Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

[2011-2012] What really happened to Madeleine McCann?

  • 26-06-2011 9:30pm
    #1
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭


    Thread in AH was closed, because posts were turning into conspiracy theories. So here we are in the right forum from Mods POV!

    So anyway, this little kid disappeared in the Algarve 4 years ago. I'd say everyone knows about it by now.

    But where is she?

    Is she dead? If so, how?

    Is she alive? If so, where?

    Were her parents involved or not?

    Was she abducted?

    Did the aliens get her?

    Come on, someone out there knows what happened. I hope she's found alive BTW, but I think she's dead. I think her father found her when he went back to check, and panicked, got rid of her, and went back to the party, as if nothing had happened.

    So what do you think?


«134567

Comments

  • #2
    scudzilla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,943 ✭✭✭✭scudzilla


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056066809


  • #3
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,213 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    scudzilla wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056066809

    No harm in starting a new thread rather than bringing back a thread over 6 months old. Go for it


  • #4
    jellybee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭jellybee


    surely its awful to speculate in such a way about a horrific event. poor little girl :(


  • #5
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Barrington wrote: »
    No harm in starting a new thread rather than bringing back a thread over 6 months old. Go for it

    Ok, let's go!

    I know it's about a little girl, and the thread may not be to everyone's taste, but you don't have to contribute or read it all the same, it's up to you.

    As long as it's in the right forum, it might be OK.


  • #6
    katiebelle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭katiebelle


    Speculation of this sort at least keeps this topic alive and increases awareness.
    I too think this little girl is dead but honestly dont think her parents had anything to do with her death. Would love if she was found alive but dont think that will happen somehow.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    katiebelle wrote: »
    Speculation of this sort at least keeps this topic alive and increases awareness.
    I too think this little girl is dead but honestly dont think her parents had anything to do with her death. Would love if she was found alive but dont think that will happen somehow.

    If you don't believe her parents had anything to do with her disappearance, what do you think happened to her?


  • #8
    katiebelle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭katiebelle


    I think she was abducted. It was pretty obvious that her parents left the kids alone each night when they went out to eat. That would not go unnoticed. I think she was abducted and probably killed shortly afterwards and is probably buried not too far from where she was abducted.


  • #9
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jellybee wrote: »
    surely its awful to speculate in such a way about a horrific event. poor little girl :(
    It's ok to speculate about 9/11 - thousands of deaths - but not this, one possible death?

    People are gas sometimes. :)


  • #10
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    katiebelle wrote: »
    I think she was abducted. It was pretty obvious that her parents left the kids alone each night when they went out to eat. That would not go unnoticed. I think she was abducted and probably killed shortly afterwards and is probably buried not too far from where she was abducted.

    There is no evidence whatsoever of an abduction. The parents said that's what happened on the night.

    They completely refuted suggestions that the child had woken and wandered off. Dismissed that one completely. In my mind that would be the first thing I would suspect. Given that they, according to themselves, were in a very safe resort, and so, left their children alone in the apartment because it was so safe.

    I am not going to comment on their apparent neglect in leaving the children alone. Maybe they had a false sense of security. But if they did feel secure, why did they shout "abduction" straight away, and not at least explore the fact that the child might have woken up and got out the door somehow?


  • #11
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Come on, someone out there knows what happened. I hope she's found alive BTW, but I think she's dead. I think her father found her when he went back to check, and panicked, got rid of her, and went back to the party, as if nothing had happened.
    My great difficulty with this scenario is that it requires a parent to completely suppress overwhelming anguish which is something I think only a tiny minority of people, if that, are capable of doing. Is it your view that Kate was not involved? And if so, do you consider her choice of words on finding Madeleine missing to be in any way relevant?

    I think there is a reasonable possibility that the parents were covereing up an accidental death but IMO I think an abduction of some sort is more probable, But if it was the former, I don't believe it happened as the most popular accounts suggest.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    lugha wrote: »
    My great difficulty with this scenario is that it requires a parent to completely suppress overwhelming anguish which is something I think only a tiny minority of people, if that, are capable of doing. Is it your view that Kate was not involved? And if so, do you consider her choice of words on finding Madeleine missing to be in any way relevant?

