Another question

by Guest 04.12.09 15:00

Amid all the who-did-what-to-whom stuff there seems to have been a rather poor response to the “How did an abduction happen?” thread.

Still, while this meeting ground forum for pros and antis remains, perhaps I could ask people about a rather simpler issue.

It concerns, yet again, the “checking.” The famous word checking, I think we can all agree, means “inspecting”, normally both visually and aurally, and in our context it clearly meant “checking on the safety and condition of the child” with the obvious additional implied meaning “checking that the child was actually present.”

Because the question of the checking is so critical to the case, particularly in trying to establish when the child was definitely last in apartment 5A, the police wanted to know all about it. Naturally the parents were asked, in their initial police interviews on May 4, “when, or how often was the child “checked?”

It is a very simple question and both parents knew the answer to it. We know that they knew because KM had discussed the matter with GM, as the interviews show, and because written and eye witness evidence proves that GM was involved in the quite harmless children’s book timeline preparation and discussion giving the relevant movements of each of the nine during the meal.

So both of them knew the correct answer to the question, “how often was the child checked between 8.30 PM and 10 PM that evening?”

That answer is, of course, once.

And yet, on this, the most important question perhaps in the whole investigation, both parents, interviewed separately and independently, gave untruthful answers: they both said “every half an hour”.

Does anyone have any suggestion as to why their answers were so very far from the truth?

by Guest 04.12.09 18:07

I made it as far as assuming that checking means aurally and visually, it doesn't really, far more common for parents to cock an ear to a door than to go in and physically look at their children for no reason.

by Guest 04.12.09 18:11

clarity wrote:I made it as far as assuming that checking means aurally and visually, it doesn't really, far more common for parents to cock an ear to a door than to go in and physically look at their children for no reason.

What's the point then. The child could have been sick and choked on it's vomit, the child could have found some medicines or cleaning fluids and drunk them and be unconsious, etc., etc. There is every point in looking in on them.

by Guest 04.12.09 18:14

candyfloss wrote:
clarity wrote:I made it as far as assuming that checking means aurally and visually, it doesn't really, far more common for parents to cock an ear to a door than to go in and physically look at their children for no reason.

What's the point then. The child could have been sick and choked on it's vomit, the child could have found some medicines or cleaning fluids and drunk them and be unconsious, etc., etc. There is every point in looking in on them.

Yes but the facts are 99.99% of the time parents don't expect their children to choke on vomit. they expect them to sleep the night like they usually do or worst case scenario, wake up and be distressed.

by Guest 04.12.09 18:33

Exactly clarity, wake up and be distressed. If a child is not in a cot, and old enough to walk, then there are dangers lurking everywhere in a house or apartment. Anything could happen. You can't just say oh most of the time it doesn't happen, cos it only takes just the one time, that 1 per cent. I certainly wouldn't put my kids at risk that way.

by Guest 04.12.09 19:13

candyfloss wrote:Exactly clarity, wake up and be distressed. If a child is not in a cot, and old enough to walk, then there are dangers lurking everywhere in a house or apartment. Anything could happen. You can't just say oh most of the time it doesn't happen, cos it only takes just the one time, that 1 per cent. I certainly wouldn't put my kids at risk that way.

You would never listen at the door of your two and three year old children, you would go in and physically touch them during every single check?

Well good for you, I think you are unusual in that.

by lj 04.12.09 22:16

Clarity, I think you are the unusual one. Any normal parent would not only keep children within earshot, but also take a peek.

by Guest 05.12.09 0:33

With all due respect the question was why they did not tell the truth about such a critically important matter. The child was not checked every half an hour, she was checked once.

by Guest 05.12.09 0:58

smith wrote:With all due respect the question was why they did not tell the truth about such a critically important matter. The child was not checked every half an hour, she was checked once.

This is a distortion of the facts. The McCanns left the appartment at 8.30. Gerry checked at 9.00. One of the others checked at 9.30. And Kate went to check at 10.00. That is every half an hour in what was an hour and a half.

by Guest 05.12.09 10:53

smith wrote:With all due respect the question was why they did not tell the truth about such a critically important matter. The child was not checked every half an hour, she was checked once.

It's only not the truth in your mind because you assert a check involves something that isn't usually necessary for a check, you are shifting goal posts and then claiming some sort of victory, which is pretty daft, imo.

by Otium 05.12.09 12:19

smith wrote:With all due respect the question was why they did not tell the truth about such a critically important matter. The child was not checked every half an hour, she was checked once.

Good Afternoon Smith,

I have to say I have been reading your posts with much interest. Im not sure as to whom you are alligned to and neither do I care but I do have an appreciation of the written word and I like your style (apart from the swearing and insults but I do not know of the past history between you and those that you insult so who am I to judge)

Checking to me, is physically checking your child and from what you are saying they did this once. Not good enough in my eyes.

