Chez Dannz

T

Verdi wrote:First and foremost, Portugal hold primacy over this case.  The UK police are in no position to prosecute aside from a possible case against the Madeleine fund.

Secondly, there is no proof nor even evidence to suggest a case of negligence, endangering life, manslaughter by abandonment.  

The only 'evidence', for want of a better word, is the word of the McCanns and their group of friends, which quite frankly leaves a lot to be desired.

In short, there is nothing to suggest let alone prove, that any of the children from the group were left alone on any evening or night during the holiday week.

Neglect = Abduction.  No Neglect = No Abduction.  It really is that simple.

Enough of this diversionary tomfoolery!

Do please explain the relevant EU treaty provisions which would preclude the UK from prosecuting its own nationals in its own territory for a criminal offence under its own law. Or is this something which we can look forward to with Brexit?  

“In short, there is nothing to suggest, let alone prove, that any of the children from the group were left alone on any evening or night during the holiday week.”

Are you serious?  This is utterly preposterous. Adverse admissions in numerous witness statements which corroborate one another and are corroborated by independent witnesses, endless interviews with the McCanns etc. etc.  Yet, according to you, nothing to suggest....  

(But it is entertaining to imagine the McCanns trying to explain how they let an abductor take Madeleine while they were with her and this was not negligent.). 

Verdi - you may be a moderator, but don’t pretend to have legal knowledge which you plainly don’t have. 

Added to this ignorance of EU law, the law of evidence and basic criminal law are serious basic errors. Read the PJ Files and statements by Tapas Bar staff e.g.

RICARDO ALEXANDRE DA LUZ OLIVEIRA
JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA
STARIKOVA VITORINO
JERONIMO TOMAS RODRIGUES SALCEDAS 

Verdi wrote:In order to avoid confusion across the board and to maintain forum continuity, I am creating a special space for new member Dannz to continue theorizing ad-lib and unrestrained.

I will move all Dannz's posts and the replies here in due course.  Please be patient and bear with me during the process - time is of the essence.

Seriously?  You remove posts that go against your view like that?  

“The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing”.  Hmmmm

Please do not complain about the way this forum is organised when we've been here for over nine years and you've been here for four days. Your posts haven't been removed, merely moved.

Thank you.

“In short, there is nothing to suggest, let alone prove, that any of the children from the group were left alone on any evening or night during the holiday week.”

Dannz said: "Are you serious?  This is utterly preposterous. Adverse admissions in numerous witness statements which corroborate one another . . . "

That's not technically PROOF though, is it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I’m not sure what you mean bu “technically”.  The evidence very clearly shows that the children were left alone. There is no reason to suppose that a jury would have any doubt about that. I cannot even imagine any sane defence lawyer trying to claim otherwise or how that evidence might be credibly challenged. 

If you don’t think there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the children were left alone, please explain why you think that.  Do you have reason to think that these adverse admissions in witness statements were obtained by duress? That the Tapas Bar employees lied because they were bribed?  That statements given in recorded interviews to Leicestershire police were also obtained by duress?  

Put yourself in the position of defending the McCanns. Do you think there would be any real hope of persuading a jury that the children were not left alone? (And how would you then explain Madeleine’s disappearance?)

Dannz wrote:

Verdi wrote:In order to avoid confusion across the board and to maintain forum continuity, I am creating a special space for new member Dannz to continue theorizing ad-lib and unrestrained.

I will move all Dannz's posts and the replies here in due course.  Please be patient and bear with me during the process - time is of the essence.

Seriously?  You remove posts that go against your view like that?  

“The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing”.  Hmmmm

You should appreciate having a space on the forum all to yourself, only the best most respected researchers have been granted that privilege. You've been quite vocal since your arrival a few days ago, to keep your observations all under one roof so to speak, I see as an advantage to your good self and above all to the forum.

Much of your commentary to date has been general observations on diverse areas taking threads off topic.  Add to that your sometimes confusing terminology, it's nigh on impossible to recognise their deserved place on the forum.  So, in the interest of forum continuity your random comments have been 'filed' collectively - as I said for your benefit as well as the forum and our valued readership.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth!

