"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[SapphireSteel]

I have never heard of Kate saying this, but there was so much rubbish put in the media initially. Kate said that there were two gates that were still on the latch so it would be difficult for a child to open and close them. And patio doors like that are quite heavy for a toddler to slide open. I just heard them say they left it open because it was the easiest door to use, and it could not be locked from the outside.

Going back to rubbish in the media I have posted links to two news stories in the Uk today concerning the death of a young girl called Tia Sharpe. One story claims she was smothered, another claims the post mortem has not yet finished. our media just do not leanr and rush to try to get some sort of a scoop without checking out their facts.

You keep speaking of the media printing "rubbish" and not checking their facts.

NO ONE KNOWS what happened to Madeleine.

To assert that information printed in msm is "rubbish" indicates you have knowledge that everyone else does not.

Please post links to support your allegations that what has been printed is "rubbish".

 

[4Jacy]

These are not stupid, naive people. They are educated, they are intelligent, they can read, they're doctors and have heard of accidents that happen to children as part of their education. They may not have known that Madeleine would be abducted but certainly they knew enough to tell that bad things do frequently happen to small children who are abandoned.

Everybody knows this. If someone doesn't they need to have their children taken away immediately because they're not fit to be parents.

The rape victim analogy is not appropriate because the rape victim does not do anything wrong. Parents who neglect their children do.

You don't get a free pass for a criminal action of yours just because someone else commits another crime at the same time frame.

Thank you Donjeta, you are always the voice of reason. I get so angry with cases like this, what a terrible injustice.

 

[brit1981]

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/

This provides the evidence regarding media behaviour in the UK, it contains the information about the rubbish the media printed about the mccanns. If you were in the Uk you might be more aware of this. the mccann case was the first case where the media made a front page apology to their victims. The media also had to make payouts to Robert murta and several of the mccanns friends for prinitng false stories.

 

[brit1981]

donjeta,
the mccanns had not committed a crime, in Portugal and the UK it is legal to leave a child sleeping for half an hour whilst you are fifty metres away. nanny listening services are still legal.

 

[sherlockh]

The patio door was unlocked, as it could not be locked from the outside. It was one of those big sliding doors which would be difficult for a toddler to open.
jeremy Wilkins said he saw Gerry coming down the path from the patio doors, so the patio doors had to have been unlocked at this point as Gerry could not have locked them from the outside.

saphire,
people who believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger ( scotland yard have said this is what they believe happened), are basing their belief on the facts and timeline.
However you have claimed that the FSS, three governments, the police, the mccanns, the mccanns friends, the Us ambassador etc are all involved in a cover-up. Surely you can see why people find this idea a bit tin foil hattish? Plus we have seen people come up with new and wonderful ways of looking at DNA (which involves pretending children to not inherit all of the DNA from their parents etc) in order to say there is forensic evidence against the Mccanns. If you look at how some poor soulds have interpretted the DNA, claiming that 15 out of madeleine's 19 alleles is akin to saying there is a 15 out of 19 chance it is hers, you can see that all belief and intelligence has to be suspended if one is to believe there is any evidence against the mccanns.

Maybe on May 3rd when Madeleine was already dead (IMO) and they were working on their coverup, but not in the days before when everything was still normal. Leaving your kids alone is already unbelievable but now claiming that they left the doors unlocked as well. Who can say that with a straight face? Why else does Gerry gets all 'confused' about it? The truth is a whole lot easier to remember.
Why did Gerry McCann LIE about which door he used? - YouTube

You are exaggerating with the major cover-up. There is certain people who went along with the story. Who weren't all that motivated to get to the truth for their own personal reasons. Very selfish people. People that don't care about justice for the poor dead girl, but rather support child neglecting parents. It is the child that needs our support. Not child neglectors that choose to coverup up their own stupidity, showing zero respect for their own daughters body, and enjoy fooling the public and benefiting financially from her death.

There is no mystery as to what happened to Madeleine. Follow the dog alerts and you know exactly what happened. The mystery is who in the world came up with the plan to cover it up, and why others went along with it? All JMO.

 

[brit1981]

Maybe on May 3rd when Madeleine was already dead (IMO) and they were working on their coverup, but not in the days before when everything was still normal.

Madeleine was seen alive and well on the 3rd of May by MW staff

Leaving your kids alone is already unbelievable but now claiming that they left the doors unlocked as well. Who can say that with a straight face?

It is legal, and Jeremy Wilkins confirms he saw Gerry come down the patio door path. The patop door could only be locked from the inside so for Gerry to have left that way means the door was unlocked.
Why else does Gerry gets all 'confused' about it? The truth is a whole lot easier to remember.

