UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
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 29, 2013, 10:57:13 AM
-
I hope Admin and mods will forgive me for bringing this post here and answering rather than disrupting the 5A distances thread as would appear to have been the aim of the poster with his off-topic contribution to that thread.
Understandable to trample the apartment ?
Understandable to leave 3 children alone ?
Yes and Yes for these reasons.
The principal reason is that your question (as do all your responses) lacks the understanding that you are posting with the full benefit of hindsight. You appear completely unable to remove yourself from that perspective and to place yourself in the situation of people back in 2007 dealing with events at that time as these people were.
"Understandble to trample the apartment?"
A wholly pejorative term which I don't recall being used by the police in the files. Please correct me if I am wrong.
When you see a child is not in their bed, the first thing you do is think they are somewhere else in the house/apartment. Your initial reaction is not that the most unlikely thing, an abduction has taken place. Therefore before contacting police or anyone else you do a full search of the place, opening wardrobes (Children like to play games don't you know? Especially on holiday.), looking in every room, looking under objects, and generally making a bit of a mess. All to be expected. The police would not be happy if called out and the child was playing a game.
Then you start to think the worst. You can think of nothing else but the worst and you get others involved. Husband, neighbours etc. In this case husband and friends. As with your initial reaction, they don't want to think the worst and hope that they will find the child by looking where you may have missed.
How do I know this? Well I was involved in such a search many years ago as a neighbour. The family two doors away had a boy (about six as I recall) who was not playing in the garden as his mother had believed when she called him for tea. She had looked for him all over the house before going to the neighbour on the other side of my house where they also had a child about the same age, hoping he was playing there. I heard the commotion and immediately searched my garden and shed too (there was a path behind the gardens and my gate was never locked). The mother went home and searched her property again with the assistance of one of the neighbours while I went with some others looking along the path and out into the streets around. Luckily we found him wandering casually back from the local shop where he had tried to get some sweets though he had no money. The shopkeeper was standing at the shop door making sure he got back home OK.
All was well in that case and having acknowledged the shopkeeper who I knew well, I went with another neighbour and returned with the child via the back path to his house and mother. It was clear how frantic she had been in her initial search because there were objects lying all round near their small garden shed where she presumably thought he might have been and which she had presumably dragged out thinking he may have been behind them.
She hadn't immediately thought of an abduction. Such things were furthest from her mind in the initial few minutes of her search. However, by the time she realised he was not in the house or garden they came to the fore.
Back to PDL. I suspect that may well have been the perfectly normal reaction of Kate. Initial belief that there may have been an easy explanation. A visit to the toilet? Open that door. A visit to the kitchen for a drink? Open that door, look around. A game? Open the cupboards, pull the sofa from the wall. And so on, becoming more frantic by the second and all happening within less than a couple of minutes.
Then wanting to involve others in the search. Now starting to believe the worst but hoping they would prove her wrong. And the same initial reaction from Gerry and the friends, thinking the simplest solution most probable, checking all possibilities, becoming more frantic as each minute passes and they didn't find her and only then believing the worst scenario possible.
Then the demands for outside help. Knowing that time passing is in itself a threat if someone has taken the child. And the calls for police.
Perhaps only those who have been through such an experience as a parent can fully appreciate the panic but surely everyone can understand that the initial reaction is to panic and to do things which may not seem sensible with the benefit of hindsight? The emotions of a parent who cannot find their child far outweigh the training even of a doctor (maybe a couple of days of lectures on police practices) and intellect of a professional.
I am afraid stephen25000 your question shows no understanding of the situation and is written and asked entirely with the benefit of hindsight, something not available to the McCanns or their friends on that fateful night.
Understandable to leave 3 children alone?
This question also demonstrates the fact that you are posting without understanding the difference between your situation and that of the McCanns back in 2007.
It is perfectly clear (if you have actually read) the Archival report that the McCanns did not believe they were in fact leaving "3 children alone". That is why they were never charged with neglect or abandonment.
Kate and Gerry and the other Tapas members implemented what they believed was a system to ensure that the children were being cared for, in a way which they knew professional holiday organisations elsewhere implemented on a regular basis. Indeed their system was better than those the professionals offered in that they went into the premises which the professionals did not, more often than those professionals.
They were within sight (if not sound) of the apartment and were lulled into a false sense of security by this and by their use of what, at the time, was a not uncommon holiday system of looking after the children.
There was no outcry about this system in other resorts or holiday locations till after the disappearance of Madeleine that I recall. It was only with hindsight that the failings were discussed. It was an accepted practice and as I say, the Tapas group believed that they had in fact gone a little further even than the professionals in their care.
But, you stephen25000 and others do not seem to understand any of this. You post as if before 2007, you had been decrying such child care systems vociferously. But you had not.
You are doing so with the benefit of that hindsight I referred to. As I say there was never an outcry previously. People accepted the system and used it willingly.
Gerry and Kate McCann must have immediately regretted their decision. Indeed they have told us that. They will live with the regrets for the rest of their lives no matter what happens in the future. If only they had had the benefit of hindsight that you post with now.
------
If, stephen25000, you have lacked the understanding in the past of that crucial difference between your posting now and the situation back in 2007 then I hope you will now appreciate it a little better.
If you have been posting with that understanding, though, I fear you have been demonstrating a horrific level of vindictiveness towards a couple who have admitted their mistake, who have done everything in their power to atone for that mistake but who you have chosen to continually vilify with your spammed and very glib remarks.
If you have some other explanation as to why you insist on posting these glib remarks about neglect which fly in the face of the remarks of the Archival report and which show absolutely no understanding of the fact that you are posting with the benefit of hindsight that was not available to the McCanns then I would be very interested in reading them.
If you don't provide any then I fear readers, like me, will either have to presume that you are posting without understanding the benefit of hindsight you have, or you are deliberately posting vindictively.
-
/snip/
When you see a child is not in their bed, the first thing you do is think they are somewhere else in the house/apartment. Your initial reaction is not that the most unlikely thing, an abduction has taken place. Therefore before contacting police or anyone else you do a full search of the place, opening wardrobes (Children like to play games don't you know? Especially on holiday.), looking in every room, looking under objects, and generally making a bit of a mess. All to be expected. The police would not be happy if called out and the child was playing a game.
Then you start to think the worst. You can think of nothing else but the worst and you get others involved. Husband, neighbours etc. In this case husband and friends. As with your initial reaction, they don't want to think the worst and hope that they will find the child by looking where you may have missed.
/snip/
Back to PDL. I suspect that may well have been the perfectly normal reaction of Kate. Initial belief that there may have been an easy explanation. A visit to the toilet? Open that door. A visit to the kitchen for a drink? Open that door, look around. A game? Open the cupboards, pull the sofa from the wall. And so on, becoming more frantic by the second and all happening within less than a couple of minutes.
/snip/
Then wanting to involve others in the search. Now starting to believe the worst but hoping they would prove her wrong. And the same initial reaction from Gerry and the friends, thinking the simplest solution most probable, checking all possibilities, becoming more frantic as each minute passes and they didn't find her and only then believing the worst scenario possible.
Then the demands for outside help. Knowing that time passing is in itself a threat if someone has taken the child. And the calls for police.
Perhaps only those who have been through such an experience as a parent can fully appreciate the panic but surely everyone can understand that the initial reaction is to panic and to do things which may not seem sensible with the benefit of hindsight? The emotions of a parent who cannot find their child far outweigh the training even of a doctor (maybe a couple of days of lectures on police practices) and intellect of a professional.
I am afraid stephen25000 your question shows no understanding of the situation and is written and asked entirely with the benefit of hindsight, something not available to the McCanns or their friends on that fateful night.
Understandable to leave 3 children alone?
This question also demonstrates the fact that you are posting without understanding the difference between your situation and that of the McCanns back in 2007.
It is perfectly clear (if you have actually read) the Archival report that the McCanns did not believe they were in fact leaving "3 children alone". That is why they were never charged with neglect or abandonment.
Kate and Gerry and the other Tapas members implemented what they believed was a system to ensure that the children were being cared for, in a way which they knew professional holiday organisations elsewhere implemented on a regular basis. Indeed their system was better than those the professionals offered in that they went into the premises which the professionals did not, more often than those professionals.
They were within sight (if not sound) of the apartment and were lulled into a false sense of security by this and by their use of what, at the time, was a not uncommon holiday system of looking after the children.
There was no outcry about this system in other resorts or holiday locations till after the disappearance of Madeleine that I recall. It was only with hindsight that the failings were discussed. It was an accepted practice and as I say, the Tapas group believed that they had in fact gone a little further even than the professionals in their care.
But, you stephen25000 and others do not seem to understand any of this. You post as if before 2007, you had been decrying such child care systems vociferously. But you had not.
You are doing so with the benefit of that hindsight I referred to. As I say there was never an outcry previously. People accepted the system and used it willingly.
Gerry and Kate McCann must have immediately regretted their decision. Indeed they have told us that. They will live with the regrets for the rest of their lives no matter what happens in the future. If only they had had the benefit of hindsight that you post with now.
------
If, stephen25000, you have lacked the understanding in the past of that crucial difference between your posting now and the situation back in 2007 then I hope you will now appreciate it a little better.
If you have been posting with that understanding, though, I fear you have been demonstrating a horrific level of vindictiveness towards a couple who have admitted their mistake, who have done everything in their power to atone for that mistake but who you have chosen to continually vilify with your spammed and very glib remarks.
If you have some other explanation as to why you insist on posting these glib remarks about neglect which fly in the face of the remarks of the Archival report and which show absolutely no understanding of the fact that you are posting with the benefit of hindsight that was not available to the McCanns then I would be very interested in reading them.
If you don't provide any then I fear readers, like me, will either have to presume that you are posting without understanding the benefit of hindsight you have, or you are deliberately posting vindictively.
"Really?!!! She left the twins unguarded and ran to the Tapas to cry out: They have taken her... She admitted that as soon as she opened the bedroom door she knew the child had been abducted. When questioned (remember the 48 questions she refused to answer, she "NO COMMENT"). It was reiterated on many interviews, namely when she attended the trial to suppress G.Amaral's book - luckily it ended up showing their true colours - the well being of their child was never their priority, but their well being.
stephen 25000 got it very accurately.
-
I hope Admin and mods will forgive me for bringing this post here and answering rather than disrupting the 5A distances thread as would appear to have been the aim of the poster with his off-topic contribution to that thread.
Yes and Yes for these reasons.
The principal reason is that your question (as do all your responses) lacks the understanding that you are posting with the full benefit of hindsight. You appear completely unable to remove yourself from that perspective and to place yourself in the situation of people back in 2007 dealing with events at that time as these people were.
"Understandble to trample the apartment?"
A wholly pejorative term which I don't recall being used by the police in the files. Please correct me if I am wrong.
When you see a child is not in their bed, the first thing you do is think they are somewhere else in the house/apartment. Your initial reaction is not that the most unlikely thing, an abduction has taken place. Therefore before contacting police or anyone else you do a full search of the place, opening wardrobes (Children like to play games don't you know? Especially on holiday.), looking in every room, looking under objects, and generally making a bit of a mess. All to be expected. The police would not be happy if called out and the child was playing a game.
Then you start to think the worst. You can think of nothing else but the worst and you get others involved. Husband, neighbours etc. In this case husband and friends. As with your initial reaction, they don't want to think the worst and hope that they will find the child by looking where you may have missed.
How do I know this? Well I was involved in such a search many years ago as a neighbour. The family two doors away had a boy (about six as I recall) who was not playing in the garden as his mother had believed when she called him for tea. She had looked for him all over the house before going to the neighbour on the other side of my house where they also had a child about the same age, hoping he was playing there. I heard the commotion and immediately searched my garden and shed too (there was a path behind the gardens and my gate was never locked). The mother went home and searched her property again with the assistance of one of the neighbours while I went with some others looking along the path and out into the streets around. Luckily we found him wandering casually back from the local shop where he had tried to get some sweets though he had no money. The shopkeeper was standing at the shop door making sure he got back home OK.
All was well in that case and having acknowledged the shopkeeper who I knew well, I went with another neighbour and returned with the child via the back path to his house and mother. It was clear how frantic she had been in her initial search because there were objects lying all round near their small garden shed where she presumably thought he might have been and which she had presumably dragged out thinking he may have been behind them.
She hadn't immediately thought of an abduction. Such things were furthest from her mind in the initial few minutes of her search. However, by the time she realised he was not in the house or garden they came to the fore.
Back to PDL. I suspect that may well have been the perfectly normal reaction of Kate. Initial belief that there may have been an easy explanation. A visit to the toilet? Open that door. A visit to the kitchen for a drink? Open that door, look around. A game? Open the cupboards, pull the sofa from the wall. And so on, becoming more frantic by the second and all happening within less than a couple of minutes.
Then wanting to involve others in the search. Now starting to believe the worst but hoping they would prove her wrong. And the same initial reaction from Gerry and the friends, thinking the simplest solution most probable, checking all possibilities, becoming more frantic as each minute passes and they didn't find her and only then believing the worst scenario possible.
Then the demands for outside help. Knowing that time passing is in itself a threat if someone has taken the child. And the calls for police.
Perhaps only those who have been through such an experience as a parent can fully appreciate the panic but surely everyone can understand that the initial reaction is to panic and to do things which may not seem sensible with the benefit of hindsight? The emotions of a parent who cannot find their child far outweigh the training even of a doctor (maybe a couple of days of lectures on police practices) and intellect of a professional.
I am afraid stephen25000 your question shows no understanding of the situation and is written and asked entirely with the benefit of hindsight, something not available to the McCanns or their friends on that fateful night.
Understandable to leave 3 children alone?
This question also demonstrates the fact that you are posting without understanding the difference between your situation and that of the McCanns back in 2007.
It is perfectly clear (if you have actually read) the Archival report that the McCanns did not believe they were in fact leaving "3 children alone". That is why they were never charged with neglect or abandonment.
Kate and Gerry and the other Tapas members implemented what they believed was a system to ensure that the children were being cared for, in a way which they knew professional holiday organisations elsewhere implemented on a regular basis. Indeed their system was better than those the professionals offered in that they went into the premises which the professionals did not, more often than those professionals.
They were within sight (if not sound) of the apartment and were lulled into a false sense of security by this and by their use of what, at the time, was a not uncommon holiday system of looking after the children.
There was no outcry about this system in other resorts or holiday locations till after the disappearance of Madeleine that I recall. It was only with hindsight that the failings were discussed. It was an accepted practice and as I say, the Tapas group believed that they had in fact gone a little further even than the professionals in their care.
But, you stephen25000 and others do not seem to understand any of this. You post as if before 2007, you had been decrying such child care systems vociferously. But you had not.
You are doing so with the benefit of that hindsight I referred to. As I say there was never an outcry previously. People accepted the system and used it willingly.
Gerry and Kate McCann must have immediately regretted their decision. Indeed they have told us that. They will live with the regrets for the rest of their lives no matter what happens in the future. If only they had had the benefit of hindsight that you post with now.
------
If, stephen25000, you have lacked the understanding in the past of that crucial difference between your posting now and the situation back in 2007 then I hope you will now appreciate it a little better.
If you have been posting with that understanding, though, I fear you have been demonstrating a horrific level of vindictiveness towards a couple who have admitted their mistake, who have done everything in their power to atone for that mistake but who you have chosen to continually vilify with your spammed and very glib remarks.
If you have some other explanation as to why you insist on posting these glib remarks about neglect which fly in the face of the remarks of the Archival report and which show absolutely no understanding of the fact that you are posting with the benefit of hindsight that was not available to the McCanns then I would be very interested in reading them.
If you don't provide any then I fear readers, like me, will either have to presume that you are posting without understanding the benefit of hindsight you have, or you are deliberately posting vindictively.
As expected, mere diversion.
The children were left unattended in a foreign country, which they did not know, and had little knowledge of the local language.
hindsight is not essential in seeing common sense.
There is no excuse under the sun for doing what they did.
Their lack of common sense in leaving 3 young children in an unlocked apartment goes beyond reason.
As to the case, it was shelved, and if you care to read other threads on here the findings are plain to see, and there is no need to cherry pick the parts you prefer, and the others you wish to ignore.
..........irrelevant comment removed .......
-
"Really?!!! She left the twins unguarded and ran to the Tapas to cry out: They have taken her... She admitted that as soon as she opened the bedroom door she knew the child had been abducted. When questioned (remember the 48 questions she refused to answer, she "NO COMMENT"). It was reiterated on many interviews, namely when she attended the trial to suppress G.Amaral's book - luckily it ended up showing their true colours - the well being of their child was never their priority, but their well being.
stephen 25000 got it very accurately.
Exactly, on realising that Madeleine was not in the apartment, she did as i suggested, believe the worst possible scenario.
I also pointed out that in the panic of the situation she was not acting as logically as those who are posting here with the benefit of hindsight demand she should have been acting. Her reactions were haphazard and unpredictable as in all cases of panic.
Your post once again goes to prove my point that anti McCanns are ignoring the fact that they are posting with the benefit of hindsight in order to make vindictive points. Thank you.
-
My response in blue.
As expected, mere diversion.
As expected a glib answer. This is not diversion at all but a thoughtful response to the posts you glibly make about neglect. It addresses the fundamental flaw in all your posts which you seem unable to either see or you choose to completely ignore.
Whichever, the flaw in your posts exists and makes the content of them invalid.
The children were left unattended in a foreign country, which they did not know, and had little knowledge of the local language.
Utterly irrelevant. The children were not left unattended out in the open in that country, wandering the streets looking for people to speak to, but in a small apartment in which they knew the location of the bathroom, bedrooms, kitchen and living room. Your crazy exaggeration of the situation makes you look rather frantic in your effort to defend your posting.
hindsight is not essential in seeing common sense.
Hindsight is essential in current posting if genuine understanding is to be achieved. If you have any actual response to the content of my post other than this inane generalisation I would be interested in seeing it.
There is no excuse under the sun for doing what they did.
Their lack of common sense in leaving 3 young children in an unlocked apartment goes beyond reason.
Having demonstrated the precise "excuse"/reason for the actions being to a large part excusable (when hindsight is removed) I disagree entirely with you. I have shown that this comment from you is demonstrating either a complete lack of understanding of the fact that you are posting with the benefit of hindsight or a deliberate ignoring of that fact in order to present a vindictive and inaccurate portrayal of the McCann actions. By repeating yourself and making the same glib statements about neglect, you are not answering the allegation I have made, merely confirming it.
