Madeleine McCann

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655299#Comment_120655299

Well you are being funny.

What an irrelevant response, I used too many big words.

briany

@reclose

Saying it was the done thing in the 80s to leave children unsupervised.

Yes. Children spent all day playing outside in the 80s with parents having only a guess at where they may be at any one time. That did happen. It's been one of the most ridiculous arguments on this thread that it didn't.

Comparing it to another crime that the scenario wasn’t comparable at all.

Both were cases of victim blaming, as discussed.

Constantly referencing across the pool like it was a private locked villa.

Other people talk about having dinner at the Tapas restaurant as if they were boozing it up on the other side of town. It's a mealy-mouthed tabloid talking point. If people find the point troublesome, that's their problem.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655301#Comment_120655301

The other poster brought in the idea of an insurance claim being hard to make good on if you leave the door unlocked. I say that if it were a case of insurance with Madeleine as well, maybe the poster would have a point. But it's not. It's a criminal matter. What's not to get?

reclose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655313#Comment_120655313

Children playing outside is not the same as two year olds and a 3 year old being left alone in an apartment at night time while the parents socialise.

You can’t honestly tell me that’s the same thing?

They aren’t both a case of victim blaming. They are different scenarios. Your scenario is the equivalent to people blaming Madeleine. They aren’t.

Nobody is saying they were across town. They did leave the apartment unlocked while at a restaurant. They had no view of who was coming or going.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655327#Comment_120655327

Yep I used too many big words if thats your takeaway.

reclose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655327#Comment_120655327

You admitted a few comments back that they had some responsibility for what happened.

Purple Mountain

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655304#Comment_120655304

He was one sick fcuk.

briany

@reclose

Children playing outside is not the same as two year olds and a 3 year old being left alone in an apartment at night time while the parents socialise.

You can’t honestly tell me that’s the same thing?

The point about letting kids out to play in the 80s was a rebuttal to this fanciful idea that standards of parenting have always been the same, i.e. the assertion that even in the 80s, parents wouldn't have done anything like the McCanns did. In actual fact, parenting was more lax back then in various aspects, but in time, when things go wrong with that, lessons get learned.

They aren’t both a case of victim blaming. They are different scenarios. Your scenario is the equivalent to people blaming Madeleine. They aren’t.

They are. The McCann parents are victims as well as Madeleine. They are her parents.

Nobody is saying they were across town. They did leave the apartment unlocked while at a restaurant. They had no view of who was coming or going.

At a restaurant 55 metres away as the crow flies, performing regular checks by themselves or their friends. They thought this would be enough. This turned out not to be the case due to a circumstance quite out of the ordinary. The reason I repeatedly make this point is to counter the 'criminal negligence' heads who conveniently omit it every time.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655337#Comment_120655337

I must have countered your point too well if that is your only response.

reclose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655399#Comment_120655399

I can assure you it was never the done thing to leave 2 year olds and a 3 year old alone in an unlocked apartment while the parents went socialising from the 80s onwards.

If anyone did that then they were an irresponsible parent.

They may also be victims but your rape scenario wasn’t like for like and you know it.

No need to reply on the third point as I also agree they should not be charged for it.

screamer

Yawn yawn the whole negligence thing has been debated for years. Moving on, have there been any updates on what they found or didn’t find in the search yesterday?

Goldengirl

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-latest-police-search-30097304

Just read above .

If this is true and the Portuguese police ignored it , then that is negligence!

MonkieSocks

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120653133#Comment_120653133

Correct..............,and

The German also system allows that if a suspect presents corroborated evidence to eliminate themselves as a suspect - they’ll check & then quickly close the investigation if the alibi is substantiated.

briany

@reclose

I can assure you it was never the done thing to leave 2 year olds and a 3 year old alone in an unlocked apartment while the parents went socialising from the 80s onwards.

If anyone did that then they were an irresponsible parent.

And we're back to degrees of a thing. I agree that parents in virtually any time probably wouldn't have left children home alone to go out socialising if that took place across town for the whole night, but 55 metres away as the crow flies with regular checks? Very much a different proposition. Considering parents in the 80s used to commonly smoke indoors around their young children (ignorance of the dangers of it, and I use this as an example of looser parenting standards), I don't think this would have raised an eyebrow at all, except perhaps for being a little overly conscientious relative to what the perceived dangers were.

They may also be victims but your rape scenario wasn’t like for like and you know it.

The simple point I make with the comparison is that it is wrong to focus blame on the victims of a crime and their decisions leading up to it, when the far greater part in it is the criminal. It's an ugly mindset to have.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655406#Comment_120655406

No ypu just got confused and rambled out irrelevant nonsense to excuse the inexcusable.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655535#Comment_120655535

You're the one introducing an irrelevant insurance analogy which I shouldn't even waste my time refuting, but hey it's easy to get one's brain tired from using all those 'big words' and the air must get pretty thin up on that high horse, so I'll forgive you.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655546#Comment_120655546

Nope it was actually relevant in showing how irresponsiblity and crime can be related.

