Neglect or No Neglect?

Lioned wrote:
If they were prepared to risk a 'neglect' rap rather than the other then they could have come up with something less ridiculous and far less complex than the slapstick events of the third of May and not involving the whole troop either.

So to clarify that i still believe Maddie died before the third May and the events of the night of the third just evolved in the most incompetent way and were not contrived in any kind of intellectual way to invent a 'neglect' alternative,though obviously some element of planning had to go into it.

If they wanted the world to believe an abductor struck in a small amount of time, they had to demonstrate they had a nightly routine that the abductor watched and recorded. Hence alleging they left the children nightly (albeit saying they checked them regularly) was the best scenario they could come up with in the dire circumstances they were in. The plan went awry because it was a last minute, desperate one, and the only reasonable one they could think of at the time whereby they could have a body disappear to avoid an autopsy. imo

Lioned wrote:So to clarify that i still believe Maddie died before the third May and the events of the night of the third just evolved in the most incompetent way and were not contrived in any kind of intellectual way to invent a 'neglect' alternative,though obviously some element of planning had to go into it.

I think they reckoned that as other MW sites had a listening service, their story about checking would actually count as responsible parenting. I don't think the children were left alone and I don't think they took turns at being ill.

Correct if I'm wrong please....These professional people
with very young children go on holiday and then, against
their better judgement and academic training leave it all
behind!!!
Not just one of them, but 9 people decide to all of a sudden
go all neglectful.
NO! the clue is in the persons who rented 5B and not 5A!
Who rented 5B? they say they left their child suffering from
diahorria alone and also went to the tapas!!!
No, this is also a ruse. Neglect has become a currency and
they, the Mccann chums, spend with relish,
My heart tends to accept it, but by brain tells me NO WAY!
NO Neglect, NO abduction and NO more BS!

I too think that they opted for the neglect option as the lesser evil to enable an opportunity for Madeleine to be abducted. I don't think they were all left home alone, with possibly the exception of Madeleine, who could have been disruptive and so was kept away from the others for fear of disturbing them.

How likely could it be that some random abductor would chance upton PdL as a venue for acquiring a child and if it was supposedly for a child to be treated as a Princess by a lonely childless couple, they would have chosen one of the twins and if it was for more despicable purposes, they would have chosen someone older than Madeleine. After all, all us Brits do it and leave our children home alone, so they would have had plenty of older girls to chose from.

Doctors sedating their 2 and 3 year old children in order that they are free to go out and socialise would be considered child abuse, neglect, reckless endangerment, not to mention gross misconduct of sorts.... and if one of those children died as a result.... then the potential charges begin to get far steeper!

dazedandconfused wrote:I too think that they opted for the neglect option as the lesser evil to enable an opportunity for Madeleine to be abducted. I don't think they were all left home alone, with possibly the exception of Madeleine, who could have been disruptive and so was kept away from the others for fear of disturbing them.

How likely could it be that some random abductor would chance upton PdL as a venue for acquiring a child and if it was supposedly for a child to be treated as a Princess by a lonely childless couple, they would have chosen one of the twins and if it was for more despicable purposes, they would have chosen someone older than Madeleine. After all, all us Brits do it and leave our children home alone, so they would have had plenty of older girls to chose from.

What if the Portuguese authorities had actually charged them with neglect - would that have made a difference to the development of the case?

T4two wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:I too think that they opted for the neglect option as the lesser evil to enable an opportunity for Madeleine to be abducted. I don't think they were all left home alone, with possibly the exception of Madeleine, who could have been disruptive and so was kept away from the others for fear of disturbing them.

How likely could it be that some random abductor would chance upton PdL as a venue for acquiring a child and if it was supposedly for a child to be treated as a Princess by a lonely childless couple, they would have chosen one of the twins and if it was for more despicable purposes, they would have chosen someone older than Madeleine. After all, all us Brits do it and leave our children home alone, so they would have had plenty of older girls to chose from.

What if the Portuguese authorities had actually charged them with neglect - would that have made a difference to the development of the case?

