In hindsight the checks on the children were inadequate...are we sympathetic?

[Carana]

I know I'm going to be persecuted by what I'm about to write, but I'm used to it.

First of all, from the limited experience that I have with British couples with young children, both in Britain and in Portugal, I've never witnessed any of them leaving 3 year old, or even until they were in their middle or late teens.
Second, even though it seems all of the 9 persons assumed to leaving their children alone, I have trouble believing it.
Third, and it's here that I will be flogged, because it's speculation, I think that whatever happened had little to do with the reported neglect, and that was used to justify the absence of the child.
If there was a fatal accident, and there was the need to occult the body, then there was some very serious crime committed that could be revealed by the poor child's corpse. As I said this is pure speculation on my part - I have no clue whatsoever.

As you say, it's speculation on your part. Others may speculate that she'd been taken by little green men in an invisibility cloak.

What exactly are you trying to say? That she wasn't left alone that evening?

[Albertini]

The AG seemed to accept it as sufficiently impressive to not bring child neglect charges. The Met seems to see it as part of the evidence that the parents are not persons of interest.

Now some odd peel on the internet may doubt it, but that means nothing.

... edit ...

Well of course the only way to test the veracity of their alleged checking arrangements would have been via the reconstruction, to see if it all fitted or if what they stated resulted in several people bumping in to each other at the same time.

Yet they refused.

Wonder why and what inference we can draw from their decision?

[TrueSardine]

«We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.»

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html»

The fact is other prosecutors could have and can still find enough "indicative facts" from the very same process, added to new elements brought forward from the McCanns multiple documentaries and interviews, that could lead for a prosecution for child negligence. Dolo Eventual being a clear possibility. I've heard not one, but many Portuguese jurists, judges and  lawyers say that. So there. The two prosecutors from Portimão who wrote the archival dispatch should have brought forward an accusation against the McCanns and their friends, under article 138º of the CPP [Artigo 138.º - Exposição ou abandono]. http://easilex.blogspot.pt/2008/08/casal-mccann-no-ser-acusado-de-crime-de.html  http://octalberto.no.sapo.pt/exposicao_ou_abandono.htm

[Lyall]

No. The Met have used HOLMES to check this. Far more effective and much cheaper than people bumbling around.

They may have done simulations (Campbell's system wasn't too successful in the Dando case was it) but is there any evidence the Portuguese have been impressed by them?

So far I think there has been no indication.

[Lyall]

Why should the Portuguese be interested. This is merely forum froth.

>@@(*&) Isn't the idea to try to persuade the Portuguese to resume the investigation?

[Lyall]

Forum froth?

[Lyall]

What effect. Cite please.

K McCann's own book is the most obvious testament.

[Joanne]

I feel enormous sympathy for Madeleine and the twins but not for the parents, they had choices and they could have taken the children with them and let them sleep in buggies, pooled all the kids in one apartment and eaten in the same apartment, used a listening device, I mean how much would it have cost to buy 2 really cheap mobiles (carphone warehouse sell them for £3) get a portual based sim card and left it on, stayed in.
If you want the single life, don't have kids.
Using a listening service is really it's a bit like throwing your kids in a pool and saying "Oh, well there's a life guard on duty", he might get to the kids in time but who's responsibilty is it?
I really don't understand why when people are on holiday they do things they wouldn't (well they might do for all I know) do if they were at home. The Mccanns have done a grand job of milking the sympathetic public through their mistake and now think everyone should be looking for THEIR daughter because they did not because they were too busy in the pub.

[John]

A number of off topic posts have been expunged.  Please stay on topic to avoid the need for this.

[sadie]

I feel enormous sympathy for Madeleine and the twins but not for the parents, they had choices and they could have taken the children with them and let them sleep in buggies, pooled all the kids in one apartment and eaten in the same apartment, used a listening device, I mean how much would it have cost to buy 2 really cheap mobiles (carphone warehouse sell them for £3) get a portual based sim card and left it on, stayed in.
If you want the single life, don't have kids.
Using a listening service is really it's a bit like throwing your kids in a pool and saying "Oh, well there's a life guard on duty", he might get to the kids in time but who's responsibilty is it?
I really don't understand why when people are on holiday they do things they wouldn't (well they might do for all I know) do if they were at home. The Mccanns have done a grand job of milking the sympathetic public through their mistake and now think everyone should be looking for THEIR daughter because they did not because they were too busy in the pub.

Joanne.  Stop the lies.  Since when has a retaurant been called a pub!

Just trying to influence the unaware aren't you and whip up hatred against The Mccanns.

Please modify your post and get it right.

[Jazzy]

I feel enormous sympathy for Madeleine and the twins but not for the parents, they had choices and they could have taken the children with them and let them sleep in buggies, pooled all the kids in one apartment and eaten in the same apartment, used a listening device, I mean how much would it have cost to buy 2 really cheap mobiles (carphone warehouse sell them for £3) get a portual based sim card and left it on, stayed in.
If you want the single life, don't have kids.
Using a listening service is really it's a bit like throwing your kids in a pool and saying "Oh, well there's a life guard on duty", he might get to the kids in time but who's responsibilty is it?
I really don't understand why when people are on holiday they do things they wouldn't (well they might do for all I know) do if they were at home. The Mccanns have done a grand job of milking the sympathetic public through their mistake and now think everyone should be looking for THEIR daughter because they did not because they were too busy in the pub.

But here's the thing, they could have taken the kids with them as a group, they could have taken turns looking after them and they didn't. There we are. I agree, better choices, less selfish choices should have been made by them all. They made their choice, so did whoever took that child. They weren't negligent, in my opinion, they were selfish, and as a result they live with lynch mob baying and the loss of their child. Milking normal people with compassion, by the way.

Factual point: It was a Tapas Bar.................they weren't "in the pub"

[C.Edwards]

Joanne.  Stop the lies.  Since when has a retaurant been called a pub!

Just trying to influence the unaware aren't you and whip up hatred against The Mccanns.

Please modify your post and get it right.

It's called (or rather was called) the Tapas Bar.  A Bar is a lot closer to a pub than a restaurant.

Sadie with your penchant for flights of fancy based on your personal opinion, it's rather rich of you to be jumping in with a two footed tackle like this, isn't it?

[sadie]

But here's the thing, they could have taken the kids with them as a group, they could have taken turns looking after them and they didn't. There we are. I agree, better choices, less selfish choices should have been made by them all. They made their choice, so did whoever took that child. They weren't negligent, in my opinion, they were selfish, and as a result they live with lynch mob baying and the loss of their child. Milking normal people with compassion, by the way.

Factual point: It was a Tapas Bar.................they weren't "in the pub"

It wasn't the bar Jazzy.  That is next door in the enclosed part. 

It was the restaurant that they ate in.

The bar and the outdoor restaurant had a different ethos.  They were quite different places with bar pulls and bottles of spirits with fixed optical spirit measures on the wall, behind the bar IIRC.     That was in the indoor section.
But tables and chairs were in a dining setting in the restaurant..    I did not see anyone eating a meal  in the bar

I think people could have eaten in the bar but they didn't.  I would welcome some confirmation of this because I only peeped in the bar ... but sat and ate my meal in the restauant .... and it was 3 years ago.  Drinks could be ordered at the table as is normal in a restaurant, but they had to be brought by the waiter from the next door building.  Heavy drinkers went to the bar.   Diners seemed to eat exclusively in the outside restaurant