Madeleine McCann

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

SusieBlue wrote: »

They didn't and wouldn't discard their child in a bin like a piece of rubbish, that's absolutely preposterous and has no factual basis.


Can I ask you what leads you to believe this , what about there character makes you think the above ?

I think its possible as hundreds of times we have seen people who seem normal do horrendous things time and time again ,

Also I wouldn't even call the McCann "normal parents " leaving Children alone for hours every night in a different country and with unlocked doors,

Allowing male friends to bath thee children's,

They show in life they have no problem putting there children in dangerous position's,

They show a lack of caring in life for there kids , So I would not put it past them to show a lack of love in death for them ,

MD1990

Something Else

OwlsZat wrote: »

Questions.

- Were the dogs used successfully to get DNA evidence on other cases both before and afterwards?
- The timeline is bad because they were busy being bad parents
- That could have been genuine. I know I can't get over how there isn't efits / CCTV picture of the "charity collectors" or why the police didn't close off all roads and carry out spot checks...
- What is it about the phone records, haven't heard that one?
- I think if they took the lie detector they would be exposed as negligent meaning the public would loose their support and she would be forgotten.

- Yes the dogs in general are 99% reliable.
- Because no evidence of an abduction. Portugese Police probably foolishy thought it would be easy to get the McCann's to confess.
- They delected phone call records off their phones from the previous day & day of when she went missing. Kept certain phone call's though.
- Or an inncocent person would pass & media attention about parents being involved would reduce greatly.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Can I ask you what leads you to believe this , what about there character makes you think the above ?

I think its possible as hundreds of times we have seen people who seem normal do horrendous things time and time again ,

Also I wouldn't even call the McCann "normal parents " leaving Children alone for hours every night in a different country and with unlocked doors,

Allowing male friends to bath thee children's,

They show in life they have no problem putting there children in dangerous position's,

They show a lack of caring in life for there kids , So I would not put it past them to show a lack of love in death for them ,

Nothing I have seen of them gives the impression that they don't love their children.
The only other scenario I can get on board with is accidental killing (which I still don't feel there is enough evidence for) but at that, it doesn't make sense to me that they'd just throw her away like rubbish if they did that.

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

SusieBlue wrote: »

If they did dispose of her in a bin, and the plan was to pretend she was abducted, why would they let their friends check on their kids, knowing one of them wasn't there?

And why would Kate raise the alarm at 10pm and not until after dinner, which would be much later, knowing that Madeleine was in a bin (I can't believe I've even had to type that).
Surely she'd want to leave it as late as possible to raise the alarm, knowing the bins might be checked, and thus leaving a smaller window to search them before they were collected at 4am?

Remember, in order for the bin theory to make sense, Kate & Gerry would have to have known they were due to be collected at that time. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.
Why would they put her in the bin if they thought they were only collected every few days? There'd be a huge chance of getting caught if so and it would be a stupid risk.

They would have had to have known there was an early morning collection, so it doesn't make sense that Kate would raise the alarm at 10pm, when she could have raised it much later.

In fact, they wouldn't have had to raise it at all, they could have gone back to the apartment, gone to bed, and woke up the next morning saying Madeleine had wandered out in the night and had no idea where she was.

By that point the bins would already have been collected, she would be in the landfill and thus no need for an elaborate faux abduction.

There you go. Debunked. It makes no sense.

I don't expect anyone to have answers to the above questions, btw. It just shows the utter lack of logic in the bin theory.

Your opinion is not a debunking


People where looking for a live Child that night not a dead one ,so wouldn't have searched the bins looking for a body

Maybe there plan was for there friend to raise the alarm to make them look innocent but he never actually looked in the room ,

Also they where not criminal masterminds maybe it was an awful idea that happened to work ,

The bins where never checked properly , Kate herself wrote about checking a bin in her book and said she lifted the lid and barley looked in it,

It may sound improbably but it is POSSIBLE

micks_address

SusieBlue wrote: »

If they did dispose of her in a bin, and the plan was to pretend she was abducted, why would they let their friends check on their kids, knowing one of them wasn't there?

And why would Kate raise the alarm at 10pm and not until after dinner, which would be much later, knowing that Madeleine was in a bin (I can't believe I've even had to type that).
Surely she'd want to leave it as late as possible to raise the alarm, knowing the bins might be checked, and thus leaving a smaller window to search them before they were collected at 4am?

