Madeleine McCann found?

[SapphireSteel]

Apparently everyone has misunderstood the DNA results except one poster on this board.

 

[Donjeta]

Information is factual, the libel case is about surpressing fabrications that could endanger the life of the child (we only have to look at the minority who demand an inquest shoudl be held to see this is true). Libel is incredibly easy to defend against - just tell the truth. If you have enough evidence to write a book and claim it is factual then you will have no problems proving that you are telling the truth in court. Amaral has no problem with peopel being taken to court for libel as he has done this himself (and lost and has now to pay the other sides and the courts costs as well as his own).

And so far no-one has shown evidence that the McCanns are using the fund to pay for this, but as someone who has donated I have no probelm if they do as we can see from those supporting him that Amaral's claims are harming the chances of madeleine being found.

I think we already discussed the fund chairman's statement from 2009
which says

We have continued to concentrate on ensuring that Madeleine is not forgotten and that the search for her continues. We have:
• paid for legal representation for Kate, Gerry, Sean and Amelie in Portugal, enabling them obtain an injunction banning Mr Amoral [sic] from repeating his fabricated claims about Madeleine's abduction

 

[badhorsie]

Leaving the children in this way was not illegal, so they cannot legally be arrested for that. there is no evidence an accident occurred, and no evidence the McCanns and their friends are covering anything up.

Illegal or not it was an irresponsible thing to do. If she was abducted, the parents left her at risk. I live and work in the real world.
No,an abductor should not have taken her but her parents made it easily possible, what they did was wrong and THIS is what they should be campaigning about IMHO

They are intelligent, professional people. What were they thinking?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Illegal or not it was an irresponsible thing to do. If she was abducted, the parents left her at risk. I live and work in the real world.
No,an abductor should not have taken her but her parents made it easily possible, what they did was wrong and THIS is what they should be campaigning about IMHO

They are intelligent, professional people. What were they thinking?

That small children are party poopers?

 

[badhorsie]

We are a professional couple, we have travelled all over the world with two young, blonde daughters, we know the risks and have never left them alone. They ate with us and slept in pushcairs and prams. Never out of our sight, We didn't drink. I don't hate the McCanns but I just do not understand how they left those babies, for that is what they really were...

 

[SapphireSteel]

We are a professional couple, we have travelled all over the world with two young, blonde daughters, we know the risks and have never left them alone. They ate with us and slept in pushcairs and prams. Never out of our sight, We didn't drink. I don't hate the McCanns but I just do not understand how they left those babies, for that is what they really were...

You actually CAN'T leave them...or I couldn't, anyway.

Physically impossible.

I had a situation with my firstborn when she was about 5 months old, sleeping through the night, and there was a concert within earshot of my house.

It was much better acoustically to listen from my next door neighbours front verandah, we are probably talking less than a third of the distance that existed between 5a and the restaurant.

I had gone out of my way with planning, going so far as to borrow a baby monitor so I could listen in to my sleeping baby.

Bear in mind I was only about 25 metres away and my house was securely locked.

I set up the monitor, then asked my neighbour to listen while I ran home to make a noise, so we could test it.

We did, it worked fine.

A minute later, I asked her to do it again, so I could double check. Maybe the batteries had faded.

After about 5 minutes of neighbourly reassurance and maternal agony I gave up, went home and missed the concert. I was just so afraid that something bad could happen and I wouldn't be there to stop it, there was no way I could enjoy a stupid concert.

I didn't have a particularly good or attentive mother myself so this is entirely natural behaviour, not learnt. I simply could not leave my baby. No good mother can, or even WANTS to.

 

[badhorsie]

You actually CAN'T leave them...or I couldn't, anyway.

Physically impossible.

I had a situation with my firstborn when she was about 5 months old, sleeping through the night, and there was a concert within earshot of my house.

It was much better acoustically to listen from my next door neighbours front verandah, we are probably talking less than a third of the distance that existed between 5a and the restaurant.

I had gone out of my way with planning, going so far as to borrow a baby monitor so I could listen in to my sleeping baby.

Bear in mind I was only about 25 metres away and my house was securely locked.