I think the Portuguese were aiming for more than neglect but it would certainly have made a difference if they had settled for the lesser charge and gone with that but with all the meddling from the men in black, or whoever, they would probably have got that quashed before it went anywhere.

I find it hard to believe that a group of doctors etc would leave very young children in a vulnerable situation. There has been speculation on fora about the McCanns relationship with Madeleine being strained but I doubt that the twins would have been left to fend for themselves in any case. One way or another the children were all supervised in some way passing as at least an adequate arrangement without them being left unattended - the Payne's children too in my opinion. Everyone trooping back and forth like relay runners would have been a non-starter for people who like to socialise. If the rogatory interviews are any indication of the total absurdity of the supposed goings on in the week no wonder the PJ and British police involved in the investigation were rightly sceptical.

As has been mentioned before it is also unlikely that Kate McCann would have gone back alone at 10pm unless there was a burning need for her to be the discoverer of an "abduction" rather than her husband. I think that even most men would have been wary going back into a dark, unlocked environment. I would be fretting the whole time about my children if the scenario was that they were left alone. I don't think that I could have lived with the guilt of one of them being injured. Sceptical, sceptical and sceptical again is my attitude to everything the McCanns et al have said and done. And don't start me on Mitchell. I may be doing them all a grave disservice but they haven't exactly covered themselves in glory from the start - it's almost a Catch Me If You Can scenario but with a tragic sub-plot.

neglect or no neglect?

i go for both...once a situation had arose...the neglect route was the route,they as a group used as a means to make that small window of oppurtunity possible,whether this actually happened with a tapas member per night with a delhi(pdl) belly? we are relying on t7 to tell the truth there
its one thing leaving the children...but telling every man & his dog about your unique childcare arrangements...
then the apparent neglect was spun with...like dining in your back garden & well within the bounds of responsible parenting

another question could be what better plan could they come up with if indeed they did have more time to deal with the cover up?

mahlersghost wrote:- it's almost a Catch Me If You Can scenario but with a tragic sub-plot.

Yes, like they`re enjoying the game. Catch Me If You McCann

Oldartform wrote:

mahlersghost wrote:- it's almost a Catch Me If You Can scenario but with a tragic sub-plot.

Yes, like they`re enjoying the game. Catch Me If You McCann

Would explain gerrys constant smirking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NfTwLuiPeA

Here's hoping that their luck runs out soon!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NfTwLuiPeA

Hers's hoping that their luck runs out soon!

Yayyyy!!!!!

jd16 wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

mahlersghost wrote:- it's almost a Catch Me If You Can scenario but with a tragic sub-plot.

Yes, like they`re enjoying the game. Catch Me If You McCann

Would explain gerrys constant smirking

Unfortunately I do get the impression that he does get some kind of perverse pleasure from doing the smart-Aleck routine to the press. Telling Sandra F to ask the dogs was both arrogant and sexist (I doubt that he would tell Paxman to ask the dogs). He should be afraid that he may get caught out but he blusters through and gets his way. Through the media the McCanns have hi-jacked a latent sentimentalism that rises up every so often - common-sense goes for a walk and may be some time before it returns.

mahlersghost wrote:As has been mentioned before it is also unlikely that Kate McCann would have gone back alone at 10pm unless there was a burning need for her to be the discoverer of an "abduction" rather than her husband. I think that even most men would have been wary going back into a dark, unlocked environment.

The 10 pm solo check by Kate makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Oldfield had allegedly diligiently checked on his own children (and everyone else's children) at both 9:00 and 9:30 pm. Why did his child-minding arrangements suddenly fall short at 10 pm? Also, why didn't Kate offer to check on the Oldfield's children at this time, returning the favor Matt had allegedly done for her at 9:30? Further, why didn't Rachel offer to go with Kate, as it was her who said something as to the effect that she wouldn't want to be walking alone at night in the area.

