“What’s so sick about the posters etc. is that they were produced at a profit. If they used donated funds and sold them at cost it would be ok but they made money by accepting donations then they bought posters and then charged people to buy said posters!”

This was my criticism of the Campaign the first time I saw it. One implication is that every single effort to let people know about Madeleine is simultaneously an attempt to make a profit. You distribute leaflets with photos AND with indications of how to contribute. So if you get an opportunity to distribute (at no charge too!) 50,000 leaflets at a sports stadium, that is a fund-raising campaign — not just an effort to spread awareness about a missing child. How much did you spend on the leaflets? What amount contributions did you take in? — The so-called awareness campaign is nothing more than a means of making money.

I think maybe there need to be new laws to prevent this kind of abuse.

Hard, but not impossible at all. In fact, it was recently a PJ scenario was reported in which a “paedophile intruder”, in the midst of sexual abuse, kills the child accidentally (intending only to silence her).

This is a police theory. The Team McCann theory is not much different — a “paedophile intruder” abducts the child.

Questions : who is the “paedophile intruder”? Was the door really unlocked? Did the intruder kill the girl , or did an accidental death just happen to occur after entrance into the apartment? Hypothetical example: he enters apartment, just as she is having a severe allergic reaction to sedatives.

“I agree - a normal accident isn’t worth the hassle. But an accident followed by some kind of botched first aid might be.”

Especially a botched first-aid administered by a doctor who does not bother calling the hospital.

Exactly! But they did not do this. Why? They need to cover up something. What? The suggestions have been: sedation of children, recreational drugs, paedophile activity, etc. Also the suggestion that someone outside of the Tapas9 is being protected from implication in any of these.

As you say, the McCanns should have just admitted an accidental death. Most posters seem to think it was an impulsive decision to cover up — but was this decision made by Kate and Gerry, or was it made FOR them by someone else?

How to answer that question: take a look at all events unfolding since May 2007. Do Kate and Gerry seem to be in charge?

“433 They should indeed accept it was their actions which led to Maddie not being with them.

However, I would be much more appalled if it turned out they intended harm to her.”

I understand this sentiment, but I more empathize with Stevo’s. I’m not sure why. For some reason, in this case , the reaction of the McCanns (cover-up and blatant money-making scam) seems worse than anything.

But that may be because this reaction comes on top of an obvious readiness to harm children. Child neglect, alleged illegal sedation of children, alleged affiliation with someone accused of association with paedophilia… there is a sense that already we DO HAVE a premeditation of sorts. Maybe not a predmeditation to murder, but a predmeditation (or predisposition) to harm children. A complete disregard for their safety, well-being or happiness.

It’s just a short jump to the idea that Madeleine was killed out of exasperation , fear of exposure, etc. That might not be “premeditation” but neither would it be an accident. Then of course we are thrown right back into the cover-up when we realize that the only reason we do not know how the girl died is because the parents would not even admit she died — and (allegedly) disposed of the body, while claiming that she was abducted, and accepting millions in donations with these claims.

“This is interesting too..”

Do you guys (Stevo, Ration and Sal) think it likely that this caller –who said he knew where Madeleine was — is the same one who sent the letter to the paper? Was the call some kind of preliminary blackmail, or something else, from someone who knew about body disposal plans?

December 4th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I have an open question to all Anorak posters in here:

“Question: Which is worse in a case involving a dead person - 1) premeditation or 2) covering up an accidental death? Personally I think it’s an interesting point. ”

Perhaps, something like “hit and run” in a vehicle accident? If you hit someone accidentally, you are most likely to flee if you are “very” guilty (drunk, speeding, or whatever). However, some people do flee from mere fright.

Premeditation is also not homogenous. Suppose someone is being bullied brutally over a long period of time. They might “snap” one day and there would be no premeditation, or they might think about it for quite a while, and then decide to permanently stop the bullying. But how does that compare to someone who plans a murder of someone just to get the insurance money?

Allegedly Madeleine was killed accidentally. But if the “accident” concerned illegal use of sedatives, that already makes it far more serious than an ordinary accident. If (hypotheticallly) it involved sexual abuse of a sedated child, that puts the accident in another class.

Was the alleged accident covered up as a result of “fright”? Not likely, when a conspiracy of friends is involved.

My personal opinion is that the McCann cover-up is far more damning than any accidental death that may have happened. The fact that they cover up the circumstances makes it likely that the circumstances will further implicate them. JMO, all allegedly.

Im all alone in the new thread!

+++++++++

Oh NO you’re not!

Well… Panto season us upon us!

Soound advice! I hadnt realised that Metodo3 were linked to Kennedy.

Good insights. A true psychopath would have made convincing interviews. As for why the McCanns have blabbered on and on, as you say they “are determined to prove themselves” but this determination is largely a result of the Great Campaign to Raise Money and Feign Innocense. This campaign, though readily endorsed by the McCanns, has been sold to them by the likes of Clarence Mitchell, tycoon Brian Kennedy and whoever is behind him.

By this view, the McCanns have been set up by these people, who have been consistently giving BAD ADVICE to poor Gerry, who has been misled to think that he is in control and everything will be OK.

Look again at the big donations (to the legal fund) by Branson and Kennedy. It was reported that these donations would be INVALID if the McCanns were found guilty. Viewing this from a strictly financial (investment) angle, this is an indication that Branson/Kennedy believed the McCanns are probably guilty. There was little “risk” that they would have to pay anything. And at the very least , after “pledging”, it gives them a financial incentive for the McCanns to be found guilty.

If the McCanns are found guilty, Metodo3 is still paid, and so the alleged money laundering of the Search Fund would be successful. Branson/Kennedy would not be liable for McCann legal expenses. Remember that Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns so-called spokesman is an employee of Kennedy, the man whom a guilty verdict benefits. The guy in charge of Metodo3, Smethurst, is also an employee of Kennedy.

Gerry must be quite a mixture of arrogance and stupidity not to see that he has surrounded himself with advisors who derive no benefit whatsoever from a “not guilty” verdict. They DO, however, benefit from a guilty verdict.

Perhaps this explains all the bad advice? Perhaps this explains why Gerry has been confidently blabbering away, ensuring that the public will eventually condemn him, when the superficial media support drops from under him, and also helping to ensure that the courts find him guilty on all counts.

Gerry, if you are reading this, I have some GOOD advice for you. Go back to the priest in PDL, apologize, and go with him to the police to make a full confession. Accept the harsh consequences.

Here we are, the U.S. of A., drunk off our scooters on the homemade hootch!

Yet , we still care about what happened (or didn’t happen) to Madeleine.

But it’s 5 a.m. or somesuch in England. I could wait another hour or two until the Brits get up, but they’d be all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, and I’d be slurring my words and trying to talk yesterday’s news.

Must let the Anorak go. For now.

They seem to master it. All 3 in a different environment and so reliably early every night… Wow. What would interest me if the twins have had a lunchtime nap, because if so it would be even more incredible.

I wish my kids would be that tired… (and just for the case) Kids do not go earlier in bed if the day has been exhausting. Not mine, it does not depend so much on activities.

But I have to admit it is kind of nice to see you having the last word every night