"Who would leave children that young alone?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not even a parent, but from the beginning I was suspicious of the parents for the very same reasons. I can't understand why wealthy parents would not be willing to shell out some money for baby-sitting services. I have never understood why the parents weren't charged with neglect. If a child disappeared while his/her low-income, single mother ran to the store for a pack of cigarettes, the mother would certainly be charged with neglect. Or, if the same mother went to a party down the hallway and checked in on the children sporadically, she would be charged with neglect if something happened to any of them.

I always felt that the parents didn't take advantage of the baby-sitting services because something had already happened to MM. I think the dinner party was a cover for them. It gave them an alibi, while checking on the kids gave them opportunity to dispose of the body and evidence without drawing suspicion.

JMO
 
There was not actually a baby sitting service. You had to leave the children in the evening creche I believe (but not certain). The reason why I do not think the fact they left the children and only checked them thirty minutes makes them guilty of Madeleine's disappearence is the fact that this is common. Thousands use listening services that do the exact same thing. If leaving toddlers to be checked every half an hour by a nanny listening outside of the door makes someone a potential child killer or capable of hiding a child's death whilst launching a massive campaign to find her then thousands of people are potential sociopaths. Because if you look at the links I posted a few pages back, you will see that many resprts offer this service, and many people look for resorts that offer them. Also the mccans and their friends left the children like this every night so I do not think that particular dinner party can be a cover-up. Like I said I do not agree with it, and if I had done it and then my child disappeared I would be consumed with guilt and would be hurling abuse at my husband and friends for making me think it was OK. But on the other hand, imagine living with that guilt, no wonder they want to keep telling themselves what they did was OK, it would drive you insane. But just because I would not do something does not mean those that do are sociopaths. I know people who have sent their seven year olds to boarding school and they only get to come up occasional weeends and during the holidays. I do not understand this at all, but I do not think it makes them sociopaths.

Rashamon,
I am fairly certain Smith never said it was Gerry he saw. he said he felt it was a local person, and the person had a Portuguese/spanish look to them. The only oddity was the description was so smiliar to tanner's, but it was forty minutes later (when Gerry can be accounted for by several independent witnesses), but not that far away and in the opposite direction.
My personal take on what happened is this.
An intruder broke into the flat possibly to abuse a child, and maybe accidently killed her, smothered her maybe, paniked and took her from the room. He was seen by Tanner (if she had already died it would explain the odd way witnesses saw him carrying her), then perhaps after phoning someone he knew for advice, or after thinking it through he walked down to where the smiths saw him. Perhaps he had intended to walk down the street paralell to the resort, but saw Gerry and Jeremy talking there, and Tanner walking up so just carried straight on, and then at some point doubled back and walked down the paralell street on the other side which is where the smiths saw him. Maybe he lived near there, or had access to a car or boat near there.
This is all supposition, and I agree there is no hard evidence, and I feel horrible for saying it because I do hope she is alive (and lets face it who would have thought Jaycee lee dugard would still be alive, so there is still hope), but I think it is more realistic than it being a big conspiracy involving at least ten people with no criminal record, some of whom did not even know the mccanns that well (seriously if you were on holiday with a friend of a friend, can you imagine agreeing to cover up a child's death, can you imagine your mother who was also on holiday with you and had just met these people doing the same) and needs the mccanns to have committed other crimes of which there is no evidence in order to have a motive.
I think the main points supporting the intruder theory, apart from evidence against anyone else, are the fact that the flat Madeleine was taken from was the end flat nearest the road, was secluded, and the back window led out onto an empty car park, there had been other cases, in the area, of an intruder breaking into holiday flats and abusing children, both the smiths and tanner saw a man they described in a similar manner, carrying a child who could have fitted madeleines description (and at the time of both sightings Gerry is accounted for), and the tapas bar staff had left a note saying the people in these flats were leaving their children every night and anyone could have seen this note at the desk, and there were known to be at least forty convicted paedophiles living on the algarve. I also think it is possible that the disappearence of yeremi Vargas and Joanna Cipriana could have a bearing. It is rare to have children disappear in these circumstances so a connection should at least be considered. I also wondered if the Casa Pia scandal could be connected. There were abusers that it is believed were never caught, and suddenly their supply of victims ended with the casa pia investiagation, so maybe that influenced someone to kidnap children. Who knows.
 
