The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Why were they in Portugal?

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Shhh on 04.03.12 15:01

Hello. New to here have watched from afar for some time.

Was this trip to Portugal a holiday or were they there for a completely different reason? Gerry clearly wasn't happy in the shuttle bus video. I have read that there were several high profile doctor, government etc in Portugal at the same time for some kind of conference? (David ike forum for source).

Alternately were they there for another purpose than a conference? I believe Madeleine may have had some congenital disease & she was dying. The poor wee girl looks I'll in a lot of photos and there appears to be something wrong with her neck. Almost bulbous in appearance. Being doctors was this trip to end madeleine's life to stop her suffering. Ala Dignitas but obviously not assisted suicide.

On the skirting board photograph if you zoom right in on her right ear at the top there appears to be something attached to it? Does anyone have any idea what this could be?

Shhh

Posts : 198
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Merrymo on 04.03.12 16:18

@Shhh wrote:Hello. New to here have watched from afar for some time.

Was this trip to Portugal a holiday or were they there for a completely different reason? Gerry clearly wasn't happy in the shuttle bus video. I have read that there were several high profile doctor, government etc in Portugal at the same time for some kind of conference? (David ike forum for source).

Alternately were they there for another purpose than a conference? I believe Madeleine may have had some congenital disease & she was dying. The poor wee girl looks I'll in a lot of photos and there appears to be something wrong with her neck. Almost bulbous in appearance. Being doctors was this trip to end madeleine's life to stop her suffering. Ala Dignitas but obviously not assisted suicide.

On the skirting board photograph if you zoom right in on her right ear at the top there appears to be something attached to it? Does anyone have any idea what this could be?

If they were there for a conference and attended one - then the evidence for both the conference and their attendance would be easily 'findable' for the police. All the evidence says they were on holiday. Gerry's remark was a bantering retort in keeping with the bantering 'cheer up' request - he was probably tired and fed up with the travelling by that time - taking 3 small children on holiday is no joke with all the waiting around at airports etc.

All the photos of Maddie which I've seen show a happy well cared for little girl. IMO. If she was ill I'm sure someone else would have noticed - i.e. nursery school workers, relatives, neighbours, for example. No way could you keep a terminal illness a secret unless it had never been diagnosed officially and had no visible symptoms - and there would be no reason for 'secrecy' to be the case anyway - as it is obvious that Maddie was a much wanted and loved child- whose parents would have wanted everything that could be done - to be done if their daughter was ill.

If the McCanns wanted to end their daughters life then surely it would be far easier to do it in the UK on their own - without having to involve legions of other people in 'the conspiracy' and without the accompanying attendant threat of someone 'letting the cat out of the bag' permanently hanging over them.

Merrymo

Posts : 98
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Why were they in Portugal?

Post by justcurious on 04.03.12 17:18


All the evidence does not say they were on holiday. Infact the opposite is true, starting with Gerry's remark.

We are led to believe they were on an all-inclusive package tour, this means the flights, airport transfers, accommodation, meals, drink and childcare were included (see MW). But the evidence is the McCanns paid extra for their own flights, extra for their own airport transfers, extra for the meals and drinks, extra for the childcare, extra for the tennis lessons.

Who in their right mind would pay for an all-inclusive package and then pay twice as much in extras which were included in the holiday price.

It was not a conference, but a relationship building week paid for a pharmaceutical company.

Jane Tanner said it was all "Doctors shop talk". You would think they would want to get away from medicine for a week!

justcurious

Posts : 21
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 05.03.12 7:23

@Merrymo wrote:
@Shhh wrote:Hello. New to here have watched from afar for some time.

Was this trip to Portugal a holiday or were they there for a completely different reason? Gerry clearly wasn't happy in the shuttle bus video. I have read that there were several high profile doctor, government etc in Portugal at the same time for some kind of conference? (David ike forum for source).

Alternately were they there for another purpose than a conference? I believe Madeleine may have had some congenital disease & she was dying. The poor wee girl looks I'll in a lot of photos and there appears to be something wrong with her neck. Almost bulbous in appearance. Being doctors was this trip to end madeleine's life to stop her suffering. Ala Dignitas but obviously not assisted suicide.

On the skirting board photograph if you zoom right in on her right ear at the top there appears to be something attached to it? Does anyone have any idea what this could be?

If they were there for a conference and attended one - then the evidence for both the conference and their attendance would be easily 'findable' for the police. All the evidence says they were on holiday. Gerry's remark was a bantering retort in keeping with the bantering 'cheer up' request - he was probably tired and fed up with the travelling by that time - taking 3 small children on holiday is no joke with all the waiting around at airports etc.

All the photos of Maddie which I've seen show a happy well cared for little girl. IMO. If she was ill I'm sure someone else would have noticed - i.e. nursery school workers, relatives, neighbours, for example. No way could you keep a terminal illness a secret unless it had never been diagnosed officially and had no visible symptoms - and there would be no reason for 'secrecy' to be the case anyway - as it is obvious that Maddie was a much wanted and loved child- whose parents would have wanted everything that could be done - to be done if their daughter was ill.