There are many reasons as to why people lie, white lie or otherwise, but usually it is to cover one's ass. Just a guess :)

by MaryB 05.12.09 12:30

Sabot wrote:
smith wrote:With all due respect the question was why they did not tell the truth about such a critically important matter. The child was not checked every half an hour, she was checked once.

This is a distortion of the facts. The McCanns left the appartment at 8.30. Gerry checked at 9.00. One of the others checked at 9.30. And Kate went to check at 10.00. That is every half an hour in what was an hour and a half.

In theory how could Madeleine have been checked and found to be OK at 9.30 when she wasn't even in the apartment at 9.30. Strange sort of check. To me in any case.

by Guest 05.12.09 12:39

Otium wrote:
smith wrote:With all due respect the question was why they did not tell the truth about such a critically important matter. The child was not checked every half an hour, she was checked once.

Good Afternoon Smith,

I have to say I have been reading your posts with much interest. Im not sure as to whom you are alligned to and neither do I care but I do have an appreciation of the written word and I like your style (apart from the swearing and insults but I do not know of the past history between you and those that you insult so who am I to judge)

Checking to me, is physically checking your child and from what you are saying they did this once. Not good enough in my eyes.

There are many reasons as to why people lie, white lie or otherwise, but usually it is to cover one's ass. Just a guess :)

I think most people would agree, to tell a lie in a situation like this would set alarm bells ringing for most folks but you can't assert a lie just because you want it to be so, it is well documented that the checks on this holiday were for crying/disturbed sleep, smith can't rewrite those facts just because it suits him to have a lie being told, in order to shore up his need to believe that these individuals are wrong'uns.

Illogical in the extreme and pretty telling.

by Guest 05.12.09 12:42

MaryB wrote:
Sabot wrote:
smith wrote:With all due respect the question was why they did not tell the truth about such a critically important matter. The child was not checked every half an hour, she was checked once.

This is a distortion of the facts. The McCanns left the appartment at 8.30. Gerry checked at 9.00. One of the others checked at 9.30. And Kate went to check at 10.00. That is every half an hour in what was an hour and a half.

In theory how could Madeleine have been checked and found to be OK at 9.30 when she wasn't even in the apartment at 9.30. Strange sort of check. To me in any case.

Which ever one it was who checked at 9.30, saw the twins but didn't look around the door. to the head of Madeleine's bed. I expect he will blame himself for the rest of his life for that.

by Guest 05.12.09 12:48

Sabot wrote:
MaryB wrote:
Sabot wrote:
smith wrote:With all due respect the question was why they did not tell the truth about such a critically important matter. The child was not checked every half an hour, she was checked once.

This is a distortion of the facts. The McCanns left the appartment at 8.30. Gerry checked at 9.00. One of the others checked at 9.30. And Kate went to check at 10.00. That is every half an hour in what was an hour and a half.

In theory how could Madeleine have been checked and found to be OK at 9.30 when she wasn't even in the apartment at 9.30. Strange sort of check. To me in any case.

Which ever one it was who checked at 9.30, saw the twins but didn't look around the door. to the head of Madeleine's bed. I expect he will blame himself for the rest of his life for that.

Matt Oldfield. The guilt must be awful, even though it's logically not his fault at all, I'm sure he will feel the burden.

by Otium 05.12.09 13:06

clarity wrote:
Otium wrote:
smith wrote:With all due respect the question was why they did not tell the truth about such a critically important matter. The child was not checked every half an hour, she was checked once.

Good Afternoon Smith,

I have to say I have been reading your posts with much interest. Im not sure as to whom you are alligned to and neither do I care but I do have an appreciation of the written word and I like your style (apart from the swearing and insults but I do not know of the past history between you and those that you insult so who am I to judge)

Checking to me, is physically checking your child and from what you are saying they did this once. Not good enough in my eyes.

There are many reasons as to why people lie, white lie or otherwise, but usually it is to cover one's ass. Just a guess :)

I think most people would agree, to tell a lie in a situation like this would set alarm bells ringing for most folks but you can't assert a lie just because you want it to be so, it is well documented that the checks on this holiday were for crying/disturbed sleep, smith can't rewrite those facts just because it suits him to have a lie being told, in order to shore up his need to believe that these individuals are wrong'uns.

Illogical in the extreme and pretty telling.

To be honest my alarm bells starting ringing when I found out they had left the children alone (as in not being in the same bulding at all times) It is not suffcient to check for crying/distrubed sleep particularly when, according to Kate McCann, Madeleine had woken the previous night asking for her parents and more so because of the age of the three children.

Whether they were checking every half hour by just listening at the door or physically checking the children, anything could happen during the 29 minutes that they were not checking. Be it choking, distress or ultimately disappearing. The list is endless unfortunately

by Guest 05.12.09 13:19

Do you think that every parent who has used a baby listening service is likely to have killed or be planning to kill their children, or just these ones?

