Why the McCanns and the Tapas 7 were Relaxed at Dinner on 3rd May

How would people think if the whole issue of neglect didn't exist?? The McCanns have worked very hard for the world to believe that they actually left the children alone. The silly 'checks' described by them one 'check' more stupid and meaningless than the other. Just to make the abduction possible. I think there was an adult with all the children every night. One left, another came to babysit. The checks are just to confuse people, it's the perfect alibi. If people keep their focus on how on earth they could leave the children even after Madeleine had asked the question 'Where were you when Sean and I cried' etc etc, well that's better than thinking of something else....As for being relaxed at dinner; they knew that most people can't stand childneglect, so that would be the most successfull smokescreen. They were confident in that, and they were sooo right. Hardly anyone ever questions the neglect, just read the comments below each and every You tube video...'Oh at least they should have been charged for neglect bla bla bla'. 

Maybe there was some panic involved with whatever happened to Madeleine, but during dinner on Thursday night that panic was past tense, IMO.
Their entire pattern of behaviour plus all the 'little extras' mentioned in the posts above speaks its own language.

I think there was a degree of panic, hence all the phone calls going on back to the UK all through the early hours of the 4th, and the parents making time to do this rather than look for a missing child. I don't think Kate and Gerry are the sharpest tools in the box, so needed the help of others.

The McCanns are smart and they are cunning. They also knew they wouldn't be acting alone.

And why that term "abduction" from the start?

The more familiar word is kidnap, and the McCanns surely couldn;t have known that Madeleine hadn't been taken for ransom. If they were so convinced someone had taken the little girl from her bed, why didn't they entertain the possibility that there might be a phone call demanding money for her safe return?

It might sound far fetched but no more so than a random pedo "watching them. And taking notes" before leaping in during a one-minute opportunity.

Mariita wrote:How would people think if the whole issue of neglect didn't exist?? The McCanns have worked very hard for the world to believe that they actually left the children alone. The silly 'checks' described by them one 'check' more stupid and meaningless than the other. Just to make the abduction possible. I think there was an adult with all the children every night. One left, another came to babysit. The checks are just to confuse people, it's the perfect alibi. If people keep their focus on how on earth they could leave the children even after Madeleine had asked the question 'Where were you when Sean and I cried' etc etc, well that's better than thinking of something else....As for being relaxed at dinner; they knew that most people can't stand childneglect, so that would be the most successfull smokescreen. They were confident in that, and they were sooo right. Hardly anyone ever questions the neglect, just read the comments below each and every You tube video...'Oh at least they should have been charged for neglect bla bla bla'. 

Maybe there was some panic involved with whatever happened to Madeleine, but during dinner on Thursday night that panic was past tense, IMO.
Their entire pattern of behaviour plus all the 'little extras' mentioned in the posts above speaks its own language.

It's an interesting premise, Mariita. 

Taking neglect off the table does not make a material difference to any theory which holds that the child/her body was disposed of well before the pantomime of musical chairs was enacted in the Tapas restaurant on the evening of 3 May 2007, and that the reason for the charade was twofold:

1.   to deflect attention from what individual members of the group were doing in the hours/days prior to Madeleine's disappearance

2.   to stage a fake disappearance while the group were together in a semi-public place thus providing alibis for each of them, albeit this appears to have backfired due to the failure of certain group members to stick to the preplanned, but not properly rehearsed, script.

If there were no neglect there would be no need for sedation which brings us to what I, and no doubt many others, suspected from the first occasion the McCanns appeared on the small screen, namely, the child's disappearance may have been planned before her holiday began.

On observing the remarkable cheerfulness displayed by her relatives in the UK I allowed myself to fondly imagine the child had been farmed out to a party or parties known to the family, but the findings of Eddie the cadaver dog persuaded me that a more likely scenario was the child being killed by one or other of her parents, either by deliberate act or by lashing out at her while in a fit of temper.

Removing neglect makes sense of GM's insistence their actions were 'within the bounds of reasonable parenting' because he would be as reluctant to admit to a negative act he didn't do as he is to those he has done.  