If the McCanns wanted to end their daughters life then surely it would be far easier to do it in the UK on their own - without having to involve legions of other people in 'the conspiracy' and without the accompanying attendant threat of someone 'letting the cat out of the bag' permanently hanging over them.
Maddie was so 'loved' and 'wanted' and 'cared for' that she was left alone, in a foreign country, in the dark with no idea where Mummy and Daddy are for four nights in a row. Even AFTER she told them she woke and cried, and asked 'Why didn't you come?'
Any parent in their right mind wouldn't have left those 'much wanted and loved' children alone at all, let alone after a wake-up call such as they were supposedly given. What they did to Maddie, if we believe your version Merrymo, is pure mental cruelty.
Have you never asked yourself WHY, in the daytime with an empty aparment the McCanns were so careful to lock the apartment up, yet at night they didn't lock up, even though their supposed 'most treasured posessions' were unattended inside? Its all in the files...
Sorry, it just doesn't jibe, does it? These 'much loved children' had parents who were DOCTORS no less, who would know all the risks of leaving young children alone. Indeed, Kate as a GP would be a mandatory reporter, ie if one of her patients admitted to the same behaviour she would by LAW have to report them to Social Services.
The reason it doesn't jibe is because it isn't true! You can jam a square peg into a round hole, trouble is there will be gaps galore...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Merrymo on 05.03.12 8:57

[quote="rainbow-fairy"]
@Merrymo wrote:[quote="Shhh"

Maddie was so 'loved' and 'wanted' and 'cared for' that she was left alone, in a foreign country, in the dark with no idea where Mummy and Daddy are for four nights in a row. Even AFTER she told them she woke and cried, and asked 'Why didn't you come?'
Any parent in their right mind wouldn't have left those 'much wanted and loved' children alone at all, let alone after a wake-up call such as they were supposedly given. What they did to Maddie, if we believe your version Merrymo, is pure mental cruelty.

The McCanns emulated the same Listening arrangements that MW offered on other of their sites - i.e. regular ''listening'' checks, made by an MW employee. This service was not offered at this particular complex and so the McCanns and their friends decided to do their own version of that method - except that theirs was better because they could actually go into the apartments to check their children and not just listen from outside. MW have not withdrawn this service at other complexes, and one can only assume that is because there is still a demand for it. Whether one agrees with that form of baby-checking is a matter of personal choice. It is not one that I would adopt but neither would I want virtual strangers babysitting in my apartment for hours.


Have you never asked yourself WHY, in the daytime with an empty aparment the McCanns were so careful to lock the apartment up, yet at night they didn't lock up, even though their supposed 'most treasured posessions' were unattended inside? Its all in the files...

They locked their doors in the daytime presumably so that no-one could go in and steal their property - that is something that would be uppermost in the minds of most holidaymakers on leaving their apartment. Burglary is commonplace the world over. Locking doors to prevent child abduction is not something that naturally springs to mind in the same way because it is so rare. They didnt lock the patio doors at night - presumably because they were sitting 50 metres away and making regular checks and knew their children always slept well during that time of the evening and only ever woke up late into the night.

The McCanns did place their children in danger but it was done unwittingly IMO. Every time a child is put in a car it is exposed to the risk of death by road traffic accident. I doubt very much whether that thought automatically enters the heads of their parents each time they get into a car with their kids. . And yet the chances of them being involved in a fatal accident are millions of times higher than the chances of their child being abducted. It's not human nature to think in that way - we all think 'that sort of thing' only ever happens to other people. Irrational but true and it doesn't mean we don't love our children.


Sorry, it just doesn't jibe, does it? These 'much loved children' had parents who were DOCTORS no less, who would know all the risks of leaving young children alone. Indeed, Kate as a GP would be a mandatory reporter, ie if one of her patients admitted to the same behaviour she would by LAW have to report them to Social Services.
The reason it doesn't jibe is because it isn't true! You can jam a square peg into a round hole, trouble is there will be gaps galore...

Personally I don't disagree that what the McCann did was wrong - as IMO all the children were too young to be left - even for 30 minute intervals. However, that does not mean they did not love them and that is the point at issue between you and I. Every year children drown in baths - because their parents thought it was OK to leave them for a short while. We do not say those parents didn't love their children - we feel dreadfully sorry for them. The principle is the same with the McCanns IMO. For various reasons they believed their baby checking arrangements were safe - as indeed it WAS for all the other children on holiday that night whose parents adopted the same checking arrangements - but who were not targetted by abductors.

