Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 09:13:58 AM
Title: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 09:13:58 AM
The McCanns are not guilty of neglecting their children.
Why do I say this?
Because I have read the files and because I have noted that there has never been any charge against them from any authority. Guilt is a legal term and as such should not be used lightly.
The McCanns did make a terrible decision namely that their children would be safe in the apartment each evening while they instituted the kind of checks prevalent up till that time in many resorts and holiday parks.
The McCanns have admitted their error of judgement. They are living with the consequences of that. The constant harping on about this demonstrates a kind of vigilante approach to the case which does not make the posts read like those of people with charitable hearts or any understanding of the nature of forgiveness and its beneficial effects both to the individual and to society.
People may or may not be aware that the one specific crime that the McCanns were completely cleared of having been guilty of was in fact "exposicao ou abandono" the Portuguese equivalent of neglect or the worse crime of abandoning a child. I suggest that those who repeatedly spam this mantra should read the Archival report instead of remaining fixated on an uncharitable and rather sad repetitive chant about something they don't appear to know the truth about.
Processo Volume XVII - pages 4639-4649
The constant disruption of threads with this mantra does not take into account the fact that the legal authorities and the social authorities (with far greater knowledge of the case, the family, etc. than you have), have not in six years made any effort to charge the McCanns.
Perhaps those reading here without blinkers will understand that there probably are good reasons for this lack of charges and those reasons may well be far closer to the legal reasons offered by the Attorney General of Portugal for his decision not to charge rather than some fanciful notions that have been proffered by anti McCanns such as the amazing influence of Clarence Mitchell or the McCanns themselves to control the courts, the media and just about everybody else.
When people manage to explain why there have been no charges (and such would be possible for crimes committed against a UK citizen even when abroad) then this mantra may have meaning or even purpose. Till then, it remains the sad mantra of someone who is showing himself to be both uncharitable and rather vindictive.
I therefore ask those spamming the forum with this mantra to please explain why
1) they do not accept the fact that the Portuguese actually cleared the McCanns of this charge
and
2) why there have been no charges laid against the McCanns by UK authorities.
Till they do that, then their mantra is pointless.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on July 28, 2013, 09:31:04 AM
The McCanns are not guilty of neglecting their children.
Why do I say this?
Because I have read the files and because I have noted that there has never been any charge against them from any authority. Guilt is a legal term and as such should not be used lightly.
The McCanns did make a terrible decision namely that their children would be safe in the apartment each evening while they instituted the kind of checks prevalent up till that time in many resorts and holiday parks.
The McCanns have admitted their error of judgement. They are living with the consequences of that. The constant harping on about this demonstrates a kind of vigilante approach to the case which does not make the posts read like those of people with charitable hearts or any understanding of the nature of forgiveness and its beneficial effects both to the individual and to society.
People may or may not be aware that the one specific crime that the McCanns were completely cleared of having been guilty of was in fact "exposicao ou abandono" the Portuguese equivalent of neglect or the worse crime of abandoning a child. I suggest that those who repeatedly spam this mantra should read the Archival report instead of remaining fixated on an uncharitable and rather sad repetitive chant about something they don't appear to know the truth about.
Processo Volume XVII - pages 4639-4649
The constant disruption of threads with this mantra does not take into account the fact that the legal authorities and the social authorities (with far greater knowledge of the case, the family, etc. than you have), have not in six years made any effort to charge the McCanns.
Perhaps those reading here without blinkers will understand that there probably are good reasons for this lack of charges and those reasons may well be far closer to the legal reasons offered by the Attorney General of Portugal for his decision not to charge rather than some fanciful notions that have been proffered by anti McCanns such as the amazing influence of Clarence Mitchell or the McCanns themselves to control the courts, the media and just about everybody else.
When people manage to explain why there have been no charges (and such would be possible for crimes committed against a UK citizen even when abroad) then this mantra may have meaning or even purpose. Till then, it remains the sad mantra of someone who is showing himself to be both uncharitable and rather vindictive.
I therefore ask those spamming the forum with this mantra to please explain why
1) they do not accept the fact that the Portuguese actually cleared the McCanns of this charge
and
2) why there have been no charges laid against the McCanns by UK authorities.
Till they do that, then their mantra is pointless.
Excelllent post Gilet - I await the responses to those two questions with interest.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Rachel Granada on July 28, 2013, 09:34:26 AM
I think some people just enjoy using the "neglect" as a stick to beat the McCanns with.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 28, 2013, 09:40:59 AM
The McCanns are not guilty of neglecting their children.
Why do I say this?
Because I have read the files and because I have noted that there has never been any charge against them from any authority. Guilt is a legal term and as such should not be used lightly.
The McCanns did make a terrible decision namely that their children would be safe in the apartment each evening while they instituted the kind of checks prevalent up till that time in many resorts and holiday parks.
The McCanns have admitted their error of judgement. They are living with the consequences of that. The constant harping on about this demonstrates a kind of vigilante approach to the case which does not make the posts read like those of people with charitable hearts or any understanding of the nature of forgiveness and its beneficial effects both to the individual and to society.
People may or may not be aware that the one specific crime that the McCanns were completely cleared of having been guilty of was in fact "exposicao ou abandono" the Portuguese equivalent of neglect or the worse crime of abandoning a child. I suggest that those who repeatedly spam this mantra should read the Archival report instead of remaining fixated on an uncharitable and rather sad repetitive chant about something they don't appear to know the truth about.
Processo Volume XVII - pages 4639-4649
The constant disruption of threads with this mantra does not take into account the fact that the legal authorities and the social authorities (with far greater knowledge of the case, the family, etc. than you have), have not in six years made any effort to charge the McCanns.
Perhaps those reading here without blinkers will understand that there probably are good reasons for this lack of charges and those reasons may well be far closer to the legal reasons offered by the Attorney General of Portugal for his decision not to charge rather than some fanciful notions that have been proffered by anti McCanns such as the amazing influence of Clarence Mitchell or the McCanns themselves to control the courts, the media and just about everybody else.
When people manage to explain why there have been no charges (and such would be possible for crimes committed against a UK citizen even when abroad) then this mantra may have meaning or even purpose. Till then, it remains the sad mantra of someone who is showing himself to be both uncharitable and rather vindictive.
I therefore ask those spamming the forum with this mantra to please explain why
1) they do not accept the fact that the Portuguese actually cleared the McCanns of this charge
and
2) why there have been no charges laid against the McCanns by UK authorities.
Till they do that, then their mantra is pointless.
1. The Mccanns were not cleared , as they haven't been charged in the first place.
The disappearance of Madeleine still stands with the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.
2. The SY team reviewing/investigating the case, are by and large the ones who fouled up in the conviction of Barry George.
Evidence of abduction NONE,forensically or otherwise.
A 'child being carried', since when does that prove abduction ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on July 28, 2013, 09:52:14 AM
1. The Mccanns were not cleared , as they haven't been charged in the first place.
The disappearance of Madeleine still stands with the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.
2. The SY team reviewing/investigating the case, are by and large the ones who fouled up in the conviction of Barry George.
Evidence of abduction NONE,forensically or otherwise.
A 'child being carried', since when does that prove abduction ?
Please do try to keep the two matters separate.
There is the case of neglect for which there was a categorical explanation in the Archival report as to why the McCanns were not charged. I suggest instead of simply repeating the mantra you go and read the pages I have referenced.
The explanation as to why they were not charged very clearly lays out the reasons they are not guilty (and therefore should not be charged) of the crime.
It appears from your post that you don't understand the role of the AG in portuguese law or for that matter the role of the CPS in UK law. If there are no grounds for charging a person then that means that there is no evidence of their guilt. If there is evidence of guilt the AG or CPS will move to charge the person.
Either you are deliberately being disruptive or you simply do not understand the purpose of dividing forums into separate threads. This thread is about neglect.
Can you please explain why you are taking it upon yourself to spam this mantra of neglect when the AG has specifically determined that the McCanns are not guilty of this charge. Are you claiming that you do not believe his reasoning as laid out in the report or what is your motive? If you do not believe his reasoning could you please explain why?
And secondly, could you please as I asked in the OP, explain why there have been no charges against the McCanns for neglect in the UK?
As for abduction and other matters I will reply in the correct thread. I won't assist you in your disruptive tactics.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 09:57:32 AM
What has any of the above got to do with the 2 questions asked by Gilet regarding the mantra about neglect.
Here are the questions again. They are asked in relation to the neglect issue not the whole case.
Quote
I therefore ask those spamming the forum with this mantra to please explain why
1) they do not accept the fact that the Portuguese actually cleared the McCanns of this charge
and
2) why there have been no charges laid against the McCanns by UK authorities.
Till they do that, then their mantra is pointless. Unquote
As it is you who persists in spamming the board with the 'neglect' mantra - I await your responses to these questions.
I wonder why stephen25000 is so clearly avoiding the issue?
It is after all him who has been spamming the forum with this neglect mantra for a while now.
Judging from the response and the confusion (either deliberate or from not having read the files carefully) of the two separate issues (neglect and disappearance) I am doubtful that a proper response will be forthcoming.
But I have offered him this thread to explain his reasoning and I look forward to him doing so.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 28, 2013, 10:03:46 AM
I wonder why stephen25000 is so clearly avoiding the issue?
It is after all him who has been spamming the forum with this neglect mantra for a while now.
Judging from the response and the confusion (either deliberate or from not having read the files carefully) of the two separate issues (neglect and disappearance) I am doubtful that a proper response will be forthcoming.
But I have offered him this thread to explain his reasoning and I look forward to him doing so.
LET'S TRY AGAIN.
The Mccanns haven't been charged.
The UK authorities have no jurisdiction in this case, as it occurred in Portugal.
As to spamming, don't be stupid.
From my viewpoint and many others, the 'spammers' are the mccannites, who are on here to defend their heroes.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 10:04:49 AM
The answers are-: 1) Because the authorities believe the parents are involved with the murder/concealment or accidental death (as stated by Goncalo Amaral in his book) of their child's body and want to charge them with this rather than a neglect case but don't have enough evidence-yet, 2)They didn't neglect their children in the jurisdiction of the UK.
The book by Amaral is irrelevant to the conclusions made by the PJ and the AG of Portugal at the end of the case, many months after Amaral was so humiliatingly dismissed for his indiscretion in talking to the media.
Your insinuation that a desire to charge the McCanns with murder and concealment of a body flies in the face of reality. Again the reality of the full investigation rather than the Paiva report mid way through it.
There is a clear and specific outline of the legal reasons why the McCanns could not in Portugal be charged with neglect or abandoning the children. Clearly you have either not read that or have forgotten it.
The two issues are entirely separate and the AG makes this fact clear.
He also makes it clear that the PJ have no evidence of any crime having been committed by the McCanns so your insinutation that the PT authorities wish to charge them is simply nonsensical. But reliance on the outpourings of a disgruntled policeman who was humiliatingly thrown off the case and was later convicted as having effectively lied to the court in a similar case might well lead you to mistaken conclusions. I can see that.
As for the fact that the McCanns did not neglect the children in the UK, are you actually unaware that there are provisions whereby UK citizens who commit crimes abroad can be charged in the UK?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 28, 2013, 10:08:32 AM
The book by Amaral is irrelevant to the conclusions made by the PJ and the AG of Portugal at the end of the case, many months after Amaral was so humiliatingly dismissed for his indiscretion in talking to the media.
Your insinuation that a desire to charge the McCanns with murder and concealment of a body flies in the face of reality. Again the reality of the full investigation rather than the Paiva report mid way through it.
There is a clear and specific outline of the legal reasons why the McCanns could not in Portugal be charged with neglect or abandoning the children. Clearly you have either not read that or have forgotten it.
The two issues are entirely separate and the AG makes this fact clear.
He also makes it clear that the PJ have no evidence of any crime having been committed by the McCanns so your insinutation that the PT authorities wish to charge them is simply nonsensical. But reliance on the outpourings of a disgruntled policeman who was humiliatingly thrown off the case and was later convicted as having effectively lied to the court in a similar case might well lead you to mistaken conclusions. I can see that.
As for the fact that the McCanns did not neglect the children in the UK, are you actually unaware that there are provisions whereby UK citizens who commit crimes abroad can be charged in the UK?
YET AGAIN.
A lack of evidence, i.e. in this case forensics backing up the indications of the dogs, does not mean a crime wasn't committed.
By that same note it works the other way, as stated earlier. Meanwhile there is not one piecve of evidence forensic or otherwise that shows an abduction took place.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 10:11:19 AM
The UK authorities have no jurisdiction in this case, as it occurred in Portugal.
As to spamming, don't be stupid.
From my viewpoint and many others, the 'spammers' are the mccannites, who are on here to defend their heroes.
Of course they have not been charged. The reason being they are innocent. Innocent people against whom there is no evidence of a crime don't get charged.
Perhaps you didn't know that?
And as for jurisdiction, I refer you to my above post.
Now the two questions I asked.
Why are you unable to accept the fact that the Attorney General specifically stated that the McCanns were not guilty of the crime of neglect/abandonment? Why are you unable to accept the clear legal reasons that were outlined and explain why they are not guilty of that crime? Why do you repeat this mantra without explaining how you know better than he does, without explaining why his legal arguments are wrong?
Please indicate how the AG of Portugal got the law wrong when he outlined why the McCanns are not guilty of neglect.
And please explain why (when it is possible) the UK authorities have not removed the other children from the McCanns or charged them with a crime against a UK citizen abroad?
And I repeat that the way in which you introduce the neglect issue in every thread is definitely spamming. Other threads are not discussing this issue but you spam them in order to disrupt the topic at hand as evidenced this morning with the triathlon thread.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 10:14:47 AM
A lack of evidence, i.e. in this case forensics backing up the indications of the dogs, does not mean a crime wasn't committed.
By that same note it works the other way, as stated earlier. Meanwhile there is not one piecve of evidence forensic or otherwise that shows an abduction took place.
This thread is about the neglect issue which is entirely separate to the question of death or abduction.
The fact that you and at least one other poster cannot differentiate between the two issues is either a deliberate attempt once again to disrupt or is an indication that you simply do not fully understand the issues.
Have you in fact read the full archival report?
Can you please explain what it is in the AG's outline of the legal arguments about the neglect issue which you disagree with?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 28, 2013, 10:15:49 AM
Of course they have not been charged. The reason being they are innocent. Innocent people against whom there is no evidence of a crime don't get charged.
Perhaps you didn't know that?
And as for jurisdiction, I refer you to my above post.
Now the two questions I asked.
Why are you unable to accept the fact that the Attorney General specifically stated that the McCanns were not guilty of the crime of neglect/abandonment? Why are you unable to accept the clear legal reasons that were outlined and explain why they are not guilty of that crime? Why do you repeat this mantra without explaining how you know better than he does, without explaining why his legal arguments are wrong?
Please indicate how the AG of Portugal got the law wrong when he outlined why the McCanns are not guilty of neglect.
And please explain why (when it is possible) the UK authorities have not removed the other children from the McCanns or charged them with a crime against a UK citizen abroad?
And I repeat that the way in which you introduce the neglect issue in every thread is definitely spamming. Other threads are not discussing this issue but you spam them in order to disrupt the topic at hand as evidenced this morning with the triathlon thread.
READ THIS AND YOU MIGHT COMPREHEND, BUT I DOUBT IT.
' ''There is no legal age limit for leaving a child on their own, but it's an offence to do so if it places them at risk. Parents can be prosecuted for neglect if they leave a child unsupervised "in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health".
(cite - Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (England and Wales), Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act and Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968.) '
The SPAMMING is coming from people like you who won't accept the basic precept of what the Mccanns failed to do.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 28, 2013, 10:17:53 AM
In addition from another poster who has put this very succinctly..................
'There can be NO DOUBT that the McCann children were left alone in just such circumstances, none at all. If you require evidence of this, I suggest you consider the fact that one of them has been missing for six years. Despite the McCann's repeated mantra - ''there is no evidence Madeleine has come to any harm'' - I think any person with half a brain can understand that forcibly separating a child from her family in this manner constitutes unnecessary suffering, as defined in the act.
So I suggest the toadies try to understand the difference between someone who is not guilty of by reason of that fact being established in a court of law, and someone who was never prosecuted because the authorities took the decision not to charge them at that time.
But let's make no mistake - in leaving their children in the way they did, they exposed them to danger, and whatever happened to Madeleine - at best - resulted from their decision to leave her unattended and unprotected.
And those actions are, quite clearly, neglect. Whether they were charged or not. '
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
READ THIS AND YOU MIGHT COMPREHEND, BUT I DOUBT IT.
' ''There is no legal age limit for leaving a child on their own, but it's an offence to do so if it places them at risk. Parents can be prosecuted for neglect if they leave a child unsupervised "in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health".
(cite - Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (England and Wales), Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act and Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968.) '
The SPAMMING is coming from people like you who won't accept the basic precept of what the Mccanns failed to do.
I am fully aware of the quote you have included in your post.
But you seem to be entirely missing the point.
The point is that knowing that, as I am sure you must agree they do, the UK authorities have chosen to do nothing. Now is that because they understand the reasoning of the AG of Portugal that there was no intent or action of abandoning the children due to the checking system in place or can you offer some other explanation?
You see, the real point is that in light of that law there are still no charges and this is six years after the event.
Now can you please address that specific issue?
I disagree with you about spamming. My posts for example are invariably on topic and are only repetitive when the poster I am debating with is entirely missing the clear point I am making.
However your posts are spam because they are thrown in repeatedly into threads which they do not relate to.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 28, 2013, 10:47:34 AM
I am fully aware of the quote you have included in your post.
But you seem to be entirely missing the point.
The point is that knowing that, as I am sure you must agree they do, the UK authorities have chosen to do nothing. Now is that because they understand the reasoning of the AG of Portugal that there was no intent or action of abandoning the children due to the checking system in place or can you offer some other explanation?
You see, the real point is that in light of that law there are still no charges and this is six years after the event.
Now can you please address that specific issue?
I disagree with you about spamming. My posts for example are invariably on topic and are only repetitive when the poster I am debating with is entirely missing the clear point I am making.
However your posts are spam because they are thrown in repeatedly into threads which they do not relate to.
The UK authorities have no jurisdiction in this case, so that point is irrelevant.
As to why the Portuguese never have charged the Mccanns, well that is beyond any logic.
However, there are explanations for that.
As to spamming, we will have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 28, 2013, 10:51:33 AM
Again to reinforce, from another poster on Amazon.
This has been stated here before, but never answered with any reasoned logic.
'NSPCC advice (supported by Government advice):
As a mum or dad, looking after your child is your number one priority...... Your children rely upon you to protect them and you are responsible for making sure they are happy, safe and well looked after in your absence. Never leave a baby or young child home alone, not even for a few minutes, regardless of whether they are sleeping or awake. The most common place for accidents is at home and children under the age of five are the most injured group. It is OK for you to make time for yourself, but only if your child is safe and appropriately cared for.
How to decide if you can safely leave a child alone: There are many important things to consider before you decide to leave a child alone. These include: * the age of the child * the child's level of maturity and understanding * the place where the child will be left * how long and how often the child will be left alone * whether or not there are any other children with the child.
What to remember if you leave a child alone: If you do leave a child alone, remember to: * leave a contact telephone number and be available to answer it immediately * talk to your child about keeping safe at home and point out the potential dangers * tell them not to answer the door to strangers * give clear instructions on what to do in an emergency - they should be able to phone the emergency services * leave a list of trusted people they can contact * put obvious dangers out of reach of children, for example, medicines, matches * make sure that your child is happy about the arrangements and confident about being left * tell your child when you'll be back and make sure you're back on time * talk to him or her about it afterwards.'
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 10:54:44 AM
The UK authorities have no jurisdiction in this case, so that point is irrelevant.
As to why the Portuguese never have charged the Mccanns, well that is beyond any logic.
However, there are explanations for that.
As to spamming, we will have to agree to disagree.
Firstly you have ignored the point I made about UK social authorities removing the other children if they believe there has been a crime and no charges or court case is necessary. Clearly that has not occurred. Can you please explain why that is?
Secondly, you say the reason that the AG of Portugal chose not to prosecute the McCanns for neglect is beyond any logic.
Can you please identify the aspects of the clear legal outlines he put into his report explaining his decision which you believe defy logic?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 11:06:07 AM
Again to reinforce, from another poster on Amazon.
This has been stated here before, but never answered with any reasoned logic.
'NSPCC advice (supported by Government advice):
As a mum or dad, looking after your child is your number one priority...... Your children rely upon you to protect them and you are responsible for making sure they are happy, safe and well looked after in your absence. Never leave a baby or young child home alone, not even for a few minutes, regardless of whether they are sleeping or awake. The most common place for accidents is at home and children under the age of five are the most injured group. It is OK for you to make time for yourself, but only if your child is safe and appropriately cared for.
How to decide if you can safely leave a child alone: There are many important things to consider before you decide to leave a child alone. These include: * the age of the child * the child's level of maturity and understanding * the place where the child will be left * how long and how often the child will be left alone * whether or not there are any other children with the child.
What to remember if you leave a child alone: If you do leave a child alone, remember to: * leave a contact telephone number and be available to answer it immediately * talk to your child about keeping safe at home and point out the potential dangers * tell them not to answer the door to strangers * give clear instructions on what to do in an emergency - they should be able to phone the emergency services * leave a list of trusted people they can contact * put obvious dangers out of reach of children, for example, medicines, matches * make sure that your child is happy about the arrangements and confident about being left * tell your child when you'll be back and make sure you're back on time * talk to him or her about it afterwards.'
I am glad you were able to call on a supporter on Amazon for that.
It very nicely reinforces my point.
Even in light of all that the Social Authorities in the UK have not chosen to remove the other children from the McCanns. We know they do not have to have anything other than reasonable suspicion of neglect to do so (no court case is necessary).
So in light of all that can you please explain why no action of that sort has been taken.
Or is the neglect mantra simply that? A vindictive nasty mantra with no basis in fact?
Till you explain then it will be seen as simply a mantra with no foundation.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Angelo222 on July 28, 2013, 11:11:02 AM
The law in Portugal is very clear as to when someone can be charged with child neglect. It has to amount to abandonment basically before parents can be charged let alone prosecuted. Clearly this was not the case with the McCanns and their children.
That said however, Gilets claim in the opening sentence of the opening post is nothing more than a smokescreen. The McCanns were guilty of neglect, of reckless behaviour towards their children. Leaving three young children under the age of 4 alone in a strange apartment in a foreign holiday resort was an act of the utmost stupidity and was reckless in anyone's book. They put their interests before that of the children and they paid the ultimate price!
Tell us Gilet, were the McCanns subject to social services reporting on their return from Portugal after having lost their eldest daughter as a direct result of their own stupidity?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 11:16:40 AM
The law in Portugal is very clear as to when someone can be charged with child neglect. It has to amount to abandonment basically before parents can be charged let alone prosecuted. Clearly this was not the case with the McCanns and their children.
