A Room With A View...

[Holly Goodhead]

I read Briettas post as meaning that she didn't believe the patio door was the way of entering or leaving.

Having been there, seen a geed deal and thought about it in great depth and detail, I totally concur



I absolutely agree.


In my opinion the way in and out was via the front door

Well your opinions are also at odds with all British based experts and police officers of long experience in that they believe the patio door was used to enter and most believe it was also used to exit with MM. 

We're all entitled to our opinions, lay and professional alike, but I tend to agree with those experts and police officers of long experience who believe the patio door was used to enter and exit. 

[The General]

Well your opinions are also at odds with all British based experts and police officers of long experience in that they believe the patio door was used to enter and most believe it was also used to exit with MM. 

We're all entitled to our opinions, lay and professional alike, but I tend to agree with those experts and police officers of long experience who believe the patio door was used to enter and exit.

Maybe it was neither.

[Holly Goodhead]

Maybe it was neither.

The open shutter/window?  Nah!   

[The General]

The open shutter/window?  Nah!   

Enter and exit by whom?

[ShiningInLuz]

G4A  was probably unoccupied.

G4A is not on the corner of two streets.

As for 5A, the one down the hill to Baptista and the Commercial Centre was probably busier than than the one just north of block 5 car park, but I have no means of measuring it.

[Holly Goodhead]

Enter and exit by whom?

No one.  If the forensic scientist is correct the window/shutter was 'staged'.

[faithlilly]

In your opinion.
I disagree.
Letting  a small child  aged five or under out to play on a dark evening out with parental observation is in my opinion putting a child in danger.
Not only from road traffic but also the possibility of being hurt, abducted or murdered.

What you are really trying to say, without saying it, is that April Jones’s mother put her in danger. Please have the courage of your convictions.

I disagree. April was not alone, she was with friends. Madeleine was one her own in an unsecured, unfamiliar apartment close to a public road with no one but two under 2 year olds for company. I can’t see April’s mum ignoring her daughter if she told her she had been upset, can you ?

[slartibartfast]

How do you know that?

Do you think anyone with a modicum of intelligence would want to precipitate another furore replicating what happened after Madeleine disappeared?
There are many hundreds of thousands displaced, orphaned, lost or abandoned children all around the Mediterranean who might vanish as Madeleine did with no-one any the wiser or to raise the alarm or insist they are looked for.

Why choose a difficult target like Madeleine with hundreds of thousands ripe for the picking?

[Holly Goodhead]

Why choose a difficult target like Madeleine with hundreds of thousands ripe for the picking?

What made MM a difficult target?

Who are the thousands ripe for picking?

Picking for what?

[Erngath]

What you are really trying to say, without saying it, is that April Jones’s mother put her in danger. Please have the courage of your convictions.

I disagree. April was not alone, she was with friends. Madeleine was one her own in an unsecured, unfamiliar apartment close to a public road with no one but two under 2 year olds for company. I can’t see April’s mum ignoring her daughter if she told her she had been upset, can you ?

Of course you are correct.
I had no wish to name any parent who after weighing up the dangers and safeguards of allowing their child to be in a situation which could present some danger,  did make the wrong decision..
We will never agree, especially if you consider a five year old child to be safe outside playing with her peers on a dark October evening.
The difference is you choose to condemn one set of parents!
I condemn neither.

[faithlilly]

Of course you are correct.
I had no wish to name any parent who after weighing up the dangers and safeguards of allowing their child to be in a situation which could present some danger,  did make the wrong decision..
We will never agree, especially if you consider a five year old child to be safe outside playing with her peers on a dark October evening.
The difference is you choose to condemn one set of parents!
I condemn neither.

Isn’t this condemnation?

“Letting  a small child  aged five or under out to play on a dark evening out with parental observation is in my opinion putting a child in danger.”

Sounds very like it to me.

[Erngath]

Isn’t this condemnation?

“Letting  a small child  aged five or under out to play on a dark evening out with parental observation is in my opinion putting a child in danger.”

Sounds very like it to me.

Does it?
It's stating a fact.
It is a danger.

Every time a child of five is not being supervised by an adult, there is an element of risk.
Hence the reason for playground supervision.

Don't you believe allowing a five year old to play out in the street in the dark and unobserved by an adult does put the child at risk of something untoward happening?

[faithlilly]

Does it?
It's stating a fact.
It is a danger.

Every time a child of five is not being supervised by an adult, there is an element of risk.
Hence the reason for playground supervision.

Don't you believe allowing a five year old to play out in the street in the dark and unobserved by an adult does put the child at risk of something untoward happening?

So you’re condemning April’s mother’s decision?

[Erngath]

[qote author=Faithldc=10827.msg543156#msg543156 date=1562433321]
So you’re condemning April’s mother’s decision?
[/quote]

No.

[faithlilly]

[qote author=Faithldc=10827.msg543156#msg543156 date=1562433321]
So you’re condemning April’s mother’s decision?


No.

Yes you are.