The Neglect question

[debunker]

Why can't these judgmental types just let it go?  It's been 6 years of harping on about neglect, are they going to spend the next 6 years going on about it as well?  Doesn't this point to something akin to pathological behaviour?

They have nothing else left to offer in trying to fit up the McCanns- a bit like the PJ.

[stephen25000]

Mark Warner usually did a nanny listening service, where by a nanny would listen outside of the apartment to see if a child was crying.    If Madeleine had disappeared if they had gone for this service if it had been available,  would that had been neglect Stephen?    The McCanns have said they were doing their own 'listening service'.

Their visits were infrequent and I believe they didn't want a listening service.

So it also beggars the question as to why no babysitter

Likewise the children were in a creche for most of the day, where they were being taken care of by essentially strangers, so what was this aversion to care during the evenings, whilst they wined and dined ?

Being in the creche matters not.

They were able to claim that they checked every twenty minutes or so.

No criminal neglect unless you know better than the Portuguese Prosecutor!!!!!

Oh dear.

They claimed !!

Doesn't make it true.

Try harder.

[stephen25000]

Why can't these judgmental types just let it go?  It's been 6 years of harping on about neglect, are they going to spend the next 6 years going on about it as well?  Doesn't this point to something akin to pathological behaviour?

No Martha.

Pathological behaviour is exhibited by people who don't question the Mccanns and what they did.

[stephen25000]

Why can't these judgmental types just let it go?  It's been 6 years of harping on about neglect, are they going to spend the next 6 years going on about it as well?  Doesn't this point to something akin to pathological behaviour?

They have nothing else left to offer in trying to fit up the McCanns- a bit like the PJ.

Typical mccannite rubbish.

Now cite the evidence the PJ tried to fit up the Mccanns.

What a load of old crap.

A myth cubed.

[debunker]

The Portuguese Prosecutor did not charge.



Know better than him?

[icabodcrane]

Why can't these judgmental types just let it go?  It's been 6 years of harping on about neglect, are they going to spend the next 6 years going on about it as well?  Doesn't this point to something akin to pathological behaviour?

The thread wasn't started in order to berate or  'judge'  the McCanns for their childcare arrangements

It was started to pose the question of whether negligence charges would have been more likely if  Madeleine had suffered a serious/fatal injury as a consequence of being left alone,  rather than been abducted, as claimed

It is a relevent question because if the McCanns  were  likely to have been charged with negligence in the event of Madeleine having suffered a fatal  accident,  then it presents a motive for staging an abduction

[stephen25000]

Why can't these judgmental types just let it go?  It's been 6 years of harping on about neglect, are they going to spend the next 6 years going on about it as well?  Doesn't this point to something akin to pathological behaviour?

No Martha.

Pathological behaviour is exhibited by people who don't question the Mccanns and what they did.

You're saying it's pathological NOT to stick the boot into the MCanns for 6 solid years re: the supposed neglect and perfectly normal to spend that length of time going on and on about it?  Hos many more years do you plan to harp on about it and to what end?

Supposed neglect ?

Simple question.

Where's Madeleine ?

[stephen25000]

The Portuguese Prosecutor did not charge.



Know better than him?

Temper tantrums.

Now prove the PJ tried to fit up the Mccanns.

[debunker]

Neglect is criminal.

The McCanns remain uncharged and unconvicted.

You remain terminally stupid.

[stephen25000]

Stephen in answer to your simple question "Where's Madeleine?", the simple answer iis one that only her abductor can give.

Now prove there was an abductor.

[debunker]

The Portuguese Prosecutor did not charge.
How do you explain that .
Know better than him?

Temper tantrums.
Now prove the PJ tried to fit up the Mccanns.

All the proof necessary is in the preliminary and final reports which were rejected by the prosecutor as indicating no crime by the Mccanns or others.

End of....

[stephen25000]

Neglect is criminal.

The McCanns remain uncharged and unconvicted.

You remain terminally stupid.

You said the PJ  tried to fit up the Mccanns.

Now cite the evidence.

Secondly, stop the rubbish that you are neutral.

That's blatant rubbish.

[debunker]

Stephen in answer to your simple question "Where's Madeleine?", the simple answer iis one that only her abductor can give.

Now prove there was an abductor.

The Portuguses Prosecutor could not, nor prove there was any other crime.

[icabodcrane]

Predictably,  the thread has become the usual to and fro of whether what the McCanns did was legally or morally correct

My original question as op was more specific though

Would the McCanns have been deemed negligent if Madeleine had suffered a serious  ( or fatal  )  injury as a consequence of their childcare decisions ?

I feel that the McCanns being viewed as  'not'  negligent is relative to what they claim subsequently happened,  rather than because their childcare arrangements were perfectly adequate  (  they clearly were not  ...  the fact that a child is missing is testimony to that ) 

Their daughter was abducted they say  ...  and how could they be deemed negligent for not assessing  a risk as remote and unforseeable as that ? 

If the situation were different though,  and it was a serious  ( or fatal )  injury that occurred,  rather than abduction,  could the McCanns claim they could not reasonably be expected to have assessed that risk when making the childcare choices they made  ?   (  given that there is nothing remote or unforseeable about the risk of injury to a small child who wakes and wonders )

Consider this scenario :

Either Kate or Gerry check on the children,  all is well,  and they leave the apartment through the patio door.

The sound of the patio door closing rouses Madeleine,  who calls out to Mummy or Daddy.  When there is no response she gets out of bed and goes to her parents room, expecting to find them there.  They are not. She looks around the apartment calling for them,   frightened now.   She tries to look out of the window,  but needs to climb to do it  (  onto the back of the sofa, perhaps )  She falls heavily onto the tiled floor and is injured  (  a head injury possibly )  and bleeding

...  and there she remains,  injured and bleeding,  and in need of immediate attention,  for next half an hour ,  when the next check is due

During that crucial half an hour,  the child's small body goes into shock due to blood loss,  and by the time an adult arrives,  it is too late

In that  scenario,  would the McCann's assessment of the  risk  of accident or injury have been deemed adequate  ?  or would they have faced a charge of negligence  ?

The scenario described above is possible,  is it not  ?

Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Mccanns could, properly,  be charged with neglect in those circumstances ? 

[stephen25000]

The Portuguese Prosecutor did not charge.
How do you explain that smartass.
Know better than him?

Temper tantrums.
Now prove the PJ tried to fit up the Mccanns.

All the proof necessary is in the preliminary and final reports which were rejected by the prosecutor as indicating no crime by the Mccanns or others.

End of....

Pure banal rubbish.