Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

by Carver 03.11.13 0:56

tracey1270 wrote:
Sietah wrote:Carver, what is your opinion why he choose to take Madeleine instead of one of the twins?
Yeh why if he was looking for revenge did he not grab one of the twins? why would it matter which child he took, going to destroy the parents anyway logically it would have been easier for Tractorman to take one of the twins, so why didn't he?

Hold on, I haven't said once I believe this latest "disgruntled employee" theory.

by Sietah 03.11.13 0:56

Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:Carver, what is your opinion why he choose to take Madeleine instead of one of the twins?
Because he was a paedophile attracted to little blonde girls and not babies perhaps?
ahh, a paedophile that don't like a one year younger kid

and ofcourse blonde

by Carver 03.11.13 0:57

Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:Carver, what is your opinion why he choose to take Madeleine instead of one of the twins?
Because he was a paedophile attracted to little blonde girls and not babies perhaps?
ahh, a paedophile that don't like a one year younger kid

Even paedophiles have types, as sick as it is. Perhaps Madeleine caught his eye rather than the babies who he wouldn't have seen walking around the complex.

Another possibility being if it was the burglars, Madeleine would be the one waking up and confronting them rather than the babies.

by Sietah 03.11.13 1:02

Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:Carver, what is your opinion why he choose to take Madeleine instead of one of the twins?
Because he was a paedophile attracted to little blonde girls and not babies perhaps?
ahh, a paedophile that don't like a one year younger kid
Even paedophiles have types, as sick as it is. Perhaps Madeleine caught his eye rather than the babies who he wouldn't have seen walking around the complex.

Another possibility being if it was the burglars, Madeleine would be the one waking up and confronting them rather than the babies.

I think burglars want easy money, not toddlers. I Always think, what if KM had a necklage with 7 diamonds on the table... would she have left the door unlocked?

by Carver 03.11.13 1:04

Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:Carver, what is your opinion why he choose to take Madeleine instead of one of the twins?
Because he was a paedophile attracted to little blonde girls and not babies perhaps?
ahh, a paedophile that don't like a one year younger kid
Even paedophiles have types, as sick as it is. Perhaps Madeleine caught his eye rather than the babies who he wouldn't have seen walking around the complex.

Another possibility being if it was the burglars, Madeleine would be the one waking up and confronting them rather than the babies.
I think burglars want easy money, not toddlers. I Always think, what if KM had a necklage with 7 diamonds on the table... would she have left the door unlocked?

Not every burglary goes to plan. What about that story where the hotel workers broke into the room and ended up murdering the woman because she saw them. A petty theft turned into murder in blind panic. This is just one possibility. I lean more towards Madeleine catching the eye of paedophile or group of paedophiles who planned the abduction.

ps. To answer your question, it's more than likely Kate and Gerry did indeed have valuables in the apartment.

by Sietah 03.11.13 1:07

Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:Carver, what is your opinion why he choose to take Madeleine instead of one of the twins?
Because he was a paedophile attracted to little blonde girls and not babies perhaps?
ahh, a paedophile that don't like a one year younger kid
Even paedophiles have types, as sick as it is. Perhaps Madeleine caught his eye rather than the babies who he wouldn't have seen walking around the complex.

Another possibility being if it was the burglars, Madeleine would be the one waking up and confronting them rather than the babies.
I think burglars want easy money, not toddlers. I Always think, what if KM had a necklage with 7 diamonds on the table... would she have left the door unlocked?
Not every burglary goes to plan. What about that story where the hotel workers broke into the room and ended up murdering the woman because she saw them. A petty theft turned into murder in blind panic.

an adult can identify a thief, but a toddler??? And than instead of murder her like your example, take her away and walk through the Streets?

by Harriet94 03.11.13 1:08

So where is Madeleine now? Assuming she has been taken by a paedophile.Being looked after by a soothing couple or in a hellish lair?

by Carver 03.11.13 1:10

Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:Carver, what is your opinion why he choose to take Madeleine instead of one of the twins?
Because he was a paedophile attracted to little blonde girls and not babies perhaps?
ahh, a paedophile that don't like a one year younger kid
Even paedophiles have types, as sick as it is. Perhaps Madeleine caught his eye rather than the babies who he wouldn't have seen walking around the complex.