    I think there is a reasonable possibility that the parents were covereing up an accidental death but IMO I think an abduction of some sort is more probable, But if it was the former, I don't believe it happened as the most popular accounts suggest.

    I don't know what happened. But I can posit certain probabilities.

    Parents and all people are capable of many things in a crisis. Don't forget the party were drinking from an early stage and anguish may have been superseded by panic. When someone panics the usual behaviours are not always adhered to.

    I don't think Kate was involved. But I think she knows what happened. As to her words on the night, who heard them? The rest of the party were in the bar, although she may have ran to them shouting this? I don't understand why she dismissed completely the possibility of the child having escaped somewhere. I think she said " don't insult my intelligence" when this theory was put to her.

    As I said earlier, they left the kids alone because the place was safe. Now if that is the case, why did she shout abduction straight away?

    There is the possibility that they all had lots to drink. Probable more like. So panic and the first thing to enter your head is.....


  • #13
    byhookorbycrook
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 12,504 Mod ✭✭✭✭byhookorbycrook


    Given Calpol or something simialr to make her sleepy. overdid the dosage, dead when they got back and they hid the body.


  • #14
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    byhookorbycrook wrote: »
    Given Calpol or something simialr to make her sleepy. overdid the dosage, dead when they got back and they hid the body.

    No, when the father got back, and HE hid the child somewhere. I think he is capable of shutting down and doing what is necessary. Panic, drink taken, got to do something.

    Kind of explains how some people cannot understand how they sat at the bar all night if they had hidden the child to cover up something. I think it happened when the father went to check, he saw what had happened and did what he felt he had to do in his inebriated and shocked state. There is no timeline to say how long he was away from the table AFAIK.

    BTW I hope this did not happen. But maybe it did.


  • #15
    coco_lola
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭coco_lola


    I could be wrong, but wasn't there traces of some form of mild drug in the kids systems that helped them sleep? As I said I can't remember so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they were doctors of some sort. It wouldn't surprise me that they had given the kids these drugs to prevent them waking up in the night, Madeleine received an overdose, and they tried to cover it up.

    Behavioural psychology states that couples who have lost a child (be that to abduction, or anything) tend to isolate themselves from each other, shut each other out. The McCanns seem to be much too strong and "together", as a couple. This is a theory based on scientific research, but they could be the exception. However I just find it all a bit too strange tbh. I think they definitely have something to do with it, and always did from day one. There's just something about the mother I can't put my finger on.


  • #16
    abouttobebanned
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,943 ✭✭✭abouttobebanned


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    No, when the father got back, and HE hid the child somewhere. I think he is capable of shutting down and doing what is necessary. Panic, drink taken, got to do something.

    Kind of explains how some people cannot understand how they sat at the bar all night if they had hidden the child to cover up something. I think it happened when the father went to check, he saw what had happened and did what he felt he had to do in his inebriated and shocked state. There is no timeline to say how long he was away from the table AFAIK.

    BTW I hope this did not happen. But maybe it did.

    The body has not shown up to this day. So in that very short time frame, he did a very good job. I don't buy it.


  • #17
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    The body has not shown up to this day. So in that very short time frame, he did a very good job. I don't buy it.

    I love your user name. That will be me if I put my theory about what he did out there. I need to gather my thoughts before I post it!!


  • #18
    scudzilla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,943 ✭✭✭✭scudzilla


    byhookorbycrook wrote: »
    Given Calpol or something simialr to make her sleepy. overdid the dosage, dead when they got back and they hid the body.

    Would have had to have been a lot stronger than Calpol to kill a child, now who could get something stronger without too many questions being asked, Doctors maybe.........:rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #19
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    scudzilla wrote: »
    Would have had to have been a lot stronger than Calpol to kill a child, now who could get something stronger without too many questions being asked, Doctors maybe.........:rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Yeah, and the other two, the baby twins never woke up at all during all the commotion when M was discovered missing and everyone was tramping around.

