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

Madeleine McCann

1…2021232526…166

Comments

  • #662
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    So by that logic why on earth do you keep mentioning that they had drinks with a known pedophile when the accusations against that man weren’t made until many years later?
    By your own logic you shouldn’t even be mentioning the word pedophile at all, seeing as we can’t assume they knew or didn’t know.
    It simply isn’t relevant.
    So why do you keep bringing it up? Is it because saying ‘they had a drink with a man’ doesn’t pack as much punch as implying they kept company with known kiddy fiddlers?

    I didn't say he was known. I said he was a child rapist/pedophile. Which he is.


  • #663
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,103 ✭✭✭✭briany


    antgal23 wrote: »
    Mate, I'm a parent of 4 kids. When they are not in front of me they are with a blood relative or teacher.

    I know where they are 24/7 365.

    You refer to leaving them alone as " low risk"

    Any parent worth their salt doesn't take risks with their kids, hence the definition of a good parent.

    Yes, things happen that are out of our control ( kids breaking bones etc) but leaving the kids unattended is a big no-no

    Not for 1 minute should it happen.

    If leaving kids unattended is an absolute big no-no, then that must make so many of our own parents negligent monsters for allowing us the freedom to go off and play without direct adult supervision in those long Summer days of childhood. And from that there wasn't even any massive wave of child deaths or kidnappings. Almost as if the actual probability of getting anything more than a boo-boo on the knee was very low.

    On any other week, in any other year, the McCanns probably could have done as they did and found Madeleine sleeping soundly upon every check. The fact that this did not happen does not make them callous monsters who, as the tabloids would spin it, went off boozing without a care in the world, as if they went to a nightclub on the other side of town.

    The McCanns error to leave their children in the apartment while they had dinner across the pool was not a unique one and was practiced by their friend group. It was, allegedly, one of these people, Jane Tanner, who claims to have spotted someone carrying a child just as she was carrying out her own check on her kids. As the saying goes, if you find one of something, it could be unique, but if you find two, it's probably common.

    The McCanns' mistake that set them apart from their friend group appears to have been that they left the sliding patio door open on their ground floor apartment so as not to wake their kids during the checks. Even this, I believe, would have been fine in regards to still having all your kids there when you check in on them, and wouldn't really expect or deserve to be punished with such a cruel fate.


  • #664
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,810 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Maddy was three years old..her siblings even younger..

    Stop the bullsh1t trying to minimise any parent thinking that leaving a three year old alone at night with two younger siblings isn’t absolutely appalling..


  • #665
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    limnam wrote: »
    You do not know it not to be true.

    We simply don't know if they knew or not.

    I say what I know. Not what I assume.
    limnam wrote: »
    I didn't say he was known. I said he was a child rapist/pedophile. Which he is.

    Well now...you state that as a fact, when strictly speaking, he was never actually tried or convicted for such crimes. Therefore, you are going by the word of two people and assuming his guilt. No?


  • #666
    froog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,784 ✭✭✭froog


    i presume they must have some fairly solid evidence that they haven't shared other than "he's a bad dude who was in the area"? i mean there have been dozens of similar suspects over the years. what makes this one so different?


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    antgal23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 497 ✭✭antgal23


    briany wrote: »
    If leaving kids unattended is an absolute big no-no, then that must make so many of our own parents negligent monsters for allowing us the freedom to go off and play without direct adult supervision in those long Summer days of childhood. And from that there wasn't even any massive wave of child deaths or kidnappings. Almost as if the actual probability of getting anything more than a boo-boo on the knee was very low.

    On any other week, in any other year, the McCanns probably could have done as they did and found Madeleine sleeping soundly upon every check. The fact that this did not happen does not make them callous monsters who, as the tabloids would spin it, went off boozing without a care in the world, as if they went to a nightclub on the other side of town.

