If Only Kate Had Bigger *advertiser censored*!!!???

[daffodil]

I suppose I am probably on the fence with this case but leaning towards their innocence and I try to walk (or jog if you prefer) in their shoes.I can perfectly well see Kate in an outburst of frustration saying to her mother "I suppose if I had a fuller figure people would see me as more maternal,more cuddly and mumsie" and her Mum trying to defend her daughter did the singularly stupid thing of repeating it in the press.She must be kicking herself that it has backfired in such a spectacular fashion :banghead:

 

[ThoughtFox]

-- The key word here is BOTH. Do husband and wife always agree on everything? Um ... not in the universe I inhabit. When there is disagreement do they have to pick one choice over the other? Yes, unless you want stalemate. So sometimes the decision goes with one person's preference and the other has to accept it. I mean, is this news to anyone here?

-- In my numerous posts on the "Gerry" theory, I've pointed out that much rests on Gerry being the dominant one of the couple. Grumpy, domineering, prone to angry outbursts perhaps, and essentially selfish, i.e., one who does NOT lean toward "putting the children first" as so many of the fabulous husbands in cyberspace do.

-- So, all you have to do is buy the assumption that this is who Gerry is. You don't have to buy the assumption that most men are like this. Maybe only a tiny fraction are. Is Gerry one of that fraction?

-- If you can buy the assumption that Gerry is one of that fraction (and you don't have to, of course) then it shouldn't take a great leap of imagination to say that HE drove the decision to leave the kids alone. That and peer pressure since other parents in the group did too.

-- Yes, Kate might be a monster. All I'm saying is that she doesn't HAVE to be a monster. There are other possibilities.

So you think that Kate said they "both" agreed to leave the kids, when it was all Gerry's idea? Or that he coerced her into it? And therefore she was lying in all her interviews that they made all the decisions together?

Because here are some quotes from "Kate: My Story" an interview she did without Gerry at her side:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2836182.ece

Maybe it was because it was family-friendly, because it felt so safe. That week we had left them alone while we had dinner. There is no way on this planet I would take a risk, no matter how small, with my children. I do say to myself 'why did I think it was safe?' But it did feel safe and so right. I love her and I'm a totally responsible parent and that's the only thing that keeps me going. I have no doubt about that.

You don't expect a predator to break in and take your daughter out the bed. It could have happened under other circumstances and there would still be the regret. It wasn't like a decision we made. It was a matter of 'let's get the kids to sleep, then we'll have dinner.' It wasn't a 'shall I, shan't I?' thing. I feel desperately sorry to her that we weren't there.

This has touched so many people. I've had so many letters from mothers, really kind words. People have said 'Kate, we've done this a hundred times over ourselves. Why would you for one minute think something like that would happen?' It's not like we went down town or anything.

Notice the way she starts many sentences with a negative - it wasn't this, it wasn't that - it's not like we did so and so.

After reading that again, I don't care whose idea it originally was to leave the kids alone. I believe they were persuaded by their friends, whom we understand had travelled to Greece together and done much the same.

If it was "peer pressure" to go eat dinner with the grown-ups, then both Kate and Gerry ought to be ashamed of what they did.

Kate, on her own, said it all felt "so right" and "so safe" and she has excuse after excuse to rationalize it, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Ok, then you must be in favor of the abduction theory. Or at least, here you are arguing against one of the key arguments in favor of Kate-as-killer-of-Madeleine.

Kate's leaving the twins alone has been used as evidence that she knew there was no abductor around to be afraid of (thus proving that she and/or Gerry did something to Madeleine).

But you've just argued against that point, by saying Kate's such a bad mother she was happy to leave the kids alone any time under any circumstances. So, by your claim we can't make any inference about Kate's guilt or innocence based on her leaving the twins alone.

Is that your point then?

Just to be clear, my theory is that Kate is innocent and Gerry is the guilty one. Then it's up to me to prove that an innocent Kate (fully believing in the abduction of her child) could have left the twins alone like that.

You've made that Easy: She's such a crappy mother "she has absolutely NO problem leaving the twins alone."

QED

I don't know if I'm in favor of the abuction theory. All I feel comfortable saying is but for the fact that these two left them alone, she's gone. I know that you're trying to say with the rest of your post. It seems as though you're trying to put words into my mouth and/or twisting my words around and I don't feel comfortable with that. I don't know that she's a crappy mother, but I do feel that she had no problems with leaving the kids alone and that's not good.

 

[Rino]

-- The key word here is BOTH. Do husband and wife always agree on everything? Um ... not in the universe I inhabit. When there is disagreement do they have to pick one choice over the other? Yes, unless you want stalemate. So sometimes the decision goes with one person's preference and the other has to accept it. I mean, is this news to anyone here?
.

No, not news. But in this instance the parent that beleived the kids needed watching would have won due to the fact they would have stayed!

 

[Squishified]

I agree that both of them are equally to blame. I don't know if they had anything to do with Maddy's death at all. I do know, however, that had they not left them alone, we wouldn't be here. I don't know of I'd go so far as to call them "monsters," but they were negligent.

Jeana,
My thoughts exactly.

