I must say I don't think any good parent would go abroad, or even stay in a hotel in the UK, no matter the reputation of low crime etc... in the area, and leave 'toddlers' unsupervised whilst they go drink cocktails.

It's not merely the risk of abduction that would be in mind, the risks are numerous if toddlers awaken in unfamiliar surroundings, who know what they might do in the panic search for their guardians,

They could have opened the door and come out, they could have walked out into a busy street, fallen or anything, not because they need 24/7 total 100% observation from their guardians but because they are in a strange place, not their own bedrooms at home, where they would feel safe and be able to call out or go down that familiar staircase to find their parents.
What we have here is a situation where they could have woken and gone looking and got lost, it's unbelievable that any parent would risk that when a child minding service was available, I can say for sure that there is no way I would leave a toddler alone in such circumstances, when we then hear that K McCann had been unwilling to answer police questions, police that were trying to help find the missing child it then becomes astounding that time is slipping away, the girl is missing and K. McCann wants to have her right to remain silent, if that's not a sign of at least guilt and at most guilty then what is?

I mean if my son/daughter or any family member went missing I would answer every question the police had and a thousand more, I would not be unwilling to comply, it's indefensible how they neglected their young children and then neglected to comply with the police thereafter.....

It stinks, no matter how much air freshener you want to use to try and make it smell more appealing, it's rotten, rancid, rank, it's not good parenting but then something happened, we know that K McCann changed her story from the window being open to the window being shut, it's like she was altering her story to fit the evidence as it emerged.

Happy days

Gilly wrote:
Wrong. The difference is I am sympathetic towards them and you have none. You would convict them of child neglect if you could, but I would not. You miss out where I have said I would not have left my offspring if we had been in the McCanns situation, so I am not defending what they did.

My offspring was three times Madeleine's age before being left alone in a hotel room alone whilst we were next door, so much closer than the McCanns were.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
What about a nine year old who knows that you are in the room next door? From the debates I have read on this issue, people who condemn the McCanns are unwilling to say what is the boundary between acceptable and not.

I also would not have done what they did. Where do you draw the boundary?

So would you would go against legal advice and answer all of the questions when the police are looking at incriminating you for your child's disappearance. The McCanns chose not to. Who is to say which is the right course of action and which is not?


The character assassination of the McCanns by certain people, when even after all the investigation that has happened there is no evidence to say they had any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance is frightening. I think they made an error of judgement leaving the kids alone because they were too young. I do not think it was an error because of the distance they were away from the apartment or where the apartment was. I am sympathetic to their plight and what happened. I hate to see people pilloried for making a mistake and to suffer accusations and innuendo based on no evidence. I am no supporter of the McCanns, I am just more sympathetic than others.

As a mother, I do feel there is no justification for leaving small children alone, for any amount of time, to go party. I have nothing against the McCanns, but I feel that their behaviour in this whole scenario is bizarre. I would answer all questions to get my child back in my arms which Kate refused to do. If specially trained cadaver dogs reacted the way they did in this case, i would be extra concerned on whether or not my child was still alive. Yet these two spend alot of time and energy raising funds.

Take a step back, there is so much to see here and nothing is getting solved because the people who know the most of what is going on are hardly being investigated. Rather they are being protected. The body language of these individuals (The McCanns) alone speaks for itself...

Barnfish wrote:

Gilly wrote: Barnfish wrote:
Which is what I said, so how do arrive at the conclusion it's wrong, exactly?

Except don't be telling me I've no sympathy, full stop. I've plenty of sympathy where I feel it's deserved. I've none for the McCann parents because, imo, they don't deserve any.

If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were innocent of any wrong-doing beyond child neglect, then I would have some sympathy for them, because it's mighty cruel to lose a child that way. But that still wouldn't exonerate them from neglect. They were guilty of that. And you're damned right I'd see them convicted for it if it was up to me. They should be held accountable, just like anyone else would be. As it happens, I'm far from convinced, from the evidence that's been made available, that that's all they are guilty of.
Barnfish wrote:
What makes you believe I missed anything? I can assure you, I didn't.

And yes, actually, you are defending them. Your many words in their defense are clearly posted above for anyone to read.
Barnfish wrote:
So?

She was 3 when snatched. Your child, according to you, was 6 when you initially painted that picture & asked for opinions. He's 9 a few posts later. Leave it half an hour, and he might have been 21.

6 year olds are children. 9 year olds are children. It's your moral and legal duty to do everything in you power to ensure the safety of your children.

You asked for opinions, so don't be surprised if someone opines that you shouldn't be out fricking drinking while your kids are alone.

Mountain wrote:
What is non bizarre behaviour in such circumstances?

Because she was advised by a lawyer as she was a suspect at the time. The questions asked then do not remain unanswered.

Blood dogs are not sufficient to prove anything, they are an indication due to unreliability. They raise funds to keep the investigation going, what is wrong with that?

I have taken a step back and look at the actual evidence, rather than spurious or unreliable so called evidence such as body language. They have been thoroughly investigated. The idea they are being protected is unevidenced.

@barnfish
You wrote ''
What about a nine year old who knows that you are in the room next door? From the debates I have read on this issue, people who condemn the McCanns are unwilling to say what is the boundary between acceptable and not'' <<< straw man.

What about a new born baby would you leave that alone and go drink cocktails <<<straw man...Where do you draw the line? Personally I draw the line at communicating with straw man arguments.

Leaving toddles alone in a hotel room is bad parenting, there will always be an argument 'where do you draw line' Idk exactly where, but somewhere way past the age of toddlers.

I don't agree that you should think about 'where to draw the line' when toddlers are in a hotel room alone is not at the boundary of good/bad parenting, that's well into bad parenting.

As for legal adivice, if I had done nothing wrong I'd tell the lawyer to fuck off and I'd answer as many of the police questions as it took, without thinking of my self self self self self.

As for the 'mistake' it's not a mistake, locking your keys in the house accidently is a mistake, leaving your toddlers alone in a hotel room, while you go out drinking cocktails, is not a mistake, it's neglect.

The fact that K McCann not only refused to answer questions, she kept changing her story, lets look at the questions that she refused to answer....

These are the questions:


1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)

3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?

5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?

6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?

7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.

8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?

9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?

10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?

11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?

12. Who contacted the authorities?

13. Who took place in the searches?

14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?

15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?

16. What does 'we let her down' mean?

17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?

18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?

19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?

20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?

21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?

22. Did you call Sky News?


23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?

24. Did you ask for a priest?


25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?


26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?


27. What was your behaviour that night?


28. Did you manage to sleep?


29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?


30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?


31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?


32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?


33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?


34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?


35. What is your medical specialty?


36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?


37. Did you work every day?


38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?


39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?


40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?


41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?


42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?


43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER


Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?


A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'


What a disgrace

OK, so the McCanns are a disgrace and dreadful parents who deserve no sympathy and to be punished. They did not behave as you Gilly or you Blue_Tracker would so they are wrong to have behaved as they did after the enquiry began.

What to do then about Madeleine?

Barnfish wrote:

There seems to be an issue with the media police in the UK.
For starters CrimeWatch UK done a reconstruction last year, where they called the event an abduction, however there is no proof of this against murder by the McCann's.
So they should have just termed M McC as 'missing' rather than siding with J & K McC with 'abduction' this my friend is a serious and overlooked issue.

Can I suggest you read this document.
It's constructed by Peter MacLeod
BSc LLB MA
Retired Police Superintendent
Nottinghamshire 1972 - 2000

jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7942-open-let...013-madeleine-mccann

Blue_Tackler wrote:
I read that a while back, it's a pity he is retired. Mind you he would probably be told to shut up too no doubt just like the so called latest enquiry which is just a complete bloody waste of tax payers money.

Is there any info showing how often between 6 and 10pm they checked on the kids?
All I've ever seen is 'they checked regularly'.
For all we know Madeline could've been gone before 6pm...

andyh wrote:
That is certainly a suspicion. The fact that Kate did not scream from the flat to the tapas bar, where she could easily have been heard, and preferred to walk quietly to the bar where she announced "We've let her down" to the assembled company suggests to some that she knew Maddie was not in the flat before she even went there.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Interesting letter. I agree it should be treated as a disappearance as opposed to it was an abduction or it was a covered up accident or it was a murder. Retired police superintendent Peter Mcleod has clearly decided the evidence points to it not being an abduction. To answer the topic title, I do not think it will end even if Madeleine is found, alive or dead.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
So you would draw the line with leaving kids the McCann children's age alone and so would I. We stepped over the line when our offspring was 9 in a circumstance where we were confident there was no risk. I am still not prepared to condemn the McCanns as how many British children disappear on holiday? I cannot find figures, but as of 2008 there were 145 open cases of people missing abroad of all ages

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8012485.stm

As for kids there are only two I can find, Ben Needham and Madeleine McCann. Considering how many people holiday abroad, the number in 2005 was 66.4 million trips abroad of which 31.2 million were package holidays, the chances of having a child disappear is blisteringly small. Accidents are obviously far more common, deaths by accident are rare. The best I can do for deaths abroad is this American study "The highest risk was as a result of an automobile accident (1 in 2,250,904) and the lowest risk was of execution (1 in 100,540,386). "

www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/risk/abroad.html

If it was an accident, why would the McCanns cover it up? I could see them covering up a murder, but murder their child? Occams razor tells us the most likely result is the one that has the least number of assumptions or deductions. That would tell us she was abducted.

Those questions were put to Kate McCann on 07/09. That was nearly four months after the disappearance. Many of the questions such as "Did you call Sky News?" has nothing to do with investigating a disappearance. She was asked a series of questions about matters that had already been dealt with during the search, hence the repeated phrase "did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?" and were now relevant to her being considered a suspect. She had answered the questions relevant to the search before. This was not her being obstructive to the search, it was her keeping silent based on legal advice when she was being treated as a suspect.

It could have been a botched cover up. There may have been reasons why they would not have wanted the body found and a post mortem carried out.............

It has relevance if she called sky news the same night for example.

As for blaming the McCanns for leaving kids that age alone, yes absolutely.
Same goes for any other parents who are stupid enough to do the same, unfortunately lots of parents still do.

As for drawing the line at what age to leave them alone, I'd say around 15 or 16 years old as a minimum. 9 is way off the mark, 3 is just plain f*cking stupid.

Barnfish. calling sky news could have changed the behaviour of any 'abductor' if there was an abductor to worry about, my belief is that parents would usually call the police and let them lead the investigation.

As for the rest of your points about 9yr old etc... it's got nothing to do with this case, we don't leave toddlers in hotel rooms and go drink cocktails.

What you do with your 9yr old is nothing to do with this case, I wish you'd stop procrastinating about off topic irrelevant information as a straw man argument distraction for the very suspicious behaviour of the McCann's, the blood samples, the cadaver dog, the blood hound, the change of story by K McCann, the fact she want to 'sky news' makes it look very fishy, as if there was no abductor because such behaviour might have motivated the abductor to harm the victim, if such an abductor existed.

If your going to repeat information about 'where is the line' or information about what you did when your child 'was 9 yrs old' don't bother, as your personal information about your own life experience and your own child, will not make any difference to the guilty looking McCann's.

btw I don't think the document that I posted on my last post was expecting CrimewatchUK to make a reconstruction about a murder, but only that possibilities of, abduction, accident followed by cover up, and outright murder were given equal priority, and the conclusions of the Portuguese were in the programme as well as the McCann's own versions, also the evidence of the two dogs Eddie & Keela.