Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

maebee

Mountainsandh wrote: »

"Prinz, save your breath. The glaring inconsistencies are as plain as day, but at this point Team McCann are never going to see what the rest of us do. And why would they, they have been arguing their case for weeks. No-one that has invested that much effort is going to be swayed by anything anyone says"

Sunflower27, I do agree that some things might look odd, or suspicious even.

In my case, it's not that I can't see how you on the basis of internet searches can put together an expose of inconsistencies, giving an overall impression of ehmm... ehmm "guiltiness"

(excuse my English, I'm French, and after a can of beer, language skills slacken).

et m'aussi quant à la bière
but there are no inconsistencies/translation errors in the Gaspars' Statements, which imo, are very pertinent to the case of this missing child.

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

And here we go again

I take it you are "unwilling" to answer the question I pose? :pac:

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

Well, this goes back to the parenting skills, or lack thereof. of the parents, which of course has nothing to do with their direct involvement or not.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "babies". Madeleine, at almost 4, was not a baby. Presumably, you do not mean that you would be physically present from the time your children are born until the cease to be children at 18?

So what would you deem to be adequate supervision of children. And until what age?

Yes at almost 4 she should have been able to detect an intruder, fight him/her off for the sake of her siblings and return to sleep without bothering her parents and ruining their night.

Your attitude, quite frankly, is disturbing.

Over and out... this thread has just sunk to new, ridiculous depths.

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

I take it you are "unwilling" to answer the question I pose? :pac:

Unwilling -not bothered more like. After your last post,I would not waste my breath.

dark crystal

maebee wrote: »

Mountainsandh wrote: »

but there are no inconsistencies/translation errors in the Gaspars' Statements, which imo, are very pertinent to the case of this missing child.

If so, why weren't these statements followed up by an investigation?

If I made a call to social services or the police and made such allegations, they would certainly be acted upon. Why were such serious allegations never followed up?

What possible reason would the British department of social services or the British police have to ignore such an allegation?

dark crystal

sunflower27 wrote: »

Your attitude, quite frankly, is disturbing.

Over and out... this thread has just sunk to new, ridiculous depths.

Really? I thought that happened when the so called Tapas 9 were accused of being BDSM swingers.....

goat2

i now realise thet the extract is from the police man that had a bad relationship with the mccannes from the start, so therefore i do not beleive anything he would have to say/write on the matter.

maebee

lugha wrote: »

.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "babies". Madeleine, at almost 4, was not a baby. Presumably, you do not mean that you would be physically present from the time your children are born until the cease to be children at 18?

So what would you deem to be adequate supervision of children. And until what age?

Jesus Christ Almighty. I just cannot believe what you've just written. I am lost for words.

Mountainsandh

maebee wrote: »

With respect, this is nonsense. Your child has just been abducted and instead of searching for her, you delete messages on your phone to make room for incoming messages?
.

My child has just been abducted. I'm in a panic, I cry and I pace. My husband is out searching, I have the 2 babies, I don't want to leave them, and I am waiting for news. I'm like a lion in a cage. I'm trying to make sense of things, I badly need the support of my friends and family, but my mind can't take it, and I'm hoping my husband or other friends running on the beach might text me where they are, where they've looked, where they're looking now, if there's anything. I talk to the friend who's there with me. I talk to some other people. Too many messages, I press enter. I pace some more, I squeeze the baby in my arms. I sit down, I get up. I look up, someone could be coming. I stare. Phone beeps again. A text, but it's not Gerry's. Phone rings, a relative, I'm confused, can't talk now, can't focus, ring me later. I get up again and pace some more and cry some more. Phone rings, I try to explain, my mind is all muddled, can you ring back. Some more crying.

I made this up.
I didn't make up the Gerry gone out searching in the night part, or looking after the babies with the friend (in the friend's (can't remember which!) flat at that stage, PJ were there).

It's a bit dramatic, but that's the way I would guess I might feel in that situation. And yes, I think I would press enter and delete the messages.

And yes yes, before anyone pipes in "she shouldn't have left the babies in the first place", yes, she shouldn't have left them in the first place.

123balltv

lugha :( would you leave a 4 year old baby in the middle of the
night to look after 1 year old twins sick absolutely sick

Shame on Kate the Mother she should of been there to protect her flesh and blood friends she wanted be with ...
I hope it was worth it friends come and go but that night she let her baby be taking

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

Yes at almost 4 she should have been able to detect an intruder, fight him/her off for the sake of her siblings and return to sleep without bothering her parents and ruining their night.

Your attitude, quite frankly, is disturbing.