Sociopathy is a pretty extreme diagnosis and there are plenty of people who have done bad things without being outright sociopaths.

It is a logically flawed argument to say that A must be innocent because thousands of other people did something A did and they are innocent.

I am sure many people who are callous enough to leave their children alone are nevertheless not callous enough to kill them or to hide the body in case something unintended that puts them in negative light takes a little life but it doesn't mean that some of them may not be.
 
Sociopathy is a pretty extreme diagnosis and there are plenty of people who have done bad things without being outright sociopaths.

It is a logically flawed argument to say that A must be innocent because thousands of other people did something A did and they are innocent.

I am sure many people who are callous enough to leave their children alone are nevertheless not callous enough to kill them or to hide the body in case something unintended that puts them in negative light takes a little life but it doesn't mean that some of them may not be.

But the logic shown on this thread seems to be "they did something that is perfectly legal throughout most of the EU, but I disagree with, therefore it is reasonable to assume they are capable of drugging a child, covering up her death, and dumping the body, and getting their friends, acquintences, resort workers to join in the cover-up." no-one on here has come up with a good motive that does not revolve around the poster not agreeing with their parenting decisions. That many people will not agree with many of the poster's on here parenting decisions is apparently irrelevent. The poster disagrees with listening services and thats that. I may disagree with letting young children walk to school alone, but if I hear of a child disappearing after the parents claim they sent them off to school, does it mean I am reasonable to claim "well, there is no evidence they drugged their child, but given that they are so callous they cannot be bothered to ensure their child gets to school safely they are probably the sort who will drug their child at night, therefore the child must have died in the night and this is all just a cover-up so the parents do not get into trouble for the drugging we have no evidence of!" ? Lets face it until recently was there ever any real evidence Etan Patz ever left his home? Probably just the parent's word, but why would anyone decide to mistrust it it just because they allowed a six year old to walk alone in New York, and start making up random theories that are not backed up by the facts or the timeline (in the case of the mccanns there were two hours betwene Madeleine last being seen alive and well, and the mccans being seen at dinner, after which neither one is unaccounted for, for more than five minutes each).
 
But the logic shown on this thread seems to be "they did something that is perfectly legal throughout most of the EU, but I disagree with, therefore it is reasonable to assume they are capable of drugging a child, covering up her death, and dumping the body, and getting their friends, acquintences, resort workers to join in the cover-up." no-one on here has come up with a good motive that does not revolve around the poster not agreeing with their parenting decisions.

1. The logic on this thread by many, in my opinion, is that Kate and Gerry McCann committed neglect by choosing to leave 3 toddlers alone. They did not utilise a service, a creche, or anything even similar. Leaving 3 toddlers alone to go down to the pub isn't legal. Just because the parent isn't charged with neglect doesn't make it legal, or even acceptable, either.
2. Several theories have been floated as to motive that could very well be possible and have nothing to do with the poster's personal parenting style.
3. The title of this thread is 'Who would leave children that young alone?'. As such, in my opinion, any poster's agreement with such an action or disagreement has its voice in this thread.

That many people will not agree with many of the poster's on here parenting decisions is apparently irrelevent. The poster disagrees with listening services and thats that. I may disagree with letting young children walk to school alone, but if I hear of a child disappearing after the parents claim they sent them off to school, does it mean I am reasonable to claim "well, there is no evidence they drugged their child, but given that they are so callous they cannot be bothered to ensure their child gets to school safely they are probably the sort who will drug their child at night, therefore the child must have died in the night and this is all just a cover-up so the parents do not get into trouble for the drugging we have no evidence of!" ? Lets face it until recently was there ever any real evidence Etan Patz ever left his home? Probably just the parent's word, but why would anyone decide to mistrust it it just because they allowed a six year old to walk alone in New York, and start making up random theories that are not backed up by the facts or the timeline (in the case of the mccanns there were two hours betwene Madeleine last being seen alive and well, and the mccans being seen at dinner, after which neither one is unaccounted for, for more than five minutes each).
I haven't said a word about whether I believe the McCann's drugged or even murdered their child - but I was argued with for several pages over that leaving toddlers alone was irresponsible and could result in the toddlers being removed from the parents. :waitasec: The fact some parents across the EU use a listening service matters not (and in reality how many have whose children have gone missing?) when the McCann's did not.

