"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[Cappuccino]

Tearing a page out of a child's colouring book means you know she's dead? Really? I don't know what criminal profiler told you that, (actually I've a fair idea), but its nonsense.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Tearing a page out of a child's colouring book means you know she's dead? Really? I don't know what criminal profiler told you that, (actually I've a fair idea), but its nonsense.

In YOUR opinion?

You know what they say about opinions don't you?

 

[Cappuccino]

Well, if your post was meant to be more than merely an opinion and you were asserting as fact that any parent of a missing child who tears a page out of his child's colouring book to use as scrap paper knows the child is dead, you should produce a link to back up your claim.

Preferably from a reputable criminal profiler, and by reputable I mean one that has been called in to assist LE in missing/murdered child cases, not one that merely blogs about them on the interwebz.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Well, if your post was meant to be more than merely an opinion and you were asserting as fact that any parent of a missing child who tears a page out of his child's colouring book to use as scrap paper knows the child is dead, you should produce a link to back up your claim.

Preferably from a reputable criminal profiler, and by reputable I mean one that has been called in to assist LE in missing/murdered child cases, not one that merely blogs about them on the interwebz.

I read very widely, am knowlegable (see my posts) and have had a very long spanning, successful career identifying and dealing with deceptive people.

I have worked with and for LE. I have worked for and with government and the private sector in my area of specialty, investigations and tracing.

I am not saying this to boast but merely to emphasise that I consider myself a professional investigator (ret), and I am not the type to be swayed by pop psychology or baseless claims of any kind. I think I know the "profiler" you are referring to and I can assure you I have no interest in "blogs on the interwebz" other than sources of possible information to be woven into the bigger picture. I have my own working brain, education, instinct and knowledge, and the ability to critically consider all sources of information.

The facts are the facts, singly they can be picked apart and explained, as we know, from posting and reading here on the "interwebz". Together, when viewing facts as the "big picture", they cannot so easily be explained to someone with my skill set.

I have need no link to back up my "claim" as it isn't a claim, it is opinion.

I welcome input from opposing views, as it is all part of knowledge.

:cow:

 

[Cappuccino]

Well, in my opposing view, tearing a page out of a child's colouring book is meaningless. If it was a child's prized possession, then yes I can see your reasoning. If it was something that should have sentimental value to the parents, eg baby photographs, then yes it would be dodgy to the max if the parents started using the back of the photo as scrap paper, that I can see.

A page out of a colouring book - especially if the child had already coloured that page - is not something she would miss if she came back. Therefore, I see no reason to draw any conclusions from the father using the back of it to scribble notes on. MOO.

 

[fabgod]

My point in bringing this up was, if this was written on the evening events occured, wasn't the consensus that Jane Tanner hadn't said anything about the man with the child to anyone?

 

[fabgod]

In addition, the Paynes plus Diane Webster and also Russell OBrien were not yet at the tapas restaurant until 9pm
Why no times for checks after 9.30? Matthew Oldfield apparently did Kate McCanns checks as well as his own.
This timeline was supposed to be made when it was fresh in their minds?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Well, in my opposing view, tearing a page out of a child's colouring book is meaningless. If it was a child's prized possession, then yes I can see your reasoning. If it was something that should have sentimental value to the parents, eg baby photographs, then yes it would be dodgy to the max if the parents started using the back of the photo as scrap paper, that I can see.

A page out of a colouring book - especially if the child had already coloured that page - is not something she would miss if she came back. Therefore, I see no reason to draw any conclusions from the father using the back of it to scribble notes on. MOO.

It was the cover, not a page.

We do not know what sentimental value Madeleine attached to that particular colouring book, nor did her parents. I would almost guarantee it would be the only one she had with her as it was probably bought especially for the trip.

They also wrote more than one timeline, so they used both covers...resulting in a ruined colouring book, in a childs eyes.

These people were doctors. They had other writing material. Their friends had other writing material. They spent time re-writing the timeline. Why use the colouring book of a child who may walk in the door at any moment, highly annoyed that her toys had been ruined? It would be akin to ripping the head of cuddle cat.

It is not so much the act itself, as the psychology behind the act, I consider, and this psychology is very, very unnatural...indeed, most parents would have physically spent this particular time (waiting for LE) being outside physically looking, not sitting about rehearsing timelines and defacing their child's toys.

Their actions betray the belief that their daughter is not coming back.

:moo:

 

[fabgod]

I have said this before on here somewhere, but I can't believe in my mind that 9 adults would be able to cover up a murder of a 3 year old for any reason, but, the more I read into this case (and I thought I knew quite a lot before) the stranger the behaviour seems to become.
I know if we had to take a snapshot of any of our lives, holes could be picked in our statements, errors would be made in timings etc, but some of the things like the wider agenda, the big event for an anniversary, the continued use of sending the twins to the creche, the hopeless timelines, the list is endless,
all this just seems so wrong, Going jogging, I know people deal with things in different ways but there are so many red flags at every turn

 

[SapphireSteel]

Nine adults were not required.

There were only the McCanns, Jane Tanner, and possibly one or two others.

Only one other at least, three at most.

 

[fabgod]

Nine adults were not required.

There were only the McCanns, Jane Tanner, and possibly one or two others.

Only one other at least, three at best.

Would I be correct in thinking that one of the others would have been very much a fringe player, maybe not wanting to be involved, leaving 4 main players?

 

[Tink]

It was the cover, not a page.

We do not know what sentimental value Madeleine attached to that particular colouring book, nor did her parents. I would almost guarantee it would be the only one she had with her as it was probably bought especially for the trip.

They also wrote more than one timeline, so they used both covers...resulting in a ruined colouring book, in a childs eyes.

