Madeleine McCann

[pauldyson1uk]

I can picture the person who posted it now, clicking the mouse really determinedly as they copy and paste it from where ever they found it.

Guilty has charged, like I said before I just wanted to see what others thought.
Personally I think a few of the question are valid but most are complete rubbish.

I never (or very rarely) go in for conspiracy rubbish but I am not 100% convinced the McCanns are innocent

This is my thoughts too.

 

[Rolandofgilead]

How can they be innocent? I believe they had nothing to do with her disappearance but they left a 3 year old and two 1 year olds ALONE in the apartment. No parent should have to go through this but quite frankly they should both be in jail.

 

[Plugsy]

What's more they did it the night after they found out the 3 year old had woke up afraid and alone the night before. I have a hard time believing any caring parent would think "feck it, let's do it again" as they did that night. I'd be overcome with guilt having discovered this information. It's why my favourite conspiracy is that perhaps there was some assistance in getting the child to sleep.

Think about what sounds more logical: Your child tells you she woke up the night before when you were out and was afraid. Surely the last thing you do is just do it again unless you had some kind of reassurance or expectation that the next night the child wouldn't wake up.

 

[Wibble]

I really just wanted to see what everybody else thought, most of the question are complete rubbish.
Do I think they ha something to do with it, I am not sure to be honest, I have my suspicions, but I do think they are guilty of stupidity.
No way would I leave my kids on holiday in the chalet, while I went out for a meal, they would of been with us or a baby sitter arranged.

We have all done stupid things. Just not this stupid thing and not with these consequences.

 

[Wibble]

What's more they did it the night after they found out the 3 year old had woke up afraid and alone the night before. I have a hard time believing any caring parent would think "feck it, let's do it again" as they did that night. I'd be overcome with guilt having discovered this information. It's why my favourite conspiracy is that perhaps there was some assistance in getting the child to sleep.

Think about what sounds more logical: Your child tells you she woke up the night before when you were out and was afraid. Surely the last thing you do is just do it again unless you had some kind of reassurance or expectation that the next night the child wouldn't wake up.

Kids wake up all the time. I suspect this is a red herring promoted by the tabloids and lovers of conspiracy theories.

All this sort of speculation takes the vague possibility of a molehill and turns it into the Himalayas.

 

[Redlambs]

We have all done stupid things. Just not this stupid thing and not with these consequences.

True. Though this still goes beyond stupid for me.

I know you like to say the kidnapping could have happened at any time, but you have to concede that them following the same pattern night after night greatly increased the risk.

But it's been done to death now. I have a lot of sympathy for them and really don't think they are involved. However it is still plausible they are which gives rise to the ever more silly theories out there. I fear we will never know.

 

[Shark]

I don't know, I think it goes beyond stupid. We all do stupid things, but leaving kids that young alone in a foreign country is in my mind plain wrong. Obviously they didn't in any way or form deserve what's happened, but when you also consider that they were given a slight warning from one of their children not wanting to be left alone. That makes it even worse.

 

[Plugsy]

Kids wake up all the time. I suspect this is a red herring promoted by the tabloids and lovers of conspiracy theories.

All this sort of speculation takes the vague possibility of a molehill and turns it into the Himalayas.

They said it themselves, it had nothing to do with the tabloids or lovers of conspiracy. If you're going to dismiss facts as conspiracy you're treading dangerously close to a complete and ironic lack of self-awareness.

They deny sedation so they knew the child woke up afraid and alone the night before and they decided to leave her again the next night. This doesn't seem credible unless they were unnervingly callous. What would make sense is if they had given the child something to prevent her waking up, but they claim they didn't. So despite knowing their 3 year old was afraid the night before, they decided to just go out anyway.

The fact you know children wake up isn't relevant

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I'm fully aware of what constitutes a good story to the people at the Mail, Express and the like but I don't see what is has got to do with the vitriol aimed at the McCanns.

I don't even know why people want to complain that this in the press. Would they be happy if it was ignored? I don't get it. If other cases don't get attention it is nothing to do with this one getting attention. Even if it was why should they do less?