That's going to be a LOT of dead children.

by Otium 05.12.09 13:29

clarity wrote:Do you think that every parent who has used a baby listening service is likely to have killed or be planning to kill their children, or just these ones?

That's going to be a LOT of dead children.

Erm, I'm not sure how 'anything could happen during the 29 minutes that they were not checking' becomes the McCanns killed or planned to kill their children??? Shocked

Seriously, I really am genuinely confused as to why you have completely twisted what I have said.

by Guest 05.12.09 13:36

Otium wrote:
clarity wrote:Do you think that every parent who has used a baby listening service is likely to have killed or be planning to kill their children, or just these ones?

That's going to be a LOT of dead children.

Erm, I'm not sure how 'anything could happen during the 29 minutes that they were not checking' becomes the McCanns killed or planned to kill their children??? Seriously, I really am genuinely confused as to why you have completely twisted what I have said.

I'm trying to understand what your alarm bells were telling you. For example, as I already stated, my alarm bells would go off if I felt someone was lying because then I would worry they had something to hide. You, however, said your alarm bells went off because of the half hourly checks, what are those bells telling you?

We all know that anything could have happened during that 30 minutes because the evidence is before us, it's self explanatory and has nothing to do with alarm bells. Instead of simply bemoaning the fact that they appear to have been targetted that way and inadvertently enabled someone access to children, you had alarm bells going off, what alarm bells, what were they alarming you of?

by Otium 05.12.09 13:56

clarity wrote:
Otium wrote:
clarity wrote:Do you think that every parent who has used a baby listening service is likely to have killed or be planning to kill their children, or just these ones?

That's going to be a LOT of dead children.

Erm, I'm not sure how 'anything could happen during the 29 minutes that they were not checking' becomes the McCanns killed or planned to kill their children??? Seriously, I really am genuinely confused as to why you have completely twisted what I have said.

I'm trying to understand what your alarm bells were telling you. For example, as I already stated, my alarm bells would go off if I felt someone was lying because then I would worry they had something to hide. You, however, said your alarm bells went off because of the half hourly checks, what are those bells telling you?

We all know that anything could have happened during that 30 minutes because the evidence is before us, it's self explanatory and has nothing to do with alarm bells. Instead of simply bemoaning the fact that they appear to have been targetted that way and inadvertently enabled someone access to children, you had alarm bells going off, what alarm bells, what were they alarming you of?

No, I didn't say my alarm bells went off because of the half hourly checks. I said; my alarm bells starting ringing when I found out they had left the children alone (as in not being in the same building at all times) I did not find out until later that they had been making checks.

So we all know that anything could have happened during those 30 minutes? I assume you are including the McCanns? But it didn't stop them leaving them alone.

We can go around in circles but I have no desire to.

It is my opnion that the children should not have been left alone. Full Stop. I don't believe in babysitting services either and just because 'thousands of people have done or would do the same' (quote: Gerry McCann) does not make it right.

It is my opnion, has always been and always will be my opnion, no matter what spin anyone wants to put on it. Young children should NEVER be left alone.

by Guest 05.12.09 14:08

Perhaps you misunderstood what 'bells ringing' means, it means you have suspicions but if it is simply that you disagree with them on a method of childcare they used then that's not necessarily you stating you have suspicions about them as people, as parents, or that you suspect that they are anything other than all victims of a horrific crime.

I understand now.

I don't understand what relevance it has to what is going on or what it adds to the debate but thanks for sharing that you disagree with half hourly checks.

by Guest 05.12.09 14:11

But she wan't checked every half hour, was she?

She was checked once, by her father at 9.10. and she was never seen again.

I need hardly add that no, I do not accuse the parents of anything except not having been frank. I asked why people thought they hadn't been frank in this instance.

by Guest 05.12.09 14:18

There's no evidence they haven't been anything other than completely honest throughout this entire process smith, I have no idea why you want to pretend they haven't been, why aren't the facts as they are enough for you, why do you want to rewrite what went on, what do you gain from that sort of pretence?

by Guest 05.12.09 14:19

The other thing I find strange about these alleged checks, is that other people checked the McCanns children, and yet they never checked anyone else's when they did theirs. Very odd that.

by Guest 05.12.09 14:24

candyfloss wrote:The other thing I find strange about these alleged checks, is that other people checked the McCanns children, and yet they never checked anyone else's when they did theirs. Very odd that.

They were all passing the McCann apartment so it wasn't out of their way, an extra few steps only, whereas for the McCanns to check another families children it would mean going out of their way further around the corner or up the stairs. This is presumeably why Oldfield offered, he was getting up anyway, would be passing anyway, would only add a few moments onto his time away.

Who knows what might have happened had the timings not coincided that night, had he not made the offer, none of us can tell.