Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

AudreyHepburn

sunflower27 wrote: »

Your whole take on 'responsibilty' is grating.

Why? I am not absolving them of blame, only saying it is unfair to lay it solely at their door.

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There is no way the McCanns could have known what was going to happen and no reason for them suspect anything so no they did offer up their little ones on a platter to anyone.

Do you wear a safety belt in a car? I do. I've never had an accident, thankfully, but I will take every precaution and make sure that my passengers take every safety precaution when I'm driving.

What you're saying here is the equivalent of 'oh I don't need to wear a seat belt I'm a safe driver' or 'I don't need house insurance, sure I've never been broken into'.

Quite frankly it's ridiculous.

AudreyHepburn

walshb wrote: »

C'mon, you are having a laugh...

Regular intervals? Every 30 mins they say, that is disgraceful, and if the truth be known it was probably 45-60 mins.

You see no real issue with three young children alone for 30 mins at night in a foreign country? Forget the last bit of that sentence, alone anywhere is a major no no for young children.

Simple: What they did is inexcusabale and indefensible.

Never once did I say it was ok and you know it.

walshb

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why? I am not absolving them of blame, only saying it is unfair to lay it solely at their door.

Fair enough, but you are trying to somehow explain and defend what they did.
It is indefensible, at least to any right thinking person.

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

Do you wear a safety belt in a car? I do. I've never had an accident, thankfully, but I will take every precaution and make sure that my passengers take every safety precaution when I'm driving.

What you're saying here is the equivalent of 'oh I don't need to wear a seat belt I'm a safe driver' or 'I don't need house insurance, sure I've never been broken into'.

Quite frankly it's ridiculous.

No that is not what I am saying as you well know.

Of course the babies should not have been alone. But, just as wearing a seatbelt doesn't guarentee you will never been hurt in a crash, having an adult present does not mean a child will never be hurt.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There is no way the McCanns could have known what was going to happen and no reason for them suspect anything so no they did offer up their little ones on a platter to anyone.

They did not ask the abductor/abductors to come and take Madeleine, they leave the door open specially for him/her/them.

They should not have left them alone but they cannot be held solely responsible either.

Of course they are responsible for making it so easy if an abductor is what happened to their child.


They did not even lock the door.


Why would any parents on holiday leave three babies alone in an unlocked apartment whilst out drinking?

It does not matter if they did not think there was an abductor about.

A child could have gotten sick. One could have gotten up and fallen.

Madeline could have gone and tried to fill a bath with water and drowned.

There are hundreds of things that could go badly wrong by leaving three young children alone in an unlocked home, let alone leaving three alone in an unlocked apartment in a different country.

They have no excuse for doing that. They did not think their children valuable enough to even lock the door. That alone says a hell of a lot about them as parents.

walshb

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Never once did I say it was ok and you know it.

I asked a question, never said it was what you really thought...

AudreyHepburn

walshb wrote: »

Fair enough, but you are trying to somehow explain and defend what they did.
It is indefensible, at least to any right thinking person.

Jesus no I am not defending them! Yes they were wrong, yes they should not have left the little ones alone, yes it was irresponsible.

walshb

As Kess said, and I said very early, the abduction scenario is the worst case. The fact they were alone is bad enough, alone and no guardians, that in itself is a disgrace.

AudreyHepburn

walshb wrote: »

As Kess said, and I said very early, the abduction scenario is the worst case. The fact they were alone is bad enough, alone and no guardians, that in itself is a disgrace.

Again I never said otherwise and never have.

walshb

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Again I never said otherwise and never have.

Ok, I think we all agree what they did was wrong. Some just think stronger on the issue. I think it was obscene what they did. Disgraceful. And, if there is a heaven, and Madeleine is there, I would bet she is fuming.

lugha

walshb wrote: »

No matter how well you watch a child there is a possiblilty of danger. But, watch them less and less, and logically that danger risk increases.

Not necessarily. If a predator targets your child, they will strike at the first opportunity. This is what happened in the Bolger case.

walshb wrote: »

As Kess said, and I said very early, the abduction scenario is the worst case. The fact they were alone is bad enough, alone and no guardians, that in itself is a disgrace.

I don't dispute this. I have said in an earlier post that there are very good reasons not to leave children out of earshot range and to keep your home physical secure.

But averting the risk from predators is not one of them. It is a very small risk in the first place and if your child has been targeted, there is very little you can do to reduce that risk.

ppink

lugha wrote: »

Not necessarily. If a predator targets your child, they will strike at the first opportunity. This is what happened in the Bolger case.


I don't dispute this. I have said in an earlier post that there are very good reasons not to leave children out of earshot range and to keep your home physical secure.

But averting the risk from predators is not one of them. It is a very small risk in the first place and if your child has been targeted, there is very little you can do to reduce that risk.

the Jamie Bulger case??

123balltv

lugha wrote: »

if your child has been targeted, there is very little you can do to reduce that risk.

theres a lot you can do like ..

not leave the babies alone,
if your starving tough **** eat your dinner/drink your wine in the same place where your babies are sleeping,
lock the doors/windows etc,
assure your babies that Mammy and Daddy is here anything you need just call me,
dont rely on friends to check on your kids they dont care deep down,

just look after your kids I prefer to call them babies 1 years olds and a
4 year old it makes me shiver to think how those babies suffered that night

cordub

walshb wrote: »

C'mon, you are having a laugh...

Regular intervals? Every 30 mins they say, that is disgraceful, and if the truth be known it was probably 45-60 mins.

You see no real issue with three young children alone for 30 mins at night in a foreign country? Forget the last bit of that sentence, alone anywhere is a major no no for young children.

Simple: What they did is inexcusabale and indefensible.

jesus even Prisoners locked up in irish prisons have to be checked every 15 mins in their cells !!! Inexcusable to leave 3 babies alone apart from the risk of being taken simple smoothering cot death ie could also have happened ,Would they be free now and not in jail for negligence if they were ordinary folk and not Doctors I think not!!!!

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

Not necessarily. If a predator targets your child, they will strike at the first opportunity. This is what happened in the Bolger case.


I don't dispute this. I have said in an earlier post that there are very good reasons not to leave children out of earshot range and to keep your home physical secure.

But averting the risk from predators is not one of them. It is a very small risk in the first place and if your child has been targeted, there is very little you can do to reduce that risk.

Locking a door would have helped reduce that risk, or do you think an unlocked door and a locked door present the same level of difficulty?


Some form of supervision would further reduce the risk.


What the McCanns did that night by not locking the doors and by not having any adult left with three young children was increase the risk to the point an abductor saw it as a viable option.

The McCanns created that enviroment. They made their children an easy target.


What they did would raise eyebrows if they had done it in their own home, in an area where their child might be recognised by neighbours. So to leave their children totally exposed in a different country offers them no arguemnt that would make for a valid defence as to how it is normal parenting.


If there was an abductor that night, then the abductor is the sicko who stole a child, and he/she is totally responsible for the act of taking the child, but the McCanns are 100% for putting their own children in a situation where there was no protection at all for them in that apartment, not even the most basic (and free) defence of locking the door.

Kess73

cordub wrote: »

jesus even Prisoners locked up in irish prisons have to be checked every 15 mins in their cells !!! Inexcusable to leave 3 babies alone apart from the risk of being taken simple smoothering cot death ie could also have happened ,Would they be free now and not in jail for negligence if they were ordinary folk and not Doctors I think not!!!!

The laws in Portugal with regards to neglect are different to that in the UK. Them being doctors did not come into it there.


In the UK they would have been charged for leaving a child that gets reported as abducted alone in the manner that they did. There was a case a while back of a woman being charged with neglect for leaving her child/children with an underage babysitter (the babysitter was 15), so leaving children totally unsupervisied would have seen action taken against them if it happened on UK soil in the event of an abduction or in the event of an abduction case being investigated by the UK police.

It may also have been why the case was not reported (and officially registered) to the British police force as a case of an abducted child but of that of a disappeared child.

Funny how they were not as adament in getting it registered as an abduction case in the UK as they are to say on chat shows that it was an abduction.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

Locking a door would have helped reduce that risk, or do you think an unlocked door and a locked door present the same level of difficulty?

Some form of supervision would further reduce the risk.

Sorry, my post was not clear. When I said there is very little you can do I meant specifically to reduce the risk. Of course you should lock your doors and not leave your children unattended, but not specifically to deter predators.

But of course you cannot decouple the two. If you do the sensible things re caring for your children and protecting your home, you do of course make it more difficult for predators.

But the line is still being peddled here that M. was abducted because there were 30+ mins windows of opportunity, despite it being more or less accepted that it only takes less than 1.

I wonder would people see this differently if the McCann group had been going back sequentially every 5 minutes? I suspect they would. But 5 mins is still plenty of time for a snatch.

_feedback_

lugha wrote: »

But the line is still being peddled here that M. was abducted because there were 30+ mins windows of opportunity, despite it being more or less accepted that it only takes less than 1.

