The sad mantra about neglect

[gilet]

Well I think you have  destroyed any good points in your argument if you are  comparing parents being inside their own shut and/or locked and secure home with their kids and parents being out at dinner 50/100 metres away out of ear and eyeshot of their kids in an alien environment and unattended

There is also the matter that there was avery good reason PDL did not have a *listening service*

You may think what you like. I am very happy to stand by my points. Once inside the apartment or the person's own home the desire not to physically disturb the child is exactly the same and the listening at the door would be exactly the same especially as we know that the door was partially open most of the time.

Your attempt to suggest there is a difference is quite nonsensical.

And as to your reference to a listening service in PDL I never said there was such a service in PDL as I am fully aware there was not and the reasons for that.

[faithlilly]

You may think what you like. I am very happy to stand by my points. Once inside the apartment or the person's own home the desire not to physically disturb the child is exactly the same and the listening at the door would be exactly the same especially as we know that the door was partially open most of the time.

Your attempt to suggest there is a difference is quite nonsensical.

And as to your reference to a listening service in PDL I never said there was such a service in PDL as I am fully aware there was not and the reasons for that.

If you were in your own home you could be fairly sure your child hadn't vomited, choked, fallen from a balcony etc. Checking every thirty minutes would not give you the same level of knowledge and therefore a proper visual check would seem  the least any parent would do.

[sadie]

Well I think you have  destroyed any good points in your argument if you are  comparing parents being inside their own shut and/or locked and secure home with their kids and parents being out at dinner 50/100 metres away out of ear and eyeshot of their kids in an alien environment and unattended

There is also the matter that there was avery good reason PDL did not have a *listening service*

Lets be accurate Red.  you have seen the GE evidence.  K and G were just over 50 metres from the patio doors NOT 100 metres.

I sat at that very Tapas restaurant and I could see virtually the whole of that patio door.  Ther mccanns were about 2-3 metres further along (in a westerly direction) and their view would have been nearly as good.  This all depends, of course, on when the rapidly growing vegetation had been cut back. 

With the heat and rainfall, vegetation grows extemely rapidly in western PT.  From contemporaray photographs, it appears that the greenery within their little garden had just been trimmed.  My bet is that they could see virtually as much as we could.

As for sound.  If Madeleine came out on to the balcony and called, they would have heard her.  No doubt about it.  Madeleine was a leader, a clever and resourceful little girl, as illustrated in various youtubes ... and in Tapas 7 statements.  Not a shrinking violet, she would have made her presence known, had if she were desperate.  Little doubt about it.

[faithlilly]

Lets be accurate Red.  you have seen the GE evidence.  K and G were just over 50 metres from the patio doors NOT 100 metres.

I sat at that very Tapas restaurant and I could see virtually the whole of that patio door.  Ther mccanns were about 2-3 metres further along (in a westerly direction) and their view would have been nearly as good.  This all depends, of course, on when the rapidly growing vegetation had been cut back. 

With the heat and rainfall, vegetation grows extemely rapidly in western PT.  From contemporaray photographs, it appears that the greenery within their little garden had just been trimmed.  My bet is that they could see virtually as much as we could.

As for sound.  If Madeleine came out on to the balcony and called, they would have heard her.  No doubt about it.  Madeleine was a leader, a clever and resourceful little girl, as illustrated in various youtubes ... and in Tapas 7 statements.  Not a shrinking violet, she would have made her presence known, had if she were desperate.  Little doubt about it.

Then why didn't that happen on the night Madeleine herself said her and her brother cried ?

[Redblossom]

You may think what you like. I am very happy to stand by my points. Once inside the apartment or the person's own home the desire not to physically disturb the child is exactly the same and the listening at the door would be exactly the same especially as we know that the door was partially open most of the time.

Your attempt to suggest there is a difference is quite nonsensical.

And as to your reference to a listening service in PDL I never said there was such a service in PDL as I am fully aware there was not and the reasons for that.

Youre  slipping gilet, the argument is not about not wanting to waken sleeping children, thatyou KNOW are in their beds, its about knowing if they are Ok and STILL THERE! after you have  left them on their own a good distance away and no way of hearing anything amiss! AND left em with the back door OPEN! You wouldnt do that to a TV! Or laptop!

[Redblossom]

Lets be accurate Red.  you have seen the GE evidence.  K and G were just over 50 metres from the patio doors NOT 100 metres.

