NEGLECT? Are you SURE the McCanns neglected their children?

A topic that has been discussed for a long time but so many issues still surround the suggestion.

We often hear that if the parents looked after their children instead of neglecting them then Maddie would still be with us...

One would think that only supporters of the abduction would say that, but it is often said by those that believe the parents are complicit...

It tends to suggest that Maddie disappeared because she was left alone (ie abducted)

Maddie disappeared because her parents hid her body, and simulated an abduction, NOT because she was neglected!




[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We don't know if Maddie died earlier because she was left alone but we DO know she didn't disappear on Thursday night because she was neglected...

If she was dead before they left the apartment to go to the tapas on Thursday then the disappearance was not because she WAS neglected. A child that is dead cannot be 'neglected'

This is what the files 'tell' us

C)' In order to avoid the death [alarm] of the minor before 22H00, it was created a situation of the children's surveillance by the McCann while the children slept;'

'CREATED A SITUATION OF THE CHILDREN'S SURVEILLANCE' ???

Is this what (C) is telling us?
So no-one would know she had died before 10pm they PRETENDED the children were left in the apartment and they were checking every half hour. (ie simulating neglect)

How could they have claimed an abduction if the children were being watched? It was NECESSARY to claim they were left alone... ie neglected



 FROM HDH WORDPRESS BLOG
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 

9 – NEGLECT? Are you SURE the McCanns neglected their children?


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Is such rudeness necessary?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Claiming ‘neglect’ suggests that it was the reason that Madeleine disappeared! Unless one believes there was an abduction, there were far more serious things happening that night than leaving the children alone…
According to the police investigation, Madeleine had died, they hid her body and simulated an abduction… Neglect is a welcome smokescreen to that accusation!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Claiming ‘neglect’ suggests that it was the reason that Madeleine disappeared! Unless one believes there was an abduction, there were far more serious things happening that night than leaving the children alone…
According to the police investigation, Madeleine had died, they hid her body and simulated an abduction… Neglect is a welcome smokescreen to that accusation!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



[

Isn’t it odd that EVERY negative comment about the McCanns has been stopped (See McCanns  Manipulated Media’ post) and yet the ONE mantra that is a constant is about leaving the children alone in the apartment while they went to dinner at the tapas?

From the start I wondered why they didn’t claim that the children were being watched by one of the group.  After all, there was one of them not present at the tapas each night (Monday we dont know) and would have been very easy to claim the children were being watched to avoid ANY suggestions they were being neglected, which seemed to be an important issue.

Is it possible that the chidren WERE being watched by one of the Tapas 9?

However, if that was the case, then WHO would have been responsible.at the moment that Madeleine was ‘abducted’? More to the point, HOW would the ‘abductor’ have been able to access the apartment and ‘take’ Madeleine? IMPOSSIBLE!

So, it seems that even if they HAD been watching the children they HAD to say they were leaving the children alone to facilitate the opportunity for an ‘abductor’!

Gerry does it very well in this video where he INSISTS they weren’t watching the children every 15 minutes as Sandra Felgueiras suggested… He made sure that everyone was aware there was a suitable amount of time for the ‘abductor’ to accomplish the task by saying it was every 30 MINS!!

Now, why would he DENY they were watching the children every 15 mins?  Was it because he NEEDED everyone to know the ‘abductor’ had time to enter the apartment?





[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]




[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have to say that i am pleased to see so many considering the ‘Neglect’ issue as being a smokescreen for the truth. The trade off for what they SHOULD be accountable for.

I have archived many of my posts on this subject as I tend to ramble on about it so often as I have always believed it to be the case, and often I see my old posts asking if I am the only one to think this way?

Every time the neglect issue is raised and the McCann’s blamed for it I almost hear a cheer from TM.

Without realising it, a post that blames the McCanns for neglect, leaving their little ones alone while they go dining at the tapas, leaves the reader subconsciously thinking that the neglect is why Madeleine disappeared and inadvertently suggesting the abduction was the reason she disappeared.

