LBC 27th March 2015 Children Left Alone

by Guest 27.03.15 21:08

Extracts from LBC

Steve Allen LBC 27th March 2015

Pete says one person arrested every day for leaving their children alone. Yes Nick Ferrari programme was going to be doing this this morning, or the Nick Ferrari programme with Andrew Pearce. It's interesting because I wonder whether or not he will be bringing up the fact that the McCanns left three children, three children, and so over here the Police prosecute one woman who left her child outside a pharmacy whilst she went into pick up a prescription, came back out and was questioned about it, there was one woman who they were going to talk to this morning who says that she was terrified to leave her child alone for years and years, she waited until she got to 13 and I would come back to the McCanns, they have left children home alone in a foreign country in a strange bedroom where you know they would not know anything just little children so over here you get prosecuted over there nobody cares about it, it doesn't seem to work really does it.

LBC James O'Brien 27th March 2015

Grant - I have got four children James, my eldest is now off to University in September but at one point we had all under four years old and one holiday family holiday we went down to Cornwall, a place called ..... great place, my youngest was two, my eldest six, and we went to dinner within the confines of the complex where we were and we left all four in a a room with a baby listening service. I had no issue with that and then a few years later...

James - No why would you.

Grant - I didn't, - a few years later we had the tragic incident with Madeleine McCann and what then happened was public opinion reshaped my whole thinking on the matter and I became a paranoid freak thinking almost lambasting myself for what I had done years prior.

James - Really, retrospective lambastation.

Grant - Yes, you can pay good money for that in certain places in London.

James - ha ha ha

Grant - but on that point I did reshape my thinking now I am no longer in a position with kids between the ages of 14 to 18 to think that way but a little paranoia has stayed with me and there are occasions when I think about those moments thinking how the hell could I have done that.

James - well you had a baby listening service and you were on the premises I don't think you did anything wrong.

Grant - yes but if you cast your mind back to Portugal the parents would use the same argument which you used earlier about going to see your pals two doors down that they were within reaching distance.

James - yes but the children were not old enough to use a phone and listen I don't want to turn it into a McCann phone in because as we discovered last year... no I know you are not doing that but I have dealt with, I have done my fruit cake quotation for today talking about foie gras and prisoners in the first hour I can't be dealing with another er attack of killer tomatoes this hour. Point is the things you describe didn't apply to the situation in Portugal

Grant - no correct but the point I am trying to make my over arching point is that your thinking can be defined by public opinion.

James - your psychology can be shifted irrationally but it doesn't actually make the shift any less profound and I am sure you are right that the particular case, that particular heartbreaking case was responsible for an awful... I mean most decent people responded to it by going there but for the grace of God go I but there were people I just referred to perhaps unfairly as the killer tomatoes that responded to it those disgusting parents, they deserve, or they should burn in hell for what they have done and the reason I am uncomfortable going back in to that territory is because of the lady that was unmasked as one of the trolls to Kate and Gerry McCann and ended up, I don't know how you would describe this, whether through shame or embarrassment taking her own life when she was affectively invited to publically put her name to what she was quite happy to do anonymously on social media.

by whatsupdoc 28.03.15 8:10

Cherry wrote:Extracts from LBC

Steve Allen LBC 27th March 2015

...snipped...

James - your psychology can be shifted irrationally but it doesn't actually make the shift any less profound and I am sure you are right that the particular case, that particular heartbreaking case was responsible for an awful... I mean most decent people responded to it by going there but for the grace of God go I but there were people I just referred to perhaps unfairly as the killer tomatoes that responded to it those disgusting parents, they deserve, or they should burn in hell for what they have done and the reason I am uncomfortable going back in to that territory is because of the lady that was unmasked as one of the trolls to Kate and Gerry McCann and ended up, I don't know how you would describe this, whether through shame or embarrassment taking her own life when she was affectively invited to publically put her name to what she was quite happy to do anonymously on social media.

Once the media use words like "alleged" , "troll" and phrases like "believed to be" and show an innocent person outside their home the damage is done.

The falsely accused has to endure the wrath of the media and find a huge sum of money to go to court for compensation/apologies which don't remove a stigma imposed by the media.

The difference with the McCann case is that their story doesn't ring true. The creche register was muddled, many lies told , no searching done, didn't answer PJ questions, no evidence of an abductor and the dogs indicating that a dead body had been in 5A at some point in time. Also the dogs indicating on Kate's clothes and inside a hire car hired weeks after Madeleine disappeared.

Instead of searching, the McCanns jogged up and down a hill. Does that sound normal for parents who have had a child go missing only days before?

I and probably many more would like to know on what basis the UK police have ruled out the McCanns as not being involved in Madeleine's disappearance. I suspect they were told to look elsewhere.

