An honest question...

[Desertpea]

No wonder MOST children who end up being kidnapped, tortured, sexually abused by pedophiles are those who were NOT being supervised by their parents.

I don't believe Elizabeth Smart was left unattended, or Jessica Lunsford or JonBenet Ramsey.

Just to name a few.

 

[CaliKid]

I don't believe Elizabeth Smart was left unattended, or Jessica Lunsford or JonBenet Ramsey.

Just to name a few.

Jessica, Elizabeth and Danielle Van Dam are the exceptions, not the norm. MOST children who are kidnapped are not taken at night from their bedrooms.

It's the children who are allowed to wander neighborhoods without supervision or go to the park or store when their parents don't know where they are who are the ones most often victimized by perverts and murderers.

For instance, there is a little 7-year-old boy in my housing tract who sounds very much like the child Emery knows. His mother lets him go out right after school and he wanders around looking for kids to play with until dinner time. His mother never knows where he is, and when she wants him to come home she calls around to families with children asking if they've seen him.

If you don't know where your child is and haven't set up guidelines to keep track of his/her movements, you're setting up your child to be taken.

 

[Jolynna]

People have different standards.

What is okay for some, is not okay for others.

There is a difference between standards and endangering.

There is no excuse for anyone leaving two and three yr. olds ALONE. Whether they are responsible for more than that or not, just leaving those little ones alone, in my opinion, is inexcusable negligence.

I do not know whether they are guilty of more than that or not. How they dress or talk or their social class does not matter to me. Based on the evidence I have read, I can't say they are or are not responsible for Madeline's disappearance.

imo

 

[Desertpea]

There is a difference between standards and endangering.

There is no excuse for anyone leaving two and three yr. olds ALONE. Whether they are responsible for more than that or not, just leaving those little ones alone, in my opinion, is inexcusable negligence.

It would seem some peoples standards re: their children can be dangerous yes.

But standards are standards, what is considered a dangerous standard by some, is not considered dangerous by others.

 

[SleuthMom]

I don't believe Elizabeth Smart was left unattended, or Jessica Lunsford or JonBenet Ramsey.

Just to name a few.

As Cali said, exceptions are NOT the rule. You just need to read the heinous crimes against children every day to realize that MOST cases do not happen when these kids are supervised by their parents as it is supposed to be. I hope you do not deny that fact.

 

[Texana]

No, but Elizabeth's parents did not have their alarm set, nor did the Ramseys. As well, Elizabeth's father had hired as handyman the person who eventually did abduct her--and he was in the habit of bringing home "street people" to employ and feed. A very, very nice man with a truly good heart, but somewhat naive about his fellow man.

But those are only the publicized cases of abductions/murders. I can assure that in every community there are other cases where a child was simply left unsupervised and drowned, or found a parent's gun and used it on themselves or a sibling/friend, or some other such accident with fatal results.

Abduction is actually the least likely outcome. Accidents are the common result.

We are genetically hard-wired to watch our children, it is a survival of the human race instinct. Look at societies across the world and the cultural norm is to watch or supervise the young children--whether that is done by a parent, an older sibling, or an elderly relative--it has been and always will be the standard universal to supervise small children.

 

[txsvicki]

I believe that it is neglect to leave small children alone. Children who were reported to have screamed and cried for a parent for hours due to being afraid. These kids could have been left in a creche at night, but I'll bet Kate and Gerry had no interest in getting the kids all awake when picked up and would cause too much trouble in getting back to sleep. I also know that neglectful parents are usually very likely to physically abuse. The two go hand in hand. Neglect, stressed out regimented parents who seem somewhat self absorbed, screaming kids, failure to make sure of child care arrangements beforehand could sure lead to rage and hitting a child in anger. If they did it, I believe being beaten accounts for lack of setting up an accidental death scene, for dna being found, the mistake with cuddlecat, the bible, and over staging with things such as the shutter, and accounts of being watched and someone being in the room. If they did it, the mistakes along with dna will trap Kate and Gerry.

 

[april4sky]

Yes, while they were on vacation, they exercised bad judgment about what to do with their children while they went to dinner.

Just as some parents have decided that their 5 year olds don't need to sit in a booster seat anymore or some mothers think it's okay to nurse their babies in the backseat while their husbands drive. These are all judgment calls -- a considered decision was made, sometimes repeatedly. In my opinion, they are bad judgment calls, but they are judgment calls nonetheless.

My nine year old son has a friend in the neighborhood who's parents have decided he is old enough to leave the yard and play in the neighborhood without them knowing exactly where he is as long as he comes home by a certain time. So, he has taken to walking around and playing where ever he finds other kids. The other day he showed up at our doorstep and asked if my son could play. I said yes, but only if they stayed in our yard.

