Re: Means and Motive etc

by bunny 19.02.10 23:43

twinkle wrote:
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?

As I said it was something I leaned towards initially.
I didn't think they all were involved, just probably two. Only one of those being her parent.
Sometimes people do place their jobs, lifestyle before their families.............obviously this would be an example in the extreme.

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.

by twinkle 19.02.10 23:44

Highly improbable I can get.
Stepping into the realms of the ridiculous is your take on it.

by bunny 19.02.10 23:45

Cherry wrote:There may be no means or motive which can be evidenced but it has to be relevant that I believe Police statistics show that when children go missing in the majority of cases the parents are involved, therefore there can be understandable suspicions which it appears the UK Police had themselves.

Agree that the parents had to looked at....even the Mccanns agreed with that. A statistic is just that though....a statistic, not fact and never became fact as the Police investigated and found no evidence.

by bunny 19.02.10 23:46

twinkle wrote:Highly improbable I can get.
Stepping into the realms of the ridiculous is your take on it.

So you dont think the nine of them being involved is ridiculous?

by Guest 19.02.10 23:48

Whether that is found no evidence or no evidence that would stick I am not sure. It has been said a Police investigation is still going on in UK. From what I understand they were not officially cleared in Portugal either. Time will tell.

by twinkle 19.02.10 23:48

bunny wrote:
twinkle wrote:
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?

As I said it was something I leaned towards initially.
I didn't think they all were involved, just probably two. Only one of those being her parent.
Sometimes people do place their jobs, lifestyle before their families.............obviously this would be an example in the extreme.

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.

I agree highly unlikely.........and not something I think now, although as a fencie I do take on all theories with interest (well maybe not all) rather than dismissing them.

by twinkle 19.02.10 23:50

bunny wrote:
twinkle wrote:Highly improbable I can get.
Stepping into the realms of the ridiculous is your take on it.
So you dont think the nine of them being involved is ridiculous?

Yes I do, I am relating this to my previous post about only two being involved.

by Pascal 19.02.10 23:50

bunny wrote:Its not about possibility....many things are possible. The point is, its possible (as is the possibility of Amarals involvement in the abduction) but its highly improbable.

I think this is just a step into the realms of the ridiculous.

well you're welcome to your opinion.

by bunny 19.02.10 23:51

I've heard that theory before, many times. So it wasnt dismissed straight away without thought Twinkle.I have given my reasons for not giving it much credence, much in the same way as you have to have changed your mind.

So we have approached it in the same manner I would say.

by Pascal 19.02.10 23:52

Although I think the abduction theory is ridiculous. But not impossible.

by bunny 19.02.10 23:53

twinkle wrote:
bunny wrote:
twinkle wrote:Highly improbable I can get.
Stepping into the realms of the ridiculous is your take on it.
So you dont think the nine of them being involved is ridiculous?

Yes I do, I am relating this to my previous post about only two being involved.

Thanks, I wanted to clarifiy that I had got the right end of the stick.

by bunny 19.02.10 23:54

Pascal wrote:Although I think the abduction theory is ridiculous. But not impossible.

If you have the energy as well as the inclination I'd love to hear why you think that. I know its late so maybe another day?

by Pascal 20.02.10 0:07

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?

by Kololi 20.02.10 8:28

Hi
I have not seen anything that presents well enough to convince me that Madeleine's parents had a motive to deliberately harm her. Why would they want to harm her?

When their "me time" went wrong I can imagine that they had incredible motives to fib. They are intelligent people and they had had a wake up call already when Madeleine had told them her and her brother had been crying the night before but they had ignored it because "it was their holiday too".

The public were never told about that until it was sneaked out, supposedly in an effort to take the good press away from them when they were off to Europe presenting their child alert scheme. They appeared to me to be furious that this piece of information might put them in a bad light in the public eye and in the thoughts of those closer to them and tried to play it down. They were asking for help and money and trust that they had not done wrong from the public so surely it was right that they were honest with the public too?

If, and its an opinionated if, they were not checking those children as often as they said they stood to lose an awful lot. Reputations, lifestyles and careers could be shot alongside suffering the wrath of their families, friends, neighbours, Joe public and of course the authorities if it was found that they had been neglectful. Hence, a very strong motive to cover their own backsides when Madeleine was found to be missing by fibbing and scribbling some make believe time line on a book cover that reads more like a game of musical chairs at a child's party.

Take care

by justagrannynow 1 20.02.10 8:37

Well said Kololi, you have expressed exactly what I feel. clapping

People do indeed go to extraordinary lengths to protect their reputations. I recall reading about the businessman who killed his wife and teenage daughter before setting the house alight and killing himself rather than face the shame of his impending bankruptcy. Sorry I cannot remember the family name bt it was within the last ear. e also shot the family dogs and orses before bocking the drive with a horsebox

by bunny 20.02.10 8:56

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.

by Cath 20.02.10 9:29

Autumn wrote:
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

Its almost inconceivable to think that anyone would wish to deliberatly harm Madeleine but, sadly, that possiblilty cannot be ruled out. My belief is that she was fatally injured in the apartment and maybe, because they all feared being charged with neglect, they agreed to cover-up what had happened. As doctors, presumably they stood to lose their jobs and reputations had they been prosecuted for neglect - as they say, a little lie becomes a big lie. I sometimes wonder if they could turn the clock back if things would have turned out differently.

And how would that fit in with all of them admitting they had dinner and left their children alone in the apartment(s)?
How would they know that wouldn't make them vulnerable as well for neglect charges according to Portuguese law?

by justagrannynow 1 20.02.10 10:05

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.

by Cath 20.02.10 11:19

It's Inyx, my name.
I-n-y-x ..... a Latin name for a girl. Not a lynx

Means and Motive etc - Page 2 LandofEnchantment

by justagrannynow 1 20.02.10 11:49

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

So sorry :oops:

by Autumn 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:

by Cath 20.02.10 13:02

S'okay :flower:

by Pascal 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.

by justagrannynow 1 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.

by bunny 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.

by Pascal 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.

by Cath 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.

by aliberte2 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!

by Snowy 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.

by Snowy 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?

Latest topics