Ok, but you agree that the archiving dispatch was inconclusive and said Madeleine's fate was one of the following:
- killed in a neglectful homicide
- an intended homicide
- the victim of a targeted abduction
- an opportunistic abduction
Or any reason not yet considered. What I don't accept is that you can simply treat each as equally probable. Which is why going by general probabilities of all similar cases she is most likely dead.
My point though is that it is perfectly reasonable for an investigating force to ask, and in most circumstances expect, the parents of a missing child to help them establish a chain of events, ans in doing so establish their innocence. It's more diplomatic and less rumour mongering to couch thing in terms of due to a break down in communication the McCanns lost the opportunity to establish their innocence. And it's reasonable to say that until they do so they will only be "presumed" innocent. Presumption isn't all it's cracked up to be.
oh dear ... it seems Insector Ricardo Paiva is the new villain in the McCann's story.
'Liar Cop ignored hundreds of Maddie sightings' ... screams tomorrow's SUN headlines.
Amazing isn't it, that the 'bad guys' are invariably policemen, rather than the swarthy paedo who the McCanns say holds their little girl in an underground lair ... he get's overlooked somehow, whilst these other 'ememies' get all their attention.
That's because he hasn't "harmed" her, according to her loving parents - who of course are in a position to know all about her current lifestyle.
Re the holiday party. I don't think there is anything unusual about going on holiday with friends you don't often see. We've done it lots of times. It's a great way of catching up with people you otherwise don't tend to spend much time with. We have friends from our Uni days and other friends from when we've lived in various parts of the UK, who we may only speak to on the phone very occasionally, but every couple of years, we'll try to get together somewhere for a week or so. It can be difficult to spend time with friends if your career moves you around.
We were meant to go away with another family last year, that we know very well, and they had also invited another family that we had only met once before. In the end, we couldn't make it. I also went on a weekend away last year with a friend of mine, and 2 other women who she knew, but I had never met before.
I think other things about the Tapas group are unusual (esp their attitude to childcare), but I don't think this is.
Especially, when Maddie was crying two nights before,for her Daddy.
Was there someone else's Daddy in the room.
I find it beyond comprehension that the McCanns had such a casual attitude towards their children's safety.
It's not JUST about leaving the door unlocked, leaving the children alone, but allowing very casual acquaintances to wander in and out of the children's bedroom if they so wished.
It's not as if the McCanns are a couple of naive, uneducated teenagers who don't know any better.
They must know the dangerous situation their children were in.
Re the holiday party. I don't think there is anything unusual about going on holiday with friends you don't often see. We've done it lots of times. It's a great way of catching up with people you otherwise don't tend to spend much time with. We have friends from our Uni days and other friends from when we've lived in various parts of the UK, who we may only speak to on the phone very occasionally, but every couple of years, we'll try to get together somewhere for a week or so. It can be difficult to spend time with friends if your career moves you around.
We were meant to go away with another family last year, that we know very well, and they had also invited another family that we had only met once before. In the end, we couldn't make it. I also went on a weekend away last year with a friend of mine, and 2 other women who she knew, but I had never met before.
I think other things about the Tapas group are unusual (esp their attitude to childcare), but I don't think this is.
I understand about going on holiday with old friends you haven't seen for ages or for a while.
But were these all old friends?
And what about letting them check up on your sleeping children? They weren't the children's old friends. In fact, the McCanns didn't spend a lot of time with the others in the group apart from evenings when the children were home alone. So the children weren't that acquainted with the other adults.
I understand about going on holiday with old friends you haven't seen for ages or for a while.
But were these all old friends?
And what about letting them check up on your sleeping children? They weren't the children's old friends. In fact, the McCanns didn't spend a lot of time with the others in the group apart from evenings when the children were home alone. So the children weren't that acquainted with the other adults.
Perhaps they weren't all old friends, but I think some of them were. Like I said in my example, we were ready to go away with almost complete strangers last year, because we shared mutual friends. I don't think that's unusual.
