Neglect or No Neglect?

Well, I got to be honest, I'm not sure if there
exists one independent witness who can confirm
that neglect occurred.
So, can anyone tell me if there is?
Mrs Fenn describes crying, but this dosn't prove
that an adult wasn't there.
I think, and I could be wrong, that all the evidence
of neglect are 'happily' supplied by the Mccanns
and chums. The chums also promote it with zeal.
Maybe, the PJ don't believe that neglect occurred,
hence, No charges.
Maybe, the UK social services don't either, hence,
No action.
So, what am I saying? Neglect was the only hook
to tie the abduction on, without it and the abduction
story would not be credible or profitable.
So I am unsure of the neglect story and need guided
by any convincing evidence.
(this may attract a few trolls lol)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN7SBCDC-fA

To suggest that Kate and Gerry are negligable, negligent parents is absolutely abhorrent according to Aunti Phil - so there's your answer Marxman!!!

Well this issue comes up every few months and you've summed up the consensus quite nicely.

Those who believe that Healy/McCann are victims swallow everything they have ever said almost unquestioningly.

Amongst those who don't believe much of what Healy/McCann say are a fair few who, on the face of it at least, also seem to accept the neglect/abandonment issue as a given: But why? If one suspects that there is a great deal of obfuscation surrounding virtually every other facet of Madeleine's disappearance, then why not also consider that the neglect didn't happen either?

Apart from anything else, a major plank of the neglect theory is that it gives the opportunity for the alleged (but massively unlikely) abduction to have occurred - and on the day we have been told it happened.

In reality, there is neither more nor less reason to believe there was neglect than there is more any other facet of the farrago.

What about Jez Wilkins, he claims Gerry (?) told him they were leaving the kids and checking on them regularly. Of course it's not proof it happened but it came from the horses mouth.

Just to add to my earlier reply, those who believe Healy/McCann are, in my opinion, somewhat disingenuous about the neglect anyway - there are happy to accept the details of the checking routine as gospel but cannot stretch their limited imaginations to actually consider it to amount to neglect.

Possibly because "we've all done it" ????

I don't know if this interview with Bridget O'Donnell (partner of Jez) has been posted before.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

I'm still trying to get over the part where she admired the McCanns in a way for leaving their children alone!

There are theories that all the Tapas children were being supervised and that the regular checks story was invented to explain how Madeleine came to be missing. Then on the other hand there does seem to be evidence that they were being left alone and not just on 3rd May.

I can't come to a decision on this one at the moment.

margaret wrote:What about Jez Wilkins, he claims Gerry (?) told him they were leaving the kids and checking on them regularly. Of course it's not proof it happened but it came from the horses mouth.

The group seemed to want it known to others that they were leaving their children alone in the evenings. Why was Gerry so keen to tell Jez Wilkins , surely any parent leaving their kids wouldn't want to tell anyone else.

I can't find the link but didn't one of the group tell the receptionist that children would be left by themselves?

Autumn wrote:

margaret wrote:What about Jez Wilkins, he claims Gerry (?) told him they were leaving the kids and checking on them regularly. Of course it's not proof it happened but it came from the horses mouth.

The group seemed to want it known to others that they were leaving their children alone in the evenings. Why was Gerry so keen to tell Jez Wilkins , surely any parent leaving their kids wouldn't want to tell anyone else.

I can't find the link but didn't one of the group tell the receptionist that children would be left by themselves?

I think in the Piers Morgan interview they suggested something along the lines that there was a record to that effect at the reception.

Autumn wrote:

margaret wrote:What about Jez Wilkins, he claims Gerry (?) told him they were leaving the kids and checking on them regularly. Of course it's not proof it happened but it came from the horses mouth.

The group seemed to want it known to others that they were leaving their children alone in the evenings. Why was Gerry so keen to tell Jez Wilkins , surely any parent leaving their kids wouldn't want to tell anyone else.

I can't find the link but didn't one of the group tell the receptionist that children would be left by themselves?