There is no proof he lied. A portuguese statement said a key was needed to unlock the back door. This I suspect is from confusion on the police's part of which was the front and which was the back door (the back door was actually the door at the fron of the flat as it was being used).
You are exaggerating with the major cover-up. There is certain people who went along with the story. Who weren't all that motivated to get to the truth for their own personal reasons. Very selfish people. People that don't care about justice for the poor dead girl, but rather support child neglecting parents. It is the child that needs our support. Not child neglectors that choose to coverup up their own stupidity, showing zero respect for their own daughters body, and enjoy fooling the public and benefiting financially from her death.

They have not benefited financially from her death. There has been no evidence to suggest her parents had anything else to do with her death. there is a reason why those who have claimed this have been unable to prove their claims.

There is no mystery as to what happened to Madeleine. Follow the dog alerts and you know exactly what happened. The mystery is who in the world came up with the plan to cover it up, and why others went along with it? All JMO.

The police say they believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. The dog alerts mean nothing. Firstly the victim recovery dog is trained to alert to all bodily fluids even old blood, and a previous occupent had previosuly bled profusly in the flat. Secondly the dogs are not infallible. This particular dog made a false alert in another high profile case. In anothe rhigh profile case the recovery dogs alerted only for the person to be found alive. Most recently recovery dogs were used in a search for a twelve year old girl. They did not alert in a particular house one day. Two days later the police went back, the dogs alerted near a loft hatch, but at this point the police coudl also smell decomposition. the dogs alerted at no other place in the home despite the fact it seems unlikely the girl died in the loft.

Can I also ask why you put in "just my opinion". I have read some people think this protects them from libel cases, is this true (in the Uk it certainly woudl not work so just wondering if it does in the US)[/QUOTE]

 

[fabgod]

Brit,
Can i ask why you posted this?
"Can I also ask why you put in "just my opinion". I have read some people think this protects them from libel cases, is this true (in the Uk it certainly woudl not work so just wondering if it does in the US)"

In the post from sherlockh, Is that intended as some kind of warning against what he/she posted?
We all know why "just my opinion" is placed on someones posts, I don't see why you would need to try and put the poster under any pressure from posting his/her opinions, that is indeed what this forum is here for isn't it?

The poster suggests that maybe Madeleine was dead, that is a possibility as there is no trace of the child since May 3rd 2007

 

[Donjeta]

donjeta,
the mccanns had not committed a crime, in Portugal and the UK it is legal to leave a child sleeping for half an hour whilst you are fifty metres away. nanny listening services are still legal.

Is it not illegal to endanger your children's safety in Portugal or UK?

It is very clear to me that Madeleine's safety was endangered, and so were the twins'.

The facts speak for themselves.

JMO.

Before anyone asks I post JMO and MOO and IMO because it is my opinion and I have no MSM links to back it up. Not that links would do anybody any good now that MSM has been declared to be all lies.

 

[rpgman]

Brit,
Can i ask why you posted this?
"Can I also ask why you put in "just my opinion". I have read some people think this protects them from libel cases, is this true (in the Uk it certainly woudl not work so just wondering if it does in the US)"

In the post from sherlockh, Is that intended as some kind of warning against what he/she posted?
We all know why "just my opinion" is placed on someones posts, I don't see why you would need to try and put the poster under any pressure from posting his/her opinions, that is indeed what this forum is here for isn't it?

The poster suggests that maybe Madeleine was dead, that is a possibility as there is no trace of the child since May 3rd 2007

Not the first time Brit has done this.

Did it to me several times.

Accordingly to the TOS your NOT allowed to attack the poster ONLY the post.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Cappuccino]

Is it not illegal to endanger your children's safety in Portugal or UK?

It is very clear to me that Madeleine's safety was endangered, and so were the twins'.

The facts speak for themselves.

JMO.

Before anyone asks I post JMO and MOO and IMO because it is my opinion and I have no MSM links to back it up. Not that links would do anybody any good now that MSM has been declared to be all lies.

Its not illegal to leave your children alone in a hotel room and listen at the door every half an hour. That's why the hotel in Portugal offered that service to its customers, and I'm sure the McCanns weren't the only ones using that standard of child care. I wouldn't do it myself, but its not illegal.

 

[brit1981]

fabgood,
I posted it because I have heard people say that in the US as long as you put it there it protects you from libel - was wondering if it was true. It just seems an odd thing to put in, because it is obvious something is someone's opinion or not and putting in jmo makes no difference. I was wondering if it was a legal thing there like "without prejudice" here.

Donjeta
It is legal to leave them for half an hour sleeping whilst you are fifty metres or so away. That is why nanny listening services are still used and still legal. It is not something I woud do, and I had never heard of these services until a friend who was a MW nanny told me about it, but there you go.

 

[Donjeta]

Could we perhaps get a link to the actual law that says it's OK to endanger a child's safety leaving them in an unlocked hotel room alone if somebody comes to the door every half hour, not even making sure that the child is safe?