However, when looking at a scenario where there was no neglect, given there was a risk of criiminal charges being brought for this self-confessed act it seems to me a more sophisticated mind than either of those possessed by the McCanns has been at work. 

Having said this, and while maintaining that GM is not given to reckless behaviour per se, I am convinced he is not averse to risk taking and that he relishes, to the point of salivating at the prospect of, getting one over on others.

juliet wrote:The McCanns are smart and they are cunning. They also knew they wouldn't be acting alone.

And why that term "abduction" from the start?

The more familiar word is kidnap, and the McCanns surely couldn;t have known that Madeleine hadn't been taken for ransom. If they were so convinced someone had taken the little girl from her bed, why didn't they entertain the possibility that there might be a phone call demanding money for her safe return?

It might sound far fetched but no more so than a random pedo "watching them. And taking notes" before leaping in during a one-minute opportunity.

What about the "abductor" possibly having done a trial run the night before?  EH, EH, EH?????

plebgate wrote:

juliet wrote:The McCanns are smart and they are cunning. They also knew they wouldn't be acting alone.

And why that term "abduction" from the start?

The more familiar word is kidnap, and the McCanns surely couldn;t have known that Madeleine hadn't been taken for ransom. If they were so convinced someone had taken the little girl from her bed, why didn't they entertain the possibility that there might be a phone call demanding money for her safe return?

It might sound far fetched but no more so than a random pedo "watching them. And taking notes" before leaping in during a one-minute opportunity.

What about the "abductor" possibly having done a trial run the night before?  EH, EH, EH?????

Could be, if he/she was a Tapasnik

There is a view that any theory involving panic at its core cannot be relevant, as the Macs were not prone to panic.

Where does this idea come from?

They are Doctors so are used to dealing with death, but do they receive training in case they accidentally kill one of their own family, wherein a total different set of emotions would prevail.

The second idea is that they are narcissists and therefore normal rules of behaviour do not apply.

  Could I ask who has labelled them both with this clinical definition and where is the evidence to support such a claim?  The narcissist label is repeated often on this forum.

General Anxiety disorder (GAD) of which panic is one symptom, is often  misdiagnosed as Narcissist Personality Disorder (NPD)Ref: George Boeree Professsor Emeritus at Schippensburg University.

Two of the worlds most foremost experts in this field Otto Kernburg, ( b. 10.9.28 )and Heinz Kohut, (b. 13.5.13), place narcissism between neurosis and psychosis, ref. Dr. Sam Vaknin : Narcissists, Inverted Narcissists and Schizoids.

It is true that both Macs show certain narcissism traits but if you believe world experts rather than people who cannot provide any authoritative evidence, that is absolutely fine, but for those of an open mind some basic pointers.

Neurosis possible symptoms, distress, hysteria, anxiety, impulsive acts, irrationality.
Narcissism
Psychosis, extreme stress exhibited in times of cataclysmic events.  Symptoms, functional impairment, irrationality, panic, hysteria, evasive interaction.

Panic, fear, anxiety, irrationality, were factors in the case of Madeleine if you believe leading world authorities, but disruption for some is much easier and requires far less thought.  In any search, in any field, supported evidence should always outweigh personal opinion.

Snipped from RIPM's post

'The second idea is that they are narcissists and therefore normal rules of behaviour do not apply.'

Whilst I understand the gist of your post I don't think it would take any sort of expert to see there's something really amiss in Gerry's blogs or in the wording of Kate's bewk for that matter.

In fact experts have done work on this.

This is just my opinion and it's a layman's opinion that (for now) I am allowed.

Personally, I'm not in favor of deciding on someones psychologic state, let alone his/her psychiatric idiosyncrasies without being an expert myself, a/o the person involved having been thoroughly investigated by an expert

How can you diagnose a person without having specialist knowledge and experience on the one hand, and having seen that person on the other hand?

