New interview on the case with Jim Gamble (Video added)

Tony Bennett wrote:Interesting observations, aquila.
Of course, Gamble hasn't just commented on the Madeleine McCann case, he has often appeared alongside the McCanns, standing shoulder to shoulder with them, as it were.
And once, he used taxpayer's money to make a special CEOP video backing another McCann Team appeal, the 'Minute for Madeleine' video, which today has had 512,220 views on YouTube.
The message of the video is certainly of interest. For example: "We know that there's someone out there who knows who's involved in her disappearance.They may be keeping this secret out of fear, misplaced loyalty or even love. Keeping this information secret only increases the anguish of Madeleine's family and friends and increases the risk to other children".

Someone knows - must be a reference to someone Other than an alleged abductor
Keeping a secret out of fear - of whom or what ?
out of misplaced loyalty - to whom ?
or even love - of whom ?

Those latter three CAN ONLY refer to family and friends.
So what message was he trying to convey, and to whom ?

PeterMac wrote:
Someone knows - must be a reference to someone Other than an alleged abductor
Keeping a secret out of fear - of whom or what ?
out of misplaced loyalty - to whom ?
or even love - of whom ?

Those latter three CAN ONLY refer to family and friends.
So what message was he trying to convey, and to whom ?

***
Exactly, Peter. I have always thought that Gamble was directly addressing someone. And this feeling was enforced by the way the t.v. presentations were made. For instance Gamble saying "someone knows" and the camera would turn to close-up of Gerry, in one interview Gerry was hyperventilating, Kate all the time looked at him like she was ready to "give him away" ... Personal interpretations, no proof.

PeterMac wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:Interesting observations, aquila.
Of course, Gamble hasn't just commented on the Madeleine McCann case, he has often appeared alongside the McCanns, standing shoulder to shoulder with them, as it were.
And once, he used taxpayer's money to make a special CEOP video backing another McCann Team appeal, the 'Minute for Madeleine' video, which today has had 512,220 views on YouTube.
The message of the video is certainly of interest. For example:

Someone knows - must be a reference to someone Other than an alleged abductor
Keeping a secret out of fear - of whom or what ?
out of misplaced loyalty - to whom ?
or even love - of whom ?

Those latter three CAN ONLY refer to family and friends.
So what message was he trying to convey, and to whom ?

"We know that there's someone out there who knows who's involved in her disappearance.They may be keeping this secret out of fear, misplaced loyalty or even love. Keeping this information secret only increases the anguish of Madeleine's family and friends and increases the risk to other children."

Expert Interview with Dr Mike Bourke

Dr Mike Bourke is the Chief Psychologist in US Marshals Service Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU). He formally worked as a Psychologist and treatment provider in the Butner federal institution sex offender programme.

1. What would you say are the most common misconceptions about sex offenders?

I think one of the greatest misconceptions about contact sex offenders is that they lurk in public places; stalking children and waiting to seize an opportunity to grab one and run away with him or her. Certainly such events occur, and when they do they receive extensive media coverage. This attention creates what’s called an availability heuristic, the phenomenon that the more sensationalistic or dramatic the news coverage, the more people will recall the event and subsequently over-estimate its occurrence. As a result, parents come to believe that strangers pose the greatest risk to their children when in fact the reverse is true — the overwhelming majority of children are abused by individuals they know and trust. Of course, this does not mean parents should not be vigilant of strangers who interact with their children; the point is they similarly should not become complacent or dismissive if any “red flags” appear involving someone they know well.


I believe the most dangerous assumption about Internet offenders is that they necessarily restrict their behavior to online criminality (e.g., downloading indecent images). One of the more problematic things I see – and it’s particularly frustrating when it comes from otherwise competent professionals who simply do not know this population well — is the tendency to describe or “type” offenders on the basis of the behavior for which they were apprehended. So offenders who download indecent images get placed in a category called “collectors,” and another group of offenders who were discovered molesting a child are put into a group named “contact offenders.” Oddly, few individuals seem to realize that the motivational pathway – a sexual interest in children – is the same, and therefore there is little reason why the behaviors would not (and in fact, do) co-occur.

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