The case of Christopher Jeffries is an example of disgraceful, unresearched reporting with no evidence or feeling for the innocent person flashed on our screens and in the papers.

Have the media learned anything ? Certainly not.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/tabloid-press-destroyed-innocent-man/story-24710685-detail/story.html

by **sharonl** 28.03.15 9:12

The McCanns were far too quick to claim that the children were left alone and imo far too many people have swallowed this story. They cannot have it both ways, either the children were left alone and the abductor struck or the McCanns were present when Madeleine met her fate. Anyone who believes that the kids were home alone must surely believe that she was abducted or at the very least, that the McCanns were not directly involved in her disappearance. If Madeleine had an accident in the apartment, on or before the evening of May 3rd, surely the McCanns would not risk leaving the twins home alone in a situation where more accidents could occur?

It was reported somewhere, possibly by Goncalo Amaral, that all the children in the group may have been sleeping in one apartment. This seems more credible to me, especially as on most nights, at least one member of the group was away from the tapas table for various reasons. And of course, we have the lack of Madeleine's DNA in apt 5a not to mention the lack of evidence suggesting that any child had been present, toys etc.

It is my personal belief that Madeleine disappeared around April 29th. If that were correct, would any parent with that situation to deal with, leave a couple of 2 year olds home alone?

No neglect = No abduction, and if that is the case, how can the McCanns be prosecuted for leaving the children home alone? Unless of course, they are telling the truth and Madeleine was abducted whilst they were out.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 28.03.15 10:19

sharonl wrote:The McCanns were far too quick to claim that the children were left alone and imo far too many people have swallowed this story. They cannot have it both ways, either the children were left alone and the abductor struck or the McCanns were present when Madeleine met her fate. Anyone who believes that the kids were home alone must surely believe that she was abducted or at the very least, that the McCanns were not directly involved in her disappearance. If Madeleine had an accident in the apartment, on or before the evening of May 3rd, surely the McCanns would not risk leaving the twins home alone in a situation where more accidents could occur?

It was reported somewhere, possibly by Goncalo Amaral, that all the children in the group may have been sleeping in one apartment. This seems more credible to me, especially as on most nights, at least one member of the group was away from the tapas table for various reasons. And of course, we have the lack of Madeleine's DNA in apt 5a not to mention the lack of evidence suggesting that any child had been present, toys etc.

It is my personal belief that Madeleine disappeared around April 29th. If that were correct, would any parent with that situation to deal with, leave a couple of 2 year olds home alone?

No neglect = No abduction, and if that is the case, how can the McCanns be prosecuted for leaving the children home alone? Unless of course, they are telling the truth and Madeleine was abducted whilst they were out.

So you don't think the blood and cadaver odour was Madeleine's then?

by **sharonl** 28.03.15 11:06

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
sharonl wrote:The McCanns were far too quick to claim that the children were left alone and imo far too many people have swallowed this story. They cannot have it both ways, either the children were left alone and the abductor struck or the McCanns were present when Madeleine met her fate. Anyone who believes that the kids were home alone must surely believe that she was abducted or at the very least, that the McCanns were not directly involved in her disappearance. If Madeleine had an accident in the apartment, on or before the evening of May 3rd, surely the McCanns would not risk leaving the twins home alone in a situation where more accidents could occur?

It was reported somewhere, possibly by Goncalo Amaral, that all the children in the group may have been sleeping in one apartment. This seems more credible to me, especially as on most nights, at least one member of the group was away from the tapas table for various reasons. And of course, we have the lack of Madeleine's DNA in apt 5a not to mention the lack of evidence suggesting that any child had been present, toys etc.

It is my personal belief that Madeleine disappeared around April 29th. If that were correct, would any parent with that situation to deal with, leave a couple of 2 year olds home alone?

No neglect = No abduction, and if that is the case, how can the McCanns be prosecuted for leaving the children home alone? Unless of course, they are telling the truth and Madeleine was abducted whilst they were out.

So you don't think the blood and cadaver odour was Madeleine's then?

Yes, I do believe that the blood and cadaver odour was Madeleine's, just my opinion of course. But I don't believe that Madeleine was abducted on the evening of May 3rd whilst the parents were out at the tapas as we have been led to believe via the press.

My point was, how could the McCanns claim that an abduction took place without also claiming that they were away from apartment at the time? It seems to me that they had the choice of two evils, either tell us that they were with the kids at all times and they know what happened to Madeleine or to say that they were away from the apartment and that someone else was responsible.

Of course, they could have claimed that she was abducted from the beach or the park but then they would need witnesses to say that Madeleine was actually in the area just before the abduction took place. If there was an abductor, he would have been seen, carrying away what would probably have been a screaming child - so this option is not viable.

One piece from Kate McCann that I am looking for is where she states that Madeleine (like most kids of her age) objected to coming in at bed time. She would often run around outside, playing hide n seek in order to buy herself a little more time.

by Guest 28.03.15 13:31

Information about 7 kids were left in McCann flat

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/httpwww.html

by Constablekid 28.03.15 15:22

Why didn't the McCanns just say Madeleine was abducted in the night, while they (Gerry and Kate) were fast asleep?

In that scenario, they couldn't be accused of neglect and wouldn't need to make up false sightings like Tannerman.

Less witnesses at that time of night too. Bigger window of opportunity for the abductor.

Sorry if this is a silly question or off topic but it's always bugged me. I'm sure someone has a good explaination why this isn't possible.

AIMO

by **sharonl** 28.03.15 18:26

Constablekid wrote:Why didn't the McCanns just say Madeleine was abducted in the night, while they (Gerry and Kate) were fast asleep?

In that scenario, they couldn't be accused of neglect and wouldn't need to make up false sightings like Tannerman.

Less witnesses at that time of night too. Bigger window of opportunity for the abductor.

Sorry if this is a silly question or off topic but it's always bugged me. I'm sure someone has a good explaination why this isn't possible.

AIMO

Good question but here are a few more?

How did the abductor enter the apartment which would no doubt have been locked if they were all in bed?

What evidence would there be of a break in?

Could the abductor have woken the McCanns or the children with the noise from the shutters or Madeleine's screams?

How would the abductor have known that at least one parent was not in the children's room, as Kate claims that she was one night?

Did the abductor work in darkness or did he risk waking the family with the light?

How could the abductor know that the McCanns were sleeping?

These are just a few of the questions that the McCanns would have been facing.

On top of that, The McCanns would have no alibi as there would be no witnesses apart from each other to say that we're in fact asleep in bed.

by Constablekid 29.03.15 2:28

Thanks Sharoni, really good answer.

by **PeterMac** 29.03.15 8:26

Constablekid wrote:Thanks Sharoni, really good answer.

No. It is a dreadful answer. It raises all sorts of interesting possibilities, and demands that supplementary questions be asked.
AND THAT IS NOT PERMITTED under the McRules.

It is of course spot on, and destroys another possibility,
every time something like this is suggested and examined in details in this way it becomes more clear that Madeleine died on a day before 3/5/7, that her body was disposed of / concealed
and that the entire story of "abduction" was an elaborate lie, acceded to by the rest of the Tapas 7, and connived at and elaborated on conspiratorially by Mitchell

by whatsupdoc 29.03.15 11:01

I thought Constablekid raised a good question and sharonl came back with some good points but when you examine the consequences like PeterMac said, it becomes more of a can of worms with lots of questions arising.

So the final desicion to let checking be done and the McCanns be in the tapas bar was arrived at.
Unfortunately, the shutters weren't smashed as planned, there was NO evidence of an abductor, not even one or two dusty footprints, they were having to tell lies about the shutters and the blowing curtains which looked to be firmly pressed against the wall.
I found the story of the group going sick in regimental order so they could babysit a pathetic excuse.

Even though the neglect aspect may have been another lie, what did the UK trade with Portugal in order for them not to proceed ?

by **sharonl** 29.03.15 11:57

whatsupdoc wrote:I thought Constablekid raised a good question and sharonl came back with some good points but when you examine the consequences like PeterMac said, it becomes more of a can of worms with lots of questions arising.

So the final desicion to let checking be done and the McCanns be in the tapas bar was arrived at.
Unfortunately, the shutters weren't smashed as planned, there was NO evidence of an abductor, not even one or two dusty footprints, they were having to tell lies about the shutters and the blowing curtains which looked to be firmly pressed against the wall.
I found the story of the group going sick in regimental order so they could babysit a pathetic excuse.

Even though the neglect aspect may have been another lie, what did the UK trade with Portugal in order for them not to proceed ?

That's probably a question for Gordon Brown and the now convicted Jose Socrates, don't hold your breath on an answer though.

Possibilities:

1. Freeport
2. Portuguese trade in the UK
3. The Spartacus club

In Feb 2007, Gordon Brown was in Huelva discussing the meat trade with the UK, if that's any help.

by Lands_end 05.04.15 21:33

GA and the rest of the police did not follow the abduction theory from the word go. That is down to their professional experience as Police Officers. Their biggest mistake was not isolating the areas in suspicion as a crime scene that includes the chief witnesses who were allowed to remain together even during interviews. It is farcical to suggest today that it may have been as a result of a failed burglary or indeed any other third party when there is such clear evidence of other potential outcomes. Jemmied shutters NOT, Tannerman NOT, Cadaver dogs and so on. These are not discussion or debateable points, these are proven facts.