I wonder would people see this differently if the McCann group had been going back sequentially every 5 minutes? I suspect they would. But 5 mins is still plenty of time for a snatch.

I'm sorry if it seems I am having a go at you, as I don't agree with any of your posts

In my opinion, it's the fact that they didn't arrange proper care. The timelines don't matter so much (we cant be sure what they were anyway).

Think about this one: Which car is more likely to be stolen?

Car a: Unattended with doors open for thirty minutes.

Car b: Doors locked and someone sitting inside for thirty minutes.

AudreyHepburn

lugha wrote: »

Sorry, my post was not clear. When I said there is very little you can do I meant specifically to reduce the risk. Of course you should lock your doors and not leave your children unattended, but not specifically to deter predators.

But of course you cannot decouple the two. If you do the sensible things re caring for your children and protecting your home, you do of course make it more difficult for predators.

But the line is still being peddled here that M. was abducted because there were 30+ mins windows of opportunity, despite it being more or less accepted that it only takes less than 1.

I wonder would people see this differently if the McCann group had been going back sequentially every 5 minutes? I suspect they would. But 5 mins is still plenty of time for a snatch.

Agreed. Children can vanish anywhere in seconds, regardless of who is near them. Mary Boyle (7) disappeared somewhere in the few yards between her own and her grandparents houses in Donegal in the 70s with her Uncle just in front of her. Philip Cairns (13) vanished up the road from his house. James Bolger disappeared in the space of a few seconds when his mother turned her back.

Of course the McCann children should not have been left alone, no-one disputes that.

But neither is it as simple as saying had Kate and Gerry or a babysitter been there the outcome would have been different.

lugha

elviscostello wrote: »

I'm sorry if it seems I am having a go at you, as I don't agree with any of your posts

I kinda gathered that! :pac: Meh. I don't care it is Friday!

elviscostello wrote: »

In my opinion, it's the fact that they didn't arrange proper care. The timelines don't matter so much (we cant be sure what they were anyway.

I don't dispute that. But for more mundane reasons (kids get sick, thirsty, scared etc.) rather than the minuscule risk of a predator. The risk is so small as to be dismissed.

And dismissing this negligible risk is what Denise Bulger and the Soham families and millions of others do all the time.

_feedback_

lugha wrote: »

I kinda gathered that! :pac: Meh. I don't care it is Friday!


I don't dispute that. But for more mundane reasons (kids get sick, thirsty, scared etc.) rather than the minuscule risk of a predator. The risk is so small as to be dismissed.

And dismissing this negligible risk is what Denise Bulger and the Soham families and millions of others do all the time.

Further to that, some would argue that that tiny risk of an abductor did not play a part in this case either. There's no evidence to suggest one. The disappearance may have been a direct result of them being left alone for all we know.

My point is, it played a major major part, no matter what happened.

AudreyHepburn wrote:

But neither is it as simple as saying had Kate and Gerry or a babysitter been there the outcome would have been different.

What is simple to say though is, if they had arranged proper care, there is a massively stronger chance that this would not have happened.

Kess73

elviscostello wrote: »

Further to that, some would argue that that tiny risk of an abductor did not play a part in this case either. There's no evidence to suggest one. The disappearance may have been a direct result of them being left alone for all we know.

My point is, it played a major major part, no matter what happened.



What is simple to say though is, if they had arranged proper care, there is a massively stronger chance that this would not have happened.

Yep just by locking the door to the outside and by getting a babysitter the chances of the child going missing are dramatically reduced.

AudreyHepburn

elviscostello wrote: »

Further to that, some would argue that that tiny risk of an abductor did not play a part in this case either. There's no evidence to suggest one. The disappearance may have been a direct result of them being left alone for all we know.

My point is, it played a major major part, no matter what happened.



What is simple to say though is, if they had arranged proper care, there is a massively stronger chance that this would not have happened.

Agreed. And that something the McCanns will have to live with the rest of their lives. They don't need us to further punish them imo.

lugha

elviscostello wrote: »

Further to that, some would argue that that tiny risk of an abductor did not play a part in this case either. There's no evidence to suggest one.

Yes, the last couple of pages are all premised on the notion that there was an abduction, which of course not everyone accepts.

annieoburns

There were nine adults in the group including 4 sets of couple all with preschool children and one grandmother to one set of children. So the McCann's were not the only ones leaving young children on their own.Why not a decent rota involving all nine adults? Where were these others located? One was close to McCanns. Why not one adult in turn to take full charge of watching the kids for entire night?

Initially I thought the adults were checking on each others children but this does not seem to be the case such as Jane Tanner and Gerry McC being out checking at the same time. He was back to use the bathroom, was that the main reason he returned? did he check on anyone else's children? I thought the open doors might be to facilitate each other to check their friends apartments. But this was not mentioned just the fire risk, presumably to allow for an adult to quickly access the unit in case of fire. I think of what Madeleine might have gotten up to on her own and so easy for her to slide a patio door and walk off into the nearby streets - one of each side of the unit. She had had the best part of a week to watch and see how it was done, easier than opening a regular door with high up catch. So another scenario of her being taken wandering in the open. I think significant is that she left her favourite toy behind.

My cent's worth.

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

Sorry, my post was not clear. When I said there is very little you can do I meant specifically to reduce the risk. Of course you should lock your doors and not leave your children unattended, but not specifically to deter predators.

But of course you cannot decouple the two. If you do the sensible things re caring for your children and protecting your home, you do of course make it more difficult for predators.

But the line is still being peddled here that M. was abducted because there were 30+ mins windows of opportunity, despite it being more or less accepted that it only takes less than 1.


I wonder would people see this differently if the McCann group had been going back sequentially every 5 minutes? I suspect they would. But 5 mins is still plenty of time for a snatch.

Ahh but people are taking the McCanns story of how often they checked as being the truth, and they are taking the McCanns story of how it was defo an abduction based on the McCanns word, so why should anyone who believes what the McCanns saythink the abduction took place in a minute or two?

The McCanns have said that the person or persons took the time to open windows and shutters, and they claimed that the person or persons took the time to drug the children, all three of them. So if people are going by what the McCanns claim, then they have to take all of what the McCanns say happened that night.

So a fast snatch in a minute or two is just not possible using the McCann's own version.

I said myself a few days ago that based on the timeslines given by Tanner, Oldfield, Gerry McCann, and Wilkins that an abduction would have to had been a quick thing, but that was dismissed by the McCanns a few times who seem set on it having to have happened exactly as they claim, despite they meant to have been a some three to four hundred feet away.


I agree that a fast abduction should be a possibility, buit if people take the McCann's word as truth with regards to the checking times, the window, the shutters, the child locks and what not, then the same people have to take the McCann's word on how the McCann's say the abduction part went down as truth, despite physical evidence and sworn statements going against the McCann's version of the abduction itself.

iamwhoiam

Yes, the Mc Canns have to have it their way or no way .So stubbornly adament . I cant know but I think I would be open to everything , every little idea , every little notion , every little tip , every little hint .

Kess73

annieoburns wrote: »

There were nine adults in the group including 4 sets of couple all with preschool children and one grandmother to one set of children. So the McCann's were not the only ones leaving young children on their own.Why not a decent rota involving all nine adults? Where were these others located? One was close to McCanns. Why not one adult in turn to take full charge of watching the kids for entire night?

Initially I thought the adults were checking on each others children but this does not seem to be the case such as Jane Tanner and Gerry McC being out checking at the same time. He was back to use the bathroom, was that the main reason he returned? did he check on anyone else's children? I thought the open doors might be to facilitate each other to check their friends apartments. But this was not mentioned just the fire risk, presumably to allow for an adult to quickly access the unit in case of fire. I think of what Madeleine might have gotten up to on her own and so easy for her to slide a patio door and walk off into the nearby streets - one of each side of the unit. She had had the best part of a week to watch and see how it was done, easier than opening a regular door with high up catch. So another scenario of her being taken wandering in the open. I think significant is that she left her favourite toy behind.
My cent's worth.

That scenario was dismissed out of hand by Kate McCann on the LLS as being an insult to her intelligence and as being impossible.

Personally I thought it was plausible and it would have been a way for the child to get out into the open and into the view of an abductor. But Kate McCann says it is an impossible scenario.

They seem very adamanet that plausible scenarios of an event they are not meant to have witnessed could not have happened. Almost too adament at times.

As for her favourite toy, that was meant to have been on a shelf too high for her to reach, but then again we only have the McCann's word on that.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

That scenario was dismissed out of hand by Kate McCann on the LLS as being an insult to her intelligence and as being impossible.

Kess73 wrote: »

I agree that a fast abduction should be a possibility, buit if people take the McCann's word as truth with regards to the checking times, the window, the shutters, the child locks and what not, then the same people have to take the McCann's word on how the McCann's say the abduction part went down as truth

No they don't.
Why oh why does everybody persist with the idea that the McCann's version of events is anything more than an opinion?
The were in a position to say what the checking intervals were because they know.
They are not in a position to say how an abduction might have happened because they do not know. They can speculate like the rest of us, no more.