Another possibility being if it was the burglars, Madeleine would be the one waking up and confronting them rather than the babies.
I think burglars want easy money, not toddlers. I Always think, what if KM had a necklage with 7 diamonds on the table... would she have left the door unlocked?
Not every burglary goes to plan. What about that story where the hotel workers broke into the room and ended up murdering the woman because she saw them. A petty theft turned into murder in blind panic.
an adult can identify a thief, but a toddler??? And than instead of murder her like your example, take her away and walk through the Streets?

When did I say they walked her through the streets? The failed searches of the locals and Portuguese police strongly suggest to me that Madeleine was taken and driven from the area immediately. Therefore ruling out IMO the possibility of Gerry hiding her so well on the beach in the dark in an area he doesn't know well, rushing back to the Tapas like nothing happened in time for Kate sounding the alarm, and then the couple going back at a later date while under constant media watch, and moving the body to another location in a hire car.

by Carver 03.11.13 1:11

Harriet94 wrote:So where is Madeleine now? Assuming she has been taken by a paedophile.Being looked after by a soothing couple or in a hellish lair?

Probably dead.

You act as though paedophiles kidnapping/raping and then murdering children doesn't happen.

It's extremely common I'm afraid to say.

by notlongnow 03.11.13 1:14

A heroin addict would want cash or other things he could sell and out.
The last thing an addict would want to take is a screaming child.

by Carver 03.11.13 1:17

notlongnow wrote:A heroin addict would want cash or other things he could sell and out.
The last thing an addict would want to take is a screaming child.

Again I do not believe the theory that it was done by a disgruntled heroin addicted ex employee as an act of revenge. Can you post your source that Madeleine was screaming that night?

by Joss 03.11.13 1:19

Carver wrote:
Harriet94 wrote:So where is Madeleine now? Assuming she has been taken by a paedophile.Being looked after by a soothing couple or in a hellish lair?
Probably dead.

You act as though paedophiles kidnapping/raping and then murdering children doesn't happen.

It's extremely common I'm afraid to say.

From reading on other cases it is usually a family member in a lot of these types of cases, or someone who knows the child, as opposed to a complete stranger.

by notlongnow 03.11.13 1:20

Carver wrote:
notlongnow wrote:A heroin addict would want cash or other things he could sell and out.
The last thing an addict would want to take is a screaming child.
Again I do not believe the theory that it was done by a disgruntled heroin addicted ex employee as an act of revenge. Can you post your source that Madeleine was screaming that night?

No i don't have a source.
Most kids picked up by a stranger and taken would probably scream IMO

by Carver 03.11.13 1:21

it happens.

by Carver 03.11.13 1:24

This article mentions other children in Portugal who have been abducted by complete strangers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515348/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-linked-string-child-abductions.html

by Carver 03.11.13 1:26

notlongnow wrote:
Carver wrote:
notlongnow wrote:A heroin addict would want cash or other things he could sell and out.
The last thing an addict would want to take is a screaming child.
Again I do not believe the theory that it was done by a disgruntled heroin addicted ex employee as an act of revenge. Can you post your source that Madeleine was screaming that night?
No i don't have a source.
Most kids picked up by a stranger and taken would probably scream IMO

Are you a parent? have you never lifted a sleeping child, from the sofa to their bed etc, without them waking?

She probably woke and screamed when realising what was happening. The physical abduction from apartment to a nearby car could have been done in literally 2 minutes.

by Joss 03.11.13 1:26

I also think when a child turns up missing the Police will usually try and rule out parents first, and it is not unusual for parents to be the first suspects. In lieu of that i don't understand why the McC's would be upset about that. They as parents would have to co operate in any way they can with the police so as to prove themselves. This is why i can't understand why McCann's refusal to co operate with not answering vital questions. As the parents of a missing child wouldn't you do everything possible you could to help locate your child?

by tracey1270 03.11.13 1:28

Carver wrote:This article mentions other children in Portugal who have been abducted by complete strangers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515348/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-linked-string-child-abductions.html

Sadly there has been lots of children abducted, and sadly claims that children have when they haven't

by Carver 03.11.13 1:28

Joss wrote:I also think when a child turns up missing the Police will usually try and rule out parents first, and it is not unusual for parents to be the first suspects. In lieu of that i don't understand why the McC's would be upset about that. They as parents would have to co operate in any way they can with the police so as to prove themselves. This is why i can't understand why McCann's refusal to co operate with not answering vital questions. As the parents of a missing child wouldn't you do everything possible you could to help locate your child?

