I have never encountered anyone who blames the police for the McCanns’ actions. Do you have any evidence of this?
I reiterate: I have never heard anyone blaming the police for the McCanns’ actions on holiday. It’s a ridiculous premise for a thread IMO.
Title modified to clarify for those who misunderstood.
Title modified to clarify for those who misunderstood.Not really. No one blames the police for Madeleine being abducted / murdered / waking and wandering / her parents hiding her body - delete as applicable. What people DO blame police for is their inadequate or incompetent handling of some aspects of the investigation into her disappearance.
Not really. No one blames the police for Madeleine being abducted / murdered / waking and wandering / her parents hiding her body - delete as applicable. What people DO blame police for is their inadequate or incompetent handling of some aspects of the investigation into her disappearance.I suppose we would on occasions have to consider the possibility of corrupt police officers.
I suppose we would on occasions have to consider the possibility of corrupt police officers.
I don't see the police getting the blame for the McCann's actions, but they do get criticised unnecessarily in my opinion.Are the PJ above criticism in your view? Did they do ANYTHING wrong?
For example;
They have been criticised for reacting too slowly, for example, but if MM was taken she could have been in Spain by the time the police were called.
Then there's the criticism for not testing the twins for sedation, but they had no reason to suspect sedation in my opinion.
Another recent criticism is that they didn't interview Julian Totman, but there's no evidence they had any reason to do so.
Are the PJ above criticism in your view? Did they do ANYTHING wrong?Unfounded criticism is precisely that - unfounded criticism.
Unfounded criticism is precisely that - unfounded criticism.
Are the PJ above criticism in your view? Did they do ANYTHING wrong?
Are my examples inaccurate?I think the police were slow to act, yes. IMO they didn't take Madeleine's disappearance that seriously to begin with, took some time to turn up in the first place, didn't follow up early leads that might have led somewhere, didn't think to collect potential vital CCTV images until it was far too late, etc.
I think the police were slow to act, yes. IMO they didn't take Madeleine's disappearance that seriously to begin with, took some time to turn up in the first place, didn't follow up early leads that might have led somewhere, didn't think to collect potential vital CCTV images until it was far too late, etc.
As for not testing the twins, I wouldn't necessarily criticise them for that, but I would have had then checked over, even more so if they believed the McCanns were culpable - the welfare of those two children should surely have been of concern to the police but they don't appear to have been given a second thought.
Thirdly - Totman. There is little evidence that the police tried to trace anyone else who might have been legitimately carrying a child that night to eliminate them from their enquiries, unless you know otherwise?
Now, are the PJ above criticism in your view? Did they do ANYTHING wrong?
Indeed. They failed to interrogate the McCanns in the dungeon with the rubber truncheons @)(++(*How true - they could have had it all done and dusted with confessions extracted under torture years ago and saved us taxpayers millions!
I think the police were slow to act, yes. IMO they didn't take Madeleine's disappearance that seriously to begin with, took some time to turn up in the first place, didn't follow up early leads that might have led somewhere, didn't think to collect potential vital CCTV images until it was far too late, etc.I'd be interested in your view of what the first 2 GNR officers on the scene were thinking was going on, in the minutes immediately after they turned up. That first response was critical, so what was happening?
As for not testing the twins, I wouldn't necessarily criticise them for that, but I would have had then checked over, even more so if they believed the McCanns were culpable - the welfare of those two children should surely have been of concern to the police but they don't appear to have been given a second thought.
Thirdly - Totman. There is little evidence that the police tried to trace anyone else who might have been legitimately carrying a child that night to eliminate them from their enquiries, unless you know otherwise?
Now, are the PJ above criticism in your view? Did they do ANYTHING wrong?
I'd be interested in your view of what the first 2 GNR officers on the scene were thinking was going on, in the minutes immediately after they turned up. That first response was critical, so what was happening?
May I also ask what potentially vital CCTV you are referring to? Not a cite, just an explanation so that I understand your reference.
You mean you are not aware of the cctv that was wiped before the pj got round to looking at itRepeat! Which CCTV? Kindly identify which CCTV you are talking about.
Repeat! Which CCTV? Kindly identify which CCTV you are talking about.
I'm sure someone will be along with the details... It's basic common knowledge are the caseOh dear. Another non-clarification.
I'm sure someone will be along with the details... It's basic common knowledge are the case
Oh dear. Another non-clarification.
topic is it fair to blame the polie for the mcanns actions on their holiday i think not if the mcanns had not been so into their friends maddie wouldnt of vanishedIt is absolutely not fair to blame the police for the McCanns actions, but it is fair to blame the police for their own actions or lack thereof. What you seem to be saying Carly is - the police should be above criticism because if the McCanns had not eaten out that night then Madeleine would never have gone missing, therefore whatever the police did after the event was entirely correct and proper. Is that logical, really?
Thank you.
Goncalo Amaral, the controversial Portuguese detective who led the original investigation, said he is convinced the suspect was captured on the camera.
Mr Amaral said: “I believe that the person carrying a child in his arms was captured on film from that very camera.
“I asked my officers to gather all the CCTV footage in Luz but, by the time they got to this hotel, the film from this camera had been wiped over.
"It was a mistake and I will always regret it. I do feel Madeleine was let down.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cctv-madeleine-mccann-snatcher-deleted-2467839
Oh dear. Another non-clarification.
Thank you.
I was not asking for a cite.
'The Estrela da Luz CCTV' would have sufficed.
You need to be a little more patient..... It is not always easy or quick to proved a cite..... This fact has been discussed many times before and I'm surprised you need oneSince I made it clear more than once I was not asking for a cite, I am surprised you are talking about a cite.
Thank you.(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/9a/da/f39ada4eb33456bb767c95ea079fb045.jpg)
I was not asking for a cite.
'The Estrela da Luz CCTV' would have sufficed.
Goncalo Amaral, the controversial Portuguese detective who led the original investigation, said he is convinced the suspect was captured on the camera.
Mr Amaral said: “I believe that the person carrying a child in his arms was captured on film from that very camera.
“I asked my officers to gather all the CCTV footage in Luz but, by the time they got to this hotel, the film from this camera had been wiped over.
"It was a mistake and I will always regret it. I do feel Madeleine was let down.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cctv-madeleine-mccann-snatcher-deleted-2467839
Disappointed that the article didn't show where the CCTV camera was on the hotel Estrela da Luz.
If the man seen by the Smiths had come from G5A he would not have passed the hotel named in this story;
But by the time Portuguese detectives spoke to the owners of the CCTV at the hotel Estrela da Luz, the film had been wiped.
The spot is a few hundred yards from the apartment where Madeleine vanished in Praia da Luz, Portugal, and is on the route that the suspect would have taken before being spotted by Irishman Martin Smith.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cctv-madeleine-mccann-snatcher-deleted-2467839
I think the police were slow to act, yes. IMO they didn't take Madeleine's disappearance that seriously to begin with, took some time to turn up in the first place, didn't follow up early leads that might have led somewhere, didn't think to collect potential vital CCTV images until it was far too late, etc.
As for not testing the twins, I wouldn't necessarily criticise them for that, but I would have had then checked over, even more so if they believed the McCanns were culpable - the welfare of those two children should surely have been of concern to the police but they don't appear to have been given a second thought.