For your information..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jill Havern wrote:Please do not complain about the way this forum is organised when we've been here for over nine years and you've been here for four days. Your posts haven't been removed, merely moved.

The posts were removed from the threads where they were originally posted.

This included removing posts pointing out errors in arguments for the 29 April theory, such as the misreading of the PR Week report. Moving the post from the thread where the erroneous claim is made into a separate “Chez Dannz” area does not strike me as an honest and fair way of dealing with the points raised. 

I now understand from you that because the forum has been here for nine years, this should be considered as an acceptable way of dealing with adverse points and I should not take issue with that.

You request that I do not complain about this. I won’t. Nevertheless I remain of the view that this is not an honest and fair way of dealing with adverse points in a discussion.

Actually [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the PRWeek revelation is old news and has been posted here (cmomm) several times before without any reaction from the mods, so genuine facts adverse or otherwise are clearly not the problem.

aquila wrote:Well you could always use the option to bugger orf and spread malcontent in places more suitable.

I don't think that's forum etiquette, Aquila...

Dannz said "The evidence very clearly shows that the children were left alone."
Evidence is NOT proof. . . . and if you actually believe your post you are either naïve or duplicitous. Have you not noticed prisons are FULL of criminals who lie and fabricate?

Only if the children were being left alone, the ”abduction” could have occured. By claiming neglect the necessary opportunity is given. But remove the neglect issue and the whole story falls like a fragile cardhouse.
I don’t see any evidence at all that the children were alone. On the contrary, it makes me suspicious each time I see an interview with the parents and they try as hard as they can to convince everyone that they actually left so small and vulnerable children alone. Normally, people would be so ashamed (and VERY regretful) if they REALLY had done such a horrible thing....but not them. Ask yourself, WHY?

JimbobJones wrote:Dannz said "The evidence very clearly shows that the children were left alone."
Evidence is NOT proof. . . . and if you actually believe your post you are either naïve or duplicitous. Have you not noticed prisons are FULL of criminals who lie and fabricate?

I didn’t say ‘evidence is proof’. That would be silly.

Rachel007 wrote:Only if the children were being left alone, the ”abduction” could have occured. By claiming neglect the necessary opportunity is given. But remove the neglect issue and the whole story falls like a fragile cardhouse.
I don’t see any evidence at all that the children were alone. On the contrary, it makes me suspicious each time I see an interview with the parents and they try as hard as they can to convince everyone that they actually left so small and vulnerable children alone. Normally, people would be so ashamed (and VERY regretful) if they REALLY had done such a horrible thing....but not them. Ask yourself, WHY?

Why do you think the witness statements by Tapas Bar staff do not count as evidence?  See statements by -

RICARDO ALEXANDRE DA LUZ OLIVEIRA
JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA
STARIKOVA VITORINO
JERONIMO TOMAS RODRIGUES SALCEDAS 


I don’t think the McCanns are trying to convince everyone that they left the children alone. No one has doubted that in interviews etc.  What they are doing is trying as hard as they can to make it seem reasonable - no different to dinner in back garden, only 50m away, lots of supportive messages etc.  



The issue in the discussion is whether there would be sufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution against the McCanns for gross negligence manslaughter. For purposes of a criminal trial there is ample evidence to prove that the children were left alone.

Dannz wrote:
The issue in the discussion is whether there would be sufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution against the McCanns for gross negligence manslaughter. For purposes of a criminal trial there is ample evidence to prove that the children were left alone.

The issue under discussion is whether or not the McCanns and their friends left their respective children alone every night, whilst they went out to dine.

In the words of the legendary John McEnroe - 'you cannot be serious....'

There is not a scrap of evidence to even suggest, let alone prove, that the children were left every night unattended - only the word of the McCanns and their group of friends. Which counts for nothing.

Anyone with knowledge of the proceedings of a criminal court of law in the UK will be aware that not one of the witnesses would stand against a good seasoned lawyer, be that lawyer for the defence or for the prosecution.

