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

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.

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.

Joe10000

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

Rubbish.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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!!

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.

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!!!

All about Eve

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Rubbish!!
there are many many people like me who think they should have been charged with Neglect at the very least!!!

I agree with this. I am one of those people who think the Mcanns were negilent. If they had not been doctors and were 2 parents on the dole they would have dragged through the courts and labelled scumbags.
Also I am a mother. If my child is in the house having a nap and I go out into my back garden to hang the washing I lock my front door, without fail.

lugha

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

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..

So would you regard parents who have a BBQ in their backyard, out of ear shot of their children, and who do NOT have a baby monitor to be as negligent in the care of their children as the McCanns were?

And would you call for all parents who do so to be prosecuted for neglect?

iamwhoiam

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 . Believe me I worked in a Paeds A +E and professional can distinguise very well between acceptable levels of care .They are not stupid .
Leaving three kids unsupervised in an apartment out of ear shot and line of vision with a door open to the world and its mother , with concrete steps leading out on to a public road is not within my level of acceptable care , nor most parents level that I know .And I am almost sure its not within your acceptable level either
They did wrong , they let her down thats not even contested

GetWithIt

All about Eve wrote: »

Also I am a mother. If my child is in the house having a nap and I go out into my back garden to hang the washing I lock my front door, without fail.

Since when? The McCann case maybe?

I know my parents didn't.

iamwhoiam

lugha wrote: »

So would you regard parents who have a BBQ in their backyard, out of ear shot of their children, and who do NOT have a baby monitor to be as negligent in the care of their children as the McCanns were?

And would you call for all parents who do so to be prosecuted for neglect?

Is their hall door locked or has the public access to their children without the parents seeing the access ?? Many questions to be answered first , You see its not simple but most of us know the boundaries and apply them .Most of us are clued in and not stupid enough to think a Tapas bar out of ear shot is acceptable regardless of if its in a rule book or not ,
Most of us know by instinct how to protect our children even without guidlines

Mistyeyes321

lugha wrote: »

So would you regard parents who have a BBQ in their backyard, out of ear shot of their children, and who do NOT have a baby monitor to be as negligent in the care of their children as the McCanns were?

And would you call for all parents who do so to be prosecuted for neglect?

The mccann's wasn't in their back garden thought was they?! No they was in the Tapas bar with their lovely Friend's & inbetween was a swimming pool amongst other thing's! So your question is irrelevant!
I did ask you who was right btw, Payne & Oldfield? Or the Mccann's in your opinion of course?! Who would you consider to be the most responsible out of these parent's?! Considering they all left ther children alone but two set's of parent's took a baby Monitor which btw was arranged before they left the uk...It's there in black & white in the statement's, So all party's knew before hand there was no listening service!!

iamwhoiam

GetWithIt wrote: »

Since when? The McCann case maybe?

I know my parents didn't.

In my case in 1980 , so long before Madeleiene Mc Cann was born . If my kids were in the house my hall door was shut and not accesable to the world and sundry .

All about Eve

Since when? The McCann case maybe?

I know my parents didn't

Actually no i have always done that. Its a habit my parents instilled in me. Nothing to do with the Mcanns Shoddy parenting scaring me into it.
I would liken the Mcann case to going next door to your neighbours house for dinner and drinking and pompous chat. while your 2 year old and 3 year old sleep in your house alone. If anyone think thats ok then i think there is something seriously wrong with them.

Mezcita

lugha wrote: »

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.

There's a big difference between leaving your kid alone while you are in the back garden and leaving it alone in an unlocked apartment while you are 120 metres away.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-474428/In-pictures-120-metre-route-check-Madeleine.html

By leaving the apartment unlocked the McCann's made it substantially easier for the kid to either walk out or for someone to come in to the apartment and take her. Especially if someone had been watching the McCann's movements for a few days.

Mistyeyes321

All about Eve wrote: »

I agree with this. I am one of those people who think the Mcanns were negilent. If they had not been doctors and were 2 parents on the dole they would have dragged through the courts and labelled scumbags.
Also I am a mother. If my child is in the house having a nap and I go out into my back garden to hang the washing I lock my front door, without fail.

I agree sick of seeing people make excuses for their neglect because there isn't any excuse what so ever! They chose to have these children as they made the same choice to walk away from them everynight to fill their bellies...It's that Simple & it's disgusting!
Reasonable Parenting my A$$...:)