    This made KmcC say out of the blue.... "the abductor drugged them!" and refused to have them checked by another doctor... hmmmmm... Cover up of their own actions in case it was spotted?


  • #20
    puppetmaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭puppetmaster


    Yeh i reckon an accidental overdose and they covered it up. If they they owned up they were goin to jail. Might make one think fast as a good place to bury a body. It would be harsh if its too but i think the most plausable scenario.

    you would imagine with the media attention it got in europe it would have been hard to get the child out (alive) or at least much harder than burying her remains.


  • #21
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Don't know.. and to put it bluntly, don't care much either about what happened. What bugs me about the whole thing is that it's given so much attention, when similar and worse stuff is happening today.

    Their performance on the Late Late Show recently was nothing but a platform for them to sell the book. Loads of questions were met with the 'that's in the book' answer.

    It'll probably never be solved.. and the parents share at least some of the blame for that because they refused to answer some pertinent questions when the answers could have really helped the investigation.

    The media are the real creeps in all of this. They know by keeping the story alive, that opinion will become more split, and ultimately appeal more and more people. The McCanns are extremely vulnerable regardless of how complicit they are in Maddie's disappearance.. and there's a lot of vultures out there who're ready to pick at that.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Just an aside, but if this couple are innocent, and I hope they are, but don't THINK they are.. do they realise that a lot of people do not believe them. They seem to have hard necks, writing books and giving media appearances, when all the time there are some like us here saying they overdosed their children and much, much worse.

    They don't seem to have admitted that leaving their kids alone was wrong, or that they did anything wrong. " It was within the boundaries of responsible parenting" is what the father said when challenged on leaving the babies alone all night every night. Huh.


  • #23
    GetWithIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭GetWithIt


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Just an aside, but if this couple are innocent, and I hope they are, but don't THINK they are.. do they realise that a lot of people do not believe them. They seem to have hard necks, writing books and giving media appearances, when all the time there are some like us here saying they overdosed their children and much, much worse..
    I don't know all the details of the case. Just reading the thread so far has revealed a lot that I wasn't aware of. But I know if I had killed someone and had gotten away with it, that I wouldn't be writing books about it years later and appearing on every chat show possible to go over the details again. Would you? I'd be getting on with my life and hoping everyone would just forget.


  • #24
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    coco_lola wrote: »
    I think they definitely have something to do with it, and always did from day one.
    I'm afraid I cannot see how they might have something, as oppose to everything, to do with Madeleine's diappearance. Either they were fully involved in covering up her death or they were not involved at all. They cannot really be partially involved,


  • #25
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    GetWithIt wrote: »
    I don't know all the details of the case. Just reading the thread so far has revealed a lot that I wasn't aware of. But I know if I had killed someone and had gotten away with it, that I wouldn't be writing books about it years later and appearing on every chat show possible to go over the details again.

    Some might say that is "Hiding in full view". It has been known to happen, the more guilty one is, the more they hide it by being full on in the media etc. just so no one could possible think anything bad about them....


  • #26
    GetWithIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭GetWithIt


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Some might say that is "Hiding in full view". It has been known to happen, the more guilty one is, the more they hide it by being full on in the media etc. just so no one could possible think anything bad about them....
    The Joe O'Reilly strategy? Fair enough, but years later? At the time, sure, but years later I'd be hoping everyone would forget rather than continually rehashing it.


  • #27
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    GetWithIt wrote: »
    The Joe O'Reilly strategy? Fair enough, but years later? At the time, sure, but years later I'd be hoping everyone would forget rather than continually rehashing it.

    Follow the money honey..... Books, a film soon. The monster has eaten them.

    They have litigated so much against anyone who says a negative word about them, they need the loot to pay their lawyers! Oh and they need it to find their child too, sorry.


  • #28
    GetWithIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭GetWithIt


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    they need the loot to pay their lawyers!
    Do they, or is that just a supposition?


