"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[SapphireSteel]

How come she allegedly sees this "abductor" but neither Gerry or Wilkins, who disputes facts Gerry claims about there conversation, nor ANYONE else in the resort sees this man?

Ha!

This man was seen alright.

The reason it's not common knowledge is, the witness identified the man as Gerry.

:sick:

Of course this snippet of information has gone the way of the dogs - quite literally - they were wrong/mistaken/lying whatever.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ha!

This man was seen alright.

The reason it's not common knowledge is, the witness identified the man as Gerry.

:sick:

Jane never said it was Gerry. She was the one who saw that man.

 

[Jmoose]

I don't think they were sent into the jungle to find food..

I just don't see the issue with parents wanting to put their kids to bed and then go sit and eat with adults alone.

I actually think it's ok to put the children to bed and eat with your spouse, but at HOME-not at the neighbors house! What is really wrong with getting a babysitter?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I actually think it's ok to put the children to bed and eat with your spouse, but at HOME-not at the neighbors house! What is really wrong with getting a babysitter?

See I think this is just something that may depend on how you were brought up and your parental style.

Many neighbors come out at night after the kids are in bed. hang out, have coffee talk on a neighbors porch..

I just don't see the big deal in this.

 

[blefuscu]

That is not weird. Some times it is just timing, What you are focusing on. The men were together and talking, She was not, She was walking alone and to be honest, women walking alone are usually very keen on what is going on around them. We are trained that way.

Why did she keep changing her description of the man? Firstly he was white, with short hair walking in a northernly direction carrying "a bundle" and she was on her way back from checking her children.

A couple of days later (after being able to talk to Kate and Gerry) he was carrying a blond child in pink and white pyjamas. Gerry had by now been on TV and shown the pyjamas to the world as her little sister had identical ones. The abductor was now walking in a southernly direction. She also said this time she was coming from the tapas bar to check her children.

The third description claimed the man had long hair, previously she g I'd it was short. The man wasn't white any more, he was local looking, Portuguese or Spanish, olive coloured skin. He went from medium build to slim. She could also describe the pyjamas perfectly, despite being adamant initially that the man was carrying a bundle.

She also drew a map for police and initially she had said she was on her way back to the tapas bar. She changed that to going to the apartment and on the map drew Gerry and Wilkins on the same side of the road as her as she passed.

But on TV (panorama) she said Gerry was crossing the road to speak to Wilkins and she was on the opposite side.

However Wilkins (a completely independent witness) stated that he and Gerry were stood on the same side as Jane Tanner would have been walking down not the opposite side.

This means that her "evidence" isn't credible, important and specific details have changed. She's not a reliable witness.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Why did she keep changing her description of the man? Firstly he was white, with short hair walking in a northernly direction carrying "a bundle" and she was on her way back from checking her children.

A couple of days later (after being able to talk to Kate and Gerry) he was carrying a blond child in pink and white pyjamas. Gerry had by now been on TV and shown the pyjamas to the world as her little sister had identical ones. The abductor was now walking in a southernly direction. She also said this time she was coming from the tapas bar to check her children.

The third description claimed the man had long hair, previously she g I'd it was short. The man wasn't white any more, he was local looking, Portuguese or Spanish, olive coloured skin. He went from medium build to slim. She could also describe the pyjamas perfectly, despite being adamant initially that the man was carrying a bundle.

She also drew a map for police and initially she had said she was on her way back to the tapas bar. She changed that to going to the apartment and on the map drew Gerry and Wilkins on the same side of the road as her as she passed.

But on TV (panorama) she said Gerry was crossing the road to speak to Wilkins and she was on the opposite side.

However Wilkins (a completely independent witness) stated that he and Gerry were stood on the same side as Jane Tanner would have been walking down not the opposite side.

This means that her "evidence" isn't credible, important and specific details have changed. She's not a reliable witness.

Can you add links to support your statements about her?

I believe her. She said it instantly as soon as she found out that Madeleine was missing. She did not sit on it. She spoke it out loud without thought and planning.

 

[blefuscu]

I thought you preferred to google this yourself? It's common knowledge from a variety of sources, it's 3.15 am in England and I really should be asleep, I'll be back in the morning. Hopefully you will have some credible evidence of an intruder in the apartment. And maybe answers to the other questions I put to you. I don't really think "gut feeling" is evidence.

