Statement Analysis of Kate McCann's diary

rainbow-fairy wrote:

aquila wrote:

Stella wrote:That's right Aquila. When faced with the worst kind of fear possible to mankind, eating, drinking and whether someone looks smart or not, is the last thing on your mind. People usually stop eating, forget to drink and generally stop taking care of themselves for months, sometimes years.

Obviously not ALL people Stella...some go jogging, do their hair, wear make-up, have a better sleep, write a diary, set up a fund, jet around the world, meet the Pope, set up a fund (did I mention set up a fund?)...the list is endless innit?

Mustn't forget, aquila, the careful choosing of which Necklace to wear and colour co-ordinating her hair ribbons...

aquila wrote: oooh and 'cuddle cat' the one that was taken to work, cuddle cat that was Madeleines toy (don't know about you but in all my years I didn't take a bloody soft toy of my Son's to work - I was his mum and his toys belonged to him!!!!)......to be in contact with dead people...it's just too much crap here isn't it?

jd wrote:

aquila wrote: oooh and 'cuddle cat' the one that was taken to work, cuddle cat that was Madeleines toy (don't know about you but in all my years I didn't take a bloody soft toy of my Son's to work - I was his mum and his toys belonged to him!!!!)......to be in contact with dead people...it's just too much crap here isn't it?

Yes but enough to have a case to libel someone with and make lots of money!!!

aquila wrote:cCan someone enlighten me on this point. Why on the Fund is KM stated as a general practitioner in the list of directors? why, if the fund and the website has moved along has that status not changed? Is it just me or does someone out there agree that if you're an airline pilot and you don't do it anymore you're not an airline pilot.

Stella wrote:Whether in employment or not, technically, she is still a GP by profession.

Stella wrote:

jd wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

aquila wrote:

Stella wrote:That's right Aquila. When faced with the worst kind of fear possible to mankind, eating, drinking and whether someone looks smart o
r not, is the last thing on your mind. People usually stop eating, forget to drink and generally stop taking care of themselves for months, sometimes years.

Obviously not ALL people Stella...some go jogging, do their hair, wear make-up, have a better sleep, write a diary, set up a fund, jet around the world, meet the Pope, set up a fund (did I mention set up a fund?)...the list is endless innit?

Mustn't forget, aquila, the careful choosing of which Necklace to wear and colour co-ordinating her hair ribbons...

Don't forget the colour co-ordinated wristbands

More than any of this, I would never, however dirty it got, have washed Cuddlecat.

I still have something of my Dad's, a tankard, that is full of 40 years worth of dust by the looks of it and I still cannot after many years, bring myself to clean it out. He used to store sentimental items inside it and I would feel that I'm washing all of those memories away, if I washed it out now.

MrsC wrote:

jd wrote:

Mrs C, please could you change your avatar picture, It is disturbing!!!!!

Here you go...

jd wrote:

MrsC wrote:

jd wrote:

Mrs C, please could you change your avatar picture, It is disturbing!!!!!

Here you go...

David Brett....."Several of my books have been serialised in the Express, along with articles I've written for them on commisson, therefore last week I submitted a piece regarding my letter to Cameron--nothing nasty or even controversial. I just wanted to know if it was morally and legally acceptable for the McCanns to be using money from the Maddie fund to pay for libel action they are allegedly taking. Number 10 responded favourably, but the sub-editor of the Express explained over the phone yesterday that no papers will print anything regarded as unfavourable regarding the McCanns, and that the couple's "office" had complained that a picture of them laughing was unfavourable at it is a "misrepresentation" of how they feel, which was why they insisted it should be removed. As happened with Canada, the press have now been instructed NOT to publish any more pictures of them which do not portray them as looking sad, or on the verge of tears
All of this will of course only go towards making matters much much worse for them if this case turns out as many of us suspect it will--we will see some of the most poisonous headlines in publishing history."

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

aquila wrote:1. Nobody from police introduced themselves.
2. Nobody offered her drink or food.
3. The clothing/appearance of police, and their habit of smoking
4. No one offered sympathy.
5. Far from inspiring.

I found the above little lot disturbing. IMO it's incredibly self-absorbed. If no-one introduced themselves why not ask them who they are? If nobody offered drink or food why not ask for a drink if you are thirsty? As to the food, who would have an appetite under these circumstances?