That said however, Gilets claim in the opening sentence of the opening post is nothing more than a smokescreen. The McCanns were guilty of neglect, of reckless behaviour towards their children. Leaving three young children under the age of 4 alone in a strange apartment in a foreign holiday resort was an act of the utmost stupidity and was reckless in anyone's book. They put their interests before that of the children and they paid the ultimate price!
That may well be your opinon with hindsight. It is also the opinion of the McCanns with hindsight. That said it does not in any way help to get to the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann to repeat the neglect issue as a mantra. It is accepted as a fact that the decision the parents took was with hindsight, wrong. Nobody would argue with that, least of all the McCanns themselves.
Nor have you explained why when such neglect is as you appear to claim, so serious that the UK authorities have not as they have frequently done in the case of other families, removed the remaining children.
And it does not excuse the fact that (as you have seen this morning) certain posters use the neglect mantra as a clear attempt to disrupt threads which have nothing to do with that issue.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 28, 2013, 11:19:36 AM
I am glad you were able to call on a supporter on Amazon for that.
It very nicely reinforces my point.
Even in light of all that the Social Authorities in the UK have not chosen to remove the other children from the McCanns. We know they do not have to have anything other than reasonable suspicion of neglect to do so (no court case is necessary).
So in light of all that can you please explain why no action of that sort has been taken.
Or is the neglect mantra simply that? A vindictive nasty mantra with no basis in fact?
Till you explain then it will be seen as simply a mantra with no foundation.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/for-parents/keeping-your-child-safe/being-home-alone/home-alone_wda96754.html#decide if it helps
And not being prosecuted does not mean that the offence did not take place - it can mean that the offence was ignored (I could have been done for speeding many times as I have gone too fast for the speed limit, as no doubt have we all - but I have not been prosecuted) or it could mean that the decision was made to deal with the offence in other ways. Prosecution is a last resort in Child Care cases
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Chinagirl on July 28, 2013, 11:29:31 AM
Tell us Gilet, were the McCanns subject to social services reporting on their return from Portugal after having lost their eldest daughter as a direct result of their own stupidity?
It was widely reported that they received at least one visit from social services shortly after their return from Portugal.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Angelo222 on July 28, 2013, 11:44:10 AM
That may well be your opinon with hindsight. It is also the opinion of the McCanns with hindsight. That said it does not in any way help to get to the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann to repeat the neglect issue as a mantra. It is accepted as a fact that the decision the parents took was with hindsight, wrong. Nobody would argue with that, least of all the McCanns themselves.
Nor have you explained why when such neglect is as you appear to claim, so serious that the UK authorities have not as they have frequently done in the case of other families, removed the remaining children.
And it does not excuse the fact that (as you have seen this morning) certain posters use the neglect mantra as a clear attempt to disrupt threads which have nothing to do with that issue.
At the end of the day, if Madeleine has been abducted and I stress the 'if' here as there is no direct evidence that she has been, it is the abductor who should be accountable for the crime. The McCann's conduct might well have being a contributing factor in facilitating an abduction but it is not of sufficient seriousness to constitute a crime in its own right. Their stupidity not being of sufficient seriousness to countenance state involvement in any further action against them.
The spamming of threads and the constant attempts to sidetrack topics has not gone unnoticed and will inevitably attract sanctions if it continues.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Angelo222 on July 28, 2013, 11:47:37 AM
Tell us Gilet, were the McCanns subject to social services reporting on their return from Portugal after having lost their eldest daughter as a direct result of their own stupidity?
It was widely reported that they received at least one visit from social services shortly after their return from Portugal.
Thank you Chinagirl, I was aware of that but it is usual for SS to make follow up visits in such cases where young children are involved.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 11:57:55 AM
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/for-parents/keeping-your-child-safe/being-home-alone/home-alone_wda96754.html#decide if it helps
And not being prosecuted does not mean that the offence did not take place - it can mean that the offence was ignored (I could have been done for speeding many times as I have gone too fast for the speed limit, as no doubt have we all - but I have not been prosecuted) or it could mean that the decision was made to deal with the offence in other ways. Prosecution is a last resort in Child Care cases
May I just ask is it normal for people posting here to have a back up "team" on other forums? Is it normal practice here to copy posts from other forums?
But once again you have either deliberately chosen to avoid the point I made or have simply not understood the clear English I used.#
I never mentioned Social Authorities bringing a prosecution. I specifically mentioned the fact that the children have not been removed from the McCann family which could very easily happen with no prosecution and would happen if there was any serious concern about the parental capabilities of the McCanns such as them having caused the disappearance of their child (wherever that may have happened) by neglect.
You still have not addressed that point. I wonder are you able to do so.
The fact is that the Social Authorities clearly do not believe the neglect issue in the way you do. Nor did the AG of Portugal.
I know who I prefer to be guided by.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 28, 2013, 12:03:28 PM
May I just ask is it normal for people posting here to have a back up "team" on other forums? Is it normal practice here to copy posts from other forums?
But once again you have either deliberately chosen to avoid the point I made or have simply not understood the clear English I used.#
I never mentioned Social Authorities bringing a prosecution. I specifically mentioned the fact that the children have not been removed from the McCann family which could very easily happen with no prosecution and would happen if there was any serious concern about the parental capabilities of the McCanns such as them having caused the disappearance of their child (wherever that may have happened) by neglect.
You still have not addressed that point. I wonder are you able to do so.
The fact is that the Social Authorities clearly do not believe the neglect issue in the way you do. Nor did the AG of Portugal.
I know who I prefer to be guided by.
Your lack of comprehension on this issue I find quite disturbing.
The Mccanns placed their children in unnecessary danger, all three them .
Consequently Madeleine 'disappeared'.
As to why the Portuguese authorities didn't prosecute them, I do not know for certain. However, UK governmental interference cannot be ruled out.
As to other posters points of views, why do you object to them, even if from elsewhere ?
e.g.
'Don't the neglect-deniers have any concept of personal responsibility?
If they really think that it is acceptable to leave tiny children alone every evening, popping by occasionally to have a listen, failing to have any plan in place if something goes wrong, with no way for the children to get in touch with them, even if they were old enough to manage to do this, which they weren't, and without even caring enough to ensure the premises were secure - well frankly if they feel any of that is acceptable, they should NEVER take on the responsibility of parenthood.
There is no ifs buts or maybes here - and whether criminal charges followed or not - what the McCanns and their friends did was wrong, and it was neglect. Not a bit, not a grey area, not open to interpretation, not a matter of opinion. It was wrong................................... '
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 12:20:23 PM
Your lack of comprehension on this issue I find quite disturbing.
The Mccanns placed their children in unnecessary danger, all three them .
Consequently Madeleine 'disappeared'.
As to why the Portuguese authorities didn't prosecute them, I do not know for certain. However, UK governmental interference cannot be ruled out.
As to other posters points of views, why do you object to them, even if from elsewhere ?
e.g.
'Don't the neglect-deniers have any concept of personal responsibility?
If they really think that it is acceptable to leave tiny children alone every evening, popping by occasionally to have a listen, failing to have any plan in place if something goes wrong, with no way for the children to get in touch with them, even if they were old enough to manage to do this, which they weren't, and without even caring enough to ensure the premises were secure - well frankly if they feel any of that is acceptable, they should NEVER take on the responsibility of parenthood.
There is no ifs buts or maybes here - and whether criminal charges followed or not - what the McCanns and their friends did was wrong, and it was neglect. Not a bit, not a grey area, not open to interpretation, not a matter of opinion. It was wrong................................... '
There is no lack of comprehension on my part. The disturbing aspect of this debate is that you are ignoring the law and relying on a convicted crimimal's speculation.
And there is a very disturbing but clear lack of logic on your part.
It is not an automatic consequence of leaving the children that Madeleine "disappeared". There is no logical "consequence" involved. Besides being left a crime had to be committed. Something you apparently choose to ignore.
But now we have your answer as to why the McCanns were not prosecuted.
As I predicted in the OP you have chosen to speculate wildly (based no doubt on the claims of Amaral) that there was UK government interference.
You have totally ignored the very clear and very logical reasons for there being no prosecution for neglect in Portugal as outlined by the Attorney General in the Archival report. You have simply not bothered to look at this and give a rebuttal to the legal arguments and have chosen to rely on the criminal Amaral who was thrown off the case for not being able to keep his mouth shut for your guidance. That does explain a great deal.
But it does not put aside the fact that there was no need for any political interference. There simply was no legal justification for any charge. There was nothing to show the McCanns were guilty of this neglect you claim.
I am sorry about your rant about parents. Clearly you are perfection personified. Most people are not up to the standards you seem to take upon yourself though.
As I have stated the McCanns have already made the point that they will never forgive themselves for this error of judgement (easy to see with hindsight but not so easy in the climate of 2007 when such checking was by no means unknown). Can you explain what your purpose in vindictively repeating your neglect mantra really is?
What do you think they should now do?
Do you think your constant repeating of the mantra will in any way assist their other two children? Or are you simply wanting some kind of vigilante revenge? What precisely is the point you are making.
Everyone knows it was a serious mistake. You are repeating (and yes I will use the word 'spamming' again) the same old point. You are not able to debate it as I have demonstrated by the fact that you cannot answer the legal points made by the AG in the archival report. You are simply repeating the same mantra and I can only presume that it is because you are deliberately being vindictive.
Is there some other point in your constant repetition of what is already known by everyone here or am I right and you are just a sad person demonstrating a nasty streak of vindictiveness?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 01:07:19 PM
May I just ask is it normal for people posting here to have a back up "team" on other forums? Is it normal practice here to copy posts from other forums?
But once again you have either deliberately chosen to avoid the point I made or have simply not understood the clear English I used.#
I never mentioned Social Authorities bringing a prosecution. I specifically mentioned the fact that the children have not been removed from the McCann family which could very easily happen with no prosecution and would happen if there was any serious concern about the parental capabilities of the McCanns such as them having caused the disappearance of their child (wherever that may have happened) by neglect.
You still have not addressed that point. I wonder are you able to do so.
And you deliberately it seems refuse to acknowledge the two points I have made previously that there are two separate potential crimes, neglect and a separate crime relating to the actual disappearance. You ignore the latter and only focus on the former or you conflate the two. Neither action allows for a sensible contribution to this debate from you.
The fact is that the Social Authorities clearly do not believe the neglect issue in the way you do. Nor did the AG of Portugal.
I know who I prefer to be guided by.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: ferryman on July 28, 2013, 01:09:02 PM
In summary, that checks were run very regularly on the children, throughout the week, up to, and including the evening of Madeleine's abduction.
And that that is all well documented.
Thank you. I was of that impression myself which is why I can fully understand (though don't condone as I am working in hindsight) the actions of the McCanns and their friends who had put in place the same kind of checking as was evident in a number of resorts at the time and previously. Subsequently (that old friend hindsight) such arrangements have, I think, been dispensed with by all holiday organisations. It is the main reason that no claim of neglect could ever succeed in any court against the McCanns and is almost certainly why Social Authorities in the UK have not deemed their actions to warrant the removal of the other children.
Unfortunately certain posters are simply fixated on this issue and do not understand the fact that the McCanns were undertaking such checking (the equivalent or better than in many resorts) and their actions were not in fact neglectful. Foolish possibly, selfish maybe but neglect, no.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 02:07:13 PM
I believe you are wrong in that assertion as a number of OC staff did verify the constant movement back and fro of the parents. That is independent verification.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 28, 2013, 02:07:23 PM
There is no lack of comprehension on my part. The disturbing aspect of this debate is that you are ignoring the law and relying on a convicted crimimal's speculation.
And there is a very disturbing but clear lack of logic on your part.
It is not an automatic consequence of leaving the children that Madeleine "disappeared". There is no logical "consequence" involved. Besides being left a crime had to be committed. Something you apparently choose to ignore.
But now we have your answer as to why the McCanns were not prosecuted.
As I predicted in the OP you have chosen to speculate wildly (based no doubt on the claims of Amaral) that there was UK government interference.
You have totally ignored the very clear and very logical reasons for there being no prosecution for neglect in Portugal as outlined by the Attorney General in the Archival report. You have simply not bothered to look at this and give a rebuttal to the legal arguments and have chosen to rely on the criminal Amaral who was thrown off the case for not being able to keep his mouth shut for your guidance. That does explain a great deal.
But it does not put aside the fact that there was no need for any political interference. There simply was no legal justification for any charge. There was nothing to show the McCanns were guilty of this neglect you claim.
I am sorry about your rant about parents. Clearly you are perfection personified. Most people are not up to the standards you seem to take upon yourself though.
As I have stated the McCanns have already made the point that they will never forgive themselves for this error of judgement (easy to see with hindsight but not so easy in the climate of 2007 when such checking was by no means unknown). Can you explain what your purpose in vindictively repeating your neglect mantra really is?
What do you think they should now do?
Do you think your constant repeating of the mantra will in any way assist their other two children? Or are you simply wanting some kind of vigilante revenge? What precisely is the point you are making.
Everyone knows it was a serious mistake. You are repeating (and yes I will use the word 'spamming' again) the same old point. You are not able to debate it as I have demonstrated by the fact that you cannot answer the legal points made by the AG in the archival report. You are simply repeating the same mantra and I can only presume that it is because you are deliberately being vindictive.
Is there some other point in your constant repetition of what is already known by everyone here or am I right and you are just a sad person demonstrating a nasty streak of vindictiveness?
What you want is all trace of reference to the Mccanns neglect of their children removed, and any reminder labelled as being vindictive.
Well I'm afraid it isn't. The cause of Madeleine's disappearance stems from the Mccanns behaviour and no matter how you might try to divert attention, that truth remains implicit.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Mo Stache on July 28, 2013, 02:07:31 PM
I believe you are wrong in that assertion as a number of OC staff did verify the constant movement back and fro of the parents. That is independent verification.
Movement is one thing.
It does not mean the children were checked on as they stated.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 02:12:55 PM
It does not mean the children were checked on as they stated.
So what are you suggesting the parents were doing? Such frequent disturbances to their own meals? What for? Were they getting the footy results off the radio? What else are you suggesting these frequent absences were for?
And what kind of verification do you think should have been made available? I would dearly love to know the answer to that one. Are you saying that just in case anything happened they should perchance have taken a timed photo at the scene of each check?
There is clear evidence that the parents were leaving the Tapas area and if you cannot suggest any other reason for such frequent absences then its quite likely that they are telling the truth.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 28, 2013, 02:54:10 PM
In summary, that checks were run very regularly on the children, throughout the week, up to, and including the evening of Madeleine's abduction.
And that that is all well documented.
Regular checks, in Gerrys own words, where he never actually opened the door to check on his kids, ever, just the once during the whole week, just listened outside to see if they were crying. To him, no crying and no visual means the babies must be fine >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 03:05:50 PM
Regular checks, in Gerrys own words, where he never actually opened the door to check on his kids, ever, just the once during the whole week, just listened outside to see if they were crying. To him, no crying and no visual means the babies must be fine >@@(*&)
Exactly, the very same kind of check that was done by those holiday organisations which up till 2007 were operating such checking schemes and on which the Tapas group based their checking.
And, of course, the very same kind of check still done by hundreds of thousands of parents every night in their homes as they go to bed. They don't go into the child's bedroom as they know that can waken the children or disturb their sleep. They listen at the door to check for sounds. A perfectly normal action and as I say one done by most normal parents much of the time.
This is why the mantra about neglect is such a nonsense. What the McCanns were doing was being done by parents in their own homes in the UK and elsewhere and was being done by holiday organisations in their venues and resorts all over Europe. Having read the AG report I can fully understand his outlines of the arguments against the neglect charge.
I know you didn't mean it to support Gerry and Kate but what you posted has made it very clear that their actions were not so abnormal after all.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 28, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Exactly, the very same kind of check that was done by those holiday organisations which up till 2007 were operating such checking schemes and on which the Tapas group based their checking.
And, of course, the very same kind of check still done by hundreds of thousands of parents every night in their homes as they go to bed. They don't go into the child's bedroom as they know that can waken the children or disturb their sleep. They listen at the door to check for sounds. A perfectly normal action and as I say one done by most normal parents much of the time.
This is why the mantra about neglect is such a nonsense. What the McCanns were doing was being done by parents in their own homes in the UK and elsewhere and was being done by holiday organisations in their venues and resorts all over Europe. Having read the AG report I can fully understand his outlines of the arguments against the neglect charge.
I know you didn't mean it to support Gerry and Kate but what you posted has made it very clear that their actions were not so abnormal after all.
Well I think you have destroyed any good points in your argument if you are comparing parents being inside their own shut and/or locked and secure home with their kids and parents being out at dinner 50/100 metres away out of ear and eyeshot of their kids in an alien environment and unattended
There is also the matter that there was avery good reason PDL did not have a *listening service*
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 03:28:19 PM
Well I think you have destroyed any good points in your argument if you are comparing parents being inside their own shut and/or locked and secure home with their kids and parents being out at dinner 50/100 metres away out of ear and eyeshot of their kids in an alien environment and unattended
There is also the matter that there was avery good reason PDL did not have a *listening service*
You may think what you like. I am very happy to stand by my points. Once inside the apartment or the person's own home the desire not to physically disturb the child is exactly the same and the listening at the door would be exactly the same especially as we know that the door was partially open most of the time.
Your attempt to suggest there is a difference is quite nonsensical.
And as to your reference to a listening service in PDL I never said there was such a service in PDL as I am fully aware there was not and the reasons for that.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 28, 2013, 03:34:59 PM
You may think what you like. I am very happy to stand by my points. Once inside the apartment or the person's own home the desire not to physically disturb the child is exactly the same and the listening at the door would be exactly the same especially as we know that the door was partially open most of the time.
Your attempt to suggest there is a difference is quite nonsensical.
And as to your reference to a listening service in PDL I never said there was such a service in PDL as I am fully aware there was not and the reasons for that.
If you were in your own home you could be fairly sure your child hadn't vomited, choked, fallen from a balcony etc. Checking every thirty minutes would not give you the same level of knowledge and therefore a proper visual check would seem the least any parent would do.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on July 28, 2013, 03:38:42 PM
Well I think you have destroyed any good points in your argument if you are comparing parents being inside their own shut and/or locked and secure home with their kids and parents being out at dinner 50/100 metres away out of ear and eyeshot of their kids in an alien environment and unattended
There is also the matter that there was avery good reason PDL did not have a *listening service*
Lets be accurate Red. you have seen the GE evidence. K and G were just over 50 metres from the patio doors NOT 100 metres.
I sat at that very Tapas restaurant and I could see virtually the whole of that patio door. Ther mccanns were about 2-3 metres further along (in a westerly direction) and their view would have been nearly as good. This all depends, of course, on when the rapidly growing vegetation had been cut back.
With the heat and rainfall, vegetation grows extemely rapidly in western PT. From contemporaray photographs, it appears that the greenery within their little garden had just been trimmed. My bet is that they could see virtually as much as we could.
As for sound. If Madeleine came out on to the balcony and called, they would have heard her. No doubt about it. Madeleine was a leader, a clever and resourceful little girl, as illustrated in various youtubes ... and in Tapas 7 statements. Not a shrinking violet, she would have made her presence known, had if she were desperate. Little doubt about it.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 28, 2013, 03:42:07 PM
Lets be accurate Red. you have seen the GE evidence. K and G were just over 50 metres from the patio doors NOT 100 metres.
I sat at that very Tapas restaurant and I could see virtually the whole of that patio door. Ther mccanns were about 2-3 metres further along (in a westerly direction) and their view would have been nearly as good. This all depends, of course, on when the rapidly growing vegetation had been cut back.
With the heat and rainfall, vegetation grows extemely rapidly in western PT. From contemporaray photographs, it appears that the greenery within their little garden had just been trimmed. My bet is that they could see virtually as much as we could.
As for sound. If Madeleine came out on to the balcony and called, they would have heard her. No doubt about it. Madeleine was a leader, a clever and resourceful little girl, as illustrated in various youtubes ... and in Tapas 7 statements. Not a shrinking violet, she would have made her presence known, had if she were desperate. Little doubt about it.
Then why didn't that happen on the night Madeleine herself said her and her brother cried ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 28, 2013, 03:42:19 PM
You may think what you like. I am very happy to stand by my points. Once inside the apartment or the person's own home the desire not to physically disturb the child is exactly the same and the listening at the door would be exactly the same especially as we know that the door was partially open most of the time.
Your attempt to suggest there is a difference is quite nonsensical.
And as to your reference to a listening service in PDL I never said there was such a service in PDL as I am fully aware there was not and the reasons for that.
Youre slipping gilet, the argument is not about not wanting to waken sleeping children, thatyou KNOW are in their beds, its about knowing if they are Ok and STILL THERE! after you have left them on their own a good distance away and no way of hearing anything amiss! AND left em with the back door OPEN! You wouldnt do that to a TV! Or laptop!
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 28, 2013, 03:44:25 PM
Lets be accurate Red. you have seen the GE evidence. K and G were just over 50 metres from the patio doors NOT 100 metres.
I sat at that very Tapas restaurant and I could see virtually the whole of that patio door. Ther mccanns were about 2-3 metres further along (in a westerly direction) and their view would have been nearly as good. This all depends, of course, on when the rapidly growing vegetation had been cut back.
With the heat and rainfall, vegetation grows extemely rapidly in western PT. From contemporaray photographs, it appears that the greenery within their little garden had just been trimmed. My bet is that they could see virtually as much as we could.
As for sound. If Madeleine came out on to the balcony and called, they would have heard her. No doubt about it. Madeleine was a leader, a clever and resourceful little girl, as illustrated in various youtubes ... and in Tapas 7 statements. Not a shrinking violet, she would have made her presence known, had if she were desperate. Little doubt about it.
Oh dear, what can I say to that, except to wonder if the mccanns spent their night of eating and drinking with their eyes glued on their apartment, what nonsense! As for madeleine being a leader and a resourceful girl? what rubbish is this? If she suffered an accident, as a three yr old she wouldhave no resources, unbelievable
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 28, 2013, 03:48:28 PM
Lets be accurate Red. you have seen the GE evidence. K and G were just over 50 metres from the patio doors NOT 100 metres.
I sat at that very Tapas restaurant and I could see virtually the whole of that patio door. Ther mccanns were about 2-3 metres further along (in a westerly direction) and their view would have been nearly as good. This all depends, of course, on when the rapidly growing vegetation had been cut back.
With the heat and rainfall, vegetation grows extemely rapidly in western PT. From contemporaray photographs, it appears that the greenery within their little garden had just been trimmed. My bet is that they could see virtually as much as we could.
As for sound. If Madeleine came out on to the balcony and called, they would have heard her. No doubt about it. Madeleine was a leader, a clever and resourceful little girl, as illustrated in various youtubes ... and in Tapas 7 statements. Not a shrinking violet, she would have made her presence known, had if she were desperate. Little doubt about it.
Further Oldfield seems to disagree with you about being able to see any comings and goings from the apartment. The quote below is from his 10th May statement :
'Nevertheless, he admits that it was a tenuous sight considering the distance to the apartments (estimated as about 50 to 100 metres), and further, due to their vision being impaired by a transparent oilcloth [tarpaulin] that covered the area in which the tables were located.
