Police bust-up sparks fear for Madeleine McCann investigation (Daily Star)

rant away its all true.  this link with the missing people isn't for the good of the missing people organisation, its to try and get back some kudos for the McCanns.  which is failing badly.  Theyre only doing it imo for publicity for themselves. this was never about a 3 year old abandoned to the fates by feckless parents, its about the feckless parents. jimo.

instead of running, bike riding and so forth, and squeezing every last media coverage from non threats, they could just donate the rest of the Limited Company search fund to the Missing People Fund.  after all they've haven't put their hands in their pockets for anything. Joe Public gave all that. if the Pj cant find her, and the private defectives cant find her, and the SY have only got persons of interest, and rewards totalling over £1 million didn't bring anything out of the woodwork, and believe you me, if anyone thought they knew anything that would allow them to claim any reward theyd be there like a shot, does anyone think Madeleine or her remains will be found

So what will happen to the Limited Company money when SY have to roll up their beds move out and move on.

malena stool wrote:

comperedna wrote:Malena, I think the PJ did not bring the lesser charge of 'child abandonment' because they were pretty confident of the evidence for a much more serious charge to be brought. When that more serious charge was stymied... as many believe by illegitimate means... they did not go back to the charge which could well have stuck, but continued to pursue the more important one as best they could. Eventually, the rather short time limit for the bringinging of a 'child abandonment' charge ran out.

If I am wrong about this I am sure many others on here will correct me.

No, I think you and tanzi are correct comperedna, but Mitchell and their sycophant 'celebrities' on UK TV, absolved them of any wrong doing by saying they also left their children alone at night and that, 'all Brit's did it' which is plainly a blatant lie and in any case is no excuse for placing their children in harms way.

Whatever happened to Madeleine, whether she is dead or not they acknowledged on prime time TV, that they left her alone, they acknowledged she cried for them, they acknowledged she asked why they didn't come in response to her cries..... Then they acknowledged that they went out and left her again.

Not only Madeleine but her younger twin siblings... 

...............

There is a big problem here, in my opinion. I am not referring to just this post, but to a common comments on this forum.

Some people here on the forum say about McCanns being people who neglected their children. Some say they believe they are responsible for something much worse.

But it cannot be both things.

If someone believes they are people who neglected their children twice, then this is supporting the abduction theory.

On the 'Tapas' night, if something very bad and very sad happened to Madeleine, then leaving her alone was not neglect, it was an alibi.

I say this because when describing McCanns as people who neglected their children, it is supporting their abduction story.

Personally I think it is more important to keep focus on the potentially much worse crime.

I disagree with that David, I believe that it is because of their neglect that madeleine disappearance resulted, how, what when where or why I think that is not for public consumption and I don't support the abduction theory. Neglect takes many forms and leads to all sorts of other things.

I happen to think that the McCanns were neglectful parents and in no way do I believe the abduction theory. In fact, it's not only the fact that they left Madeleine and the twins alone (which is terrible, of course) that makes me think that. It's their whole attitude and details of interviews and statements. I also happen to think it was their irresponsible parenting that led to whatever happened to Madeleine.

I agree, DavidA.
Neglect = the accusation they could live with.
Neglect = the rap they thought they could beat.
Neglect = the alibi for the rap they knew they couldn't beat.

Just about every McCann press story since Disappearance Day has made mention of how Madeleine was 'abducted' whilst their parents 'dined with friends XYZ yards away' ... and so on.
Practically every piece has laboured this point.
And if they didn't want the press to push this line, Mitchell and Carter Ruck would surely have had it removed with the usual 'warnings'.
But they haven't. Not for six long years.
If they've been pushing neglect all this time, then I'll continue to believe the worst case scenario.

DavidA wrote:

malena stool wrote:

comperedna wrote:Malena, I think the PJ did not bring the lesser charge of 'child abandonment' because they were pretty confident of the evidence for a much more serious charge to be brought. When that more serious charge was stymied... as many believe by illegitimate means... they did not go back to the charge which could well have stuck, but continued to pursue the more important one as best they could. Eventually, the rather short time limit for the bringinging of a 'child abandonment' charge ran out.

If I am wrong about this I am sure many others on here will correct me.