 

[hcc2007]

So you think that Kate said they "both" agreed to leave the kids, when it was all Gerry's idea? Or that he coerced her into it? And therefore she was lying in all her interviews that they made all the decisions together?

Because here are some quotes from "Kate: My Story" an interview she did without Gerry at her side:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2836182.ece


Notice the way she starts many sentences with a negative - it wasn't this, it wasn't that - it's not like we did so and so.

After reading that again, I don't care whose idea it originally was to leave the kids alone. I believe they were persuaded by their friends, whom we understand had travelled to Greece together and done much the same.

If it was "peer pressure" to go eat dinner with the grown-ups, then both Kate and Gerry ought to be ashamed of what they did.

Kate, on her own, said it all felt "so right" and "so safe" and she has excuse after excuse to rationalize it, but that doesn't make it right.

-- It's my experience that lots of people lie in small ways. Lieing to share responsibility for a decision that someone you care about talked you into? That's often called "loyalty".

-- Are they rotten parents? Yes and I'm not disputing that.

-- Although if I really wanted to spend this much time talking about parenting methods I would be posting on some other forum. On this forum it would be cool to try to reason through the actual probabilities of one scenario over the other.

 

[PharmSleuth]

The cadaver dog hired by the British detectives to sniff out the apartment in August detected the scent of a person who had to have been dead for at least 2 hours for it to "hit" on it. If Gerry (or anyone else) killed Madeleine after 8:00, she would have had to lay there until at least 10:00 for the dogs to hit on the scent. But Kate was at the apartment at 10:00 and her daughter was already gone. Therefore, Madeleine must have died at least 2 hours before the last parent who checked on the kids had time to move her. The Portuguese police are looking at a timeframe of approximately 6:30 to 7:30 pm.

Cali,
I have read that the body can emit the scent from 1 1/2 to 2 hours after death and that the size of the body can make that vary more. I assume that her small size could mean that it could emit the scent in even less than 1 1/2 hours, so I think the timeframe they are looking at is a little wider than 1 hour :twocents:

 

[Texana]

There's no way to discuss scenarios without discussing character.

There's no way to discuss whether or not the evidence does point to parental involvement without discussing their actions and attitudes.

I have to say, these comments of Kate's disturb me more than some of the things she is reported to have said, because this is coming from an unimpeachable source--her mother. (Although I fully expect that if these comments are poorly received by the public, Clarence Mitchell will follow up with some kind of disclaimer or distraction.)

They bother me because Kate seems to be so unused to criticism of any sort, she cannot even seem to fathom that it is a) her actions and b) her actions could be even criticized by anyone at all. "This is what we thought/felt, so how can you possibly question that" is her consistent response.

She could not bring herself to even call it a "mistake" to leave the children alone, saying "Our mistake, if you could even call it that."

Does she come across as a person who could stand to have her actions questioned and judged, if indeed Madeleine suffered a fatal and traumatic injury of some kind? She seems to believe so readily that she is being "persecuted" for her looks.

The inability of Kate (and Gerry) to see themselves as others might see them is very strange to me.

Last Friday night my younger daughter was invited to a birthday party, in which the children were being picked up at school and then going back to the birthday child's house for supper and swimming. The mother had put only her work number for RSVP purposes, and due to my work I wasn't able to actually talk to her til the day of the party.

Before I could explain to my husband that I was going to go up to the school at dismissal time and talk to the mother then to just get the who/what/where comfort level established, he said, "If even one thing goes wrong, we are going to be that parent on the evening news admitting we didn't know the parents personally, we didn't know where they were actually going, and we didn't even have a working home or cell number for the other parents. And no one will ever understand what we were thinking in letting her go."

I really don't understand what it is that keeps Kate from understanding that "other" perspective--arrogance? Denial? a lifelong excusing of any kind of criticism as something just due to jealousy? All of the above?

 

[Dr. Creepin]

I'm as skinny as Kate McCann and I have FIVE beautiful kids, is that maternal enough for you?

 

[Pinkhammer]

-- It's my experience that lots of people lie in small ways. Lieing to share responsibility for a decision that someone you care about talked you into? That's often called "loyalty".

-- Are they rotten parents? Yes and I'm not disputing that.

-- Although if I really wanted to spend this much time talking about parenting methods I would be posting on some other forum. On this forum it would be cool to try to reason through the actual probabilities of one scenario over the other.

People who lie in small things will lie in big things. Narcissistic sociopaths are habitual liars. A person who would murder a small child would lie about anything. Such a person is without a conscience.

 

[Texana]

Ordinary people lie about small ordinary things, to avoid hurting feelings. "I love this tie!" "Yes, this is my favorite color!" "I was just getting in the shower, let me call you back."

Sociopaths and other evil people lie about everything else, from the little to the big, because they feel that they are the only ones who can decide what is important for other people to know.

 

[colomom]

There's no way to discuss scenarios without discussing character.

There's no way to discuss whether or not the evidence does point to parental involvement without discussing their actions and attitudes.

~snip~

I really don't understand what it is that keeps Kate from understanding that "other" perspective--arrogance? Denial? a lifelong excusing of any kind of criticism as something just due to jealousy? All of the above?