Merrymo

Posts : 98
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Genbug on 05.03.12 9:03

The McCanns emulated the same Listening arrangements that MW offered on other of their sites - i.e. regular ''listening'' checks, made by an MW employee. This service was not offered at this particular complex and so the McCanns and their friends decided to do their own version of that method



We all know that the reason Mark Warner didn't offer this service at this particular site is because it wasn't safe. Why did the McCanns and their friends think that they knew better?

Genbug

Posts : 186
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by russiandoll on 05.03.12 9:18


We all know that the reason Mark Warner didn't offer this service at this particular site is because it wasn't safe. Why did the McCanns and their friends think that they knew better?


this was not a resort complex with apartments, facilities within one enclosed space. it was a village and the McCann block was outside the walled area of the pool and tapas area, indeed there was a path running between the back of the apartments and the wall enclosing the pool and tapas.
Please realise that you cannot guarantee 100% that children will not wake up outside of their usual waking times, esp when routine is disturbed by a holiday.....how would Madeleine have alerted her parents to her need for their attention ? Please note the access to roads.

Abduction is not why you would not leave a 3 year old and her 2 yr old siblings........the dangers inside the apartment were the issue.
why I dont accept the children were ever left alone.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 05.03.12 9:21

Well said Genbug.
Sadly it wasn't to be the last time the McCanns (and friends) thought they 'knew better';
PJ said 'No Media' - they called the Media (the self-same Media they whined about at Leveson)
PJ STRONGLY advised against publicising the 'coloboma' - emphasising to do so would be akin to signing Maddie's death warrant - they went ahead anyway, noting it was a 'good marketing ploy'. Unbelievable.
PJ wanted the T9 to participate in a reconstruction - indeed it was necessary to move the investigation on: T9 refused, claiming 'it wouldn't help' (who? Maddie -or them!)
I'm sure there are many more examples.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Guest on 05.03.12 9:23

[quote merrymo]
They locked their doors in the daytime presumably so that no-one could go in and steal their property - that is something that would be uppermost in the minds of most holidaymakers on leaving their apartment. Burglary is commonplace the world over. Locking doors to prevent child abduction is not something that naturally springs to mind in the same way because it is so rare. They didnt lock the patio doors at night - presumably because they were sitting 50 metres away and making regular checks and knew their children always slept well during that time of the evening and only ever woke up late into the night.

So they locked the doors in the daytime, to stop burglary, yet at night, when burglaries happen the most, under cover of darkness, they left the apartment open? Did they not worry about it then? Did they take all their valuables to the tapas bar, or did they expect the children to fend off the burglar? Surely, if you locked the doors in the daytime, you would definitely lock them at night. Also IIRC (sure I have read it) weren't they told about the burglaries when they arrived.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Miraflores on 05.03.12 9:25

Every year children drown in baths - because their parents
thought it was OK to leave them for a short while. We do not say
those parents didn't love their children - we feel dreadfully sorry for
them. The principle is the same with the McCanns IMO.

But those parents do at least admit to their negligence - which the McCanns don't seem to be able to do, and don't go round sueing people who disagree with their story.

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Miraflores on 05.03.12 9:35

They didnt lock the patio doors at night - presumably because they were sitting 50 metres
This statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny. They were the same distance away during the daytime - either playing tennis or sitting by the pool, but thought fit to lock their doors then.

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by tigger on 05.03.12 10:41

candyfloss wrote:[quote merrymo]
They locked their doors in the daytime presumably so that no-one could go in and steal their property - that is something that would be uppermost in the minds of most holidaymakers on leaving their apartment. Burglary is commonplace the world over. Locking doors to prevent child abduction is not something that naturally springs to mind in the same way because it is so rare. They didnt lock the patio doors at night - presumably because they were sitting 50 metres away and making regular checks and knew their children always slept well during that time of the evening and only ever woke up late into the night.

So they locked the doors in the daytime, to stop burglary, yet at night, when burglaries happen the most, under cover of darkness, they left the apartment open? Did they not worry about it then? Did they take all their valuables to the tapas bar, or did they expect the children to fend off the burglar? Surely, if you locked the doors in the daytime, you would definitely lock them at night. Also IIRC (sure I have read it) weren't they told about the burglaries when they arrived.


I would add that there was a flurry of burglaries just before they arrived and they were warned by OC staff about that.
Mrs. Fenn surprised a burglar in her flat.
Now ask yourself, your upstairs neighbour has had a burglary just days before, yet you leave the door open and the children 'still' incapable of getting out in case of fire? What's more, wouldn't you be worried a burglar might panic and hurt your children?
Kate complains that they weren't warned about paedophiles - but they were warned about burglars - both would enter your property and endanger your children.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Were They In Portugal

Post by sammyc on 05.03.12 12:12

I still find it strange that some people say Madeleine was a healthy looking young girl who was well cared for. I have raised and looked after my own and others children, and worked with children for over 25 years and have never seen bags under kids eyes like Madeleine's. Have a look round you at your friends kids, their classmates and playmates, pictures in magazines, catalogues, tv shows etc etc and see if they look like Madeleine's.

