New Girl Kidnapped In Spain/portugal

[april4sky]

So many people want to say that the fact that the McCanns left their children alone and in a resort room with an unlocked door, has nothing to do/should not influence how anyone views the disappearance of one of those children.

This is not logical.

Maybe they didn't, but the fact that they did make that decision, and made it repeatedly, cannot be excluded from any discussion about their possible involvement in the case. They showed extremely poor judgment, especially when you consider their education and background.

Is it logical to assume that they suddenly gained good judgment in the face of a crisis? No, it is not.

I actually don't think the McCanns should face child endangerment charges, if they were not involved in the disappearance. The loss of their child is--if they were not involved--consequence enough. On the other hand, since they continue to defend their decision, and refuse to openly condemn the idea of "babywatching" via random listening checks at closed doors (babywatching this way, being very much an oxymoron) I'm not so sure that a legal consequence might not be appropriate just in terms of a wake-up call as to what is appropriate for parenting responsibilities.

As well, I'm open to believing that the McCanns weren't involved, but for me, it's a simple tally column. So far, the "McCanns had some involvement" column has more marks than the "Not involved" column. I really, really want to believe that the parents weren't involved. But wanting, and wishing, doesn't make anything happen.

If it did, Madeleine McCann would be just another preschooler asleep right now, in her bedroom at home.

Texana while I agree with you that the McCanns used poor judgement I don't believe they have "defended," only tried to "explain" their babylistening decision, and "why" it felt safe to them.

The babylistening service has been and still is widespread in Europe as well as the UK....I wish it wasn't. And I don't think it's an offence under these circumstances otherwise Hotels and holiday resorts wouldn't be allowed to continue to offer it. A lot of people would have to be charged. This is why I highlighted the above as I think it's also why some of us can separate having left the children alone from their child then being kidnapped. While others are ready to believe it must mean they are capable of murdering their own child.

To me there is a world of difference.

While I don't know if they are involved I still haven't seen anything that makes me think they killed Madeleine, either accidently or otherwise.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Hiya Thought! Fair Judgement, no problems with that. Being stuck and not listening to any thing else, evidence, ideas, theories, speculation or otherwise, to me is not good. You can lean to a side heavily on what you have so far, but to close your mind off to other potential ideas until you know, isn't it supposed to be, beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't help find the truth.

Do you believe the evidence put forth proves beyond a reasonable doubt one way or another at this time? (ETA< shouldn't say 1 way or another, I should say, to anyone or any for sure scenario)

I am seriously curious, cause I don't follow this case as I would like and I have jumped in here for the first time in a while and am CLUELESS :blushing:

Well, they've never released the actual evidence from the car that had DNA in it, so I'm reserving judgment in case they ever do. The McCanns have never agreed to answer all the questions from the police either.

But the statements from their friend Jane Tanner about seeing a man carrying Maddie away from the scene have changed three or four times, and that tells me that maybe the friends involved are not quite telling the truth.

I've also seen the body language of the parents in video interviews they've done, and I feel as if they are not telling the truth. That is subjective on my part, I admit, but we know people who look nice and speak well can still be liars or spin things their own way.

There are still plenty of things that raise questions, or I wouldn't still be here talking about this case.

 

[Texana]

I would say that they defended their decision by saying things like "it felt so safe" and I believe Gerry said that if they had to do it over again they would do the same thing. If I had to characterize them, I would say that Kate seems to be more open to admitting that it was poor judgment, but Gerry comes across as truculent and almost hostile in his defense of his actions.

In one interview, Kate said she was comforted by many other mothers admitting that "they had done exactly as she did" and that was very comforting to her.

At no point did she, or Gerry, ever follow up those statements "But now we know that the whole babywatching "system" is unsafe. If even one child--our precious child--is taken, then we cannot risk another child."

I can understand that they were seeking to explain their decision (justify would be another appropriate word) by saying that it felt safe. However, as physicians, they also knew that no matter how safe it "felt" to leave the children alone, the statistics of children injuring themselves when left alone far outweighs any "feelings."

Even so, if the McCanns were to publicly speak out against "babywatching" in a "We thought it was safe, we paid for that with the loss of our child, please, stop this practice now" it would be such a powerful force. Even if the hotels and resorts continued to offer the practice, many parents would heed the warning and stop participating.

