Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

iamwhoiam

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.

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.

.

I never actually got that , was it an insult to Kates intelligence or Madeleines ?Actually I think Madeleine was a bright little girl and would have been well capable of opening doors .
The patio doors led to steps down onto a busy road , used by many on thier way to the restaurants and down to a little supermarket which was very busy in the evening .

sunflower27

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.

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.

And how could she know anything when she was not in the room and had been drinking? The fact she is the mother of the child gives her account of what happened no more weight than anyone else's. The arrogance is truly astounding.

And if Kate truly thought the abductor had touched and moved the toy, why would she just wash it? Totally ridiculous that she would not automatically offer it to the authorities for finger prints or whatever else they can do these days.

Utter madness.

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

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.

Yes but their version of the "abduction" is the only one they will tolerate and they have pushed it hard in the media as the true version and poured scorn on any other scenario that gets suggested.

The checking intervals are open to debate as well as we only have their word and the word of their friends on it, and the statements given contradict in a few places, and their friend David Payne refused to give much information or to talk much because he took a "pact of silence" with Gerry over the night in question.

That "pact of silence" is logged in the official police report.

Also the checking visits changed from going into the apartment in some cases, to only looking in windows, and none of the friends that were meant to have checked saw Madeline at all.

So the window of opportunity for an abductor would be far bigger than the McCanns claim if nobody actually saw their daughter or went into the apartment to check on the children.

So it boils down to only two people from their group having actually entered the apartment from the time the McCanns sat down at the table for their drinks.

We have Gerry's toilet run, and then when Kate went back at 22:00.

Nobody else from their group entered to check the children.

And if Gerry did not actually check on Madeline when he went back to the toilet, then it leave a number of hours where nobody actually saw the child at all despite all the so called checks.

There is also the statements of thye woman running the quiz and Jeremy Wilkins that cast doubt on the visits.

The woman running the quiz came to join them for a spell after the quiz ended and she states that the only person to have left the table in the half hour or so she was there was Gerry a liitle after 21:00. Yet the Tapas 9 statements claim that both Tanner and Oldfield left the table/were away from the table at 21:15 and before 21:30.

And Jeremy Wilkins gave a statment that he was standing talking to Gerry at circa 21:15/21:20 in the very lane and at the time when Tanner claims to have seen the person carrying a child wearing the same pjs as Madeline. Yet Wilkins states he saw neither Tanner nor a person carrying a child, and further more he did not see Oldfield coming from the direction of the tables towards the apartment a few minutes later either.


All these things are in the official statements. So if Tanner saw what she saw, then Gerry and Wilkins could not have been were they said. Meaning Gerry's statement is in doubt.


But if Wilkins gave an accurate statement, then his statement backs up where Gerry said he was and the time Gerry said, but it means that Tanner's staement is seriously in doubt and it also casts some doubt over Oldfield's check.

We also have the big discrepancies in how long David Payne was meant to be where it was claimed he was when Kate was putting the children to bed.

One version says he was not with Kate.
One version says he spoke to Kate for 30 seconds in passing.
One versions says he was there for 30 minutes talking.

Only one can be correct if any, and his pact of silence thing is quite odd given the discrepancies popping up between the other statements.

Is he staying quiet to avoid putting his foot in it, or is he staying quiet because he was not at the table at all or just to avoid giving a truthful statement that might contradict what was already said?


It is the sheer volume of contradicting statemnts and timelines that throws up doubts, especially when you have a couple like the McCanns claiming things were exactly as they said with no leeway for anything different.

Someone has to be lying in their statements. Contradicting statements and timelines mean it would be almost impossible for someone not to be lying.

The only question that matters is why?


To cover up a lack of checks, but that there was a real abductor?

Or to cover up something else that they don't know much about, but they weighed in to back their friend's version.

prinz

Kess73 wrote: »

Or to cover up something else that they don't know much about, but they weighed in to back their friend's version.

Excellent post. There really is no room to claim that the McCanns and their friends are being 100% truthful. Somebody is lying about something, and until they come clean completely the finger of suspicion will always have to point at them as it's the only tangible lead in the investigation at present.

hondasam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Can we leave the self righteous indignation out of it please, it's grating.

I did not say it was ok. Only that it does not mean we should hold Kate and Gerry solely responsible.

Gerry and Kate are the only ones responsible. Parents protect their children not neglect them. The fact they are both doctors makes it worse, Kate a gp at the time, Is she not duty bound to report children who are at risk ?

we can argue and argue but if the children were not alone that might Madeline would still be with her family now.

This point of no parent can watch their children all the time, No they cant but they do not put them at risk due to their own negligence.

selfish people should not have children. Harsh yes I know. I have yet to hear Gerry or Kate say ''we were wrong''

Denise bulger never put her son at risk.

prinz

hondasam wrote: »

I have yet to hear Gerry or Kate say ''we were wrong''

Even worse than that, they try to make excuses for themselves, while at the same time trying to push blame onto other people who owed the kids nothing tbh.

walshb

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.

This is so so ludicrous. It's beyond clutching. It's so desperate.
If Madeleine had been supervised the chances of her being snatced
are so so slim, that it's not worth mentioning, yet you are hanging to it?

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

Yes but their version of the "abduction" is the only one they will tolerate and they have pushed it hard in the media as the true version and poured scorn on any other scenario that gets suggested.

Well the sensible response is to quietly (or loudly if you so desire) simply dismiss these suggestions. They have no more credibility than do the centenarians who offer opinions on why they have lived so long. They have novelty value only.

Kess73 wrote: »

It is the sheer volume of contradicting statemnts and timelines that throws up doubts, especially when you have a couple like the McCanns claiming things were exactly as they said with no leeway for anything different

Ok, I guess we are moving away from they should/ should not be held accountable for not protecting their child from abduction and back to the bigger picture question of whether they were involved or not?

I don’t dispute that there is an impressive body of evidence against them, which would be difficult to explain if they are innocent. And there is substantial evidence against them and not just nonsense about them not behaving as grieving parents should or the fact that Kate, presumably on the advice of her lawyer, declined to answer questions when she was interviewed as a suspect.
But I have already pointed out here why you should not infer that they must be guilty from this.

AudreyHepburn

walshb wrote: »

This is so so ludicrous. It's beyond clutching. It's so desperate.
If Madeleine had been supervised the chances of her being snatced
are so so slim, that it's not worth mentioning, yet you are hanging to it?

Fine, fine you're right, I'm wrong.

The McCanns should be done for neglect, they alone are responsible.

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

Well the sensible response is to quietly (or loudly if you so desire) simply dismiss these suggestions. They have no more credibility than do the centenarians who offer opinions on why they have lived so long. They have novelty value only.

Ok, I guess we are moving away from they should/ should not be held accountable for not protecting their child from abduction and back to the bigger picture question of whether they were involved or not?

I don’t dispute that there is an impressive body of evidence against them, which would be difficult to explain if they are innocent. And there is substantial evidence against them and not just nonsense about them not behaving as grieving parents should or the fact that Kate, presumably on the advice of her lawyer, declined to answer questions when she was interviewed as a suspect.
But I have already pointed out here why you should not infer that they must be guilty from this.

I have said a number of times over the last week that there is as much chance, in my opinion of course, of them being totally innocent in terms of having something to do with the physical disapperance of their child as there is of them being found to have had something to do with it.

I have not implied that they are guilty of being the ones behind the child vanishing, but I have inferred that there is enough doubt and available evidence to suggest that other scenarios other than the one they are sticking rigidly to may be plausible.

And given that none of us are sitting as part of a jury, what you pointed out has no bearing on a public forum where most of the participants are based in the Republic of Ireland and could not be called to sit as part of a jury in the country where a court case would be heard if it ever came to that, imo, unlikely scenario.


The vast majority of people in this thread have commented based on publicly released police reports contrasted with what people directly involved with the event have said.

The vast majority are open minded enough to realise that there are a number of plausible scenarios with different outcomes leading from each scenario.

We can continue to discuss whether of not they acted in the manner of fit parents that night if you like, but I think that there has already been a pretty overwhelming consensus on that particular sub debate.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Fine, fine you're right, I'm wrong.

The McCanns should be done for neglect, they alone are responsible.

For not ensuring their children's safety in even the most basic of fashion, yes.
They are certainly responsible for that and that is totally on them, imho of course.

Beyond that we cannot know for sure what they are or are not responsible for.


But don't feel that you, as a poster, have to agree with it. I disagree with some of what you have siad on that particular topic, but I respect your decision to do so and you have done so in a non insulting manner.

From reading WalshB's posts in other forums I have little doubt that he would feel the same way on it, and that he is just arguing his beliefs/opinions on this as strongly as you would your own.


I just felt from the tone of your post that you feel a little brow beaten/put upon/irritated/fill in your own word:) by some of using debating/arguing against you, and wanted to say that whilst you and I don't agree on everything in this thread, I have enjoyed reading your posts and hope you keep posting as opposing views are always useful and often help a person notice something they had not noticed before on a set topic.

iamwhoiam

Just to clear up one point and I am being petantic I know ! Where Jane Tanner passed GerryMC and Wilkins is often referred to as a lane .It isnt a lane , its a road with wide enough for two cars leading to the beach , church , and village green , restaurants and bars . It passes the entrance to the Mark Warner complex and to get from the Tapas bar to the 5a apartment you have to leave the complex via the entrance / exit out on the road up a bit and up the steps to 5a .
Where Jane Tanner allegedly saw a man is at the top of that road , another road crosses it and its a T junction at that point .
Its not the N11 or anything but there is traffic on it and people passing along in the evening going towards the many apartments up passed Mark warners .
http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&tab=nl

Where R .Dr F Martins meets R .Dr A da Silva is where Tanner is suppose dto have seen this man .,

walshb

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Fine, fine you're right, I'm wrong.

The McCanns should be done for neglect, they alone are responsible.

Hey, I am not trying to sound aggressive, if so, I am sorry. It just seems really desperate to somehow say that "even if the parents were there in the room minding the children it doesn't mean that Madeleine lives," or words to those effect.

BTW, yes, they are damn guilty or neglect, reckless endangerment, or any other crime that could fit the bill for leaving their young children alone and unsupervised.

firefly08

For not ensuring their children's safety in even the most basic of fashion, yes.
They are certainly responsible for that and that is totally on them, imho of course.

Except that that is not what was originally under discussion; all she said originally was that the parents are not solely responsible for what happened. This is in fact correct. If they were solely responsible, then no one else can share in the responsibility, which would mean that the perpetrator would be innocent, which is ridiculous.

You can blame someone for acting in an irresponsible way - a way that is likely to lead to an unfortunate incident, or increases the likelihood. But the unfortunate incident actually taking place does not make them more guilty than they would otherwise be. The Mcanns, as far as anyone knows, did not do anything significantly differently from their 7 companions, or indeed many parents throughout the world - but they are not being blamed, because they were lucky, and their children were not taken. That is wrong.

Furthermore, as lugha has pointed out, we do not actually know that their negligence, while reprehensible, actually contributed to the disappearance. It is easy to show that extreme negligence is not necessary for such a crime to take place. Perhaps she would have been taken anyway.

walshb

firefly08 wrote: »

Furthermore, as lugha has pointed out, we do not actually know that their negligence, while reprehensible, actually contributed to the disappearance. It is easy to show that extreme negligence is not necessary for such a crime to take place. Perhaps she would have been taken anyway.

Well, what did contribute to the child vanishing, assuming that they didn't kill her and hide/bury her? Then, the only reason she was taken was because she was in that room alone and not being protected. That would logically point to them being responsible. They were supposed to be the child's protectors.

All this excusing is a lot of mumbo jumbo nonsense and red herrings. But, as in many cases, folks will use any argument
to defend or excuse or explain.

ppink

firefly08 wrote: »

Furthermore, as lugha has pointed out, we do not actually know that their negligence, while reprehensible, actually contributed to the disappearance. It is easy to show that extreme negligence is not necessary for such a crime to take place. Perhaps she would have been taken anyway.

How do you figure this?

firefly08

Then, the only reason she was taken was because she was in that room alone and not being protected.

How do you figure this?

*sigh*...this has already been dealt with. There are plenty of cases where children were abducted when their guardians were not being negligent by normal standards. Therefore, negligence is not required for an an abduction to take place. Therefore, it is possible that the negligence and the abduction are coincidental. At the other end of the scale, it may very well have been the deciding factor for the abductor. Had they not been quite so negligent, maybe he would have gone elsewhere. Equally, the truth could be anywhere in between. We don't know. So blame them all you want for being reckless but that does not make them responsible for the abduction itself.

Silver Moon

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No they didn't. They checked on them at regular intervals.

Neglect would be walking away and never coming back to check them until the night out ended. They did not do that.

how do you know? Kate claims that on the night of the 2nd she was 'annoyed' at Gerry for getting up abruptly and leaving her with their friends in the bat at 11.50pm!!!!. Kate also claims that the following morning Madeleine said to her "why didn't you come last night when me and Sean were crying?" (perhaps because she couldn't her kids crying because she was in the friggin bar!!!!???)

Little Acorn

I asked in one of my earlier posts if the blood found in the apartment was confirmed as Madeline's, and from a bit more reading that I have been doing, it would seem that the blood was NOT confirmed as Madeline's.
Infact this article would suggest that the blood was likely to be from a man from "northeast europe".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7541810.stm
This following article is where I got the name of the scientist in charge of the forensic tests:
http://www.ukparentslounge.com/index.php?pg=104&utwkstoryid=1045

Anyhow, the above are only media sources so I have looked up the official reports given by Dr. John Lowe the head of the forensic lab, and tbh after reading them, I was quite surprised.
I was always under the impression that the samples from the apartment were 80% proven to be Madeline's, and that the same was true about the "bodily fluids" obtained from the rented car.
This is not the case.
Infact there is no DNA evidence confirmed to be Madeline's from the samples that were taken to be tested from the apartment.
The only place they confirmed DNA from Madeline was from saliva of her pillowcase, and they used this sample of DNA to compare it against other DNA samples that were found in the apartment and in the car.
None of the DNA obtained from the tested areas, matched Madeline's DNA.
There was one swab from the apartment floor that may have contained Madeline's DNA, or it could have been Gerry's or it could have been Kate's. That particular swab was inconclusive.
Out of the many, many other swabs and samples that were taken from the apartment, from the floor, from the walls, from behind the sofa, from on the sofa, from on the curtains, from the lifted tiles etc. -NONE was definitively linked to Madeline or the McCanns.
One sample from the tile grout was matched to a man named Lino Henriques.
As far as I know this man was never a suspect, I'm not sure who he is, possibly a previous guest.
The majority of all other samples were incomplete, or mixed samples of "3 or more people."
3 or 4 samples were confirmed to be male, but it does not say linked to the McCanns in any way.
They could have come from any of the previous tourists who had stayed in that apartment.
An awful lot of the samples are "mixed" DNA, where no single profile could be obtained.

Okay so moving onto the car samples.
This is where the big "Madeline's DNA confirmed" story comes from. I always believed that this DNA found was 80% match to Madeline.
It is not as clear cut as that.
2 fragments of finger nails were found in the car confirmed to be one from Kate, One from Gerry.
Other samples taken from the rental car were mixed DNA samples coming from between 3 -5 people.
The sample relating to Madeline contains 15 out of 19 similar components to Madeline's DNA. BUT these 15 components are NOT unique to Madeline.
It would be the specific formation of these components that would be unique to Madeline. The scientist himself says that many of his staff, including himself also contain these 15 components that were found.