Remember, in order for the bin theory to make sense, Kate & Gerry would have to have known they were due to be collected at that time. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.
Why would they put her in the bin if they thought they were only collected every few days? There'd be a huge chance of getting caught if so and it would be a stupid risk.

They would have had to have known there was an early morning collection, so it doesn't make sense that Kate would raise the alarm at 10pm, when she could have raised it much later.

In fact, they wouldn't have had to raise it at all, they could have gone back to the apartment, gone to bed, and woke up the next morning saying Madeleine had wandered out in the night and had no idea where she was.

By that point the bins would already have been collected, she would be in the landfill and thus no need for an elaborate faux abduction.

There you go. Debunked. It makes no sense.

I don't expect anyone to have answers to the above questions, btw. It just shows the utter lack of logic in the bin theory.

Just on bin collections, anytime ive been on holidays i do notice when they are collected.. its cause there's a pile of stuff there at a central point and they usually get to overflowing point before being collected...

re not raising alarm until after dinner.. id agree with you it would seem to make more sense if they were involved to wait longer.. i still think the timeline is very tight from maybe 7pm down to bed time for an accidental death to take place and then a plan of aciton to form and be executed so they were at dinner at 8.30.. if it was an overnight thing then it would be a much longer timeline to consider.. also i think its relevant that the kids we all sleepy or unusually tired coming back from the creche.. if they were being watched for a couple of days then it would make sense for someone to possible drug them at the kids camp through juice bottles or whatever so they were asleep for a potential abduction later that evening..

if it was an abduction i don't think it was random - it was planned out completely and they would have watched the dinner sequence each night and figured out timings. i think one of the apartments higher up and with a view of the dinner party was free and someone reported spotting a stranger coming out of the garden either earlier than day or a previus day.. they could have had someone up there as a lookout to signal to the people on the ground..

gozunda

Something Else

Creol1 wrote: »

That clip completely edits out the funny bit!

The bit about the halibut? I could only find that in a long clip so had to do with this one sorry! lol.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

SusieBlue wrote: »

Nothing I have seen of them gives the impression that they don't love their children.
The only other scenario I can get on board with is accidental killing (which I still don't feel there is enough evidence for) but at that, it doesn't make sense to me that they'd just throw her away like rubbish if they did that.

But Susie, they touched their ears in an interview when they were being asked difficult questions.. they clearly did it :pac:

I must be looking at a different couple to the one who others describe as indifferent and apathetic to their circumstances. I see Kate as someone who has trauma written all over her face. There was a piece of footage in the documentary where she was appealing for Madeleine’s safe return and once the footage stopped rolling, she put her head in her hands and broke down crying. They kept all of that away from public view. I guess it’s a matter of opinion and perception on whether or not you believe they are deeply troubled and traumatised, as well as whether or not you have an ability to empathise.

On a side note, I remember reading before that abducters can sometimes take pleasure in the amount of trauma and upset they are causing, and so parents are often advised to maintain a cool and measured presence when appealing.

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

retro:electro wrote: »

But Susie, they touched their ears in an interview when they were being asked difficult questions.. they clearly did it :pac:

They kept all of that away from public view. I guess it’s a matter of opinion and perception on whether or not you believe they are deeply troubled and traumatised, as well as whether or not you have an ability to empathise.

I think that is a very unfair viewpoint actually . I think the Mc Canns are strange people and base that on their behaviour and on their parenting skills
I have an ability to empathise , firstly with Madeleine who was let down by those who should have protected her and secondly with any parent who has lost a child . It doesn't stop me from criticising their behaviour or indeed finding them cold and manipulitive
Are you saying anyone who doesn't see it as you do or agree with your perception is less empathetic than you ?


Look at it this way . If someone I knew had drink on them and failed to put a child in a car seat and the child died in s crash. . I would feel sad for them but also be critical of them for failing to keep the child safe and taking risks with his safety

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Are you saying anyone who doesn't see it as you do or agree with your perception is less empathetic than you ?

Not at all. It wasn’t meant in absolute terms. I am saying that I don’t judge them for how they may have come across in interviews and appeals for her return and make ridiculous conclusions based on innocuous movements like ear touching. I am saying none of us have any idea how we would come across, and if you’re judging them based on how you believe you would react in that situation that is just unfair. None of us have any idea how we would come across in that situation never mind the fact that most of the world are judging your every eye movement, twitch and hand placement. I empathise with them on that regard, others don’t and find them suspicious as a result.

