The sad mantra about neglect

[Redblossom]

A video for Gilet, nite now

[AnneGuedes]

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

Exactly, if Mr MccCann used to listen only (as he said), he could very well think "all quiet" and leave without seeing Madeleine had fallen from the balcony.

[stephen25000]

They are used to suggest targets for further examination.

If nothing is found to prove the dog alerts were accurate (as in the McCann case) then no further action is taken.

If a dog alerts to you, for example at an airport, and you are checked thoroughly for any untoward substances etc. and nothing is found, then you are allowed to leave the airport and get on with your life.  You are not deemed guilty of an offence.

As with the McCanns, there were thorough checks and nothing was found which directly corroborated the dog alerts. Therefore the McCanns are not deemed guilty by normal people.

It is only those who throw the law on its head who believe the McCanns guilty because of uncorroborated dog alerts.

Or perhaps you are in the habit of believing that there is some mysterious limbo of guilt without charge, into which all those alerted to by dogs at airports and against whom no evidence of any crime was found (as in the case of the McCanns) are thrown?

There is no evidence of neglect by the McCanns and the dogs will never no matter how you try to disrupt this thread prove any neglect by them.

Nor will you ever convince those who have fully read the Archival report or those whose understanding that hindsight is a wonderful thing, that there was any neglect by the McCanns. That is only your opinion with the full benefit of hindsight (see this thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2011.0 ).

ps and don't ask that hoary old chestnut much beloved of anti McCanns, "If a dog alerted to a bomb on a plane or in a theatre and no device was found, would you fly on that plane?" because the answer is from me a definitive, "Yes".  I am aware that after such alerts, the most thorough checks are done and no airline or theatre would ever allow passengers to board or customers to take their seats knowing that they could be accused of effectively killing those people were there have to have been a bomb.

Alerts are merely "suggestive". That is the precise word used by Martin Grime. He does not call them "absolute", "definitive" or anything similar. He knows that they are not. Perhaps it is time that anti McCanns also realised that as well? Then they might understand that their pathetic and wrong-headed insistence that alerts without evidence as in the McCanns case are not the signs of guilt that they claim them to be.

Are yes the classic mantra of 'anti-mccanns', that is not only stupid but quite pathetic.

We already know the forensics were inconclusive.

However, whether you like it or not,  the dogs so far are the only indication of what might have happened to Madeleine.

As to abduction, zip.

[sadie]

Exactly, if Mr MccCann used to listen only (as he said), he could very well think "all quiet" and leave without seeing Madeleine had fallen from the balcony.

I thought that you had been there Ann?  The balcony rail is Quite high.

I have looked at photos of Kate alongside it and from these, know that it is at least 86cm high, probably nearer 95cm.  Kate is tall and has long legs


Lets take the worst scenario and say it is only 86cm high.  That would correspond to me at 5'6" tall, not to Kate who must be about 5'10" tall.  [See I am bending over to try and see your point of view !]

The railing section is divided into a solid base and a railing top part.  It is divided in a ratio 7:5. 
7 railings and 5 wall. 

I realise that a child could stand on this wall.
Using the lowest estimate of overall height (86), the height of railings for a child standing on this wall is

86 x 5 divided by 7  =  57cm.  Madeleine is about 90 cm tall according to the case notes.

For people to fall over, the top must be below the central weight point of the person.  That height railing, even standing on the wall, is chest height on Madeleine.    Very unlikely that she could climb up any higher and very very unlikely that she could fall over

That, Anne, is taking the best conditions for your argument.  In reality the railing was probably about 2+" (5cm.) higher cos Kate is considerably taller than me with long legs



I know it is only a hypothesis Anne, cos there is nothing to point to the fact that Madeleine did topple over the railing or wall.... just your imagination.  But it is good to look at different ideas

However, in the circumstances, with the railing at chest height or probably arm-pit height on Madeleine, it seems extremely unlikely that Madeleine toppled over the railings.

Do you agree?

[faithlilly]

I thought that you had been there Ann?  The balcony rail is Quite high.

I have looked at photos of Kate alongside it and from these, know that it is at least 86cm high, probably nearer 95cm.  Kate is tall and has long legs


Lets take the worst scenario and say it is only 86cm high.  That would correspond to me at 5'6" tall, not to Kate who must be about 5'10" tall.  [See I am bending over to try and see your point of view !]

The railing section is divided into a solid base and a railing top part.  It is divided in a ratio 7:5. 
7 railings and 5 wall. 

I realise that a child could stand on this wall.
Using the lowest estimate of overall height (86), the height of railings for a child standing on this wall is

86 x 5 divided by 7  =  57cm.  Madeleine is about 90 cm tall according to the case notes.

For people to fall over, the top must be below the central weight point of the person.  That height railing, even standing on the wall, is chest height on Madeleine.    Very unlikely that she could climb up any higher and very very unlikely that she could fall over

That, Anne, is taking the best conditions for your argument.  In reality the railing was probably about 2+" (5cm.) higher cos Kate is considerably taller than me with long legs



I know it is only a hypothesis Anne, cos there is nothing to point to the fact that Madeleine did topple over the railing or wall.... just your imagination.  But it is good to look at different ideas

However, in the circumstances, with the railing at chest height or probably arm-pit height on Madeleine, it seems extremely unlikely that Madeleine toppled over the railings.

