Mcanns telling the truth or not?

Sarah** wrote: »

I think Robert Murat or whatever his name was had something to do with it. The renactment awhile ago where the two fathers met and were talking on the hill when the mother saw the man holding the child fitted his description and the fact he is a translator.... i just think he had something to do with her disappearance. I think she was a beautifull child and was taken to order. But then my opinion could be wrong. I do agree that the parents were targetted after all leads had left nothing. Easiest thing to do in the eyes or the portuguese police was to point the finger at the parents because they had no where left to turn to.

That particular witness changed the description of who she saw carrying the child a number of times.

First she saw someone who looked British like Murat. Then she swore it was a guy with sallow skin, longish hair and a moustache, and lastly it became a woman.

Another thing that brought doubt on the McCanns, was when they gave a statement saying the shutters were forced open at the back where they were staying. This was later changed when it was found that the steel shutters were still locked and not interfered with. I think at that point the story changed to that they had left a glass patio door unlocked.

The oddest bit for me was Gerrys statement about when he went back to check on the kids earlier that night, before Maddie went missing, and that he said he saw something had been moved either to or from a shelf that would be too high for Maddie to reach or a door pushed out, but he didn't check it out.


Whether they actually did something to the kid, who knows. I doubt the actual truth will ever come out.

But one thing there is no doubt on is that it is their fault that their girl is no longer with them. Going out for dinner and drinks with friends away from the hotel room, and leaving a three year old girl alone with twins that were one at the time, is joke parenting.

The hotel had a free child minding service for those staying there, and one that night they chose not to use it despite using it earlier on their holiday.

That child minding service would have saved that kid.

I have always wondered how the media would have reacted if it had been a sterotypical chav type family who had a child go missing in the same manner.

Wolflikeme wrote: »

Nobody is saying they killed her or had any part in her death

What are you talking about? There are plenty of people who ARE saying exactly that?

Wolflikeme wrote: »

people have their suspicions, which they the deserve to the right to hold.

My point is not about rights, it's about decency. To lose a child is just about the worst thing that could happen to any parent. I would think you would want to have pretty compelling evidence that a parent was involved (which none of us have) before you compound their nightmare with heartless speculation.

Ye're giving out about the McCanns 'milking' it for as long as they can and holding against them the fact that they're a 'well-to-do' white English family, but if they had said 'okay, guess she's dead' and never looked for her what would people say..? If that was the case, then it would be probable that they had something to do with it, but its not and people still think that they may have killed their daughter!

they left the kids unattended in a foregin country .. did someone say drugged?.. If they wernt who they are child services would have taken the other kids from them.

lugha wrote: »

I think the unattended line is overplayed a little. Would you accuse parents of leaving their children unattended if they were asleep in an upstairs bedroom?
If a predator is sufficiently daring, determined and prepared they can and will snatch a child, even from the apparent safety of their own home. This happened a couple of years back in the UK where a child was taken from their bathroom.




Quite a few people did in fact. Despite there being no evidence. The downside alas, of free speech.

i cant undertand why anyone would bring them on holidays in the first if they were going to leave them alone like that... anything could have happened to the kids.

lugha wrote: »

I don't think they had their kids locked up for the duration of the holidays! Kids will sleep more than adults and when they are sleeping the adults will so stuff (drink etc.) which they might not do when the kids are up and about. TBH, family McCann didn't strike me as being much different from any family I know with young children.

Ach, yes, things can happen.

I still think leaving a 4 yr old and the twins alone like that is negligent.

lugha wrote: »

If a couple left their children "alone" in an upstairs bedroom whilst they sat drinking downstairs, and a predator who had previously targeted one of their children went up a ladder, in a window and took the child, would you say they were negligent parents?
Granted the McCanns were a distance away from where the children were sleeping, but they were checking on them periodically. There is only so much parents can do (short of being awake and physically in the presence of their children all the time). Alas, a determined predator can exploit this.

Oh yeah, that's a strawman argument.

Yes, that as you say things can happen, but you'd usually hear movements or some noise. It's a 1 in a million chance.

Now forgetting about the abduction for a minute as that is a 1 a million chance too, their own personal safety would worry me. 4 year olds don't have much sense, she could have climbed on the balcony, windows etc.

Plus, a 4 year old waking up in an unfamiliar place with no parents in an adjoining room or downstairs isn't fair on them. It just isn't.

K-9 wrote: »

but you'd usually hear movements or some noise. It's a 1 in a million chance.

Nobody heard anything when Peter Voisey snatched this little girl.
And I think any parent should be quite happy if such a risk to their child was reduced to 1 in a million. They are exposed to a far greater risk by being ferried about in cars all the time.
You cannot eliminate all risk to your child. You can only seek to render it suitably small. And I don't think the McCanns took an excessive risk on that night. They were just dreadfully, dreadfully unlucky.

Deleted User wrote: »

I completely disagree with your argument. Leaving two babies and a young child in a house on their own is taking undue risk.

The implication of what you are saying is that parents being in the house is safe but not if they are outside.
Alas, that isn't the case. I cited an example above of a child who was snatched form her own house, despite her mother being next door. And plenty of parents will have drinks or a BBQ in their garden whilst their kids sleep, and few would seriously accuse them of being negligence. This kind of child snatching is thankfully, incredibly rare.

Deleted User wrote: »

The simple fact of the matter is that had the parents not left the children alone. Madeleine would be still with her family.

Possibly, but not necessarily. If Madeline was specifically targeted by a predator who was daring enough to take her from her bed, then he might well have tried, even while the parents were in the house. Again, see above.

Parent, understandably, are frightened by what happened to Madeline McCann and are anxious to find some monumental error made by her parents which will allow them to say, "well I would never do that with my kids!" and this makes them feel a bit safer. There wasn't any monumental error. The reality is that the McCanns took a chance, a minuscule one IMO, and much less a chance than parents routinely take with their children every day, and were just horribly unlucky.

You cannot eliminate risk completely. You cannot, despite frequent assertions to the contrary, make it as small as possible.

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

with the case of the 6yr old girl being snatched from her bath while her mother was next door, personally, i think leaving a child in the bath while your NEXT DOOR is also crazy. i don't think i'm being unreasonable here, i really don't.

Sorry, I was unclear. Her mother was in the next door room! Presumably she left the bathroom to get a towel or something and this guy pounced.

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

yes you're right the abductor could have tried to take maddie if the parents were in the apartment, but tbh, i don't believe he would have been successful. they would have heard him.

Burglars successfully enter and leave occupied houses routinely without anyone noticing. That more children are not taken in this way has, I think, more to do with the relative rarity of such events, and regrettably I think, the ease with which children can be obtained in other parts of the world.

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

checking on them every half hour or so doesn;t make any difference.

Hotels often offer listening services which would involve even less monitoring. Would you say parents who avail of such services are negligent?

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

its ridiculous to think for a second that leavin the kids alone like that is safe. i honestly don't know anyone who would do that.

Again I say there is no such thing as safe, as in totally 100% safe. There is always some risk. The question is, is the risk excessive?