When was the door shut? David Payne. Rules out wandering off.

[Robittybob1]

More information on page http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/types-of-colour-blindness/
There is also a colour chart comparing what normal sighted people see compared to what colour blind people see.

[Angelo222]

When was it shut? David Payne says "no one could have got in that way if that's the way they entered as the door was shut"
Lets go through the timeline:
The front door was shut when the McCanns left their apartment.

If then someone enters via that front door obviously they have a means of opening the door.  It is no longer shut, then is it.
So when he says "as the door was shut" when is he making that assessment about the door?

David Payne Quotes:

and again "I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera. And from my point of view you know the things that were, I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut".

 Reply "Err we, you know, we ran up err to the apartment, you know, with, with err you know Kate and Gerry err and you know for me, I just wanted to know, as I say, about the access to the apartment, were those gates open, err because in my mind was that if the front door was shut there was no, you know there won't be, you know there was no way that she could have wandered out that way and nor would they have gained access in that way. Err also obviously the, the, the issue with the, the shutters had been raised, was brought up err you know on the way up as well and then I was asking about the gates being shut at that back and she said well both gates you know were shut, so in my mind, you know, that had ruled it out that Madeleine had err had wandered off."

It is clear to see that this was very much a case of damage limitation going on which is still going on to this day.  The parents had to be protected at all cost and that cost has been a very high one.  If it is ever established that Maddie did wander then culpability returns to the parents.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It is clear to see that this was very much a case of damage limitation going on which is still going on to this day.  The parents had to be protected at all cost and that cost has been a very high one.  If it is ever established that Maddie did wander then culpability returns to the parents.

I would go one further and say they are responsible for whatever happened to her as Maddie was supposed to be in their care.

[Robittybob1]

I would go one further and say they are responsible for whatever happened to her as Maddie was supposed to be in their care.

So why are they so adamant she didn't wander then if it is all the same.

[jassi]

So why are they so adamant she didn't wander then if it is all the same.

Because if she wandered off on her own, there is no one else to shift the blame onto IMO

[Robittybob1]

Because if she wandered off on her own, there is no one else to shift the blame onto IMO

Yes that seems possible - anyone could suffer the attack of a predator, but if a predator attacks a wandering child the parents are asking for it.  Is that your way of think about it?
Does it NOT make a difference where the predator is? In the private room or just walking on the public road. is that all the same?  You could be right for my mind switches back and forth on this too, I have not settled that debate in my own head even though the words of St. Kate keep going through my head - "we've got to remember there is a predator out there and he could do it again".  (if I have used the wrong words put it down to bad memory please, it was in an interview.)

[jassi]

Yes that seems possible - anyone could suffer the attack of a predator, but if a predator attacks a wandering child the parents are asking for it.  Is that your way of think about it?
Does it NOT make a difference where the predator is? In the private room or just walking on the public road. is that all the same?  You could be right for my mind switches back and forth on this too, I have not settled that debate in my own head even though the words of St. Kate keep going through my head - "we've got to remember there is a predator out there and he could do it again".  (if I have used the wrong words put it down to bad memory please, it was in an interview.)

I was really meaning that if she got out on her own, then the parents can be considered negligent for allowing it to happen, irrespective of what might have happened subsequently.

[Robittybob1]

I was really meaning that if she got out on her own, then the parents can be considered negligent for allowing it to happen, irrespective of what might have happened subsequently.

The parents admit the doors were unlocked.
They don't deny she was capable of opening the doors and going to find them.
Fiona says Kate discussed this.

So is Kate only negligent if that wandering occurs.  I was thinking it is like seat belts, you get fined for not wearing them and for not having worn them in the event in an accident, liable before and after an event.

[jassi]

The parents admit the door were unlocked.
They don't deny she was capable of opening the doors and going to find them.
Fiona says Kate discussed this.

So is Kate only negligent if that wandering occurs.  I was thinking it is like seat belts, you get fie for not wearing them and for not having worn them after the event in an accident, liable before and after an event.

This applies to many things in life. You only get into trouble if you get caught. Just ask any politician

[Wonderfulspam]

Yes that seems possible - anyone could suffer the attack of a predator, but if a predator attacks a wandering child the parents are asking for it.  Is that your way of think about it?
Does it NOT make a difference where the predator is? In the private room or just walking on the public road. is that all the same?  You could be right for my mind switches back and forth on this too, I have not settled that debate in my own head even though the words of St. Kate keep going through my head - "we've got to remember there is a predator out there and he could do it again".  (if I have used the wrong words put it down to bad memory please, it was in an interview.)

I doubt she was gender specific. Gerry was careful not to be.

.......

'Mr McCann said that whoever was involved must have been laughing during these last six years at what Mr Amaral has claimed - that there was no abduction and there is no predator out there.'

"There is - he or she or they may strike again,"

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-libel-trial-kate-3828366


He is somehow certain Maddie was targeted by a predator.

He seems to rule out the burglary gone wrong.

He knows more than SY.


GM "I've no doubt that Madeleine was targeted and that makes us sick to the core to think that someone was watching us and our daughter and then targeted her - I think the true word is a predator."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7100377.stm

KM: It's not about us, you know, we were bobbing back and forwards several times and I wanted to see the kids so.. you know, it's not about us. You know, I think that the problem is it's a predator basically who's been watching us, which gives you the shivers anyway, and broken into the apartment and taken Madeleine out of her bed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm

He said something along the lines of there being Paedophile gangs in Portugal and that they had abducted Madeleine.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm

[slartibartfast]

The parents admit the door were unlocked.
They don't deny she was capable of opening the doors and going to find them.
Fiona says Kate discussed this.

So is Kate only negligent if that wandering occurs.  I was thinking it is like seat belts, you get fie for not wearing them and for not having worn them after the event in an accident, liable before and after an event.

It’s more to with degree of culpability. If MM walked out and met with a fatal accident the McCann’s would be wholly responsible. That responsibility drops with walked out and taken from the street and drops further with an intruder to it’s lowest level possible in the left in unlocked apartment scenario. It can never drop to zero as parents are always ultimately responsible for their children.

[Robittybob1]

It’s more to with degree of culpability. If MM walked out and met with a fatal accident the McCann’s would be wholly responsible. That responsibility drops with walked out and taken from the street and drops further with an intruder to it’s lowest level possible in the left in unlocked apartment scenario. It can never drop to zero as parents are always ultimately responsible for their children.

You could be right but to me that doesn't make sense as what the parents did remains the same in all situations.
In most circumstances of children being left alone the police are not involved.  My kids were always left alone while I worked and I would walk the 100 meters to check them regularly.  OK there were times there were near misses and minor accidents but fortunately no child was lost permanently.

[slartibartfast]

You could be right but to me that doesn't make sense as what the parents did remains the same in all situations.

What particularly happened makes a difference to their reputation.

[Brietta]

It’s more to with degree of culpability. If MM walked out and met with a fatal accident the McCann’s would be wholly responsible. That responsibility drops with walked out and taken from the street and drops further with an intruder to it’s lowest level possible in the left in unlocked apartment scenario. It can never drop to zero as parents are always ultimately responsible for their children.

In your opinion, perhaps?  Unless you have cites?

[Brietta]

What particularly happened makes a difference to their reputation.

Being accused of secreting one's daughter's body inside a dead dog and having her incinerated at a pet crematorium doesn't affect one's reputation in any way whatsoever then??

I'll have to mull that one over.

Pet cremator is asked: Did you burn Madeleine McCann's body
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563735/Pet-cremator-is-asked-Did-you-burn-Madeleine-McCanns-body.html