do you think maddie is alive or dead

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Just a question.
Let's say you have small children, about two or three years old. You leave them in the care of someone you trust and go some place.

You come home and find out that despite being responsible for your children the person you trusted left the children alone and they drowned.

Would you think that the person did nothing wrong?

Sorry, this is not the same thing. Someone went in committed a crime and took Maddie. That is the criminal act. If their children were found Drowned, That would be a different issue. But I know someone who was in her house and her child wandered out through a door and drowned and she just did not see him.

Is that negligence? She was there and it still happened.

Things happen that are awful. The problem here is someone TOOK maddie. That person is the lone criminal.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

BBM. I don't really believe that. It was self-evident that the Pope is the head honcho in the above scenario. It was pretty obvious, I would think.

Both guilty and innocent people can indeed approach the Pope and other religious figures for any number of reasons including prayers for their loved ones or prayers for their souls etc. and it's in his job description to pray with the lot of them. So far so good.

But once you're the most important religious authority alive of a religion that has 1.2 billion members what you do is unlikely to be meaningless very often. JMO. You may not influence everyone all the time or in the same way but you will end up having some effect on somebody more often than you think. MOO.

Jmoose has a good point though. It's not as much what the Pope does and the people he meets as the way the press writes about what the Pope does and the people he meets.




That is excellent PR if you think that devout Catholics and people of faith are less likely to harm their children. (you might of course think otherwise)

I don't think that this interaction between the Pope and the McCann's should sway anyone's feelings about their quilt or innocence. If you wish to change it into how the press can influence the public's perception that's something else entirely. Poor reporting is never good.

 

[Donjeta]

Sorry, this is not the same thing. Someone went in committed a crime and took Maddie. That is the criminal act. If their children were found Drowned, That would be a different issue. But I know someone who was in her house and her child wandered out through a door and drowned and she just did not see him.

Is that negligence? She was there and it still happened.

Things happen that are awful. The problem here is someone TOOK maddie. That person is the lone criminal.

It's not different at all where the caretakers are concerned. Both left the children that they were responsible for to their own devices and consequently made it possible for very bad things to happen to them.

Whether it happened by a force of nature or criminal activity or whether the children got lucky and survived unscathed has really no bearing on the moral culpability of the person who made the conscious decision to abandon tiny humans, knowing fully well that tiny humans need adult supervision.

People who at home and just happened to look away at the wrong moment did not abandon their children although they might possibly be guilty of some neglect too, depending on the circumstances. Sometimes it's just bad luck and unfortunate coincidences that you can't really blame anyone for but it's not a coincidence to leave a two year old alone, it's a decision that you're responsible for, whatever the outcome.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't think that this interaction between the Pope and the McCann's should sway anyone's feelings about their quilt or innocence. If you wish to change it into how the press can influence the public's perception that's something else entirely. Poor reporting is never good.

It shouldn't but I won't rule out that it might. People's feelings are influenced by any number of irrational things.

Of course the press is always a factor, whether the reporting is good or not. No one in the public would ever have known about any of this and we would have no feelings about any of it if it wasn't for the press. Everything we know about the case comes filtered through the press.

 

[Jmoose]

Sorry, this is not the same thing. Someone went in committed a crime and took Maddie. That is the criminal act. If their children were found Drowned, That would be a different issue. But I know someone who was in her house and her child wandered out through a door and drowned and she just did not see him.

Is that negligence? She was there and it still happened.

Things happen that are awful. The problem here is someone TOOK maddie. That person is the lone criminal.

We don't know categorically that some stranger came in and took her-we only know that she is gone. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. We don't know where she is or how she got there-we have theories, like the police do. Sometimes the police have a theory based on their investigation, and evidence that they have to build upon, and they are under no obligation to inform the public. These people were negligent with their children, and they're lucky, that if someone stole one, they didn't take them all.

 

[Jmoose]

Sorry, this is not the same thing. Someone went in committed a crime and took Maddie. That is the criminal act. If their children were found Drowned, That would be a different issue. But I know someone who was in her house and her child wandered out through a door and drowned and she just did not see him.

Is that negligence? She was there and it still happened.

Things happen that are awful. The problem here is someone TOOK maddie. That person is the lone criminal.

