Do comments about 'neglect' indirectly suggest it is the reason Madeleine is missing?

Does anyone else feel the same as myself regarding comments about the McCann's parental responsibility in looking after their children and leaving them alone.

Whenever I see comments of this sort, blaming the McCanns for leaving their children alone, appears to me to suggest it is the reason that Madeleine is missing. I feel in enforces the possibility of an abduction because Madeleine was left alone.

Madeleine isn't missing because she was left alone. Madeleine is missing because, according to Eddie and Keela, she died in the apartment and the McCanns hid her body.

Whether she was left alone or not, has nothing to do with the 'abduction'.

Maybe Madeleine died because she was left alone, maybe she died while an adult was present, we don't know, but according to the files, whatever happened to cause her disappearance has nothing to do with neglect.

It's about the McCanns hiding her body and simulating an abduction...which of course, would have been impossible to claim had they claimed they were looking after the children responsibly.

I feel that any comments suggesting they were neglectful also indirectly suggests the abduction could be a result of that.

Gerry went out of his way to correct Sandra Felgueiras that it was every 30 mins they checked and not every 15 mins as she had suggested.

He NEEDED everyone to think they left the children alone, hence creating an opportunity for an abductor, or he wouldn't have corrected her (as an example) imo

See 0.25secs

The Impossible 3 min Window of Opportunity for Madeleine's 'Abduction'!




ie If they had defended their actions as beng responsible and watching the children, there couldn't have been an abduction....hence the unlocked doors, the 'half hour' checks

Gerry's statement of May 4th claims the doors were locked and he used the key...once the jemmied window scenario wasn't going to work they changed it to unlocked doors to allow for the 'abductor' to enter. Why would he 'admit' to that unless he had a reason?

McLies - Front Door or Patio Doors?



Does anyone else feel that comments about leaving the children alone indirectly suggest this was the reason Madeleine is missing?

Could the McCanns be happy about the success in redirecting the issue to neglect and therefore enforcing the 'abduction' possibility?

I apologise to those that disagree with me, its only my opinion, but I am curious if others feel the same.

It has often been debated whether the "Neglect" was real, or just an important part of the charade: No "Neglect" = no Abduction >>>>>>>>>>>>> But as they wanted us to believe M was abducted, then they needed to stress the alleged "Neglect".

I have always felt that 'neglect' was used to explain what happened and have often started threads regarding that issue:

April 2008
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/HiDeHo-Posts/May-3rd-Not-a-night-out-No-neglect-Negative-PR-has-worked-1-743874.html

I am curious whether others agree that to continue to suggest the McCanns are dreadful parents by leaving their children continues to keep the possibility of the opportunity for an abduction, alive, especially considering we really don't know if they were neglectful.

It doesn't really matter, as an authoritative Investigation seeks to establish Facts and other Evidence, not rely upon misdirection and hearsay. Police are not influenced by the weight of public opinion, despite what some appear to have decided on the basis of not very much, in respect of eg the SY Review.

And in any event, there is much to suggest that Healy & McCann fall short of decent standards of parenting on many counts.

Sorry but i think Maddie died as a result of neglect.Probably drugged to get her to sleep,they went out and left her and the twins,Maddie got up to look for them,maybe fell off the back of the sofa,cracked her head and lay there dying whilst her parents were getting pissed down the pub,if thats what happened then She died as a result of neglect and that would be manslaughter as well i guess ?

I've always suspected that there was NO
neglect. Neglect had to be contrived as a
reason for Maddie going missing and to
the lack of witnesses to the event.
The constant cavalier pushing of a
type of 'semi-neglect' by the McCanns
is IMO self evident that they expect to be
regarded as misguided parents who made
a mistake which provided a 'chink' that let
an intruder take their daughter.
They fear admitting to total neglect because
this I believe would either be the truth, or
endanger charges of assisting and enabling
circumstances which led to Maddie's fate.

I agree, the children were not left alone, at least not to the extent the McCanns want us to believe.

They have however worked this angle to their advantage, not least to provide an opportunity for abduction. They garner huge sympathy, the usual retort from someone who supports their story is to leave them alone, they made a mistake, they have suffered enough, will have to live with what they did forever, etc etc

It is also the reason why they have failed to show any true remorse for their supposed action of leaving the children alone. They are not the type to apologies for anything, not least something they did not do. It is swept under the carpet by them in intereviews, indeed Kate tells us regardless of what they did, it is the abductors fault, not theirs.

