Was there REALLY neglect?

Was there really neglect?

According to statements, Matthew Oldfield was in 5B on Sunday night and Rachael was there on Wednesday...(and possibly Tuesday)

This apartment was so close to Apartment 5A that they could hear through the walls....



Tuesday, Russell O'Brien was in apartment 5D with only one apartment separating his apartment from the Oldfields and then the McCanns. (a few steps away if checked from the entrance to the apartments.)

The Paynes had a monitor but were only one floor above.

Quick and easy enough for someone, to keep an eye out for children rather than have everyone keep returning back from the tapas.

Tuesday night, Najoya the quiz mistress did not see Kate or David Payne between approx nine and ten pm so they may have been in the apartments.

Thursday there was only a few minutes during the evening when everyone was (supposedly) at the table.

An adult was very near to the children
Sunday,
Tuesday,
Wednesday
Thursday...

Only Monday is unknown...it is not known if everyone was at the table on Monday, there may have been someone watching the children.

What are the chances that 9 adults would choose to leave their children alone and not ask the person that was close by to keep an eye on them?

Why would they claim they were 'neglecting' their children when, for the most part, there was someone close?...They HAD to!

How could an abduction have happened if the children were being watched?

Who would have been targeted as irresponsible if they claimed the children were being watched and the 'abduction' happened during their time?

They HAD to claim the children were 'neglected' or the 'plan' wouldn't have worked.

How could they have said they were watching the children (as I believe they were) and used an 'abduction' to explain why Madeleine was missing?

They have GAINED from the neglect issue also....

Each time that someone claims they were irresponsible and neglectful to their children, leaving them alone....it infers that Madeleine disappeared because she was left alone, and only supports the abduction theory IMO.

According to the files and the dogs, Madeleine died in the apartment and they had no alternative but to 'suggest' it happened while she was left alone, when it was very probable that she died for another reason and 'abduction' and 'neglect' was the ONLY way they could explain her disappearance, rather than the truth...which could have been that the children were being 'relatively' cared for by someone close by, she died (because of an unknown reason) and they had to hide the truth the only way they knew how....

Madeleine may not have died because she wasn't being looked after.....

To suggest neglect, suggests she was vulnerable to an intruder...which is what they want everyone to believe.

I don't believe it for one minute.....never have.

The real question is how could Madeleine have disappeared when she was being looked after?

THATS the question they don't want anyone to ask!

I think Mrs Fenn"s statement is the most damaging , if she could hear it from above, why couldn"t any of the Tapas Group in 5b or 5d or even the Paynes
when the crying was from 10.30pm til 11.45pm ..........were they all drinking in the Bar? Even if they were, were none of them checking on their children.?

Panda wrote:I think Mrs Fenn"s statement is the most damaging , if she could hear it from above, why couldn"t any of the Tapas Group in 5b or 5d or even the Paynes
when the crying was from 10.30pm til 11.45pm ..........were they all drinking in the Bar? Even if they were, were none of them checking on their children.?

Tuesday was a very odd night but a child can easily be crying when an adult is present....we have only been led to believe they were alone in my opinion because it was necessary, or the abduction would not have been credible.

Tuesday may have been when 'something' happened...an adult may have been present.

HiDeHo wrote:

Panda wrote:I think Mrs Fenn"s statement is the most damaging , if she could hear it from above, why couldn"t any of the Tapas Group in 5b or 5d or even the Paynes
when the crying was from 10.30pm til 11.45pm ..........were they all drinking in the Bar? Even if they were, were none of them checking on their children.?

Tuesday was a very odd night but a child can easily be crying when an adult is present....we have only been led to believe they were alone in my opinion because it was necessary, or the abduction would not have been credible.

Tuesday may have been when 'something' happened...an adult may have been present.

Morning HiDeHo, I remember reading that David Payne was called to 5a early evening to perform a tracheotomy obviously this cannot be verified. If true
it could tie in to Rachel Mapilly"s "resuscitation" remark and the Kate 30 secs. and Payne 30 minutes statements .

However, much as we criticise the McCanns parenting, I cannot concieve of them going through the motion of dining at the Restaurant and behaving normally.

There is so much involved if something happened to Madeleine before 5.30pm on May 3rd.