Over and out... this thread has just sunk to new, ridiculous depths.

There has been a notion put out on this thread, quite a while ago, that children should be perpetually supervised. As a child is a child until they are 18, such a proposition is plainly preposterous, not to mention unhealthy.

So I think there is an onus on those that make this argument, and the many posters who thanked such post, to offer somewhat more realistic advise. This is what I was seeking from the poster I quoted.

sunflower27 wrote: »

Unwilling -not bothered more like. After your last post,I would not waste my breath.

I'll draw my own conclusions.

TheZohanS

lugha wrote: »

There has been a notion put out on this thread, quite a while ago, that children should be perpetually supervised. As a child is a child until they are 18, such a proposition is plainly preposterous, not to mention unhealthy.

So I think there is an onus on those that make this argument, and the many posters who thanked such post, to offer somewhat more realistic advise. This is what I was seeking from the poster I quoted.


I'll draw my own conclusions.

Y e a h....

lugha

123balltv wrote: »

lugha :( would you leave a 4 year old baby in the middle of the
night to look after 1 year old twins sick absolutely sick

Shame on Kate the Mother she should of been there to protect her flesh and blood friends she wanted be with ...
I hope it was worth it friends come and go but that night she let her baby be taking

No I wouldn't. But I have asked what your guidelines are with respect to supervising children? How much supervision and until what age?

Or do you persist with the notion that a guardian should be perpetually around a child until the reach 18?

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

There has been a notion put out on this thread, quite a while ago, that children should be perpetually supervised. As a child is a child until they are 18, such a proposition is plainly preposterous, not to mention unhealthy.

So I think there is an onus on those that make this argument, and the many posters who thanked such post, to offer somewhat more realistic advise. This is what I was seeking from the poster I quoted.


I'll draw my own conclusions.

By all means, feel free. I have put no weight at all in anything you have said, so it is only fair and just you put none in mine.

TheZohanS

lugha wrote: »

No I wouldn't. But I have asked what your guidelines are with respect to supervising children? How much supervision and until what age?

Or do you persist with the notion that a guardian should be perpetually around a child until the reach 18?

Why are you changing the subject? The twins were just gone 2 and Madeline hadn't turned 4, I think all decent, normal people will agree that is too young to be left on their own. What is the correct age is irrelevant as it certainly was years away for those kids.

lugha

TheZohan wrote: »

Y e a h....

Well, feel free to offer what you think is sensible advise.

But you are sort of right. The issue of how the McCanns cared for their children is a separate one to whether they were involved or not in their disappearance.

Mountainsandh

maebee wrote: »

but there are no inconsistencies/translation errors in the Gaspars' Statements, which imo, are very pertinent to the case of this missing child.

Actually I'm not sure, but if this statement was made to the Portuguese police, it would have been first translated to Portuguese, then back to English from Portuguese. 2 translations. I know I have read that some of the statements we take for granted are in fact, translated twice that way.

goat2

lugha wrote: »

No I wouldn't. But I have asked what your guidelines are with respect to supervising children? How much supervision and until what age?
Or do you persist with the notion that a guardian should be perpetually around a child until the reach 18?

i do know that when i decided to go out of a night, i would not leave a child under the age of sixteen alone,and at that age they were able to contact me on the mobile phone if needed, what is the law, what age can you leave a child unsupervised,

maebee

lugha wrote: »

No I wouldn't. But I have asked what your guidelines are with respect to supervising children? How much supervision and until what age?

Or do you persist with the notion that a guardian should be perpetually around a child until the reach 18?

lugha, you seem to be missing the parental gene of protecting your offspring. You do not, EVER, leave your 3 toddlers in an apartment 150 meters away from where you are wining and dining, because one of them might wake up, fall,cry for you when you're not there (as we know happened). There may be a fire and you are not there to get your toddlers out. Worst of all, one of them might get "abducted" Even the thickest of parents would not take this risk with three children under the age of four.

TheZohanS

goat2 wrote: »

i do know that when i decided to go out of a night, i would not leave a child under the age of sixteen alone,and at that age they were able to contact me on the mobile phone if needed, what is the law, what age can you leave a child unsupervised,

That fits with UK guidelines.

There is no legal age limit for leaving a child on their own, but it is an offence to leave a child alone if it places them at risk. Parents can be prosecuted if they leave a child unsupervised ‘in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health’ (Children and Young Person’s Act).