I set up the monitor, then asked my neighbour to listen while I ran home to make a noise, so we could test it.

We did, it worked fine.

A minute later, I asked her to do it again, so I could double check. Maybe the batteries had faded.

After about 5 minutes of neighbourly reassurance and maternal agony I gave up, went home and missed the concert. I was just so afraid that something bad could happen and I wouldn't be there to stop it, there was no way I could enjoy a stupid concert.

I didn't have a particularly good or attentive mother myself so this is entirely natural behaviour, not learnt. I simply could not leave my baby. No good mother can, or even WANTS to.

Ditto

 

[Linda7NJ]

You actually CAN'T leave them...or I couldn't, anyway.

Physically impossible.

I had a situation with my firstborn when she was about 5 months old, sleeping through the night, and there was a concert within earshot of my house.

It was much better acoustically to listen from my next door neighbours front verandah, we are probably talking less than a third of the distance that existed between 5a and the restaurant.

I had gone out of my way with planning, going so far as to borrow a baby monitor so I could listen in to my sleeping baby.

Bear in mind I was only about 25 metres away and my house was securely locked.

I set up the monitor, then asked my neighbour to listen while I ran home to make a noise, so we could test it.

We did, it worked fine.

A minute later, I asked her to do it again, so I could double check. Maybe the batteries had faded.

After about 5 minutes of neighbourly reassurance and maternal agony I gave up, went home and missed the concert. I was just so afraid that something bad could happen and I wouldn't be there to stop it, there was no way I could enjoy a stupid concert.

I didn't have a particularly good or attentive mother myself so this is entirely natural behaviour, not learnt. I simply could not leave my baby. No good mother can, or even WANTS to.

I did the same thing ( not for a concert) my next door neighbor was having a cookout, my son was sound asleep. I also tested and retested baby monitor only to decide on staying home. Since becoming a mother, my imagination ALWAYS thinks up the worst possible scenarios. I imagined a short in the electrical wiring smoldering in the wall, just waiting for me to walk out the door before breaking out in a horrible rngulfing fire...some whacko baby thief breaking in.... Just wasn't worth it to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ThoughtFox]

That small children are party poopers?

As I have pointed out many times before, that attitude could easily - and inevitably - get parents charged with neglect in any city in the United States. It's not considered a valid excuse for leaving very small children alone in a hotel room or even at home.

But apparently the "checking" system is acceptable in Portugal, which I still find baffling to this day.

People who want to party that much shouldn't take their kids with them on vacation. People who are doctors should probably know better in the first place. These children were not infants but older children who could walk and climb and open doors. Not safe.

Just my opinion only.

 

[SweetT]

Exactly! What are the odds of another young girl resembling Madeline having the same eye defect? If this child does not have it, this family should not be put through this.

There are contacts that someone could use to probably cover this up.

 

[SapphireSteel]

There are contacts that someone could use to probably cover this up.

Contacts are not that easy for use, and for small children virtually impossible.

The opinion of the forensic profilers at the time was that drawing attention to the coloboma could cost Madeleine her life. An abductor would just kill her rather than risk being caught.

This was ignored by Team McCann.

 

[fabgod]

Leaving the children in this way was not illegal, so they cannot legally be arrested for that. there is no evidence an accident occurred, and no evidence the McCanns and their friends are covering anything up.

Do you have any factual proof that leaving the children was not illegal?

Its no use using the tired old endlessly regurgitated line that they were not charged with anything therefore.....

Perhaps they were not charged with neglect because there were other intentions to charge them with something more serious and that by charging them with a neglect related offence, they would not be able to hold them or it in some way would restrict an ongoing investigation at that time?

As we heard from someone on here who identified themselves as a Social Worker in the UK, the laws in the UK are not specific, but that does not mean that the laws can not be applicable just because they do not state that "a person sitting 50 metres or 200 metres is exercising care" for example.

A link to your "its not illegal" would be worthwhile to back up your oft posted claim of unproven statement

 

[SapphireSteel]

Do you have any factual proof that leaving the children was not illegal?