Why do you think the McCanns are so desperate to avoid a court appearance. They made a complete pig's ear of their debut performance at the Lisbon Courts and that was only a matter of civil law.

Dannz wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I’m not sure what you mean bu “technically”.  The evidence very clearly shows that the children were left alone. There is no reason to suppose that a jury would have any doubt about that. I cannot even imagine any sane defence lawyer trying to claim otherwise or how that evidence might be credibly challenged. 

If you don’t think there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the children were left alone, please explain why you think that.  Do you have reason to think that these adverse admissions in witness statements were obtained by duress? That the Tapas Bar employees lied because they were bribed?  That statements given in recorded interviews to Leicestershire police were also obtained by duress?  

Put yourself in the position of defending the McCanns. Do you think there would be any real hope of persuading a jury that the children were not left alone? (And how would you then explain Madeleine’s disappearance?)

Hi Danz

In your quote above, this is  the relevant bit:

If you don’t think there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the children were left alone, please explain why you think that.

The mccanns themselves told us the children were not being left alone each night but they were in fact all being babysat by the missing adult from the table each night. which the group claimed was due to illness of the adult or child whilst making a pigs ear of remembering who was missing on what day.

The proof is the mccanns own words, spoken using the process of free editing, using no scripts, notes or other prompts.

I have covered it on my blog.

Was it when they were being bathed?

One of the other... err... twins

The key sentences that told us all the children were being babysat by the missing adult from the table in one apartment, p[ossibly paynes as it was the largest and he likes to bathe other peoples children.


Gerry himself told us all the children were in one apartment when he said:

"Anybody with young children will understand that children cry; they wake up at night.
During that week there was one night, errr… and we can't give too much detail because it's part of the investigation file but there was one night where Madeleine came through and one of the other, errr… twins were crying, so, you know, and when she did mention to it… it to us and we asked her about it and she just dropped… she was completely fine and we thought, "Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired".
Of course, with hindsight, in the… in the context of what had happened; of Madeleine being abducted, it's put in a very different light and it's put in a very different light to us and, of course, we emphasized that to the police."

Firstly.

You will note:


"Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired".
Had the children been in 5a and kate and/or gerry were bathing the children, the comment would not have arisen since the parents were already present and would have known why the children cried.

Had the children been in 5a and were being bathed and put to bed by another adult from the group and kate and gerry were in the same apartment getting ready, the comment would not have arisen since they would have heard the crying and presumably gone to comfort the children.
I would ask though why they were letting someone from the group bathe their children (payne springs to mind)?
The children would not be that familiar with payne and if crying because a stranger was effectively bathing them then hopefully maternal instinct alone should kick in and then kate takes over bathing and bedtime.

Had the children been in 5a and cried and kate and gerry did not hear the crying, then the question would have arisen.
Why was someone from the group bathing and putting the children to bed and where was kate and gerry if not in 5a?
Since this doesn't make sense, then the children were in one of the other apartments occupied by the group (payne springs to mind) being bathed and put to bed by whichever adult from the group.
Kate and gerry would be in 5a getting ready with kate having a bath not long after having a shower and allegedly greeting payne who was sent up by gerry to see if kate needed help.
The question would have arisen since the children were somewhere other than 5a being bathed and put to bed and kate and gerry were in 5a and would not have heard the crying.

Secondly.

Gerry slips and confirms the children were all sleeping in one apartment belong to one of the taps 7 when he said


You will note:

one of the other, errr… twins

Gerry was going to say "one of the other, errr… children" but he realized that was incriminating and revealed the children were all sleeping in the same apartment so he changed it to other twins.
This just confirmed all the children were sleeping in the same apartment despite him trying to say they weren't as there was only one set of twins and that was Sean and Amelie mccann, his children.
He had fallen down on the slippery slope and unable to backtrack hence his mangled and incriminating sentence.
He might have gotten away with it if he hadn't said the word OTHER.