They NEEDED to suggest neglect or the abduction wouldn’t have been possible. Kate refers to Wednesday night (in her book) as ‘Rachaels turn to be sick’….My opinion is that it is very possible they were watching the children relatively responsibly…each taking turns to stay near all the apartments (or in one or two) and something may have happened to Madeleine.

Rather than one person being responsible (which they would also have been singled out as a target had the ‘abductor’ taken Madeleine on their ‘turn’) it was agreed to incorporate the checking to eliminate one person being responsible.

There was a MAJOR reason for not reporting her death…that is another discussion…..but they ENCOURAGED the neglect issue. The mantra in every storylne about them dining in the tapas….Gerry telling Jez more than once about leaving the children…the first time TUESDAY lunchtime! Contrived even at that point (one reason that supports something happening to Madeleine earlier in the week imo

There was no reason that they could not have said from the start that there was always someone back at the apartments looking after the children..(which according to their statements there was…MO on Sunday, ROB on Tuesday, Rachael on Wednesday) so why didnt they protect themselves against neglect by stating that?

They NEEDED neglect to give the abductor the ‘window’ of opportunity..(all of THREE MINUTES which I believe was one of their major errors). An abductor could not have taken a child that was being watched.
I could go on forever, as I have posted on this issue more times than anything else and i feel like a broken record, but for those that would like to see some of the reasons that have supported my belief there are lots of examples here.


HiDeHo Posts
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


May 3rd Simulated Abduction or Neglect
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Neglect (Statements that show they cared about childcare)http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Individual-Topics/Neglect-1-796651.htm
l
I ABSOLUTELY believe there was no neglect for NUMEROUS reasons.

1) The McCanns claim it to be true. I believe nothing else, why should I believe that?

2) Rachael claims to have had Ella in her apartment for a bath.

3) Gerry told everyone he could about leaving the children alone (so everyone would believe the abduction when they heard it
.
4) On video the waiter claims they did not leave the table within short periods of time and he is sure they didn’t leave for more than 45 mins.

5) There are many statements that show they really cared about the childcare arrangements prior to arriving (particularly MO) and JT I think.

6) For those of us that believe something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week then every night was ‘faked’ as being normal…hence the contrived ‘checking.


7) The waiter claims that a few times the meal had to be reheated…could that have been because the person that was watching the children was relieved and able to get to the table for the meal?

8) On a video there is undercover filming of Mrs Fenns hairdressers where they claim that the McCanns were at Chaplins…It doesnt make it true, but if they did go there after the tapas they would need someone watching the children. Whether we like them or not, I do believe they all loved their children and would not neglect them in any way.


9) When I write these neglect threads, I always get the feeling that if the McCanns see it they would ‘hate’ me…because once you take away neglect you are left with them being accountable for what REALLY happened to Madeleine, because she couldnt have been abducted while being watched so how would they explain her disappearance?


Even better…..How could they explain the truth about what happened to little Madeleine?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]






According to statements, Matthew Oldfield was in 5B on Sunday night and Rachael was there on Wednesday…

This apartment was so close to Apartment 5A that they could hear through the walls….

Tuesday, Russell O’Brien was in apartment 5D with only one apartment separating his apartment from the Oldfields and then the McCanns. (a few steps away if checked from the entrance to the apartments.)

The Paynes had a monitor but were only one floor above.

Quick and easy enough for someone, to keep an eye out for children rather than have everyone keep returning back from the tapas.

Tuesday night, Najoya the quiz mistress did not see Kate or David Payne between approx nine and ten pm so they may have been in the apartments.

Thursday there was only a few minutes during the evening when everyone was (supposedly) at the table.

An adult was very near to the children Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and probably Thursday…

Only Monday is unknown…it is not known if everyone was at the table on Monday, there may have been someone watching the children.

What are the chances that 9 adults would choose to leave their children alone and not ask the person that was close by to keep an eye on them?