Obviously, allowing strangers unsupervised access to your kids is a different question altogether.
Did she actually say that, or was it FiFi's retrospective reflections on what she said Kate said ?
Here's what Fiona Payne said in her rogatory interview:
" ... Erm, and this always haunts me, erm, because Kate, huh, what had she said, when I was sort of twisting her arm really, she was unsure, I think Gerry was immediately quite keen, erm, to come and Kate had said, when I rang up, she said ‘I don’t know why I’ve just got an uneasy feeling about it’. And I don’t know why she said that, I don’t think she even knows, I never mentioned it to her since, but she said, you know, that was it really, but Gerry was so keen that she just sort of thought okay let’s go for it. "
Not really here today, hubby working at home, but just popped in to catch up.
Re: The Sightings - I very seriously doubt that any sightings were immediately dismissed, although I imagine common sense would have ruled out a few.
Its the Mccann media in overdrive again because yesterday there was a vague suggestion that Amaral and the PJ were not the only ones to think about looking at the family.
Now, of course, we need a villain and a reason why its not their fault.
Its a bit ridiculous of course, to those people who follow each individual happening and see the whole picture (at least when it comes to the media) but to everyday people it will, of course, look like the poor parents are being "Put upon" again.
Not really here today, hubby working at home, but just popped in to catch up.
Re: The Sightings - I very seriously doubt that any sightings were immediately dismissed, although I imagine common sense would have ruled out a few.
Its the Mccann media in overdrive again because yesterday there was a vague suggestion that Amaral and the PJ were not the only ones to think about looking at the family.
Now, of course, we need a villain and a reason why its not their fault.
Its a bit ridiculous of course, to those people who follow each individual happening and see the whole picture (at least when it comes to the media) but to everyday people it will, of course, look like the poor parents are being "Put upon" again.
Or any reason not yet considered. What I don't accept is that you can simply treat each as equally probable. Which is why going by general probabilities of all similar cases she is most likely dead. My point though is that it is perfectly reasonable for an investigating force to ask, and in most circumstances expect,the parents of a missing child to help them establish a chain of events, ans in doing so establish their innocence. It's more diplomatic and less rumour mongering to couch thing in terms of due to a break down in communication the McCanns lost the opportunity to establish their innocence. And it's reasonable to say that until they do so they will only be "presumed" innocent. Presumption isn't all it's cracked up to be.
If by 'chain of events' you mean a reconstruction then not only would 'an investigating force' expect the parents to co-operate, I should imagine any sane person might assume said parents would bend over backwards to aid the investigation.
I doubt if I'll ever be able to reconcile the fact that they failed to do so.
Here's what Fiona Payne said in her rogatory interview:
" ... Erm, and this always haunts me, erm, because Kate, huh, what had she said, when I was sort of twisting her arm really, she was unsure, I think Gerry was immediately quite keen, erm, to come and Kate had said, when I rang up, she said ‘I don’t know why I’ve just got an uneasy feeling about it’. And I don’t know why she said that, I don’t think she even knows, I never mentioned it to her since, but she said, you know, that was it really, but Gerry was so keen that she just sort of thought okay let’s go for it. "
So, it was either a bit of retrospective fluff that Fiona made up or Kate had genuine concerns. Those concerns can't have been about swarthy abductors roaming the streets of PdL or else she wouldn't have left the children in an unlocked apartment. Would she Let's assume the concerns were about something else.
My first thought is that she might have been worried about her ability to cope with three young children.
If by 'chain of events' you mean a reconstruction then not only would 'an investigating force' expect the parents to co-operate, I should imagine any sane person might assume said parents would bend over backwards to aid the investigation.
I doubt if I'll ever be able to reconcile the fact that they failed to do so.
There is no acceptable reason why they would not do this. They were under suspicion, they supposedly knew themselves to be telling the truth and their child was missing and needed to have the investigation back on track. They needed to eliminate themselves from the enquiries yet they chose not to. Why?
As far as I can see there are several possibilities.