A trained specialist giving off a diagnose without seeing a person/patient in person, would probably be struck of the Register

Portia wrote:Personally, I'm not in favor of deciding on someones psychologic state, let alone his/her psychiatric idiosyncrasies without being an expert myself, a/o the person involved having been thoroughly investigated by an expert

How can you diagnose a person without having specialist knowledge and experience on the one hand, and having seen that person on the other hand?

A trained specialist giving off a diagnose without seeing a person/patient in person, would probably be struck of the Register

I agree Portia.

I don't call the McCanns narcissists. I question as a layperson their actions.

It is very interesting though that in the Lisbon Trial no expert on Kate's mental state was put forward - just a paid counsellor - and you have to question why a professional psychiatrist/psychologist would not be put forward in a libel trial brought about by the McCanns whose suit included psychological damage.

Just my opinion of course.

aquila wrote:

Portia wrote:Personally, I'm not in favor of deciding on someones psychologic state, let alone his/her psychiatric idiosyncrasies without being an expert myself, a/o the person involved having been thoroughly investigated by an expert

How can you diagnose a person without having specialist knowledge and experience on the one hand, and having seen that person on the other hand?

A trained specialist giving off a diagnose without seeing a person/patient in person, would probably be struck of the Register

I agree Portia.

I don't call the McCanns narcissists. I question as a layperson their actions.

It is very interesting though that in the Lisbon Trial no expert on Kate's mental state was put forward - just a paid counsellor - and you have to question why a professional psychiatrist/psychologist would not be put forward in a libel trial brought about by the McCanns whose suit included psychological damage.

Just my opinion of course.

With that, of course, one cannot but agree
But let's wait what happens when the lady sings, in her bid to squeeze be awarded a million pounds from an innocent and just man

There are few things I am certain about in this case. And that's primo Dr, Amaral is an honourable man and secundo the McCanns know more than they're telling. Period.

Just playing devil’s advocate here (but not sure why I feel the need to say that, new or not). Labels for one man above include, ‘innocent, honourable, just’. Is that what the record shows, e.g. the legal one? And regarding the process of innocent until proven guilty, this is being misapplied, possibly to both parties here. Of course if it is clearly qualified with, ‘In spite of the judicial process or judges knowing/deciding better’ or, ‘with regard to this case’, I’m just stating my opinion’, then fine. Just seems like you are giving an ammunition opportunity to people if they are selectively picking quotes. Probably better ways to put it (IMHO).

Perky wrote:Just playing devil’s advocate here (but not sure why I feel the need to say that, new or not). Labels for one man above include, ‘innocent, honourable, just’. Is that what the record shows, e.g. the legal one? And regarding the process of innocent until proven guilty, this is being misapplied, possibly to both parties here. Of course if it is clearly qualified with, ‘In spite of the judicial process or judges knowing/deciding better’ or, ‘with regard to this case’, I’m just stating my opinion’, then fine. Just seems like you are giving an ammunition opportunity to people if they are selectively picking quotes. Probably better ways to put it (IMHO).

You're playing devil's advocate here?  Is that a bell I hear?

Look at grinning gormless Gerry vainly endeavouring to convince viewers his puny intellect is a match for Paxman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvFkXkVn1I

It seems to me the quotes pertinent to his performance haven't left many better ways to put it and I have no intention of putting disclaimers on any of my comments about this dishonourable creature and his equally unprincipled spouse.

Chatalaine and Portia. I don’t need convincing of anything. I was mainly referring to the police officer adjectives. Constructive views or criticism does not equate to a mole or a viewpoint. What does it require to take a post at face value? I fully support your right to post what you like. Cheers

Shocked, sickened, saddened by the sight of Gerry McCann with Paxman.
 
Have posted a link on my twitter page to let others see this performance-for that's all it is. A smug, laughing, self assured performance where, to me, the subliminal message is -"I'm home and dry-screw you".
 
His line about doing a "diservice" to his daughter-as if the public/police somehow OWED him something. Thousands of missing children, millions spent on resources for this case (even at that point) and the sense of entitlement is all I can hear. Not a DAMN about anyone else. Me. me, me.
 