And as for being well cared for - surely she would still be here if that was the case.

sammyc

Posts : 229
Reputation : 76
Join date : 2011-10-06
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 05.03.12 13:44

@sammyc wrote:I still find it strange that some people say Madeleine was a healthy looking young girl who was well cared for. I have raised and looked after my own and others children, and worked with children for over 25 years and have never seen bags under kids eyes like Madeleine's. Have a look round you at your friends kids, their classmates and playmates, pictures in magazines, catalogues, tv shows etc etc and see if they look like Madeleine's.

And as for being well cared for - surely she would still be here if that was the case.
Well said sammyc. My youngest son is severely autistic and goes to a special school, I also do volunteering with Riding for the Disabled. Amongst all those special needs children I haven't seen any children look quite so unusual around the eyes, and you are right those bags are just plain wrong.
As for the bit in bold, nail on the head. I get sick and tired of hearing McCann apologists saying she was so loved and well cared for. She was less well-protected than their b****y passports. They got locked up in the day. Yet, we're expected to believe, not at night. Whatever!
I do NOT believe those kids were left alone, so I question what happened that was so bad they had to pretend?

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by aquila on 05.03.12 13:52

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@sammyc wrote:I still find it strange that some people say Madeleine was a healthy looking young girl who was well cared for. I have raised and looked after my own and others children, and worked with children for over 25 years and have never seen bags under kids eyes like Madeleine's. Have a look round you at your friends kids, their classmates and playmates, pictures in magazines, catalogues, tv shows etc etc and see if they look like Madeleine's.

And as for being well cared for - surely she would still be here if that was the case.
Well said sammyc. My youngest son is severely autistic and goes to a special school, I also do volunteering with Riding for the Disabled. Amongst all those special needs children I haven't seen any children look quite so unusual around the eyes, and you are right those bags are just plain wrong.
As for the bit in bold, nail on the head. I get sick and tired of hearing McCann apologists saying she was so loved and well cared for. She was less well-protected than their b****y passports. They got locked up in the day. Yet, we're expected to believe, not at night. Whatever!
I do NOT believe those kids were left alone, so I question what happened that was so bad they had to pretend?

The iconic photo with the coloboma (you know the one that was a good marketing thingy) didn't show bags under Madeleine's eyes. So, we're not to be looking for a child with recognisable bags under her eyes and we're to look for a marked iris feature that later we were told wasn't paid much attention to. You really can't make this up imo.

aquila

Posts : 7988
Reputation : 1227
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by anil39200 on 05.03.12 14:13

@Merrymo wrote:
@Shhh wrote:Hello. New to here have watched from afar for some time.

Was this trip to Portugal a holiday or were they there for a completely different reason? Gerry clearly wasn't happy in the shuttle bus video. I have read that there were several high profile doctor, government etc in Portugal at the same time for some kind of conference? (David ike forum for source).

Alternately were they there for another purpose than a conference? I believe Madeleine may have had some congenital disease & she was dying. The poor wee girl looks I'll in a lot of photos and there appears to be something wrong with her neck. Almost bulbous in appearance. Being doctors was this trip to end madeleine's life to stop her suffering. Ala Dignitas but obviously not assisted suicide.

On the skirting board photograph if you zoom right in on her right ear at the top there appears to be something attached to it? Does anyone have any idea what this could be?

If they were there for a conference and attended one - then the evidence for both the conference and their attendance would be easily 'findable' for the police. All the evidence says they were on holiday. Gerry's remark was a bantering retort in keeping with the bantering 'cheer up' request - he was probably tired and fed up with the travelling by that time - taking 3 small children on holiday is no joke with all the waiting around at airports etc.

In most peoples world, surely one does not banter by using obscenities in front of small children, in a public place whilst being filmed? Also, if you have children and take them on "holiday" with you, then as a "responsible" parent, you accept the tiredness, the tantrums and the other "trifles" sucha holiday brings. It is called being a PARENT...[/b]

All the photos of Maddie which I've seen show a happy well cared for little girl. IMO. If she was ill I'm sure someone else would have noticed - i.e. nursery school workers, relatives, neighbours, for example. No way could you keep a terminal illness a secret unless it had never been diagnosed officially and had no visible symptoms - and there would be no reason for 'secrecy' to be the case anyway - as it is obvious that Maddie was a much wanted and loved child- whose parents would have wanted everything that could be done - to be done if their daughter was ill.

Look at the pictures on this site and others closely, many are highly suspect and could be staged or photoshopped, then ask yourself why?

Also, many people keep illnesses secret, so as not to hurt the people around them
.



If the McCanns wanted to end their daughters life then surely it would be far easier to do it in the UK on their own - without having to involve legions of other people in 'the conspiracy' and without the accompanying attendant threat of someone 'letting the cat out of the bag' permanently hanging over them.
[b]

I actually dont see any logic in this statement of yours.