    The McCanns error to leave their children in the apartment while they had dinner across the pool was not a unique one and was practiced by their friend group. It was, allegedly, one of these people, Jane Tanner, who claims to have spotted someone carrying a child just as she was carrying out her own check on her kids. As the saying goes, if you find one of something, it could be unique, but if you find two, it's probably common.

    The McCanns' mistake that set them apart from their friend group appears to have been that they left the sliding patio door open on their ground floor apartment so as not to wake their kids during the checks. Even this, I believe, would have been fine in regards to still having all your kids there when you check in on them, and wouldn't really expect or deserve to be punished with such a cruel fate.

    You can dress it up however you like but their mistake was to leave their toddlers and babies to look after themselves at night.

    In light of some of the stuff that has happened to kids since I can remember (80s) I am shocked a parent would act like the Mc Canns - absolutely

    Even more shocking us people like you who defend the practice


  • #668
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,253 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    briany wrote: »
    If leaving kids unattended is an absolute big no-no, then that must make so many of our own parents negligent monsters for allowing us the freedom to go off and play without direct adult supervision in those long Summer days of childhood. And from that there wasn't even any massive wave of child deaths or kidnappings. Almost as if the actual probability of getting anything more than a boo-boo on the knee was very low.

    On any other week, in any other year, the McCanns probably could have done as they did and found Madeleine sleeping soundly upon every check. The fact that this did not happen does not make them callous monsters who, as the tabloids would spin it, went off boozing without a care in the world, as if they went to a nightclub on the other side of town.

    The McCanns error to leave their children in the apartment while they had dinner across the pool was not a unique one and was practiced by their friend group. It was, allegedly, one of these people, Jane Tanner, who claims to have spotted someone carrying a child just as she was carrying out her own check on her kids. As the saying goes, if you find one of something, it could be unique, but if you find two, it's probably common.

    The McCanns' mistake that set them apart from their friend group appears to have been that they left the sliding patio door open on their ground floor apartment so as not to wake their kids during the checks. Even this, I believe, would have been fine in regards to still having all your kids there when you check in on them, and wouldn't really expect or deserve to be punished with such a cruel fate.
    I am shocked that anyone would justify leaving small children in that vulnerable situation
    Walk past the apartment on google maps and tell me truthfully if you would leave your purse or wallet or credit card on the table


  • #669
    FVP3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    I am shocked that anyone would justify leaving small children in that vulnerable situation
    Walk past the apartment on google maps and tell me truthfully if you would leave your purse or wallet or credit card on the table

    The apartment looks nice enough to me, not hugely protected from the street but not easy to enter either.

    I dont buy the negligence argument.


  • #670
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,253 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    FVP3 wrote: »
    The apartment looks nice enough to me, not hugely protected from the street but not easy to enter either.

    I dont buy the negligence argument.

    Very easy to enter . A small low gate ( just push open ) off a public path leads to about 6 steps straight on to the patio . Double patio doors bring you straight into the sitting room .
    You could walk straight off the street into the sitting with no hindrance at all


  • #671
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,946 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FVP3 wrote: »

    I dont buy the negligence argument.


    How is it possible to believe this? :confused:

    And, by the way it's rhetorical. I've no interest in how you can come to such a conclusion. I'm happy to be baffled.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    FVP3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Very easy to enter . A small low gate ( just push open ) off a public path leads to about 6 steps straight on to the patio . Double patio doors bring you straight into the sitting room .
    You could walk straight off the street into the sitting with no hindrance at all

    But I assume the doors were locked. Its that distance from the road to a lot of houses.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    How is it possible to believe this? :confused:

    And, by the way it's rhetorical. I've no interest in how you can come to such a conclusion. I'm happy to be baffled.

    Answered above. Abductions are extremely rare. The chances of this happening are infinitessimally rare.


  • #673
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    froog wrote: »
    i presume they must have some fairly solid evidence that they haven't shared other than "he's a bad dude who was in the area"? i mean there have been dozens of similar suspects over the years. what makes this one so different?

    like all the solid evidence for all the previous major breakthrough's that came to noting?


