The sad mantra about neglect

[AnneGuedes]

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

I find it more likely she'd use one of the plastic white chairs and step on it. Those chairs are very dangerous because they're flexible and not stable.

[Benice]

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

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

Thanks Red.  Unfortunately the link doesn't work for me - but I think that's down to a gliche in my ancient coimp..

[Redblossom]

They might have been rusted around the fixation points.

Oh, thanks, I assumed they were removed by the PJ or something.

Benice the link is from the mccannpjfiles, there shouldnt be a problem

Alternate source for same here

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm

ps if you have 200 -300 quid to spare you can buy a brand new laptop or notebook

[DCI]

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

Upstairs balcony, but all the same height.

[faithlilly]

Upstairs balcony, but all the same height.

Thank you DCI. So certainly low enough for Madeleine to climb with the aid of a chair.

[sadie]

Gawd Faithlilly, we go from one flaky hypothesis to another flaky hypothesis.  Pile them up Faith.

Do you really think that Madeleine had no fear of heights at a very intelligent nearly 4 years of age?





Btw, did you ever decide that you were mistaken?  That after the Smiths sighting, ?bundleman went east or south and NOT west (as you kept on about?0

You never came back to me on that.

[AnneGuedes]

What Madeleine had fear of was to find herself alone in a strange place, as anybody here must remember from his/her childhood. If she climbed on a chair it wasn't to snoop on her parents but because she was scared, she needed badly to know where they were.

[faithlilly]

Gawd Faithlilly, we go from one flaky hypothesis to another flaky hypothesis.  Pilke them up Faith.

Do you really think that Madeleine had no fear of heights at a very intelligent nearly 4 years of age?





Btw, did you ever decide that you were mistaken?  That after the Smiths sighting, ?bundleman went east or south and NOT west (as you kept on about?0

You never came back to me on that.

http://m.thenownewspaper.com/svc/wlws.svc/getHtml#article/?articleId=7107043&isUniqueArticleId=true

[sadie]

http://m.thenownewspaper.com/svc/wlws.svc/getHtml#article/?articleId=7107043&isUniqueArticleId=true

Point taken Faith, but Madeleine was not a 2 year old.  She was a highly intelligent virtually 4 year old, who would have an understanding of what falling from heights might do to you. 


When are you suggesting she fell anyway?

[sadie]

What Madeleine had fear of was to find herself alone in a strange place, as anybody here must remember from his/her childhood. If she climbed on a chair it wasn't to snoop on her parents but because she was scared, she needed badly to know where they were.

Not such a strange place Anne.  She had been there for about 5 days already.  So she fell whilst they were out eating did she?

So she pulled the patio door open ... then before climbing on a chair, she closed it, did she? 

Nah, I dont think so ... but a good try

[faithlilly]

Point taken Faith, but Madeleine was not a 2 year old.  She was a highly intelligent virtually 4 year old, who would have an understanding of what falling from heights might do to you. 


When are you suggesting she fell anyway?

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fouryearold-girl-falls-from-balcony-20111129-1o5fg.html

http://www.cp24.com/four-year-old-falls-from-apartment-balcony-1.938538

http://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/4-year-old-boy-falls-to-death-from-16th-floor-2011-12-01-1.430990

[sadie]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fouryearold-girl-falls-from-balcony-20111129-1o5fg.html

http://www.cp24.com/four-year-old-falls-from-apartment-balcony-1.938538

http://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/4-year-old-boy-falls-to-death-from-16th-floor-2011-12-01-1.430990

We dont know the circumstances Faith

Currently, in this country and obviously at OC, architects have to ensure that the railings are built with a certain maximum gap between the rails and the top rail has to be a certain minimum height.  That is so that a child could not slip between them and people will not topple over them. 

Crossland, with Symington and Garveigh, was an owner of OC and we are told that Crossland, an architect, designed OC.  A difficult problem with all the steeply sloping fround, but seems he made a damned good job of it in virtually every respect, not sure about all the alleyways tho.


Faith, we simpy do not know the circumstances in other countries, so cannot judge whether the examples you offer are pertinent.