Thirdly - Totman. There is little evidence that the police tried to trace anyone else who might have been legitimately carrying a child that night to eliminate them from their enquiries, unless you know otherwise?
Now, are the PJ above criticism in your view? Did they do ANYTHING wrong?
Since I made it clear more than once I was not asking for a cite, I am surprised you are talking about a cite.
Disappointed that the article didn't show where the CCTV camera was on the hotel Estrela da Luz.
They thought it was on Smithman's route, but that was unlikely, so they probably didn't look for it. Google Estrela da luz CCTV and read Sil's inquiry into this for more info.
seems sils forgotten about his inquiry into itNo.
I think the police were slow to act, yes. IMO they didn't take Madeleine's disappearance that seriously to begin with, took some time to turn up in the first place, didn't follow up early leads that might have led somewhere, didn't think to collect potential vital CCTV images until it was far too late, etc.
As for not testing the twins, I wouldn't necessarily criticise them for that, but I would have had then checked over, even more so if they believed the McCanns were culpable - the welfare of those two children should surely have been of concern to the police but they don't appear to have been given a second thought.
Thirdly - Totman. There is little evidence that the police tried to trace anyone else who might have been legitimately carrying a child that night to eliminate them from their enquiries, unless you know otherwise?
Now, are the PJ above criticism in your view? Did they do ANYTHING wrong?
Whenever I see a question such as 'is it fair to blame the police for the result of the McCann's actions on holiday' what comes to mind is that Madeleine shouldn't have a fair and thorough investigation into her disappearance because the parents left her alone. However Madeleine disappeared her disappearance should have been investigated properly. 5a being used by two or three families after Madeleine disappeared instead of being sealed off. Road blocks etc. not being enforced until 12 hours after Madeleine's disappearance. Even if they thought the McCann's had something to do with what happened to Madeleine, the hunt for her and the abduction theory shouldn't have been stopped.
Whenever I see a question such as 'is it fair to blame the police for the result of the McCann's actions on holiday' what comes to mind is that Madeleine shouldn't have a fair and thorough investigation into her disappearance because the parents left her alone. However Madeleine disappeared her disappearance should have been investigated properly. 5a being used by two or three families after Madeleine disappeared instead of being sealed off. Road blocks etc. not being enforced until 12 hours after Madeleine's disappearance. Even if they thought the McCann's had something to do with what happened to Madeleine, the hunt for her and the abduction theory shouldn't have been stopped.
Whenever I see a question such as 'is it fair to blame the police for the result of the McCann's actions on holiday' what comes to mind is that Madeleine shouldn't have a fair and thorough investigation into her disappearance because the parents left her alone. However Madeleine disappeared her disappearance should have been investigated properly. 5a being used by two or three families after Madeleine disappeared instead of being sealed off. Road blocks etc. not being enforced until 12 hours after Madeleine's disappearance. Even if they thought the McCann's had something to do with what happened to Madeleine, the hunt for her and the abduction theory shouldn't have been stopped.
Looking at your first paragraph;
"the police were slow to act, yes. IMO they didn't take Madeleine's disappearance that seriously to begin with, took some time to turn up in the first place [1], didn't follow up early leads that might have led somewhere [2], didn't think to collect potential vital CCTV images until it was far too late, etc.[3]"
1] How long did it take them to 'turn up' and how could they have 'turned up' more quickly?
2] Which early leads weren't followed up?
3] Which CCTV images and when did they think of them? (please don't quote tabloid gossip)
Whenever I see a question such as 'is it fair to blame the police for the result of the McCann's actions on holiday' what comes to mind is that Madeleine shouldn't have a fair and thorough investigation into her disappearance because the parents left her alone. However Madeleine disappeared her disappearance should have been investigated properly. 5a being used by two or three families after Madeleine disappeared instead of being sealed off. Road blocks etc. not being enforced until 12 hours after Madeleine's disappearance. Even if they thought the McCann's had something to do with what happened to Madeleine, the hunt for her and the abduction theory shouldn't have been stopped.One can no more seal off Luz than one can seal off a similar-sized town/village in the UK.
One can no more seal off Luz than one can seal off a similar-sized town/village in the UK.
Don't have to seal off... Just have road blocks and checks on major roads out of luzSo what happens when someone uses a minor road to get into or out of Luz, as they frequently do to avoid GNR checks?
So what happens when someone uses a minor road to get into or out of Luz, as they frequently do to avoid GNR checks?
So what happens when someone uses a minor road to get into or out of Luz, as they frequently do to avoid GNR checks?
I suspect that The Gendarmes might have been a bit quicker off the mark.I will not dispute your assertion.
They can close off this place within a 20 mile radius in about half an hour.
I know every back road out of my Hamlet, and the nearest Village. But then so do The Gendarmes.
Are the GNR aware that their checks are being avoided by the use of a minor road?Not being a GNR officer, I wouldn't know the answer.
Are the GNR aware that their checks are being avoided by the use of a minor road?
Not being a GNR officer, I wouldn't know the answer.
Please note GNR checks can at times mean queuing up for 15 to 20 minutes, before getting checked and waved on one's way. So the reasons for avoiding popular checkpoints is not necessarily nefarious.
Of course they are. They would be pretty useless if they weren't. But mostly local Police Forces tend not to interfere with some local drinker avoiding detection within his own limited area. But this wasn't quite the same thing. A child was missing.
I will not dispute your assertion.
I will merely say that it is the Gendarmes, and your hamlet, not Luz.
20 miles from Luz takes in the whole of Lagos, Odiaxere, Portelas, Espiche, Almadena, Barao Sao Joao, Burgau and lots more. An army of Gendarmes could not road-block that lot no matter how long they were given.
I presume therefore your hamlet is exceedingly remote.
I agree Lace
The road blocks weren't thoroughly enforced
On the news at the time the police were seen to be sitting in their cars while cars were passing by unchecked.
Empty poperties going unchecked.
When so many locals and police searched, it's such a pity these gaps in the investigation took place.
Please provide cites.
I suspect that The Gendarmes might have been a bit quicker off the mark.
They can close off this place within a 20 mile radius in about half an hour.
I know every back road out of my Hamlet, and the nearest Village. But then so do The Gendarmes.
I think most in the McCanns position would have called the police immediately knowing as they did that their daughter had been abducted. It took them 45 minutes (was this not an emergency?) so they were the slow ones to act and inform the authorities. Vital time was lost but that certainly helped Smithman disguise his tracks not to be seen again 8(>((
No.
I observed the police sitting i n their car in the pouring rain while cars were leaving PDL.unchecked.
I observed the TV reporter asking the police why they could not enter locked, empty premises.
Do you believe this news report was staged?
Whenever I see a question such as 'is it fair to blame the police for the result of the McCann's actions on holiday' what comes to mind is that Madeleine shouldn't have a fair and thorough investigation into her disappearance because the parents left her alone. However Madeleine disappeared her disappearance should have been investigated properly. 5a being used by two or three families after Madeleine disappeared instead of being sealed off. Road blocks etc. not being enforced until 12 hours after Madeleine's disappearance. Even if they thought the McCann's had something to do with what happened to Madeleine, the hunt for her and the abduction theory shouldn't have been stopped.