As to the case, it was shelved, and if you care to read other threads on here the findings are plain to see, and there is no need to cherry pick the parts you prefer, and the others you wish to ignore.
Yesterday, I made it perfectly clear that you are not able to separate out the two cases which were dealt with in the Archival report. The case of neglect against the McCanns which was thoroughly dismissed with a very carefully outlined legal reasoning and the case of the disappearance of Madeleine which was shelved. Once again you confirm your inability to understand the difference. It does you no credit that you have not managed to separate the two. It merely confirms that you lack a proper understanding of the case.
...... response to irrelevant comment removed .....
-
If it was not tragic I would call it funny.
People are still holding to the neglect myth to explain a child's demise. If there was simple neglect, that was not the reason why this child disappeared.
I believe the little evidence there is that she was dead in 5A on the 3rd of May 2007 and a big cover up operation was put forward to avoid finding her little body and what it could reveal.
-
If it was not tragic I would call it funny.
People are still holding to the neglect myth to explain a child's demise. If there was simple neglect, that was not the reason why this child disappeared.
I believe the little evidence there is that she was dead in 5A on the 3rd of May 2007 and a big cover up operation was put forward to avoid finding her little body and what it could reveal.
I have to agree with you about this neglect proposition being a myth but my reasons for doing so are probably not the same as yours. It's good to see that you are also debunking stephen25000's comments albeit from a different direction.
I am glad that you have confirmed that there is only "little evidence" that Madeleine may be dead. There is, of course, absolutely no proof of that. And there is equally only "little evidence" of potential abduction and absolutely no proof of that either.
I am sorry that on the basis of this "little evidence" that you choose to ignore the fact that there is also a possibility that she may be alive. I would have hoped that all posters could bring themselves to have hope in their hearts for an innocent little child. Apparently, from your post it is not possible in your case.
I would be most interested if you could open up a new thread with all the evidence for this "big cover-up". I mean real evidence, not the ramblings of Amaral, of course. Please do so at your earliest convenience because, as I say, it would be very interesting to see the documents and full evidence to support the theory. I have heard so much about this "big cover-up" and nobody seems to post the direct evidence. I look forward to the new topic.
-
There's no excuse for leaving children alone at night in apartments with doors and windows unlocked, gilet.
None.
-
"Really?!!! She left the twins unguarded and ran to the Tapas to cry out: They have taken her... She admitted that as soon as she opened the bedroom door she knew the child had been abducted. When questioned (remember the 48 questions she refused to answer, she "NO COMMENT"). It was reiterated on many interviews, namely when she attended the trial to suppress G.Amaral's book - luckily it ended up showing their true colours - the well being of their child was never their priority, but their well being.
stephen 25000 got it very accurately.
Thanks Luz.
-
There's no excuse for leaving children alone at night in apartments with doors and windows unlocked, gilet.
None.
I beg to differ. Your post indicates yet more lack of understanding of the fact that this took place in 2007. Six years of accumulated hindsight and complete indifference to the fact that this was in reality a not uncommon and clearly acceptable action back then, no matter how much you may care to ignore that fact.
If you can demonstrate that prior to 2007 you were showing concerns about this practice then I may accept your post as more reasonable. Till then I will continue to point out that you are posting with hindsight and apparently not recognising that fact.
-
I beg to differ. Your post indicates yet more lack of understanding of the fact that this took place in 2007. Six years of accumulated hindsight and complete indifference to the fact that this was in reality a not uncommon and clearly acceptable action back then, no matter how much you may care to ignore that fact.
If you can demonstrate that prior to 2007 you were showing concerns about this practice then I may accept your post as more reasonable. Till then I will continue to point out that you are posting with hindsight and apparently not recognising that fact.
It's common sense.
Your obvious desperation to absolve the parents from any blame at all doesn't assist your other arguments I think - you just appear mad when you attempt to tell the world it's perfectly fine to leave three children alone like that.
-
What beggers belief is that the people who believe the abduction fairy tale still defend the Mccanns, if they hadn't gone out, there wouldn't have been an abduction.
Even with that some try to make the excuse it could have still happened.
Well there's a finite probability that all the molecules and atoms of gases could aggregate in one corner of my living room, but it doesn't mean it will happen.
-
The only reason someone would have all their friends walk round the apartment was to either divert attention of spoil evidence. There was infact absolutely no reason why they should have been in the apartment given that KM said she searched it 3 times and if they wanted to help, they should have all gone in different directions searching and not congragated in the apartment.
There is no reason why any of them should have left their kids alone and then to run about leaving 2 kids alone after 'they've taken her' is stupid.
You need to stop advocating her behaviour and their behaviour. Them leaving 3 kids alone contrabuted to this, if you beleive the abduction scenario but neglect carries a shorter prison sentance than murder-I believe.
Yet again you are posting with the benefit of hindsight and are totally unwilling or unfortunately unable to understand the reality of the situation.
I wholly disagree with you and I am sure others do as well. There was every reason for them to have searched once again. Panic, lack of willingness to believe such a terrible thing could have happened. The need to comfort Kate. The fact that the twins were still there. The fact that anyone with any real understanding of such situations knows that even the police demand someone stays there in case the child returns all mean that the presence in the apartment of some or all of those people at some stage in the early moments after the disappearance was both normal and, in fact, essential.
Your unwillingness to countenance any of those issues seems to indicate a very narrow-minded approach to the case.
As for neglect I will reply about this when replying to the later repetitive post you have made.
-
Yet again you are posting with the benefit of hindsight and are totally unwilling or unfortunately unable to understand the reality of the situation.
I wholly disagree with you and I am sure others do as well. There was every reason for them to have searched once again. Panic, lack of willingness to believe such a terrible thing could have happened. The need to comfort Kate. The fact that the twins were still there. The fact that anyone with any real understanding of such situations knows that even the police demand someone stays there in case the child returns all mean that the presence in the apartment of some or all of those people at some stage in the early moments after the disappearance was both normal and, in fact, essential.
Your unwillingness to countenance any of those issues seems to indicate a very narrow-minded approach to the case.
As for neglect I will reply about this when replying to the later repetitive post you have made.
You criticize others for being narrow minded, yet all you do is defend the Mccanns to the hilt, and nothing else.
-
I beg to differ. Your post indicates yet more lack of understanding of the fact that this took place in 2007. Six years of accumulated hindsight and complete indifference to the fact that this was in reality a not uncommon and clearly acceptable action back then, no matter how much you may care to ignore that fact.
If you can demonstrate that prior to 2007 you were showing concerns about this practice then I may accept your post as more reasonable. Till then I will continue to point out that you are posting with hindsight and apparently not recognising that fact.
This has nothing to do with hindsight. It is common practice and common sense to, IF, you are going to leave your children on their own, and are going to be out of ear and eyeshot of them, you at least secure the house. To say to Lyall it is common practice and acceptable to do the opposite is disingenuous, as that was the gist of his/her comment.
-
What beggers belief is that the people who believe the abduction fairy tale still defend the Mccanns, if they hadn't gone out, there wouldn't have been an abduction.
As I have pointed out in other posts and in the OP, the actions of the McCanns were neither considered by the AG of Portugal to have been neglect. They were in fact common at the time in many holiday locations.
The fact that they were not available in PDL officially was countered by the McCanns and their friends by increasing the frequency of the checks in comparison to professional checks and by the fact that they entered the premises which professional checks at the time did not do.
Your comment that no abduction could have taken place if the parents had been in that apartment is not accurate. It could have happened when the parents were asleep for example. There simply is no way of knowing what might have happened in other situations and your speculation is entirely that, speculation.
For example, I recall a very vivid poster on a Euroopean overnight sleeper train I was on a few years ago explaining that there had been a spate of attacks on people's belongings whilst asleep in the tiny sleeping compartments and to be extra vigilant. At the time I found it hard to believe that thefts could take place in such tiny spaces while people slept in them but they did. In similar ways an abduction could have happened with the parents in that apartment if the abductors had been sufficiently determined.
-
It's common sense.
Your obvious desperation to absolve the parents from any blame at all doesn't assist your other arguments I think - you just appear mad when you attempt to tell the world it's perfectly fine to leave three children alone like that.
It may well be common sense now.
It was not common sense back in 2007 or the professional holiday organisations would not have been offering exactly the same kind of service.
Your post is the perfect example of someone not recognising the significant factor of hindsight.
And I think your ad hominem abuse of me actually reflects your desperation rather than mine.
I am making precise and accurate points regarding the difference between the situation back in 2007 and the present.
You have made an abusive attack on me which shows you have completely misunderstood the point I am making (deliberately or otherwise).
At no point have I suggested that with the benefit of hindsight anyone should leave children in such circumstances. I have explained that it is with the hindsight resulting from the disappearance of Madeleine that the holiday organisations and all sensible people have changed their opinion. But that does not in any way change the fact that it was a perfectly acceptable action back in 2007 and there was no outcry about it prior to the disappearance of Madeleine.
Hindsight is the factor that anti McCann posters cannot comprehend. That is becoming ever more apparent as this thread develops.
-
Did their friends do the same, gilet? Did they leave doors unlocked?
-
You criticize others for being narrow minded, yet all you do is defend the Mccanns to the hilt, and nothing else.
I am afraid that is your blinkered perception of my posting. It may well be that the errors of judgement such as yours in not appreciating the importance of hindsight when posting, the factual errors such as those in Hideho's films etc are largely on the anti McCann side of the fence and therefore by pointing them out I appear to be on the side of the McCanns but the fact remains that I have never claimed an abduction to be the only possible reason for the disappearance of Madeleine. Like the Police in this country and in Portugal I am fully aware that all options as to what happened remain possible.
Where I differ from anti McCanns is that they don't accept what the police in both countries say, that they don't realise that living with hindsight gives great advantages over what was available in 2007 and that they don't realise that posting lies as Hideho does is wrong.
-
This has nothing to do with hindsight. It is common practice and common sense to, IF, you are going to leave your children on their own, and are going to be out of ear and eyeshot of them, you at least secure the house. To say to Lyall it is common practice and acceptable to do the opposite is disingenuous, as that was the gist of his/her comment.
I have never said any of this is common practice now as you seem to imply. I think you need to read posts more carefully.
I have said that similar practices were not uncommon in 2007, though because they were and to ignore that fact as you are doing proves that you are unable to accept the benefit of hindsight with which you are posting.
-
Did their friends do the same, gilet? Did they leave doors unlocked?
I honestly don't recall. It is possible that the answer to your question lies in the statements made by the individuals involved. When reading them in the past I was not specifically looking for that detail.
Perhaps if you are able at some point you could look at the statements and give us the answer?
-
Plenty will actually agree with you about HdH's videos.
But there was an awful lot of history before 2007 you know. Are you seriously saying parents didn't have a care in the world about their children's safety before May of that year?
-
I have never said any of this is common practice now as you seem to imply. I think you need to read posts more carefully.
I have said that similar practices were not uncommon in 2007, though because they were and to ignore that fact as you are doing proves that you are unable to accept the benefit of hindsight with which you are posting.
i think you should take your own advice, I was not implying anything, or talking about listening services or then and now. By similar practices, you are referring to holiday listenig services, btw which were not on offer in PDL, which everyoje knows existed and still exist, even though not at MW resorts. The point which you cannot have missed was about leaving toddlers in an unsecured home. I doubt very much that this is a common practice, not then, not now.
-
Posters are again reminded of the forum rules. Posts containing references to usernames from elsewhere will be removed without exception.
-
Plenty will actually agree with you about HdH's videos.
But there was an awful lot of history before 2007 you know. Are you seriously saying parents didn't have a care in the world about their children's safety before May of that year?
Thank you for the support in recognising that Hideho's videos are full of lies.
But at no point have I stated that pre-May 2007 people had not a care in the world for their children's safety.
Their perception was simply different. They believed that the approach used by the professional holiday organisations who deployed people to check chalets, hotel rooms and apartments from the outside in a "child-minding" scheme were acting responsibly. They believed that such schemes were safe. The evidence for that is in their very existence.
I believe that a number of organisations had been looking at the practice in the period prior to 2007 but the practice still existed and was still in use. The fact that the McCanns actually went further than the professionals shows that their was no neglect involved on their part. Yes, a serious error of judgement with HINDSIGHT, but not at the time the judgement was made.
And we know that they are living with the effects of that judgement, that no matter what happens they will live with the effects of that judgement till they die.
But I can see no reason whatsoever for people like stephen25000 to effectively spam this forum with his glib claim about neglect without any admission that his outlook on the matter is with the benefit of hindsight which was not available to the McCanns when they made their decision other than a sad vindictiveness.
I have asked him if there is any other explanation for the content of his posts but he has, so far, been unwilling or unable to offer any.
-
i think you should take your own advice, I was not implying anything, or talking about listening services or then and now. By similar practices, you are referring to holiday listenig services, btw which were not on offer in PDL, which everyoje knows existed and still exist, even though not at MW resorts. The point which you cannot have missed was about leaving toddlers in an unsecured home. I doubt very much that this is a common practice, not then, not now.
I have addressed all the issues which you have repeated.
If that was not the implication of your earlier post then I am afraid the content was utterly meaningless. As you wish though.
I have made it clear previously that this service was not on offer in PDL which you must have missed.
I have also indicated that the McCann's checks were more frequent and ostensibly more effective (hindsight is what proves otherwise) than the professional checks.
At no point have I justified the leaving of the door unlocked as reasonable or sensible. That is all part of the admitted regret and despair that the McCanns feel over the issue. Not a reason for vindictive abuse of them though, in my opinion. You and stephen25000 clearly differ in opinion on that matter as you continually do abuse the McCanns for this decision in a way which I feel is very vindictive and which you can apparently offer no other explanation for.
You have made an interesting point in your post though, ie that such listening services still exist. I am shocked as i did not believe this to be the case. I would appreciate you posting links to the organisations which offer such services with some urgency (we are in the midst of the busy holiday season) as I would be more than willing to write to them and explain what I believe (with the benefit of the hindsight gained from the McCann case) how unwise these services are. I am somewhat surprised that you have not indicated that you have already done this.
I look forward to the list of organisations appearing as I think it is a matter of urgency that they be approached to explain their clearly dangerous policy.
-
Thank you for the support in recognising that Hideho's videos are full of lies.
But at no point have I stated that pre-May 2007 people had not a care in the world for their children's safety.
Their perception was simply different. They believed that the approach used by the professional holiday organisations who deployed people to check chalets, hotel rooms and apartments from the outside in a "child-minding" scheme were acting responsibly. They believed that such schemes were safe. The evidence for that is in their very existence.
I believe that a number of organisations had been looking at the practice in the period prior to 2007 but the practice still existed and was still in use. The fact that the McCanns actually went further than the professionals shows that their was no neglect involved on their part. Yes, a serious error of judgement with HINDSIGHT, but not at the time the judgement was made.
And we know that they are living with the effects of that judgement, that no matter what happens they will live with the effects of that judgement till they die.
But I can see no reason whatsoever for people like stephen25000 to effectively spam this forum with his glib claim about neglect without any admission that his outlook on the matter is with the benefit of hindsight which was not available to the McCanns when they made their decision other than a sad vindictiveness.
I have asked him if there is any other explanation for the content of his posts but he has, so far, been unwilling or unable to offer any.
Here we go yet again, on the 'vindictiveness' bandwagon.
It is getting tiresome and has no foundation in reality.
Likewise with this 'hindsight' rubbish.
The bottom line remains, whether you like it or not, Madeleine's disappearance stems from her and her siblings being left in that apartment, occasionally 'checked' but in an unlocked residence. This was and still remains the Achilles Heel of yours and others stance.
You can continue ad infinitum with the use of the term 'vindictiveness' and I could respond in kind if you wish. Your choice.
-
Posters are again reminded of the forum rules. Posts containing references to usernames from elsewhere will be removed without exception.
Thank you. I hope the other aspects of the personal attack which stephen25000 levied on me are to be dealt with as well.
-
I don't think I said those videos are "full of lies", gilet 8(0(*
I'd have no problem with what you wrote in reply to my post, except for the fact they say they left the door unlocked - clearly that isn't a feature of any professional scheme is it.
If they did in fact leave the door unlocked it may or may not legally be neglect, but I'd say it is definitely selfish.
-
Here we go yet again, on the 'vindictiveness' bandwagon.
It is getting tiresome and has no foundation in reality.
Likewise with this 'hindsight' rubbish.
The bottom line remains, whether you like it or not, Madeleine's disappearance stems from her and her siblings being left in that apartment, occasionally 'checked' but in an unlocked residence. This was and still remains the Achilles Heel of yours and others stance.
You can continue ad infinitum with the use of the term 'vindictiveness' and I could respond in kind if you wish. Your choice.
I am sorry, stephen25000, but the fact remains that you are totally unable to offer any other explanation for your continued mantra and spamming of this forum with your claims about neglect.
I am therefore perfectly entitled to express my opinion that your posts are vindictive in nature due to the fact that they admit no understanding or acceptance of the very important role that hindsight does play (no matter how much you pretend otherwise) in this matter and no matter how much you declare they are not vindictive.
You are unable to offer any other reason for you continued torrent of these posts, you are unable to in any way reflect on the way in which the McCanns have admitted that their judgement was in hindsight wrong, and you are unable to admit that the climate of opinion about such checking schemes was different in 2007.
There is no Achilles heel in my arguments as you claim.
I have demonstrated clearly the difference of opinion in 2007 to that which exists today. The fact you cannot see that evident difference is a sign not of an Achilles heel in my argument but a defect in your reasoning.
You may not believe that the benefit of hindsight in posting has any basis in reality. That is your problem and very likely the reason that you appear to be trapped in a style of posting that gets you nowhere very slowly. The fact is such a benefit does exist and unless it is recognised then there is a tendency to believe what is currently known and accepted was always thus.
The reality is that checking arrangements as organised by the McCanns were acceptable in 2007 even by professional bodies. To pretend otherwise and to ignore the differences between opinion then and now, as you are trying to do, is to bury one's head in the sand.
-
I don't think I said those videos are "full of lies", gilet 8(0(*
I'd have no problem with what you wrote in reply to my post, except for the fact they say they left the door unlocked - clearly that isn't a feature of any professional scheme is it.
If they did in fact leave the door unlocked it may or may not legally be neglect, but I'd say it is definitely selfish.