Consequently, he admits it being possible for someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments without being detected, through [by way of] the patios that were round the back of the residential block.'
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 03:58:31 PM
Youre slipping gilet, the argument is not about not wanting to waken sleeping children, thatyou KNOW are in their beds, its about knowing if they are Ok and STILL THERE! after you have left them on their own a good distance away and no way of hearing anything amiss! AND left em with the back door OPEN! You wouldnt do that to a TV! Or laptop!
Totally absurd.
There is nothing slipping in my posts at all.
It is only with hindsight remember that the question of a missing child arose. That was not in their thoughts at the time as much as you may imagine that.
Your argument is invalid.
The purpose of the checks was as we know to be certain that they were still sleeping and had not been disturbed. Your notion that they parents should disturb them to do that is quite simply ridiculous.
As I pointed out this is normal practice in every home and would be normal practice in that apartment before any notion of abduction was introduced.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 04:04:14 PM
If you were in your own home you could be fairly sure your child hadn't vomited, choked, fallen from a balcony etc. Checking every thirty minutes would not give you the same level of knowledge and therefore a proper visual check would seem the least any parent would do.
How could you be any more sure in your own home than in that apartment of the things you claim. Children are just as prone to vomiting, choking, falling from windows (there was no balcony to the children's room incidentally) there as at home. Your post is nonsensical because you could not in fact be any more certain. Your premise seems to result in a demand that every parent even in their home should enter the child's bedroom every 30 minutes while they are sleeping to check visually that all is OK. What happens when the parent goes to sleep? Total nonsense written just to make it look as if the McCanns were neglectful.
If you actually know any parent who checks their child every thirty minutes at home or on holiday in the way you demand all parents should then perhaps social services should be informed as that parent has their wires crossed somewhere.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on July 28, 2013, 04:09:12 PM
Further Oldfield seems to disagree with you about being able to see any comings and goings from the apartment. The quote below is from his 10th May statement :
'Nevertheless, he admits that it was a tenuous sight considering the distance to the apartments (estimated as about 50 to 100 metres), and further, due to their vision being impaired by a transparent oilcloth [tarpaulin] that covered the area in which the tables were located.
Consequently, he admits it being possible for someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments without being detected, through [by way of] the patios that were round the back of the residential block.'
It was huge transparent plastic sheeting, very like picture windows in glass in its transparency. Dont forget that I have eaten there. Maybe he sat in a position where the outer "framework" to the transparent sheeting was?
We all know it was just a little over 50 metres now that we have GEarth measurements. What's more you know it too, so why keep on about 100 metres?
These are not Matt Oldfields words Consequently, he admits it being possible for someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments without being detected, through [by way of] the patios that were round the back of the residential block.', because he would have said "I admit" rather than "he admits"
Amaral. (IIRC in his statement when he was trying to prove that Madeleine had died in the apartment) said that no abductor would have dared go in that way, when the parents were so close, with visibility, at 50 metres.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 04:11:39 PM
Further Oldfield seems to disagree with you about being able to see any comings and goings from the apartment. The quote below is from his 10th May statement :
'Nevertheless, he admits that it was a tenuous sight considering the distance to the apartments (estimated as about 50 to 100 metres), and further, due to their vision being impaired by a transparent oilcloth [tarpaulin] that covered the area in which the tables were located.
Consequently, he admits it being possible for someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments without being detected, through [by way of] the patios that were round the back of the residential block.'
It is amazing what hindsight can make you understand. Is there any indication that this was realized prior to the disappearance?
If not it is not actually relevant because the decision taken regarding the checking regime was done so prior to the disappearance.
The fact is that with hindsight the McCanns realised and admitted that it was a bad decision.
I will ask you the same questions that I asked earlier of others.
Why are you unable to accept that admission and move on?
How does your constant harping on about the McCanns in this way help solve the case?
Do you think constantly harping on in this way helps remind others not to do such things because I fear you are way too late as the publicity of Madeleine's disappearance has long since done that job.
Can you explain your motive for this harping on about neglect. From the position of the reader of your posts it seems to indicate that you are simply being vindictive and hateful to the parents of a missing child? Is that actually your motive or do you have some other reason for this constant reference to neglect?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 28, 2013, 04:11:56 PM
It is only with hindsight remember that the question of a missing child arose. That was not in their thoughts at the time as much as you may imagine that.
Your argument is invalid.
The purpose of the checks was as we know to be certain that they were still sleeping and had not been disturbed. Your notion that they parents should disturb them to do that is quite simply ridiculous.
As I pointed out this is normal practice in every home and would be normal practice in that apartment before any notion of abduction was introduced.
slipping even further down if you think attended babies in their own homes is the same as unattended babies a big distance away
and to include the excuse of hindisght, well, in your words, absurd @)(++(*
Oh and btw the mccanns have never said what they did was wrong or that theyregretted it, the only thing they said they felt bad about was not being there AT THE MOMENT she was taken, not at any other time ie they felt leaving them was fine and when asked what they would say to other parents, they said its difficult to say, therefore still condoning it
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on July 28, 2013, 04:20:27 PM
Then why didn't that happen on the night Madeleine herself said her and her brother cried ?
IMO If Madeleine and her brother did cry - it could have been in the middle of the night when her parents were asleep but didn't last long enough to wake them. Or it could have happened while her parents were out, but once again only briefly before they went back to sleep.
Madeleine was talking about the night of the 2nd. Rachael Oldfield was next door for the whole of that evening and would have heard any sustained crying.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 28, 2013, 04:26:46 PM
How could you be any more sure in your own home than in that apartment of the things you claim. Children are just as prone to vomiting, choking, falling from windows (there was no balcony to the children's room incidentally) there as at home. Your post is nonsensical because you could not in fact be any more certain. Your premise seems to result in a demand that every parent even in their home should enter the child's bedroom every 30 minutes while they are sleeping to check visually that all is OK. What happens when the parent goes to sleep? Total nonsense written just to make it look as if the McCanns were neglectful.
If you actually know any parent who checks their child every thirty minutes at home or on holiday in the way you demand all parents should then perhaps social services should be informed as that parent has their wires crossed somewhere.
If you are in your home of course you have a much better chance of hearing at once if something is amiss with your child, that's simply common sense. As to the balcony issue, as you say you say there was no balcony to the children's room but there was one just beyond the unlocked patio doors with rails at just the right height for a child to fall over.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 28, 2013, 04:34:04 PM
If you are in your home of course you have a much better chance of hearing at once if something is amiss with your child, that's simply common sense. As to the balcony issue, as you say you say there was no balcony to the children's room but there was one just beyond the unlocked patio doors with rails at just the right height for a child to fall over.
Kate Mccann in her book said there was no balcony to fall over >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 28, 2013, 04:40:25 PM
IMO If Madeleine and her brother did cry - it could have been in the middle of the night when her parents were asleep but didn't last long enough to wake them. Or it could have happened while her parents were out, but once again only briefly before they went back to sleep.
Madeleine was talking about the night of the 2nd. Rachael Oldfield was next door for the whole of that evening and would have heard any sustained crying.
On the 31th and according to her parents, Madeleine went to their bed because her sister's crying woke her up. We know Madeleine was encouraged not to sleep with her parents, she got stars when she stayed in her own bed. The situation was special in PDL because she had to share the bedroom, unlike at home. Why then would she have remained in her bed on the 1st, when Mrs Fenn heard her ? None of the McCanns said when occurred the crying episode. We only speculate it was on Wednesday because no child would wait 24 hours before reporting that kind of episode. As Rachael didn't hear any crying, this is a mysterious part of the case.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on July 28, 2013, 04:44:29 PM
slipping even further down if you think attended babies in their own homes is the same as unattended babies a big distance away
and to include the excuse of hindisght, well, in your words, absurd @)(++(*
Oh and btw the mccanns have never said what they did was wrong or that theyregretted it, the only thing they said they felt bad about was not being there AT THE MOMENT she was taken, not at any other time ie they felt leaving them was fine and when asked what they would say to other parents, they said its difficult to say, therefore still condoning it
That is incorrect. They have admitted they made a mistake and they have regretted it. Withn your adoration opf videos, Red, you must know they admitted it and expressed regret. Why deceive?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 28, 2013, 04:46:51 PM
If you are in your home of course you have a much better chance of hearing at once if something is amiss with your child, that's simply common sense. As to the balcony issue, as you say you say there was no balcony to the children's room but there was one just beyond the unlocked patio doors with rails at just the right height for a child to fall over.
Elementary ! And, yes, contrary to one of the basic principles on child safety, Madeleine (not the twins who couldn't extract themselves from their cots) had two open doors between her bed and the balcony.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 28, 2013, 04:50:03 PM
That is incorrect. They have admitted they made a mistake and they have regretted it. Withn your adoration opf videos, Red, you must know they admitted it and expressed regret. Why deceive?
not decieving anyone dear
Just stating the facts of what they said on video, would you like me to post them?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on July 28, 2013, 05:32:41 PM
On the 31th and according to her parents, Madeleine went to their bed because her sister's crying woke her up. We know Madeleine was encouraged not to sleep with her parents, she got stars when she stayed in her own bed. The situation was special in PDL because she had to share the bedroom, unlike at home. Why then would she have remained in her bed on the 1st, when Mrs Fenn heard her ? None of the McCanns said when occurred the crying episode. We only speculate it was on Wednesday because no child would wait 24 hours before reporting that kind of episode. As Rachael didn't hear any crying, this is a mysterious part of the case.
Probably not a mystery to SY detectives now. Don't you imagine that they have investigated this thoroughly before they made their comment that the McCanns are not suspects or persons of interest? Or are you going to tell us you know better than they do?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 28, 2013, 05:58:04 PM
And as per usual she was absolutely correct. There was no balcony in the children's bedroom.
But as I have already said there was through the unsecured patio doors, with railings just high enough for a child to fall over ( cadaver scent in garden below balcony anyone ? ).
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 28, 2013, 06:13:13 PM
But as I have already said there was through the unsecured patio doors, with railings just high enough for a child to fall over ( cadaver scent in garden below balcony anyone ? ).
You can speculate as much as you like. You don't have the benefit of visiting the site, of discussing the case with the witnesses etc.
Precisely where in the garden was the odour detected? How long would the body have lain in the garden for it to emit such odours? There simply isn't the available time unless you go into conspiracy mode.
I have shown that both UK police, UK Social authorities and more importantly the Portuguese do not have any belief that neglect was an issue.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your claims or stephen25000 repeats his spammed mantra, the fact is that those experts have dismissed the idea.
My faith is in them not someone who claims the concept in a forum ID.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 28, 2013, 06:14:23 PM
And as per usual she was absolutely correct. There was no balcony in the children's bedroom.
how sad is that post, and no one mentioned a balcony off any kids bedroom, Not even kate herself , there was a HUMUNGOUS balcony the kids could have fallen over if they went out the patio door!!
YOU KNOW? The open door,unsecured patio door??? That lead to the balcony??
Which they could have done every single night when their parents were NOT THERE sad apologist
And kate talks in her book about being jealous the paynes on the first floor had a sea view but they had a balcony kids could fall over,and she was glad as a ground floor resident she didnt have that worry, lie
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 28, 2013, 06:54:27 PM
You heard them leave the flat, you weren't asleep, too scared for that. You hoped they had understood this, but they didn't. What do you do ? First check if by chance.. But you were right, they're not home. What do you do ? Go back to your bed with fear in your stomach ? You see a door is slightly open, you push it and there, from the balcony, you can see lights and hear voices and laughters. It's not yet dark, but you're small and can't see well who is there. Perhaps stepping on the railings...
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Mo Stache on July 28, 2013, 07:05:18 PM
You heard them leave the flat, you weren't asleep, too scared for that. You hoped they had understood this, but they didn't. What do you do ? First check if by chance.. But you were right, they're not home. What do you do ? Go back to your bed with fear in your stomach ? You see a door is slightly open, you push it and there, from the balcony, you can see lights and hear voices and laughters. It's not yet dark, but you're small and can't see well who is there. Perhaps stepping on the railings...
Could you please direct me to the place in the case files where there is evidence (preferably forensic) that Madeleine went over the balcony and died as a result of that, that night?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 28, 2013, 07:48:32 PM
Could you please direct me to the place in the case files where there is evidence (preferably forensic) that Madeleine went over the balcony and died as a result of that, that night?
Could you please direct me to the place in the case files where there is evidence (preferably forensic) that Madeleine was snatched from her bed and is alive as a result of that, that night?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 28, 2013, 07:50:33 PM
Could you please direct me to the place in the case files where there is evidence (preferably forensic) that Madeleine was snatched from her bed and is alive as a result of that, that night?
8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: ferryman on July 28, 2013, 07:53:00 PM
Could you please direct me to the place in the case files where there is evidence (preferably forensic) that Madeleine was snatched from her bed and is alive as a result of that, that night?
What efforts were made to extract DNA information from cuddle cat?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Mo Stache on July 28, 2013, 08:01:06 PM
Could you please direct me to the place in the case files where there is evidence (preferably forensic) that Madeleine was snatched from her bed and is alive as a result of that, that night?
"Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined: ... b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
Portimão, 21.07.08
The Republic’s Prosecutor
(José de Magalhães e Menezes)"
and several statements made by Scotland Yard who believe she may well be alive.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 28, 2013, 08:45:14 PM
"Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined: ... b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
Portimão, 21.07.08
The Republic’s Prosecutor
(José de Magalhães e Menezes)"
and several statements made by Scotland Yard who believe she may well be alive.
SY also said she could be dead.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on July 28, 2013, 09:01:09 PM
Sy also never said madeleine was abducted by a stranger
Keep up benice
It's not me who needs to keep up Red. IMO Andy Redwood clearly said that they thought Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction. What they do not know is what happened to her after she was abducted - i.e. that she could be alive or dead.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on July 29, 2013, 07:01:42 AM
But as I have already said there was through the unsecured patio doors, with railings just high enough for a child to fall over ( cadaver scent in garden below balcony anyone ? ).
Excuse me, but those railings were far too high for a 3 - 4 year child to fall over
Please do not obfuscate
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 29, 2013, 09:05:00 AM
Could you please direct me to the place in the case files where there is evidence (preferably forensic) that Madeleine was snatched from her bed and is alive as a result of that, that night?
Just as there is no direct evidence of this, there is equally no direct evidence of the death of Madeleine McCann.
So your question is utterly pointless.
The fact is that the PJ in their final report said both are possible and SY in their latest statement said both are possible.
Anyone saying any more than that is quite frankly delusional as there is no proof one way or the other.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: ferryman on July 29, 2013, 10:17:51 AM
DNA does not point to someone being alive or dead, just to their presence at a particular spot.
And dogs incompetently deployed point to, well, nothing at all ...
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 29, 2013, 10:45:07 AM
DNA does not point to someone being alive or dead, just to their presence at a particular spot.
And dogs incompetently deployed point to, well, nothing at all ...
If dogs are pointless, why are they used extensively by police services, customs services, etc., around the world ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Luz on July 29, 2013, 10:58:52 AM
First it's not a mantra, and second if they were portuguese they would have faced at least a 5 year prison sentence. They knew it but they risked it because if found accessories to murder, in portugal, they would face at least 25 years.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 29, 2013, 11:05:23 AM
If dogs are pointless, why are they used extensively by police services, customs services, etc., around the world ?
They are used to suggest targets for further examination.
If nothing is found to prove the dog alerts were accurate (as in the McCann case) then no further action is taken.
If a dog alerts to you, for example at an airport, and you are checked thoroughly for any untoward substances etc. and nothing is found, then you are allowed to leave the airport and get on with your life. You are not deemed guilty of an offence.
As with the McCanns, there were thorough checks and nothing was found which directly corroborated the dog alerts. Therefore the McCanns are not deemed guilty by normal people.
It is only those who throw the law on its head who believe the McCanns guilty because of uncorroborated dog alerts.
Or perhaps you are in the habit of believing that there is some mysterious limbo of guilt without charge, into which all those alerted to by dogs at airports and against whom no evidence of any crime was found (as in the case of the McCanns) are thrown?
There is no evidence of neglect by the McCanns and the dogs will never no matter how you try to disrupt this thread prove any neglect by them.
Nor will you ever convince those who have fully read the Archival report or those whose understanding that hindsight is a wonderful thing, that there was any neglect by the McCanns. That is only your opinion with the full benefit of hindsight (see this thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2011.0 ).
ps and don't ask that hoary old chestnut much beloved of anti McCanns, "If a dog alerted to a bomb on a plane or in a theatre and no device was found, would you fly on that plane?" because the answer is from me a definitive, "Yes". I am aware that after such alerts, the most thorough checks are done and no airline or theatre would ever allow passengers to board or customers to take their seats knowing that they could be accused of effectively killing those people were there have to have been a bomb.
Alerts are merely "suggestive". That is the precise word used by Martin Grime. He does not call them "absolute", "definitive" or anything similar. He knows that they are not. Perhaps it is time that anti McCanns also realised that as well? Then they might understand that their pathetic and wrong-headed insistence that alerts without evidence as in the McCanns case are not the signs of guilt that they claim them to be.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Luz on July 29, 2013, 11:17:48 AM
It's not me who needs to keep up Red. IMO Andy Redwood clearly said that they thought Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction. What they do not know is what happened to her after she was abducted - i.e. that she could be alive or dead.
Please show us some document - I would love to have it to see that clown chew it.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 29, 2013, 11:41:08 AM
First it's not a mantra, and second if they were portuguese they would have faced at least a 5 year prison sentence. They knew it but they risked it because if found accessories to murder, in portugal, they would face at least 25 years.
Sorry, that simply is not true. It is your vindictive speculation.
Please show some document which proves your statement or...
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 29, 2013, 02:39:06 PM
Having very clearly heard DCI Redwood say that neither the McCanns, nor the Tapas group are suspects or persons of interest, I cannot see who you think could have been a potential abductor unless it was a stranger?
I think you have to take statements in context and the context is very clear.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 29, 2013, 03:20:42 PM
Don't be silly Mo. I'm here because I don't feel justice has been done, gilet believes it has. So again I'll ask why she's here ?
Do you think justice will be done if you continue to spread misinformation and myths on the case? You can remain here and libel the McCann's as much as you like (it might get you arrested) but still doesn't change the Attorney Generals final report or Scotland Yards belief that she might well have been the victim of a stranger abduction. They are the experts who are in the best position to determine what direction the case should go in, not keyboard detectives or anti McCann campaigners who don't have the ability to comprehend the importance of the claims made by Scotland Yard.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 29, 2013, 03:52:33 PM
Do you think justice will be done if you continue to spread misinformation and myths on the case? You can remain here and libel the McCann's as much as you like (it might get you arrested) but still doesn't change the Attorney Generals final report or Scotland Yards belief that she might well have been the victim of a stranger abduction. They are the experts who are in the best position to determine what direction the case should go in, not keyboard detectives or anti McCann campaigners who don't have the ability to comprehend the importance of the claims made by Scotland Yard.
Firstly Mo libel is a tort ie a civil matter therefore you can't be arrested for it. Secondly it is not my motives for being here we are discussing, nor indeed yours, it is gilet and so far we have yet to have an answer.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on July 29, 2013, 03:55:21 PM
It's not me who needs to keep up Red. IMO Andy Redwood clearly said that they thought Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction. What they do not know is what happened to her after she was abducted - i.e. that she could be alive or dead.
It depends on how you interpret what is actually said. If what is said is unclear and does not answer a question directly but waffles around the question, one can make different things of it.
There is no direct quote from Redwood that he or anyone else in SY believes Madeleine was taken by a stranger. If you read the transcript or watch his video off GMTV you will see that he says only this....
The forensic study of the timeline shows there was an opportunity there for abduction
An abduction is a criminal act by a stranger
Thats all Benice,he says its possible she was abducted, he doesnt say anything more
The only time he has used the word *believe* is when asked if he believes she could still be alive to which he said yes, as he is keeping an open mind
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 29, 2013, 05:59:30 PM
I am fully aware of the subject matter. There was no neglect, Madeleine was abducted so I ask again why are you here ? What is there left to debate ?
I am glad that you have denied the claims of Stephen25000 that the McCanns were guilty of neglect.
I am also pleased that you have admitted that Madeleine was abducted.
Perhaps it is for posts such as this one from you that I am here?
But, being more serious I find your repeated demands to know my reason for debating issues here to be rather silly. Perhaps in your view everyone should make a declaration of intent before being allowed to post on any forum. In reality my motive is none of your business.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 29, 2013, 10:29:01 PM
At the end of the day, if Madeleine has been abducted and I stress the 'if' here as there is no direct evidence that she has been, it is the abductor who should be accountable for the crime. The McCann's conduct might well have being a contributing factor in facilitating an abduction but it is not of sufficient seriousness to constitute a crime in its own right. Their stupidity not being of sufficient seriousness to countenance state involvement in any further action against them.
If Madeleine was abducted from bed, there's no way her parents could be blamed.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 29, 2013, 10:37:22 PM
A video for Gilet, nite now
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 29, 2013, 11:08:49 PM
If you were in your own home you could be fairly sure your child hadn't vomited, choked, fallen from a balcony etc. Checking every thirty minutes would not give you the same level of knowledge and therefore a proper visual check would seem the least any parent would do.
Exactly, if Mr MccCann used to listen only (as he said), he could very well think "all quiet" and leave without seeing Madeleine had fallen from the balcony.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 30, 2013, 08:19:06 AM
They are used to suggest targets for further examination.
If nothing is found to prove the dog alerts were accurate (as in the McCann case) then no further action is taken.
If a dog alerts to you, for example at an airport, and you are checked thoroughly for any untoward substances etc. and nothing is found, then you are allowed to leave the airport and get on with your life. You are not deemed guilty of an offence.
As with the McCanns, there were thorough checks and nothing was found which directly corroborated the dog alerts. Therefore the McCanns are not deemed guilty by normal people.
It is only those who throw the law on its head who believe the McCanns guilty because of uncorroborated dog alerts.
Or perhaps you are in the habit of believing that there is some mysterious limbo of guilt without charge, into which all those alerted to by dogs at airports and against whom no evidence of any crime was found (as in the case of the McCanns) are thrown?
There is no evidence of neglect by the McCanns and the dogs will never no matter how you try to disrupt this thread prove any neglect by them.
Nor will you ever convince those who have fully read the Archival report or those whose understanding that hindsight is a wonderful thing, that there was any neglect by the McCanns. That is only your opinion with the full benefit of hindsight (see this thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2011.0 ).
ps and don't ask that hoary old chestnut much beloved of anti McCanns, "If a dog alerted to a bomb on a plane or in a theatre and no device was found, would you fly on that plane?" because the answer is from me a definitive, "Yes". I am aware that after such alerts, the most thorough checks are done and no airline or theatre would ever allow passengers to board or customers to take their seats knowing that they could be accused of effectively killing those people were there have to have been a bomb.
Alerts are merely "suggestive". That is the precise word used by Martin Grime. He does not call them "absolute", "definitive" or anything similar. He knows that they are not. Perhaps it is time that anti McCanns also realised that as well? Then they might understand that their pathetic and wrong-headed insistence that alerts without evidence as in the McCanns case are not the signs of guilt that they claim them to be.