My God, not another one who's been 'researching in PDL'
I've never been to Portugal.
Always holiday in Italy.
I suggest you re-read my post
My God, not another one who's been 'researching in PDL'
I think she’s been watching the telly...
Seems quite straightforward t me. If you were quoting someone else you should have said so.
SHE was watching Sky news reports of Madeleine's disappearance .
Do you believe the reports were staged ?
I was brought up to always refer to someone by their name if possible, even if it is a user name on a discussion forum.
No.
I observed the police sitting i n their car in the pouring rain while cars were leaving PDL.unchecked.
I observed the TV reporter asking the police why they could not enter locked, empty premises.
Do you believe this news report was staged?
To assume that a TV news report shows accurate and timely footage is a bit dangerous. Broadcast media always will take a prefer good footage and may not always use that taken at the time.
So you believe that the footage of a reporter asking the policeman why empty properties were not being searched and the police sitting in their cars while cars left PDL were staged? Or shot not at the time indicated on the report? or ....what?
So they waited til when for this good footage?
I don't understand why you just can't accept that there were gaps in the search but rather come up with implausible excuses?
What day.date was that? Were they GNR officers? Were they supposed to be stopping and searching cars?
Yes they were supposed to be stopping and searching the cars but it was raining and the footage showed a police car with the officers staying put.
I can't remember the date but it was very shortly after Madeleine disappeared.
It sounds like assumptions were being made to me.
Why would you assume there were gaps?
Did you see the footage?
Did you hear the conversation between the reporter and the police officer?
No, but if I had I hope I wouldn't jump to conclusions because I saw police officers in their car. Why a reporter would assume that Portuguese police can go around smashing doors down without reasonable suspicion I don't know. British policemen can't.
The police officers were supposed to be stopping cars.Funnily enough smashing down doors is just what many perfect parents say they would have done if it had been their daughter.
They weren't.
I don't believe he assumed doors would be smashed down.
He certainly never gave any indication that he believed doors should be smashed down.
Funnily enough smashing down doors is just what many perfect parents say they would have done if it had been their daughter.Have you ever smashed a door down?
The police officers were supposed to be stopping cars.
They weren't.
I don't believe he assumed doors would be smashed down.
He certainly never gave any indication that he believed doors should be smashed down.
The police officers were supposed to be stopping cars.
They weren't.
I don't believe he assumed doors would be smashed down.
He certainly never gave any indication that he believed doors should be smashed down.
What did that mean?
How big is your TV screen - there will have been a bigger picture going on in the back ground. imo
One can no more seal off Luz than one can seal off a similar-sized town/village in the UK.
What time did detectives arrive to take charge ?What time were the McCanns picked up on 4th re interviews in Portimão?
What time did detectives arrive to take charge ?
According to Amaral all information was being relayed to him.
Thank you. Was that throughout the night or on the morning of the 4th?
If the man seen by the Smiths had come from G5A he would not have passed the hotel named in this story;
But by the time Portuguese detectives spoke to the owners of the CCTV at the hotel Estrela de Luz, the film had been wiped.
The spot is a few hundred yards from the apartment where Madeleine vanished in Praia de Luz, Portugal, and is on the route that the suspect would have taken before being spotted by Irishman Martin Smith.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cctv-madeleine-mccann-snatcher-deleted-2467839
In order to get to the Smiths, via normal roads paths and tracks and coming from a Northerly direction, he to pass at least the S.E. corner of Hotel/apartments Estrela Da Luz, where there was a massive light beaming down and what I believe to be a rotating (?)CCTV camera.
I would like Rob to have a look at this camera when he is around, because it seems that he is very conversant with security technology
There are two other routes that make sense but these go along the eastern side of hotel Estrela, where likely there would be additional cameras, along with the camera on the corner already mentioned.
No sane man would have been silly enough to try it .... and few, if any, would accomplish it carrying a child and in the dark.
What is wrong with my route?Check this on Google Earth.
From Rua Doutor Agostinho da Silva the man can turn left into R.1st Mai. He then turns right into R da Escola Primaria. All he has to do is stay on that quiet road until he meets the Smiths.
Check this on Google Earth.
Check this on Google Earth.
What is wrong with my route?So in your scenario he makes a left followed by an immediate right rather than going down Rua 1st Mai a sizeable distance and then turning right into Rua Ema Veira Alvernaz?
From Rua Doutor Agostinho da Silva the man can turn left into R.1st Mai. He then turns right into R da Escola Primaria. All he has to do is stay on that quiet road until he meets the Smiths.
What is wrong with my route?
From Rua Doutor Agostinho da Silva the man can turn left into R.1st Mai. He then turns right into R da Escola Primaria. All he has to do is stay on that quiet road until he meets the Smiths.
So in your scenario he makes a left followed by an immediate right rather than going down Rua 1st Mai a sizeable distance and then turning right into Rua Ema Veira Alvernaz?He could have taken your initially eastern route Rob, but it is a bit public taking in the main road for quite a distance.. Howver it ties in well with Tannerman.
Yep ... and if you had bothered to look properly, you would have seen the crossroads/(path) on Rua d'Escola which are where that road passes right by the SE corner of Hotel d'Estrela. Look just above the tennis courts of The staff quarters to see it all.Not an expert on the subject of CCTV sorry.
It has a massive serious street lamp at that cross roads with what I believe is a (?)CCTV security camera close by.
I think that Rob is an expert and might know what sort of device this is
This is the route which I was describing. I don't think it passes Estrela da Luz.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Luz.jpg)
You're correct, the route doesn't pass the hotel but the CCTV camera located in the cormer of the hotel grounds would still pick anyone up walking around the corner.
You're correct, the route doesn't pass the hotel but the CCTV camera located in the cormer of the hotel grounds would still pick anyone up walking around the corner.
I thought they weren't allowed to be trained onto public areas?Silly rule if there was ever one.
I thought they weren't allowed to be trained onto public areas?If true, then why was Amaral lamenting the fact that CCTV images were not captured?
If true, then why was Amaral lamenting the fact that CCTV images were not captured?
Silly rule if there was ever one.
While standing directly underneath it and indicating what it would have picked up.
I thought it was a law, not a rule.Rule or law.
Was this when he was allegedly speaking to James Murray?
If you don't like that one ... why not try this one instead.
This is the route which I was describing. I don't think it passes Estrela da Luz.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Luz.jpg)
Yes it does, but you (or someone) have cut virtually the whole image of Estrela de Luz off the LH side of the picture.
To identify where it is:
1) Follow the red line up from the bottom until the first cross roads.
2) The tip of the SE corner of Estrala de Luz lies in the NW corner of the cross roads and there is a mighty lamp up there with what looks like a large rotating security camera close by.
There are two other sensible routes up there but they all pass under that massive lamp and past the camera.
I still think that Tannerman/Smithman had a sojourn in the Staff Quarters before The Smiths saw him ... but even then, unless he made a big detour, he had to pass by that camera under the big lamp.
Pity the PJ didn't get there earlier.