My best guess would be that all of the children were left in two apartments, one with the listener and one with the missing Tapas adult. Given the McCanns obsession with routine for their children, perhaps Madeleine fell asleep early one evening, tired from the events of the day. Rather than moving her to the other apartment and risk waking her and thereby spoiling their night out, she was in fact left alone in her own apartment. Because she fell asleep early, they did not have an opportunity to give her medication as they had done on previous nights and so she woke, met with an accident and events went on from there.

Obviously just my opinion.

I've never believed that neglect was the reason she went missing.
'She vanished when they weren't there' is the excuse we're given in just about every news item since the beginning. The fact that we've been reading that for five whole years is no coincidence.
But why, when much of what the McCanns and their spokespoodles say is scorned and discredited, do many still accept 'absence due to neglect' without question?

For me, neglect is the rap they thought they'd beat.
Neglect is their alibi for something much darker.
Whenever they see the word 'neglect' mentioned, I bet Rothley Towers erupts with high fives.
JMO.

Lioned wrote:Sorry but i think Maddie died as a result of neglect.Probably drugged to get her to sleep,they went out and left her and the twins,Maddie got up to look for them,maybe fell off the back of the sofa,cracked her head and lay there dying whilst her parents were getting pissed down the pub,if thats what happened then She died as a result of neglect and that would be manslaughter as well i guess ?

I also believe the possibility that Madeleine died by falling off the sofa and hitting her head on the windowsill, whether in the presence of an adult or not. Neglect, manslaughter or accident.

I just feel that any comments complaining about the McCanns leaving their children alone (in a foreign country, in an unlocked apartment etc) leave the reader feeling it is the reason Madeleine is missing.

eg "They left three small children alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country". A comment like that indicates to me that any further comments would have been 'thats why she is missing (or abducted)'....McCann 'friendly'

as opposed to

'They SAY they left three children alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country. Whether they did or not we don't know, but dogs indicate Madeleine died in their care and they claimed it to be an abduction to explain her disappearance......McCann 'UNfriendly'

From my readings i believe she died in the presence of one adult,i dont know if my belief is right though,as with any theory in this case-nothing fits completely together ...from the rogatorys with a member missing from the tapas each/most evening,then it would make perfect sence that intelligent professional people would not leave their babies alone,night after night & would use the "sick" tapas member as a babysitter

I find it very difficult to pin down what I reallly think.

I agree with matthew - IMO there was just one adult 'with' Madeleine. But not sure that initially there were other adults and then subsequently only children in another room.

The neglect was the "cover" - the best "worst case scenario" if it came to Court. They made sure it was so convoluted with all T7 being involved at some point with checking, listening etc or just walking by or not - that if it did come to trial they could get "not proven". Which is what the people handling them needed to extricate them from this 'situation'.

So they promote the guilt they feel whilst not admitting neglect but repeating "responsible parenting" at every given opportunity.

I've always felt the 'neglect' started before the 3rd May. She was constantly being farmed out to the creche by day and, by their own account, left to sleep alone by night. But, there is neglect and then there is serious neglect, i.e. not feeding children, not washing children, not educating children and not loving children.

I feel the McCanns are guilty of a type of neglect but, yes I agree with you hi de hi, they are playing the neglect card to cover up for something far more sinister. Neglect may have played a part i.e. ignoring an earlier head bump with just a 'there there, mummy kiss it better' attitude and mistaking the resultant drowsiness for tiredness. If its true that they went out night after night leaving the children, then they may, as doctors, have switched off big style whilst on holiday, but, as you rightly say, we cannot know for sure whether this is in fact what they did just because they say its what they did, but I certainly feel, at the same time, all the children were neglected to some extent or other, which is now a very convenient fact for the McCanns.

I believe they chose neglect as the lesser of two evils.

I still find it hard to believe that any doctor, let alone 4 or 5 doctors, would leave their infant children alone, not even the Mcs. I could believe they sedated them, but even when sedated a doctor surely knows that a child can still choke, suffocate, have a bad reaction and goodness knows what else.

No, I don`t believe they were left unmonitored - I know Maddie was heard crying for over 100 mins on the Tuesday night by Mrs. Fenn, but I believe she could still have been monitored by someone in the group or someone was there with her.