I disagree with his parents' assessment of how much unsupervised freedom a nine-year-old boy should have. I don't think his parents are bad parents generally, I don't think they don't love and cherish their son, I don't think they are lazy, selfish upper-middle-class professionals who can't be bothered. We just disagree about what is acceptable.

I agree bad judgement not intentional neglect.

I think the McCanns believed that the arrangements they made was ok. Sadly they were wrong.
A baby listening service like the one they were doing for themselves is offered in many Hotels and holliday resorts, both in the UK and Europe.
Maybe it is a crime in the US but I don't believe it is in Europe. Which is probably why they haven't been charged with neglect.

Its unfair to judge them on US laws.
You would also have to charge a lot of Hotels and holliday resorts for offering the same thing.
Check out some Hotels on the web. Its crazy but many are still offering a baby listening service.

http://www.all4kidsuk.com/search_result/nokeyword/allareas/Hotels_(Family_Friendly)

It should be stopped and made a crime. And the sooner the better.IMO

I really don't believe the McCanns thought they were, or had the intention of neglecting their children.

 

[emery]

It would seem some peoples standards re: their children can be dangerous yes.

But standards are standards, what is considered a dangerous standard by some, is not considered dangerous by others.

I actually think you two may agree with each other.

One question is whether the McCanns were negligent -- that is answered by asking whether their actions were reasonable -- what would a reasonable parent do in their shoes. Some things are clearly unreasonable -- objectively unreasonable. An objective standard means you don't care why the parent did what it did or what the parent was thinking. You don't bother getting inside the head of the parents. You measure their conduct from a "reasonable parent" perspective. Some things are arguable -- what one parent views as reasonable precaution another parent views as being overly protective. Those types of situations -- where reasonable minds can differ -- don't fall below the reasonable standard of care. They aren't negligence.

My personal view is that the McCanns' decision to leave such young children alone was objectively unreasonable, so therefore negligent.

But there is a separate question about what the McCanns' state of mind was when they made their decision. Did they subjectively think it was safe and their risk assessment was just flawed. Or did they fully understand the dangers, but were willing to gamble that none of them would happen because they are selfish, cheap and callous.

At this point, I don't have enough information about the McCanns' subjective state of mind when they decided to leave their children alone to venture a guess on question number 2.

 

[SleuthMom]

Emery, interesting points. Taking into consideration that the Mc Canns have stated they felt they were being "watched" by someone, Gerry stated that he felt the presence of someone in the room when he went to check on the kids yet he did nothing and the resort warning them about some dangers...nevertheless, they CHOSE to leave the tots alone for a whole week, proves to me they were more than willing to gamble with those kids almost waiting for a tragedy to happen. In few words, they did not give a damn.

 

[colomom]

Are you all aware that there have been rumors that the McCann's had a sitter reserved for the evening of May 3 and cancelled at around 6PM? I have just recently read that they may have used a sitter every night before the 3rd.

There may be more to this than just "bad judgment".

(reposted from http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1194183634&page=8 post #110)

Thanks to debk!

Sociedade Civil RTP (2 Nov 2007)

This show was briefly discussed while I was out of town but people mentioned something I'd never heard before about a private babysitter... so I went back to watch it myself.

Interviewer: Fernanda Freitas (FF)
Panel: Paul Luckman (PL), director of Portugal's largest English-language paper, "The Portuguese News", a British man living in the Algarve since 1973
Carlos Rodrigues Lima (CL), journalist for O Expresso (which I consider Portugal's most reliable weekly)
Paulo Cristóvão (PC), ex-PJ and author of the recent book about Joanna

The video is 90 minutes long and included a brief update on all seven (7) of Portugal's other unresolved cases of missing children, some of whom went missing more than 20 years ago.

To access the video:
a. http://multimedia.rtp.pt/index.php?vid=1
b. select the date 2007-11-02
c. click on "Sociedade Civil"

Two things might be of general interest:

1. CRIME OF ABANDONMENT
Video: 7 minutes
PC begins talking about the first error made in this case, of not charging the McCanns with Criminal Abandonment of their children and constituting them arguidos for that, right away. (Later in the program they read the specific law covering this crime, to confirm its applicability). There was total agreement that if any of them had been found in the same situation, they would have been charged with this crime which carries a penalty of 1-5 years in prison.

2. USE OF A BABYSITTER EVERY NIGHT *EXCEPT* MAY 3
Video: 11 minutes
PL is addressing a question as to whether it is normal in England to leave 3 babies alone at home while going out to dinner (which he vehemently denies), adding that it is the parents -- and not PJ -- who were at fault for leaving their children in a strange country, ground floor apartment, which they could not see (from Tapas), when he is interrupted by PC . . .