But you "missed" it to suit your agenda. Keep up the juvenile naive thought process.

Crime is "not supposed to happen", so be as irresponsible as possible and then wonder how crime happened.

reclose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655501#Comment_120655501

No one I know would leave children that young alone in an unlocked house even if it’s “just” 55 metres.

Smoking, won’t reply to that. It’s not relevant.

There’s a difference between focussing blame and being able to acknowledge the parents actions were a contributing factor.

The abductor looking for a victim and the parents leaving the children on their own both had to be present for this crime to happen.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655638#Comment_120655638

Actually, I can see where you got the wrong end of the stick on this,

Anyway you will learn that in the grown up world theres bad people that will commit crimes DESPITE being "not supposed to".

Anyone actually believing crime doesn't happen because its not supposed to is infantile in their naiveity.

You appear to have invented a line of thinking which wasn't put out there or misinterpreted. Of course people will commit crimes despite being 'not supposed to'. My point is that if a person commits a crime against you, even if your decisions gave them an opportunity, they're still criminally liable and they should remain the focus of ire. It seems like this has not happened in the case of the McCanns, probably because the abductor remains at large and people want someone to point the finger at and you can't really do that at a ghost. I posit that the role Kate and Gerry McCann played by deciding to have dinner across the pool with their friends on that succession of nights would have been a relative footnote in the case if the abductor had been swiftly caught as the attention would have been focused on that person. Rightly so.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655691#Comment_120655691

As I thought I had made pains to point out, the smoking thing is to illustrate the point that parents were not as conscious of, or ignorant of, the dangers toward their kids back then as they are now, and because of that, I think a lot of parents back then wouldn't have been overly concerned about doing exactly as the McCanns did. Yes, it's true. Standards of parenting were different in the past and we know that the McCanns were not the only ones leaving their children alone in an apartment (and to hear some tell it, it's this aspect which is bad enough).

I fully acknowledge that the McCanns did the things they did and provided the person or persons unknown with an opportunity to do what they did. This doesn't necessarily make them criminally liable, however. Just imperfect people, not making the wisest decisions, and also having this horrible unknown circumstance. It seems that too many people are not satisfied with just acknowledging events as they're known to have occurred and have to go from that to criminal charges against them or even speculating on whether they actively played a part. People need to put up or shut up on that, whoever's partaking.

Annascaul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655794#Comment_120655794

Why are you starting this again? ( And how often will you in the future? ) Didn't we agree you don't bring the subject up again?

Neglect, child abandonment and failure to protect does make the McCanns criminally liable under UK law and most likely also under Portuguese law. Furthermore, they have selfishly chosen food and drink and entertainment with friends instead of looking after their children.

I am surprised that they were not prosecuted at all under UK law. And the McCanns grieving is no answer and won't make any amends. Because of their selfish behaviour her daughter has been taken and is most likely ( assumed ) dead. It seems that you don't want to understand that. Why?

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655911#Comment_120655911

I was referring to all the posters on this thread.

If you think they're criminally liable, start a petition or something to get them prosecuted. See how far you get.

I would say you wouldn't get very far. It's an important point that the McCanns didn't know they were being stalked by an abductor, which would be brought up in a serious case against them.

It would also be brought up that on the other nights the McCanns had had dinner at the Tapas bar, they came back to find their children all present and correct.

It would also be brought up that other parents were leaving their children alone in the apartment, i.e. the Tapas 7. If it's negligence simply to leave your children alone while having dinner across the pool, I would say lawyers acting on behalf the McCanns could find more than just the Tapas 7 who did so and why they're not also being prosecuted.

They would conclude that the McCann children would likely have been fine on the night in question had an unseen actor with criminal agency not emerged and the McCanns did not play a direct enough role to pin criminal negligence on them. The McCanns were budgeting for the danger of the kids getting up and wondering where their parents were. Not that someone would come into the apartment and abduct one of them. It would have to be proven that this is a persistent enough danger that it should enter the McCanns minds and that they knowingly took the risk. Tricky.

Verdict: Not parents of the year.

reclose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655794#Comment_120655794

The second paragraph is as close as we are gonna come to agreement on this.

You have more sympathy for the parents and are more willing to disregard the restaurant part. I have sympathy for them but it also doesn’t sit well with me that they left them unattended like that.

