I agree that just listening for toddlers left unattended is crazy. Many things can happen they could play with fire they could choke to death on something and they could get kidnapped!
"Who would leave children that young alone?"
- Thread starter Texana
- Start date
- Status
I agree that just listening for toddlers left unattended is crazy. Many things can happen they could play with fire they could choke to death on something and they could get kidnapped!
I agree it is stupid, anything could happen, and there is always going to be the possibility that Madeleine did happen to wonder away and come to hamr. I think thats unlikely because apparently there were two gates she would had to have opened, and then closed behind which a toddler is unlikely to do, but it will always remain a small possibility.
However, regardless of opinion, it was actually quite legal given the distance and the regular checks, and the fact the children were asleep. nanny listening services, were and continue to be popular throughout Europe, so obviously someone is using them.
However, regardless of opinion, it was actually quite legal given the distance and the regular checks, and the fact the children were asleep. nanny listening services, were and continue to be popular throughout Europe, so obviously someone is using them.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 622
The topic of leaving small children vs older children alone came up again in another thread.
This is a good resource:
http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/survival_kit/home_alone.pdf
This is a good resource:
http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/survival_kit/home_alone.pdf
That is not a UK, Portuguese, or EU site. It has no relevance to EU, Portuguese, or UK law. The fact is that the McCanns broke no laws, and di not do anythign abnormal by just checking on sleeping children every half an hour.
It is not more danegerous for a sleeping toddler to be left alone for half an hour, than it is for an older child to walk to school, or friend's house alone (or with one or two friends). far more children will be harmed in these circumstances than those left sleeping in their own beds for half an hour.
badhorsie
Mouth operational, brain elsewhere...
Regardless of the legalities, the McCanns left three under fours alone in an unlocked, foreign apartment, despite the 3 year old previously asking why they were left to cry alone.
As a result of this harm has come to one of their children.
These are the simple facts of the matter.
As a result of this harm has come to one of their children.
These are the simple facts of the matter.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 622
Did I say that the link had anything to do with the local legalities? No. It's a resource explaining why older children and smaller children have different abilities to process being left alone and this psychological development does not really vary too much depending on whether you're in Portugal or Australia.
It should be parental instinct that tells people that their small toddlers are not to be left alone, not the law. JMO.
It should be parental instinct that tells people that their small toddlers are not to be left alone, not the law. JMO.
Isn't the person this attitude should be directed at, the person who took a child from their bed? Yes, like thouands of others, the Mccanns left their child for up to half an hour at a time whilst she was fast asleep, but harm came to her because someone took her.
Just as if a child is hurt walking alone, their parents failure to escort them allowed the situation to occur, but the person to blame is the person who hurt the child directly.
Refusing to hold the person who took the child responsible, is just helping them to justify their actions -"oh it was not my fault, the parents should have stopped me", it is like blaming a woman for getting raped because she walked alone, or wore a skirt.
And yes, an older child walking to school is far more likely to come to harm than a child left asleep in their bed for half an hour. Parents know this, but some will still allow their child to do it because they think the risks are small. They are no better or worse than someone who leaves a toddler asleep for half an hour.
Just as if a child is hurt walking alone, their parents failure to escort them allowed the situation to occur, but the person to blame is the person who hurt the child directly.
Refusing to hold the person who took the child responsible, is just helping them to justify their actions -"oh it was not my fault, the parents should have stopped me", it is like blaming a woman for getting raped because she walked alone, or wore a skirt.
And yes, an older child walking to school is far more likely to come to harm than a child left asleep in their bed for half an hour. Parents know this, but some will still allow their child to do it because they think the risks are small. They are no better or worse than someone who leaves a toddler asleep for half an hour.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 622
No doubt you have a link supporting your claim that an older child walking to school is far more likely to come to harm than a toddler left alone.