  • #674
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,253 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    FVP3 wrote: »
    But I assume the doors were locked. Its that distance from the road to a lot of houses.

    Ah but they weren’t , the patio doors were left unlocked


  • #675
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Well now...you state that as a fact, when strictly speaking, he was never actually tried or convicted for such crimes. Therefore, you are going by the word of two people and assuming his guilt. No?

    Careful.

    You may get accused of defending a pedophile

    Grim they called it when apparently I did. Grim


  • #676
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    the door was left unlocked but even if was locked you should always assume that someone has the key in places like that. i wouldnt leave my wallet in a place like that because cleaners, staff , managment etc of the complex have keys and you dont know who else


  • #677
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    OK - Just an idea, shoot me down.

    The case in the eyes of the German prosecutor needs more evidence (as most cases do). There is currently lots of circumstantial evidence, but they need more.

    At the moment there is an appeal from German and Uk governments asking if anyone recognises this number +351 916 510 683, as he was on a call to this number for over 20 minutes before Madeline's disappearance. They feel this is a very real avenue to pursue.

    The main issue appears to be that the telecoms operators in Portugal have long since disposed of the data relating to the sale and use of that simm (as it happened a long time ago).

    A proportion of people, when changing phones, transfer their address book as a whole, meaning very old contacts don't get deleted. I bet that number is still in a few address books.

    How about they produce an iPhone and Android app, that is a free download "Help Find Maddie" which just opens the contacts on the phone and checks for a matching number. They could even offer a big reward if its your phone (if helping find Maddie was not enough).

    This would be cheap to do, not technically challenging, could be publicised on TV in Portugal (and shared).

    At the moment all they are doing is asking people if they recognise it.

    Stupid idea ?


  • #678
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    limnam wrote: »
    Careful.

    You may get accused of defending a pedophile

    Grim they called it when apparently I did. Grim

    Alleged paedophile. Let's not make assumptions, eh ;)


  • #679
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Alleged paedophile. Let's not make assumptions, eh ;)

    What's odd is when I talk of them drinking brandy together, him being a pedophile is not the important detail there.

    It's always her laughing about the dogs that's important.

    It's only the "other lot" who think the pedophile part is what I'm trying to get across :)


  • #680
    antgal23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 497 ✭✭antgal23


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    OK - Just an idea, shoot me down.

    The case in the eyes of the German prosecutor needs more evidence (as most cases do). There is currently lots of circumstantial evidence, but they need more.

    At the moment there is an appeal from German and Uk governments asking if anyone recognises this number +351 916 510 683, as he was on a call to this number for over 20 minutes before Madeline's disappearance. They feel this is a very real avenue to pursue.

    The main issue appears to be that the telecoms operators in Portugal have long since disposed of the data relating to the sale and use of that simm (as it happened a long time ago).

    A proportion of people, when changing phones, transfer their address book as a whole, meaning very old contacts don't get deleted. I bet that number is still in a few address books.

    How about they produce an iPhone and Android app, that is a free download "Help Find Maddie" which just opens the contacts on the phone and checks for a matching number. They could even offer a big reward if its your phone (if helping find Maddie was not enough).

    This would be cheap to do, not technically challenging, could be publicised on TV in Portugal (and shared).

    At the moment all they are doing is asking people if they recognise it.

    Stupid idea ?

    It's a great idea

    I think the peeps who he was talking to before the disappearance are part of a paedophile ring that operate in the Algarve


  • #681
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    OK - Just an idea, shoot me down.

    The case in the eyes of the German prosecutor needs more evidence (as most cases do). There is currently lots of circumstantial evidence, but they need more.

    At the moment there is an appeal from German and Uk governments asking if anyone recognises this number +351 916 510 683, as he was on a call to this number for over 20 minutes before Madeline's disappearance. They feel this is a very real avenue to pursue.