Now the clothing and the appearance of the police who smoke...who would give a b*gger? Not really the point is it when they're investigating the disappearance of a precious daughter.

No-one offered sympathy....beggars belief. Why would they offer sympathy? A child had disappeared after being left alone in an apartment with two other little ones. The police were interested in finding her and finding out what happened to her. Correct me if I'm wrong but in all the police cases I've ever read, those closest to the missing person are the first to be suspected/eliminated from the investigation. They are also questioned to provide vital information to assist the police.

Far from inspiring. I have no words for this one.

In an imaginary setting perhaps it is to be expected that the parent of a missing child goes to the police where they introduce themselves wearing suits, offer tea and sympathy (and a sandwich or perhaps a light lunch) and tell you they'll have the missing child back by tea-time as they've put every single top police officer and top detective (who've polished their shoes especially) on the case. Inspiring. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

TrollAng wrote:

aquila wrote:1. Nobody from police introduced themselves.
2. Nobody offered her drink or food.
3. The clothing/appearance of police, and their habit of smoking
4. No one offered sympathy.
5. Far from inspiring.

I found the above little lot disturbing. IMO it's incredibly self-absorbed. If no-one introduced themselves why not ask them who they are? If nobody offered drink or food why not ask for a drink if you are thirsty? As to the food, who would have an appetite under these circumstances?

Now the clothing and the appearance of the police who smoke...who would give a b*gger? Not really the point is it when they're investigating the disappearance of a precious daughter.

No-one offered sympathy....beggars belief. Why would they offer sympathy? A child had disappeared after being left alone in an apartment with two other little ones. The police were interested in finding her and finding out what happened to her. Correct me if I'm wrong but in all the police cases I've ever read, those closest to the missing person are the first to be suspected/eliminated from the investigation. They are also questioned to provide vital information to assist the police.

Far from inspiring. I have no words for this one.

In an imaginary setting perhaps it is to be expected that the parent of a missing child goes to the police where they introduce themselves wearing suits, offer tea and sympathy (and a sandwich or perhaps a light lunch) and tell you they'll have the missing child back by tea-time as they've put every single top police officer and top detective (who've polished their shoes especially) on the case. Inspiring. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Well said, Aquila, you'd wonder how she even noticed these things, let alone remember. Besides, was it appropriate for them to appear on our screens dressed in shorts (ugh), t-shirts and sneakers?

aquila wrote:1. Nobody from police introduced themselves.
2. Nobody offered her drink or food.
3. The clothing/appearance of police, and their habit of smoking
4. No one offered sympathy.
5. Far from inspiring.

I found the above little lot disturbing. IMO it's incredibly self-absorbed.

puzzled wrote:

aquila wrote:1. Nobody from police introduced themselves.
2. Nobody offered her drink or food.
3. The clothing/appearance of police, and their habit of smoking
4. No one offered sympathy.
5. Far from inspiring.

I found the above little lot disturbing. IMO it's incredibly self-absorbed.

Fascinating how it's all about her, isn't it?

puzzled wrote:

aquila wrote:1. Nobody from police introduced themselves.
2. Nobody offered her drink or food.
3. The clothing/appearance of police, and their habit of smoking
4. No one offered sympathy.
5. Far from inspiring.

I found the above little lot disturbing. IMO it's incredibly self-absorbed.

Fascinating how it's all about her, isn't it?

puzzled wrote:

aquila wrote:1. Nobody from police introduced themselves.
2. Nobody offered her drink or food.
3. The clothing/appearance of police, and their habit of smoking
4. No one offered sympathy.
5. Far from inspiring.

I found the above little lot disturbing. IMO it's incredibly self-absorbed.

Fascinating how it's all about her, isn't it?

pennylane wrote:Don't they care about Maddie?
Nobody asked us to perform a reconstruction
Nobody asked us to take a lie detector test
Nobody asked me to answer 48 questions
Nobody cared that the jimmied shutter story was a lie
Nobody cared that the dogs marked blood and death in the apartment and on other belongings of ours
What's wrong with these police, why aren't they looking at Jane; just like our version of events, her sighting didn't add up to a hill of beans, ffs don't these sardine munchers realise a child is missing and the most likely perpetrators would be a family member or an acquaintance! Good grief, it's not like our version of events has one scintilla of a ring of truth to it.
Poor me, me, me. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

rainbow-fairy wrote:

puzzled wrote:

aquila wrote:1. Nobody from police introduced themselves.
2. Nobody offered her drink or food.
3. The clothing/appearance of police, and their habit of smoking
4. No one offered sympathy.
5. Far from inspiring.