Do you agree?

I'd be very interested in seeing those pictures of Kate and the railing sadie to illustrate your point.

[Benice]

I'd be very interested in seeing those pictures of Kate and the railing sadie to illustrate your point.

I would be interest too as I can't get my head round where this area is.  Is the patio being called a balcony?  The well-known piccie of the outside of 5A showing the steps/side of the apartment clearly shows the opening on the patio overlooking the street with what looks like a safety partition across it.  The other opening - facing the swimming pool is over the steps.    So how could a fall onto a garden area happen?  Where is this area?  A close up photograph of the front of the patio area might help to clear this up.   

[AnneGuedes]

I realise that a child could stand on this wall.
Using the lowest estimate of overall height (86), the height of railings for a child standing on this wall is

86 x 5 divided by 7  =  57cm.  Madeleine is about 90 cm tall according to the case notes.

For people to fall over, the top must be below the central weight point of the person.  That height railing, even standing on the wall, is chest height on Madeleine.    Very unlikely that she could climb up any higher and very very unlikely that she could fall over

That, Anne, is taking the best conditions for your argument.  In reality the railing was probably about 2+" (5cm.) higher cos Kate is considerably taller than me with long legs



I know it is only a hypothesis Anne, cos there is nothing to point to the fact that Madeleine did topple over the railing or wall.... just your imagination.  But it is good to look at different ideas

However, in the circumstances, with the railing at chest height or probably arm-pit height on Madeleine, it seems extremely unlikely that Madeleine toppled over the railings.

Do you agree?

I agree the railings is not as low as that, but a 1m tall child stepping on the wall base and leaning forward could lose balance and fall. Kids are also very good at using benches to get what they want..

[Redblossom]

I would be interest too as I can't get my head round where this area is.  Is the patio being called a balcony?  The well-known piccie of the outside of 5A showing the steps/side of the apartment clearly shows the opening on the patio overlooking the street with what looks like a safety partition across it.  The other opening - facing the swimming pool is over the steps.    So how could a fall onto a garden area happen?  Where is this area?  A close up photograph of the front of the patio area might help to clear this up.

See photos 14-16 for the outside area.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm

The railings outside the patio area overlook the stairs. The railings in the other photo are to the right, outside the parents bedroom french doors. Over those railings is the garden. I dont know if both are of the same height. Those seem slightly lower to me but it could be the angle. I will try and find a photo showing both together taken from the front.

[faithlilly]

See photos 14-16 for the outside area.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm

The railings outside the patio area overlook the stairs. The railings in the other photo are to the right, outside the parents bedroom french doors. Over those railings is the garden. I dont know if both are of the same height. Those seem slightly lower to me but it could be the angle. I will try and find a photo showing both together taken from the front.

Thanks Red. I believe at one point the railings above the flowerbed were removed.

[sadie]

I agree the railings is not as low as that, but a 1m tall child stepping on the wall base and leaning forward could lose balance and fall. Kids are also very good at using benches to get what they want..

No they couldn't Anne.  Even standing on the wall part she would still be in a position where she would not fall over the railing..  Remember Madeleine was not 1 metre tall, she was about 90cm tall.  She as too short to go over. 

I haven't checked the figures but even at a metre tall, I feel confident that she would have been too short to go over.   But she wasn't a metre tall.  The PJ reports say she was 90cm tall.

[faithlilly]

No they couldn't Anne.  Even standing on the wall part she would still be in a position where she would not fall over the railing..  Remember Madeleine was not 1 metre tall, she was about 90cm tall.  She as too short to go over. 

I haven't checked the figures but even at a metre tall, I feel confident that she would have been too short to go over.   But she wasn't a metre tall.  The PJ reports say she was 90cm tall.

Any sign of those photographs yet sadie ?

[AnneGuedes]

Height wasn't a problem, there were many plastic chairs near by.

[Redblossom]

Thanks Red. I believe at one point the railings above the flowerbed were removed.

Yes they were, I have never come across anything which explains why. here is a picture





http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/notwviewfrompatio.jpg&target=tlx_piclx5y

Anne! I was just looking at pictures of the apartment to see if I could find one which shows the height of the parents room balcony railings, and saw this, a photo taken by a forum poster who visited PDL in 2009. Very easy for an accident to happen. Which beggars belief how any parent could be sure their child wouldnt wake up and befall anything like that. There was nothing to stop them.


http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/IMG_0582.JPG

[faithlilly]

Yes they were, I have never come across anything which explains why. here is a picture





http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/notwviewfrompatio.jpg&target=tlx_piclx5y

Anne! I was just looking at pictures of the apartment to see if I could find one which shows the height of the parents room balcony railings, and saw this, a photo taken by a forum poster who visited PDL in 2009. Very easy for an accident to happen. Which beggars belief how any parent could be sure their child wouldnt wake up and befall anything like that. There was nothing to stop them.


http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/IMG_0582.JPG

We are told Madeleine was an intelligent child so what was to stop her pulling a kitchen chair through the patio doors to the railings and standing on it to get a better look at where the sound of voices were coming from ?

[AnneGuedes]

Yes they were, I have never come across anything which explains why.

They might have been rusted around the fixation points.