PC (11:06): "Paul, it was not the police that dismissed the nanny who, during the entire week, had watched those children..."
PL: "yes" (nodding)
PC: "It was the parents."
PL: (nodding)
PC: "As far as I know, until now, they still, the parents, have not been able to explain why on that day and hour they dismissed a nanny that was at their complete disposal." (FF mutters verbal agreement)

...PC then goes on to explain that it was the McCanns and their friends, with their stories of ceaseless checks which made the abduction theory impossible for PJ to believe...

Again, at 29minutes, in a discussion of the cost of the case (€500.000) PL says the MW babysitter cost €12 per hour...
FF (29:46): "...that nanny, that babysitter, that, curiously, regularly was with the children and was on that day, specifically, dismissed." (PL mumbling agreement through all this)

 

[Rino]

I'm glad you found that. I have been having the darndest time trying to find where I know I've read that it was not their practice to leave the kids on prior evenings.

 

[emery]

Could they be referring to the nanny that cared for the children during the day? It's not clear from the quotes given that they're agreeing that on the other evenings the McCanns used a nanny while they went out to eat.

 

[wtsn5]

If they had hired a nanny every night up to May 3rd - then what Mrs. Fenn heard two nights prior is very questionable. If a nanny was in the room why was a child crying for her daddy for an extended period of time. I am having a hard time believing anything that has been reported. I'm not sure what is fact from fiction. The only fact I know for sure is that on May 3rd 2007 Madeleine McCann went missing.

 

[laini]

As Cali said, exceptions are NOT the rule. You just need to read the heinous crimes against children every day to realize that MOST cases do not happen when these kids are supervised by their parents as it is supposed to be. I hope you do not deny that fact.

The two most recent kidnappings and murders in Iowa are due to this very reason! Jetsetta Gage and Evelyn Miller in Iowa. Both due to neglect on the parents parts. THere are some cases where lack of supervision or poor choices by the parents are not the case, but I do think a lot could have been prevented had the parents made better choices.

 

[colomom]

What if.....?

The crying children report is McCann spin? Remember how Mrs. Fenn denied every saying anything like that?

Would it not follow logic to think that it would look better for the McCanns to say they left the children alone every night rather than admit they had a sitter every night except the last?

emery:

This part, "...that nanny, that babysitter, that, curiously, regularly was with the children and was on that day, specifically, dismissed." tells me they are talking about an evening sitter because I believe the children were in the creche during the day and how would you "dismiss" a creche nanny? You just would not drop the children there on a given day. The key word is dismiss. Also, "on that day and hour they dismissed a nanny" does not fit with a daytime creche nanny either.

 

[wtsn5]

What if.....?

The crying children report is McCann spin? Remember how Mrs. Fenn denied every saying anything like that?

Would it not follow logic to think that it would look better for the McCanns to say they left the children alone every night rather than admit they had a sitter every night except the last?

I am confused how would the crying children spin help the McCanns - from everything I can remember it was Mrs. Fenn who heard the children crying and reported it to the MW resort - which is what promted the MW resort telling the McCanns that the resorts offers nighttime babysitting. I really don't remember Mrs Fenn denying that. If it wasn't Mrs. Fenn who reported hearing a child cry on May 1st who did?

 

[colomom]

I am confused how would the crying children spin help the McCanns - from everything I can remember it was Mrs. Fenn who heard the children crying and reported it to the MW resort - which is what promted the MW resort telling the McCanns that the resorts offers nighttime babysitting. I really don't remember Mrs Fenn denying that. If it wasn't Mrs. Fenn who reported hearing a child cry on May 1st who did?

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=481705&in_page_id=1811

"Pamela Fenn, 81, who lives in the flat above, is reported to have heard Madeleine crying for her 'daddy' and sounds of 'violence'. Mrs Fenn has since denied she told police any such thing."

wtsn5:
"I am confused how would the crying children spin help the McCanns"

From my post:
"It would look better for the McCanns to say they left the children alone every night rather than admit they had a sitter every night except the last?"

 

[gord]

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=481705&in_page_id=1811

"Pamela Fenn, 81, who lives in the flat above, is reported to have heard Madeleine crying for her 'daddy' and sounds of 'violence'. Mrs Fenn has since denied she told police any such thing."



From my post:
"It would look better for the McCanns to say they left the children alone every night rather than admit they had a sitter every night except the last?"

I am now confused - what are you saying - they planned ths from the start as interestedwomen claims - so the leaving the kids alone was just a decoy ?

 

[Tuba]

What I have read in the past was that Catriona Baker was the nanny assigned to Madeleine and was with her at the Kids' Club during each day, including 3 May. She and other staff from the club were dismissed by Mark Warner Resorts. The other staff in question had relationships with other doctors in the party. You can read about this here & I will try to find the post nos., if you like (I submitted them). It sounds like you may have read something different, however, and I would like to read that. Maybe you can direct me? Catriona was sent to St. Agostino in Greece. Charlotte Pennington was sent away also and the list goes on. The new assignments were undesirable and they ended their employment.