When were you suggesting it happened?   What time of the day?  Dark or light?



From that balcony, with the trees and bushes freshly clipped as contemporary photos show, Madeleine could have seen her mum and dad without any climbing.  No need to climb.

Why didn't she yell them?  From our experiences with a 50 metre garden, they would have heard her

And the big question is? 
Would a four year old have the foresight and willingness to close the patio door behind her?


You know, there is nothing to indicate anything like this happened.  Where the dogs indicated, it could have been the spot where a previous OC occupant , drunk, vomitted over the railing.  Could have been a convenient spot for a drunken, or overfilled reveller to do a quick p**, out of sight. 

So many things it could have been.  Nothing at all forensically to back it, and the dogs marking means nothing without the forensic bit.


I think not

As I said before, I think this is one hypothesis upon another hypothesis and very flaky.




Interesting to hear your ideas tho.   Keep them coming

[stephen25000]

We dont know the circumstances Faith

Currently, in this country and obviously at OC, architects have to ensure that the railings are built with a certain maximum gap between the rails and the top rail has to be a certain minimum height.  That is so that a child could not slip between them and people will not topple over them. 

Crossland, with Symington and Garveigh, was an owner of OC and we are told that Crossland, an architect, designed OC.  A difficult problem with all the steeply sloping fround, but seems he made a damned good job of it in virtually every respect, not sure about all the alleyways tho.


Faith, we simpy do not know the circumstances in other countries, so cannot judge whether the examples you offer are pertinent.


When were you suggesting it happened?   What time of the day?  Dark or light?



From that balcony, with the trees and bushes freshly clipped as contemporary photos show, Madeleine could have seen her mum and dad without any climbing.  No need to climb.

Why didn't she yell them?  From our experiences with a 50 metre garden, they would have heard her

And the big question is? 
Would a four year old have the foresight and willingness to close the patio door behind her?


You know, there is nothing to indicate anything like this happened.  Where the dogs indicated, it could have been the spot where a previous OC occupant , drunk, vomitted over the railing.  Could have been a convenient spot for a drunken, or overfilled reveller to do a quick p**, out of sight. 

So many things it could have been.  Nothing at all forensically to back it, and the dogs marking means nothing without the forensic bit.


I think not

As I said before, I think this is one hypothesis upon another hypothesis and very flaky.




Interesting to hear your ideas tho.   Keep them coming

' I think this is one hypothesis upon another hypothesis and very flaky.'


That has been said many times of your 'theories'.

Actually, your 'methodology' reminds me of Bennett and that is no compliment.

[Benice]

In addition from another poster who has put this very succinctly..................

'There can be NO DOUBT that the McCann children were left alone in just such circumstances, none at all. If you require evidence of this, I suggest you consider the fact that one of them has been missing for six years. Despite the McCann's repeated mantra - ''there is no evidence Madeleine has come to any harm'' - I think any person with half a brain can understand that forcibly separating a child from her family in this manner constitutes unnecessary suffering, as defined in the act.

So I suggest the toadies try to understand the difference between someone who is not guilty of by reason of that fact being established in a court of law, and someone who was never prosecuted because the authorities took the decision not to charge them at that time.

But let's make no mistake - in leaving their children in the way they did, they exposed them to danger, and whatever happened to Madeleine - at best - resulted from their decision to leave her unattended and unprotected.

And those actions are, quite clearly, neglect. Whether they were charged or not. '

I think anyone with half a brain would realise that the McCanns are saying there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any physical harm, or that she is dead.   Surely you cannot believe they don't know that pyschological damage will have been caused.

I see you are still abusing posters for having a different opinon to yours.

[stephen25000]

I think anyone with half a brain would realise that the McCanns are saying there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any physical harm, or that she is dead.   Surely you cannot believe they don't know that pyschological damage will have been caused.

I see you are still abusing posters for having a different opinon to yours.

I quoted someone else as you are more than well aware.

As to abuse that lies well within the normal parameters of 'certain' Mccann supporters.

As to 'harm',  what a load of cobblers. How do you know that she come to no physical harm ?

Do you know something we don't ?