Including all kinds of harm that may befall a child, such as being distressed by the lack of parents being there, and taking into account that most of the stuff that can happen to an older child walking alone may also (sometimes more easily) happen to toddlers left alone who sometimes end up somewhere walking alone looking for their parents and are far less able to avoid stray cars, ponds, find their way out of a dark forest etc. than older children. OIlder children walking alone to school are not nearly as likely to die in their beds if there is a fire as a toddler sleeping alone; if they get sick on the way they can call for help but the toddler who is sleeping alone can't.
And do read the straw man argument article, please because this is another one. No one said that child abductors aren't to blame and to be held responsible for what they did. It's just that parents neglecting their children are also to blame for what they did.
I'm going to make a wild guess that most children are better equipped to do the above when they're older, not toddlers.
(Yes, I know, it's still not a Portuguese law site.)
Including all kinds of harm that may befall a child, such as being distressed by the lack of parents being there, and taking into account that most of the stuff that can happen to an older child walking alone may also (sometimes more easily) happen to toddlers left alone who sometimes end up somewhere walking alone looking for their parents and are far less able to avoid stray cars, ponds, find their way out of a dark forest etc. than older children. OIlder children walking alone to school are not nearly as likely to die in their beds if there is a fire as a toddler sleeping alone; if they get sick on the way they can call for help but the toddler who is sleeping alone can't.
And do read the straw man argument article, please because this is another one. No one said that child abductors aren't to blame and to be held responsible for what they did. It's just that parents neglecting their children are also to blame for what they did.
http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/survival_kit/home_alone.pdf
I'm going to make a wild guess that most children are better equipped to do the above when they're older, not toddlers.
(Yes, I know, it's still not a Portuguese law site.)
I do not agree with children being left alone like this, my attitude is that anything could happen. But I do not agree with the focus on the parents, yes they made a mistake, but I bet they regret it every minute of every day. I bet it eats away at them, and they replay the night over and over imagining they had not done it and how different their life would now be. I also do not see the logic of the idea that because they made this mistake, Madeleine should not be looked for by he rparents or anyone else. Whatever happened she is innocent, and should be looked for by everyone who can.
But the fact is parents make these sort of decisions all the time, and sometimes they are proven wrong, be it the decision the made to leave the children for half an hour the decision to leave them with a teenage babysitter or allow them to walk to school alone.
But the fact is parents make these sort of decisions all the time, and sometimes they are proven wrong, be it the decision the made to leave the children for half an hour the decision to leave them with a teenage babysitter or allow them to walk to school alone.
Donjeta - interesting to know what your view on the case is - do you think they were actualy involved in her death / disposal ?
If the parents were involved in her death then of course the babysitting arrangements were neither here nor there - its like having a go at a mass murderer for shoplifting .
Hindsight is always a great thing and I do think that since the Mccann case a lot of parents did question their own child care arrangements, I dont think anyone now agrees that what the Mccanns did was correct or wise, - but they didnt deserve for their child to be taken. ( depending on what side of the case you sit ) I am the wrong side of 40 and believe me child checking was a fairly common occurrence on holiday villas/ chalets - time moves on and you wouldnt find it now .
I remember going camping with my young kids in France - mu boy aged 5 had just learnt to ride his two wheel bike - and he was off like a demon . As it was a closed site , child friendly I did let him ride off out of sight to the swings and sand pit - I did worry but it was a calculated risk on my part I suppose as I wanted him to have the experience of riding on his own with his pals . Not exactly the same scenario I know - but imagine he got run over or something I suppose I would be in the dock and there would be accusing fingers wagging at me
I dont know what happened to poor Madeleine - noone does aoart from the person/persons who were responsible - but until someone can explain to me how on earth the parents could have been resposible for her death/disposal without leaving a clue or making a mistake - then I go with abduction . but I am open to be convinced otherwise
If the parents were involved in her death then of course the babysitting arrangements were neither here nor there - its like having a go at a mass murderer for shoplifting .