On the matter of Etan Patz...
1. It is a case from a different generation. It is cases like Etan's that influence parenting styles of today. In 1979 many 6 year olds walked to school and bus stops. Now, though?
2. All parents should be considered an initial suspect in the disappearance and or murder of their child. In my opinion (after 25 years of research into filicide) it is very much a necessary evil. The Patz's were suspect the first few weeks. They were cleared. Though I am not privy to the investigation any more than you I highly doubt the fact that they allowed Etan to walk alone two blocks was the sole reason for police suspicion.
3. A bodega clerk has admitted to murdering Etan Patz in 1979. Will we, in 33 years, find out who took Maddie that night? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps there will always be suspicion following the McCann's like it does the Aisenberg and Bradley-Irwin families.
 
Rashamon,
I am fairly certain Smith never said it was Gerry he saw. he said he felt it was a local person, and the person had a Portuguese/spanish look to them. The only oddity was the description was so smiliar to tanner's, but it was forty minutes later (when Gerry can be accounted for by several independent witnesses), but not that far away and in the opposite direction.

Snipped by me

You keep saying that "thousands" leave their children alone, even if this is true then it does not make it safe. Especially when it is a bunch of intelligent professionals doing so.

Martin Smith DID report to Stuart Prior of Leicester police that he believed that the man he saw was G McCann

From: DC Hughes
Sent: Thursday, 20th September, 2007 15:42
CC: Prior Stuart
Re: FW: Smith Family

This is the Irish family that saw a man transporting a child on the night in question and returned to Portugal to collaborate with the investigation. Martin Smith contacted our department stating that after having observed the McCann family on TV alighting from the plane, he believes that the person he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. For your information.

DC John Hughes

Translated from this
11_VOLUME_XIa_Page_2871.jpg
 
Snipped by me

You keep saying that "thousands" leave their children alone, even if this is true then it does not make it safe. Especially when it is a bunch of intelligent professionals doing so.

Martin Smith DID report to Stuart Prior of Leicester police that he believed that the man he saw was G McCann

From: DC Hughes
Sent: Thursday, 20th September, 2007 15:42
CC: Prior Stuart
Re: FW: Smith Family

This is the Irish family that saw a man transporting a child on the night in question and returned to Portugal to collaborate with the investigation. Martin Smith contacted our department stating that after having observed the McCann family on TV alighting from the plane, he believes that the person he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. For your information.

DC John Hughes

Translated from this
11_VOLUME_XIa_Page_2871.jpg

An English policeman suddenly decided to email the Portuguese police in Portuguese? Smith has said in interviews he did not recognize the man as Gerry, several witness including staff saw gerry at this time.
An english nanny also states she saw Murat outside the flat on the night Madeleine disappeared, but he has been cleared and both him and his mother state he was not there.
And when people are claiming leaving toddlers asleep and checking them every half an hour points to guilt in covering up a death, it is relevant that this is the exact same practice as listening services, which are legal and are used by thousands. In Portugal and in the UK how the checked on the children is perfectly legal.
 
Have you heard of translators?
Why would they email Portuguese Police in English?
Are you saying that that document is a fake?

"And when people are claiming leaving toddlers asleep and checking them every half an hour points to guilt in covering up a death"


And furthermore please do not put words into my mouth. I did not say this
 
I wonder if they have ever left the twins with a nanny minding service since?:maddening:
 
If someone did walk into the unlocked flat and decide to abuse Madeleine, only to accidentally kill her, why on earth would he take her with him?? All he had to do was walk away and leave her body there. Carrying around a dead child at a time of night when plenty of people are walking around makes no sense at all, and there is no reason for him to do so.

If you were going to go into a holiday apartment and abuse a child, would you pick the one where the child is sharing a room with two toddlers, who might normally be expected to wake up and cry when something is going on in the room? (No abductor is likely to anticipate that these are the deepest sleeping toddlers EVER who don't even wake up when the place fills up with frantic adults.)

If you think it was an intruder really the only thing that makes sense is that he took her away from the flat, alive. Then of course you have to explain the reaction of the cadaver-trained dogs.

Tink
 
I just removed several posts.