I apologise for inferring that you supported fully my belief that Hideho's films are "full of lies". I meant to state that I am appreciative of your support that there are problems with some of them. I hope you appreciate that I have been replying to at least three or four different posters for some time now and I am replying at speed to each post.
As for your second point. I agree with you. Leaving the doors open was not part of a normal checking procedure and because it may have been a factor in an abduction I am sure that it accounts for a large part of the regret and anguish which the McCanns have expressed and which will be with them for the rest of their lives no matter what happens in the future.
But it can never excuse the role any abductor himself/themselves would have had if such was the crime which occurred. Had that person not committed such an evil act then Madeleine would in all probability not gone missing.
And it cannot in itself justify the continued spamming of the forum with glib claims of neglect. Such spamming without recognition that the practice in general was in fact acceptable in 2007 (albeit with locked doors), without recognition of the regret and anguish felt and expressed in public by the McCanns in my view is simply vindictive. I have asked those who act in this way for some other explanation of their behaviour but they have offered none.
-
I am sorry, stephen25000, but the fact remains that you are totally unable to offer any other explanation for your continued mantra and spamming of this forum with your claims about neglect.
I am therefore perfectly entitled to express my opinion that your posts are vindictive in nature due to the fact that they admit no understanding or acceptance of the very important role that hindsight does play (no matter how much you pretend otherwise) in this matter and no matter how much you declare they are not vindictive.
You are unable to offer any other reason for you continued torrent of these posts, you are unable to in any way reflect on the way in which the McCanns have admitted that their judgement was in hindsight wrong, and you are unable to admit that the climate of opinion about such checking schemes was different in 2007.
There is no Achilles heel in my arguments as you claim.
I have demonstrated clearly the difference of opinion in 2007 to that which exists today. The fact you cannot see that evident difference is a sign not of an Achilles heel in my argument but a defect in your reasoning.
You may not believe that the benefit of hindsight in posting has any basis in reality. That is your problem and very likely the reason that you appear to be trapped in a style of posting that gets you nowhere very slowly. The fact is such a benefit does exist and unless it is recognised then there is a tendency to believe what is currently known and accepted was always thus.
The reality is that checking arrangements as organised by the McCanns were acceptable in 2007 even by professional bodies. To pretend otherwise and to ignore the differences between opinion then and now, as you are trying to do, is to bury one's head in the sand.
Professional bodies ?
Such as the NSPCC and Government guidelines ?
You clearly believe it OK to leave young children without even a babysitter and unprotected, in an unlocked residence.
I am staggered that anyone with a rational mind could think that way.
You state personal attacks by me on you, yet that is exactly what you are doing to me in your previous and other replies.
Going nowhere is precisely the point you have reached in this debate. The catalyst which led to Madeleine's disappearance is so clear cut and undeniable, but you won't accept that.
As I said, simply staggering.
P.S. You do realize that I don't have to answer to you or anyone as to why I post here, unless in your apparent egocentric view of the world, you believe it does.
-
I am sorry, stephen25000, but the fact remains that you are totally unable to offer any other explanation for your continued mantra and spamming of this forum with your claims about neglect.
I am therefore perfectly entitled to express my opinion that your posts are vindictive in nature due to the fact that they admit no understanding or acceptance of the very important role that hindsight does play (no matter how much you pretend otherwise) in this matter and no matter how much you declare they are not vindictive.
You are unable to offer any other reason for you continued torrent of these posts, you are unable to in any way reflect on the way in which the McCanns have admitted that their judgement was in hindsight wrong, and you are unable to admit that the climate of opinion about such checking schemes was different in 2007.
There is no Achilles heel in my arguments as you claim.
I have demonstrated clearly the difference of opinion in 2007 to that which exists today. The fact you cannot see that evident difference is a sign not of an Achilles heel in my argument but a defect in your reasoning.
You may not believe that the benefit of hindsight in posting has any basis in reality. That is your problem and very likely the reason that you appear to be trapped in a style of posting that gets you nowhere very slowly. .(Such posts as you are repetitively making will never solve the case, will never bring about change, will never do anything at all other than show the nature of the person posting them.) The fact is the benefit of hindsight in all activities does exist and unless it is recognised, then there is a tendency to believe what is currently known and accepted was always thus.
The reality is that checking arrangements as organised by the McCanns were acceptable in 2007 even by professional bodies. To pretend otherwise and to ignore the differences between opinion then and now, as you are trying to do, is to bury one's head in the sand.
-
I apologise for inferring that you supported fully my belief that Hideho's films are "full of lies". I meant to state that I am appreciative of your support that there are problems with some of them. I hope you appreciate that I have been replying to at least three or four different posters for some time now and I am replying at speed to each post.
As for your second point. I agree with you. Leaving the doors open was not part of a normal checking procedure and because it may have been a factor in an abduction I am sure that it accounts for a large part of the regret and anguish which the McCanns have expressed and which will be with them for the rest of their lives no matter what happens in the future.
But it can never excuse the role any abductor himself/themselves would have had if such was the crime which occurred. Had that person not committed such an evil act then Madeleine would in all probability not gone missing.
And it cannot in itself justify the continued spamming of the forum with glib claims of neglect. Such spamming without recognition that the practice in general was in fact acceptable in 2007 (albeit with locked doors), without recognition of the regret and anguish felt and expressed in public by the McCanns in my view is simply vindictive. I have asked those who act in this way for some other explanation of their behaviour but they have offered none.
I think it's because you keep claiming what they did was acceptable, when clearly it isn't acceptable to leave doors unlocked. Not now or before 2007 either.
I understand you are in several threads at once, so I took no offence, but you'd have one less front to be fighting on if you weren't attempt to justify the unjustifiable in this one. 8-)(--)
You agree there's no excuse for leaving a door unlocked, so there's no reason to keep defending on this front is there?
-
I have addressed all the issues which you have repeated.
If that was not the implication of your earlier post then I am afraid the content was utterly meaningless. As you wish though.
I have made it clear previously that this service was not on offer in PDL which you must have missed.
I have also indicated that the McCann's checks were more frequent and ostensibly more effective (hindsight is what proves otherwise) than the professional checks.
At no point have I justified the leaving of the door unlocked as reasonable or sensible. That is all part of the admitted regret and despair that the McCanns feel over the issue. Not a reason for vindictive abuse of them though, in my opinion. You and stephen25000 clearly differ in opinion on that matter as you continually do abuse the McCanns for this decision in a way which I feel is very vindictive and which you can apparently offer no other explanation for.
You have made an interesting point in your post though, ie that such listening services still exist. I am shocked as i did not believe this to be the case. I would appreciate you posting links to the organisations which offer such services with some urgency (we are in the midst of the busy holiday season) as I would be more than willing to write to them and explain what I believe (with the benefit of the hindsight gained from the McCann case) how unwise these services are. I am somewhat surprised that you have not indicated that you have already done this.
I look forward to the list of organisations appearing as I think it is a matter of urgency that they be approached to explain their clearly dangerous policy.
Sarcasm will get you nowhere fast. Sardonic is a great word.
You had not addressed the point about leaving toddlers alone in an unsecured home, as you claim, if you had, I wouldnt have had to raise it, and point out to you doing it is neither, as you claimed, common or unacceptable, as you said in your reply to Lyall, so its no use backtracking now. The fact that it went over your head is not my problem. Your comment had nothng to do with the topic of this thread, IE Hindsight.
But have it your way, as you will, if it pleases you, you can have the last word.Think Im done here.
8)--))
-
I think it's because you keep claiming what they did was acceptable, when clearly it isn't acceptable to leave doors unlocked. Not now or before 2007 either.
I understand you are in several threads at once, so I took no offence, but you'd have one less front to be fighting on if you weren't attempt to justify the unjustifiable in this one. 8-)(--)
You agree there's no excuse for leaving a door unlocked, so there's no reason to keep defending on this front is there?
On the issue of doors locked and unlocked; whether unlocked doors is proof of abuse/neglect.
Police launch manhunt after six-year-old girl abducted from bath.
David Ward
The Guardian, Thursday 29 December 2005
Police on Tyneside were yesterday hunting a man who snatched a six-year-old girl as she took a bath in a downstairs bathroom, assaulted her in a car and left her naked in a nearby street.
The girl was reported missing from her home in North Shields, east of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, by her mother on Tuesday evening and was found about 15 minutes later by a neighbour who had joined the search. Northumbria police, who are treating the incident as a sexually motivated assault, last night appealed for any witnesses who may have seen or heard anything on Tuesday night to come forward.
The area in which she was found was cordoned off while forensic teams carried out a search and officers made door-to-door inquiries in the surrounding streets. Specialist officers were also called in to interview the girl, who was thought to have been grabbed from the bath by the attacker after he entered the house through the back door. She told police she did not know the man.
She was said to be in a distressed state but was back safely with her mother, who is separated from the girl's father. Detectives said that the girl had suffered no serious physical injury during the attack.
"This little girl has had a very frightening experience and we are making every possible effort to find the man responsible," said Detective Chief Inspector Jim Napier, who is leading the investigation.
"Thankfully she was found safe and she was missing for a very short time, but she was obviously extremely distressed. We are carrying out extensive inquiries in the area and want to speak to anyone who saw a man acting suspiciously in the area at the time."
Mr Napier said that no one had been arrested. "We are at quite an early stage of the inquiry. We have specially trained officers with the young girl trying to tease the information out of her.
"I am relatively satisfied that she has been taken out in a car, albeit for a very short time. It is difficult to be specific as to how long she was missing but it was in the region of about a quarter of an hour.
"It's being treated as a sexually motivated assault. She was naked when found, having been taken out of the bath. Naturally the mother is upset as to what has happened and her primary concern at the moment is for the welfare of her child.
"We have spoken to the father. We don't have a suspect at the moment but it is routine in an investigation like this to examine the background of close family members.
"The girl is extremely distressed and upset about what has happened."
He added: "The main thing from our point of view is witnesses. Without minimising what has happened to this girl, this is a very rare occurrence."
Officers want to speak to anyone who saw children near the girl's home between 4pm and 5pm on Tuesday. They also want to hear from anyone who may have seen a man, possibly middle-aged, wearing a dark coat and gloves and loitering in the area either on foot or in a car.
Police are also asking anyone who saw or heard a car being driven erratically in the area between 7pm and 7.30pm to contact them. The car was said to have been making a "loud squeaking noise", possibly from its tyres or engine. [unquote]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/29/childprotection.society
I can't recall this mother being prosecuted for abuse/neglect because she left her door unlocked. I think people are missing the obvious point in that door locked or unlocked, no one has the right to enter a property without permission.
-
I think it's because you keep claiming what they did was acceptable, when clearly it isn't acceptable to leave doors unlocked. Not now or before 2007 either.
I understand you are in several threads at once, so I took no offence, but you'd have one less front to be fighting on if you weren't attempt to justify the unjustifiable in this one. 8-)(--)
You agree there's no excuse for leaving a door unlocked, so there's no reason to keep defending on this front is there?
I am not defending anyone for leaving the door unlocked.
I am explaining my view that to post about neglect which the actions of the McCanns were not in either the eyes of the Attorney General of Portugal or the current opinion of the time (2007) without reference to the fact that we are now posting with hindsight is both inaccurate and when done without any other apparent motive, is in my view extremely vindictive.
I am fully entitled to that opinion and to express that opinion.
As i say, no other explanation for the continued posting of such claims has been forthcoming.
-
But your opening post on the thread is very much defending the parents on this issue.
You seem to be dedicated to constructing a defence for them, but then you have to admit the defence only works if doors aren't left unlocked.
But a door was left unlocked, so what's the point of suffering in the trench on this front?
It's puzzling.
-
On the issue of doors locked and unlocked; whether unlocked doors is proof of abuse/neglect.
Police launch manhunt after six-year-old girl abducted from bath.
David Ward
The Guardian, Thursday 29 December 2005
Police on Tyneside were yesterday hunting a man who snatched a six-year-old girl as she took a bath in a downstairs bathroom, assaulted her in a car and left her naked in a nearby street.
The girl was reported missing from her home in North Shields, east of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, by her mother on Tuesday evening and was found about 15 minutes later by a neighbour who had joined the search. Northumbria police, who are treating the incident as a sexually motivated assault, last night appealed for any witnesses who may have seen or heard anything on Tuesday night to come forward.
The area in which she was found was cordoned off while forensic teams carried out a search and officers made door-to-door inquiries in the surrounding streets. Specialist officers were also called in to interview the girl, who was thought to have been grabbed from the bath by the attacker after he entered the house through the back door. She told police she did not know the man.
She was said to be in a distressed state but was back safely with her mother, who is separated from the girl's father. Detectives said that the girl had suffered no serious physical injury during the attack.
"This little girl has had a very frightening experience and we are making every possible effort to find the man responsible," said Detective Chief Inspector Jim Napier, who is leading the investigation.
"Thankfully she was found safe and she was missing for a very short time, but she was obviously extremely distressed. We are carrying out extensive inquiries in the area and want to speak to anyone who saw a man acting suspiciously in the area at the time."
Mr Napier said that no one had been arrested. "We are at quite an early stage of the inquiry. We have specially trained officers with the young girl trying to tease the information out of her.
"I am relatively satisfied that she has been taken out in a car, albeit for a very short time. It is difficult to be specific as to how long she was missing but it was in the region of about a quarter of an hour.
"It's being treated as a sexually motivated assault. She was naked when found, having been taken out of the bath. Naturally the mother is upset as to what has happened and her primary concern at the moment is for the welfare of her child.
"We have spoken to the father. We don't have a suspect at the moment but it is routine in an investigation like this to examine the background of close family members.
"The girl is extremely distressed and upset about what has happened."
He added: "The main thing from our point of view is witnesses. Without minimising what has happened to this girl, this is a very rare occurrence."
Officers want to speak to anyone who saw children near the girl's home between 4pm and 5pm on Tuesday. They also want to hear from anyone who may have seen a man, possibly middle-aged, wearing a dark coat and gloves and loitering in the area either on foot or in a car.
Police are also asking anyone who saw or heard a car being driven erratically in the area between 7pm and 7.30pm to contact them. The car was said to have been making a "loud squeaking noise", possibly from its tyres or engine. [unquote]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/29/childprotection.society
I can't recall this mother being prosecuted for abuse/neglect because she left her door unlocked. I think people are missing the obvious point in that door locked or unlocked, no one has the right to enter a property without permission.
It has not been proved anyone entered the McCann's apartment.
-
I am explaining my view that to post about neglect which the actions of the McCanns were not in either the eyes of the Attorney General of Portugal or the current opinion of the time (2007) without reference to the fact that we are now posting with hindsight is both inaccurate and when done without any other apparent motive, is in my view extremely vindictive.
It's not inaccurate. You've just agreed it was not acceptable to leave doors unlocked before 2007. 8(0(*
-
It has not been proved anyone entered the McCann's apartment.
It has not been disproven that anyone entered the McCann's apartment. The crime scene was so contaminated, it was possible that the person who entered the apartments forensic 'footprint' was not found.
-
It's not inaccurate. You've just agreed it was not acceptable to leave doors unlocked before 2007. 8(0(*
Is it acceptable to remove a child from an apartment/house/property with doors locked or unlocked, without permission?
-
Professional bodies ?
Such as the NSPCC and Government guidelines ?
I was specifically referring to professional bodies as in holiday organisations whose policies were clearly in line with most of what the McCanns were undertaking as a checking system.
But, your introduction of those NSPCC guidelines is very interesting. When were they posted online? Did they exist prior to 2007 or are they in fact (as I think very likely) a posting which has come about with the benefit of hindsight of the events of 2007?
Could you please show anything prior to 2007 which makes the same points?
You clearly believe it OK to leave young children without even a babysitter and unprotected, in an unlocked residence.
I am staggered that anyone with a rational mind could think that way.
Utterly incorrect and a downright lie. I do not believe any such thing and if you had been reading my posts with care then you would know that.
Once again you are totally confused because you are not able to understand or not willing to accept the concept that you and I are posting with the benefit of hindsight. You are fully confirming the point I made in the OP of this thread.
I have demonstrated that there was a belief prior to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann that checking systems similar to the one they used existed and were acceptable.
I have also demonstrated that with the knowledge of that disappearance and the benefit of hindsight such beliefs are no longer acceptable.
I am actually staggered that you cannot see the difference between the actual content of my posts and the appalling and wholly inaccurate caricature of those posts which you have either deliberately or through poor reading presented.
You state personal attacks by me on you, yet that is exactly what you are doing to me in your previous and other replies.
I have made absolutely no personal attack on you and challenge you to back up that slur. I have outlined why I believe the content of your posts to be vindictive and without understanding of the nature of hindsight. That is not a personal attack, it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what you have previously posted and continue to post.
Going nowhere is precisely the point you have reached in this debate. The catalyst which led to Madeleine's disappearance is so clear cut and undeniable, but you won't accept that.
I have gone a little further than you may believe, in that I have identified a very serious flaw in the content of the posts you are making. By making no allowance for the fact that you are posting with hindsight, by making no allowance or showing no understanding that things have changed considerably since 2007 and by making no allowance for the fact that the McCanns have in public expressed regret and anguish over the decision they made then, by making no allowance for the fact that the McCanns were specifically cleared (yes, cleared) by the AG of Portugal of neglect/abandoning the children, then I believe your spamming of this forum, your constant claims of neglect are in fact simply vindictive statements with no other motive and so far you have been unable to deny this.
I have never denied the catalyst of the disappearance as you suggest. I have simply put it in context which you are unable or unwilling to recognise.
As I said, simply staggering.
Yes, simply staggering that any rational person should be so unwilling to even recognise that the concept of hindsight exists and that it is relevant to their posts about events which occurred in 2007.
P.S. You do realize that I don't have to answer to you or anyone as to why I post here, unless in your apparent egocentric view of the world, you believe it does.
Of course I realise you don't have to answer but you have chosen to take part in debate here and debate invariably consists of questions and answers.
When someone in any debate suddenly refuses to answer then people watching or reading are entitled to wonder why? Why would someone be unwilling as in this case for example to give their motive for spamming a forum with such claims of neglect? Why would they refuse to acknowledge the clear value of hindsight? Is it simple unwillingness or is it because they simply cannot? Valid thoughts, don't you agree?
-
It has not been disproven that anyone entered the McCann's apartment. The crime scene was so contaminated, it was possible that the person who entered the apartments forensic 'footprint' was not found.
Again the assumption that someone was there. Merely an assumption.
Meanwhile the McCann's and associates had trampled the scene before the local constabulary arrived.