I found the above little lot disturbing. IMO it's incredibly self-absorbed.

Fascinating how it's all about her, isn't it?

Well, it is Kate's diary, who else would you expect it to be about? Madeleine??? Even the book entitled 'madeleine' didn't even manage a full chapter on the poor mite! All Kate Kate Kate always has been always will be...[/quote

It's all about take, take, take....great anagram of the name Kate....

aquila wrote:

pennylane wrote:Don't they care about Maddie?
Nobody asked us to perform a reconstruction
Nobody asked us to take a lie detector test
Nobody asked me to answer 48 questions
Nobody cared that the jimmied shutter story was a lie
Nobody cared that the dogs marked blood and death in the apartment and on other belongings of ours
What's wrong with these police, why aren't they looking at Jane; just like our version of events, her sighting didn't add up to a hill of beans, ffs don't these sardine munchers realise a child is missing and the most likely perpetrators would be a family member or an acquaintance! Good grief, it's not like our version of events has one scintilla of a ring of truth to it.
Poor me, me, me. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I wonder what they are doing today? working hard to search for Madeleine? having a bit of a lie in? going over the accounts? grrrrrrrrrrrrr

pennylane wrote:Don't they care about Maddie?
Nobody asked us to perform a reconstruction
Nobody asked us to take a lie detector test
Nobody asked me to answer 48 questions
Nobody cared that the jimmied shutter story was a lie
Nobody cared that the dogs marked blood and death in the apartment and on other belongings of ours
What's wrong with these police, why aren't they looking at Jane; just like our version of events, her sighting didn't add up to a hill of beans, ffs don't these sardine munchers realise a child is missing and the most likely perpetrators would be a family member or an acquaintance! Good grief, it's not like our version of events has one scintilla of a ring of truth to it.
Poor me, me, me. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

TrollAng wrote:It brings me back to the comment by Dr Christian Ludke

"There are parents who have little to no emotional binding with a child. Often such a child is considered a burden, that is treated in a brutal or perverse way. The most known is the Munchhausen-by proxy-Syndrome: The mother hurts the child until it is almost not alive anymore and then calls for the police because she herself has a huge wish for attention".

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

I love your post. I want to answer re the Munchausen blah blah syndrome. Once again we come to a published paper(theory) from a professional. Nothing has made a scrap of difference except only to roll us into a weird sense of tolerance.

Dont' get me wrong...but it all goes around the ring and lands up in the same place.

I'd be very interested from psych folk who can honestly tell me that they make a difference...in fact...I want them to prove they do.

aquila wrote:
Dont' get me wrong...but it all goes around the ring and lands up in the same place.

I'd be very interested from psych folk who can honestly tell me that they make a difference...in fact...I want them to prove they do.

puzzled wrote:

aquila wrote:
Dont' get me wrong...but it all goes around the ring and lands up in the same place.

I'd be very interested from psych folk who can honestly tell me that they make a difference...in fact...I want them to prove they do.

Unfortunately, there are certain psychiatric conditions that can't be cured at the moment. This is particularly true of psychopathism, one of the biggest threats to society, but it applies to other conditions too. A big problem has been caused by psychoanalysis, which led psychology astray for about 50 years. It hasn't been taken seriously in academic psychology since the 1950s, but unfortunately is still often used as a form of treatment for offenders, in spite of all the evidence that it makes no difference to their conditions. The reason why it drags on so long is of course because it's geared towards getting a pre-ordained conclusion, decided in advance, not towards curing the patient. However, since the development of cognitive psychology, psychology has been getting a more scientific basis. Cognitive-behavioural therapy has in fact been very successful in treating various conditions. But right now there's still so much about the mind that isn't understood, and at the moment I think we have to accept that certain conditions just aren't amenable to treatment - which doesn't make them any less dangerous.