  • #29
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    There is no evidence whatsoever of an abduction. The parents said that's what happened on the night.

    They completely refuted suggestions that the child had woken and wandered off. Dismissed that one completely. In my mind that would be the first thing I would suspect. Given that they, according to themselves, were in a very safe resort, and so, left their children alone in the apartment because it was so safe.

    I am not going to comment on their apparent neglect in leaving the children alone. Maybe they had a false sense of security. But if they did feel secure, why did they shout "abduction" straight away, and not at least explore the fact that the child might have woken up and got out the door somehow?

    How many kids do you know just wander off into the night in their pyjamas and never come back? Many a time growing up I was scolded by my parents and wanted to run away but never did. And that was when I was 9 or 10. The thought never crossed my mind when I was 4.


  • #30
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    How many kids do you know just wander off into the night in their pyjamas and never come back? Many a time growing up I was scolded by my parents and wanted to run away but never did. And that was when I was 9 or 10. The thought never crossed my mind when I was 4.
    The real difficulty with the wandered off possibility is that no body has been found. If some one can offer a possible account of how the body disappeared then it might be worth considering.

    Any in any case it is perfectly sensible that the McCanns would play down this possibility, even if it were more plausible. Any parent holding on to the slim hope that their abducted child might turn up safe would and should play down the possibility that the child might be dead. You need to have as many people as possible keeping their eyes open.

    I have never heard the McCanns suggest that Madeleine may be dead, not because they think there is anything more than a small chance that she might be alive, but because it is the smart thing to do.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    foxshooter243
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭foxshooter243


    If some one can offer a possible account of how the body disappeared then it might be worth considering.

    Heres a link to an interesting theory on the case, it gives an account of how the body was moved -


    http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.com/p/theory-english.html


  • #32
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    foxshooter243 wrote: »
    Heres a link to an interesting theory on the case, it gives an account of how the body was moved -

    http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.com/p/theory-english.html
    Thanks but I think this account describes how the McCanns might have moved the body. I was looking foe an account where by Madeline might have died accidentally and her body simply disappear, without the intervention of the McCanns or anyone else.


  • #33
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    lugha wrote: »
    Thanks but I think this account describes how the McCanns might have moved the body. I was looking foe an account where by Madeline might have died accidentally and her body simply disappear, without the intervention of the McCanns or anyone else.

    Eh, that would have to aliens then...:rolleyes:

    But she could have left the apartment and fallen into a gulley and been swept out to sea. The weather was bad that week. What about that theory? Or she wandered down to the sea and drowned. No body though? hmmmm.

    Or the one where she woke and wandered and someone picked her up on the street and took her away? That is a real possibility. But that involves someone else so that is not answering your question is it?

    The child is dead unfortunately IMV. And her parents are involved. Maybe not maliciously, but they know what happened that night. I don't think it was an abductor.

    How many children are abducted every year on holidays or anywhere else? And why did the so called abductor not take the other two lovely blond children aswell. Three for the price of one.


  • #34
    Joe10000
    Registered Users Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭Joe10000


    Surely no parents first reaction to finding their child dead is to think **** how do I get rid of the body ??

    Rubbish.


  • #35
    Happyzebra
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭Happyzebra


    'I noticed that the door to the children's bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it...I walked over and began to gently pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut as if caught by a draught. A little surprised, I turned to see if I had left he patio door open and let in the breeze. Retracing my steps I confirmed that I hadn't.'

    This is a quote from Kate's book. The patio doors were located behind Kate. The door to the children's room opened into the room, as confirmed by a drawing in Kate's book. So kate is facing the door taking note that it was open wider than they had left it when a gust of wind caused the door to close out toward her. She immediately thinks it came from behind her due to the patio doors being left open.

    While I am currently on the fence with regard to what happened that night i do find it odd that she would assume the breeze came from behind when clearly she did not feel it on her back, hair etc.

    Surely to bang the door outwards this breeze must have come from inside the bedroom and a clever woman like kate who is sensitive to the cold (according to her book) would have thought of that immediately?