 

[brit1981]

Its not illegal to leave your children alone in a hotel room and listen at the door every half an hour. That's why the hotel in Portugal offered that service to its customers, and I'm sure the McCanns weren't the only ones using that standard of child care. I wouldn't do it myself, but its not illegal.

The MW resort in PDL did not offer it because it was not a campus resort, but spread out thorughout the village so a nanny could not do the circuit in half an hour. But they offered it in all campus style resorts. the Mccanns' friends had used the service in Greece the year before so suggested they make their own listening service. Parents checking on the child has to be better than a teenager with an NVQ in childcare listening outside the door.

 

[brit1981]

Could we perhaps get a link to the actual law that says it's OK to endanger a child's safety leaving them in an unlocked hotel room alone if somebody comes to the door every half hour, not even making sure that the child is safe?

I do not know what the law is like where you are , but in the Uk and EU there are no laws stating what people can do, only what they cannot do. There is no law banning this practice, and most parents are at some point of an evening fifty metres away from a sleeping child.

 

[Donjeta]

I do not know what the law is like where you are , but in the Uk and EU there are no laws stating what people can do, only what they cannot do. There is no law banning this practice, and most parents are at some point of an evening fifty metres away from a sleeping child.

It is kinda my point. There is no law saying it is legal to go out wining and dining leaving your child if you come back every half hour and that is why it cannot be linked to, despite all the claims that this is legal.

However, usually there are laws banning child neglect and deliberately putting children in danger. Children who are left alone in an unlocked hotel room, lots of strangers knowing about it, for several hours per evening are deliberately put in danger and also neglected if they're too young to be alone.

I am not going to go round and round about this any more as my opinion is not likely to change.

 

[fabgod]

I do not know what the law is like where you are , but in the Uk and EU there are no laws stating what people can do, only what they cannot do. There is no law banning this practice, and most parents are at some point of an evening fifty metres away from a sleeping child.

Most parents are at some point of an evening fifty metres away from a sleeping child?
How big is your house? 50 metres is over 160 feet

I am tempted to do the Brit1981 thing and say can you provide links, but I already know you cannot in this instance lol!

 

[brit1981]

Fab,
If you think about it, if you are out in the garden, and the children are in an upstairs front room asleep, you would probably have to cover more than fifty to seventy metres to reach them.

Donjeta,
One cannot say there is no law specifically stating it is OK so it is not. It is not considered neglect (if it was a suspect the PJ would have charged them with it as it would have got them on something), that is why hotels etc are allowed to have listening services. It is not something I agree with, but it does not change whether it is considered neglect legally or not.

 

[Cappuccino]

Could we perhaps get a link to the actual law that says it's OK to endanger a child's safety leaving them in an unlocked hotel room alone if somebody comes to the door every half hour, not even making sure that the child is safe?

You can word it as pejoratively as you like, its not going to change the fact that there is no legal age limit to leaving a child alone, and the nanny listening services which do just what you describe are common in holiday resorts all over Europe.

The McCanns did what the nanny listening services would have done. From the fact that neither they, nor the many hotels who follow the same practice, have ever been prosecuted you can reasonably assume their actions were not illegal.

 

[fabgod]

Fab,
If you think about it, if you are out in the garden, and the children are in an upstairs front room asleep, you would probably have to cover more than fifty to seventy metres to reach them.

Donjeta,
One cannot say there is no law specifically stating it is OK so it is not. It is not considered neglect (if it was a suspect the PJ would have charged them with it as it would have got them on something), that is why hotels etc are allowed to have listening services. It is not something I agree with, but it does not change whether it is considered neglect legally or not.

not in a straight line as we keep being told the distance from tapas to apartment was.
if someone has a 20 metre garden that would still leave another 30 metres in the house thats nearly a 100 feet, not many houses I know in the UK that are 100 feet deep.

 

[Donjeta]

Nonsense. JMO. If I'm 50 to 70 metres away when I'm in the farthest corner of my garden the McCanns lied about how far they were. IMO and I've seen the pictures.

If I'm in my garden and the windows are open I hear if my children are crying upstairs. If they're not I can get the sleep monitor. If my kids wake up and want to find me they do not have to walk across a footpath, a gate and past a pool, they know where our garden is. If I'm in my garden and the door is unlocked I can see who goes in and who comes out. No stranger can just walk in and out with my daughter in their arms and I don't notice a thing.


Being right out of the door with visual and auditory contact with the residence in question is hardly as far as being in a bar behind a fence some walking distance away where you can't see or hear anything that goes on in your home.

I don't know, maybe your garden is bigger than mine. But if the McCanns had been as far as I'm from my children's bedrooms in my garden they'd have been in the back yard of their apartment, not at the bar.