The discrepancies and oddities seem to start around Tuesday (Monday is avoided)

As much as I understand being angry with the McCanns for bad parenting, I can't help but think it, possibly subliminally, suggests that it was the reason that Madeleine disappeared.

I think something happened early in the holiday and the reason that 9 supposedly responsible adults appear to be neglectful and unable to string a proper sentence together is because it is all a cover up....of major proportions.

If I had read about a 'normal' holiday until Thursday, then I would believe it happened on Thursday.

They appear to be contradicting and hiding things from Tuesday onwards...many, many oddities and discrepancies. That wouldn't have happened under normal circumstances and the child care was all part of the cover up. imo

I have always believed that, and nothing has changed my opinion yet. (Particularly as the other thread regarding Madeleine not being seen continues to follow with that possible scenario)

I thought Amaral confirmed that Madeleine was last seen at 5.30pm on the 3rd May.

Panda wrote:I thought Amaral confirmed that Madeleine was last seen at 5.30pm on the 3rd May.

He claimed it was important to remember that it was according to the investigation..and the investigation shows that she was seen at High tea...(with so many discrepancies) but he has to follow what the INVESTIGATION claims and build the scenario around what is in the files (that have been released)

He also said to Kazlux that there was no doubt...but I don't believe everything, unless I know and understand why it was said.

I could be very wrong...but maybe I am not. I can only build an opinion from my findings and so far I have seen nothing to change my opinion in four years.

I always thought the 'sightings' of Madeleine on holiday would prove me incorrect...but they didn't. (imo)

I do go along with your view to a certain extent HiDeHo! I do not believe for one minute that all of these parents were negligent all week. Who was it again that had bought the listening device? Could they have clubbed together on the basis that a few, if not all the children could be bunked up together?

There are however two things that bother me - one is Mrs Fenns account of the crying. The other is the positioning of the cadiver scent close to the blood spots. If these were both Madeleine's then it strikes me that an accident could have occured - blood splattered against the wall the body falling behing the sofa and remaining there long enough to form the cadiver scent - at least 90 mins or so.

If an adult had been present at the time of a fatal accident - I cannot see behind the sofa being a logical place to put the body, a wardrobe, under the sink yes - but not behind a sofa!!???

I do go along with your view to a certain extent HiDeHo! I do not believe for one minute that all of these parents were negligent all week. Who was it again that had bought the listening device? Could they have clubbed together on the basis that a few, if not all the children could be bunked up together?

There are however two things that bother me - one is Mrs Fenns account of the crying. The other is the positioning of the cadiver scent close to the blood spots. If these were both Madeleine's then it strikes me that an accident could have occured - blood splattered against the wall the body falling behing the sofa and remaining there long enough to form the cadiver scent - at least 90 mins or so.

If an adult had been present at the time of a fatal accident - I cannot see behind the sofa being a logical place to put the body, a wardrobe, under the sink yes - but not behind a sofa!!???

From my own experience of going on group family holidays.
I would suggest that 'neglect' would be contrary to the
spirit and conduct of the group's total holiday experience.
NO member/s of the group would tolerate or condone such
wanton behaviour especially considering the make-up of
this group, and the consequences of such actions on the
group's well being.
Therefore, I am of the opinion, that NO neglect occurred,
and that something happened within the supervision and
care of this group and that the neglect card was played
in order to distance the group from the deed.
I maybe totally wrong but I think the group holiday thing
is central and is binding them all together.
Furthermore, child neglect was ceased upon by the group
as a logical and reasonable excuse when faced with the
consequences of loosing a member. The lesser of two evils?

NoStone wrote:I do go along with your view to a certain extent HiDeHo! I do not believe for one minute that all of these parents were negligent all week. Who was it again that had bought the listening device? Could they have clubbed together on the basis that a few, if not all the children could be bunked up together?

There are however two things that bother me - one is Mrs Fenns account of the crying. The other is the positioning of the cadiver scent close to the blood spots. If these were both Madeleine's then it strikes me that an accident could have occured - blood splattered against the wall the body falling behing the sofa and remaining there long enough to form the cadiver scent - at least 90 mins or so.

If an adult had been present at the time of a fatal accident - I cannot see behind the sofa being a logical place to put the body, a wardrobe, under the sink yes - but not behind a sofa!!???