No, I think you and tanzi are correct comperedna, but Mitchell and their sycophant 'celebrities' on UK TV, absolved them of any wrong doing by saying they also left their children alone at night and that, 'all Brit's did it' which is plainly a blatant lie and in any case is no excuse for placing their children in harms way.

Whatever happened to Madeleine, whether she is dead or not they acknowledged on prime time TV, that they left her alone, they acknowledged she cried for them, they acknowledged she asked why they didn't come in response to her cries..... Then they acknowledged that they went out and left her again.

Not only Madeleine but her younger twin siblings... 

...............

There is a big problem here, in my opinion. I am not referring to just this post, but to a common comments on this forum.

Some people here on the forum say about McCanns being people who neglected their children. Some say they believe they are responsible for something much worse.

But it cannot be both things.

If someone believes they are people who neglected their children twice, then this is supporting the abduction theory.

On the 'Tapas' night, if something very bad and very sad happened to Madeleine, then leaving her alone was not neglect, it was an alibi.

I say this because when describing McCanns as people who neglected their children, it is supporting their abduction story.

Personally I think it is more important to keep focus on the potentially much worse crime.

At the stem of the matter It is believed they neglected a child that was known to have sleep difficulties.
Aforementioned child woke up accident occurred, (fallen off sofa trying to peer out window, cracked head on floor). If the parents were there, it could be hypothesised intervention ie being put to bed would have occured, and no accident. Or if accident still occured, medical input would have been available earlier. neglect is the core component to all scenarios. At the very least they should be charged with it.

almostgothic wrote:I agree, DavidA.
Neglect = the accusation they could live with.
Neglect = the rap they thought they could beat.
Neglect = the alibi for the rap they knew they couldn't beat.

Just about every McCann press story since Disappearance Day has made mention of how Madeleine was 'abducted' whilst their parents 'dined with friends XYZ yards away' ... and so on.
[b]Practically every piece has laboured this point.[b/]

Yes. This is why I question people here that highlight neglect, but also do not believe the abduction theory.

almostgothic wrote:And if they didn't want the press to push this line, Mitchell and Carter Ruck would surely have had it removed with the usual 'warnings'.
But they haven't. Not for six long years.
If they've been pushing neglect all this time, then I'll continue to believe the worst case scenario.

Yes, exactly.  

Loopdaloop wrote:At the stem of the matter It is believed they neglected a child that was known to have sleep difficulties.
Aforementioned child woke up accident occurred, (fallen off sofa trying to peer out window, cracked head on floor). If the parents were there, it could be hypothesised intervention ie being put to bed would have occured, and no accident. Or if accident still occured, medical input would have been available earlier. neglect is the core component to all scenarios. At the very least they should be charged with it.

Good point, but I will say that highlighting neglect suggests that what occurred was only an accident. But events proceeding this (why she was left again after complaints and crying which could easily get them in trouble with staff, poolside photo, complete lack of final day photos, "best day ever", airport bus) and events after (focus on getting stories straight, the report of Gerry and Kate's odd reaction when police arrived unexpectedly because someone else called the police, apparent readiness of Gerry and Kate to deal with all of this even though it should have been a massive shock whether an abduction or accident).

I believe there must have been prior knowledge and planning of what needed to be done after the report of Madeleine's disappearance. I believe they would not have left the three children alone for tapas having already been told of crying and had a complaint from club staff. I believe the reports that said not all members were at the table that evening and one child being 'sick' is important. I believe the I do not believe tapas evening was anything connected with neglect.

Neglect over many nights and a more serious charge on one particular night can both be true. The one does NOT exclude the other, though false concentration on it for the night in question, which ever night you believe that to be (and I think it could have been before the Thursday) I can see would gives time for 'abduction'.

I can see the parents might well accept, to an extent, neglect, though not calling it that, to avoid a more serious accusation.

DavidA wrote:

malena stool wrote:

comperedna wrote:Malena, I think the PJ did not bring the lesser charge of 'child abandonment' because they were pretty confident of the evidence for a much more serious charge to be brought. When that more serious charge was stymied... as many believe by illegitimate means... they did not go back to the charge which could well have stuck, but continued to pursue the more important one as best they could. Eventually, the rather short time limit for the bringinging of a 'child abandonment' charge ran out.

If I am wrong about this I am sure many others on here will correct me.