-
Those claiming that the cause of Madeleine being missing was because of an unlocked door, please explain how an unlocked door without the presence of an abductor resulted in her disappearance. Remember - walk and wander has been eliminated by the police.
The unlocked door facilitated the abduction, but without the abductor she would not be missing!!! She would still be in an unlocked apartment.
-
Sarcasm will get you nowhere fast. Sardonic is a great word.
You had not addressed the point about leaving toddlers alone in an unsecured home, as you claim, if you had, I wouldnt have had to raise it, and point out to you doing it is neither, as you claimed, common or unacceptable, as you said in your reply to Lyall, so its no use backtracking now. The fact that it went over your head is not my problem. Your comment had nothng to do with the topic of this thread, IE Hindsight.
But have it your way, as you will, if it pleases you, you can have the last word.Think Im done here.
8)--))
There is no sarcasm in my posts, and the fact you don't identify any seems to confirm this.
I have fully addressed the point about leaving children in an unlocked apartment in another post. If you read the whole thread instead of just the occasional post you will see that.
I have no idea what your rather garbled paragraph about activities neither being common or unacceptable (surely an error?). Nor is it possible to work out what supposedly went over my head with or without hindsight? A translation into punctuated English would be appreciated.
-
Again the assumption that someone was there. Merely an assumption.
Meanwhile the McCann's and associates had trampled the scene before the local constabulary arrived.
Seeing the McCann's stayed there and their DNA/forensic footprint would have naturally been there to begin with, it was the addition of the 'other' contaminants i.e. the local constabulary who arrived and destroyed the crime scene that was the problem.
Think about it. You are on holiday, your DNA/forensic footprint is in the apartment. It would be very easy to eliminate yours and still find the person who entered the apartment without permission, if it were not for the contamination of the police who entered and destroyed any possibility of identifying the perpetrators forensic footprint.
-
There it is in essence.
Your get out clause for the McCann's behaviour,hindsight.
Trouble with that was it wasn't just one night,they did it several nights in a row,whilst out drinking and eating.
You are attacking me personally by referring to me as a 'spammer' and being 'vindictive'.
You aren't going to change my mind on this, and as to the NSPCC guidelines they were well entrenched and have nothing to do with the internet.
-
Those claiming that the cause of Madeleine being missing was because of an unlocked door, please explain how an unlocked door without the presence of an abductor resulted in her disappearance. Remember - walk and wander has been eliminated by the police.
The unlocked door facilitated the abduction, but without the abductor she would not be missing!!! She would still be in an unlocked apartment.
Well let's see proof of abduction. >@@(*&)
-
But your opening post on the thread is very much defending the parents on this issue.
You seem to be dedicated to constructing a defence for them, but then you have to admit the defence only works if doors aren't left unlocked.
But a door was left unlocked, so what's the point of suffering in the trench on this front?
It's puzzling.
In that my opening post is entirely about the failings of a poster who is attacking the McCanns without any acceptance that he is attacking them without acknowledging that he is doing so with the benefit of hindsight which they did not have, you are correct it is supportive of the McCanns.
I am not dedicated to constructing a defence for them as my full acceptance, which I have expressed previously in this thread, that there is at least an equal likelihood that another crime (which cannot be mentioned for reasons of potential libel) could be the explanation for the disappearance of as abduction.
I am, though, dedicated to ensuring that people in this case understand the importance of the concept of hindsight when reading posts which are written with that benefit, a benefit which the McCanns transparently did not have.
I am also dedicated to inquiring of posters who make claims without any apparent understanding of the fact that they are posting with that benefit continue to do so when it is explained how it leads to clear flaws in their arguments.
That the McCanns were absent or even that a door was left unlocked does not in any way mean that the blame for the disappearance is automatically the entire fault of the McCanns. I am dedicated to pointing out the flaws in such non sequiturs. I have shown that abduction could have taken place when the McCann were present and that the blame at least in part lies with any abductor if such exists. It is wholly incorrect for certain posters to make such claims and it is perfectly reasonable for me to point out the flaws in those claims, not simply for the good conduct of debate but also to ensure that the debate is conducted on the basis of truth.
-
It has not been proved anyone entered the McCann's apartment.
Equally it has not been proved that no-one entered the apartment. Your post is therefore wholly meaningless.
-
It's not inaccurate. You've just agreed it was not acceptable to leave doors unlocked before 2007. 8(0(*
Sorry, it is inaccurate and your use of a smiley face does not make any difference to that fact.
-
Again the assumption that someone was there. Merely an assumption.
Meanwhile the McCann's and associates had trampled the scene before the local constabulary arrived.
Again the assumption that no abductor was there. Merely an assumption.
Meanwhile the first coppers on the ground damaged the crime scene before the crime scene examiners arrived (viz the dog hairs for example).
-
Stephen - in the NSPCC's campaign to protect children, do you think they would be more worried about the fact that the McCann's left the door unlocked OR that someone entered the property without permission and removed Madeleine?
The NSPCC deals mainly in child abuse and protection of vulnerable children. Their definition of 'cruelty' and 'neglect' is not the same meaning you and most of the people pushing this neglect issue attach to it.
There is no evidence (evidence - stand up in a court of law) that Madeleine was abused. Leaving a door unlocked is not a reason for the NSPCC to prosecute parents for neglect. So why do you feel the need to keep mentioning the NSPCC guidelines as if the McCann's can be prosecuted for not taking advice? If the NSPCC thought the McCann's had abused or neglected Madeleine, dont you think they would have taken action years ago?
-
Again the assumption that no abductor was there. Merely an assumption.
Meanwhile the first coppers on the ground damaged the crime scene before the crime scene examiners arrived (viz the dog hairs for example).
i.e. No proof of abduction.
-
Equally it has not been proved that no-one entered the apartment. Your post is therefore wholly meaningless.
Not at all.
Without an abduction, the McCann story falls apart at the seams.
-
Well let's see proof of abduction. >@@(*&)
If not an abduction (which I believe Scotland Yard have the evidence of) then how did she go missing Stephen?
If you don't believe she was abducted, please provide proof of your theory.
-
Stephen - in the NSPCC's campaign to protect children, do you think they would be more worried about the fact that the McCann's left the door unlocked OR that someone entered the property without permission and removed Madeleine?
The NSPCC deals mainly in child abuse and protection of vulnerable children. Their definition of 'cruelty' and 'neglect' is not the same meaning you and most of the people pushing this neglect issue attach to it.
There is no evidence (evidence - stand up in a court of law) that Madeleine was abused. Leaving a door unlocked is not a reason for the NSPCC to prosecute parents for neglect. So why do you feel the need to keep mentioning the NSPCC guidelines as if the McCann's can be prosecuted for not taking advice? If the NSPCC thought the McCann's had abused or neglected Madeleine, dont you think they would have taken action years ago?
without someone in the apartment your whole premise falls to pieces.
-
There it is in essence.
Your get out clause for the McCann's behaviour,hindsight.
Trouble with that was it wasn't just one night,they did it several nights in a row,whilst out drinking and eating.
You are attacking me personally by referring to me as a 'spammer' and being 'vindictive'.
You aren't going to change my mind on this, and as to the NSPCC guidelines they were well entrenched and have nothing to do with the internet.
You said it yourself; NSPCC guidelines are just that, guidelines and not law.
-
If not an abduction (which I believe Scotland Yard have the evidence of) then how did she go missing Stephen?
If you don't believe she was abducted, please provide proof of your theory.
I am not the one relying solely on abduction.
Am I. >@@(*&)
-
I am not the one relying solely on abduction.
Am I. >@@(*&)
But you are the one avoiding to give a direct reply. What does my "relying soleley on abduction" theory got to do with you not replying to the question?
-
My replies in blue.
There it is in essence.
Your get out clause for the McCann's behaviour,hindsight.
It isn't a get out clause at all. Merely an explanation that such behaviour was not, as you groundlessly believe, unknown or totally lacking common sense back in 2007. The normal practice was I admit modified by the McCanns both to make it more safe by increasing frequency of checks and by entering the premises during most checks and also apparently making it less safe by leaving a door unlocked (not open by the way). Nonetheless the practice was common and accepted by holiday organisations at the time as normal.
Only with hindsight is it now seen to be abnormal.
You still seem to be unwilling to accept that you are posting with the benefit of that hindsight and such unwillingness makes it clear that you are not willing to be open minded about things. Sorry but that is the clear opinion I am forming based on the content of posts such as this by you.
Trouble with that was it wasn't just one night,they did it several nights in a row,whilst out drinking and eating.
Just as many holidaymakers at the time did the very same thing every night, using the professional visiting services which were not as frequent or accurate as the McCann system. No difference in the McCann behaviour other than that they believed their checks to be safer (wrongly we now know with hindsight).
You are attacking me personally by referring to me as a 'spammer' and being 'vindictive'.
No. I am not attacking you personally at all.
I am making the very valid point that you are in fact spamming this forum, in every thread you cannot stick to the topic at hand but insist on introducing the concept of neglect. That is not a personal attack. It is a statement of absolute fact about the posts that you are making.
As for vindictiveness. I have stated that my opinion of the content of your posts in light of the fact that they are posted with the benefit of hindsight and do not take into account many important factors related to that benefit, appears to me to be wholly vindictive. I have asked you to proffer other explanations but you have either chosen not to do so or been unable to do so. Till you offer any other explanation I believe that I am perfectly entitled to my opinion about the content of your posts, especially as I have offered evidence for my coming to those beliefs.
You aren't going to change my mind on this, and as to the NSPCC guidelines they were well entrenched and have nothing to do with the internet.
But were they well entrenched back in 2007? And if so why were holiday organisations so blatantly flouting them? And why was there no outcry in the press about such "visiting services" in holiday locations. And yes, I have done a Google search and I can find nothing? Can you offer anything to support your assertions?
-
Well let's see proof of abduction. >@@(*&)
This thread is not about abduction theories but about hindsight in posts.
Is this another attempt at distraction?
-
This thread is not about abduction theories but about hindsight in posts.
Is this another attempt at distraction?
It's not hindsight to say it was not a good idea to leave children alone with doors unlocked before, since and during 2007.
You agreed with this. So why is it hindsight?
-
gilet, not twenty minutes ago you wrote, in reply to stephen:
Just as many holidaymakers at the time did the very same thing every night, using the professional visiting services which were not as frequent or accurate as the McCann system. No difference in the McCann behaviour other than that they believed their checks to be safer (wrongly we now know with hindsight).
Two huge inaccuracies there. Yet you say you're not defending the parents? >@@(*&)
-
It's not hindsight to say it was not a good idea to leave children alone with doors unlocked before, since and during 2007.
You agreed with this. So why is it hindsight?
I am confused by the double negative in your post which makes it appear to mean the opposite of what I think you intend.
But I don't believe I have ever stated what you claim whichever one of the options is correct.
The hindsight relates to the fact that there is no allowance made for the fact that it was a normal practice prior to the disappearance of Madeleine to use visiting services in holiday destinations/resorts. There is nowhere that I can find any outcry whatsoever against the practice prior to that disappearance. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that this is now considered to be wholly unsafe.
It is, in my view, wrong for posters to suggest that what the McCanns did was against common sense, was neglect etc. when at the time they did it, it was in fact a relatively common practice. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we know that to be the case.
If you or anyone else can show me to be wrong and give links to any outrcry about such visiting services prior to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann I will read them carefully and am prepared to change my opinion.
I would also repeat here my request to Redblossom regarding the statement she made that some organisations still operate such schemes. I would like to see details of these organisations and schemes, please, because I now believe that they are unsafe and would like to write to them expressing my concern. Unfortunately, even though I indicated that this was an urgent request as we are already in the school holiday season, she has chosen to ignore me. I hope she wasn't just posting this claim for some kind of effect and that she will get back to me very soon with the names of the organisations.
-
gilet, not twenty minutes ago you wrote, in reply to stephen:
Just as many holidaymakers at the time did the very same thing every night, using the professional visiting services which were not as frequent or accurate as the McCann system. No difference in the McCann behaviour other than that they believed their checks to be safer (wrongly we now know with hindsight).
Two huge inaccuracies there. Yet you say you're not defending the parents? >@@(*&)
There are no inaccuracies at all in that post that I can see. I stand by every word in it.
It is a fact that many holidaymakers at the time believed that their use of such visiting services was perfectly OK, that they did it many nights of their holidays as well. In that sense there is no difference between what the McCanns did and what those other holidaymakers did, except as I say the McCanns actually thought their modified system was safer than the professional one. With the benefit of hindsight they know as we know that belief was in fact wrong. The fact that the belief was wrong was not known when the decision was made though. That is called hindsight.
If you could point out clearly the errors, you are claiming exist in the post, I will address them.
-
All that stout defence is meaningless if a door is left unlocked, gilet.
Unless you can demonstrate that other parents using their own 'visting service' also left doors unlocked.
-
There were plenty of columnists in 2007 writing "we've all done it", but none of them then - or since - said they'd left children alone with doors unlocked.
The unlocked door makes all your other arguments irrelevant, gilet.
-
I get the impression that those who don't support the McCann's can't understand that those who support the McCann's are able to support them without agreeing with everything they have done and said. I don't agree with everything they have done and said, but I still believe they didn't murder their daughter as is claimed by many. I support their search for their daughter or the search to find out what happened to her.
I have seen many anti McCann campaigners siding with a known registered sex offender to further their agenda against the McCann's. Do they agree with everything that person has done? I don't think so, but they support them. An example is Raymond Hewlett.
If everyone who supports the McCann's is guilty of neglect (according to the anti McCann's) then all those who stood by Hewlett are guilty of sexual abuse. All those supporting Amaral are guilty of falsifying documents. etc...
-
All that stout defence is meaningless if a door is left unlocked, gilet.
Unless you can demonstrate that other parents using their own 'visting service' also left doors unlocked.
The others locked their patio and front doors every night.
Gilet, why would I post anything just for effect? All you have to do is use google and search for baby listening services. There are hundreds of hotels in the UK who offer this for starters. You better get alot of stamps ready. And no, I did not *chose* to ignore you, you shouldnt assume I am oggling this forum 24/7.
BTW, you keep harping on about the Mccanns doing a better job than nannies who only listen for crying/any other noises. How so? Did you not hear Gerry in his documentary saying that over the whole week he never once looked inside the kids room? He only listened. Apart from that last night? Hope all that is punctuated enough English for you.
-
Mo, I think you should explain the logic of your first paragraph to gilet. I can't fault it but she or he is still attempting to defend the indefensible?
-
All that stout defence is meaningless if a door is left unlocked, gilet.
Unless you can demonstrate that other parents using their own 'visting service' also left doors unlocked.
I believe you are totally wrong.
It is only with the benefit of hindsight that the McCanns belief that their checking process was flawed is evident.
If you think they knew it was wrong prior to the disappearance you are, in my opinion, rather naive.
The fact is that visiting services were in use, that only since the disappearance of Madeleine have they been shown with hindsight to be flawed.
Anyone who can show different, please do so.
The McCanns have explained that they believed their system to be safe, that it was based on the professional systems but modified. They have also posted that they regret their decision and that in hindsight it was wrong.
The reality about many posts is that they do not accept that they are being written with the benefit of hindsight.
There is no flaw in the content or logic of the posts I have made whatsoever.
For posters not to acknowledge the reality of hindsight being a factor in the posts they make is the flaw.
-
There were plenty of columnists in 2007 writing "we've all done it", but none of them then - or since - said they'd left children alone with doors unlocked.
The unlocked door makes all your other arguments irrelevant, gilet.
I have never claimed that any said they left doors unlocked. That was a modification to the procedure and I have stated that I believe that was a step too far. The McCanns have also with the benefit of hindsight stated that their checking procedure was unsafe.
But your post has demonstrated that my OP was absolutely accurate. The general visiting practice was in fact seen as acceptable in 2007 and those who refuse to acknowledge that are being rather obtuse.
And none of your post addresses the point I was making that to continually spam the forum with accusations of neglect when the AG of Portugal specifically cleared the McCanns of that charge and when they were using a modified version of a generally accepted (at the time) practice is simply vindictive.
Nor have you indicated yet whether any of the others left doors open. I thought as you had shown interest in that you might have looked it up by now.
-
I believe you are totally wrong.
It is only with the benefit of hindsight that the McCanns belief that their checking process was flawed is evident.
If you think they knew it was wrong prior to the disappearance you are, in my opinion, rather naive.
The fact is that visiting services were in use, that only since the disappearance of Madeleine have they been shown with hindsight to be flawed.
Anyone who can show different, please do so.
The McCanns have explained that they believed their system to be safe, that it was based on the professional systems but modified. They have also posted that they regret their decision and that in hindsight it was wrong.
The reality about many posts is that they do not accept that they are being written with the benefit of hindsight.
There is no flaw in the content or logic of the posts I have made whatsoever.
For posters not to acknowledge the reality of hindsight being a factor in the posts they make is the flaw.
'The McCanns have explained that they believed their system to be safe, that it was based on the professional systems but modified'.
What professional systems ?
Anyone in hindsight can say they did wrong, but that does not excuse behaviour.
How is it 'professional' to leave children in an unlocked apartment and be safe ?
They are mutually exclusive events.
-
'The general visiting practice was in fact seen as acceptable in 2007'
Since when has the NSPCC or the government said this was acceptable practice ?
When you only have the parents and associates say so , that the visits were frequent ?
-
So you think other holidaymakers in PdL and other resorts also left doors unlocked at night prior to 2007 then, gilet?
The McCanns own friends say they didn't.
-
The others locked their patio and front doors every night.
Gilet, why would I post anything just for effect? All you have to do is use google and search for baby listening services. There are hundreds of hotels in the UK who offer this for starters. You better get alot of stamps ready. And no, I did not *chose* to ignore you, you shouldnt assume I am oggling this forum 24/7.
BTW, you keep harping on about the Mccanns doing a better job than nannies who only listen for crying/any other noises. How so? Did you not hear Gerry in his documentary saying that over the whole week he never once looked inside the kids room? He only listened. Apart from that last night? Hope all that is punctuated enough English for you.
So you cannot or are being deliberately obtuse and refusing to post details of all these hundreds of places that currently offer listening services. I understand.
Having already Googled the subject, I fear you are confusing a number of things. Some places offer baby listening services via an intercom system, but all I can find are within individual buildings, not resorts.
I assumed nothing about your activities but did note that you had posted on this forum after I asked the question, which suggested that at the time you were ignoring it.