Plumbthedepths

SusieBlue wrote:

There you go. Debunked. It makes no sense.

Debunked based on your opinion as to how the McCanns would have acted? . You seem be posting your opinion as fact, it's a guess nothing more just as everyone else's is.

Plumbthedepths

SusieBlue wrote:

Nothing I have seen of them gives the impression that they don't love their children. The only other scenario I can get on board with is accidental killing (which I still don't feel there is enough evidence for) but at that, it doesn't make sense to me that they'd just throw her away like rubbish if they did that.

Very little of what I have seen makes me believe they truly loved their children, even their behaviour afterwards is questionable. As for throwing her away like rubbish, a quite search on Google and I can find the names of several children disposed of like rubbish. Rosalie Gagnon 2 (2018), Somer Thompson 7 (2009) to name just two.

OwlsZat

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Debunked based on your opinion as to how the McCanns would have acted? . You seem be posting your opinion as fact, it's a guess nothing more just as everyone else's is.

I agree with Suzie putting her in a bin the way the events took place makes zero sense. Especially if its as cold and calculated as made out.

Wombatman

I found the bit where the dog finds the teddy in the press a bit odd.

It seemed to be the only item in there.

Why was it left there with nothing else? Looked like a bit of a staged find to me.

OwlsZat

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Anyone got a link to the phone records altering, the records of these specific dogs or the back story that Madeline was a somewhat difficult child.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Debunked based on your opinion as to how the McCanns would have acted? . You seem be posting your opinion as fact, it's a guess nothing more just as everyone else's is.

Isn't that what everyone else is doing? Hence how the "they put her in the bin" conversation even started here?

If she was disposed of by bin, it calls into question why they'd have staged an abduction at all.
They could have went for dinner, pretended she was in bed, said they forgot to lock the front door and she wandered out during the night.
By the time the alarm was raised the next morning, Madeleine would be in the landfill.
No need for an elaborate abduction plot at all.

And I didn't mean it as fact, hence I said at the end of my post I didn't expect anyone to have answers to any of the questions.

I was just showing all the considerable plot holes that poke a substantial hole in the rationale.

Plumbthedepths

OwlsZat wrote:

I agree with Suzie putting her in a bin the way the events took place makes zero sense. Especially if its as cold and calculated as made out.

Personally I think it's a probability, the bins were not thoroughly searched. I believe her death was accidental , overdose or accident but people can be very resourceful when they perceive a threat to themselves.

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

SusieBlue wrote: »

Nothing I have seen of them gives the impression that they don't love their children.


Sorry but do you have children ?

If you love your children you do not leave them alone for hours every night of holidays ( she was at kids camp all day so they barley seen her) , You do not let make friends bath them

They come across as a couple who had children but the children where a burden , they where determined to have "There holiday " regardless of the fact they had children who "NEED" looking after,

Even after she went missing they left the twins in kid's camp in the same town there daughter was missing ,

Action speak louder than words they are not your average loving parents ,

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Very little of what I have seen makes me believe they truly loved their children, even their behaviour afterwards is questionable. As for throwing her away like rubbish, a quite search on Google and I can find the names of several children disposed of like rubbish. Rosalie Gagnon 2 (2018), Somer Thompson 7 (2009) to name just two.

And that's your prerogative, I don't deny that you see it that way, it just goes to show how a different perspective can see something completely different.

It doesn't make either of us wrong.

Plumbthedepths

SusieBlue wrote:

If she was disposed of by bin, it calls into question why they'd have staged an abduction at all. They could have went for dinner, pretended she was in bed, said they forgot to lock the front door and she wandered out during the night. By the time the alarm was raised the next morning, Madeleine would be in the landfill. No need for an elaborate abduction plot at all.

This is prehaps what you would do, you are projecting what you would do onto the McCanns. Have to honest I think it's incredible arrogance to dismiss something because you feel you know the way someone else would act in a given situation.

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

OwlsZat wrote: »

I agree with Suzie putting her in a bin the way the events took place makes zero sense. Especially if its as cold and calculated as made out.

I agree its not the best place but that's why I think its possible,
People make out to hide the body they would have to be criminal masterminds, it could have been just pure luck,
They could have made that choice of the bins in a panic and just by chance got away with it ,

Again it is POSSIBLE ,

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

This is prehaps what you would do, you are projecting what you would do onto the McCanns. Have to honest I think it's incredible arrogance to dismiss something because you feel you know the way someone else would act in a given situation.