Good night, sleep well.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I thought you preferred to google this yourself? It's common knowledge from a variety of sources, it's 3.15 am in England and I really should be asleep, I'll be back in the morning. Hopefully you will have some credible evidence of an intruder in the apartment. And maybe answers to the other questions I put to you. I don't really think "gut feeling" is evidence.

Good night, sleep well.

If you have links to support your statements, Please post them.

 

[Donjeta]

I think that is a completely different issue the neighbors however, Most likely they figured with people so close that they would be safe.

I don't think the parents are being selfish wanting adult time. I still don't like their method of kid watching.. but I don't think that makes them selfish.

They put their own wants above their childrens needs

 

[tezi]

I would never leave any toddler alone for any period of time. And I most certainly would never leave the house if they were unattended. I have raised or am raising a total of seven kids. My youngest granddaughter is only four. I would never leave her alone without someone being in the house. In fact, she sleeps in the same room as I do. She has a cot right next to my bed. Call me overprotective, but my granddaughters are my life, and if anything happened to either one of them because I was neglectful in any way, I'd kill myself.

JMO

And all of my posts are to stay on WS. They are not to be moved without my permission.

 

[tezi]

They put their own wants above their childrens needs

Exactly Donjeta!

JMO

All of my posts stay at WS. Do not quote or copy them to other forums, if I want them there, I will move them myself.

 

[SapphireSteel]

They put their own wants above their childrens needs

I can't believe, in this day and age, we are all sitting around arguing the toss as to whether or not babies need constant supervision by adults, preferably their parents.

I know how horrified I was at those pictures of that poor little Chinese boy who got chained to the lamp post every day so his father could go to work. This is actually better parenting, at least he ensured his child was locked up and unable to wander while he was away.

The McCanns are both trained doctors. They know first hand about the horrible accidents that can happen in a home.

There is absolutely no excuse or justification. We don't live in China, the McCanns were not impoverished or without support or education. They could afford to go out and party, and they could afford adequate child care to do it.

They are guilty of criminal neglect, at the least.

Pity opinions aren't arrests, isn't it.

ullhair:

 

[Gem2626]

Why did she keep changing her description of the man? Firstly he was white, with short hair walking in a northernly direction carrying "a bundle" and she was on her way back from checking her children.

A couple of days later (after being able to talk to Kate and Gerry) he was carrying a blond child in pink and white pyjamas. Gerry had by now been on TV and shown the pyjamas to the world as her little sister had identical ones. The abductor was now walking in a southernly direction. She also said this time she was coming from the tapas bar to check her children.

The third description claimed the man had long hair, previously she g I'd it was short. The man wasn't white any more, he was local looking, Portuguese or Spanish, olive coloured skin. He went from medium build to slim. She could also describe the pyjamas perfectly, despite being adamant initially that the man was carrying a bundle.

She also drew a map for police and initially she had said she was on her way back to the tapas bar. She changed that to going to the apartment and on the map drew Gerry and Wilkins on the same side of the road as her as she passed.

But on TV (panorama) she said Gerry was crossing the road to speak to Wilkins and she was on the opposite side.

However Wilkins (a completely independent witness) stated that he and Gerry were stood on the same side as Jane Tanner would have been walking down not the opposite side.

This means that her "evidence" isn't credible, important and specific details have changed. She's not a reliable witness.

Where is the evidence to support your statements? Having just read through all of Jane Tanners statements linked from the very useful following website the claims of her changing her description/the direction she was walking in etc are not true. Where are you getting your information from because it is certainly not from the horses mouth. Please provide actual links to support your claims.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077589/Rebuttal of "Fact" 7

 

[Gem2626]

I thought you preferred to google this yourself? It's common knowledge from a variety of sources, it's 3.15 am in England and I really should be asleep, I'll be back in the morning. Hopefully you will have some credible evidence of an intruder in the apartment. And maybe answers to the other questions I put to you. I don't really think "gut feeling" is evidence.

Good night, sleep well.

BBM

What evidence do you want of an intruder in the apartment? Door was unlocked, intruder walks in picks up Madeleine and walks out. It's as simple as that. They weren't going to hang around touching everything and spitting on the floor etc. There are many crimes where no DNA or any other evidence is left. People disappear all the time and are not found/ or murdered and no one is brought to justice because there is a lack of DNA evidence.