If Madeleine had an accident before may 3rd...say may 1st...then i think the checking system could of been brought in for the two nights,we know J Wilkins was told they were... lets say very relaxed with their childcare arrangement,others too...would intelligent professionals advertise neglect
advertise their babies were there for the taking at risk from fire etc etc

I believe they all love their children as much as any parent could in their own way & it must kill them inside reading about how others view their neglect but they have a secret that outweighs the truth,i wouldn't want to be in their shoes for all the money in the fund

If Redwood is onto something with the 195 leads...ignore the above

matthew wrote:From my readings i believe she died in the presence of one adult,i dont know if my belief is right though,as with any theory in this case-nothing fits completely together ...from the rogatorys with a member missing from the tapas each/most evening,then it would make perfect sence that intelligent professional people would not leave their babies alone,night after night & would use the "sick" tapas member as a babysitter

I think that "sick" Tapas member is maybe closer to the truth than we know.

This meeting of Jez and Gerry bothers me yet again. Somehow, you meet someone on holiday who you have played tennis with throughout the week and, by the latter end of the week (Thursday), the talk is about childcare? Somehow, this does not ring true with me. Surely, when talking to someone you have met a few times earlier in the week on holiday, the talk is more commonly about your overall impression of the holiday, now that it is drawing to an end. If Gerry had a problem with childcare, he most likely would have aired his views whilst meeting Jez for tennis much earlier in the week.

I am wondering if this meeting on the Thursday night is the first realisation that Jez had that Gerry and Kate were leaving the children alone. Did Gerry really feel the need to explain why he was outside his own apartment? I just feel something is awkward about their supposed conversation.

This link is useful to look at again.

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/hoax.html

LJC wrote:This meeting of Jez and Gerry bothers me yet again. Somehow, you meet someone on holiday who you have played tennis with throughout the week and, by the latter end of the week (Thursday), the talk is about childcare? Somehow, this does not ring true with me. Surely, when talking to someone you have met a few times earlier in the week on holiday, the talk is more commonly about your overall impression of the holiday, now that it is drawing to an end. If Gerry had a problem with childcare, he most likely would have aired his views whilst meeting Jez for tennis much earlier in the week.

I am wondering if this meeting on the Thursday night is the first realisation that Jez had that Gerry and Kate were leaving the children alone. Did Gerry really feel the need to explain why he was outside his own apartment? I just feel something is awkward about their supposed conversation.

This link is useful to look at again.

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/hoax.html

Hi LJC. Either is a blabber mouth and will bore whoever whenever about himself and his wife or imo this was to explain him being where he was, could hardly say I've come to go to the toilet as there was one at the Tapas bar so it was to check the children, what a wonderful father he is helping with the childcare, NOT. But surely a fellow would talk tennis or footy to another chap or even the weather or the holiday, it just seems so contrived to me.

Gerry had discussed leaving the children alone on Tuesday as he and Jez (possibly ROB) were walking to the creche at lunchtime.

Jez told him then about the evening creche and how they give blankets to bring your child home.

This was a red flag for me as he also mentioned leaving the children alone on another occasion. No 'responsible parent' would admit to leaving them alone, even if they did so WHY did he mention it and....I have always felt that Jez comment about the blanket and not unusual to see parents carrying the children home is what inspired the bundleman sighting.

One reason I see the discrepancies starting earlier in the week as, if nothing happened until Thursday evening/night we would find nothing more than a few memory loss descriptions of the week.

My opinion, Gerry was laying the 'groundwork' for the 'abduction' so Jez could confirm that there was time for an abduction to happen.

If, as I believe, it was very early in the week that something happened to Madeleine then the issue of childcare and 'neglect' takes on a different perspective and may only be in place for the one reason to leave a window of opportunity for an abductor without pinpointing one person as the target to be responsible...hence ALL of them were 'checking'.

If the child died and for whatever reason they didn't want anyone knowing they were present at the time, they may have decided to claim that she died when they weren't there (ie. out dining with a large group of people, as they had been every evening of the holiday, more or less). This could have been Plan A. Someone (GMcC?) would return to 5a to do a check and discover the child was dead and the charges they'd anticipate facing would 'just' be neglect.

Perhaps, having formulated Plan A, there was a need for a Plan B (e.g. something to do with bumping into JW?) hence the idea of jemmied shutters, an abductor, the sighting of bundleman and the subtle differences in the two sticker book timelines (ie. did he check? door open etc) which can be found here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html