Re: Neglect or No Neglect?

**margaret** Wed 1 Feb - 13:54

Autumn wrote:
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.

You should start a new thread with that Autumn, very interesting. I'd never seen that picture before.

amber Wed 1 Feb - 14:10

Autumn wrote:

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.

This is a new thought have always thought they were neglectful but this and what others have said makes far more sense, especially if you remember many of the posts on the old mirror forum which touched on a subject I would rather not think about.

Autumn Wed 1 Feb - 14:16

margaret wrote:
Autumn wrote:
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.

You should start a new thread with that Autumn, very interesting. I'd never seen that picture before.

Hi Margaret this was a new one to me and wonder if there is any info re the photo of the dark haired girl playing and when was it released to the public. Was going a bit off topic so have started a new thread on this.

Oldartform Wed 1 Feb - 14:47

humanist wrote: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.

Well, lets hope you aren`t banned again Humanist .

I don`t agree with your contention that one has to be all black or all white - I`m sure there are many, many shades of grey inbetween.

As for Dr. Amaral, you raise an interesting point, particularly as we`re discussing neglect -v- no neglect. Personally I feel there was no neglect and if Dr. Amaral concluded there was neglect back in 2007, he and many other investigators may have been fooled. However this doesn`t mean to say he thinks the same at this moment in time - I really don`t know. He is the sort of man that would be honest about it if he`d changed his mind but obviously wouldn`t say so yet. I`ve always placed at lot of credence on character and manner, and I only have to listen to this man to be impressed by his humility and sense of responsibility. If your waking thought was that he could be part of the smoke and mirrors, it was either he was gulled or it was for a moral purpose, i.e. to let TM believe he believed them.

As regards TB, he could be barking up the wrong avenue going with the neglect theory, but I believe he is a moral man seeking justice and, again, could have been fooled. Amaral and Bennett may not be totally right - I`m sure no one is atm - but I strongly believe they are on the side of justice.

Autumn Wed 1 Feb - 16:02

As regards TB, he could be barking up the wrong avenue going with the neglect theory, but I believe he is a moral man seeking justice and, again, could have been fooled. Amaral and Bennett may not be totally right - I`m sure no one is atm - but I strongly believe they are on the side of justice.

And I think Pat Brown also goes with the Neglect theory. But as you rightly say Oldartform, the main thing is they are on the side of justice.

Sponsored content