Re: Another question

by Guest 05.12.09 14:42

Otium wrote:
clarity wrote: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.

I do have suspicions about them as people and parents. Purely from the point of their actions and reactions regarding Madeleine disappearing. Just for example why would any parent wash their missing Child's most favourite toy? That alone is beyond me and I am aware that I am going off topic so I will leave that there.

With regard to the half hourly checks, I don't know what checks they actually made but the time of the checks seem to have changed several times. Who or how am I or anyone else to know?

I think that we both agree that people lie to cover things up and IF the McCanns have lied to the times or indeed the nature of their checks, it would be suggestive that they have something to hide. I don't know what they could possibly be hiding because they have already admitted to leaving the children alone and that in itself is bad enough.

Crikey it's like unravelling a ball of strong with you isn't it, only when one thing is satisfactorally explained, there's always something left in reserve. determined huh?

Parents wash toys all the time, this one had been played with by the other children and tossed about by cadaver/csi dog, I think you'd be hard pushed to find a parent who didn't want to wash it after that. Besides which you have no idea how many of her other toys and possessions have been maintained exactly as she left them which is exactly how it should be.

The times of the checks have not changed, I mean other than when they sat down in the panic and chaos and tried to give a coherent, factual transparent list of the times the children were alone to the police and this took two goes but after that, no changes. Perhaps you are confused by the guesswork printed in the press and reported in the media prior to the files being released?

I have already stated that I would be suspicious of anyone who told lies in this sort of situation, this would make me think they might be covering something up but so far nothing like that has emerged, if anything the entire group appear to have been extremely open about the checks, who did what and estimated times to the best of their ability, which is as you'd expect from people with nothing to hide.

by Albert Hedghog 05.12.09 17:57

clarity wrote:Only one scenario has ever been put forward, he opened the door enough to glance in and see the sleeping twins, he did not check that Madeleine was there as he did not step forward enough to stick his head right in the room. assumed all was well.

Is that what he says on the McCann's own documentary ? (you might need to nip off to watch it again before answering)

by Guest 05.12.09 20:56

clarity wrote: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?

Clarity, I don't want to convince you of anything. The days for convincing people are now over and the end game begins on December 11.

You can argue about motivation and what you think for as long as you think others are interested. I repeat, the evidence is quite clear and unambiguous: the child was checked just once at 9.10 by the father and was never checked again.

It's funny having to spell out these things but here we go:

For the period 8.40 onwards on May 3 2007: David Payne does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so; Fiona Payne does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so; Russel O' Brian does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so; Jane Tanner does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so; Rachael Oldfield does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so; Mathew Oldfield does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do; Jane Webster does not claim to have checked Madeleine and did not do so.

Gerry McCann, according to the witness statements, did check Madeleine, at 9.10. Kate McCann did not do so.

Both parents claimed on May 4 that the child was checked every half hour between 8.40 and 10.PM

It is at this point that people start shouting "boring" etc. Don't shout it at me: those are the facts.

by Guest 05.12.09 21:19

Distort the facts all you please, Smith, it proves nothing.

The "Game" won't be over until Madeleine is found.

Amaral is just a great nuisance who will be entirely responsible for his own downfall.

by Guest 05.12.09 21:29

Yes, hello. I'm sorry I wasn't around to acknowledge your post earlier.

I think the insults etc - here I have to pause, because as you may be aware I have a sort of reverse fan club beyond this forum but in contact with it, and they don't like me to post more than five lines or so before shouting "boring". So fan club could you leave me to post to otium? Ta.

Pause over.

The insults on both sides are a bore but, it seems, inevitable. Leaving aside the whole Mr Bennett affair, they are at maximum pitch now because the second phase in the McCann case, which began in July 2008 with the release of the case papers, is drawing to a close. Those who are committed to one side or another, including me, have a lot invested in the future. Whether my friends the pros really convinced themselves that somehow bad Mr Amaral, being a stage villain with a dodgy moustache (that's how the pro-McCann tabloids like to picture him) would pull out or plead guilty to being the greatest criminal of the 21st century, I do not know.
My understanding is that he will see this through to the end.

by preciousramotswe 05.12.09 21:33

The pros never said he would pull out or plead guilty.