He's clearly a fantasist. Sitting there as if he had won the booker prize, stuttering and stammering and completely out of touch with reality. Not a trace of sadness, regret, human emotion. Just delivering a few ad libs on a carefully prepared script and loving every minute of it. Gerry meets Jeremy.
 
Is this just me? Does ANYONE else feel that Gerry McCann is truly ENJOYING himself here. Centre of attention. In the spotlight. Untouchable.
 
When I see this interview I return to my very first intuition about this case. (Deleted to be on the safe side)

I also feel he comes into himself more when alone. No Kate there to trip herself up and say the wrong thing. No need to squeeze her hand for prompts. No sharing of the spotlight.

Just Gerry there looking after number one.

ultimaThule wrote:

Perky wrote:Just playing devil’s advocate here (but not sure why I feel the need to say that, new or not). Labels for one man above include, ‘innocent, honourable, just’. Is that what the record shows, e.g. the legal one? And regarding the process of innocent until proven guilty, this is being misapplied, possibly to both parties here. Of course if it is clearly qualified with, ‘In spite of the judicial process or judges knowing/deciding better’ or, ‘with regard to this case’, I’m just stating my opinion’, then fine. Just seems like you are giving an ammunition opportunity to people if they are selectively picking quotes. Probably better ways to put it (IMHO).

You're playing devil's advocate here?  Is that a bell I hear?

Look at grinning gormless Gerry vainly endeavouring to convince viewers his puny intellect is a match for Paxman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvFkXkVn1I

It seems to me the quotes pertinent to his performance haven't left many better ways to put it and I have no intention of putting disclaimers on any of my comments about this dishonourable creature and his equally unprincipled spouse.

3 main points of interest here:

Gerry confused and perplexed by Paxman - fumbles over the word "many" and ACTUALLY say "menemy", a Freudian slip if ever there was one in the way he views the media.

When Paxman asks if he has "reaped a whirlwind" moments after saying Gerry USED the media, he curls his lip back, tilts back his head in that O-so-familiar forced smile/grimace he ALWAYS does when he's been got by a valid but inconvenient question.

Lastly, Paxman quite obviously, feels nothing but contempt for him.

Thank you for the edit, Candyfloss.

Even as I typed it I wasn't sure it was allowed.

I share your sentiments, secretsandlies, with the proviso that the only thing which saddened me about this interview was Paxman being constrained from letting rip as he was obviously longing to do. 

Nevertheless, Paxman's contempt for GM shines through and my guess is he took a shower as soon as was humanly possible after this encounter as the GMs' of this world tend to have that effect on the rightminded.

Is this just me? Does ANYONE else feel that Gerry McCann is truly ENJOYING himself here It's not just you; many others are of the same mind. 

GM gets his rocks off through being the centre of attention; he salivates at the prospect of being in the spotlight and relishes every moment.  It was this aspect of his performance on the occasion of the McCanns' first 'appeal' on the evening of Friday 4 May which upheld the opinion I'd formed on this case when hearing about it that morning.

GM's performance as a solo artiste suggests he has no need to be part of a double act and neither does his spouse - a fact which can be overlooked when viewing these two individuals as a duo. 

Yes, UltimaThule, Hindley and Brady did good as solo acts also. Not that I mean to infer anything, you understand. 
 
They are a double act that also enjoy the solo spotlight.
 
Agree also how hard it must have been for Paxman. A man with a considerable intellect having to sit on his hands while this plumped up clown did cartwheels to try to match him. Another indication of Gerry's lack of self awareness. In an IQ test I wonder if GM would get up to 80?
 
Reading through the comments below the video is heartening.

Its not IQ Gerry is short of, and nor is his wife... Remember, they are 'doctors' and doctors almost always have a lot of it. It is emotional intelligence and empathy, both of which doctors should have, and also IMHO quite a bit of common sense is lacking. They have in addition loads of narcissism, a permanent sense of 'entitlement', arrogance, and plenty of cunning. All in my humble opinion of course.