    Why did she not immediately assume it came from inside the bedroom. It makes me question her account of what happened that night.


  • #36
    johndoe99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭johndoe99


    abduction is the biggest theory, we've all read about the incompetence of the spanish police force. There was such a media frenzy at the time, i'd say she was killed soon after to avoid being caught. But that puts the question where could the body be, i'm sure the locale was well searched.

    I remember seeing pics in the sun the following days showing the husband and wife out for a jog on a beach, i remember thinking at the time it seemed so cold, like they hadn't a care in the world, some might say they needed to clear there heads etc, but i just found it iffy.

    wish I had a time machine.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    But she could have left the apartment and fallen into a gulley and been swept out to sea. The weather was bad that week. What about that theory? Or she wandered down to the sea and drowned. No body though? hmmmm.
    Is that a hypothetical explanation to be explored or do you contend that there was an actual gully carrying enough water to wash a four year old's body away? I cannot recall anyone suggesting this before.

    But even if this were possible you do not address the more substantial point which is that it is quite simply, perfectly sensible, if not entirely honest, for parents in the case of an abudction to play down the possibility that their child might be dead. It is certainly what I would do if I was appealing to the public for help to find my missing child.

    And there is another question for you to address. Why exactly is it suspicious that the parents rule this out? How exactly does the argument go that says innocent people would consider this possibility but those who actually disposed of their child's body would have good reason (which I cannot quite see) to discount this possibility?

    After all, if this is what happened then it neceesarily means that virtually all of the supposed evidence against the McCanns, the dogs, the supposedly odd words and behaviour etc. would amount to exactly nothing!


  • #38
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,408 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    byhookorbycrook wrote: »
    Given Calpol or something simialr to make her sleepy. overdid the dosage, dead when they got back and they hid the body.

    Calpol is paracetemol. It does not make you sleepy.


  • #39
    UglyBolloxFace
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,867 ✭✭✭UglyBolloxFace


    johndoe99 wrote: »
    abduction is the biggest theory, we've all read about the incompetence of the spanish police force.

    And with that, any views or opinions you have will be, rightfully, discredited.
    It happened in Portugal = Portuguese Police


  • #40
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Joe10000 wrote: »
    Surely no parents first reaction to finding their child dead is to think **** how do I get rid of the body ??

    Rubbish.
    One of the (many!) curiosities of this case is that it is taken as gospel that the McCanns had a clear motive to disguise an accidental death. The reason trotted out, when you think about it, doesn't really make sense. If the parents were guilty of negligence which led to an accidental death, why would they not be equally guilty when it lead to an abduction?

    That they would willingly commit the greater crime of conspiring to pervert the course of justice with an ad hoc, spur of the moment plan (which almost always fails) makes it even less plausible.

    It is a possible motive, but a far fetched one. And certainly not the clear cut one that many unquestionably assume.


  • #41
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    @lugha.

    This is a conspiracy theory thread. I don't have to get all emotional.

    Anyway, the fact that the parents dismissed completely any other scenario other than abduction is stupid on their part.

    The patio doors were unlocked.

    The child was alone and could have panicked in the night and tried to get out. Someone might have taken her after she woke and cried and went looking for mum or dad.

    I just find it strange that other possibilities were totally dismissed. That's all. And you are right, if my theory has any weight, then they are completely innocent. But they did not put that theory forward. They were protecting themselves from an accusation of neglect IMV.

    The dogs are a problem for them alright. Something happened in that apartment that might make my theories of gulleys etc. rubbish.

    Look, they were out drinking all night, every night. I don't think they were thinking straight, and might have panicked. I just find it strange that a logical explanation for what might have happened was dismissed.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    GetWithIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭GetWithIt


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Look, they were out drinking all night, every night.
    Were they, or is that a supposition?

    Going out every night and having a couple of drinks does not equal drinking all night every night.

    I don't know, but you're making the assertion. Do you having anything to back up that statement?


  • #43
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    This is a conspiracy theory thread. I don't have to get all emotional.