Hindsight is always a great thing and I do think that since the Mccann case a lot of parents did question their own child care arrangements, I dont think anyone now agrees that what the Mccanns did was correct or wise, - but they didnt deserve for their child to be taken. ( depending on what side of the case you sit ) I am the wrong side of 40 and believe me child checking was a fairly common occurrence on holiday villas/ chalets - time moves on and you wouldnt find it now .
I remember going camping with my young kids in France - mu boy aged 5 had just learnt to ride his two wheel bike - and he was off like a demon . As it was a closed site , child friendly I did let him ride off out of sight to the swings and sand pit - I did worry but it was a calculated risk on my part I suppose as I wanted him to have the experience of riding on his own with his pals . Not exactly the same scenario I know - but imagine he got run over or something I suppose I would be in the dock and there would be accusing fingers wagging at me
I dont know what happened to poor Madeleine - noone does aoart from the person/persons who were responsible - but until someone can explain to me how on earth the parents could have been resposible for her death/disposal without leaving a clue or making a mistake - then I go with abduction . but I am open to be convinced otherwise
badhorsie
Mouth operational, brain elsewhere...
There are a myriad of cases where children have gone missing and have been reported as abducted.
To name a few, Haleigh Cummings, Lisa Irwin, Hassani Campbell... they have never been found, there has been no evidence of abduction (as in the McCann case) and no evidence of parental misdeeds, apart from irresponsible behaviour. It is not unreasonable to be suspicious of the parents.
To name a few, Haleigh Cummings, Lisa Irwin, Hassani Campbell... they have never been found, there has been no evidence of abduction (as in the McCann case) and no evidence of parental misdeeds, apart from irresponsible behaviour. It is not unreasonable to be suspicious of the parents.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 622
I'm pretty fuzzy on the details so I don't really have a theory of what happened but there are things that bug me. The unlocked door for one. Nobody I know leaves the door to their hotel room unlocked, with all their possessions in there and three kids sleeping no less. It seems like an awfully convenient plot device to explain why there were no signs of forced entry.
I'm surprised that you think they regret it every minute of every day. I have watched videos of the McCanns speaking on several TV shows and have never seen them express any regrets or sorrow about having left the children alone. In fact I have heard them specifically say they did not feel badly about it. (And they were quite comfortable leaving them alone EVEN AFTER knowing that two of the children had been awake and crying and distressed the night before.)
Tink
It was the patio door, and it is not unreasonable to think that they thought it was OK. Thats the whole thing, if they thought it was a dodgy area and someone would go in they would not have left the children there in the first place. The patio door was, I believe, on the Tapas bar side, so it is fair to think it was Ok to leave it unlocked when you could see it.
In the PJ files a previous tennent says there was some issue with the front door which meant even when it was locked with the key in the lock, the cleaner could still just open it. They said they never found out what the problem was, but it does raise questions about the security of the place (I have posted the links to this in another thread).
But look at Jessica Lunsford (please correct me if that is not how her name is spelt), thee was no evidence of an abduction, and her family failed polygraphs. Yet it turned out an intrudor had just walked in the back door, and walked out with her again. If he had not already had convictions for child abuse would he ever have been suspected, and would Jessica have ever been found?
The reason i do not suspect the Mccanns is not based on anything about them or their professions (the UK's most prolific seriel killer was a doctor), but the fact that it just does not seem physically possible.
At five thirty Madeleine was seen by the nanny at the children's club, even if they left right then they still would not be back at the flat until nearly five forty. Gerry was seen at tennis at six and left about seven thirty. Gerry and Kate were seen at dinner at eight thirty, obviously showered, and changed. At just after nine Gerry was seen leaving the entrance to the flats and spent several minutes talking to the witness. At tenish kate was seen leaving, only to come back to raise the alarm. From this point on they were surrounded by people including Mark warner staff. By eleven at the latest the police arrived, searched, and used a sniffer dog which followed Madeleine's scent down to near a supermarket. From this point on Kate and Gerry were constantly surrounded by friends, family, police (including family liason officers who stay with the family), and followed by the press.