If even one child disappears because a pedophile is watching, isn't it worth saying publicly that the practice needs to stop?

 

[april4sky]

I would say that they defended their decision by saying things like "it felt so safe" and I believe Gerry said that if they had to do it over again they would do the same thing. If I had to characterize them, I would say that Kate seems to be more open to admitting that it was poor judgment, but Gerry comes across as truculent and almost hostile in his defense of his actions.

In one interview, Kate said she was comforted by many other mothers admitting that "they had done exactly as she did" and that was very comforting to her.

At no point did she, or Gerry, ever follow up those statements "But now we know that the whole babywatching "system" is unsafe. If even one child--our precious child--is taken, then we cannot risk another child."

I can understand that they were seeking to explain their decision (justify would be another appropriate word) by saying that it felt safe. However, as physicians, they also knew that no matter how safe it "felt" to leave the children alone, the statistics of children injuring themselves when left alone far outweighs any "feelings."

Even so, if the McCanns were to publicly speak out against "babywatching" in a "We thought it was safe, we paid for that with the loss of our child, please, stop this practice now" it would be such a powerful force. Even if the hotels and resorts continued to offer the practice, many parents would heed the warning and stop participating.

If even one child disappears because a pedophile is watching, isn't it worth saying publicly that the practice needs to stop?

Texana we will have to agree to disagree on the words explain/justify.

I have never heard Gerry say if he had to do it over he would do the same thing. I don't believe it, Madeleine being taken was the cruelist of wake up calls.
It sounds to me more like the sort of cruel quote put out there by a blogger as part of his/her cruel game. I would have to see where it came from.

I don't know, they may have said something already about the babylistening service still offered.
I do agree with you that it would be helpful if they put their name to an appeal for it to be stopped. If they haven't already, hopefully they will soon.

If Madeleine was kidnapped, which at this point I believe, then her parents must be suffering dreadfully. I doubt whether any of us suffering this kind of trauma would get everything right, or meet everyones expectations.

 

[gord]

So many people want to say that the fact that the McCanns left their children alone and in a resort room with an unlocked door, has nothing to do/should not influence how anyone views the disappearance of one of those children.

This is not logical.

If they could leave those children alone and make that decision without any other factors pressuring them at the time, who knows what decisions they could make if they felt themselves under pressure from factors such as the threat of losing their other children, loss of medical licenses/livelihood, etc.

Maybe they didn't, but the fact that they did make that decision, and made it repeatedly, cannot be excluded from any discussion about their possible involvement in the case. They showed extremely poor judgment, especially when you consider their education and background.

Is it logical to assume that they suddenly gained good judgment in the face of a crisis? No, it is not.

I actually don't think the McCanns should face child endangerment charges, if they were not involved in the disappearance. The loss of their child is--if they were not involved--consequence enough. On the other hand, since they continue to defend their decision, and refuse to openly condemn the idea of "babywatching" via random listening checks at closed doors (babywatching this way, being very much an oxymoron) I'm not so sure that a legal consequence might not be appropriate just in terms of a wake-up call as to what is appropriate for parenting responsibilities.

As well, I'm open to believing that the McCanns weren't involved, but for me, it's a simple tally column. So far, the "McCanns had some involvement" column has more marks than the "Not involved" column. I really, really want to believe that the parents weren't involved. But wanting, and wishing, doesn't make anything happen.

If it did, Madeleine McCann would be just another preschooler asleep right now, in her bedroom at home.

well we seem to have come full circle - this is the very same discussion we were having when I joined this forum back in the summer

my view hasnt changed much - and I see neither has yours Texana .

to me the fact they left the kids as they did had little to do with proving anything apart from they left them as they did .

It didnt tell me where Maddy was , it didnt tell me how she dissapeared , it didnt tell me how she was killed ( if she was ) It certainly didnt tell me anything about how the mccaans were involved , how the Tapas 9 were involved , who did what etc etc - it told me very little

but here we are once again months later looking at this subject -

Tex - your say that the fact that they left the kids as they did should influence how we look at the Mccaans - to me I believe the exact opposite . I wanted to look at the case without the immediate bias - due to their babysitting choices - I wanted to see motive , I wanted to see evidence on how they did , and why they did it I wanted to see the body and a damming forensics case leading to a fair and open trial

To date I have seen none of that - nada , rien . I have seen hundreds of theories , lots of what ifs , and a ton of assumptions , false trails , headlines , from spinal fluid to 100% DNA to embalming fluid and graves in churchyards and more - I havent seen a single piece of hard evidence from the PJ , I havent seen a statement from the Judge or the legal authorities that tells me what is going on .

we are sitting here 10 months on back at the beginning - .