I'd argue that this story getting coverage actually has quite a lot to do with others not being covered. That's not the faults of the McCann's - it's modern media, who like to focus on one news story at a time and keep pushing it. This video sums it up best, if you have five minutes.

 

[Plugsy]

Amazing that a child can just vanish and people run around insisting that any insinuation of anything untoward is an invention of the tabloid media and conspiracy theorists

 

[Eyepopper]

The McCanns are victims of a perfect combination of their own stupidity and incredibly bad luck.

Does anyone maybe suspect the reasons it's all so hard to explain, just might be a result of it being so well planned that whoever did it has managed to leave no trace, even under the most intense spotlight.

To me that would suggest a planned action - rather than an accident, or drugging or some of the other mental accusations levelled at the parents - is the more likely explanation.

I can't help but think the vitriol aimed at the parents is mainly because there is no one else to blame.

To suggest they should be jailed is mental.

And if we're talking about exposure to risk factors, well in cases of sexual abuse, far more kids are abused by family members than strangers - does that mean any parent of a child abused by a family member only has their self to blame, or is it not quite as black and white as that?

 

[Redlambs]

The McCanns are victims of a perfect combination of their own stupidity and incredibly bad luck.

Does anyone maybe suspect the reasons it's all so hard to explain, just might be a result of it being so well planned that whoever did it has managed to leave no trace, even under the most intense spotlight.

To me that would suggest a planned action - rather than an accident, or drugging or some of the other mental accusations levelled at the parents - is the more likely explanation.

I can't help but think the vitriol aimed at the parents is mainly because there is no one else to blame.

To suggest they should be jailed is mental.

And if we're talking about exposure to risk factors, well in cases of sexual abuse, far more kids are abused by family members than strangers - does that mean any parent of a child abused by a family member only has their self to blame, or is it not quite as black and white as that?

I don't disagree with any of this. Though your last paragraph is a little out of place, because the fact here is they DID take a risk whether it went badly or not. And in doing that they opened the door to this, especially if (as you rightly say it seems) it is highly organised as that means they likely clocked the patterns of the family.

But it's old ground I guess.

 

[One Night Only]

Is vitriol the word of the thread or something?

I don't understand how the parents were/are allowed to keep their other 2 kids.

 

[swooshboy]

Missed this at the time.

Letting your kids out of your sight ever has risks. Letting them leave the house has risks. Driving them to school in the car has risks. Everything has a risk and those risks always look worse in retrospect when something goes wrong. The foreseeable risk the McCanns took, kids hurting themselves unsupervised, didn't happen so to then blame them for a kidnap seems illogical at best. I have lived in warm climates for the last 30 years and unlocked houses and windows are the norm. It is as logical as blaming them if a car crashed into the room. If someone had been stalking the kids then this could have happened when someone nipped out to the bathroom.

It isn't a choice I'd have made but I feel no need to victimise them further for this, at worse, poor choice.



But that is exactly the message when people bang on about it. I'm not saying it is aliens. But it is aliens.



I find it amazing and distasteful that people instantly leap to the conclusion that her parents murdered her based on no evidence whatsoever. They deserve our sympathy and support until there is evidence to the contrary. Most people's "suspicions" are based on tabloid innuendo and gossip rather than real inconsistencies of significance. In fact if there were no inconsistencies then this would actually set my alarm bells ringing because people who plan things get their stories straight.

They said it themselves, it had nothing to do with the tabloids or lovers of conspiracy. If you're going to dismiss facts as conspiracy you're treading dangerously close to a complete and ironic lack of self-awareness.

They deny sedation so they knew the child woke up afraid and alone the night before and they decided to leave her again the next night. This doesn't seem credible unless they were unnervingly callous. What would make sense is if they had given the child something to prevent her waking up, but they claim they didn't. So despite knowing their 3 year old was afraid the night before, they decided to just go out anyway.

The fact you know children wake up isn't relevant

Agree with Plugsy.

I do not "firmly believe they are guilty" as someone earlier suggested, but I am troubled by inconsistencies and what is, in my opinion, strange behaviour. I have not "instantly leapt to a conclusion", nor are my thoughts "based on tabloid innuendo and gossip".

