Goncalo Amaral,"Sick and bankrupt".

suzyjohnson wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:According to Exhibit KH1 (p,53) MW's evening creche was open from 7.30pm - 11pm which, presumaby, is the same hours as the Millenium and the Tapas restaurants.  

Thanks NFWTD also.

So, the McCann children were always in bed before 7.30 pm ?

(Enid O'Dowd wrote:In the book madeleine Kate explains that she did not use the Mark Warner evening crèche because it was not convenient given that it did not open until her children were settled in bed). 

According to GMcCs helpful blog getting the children settled in bed and sound asleep by 7.30 each evening didn't apply after the week's holiday.  The blog mentions T & SC's success in getting them settled early while the parents were absent, whereas if that were the norm it would not be noteworthy enough to mention.  That the children of the entire group went to sleep in line with the evening Tapas timetable seemed something of a minor miracle, but perhaps I underestimate the power of milk, biscuits, a song (with actions) and a story in getting an assortment of under fours sleeping to order.

Monty Heck wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:According to Exhibit KH1 (p,53) MW's evening creche was open from 7.30pm - 11pm which, presumaby, is the same hours as the Millenium and the Tapas restaurants.  

Thanks NFWTD also.

So, the McCann children were always in bed before 7.30 pm ?

(Enid O'Dowd wrote:In the book madeleine Kate explains that she did not use the Mark Warner evening crèche because it was not convenient given that it did not open until her children were settled in bed). 

According to GMcCs helpful blog getting the children settled in bed and sound asleep by 7.30 each evening didn't apply after the week's holiday.  The blog mentions T & SC's success in getting them settled early while the parents were absent, whereas if that were the norm it would not be noteworthy enough to mention.  That the children of the entire group went to sleep in line with the evening Tapas timetable seemed something of a minor miracle, but perhaps I underestimate the power of milk, biscuits, a song (with actions) and a story in getting an assortment of under fours sleeping to order.

tongue slightly in cheek there MH??

Monty Heck wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:According to Exhibit KH1 (p,53) MW's evening creche was open from 7.30pm - 11pm which, presumaby, is the same hours as the Millenium and the Tapas restaurants.  

Thanks NFWTD also.

So, the McCann children were always in bed before 7.30 pm ?

(Enid O'Dowd wrote:In the book madeleine Kate explains that she did not use the Mark Warner evening crèche because it was not convenient given that it did not open until her children were settled in bed). 

According to GMcCs helpful blog getting the children settled in bed and sound asleep by 7.30 each evening didn't apply after the week's holiday.  The blog mentions T & SC's success in getting them settled early while the parents were absent, whereas if that were the norm it would not be noteworthy enough to mention.  That the children of the entire group went to sleep in line with the evening Tapas timetable seemed something of a minor miracle, but perhaps I underestimate the power of milk, biscuits, a song (with actions) and a story in getting an assortment of under fours sleeping to order.

Milk with biscuits? Are you sure?   

It never worked for mine. So if anyone has this miracle formula, please post it. I would love to have it when there will ever be grandchildren.

sar wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:According to Exhibit KH1 (p,53) MW's evening creche was open from 7.30pm - 11pm which, presumaby, is the same hours as the Millenium and the Tapas restaurants.  

Thanks NFWTD also.

So, the McCann children were always in bed before 7.30 pm ?

(Enid O'Dowd wrote:In the book madeleine Kate explains that she did not use the Mark Warner evening crèche because it was not convenient given that it did not open until her children were settled in bed). 

According to GMcCs helpful blog getting the children settled in bed and sound asleep by 7.30 each evening didn't apply after the week's holiday.  The blog mentions T & SC's success in getting them settled early while the parents were absent, whereas if that were the norm it would not be noteworthy enough to mention.  That the children of the entire group went to sleep in line with the evening Tapas timetable seemed something of a minor miracle, but perhaps I underestimate the power of milk, biscuits, a song (with actions) and a story in getting an assortment of under fours sleeping to order.

tongue slightly in cheek there MH??

 

"If you're happy and you know it" ... clap your hands ... Yeah, that's the way to settle children down to sleep    or rather   

Newintown wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:I'd have been able to pick her out, STRAIGHT AWAY, the day after she 'disappeared' if i'd seen the last photo of her, by the pool, having 'seen her' about the resort, that week, but i wouldn't have been able to pick her out, from the much earlier 'cutesy' photo the McCanns gave out, the day after she 'disappeared'!

THAT 'girl' in the photo they gave out, just wasn't THERE, that week!

And no one, in PDL, would have 'seen' HER'!