Personally I think the PJ has known for months that they had no evidence that proved what happened to maddy either from parental involvement to abduction - they just dont know

That was always the thing with this case - both theories were pretty hard to go with - both didnt seem well plausible - but Maddy is gone so something must have happened . To me the chance of a very swift abduction by person / persons uknown and then a fast car out of the area has always been the more plausible , the more likely - but I dont know of course and sadly it seems neither do the authorities

well we live in hope - maybe tomorrow will bring another surprise , another twist - but I doubt it .

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

Texana while I agree with you that the McCanns used poor judgement I don't believe they have "defended," only tried to "explain" their babylistening decision, and "why" it felt safe to them.

The babylistening service has been and still is widespread in Europe as well as the UK....I wish it wasn't. And I don't think it's an offence under these circumstances otherwise Hotels and holiday resorts wouldn't be allowed to continue to offer it. A lot of people would have to be charged. This is why I highlighted the above as I think it's also why some of us can separate having left the children alone from their child then being kidnapped. While others are ready to believe it must mean they are capable of murdering their own child.

To me there is a world of difference.

While I don't know if they are involved I still haven't seen anything that makes me think they killed Madeleine, either accidently or otherwise.

Here lies the problem, in your quote in which I have highlighted. The fact is, the McCanns did NOT use the baby listening service offered to them by the resort. It was available...they admitted publicly they did not use it. So your point is moot. If you want to believe the McCanns and friends, were falling all over themselves each night checking babies, that is great...but there have also been statements by the Tapas staff that no one got up to check on the children except near the end of their meal on that particular night. So who is telling the truth? If they had been using the babylistening service, this probably never would have happened...no child was abuducted that did use the service.

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

I agree with Gord that we have done a whole circle on this board, and back to the "Children left alone" saga...which the McCanns supporters do not like to talk about, and tend to express anger when it is brought up because "it's not against the law in the UK". Most people on this board who have issues with that concept are American. In the USA leaving your kids alone like they did is a sure ticket to a social services/law enforcement/public hated nightmare. Besides that it is common sence.

It is a cultural difference and is not tolerated in the US. Maybe I'm not as angry at the MCCanns as I am their ignorance.

 

[gord]

I agree with Gord that we have done a whole circle on this board, and back to the "Children left alone" saga...which the McCanns supporters do not like to talk about, and tend to express anger when it is brought up because "it's not against the law in the UK". Most people on this board who have issues with that concept are American. In the USA leaving your kids alone like they did is a sure ticket to a social services/law enforcement/public hated nightmare. Besides that it is common sence.

It is a cultural difference and is not tolerated in the US. Maybe I'm not as angry at the MCCanns as I am their ignorance.

I dont mind talking about it - it just seems to be a converstaion that in the end goes nowhere - it doesnt help me understand what happened , All it tells me that they made a very stupid choice that night on their child care plans - not so much from fear of abduction , but just like most people I wouldnt leave a two year old alone like that - even if there were regular checks

so we move on ( or at least I try ) look at everything else - what , why where when etc .

the law is fairly unclear - it is not against the law to leave your kids alone per say - but it is to place them in an unsafe enviroment where they were at risk .

amy child neglect charges would have to deal with that and these topics .

 

[colomom]

From Li on the 3Arguidos, reposted with permission:

..............


24 Horas 18/2/2008

There are two articles, the first article is a reproduction of the article of the Spanish press of 17/2/2008 saying that the parents of Mari Luz do not want the posters with the image of Madeleine McCann and Mari Luz side by side and that they are presenting a complaint to the Embassy and that they will go to court to the defend the image of their daughter. This was posted in another thread.