Yes and Kate said in her diaries she was 'very angry, very upset' that the police insinuated they had put the children in danger.... erm........?? you were the ones telling everyone dear.

I'm still trying to get over the part where she admired the McCanns in a way for leaving their children alone!

Ive read this from her interview....Its taken me months to get over the shock of what she said ....definitely a WTF moment that remains in the memory for its sheer stupidity

Wasn't this the super porkie (even by Kate's normal standards) that the receptionist had been told that the party needed a table near the door (as they would be checking regularly on their children) and that the receptionist had left a note on the appointment book to that effect? This of course was then seen by the lurking abductor who was then aware that there were unattended children up for grabs!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Wasn't this the super porkie (even by Kate's normal standards) that the receptionist had been told that the party needed a table near the door (as they would be checking regularly on their children) and that the receptionist had left a note on the appointment book to that effect? This of course was then seen by the lurking abductor who was then aware that there were unattended children up for grabs!

deserves 2 of them!

margaret wrote:

Autumn wrote:

margaret wrote:What about Jez Wilkins, he claims Gerry (?) told him they were leaving the kids and checking on them regularly. Of course it's not proof it happened but it came from the horses mouth.

The group seemed to want it known to others that they were leaving their children alone in the evenings. Why was Gerry so keen to tell Jez Wilkins , surely any parent leaving their kids wouldn't want to tell anyone else.

I can't find the link but didn't one of the group tell the receptionist that children would be left by themselves?

Yes and Kate said in her diaries she was 'very angry, very upset' that the police insinuated they had put the children in danger.... erm........?? you were the ones telling everyone dear.

Again a clear example of them putting the word out that they were leaving the kids alone at night. And turning it on the staff shows a high level of guile and cunning on Kate's part.

I'm sure that the PJ had bigger fish to fry than neglect.
The McCanns were OK with neglect.
Neglect facilitated the abduction scenario.
So it had to be mentioned in every news item, and it was ... whilst her parents dined in a tapas restaurant, blah, blah, blah, bl**dy blah ... like a stuck record.

Neglect was the rap they thought they could beat.
It was the lesser of two evils, one more sinister than the other.
But they could live with neglect, albeit uncomfortably.
Better that than a living death with the other.

The social services angle might be a different ball game altogether.
Serious though the incident was,it didn't happen on their patch.
The social services and the medical profession have a naturally close working relationship.
Hypothetically, it's perfectly possible that personnel from both sides of these professions could be known to each other, or at least known by name and rank or position.
Who knows what supervisory plans and decisions they made?
I hope they were objective, but human nature being what it is, who knows?
Given the kind of low-rent, deprived-area neglect cases they would normally deal with, would they be swayed by the profession, the big house, the fancy words?
As Madeleine's death mystery has never been solved, have they taken into account that history might repeat?
On their own doorstep?
If that happens, they will reap the whirlwind - and neglect will be the least of it ......

The Briget O`Donnell piece, I have always been sceptical about, since the first day I read it. JW is supposed to be an innocent witness, but there are doubts. Maybe I`ve got a criminal mind, but if I was wanting to get a dead infant away from the area, what better way than in a friend`s buggy. There was cadaver odour behind the gate where they said they spoke to each other. It also adds more suspicion to the mix when we see the amount of `film maker` people they seem to know. Jez Wilkins also knows Donal McIntyre as they worked together. Maybe JW is an innocent but I haven`t totally ruled him and wifey out.

I`ve never believed they neglected their kids - I just don`t think all those doctors would do that. I believe they were all in Payne`s flat being listened to on the monitor (except Maddie of course).

Oldartform wrote:The Briget O`Donnell piece, I have always been sceptical about, since the first day I read it. JW is supposed to be an innocent witness, but there are doubts. Maybe I`ve got a criminal mind, but if I was wanting to get a dead infant away from the area, what better way than in a friend`s buggy. There was cadaver odour behind the gate where they said they spoke to each other. It also adds more suspicion to the mix when we see the amount of `film maker` people they seem to know. Jez Wilkins also knows Donal McIntyre as they worked together. Maybe JW is an innocent but I haven`t totally ruled him and wifey out.