1. They lied/exaggerated the checking procedure and knew a reconstruction would expose this. Which would mean that avoiding getting charged with wasting police time/negligence was a greater priority for them than finding a frightened toddler in the hands of an abductor.
2. They were angry about the police's attitude towards them. Which would mean their own pride and the need to show the police who's boss was a greater priority for them than finding a frightened toddler in the hands of an abductor.
3. They didn't think the police would believe them. Which suggests they must have thought their own story had a number of implausible holes in it, and that avoiding the awkwardness of explaining these was a greater priority for them than finding a frightened toddler in the hands of an abductor.
4. They didn't need to worry about Madeleine because they knew she was already dead.
oh dear ... it seems Insector Ricardo Paiva is the new villain in the McCann's story.
'Liar Cop ignored hundreds of Maddie sightings' ... screams tomorrow's SUN headlines.
Amazing isn't it, that the 'bad guys' are invariably policemen, rather than the swarthy paedo who the McCanns say holds their little girl in an underground lair ... he get's overlooked somehow, whilst these other 'ememies' get all their attention.
This really bothers me BIG TIME. The PJ have been given hundreds if not thousands of "sightings". If they were to follow up each and every one it would have bankrupted the PJ. They would have had to fly out a police officer to every location, interview the "witness" and search the location.
Every police force has to prioritise and with so many "sightings" many of them will have to be dismissed out of hand so that they can concentrate upon the most likely ones to yield results. While the McCanns refuse to do a reconstruction, the most likely path to yield results still has to be the McCanns and the Taps 7 themselves since 95% of children come to harm by people known to them.
The cynic in me thinks that the sheer number of "sightings" could be the perfect opportunity to keep the PJ busy investigating blind alleys so as not to concentrate on the McCanns and the Tapas 7.
This really bothers me BIG TIME. The PJ have been given hundreds if not thousands of "sightings". If they were to follow up each and every one it would have bankrupted the PJ. They would have had to fly out a police officer to every location, interview the "witness" and search the location.
Every police force has to prioritise and with so many "sightings" many of them will have to be dismissed out of hand so that they can concentrate upon the most likely ones to yield results. While the McCanns refuse to do a reconstruction, the most likely path to yield results still has to be the McCanns and the Taps 7 themselves since 95% of children come to harm by people known to them.
The cynic in me thinks that the sheer number of "sightings" could be the perfect opportunity to keep the PJ busy investigating blind alleys so as not to concentrate on the McCanns and the Tapas 7.
I would hope that would be something that any unbiased judge would be able to see as well, Munta. Maybe there's one at the European Court of Human Rights.
So, it was either a bit of retrospective fluff that Fiona made up or Kate had genuine concerns. Those concerns can't have been about swarthy abductors roaming the streets of PdL or else she wouldn't have left the children in an unlocked apartment. Would she Let's assume the concerns were about something else.
My first thought is that she might have been worried about her ability to cope with three young children.
Any thoughts on this, or other suggestions?
It doesn't sound like "retrospective fluff" to me. It sounds quite specific.
If it was about coping with three children - well, I know all about that although mine were as close in age as the McCanns' children. So I am sure Kate had concerns about the practicalities of coping with the children, not just on this holiday, but on any holiday.
But Fiona Payne mentions in her statement that Kate and Gerry had other holidays (or breaks) lined up.
So, if they did have other holidays lined up, then it couldn't have been the issue of coping with the children that gave Kate the "uneasy feeling" or surely a holiday would be a rarer event than it was for the McCanns.
"And I think also they’d booked quite a few other breaks around that time so they were less keen to come”."
This really bothers me BIG TIME. The PJ have been given hundreds if not thousands of "sightings". If they were to follow up each and every one it would have bankrupted the PJ. They would have had to fly out a police officer to every location, interview the "witness" and search the location.
Every police force has to prioritise and with so many "sightings" many of them will have to be dismissed out of hand so that they can concentrate upon the most likely ones to yield results. While the McCanns refuse to do a reconstruction, the most likely path to yield results still has to be the McCanns and the Taps 7 themselves since 95% of children come to harm by people known to them.
The cynic in me thinks that the sheer number of "sightings" could be the perfect opportunity to keep the PJ busy investigating blind alleys so as not to concentrate on the McCanns and the Tapas 7.
I would imagine that if people really are sending in snaps of houses and addresses where Madeliene is being held then the PJ would make the local police aware so they could check it out?
Madeliene as an almost 4 year old even with known photos to compare her to looked like an awful lot of other little almost 4 year old girls. Madeliene as an almost 7 year old has limitless possibilities for appearance and so sightings.
Although, I would have thought that any sighting that wasn't within a 10 mile radius of the lawless wilds that is a seaside resort wouldn't be worth following up anyway ...
It doesn't sound like "retrospective fluff" to me. It sounds quite specific.
If it was about coping with three children - well, I know all about that although mine were as close in age as the McCanns' children. So I am sure Kate had concerns about the practicalities of coping with the children, not just on this holiday, but on any holiday.
But Fiona Payne mentions in her statement that Kate and Gerry had other holidays (or breaks) lined up.
So, if they did have other holidays lined up, then it couldn't have been the issue of coping with the children that gave Kate the "uneasy feeling" or surely a holiday would be a rarer event than it was for the McCanns.
"And I think also they’d booked quite a few other breaks around that time so they were less keen to come”."
I wonder if Fiona was referring to their trip to Ireland? If so then Kate would have been surrounded by family - plus their help and support - so maybe that trip was less of a worry to her. After all, Gerry mentioned how he regularly 'flew' his family down to Rothley to lend Kate a hand with the children when he was away on business.
Perhaps her concern arose from the image of Gerry playing tennis (and life and soul of the party) while she managed the children.
However, according to Fiona (again) the McCanns didn't cope particularly well when there were two of them:
"they did come for breakfast at Millennium on the first day, we were there and we all pretty much met on that Sunday morning for breakfast and I know they didn’t do that again because they had a hideous time with the twins wanting to walk everywhere at that point and, you know, one would be lurking at the back and the other one walking ahead. And they just found it too, too difficult. So that was the only time they, we saw them at breakfast, that was the first day”.
I wonder if Fiona was referring to their trip to Ireland? If so then Kate would have been surrounded by family - plus their help and support - so maybe that trip was less of a worry to her. After all, Gerry mentioned how he regularly 'flew' his family down to Rothley to lend Kate a hand with the children when he was away on business.
Perhaps her concern arose from the image of Gerry playing tennis (and life and soul of the party) while she managed the children.
However, according to Fiona (again) the McCanns didn't cope particularly well when there were two of them:
"they did come for breakfast at Millennium on the first day, we were there and we all pretty much met on that Sunday morning for breakfast and I know they didn’t do that again because they had a hideous time with the twins wanting to walk everywhere at that point and, you know, one would be lurking at the back and the other one walking ahead. And they just found it too, too difficult. So that was the only time they, we saw them at breakfast, that was the first day”.
Thank God for the creche, eh?
If Kate's concerns were about managing the three children then it doesn't seem as if Gerry shared her concerns because according to Fiona he was very keen to go on the holiday to Portugal.
"We didn’t really see Kate and Gerry for any lunchtimes, but I know one of those, I remember Kate saying it was a bit of a disaster, because Sean put his feet on the sand and didn’t like it and it was cold and windy and it was all a bit of a disaster, so they didn’t do it again."
Comments
Or any reason not yet considered. What I don't accept is that you can simply treat each as equally probable. Which is why going by general probabilities of all similar cases she is most likely dead.
My point though is that it is perfectly reasonable for an investigating force to ask, and in most circumstances expect, the parents of a missing child to help them establish a chain of events, ans in doing so establish their innocence. It's more diplomatic and less rumour mongering to couch thing in terms of due to a break down in communication the McCanns lost the opportunity to establish their innocence. And it's reasonable to say that until they do so they will only be "presumed" innocent. Presumption isn't all it's cracked up to be.