The only time the children were possibly left alone was the Thursday night where they had to leave the children alone although probably all in the same apartment so  it was easier to make 'any checks', one room rather than 4 in order for the charade of them doing the checks as per normal, for them all to be seen at the table as a group and to also be seen doing said checks by witnesses in the bar and also anyone who happened to be around such as Wilkins.

The reason they went through the charade was to allow time and opportunity for the alleged abductor to gain entrance to the apartment, sedate the children (which after denials and agreement several times, finally decided the children had been sedated by said abductor and not, as initially claimed, really deep sleepers) and then remove Maddie,leaving not one atom of evidence that a stranger paedophile abductor had ever been there.
Even gerry claiming he had a moment when he saw Maddie lying on her bed asleep, having a pee and sensing someone else was there and, despite this feeling there was a stranger in the apartment with his three vulnerable children, he left the children and went back to the tapas bar after having a chat with wilkins and not seeing tanner on her check!

Maddie died earlier that week sometime i think Sunday night/Monday morning as after that day, the mccanns daytime routine changed and instead of having breakfast which was included, in the millennium along with the rest of the group and then having lunch (which wasn't) in one of the apartments with the rest of the group, they had breakfast and lunch in 5a and only eating with the adults at the tapas bar (which was included)
I think this was to stop Diane Webster asking awkward questions as to where Maddie was if they all turned up with just the twins in tow.
Apparently Webster was there alone as her husband couldn't make it, i think she also went to perhaps act as a babysitter whilst the rest of the group who were in couples did whatever it was that they were doing of an evening whilst she had a nice evening in doing whatever it was that she wanted to do whilst she babysat the children.
With Maddie dead, they couldn't have her babysitting as she would notice they were one short and Maddie was missing, which would immediately result in awkward and damning questions and a nice chat with the police detectives.
She would also, as a mother, not be a happy bunny if she thought all the children were being left home alone and i am pretty damn sure, said something and told them she would babysit them in one apartment and no one in their right mind leaves toddlers alone at night in a strange house, in a strange country.

Also, I know from personal experience that medical staff from doctors and nurses all the way down but mostly doctors and nurses would not contemplate ever of leaving young children home alone whilst they were out getting smashed.
They know all to readily what can happen to a child even with the parent right next to them, they see the tragic results in ER.

As an aside,
My mom and one of my aunts were nurses which was helpful considering the number of scrapes and trips to ER my brothers and i plus the occasional friend who became walking wounded when we were playing in the old quarries (still being worked at the time) and various woods, and i worked in a cottage hospital which although mainly geriatrics during the holiday season we would get frequent casualties, falls, scrapes heart attacks - very popular as where i lived was a tad hilly and the tourists would see our sprightly old locals walking up and down 1 in 4 hills and the tourists also being old thought that doesn't look difficult and promptly arresting at a hard to reach point of said hill making for fun times and usually the local air sea rescue chopper paying a flying visit, or children being stung, bitten, trod on, butted, fallen off by sundry wildlife and pets
My favorite was a male in his late 20's i think,came in covered in blood, his face and hands in tatters like he had been savaged by a dog or something. As Staff and i cleaned him up and did some tidy stitching, for the paperwork, i asked what happened?. I and Staff were thinking maybe a Yorkie or similar size had attacked him and he would need to think about reporting it if it wasn't his.
He said no, he had been savaged by his hamster.
That was the point Staff and i lost it, we could not stop giggling, i damn near wet myself i was laughing so much.
Luckily we had finished with the stitching.
After that all we had to say to each other was hamster and we were in fits of giggles.

Payne took a baby monitor, presumably to keep the mom-in-law happy and perhaps to be used as a way for whichever babysitter was on duty being able to chat with those in the tapas bar.
None of the other bought one as they wouldn't have needed it since the children were being babysat.
This explains all the garbled excuses as to why they left the children home alone each night, they had to set a routine that the bar staff would/should have noticed and also to give the alleged abductor a routine to which he could plan his dastardly deeds and then have the opportunity and times with which to commit it.

It also gave rise to the alleged crying incident where kate thought perhaps someone had tried it the night before, again setting the scene for the alleged abductor to abduct Maddie.