Are yes the classic mantra of 'anti-mccanns', that is not only stupid but quite pathetic.
We already know the forensics were inconclusive.
However, whether you like it or not, the dogs so far are the only indication of what might have happened to Madeleine.
As to abduction, zip.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on July 30, 2013, 11:32:42 AM
Exactly, if Mr MccCann used to listen only (as he said), he could very well think "all quiet" and leave without seeing Madeleine had fallen from the balcony.
I thought that you had been there Ann? The balcony rail is Quite high.
I have looked at photos of Kate alongside it and from these, know that it is at least 86cm high, probably nearer 95cm. Kate is tall and has long legs
Lets take the worst scenario and say it is only 86cm high. That would correspond to me at 5'6" tall, not to Kate who must be about 5'10" tall. [See I am bending over to try and see your point of view !]
The railing section is divided into a solid base and a railing top part. It is divided in a ratio 7:5. 7 railings and 5 wall.
I realise that a child could stand on this wall. Using the lowest estimate of overall height (86), the height of railings for a child standing on this wall is
86 x 5 divided by 7 = 57cm. Madeleine is about 90 cm tall according to the case notes.
For people to fall over, the top must be below the central weight point of the person. That height railing, even standing on the wall, is chest height on Madeleine. Very unlikely that she could climb up any higher and very very unlikely that she could fall over
That, Anne, is taking the best conditions for your argument. In reality the railing was probably about 2+" (5cm.) higher cos Kate is considerably taller than me with long legs
I know it is only a hypothesis Anne, cos there is nothing to point to the fact that Madeleine did topple over the railing or wall.... just your imagination. But it is good to look at different ideas
However, in the circumstances, with the railing at chest height or probably arm-pit height on Madeleine, it seems extremely unlikely that Madeleine toppled over the railings.
Do you agree?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 30, 2013, 12:16:27 PM
I thought that you had been there Ann? The balcony rail is Quite high.
I have looked at photos of Kate alongside it and from these, know that it is at least 86cm high, probably nearer 95cm. Kate is tall and has long legs
Lets take the worst scenario and say it is only 86cm high. That would correspond to me at 5'6" tall, not to Kate who must be about 5'10" tall. [See I am bending over to try and see your point of view !]
The railing section is divided into a solid base and a railing top part. It is divided in a ratio 7:5. 7 railings and 5 wall.
I realise that a child could stand on this wall. Using the lowest estimate of overall height (86), the height of railings for a child standing on this wall is
86 x 5 divided by 7 = 57cm. Madeleine is about 90 cm tall according to the case notes.
For people to fall over, the top must be below the central weight point of the person. That height railing, even standing on the wall, is chest height on Madeleine. Very unlikely that she could climb up any higher and very very unlikely that she could fall over
That, Anne, is taking the best conditions for your argument. In reality the railing was probably about 2+" (5cm.) higher cos Kate is considerably taller than me with long legs
I know it is only a hypothesis Anne, cos there is nothing to point to the fact that Madeleine did topple over the railing or wall.... just your imagination. But it is good to look at different ideas
However, in the circumstances, with the railing at chest height or probably arm-pit height on Madeleine, it seems extremely unlikely that Madeleine toppled over the railings.
Do you agree?
I'd be very interested in seeing those pictures of Kate and the railing sadie to illustrate your point.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on July 30, 2013, 12:31:28 PM
I'd be very interested in seeing those pictures of Kate and the railing sadie to illustrate your point.
I would be interest too as I can't get my head round where this area is. Is the patio being called a balcony? The well-known piccie of the outside of 5A showing the steps/side of the apartment clearly shows the opening on the patio overlooking the street with what looks like a safety partition across it. The other opening - facing the swimming pool is over the steps. So how could a fall onto a garden area happen? Where is this area? A close up photograph of the front of the patio area might help to clear this up.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 30, 2013, 12:44:33 PM
I realise that a child could stand on this wall. Using the lowest estimate of overall height (86), the height of railings for a child standing on this wall is
86 x 5 divided by 7 = 57cm. Madeleine is about 90 cm tall according to the case notes.
For people to fall over, the top must be below the central weight point of the person. That height railing, even standing on the wall, is chest height on Madeleine. Very unlikely that she could climb up any higher and very very unlikely that she could fall over
That, Anne, is taking the best conditions for your argument. In reality the railing was probably about 2+" (5cm.) higher cos Kate is considerably taller than me with long legs
I know it is only a hypothesis Anne, cos there is nothing to point to the fact that Madeleine did topple over the railing or wall.... just your imagination. But it is good to look at different ideas
However, in the circumstances, with the railing at chest height or probably arm-pit height on Madeleine, it seems extremely unlikely that Madeleine toppled over the railings.
Do you agree?
I agree the railings is not as low as that, but a 1m tall child stepping on the wall base and leaning forward could lose balance and fall. Kids are also very good at using benches to get what they want..
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 30, 2013, 02:01:44 PM
I would be interest too as I can't get my head round where this area is. Is the patio being called a balcony? The well-known piccie of the outside of 5A showing the steps/side of the apartment clearly shows the opening on the patio overlooking the street with what looks like a safety partition across it. The other opening - facing the swimming pool is over the steps. So how could a fall onto a garden area happen? Where is this area? A close up photograph of the front of the patio area might help to clear this up.
See photos 14-16 for the outside area. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm
The railings outside the patio area overlook the stairs. The railings in the other photo are to the right, outside the parents bedroom french doors. Over those railings is the garden. I dont know if both are of the same height. Those seem slightly lower to me but it could be the angle. I will try and find a photo showing both together taken from the front.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 30, 2013, 02:16:45 PM
See photos 14-16 for the outside area. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm
The railings outside the patio area overlook the stairs. The railings in the other photo are to the right, outside the parents bedroom french doors. Over those railings is the garden. I dont know if both are of the same height. Those seem slightly lower to me but it could be the angle. I will try and find a photo showing both together taken from the front.
Thanks Red. I believe at one point the railings above the flowerbed were removed.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on July 30, 2013, 03:51:08 PM
I agree the railings is not as low as that, but a 1m tall child stepping on the wall base and leaning forward could lose balance and fall. Kids are also very good at using benches to get what they want..
No they couldn't Anne. Even standing on the wall part she would still be in a position where she would not fall over the railing.. Remember Madeleine was not 1 metre tall, she was about 90cm tall. She as too short to go over.
I haven't checked the figures but even at a metre tall, I feel confident that she would have been too short to go over. But she wasn't a metre tall. The PJ reports say she was 90cm tall.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 30, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
No they couldn't Anne. Even standing on the wall part she would still be in a position where she would not fall over the railing.. Remember Madeleine was not 1 metre tall, she was about 90cm tall. She as too short to go over.
I haven't checked the figures but even at a metre tall, I feel confident that she would have been too short to go over. But she wasn't a metre tall. The PJ reports say she was 90cm tall.
Any sign of those photographs yet sadie ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 30, 2013, 04:24:09 PM
Height wasn't a problem, there were many plastic chairs near by.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 30, 2013, 04:35:55 PM
Anne! I was just looking at pictures of the apartment to see if I could find one which shows the height of the parents room balcony railings, and saw this, a photo taken by a forum poster who visited PDL in 2009. Very easy for an accident to happen. Which beggars belief how any parent could be sure their child wouldnt wake up and befall anything like that. There was nothing to stop them.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/IMG_0582.JPG
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 30, 2013, 05:05:47 PM
Anne! I was just looking at pictures of the apartment to see if I could find one which shows the height of the parents room balcony railings, and saw this, a photo taken by a forum poster who visited PDL in 2009. Very easy for an accident to happen. Which beggars belief how any parent could be sure their child wouldnt wake up and befall anything like that. There was nothing to stop them.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/IMG_0582.JPG
We are told Madeleine was an intelligent child so what was to stop her pulling a kitchen chair through the patio doors to the railings and standing on it to get a better look at where the sound of voices were coming from ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 30, 2013, 05:09:22 PM
We are told Madeleine was an intelligent child so what was to stop her pulling a kitchen chair through the patio doors to the railings and standing on it to get a better look at where the sound of voices were coming from ?
I find it more likely she'd use one of the plastic white chairs and step on it. Those chairs are very dangerous because they're flexible and not stable.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on July 30, 2013, 05:12:28 PM
See photos 14-16 for the outside area. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm
The railings outside the patio area overlook the stairs. The railings in the other photo are to the right, outside the parents bedroom french doors. Over those railings is the garden. I dont know if both are of the same height. Those seem slightly lower to me but it could be the angle. I will try and find a photo showing both together taken from the front.
Thanks Red. Unfortunately the link doesn't work for me - but I think that's down to a gliche in my ancient coimp..
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 30, 2013, 05:15:22 PM
Thank you DCI. So certainly low enough for Madeleine to climb with the aid of a chair.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on July 30, 2013, 11:41:27 PM
Gawd Faithlilly, we go from one flaky hypothesis to another flaky hypothesis. Pile them up Faith.
Do you really think that Madeleine had no fear of heights at a very intelligent nearly 4 years of age?
Btw, did you ever decide that you were mistaken? That after the Smiths sighting, ?bundleman went east or south and NOT west (as you kept on about?0
You never came back to me on that.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 31, 2013, 12:00:02 AM
What Madeleine had fear of was to find herself alone in a strange place, as anybody here must remember from his/her childhood. If she climbed on a chair it wasn't to snoop on her parents but because she was scared, she needed badly to know where they were.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 31, 2013, 12:25:51 AM
Point taken Faith, but Madeleine was not a 2 year old. She was a highly intelligent virtually 4 year old, who would have an understanding of what falling from heights might do to you.
When are you suggesting she fell anyway?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on July 31, 2013, 12:47:49 AM
What Madeleine had fear of was to find herself alone in a strange place, as anybody here must remember from his/her childhood. If she climbed on a chair it wasn't to snoop on her parents but because she was scared, she needed badly to know where they were.
Not such a strange place Anne. She had been there for about 5 days already. So she fell whilst they were out eating did she?
So she pulled the patio door open ... then before climbing on a chair, she closed it, did she?
Nah, I dont think so ... but a good try
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 31, 2013, 01:00:29 AM
Point taken Faith, but Madeleine was not a 2 year old. She was a highly intelligent virtually 4 year old, who would have an understanding of what falling from heights might do to you.
Currently, in this country and obviously at OC, architects have to ensure that the railings are built with a certain maximum gap between the rails and the top rail has to be a certain minimum height. That is so that a child could not slip between them and people will not topple over them.
Crossland, with Symington and Garveigh, was an owner of OC and we are told that Crossland, an architect, designed OC. A difficult problem with all the steeply sloping fround, but seems he made a damned good job of it in virtually every respect, not sure about all the alleyways tho.
Faith, we simpy do not know the circumstances in other countries, so cannot judge whether the examples you offer are pertinent.
When were you suggesting it happened? What time of the day? Dark or light?
From that balcony, with the trees and bushes freshly clipped as contemporary photos show, Madeleine could have seen her mum and dad without any climbing. No need to climb.
Why didn't she yell them? From our experiences with a 50 metre garden, they would have heard her
And the big question is? Would a four year old have the foresight and willingness to close the patio door behind her?
You know, there is nothing to indicate anything like this happened. Where the dogs indicated, it could have been the spot where a previous OC occupant , drunk, vomitted over the railing. Could have been a convenient spot for a drunken, or overfilled reveller to do a quick p**, out of sight.
So many things it could have been. Nothing at all forensically to back it, and the dogs marking means nothing without the forensic bit.
I think not
As I said before, I think this is one hypothesis upon another hypothesis and very flaky.
Interesting to hear your ideas tho. 8((()*/ Keep them coming
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 31, 2013, 09:57:54 AM
Currently, in this country and obviously at OC, architects have to ensure that the railings are built with a certain maximum gap between the rails and the top rail has to be a certain minimum height. That is so that a child could not slip between them and people will not topple over them.
Crossland, with Symington and Garveigh, was an owner of OC and we are told that Crossland, an architect, designed OC. A difficult problem with all the steeply sloping fround, but seems he made a damned good job of it in virtually every respect, not sure about all the alleyways tho.
Faith, we simpy do not know the circumstances in other countries, so cannot judge whether the examples you offer are pertinent.
When were you suggesting it happened? What time of the day? Dark or light?
From that balcony, with the trees and bushes freshly clipped as contemporary photos show, Madeleine could have seen her mum and dad without any climbing. No need to climb.
Why didn't she yell them? From our experiences with a 50 metre garden, they would have heard her
And the big question is? Would a four year old have the foresight and willingness to close the patio door behind her?
You know, there is nothing to indicate anything like this happened. Where the dogs indicated, it could have been the spot where a previous OC occupant , drunk, vomitted over the railing. Could have been a convenient spot for a drunken, or overfilled reveller to do a quick p**, out of sight.
So many things it could have been. Nothing at all forensically to back it, and the dogs marking means nothing without the forensic bit.
I think not
As I said before, I think this is one hypothesis upon another hypothesis and very flaky.
Interesting to hear your ideas tho. 8((()*/ Keep them coming
' I think this is one hypothesis upon another hypothesis and very flaky.'
That has been said many times of your 'theories'.
Actually, your 'methodology' reminds me of Bennett and that is no compliment.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on July 31, 2013, 10:13:58 AM
In addition from another poster who has put this very succinctly..................
'There can be NO DOUBT that the McCann children were left alone in just such circumstances, none at all. If you require evidence of this, I suggest you consider the fact that one of them has been missing for six years. Despite the McCann's repeated mantra - ''there is no evidence Madeleine has come to any harm'' - I think any person with half a brain can understand that forcibly separating a child from her family in this manner constitutes unnecessary suffering, as defined in the act.
So I suggest the toadies try to understand the difference between someone who is not guilty of by reason of that fact being established in a court of law, and someone who was never prosecuted because the authorities took the decision not to charge them at that time.
But let's make no mistake - in leaving their children in the way they did, they exposed them to danger, and whatever happened to Madeleine - at best - resulted from their decision to leave her unattended and unprotected.
And those actions are, quite clearly, neglect. Whether they were charged or not. '
I think anyone with half a brain would realise that the McCanns are saying there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any physical harm, or that she is dead. Surely you cannot believe they don't know that pyschological damage will have been caused.
I see you are still abusing posters for having a different opinon to yours.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 31, 2013, 10:37:32 AM
I think anyone with half a brain would realise that the McCanns are saying there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any physical harm, or that she is dead. Surely you cannot believe they don't know that pyschological damage will have been caused.
I see you are still abusing posters for having a different opinon to yours.
I quoted someone else as you are more than well aware.
As to abuse that lies well within the normal parameters of 'certain' Mccann supporters.
As to 'harm', what a load of cobblers. How do you know that she come to no physical harm ?
Do you know something we don't ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 31, 2013, 11:12:08 AM
Currently, in this country and obviously at OC, architects have to ensure that the railings are built with a certain maximum gap between the rails and the top rail has to be a certain minimum height. That is so that a child could not slip between them and people will not topple over them.
Crossland, with Symington and Garveigh, was an owner of OC and we are told that Crossland, an architect, designed OC. A difficult problem with all the steeply sloping fround, but seems he made a damned good job of it in virtually every respect, not sure about all the alleyways tho.
Faith, we simpy do not know the circumstances in other countries, so cannot judge whether the examples you offer are pertinent.
When were you suggesting it happened? What time of the day? Dark or light?
From that balcony, with the trees and bushes freshly clipped as contemporary photos show, Madeleine could have seen her mum and dad without any climbing. No need to climb.
Why didn't she yell them? From our experiences with a 50 metre garden, they would have heard her
And the big question is? Would a four year old have the foresight and willingness to close the patio door behind her?
You know, there is nothing to indicate anything like this happened. Where the dogs indicated, it could have been the spot where a previous OC occupant , drunk, vomitted over the railing. Could have been a convenient spot for a drunken, or overfilled reveller to do a quick p**, out of sight.
So many things it could have been. Nothing at all forensically to back it, and the dogs marking means nothing without the forensic bit.
I think not
As I said before, I think this is one hypothesis upon another hypothesis and very flaky.
Interesting to hear your ideas tho. 8((()*/ Keep them coming
It is obvious from the photographs posted already ( where are the ones mentioned by you ? ) that, with the aid of a chair, Madeleine would have been able to climb the railings.
As to the vegetation being low enough at the time for Madeleine to see her parents with climbing, that is simply not true and as for her yelling, perhaps she did but with the distances involved, the noise in the tapas and the clear tarpaulin surrounding the bar no one heard.
As to the patio door being closed on Gerry's visit, we only have Gerry's word for that.
Further Eddie does not alert to vomit or urine so that couldn't possibly explain his alert in the flowerbed.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on July 31, 2013, 11:47:24 AM
I quoted someone else as you are more than well aware.
As to abuse that lies well within the normal parameters of 'certain' Mccann supporters.
As to 'harm', what a load of cobblers. How do you know that she come to no physical harm ?
Do you know something we don't ?
Show us the evidence that she has either come to physical harm or is dead. The McCanns know that both are a possibility but just like Kerry Needham who will also know the same - until they are shown the evidence they are not going to accept it and are going to carry on looking for their child. If you don't understand that - then that is your problem not theirs.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on July 31, 2013, 12:12:57 PM
Show us the evidence that she has either come to physical harm or is dead. The McCanns know that both are a possibility but just like Kerry Needham who will also know the same - until they are shown the evidence they are not going to accept it and are going to carry on looking for their child. If you don't understand that - then that is your problem not theirs.
Common sense and statistics suggest that there is a greater chance of Madeleine being dead than alive. Of course if the parents weren't involved it is their right to hope for an outcome that flies in the face of those statistics but it is rather strange and unhealthy for individuals with no family ties to deny categorically that truth.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on July 31, 2013, 12:23:45 PM
Common sense and statistics suggest that there is a greater chance of Madeleine being dead than alive. Of course if the parents weren't involved it is their right to hope for an outcome that flies in the face of those statistics but it is rather strange and unhealthy for individuals with no family ties to deny categorically that truth.
Sorry but you've lost me Faith.....what do you mean plz?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: stephen25000 on July 31, 2013, 01:04:40 PM
Show us the evidence that she has either come to physical harm or is dead. The McCanns know that both are a possibility but just like Kerry Needham who will also know the same - until they are shown the evidence they are not going to accept it and are going to carry on looking for their child. If you don't understand that - then that is your problem not theirs.
Since you believe she was abducted, how can you possibly say she has come to no harm ?
By your belief she was snatched from her family and you would call that, 'no physical harm' ?
Paedophiles are being put up for blame again and you call that 'no physical harm' ?
Meanwhile if she is dead, as I believe as the result of an accident, then she certainly came to physical harm.
Then we have the classic from Mr. Mitchell....................
Clarence Mitchell: "I believe Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleine's death"
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on July 31, 2013, 05:41:32 PM
I think anyone with half a brain would realise that the McCanns are saying there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any physical harm, or that she is dead. Surely you cannot believe they don't know that pyschological damage will have been caused.
I see you are still abusing posters for having a different opinon to yours.
The exact words they have always used, taken from video footage, are these:
There is no (and/or a scrap or shred of) evidence she has come to
- any harm - any serious harm - any significant harm
They never mentioned the word physical,but its all there in the first example, which goes to show her abduction in their mind did not cause harm, if you want to play with words, theres your answer, and even if they believe ahe was taken by a childless couple, that still, could never be true
As for the falling over the balcony discussion, this is entirely possible, it happens to children all the time, as do countless other accidents. There is nothing to say this could not have happened. Or that she had a fall backwards after climbing on a chair. The cadaver dog signalled right there on the verandah/balcony. He did for a reason, it remains a possibility.The cadaver scent in the parents bedroom may have accumulated there from the direct outside source. Speculation but possible.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 01, 2013, 12:42:19 AM
It is obvious from the photographs posted already ( where are the ones mentioned by you ? ) that, with the aid of a chair, Madeleine would have been able to climb the railings.
As to the vegetation being low enough at the time for Madeleine to see her parents with climbing, that is simply not true and as for her yelling, perhaps she did but with the distances involved, the noise in the tapas and the clear tarpaulin surrounding the bar no one heard.
Why dont you measure out 50 metres yourself and whilst chatting see if you can hear your child shouting you. I have told you repeatedly that we could, without any trouble, in our garden, where we had a 50 metre stretch. As you can see from videos, Madeleine was not a shrinking violet and she had a good loud voice.
From the other side of the pool. this shows where the Tapas 9 sat. It is my understanding that X marks the spot. THe brown roofed building next door is the tapas bar, where they DID NOT sit. We sat in the next plastic glazed section to the left, at the very edge of the picture.
Many photographs that have been published as the "view the Mccanns had" were, in actual fact, taken from the area to the very right of the picture ... and gave an altogether false view..
From apartment 5A's balcony this shows almost the same view. The photo is taken from in front of the patio window..
Greenery grows extremely quickly in PT (?westerly winds bringing rain in from the Atlantic + warm sushine, I guess). At the time of the abduction, from contemporaray photographs we can see that the greenery had just been cut back. This photo must have been taken a little while later.cos everything is growing larger again and the view is getting a little restricted
To explain the photo
The white part of the building sticking out to the RH side of the picture is the back end of Kate and Gerrys bedroom
You will see the white walls going across the photo. these are the walls of the alleyway that ran between the flats and the Tapas section.
Behind them you will see a little of the eastern end of the pool. IImmediately behind the pool is the outside tapas restaurant. We sat in the LH section, by the tree, which appears to be growing up in front of it.. The brown building immediately behind the round bush is the Tapas Bar. Kate and Gerry were NOT in there. Kate and Gerry sat in the middle section, which starts adjacent to our section and ends at the round bush just before the brown building (Tapas bar) .
Their view would be better than shown in this photograph cos the hedges had just been trimmed, but it would not be quite as good as ours.
IMO, had Madeleine come out to look for her Mum and Dad, she would have stood right where this photo was taken from, cos she could see them from there.
And another view taken, it seems, from the balcony across the road, as featured in "Sadies theory"
See how well the bushes are trimmed back?
Why dont you measure out 50 metres yourself and whilst chatting see if you can hear your child shouting you. I have told you repeatedly that we could, without any trouble, in our garden, where we had a 50 metre stretch. As you can see from videos, Madeleine was not a shrinking violet and she had a good loud voice.
As to the patio door being closed on Gerry's visit, we only have Gerry's word for that.
I know you guys disbelieve everything all the Brits say, especially kate and Gerry who you seem to actually enjoy hurting as much as you can. It is quite vindictive the way that you keep making all the Brits liars, just to try and make Kate and Gerry guilty. And just to prove Amaral right, a man who is twice proven a liar in the PT courts and who got the Hey-ho from his job, because of his incompetent handling of this case.