Why would they claim they were ‘neglecting’ their children when, for the most part, there was someone close?

How could an abduction have happened if the children were being watched?

Who would have been targeted as irresponsible if they claimed the children were being watched and the ‘abduction’ happened during their time?


They HAD to claim the children were ‘neglected’ or the ‘plan’ wouldn’t have worked.

How could they have said they were watching the children (as I believe they were) and used an ‘abduction’ to explain why Madeleine was missing?

They have GAINED from the neglect issue also….

Each time that someone claims they were irresponsible and neglectful to their children, leaving them alone….it infers that Madeleine disappeared because she was left alone, and only supports the abduction theory IMO.

According to the files and the dogs, Madeleine died in the apartment and they had no alternative but to ‘suggest’ it happened while she was left alone, when it was very probable that she died for another reason and ‘abduction’ and ‘neglect’ was the ONLY way they could explain her disappearance, rather than the truth…which could have been that the children were being ‘relatively’ cared for by someone close by, she died (because of an unknown reason) and they had to hide the truth the only way they knew how….

Madeleine may not have died because she wasn’t being looked after…..

To suggest neglect, suggests she was vulnerable to an intruder…which is what they want everyone to believe.
I don’t believe it for one minute.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]




Last updated at 15:48 29 April 2008

Madeleine disappeared from a holiday apartment in the Algarve on May 3 last year
Madeleine McCann’s grandmother has attacked her own daughters’ decision to leave her three children alone in their holiday apartment on the night the three-year-old vanished.

Kate McCann’s mother, Susan Healy, admits she is totally astonished 
SEE MORE:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And that is why I'm glad the recent petition for them to be held accountable for child neglect failed.

The McCanns would have loved that - the lesser of two
(or more) evils.

Neglect = Abduction

No Neglect = No abduction

It really is that simple. 

The neglect issue could never be proven in a million years and they know it.  No danger there so keep plugging the neglect issue to bolster the abduction theory.

Cunning!

Verdi wrote:Neglect = Abduction

No Neglect = No abduction

It really is that simple. 

The neglect issue could never be proven in a million years and they know it.  No danger there so keep plugging the neglect issue to bolster the abduction theory.

Cunning!

There are more types of neglect though Verdi than leaving a child on it's own.

I think by Kate's own words she admitted to neglect.

She said that one night they went into the covered tapas bar area where they couldn't see their flat - she said they didn't check for 45 mins whilst in there.

Parents have had their children taken into care for less than that in the UK.

Not a peep from social services.

All within the bizarroworld bounds of responsible parenting.

" I know what happened wasn't because we left them sleeping , I know it happened under other circumstances " 

Maybe I'm reading this wrong , but to me this is Kate telling us there was no neglect 

Along with " I know more than you do " 

Of course she knows more than we do , but she Cannot tell us .

They started the " neglect " story and have to run with it , they can Never go back 

Gerry told Jez , Kate tells us it was written in the book for booking meals then left there for anyone to see 

I don't believe the children were left alone , but they Need us to believe it otherwise there can be no abduction !

sandancer wrote:" I know what happened wasn't because we left them sleeping , I know it happened under other circumstances " 

Maybe I'm reading this wrong , but to me this is Kate telling us there was no neglect 

Along with " I know more than you do " 

Of course she knows more than we do , but she Cannot tell us .

They started the " neglect " story and have to run with it , they can Never go back 

Gerry told Jez , Kate tells us it was written in the book for booking meals then left there for anyone to see 

I don't believe the children were left alone , but they Need us to believe it otherwise there can be no abduction !