Yes, I heard that and listening at internal doors is better than listening at external doors. Most people can understand simple facts like that.
-
'The McCanns have explained that they believed their system to be safe, that it was based on the professional systems but modified'.
What professional systems ?
Anyone in hindsight can say they did wrong, but that does not excuse behaviour.
How is it 'professional' to leave children in an unlocked apartment and be safe ?
They are mutually exclusive events.
You are clearly picking and choosing what posts to read as I have already replied to you.
I was referring to the professional holiday company systems.
The McCanns in their explanation stated that they believed that the system was safe because it was based on those company practices.
I have never excused the leaving of the patio doors open but I have been very clear that simply doing that is not proof that (as you claimed in another thread) the McCanns are wholly responsible for what happened. That is simply untrue.
The reality is that if an abduction took place the abductor bears responsibility too.
And you are deliberately ignoring the fact that the AG has cleared the McCanns of this neglect/abandonment which you continually ascribe to them.
Your posts take no account of the practices current at the time, nor of the fact that the McCanns have been cleared by the Portuguese authorities of what you claim, nor of the fact that they have admitted that with hindsight they were wrong to do what they did.
I am not as you attempt to claim, making excuses. I am simply explaining the fact that it is only in hindsight that the practice can be seen to be wrong and even then did not equate to neglect.
-
So you think other holidaymakers in PdL and other resorts also left doors unlocked at night prior to 2007 then, gilet?
The McCanns own friends say they didn't.
Not at all. No mention of other holidaymakers (beyond the Tapas group) has been made by me. I was replying to your earlier question which asked whether those individuals also left their door open.
I see that you now know the answer, though its not clear if you have done some research since asking about the issue earlier or were playing some kind of game by asking the question.
Whichever, could you give links to the statements which prove that they didn't leave the doors open for the benefit of other readers, please, as a bare statement of the fact is hardly in line with the forum rule to give sources for such claims?
-
From elsewhere but worth a read..............................
'I think the individual posting absolute cobb### about 'Hindsight' on the Justice forum needs to remember these words :
"A parent needs to ensure that children are safe if they are left alone. Leaving them for a short while, asleep, in a locked room with regular checks is acceptable. Leaving them for two hours, or with unlocked doors, is not."
A "forker", perhaps?
Hardly.
Anyone remember John Humphries interviewing a particularly learned and eminent professor and child care expert a few days after Madeleine disappeared?
If you have forgotten, then do go to the McCannfiles and read the transcript and the various scenarios.
Then try and claim that what the McCanns did was only wrong " in hindsight"
While you are at it, do notice that at the time the interview took place the media and the public were unaware that the flat had been unlocked......
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id52.html '
-
So you cannot or are being deliberately obtuse and refusing to post details of all these hundreds of places that currently offer listening services. I understand.
Having already Googled the subject, I fear you are confusing a number of things. Some places offer baby listening services via an intercom system, but all I can find are within individual buildings, not resorts.
I assumed nothing about your activities but did note that you had posted on this forum after I asked the question, which suggested that at the time you were ignoring it.
Yes, I heard that and listening at internal doors is better than listening at external doors. Most people can understand simple facts like that.
Obtuse? Refusing? Why should I do your donkey work for you? And did I say people use listening services in Mediterranean resorts in self catering apartments? No, I didnt. Do you know that none exist? You do make mountains out of molehills. All this, from a simple comment I made that people do use baby listening services today, whatever form it takes.
Oh, and you may have a point that listening outside a flat is not the same as listening inside it, but do you really? If there are no visual checks, one has no idea if the kids are OK.
-
'The general visiting practice was in fact seen as acceptable in 2007'
Since when has the NSPCC or the government said this was acceptable practice ?
When you only have the parents and associates say so , that the visits were frequent ?
No-one has said the NSPCC said this was acceptable practice. I doubt that they ever did.
Though both you and I know it was acceptable practice in very many resorts at the time. Lyall has even posted her recollection of people indicating that at the time.
It was in fact you who introduced the NSPCC into the issue earlier by claiming that their current position is very much against such practices.
I made the point that that post has been made since 2007 and asked whether anything existed prior to that date. Do remember this thread is about the benefit of hindsight.
So far nobody has shown anything which would indicate any outcry or attempt to prevent such practices prior to 2007. That is the key point relating to hindsight.
-
Not at all. No mention of other holidaymakers (beyond the Tapas group) has been made by me. I was replying to your earlier question which asked whether those individuals also left their door open.
I see that you now know the answer, though its not clear if you have done some research since asking about the issue earlier or were playing some kind of game by asking the question.
Whichever, could you give links to the statements which prove that they didn't leave the doors open for the benefit of other readers, please, as a bare statement of the fact is hardly in line with the forum rule to give sources for such claims?
Yes, I could 8)-)))
-
So far nobody has shown anything which would indicate any outcry or attempt to prevent such practices prior to 2007. That is the key point relating to hindsight.
No the key point is they didn't in fact use a practice other parents replicating a listening service might well have used - they left their door unlocked, unlike those other parents.
There's no hindsight in saying that wasn't a good idea prior to 2007, during it, or since.
-
Yet again you are posting with the benefit of hindsight and are totally unwilling or unfortunately unable to understand the reality of the situation.
I wholly disagree with you and I am sure others do as well. There was every reason for them to have searched once again. Panic, lack of willingness to believe such a terrible thing could have happened. The need to comfort Kate. The fact that the twins were still there. The fact that anyone with any real understanding of such situations knows that even the police demand someone stays there in case the child returns all mean that the presence in the apartment of some or all of those people at some stage in the early moments after the disappearance was both normal and, in fact, essential.
Your unwillingness to countenance any of those issues seems to indicate a very narrow-minded approach to the case.
As for neglect I will reply about this when replying to the later repetitive post you have made.
Taking into consideration all of the above you must also concede that the searching, understandable as it may have been, seriously comprimised the crime scene, making the time the apartment was sealed off almost irrelevant, as much, if not most of the retrievable evidence would have been destroyed even before he GNR arrived.
-
From elsewhere but worth a read..............................
'I think the individual posting absolute cobb### about 'Hindsight' on the Justice forum needs to remember these words :
"A parent needs to ensure that children are safe if they are left alone. Leaving them for a short while, asleep, in a locked room with regular checks is acceptable. Leaving them for two hours, or with unlocked doors, is not."
A "forker", perhaps?
Hardly.
Anyone remember John Humphries interviewing a particularly learned and eminent professor and child care expert a few days after Madeleine disappeared?
If you have forgotten, then do go to the McCannfiles and read the transcript and the various scenarios.
Then try and claim that what the McCanns did was only wrong " in hindsight"
While you are at it, do notice that at the time the interview took place the media and the public were unaware that the flat had been unlocked......
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id52.html '
I thought there was a forum rule about bringing posts from elsewhere.
But as you have kindly presented the words of Carolyn Hamilton then I am prepared to post them here for you as they support my argument rather than yours. Very odd you should link to them in those circumstances and very odd that your Amazon friend (I presume) should offer them as a sign that I am incorrect when they show nothing of the kind.
John Humphrys: I suppose all parents have three reactions to what has happened in the Algarve. The first obviously is to pray that the little girl will be returned safe and well to her parents. The second is deep sympathy for the parents of little Madeleine McCann, 4 days after she disappeared. The third is to ask would we have left a child in the same circumstances. Professor Carolyn Hamilton is the Head of the Children's Legal Centre a charity concerned with law and policy in this area. Professor Hamilton, what does the law say, is there a legal minimum age at which we can leave children?
Carolyn Hamilton: There isn't any minimum age in law. It's very much based on outcomes. It's based on 'are you placing a child at risk if you leave the child alone'. So parents have to weigh up all the factors and decide, is it safe to leave my child alone for a period of time. So for instance if you left a child alone for four hours, a small child, probably we would say 'no that's not'. But in the case of these parents, the children were asleep. We presume perhaps they were good sleepers they popped back every half an hour. The door was locked. The shutters were down on the windows.
JH: They weren't very far away.
CH: They weren't very far away, at all. One would probably say that's a reasonable choice to take, that's a reasonable risk. There are those who say you should never leave your child alone for a minute, but perhaps that's not truly practical for any of us. And I think it also has to be remembered that sometimes children are abducted when the parents are in the house. That you can't sit in the room with the child all day and all night. But that's a very difficult decision to take, whether to leave a child alone or not.
JH: Well probably particularly on holiday I suppose in a way because you're in a hotel you think, you know, can we leave them in the room while we nip down to the restaurant for a couple of hours and I suppose most people would say that they would do that, depending obviously on the age of the child and whether they are good sleepers and all that. But it is an incredibly difficult decision to take all the time isn't it.
CH: It is a difficult decision to take but even babysitting services aren't really in the room with the child. It is difficult and I think it's fair to say that most people would leave their children alone for very short periods of time in those circumstances. It's not an unreasonable decision to take. It's just terribly unfortunate.
JH: But the problem is I suppose that in the end if you do it and something goes wrong then action can be taken against you.
CH: Yes, if you could be shown to have neglected the child or abandoned the child, yes, you could be committing a criminal offence and what the court would look at is all the factors. What did you do to make sure that child was safe, because that's what they really looking at. Was the child safe when you went out for a few minutes?
JH: Did you do all the reasonable things?
CH: Did you take every precaution that was reasonable? It's interesting that we have a website and 'Home Alone: Leaving Children On Their Own' is our most downloaded piece of information. It's what people want to know all the time. And it is a very unclear situation.
JH: Well, I've no doubt we'll get lots of emails about that and again if people want to join in the conversation on that on the message board that's available at 9 o'clock. Professor Hamilton. Thank you very much.
And we know that the Attorney General has demonstrated that they were not committing any offence of neglect, that their actions were reasonable and not illegal at all.
-
Taking into consideration all of the above you must also concede that the searching, understandable as it may have been, seriously comprimised the crime scene, making the time the apartment was sealed off almost irrelevant, as much, if not most of the retrievable evidence would have been destroyed even before he GNR arrived.
I do not concede that at all. It was the normal practice of people who confront the situation of a missing child.
It was totally unreasonable and wrong, in my opinon, though for the police officers and dog handlers to pollute the crime scene. They were detached individuals who should have known better and it is a fact that the most serious compromises to the crime scene were done by them as recorded in the files.
-
Yes, I could 8)-)))
More silly smileys rather than information for readers.
Are you refusing to do so?
Or are you just playing a childish game?
-
No the key point is they didn't in fact use a practice other parents replicating a listening service might well have used - they left their door unlocked, unlike those other parents.
There's no hindsight in saying that wasn't a good idea prior to 2007, during it, or since.
I disagree. I think it is absolutely valid to identify the different mindsets regarding these issues in 2007 and 2013 and to point out that posting without recognition that you are doing so with the benefit of hindsight is self-defeating.
-
More silly smileys rather than information for readers.
Are you refusing to do so?
Or are you just playing a childish game?
No, I'm discussing with you, not providing information for "readers".
-
I disagree. I think it is absolutely valid to identify the different mindsets regarding these issues in 2007 and 2013 and to point out that posting without recognition that you are doing so with the benefit of hindsight is self-defeating.
So you do think other parents left doors unlocked at night prior to 2007?
You appeared to deny it before.
-
I do not concede that at all. It was the normal practice of people who confront the situation of a missing child.
It was totally unreasonable and wrong, in my opinon, though for the police officers and dog handlers to pollute the crime scene. They were detached individuals who should have known better and it is a fact that the most serious compromises to the crime scene were done by them as recorded in the files.
From the PJ's final report :
'It should be emphasized that the entire apartment had been searched and rummaged by an undetermined number of people, with the contamination that it brings and the difficulty that it raises for the collection of residues.'
-
So you do think other parents left doors unlocked at night prior to 2007?
You appeared to deny it before.
I have no idea. I have never stated that they did.
Your question is simply a repeat of the question you posted previously which I have already replied to.
Your silly repetition, use of smileys, refusal to give information to readers etc. is very much not in the interest of genuine debate.
I wonder what your actual motive for making such repeat posts, posting smileys instead of information for me or readers etc. might actually be?
-
My own belief is that they were lured into a false sense of security at the resort, the blame for which I place firmly at the feet of Mark Warner and Ocean Club.
There was a history of intruders and break-ins at Ocean Club Garden prior to the tapas 9 arrival and I believe that MW failed to warn their clients to be extra vigilant in the circumstances.
Given the frequency of the incidents extra security should have been put in place especially after dark.
-
From the PJ's final report :
'It should be emphasized that the entire apartment had been searched and rummaged by an undetermined number of people, with the contamination that it brings and the difficulty that it raises for the collection of residues.'
Quite. No specific mention of the McCanns or their friends.
A general comment which includes contamination from all who were in that apartment before the crime scene investigators arrived.
Don't you recall the specific problem of police dog hair contamination of the scene?
Trying to lay the entire blame at hands/feet of the McCanns and their friends when the report doesn't actually do that is tantamount to interfering with the evidence in my view.
-
Quite. No specific mention of the McCanns or their friends.
A general comment which includes contamination from all who were in that apartment before the crime scene investigators arrived.
Don't you recall the specific problem of police dog hair contamination of the scene?
Trying to lay the entire blame at hands/feet of the McCanns and their friends when the report doesn't actually do that is tantamount to interfering with the evidence in my view.
From the AG's archiving report :
'In the drama of the moment, nobody – parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel – was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes – apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code – thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.'
-
My own belief is that they were lured into a false sense of security at the resort, the blame for which I place firmly at the feet of Mark Warner and Ocean Club.
There was a history of intruders and break-ins at Ocean Club Garden prior to the tapas 9 arrival and I believe that MW failed to warn their clients to be extra vigilant in the circumstances.
I very much agree with that comment. But I would add that the fact that back in 2007 the practice of visiting services was generally not uncommon in holiday resorts of all standards was also a factor in the decisions made.
It is wholly wrong in my view to neglect the importance of the benefit of hindsight when posting as we have a very different view now than was prevalent even just six years ago about these matters.
Knowing about those intruders now, knowing about the actual disappearance of Madeleine as we do now our opinions are very different to those of the people who turned up in what they perceived as the sleepy village of PDL back in 2007.
I am reminded of an occasion when I also visited such a village only in the late 1990's in Greece. I was shocked to find that doors were not locked or even closed most of the day in most of the houses while owners were out in the gardens or in the fields often some distance away. How much it felt like my childhood were in my town nobody closed doors. In fact we had a special curtain of coloured plastic strips for the front doorway in summer which hung in the open doorframe all day to allow in fresh air while keeping out at least some of the insects. When the McCanns visited PDL in this out of season period, perhaps they got a similar impression.
Without thought being given to such strong impressions, to such failures on the part of Mark Warner and the OC, to the prevailing climate of opinion, and most especially the fact that we all know better now due to hindsight etc. posts which glibly imply neglect and vindictively, in my opinion, try to hammer that idea home about the McCanns
being neglectful parents even after they have admitted their errors of judgement are at best very sad and at worst very nasty.
-
I have no idea. I have never stated that they did.
Your question is simply a repeat of the question you posted previously which I have already replied to.
Your silly repetition, use of smileys, refusal to give information to readers etc. is very much not in the interest of genuine debate.
I wonder what your actual motive for making such repeat posts, posting smileys instead of information for me or readers etc. might actually be?
Motive is discussion. What else?
So if you're not sure if other parents may or may not have left doors unlocked prior to 2007 how can you assert those who say it was always wrong are using hindsight?
You need evidence that suggests prior to 2007 other parents also did it to be able to make that assertion.
-
From the AG's archiving report :
'In the drama of the moment, nobody – parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel – was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes – apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code – thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.'
And now for fairness and completeness, the report about the contamination by the dog handlers? Or would that not suit your purpose?
-
The others locked their patio and front doors every night.
It is common sense to secure a place when kids are left alone. They were supposed to sleep but had one woken up and started to cry, all three would have realized they were alone.
Had the planet known doctors' kids were left alone in an open flat, out of ear and eye shot, the blame would have fallen on the McCanns instead of money in the Fund.
They saved themselves from shame thanks to the broken shutters and walking predator fairy tale. Then Eddie arrived..
-
My own belief is that they were lured into a false sense of security at the resort, the blame for which I place firmly at the feet of Mark Warner and Ocean Club.
There was a history of intruders and break-ins at Ocean Club Garden prior to the tapas 9 arrival and I believe that MW failed to warn their clients to be extra vigilant in the circumstances.
Given the frequency of the incidents extra security should have been put in place especially after dark.
Such as? It wasnt a hotel or walled complex.
-
It is common sense to secure a place when kids are left alone. They were supposed to sleep but had one woken up and started to cry, all three would have realized they were alone.
Had the planet known doctors' kids were left alone in an open flat, out of ear and eye shot, the blame would have fallen on the McCanns instead of money in the Fund.
They saved themselves from shame thanks to the broken shutters and walking predator fairy tale. Then Eddie arrived..
Thats about right. Though I dont think any fund was in their mind when they spread the broken shutters story.
-
It is common sense to secure a place when kids are left alone. They were supposed to sleep but had one woken up and started to cry, all three would have realized they were alone.
Had the planet known doctors' kids were left alone in an open flat, out of ear and eye shot, the blame would have fallen on the McCanns instead of money in the Fund.
They saved themselves from shame thanks to the broken shutters and walking predator fairy tale. Then Eddie arrived..
As I have pointed out it may now be common sense in cities, it may now be common sense in towns. It wasn't always thus. Mindsets about such matters do change.
And it wasn't even common sense in small quiet villages back in the late 90s and possibly even today isn't common sense in some places.
It is only with hindsight that we know it was such a bad decision in out-of-season May time PDL in 2007. It is only now that people are aware of the level of crime in that village and area. Those things were concealed from visitors at the time presumably to make the place look more attractive. I even remember a famous Portuguese poster on a McCann forum declaring that there was no crime against children in Portugal. Such mindsets were common even in 2008 never mind 2007 prior to the disappearance of Madeleine.
As for your speculation in the final paragraph of your post, that is all it is, your speculation and I don't agree with it. If the lack of forewarning of visitors had been explained, if distances had been accurately reported (even now I see elsewhere Luz is pretending the distances are far, far greater than they really are), if the quietness of the out-of-season resort had been described properly, if the regularity of the checking had been described etc. then I don't think what you are saying would have come to pass at all.
-
And now for fairness and completeness, the report about the contamination by the dog handlers? Or would that not suit your purpose?