Lets go back a bit now. Why are we even discussing this?

Because someone said her parents disposed of her by throwing her in the bin.

So by that logic, we can assume that whoever suggested that is stating what they themselves would do? And also projecting?

Is it not arrogant to assume they know the way someone else would act in any given situation? As you literally just said yourself?

Or is it only not ok to speculate if you believe the abduction theory?

For example, saying they dumped her in a landfill is fine, but discussing why that might not make sense isn't, because I'm "projecting what I would do onto the McCanns"??????

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Sorry but do you have children ?

If you love your children you do not leave them alone for hours every night of holidays ( she was at kids camp all day so they barley seen her) , You do not let make friends bath them

They come across as a couple who had children but the children where a burden , they where determined to have "There holiday " regardless of the fact they had children who "NEED" looking after,

Even after she went missing they left the twins in kid's camp in the same town there daughter was missing ,

Action speak louder than words they are not your average loving parents ,

What relevance does whether I have children or not have?

No one has disputed that leaving them alone at night was wrong.

She was in kids club from 3:30pm-5:30pm ish on the day she went missing, which by all accounts is not all day.
There is nothing wrong with utilising kids clubs, they are good for socialisation of children and many many parents use them.

In all the footage from the aftermath I see two broken people, Kate in particular looks like she's on the verge of collapsing.
In the footage from beforehand, the home videos, they look like a normal, happy family.

You see differently, that's fine, that's your perspective & I respect that, but you can't tell me I'm wrong.

Phoebas

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

MD1990 wrote: »

- Yes the dogs in general are 99% reliable.

I'd like to see some evidence for that 99% figure.

We know that there was a FoI request to the South Yorkshire Police for details of their deployments with that force between 2003 and 2007, and the details were refused on the basis that it would cause unnecessary distress to victims. Which seems fair enough, but it does mean that we can't say with any certainty what their track record was, let alone come up with a figure of 99%.

What we do know is that they weren't reliable in this case. For example, we know that Keela searched the McCann's apartment twice. On 31 July, she searched and didn't alert to the curtains behind the sofa. She was brought back in to search again 3 days later and she did alert.
We also know that none of their alerts yielded any useful evidence.

Plumbthedepths

SusieBlue wrote:

So by that logic, we can assume that whoever suggested that is stating what they themselves would do? And also projecting?

Actually it was one of several methods suggested by one particular poster, which tbh I find more credible than the abduction bs.

Plumbthedepths

Just saw an article in the Sun from yesterday looks like Gerry and Kate will have to pay G Amarals legal costs after they lost their libel case against him. Another 33k out the find Madeline fund I presume.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Actually it was one of several methods suggested by one particular poster, which tbh I find more credible than the abduction bs.

No, it's either projection all round or its not, you can't have it both ways.

Such double standards here.

It can't be grand when someone says she was dumped in a landfill, and not ok when I state the reasons why I don't think its likely.

We're all speculating, but you only seem to have a problem when I do it.

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

retro:electro wrote: »

Not at all. It wasn’t meant in absolute terms. I am saying that I don’t judge them for how they may have come across in interviews and appeals for her return and make ridiculous conclusions based on innocuous movements like ear touching. I am saying none of us have any idea how we would come across, and if you’re judging them based on how you believe you would react in that situation that is just unfair. None of us have any idea how we would come across in that situation never mind the fact that most of the world are judging your every eye movement, twitch and hand placement. I empathise with them on that regard, others don’t and find them suspicious as a result.

No , I am judging them on how they behaved with the safety of their children . Nothing more nothing less . I find Gerry cold and arrogant but give him the benefit of the doubt that its his way of staying in control . I find Kate defensive but again give her that its her way of coping with her own failings .
As for twitching or not I would be a fool to pretend I could analyise that as I am no expert
My gut feeling is Gerry is a cold and arrogant man anyway and Kate is protecting herself by being defensive. Thats what I see when I see them . I empathise with their pain , have sympathy with their plight but find them difficult to warm to .

Plumbthedepths

SusieBlue wrote:

We're all speculating, but you only seem to have a problem when I do it.

I have no problem anyone speculating, when you dismiss a scenario by saying 'debunked' you are suggesting you opinion is fact, if you can't see that we'll what can I say.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I have no problem anyone speculating, when you dismiss a scenario by saying 'debunked' you are suggesting you opinion is fact, if you can't see that we'll what can I say.