I find it strange that anyone who posts that they are undecided as to the McCann's complete, 100% innocence, is immediately derided as a conspiracy theorist who is unable to form their own opinions. It has happened time and time again in this thread.

 

[Plugsy]

Agree with Plugsy.

I do not "firmly believe they are guilty" as someone earlier suggested, but I am troubled by inconsistencies and what is, in my opinion, strange behaviour. I have not "instantly leapt to a conclusion", nor are my thoughts "based on tabloid innuendo and gossip".

I find it strange that anyone who posts that they are undecided as to the McCann's complete, 100% innocence, is immediately derided as a conspiracy theorist who is unable to form their own opinions. It has happened time and time again in this thread.

They buy into he propaganda and media manipulation. You can't rule any credible theory out as nobody knows what happened to her. The theory the parents did it is on equal footing to the theory of abdication. There is absolutely no reason for any to doubt one or the other. None. If they do it's done so off the back of a complete invention. This is what amuses me about those who get on their high-horse and debunk the claims. As if they have anything to go on.

The reason why these things aren't more widely speculated is because of the McCann's legal team. Perversely this means this strange disappearance of a child can only be reported excluding one rather obvious and glaring suspects. Its a case of wanting to explore every avenue...except that one. It seems odd to me.

 

[Redlambs]

They buy into he propaganda and media manipulation. You can't rule any credible theory out as nobody knows what happened to her. The theory the parents did it is on equal footing to the theory of abdication. There is absolutely no reason for any to doubt one or the other. None. If they do it's done so off the back of a complete invention. This is what amuses me about those who get on their high-horse and debunk the claims. As if they have anything to go on.

The reason why these things aren't more widely speculated is because of the McCann's legal team. Perversely this means this strange disappearance of a child can only be reported excluding one rather obvious and glaring suspects. Its a case of wanting to explore every avenue...except that one. It seems odd to me.

They are on equal footing right now. I used to think they may be involved, but the longer this goes on the more it seems unlikely as it would mean they had to hide the body where they'd be 100% certain it'd never be found to keep bringing this back into the public eye.

I think the likes of Popper and Wibble are being a little too harsh on some of you, but to be fair there has been a lot of rubbish said in this thread too. But I guess when we keep going round in circles everytime this case is mentioned, that'll happen.

 

[Plugsy]

Well we don't know the time scale. Those that went to check after the McCann's first check of the evening and the last only popped their head in the door, rather than actually go in and check on each child. The expectation may have been that someone would have noticed early and sounded the alarm. So if she did die, we have absolutely no way of substantiating when, it may have happened much earlier in the day/evening.

If the first thought was abduction, leaving the twins alone in the apartment when the abductor could still have been there was also an odd call.

 

[Shamwow]

They buy into he propaganda and media manipulation. You can't rule any credible theory out as nobody knows what happened to her. The theory the parents did it is on equal footing to the theory of abdication. There is absolutely no reason for any to doubt one or the other. None. If they do it's done so off the back of a complete invention. This is what amuses me about those who get on their high-horse and debunk the claims. As if they have anything to go on.

The reason why these things aren't more widely speculated is because of the McCann's legal team. Perversely this means this strange disappearance of a child can only be reported excluding one rather obvious and glaring suspects. Its a case of wanting to explore every avenue...except that one. It seems odd to me.

When you've got headlines like ""Maddie 'Sold' By Hard-Up McCanns" and "Maddie mum ‘sold’ her" in major national newspapers, can you blame them for taking legal action?

 

[Plugsy]

When you've got headlines like ""Maddie 'Sold' By Hard-Up McCanns" and "Maddie mum ‘sold’ her" in major national newspapers, can you blame them for taking legal action?

It goes beyond that. They were using lawyers/media to distance themselves from the investigation even in its earliest stages. When your daughter is missing surely the only concern would be to do anything, no matter how seemingly minor, to help the police in their search. Instead what we get is them being interviewed by police and refusing to answer their questions. Just because it's understandable they wanted to sue if it was alleged they sold the girl into slavery, it doesn't justify what appears to be trying to cold-shoulder the whole investigation.

