Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[truethat]

It was, in my opinion, within the boundaries of acceptable parental behaviour, as is leaving a sleeping child for 10 minutes while you go to a shop. It had a tragic outcome.

But even if it fails to meet your "good parenting" standard, so what? They are not responsible for what happened.

Yes they are. It is not reasonable to do these things, it's lazy and dangerous parenting. As I've stated, I've done similar things. And when I did it, it was lazy and dangerous parenting.

My example above was based on not wanting to get the kids all dressed on a cold cold day and dragging them out in the snow to walk down to the corner when it would have taken me ten minutes to run out and be back.

Doing this to socialize and eat dinner with friends is inexcusable. It is especially inexcusable when there was a service to them for such needs.

I've had other occasions where a neighbor was home when I needed to run out, and I asked the neighbor to watch them. Having that service available and not using it, doing so for such gratuitous reasons is inexcusable.

 

[gtm]

The neglect point is ultimately a red herring. The person responsible for her abduction is the abductor and not her parents.

 

[Skepticemea]

Yes they are. It is not reasonable to do these things, it's lazy and dangerous parenting. As I've stated, I've done similar things. And when I did it, it was lazy and dangerous parenting.

My example above was based on not wanting to get the kids all dressed on a cold cold day and dragging them out in the snow to walk down to the corner when it would have taken me ten minutes to run out and be back.

Doing this to socialize and eat dinner with friends is inexcusable. It is especially inexcusable when there was a service to them for such needs.

I've had other occasions where a neighbor was home when I needed to run out, and I asked the neighbor to watch them. Having that service available and not using it, doing so for such gratuitous reasons is inexcusable.

If the McCanns are responsible for the abduction of their child why are the police looking for the person who abducted their child?

 

[truethat]

Gee, I'm going to go back and look to see where I said they were responsible for the abduction of their child.

 

[Skepticemea]

Gee, I'm going to go back and look to see where I said they were responsible for the abduction of their child.

I'll help.

They are not responsible for what happened.

Yes they are.

You're using the "they were asking for it" line of reasoning.

 

[catsmate]

It's also germane to consider the Azaria Chamberlain case, where the mother, Lindy, was wrongly considered guilty by so many because she didn't react "correctly".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Azaria_Chamberlain

I'm also reminded of a certain Italian case where someone didn't react as people expected, one that generated quite a few words on this forum.

I don't think it is wrong to suspect that the parents may have been responsible for her disappearance because statistically they are of course by far the most likely to harm their child (than anyone else).

True. Of course statistical trends are useless in individual cases.

However that is only statistically and it is clear that both the Portuguese and British police have investigated that suspicion and there is no evidence (of course add a superfluous "so far" if you like) that links them to the child's disappearance.

Exactly.

Except that that's not the only other option, if abduction by a third party or parties is ruled out. At the time of the disappearance, working in the NHS administration, the subject came up, and one of my colleagues - a trained nurse - casually suggested that the parents, being doctors, might have sedated her, and something went wrong, i.e. an overdose, or she woke up groggy, and had an accident. I was surprised at this, but she assured me that while not common, it was not unknown amongst medical professionals, who obviously have both the means and the knowledge. I can't be sure, but I think it must have been before (it seems in retrospect) the tabloid press started running with that angle.

True this is a pet theory of certain people, despite the utter lack of actual supporting evidence.
I'm reminded of one of the explanations for the alleged murder of Crippen's wife, that it was an accidental overdose of hyoscine. Of course I'm also reminded of the weaknesses in the case against him by modern science.

It seems that the pro-McCann camp dispute this theory only on the grounds that the putative agent used mention in some tabloid press articles was Calpol Night, which wasn't available until after the event, and that the McCanns have denied in interviews that they sedated their children.

No the "pro-McCann camp" dispute this theory because there isn't any supporting evidence.

 

[truethat]

I'll help.





You're using the "they were asking for it" line of reasoning.

They are responsible for what happened. They didn't abduct her quite.......obviously.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

This is not accurate. They were checked at least every half hour & other members of the Tapas 7 looked in as well. The Mccanns system was more frequent that the paid for baby monitoring service provided by the resort.

Furthermore, they weren't prosecuted for child neglect in Portugal or the UK. Finally, you don't know that she's dead.

Why can't anyone on this forum check facts before making claims. She was crying for over an hour before her parents came home on may 1st. Thats not every 30 minutes.

So yes on the holiday the left her alone for over an hour at a time. You are wrong.

 

[gtm]

Why can't anyone on this forum check facts before making claims. She was crying for over an hour before her parents came home on may 1st. Thats not every 30 minutes.

So yes on the holiday the left her alone for over an hour at a time. You are wrong.

I was referring to the night she disappeared.

 

[Garrison]

Except they left a kid and two babies alone for over an hour (she was heard crying for an hour before they returned) late at night in a foreign country while they went off drinking with friends.

Except that isn't what happened; the reconstruction shows that one of the McCanns or one of the other at the table went to to check the children periodically. Oh and there is no mention of her crying in the Police version of events.

EDIT - With an unlocked door.

And again if I'm remembering correctly from the reconstruction they had to give the friend who went to check a key to get in. So not only are you drawing conclusions from inadequate information but inaccurate information as well.

 

[Information Analyst]

True this is a pet theory of certain people, despite the utter lack of actual supporting evidence.

No the "pro-McCann camp" dispute this theory because there isn't any supporting evidence.

Sure, but there's no evidence to dispute it either. The point is that the pro-McCann camp seem to appeal to the supposed absurdity of the very idea of medical professionals sedating their own children, as if such a thing is utterly unthinkable, when I've been assured that it isn't. As other have noted, though, there seems to be an anomaly in that we're still expected to believe a child who supposedly had trouble sleeping or woke up easily was carried off limp in the arms of somebody that night. Now, that could be because she was sedated by somebody - even the putative abductor - or it could simply be that the later sighting was as mistaken as the first.

 

[Skepticemea]

They are responsible for what happened. They didn't abduct her quite.......obviously.

Can you not see the logical inconsistency in that statement?

The parents will have to live their lives knowing they afforded the opportunity for their child to be abducted but laying the blame solely at their door renders the abductor inculpable.

 

[truethat]

No I see a specific statement that seems to elude you. I see I did not say they were "solely" responsible for what happened. In fact if you bothered to read what I actually wrote I even extended some of the blame on the Tapas parents. You are making an argument for the sake of having something to complain about.

 

[jargon buster]

Neat. A post accusing me of being a bad parent with a smilie.

Do you have children? I'd like to hear whether you have never, ever left young children alone. See, I have seven children, my wife is a qualified child carer and I have studied psychology (and other disciplines) at tertiary level. All have reached adulthood in very good shape indeed, as judged by others as well as us.

Some people may be in a position to pass judgement on me. But not you.

You seem to believe leaving a small child in a motel room while you eat in a restaurant 20 yards away an acceptable alternative to sitting in the motel room with food with your child.
What responsible parent would make the choice you did?
I couldnt care less what qualifications you and your wife have or how many children you have, the McCanns are both doctors and had three children but still made a dumbass bad parenting decision although you seem to believe their behaviour was acceptable parenting???

Which was my original point.

 

[jargon buster]

I have seen the word "abducted" many times in this thread.
Is there any proof she was abducted?

 

[erwinl]

Sure, but there's no evidence to dispute it either. The point is that the pro-McCann camp seem to appeal to the supposed absurdity of the very idea of medical professionals sedating their own children, as if such a thing is utterly unthinkable, when I've been assured that it isn't. As other have noted, though, there seems to be an anomaly in that we're still expected to believe a child who supposedly had trouble sleeping or woke up easily was carried off limp in the arms of somebody that night. Now, that could be because she was sedated by somebody - even the putative abductor - or it could simply be that the later sighting was as mistaken as the first.

Could you show that please? I haven't seen that.

For conversations sake. It is possible that Madeleine was sedated. But to give that possibility the status of probability, would need some serious evidence. Evidence which I haven't seen here yet.

 

[truethat]

I've brought this issue up in other threads. They get a lot of slack from parents who have made questionable parenting choices which is a biased appeal to sympathy.

 

[jargon buster]

This is not accurate. They were checked at least every half hour & other members of the Tapas 7 looked in as well. The Mccanns system was more frequent that the paid for baby monitoring service provided by the resort.

Furthermore, they weren't prosecuted for child neglect in Portugal or the UK. Finally, you don't know that she's dead.

That may not be accurate either, people "claim" they looked in every half hour.

 

[truethat]

Could you show that please? I haven't seen that.

For conversations sake. It is possible that Madeleine was sedated. But to give that possibility the status of probability, would need some serious evidence. Evidence which I haven't seen here yet.

I don't have proof, but I will say that if they DID sedate her, (which btw I would consider MORE responsible than just leaving her unattended and asleep) it would answer a lot of questions IMO.

I've listed them before but I'll do it again.

A. The general feeling they are hiding something. If they DID sedate her, this might be what they are not revealing. Understandably so, because as doctors they could lose their license.

B. The fact that they felt comfortable leaving her that way. If she was sedated it would just be a matter of periodic checking in, knowing she couldn't wake up and hurt herself or leave the room.

C. Consider that they left the door open. It would make more sense that they did this knowing she wouldn't be able to wake up and open the door and go off looking for them.

D. The fact that they immediately knew she had been abducted and had not left the room.

E. The fact that they washed the cudddle cat, worried that residue of the medication might show up under analysis.

 

[jargon buster]

I don't have proof, but I will say that if they DID sedate her, (which btw I would consider MORE responsible than just leaving her unattended and asleep) it would answer a lot of questions IMO.

Drugging a child is more responsible?
Suppose she had vomited?

Some bad parenting being displayed in this thread.