And I already explained to that that isn't what I meant, but no worries, round and round we go.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No , I am judging them on how they behaved with the safety of their children . Nothing more nothing less .

Okay that’s fair enough but my post about many lacking the ability to empathise with them was totally in relation to how they conduct themselves in media appeals and interviews, not in relation to their carelessness of leaving their children. Many are in agreement that that was shameful. I could never defend or understand that.

tretorn

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

It really doesnt bear thinking about where she might have ended up.

The footage of her climbing the ladder into the plane is heartbreaking, she was a beautiful little girl and she wasnt protected.

We will probably never know what happened to her but it is probably likely that someone who knew the parents movements may have alerted abductors to the fact that children were being left alone in apartments every evening. She probably was brought across the border into Morocco, the abductors would have had plenty of time to flee with her before the alarm was raised and God knows what happened to her after that.

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

SusieBlue wrote: »

What relevance does whether I have children or not have?

No one has disputed that leaving them alone at night was wrong.

She was in kids club from 3:30pm-5:30pm ish on the day she went missing, which by all accounts is not all day.
There is nothing wrong with utilising kids clubs, they are good for socialisation of children and many many parents use them.

In all the footage from the aftermath I see two broken people, Kate in particular looks like she's on the verge of collapsing.
In the footage from beforehand, the home videos, they look like a normal, happy family.

You see differently, that's fine, that's your perspective & I respect that, but you can't tell me I'm wrong.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm


After breakfast, at around 9/9.30am, the children went to the club called the "KIDS CLUB" where they did various activities such as painting, collage etc. They stayed there until around 12.30pm, constantly supervised by several Ocean Club employees in a ratio of three children to one employee. Within the "Kids Club" because of the difference in ages, the twins were in one group and Madeleine in another, with separate activities.

At 12.30pm, the parents would collect their children and have lunch in their apartment since they have provisions. After lunch, at around 1.30pm, the children spend time close to the club's swimming pool, supervised by the parents, for about 45 minutes, where they play and have sun cream applied. After this time, they take the children to the "Kids Club" until around 5/5.30pm, the time when the children eat in a bar under the watchful gaze of the parents. After the 5pm dinner, they give the children a bath, prepare them for the night and let them play for a while in a playground next to the tennis courts, still and always under parental supervision. At around 8pm, the children are put to bed until the following morning when the described routines start all over again. While the children are at the "Kids Club," the interviewee played tennis with her husband, went for walks, read or went "Jogging."

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

SusieBlue wrote: »

What relevance does whether I have children or not have?


The relevance is because you said you seen nothing that would make you think they did not love the children,

If you had children you would surely realises leaving your children alone at night in the circumstance they did
Allowing male friends to take turn to bath your children ,
Leaving your twins in kids club again in the same place your child is missing ,

These are sure fire signs they did not care about there kids like normal parents,
If you are a parent yourself surely you would never dream of any of the above ,

OwlsZat

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

tretorn wrote: »

It really doesnt bear thinking about where she might have ended up.

The footage of her climbing the ladder into the plane is heartbreaking, she was a beautiful little girl and she wasnt protected.

We will probably never know what happened to her but it is probably likely that someone who knew the parents movements may have alerted abductors to the fact that children were being left alone in apartments every evening. She probably was brought across the border into Morocco, the abductors would have had plenty of time to flee with her before the alarm was raised and God knows what happened to her after that.

The citings of her in the direction of Morocco were discredited as mistaken identify. While it's possible she went that way it's possibly more likely she went by land through central Europe.

Phoebas

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Allowing male friends to take turn to bath your children ,

I've seen this being posted a few times now here and elsewhere on the internet. I'm not saying its not true, but I haven't seen any source material for it?


The only thing I've seen even approaching this is a statement from a friend who was on a previous holiday that included the McCanns who said that on that holiday "it was the fathers who took care of the children's baths" and that she was wary of one of the group that that "and I did not trust him to give bath to E***** alone".
Has this been wildly extrapolated to ... "allowing male friends to take turn to bath your children"?

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

yourdeadwright wrote: »

The relevance is because you said you seen nothing that would make you think they did not love the children,

If you had children you would surely realises leaving your children alone at night in the circumstance they did
Allowing male friends to take turn to bath your children ,
Leaving your twins in kids club again in the same place your child is missing ,

These are sure fire signs they did not care about there kids like normal parents,
If you are a parent yourself surely you would never dream of any of the above ,

I'm intentionally ignoring the bolded.
The bathing thing is all relative to their relationship with their friends. I don't think on its own its a cause for concern.
My mams friend often brought me swimming with her daughter as a child, no doubt I'd have needed help showering and changing afterwards and I don't think that's sinister or weird.
Again there is nothing wrong with utilising a kids club, doing so does not make you a bad parent.