How during this time was there opportuninty for madeleine to die, her parents decide not to help her, her parents (who had no access to a car, boat, or a shovel) hide her body somewhere it has never been found, convince seven of their friends to lie (and not all of these friends were good friends, and one had only met them on the holiday) and help cover-up Madeleine's death? How did the police, or press, or strangers not see anything? If they had raised the alarm the next morning, it might have been more feasible, but they did not?
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 622
Well, supposing all the sightings and times are correct, which they might not be, that leaves three hours from five thirty to eight thirty that no one saw either Kate or Madeleine. Plenty of time for a child to die. As for access to car, boat, shovel, I'd say no known access. Shovels and boats can be borrowed without asking for permission, there may be buses, cabs, unlicenced cabs, bikes, dumpsters, docks...
I don't think there is such a thing as an area that is so non-dodgy that it's a non-issue to leave hotel room doors unlocked. Particularly when there are three children inside who might decide to go out to search for their parents and there is a pool between them.
I don't think there is such a thing as an area that is so non-dodgy that it's a non-issue to leave hotel room doors unlocked. Particularly when there are three children inside who might decide to go out to search for their parents and there is a pool between them.
As for the unlocked door, that is by the by. Yes the left the door unlocked, but they thought the children were safe and sound asleep.
The sightings I gave were from people outside the tapas nine. So there is an almost three hour window, but for about an hour and a half of that time Kate was on her own. In those three hours Madeleine had to die in such a way that it left no traces, and there was no opportunity to help her. Her parents then had to come up with a plan to hide her body, stage an abduction, and convince seven other people to lie for them, and get showered and changed and then appear at dinner acting in a normal manner.
Now one of the Tapas nine said he saw Madeleine safe and well at six thirty. If he is telling the truth, the window narrows to two hours. If he is lying why - why is it important to their story that Madeleine was said to be seen alive and well at six thirty?
Jane Tanner said she saw a man carrying a child who matched Madeleine's description. Now if she is telling the truth, it could well be she saw madeleine being abducted. But if she is lying, then why lie about that particular time. She walked up the street where Gerry and Jez were, yet they claimed not to notice her which is perfctly plausible, but also provides grounds for claiming she is lying. Yet if she is lying, she could easily have said she saw the man when she went to check on the children later, when no-one was there to confirm or deny seeing her.
Matt said he went to check on madeleine, but did nto do a visual check. Now if he is in on it, what is the point in this? Why not claim to have seen her or claim she was missing then (the mccanns were seen at the table from this time until madeleine was found missing so the time was not needed for anything).
But also for the mccann cover up scenario we have to start inventing things to shoehorn the facts to fit the theories. yes they could have stolen a car, but no reported a stolen car, no-one reports having seen the mccanns anywhere but where they were supposed to be during this time, no reports an intruder in their garden (and you have to be lucky to break into a garden and just come across a spade, it is not something you could rely on). Also where did they put her that no-one found a trace? And why? If madeleine died when they were in the apartment, why lie and cover it up. People have claimed it must be because they sedated her, but have no proof or even anything suggestive of that of that, it just happens to provide a motive. Except, they could just have claimed Madeleine got into their belongings and took the medicine herself thinking it was a sweet or something.
Plus we also have to accept that seven people, not all of whom knew each other agreed to cover it up, risking their own families and careers, and kept to the same stories for over five years, yet at the same time did not give perfectly rehearsed statements (small inconsistencies between people i..e Jane saw Gerry he did not see her are very common), and that this agreement was made in the three hour window (keeping in mind many of them have witnesses claiming they were elsewhere during this time).