Were those accusative questions thrown at the McCanns really helpful in the search for Madeleine?

Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?

by notlongnow 03.11.13 1:29

Carver wrote:
notlongnow wrote:
Carver wrote:
notlongnow wrote:A heroin addict would want cash or other things he could sell and out.
The last thing an addict would want to take is a screaming child.
Again I do not believe the theory that it was done by a disgruntled heroin addicted ex employee as an act of revenge. Can you post your source that Madeleine was screaming that night?
No i don't have a source.
Most kids picked up by a stranger and taken would probably scream IMO
Are you a parent? have you never lifted a sleeping child, from the sofa to their bed etc, without them waking?

Yes i am and yes i have.
It is a very high risk strategy though when you know the parents are only 50 yards away and you have the possibility of waking all 3.

by Carver 03.11.13 1:29

Still interested in any evidence that the parents are involved. Any at all.

by Okeydokey 03.11.13 1:30

Carver wrote:This article mentions other children in Portugal who have been abducted by complete strangers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515348/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-linked-string-child-abductions.html

Yep, I remember that nonsense. When one looked into the case it was things like gypsies knicking clothes off lines and mothers being concerned for their children when they came upon the act of theft.

Let's hear you give some specific details if you're not trolling here.

by Joss 03.11.13 1:32

Carver wrote:
Joss wrote:I also think when a child turns up missing the Police will usually try and rule out parents first, and it is not unusual for parents to be the first suspects. In lieu of that i don't understand why the McC's would be upset about that. They as parents would have to co operate in any way they can with the police so as to prove themselves. This is why i can't understand why McCann's refusal to co operate with not answering vital questions. As the parents of a missing child wouldn't you do everything possible you could to help locate your child?
Were those accusative questions thrown at the McCanns really helpful in the search for Madeleine?

Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?

I have not read that their Lawyer said anything like that. I can tell you though if i was innocent i would shout it from the rooftops, if it came to something like that. I would want my child found, and the first 24 hrs. are critical when a child is missing, so yeah, screw accusations i would co operate.

by Sietah 03.11.13 1:32

Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?

that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions

by Carver 03.11.13 1:34

Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:This article mentions other children in Portugal who have been abducted by complete strangers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515348/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-linked-string-child-abductions.html
Yep, I remember that nonsense. When one looked into the case it was things like gypsies knicking clothes off lines and mothers being concerned for their children when they came upon the act of theft.

Let's hear you give some specific details if you're not trolling here.

So you're saying children don't get abducted by strangers? That doesn't happen?

by Carver 03.11.13 1:34

Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions

Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.

by tracey1270 03.11.13 1:35

Nobody knows what really happened here but what we do know for a fact is that the parents have refused to answer questions, a polygraph, a reconstruction, their stories don't match, they mention things that have gone on record and then deny they ever said it..they were the ones that said the kids could have been sedated and then claimed the idea was ludicrous, why would they do that, why all the inconsistencies?

by Okeydokey 03.11.13 1:36

Carver wrote:Still interested in any evidence that the parents are involved. Any at all.

What do you mean "involved"? There was the Smiths sighting: Gerry McCann was identified as the person carrying a young girl away from the area as Gerry McCann? Is that not evidence of something that doesn't fit in with the Team McCann narrative. In many parts of the world, cadaver dog evidence is accepted. The dogs alerted to the McCanns' hire car .

How much evidence do you want?

by notlongnow 03.11.13 1:36

I'd expect most parents to ignore the advice and answer the questions.

by Okeydokey 03.11.13 1:37

Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.

The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.

Latest topics