But sorry I believe the Brits over Amaral every time.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 01, 2013, 12:53:24 AM
The exact words they have always used, taken from video footage, are these:
There is no (and/or a scrap or shred of) evidence she has come to
- any harm - any serious harm - any significant harm
They never mentioned the word physical,but its all there in the first example, which goes to show her abduction in their mind did not cause harm, if you want to play with words, theres your answer, and even if they believe ahe was taken by a childless couple, that still, could never be true
As for the falling over the balcony discussion, this is entirely possible, it happens to children all the time, as do countless other accidents. There is nothing to say this could not have happened. Or that she had a fall backwards after climbing on a chair. The cadaver dog signalled right there on the verandah/balcony. He did for a reason, it remains a possibility.The cadaver scent in the parents bedroom may have accumulated there from the direct outside source. Speculation but possible.
As Faithlilly reckons, one can understand the McCanns cultivate illusions with their "no evidence of harm" argument. But it's not understandable that people without ties to this family argue the same, unless they believe in Santa Claus. Even the fairy tale of loving new parents who find Madeleine left at a corner by the mean ones pursued by the PJ would be a horrible shock for a child of that age. I told it already, my mum was sick and I was left, not yet 4, with friends of my parents I hardly knew. My father had to pick me up the following day : I hadn't slept, I coudn't eat nor drink nor cry, I felt at the bottom of misery. Tears still come when I think of it.
There's a hole down the wall for evacuating balcony's rain waters towards the flower bed.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 01, 2013, 01:12:18 AM
As Faithlilly reckons, one can understand the McCanns cultivate illusions with their "no evidence of harm" argument. But it's not understandable that people without ties to this family argue the same, unless they believe in Santa Claus. Even the fairy tale of loving new parents who find Madeleine left at a corner by the mean ones pursued by the PJ would be a horrible shock for a child of that age. I told it already, my mum was sick and I was left, not yet 4, with friends of my parents I hardly knew. My father had to pick me up the following day : I hadn't slept, I coudn't eat nor drink nor cry, I felt at the bottom of misery. Tears still come when I think of it.
There's a hole down the wall for evacuating balcony's rain waters towards the flower bed.
How strange. The hole cant be very big then, cos virtually the whole balcony is covered by Mrs Fenns balcony. it seems from this image and also from GEarth.
How strange. The hole cant be very big then, cos virtually the whole balcony is covered by Mrs Fenns balcony. it seems from this image and also from GEarth.
Why dont you measure out 50 metres yourself and whilst chatting see if you can hear your child shouting you. I have told you repeatedly that we could, without any trouble, in our garden, where we had a 50 metre stretch. As you can see from videos, Madeleine was not a shrinking violet and she had a good loud voice.
From the other side of the pool. this shows where the Tapas 9 sat. It is my understanding that X marks the spot. THe brown roofed building next door is the tapas bar, where they DID NOT sit. We sat in the next plastic glazed section to the left, at the very edge of the picture.
Many photographs that have been published as the "view the Mccanns had" were, in actual fact, taken from the area to the very right of the picture ... and gave an altogether false view..
From apartment 5A's balcony this shows almost the same view. The photo is taken from in front of the patio window..
Greenery grows extremely quickly in PT (?westerly winds bringing rain in from the Atlantic + warm sushine, I guess). At the time of the abduction, from contemporaray photographs we can see that the greenery had just been cut back. This photo must have been taken a little while later.cos everything is growing larger again and the view is getting a little restricted
To explain the photo
The white part of the building sticking out to the RH side of the picture is the back end of Kate and Gerrys bedroom
You will see the white walls going across the photo. these are the walls of the alleyway that ran between the flats and the Tapas section.
Behind them you will see a little of the eastern end of the pool. IImmediately behind the pool is the outside tapas restaurant. We sat in the LH section, by the tree, which appears to be growing up in front of it.. The brown building immediately behind the round bush is the Tapas Bar. Kate and Gerry were NOT in there. Kate and Gerry sat in the middle section, which starts adjacent to our section and ends at the round bush just before the brown building (Tapas bar) .
Their view would be better than shown in this photograph cos the hedges had just been trimmed, but it would not be quite as good as ours.
IMO, had Madeleine come out to look for her Mum and Dad, she would have stood right where this photo was taken from, cos she could see them from there.
And another view taken, it seems, from the balcony across the road, as featured in "Sadies theory"
See how well the bushes are trimmed back?
Why dont you measure out 50 metres yourself and whilst chatting see if you can hear your child shouting you. I have told you repeatedly that we could, without any trouble, in our garden, where we had a 50 metre stretch. As you can see from videos, Madeleine was not a shrinking violet and she had a good loud voice.
I know you guys disbelieve everything all the Brits say, especially kate and Gerry who you seem to actually enjoy hurting as much as you can. It is quite vindictive the way that you keep making all the Brits liars, just to try and make Kate and Gerry guilty. And just to prove Amaral right, a man who is twice proven a liar in the PT courts and who got the Hey-ho from his job, because of his incompetent handling of this case.
But sorry I believe the Brits over Amaral every time.
Sadie, why do you write such long posts over such simple matters. Are you hoping the reader will just give up through boredom half way through ?
The bare facts are that it is entirely possible that Madeleine was involved in an accident that involved climbing on the the balcony railings. We have no real idea how high the foliage at the front of the balcony railings was at the time or if Madeleine could see over it ( if you have a absolutely contemporary photo I'd be glad to see it ). Between Madeleine and her parents there was foliage, a garden, a path, more foliage, a pool and a plastic tarpaulin. Further there was the noise of people talking in the tapas and perhaps music. Wind direction may also have played a part.
Bottom line is Madeleine could have indeed called for her parents but they simply didn't hear.
( BTW sadie I'm British just like you )
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 01, 2013, 08:47:54 AM
Sadie wrote
I know you guys disbelieve everything all the Brits say, especially kate and Gerry who you seem to actually enjoy hurting as much as you can. It is quite vindictive the way that you keep making all the Brits liars, just to try and make Kate and Gerry guilty. And just to prove Amaral right, a man who is twice proven a liar in the PT courts and who got the Hey-ho from his job, because of his incompetent handling of this case.
But sorry I believe the Brits over Amaral every time. 8-)(--)
@)(++(*
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Mr Moderator on August 01, 2013, 10:15:19 AM
The Madeleine calling to her parents suggestion is a myth. Any parent will know that should an almost 4-year-old even manage to open a sliding patio door and walk out onto a balcony they are most unlikely to close the door again. Neither the McCanns nor Matthew Oldfield found the patio door ajar. Another myth debunked unfortunately.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 01, 2013, 12:09:32 PM
You can use Google Earth til the cows come home, buit it doesn't prove abduction. 8)-)))
I accept that Stephen, but it sure blows a hole in the theory that, ?was it, Faith suggested, of Madeleine using a chair to try and see her parents.
Instead of always knocking, Stephen, how about you coming up with something that progresses our thinking?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 01, 2013, 12:33:23 PM
From up the page Faith
Quote
Sadie, why do you write such long posts over such simple matters. Are you hoping the reader will just give up through boredom half way through ?
The bare facts are that it is entirely possible that Madeleine was involved in an accident that involved climbing on the the balcony railings. We have no real idea how high the foliage at the front of the balcony railings was at the time or if Madeleine could see over it ( if you have a absolutely contemporary photo I'd be glad to see it ). Between Madeleine and her parents there was foliage, a garden, a path, more foliage, a pool and a plastic tarpaulin. Further there was the noise of people talking in the tapas and perhaps music. Wind direction may also have played a part.
Bottom line is Madeleine could have indeed called for her parents but they simply didn't hear.
You blanked them out in your responses, but as you will see below, I am just answering your questions.
Thoroughly
Don't you like a thorough and analytical approach? ===============================================
« Reply #142 on: Today at 12:42:19 AM » Quote from: Faithlilly on July 31, 2013, 11:12:08 AM
Quote
It is obvious from the photographs posted already ( where are the ones mentioned by you ? ) that, with the aid of a chair, Madeleine would have been able to climb the railings
.
why should she, when she could see them?
Quote from: Faithlilly on July 31, 2013, 11:12:08 AM
Quote
As to the vegetation being low enough at the time for Madeleine to see her parents with climbing, that is simply not true and as for her yelling, perhaps she did but with the distances involved, the noise in the tapas and the clear tarpaulin surrounding the bar no one heard.
Why dont you measure out 50 metres yourself and whilst chatting see if you can hear your child shouting you. I have told you repeatedly that we could, without any trouble, in our garden, where we had a 50 metre stretch. As you can see from videos, Madeleine was not a shrinking violet and she had a good loud voice.
From the other side of the pool. this shows where the Tapas 9 sat. It is my understanding that X marks the spot. THe brown roofed building next door is the tapas bar, where they DID NOT sit. We sat in the next plastic glazed section to the left, at the very edge of the picture.
Many photographs that have been published as the "view the Mccanns had" were, in actual fact, taken from the area to the very right of the picture ... and gave an altogether false view..
From apartment 5A's balcony this shows almost the same view. The photo is taken from in front of the patio window..
Greenery grows extremely quickly in PT (?westerly winds bringing rain in from the Atlantic + warm sushine, I guess). At the time of the abduction, from contemporaray photographs we can see that the greenery had just been cut back. This photo must have been taken a little while later.cos everything is growing larger again and the view is getting a little restricted
To explain the photo
The white part of the building sticking out to the RH side of the picture is the back end of Kate and Gerrys bedroom
You will see the white walls going across the photo. these are the walls of the alleyway that ran between the flats and the Tapas section.
Behind them you will see a little of the eastern end of the pool. IImmediately behind the pool is the outside tapas restaurant. We sat in the LH section, by the tree, which appears to be growing up in front of it.. The brown building immediately behind the round bush is the Tapas Bar. Kate and Gerry were NOT in there. Kate and Gerry sat in the middle section, which starts adjacent to our section and ends at the round bush just before the brown building (Tapas bar) .
Their view would be better than shown in this photograph cos the hedges had just been trimmed, but it would not be quite as good as ours.
IMO, had Madeleine come out to look for her Mum and Dad, she would have stood right where this photo was taken from, cos she could see them from there.
And another view taken, it seems, from the balcony across the road, as featured in "Sadies theory"
See how well the bushes are trimmed back?
Why dont you measure out 50 metres yourself and whilst chatting see if you can hear your child shouting you. I have told you repeatedly that we could, without any trouble, in our garden, where we had a 50 metre stretch. As you can see from videos, Madeleine was not a shrinking violet and she had a good loud voice.
Quote from: Faithlilly on July 31, 2013, 11:12:08 AM
Quote
As to the patio door being closed on Gerry's visit, we only have Gerry's word for that.
I know you guys disbelieve everything all the Brits say, especially kate and Gerry who you seem to actually enjoy hurting as much as you can.
It is quite vindictive the way that you keep making all the Brits liars, just to try and make Kate and Gerry guilty.
And just to prove Amaral right, a man who is twice proven a liar in the PT courts and who got the Hey-ho from his job, because of his incompetent handling of this case.
But sorry I believe the Brits over Amaral every time.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on August 01, 2013, 04:10:35 PM
The Madeleine calling to her parents suggestion is a myth. Any parent will know that should an almost 4-year-old even manage to open a sliding patio door and walk out onto a balcony they are most unlikely to close the door again. Neither the McCanns nor Matthew Oldfield found the patio door ajar. Another myth debunked unfortunately.
And if Madeleine had fallen do really think either Gerry or Oldfield would have admitted finding the door ajar ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on August 01, 2013, 04:11:49 PM
And if Madeleine had fallen do really think either Gerry or Oldfield would have admitted finding the door ajar ?
I honestly believe that if Madeleine had fallen and been badly injured, that they would have got an ambulance for her immediately. Just my opinion, Faithlilly - I just can't fathom that they would cover up an accident.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on August 01, 2013, 04:20:05 PM
I honestly believe that if Madeleine had fallen and been badly injured, that they would have got an ambulance for her immediately. Just my opinion, Faithlilly - I just can't fathom that they would cover up an accident.
And if she was dead and it could be proved her parents were in the tapas bar at the time ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Rachel Granada on August 01, 2013, 04:26:40 PM
And if she was dead and it could be proved her parents were in the tapas bar at the time ?
Believe me, I've thought about this case from all angles. If that had happened - say Gerry had come back and found that Madeleine had sadly passed away at 9pm then there is just no way that they could have set it all in motion in just one hour before the alarm was raised. It's just not possible.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on August 01, 2013, 04:47:38 PM
Believe me, I've thought about this case from all angles. If that had happened - say Gerry had come back and found that Madeleine had sadly passed away at 9pm then there is just no way that they could have set it all in motion in just one hour before the alarm was raised. It's just not possible.
Set all what in motion ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 01, 2013, 05:29:38 PM
Faith
I have had to modify the post at the top of this page, cos now the forum has changed.... and it seems that quotes are chopped out.
Without the quotes, it did not show your questions.
As I said before my long post was only answering your questions
I cannot think why you made your comment about my long answer. Obfuscatioin? You knew they were three answers answering YOUR questions
Thoroughly.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 01, 2013, 05:37:01 PM
Believe me, I've thought about this case from all angles. If that had happened - say Gerry had come back and found that Madeleine had sadly passed away at 9pm then there is just no way that they could have set it all in motion in just one hour before the alarm was raised. It's just not possible.
You cant *assume* anything, timewise, there is a 5 hour gap almost where anything could have happened.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on August 01, 2013, 06:42:14 PM
I have had to modify the post at the top of this page, cos now the forum has changed.... and it seems that quotes are chopped out.
Without the quotes, it did not show your questions.
As I said before my long post was only answering your questions
I cannot think why you made your comment about my long answer. Obfuscatioin? You knew they were three answers answering YOUR questions
Thoroughly.
I made me comment because it was nonsense, for all the reasons I have already posted.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 01, 2013, 07:09:44 PM
And THIS is the reason that the Mccanns speak in oxymorons when they say there is no evidence of any harm(as brought up earlier in the thread) but in the next breath say are given hope by these three women found years after
You cant *assume* anything, timewise, there is a 5 hour gap almost where anything could have happened.
Fair enough Redblossom. How did they "do it" in that 5 hour gap? Interested to hear your take because I just can't fathom that Kate and Gerry McCann could have discovered that Madeleine had passed away and then cleaned up and covered it all up in that short time-frame. Does not stack up to me.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on August 01, 2013, 07:38:15 PM
Fair enough Redblossom. How did they "do it" in that 5 hour gap? Interested to hear your take because I just can't fathom that Kate and Gerry McCann could have discovered that Madeleine had passed away and then cleaned up and covered it all up in that short time-frame. Does not stack up to me.
Madeleine falls awkwardly from the balcony into the flowerbed and is killed by either a broken neck or head injury. What exactly would there be to 'clean up' ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Rachel Granada on August 01, 2013, 08:38:22 PM
Madeleine falls awkwardly from the balcony into the flowerbed and is killed by either a broken neck or head injury. What exactly would there be to 'clean up' ?
So how did they do it from there then? Dispose of her remains so they were never found, with out a car? Go back to dinner as if nothing had happened? Or roped all their friends in on a cover up within about an hour or so?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 01, 2013, 08:40:30 PM
Fair enough Redblossom. How did they "do it" in that 5 hour gap? Interested to hear your take because I just can't fathom that Kate and Gerry McCann could have discovered that Madeleine had passed away and then cleaned up and covered it all up in that short time-frame. Does not stack up to me.
it has nothing to do with what you can fathom
And I dont have any*take* because I have not thought about it in any detail
I DO know they have lied several times over the years and I wouldnt trust them as far as I could throw them!
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 01, 2013, 10:27:29 PM
Madeleine falls awkwardly from the balcony into the flowerbed and is killed by either a broken neck or head injury. What exactly would there be to 'clean up' ?
Nothing to "clean up", many haemorrhages are internal. No sign, no nothing. Either Madeleine fell over the balcony or fell from the chair on the hard balcony tiles when trying to see better if her parents were the people she heard talking and laughing. If so molecules would have been drifted to the flower bed by wind, by rain.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on August 01, 2013, 11:12:23 PM
Nothing to "clean up", many haemorrhages are internal. No sign, no nothing. Either Madeleine fell over the balcony or fell from the chair on the hard balcony tiles when trying to see better if her parents were the people she heard talking and laughing. If so molecules would have been drifted to the flower bed by wind, by rain.
So tell us what happened after they found her Anne.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 02, 2013, 12:38:35 AM
So tell us what happened after they found her Anne.
First the question would be "who found her and when", don't you think ? The same accident, but a more acceptable one, could have happened before they left. We know the sliding door was open and Mrs McCann was having a shower.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 02, 2013, 01:34:32 AM
You cant *assume* anything, timewise, there is a 5 hour gap almost where anything could have happened.
No there IS NOT a 5 hour time gap. The maximum is 35 minutes
Madeleine left the tapas bar after her tea at just before 5.40pm (Kates May 6th statement)
Madeleine left the tapas bar after her tea at 5.30pm (Gerrys May 10th statement) Kate was bathing the three children and getting them ready for bed when David arrived at 6.35/ 6.40. He saw Madeleine and the twins dressed ready for bed. (Davids Rog statement part 2) Kate was with the children until Gerry arrived back from Tennis, before 8 pm (Davids Rog statement and IIRC also Gerrys statement)
Kate and Gerry were with the children until they left for the tapas restaurant at 8.30pm Matt made a listening check at about 9.00pm Gerry returned from the Tapas restaurant and saw the children between 9.05 and 910pm Jane Tanner, at 9.15 ish, saw bundleman and almost certainly Madeleine. Even noticing the detail at the bottom of her pyjama trousers. Matt made a visual check at about 9.25 pm, but unfortunately didn't want to go into the room - so only actually visually checked the twins. The door was wider open than expected IIRC ... so seems the abduction had already taken place Kate checked at 10.00pm and found Madeleine gone
The longest gap I can find is 35 minutes ... NOT 5 hours
Why make it up Red?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 02, 2013, 02:00:47 AM
Madeleine falls awkwardly from the balcony into the flowerbed and is killed by either a broken neck or head injury. What exactly would there be to 'clean up' ?
The balcony was too high for Madeleine to just fall over. You know that Faith. it has been worked out earlier. Why are you bringing it up again?
If Madeleine was desperately looking for her mum and dad then there are two things at least to take into account 1) She closed the patio door behind her. Not at all likely 2) Madeleine had a very good view of where Kate and Gerry were sitting without needing a chair to look
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/notwviewfrompatio.jpg) The building immediately behind the water and in the middle of the picture is the outdoor tapas restaurant, where Kate and Gerry sat. The photo is taken from outside the patio window. No need to climb on anything to see her mum and dad
Just why are you going on about her having fallen from the balcony? Doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on August 02, 2013, 06:55:27 AM
The balcony was too high for Madeleine to just fall over. You know that Faith. it has been worked out earlier. Why are you bringing it up again?
If Madeleine was desperately looking for her mum and dad then there are two things at least to take into account 1) She closed the patio door behind her. Not at all likely 2) Madeleine had a very good view of where Kate and Gerry were sitting without needing a chair to look
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/notwviewfrompatio.jpg) The building immediately behind the water and in the middle of the picture is the outdoor tapas restaurant, where Kate and Gerry sat. The photo is taken from outside the patio window. No need to climb on anything to see her mum and dad
Just why are you going on about her having fallen from the balcony? Doesn't make sense.
The space to the right of the railings was the location of another set of railings at the time. This is the railings I am talking about. Your picture actually shows the foliage at that point obscures the view of the tapas.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 02, 2013, 03:44:46 PM
The space to the right of the railings was the location of another set of railings at the time. This is the railings I am talking about. Your picture actually shows the foliage at that point obscures the view of the tapas.
Yep, this illustrates how rapidly greenery grows in PT, but even if it had the railings in place and had somewhat lower greenery, why would Madeleine go there to see her parents when she could see them from just outside the patio windows? ... Just where she came out of the flat?
And do you honestly think that had she been able to open the patio door, that she would take the time and trouble to close it again? Nah ... sorry!
With all due respect, Faith, your idea doesn't hold water tbh
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on August 02, 2013, 06:11:18 PM
Yep, this illustrates how rapidly greenery grows in PT, but even if it had the railings in place and had somewhat lower greenery, why would Madeleine go there to see her parents when she could see them from just outside the patio windows? ... Just where she came out of the flat?
And do you honestly think that had she been able to open the patio door, that she would take the time and trouble to close it again? Nah ... sorry!
With all due respect, Faith, your idea doesn't hold water tbh
Madeleine would be naturally drawn to that side because it that's the direction the noise from the tapas would have been coming from.
As to the patio door being shut, we only have Gerry's word for that.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 02, 2013, 06:17:08 PM
Do you really think that every word Amaral utters is a lie ?
Also, looking at the photographs, the landing leads to stairs.
Assuming Madeleine got outside after waking up in a groggy state as many people do, at night and slipped on the stairs. This could cause serious injury if not death of a child. A child's skeleton especially the skull is made of softer bone/tissue and far more vulnerable than an adult.
You haven't been following the thread have you Stephen?
Anyway, Gotta go now. Busy
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Lace on August 02, 2013, 10:07:42 PM
People can take me whatever way they like sadie. I am simply stating facts.
TBH sadie I do worry about what kind of mother you must have been when you can see no danger in the situation Madeleine and her siblings were left in. That was a post from faithfully to Sadie
That is a spiteful thing to say Faithfully, especially after what Sadie posted on another thread about her son.
You like taking swipes at Sadie don't you.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 02, 2013, 11:39:17 PM
People can take me whatever way they like sadie. I am simply stating facts.
TBH sadie I do worry about what kind of mother you must have been when you can see no danger in the situation Madeleine and her siblings were left in.
Well if I was a bad mother, then despite that my daughter has grown into a very fine woman.
All I tell you is my experiences of having a garden 50 metres long and being out there and hearing my children when they called. back door unlocked and sometimes sidegate unlocked too.
Take it or leave it! One does not expect someone to come in and steal ones children. Face facts please.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 02, 2013, 11:48:02 PM
Well if I was a bad mother, then despite that my daughter has grown into a very fine woman.
All I tell you is my experiences of having a garden 50 metres long and being out there and hearing my children when they called. back door unlocked and sometimes sidegate unlocked too.
Take it or leave it! One does not expect someone to come in and steal ones children. Face facts please.
Did their friends also leave a door unlocked, sadie?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 02, 2013, 11:53:33 PM
That is irrelevant. we care talking about Madeleine and the Mccanns, not other people
If the apartment is so close to the restaurant to be able to hear people calling, why didn't Kate shout to get help instead of leaving the other children alone in an open apartment again?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Lyall on August 03, 2013, 12:04:56 AM
Kate's voice would be a lot louder than Madeleine's too, of course. Why didn't she simply shout for help?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 03, 2013, 12:10:25 AM
If the apartment is so close to the restaurant to be able to hear people calling, why didn't Kate shout to get help instead of leaving the other children alone in an open apartment again?
Gerry is her strength in times of emergency; he is her support. No doubt about that from videos.
Just 70 odd metres run, 15 seconds, maybe 20? She needed Gerry
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 03, 2013, 12:14:23 AM
I honestly believe that if Madeleine had fallen and been badly injured, that they would have got an ambulance for her immediately. Just my opinion, Faithlilly - I just can't fathom that they would cover up an accident.