Hmm, I'm not so sure Comperedna5.

Not that the physical measuring of IQ is important. What bugs me about The McCanns is that they seem pretty dim. Cunning yes, but dim as a 40watt bulb nevertheless. Self protective and sly-they have it in spades but they are far from having any real intellectual or analytical capacity as far as I can see.

As for emotional intelligence. Well it seems to have been surgically removed from them, if the genes were ever present at all.


GM sees himself as sharp, urbane, intelligent and it shows in his speech patterns. He was trying to pitch himself against Paxman but it was like a snail conferring with a panther.

They are such terrifically average people with real and palpable aspirations. Perhaps being caught up in this "case" gives them a sense of being more than they are.

But what galls is that it's the great minds that have worked behind the scenes to assist them that has got them this far.

comperedna5 wrote:Its not IQ Gerry is short of, and nor is his wife... Remember, they are 'doctors' and doctors almost always have a lot of it. It is emotional intelligence and empathy, both of which doctors should have, and also IMHO quite a bit of common sense is lacking. They have in addition loads of narcissism, a permanent sense of 'entitlement', arrogance, and plenty of cunning. All in my humble opinion of course.

It's a fallacy that anything more than average intelligence is required to become a doctor of medicine.  The McCanns are a case in point and it should be borne in mind that both of them got into 3rd tier medical schools on the working class ticket.

As GM and his spouse do not appear to be over-endowed with grey matter, it's my belief they got lucky - albeit, as the saying has it, you make your own luck - in that they were able to propogate their lies through the auspices of friends, relatives, and paid helpers, who relentlessly bombarded the media with disinformation leaving the couple free to maintain the pretence of being bound by the rule of secrecy which Portugal imposes on criminal investigations.

Had Madeleine disappeared from her home while her parents dined 'in their back garden', I have no doubt they would have been brought to account long ago as the UK police would not have been hampered by a lack of common language, or by the craftily engineered xenophobic rantings of certain sections of the press which ensured this case stayed newsworthy long after it had passed its sell-by date. 

Both the Portuguese and UK police suspected parental culpability from the beginning, but it's not easy to prove murder/manslaughter without a body.  However, in many cases the eventual weight of circumstantial evidence can tip the scale of justice into the realm of beyond reasonable doubt and prosecution ensues, as I expect it to do in this case.  

Fwiw, no matter how meagre their abilities or unprepossessing their appearance, I know very few doctors of medicine who practise humility and the majority can be said to be entirely up themselves with all of the arrogance and sense of entitlement this implies.

secrets and lies wrote:Shocked, sickened, saddened by the sight of Gerry McCann with Paxman.
 
Have posted a link on my twitter page to let others see this performance-for that's all it is. A smug, laughing, self assured performance where, to me, the subliminal message is -"I'm home and dry-screw you".
 
His line about doing a "diservice" to his daughter-as if the public/police somehow OWED him something. Thousands of missing children, millions spent on resources for this case (even at that point) and the sense of entitlement is all I can hear. Not a DAMN about anyone else. Me. me, me.
 
He's clearly a fantasist. Sitting there as if he had won the booker prize, stuttering and stammering and completely out of touch with reality. Not a trace of sadness, regret, human emotion. Just delivering a few ad libs on a carefully prepared script and loving every minute of it. Gerry meets Jeremy.
 
Is this just me? Does ANYONE else feel that Gerry McCann is truly ENJOYING himself here. Centre of attention. In the spotlight. Untouchable.
 
When I see this interview I return to my very first intuition about this case. (Deleted to be on the safe side)

Untouchable?

Am I the only one disgusted by the couples so very public crotch grabbing at every opportunity?
And at his letting her do that to him, in the full glare of publicity?
And of both of them pointedly not looking at the other while they perform the act time and time again?

So sorry; where I hail from this type of behavior is not applauded, to put it mildly. One wonders why they are unable to desist