The sightings I gave were from people outside the tapas nine. So there is an almost three hour window, but for about an hour and a half of that time Kate was on her own. In those three hours Madeleine had to die in such a way that it left no traces, and there was no opportunity to help her. Her parents then had to come up with a plan to hide her body, stage an abduction, and convince seven other people to lie for them, and get showered and changed and then appear at dinner acting in a normal manner.
Now one of the Tapas nine said he saw Madeleine safe and well at six thirty. If he is telling the truth, the window narrows to two hours. If he is lying why - why is it important to their story that Madeleine was said to be seen alive and well at six thirty?
Jane Tanner said she saw a man carrying a child who matched Madeleine's description. Now if she is telling the truth, it could well be she saw madeleine being abducted. But if she is lying, then why lie about that particular time. She walked up the street where Gerry and Jez were, yet they claimed not to notice her which is perfctly plausible, but also provides grounds for claiming she is lying. Yet if she is lying, she could easily have said she saw the man when she went to check on the children later, when no-one was there to confirm or deny seeing her.
Matt said he went to check on madeleine, but did nto do a visual check. Now if he is in on it, what is the point in this? Why not claim to have seen her or claim she was missing then (the mccanns were seen at the table from this time until madeleine was found missing so the time was not needed for anything).
But also for the mccann cover up scenario we have to start inventing things to shoehorn the facts to fit the theories. yes they could have stolen a car, but no reported a stolen car, no-one reports having seen the mccanns anywhere but where they were supposed to be during this time, no reports an intruder in their garden (and you have to be lucky to break into a garden and just come across a spade, it is not something you could rely on). Also where did they put her that no-one found a trace? And why? If madeleine died when they were in the apartment, why lie and cover it up. People have claimed it must be because they sedated her, but have no proof or even anything suggestive of that of that, it just happens to provide a motive. Except, they could just have claimed Madeleine got into their belongings and took the medicine herself thinking it was a sweet or something.
Plus we also have to accept that seven people, not all of whom knew each other agreed to cover it up, risking their own families and careers, and kept to the same stories for over five years, yet at the same time did not give perfectly rehearsed statements (small inconsistencies between people i..e Jane saw Gerry he did not see her are very common), and that this agreement was made in the three hour window (keeping in mind many of them have witnesses claiming they were elsewhere during this time).
fabgod
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 3
Hi all
Have just been reading this thread with amazement that someone can be so blinkered in their unwavering faith in people they "apparently" do not personally know and whose only knowledge of the involved is from what has been printed about them.
As we know only too well, it can be dangerous to believe something or someone without looking into the facts and the backgrounds of those involved.
We need evidence, facts, yet when these facts are presented, they are discarded, such as the cadaver dogs and the door. We are told that it is perfectly legal and thousands do it when we question why parents of three children all under 4 years of age were left every night in an apartment that wasnt locked, in the dark, that had been upset on previous nights.
It's also acceptable to leave your children with a creche every morning and afternoon, it may have been acceptable to a few but I think the general consensus is that it isn't acceptable to the majority.
How can anybody just accept that it was ok to leave those children on the word of people that they do not know? Just because we are told that it felt okay and safe doesn't mean it was okay and safe, Within a day of being in an unknown area in a different country, it felt right that they could leave doors unlocked and eat and drink with friends whilst being out of sight of their children. The Restaurant was across a swimming pool, through an entrance, down a street up a flight of stairs away, how is that acceptable.
The thought that a stranger assaulted Madeleine on her bed and accidentally killed her and then decided to take the body away, is more plausible than parental involvement?
No evidence of a stranger in the apartment, no sign of assault on the beds, no DNA, the twins not stirring, the shutter not being forced, no evidence of fingerprints (apart from Kate McCann) or tampering?
Then, the now murderer decides to take the body out again later that evening, not even taking the time to cover it up? hmmm, the defence of the McCanns is admirable, maybe there was a stranger but if we are looking for evidence of that, there is none, nothing!