Here is a simple formula-----Foreign "holiday" +lots of medics+no proof of abduction+lots of inconsistencies +interference from GB government+confusion+interference with and reluctance to continue investigation- one child+a large dose of pink spin="wider agenda, bewk about mother+loadsamoney!" IMO enough to pull together any conspiracy/scam .

anil39200

Posts : 388
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by anil39200 on 05.03.12 14:32

To Merrymo

Why is it "obvious that she was a well cared for and much loved child"?

From what I have read there was a Nanny at home, the creche and activities at holiday so the parents could have their clubs and activities, a father hardly at home as he was very very busy with work and research, tiny little slots of time on holiday when the family was all together, mummy who dealt with so many dead bodies during her pre holiday one day a week as a locum gp job as to set a record for body count only bettered by the terminator and finally this much loved and cared for child was "alledgedly" left alone with two YOUNGER siblings several nights in a row in a foreign country , in a strange apartment, with an unlocked/locked doo, a whooshable window, "friends" who only checchhed at the window to see if they could actually see children and all so they could be 2so into" their friends who apparently were really only acquaintences in the main anyway to go supping wine all night....if this is "much loved and cared for" then the world is upside down!!!All in my opinion of course

anil39200

Posts : 388
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by tigger on 05.03.12 16:59

@sammyc wrote:I still find it strange that some people say Madeleine was a healthy looking young girl who was well cared for. I have raised and looked after my own and others children, and worked with children for over 25 years and have never seen bags under kids eyes like Madeleine's. Have a look round you at your friends kids, their classmates and playmates, pictures in magazines, catalogues, tv shows etc etc and see if they look like Madeleine's.

And as for being well cared for - surely she would still be here if that was the case.


Thank you! roses

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 05.03.12 17:12

[quote="Merrymo"]
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@Merrymo wrote:[quote="Shhh"

Maddie was so 'loved' and 'wanted' and 'cared for' that she was left alone, in a foreign country, in the dark with no idea where Mummy and Daddy are for four nights in a row. Even AFTER she told them she woke and cried, and asked 'Why didn't you come?'
Any parent in their right mind wouldn't have left those 'much wanted and loved' children alone at all, let alone after a wake-up call such as they were supposedly given. What they did to Maddie, if we believe your version Merrymo, is pure mental cruelty.

The McCanns emulated the same Listening arrangements that MW offered on other of their sites - i.e. regular ''listening'' checks, made by an MW employee. This service was not offered at this particular complex and so the McCanns and their friends decided to do their own version of that method - except that theirs was better because they could actually go into the apartments to check their children and not just listen from outside. MW have not withdrawn this service at other complexes, and one can only assume that is because there is still a demand for it. Whether one agrees with that form of baby-checking is a matter of personal choice. It is not one that I would adopt but neither would I want virtual strangers babysitting in my apartment for hours.


Have you never asked yourself WHY, in the daytime with an empty aparment the McCanns were so careful to lock the apartment up, yet at night they didn't lock up, even though their supposed 'most treasured posessions' were unattended inside? Its all in the files...

They locked their doors in the daytime presumably so that no-one could go in and steal their property - that is something that would be uppermost in the minds of most holidaymakers on leaving their apartment. Burglary is commonplace the world over. Locking doors to prevent child abduction is not something that naturally springs to mind in the same way because it is so rare. They didnt lock the patio doors at night - presumably because they were sitting 50 metres away and making regular checks and knew their children always slept well during that time of the evening and only ever woke up late into the night.

The McCanns did place their children in danger but it was done unwittingly IMO. Every time a child is put in a car it is exposed to the risk of death by road traffic accident. I doubt very much whether that thought automatically enters the heads of their parents each time they get into a car with their kids. . And yet the chances of them being involved in a fatal accident are millions of times higher than the chances of their child being abducted. It's not human nature to think in that way - we all think 'that sort of thing' only ever happens to other people. Irrational but true and it doesn't mean we don't love our children.


Sorry, it just doesn't jibe, does it? These 'much loved children' had parents who were DOCTORS no less, who would know all the risks of leaving young children alone. Indeed, Kate as a GP would be a mandatory reporter, ie if one of her patients admitted to the same behaviour she would by LAW have to report them to Social Services.
The reason it doesn't jibe is because it isn't true! You can jam a square peg into a round hole, trouble is there will be gaps galore...

Personally I don't disagree that what the McCann did was wrong - as IMO all the children were too young to be left - even for 30 minute intervals. However, that does not mean they did not love them and that is the point at issue between you and I. Every year children drown in baths - because their parents thought it was OK to leave them for a short while. We do not say those parents didn't love their children - we feel dreadfully sorry for them. The principle is the same with the McCanns IMO. For various reasons they believed their baby checking arrangements were safe - as indeed it WAS for all the other children on holiday that night whose parents adopted the same checking arrangements - but who were not targetted by abductors.