How mature is the child?
The most important factor to consider is how mature the child is. For example, it may be okay to leave a mature 12 year old alone, but not a 13 year old who is not mature.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) advises that:
children under the age of about 12 are rarely mature enough to be left alone for a long period of time
children under the age of 16 should not be left alone overnight
babies, toddlers and very young children should never be left alone


Things to remember
If you do leave your child home alone, remember to do the following:
leave a contact phone number and make sure you can answer it right away
leave a separate contact list of people you trust, in case they can’t get hold of you
talk to your child before you leave about how to stay safe, and tell them not to answer the door to strangers
make sure dangerous objects like matches and knives are out of reach, as well as medicines and dangerous chemicals
leave clear instructions on what to do in case of an emergency (like a fire)
tell them what time you will be back, and don’t be late
set some basic rules about what they can and can’t do while you are out
teach them basic first aid
Finally, it is important to make sure that your child is happy to be left alone. If they aren’t confident about being left alone then find someone to look after them.

Source.

maebee

lugha wrote: »

But you are sort of right. The issue of how the McCanns cared for their children is a separate one to whether they were involved or not in their disappearance.

I really think that you are taking the p*ss. The McCanns child "disappeared" because they did not take care of her. End of.

goat2

PapaQuebec wrote: »

"MAJORCA, SEPTEMBER 2005



Madeleine McCann is two and a half years old and the twins just a few months when they go on holiday to Majorca with their parents. Three couples and their children go with them: David and Fiona Payne with their one-year-old daughter (Fiona is pregnant with their second child); S. and T., with their two children aged 1 and 3; finally S.G. and K.G., who have a one and a half year old daughter, E. (K.G., is also expecting a child). The trip was organised by David Payne. The latter rented a villa big enough to accommodate all of them.

S.G. got to know Madeleine's mother at university in Dundee, between 1987 and 1992. K.G. met Gerry McCann for the first time at his wedding to Kate in 1998. They become good friends, see each other regularly, spend weekends together and phone each other often.

After dinner on the third or fourth evening in Majorca, the friends are all settled on the patio. They are having a drink and chatting when K.G. witnesses a scene which flabbergasts her and makes her fear for the safety of her daughter and the other children.

She is sitting between Gerry McCann and David Payne when she hears the latter ask if she - probably Madeleine - did "that": he then puts a finger in his mouth and begins sucking it while putting it in and out - the sexual connotation is obvious - while with the other hand, he traces small small circles around his nipple in an explicitly provocative way. While K.G., stupefied, regards Gerry and David, an uneasy silences settles around the table. Then they all start chatting again as if nothing happened. K.G. starts to distrust the way David Payne relates to the little ones. On another occasion, she sees David Payne making the same gestures while speaking about his own daughter. At this time, it's the fathers who give the children their baths, but K.G. no longer lets Payne near her daughter. After the holiday, K.G. will only meet the Paynes on one occasion, and she will not speak to them. Over the next two years, relations between K.G., S.G. and the McCanns becomes distanced; they will only see each other now at children's birthday parties.

This witness statement from the couple, S.G. and K.G., is taken by the English police on May 16th, thirteen days after Madeleine's disappearance. That information, very important for the progress of the investigation, was never sent to the Portuguese police.

When the Portuguese investigators learn about similar events that allegedly took place during a holiday in Greece - without, however, obtaining reliable witness statements -, they tell the English police, who, even at this point, refrain from revealing what they know on the subject.

It will only be after my removal from the investigation, in October 2007, that this statement will finally be sent to the Portuguese police. Why did the British keep it secret for more than six months? It is all the more surprising that David Payne, who had planned the trip to Majorca - of whom it was known that his behaviour towards the children was, to say the least, questionable -, is the same person who organised the holiday in Portugal, that he is one of those closest to Madeleine and that he is the first friend of the family to have been seen with Kate McCann just after the disappearance (we will talk further about this). He was still present in Vila da Luz when the English police received that witness statement: why wasn't he interviewed immediately?

Without doubt, the Portuguese police could have made progress with the investigation thanks to that lead: such behaviour would merit close attention. Were we looking in the right direction? Might we have established a link with the events of May 3rd? It is difficult to seriously doubt these witnesses." Goncarlo Amaral

I couldn't agree more!

i dont beleive anything that is written by this author,

lugha

goat2 wrote: »

i do know that when i decided to go out of a night, i would not leave a child under the age of sixteen alone,and at that age they were able to contact me on the mobile phone if needed, what is the law, what age can you leave a child unsupervised,

Fine. But earlier in the thread I raised the issue of the Soham girls (much less than 16) being allowed to walk around their town unaccompanied.