Jane Tanners sighting is pretty unstable, she tried to say it Robert Murat, she identified a man without a face yet she could be then sure it was Robert Murat?
Jane Tanner apparently, saw a man carrying Madeleine, yet she only took notice in this quiet safe town of the fact that she was barefoot? One of her close friends' children being carried off, (dead, if we are to believe this theory proposed here) and she doesnt recognise a child she has been on holiday for almost a week with?
It doesn't add up, we can all make mistakes and most of us have done, the difference is, if most of us made a mistake that was so catastrophic, we wouldn't be doing everything in our power to silence anyone who didn't agree with our version of events by taking legal action, we would be doing anything and everything we possibly could to attone for our error, they wanted our money and our attention, but they never willingly admitted their error, they had to be pushed, as though they had done nothing wrong.
Well within the bounds of responsible parenting? just because it isn't illegal (if that is truly the case) doesn't for one minute mean that is is okay!
Have just been reading this thread with amazement that someone can be so blinkered in their unwavering faith in people they "apparently" do not personally know and whose only knowledge of the involved is from what has been printed about them.
As we know only too well, it can be dangerous to believe something or someone without looking into the facts and the backgrounds of those involved.
We need evidence, facts, yet when these facts are presented, they are discarded, such as the cadaver dogs and the door. We are told that it is perfectly legal and thousands do it when we question why parents of three children all under 4 years of age were left every night in an apartment that wasnt locked, in the dark, that had been upset on previous nights.
It's also acceptable to leave your children with a creche every morning and afternoon, it may have been acceptable to a few but I think the general consensus is that it isn't acceptable to the majority.
How can anybody just accept that it was ok to leave those children on the word of people that they do not know? Just because we are told that it felt okay and safe doesn't mean it was okay and safe, Within a day of being in an unknown area in a different country, it felt right that they could leave doors unlocked and eat and drink with friends whilst being out of sight of their children. The Restaurant was across a swimming pool, through an entrance, down a street up a flight of stairs away, how is that acceptable.
The thought that a stranger assaulted Madeleine on her bed and accidentally killed her and then decided to take the body away, is more plausible than parental involvement?
No evidence of a stranger in the apartment, no sign of assault on the beds, no DNA, the twins not stirring, the shutter not being forced, no evidence of fingerprints (apart from Kate McCann) or tampering?
Then, the now murderer decides to take the body out again later that evening, not even taking the time to cover it up? hmmm, the defence of the McCanns is admirable, maybe there was a stranger but if we are looking for evidence of that, there is none, nothing!
Jane Tanners sighting is pretty unstable, she tried to say it Robert Murat, she identified a man without a face yet she could be then sure it was Robert Murat?
Jane Tanner apparently, saw a man carrying Madeleine, yet she only took notice in this quiet safe town of the fact that she was barefoot? One of her close friends' children being carried off, (dead, if we are to believe this theory proposed here) and she doesnt recognise a child she has been on holiday for almost a week with?
It doesn't add up, we can all make mistakes and most of us have done, the difference is, if most of us made a mistake that was so catastrophic, we wouldn't be doing everything in our power to silence anyone who didn't agree with our version of events by taking legal action, we would be doing anything and everything we possibly could to attone for our error, they wanted our money and our attention, but they never willingly admitted their error, they had to be pushed, as though they had done nothing wrong.
Well within the bounds of responsible parenting? just because it isn't illegal (if that is truly the case) doesn't for one minute mean that is is okay!
again we have this conflict between bad parents and murder /disposal. I think it is pretty safe to say that parents who might dispopse of their daughter could be classified as bad !!
My own theory - If we accept that in this world there are evil people out there who can and do abduct and kill youngsters .