No, I think you and tanzi are correct comperedna, but Mitchell and their sycophant 'celebrities' on UK TV, absolved them of any wrong doing by saying they also left their children alone at night and that, 'all Brit's did it' which is plainly a blatant lie and in any case is no excuse for placing their children in harms way.

Whatever happened to Madeleine, whether she is dead or not they acknowledged on prime time TV, that they left her alone, they acknowledged she cried for them, they acknowledged she asked why they didn't come in response to her cries..... Then they acknowledged that they went out and left her again.

Not only Madeleine but her younger twin siblings... 

...............

There is a big problem here, in my opinion. I am not referring to just this post, but to a common comments on this forum.

Some people here on the forum say about McCanns being people who neglected their children. Some say they believe they are responsible for something much worse.

But it cannot be both things.

If someone believes they are people who neglected their children twice, then this is supporting the abduction theory.

On the 'Tapas' night, if something very bad and very sad happened to Madeleine, then leaving her alone was not neglect, it was an alibi.

I say this because when describing McCanns as people who neglected their children, it is supporting their abduction story.

Personally I think it is more important to keep focus on the potentially much worse crime.

I agree with you absolutely.

DavidA wrote:

malena stool wrote:

comperedna wrote:Malena, I think the PJ did not bring the lesser charge of 'child abandonment' because they were pretty confident of the evidence for a much more serious charge to be brought. When that more serious charge was stymied... as many believe by illegitimate means... they did not go back to the charge which could well have stuck, but continued to pursue the more important one as best they could. Eventually, the rather short time limit for the bringinging of a 'child abandonment' charge ran out.

If I am wrong about this I am sure many others on here will correct me.

No, I think you and tanzi are correct comperedna, but Mitchell and their sycophant 'celebrities' on UK TV, absolved them of any wrong doing by saying they also left their children alone at night and that, 'all Brit's did it' which is plainly a blatant lie and in any case is no excuse for placing their children in harms way.

Whatever happened to Madeleine, whether she is dead or not they acknowledged on prime time TV, that they left her alone, they acknowledged she cried for them, they acknowledged she asked why they didn't come in response to her cries..... Then they acknowledged that they went out and left her again.

Not only Madeleine but her younger twin siblings... 

...............

There is a big problem here, in my opinion. I am not referring to just this post, but to a common comments on this forum.

Some people here on the forum say about McCanns being people who neglected their children. Some say they believe they are responsible for something much worse.

But it cannot be both things.

If someone believes they are people who neglected their children twice, then this is supporting the abduction theory.

On the 'Tapas' night, if something very bad and very sad happened to Madeleine, then leaving her alone was not neglect, it was an alibi.

I say this because when describing McCanns as people who neglected their children, it is supporting their abduction story.

Personally I think it is more important to keep focus on the potentially much worse crime.

Why should they avoid any charges at all, DavidA? 

Why not charge them with what is plain for all to see, that are bad parents, they did abandon their children on a regular basis, despite their eldest child a 3 year old crying out for them? 

Then if possible bring forth further charges as can be proven. At least they'll not be walking away Scot free with their mortgage paid, new cars and a small fortune, whilst leaving every stone unturned. 

I don't believe thinking they abandoned their children twice, supports the abduction theory, It would still require the 'Abductor' to break into and enter the apartment in spite of the 'regular checks' that the parents were making. Whether he/she entered through the 'smashed shutters' or 'locked/unlocked' door is a matter of conjecture, or whatever scenario suits their present timeline on the 'wider agenda'.

I think mccanns are bad parents. Not caring, spending nights with their children, when they can, as they said 'put them to sleep', and go to the bar. I will never believe they are good and caring parents. But then, I don't have to neither.
Everybody who wants to believe they didn't neglect their children, are also free to do so. Think that they spend evenings with their kids.
There was no abduction...
..but neither cosy loving parents with their kids. But, imo only, of course.

malena stool wrote:

DavidA wrote:

malena stool wrote:

comperedna wrote:Malena, I think the PJ did not bring the lesser charge of 'child abandonment' because they were pretty confident of the evidence for a much more serious charge to be brought. When that more serious charge was stymied... as many believe by illegitimate means... they did not go back to the charge which could well have stuck, but continued to pursue the more important one as best they could. Eventually, the rather short time limit for the bringinging of a 'child abandonment' charge ran out.

If I am wrong about this I am sure many others on here will correct me.

No, I think you and tanzi are correct comperedna, but Mitchell and their sycophant 'celebrities' on UK TV, absolved them of any wrong doing by saying they also left their children alone at night and that, 'all Brit's did it' which is plainly a blatant lie and in any case is no excuse for placing their children in harms way.

Whatever happened to Madeleine, whether she is dead or not they acknowledged on prime time TV, that they left her alone, they acknowledged she cried for them, they acknowledged she asked why they didn't come in response to her cries..... Then they acknowledged that they went out and left her again.

Not only Madeleine but her younger twin siblings... 

...............

There is a big problem here, in my opinion. I am not referring to just this post, but to a common comments on this forum.

Some people here on the forum say about McCanns being people who neglected their children. Some say they believe they are responsible for something much worse.

But it cannot be both things.

If someone believes they are people who neglected their children twice, then this is supporting the abduction theory.

On the 'Tapas' night, if something very bad and very sad happened to Madeleine, then leaving her alone was not neglect, it was an alibi.

I say this because when describing McCanns as people who neglected their children, it is supporting their abduction story.

Personally I think it is more important to keep focus on the potentially much worse crime.

Why should they avoid any charges at all, DavidA? 

Why not charge them with what is plain for all to see, that are bad parents, they did abandon their children on a regular basis, despite their eldest child a 3 year old crying out for them? 

Then if possible bring forth further charges as can be proven. At least they'll not be walking away Scot free with their mortgage paid, new cars and a small fortune, whilst leaving every stone unturned. 

I don't believe thinking they abandoned their children twice, supports the abduction theory, It would still require the 'Abductor' to break into and enter the apartment in spite of the 'regular checks' that the parents were making. Whether he/she entered through the 'smashed shutters' or 'locked/unlocked' door is a matter of conjecture, or whatever scenario suits their present timeline on the 'wider agenda'.

I do not think they should avoid charges, and I do not think they were good parents. Maybe I explained my point badly.

I was referring to comments that suggest one problem with Tapas night was that they neglected the children. But it is not neglect if the purpose of that evening was to create an alibi.

I also believe there is more to the whole thing, more than just tapas night. So for me I think focusing on neglect is unintentionally confirming with their excuse and rational.

DavidA wrote:

malena stool wrote:

DavidA wrote:

malena stool wrote:

comperedna wrote:Malena, I think the PJ did not bring the lesser charge of 'child abandonment' because they were pretty confident of the evidence for a much more serious charge to be brought. When that more serious charge was stymied... as many believe by illegitimate means... they did not go back to the charge which could well have stuck, but continued to pursue the more important one as best they could. Eventually, the rather short time limit for the bringinging of a 'child abandonment' charge ran out.

If I am wrong about this I am sure many others on here will correct me.

No, I think you and tanzi are correct comperedna, but Mitchell and their sycophant 'celebrities' on UK TV, absolved them of any wrong doing by saying they also left their children alone at night and that, 'all Brit's did it' which is plainly a blatant lie and in any case is no excuse for placing their children in harms way.

Whatever happened to Madeleine, whether she is dead or not they acknowledged on prime time TV, that they left her alone, they acknowledged she cried for them, they acknowledged she asked why they didn't come in response to her cries..... Then they acknowledged that they went out and left her again.

Not only Madeleine but her younger twin siblings... 

...............

There is a big problem here, in my opinion. I am not referring to just this post, but to a common comments on this forum.

Some people here on the forum say about McCanns being people who neglected their children. Some say they believe they are responsible for something much worse.

But it cannot be both things.

If someone believes they are people who neglected their children twice, then this is supporting the abduction theory.

On the 'Tapas' night, if something very bad and very sad happened to Madeleine, then leaving her alone was not neglect, it was an alibi.

I say this because when describing McCanns as people who neglected their children, it is supporting their abduction story.

Personally I think it is more important to keep focus on the potentially much worse crime.

Why should they avoid any charges at all, DavidA? 

Why not charge them with what is plain for all to see, that are bad parents, they did abandon their children on a regular basis, despite their eldest child a 3 year old crying out for them? 

Then if possible bring forth further charges as can be proven. At least they'll not be walking away Scot free with their mortgage paid, new cars and a small fortune, whilst leaving every stone unturned. 

I don't believe thinking they abandoned their children twice, supports the abduction theory, It would still require the 'Abductor' to break into and enter the apartment in spite of the 'regular checks' that the parents were making. Whether he/she entered through the 'smashed shutters' or 'locked/unlocked' door is a matter of conjecture, or whatever scenario suits their present timeline on the 'wider agenda'.

I do not think they should avoid charges, and I do not think they were good parents. Maybe I explained my point badly.

I was referring to comments that suggest one problem with Tapas night was that they neglected the children. But it is not neglect if the purpose of that evening was to create an alibi.

I also believe there is more to the whole thing, more than just tapas night. So for me I think focusing on neglect is unintentionally confirming with their excuse and rational.

Reading it again I see where you are coming from DavidA, it was perhaps my interpretation of what you said. Like you, I also believe there is far more to Madeleine's disappearance than simple parental neglect/abandonment, call it what they will. I think, by the way the media has been manipulated in their defence there is far more than the reputations of a pair of doctors at stake here, imo anyway.

I cannot ever see them being charged with anything more substantial than child neglect, if that. Which if they had held their hands up to in the first instance, instead of spinning the childish web of smoke and mirrors they did, they would have now been home and dry and Madeleine's tragedy forgotten.

Did we ever find out what the "Wider Agenda" actually was? What does that mean, exactly?

Hi Iris, this is the photo of Dr Gerry doing his flip chart act which sparked the 'Wider Agenda' term. I can't remember, (if I ever knew) what the good doctor was talking about when the picture was taken... Perhaps someone else can recollect?

It says "Investigation", "Fund Campaign" both of which point to the "Wider Agenda".
So WTF is all that about? Just more of Gerry's bullshit, or something more sinister?
Personally I'd go with the former. He likes to make himself look and sound important, but only ends up looking and sounding like a complete tosser.

I do not it is in any way possible doctors would think it was safe to leave under fours alone in an apartment. I cannot get past this thought.

MaryB wrote:I do not it is in any way possible doctors would think it was safe to leave under fours alone in an apartment.  I cannot get past this thought.  

Me neither, MaryB. And all of them claimed they did exactly this. The Oldfield's child was only a year old, as far as I remember.

malena stool wrote:

DavidA wrote:

malena stool wrote:

DavidA wrote:

malena stool wrote:
No, I think you and tanzi are correct comperedna, but Mitchell and their sycophant 'celebrities' on UK TV, absolved them of any wrong doing by saying they also left their children alone at night and that, 'all Brit's did it' which is plainly a blatant lie and in any case is no excuse for placing their children in harms way.

Whatever happened to Madeleine, whether she is dead or not they acknowledged on prime time TV, that they left her alone, they acknowledged she cried for them, they acknowledged she asked why they didn't come in response to her cries..... Then they acknowledged that they went out and left her again.

Not only Madeleine but her younger twin siblings... 

...............

There is a big problem here, in my opinion. I am not referring to just this post, but to a common comments on this forum.

Some people here on the forum say about McCanns being people who neglected their children. Some say they believe they are responsible for something much worse.

But it cannot be both things.

If someone believes they are people who neglected their children twice, then this is supporting the abduction theory.

On the 'Tapas' night, if something very bad and very sad happened to Madeleine, then leaving her alone was not neglect, it was an alibi.

I say this because when describing McCanns as people who neglected their children, it is supporting their abduction story.

Personally I think it is more important to keep focus on the potentially much worse crime.

Why should they avoid any charges at all, DavidA? 

Why not charge them with what is plain for all to see, that are bad parents, they did abandon their children on a regular basis, despite their eldest child a 3 year old crying out for them? 

Then if possible bring forth further charges as can be proven. At least they'll not be walking away Scot free with their mortgage paid, new cars and a small fortune, whilst leaving every stone unturned. 

I don't believe thinking they abandoned their children twice, supports the abduction theory, It would still require the 'Abductor' to break into and enter the apartment in spite of the 'regular checks' that the parents were making. Whether he/she entered through the 'smashed shutters' or 'locked/unlocked' door is a matter of conjecture, or whatever scenario suits their present timeline on the 'wider agenda'.

I do not think they should avoid charges, and I do not think they were good parents. Maybe I explained my point badly.