So Smithman may have passed something that may have been a security camera which may have been pointing in his direction?Amaral seemed to think so, why don’t you?
So Smithman may have passed something that may have been a security camera which may have been pointing in his direction?Amaral expressed his dismay that the PJ had not got there early enough to catch the film on the camera before it was wiped clean.
Interesting Paul Luckman, who attended the filmed reconstruction verifying that there would have been no way JT would have recognised the man that she saw from the point she saw him.But that depends on where they said Jane Tanner was supposed to be. I bet she wasn't there confirming it.
Which street is Luckman standing on?Corner of Primary School street (to Luckman's right, our left) and 25 de Abril, front to rear. Roughly Martin Smith's position.
Amaral seemed to think so, why don’t you?
Corner of Primary School street (to Luckman's right, our left) and 25 de Abril, front to rear. Roughly Martin Smith's position.
You sound surprised, but why?Surprised that you are calling into question the knowledge and opinion of an ex-cop who presumably knows the area, fixtures and fittings a little bit better than you do, yes.
Surprised that you are calling into question the knowledge and opinion of an ex-cop who presumably knows the area, fixtures and fittings a little bit better than you do, yes.
I prefer the opinion of a forum member who examined carefully the ten cameras situated at the nine entrances to the complex. Eight of the ten were positioned to view the inside of the gates. Two could see outside, but they were situated at the northern perimeter.I’m sure Amaral will be mighty relieved to hear it, that pretty much lets him off the hook. Who is this forum member and were they inPdL in 2007 to observe all the cctv in situ?
It's possible that Smithman may have been briefly filmed, but it's unlikely in my opinion.
I prefer the opinion of a forum member who examined carefully the ten cameras situated at the nine entrances to the complex. Eight of the ten were positioned to view the inside of the gates. Two could see outside, but they were situated at the northern perimeter.
It's possible that Smithman may have been briefly filmed, but it's unlikely in my opinion.
Who is this Member? Otherwise this is Opinion as Fact.
There is no member who saw the cameras in 2007
https://youtu.be/58HZBFhzp3E
For further pictures see from here onwards http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1401.120
ETA I wonder why none of the journalists who went to Hugo Beatty's bar every day in the aftermath either noticed the camera or thought to ask the police if it had been checked for any useful images?
Just as well, she didn't , she got the stone cold response when asked if she could help by calling the police, when asked what was going on...
I wonder why Mrs Fenn didn't say they told her Maddie was abducted - too stressed I would imagine.
I was thinking that the group should have booked into Estrela da Luz. They could have argued that it 'felt safe' a lot more convincingly with all those security cameras around, couldn't they?
I know i was just going to post this...
wouldn't you have thought they would have raced up the stairs to see if she had seen anything. but no just thought the below
Kate’s account (page 75):
Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point.
I was thinking that the group should have booked into Estrela da Luz. They could have argued that it 'felt safe' a lot more convincingly with all those security cameras around, couldn't they?
IMO the whole claim of 'it felt safe' it a moot point and they were grasping at straws.
They had made up their minds before they left the UK that they were going to leave the children alone while they wined and dined and they were going to employ a 'listening service'. We know this because they told us, and also the Paynes took a baby monitor, for that purpose.
Poor Mrs Fenn it does look like she was added to Kates 'list' and someone who wasn't buying into her way of thinking.
Plummy voice, can of beans and her and Fiona giving an old lady some cheek. Just because the old lady told the police she heard the children crying while the parents were out. oh dear me.
Probably because many other families have done the same and never had any problems
Probably because many other families have done the same and never had any problems
This is about MBM. Children should not be left alone. The apartment was unlocked and this can be viewed as a means of the Maddie walked and wandered theory- which the parents dismiss.
I agree with you that the children should not have been left alone.
I prefer the opinion of a forum member who examined carefully the ten cameras situated at the nine entrances to the complex. Eight of the ten were positioned to view the inside of the gates. Two could see outside, but they were situated at the northern perimeter.You've been asked about the source of this information.
It's possible that Smithman may have been briefly filmed, but it's unlikely in my opinion.
You've been asked about the source of this information.
Not an expert on the subject of CCTV sorry.
How many other families have left their kids home alone in an unlocked apartment?Who knows? I’ll wager the McCanns weren’t the first to though.
What about those 'many' others you say do it?
For the benefit of new members, there is an entire thread dedicated to the CCTV camera located outside hotel Estrela da Luz.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1401.msg40070#msg40070
(http://i.imgur.com/DrwTEhg.jpg)
Former PJ Coordinator Dr Amaral pictured in front of the elusive CCTV camera.
You're correct, the route doesn't pass the hotel but the CCTV camera located in the cormer of the hotel grounds would still pick anyone up walking around the corner.Gunits map doesn't show the 5 biuldings of Estrela de Luz.
I was thinking that the group should have booked into Estrela da Luz. They could have argued that it 'felt safe' a lot more convincingly with all those security cameras around, couldn't they?
Only if they could have known they were there from the UK, of course !
And until May 3rd there was no obvious reason for them to feel worried in the least about sleepy little PdL. So at that stage anyhow, they had no reason to be paranoid, why would they have bothered to check?
Do you normally check if the hotels/apartments that you will be staying at have security cameras, Gunit?
Seems Very OTT to me.
Cite for my saying that... You will not be able to provide one
Your post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9643.msg468098#msg468098
My post says parents have done... That's past tense. You are wrong ...I didn't say many parents do it.... That's sloppy reading and understanding and is how myths are born
Probably because many other families have done the same and never had any problems
For the benefit of gunit.......note ....many have done the same ...they have.If you wish to be pedantic about posts, then you chose the wrong tense.
If you do not read and understand accurately all your conclusions may be wrong. You posted an example before where you did not read a statement accurately...this is just another one
If you wish to be pedantic about posts, then you chose the wrong tense.
To restrict it to the past (e.g. pre 3 May 2007) it should have been 'many had done'.
There is a time to let sleeping dogs lie.
No it's not fair to blame the police for idiotic neglectful parenting.
Is anyone going to answer the question by G-Unit.
How many UK tourists abroad have left their children alone in an unlocked/insecure apartment at night like the McCanns? The tapas 7 claimed their apartments were locked and secure and they didn't lose a child.
Tue 1 May
She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23.45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
Waiter backs up Mrs. Fenn's statement.
totally agree yet davel says theres no evidence of what mrs fenn heard @)(++(*Well that is not evidence. Did that waiter/barman say that in his statement?
No it's not fair to blame the police for idiotic neglectful parenting.
Is anyone going to answer the question by G-Unit.
How many UK tourists abroad have left their children alone in an unlocked/insecure apartment at night like the McCanns? The tapas 7 claimed their apartments were locked and secure and they didn't lose a child.
Tue 1 May
She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23.45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
Waiter backs up Mrs. Fenn's statement.
and just because people did it before 2007 doesn't make them parent of the year, Eleanor and Davel both have admitted they left their babies/toddlers alone.
If you wish to be pedantic about posts, then you chose the wrong tense.
To restrict it to the past (e.g. pre 3 May 2007) it should have been 'many had done'.
There is a time to let sleeping dogs lie.
If you wish to be pedantic about posts, then you chose the wrong tense.