I am inclined to think that the children were all together in another apartment and the baby monitor was used to listen to all of the children bar Madeleine. IMO Madeleine at some point was in 5A on her own.

I agree that it seems odd to place a body behind a sofa, I think that is why GA believes an accident occurred but he is basing this on the McCanns possibly being involved. I wonder though, think of someone in a panic, someone other that the McCanns, in a situation where something has happened and you are not a tenant of 5A. You need to remove yourself from the scene, in a panic you would put/or leave the body where it may have ended up - where, in fact, it can't be seen and get out of the apartment as quickly as possible.

ETA

The last thing you would do would be to hunt around for another place and then move the body - e.g. contamination to yourself and other surfaces.

The Paynes had a monitor because they had been on a Warner holiday in Greece so knew there was no real baby listening facility. I"m pretty sure they
would have told the others. Tanner had a baby monitor but it didn"t work so you would think the McCanns could have brought a Baby Monitor when there were three children under the age of 4 to care for. They didn"t even bring a pushchair either.

I have been posting about the 'neglect' issue for a long time but the inspiration for this thread came from looking at the photo of the apartments and the close proximity of whoever was 'sick' and remained at the apartments.



On Sunday and Wednesday, Matthew and Rachael were in the adjoining apartment.

What is the likelihood they each monitored the children rather than have endless 'supposed' treks from the tapas. They were in earshot of the children through the walls!

I don't claim to suggest they were FULLY monitored visually 100% of the time and an accident MAY have happened during a few minutes.

We don't know the scenario that caused Madeleine's death but IF it happened during the time one of the T7 were 'watching' them, then this could account for the 'pact' of silence, to prevent that one person from being targeted as responsible. (Hiding her body to prevent an autopsy may have been for a separate reason)

It doesn't take neglect for an accident to happen, but they needed a scenario where no one person was 'responsible' for something happening to Madeleine and the neglectful checking system covered that situation as well as allowing for an 'abductor'.

Just a thought.

Hi Hideho, with all the tapas statements that they too left their children,Amaral has only that option to say publicly(or not) to how Madeleine had met her demise...

if what you believe which i also do, that this professional group could seriously consider leaving their very very young children alone in a strange enviroment is for me the charge they were all willing to accept

Just what would make them all complicit to help cover up,what makes them all tow the same line is what i find hard to get around

Kates very early morning phone calls(later deleted along with others) are to me a clue to the time/date Madeleine disappeared...was it the morning after Mrs Fenn heard the crying?

I have always thought it was Kate crying saying Maddie Maddie Maddie....but they never called her Maddie did they

Looking at the above picture of the accomodation, obviously the McCanns had to have the biggest apartment, imo Gerry wouldn't seetle for small.

I've never believed the neglect story either and suspect it was the alibi for abduction (to cover up that a fatal incident occurred inside 5a before dinner on May 3rd). GMcC trumpeted to JWilkins that they were leaving the kids home alone when he bumped into him, which (for me) adds weight to this theory. However, he also advertised this fact to a fellow diner at the Tapas during an earlier evening (was it Stephen C and his wife?) which makes me wonder how they knew at that stage (i.e. a day or two before May 3rd) that they'd be needing the neglect alibi...

The body behind the sofa scenario could have been because it needed to be quickly concealed from the (still awake) twins, whilst help was sought (from DP? FP?) to sedate them out of the picture. Something cadavery was then placed in the wardrobe (according to Eddie).

Does Eddie also detect blood? I seem to remember he does. Is it the case that he alerted to cadaver scent behind the sofa or was it the blood he was detecting, which Keela then pinpointed with her nose?

matthew wrote:Hi Hideho, with all the tapas statements that they too left their children,Amaral has only that option to say publicly(or not) to how Madeleine had met her demise...

if what you believe which i also do, that this professional group could seriously consider leaving their very very young children alone in a strange enviroment is for me the charge they were all willing to accept

Just what would make them all complicit to help cover up,what makes them all tow the same line is what i find hard to get around

Kates very early morning phone calls(later deleted along with others) are to me a clue to the time/date Madeleine disappeared...was it the morning after Mrs Fenn heard the crying?

