"Who would leave children that young alone?"

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
ScarlettScarpetta said:
That is a leap. They did not harm their children. They did not hurt their kids..

It was an agreed upon monitoring procedure that the group was taking part in. Apparently not out of the norm. It is not like they were the only ones doing it.

They must have felt safe there.
Click to expand...

And they were wrong. Regardless if she was abducted or they killed her... Their children were not safe.

Lots of people smoke crack too... That doesn't make it acceptable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
blefuscu said:
Like I've said ti you before, if you are caught speeding a defence for that isn't "everyone else was doing it!"

They only organised supervision on the last night, after Madeleine and Sean had cried for their daddy for well over an hour, and even after Madeleine had BEGGED them to stay in. They cared more about themselves than their children!
Click to expand...

This is not even close to the same thing. The point is they ALL felt safe doing it. They felt good at this place and protected.

It is what it is now, People want to be mad at them for their child care choices, fine, But that does not mean they hurt Maddie. She is missing, They did not take her.
 
They certainly neglected their kids. All of them in their group. If an adult would have been there, this probably wouldn't have happened- it's that easy. If it wasn't MM, it could have been one of the other kids in the group.

JMO
 
Like the Ramsey before them, the bulk of the WTF behaviour has come after the event.

Everyone says "people grieve differently" which is absolutely true, but you cannot mistake genuine grief when you see it.'
'
I don't think I've ever seen one tear...also there's this - the photo of them just days later still in PDL...

http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/happycouple.jpg

Yup, absolutely shattered with grief. Not.
 
blefuscu said:
And like I replied there is credible sources all over google! She picked out Robert Murat on the surveillance ID!

In the statements at folios 417, 1340 and 3285, she said a man was "running" with a child in pink pyjamas, but said that it was too dark to see properly when asker for a description.

In the statements at folios 355,1289 and 1975 she gave a detailed description:

"Brown male between 35 and 40, slim, around 1.70m. Very dark hair, thick, long at the neck. (Noticed when the person was seen from the back). He was wearing golden beige cloth trousers (linen type) with a "Duffy" type coat (but not very thick). He was wearing black shoes, of a conventional style and was walking quickly. He was carrying a sleeping child in his arms across his chest. By his manner, the man gave her the impression that he wasn't a tourist."

From her official statements to police!
Click to expand...

Well he looks pretty similar to the description she gave and he was hanging around that night.

I've already discussed the GNR's statement about it being too dark on the previous page. Apart from the fact that at 9.30 it wouldn't have been pitch black dark so that she wouldn't have been able to identify height, trouser colour etc. The fact that his original statement didn't mention anything about him not finding Tanner's sighting as credible but his statement right after the McCanns disses her sighting says a lot IMO. I will find the links again and post them here.

These are Tanners statements regarding the man she saw. Consistent and very similar to Martin Smith's.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap12
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id222.html


Please LINK to information. From credible sources. This... http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.b.../niggle-and-strange-tale-of-robert-murat.html
Is not a credible source!
 
SapphireSteel said:
Like the Ramsey before them, the bulk of the WTF behaviour has come after the event.

Everyone says "people grieve differently" which is absolutely true, but you cannot mistake genuine grief when you see it.'
'
I don't think I've ever seen one tear...also there's this - the photo of them just days later still in PDL...

http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/happycouple.jpg

Yup, absolutely shattered with grief. Not.
Click to expand...

That picture, just wow.
 
Gem2626 said:
Well he looks pretty similar to the description she gave and he was hanging around that night.

I've already discussed the GNR's statement about it being too dark on the previous page. Apart from the fact that at 9.30 it wouldn't have been pitch black dark so that she wouldn't have been able to identify height, trouser colour etc. The fact that his original statement didn't mention anything about him not finding Tanner's sighting as credible but his statement right after the McCanns disses her sighting says a lot IMO. I will find the links again and post them here.

These are Tanners statements regarding the man she saw. Consistent and very similar to Martin Smith's.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap2
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap12
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id222.html


Please LINK to information. From credible sources. This... http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.b.../niggle-and-strange-tale-of-robert-murat.html
Is not a credible source!
Click to expand...

Then by all means provide the rest of us an inclusive list of acceptable sources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
SapphireSteel said:
They DID NOT cooperate, from the very first night.

They both got on the phone and roundly rubbished LE, tried to steer the investigation from the beginning by asserting there was an "abductor" despite the complete lack of evidence and the other hinkiness that hinted to a different scenario.

Then, when there were awkward questions, they refused to answer. They organised a "pact", and that pact was to not speak to LE.

Anyway, I don't think you have the "right to remain silent" anywhere other than the US do you? Everyone else is supposed to cooperate with LE, in other countries, and if they don't cooperate, they're looked at as suspects. It's as simple as that.