To restrict it to the past (e.g. pre 3 May 2007) it should have been 'many had done'.
There is a time to let sleeping dogs lie.
As you have admitted your parents did... I did it because it felt safe... I was wrong to do it and would not do it now.Same here, and my parents left me alone too - they shudder at the thought of their actions in retrospect.
Same here, and my parents left me alone too - they shudder at the thought of their actions in retrospect.
As you have admitted your parents did... I did it because it felt safe... I was wrong to do it and would not do it now.
Left them in an unlocked/insecure apartment like the McCanns? OR did you lock it?
If you wish to be pedantic about posts, then you chose the wrong tense.
To restrict it to the past (e.g. pre 3 May 2007) it should have been 'many had done'.
There is a time to let sleeping dogs lie.
When I was a young mother, everyone parked their prams with baby in the pram, and went into shop.
Admittedly a short shop,
It was the norm!
Had to believe now but never ever thought of it being unsafe.
Can't imagine anyone don't so now.
no you are wrong
I think you are wrong.
Have done --- Have done is a present perfect tense, generally it is used when the action is completed recently/just now. Had done-- Had done is a past perfect tense, generally refers to something which happened earlier in the past, before another action also occured in the past.
https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/49120/difference-between-have-done-and-had-done
I remember an acquaintance with a fairly new baby returning home without it. She had a half mile walk to the shop and the baby was still there, unharmed. I was approached in Germany by a man who pointed out that a baby left outside a local shop wasn't dressed warmly enough in their winter months. He assumed (probably correctly) that the baby was English and (incorrectly) that it was mine. They didn't think much of British parenting in the 1970's.
I would imagine that parenting is much the same throughout the world.
Some who are more successful at parenting than others
The British would have been no worse or better than any other nationality.
It's a pity it has become almost an Olympic sport now with many, many of today's parents competing.
My beloved mother did the same as your acquaintance.
Not with me but with her first born!
I agree with this sentiment for some part. However in my line of work I find cultural differences. and the the world has changed a lot in the past 15 years or so with virtual worlds being created.
We have various measures to what makes a good parent in each culture. I would say being a mother is the hardest job there is regardless of culture.
we have been through this before...is it ok if the aprtment if locked...of course it isnt...so why ask a pointless question
and just because people did it before 2007 doesn't make them parent of the year, Eleanor and Davel both have admitted they left their babies/toddlers alone.
I wonder how many of you have camped or caravanned ... and left your sleeping children several tents or caravans away as you enjoyed a BBQ or drink with friends on the site in the dark?
Just a guess, but I think that there are likely quite a few people on here who hypocritically are willing to forget their own transgressions, but quite happily slate others.
I wonder how many of you have camped or caravanned ... and left your sleeping children several tents or caravans away as you enjoyed a BBQ or drink with friends on the site in the dark?
Just a guess, but I think that there are likely quite a few people on here who hypocritically are willing to forget their own transgressions, but quite happily slate others.
Nope. Pure speculation.
I wonder how many of you have camped or caravanned ... and left your sleeping children several tents or caravans away as you enjoyed a BBQ or drink with friends on the site in the dark?
Just a guess, but I think that there are likely quite a few people on here who hypocritically are willing to forget their own transgressions, but quite happily slate others.
Casting aspersions on others without any evidence? Isn't that what you accuse 'sceptics' of doing to the McCanns?Sadie has not cast aspersions on any persons in particular, or named them, that’s the difference.
Sadie has not cast aspersions on any persons in particular, or named them, that’s the difference.
No, she uses a scatter gun approach which, in my opinion, is designed to besmirch anyone or everyone except the McCanns.Try not to take it personally, we McCann “disciples “ get it all the time too you know.
nope i dont have kids but if i did i would never leave them alone like the mcanns didPure speculation.
Try not to take it personally, we McCann “disciples “ get it all the time too you know.We deserve it and they don't!
Try not to take it personally, we McCann “disciples “ get it all the time too you know.
It was aimed at people on this forum. I'm one of them. I object to someone suggesting I'm a hypocrite unless they have evidence to support their suggestion. I reserve the right to take a personal attack personally.
It was aimed at people on this forum. I'm one of them. I object to someone suggesting I'm a hypocrite unless they have evidence to support their suggestion. I reserve the right to take a personal attack personally.It was an opinion, apparently worthless according to you but if you still feel personally affronted the best thing you can do is report it and it will almost certainly be removed.
We deserve it and they don't!
It was an opinion, apparently worthless according to you but if you still feel personally affronted the best thing you can do is report it and it will almost certainly be removed.
In my opinion, anyone who chooses to go camping or caravaning has only themselves to blame.
well i hate to bring it up but here in australia in 1980 a 10 week old baby was eaten by a dingo while she was left alone in a tent in ayers rockDingo my arse, the mother obviously did it!!!
Did the Dingo get fair legal representation , or was he just a patsy?The dingo was never apprehended afaik. I'm surprised at Carly referencing one of the most famous miscarriages of justice in a missing child case, one with some parallels to the McCann case.
Dingo my arse, the mother obviously did it!!!Was that a joke or not?
Was that a joke or not?
Was that a joke or not?No not a joke, a daft attempt at sarcasm !
I went to a party a while ago, at a friend’s house. They are millionaires and live in a massive house with a huge garden, down a long but ungated drive that connected to a busy road. It was a family party and so there were many kids of all ages. It went on until after dark. The adults mainly drank and socialised with each other, the kids just did their own thing, running all over the house and the garden. I saw ours a few times in the evening but I wouldn’t have been able to say categorically where they were at any given moment. Arguably they were much less safe in that environment than had they all been put to bed in the house when we got there but we can always claim that we hadn’t left our kids alone like the McCanns did.
Are your kids under 3 and under ?No, at the time they were 7 and 4, but the hosts’ twins were 3 if that helps?
No, at the time they were 7 and 4, but the hosts’ twins were 3 if that helps?
So no 18 months ?No, so what?
No, so what?
No child with sickness and diarrhoea ?You obviously didn’t really understand my post - never mind.
You obviously didn’t really understand my post - never mind.
Oh I did but I’m afraid the comparison doesn’t bear scrutiny.I don’t think any of the kids were called Madeleine either.
I don’t think any of the kids were called Madeleine either.
Jeez.
I wasn’t comparing the party to Praia da Luz, I was pointing out that “having your kids with you” rather than leaving them indoors while you party outdoors can carry just as many, if not more risks for the children. Did I mention the large ornamental water feature with stepping stones and no guard rails? They had that as well.
I take it there was adults milling about inside the house who would be able to help a child had got into danger ? Or was it like child apartheid?
Does that include the dangers at the end of the long driveway should a potential paedophile be lurking with van at the ready?or one of the guests being a serial killer.
or one of the guests being a serial killer.
I take it there was adults milling about inside the house who would be able to help a child had got into danger ? Or was it like child apartheid?Child apartheid? In a sense, yes - the adults were all in the garden, in the marquee, socializing. The kids were out in the garden, playing on the kids climbing frame and swing set, or in one of the umpteen rooms in the house, running riot like packs of kids do, the house was not in lock down, they could all have wandered off down the main road into town to the chippy if they’d wanted to and I doubt any of us would have been any the wiser. Would they not have been safer put to bed in the house when we arrived? I think so.