Nice post Tex!!!

I think that character may have much more relevance in this case than most people think.

Oh yeah...babeeeeee....I'mmmm back.

 

[Pinkhammer]

You were sorely missed!

Will converse tomorrow. Now I am off to watch the "Women's Murder Club", a new TV show. Although the sleuthers here are much superior!

Good night, all.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Glad to see you, colomom!

hcc2007: This case is about parenting because the McCanns were Maddie's parents, and she was a very young child. Any case about a missing child involves the parents, and they have to be considered in any scenario because they were the last people to see Maddie alive and they were responsible for her that night.

 

[Desertpea]

I suppose I am probably on the fence with this case but leaning towards their innocence and I try to walk (or jog if you prefer) in their shoes.I can perfectly well see Kate in an outburst of frustration saying to her mother "I suppose if I had a fuller figure people would see me as more maternal,more cuddly and mumsie" and her Mum trying to defend her daughter did the singularly stupid thing of repeating it in the press.She must be kicking herself that it has backfired in such a spectacular fashion :banghead:

She must be and I can see why she would have said that too, not realising her Mum would go and tell the world and her words getting taken out of context.

 

[Desertpea]

The inability of Kate (and Gerry) to see themselves as others might see them is very strange to me.


I really don't understand what it is that keeps Kate from understanding that "other" perspective--arrogance? Denial? a lifelong excusing of any kind of criticism as something just due to jealousy? All of the above?


I'm not sure how to do the quotes like I see others here doing Texana but wanted to respond to these two points in your post from this thread, a few posts up.

Why would Kate and Gerry see themselves like other people see them?
Half the world is accusing them both of murder, they don't see themselves as murderers and why should they when in fact at this stage there is nothing to prove they are.

I don't understand your bewilderment of course they are not going to see themselvs like everyone else does- none of us know them we only know them from what we have read in the news and we all know the news cant be trusted to tell the truth.

If I were Kate and Gerry I wouldnt be able to see the 'other' persepective either!

 

[Texana]

Desertpea,
Hit the quote button on the post you want to quote.

Skip a space. Write your response.

Here's the thing: I have some sense that perhaps I come across to you as a judgmental or callous person who does not see that these are grieving, innocent parents.

I can see why you might feel very sympathetic to the McCanns, and see how you think that I am wrong to not be so sympathetic.

It is the ability to understand the viewpoint or perspective of others, to step outside ourselves for a second and see ourselves as others might see us, and it is certainly not unique to me. You do not have to agree with the other person to understand their reasoning or their perspective.

I am not even talking about the McCanns understanding how they might be seen as murderers. (although, again, for the umpteenth time, I have yet to see it espoused on this forum that Kate or Gerry deliberately murdered their child. I personally don't see how anyone could see them as doing that, either.)

What I was referring to, was the ability to take in criticism at all for their decision, or acknowledge in any way their responsibility for the fatal decision that night to leave their children alone without supervision.

Note again the words of Kate: "Our mistake, if you can call it that."

She cannot even call it a mistake without a qualifier, when clearly, it's a mistake. Even if they are completely innocent of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, it was a mistake to leave the children alone with a dangerous pedophile stalking Madeleine.

Kate blaming negative attitudes towards her on her looks, rather than actions, is very curious to me. It says that perhaps she has done this before, or been encouraged to think this way by others. There might be very likely have been times in the past when it was true.

But it's certainly not true now, and rather than deal head-on with the attitude that leaving the children alone was a poor decision and perhaps reflecting on her overall parenting, she says that if she had a nice "2 stone" heavier mother shape, she wouldn't be hearing any of this.

Ludicrous.

 

[Desertpea]

Thanks for your help and your reply Texana.

I really don't think it would make any difference if Kate admitted more readily the error of her ways people would still keep bringing it up and accuse them of murder just because they left their kids alone that night.

I'm sure the McCanns regret their misjudgment more than anyone, it's their little girl that has gone missing not anyone elses.
We don't know how guilty the McCannns feel about leaving their kids alone that night, but we can guess, well at least I can.

 

[Texana]

Yes, it would make a difference if the McCanns could stop use qualifiers like "if you can call it that" about the mistake. Goes to character. If they cannot shrug that off and go on, think of how much "more so" they might not be able to deal with the thought of explaining or defending an accidental child death.

We cannot say that we are sure the McCanns regret their judgement, because they have not openly said that. I'm not saying that to be mean-spirited and say they don't grieve for their missing child. However, we can't assume they feel regret for their decision when they do not say that themselves.

I seem to recall some articles that quoted the McCanns as saying they would do exactly the same thing over again if they had the chance. That is not regret, that is a kind of colossal denial/arrogance that willfully refuses to admit any responsibility whatsoever.

To me, it's not about getting the McCanns to admit they made a mistake. It's wondering why they can't bring themselves to admit it. Is it denial or a more permanent attitude about having their questions or actions challenged?

And again, they haven't been accused of murder. Murder is the deliberate and premeditated act of killing another person. They've been accused of covering up the accidental death of a child for unknown reasons.

 

[philamena]

Nice post Desertpea.