Do not insert race into this mix. It has zero to do with anything. Not up for discussion.
 
If someone did walk into the unlocked flat and decide to abuse Madeleine, only to accidentally kill her, why on earth would he take her with him?? All he had to do was walk away and leave her body there. Carrying around a dead child at a time of night when plenty of people are walking around makes no sense at all, and there is no reason for him to do so.

If you were going to go into a holiday apartment and abuse a child, would you pick the one where the child is sharing a room with two toddlers, who might normally be expected to wake up and cry when something is going on in the room? (No abductor is likely to anticipate that these are the deepest sleeping toddlers EVER who don't even wake up when the place fills up with frantic adults.)

If you think it was an intruder really the only thing that makes sense is that he took her away from the flat, alive. Then of course you have to explain the reaction of the cadaver-trained dogs.

Tink

As for the intruder, sadly the intruder had broken into flats where the parents were in another room.
As for the cadaver dogs, they mean nothing. eddie alerted to apiece of bone like material in a jersey care home. It caused a huge panic, but turned out to be coconut. It is also important to note that he is also trained to alert to bodily fluids (the chemicals that cause the "scent of death" are actually present in several bodily fluids, and all organic material that has begun to break down, even material that originally came from a living person). If you look at the videos, you can actually see the dogs ignore everything several times, and only bark after being taken back to a site several times. In the car park eddie runs past all the cars including the mccanns. His handler however only stops at the mccanns car, and repeatedly calls eddie back to it until eventually eddie barks at it. eddie also barks at another car,and a wal but these do not appear to be investigated. At no point on the video do we see eddie alert to cuddle cat. nor do you actually see him alert to the cupboard the cat was put in. We see him chuck cuddle cat about and ignore it. In a report the PJ question the fact the dogs ignored everything for the first few times. Grimes also states the alerts mean nothing without evidence. According to reports grimes no longer has a license to practice in the UK.
In 2008 a little girl called shannon mathews disappeared in the UK. Cadaver dogs alerted in her parent's house. It turned out that Shannon was alive and well.
http://news.sky.com/story/955182/former-top-detective-madeleine-may-be-alive

The above link is to a stpry about an ex detectives review of the case, on the right of the page is his own report.
 
People have received police cautions for leaving children alone in the UK


The three nurses bringing the case all lost their jobs following minor offences which were not deemed serious enough to go to court, but which resulted in them being handed police cautions.
One of the nurses broke the law by leaving her 11-year-old son at home alone while she went shopping. Another was cautioned because while he was at work, his wife left the couple's children alone for a short period

From the Telegraph
 
From the NSPCC

The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk.
Link

I truly wish that the McCanns had used their high public profile to warn parents about leaving small children home alone.

I don't think that they hurt their daughter but by leaving 3 under 4 s alone in a holiday apartment, they did put them at risk
 
From the NSPCC

The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk.
Link

I truly wish that the McCanns had used their high public profile to warn parents about leaving small children home alone.

I don't think that they hurt their daughter but by leaving 3 under 4 s alone in a holiday apartment, they did put them at risk
:floorlaugh: In other news...I think we ought to start a drinking game when ever anyone posts that info from the NSPCC - as long as our little ones are properly supervised of course. ;)

With less levity - it's my personal belief a lot of people may not believe the McCann's complicit in Maddie's disappearance if they at least admitted to some wrongdoing on their part. The McCann case happened before I moved here and US coverage was very different to that of the Brits but I have never seen them truly accept responsibility for their actions that night. I think them admitting culpability back in 2007 would have gone far to sway sentiment. JMO
 
As for the intruder, sadly the intruder had broken into flats where the parents were in another room.
As for the cadaver dogs, they mean nothing. eddie alerted to apiece of bone like material in a jersey care home. It caused a huge panic, but turned out to be coconut. It is also important to note that he is also trained to alert to bodily fluids (the chemicals that cause the "scent of death" are actually present in several bodily fluids, and all organic material that has begun to break down, even material that originally came from a living person). If you look at the videos, you can actually see the dogs ignore everything several times, and only bark after being taken back to a site several times. In the car park eddie runs past all the cars including the mccanns. His handler however only stops at the mccanns car, and repeatedly calls eddie back to it until eventually eddie barks at it. eddie also barks at another car,and a wal but these do not appear to be investigated. At no point on the video do we see eddie alert to cuddle cat. nor do you actually see him alert to the cupboard the cat was put in. We see him chuck cuddle cat about and ignore it. In a report the PJ question the fact the dogs ignored everything for the first few times. Grimes also states the alerts mean nothing without evidence. According to reports grimes no longer has a license to practice in the UK.
In 2008 a little girl called shannon mathews disappeared in the UK. Cadaver dogs alerted in her parent's house. It turned out that Shannon was alive and well.
http://news.sky.com/story/955182/former-top-detective-madeleine-may-be-alive