As in Maelys de Araujo? (may she rest in peace).You got me there. I don't know. Pass.
Child apartheid? In a sense, yes - the adults were all in the garden, in the marquee, socializing. The kids were out in the garden, playing on the kids climbing frame and swing set, or in one of the umpteen rooms in the house, running riot like packs of kids do, the house was not in lock down, they could all have wandered off down the main road into town to the chippy if they’d wanted to and I doubt any of us would have been any the wiser. Would they not have been safer put to bed in the house when we arrived? I think so.
So some kids and adults in the garden. Some kids and adults in the house. Pack of kids together with light, knowing where their parents were. Not really comparable to a 3 year old and two 18 months left in the dark with no idea where their parents where had the woken up.The first situation would be more dangerous IMO.
Child apartheid? In a sense, yes - the adults were all in the garden, in the marquee, socializing. The kids were out in the garden, playing on the kids climbing frame and swing set, or in one of the umpteen rooms in the house, running riot like packs of kids do, the house was not in lock down, they could all have wandered off down the main road into town to the chippy if they’d wanted to and I doubt any of us would have been any the wiser. Would they not have been safer put to bed in the house when we arrived? I think so.
So some kids and adults in the garden. Some kids and adults in the house. Pack of kids together with light, knowing where their parents were. Not really comparable to a 3 year old and two 18 months left in the dark with no idea where their parents where had they woken up.No it wasn’t light for most of the party, it was mainly dusk or dark.
The first situation would be more dangerous IMO.Obviously IMO. There were so many terrible things that could have happened to these children who although technically “with their parents” were not being closely supervised by any adults, they would have faced far fewer risks being put to bed and left to sleep in the house while the parents enjoyed the party in the garden. Children tend to have fewer accidents when they are asleep than when they are awake in my opinion.
I can understand supporters feeling sorry for the McCanns, but there is sympathy and then there is a pathetic attempt to re write history, make fake news, try and explain things which may or may not have happened after the fact, OR dismissing the bits which don't seem to fit by claiming they are mis quoted, interpretation issues or they were upset and stressed and couldn't remember.
The most interesting and worrying fact is that supporters attack each and every independent witness. I really fail to see what the motivation is- since we do not know what happened to MBM. Of course I understand the tapas and the parents protecting their reputation and being frightened of any consequences which might still arise from their actions.
I believe they made a huge mistake in telling the world that their daughter was snatched from her bed by a stranger abductor. and that they entered /exited via a window.
Replying to your last paragraph. Wouldn't you jump to the conclusion that an abductor had come in through the window, if you had never opened said window and came home to find your child missing and the window open?As far as I am concerned logic dictates that had a 'simulation' occurred they would have made a far better job of making one which would have been as bomb proof as could be. Instead of running around like headless chickens while trying to find Madeleine while trying to make sense of what had become of her they would have carefully preserved the scene for the police to see.
To me it only makes it more believeable that the window WAS open. The McCann's are not stupid, so why say an abductor had come in through the window, when the window was not damaged? It would only make them look stupid wouldn't it? Especially as the patio door was open and the abductor could have entered through the patio door.
As far as I am concerned logic dictates that had a 'simulation' occurred they would have made a far better job of making one which would have been as bomb proof as could be. Instead of running around like headless chickens while trying to find Madeleine while trying to make sense of what had become of her they would have carefully preserved the scene for the police to see.The possibility exists that lowering the shutter, closing the window, then twice attempting to raise the shutter from the outside interfered with evidence.
If the open window and the raised shutter were features in the 'master plan' why did they close the window and lower the shutter before the police arrived on the scene?
The possibility exists that lowering the shutter, closing the window, then twice attempting to raise the shutter from the outside interfered with evidence.
The best estimate I have at the moment for the GNR arriving at 5A is 11.20pm. If Kate raised the alarm around 10.05pm, then it was too late by 11.20 to rely on physical evidence re shutter and window. It was over to the witness statements.
In my opinion it most definitely disturbed the crime scene which at the time they didn't really know was one and is the nub of my argument that they would not have done that if staging a scenario.I think that would be right, if staged the emphasis would be on protecting the scene in most people's logic IMO.
Certainly it would not be the action of master criminals to formulate a plan and then destroy the corroborating evidence.
No it wasn’t light for most of the party, it was mainly dusk or dark.
Light in the house.So in your opinion, children are safer awake, running about a large house and garden at night with little or no adult supervision than they are asleep in their beds while their parents party in the garden?
In my opinion it most definitely disturbed the crime scene which at the time they didn't really know was one and is the nub of my argument that they would not have done that if staging a scenario.If staging a scenario, I would ensure that multiple people trampled the scene, and have it altered willy-nilly, thereby obscuring the truth.
Certainly it would not be the action of master criminals to formulate a plan and then destroy the corroborating evidence.
If staging a scenario, I would ensure that multiple people trampled the scene, and have it altered willy-nilly, thereby obscuring the truth.
If Kate and/or Gerry believed abduction from the get-go, it was a crime scene, not an incident scene, from that time, at least in their reckoning.
So in your opinion, children are safer awake, running about a large house and garden at night with little or no adult supervision than they are asleep in their beds while their parents party in the garden?
Which of that multiple of individuals trampling the scene interfered with the window or the shutter?You asked about a hypothetical. I responded about your hypothetical. Please do not move the goalposts.
Is it your suggestion that anyone in attendance at the time was qualified or emotionally equipped to assess what constituted a crime scene and issue instruction while in detective mode?
Did the first responding police do that and immediately take control and cordon off the scene? considering that much of the forensic evidence was contributed by them from fingerprints to cigarette stubs and dog hair.
This is known ... and if you wish a cite ... please check the forensic reports in the files.
No I’m saying that children are safer, and it is less upsetting for them, in those surroundings than being left alone, in a dark, unfamiliar apartment with an open patio door.So when you said "no" you actually meant "yes"!
So when you said "no" you actually meant "yes"!
Whatever you like VS. The important thing is that you’ve lost this argument.
Whatever you like VS. The important thing is that you’ve lost this argument.Only in your mind. It should be obvious to everyone else that in the situation I described the kids would have been much safer tucked up asleep in bed, even if their parents were out of the house and in the garden partying.
Only in your mind. It should be obvious to everyone else that in the situation I described the kids would have been much safer tucked up asleep in bed, even if their parents were out of the house and in the garden partying.
In someone’s house, which was in someone’s garden. Not across a public thoroughfare in an open apartment.In someone's house, in someone's garden (both envirnoments which were unfamilar to the majority of the kids there), largely unsupervised and in the evening through to about 11pm, un-gated and near a main road, that was full of potential dangers including water feature, climbing frame. But still, you think these kids were safer than if they'd been tucked up in bed asleep. Perhaps you could explain why they would have been at more risk asleep in bed?
No.
Children are usually safer at home in bed fast asleep with their parents nearby, than children outside their home with their parents nearby.
One only has to think of little April Jones and Sarah Payne to realise that both little girls were outside while their parents were inside and both children were unsupervised by their parents.