There’s just some things you don’t risk and given the ages of those children and that it’s in a foreign country I wouldn’t ever agree with taking it.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655978#Comment_120655978

https://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2007/05/my_experience_o.html

It would appear that other sets of parents had done similar to the McCanns in previous times, to the extent that the resort had at one time offered a 'listening service',

The McCanns’ choice to leave their children at the flat and make regular checks is surprising given the alternatives. In their defence, they may have been expecting, as advertised in Mark Warner brochures, a ‘listening service’. Staff told us that the service had been discontinued because the apartments were too spread out. The resort, however, offered a baby-sitting service for 15 euros (£10) an hour, which was staffed by a member of the daytime nursery teams, or a ‘dining out club’. This involved parents dropping off children at the crèche where they would be supervised watching videos until they went to sleep. Parents would then return before 11.30 to scoop up their sleepy offspring.

So, it may not sit well with you, but as I said, standards of parenting have not always been the same.

Duke of Schomberg

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655926#Comment_120655926

So, by your argument if you drink-drive regularly and don't have an accident, then when your luck finally runs out you can use an as argument "well that's what I was used to" . . . what a dose. Err . . getting away with something many times before one's caught out isn't a defense.

reclose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656024#Comment_120656024

Those other sets of parents are also irresponsible.

Standards regarding leaving children of that age alone have always been the same as long as I’ve been alive.

Yet again your comments appear to be moving away from the parents being irresponsible.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656076#Comment_120656076

It's a clear legal opinion that driving drunk is dangerous and actionable in and of itself. It's why you can be prosecuted just for being over the limit without having an accident.

It's not a clear legal opinion that leaving children sleeping alone in an apartment while you have dinner nearby is dangerous and actionable in and of itself. If refer you back to my previous point about the resort offering a listening service and also the fact that the Mccann have not been prosecuted in 16 years.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656101#Comment_120656101

I'm not saying that leaving your kids alone in this way is advisable, but I am saying that it was a risk that considerably more sets of parents than the Tapas 7 took in the past and the McCanns were not particularly unique in this regard and it was wrong for the tabloids to single them out on it.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120654394#Comment_120654394

If you think the dogs don't lie, perhaps you'd like to list their great successes since they left the police force and went private.

lbunnae

There's zero proof she was abducted? Could have walked out herself and anything could have happened. Horrific parenting.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655926#Comment_120655926

Sorry who said they were being stalked by an abductor? Any proof of that?

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655911#Comment_120655911

I've seen this a few times. Can you show how they are guilty of child abandonment?

Child abandonment is considered to be the act of leaving of a child on their own without any intention of returning to ensure their safety and wellbeing. 

riddles

Two things the McCann’s case continue’s to highlight. The human instinct to always scramble to get on the high horse. Then to restate the bleeding obvious over and over and not consider the point your making has been made and remade so many times. The internet allows this to propagate with all the effectiveness of a well run mushroom tunnel.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656260#Comment_120656260

Why is there such a big panic over the cadaver dogs? When the McCann's heard about the dogs they hired big named lawyers and legged it out of Portugal as fast as they could. Then they put in research to try to discredit the dogs and dispute their reliability. Why did they do this?

An abductor may have killed Madeleine in the apartment. She may have had her toy when this happened. Instead of looking to investigate this angle, the McCann's went on the defensive. It was very strange behaviour.

briany

@lbunnae

There's zero proof she was abducted? Could have walked out herself and anything could have happened. Horrific parenting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

Another theory is that Madeleine, nearly four at the time, left the apartment by herself, perhaps to look for her parents, and was abducted by a passerby or fell into one of the open construction sites nearby.[263] This is widely regarded as unlikely. According to her mother, Madeleine would have had to open the unlocked patio doors, close the curtains behind her, close the door again, open and close the child gate at the top of the stairs, then open and close the gate leading to the street.[264]

Additionally, according to Kate McCann's testimony, the bedroom window was open when she discovered Madeleine was missing. Of all the theories about what happened, the idea that Madeleine opened the window herself and climbed through it onto the street is not one which has ever gotten much legs.

-------------------------------------

Sorry who said they were being stalked by an abductor? Any proof of that?

https://www.channel4.com/news/madeleine-mccann-praia-da-luz-gerry-kate-crimewatch-appeal

That the kidnapping was planned is the theory that would most likely fit the facts of the case with the evidence that is present, considering that she was almost certainly taken from the apartment itself, not on the street, and that she disappeared without a trace. This would have required some recon to know when the McCanns would have been out of the apartment.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656499#Comment_120656499

So there is zero proof then, just like Ibunnae posted.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656534#Comment_120656534

Yup ,Police say she "MAY" have been taken in a preplanned abduction. Of course she may.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656339#Comment_120656339

Again with this you have literally presented it as fact. @briany "I would say you wouldn't get very far. It's an important point that the McCanns didn't know they were being stalked by an abductor, which would be brought up in a serious case against them." All credibility lost. In your desperation not to part blame on them you have just made something up

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656575#Comment_120656575

That the McCanns lose a child in the way they did would require for there to be someone who knew when the McCanns would be out of the apartment and that would require a certain amount of recon (stalked by). It would require someone with the intent of taking one of their children (an abductor), seeing as one was taken. It would also require someone who had a clue what they were doing, seeing as neither hide nor hair of her has been seen since.