She wasn't with her kid, because if she was she would have seen him. Maybe they should have padlocked the gate like my friend has done at her pool if she wanted to let her son go in and outside as he wished? Of course that is tragic, but you have to do all you can to protect your children. I am exhausted after raising mine!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

We don't know categorically that some stranger came in and took her-we only know that she is gone. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. We don't know where she is or how she got there-we have theories, like the police do. Sometimes the police have a theory based on their investigation, and evidence that they have to build upon, and they are under no obligation to inform the public. These people were negligent with their children, and they're lucky, that if someone stole one, they didn't take them all.

It is what I believe. I don't see anything that definitively points away from a stranger abduction. It makes the most sense IMO.

I believe if the Police how grounds on negligence they would have charged them on it. That is my belief but one I feel has merit.

I don't think they are lucky at all. I think they are heartbroken at the loss of their child. I believe there is no lucky here at all.

 

[Donjeta]

To me the point is, when you go out partying and leave your toddlers alone, you don't know what will happen beforehand.

You don't know that they will die by drowning and it will be your fault. You don't know that they will die in the hands of an abductor and it will not be your fault. You don't know that they will be okay in the morning and will want chocolate cereal and toast for breakfast. (Supposing for a moment that caretakers are more responsible for making the children available for drowning than for making them available for abduction which I don't believe but anyway...)

It's the same decision, three different outcomes. When making the decision you don't know which it will be and the only thing you know is you're responsible for the children and are leaving them anyway.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

She wasn't with her kid, because if she was she would have seen him. Maybe they should have padlocked the gate like my friend has done at her pool if she wanted to let her son go in and outside as he wished? Of course that is tragic, but you have to do all you can to protect your children. I am exhausted after raising mine!

She was in the house. He was napping. She went to the kitchen and she did not see him go out to the back of the house. She was with her child.

Things happen to good people that watch their kids diligently. Sometimes awful stuff still happens. Jessica Lunsford. Taken right from her tiny house. Elizabeth Smart, Taken from her tiny house...

Susan Jaeger..

http://thejourneyofhope.blogspot.com/2011/03/mother-shares-loss-of-daughter-to-teach.html

If someone wants a child they are ever waiting. While I believe that the McCanns' gave the window of opportunity, They and the others believed the kids were safe there. I don't find them culpable for the taking of Madeleine. But I see where others may.

 

[SapphireSteel]

She was in the house. He was napping. She went to the kitchen and she did not see him go out to the back of the house. She was with her child.

Things happen to good people that watch their kids diligently. Sometimes awful stuff still happens. Jessica Lunsford. Taken right from her tiny house. Elizabeth Smart, Taken from her tiny house...

Susan Jaeger..

http://thejourneyofhope.blogspot.com/2011/03/mother-shares-loss-of-daughter-to-teach.html

If someone wants a child they are ever waiting. While I believe that the McCanns' gave the window of opportunity, They and the others believed the kids were safe there. I don't find them culpable for the taking of Madeleine. But I see where others may.

<modsnip> you are assuming the "abduction" story is the truth.

Based on what evidence, exactly?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

To me the point is, when you go out partying and leave your toddlers alone, you don't know what will happen beforehand.

You don't know that they will die by drowning and it will be your fault. You don't know that they will die in the hands of an abductor and it will not be your fault. You don't know that they will be okay in the morning and will want chocolate cereal and toast for breakfast. (Supposing for a moment that caretakers are more responsible for making the children available for drowning than for making them available for abduction which I don't believe but anyway...)

It's the same decision, three different outcomes. When making the decision you don't know which it will be and the only thing you know is you're responsible for the children and are leaving them anyway.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann

It looks to me that it as about 30 mins between checks. Not at all leaving them alone all night.

I understand why people think it makes them somehow culpable. I just think it was not smart. They will pay for it forever as will Madeleine if she is recovered or not. But it was not just them doing it, others felt comfortable with it, they had a plan and were checking the kids regularly.

 

[beach]

Admin note:

Enough.

This is a sleuthing site. Interpretation of evidence and the weight it is given will differ from person to person. That happens in almost every case, some cases more than others. This is one of those cases.

I had it with the "zero tolerance" for theories or opinions that may differ from your own. The disrespectful tone of many of these posts will not be tolerated.