I sat at that very Tapas restaurant and I could see virtually the whole of that patio door.  Ther mccanns were about 2-3 metres further along (in a westerly direction) and their view would have been nearly as good.  This all depends, of course, on when the rapidly growing vegetation had been cut back. 

With the heat and rainfall, vegetation grows extemely rapidly in western PT.  From contemporaray photographs, it appears that the greenery within their little garden had just been trimmed.  My bet is that they could see virtually as much as we could.

As for sound.  If Madeleine came out on to the balcony and called, they would have heard her.  No doubt about it.  Madeleine was a leader, a clever and resourceful little girl, as illustrated in various youtubes ... and in Tapas 7 statements.  Not a shrinking violet, she would have made her presence known, had if she were desperate.  Little doubt about it.

Oh dear, what can I say to that, except to wonder if the mccanns spent their night of eating and drinking with their eyes glued on their apartment, what nonsense! As for madeleine being a leader and a resourceful girl? what rubbish is this? If she suffered an accident, as a three yr old she wouldhave no resources, unbelievable

[faithlilly]

Lets be accurate Red.  you have seen the GE evidence.  K and G were just over 50 metres from the patio doors NOT 100 metres.

I sat at that very Tapas restaurant and I could see virtually the whole of that patio door.  Ther mccanns were about 2-3 metres further along (in a westerly direction) and their view would have been nearly as good.  This all depends, of course, on when the rapidly growing vegetation had been cut back. 

With the heat and rainfall, vegetation grows extemely rapidly in western PT.  From contemporaray photographs, it appears that the greenery within their little garden had just been trimmed.  My bet is that they could see virtually as much as we could.

As for sound.  If Madeleine came out on to the balcony and called, they would have heard her.  No doubt about it.  Madeleine was a leader, a clever and resourceful little girl, as illustrated in various youtubes ... and in Tapas 7 statements.  Not a shrinking violet, she would have made her presence known, had if she were desperate.  Little doubt about it.

Further Oldfield seems to disagree with you about being able to see any comings and goings from the apartment. The quote below is from his 10th May statement :

'Nevertheless, he admits that it was a tenuous sight considering the distance to the apartments (estimated as about 50 to 100 metres), and further, due to their vision being impaired by a transparent oilcloth [tarpaulin] that covered the area in which the tables were located.

Consequently, he admits it being possible for someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments without being detected, through [by way of] the patios that were round the back of the residential block.'

[gilet]

Youre  slipping gilet, the argument is not about not wanting to waken sleeping children, thatyou KNOW are in their beds, its about knowing if they are Ok and STILL THERE! after you have  left them on their own a good distance away and no way of hearing anything amiss! AND left em with the back door OPEN! You wouldnt do that to a TV! Or laptop!

Totally absurd.

There is nothing slipping in my posts at all.

It is only with hindsight remember that the question of a missing child arose. That was not in their thoughts at the time as much as you may imagine that.

Your argument is invalid.

The purpose of the checks was as we know to be certain that they were still sleeping and had not been disturbed. Your notion that they parents should disturb them to do that is quite simply ridiculous.

As I pointed out this is normal practice in every home and would be normal practice in that apartment before any notion of abduction was introduced.

[gilet]

If you were in your own home you could be fairly sure your child hadn't vomited, choked, fallen from a balcony etc. Checking every thirty minutes would not give you the same level of knowledge and therefore a proper visual check would seem  the least any parent would do.

How could you be any more sure in your own home than in that apartment of the things you claim. Children are just as prone to vomiting, choking, falling from windows (there was no balcony to the children's room incidentally) there as at home. Your post is nonsensical because you could not in fact be any more certain. Your premise seems to result in a demand that every parent even in their home should enter the child's bedroom every 30 minutes while they are sleeping to check visually that all is OK. What happens when the parent goes to sleep? Total nonsense written  just to make it look as if the McCanns were neglectful.

If you actually know any parent who checks their child every thirty minutes at home or on holiday in the way you demand all parents should then perhaps social services should be informed as that parent has their wires crossed somewhere.

[sadie]

Further Oldfield seems to disagree with you about being able to see any comings and goings from the apartment. The quote below is from his 10th May statement :

'Nevertheless, he admits that it was a tenuous sight considering the distance to the apartments (estimated as about 50 to 100 metres), and further, due to their vision being impaired by a transparent oilcloth [tarpaulin] that covered the area in which the tables were located.

Consequently, he admits it being possible for someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments without being detected, through [by way of] the patios that were round the back of the residential block.'