The troubling thing about mystery disappearances like this is that there isn't much hard evidence about and theories have to be formulated based on events as we understand them to have occurred. You say I present it as fact - I say it's the best theory to fit events. If you want to come up with a better one, have at it.

Whatever happened that night, it was an extremely unusual circumstance.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656618#Comment_120656618

That's grand your saying you think it's the best theory , that wasn't clear at all from what you had posted though.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656842#Comment_120656842

In the hypothetical event that the McCanns were being prosecuted for child neglect - which is the scenario I was talking about that you quoted me from - the defence would (if in any way competent, at least) bring up the fact that the case was very unusual. It would be logical to conclude that given she was taken from the apartment and was gone without an obvious trace that a certain amount of planning would have gone into her kidnapping by the perpetrator(s). From what I can see, it certainly doesn't fit the bill for an opportunistic burglary, given I've never heard of anything else being missing or the contents of the apartment having been searched through for valuables. Even if an opportunistic burglar did take Madeleine, the defence could reasonably argue that this was extremely unusual and not a danger that the McCanns could have been expected to have seriously had in their minds and knowingly cast aside when they decided to have dinner across the way.

Conclusion being that it would be a very tough task to prove criminal negligence, given this and the other points previously raised. Kate and Gerry won't win any Mum/Dad of the Year awards, either, though.

micks_address

What was the outcome of the search last week? I seen one headline saying material evidence was found but not a lot of more reporting around it?

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120657076#Comment_120657076

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/madeleine-mccann-reservoir-search-update-b2345980.html

It says they found materials to be sent for analysis, but that's very vague. Presumably, if they found a piece of cloth, they would have to test it, but it's most likely a random piece of cloth, for example.

Musicrules

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120657067#Comment_120657067

There's more evidence of the McCann's being involved accidentally in Madeleine's death than any abduction.

Robert Nairac

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656260#Comment_120656260

All major police forces in the UK use cadaver dogs, but the dogs don't count when it comes to the McCanns. Why is that?

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120657178#Comment_120657178

The prosecution team would be welcome to make this point in a hypothetical case of child neglect against the McCanns if they wanted, to counter a defence about a planned abduction (although it would become a whole different case in this instance), but it's an absolutely sensational timeline from the last known photo of Madeleine to sitting down at the Tapas restaurant. 5:59 from the last known photo of Madeleine to gain their composure, clean up the evidence as best they could, get their stories straight, hide the body and plan how to stage an abduction. Considerably less time, in fact, if the report about Kate collecting Madeleine from the creche is correct and Gerry going for a tennis lesson. If it weren't such a serious matter, I'd start to hear the Mission Impossible music playing. Given that and the inconclusiveness of the DNA found in the rental car, we can see why it's not persisted as a theory for law enforcement officials to work off over the last 16 years (the McCanns did not have suspect status for long). It's sold a few books, however.

Strumms

I think after this search which as most of us said, will lead to SFA either in terms of anything evidential or of a body / remains.

The cops should just stop investing time and money in the case, unless credible and tangible updates are forthcoming or new evidence is presented …. Dragging massive reservoirs, lakes, digging in acres of forests, scrubland ,…. Costs the taxpayers there serious dosh. In addition to the more conventional methods of investigating. According to the local reports millions have been spent on the case….

millions have been spent looking for the girl, looking for evidence without coming anywhere near uncovering a body, without uncovering where she went, what happened or who is responsible…

An article yesterday in the Independent claimed that from their investigation £13.1 million to date had been spent looking for Madeleine. …there would need to be a cutoff… she is NOT alive… so are taxpayers going to throw good money after bad ? Just to find a body ? That they haven’t yet found ? Has to be a stage where the parents are told… sorry, without further evidence we can do no more…. No searches based on hearsay, hunches….gone on too long, cost too much…. The investigation is mothballed….

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-much-madeleine-mccann-investigation-cost-b2347650.html

£13.1 million is a colossal number…… probably closer to 14 now the searches the last couple of days….

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120657488#Comment_120657488

Tbh I'd be shocked if the real number is significantly higher

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120657488#Comment_120657488

have to say if it was your relative they were looking for I can’t imagine you’d be talking about the tax money spent on finding them.

In my opinion if the police are using their budget to catch a criminal and/or find a missing person (dead or alive) they are spending the money correctly.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120657435#Comment_120657435

Plan how to stage an abduction? Ie opening a window