I was lambasted (and rightly so!) for suggesting, albeit in devils advocate mode, that their parents were irresponsible.

So the question remains, how much supervision and at what age? If you come out with sanctimonious nonsense that children should always be supervised, you will quickly realize that such pious sound bites are far from realistic.

And it won't do to say:certainly more than 4, though I wouldn't disagree with that.

lugha

maebee wrote: »

I really think that you are taking the p*ss. The McCanns child "disappeared" because they did not take care of her. End of.

I had the impression from your posts so far that you believed that the McCanns or their friends were directly responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, and that the abduction explanation was a non-runner?

Have you changed your mind?

maebee

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Actually I'm not sure, but if this statement was made to the Portuguese police, it would have been first translated to Portuguese, then back to English from Portuguese. 2 translations. I know I have read that some of the statements we take for granted are in fact, translated twice that way.

Incorrect. The Gaspars' Statements were given to Leicestershire Police on May 16th 2007, in English.

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8884-the-gaspar-statements-re-david-payne

K-9

All the facts or lack of have been gone over pages and pages ago, and I use 40 posts per page.

It's just point scoring at this stage.

lugha

maebee wrote: »

Worst of all, one of them might get "abducted" Even the thickest of parents would not take this risk with three children under the age of four.

Yet no one was willing to criticize the Soham families for taking such a risk with their children. And rightly so.
The risk of being abducted by a stranger is so remote as to be not worth considering.

You can criticize the McCanns for not providing the bread and butter care (being there if they get sick/hungry/wake up etc.) but I don't think you can be consistent in criticizing them for not protecting their children from the minuscule risk from predators if you do not similarly criticize the Soham families.

goat2

sunflower27 wrote: »

Oh come on, faced with a life in prison I think many people accused of serious crimes plead their innocence.

I never said there was some paedophile ring, but I do think those children were drugged and madeleine had an 'accident'. And no post on here is going to ever sway me from that, so I can understand Team McCann supporting them.

Kate and gerry had everything to lose by taking a lie detector test. And true to form, they refused.

They make me sick.

sunflower, i would prefer if you deleted my part of the post you answered, for when i looked to see who wrote the report, it is a person i would not rely on for truth, i realise i was commenting on unreliable police report, if this was a report from an irish or english police report, i may beleive some of it, but the source of this report in unreliable to say the least

Mountainsandh

goat2 wrote: »

i dont beleive anything that is written by this author,

Yes :
When the Portuguese investigators learn about similar events that allegedly took place during a holiday in Greece - without, however, obtaining reliable witness statements -, they tell the English police, who, even at this point, refrain from revealing what they know on the subject.

This statement is very worrying indeed, but it doesn't incriminate Gerry or Kate McCann. I think I read the "original" "I" statement (by the person), but she said that Gerry looked confused and didn't know how to react. Maybe the people just couldn't face the fact that it was a very suggestive gesture, and thought they must have had it wrong, or maybe the gesture was not as suggestive to the other people as this person perceived it. What if the man was just pretending to be a little girl simply sucking her finger and twirling her hair with a finger ? could that have been misinterpreted ? My daughter does that, and if I saw a grown man imitating it, depending on who it is and how much I know the man, I might take it the wrong way.

Meteoric

lugha wrote: »

No I wouldn't. But I have asked what your guidelines are with respect to supervising children? How much supervision and until what age?

Or do you persist with the notion that a guardian should be perpetually around a child until the reach 18?

Are you actually being serious? Really? Equating a 16 year old with a 4 year old? I've read all this thread with an open mind but that sort of attempted distraction is irrelevant. No-one has said that older children need to be watched constantly
When a child is in a cot they are contained, not likely to wander and hurt themselves. When a child is in a bed and has no real concept of danger they need to be minded much more until they can be trusted to understand what they can and can't do.
A 4 year old is in far more danger when left alone than a baby or an older child, they are capable of opening doors etc. (BTW the one thing that makes me think the McCanns are right about the child not just wandering off is the fact patio doors are heavy and hard for a child to open) but small children don't know how to be safe, they just know they are alone and looking for a caregiver. If someone is not around bad things are far more likely to happen.
I was allowed to walk into town on my own when I was 12, brother was allowed at 10 (same time I was) that does not seem unreasonable to me, we both knew the risks and how to keep safe
To me logically since Madeline was seen alive at half five if they were as a group or both parents trying to hide a body it would make more sense to wait until morning to report her missing, as they would have more time to cover tracks, unless one parent was hiding things from the other. But like everyone else I just don't know but I do find the circumstantial evidence hard to ignore.