    Er, what???
    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Anyway, the fact that the parents dismissed completely any other scenario other than abduction is stupid on their part.

    I argued that with respect to public appeals, what they did was actaully very smart and it what I would advise any parent whose child was abducted to do. (They quite probably did consider other scenarios in private). You have not addressed this point. You simply say:
    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    I just find it strange that a logical explanation for what might have happened was dismissed.

    Do you really not believe that from a PR point of view, it is best to play up the possibility that the child is still alive, however unlikely that might be?
    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    They were protecting themselves from an accusation of neglect IMV.

    Well that didn't work! :) Accussations of neglect have been flying thick and fast at them from very early on. And regardless of what happened to Madeleine, the extent of their neglect is exactly the same, as I pointed out in my last post.


  • #44
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,996 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    lugha wrote: »



    Well that didn't work! :) Accussations of neglect have been flying thick and fast at them from very early on. And regardless of what happened to Madeleine, the extent of their neglect is exactly the same, as I pointed out in my last post.

    Re their dismissal of any other scenario than abduction.... I don't recall them ever going on TV etc. and appealing to that abductor to release her alive, but then I might have missed it. If they didn't make an appeal wouldn't that have been a bit strange? I suppose they were advised not to make a tearful statement looking for their darling, as the abductor would have got a thrill from that. Sorry, if my child was missing I would do anything, advice or not.

    Re the neglect... Gerry said "they had been advised" that their actions were within the bounds of responsible parenting.


  • #45
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,408 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Re the neglect... Gerry said "they had been advised" that their actions were within the bounds of responsible parenting.


    Advised by whom? I wonder if either mcCann saw an injured child in the course fo their work as Drs who sustained the injury as a result being left alone a night would they be bound to alert Social Services? Surely as Drs they know that even directing your attention away from a tot for a few mins can lead to harm?

    I don't think they killed their child accidentally or otherwise but I do feel very strongly that their negelect is in part responsible for her dissapearance and they should be held to account for this neglect.

    I think they are desperately clinging onto the belief that Madaleine is still alive because to admit to themselves that she was most likely murdered would be to allow themselves to feel the full horror of their guilt. They are in denial.


  • #46
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    If they didn't make an appeal wouldn't that have been a bit strange?

    This "aren't they starnge/odd/weird" line is wheeled out a lot when supposed evidence that incriminates the McCanns is cited. Happily, there is no law against being strange!

    If you want to argue that some odd behaviour is actually suspicious then I think you need to argue a little bit more that something or other is "a bit strange". I would full expect a guilty party to make tearful appeals for the return of their loved one (that they knew well was not coming back) to avert suspicion of their involvement.

    You argue that their behaviour is not what you expect if they were innocent of any involvement. But neither is it what you expect if they were guilty. You can see much suspicious behaviour if you insist on looking at things from one persecptive only. Take a more balanced view and things are not quite as suspicious.
    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Re the neglect... Gerry said "they had been advised" that their actions were within the bounds of responsible parenting.
    Well the haven't been prosecuted for neglect so it would seem he was correctly advised. Personally I would say it was not, but neither do I believe that their actions amounted to the worst neglect imaginably.


  • #47
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,153 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    I would be very interested to know how Kate ,a GP , would react in her professional capacity to the arrival of a young 3 year old patient with a head injury or a deep laceration who was alone at the time . I would like to know if she would feel obliged to call in social services if a 3 year old , or a 2year old was presented to her with injuries sustained while the parents were out dining elswhere .
    I would be very interested to know how Gerry , a surgeon , would react if he had to perform surgery on a toddler who fell and lacerated her head or found a knife and cut herself while alone in an apartment .

    I am guessing that both the above professionals would call Social Services and involve the police in a case of neglect like that .three small children left alone would alert a GP or a consultant surgeon to be very very cautious and keep a good eye on such parents that failed to protect thier children .
    I would be very interested what advice Kate in her capacity as a GP would give to a parent who left her three very young children to dine out elsewhere and how Kate would advise on this issue .