You guys have several options:

1. Use the Ignore feature;

2. "scroll and roll";

3. try posting respectfully while attempting to keep an open mind toward the ideas and theories presented by others;

4. "agree to disagree" THEN DROP IT - move on.

So those are your choices. Any further rude, disrespectful posts - in words or tone, whether overt or veiled - will result in a long TO.


Please :bump: this post as needed.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Just a clarification.

I know that not everyone in this discussion believes that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. The discussion I felt we were having was assuming that to be true were the McCanns' responsible in some way for the opportunity allotted the perp.

 

[blefuscu]

I believe she is dead. I also believe the parents are to blame for her death. If one dog had alerted to the evidence, in not just the apartment but also that rental car, hired after Madeleine disappeared, then I would be cautious about them, but both dogs alerted. Dogs can't collude with each other.

The McCann's have to take some responsibility whatever. They left their children unattended. Whether they checked them every 30 mins, every 15 minutes or every 10 minutes makes no difference. They left them and were a distance away that they couldn't hear them crying. In fact the night before both Madeleine and Sean cried for well over an hour and the parents didn't attend to them.

They cannot not be held to account because "others did the same". If you are speeding along a road and it's solely because for a short while you were thinking of say the awful day you had at work and what to cook to eat when you get home, and get pulled over do you think you'll get let off? Would you be able to say "well other people speed all the time so I should be let off?" Or do you think that you could say "I didn't mean to speed, it wasn't deliberate!" Now exchange speeding for leaving your babies and a child who is 4 for hours at a time. And until the night of Madeleine going missing they hadn't bothered checking the children. That is neglect, and whatever the law says it doesn't matter. It's neglect. You cannot go to work for say 5 hours and leave a 4 year old in charge of 2 babies. And it also doesn't matter that the McCann's say they could see the apartment. They don't have x-Ray vision, they can't see what is happening inside.

As for going to see the pope, how many catholic children go missing every year. How many of their parents get an audience with the pope when that happens? None. Zilch. Zero. Bupkis! The McCann's should have been looking for madeleine instead of jetting off to Italy! And when the McCann's were seen walking to the church for their daily mass. The babies weren't there. Which parents who have children abducted then take their eyes off their other children for even a second in the days after?

There is no evidence AT ALL that an intruder took Madeleine. There is plenty of evidence that the McCanns and their tapas friends have lied and lied and lied. If they have nothing to hide then why lie?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I believe she is dead. I also believe the parents are to blame for her death. If one dog had alerted to the evidence, in not just the apartment but also that rental car, hired after Madeleine disappeared, then I would be cautious about them, but both dogs alerted. Dogs can't collude with each other.

However just because they alerted does not mean that it was not blood or something else rotting..
IT is a hotel room and a rental car. Not their car. Who the heck knows what could have been in that car or hotel room.

The dogs don't work for me as evidence of a crime.

 

[blefuscu]

However just because they alerted does not mean that it was not blood or something else rotting..
IT is a hotel room and a rental car. Not their car. Who the heck knows what could have been in that car or hotel room.

The dogs don't work for me as evidence of a crime.

Ok, discount the dogs.

Why would the McCanns say the "intruder" had jemmyed the shutter from outside, but the police and Mark Warner staff say that there was no damage to the shutters?

Why would they say the window, shutters and curtains all wide open, but the only finger prints on the sill were Kate's?

Kate refusing to answer any of the 48 questions, and both parents refusing a lie detector? If they have nothing to hide why not prove your innocence then the police can explore other avenues.

Jeremy Wilkins evidence of meeting Gerry and speaking to him differing significantly from Gerry's account?

None of the tapas 9 searching for Madeleine that night. And Jane Tanner withholding the sighting of the man carrying Madeleine? That's key evidence!

Bringing lawyers in from England within 48 hours?

Being in contact with the Prime minister of England within weeks. How many British citizens go missing every year. They have to deal with the consulate, they don't talk personally to the prime minister!

Kate washing cuddle cat! This was supposed to be Madeleine's favourite toy that she slept with, why would Kate wash the scent of her missing daughter from the toy. Other parents keep things for years, even decades to keep a link to their children. Was Kate washing DNA evidence off the toy?