It also gave rise to one of the dumbest theories i have heard, coming from Donal Macintyre who said he believed the abductor had done a trial run the night before.
What abductor, in his right mind, would break into the house where his victim was sleeping  via whatever means, go into the bedroom, look down at Maddie and the twins, decide on what sedation to use and how to administer it, plan how to carry Maddie out the house and away, perhaps even lightly sedating her to make sure she doesn't wake whilst he sees how heavy she is which would also affect his choice of escape route.make notes regarding timings etc and what to do if something changes/goes wrong and then, after having done an almost complete dry run up to the point of actually taking Maddie, leaves her in bed, and after deciding that everything is right and planned to the second,  he will do the full abduction tomorrow night.
Common sense says that the alleged abductor would not have broken into the apartment to do a dry run and left Maddie there to be abducted tomorrow.
For all the abductor knows, the mccanns might have had a bout of parental responsibility and taken the children to the evening creche whilst they had fun at dinner at the tapas bar or taken them to dinner with them or hired  one of the babysitters (who were the very same people that looked after the children during the day at the creche, the very same strangers that kate was fearful of using as babysitters) or even stayed at home and had dinner there.
If the abductor had the time and opportunity to commit the abduction during his so called dry run, then he would have done so rather than leave it till the next day when he may not have had the opportunity.

The mccanns had to claim they left the children home alone every night with them doing half hourly checks, not 15 minute checks as one reporter had said in an interview with the mccanns, resulting in gerry getting a tad irate and biting the reporters head off and reiterating it was every 30 minutes.
Strange don't you think?
!5 minute checks would mean they were still neglecting the children but they were doing more frequent checks.
They had to make sure it was every 30 minutes or so to allow time and opportunity for the abduction to take place.

They could not admit the children were being babysat in one apartment as it meant there would have been no opportunity for an abduction as no paedophile abductor is going to want to fight an adult protecting the children especially since the parents would have been within earshot.
It would mean no abduction taking place and awkward questions regarding Maddie's location.

It was possible they could try and blame the babysitter but if the babysitter was not involved in the crime relating to Maddie then they would inform the PJ what their role was, babysitter, and that they had not seen Maddie since Sunday/Monday.

The other problem is, they could have blamed who did the last check on the children, in this case matt and, if he was not involved then he would say he hadn't seen Maddie on his check and then it would point to gerry and those awkward and damning questions.

The mccanns had to claim neglect and risk possible charges in order to allow for time and opportunity for an abduction to take place.

No neglect = No abduction.
No abduction = awkward and incriminating questioning of the mccanns and chums regarding Maddie

They were not charged with any crime simply because, the PJ at the time, did not know what crime or crimes had been committed.

Why were the mccanns never charged with neglect?


The evidence does not show the children were left home alone.
The  PJ concluded early on that the children were all in one apartment.
In oldfield's statement where he spoke about his check he describes a completely different room to the mccanns apartment and also describes his check and what he could see and couldn't which was not possible given the cots and the bed Maddie allegedly slept in.

I wonder why you are so adamant that the children be left home alone despite the evidence  including their own statements and them having an adult missing from the table each night until the Thursday, the sudden change in the dining habits of the mccanns, the lack of anything the children made in the creche, the differing descriptions of Maddie's behavior and character from the creche workers and her parents and the tapas 7, the lack of Maddie's DNA, in fact any DNA from the mccanns and their three children in 5a when it should have been covered in it.
The semen stain on the bedding in the children's room which morphed into saliva from a previous young boy who had stayed there according to the FSS.

You seem to need the children to have been left home alone in order to support the abduction theory as purported by the mccanns despite all the forensic evidence that shows a corpse lay in 5a for a period of time from at least 90 minutes after death which was the minimum needed for cadaver dogs to be able to detect cadaverine, an apartment in which there is no record of a corpse ever having been in there such as death of a previous owner/resident/guest, the presence of blood and body fluids in locations behind the sofa and also on the walls in a spray pattern, the presence of cadaverine in the parents bedroom, on items of clothing including a child's red t shirt, cuddlecat and more interestingly and damningly, in the hire care, rented over 3 weeks later by the mccanns.