    And I would be very intested to know why when Kate had a doubt in her head that her babies had been drugged and checked on their breathing and wondered if they were sleeping so soundly she did nothing .A GP , a trained aneashtetist , a doctor who suspects her toddlers have been drugged and does nothing to ensure their safety is hugely neglegent /.
    She of all people will know the danger of overdosage in toddlers , she will know the indidious ,silent danger of drugs effect on toddlers .She will know the slow and silent and cumalitive effect on a toddlers liver or respiratory system . So why then did she fail to have them checked out and toxicology done and ensured her babies were safe .
    If a patient was presented to her and the mother has a suspicion that her baby was drugged I am sure Kate would know the protocol and the steps to take to ensure the baby was safe and protected
    Yet she failed to take those steps for her own children . The parents failed their children , they left them in danger and left them wide open to harm .
    How odd that no one has taken steps to ensure the twins are in a palce of safety and with adults who will protect them from harm .I wonder why not ?


  • #48
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    I would be very interested to know how Kate ,a GP , would react in her professional capacity to the arrival of a young 3 year old patient with a head injury or a deep laceration who was alone at the time . I would like to know if she would feel obliged to call in social services if a 3 year old , or a 2year old was presented to her with injuries sustained while the parents were out dining elswhere .
    I would be very interested to know how Gerry , a surgeon , would react if he had to perform surgery on a toddler who fell and lacerated her head or found a knife and cut herself while alone in an apartment .

    I am guessing that both the above professionals would call Social Services and involve the police in a case of neglect like that .three small children left alone would alert a GP or a consultant surgeon to be very very cautious and keep a good eye on such parents that failed to protect thier children .
    I would be very interested what advice Kate in her capacity as a GP would give to a parent who left her three very young children to dine out elsewhere and how Kate would advise on this issue .
    All of this again hints at the notion that you can protect your children 100%, you simply can not. You can only provide a reaonable level of care which is somewhere short of that. We might disagree to some extent on what that level should me though most of us, myself included, would say the McCanns fell some way short.

    You cite examples of accidents and mishaps that might befall children and ask if medics should summons the authorities if the knew that the children were unsupervised at the time. Surely the logical extention here is that authorities should be summoned everytime a child has an accident? After all, if the child had been 100% supervised, the accident could not have happened. They would have been stopped before the climed up on the window ledge or before the managed to get near that knife.

    But if that were the attitude we took the authorites would be getting a serious number of phone calls. Like most children gorwing up I routinely acquired cuts and bruises, had a few visits to the GP for accidents and even made a few guest appearance in A & E. And my mother was and is exceptionally cautious with children in her care.

    The business of the children being left alone is a bit of a red herring. Would children not equally be alone if you were, to use the McCanns own conparison, dining in your back garden and out of ear shot of your sleeping children? The difference between this scenario and the one involving the McCanns is laregly emotive. i.e. It feels different but in reality, the practical difference is not great.

    Parents going to the pub leaving their childen alone feels like the worst behaviour of the most dysfunctional familiy in some sink estate. Having a BBQ in your garden while your children sleep in their beds (but out of earshot!) feels like a wholesome family activity. But in either case, if your child wants or needs you, you are of the same use to them, which is none.

    Perhaps you can outline a standard of care that you think it is appropriate for guardians to provide that would guarantee that they could not have an accident? Short of assigning them 24 hour body guards I simply do not think it is possible.


  • #49
    Dude111
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    I dont believe her parants AT ALL!!

    They were WAY TOO CALM ON TV!!

    And if they really wanted to find thier daughter,THEY WOULDNT BE SAYING "BUY THE BOOK" .. THEY WOULD GIVE IT AWAY FREE,THEY WOULD GET AS MANY AS THEY COULD LOOKING FOR HER!!