We are fixated with neglect meaning leaving children alone. It doesn't it can mean many more things..... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If they had days to plan Madeleine's "abduction" (and help) surely they would have done so in another way which left them blameless, rather than admitting to neglect? Gerry could have hired a car, come back to the apartment and taken his family on a sight-seeing day out to a beach. If willing witnesses were needed some of the other T7 could have gone too to corroborate the story. Six year old Rene Hasee had already set a precedent. Voila! Madeleine becomes another child who vanishes inexplicably. The lurking paedophile story would have been much more credible in this instance, no blame attached to the distraught parents, still an excuse for the "Find Madeleine" fund to be needed. Why expose them ALL to censure for neglect?

Nina wrote:

sandancer wrote:" I know what happened wasn't because we left them sleeping , I know it happened under other circumstances " 

Maybe I'm reading this wrong , but to me this is Kate telling us there was no neglect 

Along with " I know more than you do " 

Of course she knows more than we do , but she Cannot tell us .

They started the " neglect " story and have to run with it , they can Never go back 

Gerry told Jez , Kate tells us it was written in the book for booking meals then left there for anyone to see 

I don't believe the children were left alone , but they Need us to believe it otherwise there can be no abduction !

We are fixated with neglect meaning leaving children alone. It doesn't it can mean many more things..... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I do understand that Nina , I have friends who grew up with abuse one of them thought it was normal to be thrown against walls on a regular basis she presumed it happened to everyone .
In this instance though we are are questioning were the children left alone or not , ie was there a form of neglect .

Phoebe wrote: Why expose them ALL to censure for neglect?

Neglect = Abduction

No neglect = No abduction.

It really is that simple.

Verdi wrote:

Phoebe wrote: Why expose them ALL to censure for neglect?

Neglect = Abduction

No neglect = No abduction.

It really is that simple.

That equation holds true for a plan to claim Madeleine was abducted from the apartment. My query is why did it have to be from the apartment? Even the McCanns admit the "window of opportunity" was incredibly narrow. The abduction story was made even more incredible by the fact that an abductor ignored the two younger children and took the risk of being spotted by the checkers, neighbours or a random passerby. There could have been a claim of abduction without neglect had she been "abducted" elsewhere. This would have avoided the need for any of the group to appear negligent. If the story had been that Madeleine had vanished on a day out I think few would have suspected their involvement. The "taken from her bed" claim was always flimsy and smacks of panicked necessity rather than a few days planning/help to come up with a solution.

There could have been a claim of abduction without neglect had she been "abducted" elsewhere. 

A much tougher story to try and keep straight in my opinion.

Danger of unexpected witnesses to the thing... details of who did what when... 

"We tucked them up in bed and went to dinner and she was gone" is simpler.

No one at the scene of the crime.

@ Blue Bag The "Snatched from her bed" proved very complicated and incredible. First they claim the doors were locked and they accessed through the locked front door - obviously to AVOID accusations of carelessness/ negligence. The apartment had been broken into, the shutters jemmied. Only when this failed did Gerry change his tune and say the patio door was open. Then came the daft "checking routine" which fell apart and raised suspicions at once. The window of opportunity was so small that Gerry even had to claim the abductor was hiding in the apartment during his visit! Then came the complicated stories of the angle the bedroom door was opened to. Next was the whooshing curtains, easily disproved. The abductor had to manage to leave behind no trace. Finally Jane had to invent a man carrying a child away, something which immediately raised police suspicions when a) Jez and Gerry failed to see him b) she described what she couldn't possibly have seen- pyjama colour and pattern details c) the child never awoke while being carried off by a stranger through the cold night air. Then imagine a disappearance from a lonely beach - "She ran up ahead of us to the dunes just out of sight, impatient to explore. We followed along but she had vanished, just like Rene did here a few years ago". No suspicions re neglect, sedation, no need to invent jemmied windows, unlocked patio doors, strange door angles or Tannerman. If Nuno Lourenco's story was part of a plan (as some think) his fingering of W. K. as a pervy man on a BEACH covertly photographing children would have fitted perfectly. No need for Tannerman or Smithman at all.

They obviously overestimated the credibility of their story, or underestimated the Portuguese police, or more likely both.