The above link is to a stpry about an ex detectives review of the case, on the right of the page is his own report.

The fact that the dog alerted, and then a piece of coconut shell was found near that place does NOT mean that the dog alerted to the coconut shell. There may well have been other traces there. The scent of decomposition can be left in a location (and detected by dogs) long after the body (or body parts) have been removed.

If you have ever watched dogs search for a scent (as I have), you'll know that this behaviour is typical. Scent is carried on the air, so it radiates out from an object and if there is a breeze or movement may be blown quite far away from its source. Think about times when you have come home and smelled something strange - perhaps some food has gone "bad" or your dog or cat has had an "accident." Rarely can you go straight to the source. Instead you smell it, walk around a bit trying to detect where it is stronger and where it is not, often going back and forth several times before being able to hone in on where the smell is coming from. It is the same with these dogs in most cases (sometimes if the smell is very fresh and strong they can almost go straight to it, but most often they will walk past the object several times before they figure out the source).

Dogs used for this kind of work are chosen in part because they are play-oriented. They like to play with toys, and that is normally their reward for detecting a scent. (These are preferred over dogs who are food-oriented, because there is more likely to be food around which would distract them.) My guess is that when the dog first saw the cat toy, he saw it as a "toy" and his reward, so he picked it up to play with it. It would make sense in that case to hide it in a cupboard so that he'd stop being distracted by it and instead focus on the smell he was looking for.

Tink
 
The dog did alert to coconut shell. Grimes claimed in a newspaper report that the dogs could make mistakes

When you see the cuddle cat vidoe, the dog never actually alerts to it at all. he chucks it about, and then ignores it. Then several minute slater he he is called bac to a horizonatal cupboard made up of three or four sections. He ignores the cupboard, but after being called back to it more than once, he stands just beyond the cupboard, at the corner facing away from it and barks. Not once does he alert to a particular section. After this the cupbaord is not opened straight away. Instead eddie his handler, and the camera man go out of the room and return a few minutes later. At this point the handler goes straight to the middle section of the cupboard and takes out the cat. At no point does the video show when the cat was put int he cupboard, nor do we see what else is in the cupboard. We are given no explaination as to why the handler went straight to the middle section, and no explaination as to why the dog ignored the cat at first. The PJ apparently raised questions about this.
 
That dog DID NOT alert to a coconut shell. It alerted to an area where a 50p size of coconut shell, bone fragments and milk teeth were found, under concrete.

We obviously disagree and I see no point in playing tennis with our points of view :)
 
I think that this case raises a few questions

"A mother who abandoned her seven-month-old baby at home for an hour every day has been spared jail after a judge told her even Prime Minister David Cameron left his child in a pub once.
Aysiea Mahroof, 27, left her daughter while she took her older children on the school run and didn't realise it was illegal saying 'If I don't do it again, can I go?' when she was first arrested by police.......

.........Mahroof wept in court as she admitted a charge of child neglect which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.....

.....He told the tearful mother: 'What this case is not, like so many in court, is that you left children for only self interest.
'In that situation, I would be sentencing you to a term of imprisonment."
 
She left a baby whilst she went miles away by car. The Mccanns were only just over fifty metres as the crow flies from the flat, and it was seventy-five metres to walk, so only about a minute to get there. Therefore this would not legally be considered child neglect, as most people will spend half an hour fifty metres away from their child. If one is in the garden, and your child alseep upstairs, the chances are it will be at least fifty metres for you to get there. nanny listening services are legal, simply because they meet the requirements for childcare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
626
Total visitors
806

Forum statistics

Threads
626,644
Messages
18,530,325
Members
241,108
Latest member
scratchthat78
Back
Top