I`ve never believed they neglected their kids - I just don`t think all those doctors would do that. I believe they were all in Payne`s flat being listened to on the monitor (except Maddie of course).

So glad Briget O`Donnell isn't my mother with her attitude. Whatever the outcome to Maddie will be, if she is dead or if she is found alive she will be mentally and emotionally scared for life.... And all because the parents left her on her own exposed in an unlocked apartment while they selfishly partied and only thought of themselves, has in one way or another ruined this young childs life. Yet Briget O`Donnell says she 'admires' the parents!! what can you say

Neglect was a nice alibi...if madeleine had met her demise earlier in the holiday...tell anyone who would listen that they left the children=witnesses to neglect

almostgothic wrote:
Given the kind of low-rent, deprived-area neglect cases they would normally deal with, would they be swayed by the profession, the big house, the fancy words?

Absolutely not IMO. Social services are there for the CHILD(REN) they shouldn't give a rats bottom to the fancy house and PR words. I would expect that 'meeting' with social services (you know the one where the Mcs 'invited' them over) went as well as they'd like us to think.

Social services won't be impressed by 'we thought it was safe' excuse because frankly people who have risen to become doctors DO know better.

margaret wrote:

almostgothic wrote:
Given the kind of low-rent, deprived-area neglect cases they would normally deal with, would they be swayed by the profession, the big house, the fancy words?

Absolutely not IMO. Social services are there for the CHILD(REN) they shouldn't give a rats bottom to the fancy house and PR words. I would expect that 'meeting' with social services (you know the one where the Mcs 'invited' them over) went as well as they'd like us to think.

Social services won't be impressed by 'we thought it was safe' excuse because frankly people who have risen to become doctors DO know better.

Wasn't there a social services woman there on the morning of the 4th May who was trying to talk to the mccanns but then got ushered away quickly by david payne

margaret wrote:

almostgothic wrote:
Given the kind of low-rent, deprived-area neglect cases they would normally deal with, would they be swayed by the profession, the big house, the fancy words?

Absolutely not IMO. Social services are there for the CHILD(REN) they shouldn't give a rats bottom to the fancy house and PR words. I would expect that 'meeting' with social services (you know the one where the Mcs 'invited' them over) went as well as they'd like us to think.

Social services won't be impressed by 'we thought it was safe' excuse because frankly people who have risen to become doctors DO know better.

I`m not so sure. Given the power of `victimhood` - AND IT IS POWERFUL BELIEVE ME - plus the articulate, arrogant tongue of GM - I`m sure even social workers can be gulled. There`s also the possibility that the head of social services in that area ordered them to lay off.

btw - Did anyone see that programme about social workers on tele last night?

margaret wrote:

almostgothic wrote:
Given the kind of low-rent, deprived-area neglect cases they would normally deal with, would they be swayed by the profession, the big house, the fancy words?

Absolutely not IMO. Social services are there for the CHILD(REN) they shouldn't give a rats bottom to the fancy house and PR words. I would expect that 'meeting' with social services (you know the one where the Mcs 'invited' them over) went as well as they'd like us to think.

Social services won't be impressed by 'we thought it was safe' excuse because frankly people who have risen to become doctors DO know better.

I agree with all this bar the bit about "having risen .............": That suggests Medical Doctors are in some way above others and they aren't at all - they, like the rest of us, are just people exercising their own particular talent for the benefit of society (hopefully!). Much better to set aside hierarchy, "class" etc and emphasise only actions and behaviours.

As Clint Eastwood said, if I dislike somebody, it's purely personal!