Abductors? What abductors? nah Nothing in the public domain indicates this to be feasible at this moment in time. Quite the opposite in fact.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 05.03.12 17:36

@anil39200 wrote:
@Merrymo wrote:
@Shhh wrote:Hello. New to here have watched from afar for some time.

Was this trip to Portugal a holiday or were they there for a completely different reason? Gerry clearly wasn't happy in the shuttle bus video. I have read that there were several high profile doctor, government etc in Portugal at the same time for some kind of conference? (David ike forum for source).

Alternately were they there for another purpose than a conference? I believe Madeleine may have had some congenital disease & she was dying. The poor wee girl looks I'll in a lot of photos and there appears to be something wrong with her neck. Almost bulbous in appearance. Being doctors was this trip to end madeleine's life to stop her suffering. Ala Dignitas but obviously not assisted suicide.

On the skirting board photograph if you zoom right in on her right ear at the top there appears to be something attached to it? Does anyone have any idea what this could be?

If they were there for a conference and attended one - then the evidence for both the conference and their attendance would be easily 'findable' for the police. All the evidence says they were on holiday. Gerry's remark was a bantering retort in keeping with the bantering 'cheer up' request - he was probably tired and fed up with the travelling by that time - taking 3 small children on holiday is no joke with all the waiting around at airports etc.

In most peoples world, surely one does not banter by using obscenities in front of small children, in a public place whilst being filmed? Also, if you have children and take them on "holiday" with you, then as a "responsible" parent, you accept the tiredness, the tantrums and the other "trifles" sucha holiday brings. It is called being a PARENT...[/b]

All the photos of Maddie which I've seen show a happy well cared for little girl. IMO. If she was ill I'm sure someone else would have noticed - i.e. nursery school workers, relatives, neighbours, for example. No way could you keep a terminal illness a secret unless it had never been diagnosed officially and had no visible symptoms - and there would be no reason for 'secrecy' to be the case anyway - as it is obvious that Maddie was a much wanted and loved child- whose parents would have wanted everything that could be done - to be done if their daughter was ill.

Look at the pictures on this site and others closely, many are highly suspect and could be staged or photoshopped, then ask yourself why?

Also, many people keep illnesses secret, so as not to hurt the people around them
.



If the McCanns wanted to end their daughters life then surely it would be far easier to do it in the UK on their own - without having to involve legions of other people in 'the conspiracy' and without the accompanying attendant threat of someone 'letting the cat out of the bag' permanently hanging over them.
[b]

I actually dont see any logic in this statement of yours.

Here is a simple formula-----Foreign "holiday" +lots of medics+no proof of abduction+lots of inconsistencies +interference from GB government+confusion+interference with and reluctance to continue investigation- one child+a large dose of pink spin="wider agenda, bewk about mother+loadsamoney!" IMO enough to pull together any conspiracy/scam .
And that anil39200, is where all Pro-McCann sentiments and arguments fall down. Logic.
Their tales make no sense, because, try as you might, you just cannot make a non-event fit the circumstances and facts. When added together, the weight of the evidence points squarely to death and concealment, NOT abduction. If the McCanns and friends HAD told the truth, they wouldve happily performed the reconstruction that would, had it backed up their statements, cleared them of involvement. They didn't. Tells you all you need to know.

Like you say in your subsequent post, well-cared for much loved THREE YEAR OLDS are not left to fend for themselves in a dark, unfamiliar apartment in a foreign country. Just nonsense.
If you can (and it WILL be hard) put yourself in the place of a self-centred adult who has put Tapas and wine with friends before your own kids safety three nights a row. Next morning, your 'beloved' daughter looks at you, lip trembling and says 'Mummy, I woke and cried last night. Where were you? Why didn't you come?'
Would you think:
a)S**t, that was close, coulda been really nasty. I won't do that again
OR
b)Never mind. She won't wake tonight, and there is a bottle of wine in that bar with my name on...
Would hope it would be a). But then, I think most of us wouldn't do it anyway (despite McCann apologists insisting 'We've all done it').
It can't be said they made a mistake either. They made a calculated decision to make that 'mistake' not once, not twice, nor even just thrice! Even when pulled up on their 'mistake' and given a wake-up call, they STILL did it over again... That's not a mistake, that's pure neglect imo.
Personally, I don't believe it happened and the more I go through the above scenario in my head, I become ever more convinced that the neglect was a smokescreen to cover something far, far worse. Just my opinion of course.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by tigger on 05.03.12 17:38

Merrymo and/or shhh wrote: (it's not clear from the quotes)

The McCanns emulated the same Listening arrangements that MW offered on other of their sites - i.e. regular ''listening'' checks, made by an MW employee. This service was not offered at this particular complex and so the McCanns and their friends decided to do their own version of that method - except that theirs was better because they could actually go into the apartments to check their children and not just listen from outside. MW have not withdrawn this service at other complexes, and one can only assume that is because there is still a demand for it. Whether one agrees with that form of baby-checking is a matter of personal choice. It is not one that I would adopt but neither would I want virtual strangers babysitting in my apartment for hours. unquote


Well that must make all the difference, listening from the inside or from the outside, just listening cannot possibly be enough, certainly not at half hour intervals or 15 minutes intervals.
During those intervals any number of accidents or calamities, coughing fits, choking may have occurred.
Say Sean has a coughing fit at 8.32 and five to ten minutes into that he's dead.
A listening service wouldn't hear that at 8.30, 8.45 or 9.00. The first they'd know is when they come home.