But the antis have been saying for over a year that the McCanns would NEVER take anyone to court because they were guilty as hell and frightened a court would reveal 'the truth'.

How wrong they were, eh?

by Guest 05.12.09 21:41

I expect Gonzalo Amaral will see this through to his bitter end. He is not only guilty of libel and defamation, according to the summation of The Portuguese Public Prosecutor. He has also committed an act of gross professional misconduct.

If it wasn't for the enormous damage he has done to The McCann's search for their daughter, I would feel desperately sorry for him.

by Guest 05.12.09 21:42

badmanners wrote:The pros never said he would pull out or plead guilty.

But the antis have been saying for over a year that the McCanns would NEVER take anyone to court because they were guilty as hell and frightened a court would reveal 'the truth'.

How wrong they were, eh?

Badmanners hello. I don't know about the others but certainly I have always said that the parents will never go into court - ie into the box etc. I may well be wrong, as I was about my conviction that the case would not be shelved. Well, we shall see.

Having said that, and trying at this early stage of proceedings before we start insulting each other to try and find some sort of common ground, I would be delighted if Amaral & the McCanns could deal with the case in open court: at least then there would be some sort of judicial ruling rather than this state of virtual civil war between the two sides where nothing is ever decided and only opinions and emnity reign.

by littlepixie 06.12.09 0:14

I have never gone to the pub and left my kids in the house on their own and come back to "check" every half hour or whatever - has anyone else?

by Ruby 06.12.09 0:25

of course not littlepixie.
no sane person would.
people will not change their heartfelt opinions on this, despite the cult's best attempts to 'normalise' it.

by Guest 06.12.09 11:02

littlepixie wrote:I have never gone to the pub and left my kids in the house on their own and come back to "check" every half hour or whatever - has anyone else?

I haven't been on an airship but yet I accept the fact that the Hindenburg did explode killing dozens of people, what's your point?

by Ruby 06.12.09 13:20

how obscure.

not to mention desperate.

by Guest 06.12.09 13:24

Ruby wrote:how obscure.

not to mention desperate.

nothing obscure about it, it's an analogy.

just because someone has never experienced something onself does not mean the experience does not exist.

by Guest 06.12.09 21:32

Of course there's there's much more fun going on in the other threads, isn't there? Talking about this stuff is so boring, isn't it?

Anyway I've had a quick look over the replies and apart from one person who said s/he had her suspicions about why the parents did not tell the truth in their police statements, it is apparently not being accepted on this thread that the parents did not tell the truth!

I have seen much dishonesty on the forums since summer 2007 but this one is a real eye opener.

I gave the names of each of the Tapas 9 and pointed out that only one of the nine claimed to have checked Madeleine. The other eight did not claim to have checked Madeleine at any time. There was only one check.

It seems that this fact, and fact it is, is simply too hot for any supporters of the McCanns to handle: they simply won't accept it, let alone deal with my question about why the parents didn't tell the truth in their statements.

Faced with that there really is nothing more to be said.

Except this: facts have their own existence - denying them won't alter them.

by Guest 06.12.09 22:05

clarity wrote:
Ruby wrote:how obscure.

not to mention desperate.

nothing obscure about it, it's an analogy.

just because someone has never experienced something onself does not mean the experience does not exist.

clarity, I am sure there a "lots" of parents who go out and leave their kids alone, even tiny kids. The point is though these parents obviously don't care for their children, but are only thinking of themselves. What do you think would happen if neighbours reported parents who left their kids every night for a week, who went to a pub directly opposite the house, and could see their house from the pub. Im sure the social services, or police, wouldn't pat them on the back and say "it was well within the bounds of responsible parenting."

by Guest 07.12.09 11:20

candyfloss wrote:
clarity wrote:
Ruby wrote:how obscure.

not to mention desperate.

nothing obscure about it, it's an analogy.

just because someone has never experienced something onself does not mean the experience does not exist.

clarity, I am sure there a "lots" of parents who go out and leave their kids alone, even tiny kids. The point is though these parents obviously don't care for their children, but are only thinking of themselves. What do you think would happen if neighbours reported parents who left their kids every night for a week, who went to a pub directly opposite the house, and could see their house from the pub. Im sure the social services, or police, wouldn't pat them on the back and say "it was well within the bounds of responsible parenting."