I have always thought it was Kate crying saying Maddie Maddie Maddie....but they never called her Maddie did they

There were 5 videos made of the findings of an American/Portugese Detectived hired by CBS News to go to PDL and find out whay happened. I had them
all at one time but lost them when my Computer crashed a while ago. Mouras says because he speaks Portugese he was able to chat to the Bar and
Restaurant Staff who were fed up with the British Reporters practically camped outside.

They said the Group did not check on their children as often as they said and that Jane Tanner wasn"t even in the Restaurant that night.

This would explain the hurried timetable written on the back of the childs book.

Mouras , the Detective said because of the discrepancy in their timelines it meant more time for an abduction.

If it had been agreed that someone would stay in each evening to oversee the kids, I imagine the reason the McC's hadn't done it by Thursday evening was that they were still awaiting their turn. They still had another night (Friday) and were returning on Saturday right?

Wintabells wrote:If it had been agreed that someone would stay in each evening to oversee the kids, I imagine the reason the McC's hadn't done it by Thursday evening was that they were still awaiting their turn. They still had another night (Friday) and were returning on Saturday right?

Hi Wintabells, I don"t subscribe to the theory that they were taking it in turns, they could have clubbed together for the baby listening Service since their apartments were near each other .

another statement to consider besides the one by Mrs Fenn was the Barman who said he was supposed to close the Bar at 11.30pm but the Tapas Group
wanted another drink and he didn"t leave until 11.45pm one night.......could that be the night Madeleine was crying?

Panda wrote:

Wintabells wrote:If it had been agreed that someone would stay in each evening to oversee the kids, I imagine the reason the McC's hadn't done it by Thursday evening was that they were still awaiting their turn. They still had another night (Friday) and were returning on Saturday right?

Hi Wintabells, I don"t subscribe to the theory that they were taking it in turns, they could have clubbed together for the baby listening Service since their apartments were near each other .

another statement to consider besides the one by Mrs Fenn was the Barman who said he was supposed to close the Bar at 11.30pm but the Tapas Group
wanted another drink and he didn"t leave until 11.45pm one night.......could that be the night Madeleine was crying?

As I recall it was midnight they were supposed to close and the McCanns kept them there for another hour, drinking liqueurs (can't remember which one)

This was Wednesday night and I have always thought of the possibility that this was the opportunity for them to get together and make the arrangements for the following day.

I read at the beginning that the empty apartment could hold the missing piece of the jigsaw. Maybe even the abductor lurked there. Who knows. but strange how it's hardly ever mentioned. I would have thought it could be fairly significant.

Angelique wrote:I am inclined to think that the children were all together in another apartment and the baby monitor was used to listen to all of the children bar Madeleine. IMO Madeleine at some point was in 5A on her own.

I agree that it seems odd to place a body behind a sofa, I think that is why GA believes an accident occurred but he is basing this on the McCanns possibly being involved. I wonder though, think of someone in a panic, someone other that the McCanns, in a situation where something has happened and you are not a tenant of 5A. You need to remove yourself from the scene, in a panic you would put/or leave the body where it may have ended up - where, in fact, it can't be seen and get out of the apartment as quickly as possible.

ETA

The last thing you would do would be to hunt around for another place and then move the body - e.g. contamination to yourself and other surfaces.

I also believe that the kids were all looked after by one adult in rotation, most likely in the Payne's apartment. Rachel had Sunday, Russell had Tuesday, and Matt had Wednesday. It is interesting that nobody wants to claim being in their room on the Monday, the night that Mrs. Fenn heard crying for 1 hr 15 min. I think that either the Payne's or the McCanns were responsible for the children on Monday, as it would have been their turn in the rotation. However, the child-minding arrangements would have been more obvious had their been an adult back at the rooms every single night. They chose Monday to claim to not have somebody in the room because that was the night the crying was heard in 5A and that person would likely have been questioned about why they did not hear the crying.

I think it was most likely Kate who was in the Payne's (largest) apartment on Monday night looking after all of the children. Madeleine may have been acting up and the others encouraged her to put Madeleine along in 5A to be monitored by Tanner's baby monitor, which may not have been working. Madeleine then could have cried for the 1 hr 15 min that she was left alone, only to be heard by Mrs. Fenn. If Madeleine met her demise while being left alone, the tapas lot may have felt at least partially responsible for encouraging Kate to move Madeline to a separate apartment.