The scene was already contaminated by the time the dog handlers arrived.
So your thoughts on the AG citing the McCanns and their friends as a contributory factor in the contamination of the apartment long before the GNR arrived ?
-
The scene was already contaminated by the time the dog handlers arrived.
So your thoughts on the AG citing the McCanns and their friends as a contributory factor is the contamination of the apartment long before the GNR arrived ?
Sorry the important point is all the contamination which occurred prior to the arrival of the scenes of crime investigators. Your reluctance to lay any blame at all when you, like I know it was also due to incompetence on the part of the GNR and dog handlers suggests a very strong bias against the McCanns.
I have already twice now given my thoughts on the actions of the McCanns and their friends. It would have been completely crackers of them to have not searched the apartment thoroughly before calling the police. It would be the totally natural reaction of the parents to be in an increasing state of blind panic as the search of the apartment continued and the child was not found. It would have been weird in the extreme if at least some of the friends had not also offered to search in case something had been missed. Clearly you have either not bothered to read the OP of this thread where I outlined in much greater detail my thoughts on the McCanns actions and why they would have done as they did or have not realised that it is a full answer to your question.
As for the AG mentioning it, why should he not do so? Just as the dog contamination is also referred to in the files but for some reason you are reluctant to admit that or to present that detail as part of your presentation of evidence about contamination. One has to wonder why that is the case.
To bring the thread back on topic. How often do we see these attempts to detract from the actual topic?
It is only hindsight that allows careful reflection on the parent's behaviour.
At the time, in the panic of your child, your friend's child being missing, no matter that you have had a few lectures on the correct practices in a potential crime scene, the fact is that initially it is not a crime scene. It is simply your apartment or your friends' apartment and you believe the child will be somewhere within it. You think they may be playing a game or be frightened and hiding. You search every possible location and then even try the impossible ones. Only then do you start to think the worst. Only then do you even consider it might be a crime. But that brings even greater panic and more determination in you that it cannot be true. Till the inevitable, and you realise there are no other possible or even impossible places to search.
I am saddened but not entirely surprised that your focus on the contamination of the crime scene by the parents is being done in hindsight but without empathy or acceptance of that hindsight.
I am saddened that your posts completely ignore the realities of what actually happens when parents realise a child is missing.
I am saddened that you (and indeed the AG) are trying to lay blame on parents and friends who in the heat of that moment simply did what normal parents and friends could be expected to do.
I am saddened that in a discussion on hindsight itself your posts show now understanding that you are posting with its benefit.
And I wonder why.
-
Sorry the important point is all the contamination which occurred prior to the arrival of the scenes of crime investigators. Your reluctance to lay any blame at all when you, like I know it was also due to incompetence on the part of the GNR and dog handlers suggests a very strong bias against the McCanns.
I have already twice now given my thoughts on the actions of the McCanns and their friends. It would have been completely crackers of them to have not searched the apartment thoroughly before calling the police. It would be the totally natural reaction of the parents to be in an increasing state of blind panic as the search of the apartment continued and the child was not found. It would have been weird in the extreme if at least some of the friends had not also offered to search in case something had been missed. Clearly you have either not bothered to read the OP of this thread where I outlined in much greater detail my thoughts on the McCanns actions and why they would have done as they did or have not realised that it is a full answer to your question.
As for the AG mentioning it, why should he not do so? Just as the dog contamination is also referred to in the files but for some reason you are reluctant to admit that or to present that detail as part of your presentation of evidence about contamination. One has to wonder why that is the case.
Firstly I said the NcCanns and their friends action were understandable, that however does not less their part in the contamination of the apartment. Even you must admit that.
Secondly the apartment was irretrievably contaminated before the GNR ever arrived therefore the damage had already been done to the integrity of the crime scene before the dogs were brought in. If you feel the AG thought differently do please post his comments and we can discuss them.
-
Firstly I said the NcCanns and their friends action were understandable, that however does not less their part in the contamination of the apartment. Even you must admit that.
Secondly the apartment was irretrievably contaminated before the GNR ever arrived therefore the damage had already been done to the integrity of the crime scene before the dogs were brought in. If you feel the AG thought differently do please post his comments and we can discuss them.
No I do not admit that at all.
Are you seriously trying to excuse the compounding of damage done to the crime scene by the dog handlers and the other GNR? Surely the damage they did to the scene is even more serious in that they were not emotionally involved and it was their job to secure crime scenes and to prevent contamination. Your ignorance of this and determination to focus all the blame on the McCanns is quite blatant. Very biased in my view. I wonder why?
And I would honestly have thought you would have seen fit to be balanced and fair in your presentation of evidence about contamination. Clearly not.
It seems, since you are clearly unfair in your presentation of such evidence I will have to provide that balance. But I shall do so in the appropriate thread and after I have had my dinner.
This thread is not about dogs or contamination but about the benefit of hindsight and I am saddened that you are unable to refrain from these attempts to detract from that.
-
From a former social worker to add to what I posted earlier and from another source......................
'A number of points on "hindsight" and unlocked doors
1) There are danger in both locked and unlocked doors, which is why young children should not be out of sight and hearing. Locked: the children cannot get out if necessary - fire, accidents, falls (especially dangerous on stone floors), to find mum and dad if upset etc. Unlocked - the children can get out to wander and / or others can get in
2) Yes, children were removed for being left alone long before 2007. I had children in my care in the 1960s who had been left alone at night
3)What others may or may not have done is irrelevant on holiday - we are all responsible for the care of our own children and the decisions we take regarding this
4) Knowing the dangers for children left alone is not a matter of hindsight; it is a matter of common sense and foresight - which is needed by parents
5) I would expect doctors to be more aware of the dangers for young children simply from their training and experience, especially a GP. The chances are that a GP will have had a child registered with them who has landed up in hospital because of accidents in the home - "Every year, 1 million children under the age of 15 are taken to accident and emergency (A&E) units after injuries occur in the home. Many more are treated at home or by their GP." - http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/accidents-to-children-in-the-home/pages/introduction.aspx In addition, a GP would be expected to report to the authorities any child they knew of who was being left alone in this manner and to attend subsequent case conferences.
6) I believe it was a lawyer who said what had been done was within the realms of responsible parenting. Lawyers are there to represent their clients - in this case, the McCanns. Social workers are there to represent the welfare of the child
So the McCanns could not have been unaware of the dangers, all the possible dangers, and to choose to leave the children as they did .... '
Excellently put. For the Mccanns not to have been aware of the very obvious dangers, they would have their heads stuck in the sand or be incredibly stupid.
Tough choice.
-
My own belief is that they were lured into a false sense of security at the resort, the blame for which I place firmly at the feet of Mark Warner and Ocean Club.
There was a history of intruders and break-ins at Ocean Club Garden prior to the tapas 9 arrival and I believe that MW failed to warn their clients to be extra vigilant in the circumstances.
Given the frequency of the incidents extra security should have been put in place especially after dark.
The Paynes, the O'Briens and the Oldfields weren't warned but did lock their doors. Spontaneously.
-
As I have pointed out it may now be common sense in cities, it may now be common sense in towns. It wasn't always thus. Mindsets about such matters do change.
And it wasn't even common sense in small quiet villages back in the late 90s and possibly even today isn't common sense in some places.
It is only with hindsight that we know it was such a bad decision in out-of-season May time PDL in 2007. It is only now that people are aware of the level of crime in that village and area. Those things were concealed from visitors at the time presumably to make the place look more attractive. I even remember a famous Portuguese poster on a McCann forum declaring that there was no crime against children in Portugal. Such mindsets were common even in 2008 never mind 2007 prior to the disappearance of Madeleine.
As for your speculation in the final paragraph of your post, that is all it is, your speculation and I don't agree with it. If the lack of forewarning of visitors had been explained, if distances had been accurately reported (even now I see elsewhere Luz is pretending the distances are far, far greater than they really are), if the quietness of the out-of-season resort had been described properly, if the regularity of the checking had been described etc. then I don't think what you are saying would have come to pass at all.
Can't you understand that they were right to feel secure against any danger coming from the outside ? The danger was inside and though their daughter told them she knew she was left alone, they didn't listen to her nor change their plans nor tried to imagine what a left alone little girl would do if by chance she woke up.
This is the rub !
-
As a brief reminder if one was needed, parental guidelines have been around for a long time and so normally is common sense.
However, it never seemed in the Mccanns vocabulary, even though some of their associates did manage to lock their doors.
However, some plonkers will always condone this utter stupidity of what the Mccanns did.
-
I get the impression that those who don't support the McCann's can't understand that those who support the McCann's are able to support them without agreeing with everything they have done and said. I don't agree with everything they have done and said, but I still believe they didn't murder their daughter as is claimed by many. I support their search for their daughter or the search to find out what happened to her.
I have seen many anti McCann campaigners siding with a known registered sex offender to further their agenda against the McCann's. Do they agree with everything that person has done? I don't think so, but they support them. An example is Raymond Hewlett.
If everyone who supports the McCann's is guilty of neglect (according to the anti McCann's) then all those who stood by Hewlett are guilty of sexual abuse. All those supporting Amaral are guilty of falsifying documents. etc...
What a stupid post, you were doing ok in the first para, then you lost the plot
-
What a stupid post, you were doing ok in the first para, then you lost the plot
It was predictably stupid Redblossom, but par for the course for the seasoned mccann supporter.
-
My own belief is that they were lured into a false sense of security at the resort, the blame for which I place firmly at the feet of Mark Warner and Ocean Club.
There was a history of intruders and break-ins at Ocean Club Garden prior to the tapas 9 arrival and I believe that MW failed to warn their clients to be extra vigilant in the circumstances.
Given the frequency of the incidents extra security should have been put in place especially after dark.
That's my take on it too John. Whereas I can understand MW not wanting to be saying anything negative about the Ocean Club, they could at least at the Welcome meeting said something like ''Oh btw - do make sure you lock your doors when you go out as we did have an attempted burglary a couple of months ago''. Or words to that effect. Not enough to scare anyone away, but just enough to prevent them being lulled into a false sense of security - which IMO is easily done on holiday, where everyone is relaxed and in the holiday mood.
I also agree that having made the decision to keep quiet about intruders and break-ins they should have definitely have taken measures to improve security. But I suppose profits came first.
-
Can't you understand that they were right to feel secure against any danger coming from the outside ? The danger was inside and though their daughter told them she knew she was left alone, they didn't listen to her nor change their plans nor tried to imagine what a left alone little girl would do if by chance she woke up.
This is the rub !
I've never read anywhere that the McCanns told Madeleine they were going out after she and the twins went to sleep. Apols if I'm wrong, but if they didn't tell her then she wouldn't know she was left alone. This is why I think it is possible that she woke up in the night, but may have fallen asleep again before her parents heard her or Sean crying. IMO 'Why didn't you come when Sean and me cried last night ' doesn't sound like the question she would have asked if she had realised her parents were not in the apartment. Surely she would have been more interested in where they had gone to.
-
That's my take on it too John. Whereas I can understand MW not wanting to be saying anything negative about the Ocean Club, they could at least at the Welcome meeting said something like ''Oh btw - do make sure you lock your doors when you go out as we did have an attempted burglary a couple of months ago''. Or words to that effect. Not enough to scare anyone away, but just enough to prevent them being lulled into a false sense of security - which IMO is easily done on holiday, where everyone is relaxed and in the holiday mood.
I also agree that having made the decision to keep quiet about intruders and break-ins they should have definitely have taken measures to improve security. But I suppose profits came first.
Scapegoating.. What for ? Victimize the McCanns a bit more ?
-
The evidence from several sources amounted to a situation whereby the resort was fast becoming a burglars paradise prior to Madeleines abduction with little or no effort being made by the owners to improve security. Undoubtedly what started off as small time pilfering escalated to child abduction as those involved realised they could get away with just about anything.
-
My own belief is that they were lured into a false sense of security at the resort, the blame for which I place firmly at the feet of Mark Warner and Ocean Club.
There was a history of intruders and break-ins at Ocean Club Garden prior to the tapas 9 arrival and I believe that MW failed to warn their clients to be extra vigilant in the circumstances.
Given the frequency of the incidents extra security should have been put in place especially after dark.
As a brief reminder.............................
'They were TOLD by Warner's that the layout did not lend itself to a listening service. They were TOLD there was a free evening creche, manned by trained workers. They were TOLD there was a babysitting service, if they required it. They were TOLD they could not book ahead for the Tapas'
So who is to blame ?
Yes you've guessed it, the MCCANNS.
-
As a brief reminder.............................
'They were TOLD by Warner's that the layout did not lend itself to a listening service. They were TOLD there was a free evening creche, manned by trained workers. They were TOLD there was a babysitting service, if they required it. They were TOLD they could not book ahead for the Tapas'
So who is to blame ?
Yes you've guessed it, the MCCANNS.
Can you guarantee 100% that if the McCann's had opted for a sitter or the creche she wouldn't have been abducted/gone missing?
Or do you think it is quite possible that if someone had ordered her abduction, that they would have 'obtained' her whatever the measures taken?
It would have made the task difficult but not impossible.
-
As a brief reminder.............................
'They were TOLD by Warner's that the layout did not lend itself to a listening service. They were TOLD there was a free evening creche, manned by trained workers. They were TOLD there was a babysitting service, if they required it. They were TOLD they could not book ahead for the Tapas'
So who is to blame ?
Yes you've guessed it, the MCCANNS.
Oh Stephen you would blame The Mccanns if The houses of Parliament blew up. Guess you cant help it. You are quite a lot like Tony Bennett in some ways, with your mind totally one track and in a deep groove. Don't thinkm he can help it either.
.... but he does show his considerable intellect and you dont usually. I feel sure you have some hidden away?
There has been some improvement with the needle in the groove recently tho. Well done
-
Oh Stephen you would blame The Mccanns if The houses of Parliament blew up. Guess you cant help it. You are quite a lot like Tony Bennett in some ways, with your mind totally one track and in a deep groove. Don't thinkm he can help it either.
.... but he does show his considerable intellect and you dont usually. I feel sure you have some hidden away?
There has been some improvement with the needle in the groove recently tho. Well done
Pot, kettle and black sadie @)(++(*
-
Oh Stephen you would blame The Mccanns if The houses of Parliament blew up. Guess you cant help it. You are quite a lot like Tony Bennett in some ways, with your mind totally one track and in a deep groove. Don't thinkm he can help it either.
.... but he does show his considerable intellect and you dont usually. I feel sure you have some hidden away?
There has been some improvement with the needle in the groove recently tho. Well done
You can't answer those points, merely reply with rhetoric.
Hardly a distinguishing mark of intelligence.
So first try answering the points raised.
-
You can't answer those points, merely reply with rhetoric.
Hardly a distinguishing mark of intelligence.
So first try answering the points raised.
You demand the points raised be answered yet you elect not to answer those I direct at you?
-
Can you guarantee 100% that if the McCann's had opted for a sitter or the creche she wouldn't have been abducted/gone missing?
Or do you think it is quite possible that if someone had ordered her abduction, that they would have 'obtained' her whatever the measures taken?
It would have made the task difficult but not impossible.
Answer my points first, then I'll answer yours.
-
Pot, kettle and black sadie @)(++(*
The difference between me and either Tony Bennett or Stephen iis
1) I am not constantly running down, trying to find fault with, or destroying the Mccanns and the evidence surrounding the case ... nor twisting peoples words and facts. I make mistakes but unlike you, I admit them if I find them to be incorrect. I also have the ability to apologise when I am wrong
2) that I am thinking constantly and trying new thoughts out, in order to try and find out what happened. And I truly want to hear your views, your theories. There might be something useful there >@@(*&) ... maybe?
If you provide any genuine facts, I will look at them and see if they are feasible and how they slot in. If they do. Nothing has been presented by you [ censored word] yet ... and we have been going several months. I live in hope.
-
The difference between me and either Tony Bennett or Stephen iis
1) I am not constantly running down, trying to find fault with, or destroying the Mccanns and the evidence surrounding the case ... nor twisting peoples words and facts. I make mistakes but unlike you, I admit them if I find them to be incorrect. I also have the ability to apologise when I am wrong
2) that I am thinking constantly and trying new thoughts out, in order to try and find out what happened. And I truly want to hear your views, your theories. There might be something useful there >@@(*&) ... maybe?
If you provide any genuine facts, I will look at them and see if they are feasible and how they slot in. If they do. Nothing has been presented by you [ censored word] yet ... and we have been going 6 months. I live in hope.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
As a brief reminder.............................
'They were TOLD by Warner's that the layout did not lend itself to a listening service. They were TOLD there was a free evening creche, manned by trained workers. They were TOLD there was a babysitting service, if they required it. They were TOLD they could not book ahead for the Tapas'
So who is to blame ?
Yes you've guessed it, the MCCANNS.
Well I would not leave my childrenn with someone I didn't know after dark in a foreign country. Much greater chance of interference with the child in those circumstances. What the Mccanns did should have been ok. It was far better than what was standard practice all over the world. A stranger coming round approx every half hour and listening at the window.
-
Well I would not leave my childrenn with someone I didn't know after dark in a foreign country. Much greater chance of interference with the child in those circumstances. What the Mccanns did should have been ok. It was far better than what was standard practice all over the world. A stranger coming round approx every half hour and listening at the window.
Rubbish.
-
Well I would not leave my childrenn with someone I didn't know after dark in a foreign country. Much greater chance of interference with the child in those circumstances. What the Mccanns did should have been ok. It was far better than what was standard practice all over the world. A stranger coming round approx every half hour and listening at the window.
So you think it was possible that the female vetted teenage nannies that looked after them all day would turn into monsters at night when babysitting? Right.
@)(++(*
And if you offer that as a fear of theirs, why did they have no fear of any stranger entering their unlocked apartment night after night? or anything else happening to the kids whilst they dined away and would have no idea whatsoever of anything occurring between so called checks. Fuzzy logic.
The odds of a young female vetted trained nanny interfering with your kids is almost off the radar whereas an enormous amount of other things going wrong leaving toddlers on their own is massive compared
Edited for afterthoughts
-
So you think it was possible that the female vetted teenage nannies that looked after them all day would turn into monsters at night when babysitting? Right.
@)(++(*
And if you offer that as a fear of theirs, why did they have no fear of any stranger entering their unlocked apartment night after night? or anything else happening to the kids whilst they dined away and would have no idea whatsoever of anything occurring between so called checks. Fuzzy logic.