I think that this was planned and the Mccanns were watched, I think there were two abductors . They knew that the family were checking instead of staying with. Abductor one enters through the Patio door - he knows the layout of the villas . He opens the shutters and window and passes teh child out to acomplice, Maddy might have been cloroform or not . Abductor 2 then walks quickly to a car - adbductor one leaves by the patio door again and meets in a pre arranged place . They are in spain within the hour - no evidence no cctv, no DNA nothing except a fleeting glance by JT at someone carrying a child - not saying that is what happened but it has more logic to me than boats shovels or stolen cars.
I also am still not convinced on Murat - but you have to hope the police did their checking of his house well
My own theory - If we accept that in this world there are evil people out there who can and do abduct and kill youngsters .
I think that this was planned and the Mccanns were watched, I think there were two abductors . They knew that the family were checking instead of staying with. Abductor one enters through the Patio door - he knows the layout of the villas . He opens the shutters and window and passes teh child out to acomplice, Maddy might have been cloroform or not . Abductor 2 then walks quickly to a car - adbductor one leaves by the patio door again and meets in a pre arranged place . They are in spain within the hour - no evidence no cctv, no DNA nothing except a fleeting glance by JT at someone carrying a child - not saying that is what happened but it has more logic to me than boats shovels or stolen cars.
I also am still not convinced on Murat - but you have to hope the police did their checking of his house well
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 622
Iffy. They knew the children had woken up just the night before. A sleeping child may become an awake child in a matter of moments.
Not necessarily, it would be enough for someone to decide not to help her, even if it was possible. There are also occasional cases in which parents have been involved in the disappearance but the child didn't die, at least not immediately. Not really seeing these scenarios here but it's been known to happen.
Not sure why seven people would have to be lying for them. Do they all claim to have Madeleine and the parents accounted for all the time?
Normal behavior is a very subjective assessment and proves nothing to me. Some people freak out after a crime and others act as if nothing had happened.
Well, to narrow the window?
So because Gerry and Jez didn't see her pass them it proves that she was right?
There are other things besides lies and truths, such as mistaken eyewitness statements.
It's very unfortunate she didn't tell anyone she saw Madeleine being carried away at the time they could have caught up with him.
I don't really understand how he can say he went to "check" on Madeleine if he didn't even confirm if she was there or not. Completely pointless.
I don't really see them as typical car thieves. Did any of the Tapas 9 rent a bike?
The McCanns weren't famous the night Madeleine disappeared so they could imo easily have been somewhere and not attracted any particular attention. Some people are not very observant. As for gardens, you could "break" into my garden (it's not fenced) and if I didn't see you you could walk away with a number of gardening tools and I wouldn't know until much later, whenever I need them the next time. By that time it would be impossible to know when they disappeared and I'm not even sure if I'd report a missing shovel, if it wasn't gold plated.
But I think bodies of water or dumpsters are easier than digging a grave.
Generally the reason people lie and cover up things is because telling the truth implicates them in some wrongdoing and they do not want to face the consequences.
Not sure why it must be because of sedation although I do find some things that are suggestive of that: the children had woken up the night before yet people keep saying (you in the above post included) that Kate and Gerry knew they would be asleep and that's why it was safe to leave them behind unlocked doors. How did they know they would be asleep when there was a precedent of them being not asleep?
Another suggestive thing was Kate McCann saying that she thought the twins were drowsy and suspected the abductor might have drugged them. Now this makes sense if it's to cover up that the parents drugged them but why would an abductor drug the twins? Did he wake them up to force feed them some pills? Most drugs that are readily available to an average person take some time to take effect and the abductor would be long gone with Madeleine by the time the twins were properly under the influence. What's the benefit?
The problem with the sedation scenario is imo that it makes sense for parents to sedate their kids when they're going out which probably means it didn't happen at 5:30 and it narrows the timeline.
But there are always good oldfashioned violent outbursts. Happens in a minute, at any time of day.
Not really sure why we have to accept that seven people agreed to cover it up.
- Status
Online statistics
- Members online
- 180
- Guests online
- 625
- Total visitors
- 805