That is a well reasoned theory ............... not one I've heard before, either.

So bravo - and one hopes that the PJ and SY have a few braincells between them and have also come up with explanations consistent with the known facts, likelihoods etc.

Take an Honorary "Sheriff" badge!

More reasons I believe they were relatively responsible in watching them...From a post a while ago...

Could the T9 have only claimed to leave their children alone, with infrequent checks, during their nights at the tapas bar to allow for the 'abduction' scenario?

If they (in reality) had been looking after the children, as most would expect, then there would have been no opportunity for the 'abduction' and the McCanns would have been accountable for Madeleine's disappearance.

What are the chances that 9 individuals would not care about the security of their children? Regardless of the anger towards them (because of their claims of neglect) they appear (when reading the statements) to be very caring about their children, (particularly ROB and MO) and childcare was important to them when booking the holiday.

Matthew seems to be stumbling in his Rogatory as if he was claiming about the importance of childcare but attempting to change it to fit with leaving the children alone.

MATTHEW OLDFIELD
we were concerned that if one member of the group, we were all going, oh perhaps we’ll be the Billy no mates, the really unpopular ones will get stuck at the Millennium and, you know, we won’t be able to, we won’t be able to go out and visit our friends because we’re not going to leave, you know, we’re not going to leave to, erm, to go and see them and we won’t be able to share child care and so it would be fairly difficult and it was a big issue because they couldn’t guarantee, the couldn’t allocate the rooms, erm, for us and they said it’ll have to wait until you get in the resort, erm, but in the end it was sort of quite quiet and so they sort of could stick us really close together. I can’t remember why I started talking about that?”

One comment by Rachel about Ella having a bath in their apartment (possibly on Thursday night but could be other nights) made me think...

Why would that happen if the child was staying in her own apartment?

RACHAEL
Reply “Yeah. Erm we went back to the apartments, erm I think err, we all headed off at the same time I think and erm, can’t remember whether that night E**a and, E**a might have had a bath in our apartment with G***e, not sure, I think it might have been that night, but we headed back, yeah probably about half seven, half seven, twenty to eight, which was kind of later than we would normally”.

There was always (except unknown for Monday) someone away from the table each night.

Sunday - MO
Monday - No information
Tuesday - ROB
Wednesday - Rachael.


Waiters claim in their statements that only the men got up from the table, often for periods of 15 minutes, which is longer than the times 'established' to check on the children, and they often reheated their meals.

http://madeleinemccann.aimoo.com/Staff-Rota-and-Statements/Tapas-Waiter-Rota-and-Statements-1-537541.html

Joaquim J.M. BaptistaIt was normal for the men of the dining group, to get up and leave the restaurant and return minutes later. The witness is not aware of where the men were going to but that they would be gone for about 15 minutes;
• The witness can speak clearly to these events because many times he had to bring back the entre/dinner plate of said client(s), until they returned to the table;

For the abduction to have been credible (particularly on Thursday) they had to claim to have left the children but they needed to (in reality) watch the children and so established a timeline that showed the children were left alone even though it was possible someone was watching them.

Apart from the meeting with Jez (on the planned 'abduction' night, I see nothing to confirm they were going backwards and forwards to the apartments to 'check' on children (unless the reception register confirms otherwise) but many things that lead me to believe the possibility the children may have been looked after..

1) The importance of childcare when booking...

2 )Tanner child bathed in Oldfield's apartment at bedtime.

3) Someone missing from the table during the week.

4) Only a few minutes when everyone was at the table on Thursday and unavailable for watching the children (according to their created timeline)

5) Gerry commenting about leaving the children alone (more thn once he said this to Jez - Tuesday lunch and Thursday)

6) MO looking after Evie during the day when ROB needed to do something (will search for statement)

7) The slim chance that 9 responsible adults would ALL decide to not ensure their children were secure and safe while on holiday.

If this was the case and the children WERE watched then I believe the McCanns would be in BIG trouble explaining how and why Madeleine disappeared.

Great work Hideho.

And I hadn't even thought about the oddity of one of the children being bathed in someone else's apartment.