Its no use using the tired old endlessly regurgitated line that they were not charged with anything therefore.....

Perhaps they were not charged with neglect because there were other intentions to charge them with something more serious and that by charging them with a neglect related offence, they would not be able to hold them or it in some way would restrict an ongoing investigation at that time?

As we heard from someone on here who identified themselves as a Social Worker in the UK, the laws in the UK are not specific, but that does not mean that the laws can not be applicable just because they do not state that "a person sitting 50 metres or 200 metres is exercising care" for example.

A link to your "its not illegal" would be worthwhile to back up your oft posted claim of unproven statement

Elitist Britain again.

If a poor person left their babies 75 metres away, it would be neglect.

A wealthy person doing it - an entirely different scenario.

It's all about "class" don't you know.

:banghead:

 

[DIRK SCHILLER]

Leaving the children in this way was not illegal, so they cannot legally be arrested for that. there is no evidence an accident occurred, and no evidence the McCanns and their friends are covering anything up.

where is not illegal? in your country maybe?
all countries do not have same laws

 

[BritsKate]

While the McCann's were not charged with neglect that is not to say it was not legally definable as neglect. Therein lies the difference. Neglect legislation both in the UK as well as Portugal is so terribly broad their actions could indeed be considered neglect.

Advocates in both countries realise the scope of legislation is failing children. But to claim their actions legal - as I continue to point out - is across the board wrong. (I've already posted the relevant links time and time again. )

The most one can say is they were neither charged nor convicted of neglect - not necessarily that they didn't commit it. MOO

 

[gord]

This is such a pointless discussion going on for 5 years !! The only people who actualy decide on a legal/illegal act are jurors on a court of law , this is how legal systems work The mcaans were neither charged by either Portugal or Uk after both countries legal systems interviewed and looked al much more evidence that we woudl ever know.

sure we can have opinions on anything to do with this case - but this horse has long gone - my opinion on what was legal or ilegal -it doesnt matter - the FACT is they were not charged -- no one is going to now charge with them of this crime -

I think I would go with the decison of two countries judical sytems

 

[fabgod]

This is such a pointless discussion going on for 5 years !! The only people who actualy decide on a legal/illegal act are jurors on a court of law , this is how legal systems work The mcaans were neither charged by either Portugal or Uk after both countries legal systems interviewed and looked al much more evidence that we woudl ever know.

sure we can have opinions on anything to do with this case - but this horse has long gone - my opinion on what was legal or ilegal -it doesnt matter - the FACT is they were not charged -- no one is going to now charge with them of this crime -

I think I would go with the decison of two countries judical sytems

I have to agree with you Gord , they werent charged, they almost certainly will not ever be charged with neglect, personally I think they were very wrong to do what they did in leaving the children, but we are not all the same at the end of the day

 

[SapphireSteel]

The fact that they were not charged is unfortunately part and parcel of the entire mystery of the Madeleine McCann Case.

McCann supporters insist on using this detail as somehow "proof" that the McCanns are innocent of ALL wrongdoing despite blatant evidence to the contrary.

While Team McCann insist on rewriting the truth and blocking publication of what happened in the investigation (despite publicising their desire to leave "no stone unturned") then the neglect question remains a valid one.

WHY were they not charged?

:banghead:

 

[Linda7NJ]

The fact that they were not charged is unfortunately part and parcel of the entire mystery of the Madeleine McCann Case.

McCann supporters insist on using this detail as somehow "proof" that the McCanns are innocent of ALL wrongdoing despite blatant evidence to the contrary.

While Team McCann insist on rewriting the truth and blocking publication of what happened in the investigation (despite publicising their desire to leave "no stone unturned") then the neglect question remains a valid one.

WHY were they not charged?

:banghead:

IMO they weren't charged so they would remain cooperative and talking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gord]

I dont think the PJ went down this road as they were just not interested in this outcome - despite what people think it was not a cut and dried neglect case and it would have distracted from the main case -

Amaral did think that he had them after the dogs work - especialy in the hire car which should have been the smoking gun. When the case started to fall apart after the forensic reports came back with nothing conclusive and Amaral was taken off then that. -