do you think maddie is alive or dead

[Jmoose]

8 bottles of wine ordered to that table that night.

Shes dead; and they know it imo *km and gm*

How many couples were there?

 

[AngelWings444]

Tough crowd on these threads. I hold out hope that maybe Madeleine is alive. Normally, I would think the opposite. Hoping that I am correct. Either way, it would be nice to have closure.

Even I, who states the above, thinks the parents are guilty of child endangerment, at the very least. You DO NOT leave babies unattended, period! I have been on many vacations in my lifetime. You either do the Mommy/Daddy vacation or you do a family vacation! You don't mix the two.

JMO

 

[Jmoose]

I don't have a strong sense if Maddie is alive or not, and I don't have a strong sense if her parents are directly responsible for her death or if somebody else is. However, I am unequivocal about their neglect of their children on this vacation-the McCanns are absolutely guilty of neglect on at least this one night. But for that, their daughter would still be with them

 

[tezi]

It is not about money. What makes it about money in portugal and charges?? There is nothing that says that. No proof of that.

Money does not keep you from being charged and put on trial. Ask OJ or Phil Spector.

Now, let's see here, OJ spent over 9 million bucks to make sure he didn't do life in prison for two murders he so obviously committed. Money sure talked there. Of course, that didn't work so well in Vegas did it? He didn't have the big bucks to spend to make sure he didn't go to prison for armed robbery.

Phil Spector was free for a very long time before he was finally found guilty of murdering Lana. But, again, money talked to keep his weird azz out of prison for a lot longer than he should have been.

And we don't know it didn't come down to money to keep any charges silent.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Their system was less than inadequate-that is how their daughter disappeared. I don't know about you, but nobody was going to sneak into a hotel room and sneak off with one of my kids while I was there. If somebody did take Maddie, I don't need to talk to the perpetrator to know that he didn't go in there, not knowing if an adult was in the room, so he could steal a kid.

I agree. I have no issue whatsoever with people not liking how they decided to handle the child care that night. I just am not sure it rises to criminal behavior. Not under the law anyway. If it did that would be the easiest way to get the McCanns unnerved if you think they did something wrong. I just feel like if they had a legal leg to stand on they would have at least charged them with that in an effort to be able to investigate them further and gain more information and evidence.

But we do have people who sneak into houses and steal kids, burglars that have walked right into people's homes and rooms while they were sleeping.
We have a baby that was taken from a crib while his parents were sleeping in the room in 1986.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40177&highlight=christopher+abeyta

It happens. If someone wants a child bad enough the risk they will take is enormous.

Im not saying that them being there would not be a deterrent. I am sure it would be, But it still does not mean they would not have tried and maybe still succeeded.

 

[Jmoose]

I agree. I have no issue whatsoever with people not liking how they decided to handle the child care that night. I just am not sure it rises to criminal behavior. Not under the law anyway. If it did that would be the easiest way to get the McCanns unnerved if you think they did something wrong. I just feel like if they had a legal leg to stand on they would have at least charged them with that in an effort to be able to investigate them further and gain more information and evidence.

But we do have people who sneak into houses and steal kids, burglars that have walked right into people's homes and rooms while they were sleeping.
We have a baby that was taken from a crib while his parents were sleeping in the room in 1986.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40177&highlight=christopher+abeyta

It happens. If someone wants a child bad enough the risk they will take is enormous.

Im not saying that them being there would not be a deterrent. I am sure it would be, But it still does not mean they would not have tried and maybe still succeeded.

BBM-This does happen, and we all know it does-but we also know for certain that this did not happen in the McCann case. Assuming that Maddie was, in fact, abducted, she was abducted while her parents were out socializing with other adults-we may not know much, but we know the McCanns were not where their children were that night, and possibly many other nights. That is, at best, neglectful. We don't know why the police in Portugal didn't charge them-it isn't necessarily because leaving children unattended isn't a criminal offense. For me, it doesn't matter if it is criminal or not-they're guilty of neglect in the minds of all responsible parents, and they know it. I hope they feel enormous guilt about that internally, even as they haven't publically expressed it. Have either of them even publically said that they wished they had not left their children alone, or are they still mounting the "best defense is a good offense"?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM-This does happen, and we all know it does-but we also know for certain that this did not happen in the McCann case. Assuming that Maddie was, in fact, abducted, she was abducted while her parents were out socializing with other adults-we may not know much, but we know the McCanns were not where their children were that night, and possibly many other nights. That is, at best, neglectful. We don't know why the police in Portugal didn't charge them-it isn't necessarily because leaving children unattended isn't a criminal offense. For me, it doesn't matter if it is criminal or not-they're guilty of neglect in the minds of all responsible parents, and they know it. I hope they feel enormous guilt about that internally, even as they haven't publically expressed it. Have either of them even publically said that they wished they had not left their children alone, or are they still mounting the "best defense is a good offense"?