If seems that because the God MW provided this service, this must be good and approved. MW provided this, MW is good, therefore it is right.

Leaving your children alone without supervision in a situation where they can come to harm carries a prison sentence in Portugal.
As someone pointed out in another post, Dr. Kate Healy was professionally obliged to report people who put their children in such a situation to the social services.
Gerry's favourite word for their behaviour is 'naive'. As if safe (if burgled that week) OC had lulled them into a false sense of security, like being at home.

As an excuse it is risible, as a cover for a faked abduction - can never make you look good whatever excuse you use.



____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 05.03.12 17:48

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
@Merrymo wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@Merrymo wrote:[quote="Shhh"

Maddie was so 'loved' and 'wanted' and 'cared for' that she was left alone, in a foreign country, in the dark with no idea where Mummy and Daddy are for four nights in a row. Even AFTER she told them she woke and cried, and asked 'Why didn't you come?'
Any parent in their right mind wouldn't have left those 'much wanted and loved' children alone at all, let alone after a wake-up call such as they were supposedly given. What they did to Maddie, if we believe your version Merrymo, is pure mental cruelty.

The McCanns emulated the same Listening arrangements that MW offered on other of their sites - i.e. regular ''listening'' checks, made by an MW employee. This service was not offered at this particular complex and so the McCanns and their friends decided to do their own version of that method - except that theirs was better because they could actually go into the apartments to check their children and not just listen from outside. MW have not withdrawn this service at other complexes, and one can only assume that is because there is still a demand for it. Whether one agrees with that form of baby-checking is a matter of personal choice. It is not one that I would adopt but neither would I want virtual strangers babysitting in my apartment for hours.


Have you never asked yourself WHY, in the daytime with an empty aparment the McCanns were so careful to lock the apartment up, yet at night they didn't lock up, even though their supposed 'most treasured posessions' were unattended inside? Its all in the files...

They locked their doors in the daytime presumably so that no-one could go in and steal their property - that is something that would be uppermost in the minds of most holidaymakers on leaving their apartment. Burglary is commonplace the world over. Locking doors to prevent child abduction is not something that naturally springs to mind in the same way because it is so rare. They didnt lock the patio doors at night - presumably because they were sitting 50 metres away and making regular checks and knew their children always slept well during that time of the evening and only ever woke up late into the night.

The McCanns did place their children in danger but it was done unwittingly IMO. Every time a child is put in a car it is exposed to the risk of death by road traffic accident. I doubt very much whether that thought automatically enters the heads of their parents each time they get into a car with their kids. . And yet the chances of them being involved in a fatal accident are millions of times higher than the chances of their child being abducted. It's not human nature to think in that way - we all think 'that sort of thing' only ever happens to other people. Irrational but true and it doesn't mean we don't love our children.


Sorry, it just doesn't jibe, does it? These 'much loved children' had parents who were DOCTORS no less, who would know all the risks of leaving young children alone. Indeed, Kate as a GP would be a mandatory reporter, ie if one of her patients admitted to the same behaviour she would by LAW have to report them to Social Services.
The reason it doesn't jibe is because it isn't true! You can jam a square peg into a round hole, trouble is there will be gaps galore...

Personally I don't disagree that what the McCann did was wrong - as IMO all the children were too young to be left - even for 30 minute intervals. However, that does not mean they did not love them and that is the point at issue between you and I. Every year children drown in baths - because their parents thought it was OK to leave them for a short while. We do not say those parents didn't love their children - we feel dreadfully sorry for them. The principle is the same with the McCanns IMO. For various reasons they believed their baby checking arrangements were safe - as indeed it WAS for all the other children on holiday that night whose parents adopted the same checking arrangements - but who were not targetted by abductors.

Abductors? What abductors? Nothing in the public domain indicates this to be feasible at this moment in time. Quite the opposite in fact.
Smokeandmirrors, sorry to be a pain in the butt, but the quoting has gone badly wrong in this post! Merrymo's post reads as being mine. People will be thinking I've had some kind of personality transplant - I would NEVER say the things Merrymo has!
Thanks hun :)
This is my post, with Merrymo's 'interjections' in bold;
@rainbow-fairy wrote:Maddie was so 'loved' and 'wanted' and 'cared for' that she was left alone, in a foreign country, in the dark with no idea where Mummy and Daddy are for four nights in a row. Even AFTER she told them she woke and cried, and asked 'Why didn't you come?'
Any parent in their right mind wouldn't have left those 'much wanted and loved' children alone at all, let alone after a wake-up call such as they were supposedly given. What they did to Maddie, if we believe your version Merrymo, is pure mental cruelty.