As an example...
The kidnapping and murder of Danielle van Dam

"Authorities say Westerfield crept into the van Dam home through an unlocked side garage door and lurked in the girl's darkened bedroom for an hour before abducting her"

"Westerfield's defense argued that there was no evidence that he was ever in the van Dam household: no fingerprints, no DNA, no signs of a struggle from abduction"

He was guilty based on DNA evidence found in his home/on his clothes.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91359&page=1


ETA: Of course had the apartment not been contaminated and then further contaminated when police failed to seal off the crime scene allowing further people into the apartment as well as the dogs then who knows what DNA could have been found.

 

[Jmoose]

See I think this is just something that may depend on how you were brought up and your parental style.

Many neighbors come out at night after the kids are in bed. hang out, have coffee talk on a neighbors porch..

I just don't see the big deal in this.

I guess my big deal with it is that if you or a responsible babysitter aren't where your children are, the children can get out of the house, or somebody could get in. That is much, much more difficult, and much, much less likely if you are present. Maybe I am a much more vigilant mother, but I raised my children in a large house with two staircases and four doors to the outside, and they never got out, and nobody bad ever got in-I also don't actually know anybody who would leave their kids "sleeping" and go somewhere else-I really don't. Not buying the " it's just a different, but perfectly normal parenting option" argument

 

[Dushi]

(Lol) I didn't say I liked eating with my kids-I did it because leaving them alone to forage on their own was not right-and I knew it wasn't going to be long until they would be civilized enough to eat like people. It is an issue of a certain amount of responsibility that you have when you decide to have children.

Well, this is it in a nutshell, isn't it
A parent is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of their children.

 

[PrivateInvestigator]

I will say in some countries it is completely acceptable and a norm to leave Children.

For example in Iceland, people leave their children in the strollers outside if restaurants while they eat or shops while they are shopping.

One can wiz up and down the sidewalks and see them lined with strollers and no parent in sight.

That wouldn't fly for a second in the US, but in ither areas of the world it is somewhat more acceptable to leave your child - especially places like Iceland.

It makes it difficult for me bc I don't know the cultural norms these two parents grew up around.

I would like to see how the McCann's parents raised them. Maybe a similar disregard for the child's safety while alone? An ignorant trust that the "situation will be ok"?

For me, I wouldn't leave my child's side for one second on a crowded sidewalk. "Hold my hand and don't let go" I'd say.

 

[chlban]

[

QUOTE=ScarlettScarpetta;9887223]That is just you. And that is fine.. But I think it is normal for adults to want to eat alone with other adults.

I don't see this as one way is better than the other. Just that some people like to eat with their kids all the time and some don't. Either way does not make the other a bad parent.

[/QUOTE]

Seriously? :banghead:

Yes parents may wish to dine with other adults sometimes. That's why they have this new fangled invention called a Babysitter.

So, let's review.

They wanted to eat and party with other adults. Check

So, they hired a babysitter right?

No? what they couldn't afford it? No?

:bananajump::bananajump:

.............I know, I know .....they are bad parents.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Seriously? :banghead:

Yes parents may wish to dine with other adults sometimes. That's why they have this new fangled invention called a Babysitter.

So, let's review. They wanted to eat and party with other adults. Check
So, they hired a babysitter right? No? what they couldn't afford it? No?
:bananajump::bananajump:
Wait now, I think I've got it.............I know, I know .....they are bad parents.

Seriously. They put a plan into practice that all of the parents were in agreement with. They took turns checking on the kids.
Them wanting to eat alone and have some drinks means nothing as it pertains to the case. IT only proves they are normal adults. Their Child watching scheme is odd and yet they all thought it was okay..


PS. fixed your quote issue..

 

[Gem2626]

I will say in some countries it is completely acceptable and a norm to leave Children.

For example in Iceland, people leave their children in the strollers outside if restaurants while they eat or shops while they are shopping.

One can wiz up and down the sidewalks and see them lined with strollers and no parent in sight.

That wouldn't fly for a second in the US, but in ither areas of the world it is somewhat more acceptable to leave your child - especially places like Iceland.

It makes it difficult for me bc I don't know the cultural norms these two parents grew up around.

I would like to see how the McCann's parents raised them. Maybe a similar disregard for the child's safety while alone? An ignorant trust that the "situation will be ok"?

For me, I wouldn't leave my child's side for one second on a crowded sidewalk. "Hold my hand and don't let go" I'd say.

It's cold in Iceland!

There's no evidence that they ever did this in England or any evidence that the children weren't loved and cared for. I personally think that because they'd used a listening service before and that this is acceptable in some parts of Europe that they felt a false sense of security with doing it themselves.