  • #50
    GetWithIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭GetWithIt


    foxshooter243 wrote: »
    Heres a link to an interesting theory on the case, it gives an account of how the body was moved -


    http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.com/p/theory-english.html
    This is an interesting theory but falls at the first hurdle.
    IMO Madeleine threw an extraordinary tantrum on the playground that carried on in the apartment, an incident Jane Tanner attributed to her own daughter and which was mentioned for the first time in her rogatory interview. According to her statement the crying stopped abruptlyIMO Madeleine died at this moment as a result of a blow while standing on the sofa trying to see her father who passed the window via the road below with his friend Russell. Presumably she hit her head on the windowsill or when hitting the floor behind the sofa.
    A child falls and hurts itself, possibly mortally, the first thought that goes through the parents head is .... "Oh my god, my child has fallen and hurt herself and needs help".

    This is not up for debate.

    It would not matter what preceded this event, any and every parent's reaction at that moment would be to help the child.

    Everything in the article is predicated on that extraordinary premise and to my eyes can be seen as no better that a, well thought out, piece of fiction.


  • #51
    Mistyeyes321
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    lugha wrote: »
    All of this again hints at the notion that you can protect your children 100%, you simply can not. You can only provide a reaonable level of care which is somewhere short of that. We might disagree to some extent on what that level should me though most of us, myself included, would say the McCanns fell some way short.

    You cite examples of accidents and mishaps that might befall children and ask if medics should summons the authorities if the knew that the children were unsupervised at the time. Surely the logical extention here is that authorities should be summoned everytime a child has an accident? After all, if the child had been 100% supervised, the accident could not have happened. They would have been stopped before the climed up on the window ledge or before the managed to get near that knife.

    But if that were the attitude we took the authorites would be getting a serious number of phone calls. Like most children gorwing up I routinely acquired cuts and bruises, had a few visits to the GP for accidents and even made a few guest appearance in A & E. And my mother was and is exceptionally cautious with children in her care.

    The business of the children being left alone is a bit of a red herring. Would children not equally be alone if you were, to use the McCanns own conparison, dining in your back garden and out of ear shot of your sleeping children? The difference between this scenario and the one involving the McCanns is laregly emotive. i.e. It feels different but in reality, the practical difference is not great.

    Parents going to the pub leaving their childen alone feels like the worst behaviour of the most dysfunctional familiy in some sink estate. Having a BBQ in your garden while your children sleep in their beds (but out of earshot!) feels like a wholesome family activity. But in either case, if your child wants or needs you, you are of the same use to them, which is none.

    Perhaps you can outline a standard of care that you think it is appropriate for guardians to provide that would guarantee that they could not have an accident? Short of assigning them 24 hour body guards I simply do not think it is possible.
    Rubbish!!
    Seriously I think your taking the Pi$$
    For starter's Parent's tend to have baby monitor's today we are in the 2000 after all. These monotor's sit nicely in any Lounge, dining room, Kitchen, garden's, & work just fine, You can hear your child breathing nevermind moving around..Your trying to make excuses for these parent's leaving three children alone!! Who told them it was reasonable parenting btw?. Whoever it was must be thick!! As thick as the Mccann's are & their lovely Friend's who went out every night leaving their supposed most precious children to what ever fate became them!! If the Mccann's are right in this can you please tell me why David Payne & Rachel took these Baby Monitor's with them to the Tapas bar?! Why did they take these monitor's with them in the first place too?!! So either the Mccann's have this wrong or Payne & co do so which isit?!!
    No it's impossible to keep your eye on your children every minute of everyday!! But where possible you try to do your best because as a parent this is YOUR responsibiity to make sure these children are kept as safe as possible & protected, You don't just drop these Parenting skill's because you want to play Tennis because it's more important or want to go for dinner with your mates...It really is that Simple!!!
    Do these thing's make the Mccann's guilty of hurting their children leaving the Neglect issue out that is...No it doesn't, Does it mean a abduction didn't take place, No it doesn't! Now please stop with the silly attempt's to try & make these two look like Parent's who gave a fig about their children's welfare because the minute they left them to their own devices with a unlocked door alone & helpless they gave up on them & that my friend is a fact no one will ever sway me from & there are many many people like me who think they should have been charged with Neglect at the very least!!!


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement