Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

AudreyHepburn

iamwhoiam wrote: »

altough I do see your point and if there was an abductor he is to blame for his part of course . But maybe they were to blame for his choosing their daughter, maybe he knew how long they were being left unsupervised and chose the easy option . Poor Madeleine , poor little scrap I hope she is not suffering .

So you believe they are solely responsible then? Not getting at you btw just asking

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They are to blame for leaving the babies alone, of course. I keep saying this.

They are not to blame for the abdcutor choosing their daughter.

The vast majority of folk over the last few days have agreed that if there was an abductor then the blame for the actual act of abduction lies with that abductor.


What I, and a number of others have said, is that the McCanns are the only people responsible for leaving their children in a totally unprotected state from that abductor.

A few, not saying you, have tried to twist that into it meaning that by saying the McCanns are guilty of bad parenting, and imho they are guilty of that, that it is also saying that they are responsible for that potential abductor wanting to abduct a child.


They are guilty of bad parenting regardless of the possible abductor. Good parents, who plan on going drinking in a noise filled enviroment, do not leave a pair of one years olds and a three year old in an apartment totally alone without even locking the doors.

I agree that if there was an abductor there that night that the abductor is the only person responsible for making the decision to abduct and to carry out that abduction, but he/she had there job made very easy thanks to the bad parenting techniques on display by the McCanns that night.


An abductor may have taken the child that night, but that abductor had a clear run thanks to some awful parenting decisions.

The child may still not have been 100% safe if the doors had been locked and a babysitter was present the whole time, but I think her safety levels would have been pretty close to 99% if her parents cared enough to get a babysitter and to lock the door.

metrovelvet

If there was an abductor yes they are partially responsible for his choice in picking their daughter, because they made it very easy for him by doing it five nights in a row, by leaving the doors open, by choosing an apartment near the road, and one whose visibility is obscured by a 50 meter distance and foliage. That is why they chose her, and not one of the other kids who were also left alone.

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So you believe they are solely responsible then? Not getting at you btw just asking

No , well if the abductor does exist he is responsible for taking Madeleine , The Mc Canns are responsible for making it possible

One thing that strikes me in this whole story is the Mc Canns inabilty to take blame or inded to be open to suggestions .I dont know if that is self preservation or sheer bloody mindedness .

If they used the media they so court to say that leaving kids is so very wrong , that it is not acceptable I think sympathy might be easier for some
If for example when asked if Madeleine could have wandered off Kate has answered something along the lines of Madeleine hands were tiny and she couldnt push the door , or Madeleine cant reach the handle or something gentle like that ,But her asnwer " Its an insult to my inteligence " realy does not inder people to her .

They are bristely, cold and acerbic and very defensive and give out very odd vibes in my opinion . And its not helping thier cause .

Kess73

metrovelvet wrote: »

If there was an abductor yes they are partially responsible for his choice in picking their daughter, because they made it very easy for him by doing it five nights in a row, by leaving the doors open, by choosing an apartment near the road, and one whose visibility is obscured by a 50 meter distance and foliage. That is why they chose her, and not one of the other kids who were also left alone.

Noticed a few people today saying it was a 50 yard or 50 metre distance.

Was it not closer to 150 yards that was stated in the police reports.

metrovelvet

Kess73 wrote: »

Noticed a few people today saying it was a 50 yard or 50 metre distance.

Was it not closer to 150 yards that was stated in the police reports.

I think the back entrance was 50 meters and to get around the front 100 meters. That is my understanding of what I have read so far.

iamwhoiam

Kess73 wrote: »

Noticed a few people today saying it was a 50 yard or 50 metre distance.

Was it not closer to 150 yards that was stated in the police reports.

And only if you are a crow ., A person walking had to leave the complex by the entrance / exit on to a road , up the road and up the steps to the patio door .Making a lot longer than 150 yards .

Mott The Hoople

I never felt they were telling the truth - something not right about them. A top retired copper inEngland talked about a good policeman has good instincts and he was very doubtful about that pair - whatever - we'll never know the truth.

Mott The Hoople

maebee wrote: »

There is no comparison in the two cases. The McCanns made a conscious decision to leave their babies unattended every night. Even after Madeleine & Seán cried and asked where their parents were, they still left them. Denise Bulger was with her child when he was taken. Huge difference.

The Bulger case really sticks in the craw - its been twenty years now give or take and it still makes me sick thinking about it.

Kess73

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No , well if the abductor does exist he is responsible for taking Madeleine , The Mc Canns are responsible for making it possible

One thing that strikes me in this whole story is the Mc Canns inabilty to take blame or inded to be open to suggestions .I dont know if that is self preservation or sheer bloody mindedness .

If they used the media they so court to say that leaving kids is so very wrong , that it is not acceptable I think sympathy might be easier for some
If for example when asked if Madeleine could have wandered off Kate has answered something along the lines of Madeleine hands were tiny and she couldnt push the door , or Madeleine cant reach the handle or something gentle like that ,But her asnwer " Its an insult to my inteligence " realy does not inder people to her .

They are bristely, cold and acerbic and very defensive and give out very odd vibes in my opinion . And its not helping thier cause .

Also there insistence that the child could not open doors etc goes against some of what they said about their checks on the apartment in their early statements.

One of the statements, I think it was the one of Gerry's check almost an hour before the child was said to be missing, in which he says a door was open or in a different position to when they left the apartment, and he did not bother to check the room despite the door being open because he thought Madeline may have gotten up and opened the door.

Now fair enough at the time that sounded plausible that maybe the child did get up and open a door to go to another room or to the bathroom, although I did think it odd at the time that a father would not walk the extra few feet to actually check to see if she had not gotten sick or anything if he really believed his three year old girl had left her bed for something. I thought it defeated the purpose of checking on the kids if you do not actually look at them to make sure they are ok.


But when Kate McCann started going on about how Madeline was too small to push or open doors, even small ones like the one outside the apartment it struck me as odd seing as this child that they have described as being gifted and years ahead of her age who in another statement had been presumed to have opened doors suddenly is being spoken of as being unable to open doors or as being unable of being able to slide an unlocked patio door open.

Kess73

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think the back entrance was 50 meters and to get around the front 100 meters. That is my understanding of what I have read so far.

Just had a look online and the reported distance to the nearest entrance on the apartment (the patio door) from the bar area is listed at 130 yards, with the distance to the front door being quite a bit further due to the route that would have to be taken.

Kess73

iamwhoiam wrote: »

And only if you are a crow ., A person walking had to leave the complex by the entrance / exit on to a road , up the road and up the steps to the patio door .Making a lot longer than 150 yards .

I know the walking distance is longer, but I was going by the actual distance or the as the bird flies distance.

The actual walking distance to the apartment, regardless of whether one used the front door or the patio, is also quite a bit longer in terms of time than the 30 seconds to 40 seconds that Kate McCann keeps repeating.

I will guess that one of the media folk they have hired has advised to speak that way to make it seem closer than it was.

The world record for a 200m sprint is held by Usain Bolt who did it in 19.19 seconds in 2009. Kate McCann is saying that she could cover a distance slightly longer than that in 30 seconds or so.

AudreyHepburn

Kess73 wrote: »

The vast majority of folk over the last few days have agreed that if there was an abductor then the blame for the actual act of abduction lies with that abductor.


What I, and a number of others have said, is that the McCanns are the only people responsible for leaving their children in a totally unprotected state from that abductor.

A few, not saying you, have tried to twist that into it meaning that by saying the McCanns are guilty of bad parenting, and imho they are guilty of that, that it is also saying that they are responsible for that potential abductor wanting to abduct a child.


They are guilty of bad parenting regardless of the possible abductor. Good parents, who plan on going drinking in a noise filled enviroment, do not leave a pair of one years olds and a three year old in an apartment totally alone without even locking the doors.

I agree that if there was an abductor there that night that the abductor is the only person responsible for making the decision to abduct and to carry out that abduction, but he/she had there job made very easy thanks to the bad parenting techniques on display by the McCanns that night.


An abductor may have taken the child that night, but that abductor had a clear run thanks to some awful parenting decisions.

The child may still not have been 100% safe if the doors had been locked and a babysitter was present the whole time, but I think her safety levels would have been pretty close to 99% if her parents cared enough to get a babysitter and to lock the door.

I have never disagreed with any of the highlighted points in fairness, in fact I agree with your whole post.

I just feel some people, not you mind, are in some way absolving the abductor (if there was one) of blame, saying he/she/they were not responsible for their actions because the McCanns offered their babies on plate which is as incorrect as saying the McCanns are blameless.

Perhaps I am wrong but that is what is coming across in some posts.

AudreyHepburn

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No , well if the abductor does exist he is responsible for taking Madeleine , The Mc Canns are responsible for making it possible

One thing that strikes me in this whole story is the Mc Canns inabilty to take blame or inded to be open to suggestions .I dont know if that is self preservation or sheer bloody mindedness .

If they used the media they so court to say that leaving kids is so very wrong , that it is not acceptable I think sympathy might be easier for some
If for example when asked if Madeleine could have wandered off Kate has answered something along the lines of Madeleine hands were tiny and she couldnt push the door , or Madeleine cant reach the handle or something gentle like that ,But her asnwer " Its an insult to my inteligence " realy does not inder people to her .

They are bristely, cold and acerbic and very defensive and give out very odd vibes in my opinion . And its not helping thier cause.

No it isn't, I agree with you there. But after the way the police and the public have treated them, and assuming they did nothing to Madeleine, I can understand why.

Hail 2 Da Thief

Mott The Hoople wrote: »

I never felt they were telling the truth - something not right about them.

There's something very cold about the two of them that makes me uncomfortable. Initially I thought their demeanor was a result of the trauma they've been through but this doesn't seem to be the case.
This, added to the fact that they're clearly guilty of terrible parenting (at best), makes it difficult for me to have a huge amount of compassion for them!

Mott The Hoople

Hail 2 Da Thief wrote: »

There's something very cold about the two of them that makes me uncomfortable. Initially I thought their demeanor was a result of the trauma they've been through but this doesn't seem to be the case.
This, added to the fact that they're clearly guilty of terrible parenting (at best), makes it difficult for me to have a huge amount of compassion for them!

I hear you - also was Maddie DNA not also found in the boot of a rented car they had? Sadly the Portugese police were unbelievably inept - and I also think a class thing came into play with both Mcann's being professionals. A lot of the questions posed to them in interragation were unanswered - you kind of know what I'm sayin here. I'm new to this BOARDS.IE so I'm not sure how much I can say - but you get where I'm coming from. What I found most interesting was that copper who talked about instincts and he really didn't dig what they had to say. As for being cold, the husband really gave me the creeps. Was watching Oprah a year or two back and the way McCann said at the "We love you Maddie" made my skin crawl with his insincerity.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No it isn't, I agree with you there. But after the way the police and the public have treated them, and assuming they did nothing to Madeleine, I can understand why.

We really only have their word on how the police treated them though.

And let's not forget that they were having a right go about the Portugese police in the media after they were asked to stop saying things to do with the investigation to the media.

They gave out and said they wanted the British police involved.

They got their way on that and the British police did get involved, and then they started complaining about the British police and about how the British police "treated" them.


They also have hired at least five different detective agencies and have criticised all of them as wastes of money or as being bad at their jobs as well.


It seems that anyone or any organisation that suggests anything different to them suddenly has mistreated them.


As for the public mistreating them, well I think they should have a long look at the amount of money the public has donated to them before making any comments about the public.

Now that does not make them anymore or any less innocent or guilty, but the fact they seem to fall out with every organisation brought in to investigate the disappearance of their child says more about them than the police forces or two countries and the dectective agencies of a number of countires.


I also expect Scotland Yard to be called bad at their job or said to be mistreating them as well if SY does not agree with the McCanns over the police reports.


All they are doing, in my eyes anyway, with their criticisms of different police forces is trying to muddy the waters and discredit the forces in case things every go to court.

Kess73

Mott The Hoople wrote: »

I hear you - also was Maddie DNA not also found in the boot of a rented car they had? Sadly the Portugese police were unbelievably inept - and I also think a class thing came into play with both Mcann's being professionals. A lot of the questions posed to them in interragation were unanswered - you kind of know what I'm sayin here. I'm new to this BOARDS.IE so I'm not sure how much I can say - but you get where I'm coming from. What I found most interesting was that copper who talked about instincts and he really didn't dig what they had to say. As for being cold, the husband really gave me the creeps. Was watching Oprah a year or two back and the way McCann said at the "We love you Maddie" made my skin crawl with his insincerity.

Well the McCanns have said that the Portugese police were inept, must as they came out and criticized the British force later on as well. Plus they have said it over and over and over in the British media so that it is almost taken as fact by many whose news reports come from that media.

Other European news outlets are not quite as McCann friendly, and certainly not as critical towards the Portugese police.


But the track record of the Portugese police in similar cases suggest that the police there are far from inept and far from the corrupt force the McCanns would like to portray them as.

Mott The Hoople

Kess73 wrote: »

Well the McCanns have said that the Portugese police were inept, must as they came out and criticized the British force later on as well. Plus they have said it over and over and over in the British media so that it is almost taken as fact by many whose news reports come from that media.

Other European news outlets are not quite as McCann friendly, and certainly not as critical towards the Portugese police.


But the track record of the Portugese police in similar cases suggest that the police there are far from inept and far from the corrupt force the McCanns would like to portray them as.

I STAND CORRECTED on the Portugese police being inept. My theory is an accident happended in the apartment that covered up - hence the DNA and cadavar dogs sensing something. One thing about a dogs nose - it impossible to evade.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

Noticed a few people today saying it was a 50 yard or 50 metre distance.

Was it not closer to 150 yards that was stated in the police reports.

The exact distance hardly matters. Surely the critical threshold is reached when you are no longer within earshot of your children? And in a large group, drinking and presumably chattering, that may not be any more than 20 meters or so.

thebullkf

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have never disagreed with any of the highlighted points in fairness, in fact I agree with your whole post.

I just feel some people, not you mind, are in some way absolving the abductor (if there was one) of blame, saying he/she/they were not responsible for their actions because the McCanns offered their babies on plate which is as incorrect as saying the McCanns are blameless.

Perhaps I am wrong but that is what is coming across in some posts.

nobody said that, nobody implied that

can we stop the bickering among each other please?..the last few pages are riddled with 'what ifs.'

the only 'what if'.. in my opinion that really should be asked is :

What if the McCanns had hired a babysitter?

the answer is simple- and i think all would agree, we wouldn't be here arguing .

Simple really, abductor,wandered off,stolen to order,Paedophiles..

its all irrelevant cos if they were present that night, Maedeline would be here today.

So- who's responsible/Culpable/to blame?

i'll tell you who its not: its not the person who made the restaurant booking, its not any of the other parents,or Murat,or that cop.

its the "parents" {term used loosely}

Can we move on and discuss any other updates/news/scenario's cos this thread is eating its own tail.

Sorry for the rant:o

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

The exact distance hardly matters. Surely the critical threshold is reached when you are no longer within earshot of your children? And in a large group, drinking and presumably chattering, that may not be any more than 20 meters or so.

I think the exact distance does matter when the McCanns have tried to play the distance on a regular basis since the night the child vanished.

There have been claims of how the apartment was in clear view of the table, of how it was within earshot of the table and most recently of how it was only 30 to 40 seconds from the table at most.

All those claims do is paint a picture that they were much closer to the apartment than they actually were.

And if they were as close as they like to make out they were, then there would agains have been a better chance of them spotting the supposed abductor or for the abductor to have seen that they were close and that closeness could have put off the abductor.

So yes the exact distance does matter when the McCanns are trying to make it out to be a nothing distance or the equivalent of someone sitting out their back garden whilst the kids were inside the house.

Also the exact distance plays a big part in how valid the times given for their regular checks are, and in how much time a potential abductor would have, and also it plays a big part in how good the visibility would be.


So if the McCanns use the distance as a point of relevance for their claims, why should anyone else be expected to think that the exact distance does not matter or hardly matters as you said?


Maybe the exact distance and the route to the apartment plays a very big part in why the McCanns and the friends don't want to be part of any reconstruction of what happened that night and why they have resisted such a reconstruction for four years now.

Maybe some of their exact times and their opinions of how it could have gone no way but how they claim could be shattered by an official reconstruction.


Maybe some of the the seemingly conflicting timelines of various statements would be shown up as it having been impossible for some of the people to have been where they claimed in their statements without crossing paths with each other.

In short, maybe it would show up one or more who were not totally honest in their statements.

Police who walked the route a number of times were unable to do so within the same timescale given in the statements without some paths crossing, so maybe an official reconstruction could cause too many awkward questions to be posed, especially to a few of the friends.

walshb

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You've been nothing but agressive toward me and you know it.

You have, as I said above, decided you are right and so will not accept any other viewpoint but your own.

.

Well. I guess my use of the word "sorry" meant nothing... Ah well!

I read your posts and I agree with parts but the part where you say that no matter how well the child is being looked after that an abduction could still have taken place, simply comes across as pure desperation, and clutching! f that makes me aggressive, well so be it.
I didn't think it would be construed like that

Theoretically you are correct, but that doesn't take away the fact that to use it to argue your point, IMO is mute.

That doesn't mean we cannot converse. Not everyone will agree on
a topic, isn't that what makes debate interesting?

AudreyHepburn

walshb wrote: »

Well. I guess my use of the word "sorry" meant nothing... Ah well!

I read your posts and I agree with parts but the part where you say that no matter how well the child is being looked after that an abduction could still have taken place, simply comes across as pure desperation, and clutching!
Theoreticaly you are correct, but that doesn't take away the fact that to use it to argue your point, is clutching, and badly clutching.

I appreciate your apology.

It is not desperation or clutching at all and you know it. Several cases have been quoted to show how parent need only turn away for a second for child to go missing.

Of course the parent being present lessens the risk, or it should in theory. But in practice that is not always the case.

We don't know for sure if Kate or Gerry could have stopped it. I'm inclinded to think they most likely could have but it is not as simple as once a parent is present a child is not any danger.

Also I am not demanding you agree with me or say you are wrong. I just want to try and see my point rather than writing it off as clutching or desperation.

AudreyHepburn

thebullkf wrote: »

nobody said that, nobody implied that

can we stop the bickering among each other please?..the last few pages are riddled with 'what ifs.'

the only 'what if'.. in my opinion that really should be asked is :

What if the McCanns had hired a babysitter?

the answer is simple- and i think all would agree, we wouldn't be here arguing .

Simple really, abductor,wandered off,stolen to order,Paedophiles..

its all irrelevant cos if they were present that night, Maedeline would be here today.

So- who's responsible/Culpable/to blame?

i'll tell you who its not: its not the person who made the restaurant booking, its not any of the other parents,or Murat,or that cop.

its the "parents" {term used loosely}

Can we move on and discuss any other updates/news/scenario's cos this thread is eating its own tail.

Sorry for the rant:o

By laying all the blame on the McCanns, as many insist on doing, you by default absolve the abductor.

And as I and others have said it is not a simple matter of 'if an adult was there Madeleine would have been safe'. She most likely would have but you can't say she DEFINITLY would have.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

So if the McCanns use the distance as a point of relevance for their claims, why should anyone else be expected to think that the exact distance does not matter or hardly matters as you said?

I guess I was making a general point about how far away too far is when you are looking after children. And I would think a distance well short of even the shortest distance been claimed is too far.

The McCanns are right in that it is similar to been at the bottom of your garden when your kids are asleep. They are wrong to imply that there is nothing amiss with that. If you are too far away to hear your children crying then it makes little material difference if you are at the bottom of your garden or down in the pub. You're of the same use to your children, which is to say none.

Mistyeyes321

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I wouldnt make anything up , I also dont know if it happened , it was seen by many on Gerrys blog and then it was taken down ,.I didnt read it so cant vouch for it .Maybe it never happened , you are right and so I guess it cant be taken for gospel at all ,So maybe it was a rumour spread by other forums and thats were I read it .I will take it back an say I simply have no proof except gossip on forums .
Here are a few references to it ,
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t10635p15-hadn-t-seen-this-before-gerrys-strange-behaviour

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread533950/pg6

I'm sorry if you have misunderstood what I meant.. I didn't think who ever posted it first was Making this up, I just hadn't heard of this :eek:Fridge reference before & was & still am really really Shocked by this:eek: Thank you for the Link's too .:)

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

I guess I was making a general point about how far away too far is when you are looking after children. And I would think a distance well short of even the shortest distance been claimed is too far.

The McCanns are right in that it is similar to been at the bottom of your garden when your kids are asleep. They are wrong to imply that there is nothing amiss with that. If you are too far away to hear your children crying then it makes little material difference if you are at the bottom of your garden or down in the pub. You're of the same use to your children, which is to say none.

Other than the fact that chances are that you would not have the door to the house left unlocked.

A locked door is the simpliest of things in terms of basic security.

Yet this simple act was deemed as not being needed by the McCanns.

Their view was that leaving three tiny children in an unlocked apartment was safer than leaving them in a locked one.

At least if the doors were locked an abductor would have had to force a door or risk making noise to get in, or may have even decided the risk of having to physically break through a locked door was too much and gone elsewhere.

Now a locked door may not have made the difference between the child being with her parents today or things being as they are now, but it would have given her a far greater chance than an unlocked door that was not in the parent's line of sight.

I just don't buy the excuse of the door was unlocked in case of a fire. We are to believe that they thought ahead in terms of something that would requre an evacuation but somehow managed to overlook the most obvious way of keeping their children safe?

Plus the fire story loses some weight if Kate's story of child lock's on the gate etc are too be believed as those things would have slowed a person down in the event of a fire.

Mr.Micro

Kess73 wrote: »

Other than the fact that chances are that you would not have the door to the house left unlocked.

A locked door is the simpliest of things in terms of basic security.

Yet this simple act was deemed as not being needed by the McCanns.

Their view was that leaving three tiny children in an unlocked apartment was safer than leaving them in a locked one.

At least if the doors were locked an abductor would have had to force a door or risk making noise to get in, or may have even decided the risk of having to physically break through a locked door was too much and gone elsewhere.

Now a locked door may not have made the difference between the child being with her parents today or things being as they are now, but it would have given her a far greater chance than an unlocked door that was not in the parent's line of sight.

I just don't buy the excuse of the door was unlocked in case of a fire. We are to believe that they thought ahead in terms of something that would requre an evacuation but somehow managed to overlook the most obvious way of keeping their children safe?

Plus the fire story loses some weight if Kate's story of child lock's on the gate etc are too be believed as those things would have slowed a person down in the event of a fire.

If I recall correctly Kate McCann harped on after the event for weeks claiming that they were being watched by the supposed abductor(s). Now if she believed that at the time as fact, why would she then leave her children alone and the door unlocked? No way would one do that if she believed her own words or the threat. It suggests otherwise that there was no threat of abduction at all and just made up afterward to fit their tales.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

Other than the fact that chances are that you would not have the door to the house left unlocked.

The locking of the door in a separate matter. Even if they had locked the door I think many would still consider in inappropriate for them to be so far away from where their children were sleeping.