I doubt the police would care but the way social services is going again they would be forced to issue a letter stating that it is inappropriate in the same way as it is inapropriate for children to make their own way to school even in the later months of primary school when it is actually safest for them to do so in preparation for the sometimes longer travel to high school. Of course a massive percentage of parents will ignore such warnings because they know their own child, the geography and they know how much better it is in the long run for children to be practised in such things.

Perhaps one day you could sit and make a list of the things routinely done by caring parents but that would be at odds with social services advice, could be an eye opener. It is essentially what most parents did in their head when hearing about Madeleine and that resulted in the outpouring of shock because yes it's true we have all done something similar, perhaps not a holiday resort, perhas not a tapas bar, perhaos not half hourly checks but we have all taken calculated risks and 99.99% of the time it's perfectly fine.

by Ruby 07.12.09 11:32

well if Madeleine had been cared for adequately at three, she would have had the chance to walk to primary school.

the situations you mention have sod all to do with it, just yet another weak attempt at normalising what the McCanns did.

people aren't buying it, nor will they ever, but keep going, i like to see your efforts. never mind

by Guest 07.12.09 11:38

Ruby wrote:well if Madeleine had been cared for adequately at three, she would have had the chance to walk to primary school.

the situations you mention have sod all to do with it, just yet another weak attempt at normalising what the McCanns did.

people aren't buying it, nor will they ever, but keep going, i like to see your efforts.

well the situation had everything to do with it, parents make decisions based on what they know, it is self evident that Madeleines parents did not know there was a risk she could be abducted from her bed that night.

by Ruby 07.12.09 11:47

pull the other one - it's got fucking bells on.

there were plenty of other risks and there's no way they wouldn't be aware of that.

see you've carefully manouvred there to say 'risk of abduction' (who does that remind me of?) and ended up with a very unnatural sounding statement to add to the McCollection..

by Guest 07.12.09 11:51

Ruby wrote:pull the other one - it's got fucking bells on.

they were doctors.

the portuguese prosecuter stated it and after seeing all the evidence, reading all the statements and knowing his own country, he should know.

I'm not sure why a doctor more than any other parent would know more about the crime stats of portugal though, perhaps you can explain.

by Guest 07.12.09 11:57

clarity wrote:
Ruby wrote:well if Madeleine had been cared for adequately at three, she would have had the chance to walk to primary school.

the situations you mention have sod all to do with it, just yet another weak attempt at normalising what the McCanns did.

people aren't buying it, nor will they ever, but keep going, i like to see your efforts.

well the situation had everything to do with it, parents make decisions based on what they know, it is self evident that Madeleines parents did not know there was a risk she could be abducted from her bed that night.

clarity, same old argument as usual. No one would leave their kids alone in apartment for various other reasons, as I mentioned a couple of pages ago. But I will re-state it again, vomiting, choking, ingesting medicines or cleaning fluids, falling, electrical equipment, fire etc etc. Need I go on. So you are saying that the parents based their decisions on what they know. So a 3 year old could not possible do any of the above things. It is not OK to leave tiny children on their own, with the parents away from the building.

by Guest 07.12.09 12:11

denying the facts doesn't get anyone anywhere but fine if you need to believe that no-one uses baby listening services for your theory to fit then go for it, have fun with that, it makes you a bit thick and bit cruel but hey, no matter, as long as you feel good about it, that's all that matters, facts are over-rated anyway.

by Ruby 07.12.09 12:15

clarity wrote:
Ruby wrote:pull the other one - it's got fucking bells on.

they were doctors.

the portuguese prosecuter stated it and after seeing all the evidence, reading all the statements and knowing his own country, he should know.

I'm not sure why a doctor more than any other parent would know more about the crime stats of portugal though, perhaps you can explain.

the crime stats of portugal have bugger all to do with it.
you shoehorn in 'abduction' in nearly every post, as though by osmosis it will convince people it happened.
little kids should not have been left on their own for many reasons but you know that really so stop taking the piss.
i know the next move is usually 'babylistening' but could we skip it today? oh. too late.

by Guest 07.12.09 12:23

clarity wrote:denying the facts doesn't get anyone anywhere but fine if you need to believe that no-one uses baby listening services for your theory to fit then go for it, have fun with that, it makes you a bit thick and bit cruel but hey, no matter, as long as you feel good about it, that's all that matters, facts are over-rated anyway.

