Hindsight: Some posters just cannot get their heads around the concept.

[gilet]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[gilet]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

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 !

[stephen25000]

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.

[Redblossom]

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

[stephen25000]

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.

[Benice]

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.

 

[Benice]

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.   

[AnneGuedes]

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 ?

[John]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[Mo Stache]

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.