How much those parents must regret their choice of allowing their child to be outside the home and out of their sight.
In someone's house, in someone's garden (both envirnoments which were unfamilar to the majority of the kids there), largely unsupervised and in the evening through to about 11pm, un-gated and near a main road, that was full of potential dangers including water feature, climbing frame. But still, you think these kids were safer than if they'd been tucked up in bed asleep. Perhaps you could explain why they would have been at more risk asleep in bed?
Yes, with adults milling about and able to help any child who got in to trouble.After the event of an accident, potentially injurious, catastrophic or fatal, whereas the threat to them lying asleep in bed would be...?
In someone's house, in someone's garden (both envirnoments which were unfamilar to the majority of the kids there), largely unsupervised and in the evening through to about 11pm, un-gated and near a main road, that was full of potential dangers including water feature, climbing frame. But still, you think these kids were safer than if they'd been tucked up in bed asleep. Perhaps you could explain why they would have been at more risk asleep in bed?
I think you will find that was Faith....Oh. So what do you think then?
Many sceptics (including Amaral) believe that Madeleine died in an accidental fall.
Here are some statistics for you, they are American as I couldn't find similar UK stats, but quite interesting I think:
In 2016 there were approximately 61 million children in the US aged 1-14. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/101-child-population-by-age-group#detailed/1/any/false/870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35,18/62,63,64,6,4693/419,420
Of those that died in this age bracket in this year, these are the 8 most common causes (I have grouped a couple together if you look at the link)
-Car/Pedestrian/Transport Accident - 1361
- Drowning - 675
- Suicide - 407
- Homicide - 403
- Fire / Burn - 237
- Suffocation - 192
- Accidental firearm - 73
- Accidental poisoning - 62
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_of_death_highlighting_unintentional_2016_1040w800h.gif
The most up to date data for stranger abduction in the USA goes all the way back to 2002 for a period at the end of the last millenium and showed that 115 children had been taken, of which 43% (49 children) were killed.
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2007/01/raw-data-kidnapping-statistics.html
This tends to suggest that for aged 1-14 year olds, dying in a fall is even less common that been killed by a stranger.
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, only that put into perspective it is highly unlikely.
Oh. So what do you think then?
I’d agree....usually.....but usually children would not be left alone with a door open to the outside world.
After the event of an accident, potentially injurious, catastrophic or fatal, whereas the threat to them lying asleep in bed would be...?
No the doors would be shut leaving the children outside in the outside world.
In an ordinary situation with both parents somewhere in the house I’d agree but that’s not what we’re talking about in this case. We’re talking about 3 under 4s left alone in a strange apartment with all the inherent dangers that come with that and parents so lazy they preferred to leave one of the main doors to the apartment open rather than walk a few extra steps. Did they really care about these children so little ?
I’m sorry you’ve lost me.
Simply put.
The children who were abducted and murdered were outside with the doors of their homes shut, leaving those children outside in the outside world.
Tell me Erngath how many children die from accidents in the home every year ? How many of those happened when there was no adult in attendance ?
Tell me Erngath how many children die from accidents in the home every year ? How many of those happened when there was no adult in attendance ?
I don't have any of those figures to hand but I would imagine more children die as a result of accidents out with the home.
Then you’d be wrong.
https://www.rospa.com/home-safety/advice/child-safety/accidents-to-children/
Sorry I thought it was fatal accidents we were discussing.
Did you read the long ? I only ask because this is the first paragraph..
Accidental injuries are a major health problem throughout the United Kingdom. They are one of the most common cause of death in children over one year of age. Every year they leave many thousands permanently disabled or disfigured.
Very sad, particularly as many of these accidents happen with an adult at home.
http://adc.bmj.com/content/100/11/1032 (http://adc.bmj.com/content/100/11/1032)
Something more scientific.
did you read it...here si the conclusion..hardly relavet..
Conclusions Most HIs from a fall in these children admitted to hospital were minor. Infants, dropped from a carer's arms, those who fell from infant products, a window, wall or from an attic had the greatest chance of ICI or skull fracture. These data inform prevention and the assessment of the likelihood of serious injury when the object fallen from is known.
What we don’t have is the figures for the deaths that could have been avoided if the parent had been present.
Look at the figures for drowning, suffocation, poisoning and fire. These were the real dangers.Well we can be fairly sure drowning and fire didn’t happen (and of the 4 you mention they are by far the most likely) which leaves suffocation and poisoning. Poisoning usually doesn’t result in instant death, so that leaves suffocation. How would a child who got out of bed to look for her parents manage to suffocate herself?
none from falling off a sofa I would wager
Accidental injuries are a major health problem throughout the United Kingdom. They are one of the most common cause of death in children over one year of age. Every year they leave many thousands permanently disabled or disfigured.
Many of these accidents do occur when the parents are present.
I remember being in hospital with one of mine who was in for a minor surgical procedure.
There was a little girl of two who as brought inafter drinking some oven cleaning fluid.
Both her parents were wit her and had been in the home at the time.
Of course the fluid should have been locked away.
I will never forget the father's screams of despair when told she had died.
Accidents happen in the home, outside the home , probably mostly with parents nearby.
Sometimes without parents nearby.
Well we can be fairly sure drowning and fire didn’t happen (and of the 4 you mention they are by far the most likely) which leaves suffocation and poisoning. Poisoning usually doesn’t result in instant death, so that leaves suffocation. How would a child who got out of bed to look for her parents manage to suffocate herself?
What do you think is more likely, a child drinking bleach when the parents are in the home or when they aren’t ?Neither - all bleach bottles have child proof screw tops these days. That said, my son managed to squirt himself in the eye with Mr Muscle when he was little.
There was two 18 month olds in tha apartment too. Besides do we know if the curtains had cords ?If an 18 month old child is going to suffocate in its cot during the night, whether its parent is there or not is probably immaterial unless they are watching over the child all night long.
If an 18 month old child is going to suffocate in its cot during the night, whether its parent is there or not is probably immaterial unless they are watching over the child all night long.
The three year old who is home alone gives the 18 month old a hard biscuit that it subsequently chokes on. Do you think that that child would have had more chance of survival if the parents had been there ?
The three year old who is home alone gives the 18 month old a hard biscuit that it subsequently chokes on. Do you think that that child would have had more chance of survival if the parents had been there ?If the parents were asleep - no.
children hoke at mealtime
The three year old who is home alone gives the 18 month old a hard biscuit that it subsequently chokes on. Do you think that that child would have had more chance of survival if the parents had been there ?If the parent was in the bedroom observing the child choking, sure, if the parent knew what to do. This could have happened at the party I described earlier. Children muching on party snacks could have choked to death with or without adults present.
If the parent was in the bedroom observing the child choking, sure, if the parent knew what to do. This could have happened at the party I described earlier. Children muching on party snacks could have choked to death with or without adults present.
If the parent was in the bedroom observing the child choking, sure, if the parent knew what to do. This could have happened at the party I described earlier. Children muching on party snacks could have choked to death with or without adults present.
But there’s a parent there to dislodge the particle or if they can’t do that seek medical help. If they’re home alone who is there to do that ?