I've already stated that I don't agree with leaving the kids alone.
Would I let a friend bathe my children? If there was a need to, I'd certainly trust them to, yes.
And if my children wanted to attend a kids club while on holidays, yes, I'd absolutely let them.

Would that make me a bad parent? I really really don't think so.

tretorn

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

They would have been better of leaving the children at home.

It certainly wasnt a family holiday, it was quite obvious the parents wanted to spend time hanging out with their friends while the children had the same day on holidays as they had at home, ie Madeline in one part of a creche and the twins in another. There is nothing wrong with parents wanting an adult only holiday but to leave three tiny children in an unlocked apartment is negligent and in my eyes anyway raised questions about their fitness as parents.

It wasnt like they couldnt afford babysitters, that poor child, I hope she didnt suffer too much and I certainly hope she isnt being kept somewhere now to be used in some obscene child porn videos.

I see that man who was caught in Ireland and who was one of the biggest facilitators of child porn in the world has been deported to the States, he looks perfectly normally, all these people do, they could have been sitting next to the McCanns in the restauarant watching those half hearted attempts to go and check on sleeping infants. It would have been possible to time the group after even one night and then ring someone hanging out near the apartment to alert them when it was safe to enter and take the child.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

iamwhoiam wrote: »

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm


After breakfast, at around 9/9.30am, the children went to the club called the "KIDS CLUB" where they did various activities such as painting, collage etc. They stayed there until around 12.30pm, constantly supervised by several Ocean Club employees in a ratio of three children to one employee. Within the "Kids Club" because of the difference in ages, the twins were in one group and Madeleine in another, with separate activities.

At 12.30pm, the parents would collect their children and have lunch in their apartment since they have provisions. After lunch, at around 1.30pm, the children spend time close to the club's swimming pool, supervised by the parents, for about 45 minutes, where they play and have sun cream applied. After this time, they take the children to the "Kids Club" until around 5/5.30pm, the time when the children eat in a bar under the watchful gaze of the parents. After the 5pm dinner, they give the children a bath, prepare them for the night and let them play for a while in a playground next to the tennis courts, still and always under parental supervision. At around 8pm, the children are put to bed until the following morning when the described routines start all over again. While the children are at the "Kids Club," the interviewee played tennis with her husband, went for walks, read or went "Jogging."

Every account I have seen of the day she went missing says that she was in kids club from 10 - 12pm, and then went out on boats on a planned excursion from 3:30-5:30pm.
And regardless, I still don't see it as a cause for concern. They weren't locked in a concentration camp. They were doing fun activities with other children their age.
I mean, there were plenty of other children there, do they all have negligent parents who don't give a sh*t too, just because they attended?

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Next person that brings up neglect is being banned form the forum.

tretorn

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm intentionally ignoring the bolded.
The bathing thing is all relative to their relationship with their friends. I don't think on its own its a cause for concern.
My mams friend often brought me swimming with her daughter as a child, no doubt I'd have needed help showering and changing afterwards and I don't think that's sinister or weird.
Again there is nothing wrong with utilising a kids club, doing so does not make you a bad parent.

I've already stated that I don't agree with leaving the kids alone.
Would I let a friend bathe my children? If there was a need to, I'd certainly trust them to, yes.
And if my children wanted to attend a kids club while on holidays, yes, I'd absolutely let them.

Would that make me a bad parent? I really really don't think so.

It is being alleged that male friends were bathing the children, who lets men friends bathe young daughters. What on earth has your mothers female friend got to do with the Mc Canns allegedly letting men bathe their children naked.

This probably has nothing to do with Madeleine going missing but it is odd.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

tretorn wrote: »

It is being alleged that male friends were bathing the children, who lets men friends bathe young daughters. What on earth has your mothers female friend got to do with the Mc Canns allegedly letting men bathe their children naked.

This probably has nothing to do with Madeleine going missing but it is odd.

Where did I say it was a female friend? Its all relative to the situation.
Depending on the "friend" it might be perfectly ok or it might be a major cause for concern.

We are assuming and projecting a lot of serious accusations on what might have been a completely innocent situation.