And then there are the Smiths from Ireland who as soon as they saw Getty walking and holding his son knew, 100% knew, that the man they had seen carrying Madeleine was Getty. We all walk differently, we all carry children differently. Why would they be framing Gerry, why wait until seeing him get off a plane and walk carrying his child? Surely if they want to frame them they would say straight away that Gerry was the man carrying Madeleine, and not wait all that time? It was because they recognised Gerry's walking style and child carrying style and it shocked them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ok, discount the dogs.

Why would the McCanns say the "intruder" had jemmyed the shutter from outside, but the police and Mark Warner staff say that there was no damage to the shutters?

Why would they say the window, shutters and curtains all wide open, but the only finger prints on the sill were Kate's?

Kate refusing to answer any of the 48 questions, and both parents refusing a lie detector? If they have nothing to hide why not prove your innocence then the police can explore other avenues.

Jeremy Wilkins evidence of meeting Gerry and speaking to him differing significantly from Gerry's account?

None of the tapas 9 searching for Madeleine that night. And Jane Tanner withholding the sighting of the man carrying Madeleine? That's key evidence!

Bringing lawyers in from England within 48 hours?

Being in contact with the Prime minister of England within weeks. How many British citizens go missing every year. They have to deal with the consulate, they don't talk personally to the prime minister!

Kate washing cuddle cat! This was supposed to be Madeleine's favourite toy that she slept with, why would Kate wash the scent of her missing daughter from the toy. Other parents keep things for years, even decades to keep a link to their children. Was Kate washing DNA evidence off the toy?

And then there are the Smiths from Ireland who as soon as they saw Getty walking and holding his son knew, 100% knew, that the man they had seen carrying Madeleine was Getty. We all walk differently, we all carry children differently. Why would they be framing Gerry, why wait until seeing him get off a plane and walk carrying his child? Surely if they want to frame them they would say straight away that Gerry was the man carrying Madeleine, and not wait all that time? It was because they recognised Gerry's walking style and child carrying style and it shocked them.

There were finger prints of Kate in the room that she was staying in. One the window sill where she was staying. Sounds kind of normal.

The lawyer, I would get one too. I am in a foreign place and need to get someone to help me navigate and find my child. I think Lawyers are a good thing.

I don't believe it was Gerry that night. I think a lot of people walk the same. There is no way to say that people all walk differently because they don't. A lot of people carry themselves the same way.

A lot of what you post is just an interpretation of accounts. I see it differently.
I think that Jane saw the person who took Maddie and that is the last anyone has seen of her. I don't believe that Gerry or Kate had anything to do with her disappearance.

 

[blefuscu]

There were finger prints of Kate in the room that she was staying in. One the window sill where she was staying. Sounds kind of normal.

but no other finger prints at all on the sill. And no evidence of the window being jemmyed.

The lawyer, I would get one too. I am in a foreign place and need to get someone to help me navigate and find my child. I think Lawyers are a good thing.

I'd be looking for my child!

I don't believe it was Gerry that night. I think a lot of people walk the same. There is no way to say that people all walk differently because they don't. A lot of people carry themselves the same way.

why would the Smiths lie? And why wouldn't they spry seeing Gerry carrying Madeleine at the time, rather than waiting
?

A lot of what you post is just an interpretation of accounts. I see it differently.
I think that Jane saw the person who took Maddie and that is the last anyone has seen of her.

I don't believe that Gerry or Kate had anything to do with her disappearance.

just say Jane did see her friend's daughter being abducted. What on earth would stop her from telling Kate and Gerry, a policeman, a hotel worker or anyone that she had seen a suspicious man carrying a child? Why would she wait for 24 hours after the alarm was raised?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

just say Jane did see her friend's daughter being abducted. What on earth would stop her from telling Kate and Gerry, a policeman, a hotel worker or anyone that she had seen a suspicious man carrying a child? Why would she wait for 24 hours after the alarm was raised?

Shock?.. maybe at first it seemed to her that it was someone carrying their child. I don't know.. But she did tell them. And she did see someone carrying a child away.
Then she realized that it could have been maddie and it clicked? I am not Jane so that is just a guess.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

"Shortly after 10pm: Rachael Oldfield goes to Tanner's apartment to tell her Madeleine has been taken. Tanner says: "Oh my God. I saw a man carrying a girl.""



http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann

Not a day later.. That night she told someone. That night.