The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
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.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Why were they in Portugal?

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 06.03.12 9:04

@Merrymo wrote:
@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 suing 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?
From Merrymo;
"The McCann have said that they will carry the guilt with them for the rest of their lives."
They have said they feel 'guilt at not being there the 'moment' she was 'taken'' which is a nonsense statement,as had they been there she could not have been abducted. Indeed, what they have said reads more like someone guilty over missing a family member passing away!
I think what Miraflores is getting at is that the McCanns have never publicly said 'We were wrong to leave our toddlers alone. We'll have to live with that. Please, PLEASE if you have toddlers DO NOT EVER leave them alone'. They are still insisting what they did was fine and 'like dining in your garden'.
Well, dunno about anyone else here, but my garden isn't bisected by a swimming pool and a public right of way! Kate has tried to blame the receptionist leaving out the book, ANYONE in fact other than themselves.
And NO, I don't think most innocent parents of a missing child would much care what the papers were writing, their only focus would be FINDING THE CHILD. Not meeting the Pope, not dining with Clement Freud.
In my book, their litigious nature belies their guilty consciences.

____________________
"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.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Guest on 06.03.12 9:32

@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.

Baggy eyes :

Puffy eyes are a common symptom of allergy, infection, inflammation, or even physical irritation. Puffy eyes result from excess fluid (edema) in the soft tissues surrounding the eyes. Puffy eyes may occur in conditions affecting the eye area itself or in association with more generalized conditions, such as colds or hay fever.

Inflammation of the surface of the eye (conjunctivitis) and inflammation of the eyelids (blepharitis) are common causes of puffy eyes. Other common causes include crying, lack of sleep, or excessive rubbing of the eyes. Depending on the cause, one or both eyes may be puffy, and the puffiness may be accompanied by redness, pain, itching, excessive tear production, or other types of discharge from the affected eyes.
Allergic reactions can lead to puffiness of both eyes, sometimes accompanied by swelling of the whole face in severe cases such as anaphylactic reactions. In rare cases, puffy eyes are a symptom of serious infections of the soft tissues around or behind the eye, such as orbital cellulitis. The thyroid condition known as Graves’ disease may be accompanied by swelling of the conjunctiva in addition to bulging eyes (proptosis). Injuries or trauma to the eyes, including corneal abrasions, orbital bone fracture, and foreign bodies in the eye, can all cause puffy eyes.
Puffy eyes may bea sign of a serious condition.Seek immediate medical care (call 911) if you experience puffy eyes along with facial swelling, difficulty breathing, or fever. Other symptoms that require immediate medical care include puffy eyes along with eye pain, fever, chills, pus, or redness around the eye. These are symptoms of orbital cellulitis. Untreated, they can rapidly lead to serious complications such as meningitis or a blood infection.
Seek prompt medical careif your puffy eyes are persistent or cause you concern.

http://www.bettermedicine.com/article/puffy-eyes

more here

http://www.livestrong.com/article/231717-how-to-get-rid-of-bags-under-your-eyes-for-kids/
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Merrymo on 06.03.12 11:18

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@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.
[i][u]Hope that is clearer now?
[/u][/i]

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.

Sorry - is that my fault? I haven't got used to 'workings' of this forum yet. (only just found the 'font colour' section ) I was trying not to end up with metre long posts. I'll take more care in future. Apols once again for causing confusion.

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 tigger on 06.03.12 13:42

Merrymo wrote:

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.


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.
unquote

I don't agree with the comparison of a car journey.
a) an accident is usually out of your hands - you do not 'decide' to put them in a dangerous situation.
b) you are there, with them. By law you will have them in safety seats. In other words, you've done all you can to make them safe.

The number of children who die in accidents in the home, even when the parents are in the next room - I agree. But then it should be obvious to doctors who actually deal with the results of accidents in the home, to take the greatest care with their children. They are out of your sight in a split second.
Doctors are far more protective of their children than non medics. This is a fact.
So the excuse that they listened and checked isn't good enough. Most of us don't believe anyone neglected their children. All the Tapas friends said they did the same, but there's very good evidence (the PJ has it ) that all the children were supervised in one apartment. Every evening one person wasn't at the table - that was the babysitter.
In addition David Payne had a baby monitor - no none of them were taking any chances.
The twins were very likely part of the babysitting group. But Maddie very probably not.

You are the nicest pro McCann I've met. You don't insult us, you don't swear - you may have no idea how abusive some pros can be.
Even with many of 'us' the pro Maddies, because this is all about Maddie, sometimes come up with ways to exonerate the parents. I think it's because they cannot imagine anyone doing any harm to their own child. Personally, I don't think they threw her against the wall and then let her die. It may well have been an accident initially, it explains the blood and the cadaver odour close together.

But there was a cover-up without a doubt, and not a very good one, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
What concerns me most is the immediate and efficient help they got from the government. That doesn't smell good. It's never happened before or since. Evidence has disappeared, British police forces didn't send information the PJ needed. The ambassador himself turned up on the morning of the 4th. Believe me, that's not normal.



____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Shhh on 06.03.12 18:09

Merrymo quoted me wrongly. I didn't say any thing other than my original posts.

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 Smokeandmirrors on 06.03.12 22:09

Rainbow Fairy and MerryMo - no worries re confusion, my reply was merely sarcasm which is generally regarded as the lowest form of wit ooops but I knew who had put what.


____________________
The truth will out.
avatar
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why were they in Portugal?

Post by Merrymo on 07.03.12 0:12

@tigger wrote:Merrymo wrote:

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.


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.
unquote

I don't agree with the comparison of a car journey.
a) an accident is usually out of your hands - you do not 'decide' to put them in a dangerous situation.
b) you are there, with them. By law you will have them in safety seats. In other words, you've done all you can to make them safe.

The number of children who die in accidents in the home, even when the parents are in the next room - I agree. But then it should be obvious to doctors who actually deal with the results of accidents in the home, to take the greatest care with their children. They are out of your sight in a split second.
Doctors are far more protective of their children than non medics. This is a fact.
So the excuse that they listened and checked isn't good enough. Most of us don't believe anyone neglected their children. All the Tapas friends said they did the same, but there's very good evidence (the PJ has it ) that all the children were supervised in one apartment. Every evening one person wasn't at the table - that was the babysitter.
In addition David Payne had a baby monitor - no none of them were taking any chances.
The twins were very likely part of the babysitting group. But Maddie very probably not.

You are the nicest pro McCann I've met. You don't insult us, you don't swear - you may have no idea how abusive some pros can be.
Even with many of 'us' the pro Maddies, because this is all about Maddie, sometimes come up with ways to exonerate the parents. I think it's because they cannot imagine anyone doing any harm to their own child. Personally, I don't think they threw her against the wall and then let her die. It may well have been an accident initially, it explains the blood and the cadaver odour close together.

But there was a cover-up without a doubt, and not a very good one, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
What concerns me most is the immediate and efficient help they got from the government. That doesn't smell good. It's never happened before or since. Evidence has disappeared, British police forces didn't send information the PJ needed. The ambassador himself turned up on the morning of the 4th. Believe me, that's not normal.



I did write a long reply to your post tigger -but it seems to have disappeared into the ether. Maybe it will turn up later - as there was no clue given as to why it didn't post. I will have another go in the morning if it doesn't arrive in the meantime.

Goodnight all.

Merrymo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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