Resorting to calling Me thick and cruel, you are so sad clarity. Lost the argument have we, shame.

by Ruby 07.12.09 12:32

well said.

they do show themselves up, don't they?

by MaryB 07.12.09 13:03

Was it thick or a bit cruel to leave children under four home alone. Or was it both.

by sans_souci 07.12.09 15:08

smith wrote:
badmanners wrote:The pros never said he would pull out or plead guilty.

But the antis have been saying for over a year that the McCanns would NEVER take anyone to court because they were guilty as hell and frightened a court would reveal 'the truth'.

How wrong they were, eh?

Badmanners hello. I don't know about the others but certainly I have always said that the parents will never go into court - ie into the box etc. I may well be wrong, as I was about my conviction that the case would not be shelved. Well, we shall see.

Having said that, and trying at this early stage of proceedings before we start insulting each other to try and find some sort of common ground, I would be delighted if Amaral & the McCanns could deal with the case in open court: at least then there would be some sort of judicial ruling rather than this state of virtual civil war between the two sides where nothing is ever decided and only opinions and emnity reign.

Well Smith, the two sides will bicker 'til the cows come home, arguments full of words and bluster and, in reality, signifying nothing.

It matters not a jot nor one iota whether the case is held in camera or in open court, before a jury or a bench. The only thing that is of any significance is the verdict of the court. So I am sure there will be a judicial ruling. And I am pretty sure that whichever way it goes there will be cries of "FIX" from the supporters of the 'losing' party. And the discussion, arguments and vitriol will continue, amplified by the internet.

by Autumn 07.12.09 16:17

They were cruel enough to leave their very young children alone and frightened in the dark, night after night - if they seriously thought that was ok, makes you wonder the extent of neglect that the McCanns inflicted upon these children. Lets hope social services are keeping a close eye on the the twins, their parents are clueless, selfish idiots.

by Guest 07.12.09 16:31

Sans-souci hello. I've actually just about finished posting on this site - not a flounce - but yours made sense, especially about the internet being something quite new in the way it seems to encourage unpleasantness. The equally unreliable treacly luvyduvy stuff which SYM nails so perfectly does not exactly balance the other out.

I think I finally gave up on forums very recently. A few days ago I read, for the first time, a comments section on the Spectator website, in this case regarding the climate change/dodgy emails debate.

The Spectator is a long established and famously well mannered magazine as well as a highly influential one;it is read by more old Etonians (whose manners, at least, are normally impeccable) than any other journal except Sporting Life and most of its readers and contributors know not only how to use a knife and fork but how to communicate with good manners as well. I've contributed to their letter pages a few times in the past and to get a letter published at all requires a certain restraint, even when the thrust of what one is saying is essentially vicious.

But the comments section on the Spectator on-line, the other day was just like the bitchfest stuff here! Just the same rudeness, offhandedness etc etc. Yet many of them must be the same readers.

Nah, the internet is a fantastic information resource and a great place to shop but for debate it just stinks.

by preciousramotswe 07.12.09 17:42

Autumn wrote:They were cruel enough to leave their very young children alone and frightened in the dark, night after night - if they seriously thought that was ok, makes you wonder the extent of neglect that the McCanns inflicted upon these children. Lets hope social services are keeping a close eye on the the twins, their parents are clueless, selfish idiots.

Cruel?

Autumn, for your information, what the McCanns did was exactly what my parents - and countless generations before and even since - have done. As we were fast asleep and oblivious we never knew just how awfully cruel they were being, and it's just as well as I'm sure I would have had a very unhappy childhood if I had thought for one moment that my parents were being cruel and neglectful for two weeks at Butlins/Pontins every summer.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Even the prosecutor couldn't accept that PDL in 2007 should have been considered more dangerous than Llanduddno in 1963, and really there is no reason to doubt his assessment - other than the obvious fact that I am here and Madeleine isn't.

I have never been able to understand, truly, why some individuals are fixated on labelling this as 'cruelty' despite the evidence for the massive amount of real cruelty perpetrated against children in our society, cruelty so extreme and loathsome that it makes most people want to weep.