I don't believe the neglect issue. In fact, I believe that the McCanns (most likely Kate) was the one adult responsible for looking after all kids on Monday, the same night that Mrs. Fenn heard the crying and the night that nobody in the group claims to have been sick. They purposely did not say that anyone stayed back on the Monday night as they knew that Mrs. Fenn heard the crying that night and they knew that if someone had stayed back at the apartments every night it would look more like there was an adult watching the kids every night. Alot has been done to deflect suspicion from the Monday night, for instance the claim that Madeline asked why her parents hadn't come on the Tuesday night when the twins her and Sean were crying.

With Kate watching Monday, the rotation would have been Matt - Sun, Kate - Mon, Russell - Tue, Rachel - Wed. They had 6 nights to wine and dine together. Had it been me, I would have been more than happy to give up one of my nights on the lash in order to ensure that the children were looked after properly, and I believe that these 9 adults would have done the same. The neglect angle is just too unbelievable for so many people. These are not young children we are talking about, but defenseless babies and toddlers!

Very thought-provoking Thread: And it is the very reason I did not vote in the recent ill-conceived Poll generated by jodel

See https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t18712-a-moderator-has-suggested-i-ask-people-what-they-truly-believe-about-the-fate-of-madeleine#366473 where I queried the inbuilt assumption that Neglect was "a given".

Never did get a reply .................

Of course on the night of the 'abduction' the twins would be placed in thier cots in between two beds, one of which we are led to believe, Madeleine was sleeping. A perfect scene - all the children sleeping in one room together as a perfect family would. But of course in order to set up the 'aduction' - the twins really would have to be left alone and unattended. So there would have been high anxiety in the Mc's at leaving them this way - hence the need for extra vigilence and almost constant checks - so much so that the 'abductor' had only a very small window of opportunity - so small - nigh on impossible!

So was the situation until eventually the alarm was raised. I wonder if MO did not have the guts to be the one to make the discovery. Of course his story changed from listening outside to looking inside but not seeing Maddy to be in line with JT's reported sighting of the egg man i.e. Maddy was still there which Gerry confirmed a little later - his beautiful daughter - even though he failed to spot the 'abductor' behind he door or where 'someone with malicious intent went through that window and took Madeleine from the safety and security of her family' Aunti Phil

Jinvta: it was Tuesday, 1st May when Mrs Fenn reported that she heard crying and Thursday, 3rd May when Madeleine allegedly made the "why didn't you come?" comment.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Jinvta: it was Tuesday, 1st May when Mrs Fenn reported that she heard crying and Thursday, 3rd May when Madeleine allegedly made the "why didn't you come?" comment.

Hi Jinvta, once again they push the neglect story and
Madeliene becomes also a
witness to this fact. I don't believe that a
3 year old child could manage a 'passing
comment' as this.

I remember some of the names from other forums.
Good to see you all again.
I was quite happy to just come in and read, did not feel
that I could add anything to the subject, so followed it in silence for ages now.

This post however made evoked an insight which I would like to share as much as I fear to having
been banned in the past for the most simple of questions.
You know in this case how you are either a white or a black hat.
You are either pro Madeleine or pro her parents.
You either favour Amaral or Rebelo.

It goes further though.

Mr Amaral believes there was neglect.
Mr Rebelo claims there was no neglect - that the children were always together
with an adult. This is far more damaging to the parents because then they have lost
the abduction possibility.

The other night I had a thought just as I was waking up and it went along the lines of hoping
against all hope that Mr Amaral was not part of the smoke and mirrors.

And this does not mean that every ounce of empathy that I have for this man and his family is still
in tact, and my prayers are most certainly with him.

Yet, you have two top policemen, one claims there was neglect, the other dismisses it.
The one is in forefront and the one denying neglect is absolutely unheard of ......

Slinking off now....

Oh yes and Tony Bennett whilst putting up an amazing fight is emphasizing the neglect again and again and again.

HiDeHo wrote:

Lioned wrote:Sorry but i dont buy into this conspiracy that they favour neglect as an alibi.They are not clever enough to think up something like that and they certainly wouldn't want to risk any charges including neglect.
Twist it however you like these parents were negligent,Maddie died as a result of them not taking care of her,that is negligence and i have no doubt these kids were habitually left alone.