I think we do. If the police charged them I believe we would know. It would be public record if they were charged. The whole world would know.

In working the common sense factor, If the police really believed these people were responsible for something in this case and had the evidence to charge them with neglect, it just makes sense they would have.

I am sure that they wish they had not left them alone. Just as any mother has that has a missing child but I don't know that they owe that to us. It really makes no difference what they say. People make up all kinds of crazy interpretations of their words.

 

[tezi]

I agree. I have no issue whatsoever with people not liking how they decided to handle the child care that night. I just am not sure it rises to criminal behavior. Not under the law anyway. If it did that would be the easiest way to get the McCanns unnerved if you think they did something wrong. I just feel like if they had a legal leg to stand on they would have at least charged them with that in an effort to be able to investigate them further and gain more information and evidence.

But we do have people who sneak into houses and steal kids, burglars that have walked right into people's homes and rooms while they were sleeping.
We have a baby that was taken from a crib while his parents were sleeping in the room in 1986.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40177&highlight=christopher+abeyta

It happens. If someone wants a child bad enough the risk they will take is enormous.

Im not saying that them being there would not be a deterrent. I am sure it would be, But it still does not mean they would not have tried and maybe still succeeded.

I lived in CO when Christopher went missing. There are a lot of unanswered questions there.

JMO

 

[Jmoose]

I think we do. If the police charged them I believe we would know. It would be public record if they were charged. The whole world would know.

In working the common sense factor, If the police really believed these people were responsible for something in this case and had the evidence to charge them with neglect, it just makes sense they would have.

I am sure that they wish they had not left them alone. Just as any mother has that has a missing child but I don't know that they owe that to us. It really makes no difference what they say. People make up all kinds of crazy interpretations of their words.

I think you might have misunderstood me-we know they weren't charged; we don't know why they weren't charged. Perhaps the police don't believe that Maddie was missing by neglect-maybe they thought (and still do) that the McCanns drugged her so she'd sleep, and accidently killed her? They might have been waiting to get more evidence of whatever their version of that means of death. This is not necessarily what I think, but my theory doesn't matter. It might be a custom in Portugal and other resort areas to leave your kids sleeping someplace other than where you are socializing, and the police let it go regularly, even if it's a crime to do so. In this country, it used to be common to let people go with a warning for drinking and driving, even though it was a crime-now we know better. Hopefully in Europe, they will start to do something about this practice.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think you might have misunderstood me-we know they weren't charged; we don't know why they weren't charged. Perhaps the police don't believe that Maddie was missing by neglect-maybe they thought (and still do) that the McCanns drugged her so she'd sleep, and accidently killed her? They might have been waiting to get more evidence of whatever their version of that means of death. This is not necessarily what I think, but my theory doesn't matter. It might be a custom in Portugal and other resort areas to leave your kids sleeping someplace other than where you are socializing, and the police let it go regularly, even if it's a crime to do so. In this country, it used to be common to let people go with a warning for drinking and driving, even though it was a crime-now we know better. Hopefully in Europe, they will start to do something about this practice.

I understand. Thanks for clarifying.. However we do have a lot of people that feel the method of child care that night was indeed neglect. But they are not charged with that. Often we see police charge with lesser crimes to arrest and then work on the bigger charges later.
This is a child who was abducted so if in fact ANY harm came to the child whether they believe it to be abduction or abuse, It only makes sense that they would start with the first charge.

That they did not charge them, Says to me that there were no true evidence of neglect.