Exactly the point Redblossom.
It defies all rational thought.
-
Exactly the point Redblossom.
It defies all rational thought.
Yup, it does. Theres only so much benefit of the doubt one can give sometimes without it getting patently ridiculous.
-
Yup, it does. Theres only so much benefit of the doubt one can give sometimes without it getting patently ridiculous.
Well I wouldn't have a babysitter who I'd only just met briefly - and did not know personally - and leave them alone in my home with my children for hours. No matter what their profession was - they would still be virtual strangers.
-
Well I wouldn't have a babysitter who I'd only just met briefly - and did not know personally - and leave them alone in my home with my children for hours. No matter what their profession was - they would still be virtual strangers.
So why was it OK at the creche ?
A question which has been asked so many, many times.
-
Well I wouldn't have a babysitter who I'd only just met briefly - and did not know personally - and leave them alone in my home with my children for hours. No matter what their profession was - they would still be virtual strangers.
oh I see, you would though take the risk of a total stranger invading your property? In your absence with your kids on their own
8-)(--)
Floundering benice
So all the people who used babysitters and the night creche at the Ocean Club must be irresponsible parents leaving their kids with female nannies who could potentially assault them, like its a regular common occurrence, or abduct them and the mccanns were responsible and careful parents by not using them? Or anyone, or even bothering to secure their flat. Pull the other one.
Heard enough here. Done!
-
oh I see, you would though take the risk of a total stranger invading your property? In your absence with your kids on their own
8-)(--)
Floundering benice
So all the people who used babysitters and the night creche at the Ocean Club must be irresponsible parents leaving their kids with female nannies who could potentially assault them, like its a regular common occurrence, or abduct them and the mccanns were responsible and careful parents by not using them? Or anyone, or even bothering to secure their flat. Pull the other one.
Heard enough here. Done!
What other people do is not my business. I personally would not entertain leaving a virtual stranger in my home alone for hours with my children. The only people who babysat for me was my Mum or my best friend who I had known for years.
-
In most cases of child abuse, family members or close to family are the perpetrators, not nannies. The (Bette Davis) Nanny is fiction..
-
In most cases of child abuse, family members or close to family are the perpetrators, not nannies. The (Bette Davis) Nanny is fiction..
Yes that is true Anne - but not in the case of my mum or my friend. If anyone wants to invite someone into their home who they have only just met and probably only briefly passed the time of day with - and entrust their children to them - then that is their business. But I would not do it.
-
In most cases of child abuse, family members or close to family are the perpetrators, not nannies. The (Bette Davis) Nanny is fiction..
Anne. Do yourselve a favour and google - child abuse by nannies.
-
What other people do is not my business. I personally would not entertain leaving a virtual stranger in my home alone for hours with my children. The only people who babysat for me was my Mum or my best friend who I had known for years.
Its not about you, its about ocean club tourists who though it better to use proper child minding services than leave their kids fate to the wind.
-
So why was it OK at the creche ?
A question which has been asked so many, many times.
And which has been answered many, many times. The crèche was in a public area with other people and children around. Doesn't apply in a babysitting situation.
I would have done exactly the same as the McCanns - crèche OK in the daytime along with other chikldren and adults; my own listening service in the evenings.
-
Well I wouldn't have a babysitter who I'd only just met briefly - and did not know personally - and leave them alone in my home with my children for hours. No matter what their profession was - they would still be virtual strangers.
And which has been answered many, many times. The crèche was in a public area with other people and children around. Doesn't apply in a babysitting situation.
I would have done exactly the same as the McCanns - crèche OK in the daytime along with other chikldren and adults; my own listening service in the evenings.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( for both the responses. My feelings exactly.
-
Yes that is true Anne - but not in the case of my mum or my friend. If anyone wants to invite someone into their home who they have only just met and probably only briefly passed the time of day with - and entrust their children to them - then that is their business. But I would not do it.
If you open the door of the sheepfold to the wolf, you can hardly cry wolf when he takes one sheep. Remember the British families..
But the nannies weren't somebody you invite for a drink, they would be paid for sitting in the lounge just in case one child would call.
-
If you open the door of the sheepfold to the wolf, you can hardly cry wolf when he takes one sheep. Remember the British families..
But the nannies weren't somebody you invite for a drink, they would be paid for sitting in the lounge just in case one child would call.
dont understand what you are getting at with the first line Anne, sorry Having reread it, I do understand it now.
Abductors are not wild animals Anne. They are human (sort of) and The Mccanns left any parts of the apartment that were out of sight locked ... unless the cleaners had unlocked them without the Mccanns knowledge
So I take it that you are saying that it was the Mccanns fault that someone entered their apartment and stole their child?
Even tho it is almost certain that entrance and exit were via the locked front door? Cos the only unlocked place was within their vision and hearing range.
Amaral, himself said that no abductor would risk going in that way, when the parents were only 50 metres away. Are you diagreeing with him?
But I agree totally with Benice
Yes that is true Anne - but not in the case of my mum or my friend. If anyone wants to invite someone into their home who they have only just met and probably only briefly passed the time of day with - and entrust their children to them - then that is their business. But I would not do it.
-
dont understand what you are getting at with the first line Anne, sorry
But I agree totally with Benice
Now I wonder how many people there did take advantage of the offer of babysitting facilities there at the complex.
Wow, they must have been terribly irresponsible.
P.S. Now that is sarcasm. 8((()*/
-
Bumped cos I have substantially alterd it.
Sorry Stephen but I cant be bothered to answer your comments of little substance.
dont understand what you are getting at with the first line Anne, sorry Having reread it, I do understand it now.
Abductors are not wild animals Anne. They are human (sort of) and The Mccanns left any parts of the apartment that were out of sight locked ... unless the cleaners had unlocked them without the Mccanns knowledge
So I take it that you are saying that it was the Mccanns fault that someone entered their apartment and stole their child?
Even tho it is almost certain that entrance and exit were via the locked front door? Cos the only unlocked place was within their vision and hearing range.
Amaral, himself said that no abductor would risk going in that way, when the parents were only 50 metres away. Are you diagreeing with him?
But I agree totally with Benice
-
And which has been answered many, many times. The crèche was in a public area with other people and children around. Doesn't apply in a babysitting situation.
I would have done exactly the same as the McCanns - crèche OK in the daytime along with other chikldren and adults; my own listening service in the evenings.
Sure you would. You would leave your three babies on their own without any qualms or any worries whatsoever where youcouldnt see or hear them for at least 30 minute stretches and dine and wine in peace knowing theyare always OK.Would you also leave the back door open?
Do people in China do this? Or is it just a British cultural thing LOL
-
Sure you would. You would leave your three babies on their own without any qualms or any worries whatsoever where youcouldnt see or hear them for at least 30 minute stretches and dine and wine in peace knowing theyare always OK.Would you also leave the back door open?
Do people in China do this? Or is it just a British cultural thing LOL
Neither Chinagirl nor Benice would leave the back door open, for sure. They would go the longest way which had an advantage : they could hear the three windows in the same time. Nobody on this forum ignores it doesn't make sense pretending that the open patio door allowed Madeleine to go out and find her parents. She didn't know where they were ! They didn't tell her the truth and, after she said "where were you?" (meaning you weren't at home), they didn't answer her. They should have, Madeleine's remark had no other reasonable meaning.
-
What troubles me is...when you pluck a sleeping child from it's bed, it stirs and moves. You can't carry that child far on outstretched arms, with it's head and legs dangling. My grandaugter (3 years and one week) was so knackered today after being at a fair all day, she was practically comatose, but when my husband tried to transfer her from our bed to her's, she stirred, and wriggled and cried a bit. She was exhausted, but she knew she was being disturbed and moved. Maddie obviously didn't sleep well, she had a star chart, so I'm beginning to wonder if she was that little body being carried away?
-
Neither Chinagirl nor Benice would leave the back door open, for sure. They would go the longest way which had an advantage : they could hear the three windows in the same time. Nobody on this forum ignores it doesn't make sense pretending that the open patio door allowed Madeleine to go out and find her parents. She didn't know where they were ! They didn't tell her the truth and, after she said "where were you?" (meaning you weren't at home), they didn't answer her. They should have, Madeleine's remark had no other reasonable meaning.
How do you they didn't answer her? How do you know they didn't tell her exactly where they were? How do you know they didn't tell her the truth
Making things up there Anne. It isn't nice to do that and keep, loading more and more myths and trouble on the Mccanns shoulders.
Shame on you
We quite often used to leave our back door open and the side gate open when we were in our garden 50 metres away
-
How do you they didn't answer her? How do you know they didn't tell her exactly where they were? How do you know they didn't tell her the truth
Making things up there Anne. It isn't nice to do that and keep, loading more and more myths and trouble on the Mccanns shoulders.
Shame on you
We quite often used to leave our back door open and the side gate open when we were in our garden 50 metres away
How do you know they told the truth ?
I know, faith. >@@(*&)
-
How do you they didn't answer her? How do you know they didn't tell her exactly where they were? How do you know they didn't tell her the truth
Making things up there Anne. It isn't nice to do that and keep, loading more and more myths and trouble on the Mccanns shoulders.
Shame on you
We quite often used to leave our back door open and the side gate open when we were in our garden 50 metres away
We know they didn't tell Madeleine sadie because no child that small would go to bed willingly if they thought they were being left alone in a dark, unfamiliar apartment.
-
We know they didn't tell Madeleine sadie because no child that small would go to bed willingly if they thought they were being left alone in a dark, unfamiliar apartment.
Pure guesswork. Kate and Gerry more probaly told her exactly where they were ... just 50 metres away.... in a place that Madeleine was familiar with.
I have found Kate amazingly honourable and honest. She has admitted to failings that others would hide.
Everyone has failings ... even you, faith. But you NEVER admit to them
Now, are you still pushing that ?bundleman went west (the Smiths sighting) or are you going to put your hand up and acknowledge that, almost without doubt, you were wrong?
Even Anne tried to put you right on that one, but you persisted.
Come on, faith, grasp the nettle. Let's see a bit of your honour
-
Pure guesswork. Kate and Gerry more probaly told her exactly where they were ... just 50 metres away.... in a place that Madeleine was familiar with.
I have found Kate amazingly honourable and honest. She has admitted to failings that others would hide.
Everyone has failings ... even you, faith. But you NEVER admit to them
Now, are you still pushing that ?bundleman went west (the Smiths sighting) or are you going to put your hand up and acknowledge that, almost without doubt, you were wrong?
Even Anne tried to put you right on that one, but you persisted.
Come on, faith, grasp the nettle. Let's see a bit of your honour
Your fantasies are getting a trite boring.
-
Your fantasies are getting a trite boring.
Well I cant outclass you Stephen for boring posts.
Yours are so predictable, altho improving a little recently. Well done!
-
Pure guesswork. Kate and Gerry more probaly told her exactly where they were ... just 50 metres away.... in a place that Madeleine was familiar with.
Really? is that why she asked
Q: Tell me what happened, that morning... what Madeleine said.
Kate McCann: Well, I... I can't remember if we'd just had breakfast, it was rou... it was, sort of, fairly early in the morning and she just very casually, really, said: (mimics Madeleine's voice) 'Where were you last night, when me and Sean cried?' and we immediately looked and said, you know: 'When was this, Madeleine? Was this when you were going to sleep?' and she didn't answer and then she just carried on playing, totally undistressed.
Q: But did she tell you off when she was saying it?
Kate McCann: No. It was a passing remark, you know, and...
Gerry McCann: Madeleine's very articulate and, errr... for her age, and, errm... you know, it's unlike her, if she's got something to say, to drop it. She just did... literally, dropped it, errm... and we both, kind of, looked at each other and said: 'Was it when we had just put them down?'
Kate McCann: We obviously told the police because we thought 'does this indicate that someone's been round the night before?' and that's what's woken her up; which is significant, you know... you know, I've... you know, I've persecuted myself over and over again about that statement because you think 'Why didn't I, kind of, just hold her and say 'What d'you mean? What d'you mean?,' you know, 'What d'you mean you woke up?,' you know, and, kind of... but, you don't think that. I mean, it's easy saying that after what's happened...
Gerry McCann: I think the worst thing is, we, kind of, almost thought about not going and, errm... and did. We weren't sure we were going to get into the Tapas, (to Kate) remember? And, errm...
Kate McCann: In fact, we were all...
Gerry McCann: But, you know...
Kate McCann: ...we were all going to go up to the Millennium again, that was... with the kids, which is what we did the first night. It was just, errm... it was just 'cause the walk was so long and we didn't have a buggy and the kids were tired by that time and I thought... we... we were... we did talk about going up to the Millennium that night.
-
Really? is that why she asked
Q: Tell me what happened, that morning... what Madeleine said.
Kate McCann: Well, I... I can't remember if we'd just had breakfast, it was rou... it was, sort of, fairly early in the morning and she just very casually, really, said: (mimics Madeleine's voice) 'Where were you last night, when me and Sean cried?' and we immediately looked and said, you know: 'When was this, Madeleine? Was this when you were going to sleep?' and she didn't answer and then she just carried on playing, totally undistressed.
Q: But did she tell you off when she was saying it?
Kate McCann: No. It was a passing remark, you know, and...
Gerry McCann: Madeleine's very articulate and, errr... for her age, and, errm... you know, it's unlike her, if she's got something to say, to drop it. She just did... literally, dropped it, errm... and we both, kind of, looked at each other and said: 'Was it when we had just put them down?'
Kate McCann: We obviously told the police because we thought 'does this indicate that someone's been round the night before?' and that's what's woken her up; which is significant, you know... you know, I've... you know, I've persecuted myself over and over again about that statement because you think 'Why didn't I, kind of, just hold her and say 'What d'you mean? What d'you mean?,' you know, 'What d'you mean you woke up?,' you know, and, kind of... but, you don't think that. I mean, it's easy saying that after what's happened...
Gerry McCann: I think the worst thing is, we, kind of, almost thought about not going and, errm... and did. We weren't sure we were going to get into the Tapas, (to Kate) remember? And, errm...
Kate McCann: In fact, we were all...
Gerry McCann: But, you know...
Kate McCann: ...we were all going to go up to the Millennium again, that was... with the kids, which is what we did the first night. It was just, errm... it was just 'cause the walk was so long and we didn't have a buggy and the kids were tired by that time and I thought... we... we were... we did talk about going up to the Millennium that night.
You are purely guessing when you say that after she had complained, the mccanns didn't tell her where they were. Just because it isn't in the statement, doesn't mean they didn't tell her where they were. It happened that the questioner changed the direction of their thoughts by asking another question..
My bet is that they did tell her where they were.and that she knew exactly where they meant. That being the reason she immediately calmed down. it was so close and like her own back garden
But like you, I dont know. You cant judge something that isn't there, Red.
-
You are purely guessing when you say that after she had complained, the mccanns didn't tell her where they were. Just because it isn't in the statement, doesn't mean they didn't tell her where they were. It happened that the questioner changed the direction of their thoughts by asking another question..
My bet is that they did tell her where they were.and that she knew exactly where they meant. That being the reason she immediately calmed down. it was so close and like her own back garden
But like you, I dont know. You cant judge something that isn't there, Red.
Ah, so the issue is about whether they answered her question about where were they and not them telling her where they were going to be each night beforehand
I see
And, no, the Mccanns are very particular about the tiniest things, if they had said anything to her they would have said so IMO before telling us she just dropped it!
Whatever
-
Ah, so the issue is about whether they answered her question about where were they and not them telling her where they were going to be each night beforehand
I see
And, no, the Mccanns are very particular about the tiniest things, if they had said anything to her they would have said so IMO before telling us she just dropped it!
Whatever
I agree
Whatever, we just dont know
-
it was so close and like her own back garden
Do you have to get out to the street and cross a public path to go to your back garden, Rachel? And when you're there can you hear the door bell or the landline telephone ?
-
Do you have to get out to the street and cross a public path to go to your back garden, Rachel? And when you're there can you hear the door bell or the landline telephone ?
Erm... thanks for upgrading me to Rachel 8**8:/:
That would be irrelevant to a four year old. It was close, she could see it from the balcony and it was a place which she liked and felt safe with. To her it would be like her back garden.
We simply dont know exactly what was said, but something immediately calmed Madeleine. My bet is, because they told her where they were ... and she was happy with that.
But we just dont know. Pointless speculating
-
Really? is that why she asked
Q: Tell me what happened, that morning... what Madeleine said.
Kate McCann: Well, I... I can't remember if we'd just had breakfast, it was rou... it was, sort of, fairly early in the morning and she just very casually, really, said: (mimics Madeleine's voice) 'Where were you last night, when me and Sean cried?' and we immediately looked and said, you know: 'When was this, Madeleine? Was this when you were going to sleep?' and she didn't answer and then she just carried on playing, totally undistressed.
Q: But did she tell you off when she was saying it?
Kate McCann: No. It was a passing remark, you know, and...
Gerry McCann: Madeleine's very articulate and, errr... for her age, and, errm... you know, it's unlike her, if she's got something to say, to drop it. She just did... literally, dropped it, errm... and we both, kind of, looked at each other and said: 'Was it when we had just put them down?'
Kate McCann: We obviously told the police because we thought 'does this indicate that someone's been round the night before?' and that's what's woken her up; which is significant, you know... you know, I've... you know, I've persecuted myself over and over again about that statement because you think 'Why didn't I, kind of, just hold her and say 'What d'you mean? What d'you mean?,' you know, 'What d'you mean you woke up?,' you know, and, kind of... but, you don't think that. I mean, it's easy saying that after what's happened...
Gerry McCann: I think the worst thing is, we, kind of, almost thought about not going and, errm... and did. We weren't sure we were going to get into the Tapas, (to Kate) remember? And, errm...
Kate McCann: In fact, we were all...
Gerry McCann: But, you know...
Kate McCann: ...we were all going to go up to the Millennium again, that was... with the kids, which is what we did the first night. It was just, errm... it was just 'cause the walk was so long and we didn't have a buggy and the kids were tired by that time and I thought... we... we were... we did talk about going up to the Millennium that night.
You see how they lie so easily Red. We all know the tapas was block booked at the beginning of the week so why on earth is Gerry claiming that they didn't know whether they'd get in ?
-
Erm... thanks for upgrading me to Rachel 8**8:/:
That would be irrelevant to a four year old. It was close, she could see it from the balcony and it was a place which she liked and felt safe with. To her it would be like her back garden.