There is ample evidence both verbal, written, recorded statement to the public and media, their own mockumentary, kate's book that tell us Maddie is dead and not one iota, not one atom of physical evidence apart from verbal claims by the mccanns and to a lesser degree, the tapas 7, probably due to the super inaudible) that Maddie was abducted, could still be alive and has not suffered serious harm.

Physical evidence or imagined evidence?
Reality or fantasy?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]   No - what would have to be proved in a criminal prosecution of the McCanns for gross negligence manslaughter would be that the McCanns left their children alone on the night of 3 May.  There is no need to prove others not being prosecuted also left their children alone. It also wouldn't be necessary to prove that the McCanns did this every night of that week.

No sane defence lawyer would try to mount a defence on the basis that Madeleine might have disappeared before 3 May. Failing to report that disappearance would itself amount to gross negligence. It would show that the McCanns lied to the police and had no regard for Madeleine's safety. Even if she had disappeared before then, that would not be argued by the defence. There is no need for the prosecution to argue that either.

 "Not one of the witnesses would stand..."  Are you suggesting that their own defence barrister would 'grill' the McCanns on the stand to show that their statements about leaving the children alone were lies? Arguing that their clients had been brazenly lying to the world for 12 years or more would not be a good defence strategy.  It would also create a serious difficulty as they would have to account for Madeleine's disappearance while they were with her. Allowing an abductor to take Madeleine while they are with her is also gross negligence.

There is not only the word of the Tapas 9 that the McCanns left their children alone on the night of 3 May. There is evidence given by at least 4 of the Tapas Bar staff.

Statements made by the McCanns and their friends do not 'count for nothing'.  These are adverse admissions that could be used by the prosecution against the McCanns. Are you suggesting that the McCannns' defence would be that these 'count for nothing' - that their clients lied to the police etc.?

That the children were left alone on 3 May would be a non contentious issue. The defence strategy would instead be:

i) that the proximity to the apartment, checks and supervision were adequate - while perhaps less than ideal this does not rise to the level of gross negligence. 

ii) whether the death has been proved - without which cannot show manslaughter. 

What is perhaps significant is how the McCanns are desperate to keep the investigation going. Once Madeleine's death is accepted, then they are in the territory where gross negligence manslaughter might arise. That notion that Madeleine is still alive in the public imagination is one of the things that stands between them and criminal prosecution for gross negligence manslaughter. 

The point I was making initially should be a simple one; one need not show exactly what happened or when in order to secure a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter. What has to be shown is a causal connection between the negligence and the death: typically the 'but for' test - 'had the McCanns not left their children unattended, Madeleine would not have died - whether in the apartment or otherwise'.

It appears to me that the only real issues for a prosecution case are:
i) whether the negligence rises to the level of gross negligence. (taking into account evidence including charts showing Madeleine would get out of bed, the patio door being unlocked, steep steps from the apartment, dangerous hard tiled floors, parental awareness as doctors of child safeguarding etc.)
ii) the corpus delicti - whether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to meet the burden of proof that Madeleine is dead. 

The blood and detection of cadaverine by Martin Grimes' dog are good evidence. But even if it was supposed that Madeleine had been abducted and killed, that would still amount to manslaughter by gross negligence by the parents.  Maintaining the idea in the pubic imagination that Madeleine might still be alive thus becomes important for the McCanns as this encourages reasonable doubt over whether Madeleine died.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Thank you, yes that is the relevant bit.

If you don’t think there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the children were left alone, please explain why you think that.


But to be more specific, this concerns the Mcann children being left alone on the night of 3 May. There is the evidence given by the Tapas Bar staff and all the Tapas 9 in their statements. 

Maybe I missed something, but I don't think anything you raised shows that the McCann children were not left alone on that night.

