulated by her? The interviewers who remarked afterwards about her vanity and self-obsession? Where are they? Surely there would be one or two posting what they knew on forums or dishing the dirt to the Portuguese tabloids like if Kate really was a dangerous, risk-addicted, narcissit sociopath - so where are they? Or is it only the really clever ones like you who have never met her that can spot it?

The Press did start to do a bit of digging before they were gagged, if you remember they dug up stuff about Kate's wild days at Uni. Maybe that was when the press were gagged because since then they've only printed stuff to help protect the McCanns reputation, courtesy of Clarence Mitchell and Carter Ruck. Maybe people have come forward and the press have kept things on the backburner till the time is right, or maybe not.

One of their friends - K Gaspar - did come forward to report to the police the sexual conversation between David Payne and Madeleine's own father. bigshock

And the press haven't mentioned it which kind of confirms that they only print stuff which is good for the McCanns.

by Ringo 19.05.11 9:38

ufercoffy wrote:The Press did start to do a bit of digging before they were gagged, if you remember they dug up stuff about Kate's wild days at Uni. Maybe that was when the press were gagged because since then they've only printed stuff to help protect the McCanns reputation, courtesy of Clarence Mitchell and Carter Ruck. Maybe people have come forward and the press have kept things on the backburner till the time is right, or maybe not.

One of their friends - K Gaspar - did come forward to report to the police the sexual conversation between David Payne and Madeleine's own father. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And the press haven't mentioned it which kind of confirms that they only print stuff which is good for the McCanns.

That is a load of tripe, with all due respect. The press had months and months in which to print all manner of sleeze that they could have got their hands on, you know all the time they were publishing the other lies that they were being fed by the PJ?

In any case you are only referring to the British press I assume. The McCanns, in case you hadn't noticed, are big news in the USA, Portugal, Spain, worldwide in fact - are you saying that the press has been gagged worldwide?

And, even if that ludicrous scenario were true, then what about the internet? Where are the claims online from these people, why have none of them come forward on forums, blogs, twitter etc to "dish the dirt"?

As for the Gaspar's statement - how does that provide evidence that Kate is a sociopath?

by Guest 19.05.11 10:03

I must admit to being unconvinced by the Gaspars' statement. It's very hard for me at least to understand why, if they genuinely thought they'd overheard such a dubious conversation, they would not have challenged the people involved. Instead I understand that they continued to allow the speakers access to their children, albeit supervised - very strange indeed.

by pennylane 19.05.11 10:06

Marian wrote:I must admit to being unconvinced by the Gaspars' statement. It's very hard for me at least to understand why, if they genuinely thought they'd overheard such a dubious conversation, they would not have challenged the people involved. Instead I understand that they continued to allow the speakers access to their children, albeit supervised - very strange indeed.

The Gaspar's holiday was its end though I believe....

by Guest 19.05.11 10:19

Marian wrote:I must admit to being unconvinced by the Gaspars' statement. It's very hard for me at least to understand why, if they genuinely thought they'd overheard such a dubious conversation, they would not have challenged the people involved. Instead I understand that they continued to allow the speakers access to their children, albeit supervised - very strange indeed.

Marian, from what has been discovered by looking at the OC guest lists of 2007, we can see that there were many other Doctors out there that week and people who work within the NHS or medical industry. Now lets go back to that holiday that Mrs Gaspar is referring to. From what she has described, it would appear that they were all sharing what must have been one big villa. I wonder who paid for that? But what we can see is that the 'one big villa' arrangement did not happen again after that holiday, despite Kate's claims of the group being "so into each other".

Perhaps that holiday was the finish of the villa sharing arrangement. Perhaps someones cover was well and truly blown? Perhaps Mrs Gaspar had reported the incident to Social Services and this is why Yvonne Martin remembered David Payne? If that last villa was paid for by a third party i.e. a drugs company or medical supplies company as some kind of incentive holiday and the Gaspar's were invited to be part of an arrangement, do you honestly think they would pack their bags up and walk out? Mrs Gaspar did react immediately, she asked her husband not to leave their children alone in David Payne's company. That says it all for me.