I was referring to comments that suggest one problem with Tapas night was that they neglected the children. But it is not neglect if the purpose of that evening was to create an alibi.

I also believe there is more to the whole thing, more than just tapas night. So for me I think focusing on neglect is unintentionally confirming with their excuse and rational.

Reading it again I see where you are coming from DavidA, it was perhaps my interpretation of what you said. Like you, I also believe there is far more to Madeleine's disappearance than simple parental neglect/abandonment, call it what they will. I think, by the way the media has been manipulated in their defence there is far more than the reputations of a pair of doctors at stake here, imo anyway.

Yes, I think this also.

malena stool wrote:I cannot ever see them being charged with anything more substantial than child neglect, if that. Which if they had held their hands up to in the first instance, instead of spinning the childish web of smoke and mirrors they did, they would have now been home and dry and Madeleine's tragedy forgotten.

Which is why I do not believe it was as simple as neglect leading to an accident. Unless there were other things already that this event would have brought to the open.

The tapas night neglect -> accident theory does not take into account so much other evidence that has been seen.

I doubt that the other three couples left their children alone. Russell O'Brien's description of finding that his daughter had been sick, cleaning her and her bed up, getting her back to sleep (all within about 10 minutes!) and then clearing off back to the booze-up, defies belief.

I will assume for now that Madeleine met with an accident as a result of being left alone and, in a panic, a mad story was concocted to explain away her absence. Why the friends agreed to go along with it is anyone's guess. Maybe, like the McCanns, they were arrogant enough to think that their word alone would be believed because of their social standing.

That's what I'd prefer to think but some aspects of this case - particularly the unprecedented setting up in near record time of the bizarre limited company to raise money to "look for Madeleine" and old photos (but not new ones) being available immediately - make me think that this was all a pre-planned plot.

I hope that I live to see the truth coming out!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I doubt that the other three couples left their children alone. Russell O'Brien's description of finding that his daughter had been sick, cleaning her and her bed up, getting her back to sleep (all within about 10 minutes!) and then clearing off back to the booze-up, defies belief.

I will assume for now that Madeleine met with an accident as a result of being left alone and, in a panic, a mad story was concocted to explain away her absence. Why the friends agreed to go along with it is anyone's guess. Maybe, like the McCanns, they were arrogant enough to think that their word alone would be believed because of their social standing.  

That's what I'd prefer to think but some aspects of this case - particularly the unprecedented setting up in near record time of the bizarre limited company to raise money to "look for Madeleine" and old photos (but not new ones) being available immediately - make me think that this was all a pre-planned plot.

I hope that I live to see the truth coming out!

The questions you ask about the 'accident' are the main reasons I do not believe it.

It is not only a mad story, friends agreeing to become potential criminals, and the company. There are unusual elements before that night, including very few new photos, and I believe none from the final day other than the suspicious poolside photograph (which they added two weeks later).

For the main accepted theory of an accident, in a single evening the McCanns needed to create this story and agree with all their friends that they all become part of a criminal act of deception, which they do not need to be part of (unless the McCanns had information about each one that could be used against them that was worse than this), as well as needing to make sure Madeleine was not found.

I do not believe this is possible, therefore I do not believe this is about neglect.

I'm glad you're back, David - I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet as they say!
 
Have you seen the independent report on the fund? http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
 
Interestingly, there hasn't been as far as I know the usual torrent of childish abuse from McCann supporters whenever something detrimental is published.

The "accident" theory is the most acceptable scenario for the average sceptical observer - every other possibility being too horrific to even contemplate, let alone discuss on an open forum. Nonetheless, "accident" remains just that - a theory. To borrow a quote which has been done to death by every British tom dick and harry from the media and PR world allbeit in a different context, "there is not a shred of evidence to support it."

But somebody is trying to tell us something.

Who released the bus video, showing up Mister Gerry for the nasty wee ned he really is?
Who released the plane video, showing poor wee Maddie cutting her shin and not a soul rushing to help?
Why did Justine leave a pile of papers under a sofa in the villa, before collecting her P45 and departing on bad terms?
What was in those papers anyway?
Who released the balcony video, showing Mister Gerry apparently coked up to the eyeballs?
Why did the fragrant "friend since childhood" Esther suddenly leg it from the Fund?