These people were doctors. They had other writing material. Their friends had other writing material. They spent time re-writing the timeline. Why use the colouring book of a child who may walk in the door at any moment, highly annoyed that her toys had been ruined? It would be akin to ripping the head of cuddle cat.

It is not so much the act itself, as the psychology behind the act, I consider, and this psychology is very, very unnatural...indeed, most parents would have physically spent this particular time (waiting for LE) being outside physically looking, not sitting about rehearsing timelines and defacing their child's toys.

Their actions betray the belief that their daughter is not coming back.

:moo:

I'm not so sure it suggests that they don't think she is coming back. But it does suggest what I feel I have seen in other behaviours by these parents: just not caring very much about what their daughter feels. They were quite unconcerned that she had woken up and cried and been upset at being alone - in fact, they said they would never have thought twice about it if she hadn't disappeared. Gerry makes some comment on one of the videos about children crying all the time. They left all three of the children in the creche for most of the holiday. So I can see them taking her colouring book, ripping out some pages, and simply not caring how she might feel about it if she did come back and get upset.

There was another interview where Kate commented that Madeleine is probably giving whoever kidnapped her "her tuppence worth." This to me speaks of the same psychology. If someone WAS stalking this child and kidnapped her, it is almost guaranteed to be for sexual purposes. Instead of having empathy and concern for the terror and suffering the child is very likely to be experience, she talks about how Madeleine would be presenting a challenge for the kidnapper. NO empathy for Madeleine, instead empathy for the adult presumably having to deal with this challenging child.

Tink

 

[fabgod]

Tink,
Your post just made me realise how I see the parents behaviour.
If I use a scenario of wealthy parents who send their child away to boarding school and finishing school often in a different country, they always seem to be cold, detached from the children, as though there has never been that emotional bond built by their association on a loving and nurturing level.
Almost as ifthe child is an object and not a person, thats my feeling.

 

[orora]

Or treated like a long term lab experiment that has outgrown its testube. Was the lack of parential attachment deliberate as if part of a long term plan? The entire holiday for the purpose of fulfilling that aim? The final stage set for the "apparent" abduction? Replete with all the witnesses required? Some maybe dupes, some maybe not?

 

[Cappuccino]

Or treated like a long term lab experiment that has outgrown its testube. Was the lack of parential attachment deliberate as if part of a long term plan? The entire holiday for the purpose of fulfilling that aim? The final stage set for the "apparent" abduction? Replete with all the witnesses required? Some maybe dupes, some maybe not?

Are you serious?

 

[orora]

Serious, of course. I find it helps to place others posts into a more palatable and acceptable perspective when viewed after wards.
like -

Almost as if the child is an object and not a person, thats my feeling.

Not so far fetched..

 

[sherlockh]

Or treated like a long term lab experiment that has outgrown its testube. Was the lack of parential attachment deliberate as if part of a long term plan? The entire holiday for the purpose of fulfilling that aim? The final stage set for the "apparent" abduction? Replete with all the witnesses required? Some maybe dupes, some maybe not?

I don't think it was premeditated as the coverup was rather sloppy. 'Funny' how every thread sooner or later ends up discussing the dogs. That will always be the weakness of the IDI theory. Just looking at the number of posts, and the number of excuses made up to explain away 10 alerts made by fabulous Eddie (all pointing in the direction of the McCanns and no alerts elsewhere) already makes it clear that these are very troubling for any intruder theory. Anybody can decide for themselves what are the chances of these 10 alerts all being wrong when the dog never was wrong before (forget the silly stories about dogs alerting to coconuts). Then connect the alerts and the story appears of what happened and what the McCanns did with their child. In that context all their lies, inconsistencies, unwillingness to cooperate, strange behavior, etc starts to make a bit more sense.

The real question for me is still, what exactly did they coverup? The coverup still shows their child neglect even though they tried to minimize it by making up so many checks that there hardly is any time for an abduction to have occurred. Why did they not hide the body in a place where Madeleine could be found so they could bury her, blame it on the abductor and case closed? This is where IMO the speculations of accidental overdose or even physical abuse come from. There must be a reason why they did not want her to be found. They might not just be covering up their child neglect, but might also be the murderers of their own child. This is to me is the real mystery. All just my opinion

 

[orora]

Hey good stuff SH, mine post "almost" looks acceptable.

For another instance-

I don't think it was premeditated as the coverup was rather sloppy.

Unless the parents were in on it in partnership with the actual abducter?The parents purposely draw the heat, (sloppy coverup) while the unknown partner does his job. There will be no proof against the parents, plenty of witnesses. Brilliant cover, no one would ever suspect premeditation..

 

[Cappuccino]

Or treated like a long term lab experiment that has outgrown its testube. Was the lack of parential attachment deliberate as if part of a long term plan? The entire holiday for the purpose of fulfilling that aim? The final stage set for the "apparent" abduction? Replete with all the witnesses required? Some maybe dupes, some maybe not?

So this is a serious suggestion then? Really?

Ok. Madeleine was a "long term lab experiment that has outgrown its test tube." Presumably the fact that your suggestion is off the wall and completely without any supporting evidence is fine with you.


Presumably the fact that the parents have been eliminated as suspects by two separate police departments investigating this case is meaningless too.

Evidence? And this is supposed to be a victim friendly forum. :banghead:

 

[sherlockh]

Hey good stuff SH, mine post "almost" looks acceptable.

For another instance-

Unless the parents were in on it in partnership with the actual abducter? The parents purposely draw the heat, (sloppy coverup) while the unknown partner does his job. There will be no proof against the parents, plenty of witnesses. Brilliant cover, no one would ever suspect premeditation..

I would say 'woof!' to that