Second article

McCanns spokesman regrets the reaction of Juan Cort&#233;s and says that the couple only wanted to help

"Is shameful that Mari Luz's father presents complaints"

It is "surprising and shameful that Mari Luz's father presents complaints about us in a press release". This was the reaction of Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCanns when he was informed by the 24 Horas that the father of Juan Cort&#233;s does not authorise the distribution of the 18 thousand posters with the images of Maddie and the Spanish girl in Spain and Portugal.
"We regret the confusion. We only wanted to help Mari Luz's family and honestly we thought we had permission from the girl's father to this joint campaign", said Clarence Mitchell. The problem is that the 18 thousand posters were already sent by post, last Thursday to Spain. "Our only hope is that the owners of schools, restaurants and other public places are aware of the reaction of Mr. Juan Cort&#233;s and do not display the posters", said the spokesman of Kate and Gerry McCann.
"As I explained to you newspaper last Saturday, we did believe to have the permission of the Cort&#233;s family. Few days after the disappearance of Mari Luz, a Kate's friend that speaks Spanish contacted the father of the Spanish girl and told him about the intention of the McCanns in printing a poster of both children. At that time Mari Luz's father said he would appreciate everything that the McCanns could do". Clarence Mitchell will now talk with Kate and Gerry about the situation and also with the volunteers that cooperated in the poster campaign. "How can someone be furious with another person for wanting to help to find the daughter?", said and outraged Mitchell.

http://24horasnewspaper.com/total.php?numero=2769&link=11

 

[capricorn]

Here lies the problem, in your quote in which I have highlighted. The fact is, the McCanns did NOT use the baby listening service offered to them by the resort. It was available...they admitted publicly they did not use it. So your point is moot. If you want to believe the McCanns and friends, were falling all over themselves each night checking babies, that is great...but there have also been statements by the Tapas staff that no one got up to check on the children except near the end of their meal on that particular night. So who is telling the truth? If they had been using the babylistening service, this probably never would have happened...no child was abuducted that did use the service.

The bably listening service was NOT offered to them by the resort, as the facility is too spread out for that service. They could have either used the creche in the evenings, or hire a babysitter to come to their apartment.

The fact that they made the decision they made calls into question Kate's announcement that she's giving up her medical career to work on children's issues. How in the world will she have credibility?

 

[colomom]

I think Gord was alluding to the McCann's version of a baby listening service that they had set up among themselves. Their visits to the apartments to listen in and make sure there was no noise.

You are correct capricorn about the services offered.

What always concerned me was the rumors that a in-apartment sitter had been reserved for the evening of the 3rd but was then cancelled between the time the children were picked up from the creche and the dinner at the Tapas.

(it is mentioned a few times here on this blog: http://justiceformaddie.blogspot.com/search?q=cancelled+sitter, which, admittedly, is not a signed, sworn statement but....it is what it is)

 

[colomom]

http://tinyurl.com/ywwwsu

Madeleine McCann's grandmother today said the family's torment was like "being crucified day to day".

Susan Healey, 62, pleaded with people to stop criticising her family and launched a scathing attack on the press.

Mrs Healey, mother of Madeleine's 39-year-old mum Kate, also reiterated the Rothley family's fundamental need to know what happened to the youngster in May last year, when she vanished while on holiday in Praia da Luz.

She spoke as Kate and surgeon husband Gerry continued to be "arguidos", official suspects, despite Portugal's top policeman saying two weeks ago that their arrest was hasty.

Mrs Healey said: "It is almost like being crucified day to day.

<continues>

Crucified?!?! Like being nailed by the hands and feet to a cross and left out in the hot sun until your skin blisters and then you die???

I think being able to wake up each day and see the smiling faces of your children, go to the beauty parlor and have your hair and nails done, walk in the park, go out to dinner, play golf, attend a sporting event and enjoy your "lovely house" is a far cry from being crucified.

As long as they are arguidos Mrs. Healey, they will be criticized. That is human nature and that will not change, no matter how much it distresses you. So, maybe you should stop reading the forums, blogs and tabloids.....

 

[april4sky]

Here lies the problem, in your quote in which I have highlighted. The fact is, the McCanns did NOT use the baby listening service offered to them by the resort. It was available...they admitted publicly they did not use it. So your point is moot. If you want to believe the McCanns and friends, were falling all over themselves each night checking babies, that is great...but there have also been statements by the Tapas staff that no one got up to check on the children except near the end of their meal on that particular night. So who is telling the truth? If they had been using the babylistening service, this probably never would have happened...no child was abuducted that did use the service.