:cow:
Click to expand...

Links to all your claims please.
You have the right to remain silent in many of the world's legal systems. It is also embedded in the Human rights act.
 
SapphireSteel said:
Like the Ramsey before them, the bulk of the WTF behaviour has come after the event.

Everyone says "people grieve differently" which is absolutely true, but you cannot mistake genuine grief when you see it.'
'
I don't think I've ever seen one tear...also there's this - the photo of them just days later still in PDL...

http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/happycouple.jpg

Yup, absolutely shattered with grief. Not.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. I have seen people function well through grief and act like nothing happened as a defense mechanism. Some fall apart, some clean, some get their hair done.

There is no rule book on grief.

There is no link between the cases besides bias and hatred for the parents and their wealth. It would be so awesome if we could stick only to the facts of each case separately.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
This is not even close to the same thing. The point is they ALL felt safe doing it. They felt good at this place and protected.

It is what it is now, People want to be mad at them for their child care choices, fine, But that does not mean they hurt Maddie. She is missing, They did not take her.
Click to expand...

I don't care if they all felt safe doing it! It's neglecting their children's needs. I am mad at their lack of child care. Some parents care more about themselves and their desires than their infants needs. And that is selfish!

You have NO proof they didn't hurt her, NO proof of an intruder and NO proof that they didn't move her! If you did you would share it with us all!
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
Sure you can. I have seen people function well through grief and act like nothing happened as a defense mechanism. Some fall apart, some clean, some get their hair done.

There is no rule book on grief.

There is no link between the cases besides bias and hatred for the parents and their wealth. It would be so awesome if we could stick only to the facts of each case separately.
Click to expand...

We're all still waiting for you to provide any facts behind your belief!
 
Linda7NJ said:
Then by all means provide the rest of us an inclusive list of acceptable sources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Click to expand...

Well if you're quoting from police statements then go straight to the primary source rather than some random persons website where they have written the statement out and haven't even linked to it themselves. How do you know that what they have written is actually what has been said?
 
blefuscu said:
We're all still waiting for you to provide any facts behind your belief!
Click to expand...

She is missing.. That is the easiest part of it. She was not found.
Someone saw her being carried away. She know it was Maddie.
That is the easiest part of believing it. No one can prove these two things are not true.

There is no proof that madeleine is dead.
 
blefuscu said:
I don't care if they all felt safe doing it! It's neglecting their children's needs. I am mad at their lack of child care. Some parents care more about themselves and their desires than their infants needs. And that is selfish!

You have NO proof they didn't hurt her, NO proof of an intruder and NO proof that they didn't move her! If you did you would share it with us all!
Click to expand...

That is just about how you feel about it, And not what was going on that night. To figure this out you have to see where they were coming from. We would not do that here, But I know some people that leave their doors open and don't ever lock them. Their kids go out and play for hours without supervision. Anything could happen.. And yet, No one locks them up..

The point is that people are placing their judgments on the McCanns practices that night and can not separate that from the fact that it has nothing to do with them being capable of hurting their dd. Nothing.
People don't like them so they must be guilty.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
She is missing.. That is the easiest part of it. She was not found.
Someone saw her being carried away. She know it was Maddie.
That is the easiest part of believing it. No one can prove these two things are not true.

There is no proof that madeleine is dead.
Click to expand...

Sources please
 
Gem2626 said:
Links to all your claims please.
You have the right to remain silent in many of the world's legal systems. It is also embedded in the Human rights act.
Click to expand...

Anyone who knows anything at all about this case knows that all the links have been posted and reposted.

If anyone hasn't read them they really cant make a fully informed judgement on this particular case. The devil is in the details.

I personally would love it if the IDI's stopped criticising and deconstructing every single word, and started adding something positive to the sleuthing...like a new idea or some other evidence that explains the events of that night?

Preferably one that doesn't slander two police forces, sniffer dogs, and everyone else who disagrees with the McCann?
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
That is just about how you feel about it, And not what was going on that night. To figure this out you have to see where they were coming from. We would not do that here, But I know some people that leave their doors open and don't ever lock them. Their kids go out and play for hours without supervision. Anything could happen.. And yet, No one locks them up..

The point is that people are placing their judgments on the McCanns practices that night and can not separate that from the fact that it has nothing to do with them being capable of hurting their dd. Nothing.
People don't like them so they must be guilty.
Click to expand...

I'm British! We do not do it here too. It's called neglect!

I'm not basing my opinion on anything other than fact! How do you know that they aren't capable of hurting her?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 91 more.
Total: 2,078 (members: 92, guests: 1,986)

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
1,986
Total visitors
2,078
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,858
Messages
18,013,891
Members
229,532
Latest member
Sarti
Back
Top