I agree with that. Had they found her badly injured they would have called the emergency service, after screaming and alerting all the tapas staff, Mrs Fenn and the neighbouring. But they didn't, because possibly it was to late for Madeleine.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Lyall on August 03, 2013, 12:16:17 AM
Kate's voice would be a lot louder than Madeleine's too, of course. Why didn't she simply shout for help?
Why, yes, if she, as she repeated many times, knew Madeleine had been abducted (shutters/window) ? When she screamed from the balcony a bit later, the staff heard her !
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 03, 2013, 12:25:31 AM
I agree with that. Had they found her badly injured they would have called the emergency service, after screaming and alerting all the tapas staff, Mrs Fenn and the neighbouring. But they didn't, because possibly it was to late for Madeleine.
So despite the photo showing how she could see the tapas restaurant you persist in the fall scenario?
I repeat: Gerry is her strength in times of emergency; he is her support. No doubt about that from videos.
Just 70 odd metres run, 15 seconds, maybe 20? She needed Gerry
Got it?
So shout for him? If it's that close and that easy to attract attention?
The fact she didn't raises the possibility KM knew she wouldn't be heard over the noise of the restaurant, or she wasn't sure she would be heard. That possibility is a lot more likely for Madeleine, of course.
Another possibility is that when KM ran to the restaurant to raise the alarm she hadn't come directly from the apartment, and that's the reason why she didn't shout for help.
There are more possibilities than the one you're championing, sadie.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 03, 2013, 12:38:33 AM
The clear view that Madeleine had was as in the image. THe building in the middle of the picture, immediately behind the pool is where Kate and Gerry sat.
So shout for him? If it's that close and that easy to attract attention?
The fact she didn't raises the possibility KM knew she wouldn't be heard over the noise of the restaurant, or she wasn't sure she would be heard. That possibility is a lot more likely for Madeleine, of course.
Another possibility is that when KM ran to the restaurant to raise the alarm she hadn't come directly from the apartment, and that's the reason why she didn't shout for help.
There are more possibilities than the one you're championing, sadie.
Would be interested to know where she came from then
Psst. Do you think it was kate in the Smiths sighting 8(0(*
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 03, 2013, 12:41:49 AM
The witness (Mrs Oldfield, 2nd statement) states that she sat more or less facing the back of the apartment and Mathew, on the side of the table, on her left. She does not know if, from that position, he could see the back door of the apartment where Madeleine was, but if this had been the case then he would only have been able to see the very top. So no Madeleine on the balcony could be spotted and reciprocally Madeleine couldn't spot anyone in the Tapas. Hence climbing on a chair.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Lyall on August 03, 2013, 12:47:17 AM
Would be interested to know where she came from then
Psst. Do you think it was kate in the Smiths sighting 8(0(*
I've no theory about where KM may have been before raising the alarm. But it is a possibility that's why she didn't simply just shout for help from the apartment.
More likely though she did shout and simply wasn't heard?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 03, 2013, 12:59:13 AM
NO 4 year old would close the patio door behind them
Nobody said the contrary. She wouldn't have closed the patio door, intending to go back to her bed or her parents' bed. Don't argue that Mr McCann found the patio door closed, actually he doesn't mention that door but another, the mysteriously too much open bedroom door, a mystery that didn't worry him. Had Madeleine gone to the balcony she would have left open the bedroom door, don't you agree ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 03, 2013, 01:21:51 AM
Nobody said the contrary. She wouldn't have closed the patio door, intending to go back to her bed or her parents' bed. Don't argue that Mr McCann found the patio door closed, actually he doesn't mention that door but another, the mysteriously too much open bedroom door, a mystery that didn't worry him. Had Madeleine gone to the balcony she would have left open the bedroom door, don't you agree ?
I do agree, yes, but only had she gone to the balcony. I don't believe she went there, cos the patio door was closed.
And there is absolutely NO reason to think that she needed a chair, or to climb up any way. She could see without that.
The evidence is in the picture.
Why dont you drop it Anne? It is getting silly now.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on August 03, 2013, 01:10:11 PM
Well if I was a bad mother, then despite that my daughter has grown into a very fine woman.
All I tell you is my experiences of having a garden 50 metres long and being out there and hearing my children when they called. back door unlocked and sometimes sidegate unlocked too.
Take it or leave it! One does not expect someone to come in and steal ones children. Face facts please.
But good parents do recognise that there are certain situations that are dangerous for children and an unfamiliar, unsecured apartment with access to high balconies is one of those situations.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on August 03, 2013, 04:44:03 PM
But good parents do recognise that there are certain situations that are dangerous for children and an unfamiliar, unsecured apartment with access to high balconies is one of those situations.
Faith IMO you talk as if it's a foregone conclusion that good parents never make a mistake.
A&E depts all over the country have a constant stream of children whose good parents did something - or failed to do something which resulted in their child having an accident - or even dying. We don't persecute these parents and scream abuse at them - we have nothing but sympathy for them because we all know that there is no such thing as a perfect parent. Most of us are lucky and our mistakes do not result in any harm to our children - but not everyone is.
All the parents who adopted the listening method of baby monitoring and still went home with their children safe and sound after their holiday were the lucky ones - the McCanns were not.
We all know it's dangerous to leave small children in the bath on their own - and yet every year children drown in the bath because their loving, good parents made a mistake.
This total refusal by some people to allow the McCanns to be the same as every other parent and make mistakes like the rest of us is incomprehensible to me. I just don't get it.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: faithlilly on August 03, 2013, 05:26:00 PM
Faith IMO you talk as if it's a foregone conclusion that good parents never make a mistake.
A&E depts all over the country have a constant stream of children whose good parents did something - or failed to do something which resulted in their child having an accident - or even dying. We don't persecute these parents and scream abuse at them - we have nothing but sympathy for them because we all know that there is no such thing as a perfect parent. Most of us are lucky and our mistakes do not result in any harm to our children - but not everyone is.
All the parents who adopted the listening method of baby monitoring and still went home with their children safe and sound after their holiday were the lucky ones - the McCanns were not.
We all know it's dangerous to leave small children in the bath on their own - and yet every year children drown in the bath because their loving, good parents made a mistake.
This total refusal by some people to allow the McCanns to be the same as every other parent and make mistakes like the rest of us is incomprehensible to me. I just don't get it.
As you say many, many parents use the listening service while on holiday and many parents have admitted doing so since Madeleine disappeared but I have never, ever heard of one parent leaving their accommodation's door/patio doors unlocked especially when those doors had access to dangerously high balconies and steps, have you ?
This was not a mistake Benice. This was a couple making fast and loose with their children's safety in order to have some 'me' time with their friends.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Rachel Granada on August 03, 2013, 05:29:56 PM
No there IS NOT a 5 hour time gap. The maximum is 35 minutes
Madeleine left the tapas bar after her tea at just before 5.40pm (Kates May 6th statement)
Madeleine left the tapas bar after her tea at 5.30pm (Gerrys May 10th statement) Kate was bathing the three children and getting them ready for bed when David arrived at 6.35/ 6.40. He saw Madeleine and the twins dressed ready for bed. (Davids Rog statement part 2) Kate was with the children until Gerry arrived back from Tennis, before 8 pm (Davids Rog statement and IIRC also Gerrys statement)
Kate and Gerry were with the children until they left for the tapas restaurant at 8.30pm Matt made a listening check at about 9.00pm Gerry returned from the Tapas restaurant and saw the children between 9.05 and 910pm Jane Tanner, at 9.15 ish, saw bundleman and almost certainly Madeleine. Even noticing the detail at the bottom of her pyjama trousers. Matt made a visual check at about 9.25 pm, but unfortunately didn't want to go into the room - so only actually visually checked the twins. The door was wider open than expected IIRC ... so seems the abduction had already taken place Kate checked at 10.00pm and found Madeleine gone
The longest gap I can find is 35 minutes ... NOT 5 hours
Why make it up Red?
Thanks for that, Sadie. I said 4.5 hour time-frame as I wanted to use only independent witnesses who saw Madeleine on the 3rd, to pre-empt any "Payne is lying", etc. posts. Your post is very interesting and makes the "window of opportunity" for any wrong-doing by the McCanns very slim indeed.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 03, 2013, 06:32:07 PM
I have never, ever heard of one parent leaving their accommodation's door/patio doors unlocked especially when those doors had access to dangerously high balconies and steps, have you ?
This was not a mistake Benice. This was a couple making fast and loose with their children's safety in order to have some 'me' time with their friends.
I don't agree with that, Faithlilly. Had they foreseen (their daughter had indirectly advised them to, but they strangely didn't understand, which is for me one of the deepest mysteries of this disappearance) Madeleine waking up, searching in the flat, hearing some noise through the slightly open window-door, as the Portuguese call it, she was accustomed to use like a door, getting easily on the dangerous balcony and from there eventually to the street, had they imagined this they certainly wouldn't have left the patio door opened. No parent would. Imo either they said for some reason the patio door was open whereas it was closed, or they seriously lack primary imagination.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on August 03, 2013, 06:41:34 PM
As you say many, many parents use the listening service while on holiday and many parents have admitted doing so since Madeleine disappeared but I have never, ever heard of one parent leaving their accommodation's door/patio doors unlocked especially when those doors had access to dangerously high balconies and steps, have you ?
This was not a mistake Benice. This was a couple making fast and loose with their children's safety in order to have some 'me' time with their friends.
Because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it never happens. People do go out and forget to lock doors, they leave keys under mats etc - (very handy if someone is watching). This idea that no-one in the world only the McCanns have ever done the same as they did - whether by accident or intentionally is just daft IMO.
Of course it was a mistake Faith. They did not deliberately or maliciously put the children they adored in danger any more than the parents of children who drown in garden pools or in the bath or die in car accidents deliberately and knowingly caused those tragedies to happen. But if you treat those parents the same as you treat the McCanns - then in every instance you can make the same case against them as you do against the McCanns - because at the end of the day they were responsible and it was because of their actions, or lack of action that the tragedy happened.
Thankfully most of us are far too busy feeling terribly sad for those parents to even want to add to their agony by starting up with the 'blame game', and that's because we know that as parents none of us can guarantee that we will never make a mistake ourselves. We put it down to human error, and why the McCanns are not allowed by some people to be to be guilty of human error like everyone else is a mystery to me.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Rachel Granada on August 03, 2013, 06:52:49 PM
For what it's worth, I don't agree with the McCanns childcare arrangements on the holiday.
But at the end of the day, it is none of my business what they chose to do, and I will not use their choices as a stick to beat them with.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: John on August 03, 2013, 07:09:52 PM
For what it's worth, I don't agree with the McCanns childcare arrangements on the holiday.
But at the end of the day, it is none of my business what they chose to do, and I will not use their choices as a stick to beat them with.
Most parents don't apparently and the many I have asked this question say the same. That said however I place the ultimate blame squarely at the feet of Mark Warner Holidays and Ocean Club Resort. They failed to warn the parents to be extra vigilant and effectively put their own commercial interests before the safety of their paying guests.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 03, 2013, 07:19:16 PM
The clear view that Madeleine had was as in the image. THe building in the middle of the picture, immediately behind the pool is where Kate and Gerry sat.
Madeliene could have see them from there, which is immediately in front of the patio windows, which she would have come out thru.
Do you understand?
She didn't come out tho, cos NO 4 year old would close the patio door behind them
Are you seriously suggesting a small child let alone an adult could see anyone inside that restaraunt and from all that distance, and in the dark? and reversely, anyone inside it, see or hear the other way?
Matt Oldfield
The question asked, he relates that, due to the large size of the whole group, comprising nine adults (four couple and FP's mother), the deponent and the others always occupied the same table because it was the only one that could handle so many people.
Asked, he relates that, from where that table was positioned the group would have sight of the apartments they were occupying.
Nevertheless, he admits that it was a tenuous sight considering the distance to the apartments (estimated as about 50 to 100 metres), and further, due to their vision being impaired by a transparent oilcloth [tarpaulin] that covered the area in which the tables were located.
Consequently, he admits it being possible for someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments without being detected, through [by way of] the patios that were round the back of the residential block.
Martin Brunts video from 13.47
You can see the oilcloth and his view of the low visibility
Jo Moura, PI, investigated on the ground....No visual whatsoever
3.38
and again at 16.20
There are other references too.
BUMP, still waiting for an answer sadie
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on August 03, 2013, 07:24:51 PM
For what it's worth, I don't agree with the McCanns childcare arrangements on the holiday.
But at the end of the day, it is none of my business what they chose to do, and I will not use their choices as a stick to beat them with.
Well I wouldn't take children that young abroad in the first place. Why put them to all the hassle of waiting around at airports and the plane journey, and maybe excessive heat when they arrive etc etc - when they're too young to know the difference between Bournemouth or Benidorm. But do I think parents who do take toddlers and babies abroad are wrong or bad parents? No - I just think they have different opinions to mine about where to take children on holiday. As you say Rachel, it's their business.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Rachel Granada on August 03, 2013, 07:47:31 PM
Well I wouldn't take children that young abroad in the first place. Why put them to all the hassle of waiting around at airports and the plane journey, and maybe excessive heat when they arrive etc etc - when they're too young to know the difference between Bournemouth or Benidorm. But do I think parents who do take toddlers and babies abroad are wrong or bad parents? No - I just think they have different opinions to mine about where to take children on holiday. As you say Rachel, it's their business.
Very much so Benice - each to their own. The McCanns choices are their business alone.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 03, 2013, 08:55:30 PM
Thanks for that, Sadie. I said 4.5 hour time-frame as I wanted to use only independent witnesses who saw Madeleine on the 3rd, to pre-empt any "Payne is lying", etc. posts. Your post is very interesting and makes the "window of opportunity" for any wrong-doing by the McCanns very slim indeed.
David payne visit: - neithed Gerry or Kate mentioned it in their first statements, and for thatmatter, none of the others in the whole group
- he says he entered the apartment and had a three to five minute conversation with kate mccann IIRC timewise, with her in just a towel but doesnt remember what she was wearing
- she said he just popped his head round the door (you know the unlocked patio door while she was having a shower with her three kids left playing alone) answered it in her towel, and didnt come in and this was all of 30 seconds
- he said the kids were all in their pyjamas, predomonantly *white*, err, Madeleinehad a bright pink top on
ps Sadie still waiting for you to provide proof that Payne said Gerry returned home at 8 pm, its ok, dont bother yourself, it doesnt exist, as it doesnt exist that Kate was bathing her kids at any time post 6pm, seeing as they both bathed them according to their statements by 6 pm before Gerry left for tennis
so Rachel, what we have is a 4.5 window or opportunity reduced to 3.5 hours if you believe the Payne story
load of stuff to pick through here dor anyone with hedex pills and stamina LOL
1485 ”And imagine, remember what you saw.” Reply ”Mm.” 1485 ”Did you open the door, slid door? Or was it already open? Or…” Reply ”Err I think it was already open, I think it was already open. Err you know, as I say, I walked up there, Kate was you know I say looking very relaxed and err I say a comment to her I said well crikey it’s early, early for them to be getting ready you know for bed, as I say she said ah no, I’ve had such a good, you know such a good day and afternoon err so you know, and Gerry’s just obviously finishing off playing tennis and err so you know hopefully try and get them down and as I say we were just, you know I, I know, it does sound bizarre but I just looked at the three of them and I couldn’t, you know they were just so well presented and so clean and immaculate it was, you know I was, and you know they just looked such healthy children, err you know, there’s, there’s you know nothing that normally…” 1485 ”Yeah.” Reply ”Triggers in my mind like that but it was just how well that they looked and err…” 1485 ”Try to remember where in, where they were in the apartment.” Reply ”Err, I mean the, the time that I was there err you know all, all of them err all the children and Kate were in the, err as soon as you go through the patio doors err you know they were all in the immediate area you know in front of you, err that was the area that they generally, you know when I saw them, so I didn’t, no I didn’t go any further into the apartment, you know it was just a conversation that I like, you know walked into the, you know through the French doors, I went into the lounge err you know the open plan area and err you know just had a brief conversation, you know things started off by as I say, saying about the, how well they looked and you know, it’s early to get them ready for bed and then I said oh Gerry’s, you know just finished over there, we’re going over to play a bit of tennis, err I probably said is there any problems with that and she said ah no, no fine, you know carry on, and err you know perhaps a bit more of a conversation err but you know it, it wasn’t many minutes that I was, was there.” 1485 ”Yeah.” Reply ”But err certainly enough time just to see, you know, certainly the apartment, there was nothing that was untoward, that was you know err the children all looked extremely happy, there was no, you know signs of any problems with err you know Kate, you know or indeed the relationship that Kate had got with any of the three children. None of the children had been told off, none of the children looked like they were you know in trouble for anything, you know they were err still all talking and playing around. Err so you know it was just a very err transient you know that I’d gone in there, but as I say it just struck me how well they all looked.” 1485 ”Yeah.” Reply ”And content I suppose is the other word to use.” 1485 ”Did you actually go into the apartment?” Reply ”I did.” 1485 ”Or did you do the conversation from the door?” Reply ”No, definitely was inside the apartment, you know whether it be two or three steps into the apartment or you know however many, but I was definitely in the apartment.” 1485 ”Okay, so now what I’m gonna try and ask you to recollect, what everybody was wearing.” Reply ”I’m afraid that is, you know I’m, I cannot recall at all. I know that’s, you’d think that’d be an obvious thing to remember, I cannot remember. As I say the, from the children point of view predominantly I can remember the, you know, white, but I couldn’t say exactly what they were wearing. Err…” 1485 ”But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example?” Reply ”I can’t, no.” 1485 ”And did you actually set eyes on each individual child?” Reply ”All three children I saw, yeah.” 1485 ”And were they standing up? Sitting down?” Reply ”Err they were generally standing up, yeah.” 1485 ”Did they actually acknowledge you?” Reply ”Err oh yeah, you know I’m very sure that if you’d have asked them, you know that evening or the next day they’d all say ah yeah, I popped in. You know I, you know I did know the children very well, we’d all you know, met up many times before err you know I, you know again I’d be playing with Madeleine you know in the, err the play area err you know during that week, you know lifting her up, twizzing her round and everything, I knew her that well, you know, to do that, and as I say err she’d definitely know who I was and certainly, as I say, just to reinforce that she looked very happy.” 1485 ”Yeah. Was that the last time you saw Madeleine?” Reply ”It was.” 1485 ”How many minutes, you said as a matter of minutes and then you went back and then you played tennis.” Reply ”Mm.” 1485 ”I’m gonna pin you down and ask you how long you think you were in there for. I know you say minutes.” Reply ”In their apartment, it, it, I’d say three minutes, five maximum.” 1485 ”Three to five?” Reply ”Yeah.” 1485 ”So then you step back out, did you leave the doors open or did you close them?” Reply ”Err I couldn’t remember. You know, again, I’ve got the, in my mind that the doors were open when I went in and I probably would have just walked out back that way, you know, it still, I mean it’s still relatively nice outside, it was light and everything so err you know I, I, whether they kept the door open it’s just nice when it’s the end of the evening you know, sorry, you know the end of the afternoon, but if I’m perfectly honest the answer to that question is I can’t remember.” 1485 ”Okay. So then you went back and then you played, you played a game for about an hour?” Reply ”Yeah.” 1485 ”You think from seven, from about seven till about eight?” Reply ”Yeah, I mean it must, I mean it was before, I mean we got back before eight o’ clock err you know so perhaps just before seven, err sorry, err yeah just before seven so it was just before eight o’ clock. As I say when I got back I think I was cutting it fine and Fiona was still keen to go for a run and we started to get everyone ready for bed.” 1485 ”Yeah.” Reply ”And err so it was, as I say, about an hour but certainly we’d finished before eight o’ clock.” 1485 ”Okay, and when you finished, I’m just trying to put this in order here, when you actually, when you finished and you went back to the apartment, did you say anything to Gerry about, about the fact that his family were fine? Or…” Reply ”Yeah, err yeah, I haven’t mentioned this before, but yes, yeah I’d certainly, when we met up I said oh yeah, you know everything’s fine there, you know probably along the lines of you know you’ve got a bit more of a free pass you know you can carry on for a bit longer, Kate’s fine without everyone you know all the children are, are happy, there’s no difficulties with bath time or anything so you know, without actually saying all that just conveying to him that you know I don’t think you need to err rush back, you’ve got a free pass for a bit longer.” 1485 ”Alright.” Reply ”Err yeah.” 1485 ”So was that as soon as you got back to the, to the tennis courts?” Reply ”Yeah that would have been when we got back.”
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 03, 2013, 09:09:36 PM
well... So many stories, confusing isnt it perhaps SY will sort it all out and no one can bleat translation or other errors then 8((()*/
A poster saw a correlation (don't remember which thread) between the fact the Paynes were always late and Mr Payne's difficulty in evaluating times. How this had a multiplying effect on protagonists remains a mystery.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 03, 2013, 09:57:22 PM
PJFiles, Volume XIII, pp. 3909-15
From DC 1756 Mike MARSHALL to Ricardo Paiva
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 03, 2013, 10:10:57 PM
Odd statement if payne in his roggy said he went home at 8 pm
And also very very odd statement if he said the last time he saw her was at 5 pm!!! Long before Gerry asked him to go check in at 6 30 and long before the kids were let out of nursery, wierd >@@(*&) hope SY are taking NOTES
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 03, 2013, 10:34:43 PM
That is NOT Davids statement. It is by a third party.
Please use Davids statements and prove your point.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 03, 2013, 10:36:18 PM
This 17h must be some lost in passing from the 12am/pm system to the 24hours one. 19>7>17
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 03, 2013, 10:40:13 PM
Are you seriously suggesting a small child let alone an adult could see anyone inside that restaraunt and from all that distance, and in the dark? and reversely, anyone inside it, see or hear the other way?
Matt Oldfield
The question asked, he relates that, due to the large size of the whole group, comprising nine adults (four couple and FP's mother), the deponent and the others always occupied the same table because it was the only one that could handle so many people.
Asked, he relates that, from where that table was positioned the group would have sight of the apartments they were occupying.
Nevertheless, he admits that it was a tenuous sight considering the distance to the apartments (estimated as about 50 to 100 metres), and further, due to their vision being impaired by a transparent oilcloth [tarpaulin] that covered the area in which the tables were located.
Consequently, he admits it being possible for someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments without being detected, through [by way of] the patios that were round the back of the residential block.
Martin Brunts video from 13.47
You can see the oilcloth and his view of the low visibility
Jo Moura, PI, investigated on the ground....No visual whatsoever
3.38
and again at 16.20
There are other references too.
Bump for sadie who likes bumping but ignores difficult questions, in yer own time though 8**8:/:
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Chinagirl on August 03, 2013, 10:48:46 PM
Because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it never happens. People do go out and forget to lock doors, they leave keys under mats etc - (very handy if someone is watching). This idea that no-one in the world only the McCanns have ever done the same as they did - whether by accident or intentionally is just daft IMO.