That's because he hasn't "harmed" her, according to her loving parents - who of course are in a position to know all about her current lifestyle.
In the Lawless wilds HG , in the Lawless wilds.
And Morning
As I said , I would have put JBC's in and dug the place up , if I thought there was any sort of lair.
This has always interested me , this thought.
Especially, when Maddie was crying two nights before,for her Daddy.
Was there someone else's Daddy in the room.
Well as I always say if there are hundreds of sightings them almost all of them are certainly false. Why not all of them false?
Re the holiday party. I don't think there is anything unusual about going on holiday with friends you don't often see. We've done it lots of times. It's a great way of catching up with people you otherwise don't tend to spend much time with. We have friends from our Uni days and other friends from when we've lived in various parts of the UK, who we may only speak to on the phone very occasionally, but every couple of years, we'll try to get together somewhere for a week or so. It can be difficult to spend time with friends if your career moves you around.
We were meant to go away with another family last year, that we know very well, and they had also invited another family that we had only met once before. In the end, we couldn't make it. I also went on a weekend away last year with a friend of mine, and 2 other women who she knew, but I had never met before.
I think other things about the Tapas group are unusual (esp their attitude to childcare), but I don't think this is.
I find it beyond comprehension that the McCanns had such a casual attitude towards their children's safety.
It's not JUST about leaving the door unlocked, leaving the children alone, but allowing very casual acquaintances to wander in and out of the children's bedroom if they so wished.
It's not as if the McCanns are a couple of naive, uneducated teenagers who don't know any better.
They must know the dangerous situation their children were in.
I understand about going on holiday with old friends you haven't seen for ages or for a while.
But were these all old friends?
And what about letting them check up on your sleeping children? They weren't the children's old friends. In fact, the McCanns didn't spend a lot of time with the others in the group apart from evenings when the children were home alone. So the children weren't that acquainted with the other adults.
Did she actually say that, or was it FiFi's retrospective reflections on what she said Kate said ?
Perhaps they weren't all old friends, but I think some of them were. Like I said in my example, we were ready to go away with almost complete strangers last year, because we shared mutual friends. I don't think that's unusual.
Obviously, allowing strangers unsupervised access to your kids is a different question altogether.
Here's what Fiona Payne said in her rogatory interview:
" ... Erm, and this always haunts me, erm, because Kate, huh, what had she said, when I was sort of twisting her arm really, she was unsure, I think Gerry was immediately quite keen, erm, to come and Kate had said, when I rang up, she said ‘I don’t know why I’ve just got an uneasy feeling about it’. And I don’t know why she said that, I don’t think she even knows, I never mentioned it to her since, but she said, you know, that was it really, but Gerry was so keen that she just sort of thought okay let’s go for it. "
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id252.html
My thoughts, your words - thankyou mindyann
Not really here today, hubby working at home, but just popped in to catch up.
Re: The Sightings - I very seriously doubt that any sightings were immediately dismissed, although I imagine common sense would have ruled out a few.
Its the Mccann media in overdrive again because yesterday there was a vague suggestion that Amaral and the PJ were not the only ones to think about looking at the family.
Now, of course, we need a villain and a reason why its not their fault.
Its a bit ridiculous of course, to those people who follow each individual happening and see the whole picture (at least when it comes to the media) but to everyday people it will, of course, look like the poor parents are being "Put upon" again.
Anyway, my thought for the morning.
See you guys later.
See you later, Lizze
If by 'chain of events' you mean a reconstruction then not only would 'an investigating force' expect the parents to co-operate, I should imagine any sane person might assume said parents would bend over backwards to aid the investigation.
I doubt if I'll ever be able to reconcile the fact that they failed to do so.
Thanks queenofthenile.
So, it was either a bit of retrospective fluff that Fiona made up or Kate had genuine concerns. Those concerns can't have been about swarthy abductors roaming the streets of PdL or else she wouldn't have left the children in an unlocked apartment. Would she
My first thought is that she might have been worried about her ability to cope with three young children.
Any thoughts on this, or other suggestions?
There is no acceptable reason why they would not do this. They were under suspicion, they supposedly knew themselves to be telling the truth and their child was missing and needed to have the investigation back on track. They needed to eliminate themselves from the enquiries yet they chose not to. Why?
As far as I can see there are several possibilities.
1. They lied/exaggerated the checking procedure and knew a reconstruction would expose this. Which would mean that avoiding getting charged with wasting police time/negligence was a greater priority for them than finding a frightened toddler in the hands of an abductor.
2. They were angry about the police's attitude towards them. Which would mean their own pride and the need to show the police who's boss was a greater priority for them than finding a frightened toddler in the hands of an abductor.
3. They didn't think the police would believe them. Which suggests they must have thought their own story had a number of implausible holes in it, and that avoiding the awkwardness of explaining these was a greater priority for them than finding a frightened toddler in the hands of an abductor.
4. They didn't need to worry about Madeleine because they knew she was already dead.
Every police force has to prioritise and with so many "sightings" many of them will have to be dismissed out of hand so that they can concentrate upon the most likely ones to yield results. While the McCanns refuse to do a reconstruction, the most likely path to yield results still has to be the McCanns and the Taps 7 themselves since 95% of children come to harm by people known to them.
The cynic in me thinks that the sheer number of "sightings" could be the perfect opportunity to keep the PJ busy investigating blind alleys so as not to concentrate on the McCanns and the Tapas 7.
I would hope that would be something that any unbiased judge would be able to see as well, Munta. Maybe there's one at the European Court of Human Rights.
It doesn't sound like "retrospective fluff" to me. It sounds quite specific.
If it was about coping with three children - well, I know all about that although mine were as close in age as the McCanns' children. So I am sure Kate had concerns about the practicalities of coping with the children, not just on this holiday, but on any holiday.
But Fiona Payne mentions in her statement that Kate and Gerry had other holidays (or breaks) lined up.
So, if they did have other holidays lined up, then it couldn't have been the issue of coping with the children that gave Kate the "uneasy feeling" or surely a holiday would be a rarer event than it was for the McCanns.
"And I think also they’d booked quite a few other breaks around that time so they were less keen to come”."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id252.html
I would imagine that if people really are sending in snaps of houses and addresses where Madeliene is being held then the PJ would make the local police aware so they could check it out?
Madeliene as an almost 4 year old even with known photos to compare her to looked like an awful lot of other little almost 4 year old girls. Madeliene as an almost 7 year old has limitless possibilities for appearance and so sightings.
Although, I would have thought that any sighting that wasn't within a 10 mile radius of the lawless wilds that is a seaside resort wouldn't be worth following up anyway ...
I wonder if Fiona was referring to their trip to Ireland? If so then Kate would have been surrounded by family - plus their help and support - so maybe that trip was less of a worry to her. After all, Gerry mentioned how he regularly 'flew' his family down to Rothley to lend Kate a hand with the children when he was away on business.
Perhaps her concern arose from the image of Gerry playing tennis (and life and soul of the party) while she managed the children.
However, according to Fiona (again) the McCanns didn't cope particularly well when there were two of them:
"they did come for breakfast at Millennium on the first day, we were there and we all pretty much met on that Sunday morning for breakfast and I know they didn’t do that again because they had a hideous time with the twins wanting to walk everywhere at that point and, you know, one would be lurking at the back and the other one walking ahead. And they just found it too, too difficult. So that was the only time they, we saw them at breakfast, that was the first day”.
Thank God for the creche, eh?
If Kate's concerns were about managing the three children then it doesn't seem as if Gerry shared her concerns because according to Fiona he was very keen to go on the holiday to Portugal.
"We didn’t really see Kate and Gerry for any lunchtimes, but I know one of those, I remember Kate saying it was a bit of a disaster, because Sean put his feet on the sand and didn’t like it and it was cold and windy and it was all a bit of a disaster, so they didn’t do it again."
Makes me kind of sad