My point was the babylistening service is widely used in Europe and the UK, even at other Mark Warner resorts. And this is probably why they felt safe in arranging to do there own babylistening. None of us know what is in the statements given to the police. Bloggers have done a good job in muddying the waters. A lot of which has and is still being repeated here.

 

[Texana]

Once again, Mrs. Healey opens mouth and makes things worse for Kate in terms of her comments.

It is interesting to me that she acknowledges openly what the McCanns never have--that they made a mistake in leaving the children alone and they know that.

 

[gord]

http://tinyurl.com/ywwwsu


Crucified?!?! Like being nailed by the hands and feet to a cross and left out in the hot sun until your skin blisters and then you die???

I think being able to wake up each day and see the smiling faces of your children, go to the beauty parlor and have your hair and nails done, walk in the park, go out to dinner, play golf, attend a sporting event and enjoy your "lovely house" is a far cry from being crucified.

As long as they are arguidos Mrs. Healey, they will be criticized. That is human nature and that will not change, no matter how much it distresses you. So, maybe you should stop reading the forums, blogs and tabloids.....

I dont think she meant it quite as literal as that Colomom - words do have many interpretations

Not all human nature is the same - I/We all have read the blogs and forums and to be honest some of the stuff makes me a bit uneasy

I know that the Mccaans bring out strong feelings - but some of the stuff you read is way over to top

I have also read that there are people plannning to demonstrate outside their home if they are not " found guilty " certain people are discussing on forums to try and get Gerry's medical licence revoked - even to force them to leave the country - I think one of the reasons the Mirror forums got shut were because of talk like this - which has huge sinister overtones - may I make it clear I dont mean anyone from this forum - but others which I am sure we all know

Maybe it just all forum talk and in reality will never happen - ?

 

[ThoughtFox]

Great Blog posted today about the fact that Mari Luz's parents never gave permission for her picture to be on those new posters with Madeleine.

Hey, Clarence, Leave Those Kids Alone

 

[colomom]

My point was the babylistening service is widely used in Europe and the UK, even at other Mark Warner resorts. And this is probably why they felt safe in arranging to do there own babylistening. None of us know what is in the statements given to the police. Bloggers have done a good job in muddying the waters. A lot of which has and is still being repeated here.

And I am sure will continue to be....

 

[gord]

Great Blog posted today about the fact that Mari Luz's parents never gave permission for her picture to be on those new posters with Madeleine.

Hey, Clarence, Leave Those Kids Alone

that guy has made it his life work to go after the Mccans -

I do find it a bit ironic that in this very thread people were slating the Mccans for not using the fund to help this poor girl

Now they help with a poster and already this guy ( from a " poor gipsey family " ) is ready with a law suir - wonder if sees some cash coming his way

His girls it seems is still missing I would have thought he would welcome any help available

maybe not thought it seems

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

that guy has made it his life work to go after the Mccans -

I do find it a bit ironic that in this very thread people were slating the Mccans for not using the fund to help this poor girl

Now they help with a poster and already this guy ( from a " poor gipsey family " ) is ready with a law suir - wonder if sees some cash coming his way

His girls it seems is still missing I would have thought he would welcome any help available

maybe not thought it seems

I did find this really odd. Why would ML's father be so up in arms about this? Even if he didn't want his daughter to have to share the spot light with Madeleine, any publicity would have to be good publicity. Though, if the "Fund" was requesting he pay half the expense I could see where he might be ticked...if they don't have the extra cash laying around as the McCanns do.

Didn't one of the news reports say he (ML father) had agreed at one point? I'm obviously not remebering who said what.

 

[Texana]

My guess is, not the use of the photo per se, but the not asking or checking with the family. Kate and Gerry would not want their daughter's photo used on just any public campaign, or by anyone, no matter how well-intentioned, without permission. Think of a politician using Madeleine's photo in their campaign materials, to promote their claims and pledges to be the person to do more for children. What parent would want their child's image or photo used without their permission?

I am surprised they did not get permission or talk to the parents first before publishing the photos together.