No one is going to argue that children are safer if there is a parent with them 24/7 .
However accidents, abductions, murder happen to many well loved and cherished children
The cases I mentioned were children who were outside while their parents were inside.
The parents were not there.
I would never have made choices of any of these parents but as was the case of the little girl who died in the hospital because her parents had left the oven cleaner within grasp, what is to be gained by healing more guilt on grieving parents.
If you can’t dazzle them with your rhetoric then drown them in mawkish sentimentality.
If you can’t dazzle them with your rhetoric then drown them in mawkish sentimentality.
The parents made a bad decision, parents make bad decisions all the time. That poor little girl who was snatched from a tent in the garden and murdered. The decision was made for those children to camp in the garden, it's something children should be safe doing.
"Mawkish sentimentality"
If that is how you choose to describe my account of the parents experience and grief.
So be it.
The parents made a bad decision, parents make bad decisions all the time. That poor little girl who was snatched from a tent in the garden and murdered. The decision was made for those children to camp in the garden, it's something children should be safe doing.
Yes I do. As you supporters often say...you have no idea how the parents were feeling.
There will also be random, terrible cases like the one you describe avoid but you can at least negate as much of the danger as you can and in my book leaving three under threes in a strange, dark, unlocked apartment is not negating the risks for you children.
I was there.
I saw their grief.
Tell me the difference between the grief you experience when losing a child, especially when you have played a part, and when they are snatched from you ?
Only their inner circle would know the truth. The rest was for public consumption.
Tell me the difference between the grief you experience when losing a child, especially when you have played a part, and when they are snatched from you ?
Only their inner circle would know the truth. The rest was for public consumption.
There will also be random, terrible cases like the one you describe avoid but you can at least negate as much of the danger as you can and in my book leaving three under threes in a strange, dark, unlocked apartment is not negating the risks for you children.
But the parents of this child left her sleeping outside in the dark while they slept inside.
So no blame attached to them?
What benefit was there to the children sleeping outside? What benefit to the children left alone?
Eh?
I'm talking about the grief I saw on the faces of the parents whose child died while I was in the hospital.
We seem to have reached the point where certain posters appear to think that all children are doomed so why worry....What an absurd statement.
What an absurd statement.
I’m not the one trying to excuse a stupid act with no benefit to the children by quoting the tragic results of less stupid acts which are part of normal child development.So normal child development = being left alone to camp in the back garden at night. Abnormal child development = being left alone tucked up in bed inside a house.
So normal child development = being left alone to camp in the back garden at night. Abnormal child development = being left alone tucked up in bed inside a house.
I was there.
I saw their grief.
You were in PdL? How interesting. Were you on holiday too?
Unlocked and across public access. Yes, got it in one.The same in both scenarios though surely?
The same in both scenarios though surely?
The risk must be age appropriate. I believe the little girl who was taken from the tent was 7 and the children with her older.But don't you castigate her responsible adult for allowing them to spend a night in the garden without an adult present? Surely he is to blame for her death, in your view?
But don't you castigate her responsible adult for allowing them to spend a night in the garden without an adult present? Surely he is to blame for her death, in your view?
How old were her cousins ( I think ) who were with her ? Old enough to be responsible?How old is old enough in your view?
How old is old enough in your view?
Certainly not 3 and 18 months.I thought you said you didn't have children? Anyway, fyi: the other children in the Sophie Hook case were playing in the paddling pool during the day, her male cousin was 9. I don't think any of them is what you would call old enough to be responsible.
I was looking at my nearly 4 year old granddaughter the other day and it chills my blood to think what she could get up to if left on her own.
How old were her cousins ( I think ) who were with her ? Old enough to be responsible?
I thought you said you didn't have children? Anyway, fyi: the other children in the Sophie Hook case were playing in the paddling pool during the day, her male cousin was 9. I don't think any of them is what you would call old enough to be responsible.
I have step grandchildren.Except - one of them wasn't was she?
No I agree it wasn’t old enough but they were certainly better able to look after themselves than a 3 year old and two 18 month olds.
Her sister and cousin were nine.
The other children I think were all younger.
Perhaps someone else can find further details.
I did read of how both sets of parents felt tremendous guilt but were persuaded by relatives and friends that the guilt and responsibility belonged to the evil piece of s..m who abducted and killed Sophie.
Except - one of them wasn't was she?
One of them wasn’t what ?Able to look after herself.
Able to look after herself.
Apparently..What??
But don't you castigate her responsible adult for allowing them to spend a night in the garden without an adult present? Surely he is to blame for her death, in your view?
I am just trying to establish the point that these cases are totally different.I responded to this post but my reply was removed. Why?
The child who was taken from the tent wanted to have a children's camp out -didn't we all love that- this was part of being a child and having the choice.
IMO the McCann children had no choice and got no pleasure from the experience of being left alone at night - one child complained about it and then when it happened again the same child disappeared. COMPLETELY different stories.
I responded to this post but my reply was removed. Why?
For suggesting a poster blamed an innocent victim for a crime. Please take offline.That is what her posts suggests - that it was not the responsibility of the adult because the child wanted to sleep in the garden. Chldren want to do alot of things but it is the duty of responsible adults to decide what and what is not appropriate. Personally I don’t hold the uncle in question at all responsible for what happened to his niece, that was purely down to the murdering s..mbag who took her. But young children were left unattended and in harm’s way and I’m just interested in the double standards on display by some.
I wouldn't have left my children alone as the McCann's did, but as they said they thought they were safe they were checking on them regularly, who would imagine someone would take one of them in a child friendly quiet resort?
That is what her posts suggests - that it was not the responsibility of the adult because the child wanted to sleep in the garden. Chldren want to do alot of things but it is the duty of responsible adults to decide what and what is not appropriate. Personally I don’t hold the uncle in question at all responsible for what happened to his niece, that was purely down to the murdering s..mbag who took her. But young children were left unattended and in harm’s way and I’m just interested in the double standards on display by some.
Parents are responsible for their child’s development. Some activities are good for child development others have little or no impact.I agree.
I agree.
Good. Would you also agree that an accident happening as a result of a developmental activity is less “blameworthy” than an accident happening as a result of a non developmental activity?
Children could be involved in a developmental activity but come to harm because of lack of parental supervision during that activity, or letting them take part in a developmental activity for which the child is not prepared or letting them take part in a developmental activity which is not age related.
And who is to decide an appropriate age for children to take part in some development activity.
Parents make differing choices and sometimes have to live with the consequences if their choice was wrong.
If that were the case - why did the nannies carry rape alarms.
Is this true?
Children could be involved in a developmental activity but come to harm because of lack of parental supervision during that activity, or letting them take part in a developmental activity for which the child is not prepared or letting them take part in a developmental activity which is not age related.
And who is to decide an appropriate age for children to take part in some development activity.
Parents make differing choices and sometimes have to live with the consequences if their choice was wrong.
Apparently, according to the Mirror.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-really-happened-night-madeleine-10245222
I don't think it was ever denied.
Thank you.
An interesting read.
I don't think it was ever denied.Denied by whom?
Good. Would you also agree that an accident happening as a result of a developmental activity is less “blameworthy” than an accident happening as a result of a non developmental activity?No.