It was huge transparent plastic sheeting, very like picture windows in glass in its transparency.  Dont forget that I have eaten there.  Maybe he sat in a position where the outer "framework" to the transparent sheeting was?

We all know it was just a little over 50 metres now that we have GEarth measurements.  What's more you know it too, so why keep on about 100 metres?

These are not Matt Oldfields words
Consequently, he admits it being possible for someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments without being detected, through [by way of] the patios that were round the back of the residential block.', because he would have said "I admit" rather than "he admits"


Amaral. (IIRC in his statement when he was trying to prove that Madeleine had died in the apartment) said that no abductor would have dared go in that way, when the parents were so close, with visibility, at 50 metres.

[gilet]

Further Oldfield seems to disagree with you about being able to see any comings and goings from the apartment. The quote below is from his 10th May statement :

'Nevertheless, he admits that it was a tenuous sight considering the distance to the apartments (estimated as about 50 to 100 metres), and further, due to their vision being impaired by a transparent oilcloth [tarpaulin] that covered the area in which the tables were located.

Consequently, he admits it being possible for someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments without being detected, through [by way of] the patios that were round the back of the residential block.'

It is amazing what hindsight can make you understand. Is there any indication that this was realized prior to the disappearance?

If not it is not actually relevant because the decision taken regarding the checking regime was done so prior to the disappearance.

The fact is that with hindsight the McCanns realised and admitted that it was a bad decision.

I will ask you the same questions that I asked earlier of others.

Why are you unable to accept that admission and move on?

How does your constant harping on about the McCanns in this way help solve the case?

Do you think constantly harping on in this way helps remind others not to do such things because I fear you are way too late as the publicity of Madeleine's disappearance has long since done that job.

Can you explain your motive for this harping on about neglect. From the position of the reader of your posts it seems to indicate that you are simply being vindictive and hateful to the parents of a missing child? Is that actually your motive or do you have some other reason for this constant reference to neglect?

[Redblossom]

Totally absurd.

There is nothing slipping in my posts at all.

It is only with hindsight remember that the question of a missing child arose. That was not in their thoughts at the time as much as you may imagine that.

Your argument is invalid.

The purpose of the checks was as we know to be certain that they were still sleeping and had not been disturbed. Your notion that they parents should disturb them to do that is quite simply ridiculous.

As I pointed out this is normal practice in every home and would be normal practice in that apartment before any notion of abduction was introduced.

slipping even further down if you think attended babies in their own homes is the same as unattended babies a big distance away

and to include the excuse  of hindisght, well, in your words, absurd
 

Oh and  btw the mccanns have never said what they did was wrong or that theyregretted it, the only thing they said they felt bad about was not being there AT THE MOMENT she was taken, not at any other time  ie they felt leaving them was fine and  when asked what they would say to other parents, they said its difficult to say, therefore still condoning it

[Benice]

Then why didn't that happen on the night Madeleine herself said her and her brother cried ?

 IMO If Madeleine and her brother did cry - it could have been in the middle of the night when her parents were asleep but didn't last long enough to wake them.  Or it could have happened while her parents were out, but once again only briefly before they went back to sleep.

Madeleine was talking about the night of the 2nd.  Rachael Oldfield was next door for the whole of that evening and would have heard any sustained crying.

[faithlilly]

How could you be any more sure in your own home than in that apartment of the things you claim. Children are just as prone to vomiting, choking, falling from windows (there was no balcony to the children's room incidentally) there as at home. Your post is nonsensical because you could not in fact be any more certain. Your premise seems to result in a demand that every parent even in their home should enter the child's bedroom every 30 minutes while they are sleeping to check visually that all is OK. What happens when the parent goes to sleep? Total nonsense written  just to make it look as if the McCanns were neglectful.

If you actually know any parent who checks their child every thirty minutes at home or on holiday in the way you demand all parents should then perhaps social services should be informed as that parent has their wires crossed somewhere.

If you are in your home of course you have a much better chance of hearing at once if something is amiss with your child, that's simply common sense. As to the balcony issue, as you say you say there was no balcony to the children's room but there was one just beyond the unlocked patio doors with rails at just the right height for a child to fall over.

[Redblossom]

If you are in your home of course you have a much better chance of hearing at once if something is amiss with your child, that's simply common sense. As to the balcony issue, as you say you say there was no balcony to the children's room but there was one just beyond the unlocked patio doors with rails at just the right height for a child to fall over.

Kate  Mccann in her book said there was no balcony to fall over
 >@@(*&)