No-one in PDL would have 'seen' that Madeleine and, more importantly, no-one would have seen Madeleine age c2 years old after the almost 4 year old Madeleine disappeared.  

I were of a cynical turn of mind I might suspect that, in choosing to issue an outdated photo of her rather than one taken that week, the McCanns didn't want their eldest daughter to be found, jeanm.

And they knew she wouldn't be found as they had made sure of that; but by issuing the "cutesy" photo they knew that it would bring £millions pouring into their "Fund", which it did.

Sorry to go back a few pages in the discussion but am just catching up.  If I recall correctly, the "cutesy" photo was released within the first day or two after the disappearance and can only have been selected for the purpose of raising public sympathy.  The image was selected to show M at her most appealing, a wide eyed angel, considerably younger than she actually was at the time but no matter, which seems strange because, as countless people have questioned since then, in an appeal to find a missing child the most up to date clear image would normally be paramount.  Yet in this case the most appealing, rather than the best image to aid recognition of the child was selected which is hard to believe can have been accidental.    

Having often wondered who was behind the release of this image to the media it would be interesting if anyone can enlighten.  It would be surprising indeed if the release was simply a random, lucky strike rather than the work of someone with PR or media connections.  It could almost be the embodiment of the type of sentiment expressed by the likes of Jon Corner, whose oddly inappropriate description M could almost be a description of the image itself.

Châtelaine wrote:"If you're happy and you know it" ... clap your hands ... Yeah, that's the way to settle children down to sleep    or rather   

or possibly even  

PeterMac wrote:

Gollum wrote:What an awful world we live in that children need to be protected in this way.

And on the internet are people who support the Cipriano child murderers, insisting it was a miscarriage of justice,
and who will not accept that Cipriano was NOT beaten up by the police, but by other inmates, and is serving an extra term of imprisonment for lying
And these are the very same ones who support the McCanns.

Incredible, but true.

I wonder if the Mccanns are entirely happy about the situation.  
They seem to have no "normal" supporters anywhere.
The ones who seem to have read some bits out of the files simply dismiss the entire thing as lies and a plot,
The others clearly have no idea about any of the details of the case - as with most reporters.

It seems to me a rather pointless exercise to persistently claim that the likes of Cipriano was beaten up by the police when there is absolutely no proof to substantiate the claim.  The woman was convicted of a heinous crime and thrown in prison where she belongs, who can blame inmates for rearranging her features a bit. 

What relevance has this to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann anyway?  Surely the average McCann apologist isn't thinking that Goncalo Amaral or his colleagues abducted her or gave Kate the well documented bruises?  I know it's said that the PJ (one named in particular) is responsible for the mental suffering of parents McCann but after all it was they who left their children unattended so surely it follows that they are responsible for their own suffering?

Monty Heck wrote:

Newintown wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:I'd have been able to pick her out, STRAIGHT AWAY, the day after she 'disappeared' if i'd seen the last photo of her, by the pool, having 'seen her' about the resort, that week, but i wouldn't have been able to pick her out, from the much earlier 'cutesy' photo the McCanns gave out, the day after she 'disappeared'!

THAT 'girl' in the photo they gave out, just wasn't THERE, that week!

And no one, in PDL, would have 'seen' HER'!

No-one in PDL would have 'seen' that Madeleine and, more importantly, no-one would have seen Madeleine age c2 years old after the almost 4 year old Madeleine disappeared.  

I were of a cynical turn of mind I might suspect that, in choosing to issue an outdated photo of her rather than one taken that week, the McCanns didn't want their eldest daughter to be found, jeanm.

And they knew she wouldn't be found as they had made sure of that; but by issuing the "cutesy" photo they knew that it would bring £millions pouring into their "Fund", which it did.

Sorry to go back a few pages in the discussion but am just catching up.  If I recall correctly, the "cutesy" photo was released within the first day or two after the disappearance and can only have been selected for the purpose of raising public sympathy.  The image was selected to show M at her most appealing, a wide eyed angel, considerably younger than she actually was at the time but no matter, which seems strange because, as countless people have questioned since then, in an appeal to find a missing child the most up to date clear image would normally be paramount.  Yet in this case the most appealing, rather than the best image to aid recognition of the child was selected which is hard to believe can have been accidental.    

Having often wondered who was behind the release of this image to the media it would be interesting if anyone can enlighten.  It would be surprising indeed if the release was simply a random, lucky strike rather than the work of someone with PR or media connections.  It could almost be the embodiment of the type of sentiment expressed by the likes of Jon Corner, whose oddly inappropriate description M could almost be a description of the image itself.

The updated version of an older Madeleine has been around for some time now......why is it not shown at every opportunity ?   because imo, the older Madeleine's face has lost that oh so  "cute" look and would no longer pull at the heart strings ? 

Imo,  if the Mccann's really want people to still keep a look out for their daughter then they should complain about the press hindering the search for their daughter by constantly using the younger images that no longer show how Madeleine would look now .

@ Gollum

No neglect = no abduction ...

Cristobell Today at 5:02 pm

Excellent observations for which I thank you.  It is indeed a very complex subject with so many variables to take it in different directions.  At the risk of getting my wrist slapped for going off topic, I think the first step in making any changes in the attitude of woman towards their place in society is for them to want to change.  From what I see of life a large percentage of woman seem quite happy to be viewed as nothing but a sex symbol or to follow the customary marriage/baby future. It saddens me to so many young woman burden themselves at a very young age with an undefined future, they plunge straight in by shacking up with Mr Wrong, producing babies without joint commitment, end up in debt all for the want of a little sagacity.

The situation is made worse by the change of attitude seen in older women, whereas in the past (other than big screen stars) women just accepted the ageing process gracefully, now they can be as obsessed with their personal appearance as so many youngsters seem to be.  Not decrying a woman's right to have pride in her appearance and/or wish to improve body bits in some way but I do think some go a bit OTT.  Sorry if I appear to be sexist, these days men can be just as vain about their appearance as women.

Sapping off your obvious wisdom, what do you think of people who turn a blind eye to their husband or wife or partner abusing their own child?  I have considered denial as a reason but still I can't even begin to understand or make any pretence at defending their position.

Mods please delete if I'm disrupting the thread.

@   Monty Heck Today 8:36 pm

Is the "cutesy" photograph the same one as on the cover of Kate's autobiography?  If so I don't see it as cute or portraying Maddie as inappropriately (my opinion) described by people other than her parents.  All in the eye of the beholder I guess but to me the image is a bit haunting, slightly surreal like not from this earth.  It's not a normal expression, it's as though either the child is disturbed in some way or the photograph has been manipulated for some obscure reason, maybe only to accentuate the eye defect but still the face lacks colour, expression, life.

Only my opinion.

Châtelaine wrote:@ Gollum

No neglect = no abduction ...

Hmmmm, indeed.

Gollum wrote:@   Monty Heck Today 8:36 pm

Is the "cutesy" photograph the same one as on the cover of Kate's autobiography?  If so I don't see it as cute or portraying Maddie as inappropriately (my opinion) described by people other than her parents.  All in the eye of the beholder I guess but to me the image is a bit haunting, slightly surreal like not from this earth.  It's not a normal expression, it's as though either the child is disturbed in some way or the photograph has been manipulated for some obscure reason, maybe only to accentuate the eye defect but still the face lacks colour, expression, life.

Only my opinion.

Yes, the one on the book cover is the same and there is a rather haunting quality about it.  My point was the prettiest/most appealing image was chosen rather than a true and up to date likeness which one would have thought important when publicising the disappearance of a child within a day or so of the event.  Also that the image fits so well with some of the slightly disturbing descriptions made of her, such as JC's 'so beautiful, astonishingly bright. She would shine out of a crowd' , where he seems almost to be describing that particular image, rather than the real child.  Those words don't fit so well alongside the images of a rather ordinary looking young girl (no disrespect whatever intended) released later, so it's almost as if a brand were being established rather than publicising a missing child, which seemed quite strange under the circumstances.

Point taken!  I agree with what you say but disregarding the principle of your point,  I'm still intrigued to know why such a vast range of different Maddie images from an earlier age has been publicised.  The children allegedly spent their days in the crèche and nights left alone in the apartment, outside of these periods, the parents surely spent some time with their children so why so few (if any) photographs of Maddie taken on the holiday?  As you say, an up to date photo is essential for the investigation so why didn't they produce one, or didn't they take any photos of their children?  The 'last photo' so widely discussed would have been perfect, why didn't that appear until three weeks after Maddie vanished?

Forgive me if I'm going over old ground,  I can't keep up with the many threads and posts.  Ignore me if I'm being a pain.

I hope Amaral delays the trial again on the 8th. It will wind up Mr and Mrs no end!

I'd rather that it goes ahead. Another delay will play into the hands of their demented followers and there'll be more headlines about "vile cop" and "grieving parents".

I'm sure Madeleine was a charming little girl. They all are at that age. The 'cutesy' photo which appears on the front of Kate's book makes her look extremely young and vulnerable, and for an almost four year old, just a little bit soppy/dopey because of the expression in the snap they chose. Am I the only one who thinks that? So many of the other pictures of Madeleine are sparkier and more full of character.

I also get fed up when journos refer to Madeleine as a 'toddler'. Toddlers are from the start of walking, around one year old, to at most two years old. New walkers, toddlers, walk that way, like a sailor newly on shore, or someone in need of a hip transplant, because they still have a bit of difficulty with balance, so they hold their legs wider apart than normal walkers. Also, they usually have the bulk of a nappy/diaper between their legs.

Before they pontificate on almost-four-year-olds and their capacities, such persons, if they have no children, grandchildren, nieces, familar local children, or similar, should attend any playgroup or nursery and see how forthright and full of information a child of Madeleine's age at the time of her disappearance is. Though it was a horribly inappropriate remark when she made it, I did understand what Kate meant about M giving her captors 'her tuppence worth'. That is what children of Madeleine's age do. They have minimal experience of the world, but they soak up information and ideas like sponges, and reassess them and give them back again in their own way.

by No Fate Worse Than De'Ath on Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:55 pm
I'd rather that it goes ahead. Another delay will play into the hands of their demented followers and there'll be more headlines about "vile cop" and "grieving parents".

If it goes ahead, there's the possibility that the McCanns win and have £1M to provide further funds for their defence if necessary. It would be in SY's (and ours!) interests that doesn't happen.

As it stands, a decision could be possible before the Summer break - again not in SY's best interest.

I wouldn't be surprised if the McCanns were prevented from travelling to Portugal next week.

comperedna wrote:I also get fed up when journos refer to Madeleine as a 'toddler'.

A toddler who could sing along and dance to the Pussycat dolls routines, could play tennis, could swim in icey water, could sail . .

Some toddler !

Also, Madeleine, at three, had read several Harry Potter books I believe! My six year old twin granddaughters are also avid readers, but their tastes run to fairies and witches etc. They are not ready for H Potter yet, and likely won't be till eight or nine, I'd guess. It's a maturity thing as much as a reading skill business. I must run a readabilty test on Harry Potter. I bet it needs a reading age well above nine.

A toddler 'who could sing along and dance to the Pussycat dolls routines'. It is just the 'toddler' bit that is so wrong. Oh... at three they can sing along to Mylie Cyrus, unfortunately, if the child minder is injudicious enough to allow them to watch her on the box. :-0 At two one of my granddaughters could do a full Michael Jackson song and dance routine.... one of his young boy delightful and suitable ones, I hasten to add. Think Shirley Temple. :-0

I find this whole business so sad... also for the McCanns sometimes, whatever happened, but obviously mostly for the missing child herself.

comperedna wrote:Also, Madeleine, at three, had read several Harry Potter books I believe! My six year old twin granddaughters are also avid readers, but their tastes run to fairies and witches etc. They are not ready for H Potter yet, and likely won't be till eight or nine, I'd guess. It's a maturity thing as much as a reading skill business. I must run a readabilty test on Harry Potter. I bet it needs a reading age well above nine.

MINIMUM recommended age is 8
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/lists/harry-potter-book-series

Some excerpts
“Not my daughter, you bitch!”
― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

“Why are they all staring?" demanded Albus as he and Rose craned around to look at the other students.
"Don’t let it worry you," said Ron. "It’s me. I’m extremely famous.”
― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

“There was a clatter as the basilisk fangs cascaded out of Hermione's arms. Running at Ron, she flung them around his neck and kissed him full on the mouth. Ron threw away the fangs and broomstick he was holding and responded with such enthusiasm that he lifted Hermione off her feet.
"Is this the moment?" Harry asked weakly, and when nothing happened except that Ron and Hermione gripped each other still more firmly and swayed on the spot, he raised his voice. "OI! There's a war going on here!"
Ron and Hermione broke apart, their arms still around each other.
"I know, mate," said Ron, who looked as though he had recently been hit on the back of the head with a Bludger, "so it's now or never, isn't it?"
"Never mind that, what about the Horcrux?" Harry shouted. "D'you think you could just --- just hold it in, until we've got the diadem?"
"Yeah --- right --- sorry ---" said Ron, and he and Hermione set about gathering up fangs, both pink in the face.”
― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

“How do you feel, Georgie?" whispered Mrs. Weasley.
George's fingers groped for the side of his head.
"Saintlike," he murmured.
"What's wrong with him?" croaked Fred, looking terrified. "Is his mind affected?"
"Saintlike," repeated George, opening his eyes and looking up at his brother. "You see...I'm HOLEY, Fred, geddit?”
― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

And there we have it all. Sex, swearing, violence, mocking religion, the occult . .

JUST RIGHT FOR A 3 YEAR OLD.
Surely this is yet more clear evidence of Child Abuse by the McCanns
Are we surprised he had a CATS number ?

And one more, just to round it all off.

“Does it hurt?" The childish question had escaped Madeleine's lips before she could stop it.
"Dying? Not at all," said Kate. "Quicker and easier than falling asleep.”
― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - (only slightly edited)

Gollum wrote:Cristobell Today at 5:02 pm

Excellent observations for which I thank you.  It is indeed a very complex subject with so many variables to take it in different directions.  At the risk of getting my wrist slapped for going off topic, I think the first step in making any changes in the attitude of woman towards their place in society is for them to want to change.  From what I see of life a large percentage of woman seem quite happy to be viewed as nothing but a sex symbol or to follow the customary marriage/baby future. It saddens me to so many young woman burden themselves at a very young age with an undefined future, they plunge straight in by shacking up with Mr Wrong, producing babies without joint commitment, end up in debt all for the want of a little sagacity.

The situation is made worse by the change of attitude seen in older women, whereas in the past (other than big screen stars) women just accepted the ageing process gracefully, now they can be as obsessed with their personal appearance as so many youngsters seem to be.  Not decrying a woman's right to have pride in her appearance and/or wish to improve body bits in some way but I do think some go a bit OTT.  Sorry if I appear to be sexist, these days men can be just as vain about their appearance as women.

Sapping off your obvious wisdom, what do you think of people who turn a blind eye to their husband or wife or partner abusing their own child?  I have considered denial as a reason but still I can't even begin to understand or make any pretence at defending their position.

Mods please delete if I'm disrupting the thread.

I do get on my feminis soapbox now and again Gollum, but it is nice to know someone reads and appreciates it!

I think turning a blind eye to abuse is unforgiveable.  A baby is totally dependent on its mother and/or primary carer - most mums thankfully, are instinctly protective towards their young.  Sadly however, many young women grow up with zero self esteem, their confidence is dependent on the attention they get from the opposite sex.  They can't be seen without make up, hair extensions and all the rest of the paraphernalia that they consider makes them whole.  Its actually very sad that they look at themselves that way, but it is an abomination that Society encourages it. 

Too many kids have no form of education in the home, I don't just mean in the form of books, but in the sense of socialisisation and interaction with adults.  I have taught in a couple of inner city colleges, and worked with kids who even at the age of 16+ have a very limited vocabulary, and have no idea how to express themselves - this leads to frustration, aggression, etc, its a vicious cycle. 
As 'Enry 'Iggins said, 'Why don't the English teach their children how to speak!'   

But those mothers, and it is mostly mothers, who cover up abuse, are probably from dysfunctional homes themselves, abuse may not be abnormal to them.  They may themselves be living in fear, they have almost certainly accepted their victimhood.  They don't have the confidence or the courage to escape.  Thats one side of it, the other I think is the rise in violence among young women.  They can be just as evil as the men.  Abuse is not just sexual, it can be physical violence, but just as hurful and damaging is constant berating, withdrawal of affection/attention and deliberate spite, something that many narcissistic mothers practice on a daily basis. 

I have long been tubthumping that parenting lessons should be part of the National Curriculum.  Due to the transitory nature of modern society, many young parents do not have their families close by, or at the other end of the scale they are too close by and bad parenting passes from generation to generation.  Call mme old fashioned, I don't care, but it makes me weep to see mothers taking their 3 and 4 year old daughers for spray tans, make up etc.  The bizarre image of Jonbenet Ramsey haunts me. 

But I'm not a dungeree wearing hater of glamour, far from it.  Getting dolled up is one of life's little pleasures, we all enjoy it, men as well as women.  Its when your very happiness depends on it, that it becomes a problem and the huge rise in cosmetic surgery industry suggests that for many it is.  I would even go so far as to say if you asked a class of 16 year old girls what their ambition is, the answer would probably be 'get bigger boobs and marry a footballer'.  

The best gift you can give a child is confidence. a confident child is far less likely to be abused, they will speak up.  The best way to give a child confidence is to listen to them, its that simple!  Value their achievements and their views and enncourage them to speak.  It amazes me that some mothers will pay hundreds of pounds for clothes and toys for their offspring, but they won't give them one hour of undivided attention. 




Ps. admin, also happy if this needs to he moved elsewhere.