Your daughter is missing, you'd do anything to find her and probably wouldn't give a toss if you had to be made suspect in order to help the process. Why go from insisting you're not leaving to booking a flight the moment you're suspects?

It seems very bizarre how they've no clue what happened to their daughter and yet were so insistent on such a narrow line of investigation. If my child went missing I'd expect police to follow up every avenue, not just the one I wanted them to. There is just too much that doesn't make sense, including why the abductor who got in/escaped through the window left absolutely no DNA/residue trace whatsoever when he'd supposedly just wondered in from the street. Even more strange considering there was a bloody bed in the way he had to climb on to get in/out.

 

[Ducklegs]

How can they be innocent? I believe they had nothing to do with her disappearance but they left a 3 year old and two 1 year olds ALONE in the apartment. No parent should have to go through this but quite frankly they should both be in jail.

In this country they would of potentially been prosecuted.
Certainly would of been cautioned by the police if it had been brought to their attention.
If it was a regular occurrence social services would of intervened and taken the children away for their own safety.

What they did, wasn't just irresponsible, it was lazy, selfish, uncaring and grossly negligent towards their children.

That seems to be the side of this that people are ignoring.

The consequences of their actions could of potentially been three dead children, and yet they causally left them unattended.

 

[swooshboy]

It goes beyond that. They were using lawyers/media to distance themselves from the investigation even in its earliest stages. When your daughter is missing surely the only concern would be to do anything, no matter how seemingly minor, to help the police in their search. Instead what we get is them being interviewed by police and refusing to answer their questions. Just because it's understandable they wanted to sue if it was alleged they sold the girl into slavery, it doesn't justify what appears to be trying to cold-shoulder the whole investigation.

Your daughter is missing, you'd do anything to find her and probably wouldn't give a toss if you had to be made suspect in order to help the process. Why go from insisting you're not leaving to booking a flight the moment you're suspects?

It seems very bizarre how they've no clue what happened to their daughter and yet were so insistent on such a narrow line of investigation. If my child went missing I'd expect police to follow up every avenue, not just the one I wanted them to. There is just too much that doesn't make sense, including why the abductor who got in/escaped through the window left absolutely no DNA/residue trace whatsoever when he'd supposedly just wondered in from the street. Even more strange considering there was a bloody bed in the way he had to climb on to get in/out.

Their own PR guy admitted that the abduction theory was just their hypothesis as to what happened. As you said, it seems strange to me that this is the only possibility they will consider - and that they instantly knew that she had been abducted, They didn't even consider that there was another explanation or possibility to account for her disappearance.

 

[Shamwow]

It goes beyond that. They were using lawyers/media to distance themselves from the investigation even in its earliest stages. When your daughter is missing surely the only concern would be to do anything, no matter how seemingly minor, to help the police in their search. Instead what we get is them being interviewed by police and refusing to answer their questions. Just because it's understandable they wanted to sue if it was alleged they sold the girl into slavery, it doesn't justify what appears to be trying to cold-shoulder the whole investigation.

Your daughter is missing, you'd do anything to find her and probably wouldn't give a toss if you had to be made suspect in order to help the process. Why go from insisting you're not leaving to booking a flight the moment you're suspects?

It seems very bizarre how they've no clue what happened to their daughter and yet were so insistent on such a narrow line of investigation. If my child went missing I'd expect police to follow up every avenue, not just the one I wanted them to.

What is there specifically apart from the questions Kate McCann refused to answer?

I can understand why she might be advised not to answer those as it was an aggressive line of questioning that seemed intended to expose inconsistencies in her story. You might think that's fair enough but it's very easy to make an innocent person seem guilty in this way as memory in times of stress is not exactly perfect.

 

[Redlambs]

In this country they would of potentially been prosecuted.
Certainly would of been cautioned by the police if it had been brought to their attention.
If it was a regular occurrence social services would of intervened and taken the children away for their own safety.

What they did, wasn't just irresponsible, it was lazy, selfish, uncaring and grossly negligent towards their children.

That seems to be the side of this that people are ignoring.

The consequences of their actions could of potentially been three dead children, and yet they causally left them unattended.

Read the thread, no one has ignored that side there have been many heated debates on it, including at one stage even the word neglect being debated.

I really don't believe any normal parent would argue it wasn't neglect, but I do understand that some will do that kind of thing without really thinking they are being neglectful. I think it's more to do with an extreme answer to some extreme views on here.

The truth is I think most (if not all) would agree it is wrong to leave your kids under the circumstances this family did, it's the reactions to that which is the variation here.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

They said it themselves, it had nothing to do with the tabloids or lovers of conspiracy. If you're going to dismiss facts as conspiracy you're treading dangerously close to a complete and ironic lack of self-awareness.

They deny sedation so they knew the child woke up afraid and alone the night before and they decided to leave her again the next night. This doesn't seem credible unless they were unnervingly callous. What would make sense is if they had given the child something to prevent her waking up, but they claim they didn't. So despite knowing their 3 year old was afraid the night before, they decided to just go out anyway.

The fact you know children wake up isn't relevant

Poor baby probably just woke up and walked out of that apartment.

 

[Redlambs]

What is there specifically apart from the questions Kate McCann refused to answer?

I can understand why she might be advised not to answer those as it was an aggressive line of questioning that seemed intended to expose inconsistencies in her story. You might think that's fair enough but it's very easy to make an innocent person seem guilty in this way as memory in times of stress is not exactly perfect.

True. However, everyone knows it's the best detective work covering all bases and I myself do find their reaction to what is standard procedure a little strange. Then again I've not been in that situation so I suppose it's easy for me to say I'd be fully co-operative and wouldn't let my lawyers muddy the waters.

 

[sullydnl]

Read the thread, no one has ignored that side there have been many heated debates on it, including at one stage even the word neglect being debated.

I really don't believe any normal parent would argue it wasn't neglect, but I do understand that some will do that kind of thing without really thinking they are being neglectful. I think it's more to do with an extreme answer to some extreme views on here.

The truth is I think most (if not all) would agree it is wrong to leave your kids under the circumstances this family did, it's the reactions to that which is the variation here.

Indeed. Everyone accept that what they did was wrong. The debate is really over a) whether it was so unbelievably wrong that it's totally removed from the most irresponsible thing your average parent might do, b) whether that makes them in any way culpable for someone else deciding to kidnap their daughter and c) whether their actions should reduce our sympathy for parents who have had their daughter kidnapped and almost certainly killed.

As you said, that side of the debate certainly hasn't been in any way ignored.

 

[Shark]

Their own PR guy admitted that the abduction theory was just their hypothesis as to what happened. As you said, it seems strange to me that this is the only possibility they will consider - and that they instantly knew that she had been abducted, They didn't even consider that there was another explanation or possibility to account for her disappearance.

It's the first thing that came to their mind when she was abducted, when evidence might suggest that they were oblivious to anything like that happening, seeing as they went over to eat and drink and left them alone for a 2nd time, despite Madeleine giving the mother a little warning.

 

[swooshboy]

I would assume that in most cases where a child goes missing from their home / place they were staying, then the parents are considered as potential suspects. Am not sure why this is so surprising. The police's line of questioning was of course intended to expose inconsistencies in her story - surely the question should be on why there were so many inconsistencies in her story?

I find it strange that any attempt by the media to investigate explanations other than the one proposed by the McCann's themselves is met by the threat of legal action - especially given that their theory is just a hypothesis.

 

[Ducklegs]

Read the thread, no one has ignored that side there have been many heated debates on it, including at one stage even the word neglect being debated.

I really don't believe any normal parent would argue it wasn't neglect, but I do understand that some will do that kind of thing without really thinking they are being neglectful. I think it's more to do with an extreme answer to some extreme views on here.

The truth is I think most (if not all) would agree it is wrong to leave your kids under the circumstances this family did, it's the reactions to that which is the variation here.

Its not so much the people in the thread, more the wider public, and the media.

If you go by the facts of the matter, and report it without bias either way, its a case of two irresponsible parents neglecting their children.

I personally have all the sympathy in the world for the little girl, she should of been being looked after and cared for and deserved a whole lot better than what could potentially of happened to her.

 

[Ducklegs]

Indeed. Everyone accept that what they did was wrong. The debate is really over a) whether it was so unbelievably wrong that it's totally removed from the most irresponsible thing your average parent might do, b) whether that makes them in any way culpable for someone else deciding to kidnap their daughter and c) whether their actions should reduce our sympathy for parents who have had their daughter kidnapped and almost certainly killed.

As you said, that side of the debate certainly hasn't been in any way ignored.

If we were to assume that the child was kidnapped, then the actual question should be "would she still of been kidnapped if the parents were in the Villa/flat?

Then C would be, in any circumstance where you, or others has had something bad or detrimental to you happen because of your own deliberate negligence or inaction, do you expect or feel sympathy for yourself or that person?

Eg- I was given a deadline of the end of the week to have my work done by my boss, it was for an account that was vital to the company.
I didnt do it because I spent all day on facebook.
We lost the account because of my negligence and I was fired.
I subsequently lost my car and my house.

Do i deserve sympathy?

 

[Shamwow]

If we were to assume that the child was kidnapped, then the actual question should be "would she still of been kidnapped if the parents were in the Villa/flat?

Then C would be, in any circumstance where you, or others has had something bad or detrimental to you happen because of your own deliberate negligence or inaction, do you expect or feel sympathy for yourself or that person?

Eg- I was given a deadline of the end of the week to have my work done by my boss, it was for an account that was vital to the company.
I didnt do it because I spent all day on facebook.
We lost the account because of my negligence and I was fired.
I subsequently lost my car and my house.

Do i deserve sympathy?

In my opinion, sympathy isn't something that people receive because they deserve it.

You can understand someone else's distress even if they are to blame for it themselves - especially on the basis that most people have made some pretty horrible mistakes in their lives.

 

[sullydnl]

If we were to assume that the child was kidnapped, then the actual question should be "would she still of been kidnapped if the parents were in the Villa/flat?

Then C would be, in any circumstance where you, or others has had something bad or detrimental to you happen because of your own deliberate negligence or inaction, do you expect or feel sympathy for yourself or that person?

Would she still have been kidnapped if they were in the flat? Probably not, though there have been plenty of cases where a kid gets kidnapped with the parents in the same building or nearby. Still, you could apply that line of questioning to any case where a child gets kidnapped, couldn't you? "Would X have been kidnapped if her parents had been keeping a proper eye on her". I'm sure every parent who has been in that situation looks back and thinks they could have done an awful lot more to stop it from happening.

As for the second part, this happened because someone decided to kidnap their child. The blame lies entirely with the guy who made that decision. Did the McCanns make it a hell of a lot easier for the kidnapper? Yes. That doesn't mean the kidnapping was their fault though.

Example: If I get irresponsibly drunk fall over, am I to blame? Yes. If I get irresponsibly drunk and someone mugs me, am I to blame? No, the mugger is. Did I make it easier for him? Obviously. That doesn't change the fact that I got mugged and he's the bastard that did it.

Sympathy isn't dependent on someone being in the right either though. I probably would have sympathy for you if you lost your job, house and car, that's pretty damn rough. That doesn't mean I'd pretend you acted like an amazing employee either though. You can criticise someone's actions and feel sympathy for the heavy price they paid.

 

[Ducklegs]

In my opinion, sympathy isn't something that people receive because they deserve it.

You can understand someone else's distress even if they are to blame for it themselves - especially on the basis that most people have made some pretty horrible mistakes in their lives.

Yes, I agree and this is where I think perhaps we can agree on something here, you can understand someone being sympathetic to the consequences of someone elses willful negligence and yes, I can wholeheartedly see that point of view.
By the same token I am sure that you would also be able to understand that there are people, like myself, who when someone is willfully irresponsible and something bad happens to them, that we dont have a great deal of sympathy for them.

My two girls were born prematurely and died within a few hours, I also have a teenage son who even though he is a few weeks off turning 18, I would still do absolutely everything i could to protect him from harm.

I cannot comprehend the thought process that you would go through where you though it was OK to leave a 3 year old unattended in a house alone.

 

[swooshboy]

Yes, I agree and this is where I think perhaps we can agree on something here, you can understand someone being sympathetic to the consequences of someone elses willful negligence and yes, I can wholeheartedly see that point of view.
By the same token I am sure that you would also be able to understand that there are people, like myself, who when someone is willfully irresponsible and something bad happens to them, that we dont have a great deal of sympathy for them.

My two girls were born prematurely and died within a few hours, I also have a teenage son who even though he is a few weeks off turning 18, I would still do absolutely everything i could to protect him from harm.

I cannot comprehend the thought process that you would go through where you though it was OK to leave a 3 year old unattended in a house alone.

Agree with this part 100%. Even if they had thought it was ok, as was pointed out above...Madeleine apparently woke up the previous night and was upset. How do you then still decide to abandon them again at home??

 

[Shamwow]

Yes, I agree and this is where I think perhaps we can agree on something here, you can understand someone being sympathetic to the consequences of someone elses willful negligence and yes, I can wholeheartedly see that point of view.
By the same token I am sure that you would also be able to understand that there are people, like myself, who when someone is willfully irresponsible and something bad happens to them, that we dont have a great deal of sympathy for them.

My two girls were born prematurely and died within a few hours, I also have a teenage son who even though he is a few weeks off turning 18, I would still do absolutely everything i could to protect him from harm.

I cannot comprehend the thought process that you would go through where you though it was OK to leave a 3 year old unattended in a house alone.

Aye, I definitely understand your point of view.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Would she still have been kidnapped if they were in the flat? Probably not, though there have been plenty of cases where a kid gets kidnapped with the parents in the same building or nearby. Still, you could apply that line of questioning to any case where a child gets kidnapped, couldn't you? "Would X have been kidnapped if her parents had been keeping a proper eye on her". I'm sure every parent who has been in that situation looks back and thinks they could have done an awful lot more to stop it from happening.

As for the second part, this happened because someone decided to kidnap their child. The blame lies entirely with the guy who made that decision. Did the McCanns make it a hell of a lot easier for the kidnapper? Yes. That doesn't mean the kidnapping was their fault though.

Example: If I get irresponsibly drunk fall over, am I to blame? Yes. If I get irresponsibly drunk and someone mugs me, am I to blame? No, the mugger is. Did I make it easier for him? Obviously. That doesn't change the fact that I got mugged and he's the bastard that did it.

Sympathy isn't dependent on someone being in the right either though. I probably would have sympathy for you if you lost your job, house and car, that's pretty damn rough. That doesn't mean I'd pretend you acted like an amazing employee either though. You can criticise someone's actions and feel sympathy for the heavy price they paid.

Not a similar scenario. If you left your wallet unattended and someone nicked it - that would be closer. But we're still not talking about a mugger nicking an object. We're talking about three small children being left all alone. Imagine if all three had been taken...

 

[sullydnl]

Not a similar scenario. If you left your wallet unattended and someone nicked it - that would be closer.

Same basic point though, the fecker who stole my wallet is still to blame.

There's also a far higher chance of someone stealing my wallet than there is of someone kidnapping my kid.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Same basic point though, the fecker who stole my wallet is still to blame.

There's also a far higher chance of someone stealing my wallet than there is of someone kidnapping my kid.

Not if you left it on the table and walked off. He's guilty of the crime, you're guilty of negligence.

Again, we're trying to compare losing a child to something else and it's just not possible.

 

[Verminator]

The wallet analogy only covers one scenario.
A wallet cannot stick fingers into a socket, turn on an oven, choke in it's sleep, get up and walk out, suffer distress etc.
There are more dangers to abandoning children than abduction.
I have dogs that don't get left alone for long periods.

 

[Shamwow]

Aye the wallet also doesn't feel pain or suffering.