Means and Motive etc

Motive, means, opportunity, and indicative character history.

There is not a single, credible, coherent account of how the parents (and/or friends) could or would have committed the crime of disposing of Madeleine’s body. Nor is there any evidence that they did so. No case, indicative or otherwise, could be constructed by the PT police, and none has been subsequently by any of the internet colombos following this case.

We accordingly have 2 anti camps: those who simply invent outlandish stories piled on top of each other to account for the key questions. And those who simply avoid them, dwelling instead on their ‘suspicions’ and snippets of information, considered entirely in isolation of they key questions.

The dog alerts, the samples, the forensic analysis - all have been put under the microscope by those less qualified than the experts who conducted the investigation, and in every case, our forumistas consider themselves qualified to cast doubt upon the actual findings.

This is wishful thinking with no more credibility than the crazy conspiracy theories. It is all there in the reports: no evidence. And not only no evidence, but no expert opinion backing up the, er, forum experts. Martin grime does not say: ‘no forensic evidence but my dogs are never wrong and I consider this highly indicative that a corpse was present’. No, he says the alerts are only ‘suggestive’ of contaminant and that ‘no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from them’. Unless or until one of our forum ‘experts’ can produce the credentials to challenge the findings under peer review conditions, I think I’ll stick with the real experts, and anyone who does otherwise is a fool.

And even if you narcissistically believe your suspicions to have sufficient weight to cast doubt on the experts in the confines of your egotistical mind (cos it means F all in the real world), you still need to account for the basics: who, when, why, where, how.

A word on ‘demeanour’ because this keys into character. Its often claimed that the McCanns demeanour was inappropriate for the events. If you actually read the accounts of those around them, who have seen them, over time, it seems to be entirely within normal range: hope, despair, grief, determination; and caused no suspicions amongst those qualified to comment. To maintain the ‘demeanour’ accusation, demands that our pitchforkers selectively analyse mere moments in the thousands of hours that have passed since the events, and pin entire character histories and accusations to these fragments of time. Caught smiling – must be guilty. Reported to be crying – must be acting.

The illogicality and sheer nastiness of this particular line of suspicion in incredible. There is no manual on how to respond to a tragedy, and history is full of examples of people reacting in all sorts of ways. Rarely can it ever be analysed as an indicator of complicity, and in the few cases that it can be, there is a substantial and clear evidence base analysed over time by those qualified to do so. Not by pitchforkers who hate the sight of them, and twist anything and everything to suit their pre-set agenda.

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.

And finally, statistics: statistically the likelihood of the parents pulling off the most successful and audacious crime in living memory under the circumstances we know is incalculable, because it would be unprecedented, therefore it is statistically far less likely than an abduction. Its that simple.

And still, there is motive, means and opportunity to be accounted for.

No motive: Most that have ever been offered -such as risk of loss of career, status etc, are predicated upon a psychopath’s response to a situation, and there is no evidence to substantiate this, nothing to suggest these people would be anything but devastated and immobilised by grief had they found their child dead. Accordingly, more and more bizarre motives are invented, all without any evidence base. Illegal drugs, swinging, paedophilia, murder. Nothing to support any of these claims.

No means: How would these parents have disposed of a body, unseen? Only by resorting to methods that are again predicated upon an assumption of psychopathy. Stuffing bodies into bags, burying them on the beach, digging them up again, freezing them, driving around with a corpse in your car, nipping off between media appearances to dig graves without even breaking sweat, wandering brazenly through PDL openly with the corpse of your child in your arms. All without being spotted, or your actions being discovered, or the body ever being found. None of this is credible, not for one moment.

No opportunity: to have done all or any the above would take an army of resources and local knowledge, it would certainly take more than two people (thereby increasing the unliklihood of it having happened), it would have taken ‘staging’ of proportions the opera house would struggle to muster, since no person was absent from others view for anything like the time required to pull these stunts off. It just didn’t happen.

I’ve heard it all before, and no where, no time, has any anti ever come up with a credible refutation of what I have posted here. Yes, I have heard all the stories about parents who hid their child’s body. Yes I’ve heard the stories of those who pretended to be looking, or set up some sort of fund. Yes I’ve heard all about medical negligence. Yes, I know far too much about the psychopaths and narcissists who have blighted the lives of a rather high percentage of the hater types on these forums. But there is not, by definition, any existing case that can compound all these factors to draw a parallel.

And part parallels are pointless. Anyone can stitch together a patchwork of completely disparate and separate events and link them to different parts of the case, but that in no way makes the coalescence of all these types of events into this one event in any way possible let alone likely. Anyone can pick one picture and wonder about the quality of the expression on someone’s face. Anyone can pick one piece of information from the files and, in exclusivity from all other pieces, wonder if there isn’t more to the story. This is not thoughtful, this is not credible curiosity, this is not intelligent reasoning, this is not the pursuit of truth and justice, it’s a witchunt

twinkle wrote:Snoop's a fella.

Inyx wrote:That long ago and nobody's challenged it?

Inyx wrote:That long ago and nobody's challenged it?

Pascal wrote:I was more impressed by his observations of Majic.

justagrannynow 1 wrote:I commented on it on the MM forum, in particular putting in a good word for all the creative psychopaths who lead productive lives, enriching the lives of ordinary folk like myself with their talents in the artistic world.

Pascal wrote:I was more impressed by his observations of Majic.

Kololi wrote:Hi
I would go with no motive to harm Madeleine but lots of motive to perhaps tell porky pies once they discovered that she was missing.

Take care

Pascal wrote:@ Bunny - sorry to cut in. But how do you know that they didn't have something to cover up? Something that would give cause for them to lose their jobs, family and way of life?

Personally I don't know anyone who has been in that position and couldn't even begin to imagine how I would deal with the situation.

Many have speculated about the McCanns general demeanour after their child went missing. I don't see how this is any different.

bunny wrote:See, I have never understood that at all. Why on earth would anyone having found their Daughter dead think about their careers first?

And really is it possible that every single (you stated "they all") friend in that group would agree to cover it up?

I don't know one person who wouldnt run screaming and shouting to the nearest police station that I was trying to cover up the death of my child!

9 people and you believe they all agreed to cover it up?

Autumn, how many friends do you have that would cover up for you? would you cover up for one of your friends in that situation?