I haven't actually seen any statements or interviews where it was stated that it even happened anyway, I'd love to see the actual account of where its alleged that all the men swapped kids and bathed each others daughters.
Not being smart either, if that is true it would certainly sway my opinion... But I can't seem to find anything on it.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

tretorn wrote: »

It is being alleged that male friends were bathing the children, who lets men friends bathe young daughters. What on earth has your mothers female friend got to do with the Mc Canns allegedly letting men bathe their children naked.

This probably has nothing to do with Madeleine going missing but it is odd.

I’m not saying it’s something I would do myself but maybe they thought it was handier to throw all the kids in the one bath and give them all a wash down while the mothers got ready?
I’m also not sure what it has to do with Madeleine going missing. It just seems like more pointless character judging of the parents.

tretorn

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm intentionally ignoring the bolded.
The bathing thing is all relative to their relationship with their friends. I don't think on its own its a cause for concern.
My mams friend often brought me swimming with her daughter as a child, no doubt I'd have needed help showering and changing afterwards and I don't think that's sinister or weird.
Again there is nothing wrong with utilising a kids club, doing so does not make you a bad parent.

I've already stated that I don't agree with leaving the kids alone.
Would I let a friend bathe my children? If there was a need to, I'd certainly trust them to, yes.
And if my children wanted to attend a kids club while on holidays, yes, I'd absolutely let them.

Would that make me a bad parent? I really really don't think so.

Why would there be any need to have men bathing the Mc Cann children. Would you be happy to be showered by a friend of your fathers, why do you not see that a child has the right to their privacy too. There were too adults and three little children and it wasnt like the adults were overworked that wee. They had the children in creche most of the day so surely between them they could have washed the children themselves before heading to the Tapas bar for the evening.

They were incredibly selfish.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m not saying it’s something I would do myself but maybe they thought it was handier to throw all the kids in the one bath and give them all a wash down while the mothers got ready?
I’m also not sure what it has to do with Madeleine going missing. It just seems like more pointless character judging of the parents.

It has absolutely no relevance, only to imply that there was possible pedophilia or sexual abuse happening among the group and that the children were willingly put at risk by Kate & Gerry.

Its adding 2 +2 and getting 117.

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

SusieBlue wrote: »

Every account I have seen of the day she went missing says that she was in kids club from 10 - 12pm, and then went out on boats on a planned excursion from 3:30-5:30pm.
And regardless, I still don't see it as a cause for concern. They weren't locked in a concentration camp. They were doing fun activities with other children their age.
I mean, there were plenty of other children there, do they all have negligent parents who don't give a sh*t too, just because they attended?

She went on a planned excursion with Kids club staff

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

tretorn wrote: »

Why would there be any need to have men bathing the Mc Cann children. Would you be happy to be showered by a friend of your fathers, why do you not see that a child has the right to their privacy too. There were too adults and three little children and it wasnt like the adults were overworked that wee. They had the children in creche most of the day so surely between them they could have washed the children themselves before heading to the Tapas bar for the evening.

They were incredibly selfish.

Again you are reading something very sinister into something which may not even have happened.

tretorn

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Well, what your mothers friend female.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

tretorn wrote: »

Well, what your mothers friend female.

If you have a point to make maybe just make it instead of dancing around it.

tretorn

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

SusieBlue wrote: »

It has absolutely no relevance, only to imply that there was possible pedophilia or sexual abuse happening among the group and that the children were willingly put at risk by Kate & Gerry.

Its adding 2 +2 and getting 117.

I certainly dont see it as paedophilia or sexual abuse but its another indication that the Mc Canns were careless with their children. Most parents dont allow men to bathe their children, its an unnecessary risk so why do it when you could just as easily take care of your own children.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

tretorn wrote: »

I certainly dont see it as paedophilia or sexual abuse but its another indication that the Mc Canns were careless with their children. Most parents dont allow men to bathe their children, its an unnecessary risk so why do it when you could just as easily take care of your own children.

I've been looking and I can't even find anything that suggests the McCann's passed their kids around for their nightly bath to various male friends, so I'm not even sure if it happened at this point.

All I can find is the comment about the previous holiday (not the one where Madeleine went missing) where a friend reported "it was the fathers who took care of the children's baths"

But that statement is quite ambiguous, because it could also mean they bathed their own children, and not any one elses.

Is there any actual evidence that they even did what they are being accused of? I'm coming up empty.