It seems contradictory that, on one hand, we accept the Tapas 9's claim that the McCanns stopped joining the others for lunch and breakfast (for which we have only their word) yet, on the other hand, we should reject their claim that the children were left alone at night. 
Much has been made of this "change of breakfast and lunch routine"- for which we have only the word of the McCanns and their friends. Indeed staff at the Millenium contradict this claim.
So, we are to believe the Tapas 9 about the changed daytime meals routine (for which there is no supporting evidence, indeed there is testimony to the contrary) while at the same time we reject their claim about leaving the children alone at night, which IS supported by the testimony of the Tapas workers and Mrs. Fenn. It does seem rather selective IMO.

Hi Dannz

You said earlier that nobody has doubted the McCanns in interviews when they were insisting on neglect... I believe the journalist Sandra Felgueiras looks very sceptical in each and every of those early interviews. It’s seen all over her face that she doesn’t believe them. And you can see how irritated the McCanns are, because they are seeing it too...
Like Hobs wrote above in a post, they even corrected an interviewer who talked about 15 min checks. As 15minutes is too short for an abductor, Gerry McCann insisted on 30 min. Who in their right mind would want to present themselves as the worst possible parent who leaves their young children alone for an even longer period than people originally thought?
Only someone who has something far worse to fear, if it is revealed.

Should the mccanns have been prosecuted for allegedly leaving their children home alone, resulting in harm to Maddie.
Their lawyers would indeed cross examine them.
The Portuguese have double jeopardy which means if they had been charged with neglect, they could not then charge them with homicide, filing a false police report and concealing a corpse.
Remember the PJ did not know what crime had been committed.
What the mccanns could have done is appeared in court charged with neglect resulting in harm to Maddie, possibly other charges regarding the twins which would mean rather a long time in jail and loss of custody of the twins and their jobs.

They take to the stand and admit the children were in fact babysat by the missing adult from the group each night and that Maddie died accidentally and they panicked.
The case is dismissed because they children were not neglected and they cannot be charged with homicide, concealing a corpse of filing a false police report.

In the UK they may face charges regarding the fund but nothing relating to the children and Maddie because they were already tried in Portugal.

It was a risk the mccanns were willing to take.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

All very prosaic but you really are missing the point.

You have expanded on my words extensively, creating your own version thereof.

In the simplest terms possible, the McCanns and their friends convoluting version of events wouldn't stand the test in any court of law. I've witnessed first hand how lawyers operate in the courtroom, they are ruthless and totally lacking sincerity. They have one objective only - to be the victor.

The McCanns nor their friends would stand a hope in hells chance.

Thank for taking the time anyway.

Phoebe wrote:It seems contradictory that, on one hand, we accept the Tapas 9's claim that the McCanns stopped joining the others for lunch and breakfast (for which we have only their word) yet, on the other hand, we should reject their claim that the children were left alone at night. 
Much has been made of this "change of breakfast and lunch routine"- for which we have only the word of the McCanns and their friends. Indeed staff at the Millenium contradict this claim.
So, we are to believe the Tapas 9 about the changed daytime meals routine (for which there is no supporting evidence, indeed there is testimony to the contrary) while at the same time we reject their claim about leaving the children alone at night, which IS supported by the testimony of the Tapas workers and Mrs. Fenn. It does seem rather selective IMO.

The change in daytime routine and the claim of leaving the children alone at night are two entirely different entitites.

The daytime routine I suspect to be an attempt to conceal the fact that there were only two children instead of three.  They have told of how they changed their route to and from the childcare facilities, how they breakfasted and lunched in the apartment by themselves, how one parent left by the patio door everday, whilst the other left by the front door - there must be a reason why they felt the need to alter the daytime routine (I use the word routine for ease of explanation).  In short, there is no evidence to confirm the existence of a family of five after lunctime on Sunday 29th April 2007, when they were allegedly seen making their way to the Payne's apartment for lunch, as witnessed by the daughter of apartment 5a cleaner.

The nighttime childcare arrangment however would be to provide an opportunity for an abductor to abduct.  

Neglect = Abduction.  No Neglect = No Abduction.

It's not a case of generalising by weighing one version against another. Every aspect has to be studied individually and weighed against available evidence before a conclusion is reached.