    The main issue appears to be that the telecoms operators in Portugal have long since disposed of the data relating to the sale and use of that simm (as it happened a long time ago).

    A proportion of people, when changing phones, transfer their address book as a whole, meaning very old contacts don't get deleted. I bet that number is still in a few address books.

    How about they produce an iPhone and Android app, that is a free download "Help Find Maddie" which just opens the contacts on the phone and checks for a matching number. They could even offer a big reward if its your phone (if helping find Maddie was not enough).

    This would be cheap to do, not technically challenging, could be publicised on TV in Portugal (and shared).

    At the moment all they are doing is asking people if they recognise it.

    Stupid idea ?

    i dont think people would do that. it would be seen as some kind of conspiracy theory to track us or see who we are in contact with


    anybody who wanted to check can just ring the no and it will tell them if its in your phone.

    w


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    limnam wrote: »
    What's odd is when I talk of them drinking brandy together, him being a pedophile is not the important detail there.

    It's always her laughing about the dogs that's important.

    It's only the "other lot" who think the pedophile part is what I'm trying to get across :)
    exactly.. sitting around drinking with a stranger talking about how the person responsible for their Childs disappearance will get away with it.

    thats pritty wierd in anyones book


  • #683
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    antgal23 wrote: »
    It's a great idea

    I think the peeps who he was talking to before the disappearance are part of a paedophile ring that operate in the Algarve

    There would be of course some people who put the number in their contacts as a joke, but if the same number cropped up on multiple phones then that would help prioritise the data.

    Also imagine if the got Google and Apple on board to push it out with the nest OS updates (with an opt out).


  • #684
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    i dont think people would do that. it would be seen as some kind of conspiracy theory to track us or see who we are in contact with


    anybody who wanted to check can just ring the no and it will tell them if its in your phone.

    w

    Even if was a government app, and it was explained that it only checked for that one number ? I would haven thought that a good proportion of people would want to help.


  • #685
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    limnam wrote: »
    What's odd is when I talk of them drinking brandy together, him being a pedophile is not the important detail there.

    Oh that's exactly the point you wish to get across :)
    It's always her laughing about the dogs that's important.

    It's only the "other lot" who think the pedophile part is what I'm trying to get across :)

    Sure, Jan.


  • #686
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    exactly.. sitting around drinking with a stranger talking about how the person responsible for their Childs disappearance will get away with it.

    thats pritty wierd in anyones book

    I think it's a bit of robotic thing. When you're not looking at a case objectively. You just see the word pedophile and jump to their defense. When in fact the main issue is nothing to do with him been a child rapist or the fact he likes brandy


  • #687
    limnam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,345 ✭✭✭limnam


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Oh that's exactly the point you wish to get across :)

    It's a hell of lot more damning than the child rapist she was drinking brandy with.

    Who wasn't even in the country at the time. Right boss? :)


  • #688
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    limnam wrote: »
    I think it's a bit of robotic thing. When you're not looking at a case objectively. You just see the word pedophile and jump to their defense. When in fact the main issue is nothing to do with him been a child rapist or the fact he likes brandy

    If the fact that he was later accused of being a pedophile is irrelevant, why do you incessantly bring it up every time you make that point?


  • #689
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    limnam wrote: »
    It's a hell of lot more damning than the child rapist she was drinking brandy with.

    There you go making statements that haven't been proven again. Oops!
    Who wasn't even in the country at the time. Right boss? :)

    And that's a fact! Well done!


  • #690
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    exactly.. sitting around drinking with a stranger talking about how the person responsible for their Childs disappearance will get away with it.

    thats pritty wierd in anyones book

    Who was the person responsible for their child's disappearance and when/how did they get away with it? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    Even if was a government app, and it was explained that it only checked for that one number ? I would haven thought that a good proportion of people would want to help.

    The effort to find download and use the app is multiples of the effort to type in the number to see if you had it saved, what's the advantage?


Advertisement