Re: Another question

by Guest 07.12.09 18:18

candyfloss wrote:
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.

Evidently not.

You are denying known facts in an attempt to make an argument from nothing. I understand why, you want to blame someone because the idea that someone could enter a childs bedroom and take them away without a trace is scary. But don't kick out at other people just to make yourself feel better, it's unpleasant.

by MaryB 07.12.09 18:55

But the children were not fast asleep. Or so we are told. They cried for their parents on at least one occasion. Mrs Fenn heard them crying for a considerable time. This constant justifying of this type of parenting is more than a little tiresome.

by Patty O'Daws 07.12.09 19:49

MaryB wrote:But the children were not fast asleep. Or so we are told. They cried for their parents on at least one occasion. Mrs Fenn heard them crying for a considerable time. This constant justifying of this type of parenting is more than a little tiresome.

The twins were faxt asleep on the night of the abduction.

by marigold 07.12.09 20:26

It's very cruel to be aware that your child was crying for you on a previous night when you were out for hours. OK so SOME selfish parents will leave their children if they are sure they will remain oblivious but the Mccanns knew that their child was NOT always asleep throughout and was actually distressed and alone yet they STILL went out again. This is breathtaking in its indifference to a childs wellbeing.

by Guest 07.12.09 22:14

marigold wrote:It's very cruel to be aware that your child was crying for you on a previous night when you were out for hours. OK so SOME selfish parents will leave their children if they are sure they will remain oblivious but the Mccanns knew that their child was NOT always asleep throughout and was actually distressed and alone yet they STILL went out again. This is breathtaking in its indifference to a childs wellbeing.

Yes, to admit that Madeleine said where were you when Sean and Amelie were crying, and then to ignore this and go out again is something I just can't get my head around.

by marigold 07.12.09 22:40

candyfloss wrote:
marigold wrote:It's very cruel to be aware that your child was crying for you on a previous night when you were out for hours. OK so SOME selfish parents will leave their children if they are sure they will remain oblivious but the Mccanns knew that their child was NOT always asleep throughout and was actually distressed and alone yet they STILL went out again. This is breathtaking in its indifference to a childs wellbeing.

Yes, to admit that Madeleine said where were you when Sean and Amelie were crying, and then to ignore this and go out again is something I just can't get my head around.

Yes and they STILL say what they did was within the bounds of responsible parenting! Says who?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.09 0:23

candyfloss wrote:Yes, to admit that Madeleine said where were you when Sean and Amelie were crying, and then to ignore this and go out again is something I just can't get my head around.

I think according to Kate McCann (cough), it was Sean and Madeleine who were doing the crying.

But then, again, according to Kate McCann (nasty cough), Madeleine skipped away happily after casually bringing up the subject of her and Sean crying the previous night while their parents were not there.

Some people have even claimed that Madeleine never said: "Mummy, I'm having the best fun ever" and questioned whether Gerry McCann (a) was an exceptionally long time on the loo during his 9.00 check, as he claimed and (b) whether he really did look down on Madeleine and think how lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter.

And let's not forget that the McCanns nearly didn't go out on that Thursday evening at all. It was an agonising decision. But dinner and drink at the Tapas bar with friends won out in the end - and, as David James Smith wrote in 'The Times' in December 2007, how lucky Gerry felt that he didn't have to have his children with him at the table, unlike that unfortunate couple from Hetfordshire.

by vaguely 16.12.09 20:05

If you're so certain then why have you given in to Carter Ruck.

Why don't you stand by your words?

What I don't think Kate or Gerry McCann have ever said is that if their grandchild were to have an accident whilst in their care that they would consider covering it up.

thinking

by lj 16.12.09 22:51

Well that's vague. Do the McCanns have grandchildren now?

by Old Nick 16.12.09 22:57

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Yes, to admit that Madeleine said where were you when Sean and Amelie were crying, and then to ignore this and go out again is something I just can't get my head around.
I think according to Kate McCann (cough), it was Sean and Madeleine who were doing the crying.

But then, again, according to Kate McCann (nasty cough), Madeleine skipped away happily after casually bringing up the subject of her and Sean crying the previous night while their parents were not there.

Some people have even claimed that Madeleine never said: "Mummy, I'm having the best fun ever" and questioned whether Gerry McCann (a) was an exceptionally long time on the loo during his 9.00 check, as he claimed and (b) whether he really did look down on Madeleine and think how lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter.

And let's not forget that the McCanns nearly didn't go out on that Thursday evening at all. It was an agonising decision. But dinner and drink at the Tapas bar with friends won out in the end - and, as David James Smith wrote in 'The Times' in December 2007, how lucky Gerry felt that he didn't have to have his children with him at the table, unlike that unfortunate couple from Hetfordshire.

Tony your cough is getting worse - I hope you're keeping warm like I told you. I do worry.

by Guest 25.12.09 23:35

Ocean Beach Club in Praia da Luz was chosen after seeing an advertisment.
Facilities: créches and the baby listening service.
On arrival the group found out the baby listening service was not available, since the recess is spread over the village and that service is not feasible in that situation.
So actually they were misinformed.
They've chosen for the solution to check themselves every half an hour.

I remember reading (in the PJ files??) that Kate already left the Tapas Restaurant at 9.30pm and was on her way towards the apartment for her check on the children, when she was caught by Matt Oldfield.
He offered to check for her and Kate returned to the dinner table.
So the timeline is:
Parents 8.30pm children at sleep, parents leave for Tapas Restaurant
Gerry 9.05pm checking the children
Kate 9.30pm on her way to the apartment
Matt 9.30pm takes over to check the McCann children as well
Kate 10.00pm checking the children, discovers Madeleine is gone.

Is this neglect? No.
Was this such an idiotic decision? Afterwards: yes. Maddie is gone.
Are these worthless parents? No, they love their children dearly, but like many parents, they have a false expectation of safety.
But then: since when must parents be 100% perfect. I do not know 1 100% perfect parent.

In fact, the group of friends did exactly what 100.000 tourists do every year when they are on holiday with their children in a hotel. The children go to sleep and the parents go to the hotel restaurant to eat. They inform the reception that their children are alone in the room asleep and they will ask the reception for a check every half an hour if everything is okay. (baby listening service)
Safe? No.

This happens every year and it never goes wrong. In Praia da Luz everything went wrong and we all know that it is unsafe to leave children alone this way.
An unknown baby-sitter is no guarantee that nothing can go wrong.
If Madeleine was a target she would have been taken at any other moment.

It is strange to say, but I think the children were checked more frequently on their holiday, than it is the case at home.
At home with the children sleeping upstairs in their room, no parent goes checking every half an hour. They just have a quick look at the door before they go to their own bed.

by Guest 26.12.09 0:08

Please bring Madeleine home. What more is there to say?

by Autumn 26.12.09 4:17

Raffle wrote:Please bring Madeleine home. What more is there to say?

Kate and Gerry, please co-operate with the police - return for a reconstruction, as requested, and answer the simple questions.

by Ruby 26.12.09 4:19

Aristocrat wrote:Ocean Beach Club in Praia da Luz was chosen after seeing an advertisment.
Facilities: créches and the baby listening service.
On arrival the group found out the baby listening service was not available, since the recess is spread over the village and that service is not feasible in that situation.
So actually they were misinformed.
They've chosen for the solution to check themselves every half an hour.

I remember reading (in the PJ files??) that Kate already left the Tapas Restaurant at 9.30pm and was on her way towards the apartment for her check on the children, when she was caught by Matt Oldfield.
He offered to check for her and Kate returned to the dinner table.
So the timeline is:
Parents 8.30pm children at sleep, parents leave for Tapas Restaurant
Gerry 9.05pm checking the children
Kate 9.30pm on her way to the apartment
Matt 9.30pm takes over to check the McCann children as well
Kate 10.00pm checking the children, discovers Madeleine is gone.

Is this neglect? No.
Was this such an idiotic decision? Afterwards: yes. Maddie is gone.
Are these worthless parents? No, they love their children dearly, but like many parents, they have a false expectation of safety.
But then: since when must parents be 100% perfect. I do not know 1 100% perfect parent.

In fact, the group of friends did exactly what 100.000 tourists do every year when they are on holiday with their children in a hotel. The children go to sleep and the parents go to the hotel restaurant to eat. They inform the reception that their children are alone in the room asleep and they will ask the reception for a check every half an hour if everything is okay. (baby listening service)
Safe? No.

This happens every year and it never goes wrong. In Praia da Luz everything went wrong and we all know that it is unsafe to leave children alone this way.
An unknown baby-sitter is no guarantee that nothing can go wrong.
If Madeleine was a target she would have been taken at any other moment.

It is strange to say, but I think the children were checked more frequently on their holiday, than it is the case at home.
At home with the children sleeping upstairs in their room, no parent goes checking every half an hour. They just have a quick look at the door before they go to their own bed.

The old 'nobody's perfect' refrain yet again... my god it's tragic.
Do you have any idea how wrong you are and how biased you look trying to normalize a completely unacceptable practice?
Think if you say it enough times the British populace will somehow be magically convinced ?
IT'S NOT WORKING (and you know it).
Wake up and get a new mantra because NOBODY'S BUYING IT.

by Ruby 26.12.09 4:23

Autumn wrote:
Raffle wrote:Please bring Madeleine home. What more is there to say?

Kate and Gerry, please co-operate with the police - return for a reconstruction, as requested, and answer the simple questions.

Yes exactly. And instead of 'ooh look over there... Tangiers... Australia... no, back in a cave in Praia de Luz... anywhere but at us' ffs get them to rule your best mate out.

You know, the one with the paedo characteristics who, it sounds like, might have been the last person to see her. It has got SO beyond a joke, they are just taking the p*** and you MUST know it.

Aah, that's better :megashock:

by Guest 26.12.09 22:27

A reconstruction won't change the outcome of the police investigation, certainly not after 2,5 years.
Kate did the right thing not to answer the 40 questions. It has nothing to do with the disappereance of Madeleine.
It was a set up to make her confess to a crime she did not commit.

Forget it, it will never happen.

by Slartibartfast 26.12.09 22:31

Aristocrat wrote:A reconstruction won't change the outcome of the police investigation, certainly not after 2,5 years.
Kate did the right thing not to answer the 40 questions. It has nothing to do with the disappereance of Madeleine.
It was a set up to make her confess to a crime she did not commit.

Forget it, it will never happen.

I wonder how many members of this forum would answer the questions knowing the PJ's history in "questioning" and on the advice of their lawyer not to answer any questions.

by Guest 26.12.09 23:55

PJ, no matter what police whatsoever, if I committed no crime, and I am completely innocent, I refuse to answer any question to accuse myself. That would be really stupid.

That is what Kate did and right she was.
This is another false argument and is used only to kick or throw mud on the McCanns.

by Autumn 27.12.09 0:16

Aristocrat wrote:A reconstruction won't change the outcome of the police investigation, certainly not after 2,5 years.
Kate did the right thing not to answer the 40 questions. It has nothing to do with the disappereance of Madeleine.
It was a set up to make her confess to a crime she did not commit.

Forget it, it will never happen.

We know it will never happen because the McCanns and chums are determined it will not. Who are you to say that a reconstruction would not have changed the outcome of the police investigation - the PJ would not have requested a reconstruction if they did not feel it could be helpful. Aristocrat, read up on the files, Kate refused to answer all but one of 48 questions, not 40 as you have stated in your post. The McCanns did nothing to help the police investigation, infact, I would go as far as to say that they have been downright obstructive from the outset.

by twinkle 27.12.09 1:06

I fail to see how the answering of 48 or no questions is an indication of guilt.
How is this a stick to beat them with?
Was anyone actually here present at the questioning? No, they weren't.
Who can comment on such a situation unless they have been there themselves.

by Autumn 27.12.09 1:14

twinkle wrote:I fail to see how the answering of 48 or no questions is an indication of guilt.
How is this a stick to beat them with?
Was anyone actually here present at the questioning? No, they weren't.
Who can comment on such a situation unless they have been there themselves.

The one question Kate answered was ' Do you realize that by not answering the questions, you are jeopardising the search for your daughter'? Kate replied 'Yes'.
According to Justine McGuiness, who was there, both her and Kate behaved 'like naughty schoolgirls' texting back and forth from the police station.

by Guest 27.12.09 1:29

[quote="Autumn

We know it will never happen because the McCanns and chums are determined it will not. Who are you to say that a reconstruction would not have changed the outcome of the police investigation - the PJ would not have requested a reconstruction if they did not feel it could be helpful. Aristocrat, read up on the files, Kate refused to answer all but one of 48 questions, not 40 as you have stated in your post. The McCanns did nothing to help the police investigation, infact, I would go as far as to say that they have been downright obstructive from the outset.[/quote]

Did I write 40 questions? Kate refused to answer 48 questions and she was damn right.
Now, you leave the reading of the PJ files to me, I can do that without you, but I suggest you start reading Amaral's book, because it is obvious you did not read it. Because if you did read his book, you would have know that the McCanns did everything to help the police investigation. Amaral praises them for their help! So you can go as far as you like, but you are completely wrong to suggest that they have been downright obstructive from the outset. It seems you are blind of hating the McCanns, but that won't change the facts.

Now about the reconstruction.

A reconstruction at the beginning of the police investigation could have been useful and I am sure that McCanns and their friends would have coöperate. But oh well....Amaral doing a poor job...
After the rogatory interviews the timeline, where everybody was, the event, everything was already extended in April 2008 on paper. Without a reconstruction it was clear there was no evidence of the involvement of the parents in the disappereance of Madeleine. A reconstruction can't change that fact because there is nothing around that reconstruction to be examined as useful evidence. There is just nothing left. Can't you see that?

I believe there is excess value attributed to a reconstruction, while IMO it was a last attempt to save faces, to save something from a damaged police investigation conducted by Amaral. Nothing more.

by marigold 27.12.09 2:13

She didn't answer the questions because she knew they would incriminate her IMO. Any normal, innocent parent would happily answer ANY question as they would be so desperate to find their child. Not answering the questions has made her look very suspicious to many people. All this c**p about being framed! It's always the old corny mantra isn't it? This is said by so many when they are about to be arrested..I'm being framed by the police they cry! I suppose it's a last desperate attempt to try to evade justice. Why on earth would the Portugese police have any interest in framing the Mccanns? They were policemen trying to do a job and the parents had to be eliminated first because in the vast majority of cases the parents are responsible for a child's disappearance. However, the 'parents' wanted to be as obstructive as humanly possible. To hinder the search it would appear. Yet now, peversely, they bleat on about why nobody is searching for their daughter!

by Guest 27.12.09 2:57

marigold wrote:She didn't answer the questions because she knew they would incriminate her IMO.

Well there you are. Would you answer questions to incriminate yourself???

Any normal, innocent parent would happily answer ANY question as they would be so desperate to find their child.

There is not one question to be answered that would lead to find Madeleine.

Not answering the questions has made her look very suspicious to many people.

Not to me. Totally not. If I was in her shoes I would have done the same. You seem to forget that it is not the McCanns that committed a crime. They are not the suspects here. There is an perpetrator, walking free, a great risk for other children, but not one word about his or her crime?? It is only throwing mud to the McCanns, that's all. Something is not right here.

All this c**p about being framed! It's always the old corny mantra isn't it? This is said by so many when they are about to be arrested..I'm being framed by the police they cry!

Maybe you should have a word with Leonor Cipriano and look at her image after 'an interview with the PJ conducted by Amaral'

I suppose it's a last desperate attempt to try to evade justice.

Nonsense
Why on earth would the Portugese police have any interest in framing the Mccanns?

Why on earth is the disgraced ex-cop Amaral still trying to frame the McCanns while he knows there is no evidence?

They were policemen trying to do a job and the parents had to be eliminated first because in the vast majority of cases the parents are responsible for a child's disappearance.

You do that in the first days of the investigation not after 4 months.

However, the 'parents' wanted to be as obstructive as humanly possible. To hinder the search it would appear.

I would like to see some evidence to proof your point

Yet now, peversely, they bleat on about why nobody is searching for their daughter!

I can understand that the McCanns have lost trust in the PJ. I can't understand that no British police force is not searching for Madeleine.

by Autumn 27.12.09 3:15

The McCanns refuse to ask the official police force, either in Portugal or Britain, to re-open the investigation.

by Guest 27.12.09 3:21

No, you've tried that one before, but the answer is the same. Nothing to do with refuse....that is your interpretation.
Not the McCanns, not Amaral, not the Queen, not even the Pope can get that case reopened unless they come up with new EVIDENCE!!!

by Guest 27.12.09 12:10

Autumn wrote:
Raffle wrote:Please bring Madeleine home. What more is there to say?

Kate and Gerry, please co-operate with the police - return for a reconstruction, as requested, and answer the simple questions.

And you seriously think that will move the invetigation on? There is just the small matter of getting the authorities there to take the case off the shelf and re-open it first.

by MaryB 27.12.09 13:57

Madeleine couldn't have been checked at 9.30 as she wasn't even in the apartment at that time.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.12.09 16:11

MaryB wrote:Madeleine couldn't have been checked at 9.30 as she wasn't even in the apartment at that time.

We only have the word of Dr Gerald McCann that she was there at 9.05pm

by Guest 27.12.09 17:02

Only Mr McCann's word says Mr Bennett...

So when will the campaigning begin for a new law saying that children must be in the presence of at least 2 people at any time in case one of them is later accused of lying that the child was there?

I feel a leaflet coming on

never mind