 

[Kimster]

I've seen in other cases where LE "overlooks" a lesser issue. I wonder sometimes if they are of the same state of mind that I am - the punishment of having their daughter taken is way worse than anything the courts would hand down due to they not watching their children close enough. If my theory is correct, we have no way of knowing if they truly felt the children were neglected that night.

Seems like here in the states, they only pull the negligent charges when they think the parents are involved. :dunno:

Just my personal opinion only based on cases I've followed.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I've seen in other cases where LE "overlooks" a lesser issue. I wonder sometimes if they are of the same state of mind that I am - the punishment of having their daughter taken is way worse than anything the courts would hand down due to they not watching their children close enough.

Seems like here in the states, they only pull the negligent charges when they think the parents are involved. :dunno:

Just my personal opinion only based on cases I've followed.

Sure. It goes both ways..

But when I look at cases like CA where they got her on lying? or child neglect first and then the murder charges came..

That is what puts me in mind of that chain of events. I don't know anything about Portugal law so it is just an assumption in that they would want to use the charges to keep them there and get more information if they believed there was something more nefarious in the works..

 

[Donjeta]

JMO but I think there probably is a law saying that you should not endanger your children in most civilized countries and that's what they did. Evidence: Madeleine is not here today.

But I think that the tourist industry in many resorts probably largely depends on people who spend their nights wining and dining and wining some more and if they prosecuted everyone who happened to endanger their children in the process it would be a big can of worms.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

JMO but I think there probably is a law saying that you should not endanger your children in most civilized countries and that's what they did. Evidence: Madeleine is not here today.

But I think that the tourist industry in many resorts probably largely depends on people who spend their nights wining and dining and wining some more and if they prosecuted everyone who happened to endanger their children in the process it would be a big can of worms.

Im just not sure that is true LEGALLY. I'm sure it may be true emotionally or looking at it as parents who would not do that, I am just wondering if legally they broke a law why they would not have been charged with it.

 

[Jmoose]

I understand. Thanks for clarifying.. However we do have a lot of people that feel the method of child care that night was indeed neglect. But they are not charged with that. Often we see police charge with lesser crimes to arrest and then work on the bigger charges later.
This is a child who was abducted so if in fact ANY harm came to the child whether they believe it to be abduction or abuse, It only makes sense that they would start with the first charge.

That they did not charge them, Says to me that there were no true evidence of neglect.

But, do the police in Portugal now believe this to be a case of child abduction? I haven't followed closely til now-they did think at the beginning that the McCanns were directly responsible for harming Maddie, intentionally or accidently, no? So if they thought (and may still think) that the McCanns did something to her, why would they charge them with abandoning the children so someone could abduct one of them?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But, do the police in Portugal now believe this to be a case of child abduction? I haven't followed closely til now-they did think at the beginning that the McCanns were directly responsible for harming Maddie, intentionally or accidently, no? So if they thought (and may still think) that the McCanns did something to her, why would they charge them with abandoning the children so someone could abduct one of them?

I don't know if the all the police believed that. I think maybe some did and some did not.
If they believed that the McCanns did something to Maddie it seems to me it would make perfect sense to charge them with neglect, at the very least. That way they would be open to all kind of intense investigation, court ordered searches and such.

I'm just saying for me it seems odd that they were not charged with something that directly lead to Maddie going missing, whether it be neglect that led to someone taking her, or because of their neglect something happened to her and they are covering it up.

Am I saying that right? I am just really thinking out loud here but it is something that I wonder about.. Why no charges if they feel McCanns are guilty of something... ?

 

[Donjeta]

Who knows. Because they still want the drunk and the negligent to spend money in Portuguese resorts and they wouldn't if they thought that they'll be prosecuted. Because Portugal is a mostly Catholic country and the McCanns seemed to have the Pope on their side. Because political forces got involved early on. Because the DA thought the McCanns looked nice and couldn't have done anything. Because they thought that they might prosecute for Madeleine's death eventually and it would be hard to argue that she was dead if you had first told the court that she was being endangered when left alone. (You can't endanger a child who is already dead.) Because it got to be too high profile and someone got cold feet. Because they think that there are other negligent tourists doing the same and the cost of prosecuting them all would be too much. etc.