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

Why?...

Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.


What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?

When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from?
Was a crime committed?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

The bodily fluids have not been confirmed to be Madeline's, nor have they been confirmed to even be blood.

So I can honestly see now why they were not arrested, the forensic evidence is very very weak.

That just leaves the cadaver scent found in all those places[and the changing stories etc.] . I know that they cannot be used as proof of anything without further evidence like a body, but I still cannot find another explanation for the death scent in so many places.

Link to Dr. Lowes reports.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mccannfiles.com%2Fid268.html&ei=05nWTZLJIMiYhQf_rKHCBg&usg=AFQjCNHGSRDj8EFRA1uxdtkvKkgEGiVfIw

I have to rush off now. Will check back on this thread tomorrow.

lugha

walshb wrote: »

Then, the only reason she was taken was because she was in that room alone and not being protected. That would logically point to them being responsible.

You could make the exact same argument about the Soham girls. The only reason they were taken was because they were allowed to walk to the shop alone. Does that logically point to their parents being responsible?

theboss80

walshb wrote: »

Hey, I am not trying to sound aggressive,.

You were tbf. Just because somebody doesn't agree with your own standpoint doesn't mean you need to constantly have a go at them.

I think AudreyHepburn did not once say she believes they weren't responsible or that they were doing the right thing going off for pints every night , she was in fact agreeing with you but clearly stating that they , in her opinion , were not solely responsible FOR AN ABDUCTION taking place.

CK2010

lugha wrote: »

You could make the exact same argument about the Soham girls. The only reason they were taken was because they were allowed to walk to the shop alone. Does that logically point to their parents being responsible?

thats like comparing a twelve year old and a two year old being knocked down by a car when crossing the road alone. the parents should not let a two year old cross a road alone whereas a twelve year old is perfectly capable of crossing the road alone.

walshb

lugha wrote: »

You could make the exact same argument about the Soham girls. The only reason they were taken was because they were allowed to walk to the shop alone. Does that logically point to their parents being responsible?

See, comparing the two or trying to even say they are similar is really absurd. It's completely different. As a child grows, a parent's hold lessens.
Doesn't disappear, just lessens. A three year old and two toddlers being left alone is not remotely the same as two 11 year old children walking into a shop without a guardian. To even bring it up seems very silly IMO.

walshb

theboss80 wrote: »

You were tbf. Just because somebody doesn't agree with your own standpoint doesn't mean you need to constantly have a go at them.

I think AudreyHepburn did not once say she believes they weren't responsible or that they were doing the right thing going off for pints every night , she was in fact agreeing with you but clearly stating that they , in her opinion , were not solely responsible FOR AN ABDUCTION taking place.

Been dealt with already. I read her posts and disagreed, and said why. That is what debate is all about. I was not impolite or insulting.
I also knew she was agreeing on certain aspects. I questioned her when she made a point that no matter whether or not
the parents were minding Madeleine the abduction could have happened. That to me is desperation.

Edit: I reckon the McCann's would have had a better chance on the lottery or being struck
by lightning than an intruder taking Madeleine whilst they were present and supervising the child.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

I have said a number of times over the last week that there is as much chance, in my opinion of course, of them being totally innocent in terms of having something to do with the physical disapperance of their child as there is of them being found to have had something to do with it.

I have not implied that they are guilty of being the ones behind the child vanishing, but I have inferred that there is enough doubt and available evidence to suggest that other scenarios other than the one they are sticking rigidly to may be plausible.

The vast majority are open minded enough to realise that there are a number of plausible scenarios with different outcomes leading from each scenario.

That’s fair enough and is broadly my interpretation too. There is something a bit dodgy about the whole business. But I don’t think any reasonable reading of the evidence (as far as I can recall it) would allow any reasonable thinking person to come to the conclusion that they are definitely guilty (or definitely not involved at all, for that matter). But there seems to be quite a few people here who have drawn the former conclusion.

iamwhoiam

lugha wrote: »

You could make the exact same argument about the Soham girls. The only reason they were taken was because they were allowed to walk to the shop alone. Does that logically point to their parents being responsible?

There is no comparison at all and you know it between two 11 year old going to the shop and three kids under four being left in an unlocked unsupervised apartment . Its a daft comparison to be honest .

It like saying leaving a ten year old in the bath is the same as leaving an 8 month old child in a bath ,.The risk is not the same at all .We as parents need to weigh up risks and act accordingly .The Mc Canns misjudged by a million miles .They were big enough and bold enough and educated enough to damn well know better actually

walshb

Quite ironic that the Soham murders were brought up and a comparison between the girls being allowed go out alone as similar to Madeleine being alone.

Ian Huntley argued that he accidentally killed those two girls. One fell into the bath, and the other panicked, and in trying to calm her down he killed her too. Completely bonkers and absurd, but his right to use it. And guess what, one juror fell for it. That doesn't surprise me at all.

mw3guc

Silver Moon wrote: »

Kate also claims that the following morning Madeleine said to her "why didn't you come last night when me and Sean were crying?"

My heart bleeds to read that I have a 4 year old granddaughter and the idea of her and her 2 year old brother crying in the night with nobody to hear is beyond painful.
I've only just joined this thread but I firmly believe I would find it hard not to condemn my son and his wife if they left their children alone for hours while they went to the pub.
And yes, I DO think the Mc Canns have a certain amount of guilt attached to the disappearance of their daughter. While they are not to blame for the actions of the abducter (if any) it would not have happened in this instance if the children weren't left alone. As parents and guardians, we can only be as responsible/guilty for our actions as every single instance of care/neglect dictates.
I hope it's a lesson to all of us, whatever the truth or outcome of this particular case.

lugha

CK2010 wrote: »

thats like comparing a twelve year old and a two year old being knocked down by a car when crossing the road alone. the parents should not let a two year old cross a road alone whereas a twelve year old is perfectly capable of crossing the road alone.

Sorry, I don’t know what point you are making here?

walshb wrote: »

See, comparing the two or trying to even say they are similar is really absurd. It's completely different. As a child grows, a parent's hold lessens.
Doesn't disappear, just lessens. A three year old and two toddlers being left alone is not remotely the same as two 11 year old children walking into a shop without a guardian. To even bring it up seems very silly IMO.

The question is: do you demand that parents take specific precautions against the miniscule risk from abductors? That you do not criticize the Soham families suggests that, like me, you do not think that parents should.

If you are saying the McCanns should have done the basics right, and if they had, then this tragedy would never have happened, then that would be consistent. But you seem to be arguing that part of their duty as parents was to protect their children from such a miniscule threat. And if you oblige them to do so, then why not others.

I would say they failed to do the bread and butter stuff re protecting their children . And as a result of desperately bad fortune, this was exploited by a predator.

walshb

lugha wrote: »

Sorry, I don’t know what point you are making here?


The question is: do you demand that parents take specific precautions against the miniscule risk from abductors? That you do not criticize the Soham families suggests that, like me, you do not think that parents should.

If you are saying the McCanns should have done the basics right, and if they had, then this tragedy would never have happened, then that would be consistent. But you seem to be arguing that part of their duty as parents was to protect their children from such a miniscule threat. And if you oblige them to do so, then why not others.

I would say they failed to do the bread and butter stuff re protecting their children . And as a result of desperately bad fortune, this was exploited by a predator.

I have said in previous posts that abduction was the worst scenario. To leave them alone like they did is/was a disgrace. No matter what they had to do, they did not need to do it.

I also said that they made a very poor call and have now paid dearly. I would call it obscene, disgraceful and disgusting for ANY parent to do what they did on holiday. Forget intruder. What about all the other dangers? And, forget even danger, what about the children being frightened, scared and longing for their guardians?