Phoebe wrote:@ Blue Bag The "Snatched from her bed" proved very complicated and incredible. 

Yes I know.

Still simpler than faking a snatch story on a day out.

Like I said, no one at the scene of the crime.

JRP wrote:They obviously overestimated the credibility of their story, or underestimated the Portuguese police, or more likely both.

They also had no idea, back then, of how social media would impact and the scrutiny they would be under.

This was unique at the time.  As far as I know it was the first case of its kind that exploded onto the social media scene, where forums created a new way for people to scrutinise every detail.

Blogs related to the case popped up everywhere and the forums provided links and detailed discussions not heard of in the Jon Benet case.

Videos to record every interview, every comment.

Once the facebook groups came into the picture six years later, in 2013, and started to gain strength with the ability to share the details with each post reaching an unbelievable amount of people, I believe this case became not only the major abduction story that it is but also unique in giving the general public the ability to have input into the investigation.

They could never have had any idea of that.  They likely felt they were dealing with 'Local 'plod' and a media that could be manipulated into publishing the 'abduction'. Once the public believed in the 'abduction' they likely thought they could walk away from this after a few weeks.

Little did they know.....

The problem I have is that I believe all of this was 'pre-meditated'.  Why else would GM say 'I am not here to enjoy myself' on the airport bus?  He knew something was going to happen?  We are being steered in to thinking that they neglected their children, and that there was an abduction.  The abduction that never was imo.  So many contradictions with statements and lack of DNA, plus statements from KM such as 'we bought 5 ice creams' to make us think there were 5 of them on the beach, when others say they did not see M there.  Why would you buy ice-creams for M when you knew she was 'going to the beach for ice-creams in the afternoon as a treat with the creche children'?  It seems an odd thing to do.  I do not believe she was there after the first day.  I think 'she' was whisked away at the end of Sunday (was Sunday change over day?) by someone not yet identified.  You cannot find someone if they are not there.  Was that why the McCanns did not search and left it to the villagers?  There would be no point going out in the cold and dark (their words) to search for someone who had already left the village would there?  I do not believe that 2 doctors would be so stupid as to allow their 3 children to use the same toothbrush.  Lots of things both of them say seem to me to be unbelievable.

Phoebe wrote:@ Blue Bag The "Snatched from her bed" proved very complicated and incredible. First they claim the doors were locked and they accessed through the locked front door - obviously to AVOID accusations of carelessness/ negligence. The apartment had been broken into, the shutters jemmied. Only when this failed did Gerry change his tune and say the patio door was open. Then came the daft "checking routine" which fell apart and raised suspicions at once. The window of opportunity was so small that Gerry even had to claim the abductor was hiding in the apartment during his visit! Then came the complicated stories of the angle the bedroom door was opened to. Next was the whooshing curtains, easily disproved. The abductor had to manage to leave behind no trace. Finally Jane had to invent a man carrying a child away, something which immediately raised police suspicions when a) Jez and Gerry failed to see him b) she described what she couldn't possibly have seen- pyjama colour and pattern details c) the child never awoke while being carried off by a stranger through the cold night air. Then imagine a disappearance from a lonely beach - "She ran up ahead of us to the dunes just out of sight, impatient to explore. We followed along but she had vanished, just like Rene did here a few years ago". No suspicions re neglect, sedation, no need to invent jemmied windows, unlocked patio doors, strange door angles or Tannerman. If Nuno Lourenco's story was part of a plan (as some think) his fingering of W. K. as a pervy man on a BEACH covertly photographing children would have fitted perfectly. No need for Tannerman or Smithman at all.

I get where you're coming from Phoebe, because that may sound slightly more hasslefree. The trouble is though, whatever option they choose, once they begin to lie, every last detail surely becomes scrutinised and picked over time and again in their head. I don't believe any option then becomes easier than another. I think they picked the option they did as perhaps, as was stated above, fewer potential witnesses, but also because it has another edge to it. The talking point of neglect. Another diversion if you will.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.'  Lies to back up other lies.  It is always the same when people lie.  People begin to see through it.