If they were worried about neglect charges they would have claimed the people sick each night were watching the children...

So...Why didn't they?

And if you haven't got neglect you've got something else, something more sinister to keep them all bound in their pact of silence.

What...?

I have my own thoughts.

HiDeHo wrote:

Lioned wrote:Sorry but i dont buy into this conspiracy that they favour neglect as an alibi.They are not clever enough to think up something like that and they certainly wouldn't want to risk any charges including neglect.
Twist it however you like these parents were negligent,Maddie died as a result of them not taking care of her,that is negligence and i have no doubt these kids were habitually left alone.

If they were worried about neglect charges they would have claimed the people sick each night were watching the children...

So...Why didn't they?

They were worried about the neglect charges, that's why they continuously likened their actions to 'dining in their back garden,' and insisted they 'responsibly' checked on the kiddies every 30 mins. However, their main overriding concern was making an abductor's ability to break in and steel their child, sound feasible. Hence they told the PJ they followed a regular pattern, a routine if you will, of putting all 3 toddlers to bed each evening and popping out to the tapas bar aka 'their back garden' with their friends.

and on the fifth night, he did strike!

But wait.....Wilkins screwed it all up. The windows weren't smashed or jemmied and RO'B was unable to complete his crucial role, and to top it all off, Mr Mc ran smack into a group of Irish people whilst moving the body! They feared for sure they would be rumbled on the morrow, so as bad as it would appear.... whilst caring people spent the night searching for their allegedly abducted child.... the fragrant two had no choice but to spend those crucial hours hauled up in their apartment, doing some serious butt saving brain storming..... enter Jane!


imo

margaret wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Lioned wrote:Sorry but i dont buy into this conspiracy that they favour neglect as an alibi.They are not clever enough to think up something like that and they certainly wouldn't want to risk any charges including neglect.
Twist it however you like these parents were negligent,Maddie died as a result of them not taking care of her,that is negligence and i have no doubt these kids were habitually left alone.

If they were worried about neglect charges they would have claimed the people sick each night were watching the children...

So...Why didn't they?

And if you haven't got neglect you've got something else, something more sinister to keep them all bound in their pact of silence.

What...?

I have my own thoughts.

Yes, neglect comes in all forms - it's just that the neglect that comes with leaving young children alone and vulnerable to the feared abductor
is the one that leaves no body - without an abduction scenario made possible by abandonment there will be a body and what a can of worms that may lead to. Enough said.

I have to agree with all the comments here, that neglect does seem to be what they are pushing for to open their 'small window of opportunity". On a side not, have you noticed on many of their early interviews how they always twisted it around so they could say 'small window of opportunity", PR or what. Then they started saying 'all the pieces of the jigsaw" and last Xmas we have the PR 'do you hold the final piece of the jigsaw'...it is all so PR and carefully worded!

As HiDeHo put it, TM's must jump for joy when they are accused of neglect, and if this is the lesser evil I dread to think what the real reason is

jd16 wrote:I have to agree with all the comments here, that neglect does seem to be what they are pushing for to open their 'small window of opportunity". On a side not, have you noticed on many of their early interviews how they always twisted it around so they could say 'small window of opportunity", PR or what. Then they started saying 'all the pieces of the jigsaw" and last Xmas we have the PR 'do you hold the final piece of the jigsaw'...it is all so PR and carefully worded!

As HiDeHo put it, TM's must jump for joy when they are accused of neglect, and if this is the lesser evil I dread to think what the real reason is

From thentherewere4's excellent Blog article - 'The Day Maddie wasn't Maddie At All

Time for us all now to surely realise one important rule. That is when dealing with the McCanns and their sort it’s never ever a case of what you see is what you get, more it’s a case of what we say you see is what you’ve got.



http://thentherewere4.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/the-day-maddie-wasnt-maddie-at-all/


And in order to get the public to believe them, who better to have as a spokeman than master media manipulator, Clarence Mitchell. Without Clarence putting plenty of spin on the neglect claims, I wonder if TM would have been so readily believed by the mass public had he not been around to push this into the media.