We simply dont know exactly what was said, but something immediately calmed Madeleine. My bet is, because they told her where they were ... and she was happy with that.
But we just dont know. Pointless speculating
I know of no child of three years old who wouldn't be terrified knowing that if she woke her parents wouldn't be there and she and her siblings would be on their own in a dark apartment. Further what did she know about the patio doors ? Was she aware that the were open so that she could get out and find them ? Was she 'okay' about leaving the apartment in the dark or did she think the doors were locked so she couldn't get out at all ?
-
I know of no child of three years old who wouldn't be terrified knowing that if she woke her parents wouldn't be there and she and her siblings would be on their own in a dark apartment. Further what did she know about the patio doors ? Was she aware that the were open so that she could get out and find them ? Was she 'okay' about leaving the apartment in the dark or did she think the doors were locked so she couldn't get out at all ?
none of us know the answers to your questions Faith. Pointless asking them.
Madeleine has been brought up in a way that not many children are these days. With loving parents who gave her time. Loads of it.
But her parents also expected, and quite rightly, some time to themselves. Her parents are sociable people.
My bet is that Madeleine and her siblings were used to very often having Mum and Dad in the garden with friends over a barbie, or whatever, whilst they were asleep in a dark room
My thoughts are that Madeleine was used to a darkened room and Mum and Dad being in the garden ... and accepted it as OK.
The tapas area was like a garden and madeleine was completely at ease there. If, and accepted we dont know for sure that they did, if Kate and Gerry had told her where they were, then I doubt very much she would have been frightened of the darkened room. Cos the tapas area was a really nice place and like her agrden ... and very close, within shouting distance.
-
none of us know the answers to your questions Faith. Pointless asking them.
Madeleine has been brought up in a way that not many children are these days. With loving parents who gave her time. Loads of it.
But her parents also expected, and quite rightly, some time to themselves. Her parents are sociable people.
My bet is that Madeleine and her siblings were used to very often having Mum and Dad in the garden with friends over a barbie, or whatever, whilst they were asleep in a dark room
My thoughts are that Madeleine was used to a darkened room and Mum and Dad being in the garden ... and accepted it as OK.
The tapas area was like a garden and madeleine was completely at ease there. If, and accepted we dont know for sure that they did, if Kate and Gerry had told her where they were, then I doubt very much she would have been frightened of the darkened room. Cos the tapas area was a really nice place and like her agrden ... and very close, within shouting distance.
Madeleine cried on two consecutive nights, the first when Mrs Fenn heard her and the second when the ' mummy where were you' crying incident happened. That doesn't sound as if Madeleine was 'ok' with the arrangement. In fact she sounded frightened, unhappy little girl.
-
none of us know the answers to your questions Faith. Pointless asking them.
Madeleine has been brought up in a way that not many children are these days. With loving parents who gave her time. Loads of it.
But her parents also expected, and quite rightly, some time to themselves. Her parents are sociable people.
My bet is that Madeleine and her siblings were used to very often having Mum and Dad in the garden with friends over a barbie, or whatever, whilst they were asleep in a dark room
My thoughts are that Madeleine was used to a darkened room and Mum and Dad being in the garden ... and accepted it as OK.
The tapas area was like a garden and madeleine was completely at ease there. If, and accepted we dont know for sure that they did, if Kate and Gerry had told her where they were, then I doubt very much she would have been frightened of the darkened room. Cos the tapas area was a really nice place and like her agrden ... and very close, within shouting distance.
Next u be saying santa exists cos u think so,what a load of ignorant cobblers lol
just dont aspire ever to be a lawyer
@)(++(*
-
Madeleine cried on two consecutive nights, the first when Mrs Fenn heard her and the second when the ' mummy where were you' crying incident happened. That doesn't sound as if Madeleine was 'ok' with the arrangement. In fact she sounded frightened, unhappy little girl.
Don't be ridiculous Faithfully, how can you say she was a frightened unhappy little girl? On her last night she had said to Kate 'I've had the best fun ever' does that sound as though she was frightened and unhappy?
Mrs. Fenn said she heard a child crying, not Madeleine crying.
How do you know for example, that Madeleine hadn't been talking about the night when Amelie was crying? when she went into the McCann's bedroom to tell them Amelie was crying? Children get confused in relation to days and times.
-
none of us know the answers to your questions Faith. Pointless asking them.
Madeleine has been brought up in a way that not many children are these days. With loving parents who gave her time. Loads of it.
But her parents also expected, and quite rightly, some time to themselves. Her parents are sociable people.
My bet is that Madeleine and her siblings were used to very often having Mum and Dad in the garden with friends over a barbie, or whatever, whilst they were asleep in a dark room
My thoughts are that Madeleine was used to a darkened room and Mum and Dad being in the garden ... and accepted it as OK.
The tapas area was like a garden and madeleine was completely at ease there. If, and accepted we dont know for sure that they did, if Kate and Gerry had told her where they were, then I doubt very much she would have been frightened of the darkened room. Cos the tapas area was a really nice place and like her agrden ... and very close, within shouting distance.
and you wonder why I think you create fantasies. 8-)(--)
-
Your fantasies are getting a trite boring.
Talking about boring Stephen, when are you going to say 'no evidence of abduction' one more time?
-
Your fantasies are getting a trite boring.
Talking about boring Stephen, when are you going to say 'no evidence of abduction' one more time?
I don't need to since that's the unpalatable truth you can't disprove. 8)-)))
-
I don't need to since that's the unpalatable truth you can't disprove. 8)-)))
thats the truth really at the end if the day
there is no evidence of abduction, the PT PP stated it also, none
-
My thoughts on the heading of this thread.
Firstly the trampling of the apartment -
Kate searched the apartment first of all. Then Gerry unable to believe that Madeleine had gone had to search again.
How many of you have lost something that you know you had put in a certain place and then it had disappeared? You keep searching where you had left it, don't you?
You think to your self, it was there I saw it there now it has gone, how can it have gone?
Well that is similar to how Kate and Gerry must have felt , only it was their daughter who had gone not an object.
I bet they felt like tearing the apartment apart in desperation, in the hope that somehow Madeleine was still there.
It is a normal reaction to a situation like that.
If the McCann's hadn't reacted in that way then I would wonder why. No doubt the anti's would too. Saying things such as - Why didn't they tear the place apart looking for her? because they knew where she was.
The second question of leaving the three children alone -
This is something I would never have done.
If I had to pop to the corner shop I would have had to take the children with me.
It is something they must have made a decision about and something they will always regret doing.
They have said they regret leaving them, they have said a number of times how they are eaten up with guilt about leaving them.
What a burden they have to carry for the rest of their lives.
One of their children disappeared because they left them alone.
Though who would imagine that someone would come and take your child from its bed?
What about THAT person?
The person hasn't been caught, the person might have taken another child.
Isn't it that what we should be concentrating on?
The McCann's are suffering enough. Madeleine has suffered could very well be still suffering.
I concentrate on Madeleine and not what the McCann's did.
-
Sure you would. You would leave your three babies on their own without any qualms or any worries whatsoever where youcouldnt see or hear them for at least 30 minute stretches and dine and wine in peace knowing theyare always OK.Would you also leave the back door open?
Do people in China do this? Or is it just a British cultural thing LOL
At the risk of starting a lynching party, In China our Children or more usually "Child" would be with us during our meal. We would eat earlier and any children would be part of the social grouping. A treasured central part of the group rather than bottles of alcohol and packets of cigarettes.
Now that is not to say I condemn the McCann Group. It is just that we do things differently. I am sure the Social Group at the Tapas bar did what they thought was safe and correct in their social context.
-
thats the truth really at the end if the day
there is no evidence of abduction, the PT PP stated it also, none
SY have spent years going through the files Redblossom.
They say they believe Madeleine was taken by a stranger.
So how do you work that out then?
-
At the risk of starting a lynching party, In China our Children or more usually "Child" would be with us during our meal. We would eat earlier and any children would be part of the social grouping. A treasured central part of the group rather than bottles of alcohol and packets of cigarettes.
Now that is not to say I condemn the McCann Group. It is just that we do things differently. I am sure the Social Group at the Tapas bar did what they thought was safe and correct in their social context.
What social context? it is not a norm in portugal or england to leave your babies on their own, leave the door open and go out, simple as that no ifs or buts
-
SY have spent years going through the files Redblossom.
They say they believe Madeleine was taken by a stranger.
So how do you work that out then?
Dear lace, nothing of the sort was said, do review redwood on video and see where he actually said that,nowhere
C u
-
What social context? it is not a norm in Portugal or england to leave your babies on their own, leave the door open and go out, simple as that no ifs or buts
That is not what I see continually in your newspapers and media.
I just say we do things differently. If they felt they were in a safe environment then they did what they thought was safe at the time. For us to sit and smugly analyse that years later is hardly honorable behavior.
-
Dear lace, nothing of the sort was said, do review redwood on video and see where he actually said that,nowhere
C u
You must have watched a different video to me then. SY have said they believe Madeleine was taken by a stranger. Redwood has also said he believes Madeleine could still be alive.
-
That is not what I see continually in your newspapers and media.
I just say we do things differently. If they felt they were in a safe environment then they did what they thought was safe at the time. For us to sit and smugly analyse that years later is hardly honorable behavior.
If you see anything in the uk papers it is about parents being cautioned or prosecuted for leaving their children alone, not applauding them!!! And mostly because they came to harm or were in danger of coming to harm
honour has nothing to do with discussing facts
-
You must have watched a different video to me then. SY have said they believe Madeleine was taken by a stranger. Redwood has also said he believes Madeleine could still be alive.
Yes he said the latter but not the former
8)--))
-
If you see anything in the uk papers it is about parents being cautioned or prosecuted for leaving their children alone, not applauding them!!! And mostly because they came to harm or were in danger of coming to harm
honour has nothing to do with discussing facts
There are no "Facts" here just endless circular speculation.
Personally, I find the whole Madeleine threads sick, pointless and even perverted.
It is now almost 26500 posts and 455 threads of speculation about a child none of you knew or even care about. She is just entertainment now to everyone. A soap opera to revel in. The worst nightmare for this board would be if she turned up unharmed. Everyone would lose their reason for living.
Yeah go on report me!
-
There are no "Facts" here just endless circular speculation.
Personally, I find the whole Madeleine threads sick, pointless and even perverted.
It is now almost 26500 posts and 455 threads of speculation about a child none of you knew or even care about. She is just entertainment now to everyone. A soap opera to revel in. The worst nightmare for this board would be if she turned up unharmed. Everyone would lose their reason for living.
Yeah go on report me!
Why are you here then?
I for one will be over the moon if Madeleine turned up alive.
-
There are no "Facts" here just endless circular speculation.
Personally, I find the whole Madeleine threads sick, pointless and even perverted.
It is now almost 26500 posts and 455 threads of speculation about a child none of you knew or even care about. She is just entertainment now to everyone. A soap opera to revel in. The worst nightmare for this board would be if she turned up unharmed. Everyone would lose their reason for living.
Yeah go on report me!
Oh dear, oh well, never mind, PMSL at people having no reason to live if she turnes up, how bizarre and totaly paranoic at best is that piece of gunk, least u spoke ur mind hey? Refreshed? Bless
@)(++(*
-
Yes he said the latter but not the former
8)--))
DCI Redwood said he believed she may still be alive after a close examination of the timeline of events suggested she was snatched by a criminal gang or a stranger acting alone. He said, however, police also have to consider that she may be dead, adding: ‘Our drive on both scenarios is of equal measure.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134756/Maddie-alive--Scotland-Yard-team-reviewing-case-abandoned-Portuguese-195-leads-believe-finally-end-McCanns-torment.html#ixzz2aqi7mPMm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
DCI Redwood said he believed she may still be alive after a close examination of the timeline of events suggested she was snatched by a criminal gang or a stranger acting alone. He said, however, police also have to consider that she may be dead, adding: ‘Our drive on both scenarios is of equal measure.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134756/Maddie-alive--Scotland-Yard-team-reviewing-case-abandoned-Portuguese-195-leads-believe-finally-end-McCanns-torment.html#ixzz2aqi7mPMm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
No, wrong again, tryharder
-
No, wrong again, tryharder
Your wrong!!
-
Next u be saying santa exists cos u think so,what a load of ignorant cobblers lol
just dont aspire ever to be a lawyer
@)(++(*
Interesting thing is that I read law on an HNC course and I got the highest grade in the class, with a full distinction - and a glowing report
I wouldn't have mentioned that had it not been for your goading and silly immature comments
-
You must have watched a different video to me then. SY have said they believe Madeleine was taken by a stranger. Redwood has also said he believes Madeleine could still be alive.
I have seen the same, more than once
-
Yes he said the latter but not the former
8)--))
There is nothing honourable about continually examining the every move of greiving parents , then pick them apart without knowledge
The Mccanns are innocent of any crime, in the eyes of the Law and also in most peoples eyes
-
Oh dear, oh well, never mind, PMSL at people having no reason to live if she turnes up, how bizarre and totaly paranoic at best is that piece of gunk, least u spoke ur mind hey? Refreshed? Bless
@)(++(*
Do you have a bladder problem?
-
What social context? it is not a norm in portugal or england to leave your babies on their own, leave the door open and go out, simple as that no ifs or buts
*
Nobody does this in France as well. What are babysitters for ? (Certainly not for distracting abductors, but for avoiding domestic accidents or alerting in case of fire).
-
DCI Redwood said he believed she may still be alive after a close examination of the timeline of events suggested she was snatched by a criminal gang or a stranger acting alone. He said, however, police also have to consider that she may be dead, adding: ‘Our drive on both scenarios is of equal measure.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134756/Maddie-alive--Scotland-Yard-team-reviewing-case-abandoned-Portuguese-195-leads-believe-finally-end-McCanns-torment.html#ixzz2aqi7mPMm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Why not upgrading ?
-
*
Nobody does this in France as well. What are babysitters for ? (Certainly not for distracting abductors, but for avoiding domestic accidents or alerting in case of fire).
Baby sitters that you know and trust are fine. Personally, like many others, I would never have a babysitter that I didn't know really well.
There is a far higher incidence of child sexual interference from people minding children, than the almost unheard of abduction from a bed.
No good saying that they left their children with strangers in the day, because that was a totally different scenario. Several people looking after the kids, rather than one person on their own. And being alone with no-one to see what they were ip to, able to do what they wished.
spelling correcxtions
-
Don't be ridiculous Faithfully, how can you say she was a frightened unhappy little girl? On her last night she had said to Kate 'I've had the best fun ever' does that sound as though she was frightened and unhappy?
Mrs. Fenn said she heard a child crying, not Madeleine crying.
How do you know for example, that Madeleine hadn't been talking about the night when Amelie was crying? when she went into the McCann's bedroom to tell them Amelie was crying? Children get confused in relation to days and times.
Using your words, don't be ridiculous ! Where were you ?!
-
Using your words, don't be ridiculous ! Where were you ?!
If you are referring to the words Madeleine used to Kate and Gerry as in 'where were you when we cried' as you probably recall Anne that Kate and Gerry said it was a passing comment made by Madeleine, not an angry 'where were you' but a curious comment.
As I have said before children get confused about times and days at that age and she could have been commenting about the night that Amelie cried and she got out of bed to find Kate or Gerry, then spent the rest of the night in with her parents.
-
To call Madfeleine a frightened unhappy little girl
What rubbish!
A multitude of videos PROVE your LIE... and statements from a good number of people
Hang your head in shame, Faith . Saying untruths like that to try and gain a few puints
.... and to hurt Kate and Gerry
What is wrong with you?
-
To call Madfeleine a frightened unhappy little girl
What rubbish!
A multitude of videos PROVE your LIE... and statements from a good number of people
Hang your head in shame, Faith . Saying untruths like that to try and gain a few puints
.... and to hurt Kate and Gerry
What is wrong with you?
Are these the videos which have as much weight as Hi-de-Ho's ?
You look at the photos of that poor child whose mother and stepfather murdered him, and you see a happy child.
Photos and videos don't reveal everything.
-
Are these the videos which have as much weight as Hi-de-Ho's ?
You look at the photos of that poor child whose mother and stepfather murdered him, and you see a happy child.
Photos and videos don't reveal everything.
Straws and grasping at, come to mind
As you well know, Hohos videos are not truthful. They are malicious
Edited: typos
-
she could have been commenting about the night that Amelie cried and she got out of bed to find Kate or Gerry, then spent the rest of the night in with her parents.
She wouldn't have said "where were you" then...
Children don't defer their needs and wishes, this is something they have to learn.
-
Are these the videos which have as much weight as Hi-de-Ho's ?
You look at the photos of that poor child whose mother and stepfather murdered him, and you see a happy child.
Photos and videos don't reveal everything.
I agree Stephen (faints) the camera does lie at times, and the same applies to everyone when it comes to photos - including the McCanns - who have been accused of not caring simply on the strength of how they appeared to be in some photographs.
Ho-ho's videos are just malicious propaganda, stuffed with disinformation and libellous statements which she so spectacularly failed to defend when she scuttled away from this forum as soon as that was drawn to her attention, with the accompanying proof.
-
I agree Stephen (faints) the camera does lie at times, and the same applies to everyone when it comes to photos - including the McCanns - who have been accused of not caring simply on the strength of how they appeared to be in some photographs.
Ho-ho's videos are just malicious propaganda, stuffed with disinformation and libellous statements which she so spectacularly failed to defend when she scuttled away from this forum as soon as that was drawn to her attention, with the accompanying proof.
8@??)( 8@??)(
The still camera does lie at times, cos it catches fleeting moments ... and with shilful selection the editor can produce images that are not representative of the whole
But movies are a different ball game
Ho-hos are laced with malicious propaganda, disinformation and libel as benice states.
She gets way with it, because it would be prohibitively expensive to legally stop a woman in another country.
Same principle as a number of postera on here use. They know it is unlikely any of us would contemplate sueing them in a different country ... just too damned difficult and too damned expensive
-
To call Madfeleine a frightened unhappy little girl
What rubbish!
A multitude of videos PROVE your LIE... and statements from a good number of people
Hang your head in shame, Faith . Saying untruths like that to try and gain a few puints
.... and to hurt Kate and Gerry
What is wrong with you?
I was referring to when left in a dark, unfamiliar apartment, as my post makes clear.
-
I was referring to when left in a dark, unfamiliar apartment, as my post makes clear.
Extremely clear, Faithlilly ! Some people here read what they're obsessed with instead of what's written. It doesn't turn communication easy.