Of course it was a mistake Faith. They did not deliberately or maliciously put the children they adored in danger any more than the parents of children who drown in garden pools or in the bath or die in car accidents deliberately and knowingly caused those tragedies to happen. But if you treat those parents the same as you treat the McCanns - then in every instance you can make the same case against them as you do against the McCanns - because at the end of the day they were responsible and it was because of their actions, or lack of action that the tragedy happened.
Thankfully most of us are far too busy feeling terribly sad for those parents to even want to add to their agony by starting up with the 'blame game', and that's because we know that as parents none of us can guarantee that we will never make a mistake ourselves. We put it down to human error, and why the McCanns are not allowed by some people to be to be guilty of human error like everyone else is a mystery to me.
Good post, Benice. The McCanns were guilty of human error - not neglect.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 03, 2013, 10:52:28 PM
Thanks for that, Sadie. I said 4.5 hour time-frame as I wanted to use only independent witnesses who saw Madeleine on the 3rd, to pre-empt any "Payne is lying", etc. posts. Your post is very interesting and makes the "window of opportunity" for any wrong-doing by the McCanns very slim indeed.
The time table for times that an opportunity arose between different independant witnesses seeing Madeleine, was unfortunately on another thread
I have copied it over herewith:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The only periods that Kate, or Kate and Gerry together, were alone with their family
Please note: I have taken all the times from one statement or another ... and I haven't handpicked the statements. Have just used the statements as they came to hand.
David Payne and Matt Oldfield and Jane Tanner are independent witnesses.
David saw Madeleine alive and well at about 6.35/6.40pm
Kate and Gerry were at the tapas restaurant apart for a short break from 8.30 to 10 pm.[/size]
That leaves a period of 1 hour 50 minutes total when no-one outside the family saw Madeleine.
During that time, for 35 minutes both Mum and Dad were together with the children. However, during that 35 minute period Gerry showered and changed ready for the tapas restaurant. Do you think a dirty deed was done then?
Alternatively considering kate on her own with the children Davids visit was at 6.35 / 6.40pm. He saw all three children alive and well. Gerry arrived at about 7.55. That is a period of only 1hour 15minuteswhen Kate was alone with them. During this period Kate read to them and put them to bed. She also showered, made up, did her hair and changed to clear the bathroom, ready for Gerry coming back. Not much time left, was there?
Additionally had anything happened to Madeleine, she would have screamed Gerry or fetched him immediately. Gerry has been her rock thru all this.
Nah ... nothing happened then either.
No other opportunities apart from in this 1 hour 50 minute period which I have just analysed for you, showing the unlikelyhood of such a thing happening as Zilch, tbh.
Summary of results THe longest periods that Kate or Kate and Gerry together were alone with the three little ones.
Kate on her own = I hour 15 minutes, but busy all that time - see above Gerry was never on his own except for the fleeting visit at about 9.05- 9.10
Gerry came back for 35 minutes and joined Kate so, Kate and Gerry together = 1 hour 50 minutes, but Gerry busy at that time. - see above
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 03, 2013, 10:56:10 PM
Good post, Benice. The McCanns were guilty of human error - not neglect.
Yes you are quite right chinagirl
its normal for people to leave their babies in their houses all alone and leave the doors unlocked, especially if its a vulnerable go all and sundry place,and go out for the evening and periodically go back and just check in case something has happened to them, got it in one! Well done x Well said, anyone who thinks this is not normal is abnormal
GET REAL @)(++(*
its normal for parents to protect their babies, not leave their fate to CHANCE
Get a grip!
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 03, 2013, 11:02:19 PM
Now shall I tell you why the Mccanns left their patio door unlocked but not the others. IMO
There are several reasons, but one that no-one seems to have considered. The way that their patio door was different from the others was that theirs was lit by the street lamp immediately across the road ... and therefore visible to anyone coming up the road and from various villas. Also visible from the tapas restaurant.
The others apartments all came off a narrow ill lit alleyway ...a burglars delight alleyway. Also a frightening alleyway for a woman to walk along after dark.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 03, 2013, 11:05:13 PM
Too much work gone into this to leave it hidden away over page, so BUMPED
The time table for times that an opportunity arose between different independant witnesses seeing Madeleine, was unfortunately on another thread
I have copied it over herewith: New amended version
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The only periods that Kate, or Kate and Gerry together, were alone with their family
NOTE: I had mistaken the time that Gerry arrived back, so have amended this post
Please note: I have taken all the times from one statement or another ... and I haven't handpicked the statements. Have just used the statements as they came to hand.
David Payne and Matt Oldfield and Jane Tanner are independent witnesses.
David saw Madeleine alive and well at about 6.35/6.40pm (6.40 came from Kates words as posted today by was it faith, or was it Red?)
Kate and Gerry were at the tapas restaurant apart for a short break from 8.30 to 10 pm. The break was when Gerry went to the apartment to check the children at about 9.05 and then met Jez
That leaves a period of 1 hour 50 minutes, maybe 2 hours, total when no-one outside the family saw Madeleine.
During that time, for about 1 1/2 hours (or maybe 1 Hour 20 minutes, if kates words are taken), both Mum and Dad were together with the children.
Alternatively considering kate on her own with the children Davids visit was at 6.30 / 6.40pm. He saw all three children alive and well. Gerry arrived soon after 7 pm [time amended] That is a period of only half an hour to 40 minuteswhen Kate was alone with them.
During this period Kate and Gerry read to them, talked, played with them and put them to bed. Then they showered, hair washed, blow dried etc and made up (Kate) Also cleared away after the children and also the bathroom. Had a quiet glass of wine. ... not a lot of time for any dirty deed really !
Of course anything that "might have" happened, did so in full daylight, with people around either eating, sipping a drink (probably on their balconies) or getting ready ... or perhaps, walking to and from their flats. No time and a bit cheeky, don't you think?
No other opportunities apart from in this 1 hour 50 minute, or 2 hour period, which I have just analysed for you, showing the unlikelyhood of such a thing happening as virtually Zilch, tbh.
Summary of results THe longest periods that Kate, or Kate and Gerry together, were alone with the three little ones.
Kate on her own = about 25-35 minutes, but busy all that time - see above Gerry was never on his own except for the fleeting visit at about 9.05- 9.10
Gerry came back for almost an hour and a half and joined Kate so, Kate and Gerry together = 1 hour 30 minutes. Both busy all that time apart from the glass of wine
You are grasping at straws guys, if you think anything would have happened during these 2hours, or less, and in daylight whilst people were around..
Red please NOTE NOT 5 hours but 2 hours or maybe only 1 hour 50 minutes
Please cut the disinformation and lies.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 03, 2013, 11:06:33 PM
Now shall I tell you why the Mccanns left their patio door unlocked but not the others. IMO
There are several reasons, but one that no-one seems to have considered. The way that their patio door was different from the others was that theirs was lit by the street lamp immediately across the road ... and therefore visible to anyone coming up the road and from various villas. Also visible from the tapas restaurant.
The others apartments all came off a narrow ill lit alleyway ...a burglars delight alleyway. Also a frightening alleyway for a woman to walk along after dark.
Dear God when will the apologists stop
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 03, 2013, 11:16:34 PM
Never. Either they know they ignore facts they don't doubt though (they believe) or they're certain to have some knowledge about facts they ignore (they're convinced). In neither of these cases they lie, even when they say falsity.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 03, 2013, 11:18:04 PM
Too much work gone into this to leave it hidden away over page, so BUMPED
The time table for times that an opportunity arose between different independant witnesses seeing Madeleine, was unfortunately on another thread
I have copied it over herewith:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The only periods that Kate, or Kate and Gerry together, were alone with their family
Please note: I have taken all the times from one statement or another ... and I haven't handpicked the statements. Have just used the statements as they came to hand.
David Payne and Matt Oldfield and Jane Tanner are independent witnesses.
David saw Madeleine alive and well at about 6.35/6.40pm
Kate and Gerry were at the tapas restaurant apart for a short break from 8.30 to 10 pm.[/size]
That leaves a period of 1 hour 50 minutes total when no-one outside the family saw Madeleine.
During that time, for 35 minutes both Mum and Dad were together with the children. However, during that 35 minute period Gerry showered and changed ready for the tapas restaurant. Do you think a dirty deed was done then?
Alternatively considering kate on her own with the children Davids visit was at 6.35 / 6.40pm. He saw all three children alive and well. Gerry arrived at about 7.55. That is a period of only 1hour 15minuteswhen Kate was alone with them. During this period Kate read to them and put them to bed. She also showered, made up, did her hair and changed to clear the bathroom, ready for Gerry coming back. Not much time left, was there?
Additionally had anything happened to Madeleine, she would have screamed Gerry or fetched him immediately. Gerry has been her rock thru all this.
Nah ... nothing happened then either.
No other opportunities apart from in this 1 hour 50 minute period which I have just analysed for you, showing the unlikelyhood of such a thing happening as Zilch, tbh.
Summary of results THe longest periods that Kate or Kate and Gerry together were alone with the three little ones.
Kate on her own = I hour 15 minutes, but busy all that time - see above Gerry was never on his own except for the fleeting visit at about 9.05- 9.10
Gerry came back for 35 minutes and joined Kate so, Kate and Gerry together = 1 hour 50 minutes, but Gerry busy at that time. - see above
Times wrong so theory wrong
It has been pointed out to you endless times LOL
And posting in colour and bold and big does NOT make your ideas and theories true LOL @)(++(*
ie stop stuffing your ideas down our throats like they are any kind of facts
Comprende?
Nice peaceful colour to calm you down LOL
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 03, 2013, 11:22:03 PM
Never. Either they know they ignore facts they don't doubt though (they believe) or they're certain to have some knowledge about facts they ignore (they're convinced). In neither of these cases they lie, even when they say falsity.
Very sad for them itsalmost like a religious CULT scary at best, nite anne, Im away
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 03, 2013, 11:25:10 PM
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to.
So 3 persons present, not both Paynes and McCann's. Was it Gerry or David who arrived 10 minutes later?
Do you have the covering letter DC Mike Marshall attached to that statement re Gaspar statements?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 04, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
DC Mike Marshall reports 1) (David Payne) declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed. Mrs Payne isn't mentioned but 2) she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to. Whoseever husband, both men were there, according to the Payne family ! The McCanns never pretended the Paynes were with them in the flat at 19h. At that time Mr McCann said he went back home, Mr Payne said he started tennis, Mrs W said she bathed her grand daughters with the help of Mr Payne, Mrs McCann said she told a story and Mrs Payne, who said she never was in the 5A (first statement), waited for Mr Payne who arrived 10 minutes later and so had played 10 minutes tennis. In other words, take it at face value or beat it !
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 04, 2013, 12:17:44 AM
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to.
So 3 persons present, not both Paynes and McCann's. Was it Gerry or David who arrived 10 minutes later?
Do you have the covering letter DC Mike Marshall attached to that statement re Gaspar statements?
I read that just DCI, but it is a third party declaration [involving translations, I think]
I got my info about David Payne direct from one of his three statements. They are long.
I shall now re-read Fionas statement, cos i haven't done that again recently.
All the times I put on that timeline we taken from Official statements ... and i welcome any additions to the times, but I want them from the witnesses statements, NOT from the words of third parties.
That way there is less likelyhood of error ... and we can cut down on discrepancies.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Benice on August 04, 2013, 02:17:55 AM
its normal for people to leave their babies in their houses all alone and leave the doors unlocked, especially if its a vulnerable go all and sundry place,and go out for the evening and periodically go back and just check in case something has happened to them, got it in one! Well done x Well said, anyone who thinks this is not normal is abnormal
GET REAL @)(++(*
its normal for parents to protect their babies, not leave their fate to CHANCE
Get a grip!
Another example of posting with the benefit of hindsight. What about all the parents who did the same as the McCanns and nothing untoward happened as a result of it? Why don't you criticise them? Do you really think that parents who were on holiday in Portugal at the same time as the McCanns and who adopted the same Listening method of checking on their children didn't go home breathing huge sighs of relief and thinking - there for the Grace of God go I .................. and who as a result of what happened to the McCann family never ever did that again.
Your determination to single the McCAnns out as the only parents who were ever lulled into a false sense of security and who ever made a mistake as a result of that is inexplicable to me. They and Madeleine were the victims - the person who took advantage of their misplaced feelings of security which had been deliberately encouraged by the tour operators, and who as a result of that was able to abduct her is the monster here - not the parents. Whoever that was must be jumping for joy because of people like yourself who for some reason insist on putting all the blame on the parents and exonerating the perpetrator of any blame.
The Portuguese AG didn't agree with you and said the McCanns had every right to believe they and their children were in a safe environment - and one which was emphasised as being 'child friendly'. All the information the tour operators had which contradicted that claim was deliberately kept from them. And yet the only people you want to blame are the family whose lives were ruined by some evil monster who is still walking around free to do the same thing to another unsuspecting family Unbelievable!
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: John on August 04, 2013, 03:28:16 AM
Some interesting videos you posted earlier Redblossom. The comments by so-called investigator Franciso Marco to the effect that he knows the kidnapper, where he is and how he has done it and those by Joseph Moura claiming that Jane Tanner never left the table that night are hogwash and destroy any credibility these self promoting Columbo would-be's ever had to begin with. With claims like those one could not be blamed for questioning the motives of some of these idiots? Cringeworthy garbage...and there was me thinking that CBS was a quality news media outlet. @)(++(*
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Albertini on August 04, 2013, 08:25:51 AM
I read that just DCI, but it is a third party declaration [involving translations, I think]
I got my info about David Payne direct from one of his three statements. They are long.
I shall now re-read Fionas statement, cos i haven't done that again recently.
All the times I put on that timeline we taken from Official statements ... and i welcome any additions to the times, but I want them from the witnesses statements, NOT from the words of third parties.
That way there is less likelyhood of error ... and we can cut down on discrepancies.
Sadie, you appear to be cherry picking from statements.
The Tapas ladies (apart from Rachel) said in the first statements they were all in their respective apartments at just after 19:00, the men corroborated that in the second statements and then subsequently the men in their third statements (rogatory) changed it to 20:00.
All statements indicate (from memory) Gerry left before the other men.
So i don't see how it i can be accepted as a fact Gerry went to the apartment at 19:55.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 04, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
As I said before, Red, If you think I have anything wrong, I am very happy for you to give alternative times, but they must be correctly sourced pls.
Well you can begin by correctly sourcing your claim that Gerry Mccann went home from tennis at 8 pm, Ive asked this of you before, but all I got is a deafening silence.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 04, 2013, 03:01:21 PM
Another example of posting with the benefit of hindsight. What about all the parents who did the same as the McCanns and nothing untoward happened as a result of it? Why don't you criticise them?
I think some of them treated their kids appallingly, like Rachel not wanting to go into her kids room because her diarrhoea smelt so bad! or Tanner leaving her child when she had already been sick before, but at least they locked their apartments!
Your determination to single the McCAnns out as the only parents who were ever lulled into a false sense of security and who ever made a mistake as a result of that is inexplicable to me. They and Madeleine were the victims - the person who took advantage of their misplaced feelings of security which had been deliberately encouraged by the tour operators, and who as a result of that was able to abduct her is the monster here - not the parents. Whoever that was must be jumping for joy because of people like yourself who for some reason insist on putting all the blame on the parents and exonerating the perpetrator of any blame.
What an ugly offensive and irrational thing to say. That presupposes that a) an abduction did happen and b) I believe it did. Well, guess what, the first has little evidence and the second is I dont think so, but dont know. In any case being appalled that any parent would leave their very young child alone in an open apartment whilst they went out stands, as Im sure it does for the vast majority of people. And you are putting words into my mouth that I am putting the blame for any abduction squarely on the parents shoulders, criticising their odd decision is not the same thing. Exonerating the abductor my arris. Bloody front! You have
The Portuguese AG didn't agree with you and said the McCanns had every right to believe they and their children were in a safe environment - and one which was emphasised as being 'child friendly'. All the information the tour operators had which contradicted that claim was deliberately kept from them. And yet the only people you want to blame are the family whose lives were ruined by some evil monster who is still walking around free to do the same thing to another unsuspecting family Unbelievable!
Describing a resort as child friendly by a holiday company normally does not encompass, its ok for you to take no security precautions! It normally means kids are allowed to eat in restaraunts at night, there are creches, babysitters, night time care. As for info being kept from them, what was that? Did any child in Praia Da Luz on holiday ever come to any harm?
And again, Im not *blaming them* for the abduction, if it happened, so do take a chill pill, as for the monster walking around, seems to be inactive for 6 years!
please dont present beliefs as facts, thank you.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 04, 2013, 03:13:11 PM
Some interesting videos you posted earlier Redblossom. The comments by so-called investigator Franciso Marco to the effect that he knows the kidnapper, where he is and how he has done it and those by Joseph Moura claiming that Jane Tanner never left the table that night are hogwash and destroy any credibility these self promoting Columbo would-be's ever had to begin with. With claims like those one could not be blamed for questioning the motives of some of these idiots? Cringeworthy garbage...and there was me thinking that CBS was a quality news media outlet. @)(++(*
I agree that Fransisco Marco was talking utter garbage, which is par for the course for someone working for a PI agency that has had its fair share of BS, criminal acticity, arrests, and sentences
Joseph Moura and his comments cant be considered in the same league. He spent alot of time talking to the staff in PDL and made up his mind, he mightbe right or wrong, but you can take some facts into consideration
- staff talked about the men only getting up to check - no independent witness states Tanner did any check - Tanner herself said she couldnt be bothered to go check (source her rogatory) - Rachel said it was very scary - She walked right past next to Gerry and Jez and neither heard or saw her in a dead quiet street even though she said her flip flops were clapping away
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 04, 2013, 11:08:53 PM
I have reported both the above posts - absolute libel and lies throughout. Nothing but a diatribe of hatred.
Thanks.
As you are the one that has been libeling the portuguese inquiry for years I am very expectant to see the result.
I have documents to support my conclusions, do you have for yours?
You keep reporting that Amaral and his team are convicted for torture even though their accuser was convicted for lying and condemned for a plus 7 months in prison which implied that everyone accused of torturing her or having omitted to report it (which was Amaral's conviction) were immediately annulled.
You keep defending the murderess Leonor, that was accused, tried and convicted for 18 years in first instance,...and now proved that has confessed to her crime without torture.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Chinagirl on August 05, 2013, 07:38:49 AM
Luz claims that a murderer who has not been prosecuted is still a murderer.
Murder is a crime, therefore a murderer is someone who is convicted of committing the crime of murder. One can only be convicted of a crime after being prosecuted, brought to trial and found to be gulity beyond reasonable doubt. So if someone has not even been prosecuted, s/he cannot be labelled a murderer.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Carana on August 05, 2013, 07:58:56 AM
I do hope that the moderators will have a good read of your posts, Luz.
I don't know what makes you so full of hatred for people you don't know, but that's your problem.
A broader problem for this board is that just about every post of yours is full of libel.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Carana on August 05, 2013, 08:19:09 AM
As you are the one that has been libeling the portuguese inquiry for years I am very expectant to see the result. I have documents to support my conclusions, do you have for yours?
You keep reporting that Amaral and his team are convicted for torture even though their accuser was convicted for lying and condemned for a plus 7 months in prison which implied that everyone accused of torturing her or having omitted to report it (which was Amaral's conviction) were immediately annulled.
You keep defending the murderess Leonor, that was accused, tried and convicted for 18 years in first instance,...and now proved that has confessed to her crime without torture.
What documents are you talking about?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Carana on August 05, 2013, 08:24:20 AM
As you are the one that has been libeling the portuguese inquiry for years I am very expectant to see the result.
I have documents to support my conclusions, do you have for yours?
You keep reporting that Amaral and his team are convicted for torture even though their accuser was convicted for lying and condemned for a plus 7 months in prison which implied that everyone accused of torturing her or having omitted to report it (which was Amaral's conviction) were immediately annulled.
You keep defending the murderess Leonor, that was accused, tried and convicted for 18 years in first instance,...and now proved that has confessed to her crime without torture.
Where did you read that the convictions in the torture case were overturned? I must have missed that.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Carana on August 05, 2013, 10:55:34 AM
...... quote removed by admin ....
Is it just the British that you have a problem with, Luz? If so, why?
The Algarve does seem to rely on the tourist industry and I'm not sure that your attitude would make many tourists from anywhere feel particularly welcome.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on August 05, 2013, 12:17:07 PM
The McCanns are not guilty of neglecting their children.
Why do I say this?
Because I have read the files and because I have noted that there has never been any charge against them from any authority It doesn't prove anything....Just as a murderer that is not prosecuted doesn't cease to be a murderer....however, let's continue. Guilt is a legal term and as such should not be used lightly.
The McCanns did make a terrible decision namely that their children would be safe in the apartment each evening while they instituted the kind of checks prevalent up till that time in many resorts and holiday parks.Bullshit. Either they did leave the kids alone or they didn't. After all what is your position? Is it okay to abandon children as long as you devious enough to do it in such a way that authorities can't or won't charge you??????
The McCanns have admitted their error of judgement DID THEY? Or were they compelled to it by the evidence that if they didn't create that subterfuge they would be charged, at the minimum, with kidnapping and/or murder and cadaver occultation?.They are living with the consequences of that Wonderful consequences: crime pays. They have a much better living level now than they had in 2007 - after all they got millions on donations.[/color]. The constant harping on about this demonstrates a kind of vigilante approach to the case which does not make the posts read like those of people with charitable hearts or any understanding of the nature of forgiveness and its beneficial effects both to the individual and to society As a matter of fact the only vigilantes in this case were McCann tycoon supporter handymen - that Kennedy double-glaser creature that sent bullies harass witnesses .
People may or may not be aware that the one specific crime that the McCanns were completely cleared of having been guilty of was in fact "exposicao ou abandono" the Portuguese equivalent of neglect or the worse crime of abandoning a child They were cleared of nothing - it's explicit in the final report when it says "they failed to prove what they insisted since the beginning, that they were innocent" . I suggest that those who repeatedly spam this mantra should read the Archival report instead of remaining fixated on an uncharitable and rather sad repetitive chant about something they don't appear to know the truth about. That is what I recommend you do. READ without blindfolds
Processo Volume XVII - pages 4639-4649
The constant disruption of threads with this mantra does not take into account the fact that the legal authorities and the social authorities (with far greater knowledge of the case, the family, etc. than you have), have not in six years made any effort to charge the McCanns.
Perhaps those reading here without blinkers will understand that there probably are good reasons for this lack of charges and those reasons may well be far closer to the legal reasons offered by the Attorney General of Portugal for his decision not to charge rather than some fanciful notions that have been proffered by anti McCanns such as the amazing influence of Clarence Mitchell or the McCanns themselves to control the courts, the media and just about everybody else.
When people manage to explain why there have been no charges (and such would be possible for crimes committed against a UK citizen even when abroad) then this mantra may have meaning or even purpose. Till then, it remains the sad mantra of someone who is showing himself to be both uncharitable and rather vindictive.
I therefore ask those spamming the forum with this mantra to please explain why
1) they do not accept the fact that the Portuguese actually cleared the McCanns of this charge
and
2) why there have been no charges laid against the McCanns by UK authorities.