Curtains that didn't 'whoosh' because the shutters were not tampered with and the curtains were tucked in by the bed up against the wall.  One toothbrush amongst 3 children.  Not enough room for an intruder to climb through the window with a child in his arms, the window was too high up from the pavement, why would he do that when the front door next to the bedroom was unlocked?  No DNA so that G had to go back to UK to collect it!  I ask you.  There would have been DNA at the creche, the tennis club, the restaurant, on the colouring book....etc etc.  If M had been colouring in how could a father tear a page from the book where his missing daughter had coloured in her pictures...which means it wasn't her book perhaps?  If she had been sleeping in her pjs how come they could hold them up to the camera after she had gone?  How could cuddle cat have alerted K that M was missing when she saw it on the shelf above M's bed?  There was NO shelf!  Why were creche records altered?  When the police asked for photographs why did G send them black and white ones which did not show the faces of the children?  Why did K walk the long way round when she raised the alarm?    None of this makes sense to me unless they were all telling porkies..... the biggest mystery is why did their friends back them up and why did our Government send an Ambassador to get involved in what was a missing child case?  Why were there so many doctors, scientists, businessmen, Investment company reps at PDL when it was a 3rd class holiday resort that was out of season.  The weather was cold and the apartments were basic.  Last of all why has our Government continued to throw money at this case when there have been many, many other cases of missing children since this happened?

When we were at PDL 4 years earlier a lot of the apartments and shops were owned by South Africans.  No mention of that at all.  Perhaps ownership changed in those 4 years?  I know there were a lot of caves and tunnels, also wells around PDL.  Plenty of places to hide a little body if  need be.  The beach was quite close to the apartments these people stayed in.  Very handy to bring a boat in to shore and row on to the beach.  A big boat could easily have taken her back to UK before the alarm was raised.  Also why didn't the police here check on the people who travelled back to UK on the Saturday or Sunday before the alarm was raised?  She could have flown back with another family, and there is no point going looking for someone who was no longer there.....maybe that is why the Mcs decided to stay in the warm instead of going out in the cold and wet.  I cannot imagine any parent thinking like that when the whole village had turned out to search until dawn for a little girl who may have been suffering from hypothermia. Lovely people that did not know this little girl but had compassion. The police too had pulled out all the plugs to find her.  Airports and Ports were put on alert, there were road blocks and news bulletins.  They did every thing possible.  The Mcs waited until it was light! None of this makes sense.  It is a fairy story imo.  Mrs Mc walking about with cuddle cat hanging from her bag or in her hand did nothing to convince me when she revealed that she had washed it because it smelt.  If it had been Ms then you would want to keep her smell as long as possible wouldn't you?  Ribbons in her hair and pretty earings, perfect make-up, for a grieving panic stricken Mother?  It does not make sense.

An after thought:  Was the 'empty apartment' on the picture above ever searched by the police and the dogs?

I recall that the GNR dogs signalled at the door of the empty apartment but when it was opened, the odour they smelt was determined to be because of old foodstuff in the kitchen/fridge.
Please correct me if I’m wrong

'Old stuff' could be planted?

So, there have been no more new developments.  No more theories and no more sightings.  The questions are 'Why does our Government keep on sending more money to Portugal to carry on looking for a little girl who would now be a teenager?' 'why do they keep on showing the photograph of a toddler which is as much use as a chocolate candle?'  There have been many, many little children gone missing since Madeleine, but the McCanns got all the support and millions £s from our Government, plus all the attention of the media.  Why not the others?  'What is so special about this one case?'   The money spent on this case would have funded the salaries of more policemen in UK which are badly needed.  The last question is 'Why were the friends involved in this ready and willing to lie for this couple?'  I believe either that she was never in Portugal or that she was whisked away across the border in to Spain before the alarm was given.  That is why she was never found imo.