The holiday was organized by Payne. He had presumably checked out various resorts and holiday offers before deciding on PdL. Presumably he had made all the arrangements and informed the others accordingly. Payne should have known that there was no baby-listening service at that resort. Perhaps he overlooked it when deciding the venue and booking for everyone? It was therefore logical that upon arriving at the resort and supposedly finding out that there wasn't such a service at that resort, that Payne should throw a wobbly and complain bitterly. Or was it just theatricals for the benefit of those in the group and the resort staff who were oblivious to what might have really been going on? Isn't it a bit incredible to believe that a doctor with an infant child of his own making holiday arrangements for colleagues, also with one or more infant children each, should overlook something as crucial as whether a baby-listening service was provided or not? Wouldn't a baby-listening service or no baby-listening service be, if not the sole deciding question for considering a particular resort or eliminating it from the list, at least one of them? Wouldn't the others have raised the question when they were informed of the holiday venue he had arranged? I wonder if Payne actually told them that there was a baby-listening service? Is that why the others, apart from the O'Briens hadn't brought baby monitors with them?

So, when they arrive, they find to their consternation that there isn't in fact a baby-listening service provided at all. But of course, it didn't matter to Payne, because he and his spouse had had the foresight to take a super-duper baby monitor with them. If I had been one of the others, I think at that moment I'd have been a wee bit put out to say the least. In fact I'd probably have thrown a wobbly too and castigated Payne for being a bloody hopeless fool and booking a resort for a group of 8 adults with 8 infants which didn't have a baby-listening service. At that juncture, faced with the prospect of my dreams of valuable evening 'me time' disintegrating before my eyes because of the need to look after those pesky kids, I'd welcome any suggestion that solved the problem.

So if Payne came up with the suggestion to put all the kids to sleep in one room, which could then be monitored with his super-duper device which he had 'fortuitously' brought along 'just in case', being a selfish 'me time' type of parent, I'd positively jump at the proposal.
Perhaps it was then said that Madeleine, having a sleeping problem and prone to being a disruptive influence on the others, would be better off sleeping on her own. All very logical and harmless on the face of it and with the McCanns' agreement readily given, who is going to raise any objections? Certainly, it's an arrangement which is infinitely preferable to having to jump up from the table every 30 minutes to walk 5 minutes through the dark streets to the apartment to check on the kids and walk 5 minutes back again. Before I agreed to doing that, I think I'd have arranged for my kids to be looked after at the evening crèche.
Well, if I was a policeman with a policeman's mind, this would all raise a very big red flag. I might even start to wonder whether it's possible that the situation had been intentionally set up and the others manipulated into thinking that the sleeping arrangements were a spur-of-the-moment brainwave to solve a problem which had only become apparent after arrival. Perhaps I might deem this a subject worthy of more detailed investigation. Neglect? I wouldn't take that one at face value; not before I'd taken a hard look at the other more likely scenario.

There should be no question as to whether or not there was child neglect based on what is in the public domain. I remember well discussing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann just a few days after it happened with former colleagues who were teaching social workers and paediatric nurses - none of them, even then, believed that she had been kidnapped and that from what was being reported the children had been left to look after themselves. That constitutes neglect.

Later the question arose as to whether or not neglect was the least of the McCann's involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. No-one, and I mean no-one, out of the 10 or so people interested in discussing the case believed the parents to be unaware of Madeleine's demise. Even now, nearly 5 years on and when the case has all but disappeared as regular front page news minds have not been changed and other friends and former colleagues (I am now retired) still scent a cover-up. Why there has been a cover-up is the mystery. The released documents have not been properly investigated by British journalists. What an opportunity for them to be real investigative journalists and to interview the Gaspars and to do non ad hominem attacks but to ask Dr Amaral to explain his thesis in a sober way to the British public.

Even if the McCanns were involved (leaving aside neglect) in Madeleine's disappearance there is a plethora of types of evidence to be explored - most of it pointing to their possible implication. None of what I have written is news to you all but I just wanted to get it off my chest.

Red flag. Gerry and Kate tell a number of people allegedly, the receptionists (the note?), Gerry tells Jez, who he has met fleetingly on a tennis court? and tells him they leave the children. Im not inferring anything about Jez Wilkins, but he was somone met on a tennis court, he could have been anyone with any interests. jimo. How many others did they tell, and who did they mention it to, either in concern or otherwise. jimo

mahlersghost!

And well said!