Till they do that, then their mantra is pointless.
It's you and your friends that insist on misreading what is very obvious in the reports: First, the McCann have not been cleared, in fact they remain the first and only persons of interest in the investigation; Second, they used the argument of neglect to obfuscate the death and discard of their daughter's body....unless there is any other proof that there is anyone else involved in that death and cadaver occultation.
Temper, temper.
The rather incompetently posted insertions into my post above (making it difficult to see what was my original post and what are your temperamental insertions) tell us a great deal about the poster's anger management issues, inability to understand legal arguments and willingness to post blatant libel but tell us nothing about the disappearance of a little child six years ago.
For example, you claim that the lack of charges is not a sign of innocence. Just because you are unable to understand or accept the norm of presumed innocent until proven guilty does not mean that the rest of society has to revert to the kind of barbaric kangaroo court system you apparently favour.
I believe neither Portugal nor the UK have juridical systems in place which demand that all suspects are deemed guilty whether the police/courts can manage to find evidence against them or not. You apparently think they do. Sorry to disabuse you of such a ridiculous notion.
On the question of neglect or abandonment of the children there is no question whatsoever that in the archival report the McCanns were cleared of any such crime. Indeed the document states that the very idea of such a crime has been eliminated from the range of those being considered in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine. Just because you cannot bring yourself to believe what your own authorities wrote does not mean it was not written and does not stand as the legal situation.
If you read the archival report properly it becomes very clear that the system of checking which was in place meant that the authorities did not believe as you claim the children were left alone. They were being supervised (albeit with hindsight we know that supervision was inadequate). But supervised children are not neglected or abandoned.
And yes to answer your question the McCanns did admit their error of judgement. Very clearly and very much in the public eye. Your rather bitter and nasty speculation as to the motive is simply that, speculation. It is not the kind of rather vicious speculation that I agree with. I am more inclined to believe that the loss of their daughter has made the parents realise with hindsight that their judgement about the checking arrangements was erroneous. I would also add that unless the police had some evidence on which to charge the parents with kidnapping or murder or some other crime then it would never have happened whether they had admitted an error of judgement or not. You seem to forget that the police need evidence to prove guilt of anything and none was found. That is also made very, very clear in the archival report.
Your lie about the use of the donations by the McCanns is unfounded and disgusting libel. The use of the fund to protect the search for Madeleine from the gross libel of people such as Bennett and Amaral is not an improvement to the living standard of the McCanns as you claim. I am certain that you are unable to back up this lie you have posted with facts and figures to support an improvement in the "living level" of the McCanns.
And again there may be a need for you to prove your claim of bullying and harrassment by the person you named because unless you have that proof then you are once again posting libel. If you have such proof, post it up and show the truth. If no such proof appears we can presume you have none.
Your last, particularly angry insertion into my post is possibly the most appalling, in that it shows a disgraceful lack of understanding of both the archival report your garbled mis-quotation is supposed to come from and the law in general.
There seems to be some kind of misapprehension that the writer of the Archival Report is stating the the McCanns failed to prove their innocence. This just is not the case. Legal authorities such as Prosecutors and Attorney Generals would not be so ignorant of the law.
The reason for this misapprehension comes from people like you deliberately (or through shambolic ignorance) mis-quoting the relevant section of the report and moreover doing so without reference to the context.
Your mis-quotation is:
"they failed to prove what they insisted since the beginning, that they were innocent"
The actual text is:
"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."
Those reading and comparing will see that you have twisted the meaning which in context will be seen to be much clearer. The context being that the writer is referring to the lack of a reconstruction and is stating that this lack caused damage to the McCanns, not that the McCanns caused damage to themselves. At no point did the McCanns refuse a reconstruction.
To go from this mis-quotation and twisting as you have done and to suggest the bizarre notion that the Portuguese authorities are claiming that innocent people should have to prove that innocence is risible. Lawyers understand that is not the case even if you don't.
When there is no evidence of any crime by a person, when there are no charges against that person then that person in a civilised society such as Portugal claims to be, have the right to be presumed innocent.
When you show that you or the police have evidence enough to charge either of the McCanns then maybe they will become suspects again. Till then, I repeat they are presumed innocent and it is libel to claim them guilty of any crime.
I believe I have demonstrated a more accurate reading of the files than you have done. Your mis-quotation shows a very flimsy regard to the content of the files.
I repeat that they have been specifically cleared of the crime of neglect/abandonment because the authorities have demonstrated that no such crime occurred.
I will also correct you in that they are not "the first and only suspects" in this case. The archived case has no current suspects at all or it would not be archived. Should some evidence appear incriminating anyone then that person/persons would be the prime suspects. And in the case of the parallel investigation from Scotland Yard, you appear unaware that the McCanns and the Tapas group have specifically been named as not being suspects or persons of interest. Your comment is therefore simply wrong both within Portugal and within the UK.
Your last point about using neglect as obfuscation is simply nasty speculation as I demonstrated above. And the second section of your final comment is illogical. As there is no evidence of the death of Madeleine McCann (no more than there is of abduction) your conclusion simply lacks logic.
Edited to remove two small grammatical errors.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 05, 2013, 12:44:01 PM
"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."
Those reading and comparing will see that you have twisted the meaning which in context will be seen to be much clearer. The context being that the writer is referring to the lack of a reconstruction and is stating that this lack caused damage to the McCanns, not that the McCanns caused damage to themselves. At no point did the McCanns refuse a reconstruction.
Yes, the AG report says "they lost the possibility to prove" and not "they failed to prove". But how can you refuse something you're bound to accept by law ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Chinagirl on August 05, 2013, 12:46:01 PM
Excellent rebuttal, Gilet.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 05, 2013, 12:47:26 PM
Are you pretending to practice wild psychoanalysis on this forum, Carana ?
I've no idea what gave you that idea. I was commenting on Luz's persistent negative comments about all things British.
If she had posted similar comments about any nationality, I would still have wondered what this apparently deep-seated animosity may concern.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Carana on August 05, 2013, 01:04:44 PM
I happen to agree with Gilet on that post.
Luz does come across as an "emotional" poster.
If she could provide concrete information to support her view, then we could all examine it.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on August 05, 2013, 01:06:52 PM
That is the key.
When the only evidence provided is shambolic (or deliberate?) mis-quotation, it is difficult to take a poster seriously. For her other claims there is, so far, no evidence at all.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on August 05, 2013, 01:12:12 PM
Yes, the AG report says "they lost the possibility to prove" and not "they failed to prove". But how can you refuse something you're bound to accept by law ?
They accepted the reconstruction which is what the passage refers to.
They were willing to return for that reconstruction.
And I have stated this previously too, its a great shame that a reconstruction was refused by Amaral and his team when it would have actually have been of greatest value. It was in fact the PJ who denied the McCanns the earliest possibility to be seen as innocent by their denial of a reconstruction on grounds that it would be bad for tourism.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Carana on August 05, 2013, 01:39:10 PM
They accepted the reconstruction which is what the passage refers to.
They were willing to return for that reconstruction.
And I have stated this previously too, its a great shame that a reconstruction was refused by Amaral and his team when it would have actually have been of greatest value. It was in fact the PJ who denied the McCanns the earliest possibility to be seen as innocent by their denial of a reconstruction on grounds that it would be bad for tourism.
I have never understood why a reconstruction wasn't done when the majority of people were there (tourists, OC staff, etc).
In the early days, they could have said that it was to check out the exact times that a predator could have taken her. They didn't need to say that it was to check who may have been telling the truth or who they suspected of lying.
Of course, there would have been media cameras in the early days.
So what?
After all the "leaks", I'm not really surprised that some people became suspicious of appearing in the media all over again.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 05, 2013, 01:44:47 PM
It was in fact the PJ who denied the McCanns the earliest possibility to be seen as innocent by their denial of a reconstruction on grounds that it would be bad for tourism.
Any source for that ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: DCI on August 05, 2013, 02:03:11 PM
Amaral explained that when Madeleine disappeared police didn't organise a reconstruction in Praia da Luz "because there were so many journalists on the ground" – and once the heat had died down, "the McCanns refused. They said any reconstruction should be made by actors – but the whole reason for reconstructions is to use the people involved, and see where their stories don’t add up!"
Amaral explained that when Madeleine disappeared police didn't organise a reconstruction in Praia da Luz "because there were so many journalists on the ground" – and once the heat had died down, "the McCanns refused. They said any reconstruction should be made by actors – but the whole reason for reconstructions is to use the people involved, and see where their stories don’t add up!"
I don't need to, he's got a conviction to prove it!
Such a statement gives the creeps... It shows how some mentalities haven't evolved since the middle age. What are sanctions for ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Jean-Pierre on August 05, 2013, 04:35:03 PM
The moment Amaral stepped over the line, and wrote a book about the case (using his former position as a policeman coordinating the case to gain credibility), he lost any protection or privilege afforded in law to protect police officers from being sued.
By using his book pubically to accuse the McCanns of committing a crime (thereby in effect pursuing a vendetta against them in relation to a crime he was unable to solve) he was liable to legal action.
He is thus author of whatever may befall him.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Carana on August 05, 2013, 04:53:10 PM
The moment Amaral stepped over the line, and wrote a book about the case (using his former position as a policeman coordinating the case to gain credibility), he lost any protection or privilege afforded in law to protect police officers from being sued.
By using his book pubically to accuse the McCanns of committing a crime (thereby in effect pursuing a vendetta against them in relation to a crime he was unable to solve) he was liable to legal action.
He is thus author of whatever may befall him.
What are you talking about ? Mr Amaral wasn't convicted in the McCann case. The notion of vendetta is mediterranean, it doesn't exist in Portugal.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Carana on August 05, 2013, 05:50:03 PM
To bring practices in line with the lofty ideals of a democratic legal system?
If penal sanctions could do that, we would know it ! I think the objective is to maintain the established order, i.e to repair the disorder produced by infractions and protect the individuals who constitute the social body, perpetrators included. If it wasn't so, then justice wouldn't be justice (beyond particular interests), but vengeance. Like we see in the vendetta phenomenon, vengeance calls vengeance and threatens the social tissue with chaos.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 05, 2013, 05:58:43 PM
Luz claims that a murderer who has not been prosecuted is still a murderer.
Murder is a crime, therefore a murderer is someone who is convicted of committing the crime of murder. One can only be convicted of a crime after being prosecuted, brought to trial and found to be gulity beyond reasonable doubt. So if someone has not even been prosecuted, s/he cannot be labelled a murderer.
Why do you post like this? Talking about legal technicalities. Who cares about them? If you murder someone, yes, you are a murderer, plain and simple, whether you get caught or not, tried or not. @)(++(*
Same if you stole from a shop unseen, you stole, therefore you are a thief. If you have an affair and cheat on your wife you are an adulterer. Etc etc Your argument that no crime can have been committed unless the committer was tried and found guilty, if that is what you are saying, is just plain silly and I wonder what the point is. people who resort to legal technicalities are normaly those who are either guilty or defend guilty people!
LOL
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 05, 2013, 08:25:21 PM
The moment Amaral stepped over the line, and wrote a book about the case (using his former position as a policeman coordinating the case to gain credibility), he lost any protection or privilege afforded in law to protect police officers from being sued.
By using his book pubically to accuse the McCanns of committing a crime (thereby in effect pursuing a vendetta against them in relation to a crime he was unable to solve) he was liable to legal action.
He is thus author of whatever may befall him.
What was the line he stepped over? And so far he has been vindicated in the courts, so.....???? What is your point
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 06, 2013, 12:20:45 AM
It's you and your friends that insist on misreading what is very obvious in the reports: First, the McCann have not been cleared, in fact they remain the first and only persons of interest in the investigation; Second, they used the argument of neglect to obfuscate the death and discard of their daughter's body....unless there is any other proof that there is anyone else involved in that death and cadaver occultation.
Temper, temper.
The rather incompetently posted insertions into my post above (making it difficult to see what was my original post and what are your temperamental insertions) tell us a great deal about the poster's anger management issues, inability to understand legal arguments and willingness to post blatant libel but tell us nothing about the disappearance of a little child six years ago.
For example, you claim that the lack of charges is not a sign of innocence. Just because you are unable to understand or accept the norm of presumed innocent until proven guilty does not mean that the rest of society has to revert to the kind of barbaric kangaroo court system you apparently favour.
I believe neither Portugal nor the UK have juridical systems in place which demand that all suspects are deemed guilty whether the police/courts can manage to find evidence against them or not. You apparently think they do. Sorry to disabuse you of such a ridiculous notion.
On the question of neglect or abandonment of the children there is no question whatsoever that in the archival report the McCanns were cleared of any such crime. Indeed the document states that the very idea of such a crime has been eliminated from the range of those being considered in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine. Just because you cannot bring yourself to believe what your own authorities wrote does not mean it was not written and does not stand as the legal situation.
If you read the archival report properly it becomes very clear that the system of checking which was in place meant that the authorities did not believe as you claim the children were left alone. They were being supervised (albeit with hindsight we know that supervision was inadequate). But supervised children are not neglected or abandoned.
And yes to answer your question the McCanns did admit their error of judgement. Very clearly and very much in the public eye. Your rather bitter and nasty speculation as to the motive is simply that, speculation. It is not the kind of rather vicious speculation that I agree with. I am more inclined to believe that the loss of their daughter has made the parents realise with hindsight that their judgement about the checking arrangements was erroneous. I would also add that unless the police had some evidence on which to charge the parents with kidnapping or murder or some other crime then it would never have happened whether they had admitted an error of judgement or not. You seem to forget that the police need evidence to prove guilt of anything and none was found. That is also made very, very clear in the archival report.
Your lie about the use of the donations by the McCanns is unfounded and disgusting libel. The use of the fund to protect the search for Madeleine from the gross libel of people such as Bennett and Amaral is not an improvement to the living standard of the McCanns as you claim. I am certain that you are unable to back up this lie you have posted with facts and figures to support an improvement in the "living level" of the McCanns.
And again there may be a need for you to prove your claim of bullying and harrassment by the person you named because unless you have that proof then you are once again posting libel. If you have such proof, post it up and show the truth. If no such proof appears we can presume you have none.
Your last, particularly angry insertion into my post is possibly the most appalling, in that it shows a disgraceful lack of understanding of both the archival report your garbled mis-quotation is supposed to come from and the law in general.
There seems to be some kind of misapprehension that the writer of the Archival Report is stating the the McCanns failed to prove their innocence. This just is not the case. Legal authorities such as Prosecutors and Attorney Generals would not be so ignorant of the law.
The reason for this misapprehension comes from people like you deliberately (or through shambolic ignorance) mis-quoting the relevant section of the report and moreover doing so without reference to the context.
Your mis-quotation is:
"they failed to prove what they insisted since the beginning, that they were innocent"
The actual text is:
"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."
Those reading and comparing will see that you have twisted the meaning which in context will be seen to be much clearer. The context being that the writer is referring to the lack of a reconstruction and is stating that this lack caused damage to the McCanns, not that the McCanns caused damage to themselves. At no point did the McCanns refuse a reconstruction.
To go from this mis-quotation and twisting as you have done and to suggest the bizarre notion that the Portuguese authorities are claiming that innocent people should have to prove that innocence is risible. Lawyers understand that is not the case even if you don't.
When there is no evidence of any crime by a person, when there are no charges against that person then that person in a civilised society such as Portugal claims to be, have the right to be presumed innocent.
When you show that you or the police have evidence enough to charge either of the McCanns then maybe they will become suspects again. Till then, I repeat they are presumed innocent and it is libel to claim them guilty of any crime.
I believe I have demonstrated a more accurate reading of the files than you have done. Your mis-quotation shows a very flimsy regard to the content of the files.
I repeat that they have been specifically cleared of the crime of neglect/abandonment because the authorities have demonstrated that no such crime occurred.
I will also correct you in that they are not "the first and only suspects" in this case. The archived case has no current suspects at all or it would not be archived. Should some evidence appear incriminating anyone then that person/persons would be the prime suspects. And in the case of the parallel investigation from Scotland Yard, you appear unaware that the McCanns and the Tapas group have specifically been named as not being suspects or persons of interest. Your comment is therefore simply wrong both within Portugal and within the UK.
Your last point about using neglect as obfuscation is simply nasty speculation as I demonstrated above. And the second section of your final comment is illogical. As there is no evidence of the death of Madeleine McCann (no more than there is of abduction) your conclusion simply lacks logic.
Edited to remove two small grammatical errors.
Brilliant analysis, gilet 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Redblossom on August 06, 2013, 04:32:09 AM
I am responding to YOUR original post in this thread
Quote from: Redblossom on August 04, 2013, 03:13:11 PM
Anneand sadie Do KEEP UP Red.
Had you forgotten your own post?
Why do you think that neither Jane nor Rachael searched?
My original post was in response to Johns about Jane Tanner doing a check that night and me saying the staff only mentioned the men getting up to do checks, Annes post in response to mine was about how curious that no women were mentioned by the staff checking. Thats it. Your bringing up Jane Tanner searching for Madeleine later that night has nothing to do with the conversation.
Read back and see
8**8:/:
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: sadie on August 06, 2013, 11:53:19 PM
Red
Why do you think that neither Jane nor Rachael searched?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 07, 2013, 12:08:50 AM
Your idée fixe of victimizing the McCanns can't, on a terre à terre point of view, lead you to ignore witnesses' statements !
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 07, 2013, 01:00:49 AM
As you know the duc de Normandie, Guillaume le Conquérant, was king of England ! He took with him the French language that the actual Queen Elizabeth II speaks quite well. She also likes to give her English a little touch of French, sign of aristocracy. But I will translate for you. Idée fixe is obsession. And terre à terre is pragmatic.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 07, 2013, 01:30:14 AM
Ignoring which witness statements. I am not aware of doing that.
Sure, they seem not to exist for you, so obsessed you are in claiming the McCanns are innocent. Analyse, just for a change !
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 07, 2013, 03:53:09 AM
All witnesses' statements ! You ignore the files, having the one and only idée fixe to defend McCanns sceptics aren't interested in. We, sceptics, care for Madeleine's fate, can't you understand that ?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Carana on August 07, 2013, 09:33:16 AM
Yes, I recommend you read Amaral's book. I am surprised that you have not already done so.
That is where he describes the meeting in which that early reconstruction was discussed and discloses that the PJ decided it was not feasible because of the difficulties of closing air space, disruption to tourists etc.
If you don't have a copy, I will dig out the citation for you. Let me know if you haven't got round to reading it or don't have access to the book.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on August 08, 2013, 09:34:52 AM
All witnesses' statements ! You ignore the files, having the one and only idée fixe to defend McCanns sceptics aren't interested in. We, sceptics, care for Madeleine's fate, can't you understand that ?
As this thread is about the "sad mantra of neglect" please refer to any documents within the PJ files (statements or otherwise) which lend credence to the notion that the McCanns neglected their daughter Madeleine or her siblings.
It is you who is saying that people are ignoring such statements/documents so for the sake of debate, please indicate which statements/documents you wish us to analyse in the context of this thread.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on August 08, 2013, 09:42:43 AM
I will start not with a statement (but am perfectly willing do discuss such statements if there are any which directly relate to this thread) but with the Archival report which I believe is very clear in outlining why the crime of neglect/abandonment of the children cannot be pursued against the McCanns, namely that the crime never occurred.
Quote
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not – despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore, the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 – Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty – the disappearance of Madeleine – due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The prosecutor clearly outlines the reasons why no such crime was committed. It is for others now to explain why they disagree with this senior lawyer in his conclusions.
Processo XVII 4343-4344
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 08, 2013, 09:51:54 AM
Yes, I recommend you read Amaral's book. I am surprised that you have not already done so.
That is where he describes the meeting in which that early reconstruction was discussed and discloses that the PJ decided it was not feasible because of the difficulties of closing air space, disruption to tourists etc.
If you don't have a copy, I will dig out the citation for you. Let me know if you haven't got round to reading it or don't have access to the book.
I see you omit a point : the PJ feared the McCanns and their friends would be considered as suspects and the effect on it on public opinion. Here is the original text in case you were ready to pay a professional translation.. se temia que se achasse que os pais de Maddie e os seus amigos estariam a ser considerados suspeitos e, naturalmente, não queríamos um julgamento na praça pública.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 08, 2013, 09:54:53 AM
As this thread is about the "sad mantra of neglect" please refer to any documents within the PJ files (statements or otherwise) which lend credence to the notion that the McCanns neglected their daughter Madeleine or her siblings.
It is you who is saying that people are ignoring such statements/documents so for the sake of debate, please indicate which statements/documents you wish us to analyse in the context of this thread.
Kindly delete the quotation you used above, which wasn't directed to you nor to "people" and didn't concern at all the neglect issue.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on August 08, 2013, 10:24:47 AM
Kindly delete the quotation you used above, which wasn't directed to you nor to "people" and didn't concern at all the neglect issue.
Don't be ridiculous. I will not remove the quote (whichever quote that may be).
I am posting on a thread related to neglect and everything I have posted here relates to that topic. The same cannot be said about other posters' contributions.
Incidentally, if your post was not addressed at "people" what kind of creatures were your intended audience?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Jean-Pierre on August 08, 2013, 10:28:00 AM
I see you omit a point : the PJ feared the McCanns and their friends would be considered as suspects and the effect on it on public opinion. Here is the original text in case you were ready to pay a professional translation.. se temia que se achasse que os pais de Maddie e os seus amigos estariam a ser considerados suspeitos e, naturalmente, não queríamos um julgamento na praça pública.
No need for a professional translation, thank you. I can fully understand that without reference to a translator.
There were a number of claims made as to why the staging of a reconstruction was refused when it may have been of greatest value.
Those two that you have added are interesting in that they are the specific ones which would have still been relevant even during an out of season reconstruction much later in the case. Why when they were given as reasons not to do a reconstruction in the earlier instance were they ignored when a later reconstruction was demanded I wonder?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on August 08, 2013, 01:19:18 PM
I don't believe it is being aggressive to repeat almost three hours after you made an insinuation about a quote I had made that you need to identify that quote as I do not believe I posted anything incorrectly.
Are you going to answer this question or are you going to simply ignore it?
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: Mo Stache on August 08, 2013, 01:37:17 PM
All witnesses' statements ! You ignore the files, having the one and only idée fixe to defend McCanns sceptics aren't interested in. We, sceptics, care for Madeleine's fate, can't you understand that ?
only if that fate is as a result of her parents actions and none by an outsider.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: gilet on August 08, 2013, 02:22:34 PM
I know what is fair and what isnt,thanks for your concern though and have a wonderful afternoon 8)--))
A shame then that you don't demonstrate that knowledge in your posts. It is not fair to speculate about the parents of a missing child being drunk on 14 or more bottles of wine when you have admitted the original myth was wrong.
Title: Re: The sad mantra about neglect
Post by: AnneGuedes on August 10, 2013, 01:33:51 AM
only if that fate is as a result of her parents actions and none by an outsider.
You have to admit the idea of an outsider didn't pass her parents' mind. Admitting it did would mean they're somehow guilty.. We, sceptics, are like those parents, we find it hard to believe..