May 2008 after 13 months of investigation they hadn't ruled out child neglect charges in Portugal so I am inclined to think that there is something that could legally apply.

Kate and Gerry McCann could still face charges of neglecting their daughter Madeleine, official documents reveal.
The first published court ruling on the 13-month investigation shows Portuguese police have not ruled out neglect, abduction, or that Madeleine was killed and her body hidden.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...adeleine-night-disappeared.html#ixzz2h9KBe2ay
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Many people commit crimes they are never charged for so I don't take it as a proof that it was legally OK in Portugal.
And anyway, even if it is legally OK in Portugal to leave tiny toddlers alone it's nevertheless not safe anywhere and the McCanns knew that very well.

If there's a fire, for example, your chances of saving your children are close to zero if you're not even there.

 

[Jmoose]

Who knows. Because they still want the drunk and the negligent to spend money in Portuguese resorts and they wouldn't if they thought that they'll be prosecuted. Because Portugal is a mostly Catholic country and the McCanns seemed to have the Pope on their side. Because political forces got involved early on. Because the DA thought the McCanns looked nice and couldn't have done anything. Because they thought that they might prosecute for Madeleine's death eventually and it would be hard to argue that she was dead if you had first told the court that she was being endangered when left alone. (You can't endanger a child who is already dead.) Because it got to be too high profile and someone got cold feet. Because they think that there are other negligent tourists doing the same and the cost of prosecuting them all would be too much. etc.


May 2008 after 13 months of investigation they hadn't ruled out child neglect charges in Portugal so I am inclined to think that there is something that could legally apply.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...adeleine-night-disappeared.html#ixzz2h9KBe2ay
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Many people commit crimes they are never charged for so I don't take it as a proof that it was legally OK in Portugal.
And anyway, even if it is legally OK in Portugal to leave tiny toddlers alone it's nevertheless not safe anywhere and the McCanns knew that very well.

If there's a fire, for example, your chances of saving your children are close to zero if you're not even there.

Beautifully done! This is what I would have said if I wasn't so inarticulate!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Who knows. Because they still want the drunk and the negligent to spend money in Portuguese resorts and they wouldn't if they thought that they'll be prosecuted. Because Portugal is a mostly Catholic country and the McCanns seemed to have the Pope on their side. Because political forces got involved early on. Because the DA thought the McCanns looked nice and couldn't have done anything. Because they thought that they might prosecute for Madeleine's death eventually and it would be hard to argue that she was dead if you had first told the court that she was being endangered when left alone. (You can't endanger a child who is already dead.) Because it got to be too high profile and someone got cold feet. Because they think that there are other negligent tourists doing the same and the cost of prosecuting them all would be too much. etc.


May 2008 after 13 months of investigation they hadn't ruled out child neglect charges in Portugal so I am inclined to think that there is something that could legally apply.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...adeleine-night-disappeared.html#ixzz2h9KBe2ay
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Many people commit crimes they are never charged for so I don't take it as a proof that it was legally OK in Portugal.
And anyway, even if it is legally OK in Portugal to leave tiny toddlers alone it's nevertheless not safe anywhere and the McCanns knew that very well.

If there's a fire, for example, your chances of saving your children are close to zero if you're not even there.

I don't know really what the Pope has to do with it. He just prayed for Maddie, I don't think I would take that any thing.. But that is just me I guess.. And that was THAT pope.. We have a new one now...

Maybe. It just seems a long time to wait to file mere neglect charges. and their could be a statute of limitation on that.. I don't know.
I don't know that MANY people that commit crimes are never charged but there certainly are those cases..
Again, Their parenting choices that night don't seem criminal to me. IT seems stupid.. I just don't know if it rises to criminal.

 

[tezi]

I don't know really what the Pope has to do with it. He just prayed for Maddie, I don't think I would take that any thing.. But that is just me I guess.. And that was THAT pope.. We have a new one now...

Maybe. It just seems a long time to wait to file mere neglect charges. and their could be a statute of limitation on that.. I don't know.
I don't know that MANY people that commit crimes are never charged but there certainly are those cases..
Again, Their parenting choices that night don't seem criminal to me. IT seems stupid.. I just don't know if it rises to criminal.

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: