NO- Never have, and never will
Yes- I gave at the beginning, but will not give again
Yes- I gave, and will continue to give until she is found
NO- I would, but I can't afford to
You have spent weeks here trying to discredit the obvious train of thought of the PJ officers in that the McCanns were suspected of being involved in some way, yet the moment that questions are raised on the UK review, then belief is acceptable.
I have even read it from a retired high ranking UK police officer that instinct and belief should be encouraged in that an experienced officer should be able to go on gut feeling and develop a case from there, but that this instinct is being forced out of the way of operating due to political pressures in the modern force (this was an officer speaking about the Tia Sharpe case in the UK).
So my point is in essence, you cannot argue against beliefs on the one hand yet then argue for it when it suits, it has to be an either/or situation.
Why do you constantly have to keep going over the same points, can we not move on from this?
The McCanns have been cleared of any involvement in an incomplete investigation, there was insufficient if any firm evidence to move the case on from where it was at that time.
The same goes for the abductor, no evidence whatsoever to prompt the PJ to continue down that avenue of investigation, shall we move on from there now?
the site is websleuths, it is for sleuthing.
Since lots of crimes go unsolved it stands to reason that people can be released without charge and have charges dropped if there is not enough evidence to have the charges stick in the court and still be suspects.
I do not mean that I am convinced that Madeleine was not abducted by a stranger. By no means. It totally makes sense. If she wasn't it was not for lack of trying because they did everything to facilitate an abduction. They left the children alone as an established nightly pattern of their holiday routine, they made it easy for several acquaintances and strangers to know about it, left doors unlocked and even let nearly two hours go by without checking on the kids.
It just totally goes against the grain for me to have these people presented as some kind of poster children for innocence personified and "cleared of all suspicions" and "not involved".
Of course they are involved in Madeleine's disappearance. You cannot endanger and neglect your children and then be "innocent", "not involved" or "not suspected of any wrong doing" when something bad happens to them as a consequence.
I bet if this was just some family of chavs on welfare without millionaire backing and PR backing who went on holiday and routinely left their three under four-year-olds alone in an unlocked apartment near car traffic and a pool to go have a few cold ones at a bar nearby and they came back two hours later to find that their kids didn't do so well alone they would have been treated differently.
I do not know why they weren't charged for child endangerment but I do believe that it's not legal in any civilized country. These people left their toddlers alone for a hour and a half, with no supervision. If we normalize this behavior as "legal" and talk about parents who do things like that like they did nothing wrong we are utterly failing all the children who will be subjected to such parenting (or lack of, more like) in the future and undoubtedly be hurt by it.
I too believe they should have been charged.
As it is, people now believe it is perfectly ok to leave small babies alone in a foreign hotel room because the McCanns did it.
They should at the very least have been charged with neglect to demonstrate clearly to them and every one else who thinks this way, that no, it was NOT OK.
Whether it was technically legal or not isn't the point as far as I am concerned.
the opportunity for any potential abduction would not have been there if they were not left in an open apartment.
The McCanns owe me nothing as an apology, they owe it to their daughter who they absolutely failed for their own personal choices, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people in this world if faced by the same outcome to such a massive error of parenting, would have been far more humble and ashamed of their behaviour that week.
To top it all, to then have the front to put themselves forward as ambassadors for missing children insults the very children that are indeed missing.
An ambassador should be someone who inspires others to do as he/she does or has done do i need to say any more?
All Kate McCann inspires in me is extreme disgust and anger...likewise her inappropriately smug husband.
Promoting the idea that leaving toddlers alone is reasonable parenting will make more children go missing.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz23N8YO8zCThe McCann's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said they were pleased the documents showed police had not abandoned the theory that Madeleine was abducted.
He added: 'If there is any suggestion of neglect charges being considered that will be vigorously denied because the legal advice that Kate and Gerry have received, both in Portugal and Britain, is that everything they did that week was well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.'
You can stamp your feet all you want, but what they did was and still is legal, both in the UK and Portugal. Why do you think nanny listening services have not been banned? And if missing people want Kate as their ambassador it is up to them, if you do not like it do not donate to missing people.
I do not believe that endangering the welfare of children is legal in any civilized country.
In the Uk and Portugal it is legal to leave sleeping children for half an hour whilst you are fifty metres away checking on them every half an hour. In fact you can be further thna fifty metres as nanny listening services have the nanny quiet far away whilst they are doing the other checks.
They did not check on them every half hour. The first time anybody checked was when Kate McCann reported her missing, and she said she was not planning on looking in on the kids either, if she hadn't thought something was amiss.
If they had been checking every half hour someone would either have been able to testify that Madeleine was safe and sound in her bed earlier or to sound an alarm to say she was missing.
Going to the door and not making sure the children are all right is not checking, it is lip service.
What is the maximum number of minutes and meters that you can legally be away from your children in Portugal or UK?
Usually the legislation just says something vague about endangering and neglecting the children's welfare, without saying "you can be 50 meters away from your kids if you pretend to check every 30 minutes" and children's safety is clearly endangered if you leave them without supervision for hours at a time.
Really, this forum is a sleuthing forum, if people are not interested in looking for clues then why bother being here?
I can only speak for myself here, I am not trying to frame anyone, I am simply interested in looking at the publicly available information that is freely available on the internet and trying to sensibly discuss thoughts on various aspects of the case.
From now on, I am not going to get into ping pong messages over the same points, if anybody wants to join me in having a constructive conversation, then please do.
As per the terms and conditions on websleuths, we know the boundaries and accept them willingly, lets get back to the clues and our thoughts on the case please?
According to reports they did check them. jeremy wilkins says he saw Gerry not long after nine and saw that he had come down from the path in fron of the flat. Matt oldfield says he checked the children, and then at ten Kate checked. No-one has ever contradicted this.
What are your clues you want to discuss (PM me again if you wish).
the problem with this being enshrined in law is fraught with the difficulties - when does a child stop being a child ? is it 12 ? is that a child . Should Ti's Sharpes parents be charged as they let her travel and be with Hazel - was that endangerting her welfare .
My 6 year old is playing in the garden outside - I do pop my head out now and again to make sure all is ok - but should I be charged with possible endangerment - kids walk to school go to the shops etc etc
I am a great believer in personal responsibilty - I hate it when I go to the pool and some jobsworth tells me that my daughter is too small to go down the slide - just becasuse she is small than average - but is actualy a great swimmer than most of the kids - - it should be my choice to choose and look after her
In this country we have a huge problem with people expecting goverment to do everything - cater for every need , have a view on every way we bring our kids up. say you cant do this cant do that - sure there has to be some laws or a line , but to have a law for every minutae - crazy
Listen what the Mccanns did can be debated till the cows come home - and people will never be swayed either way. This is the last I will post in this subject as it is going round in circles for 5 years and is pointless now this case is about murder/disposal or abduction. If there was child abuse then it should have been presented at the time - it wasnt - both police - the brits and portugese did not go down this road -
I am always suspicious of people who claim to have the highest of standards on everything especialy when it comes to bringing up children - I very rarely comment on other people child caring skills as if you look hard enough you can always find something - as in the old proverb better check the plank in your own eye before you coplain about the splinter in others
any way I am sure that views are entrenched and in some peoples eyes the Mccanns should be flung in jail for neglect , and have the twins taken .
Certainly not at the ages of 2 and 3 years.the problem with this being enshrined in law is fraught with the difficulties - when does a child stop being a child ?
we could then work from a timeframe, to do this we have to consider anyone is a suspect from the pool cleaner to the parents and eliminate everyone as we go?
I personally don't want to go through all the "Gerry said this" or "Amaral is a torturer" stuff, I want to see if its possible to truly eliminate people on verified reports, I don't think in truth it is possible but it's worth a shot
If Matt Oldfied had checked on the children at nine thirty pm or so then either the last time anybody outside the family saw Madeleine alive wouldn't be at 6.30 pm, or Madeleine would have been reported missing when he came back.
He and Gerry did not check, they just wandered nearby and went away because they heard no noise.
Checking on the children means making sure that the children are all right.
All they checked was the decibel levels.
There are reports that Madeleine was seen at the children's club high tea between five thirty and six. being cautious lets say five thirty was the last time she was seen by someone outside the tapas nine. This is confirmed by the staff there who had worked with Madeleine all week. We then know it would have taken a few minutes to get back in the flat - say five forty.
At six Gerry is confirmed as going to the tennis courts.
at six thirty David Payne claims to have gone to the flat and seen Madeleine and her siblings alive and well. He had been playing tennis with the other men and Gerry, so there are witnesses who can say he left the court in this time frame.
at seven thirty Gerry returns to the flat.
at eight thirty Kate and Gerry are seen at the tapas bar by other guests (not the tapas nine).
at not long after nine Gerry is seen by Jeremy wilkins (someone they met on holiday) coming down from the patio path, and spent several minutes talking to him. Gerry claims to have seen Madeleine sleeping in her bed.
at about half nine matt goes to check on the children accoridng to the tapas nine. He says he just listens so does not see madeleine. People can confirm he left the table, but obviously no-one can confirm he actually went into the flat.
at ten kate goes to the flat, and finds the window is open, and Madeleine gone. She noted that she realised the window was open because of the breeze, so we can presume that if there had been no breeze she might not have noticed. She also noticed the patio door was shut, and the two gates were latched. kate raises the alarm.
After ten when the alarm is raised the mccanns, their friends, and other guests and staff start alertign people. Someone goes to reception twice to call police. mark warner activate their missing child procedure.
When the police arrive they find no sign of madeleine, but a sniffer dog follows her trial to the car park (this should be double checked because I have seen conflicting reports).
Other people then report having seen a man acting suspiciously near to the flat, watching it, possibly having been near flat 5b, etc. in the days before the disappearence.
jane tanner says she left the table, walked past Gerry and Jeremy and saw a man carrying a child. She said the child was wearing pale, possibly pink, pyjamas. No-one has come forward to say this was him. Although no-one else can confirm her sighting, and Gerry and Jeremy say they did nto notice her, people can confirm that Jane left the table and went down to that road, so she had to have gone soemwhere, and my opinion is that Jeremy and Gerry just did not notice her because they were talking. That does happen.
A few weeks later the smith family report a similar sighting of a man with a child. None of the adults can confirm the child is madeleine, or rcognize the man. However a few weeks later the grandfather of the family says based on the movements he thinks it could eb Gerry, but was not certain, did nto have his glasses, and says he did not recognize the mans face, and is just going on movements. The PJ discoutn if being Gerry because other wittness say they saw him at the resort at the time (withnesses outside the tapas nine). It appears that Janes sighting had not been released at this time, and no-one has come forward to say the smith sighting was him.
Donjeta, yes it would have to be a visual sighting of a child who was alive and well at the time of sighting, not just a listening check
Because it is innocent before being proven guilty testimony to someones innocence cannot be thrown out because they are friends etc. For instance Murat's alibi is his mother, but that doe snot mean it is less reliable. can you imagine having to get someone completely independent to verify your alibi, most people I spend time with are close to me.
Brit1981 "There are reports that Madeleine was seen at the children's club high tea between five thirty and six. being cautious lets say five thirty was the last time she was seen by someone outside the tapas nine. This is confirmed by the staff there who had worked with Madeleine all week."
So we have a confirmed sighting by a third party and not the friends at 6pm.
Everything else after that is either the friends that holidayed together or the parents.
I will search for the Pj report confirming the holiday club and link it
As far as I am aware six might be a bit late, I would be cautious and go with five thirty. But yes as far as I am aware that is the last sighting of Madeleine by someone outside the tapas nine.
The other sightings are by the tapas nine, so I have tried to see if these could be lies, and see how it could add to the cover-up story. I think it is also important that not all of the tapas nien were good friends, some were just friends of friends. Not all knew kate and gerry that well at all, so we have to ask why would one lie for people they did not know that well.
Gerry was at the flat for a max of twenty minutes before he left for tennis. At half six he claims to have asked David 9who was already going back to the flats) to see if Kate as going to the play park. David backs this up, and other witnesses see David leave. Now if David is lying about seeing madeleine, why? Did those that say he left the tennis courts also lie, and would that not indicate Gerry knew something had happened, which meant it had happened in the twenty minutes before he left t play tennis, which in turn means his daughter died, and at most twenty minutes later he was off playing tennis! Or did david see something at the flat and in the very few minutes he was there agree to help stage a cover-up (but did not go and fetch gerry)
Jeremy says he saw Gerry, why would he lie he was not one of the tapas nine, he had only recently met Gerry.
Jane says she saw a man carrying a child? Ok we could say she had been convinced to lie to help the mccanns. But why say she saw jeremy and Gerry, when they did not see her. If it was important that she had seen gerry why woudl he not agree he saw her, and if it was not why nto say she left a couple of minutes after gerry got back and did not see anyone she knew there. And if she is lying and did not walk past Gerry and jeremy, where did she go as people saw her leave- are they all lying? Also the smith sighting is very similar, but the smiths did not know of janes sighting when they reported theirs.
Matt says he went to the flat, but did not see madeleine. How does this add to the cover-up?
I find it very far fetched that all those people conspired to cover up Madeliene's death. A husband and wife covering for each other is one thing, but a whole group of friends colluding with them...yeah, no.
Apparently they were comfortable letting him go in their flat with the kids alone but is Matt Oldfield a friend or a friend of a friend?
I think there are many questions as to statements and reports and feel these would be worth investigating.
If a "friend" approached me to ask me to cover up the death of one of their children, I am 100% sure I would ask him the circumstances, advise him to go to the Police and then say I would help in any way I could that was legally and morally the right way to help, I really cannot imagine anyone I know asking me to be honest.
The only way that there could be a consideration to get involved in some way, would possibly be if there was a serious threat to my family, but then we are getting in to the realms of the unknown and to be honest, thats not really going to get us anywhere