The McCanns emulated the same Listening arrangements that MW offered on other of their sites - i.e. regular ''listening'' checks, made by an MW employee. This service was not offered at this particular complex and so the McCanns and their friends decided to do their own version of that method - except that theirs was better because they could actually go into the apartments to check their children and not just listen from outside. MW have not withdrawn this service at other complexes, and one can only assume that is because there is still a demand for it. Whether one agrees with that form of baby-checking is a matter of personal choice. It is not one that I would adopt but neither would I want virtual strangers babysitting in my apartment for hours.


Have you never asked yourself WHY, in the daytime with an empty aparment the McCanns were so careful to lock the apartment up, yet at night they didn't lock up, even though their supposed 'most treasured posessions' were unattended inside? Its all in the files...

They locked their doors in the daytime presumably so that no-one could go in and steal their property - that is something that would be uppermost in the minds of most holidaymakers on leaving their apartment. Burglary is commonplace the world over. Locking doors to prevent child abduction is not something that naturally springs to mind in the same way because it is so rare. They didnt lock the patio doors at night - presumably because they were sitting 50 metres away and making regular checks and knew their children always slept well during that time of the evening and only ever woke up late into the night.

The McCanns did place their children in danger but it was done unwittingly IMO. Every time a child is put in a car it is exposed to the risk of death by road traffic accident. I doubt very much whether that thought automatically enters the heads of their parents each time they get into a car with their kids. . And yet the chances of them being involved in a fatal accident are millions of times higher than the chances of their child being abducted. It's not human nature to think in that way - we all think 'that sort of thing' only ever happens to other people. Irrational but true and it doesn't mean we don't love our children.


Sorry, it just doesn't jibe, does it? These 'much loved children' had parents who were DOCTORS no less, who would know all the risks of leaving young children alone. Indeed, Kate as a GP would be a mandatory reporter, ie if one of her patients admitted to the same behaviour she would by LAW have to report them to Social Services.
The reason it doesn't jibe is because it isn't true! You can jam a square peg into a round hole, trouble is there will be gaps galore...

Personally I don't disagree that what the McCann did was wrong - as IMO all the children were too young to be left - even for 30 minute intervals. However, that does not mean they did not love them and that is the point at issue between you and I. Every year children drown in baths - because their parents thought it was OK to leave them for a short while. We do not say those parents didn't love their children - we feel dreadfully sorry for them. The principle is the same with the McCanns IMO. For various reasons they believed their baby checking arrangements were safe - as indeed it WAS for all the other children on holiday that night whose parents adopted the same checking arrangements - but who were not targetted by abductors.
Hope that is clearer now?
Personally, I find Merrymo's 'argument' that putting a child in a car, with the risks that can entail (journeys normally being a necessity) as on par with leaving your child alone to go out on the p**s with all the risks that entails utterly risible.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Why were they in Portugal?

Post by justcurious on 05.03.12 20:18

Kate McCann in her own words tells the world she couldn't care less about her children, if it interfered with her needs and wants.

"Before Madeleine disapppeared on 3rd May, I could do what I liked, when I liked, with whoever I liked". Does this sound like a caring mother with responsibilities? Surely, once you have children their needs come first, but not in her case.

She then tells you she was glad 5A did not have a balcony but it did. What it didn't have was a barrier to stop a child from climbing over and falling 2-3 metres onto concrete. So she couldn't even be bothered to look and cared even less.

Then to crown it all the patio door to the balcony was left open to make life easier for Kate, even if it meant severe risk to the children, its all there to read in her book.

Love care and devotion to her children, you're having a laugh!!

justcurious

Posts : 21
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Merrymo on 06.03.12 0:45

@Miraflores wrote:
Every year children drown in baths - because their parents
thought it was OK to leave them for a short while. We do not say
those parents didn't love their children - we feel dreadfully sorry for
them. The principle is the same with the McCanns IMO.

But those parents do at least admit to their negligence - which the McCanns don't seem to be able to do, and don't go round sueing people who disagree with their story.

----------------------------------

The McCann have said that they will carry the guilt with them for the rest of their lives.

They sued the newspapers because of the terrible lies that were persistently printed about them - and for which they were duly compensated and a front page apology obtained because the claims made about them were indeed false. What is wrong with ANY person taking that course of action in those circumstances?

Merrymo

Posts : 98
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Gillyspot on 06.03.12 6:30

Have you read the articles that the Express etc paid out for? I agree some were unpleasant & misinformation but certanily not all. IMO the McCanns & Tapas 7 were lucky to get their out of court settlements from UK media before the files were released to UK population.

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum