I'd never do it either. If I'm in the back garden and they are in the house I make sure the back door is the only door open. It's not the parents fault entirely, but they were a bit more laissez faire than I think is appropriate. As Popper said, they took a risk, which you should try not to do, especially to have dinner.
Madeleine McCann
- Thread starter Fergies Gum
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
Because people love to take the moral high ground and feel superior mostly.
Agree with this.
Again, have no idea why as soon as you suggest the notion that the parents could be involved you are instantly accused of being an idiot.
I would have thought that in most missing person cases, the family of the individual would be among the suspects - particularly if the person disappeared from their house/where they were sleeping.
No, maybe its because many parents would not feel comfortable leaving their children alone at home in that situation.
Not from a desire to feel superior.
I realise narcissism is a defining trait for you cider but there is more than you posting and the comment was in reference to whoever the genius was that posted an article from the Mirror along with the questions it made them pose.
Well apart from the fact that your comment had nothing to do with celebrity and all to do with money you're bang on
Again Cider, if you try an avoid the emotional reaction you'll see that I'm not saying any of that.
As a general rule I do try not to just talk for the sake of talking and prefer to be armed with at least some information on a topic before I express a comment or opinion but thats just me.
You are clueless.
One day when you have kids you might have a different understanding
No man, seriously, I never take my eyes off my kids when away from the house, and still get up and check them in their room asleep if I hear any noise at night.
Randall I can cope with you calling me clueless to be honest.
Now, get away from your laptop, shouldn't you be watching your kids or something?
Now, get away from your laptop, shouldn't you be watching your kids or something?
The parents are not to blame, and they took a level of risk that a lot of parents take, and mostly works out, but it was still a risk.
So I guess I was the genius, since I posted the article.
But all the lines in bold were my questions - they were not from the original article. I realise I should have made that clear - in my mind I thought it was but I forgot to add that in my post.
So your comment was:
The article in question was, in theory, offering proof that Madeline was abducted. So I guess that anyone who believes what they printed were idiots then?
Here is the article - as I should have said earlier, the bolded parts are my responses to what was written:
Now, the Sunday Mirror can give a true picture of what happened when Kate found her daughter missing. We can reveal:
Police have specific evidence from the apartment that she was still alive
Madeleine was kidnapped as the toy she had fallen asleep with was left on a ledge placed too high for a child to reach
No idea how this is seen as evidence - particularly if you consider the McCann's to be suspects, or at least investigated as such.
There was a window of less than five minutes for a kidnapper to pounce - not enough time to kill her and clean up
This is based on Jane Tanner's accounts of when she saw the man carrying the child - an account that has been seen to have a number of inconsistencies
Police do not believe blood found in the apartment was Madeleine's as it was not consistent with signs of a struggle
The fact that blood was found should be significant. You could hypothesise that there would be the lowest chance of a struggle if the victim knew their assailant.
The patio doors were unlocked but the intruder used the window to escape with Madeleine as the shutters were forced up.
Have never understood why if the abductor walked into the apartment through a door, they would choose to leave by climbing through a window three feet off the ground. Particularly if they were carrying a child.
We can also reveal that devastated Kate was reduced to tears several times by the aggressive questioning of Portuguese police this week. And yesterday the parents were hit by further cruel claims in Portuguese papers linking them to Madeleine's disappearance on May 3.
But our dramatic information confirms Madeleine was most likely to have been abducted by a stranger who had watched the family's routine for up to four days.
And it shows Portuguese police from the beginning have had firm evidence Madeleine was still alive when she was taken from the ground-floor apartment.
The McCanns were told in a secret meeting with police within days of Madeleine going missing what this evidence is. They have been unable to discuss it publicly in case it jeopardises the investigation - and have even been banned from telling close friends or family.
Kate has refused to say where she found the Cuddle Cat toy when she returned to the villa in Praia da Luz at about 10pm to find her daughter's bed empty.
Find it strange that she would refuse to say this.
But she has hinted the bedroom was left in such a way that she knew almost instantly Madeleine had been kidnapped.
Our police source said: "When Kate tucked Madeleine up in bed earlier in the evening, she had toy tightly in her arms as she did every night. So Kate was terrified when she spotted it had been left in a place too high for her to reach. Kate also noticed the window was wide opened and the shutters jammed up. It was because of these things that she had no doubt Madeleine had been kidnapped and she ran out to scream for help."
If you were to consider the parents as suspects, then you should not automatically trust their version of events.
The Sunday Mirror has been told there was a window of opportunity of less than five minutes from the last time Gerry checked on their child to the reported sighting by family friend Jane of her being carried away by a man. Our source said: "Although there has been much speculation about a 'lost hour' in which Madeleine could have been taken, it was actually less than five minutes. The kidnapping must have been meticulously planned. Police found no fingerprints or DNA on the Cuddle Cat or in the room, indicating the intruder wore gloves.
There was so little time that whoever took Madeleine must have been watching the family closely for several days so they knew exactly when to strike.
"Kate and Gerry left Madeleine and the twins Sean and Amelie alone every evening of their week-long holiday to eat dinner 50 yards away and followed the same routine of checking on them. The kidnapper would have known this."
The patio doors at the back of the apartment were left unlocked so Kate and Gerry could check on the children easily. But police are unsure if the intruder used them to slip in or if the shutters to the front window were forced open from outside. Our source added: "Whichever way the kidnapper entered, they left by the window because it was left wide open and the shutters were forced up."
As said before - why would someone climb out of the window to leave? The shutters could not be opened from the outside, so that was not how someone could have entered. If you enter via the patio doors, would you not either exit the same way, or exit out of the front door? Or, if you did climb through the window while carrying a three year old child, I would have thought you would leave some trace on the window frame (prints, clothing fibers etc) or disrupt the plants underneath the window - but none of this was found to be the case.
If only those goddamn middle class doctors did the same moses.
You know what with being doctors, and middle class and all.
I've already said they took a chance, they probably shouldn't, but they did and it went horribly wrong. Thankfully we now know that every other parent in the world is perfect and never take any chances, or people take chances to varying degrees all the time and get away with it.
Either way what does it matter at this stage? It's not the point people should be focusing on, yet all these years later, you can be guaranteed 3 things when this topic comes up:
1. The parents were middle class doctors
2. They are guilty of neglect
3. They're living the high life / talking too much etc etc etc
in all 3 of those blame, mostly indirectly is being apportioned to the parents, in some cases it goes further and people want to see them punished further.... absolutely bizarre.
I'm sure everyone is a good parent, and I'm sure you probably wouldn't leave your kids alone, I dont think I would either, happy days, now can we get past that and on to the bit of the story that actually matters? No, not the fact that they're middle class doctors.
Totally agree, and parents take risks, to different degrees, with kids all the time.
I'll say it again, there but for the grace of god go all of us.
One of the families in a neighbouring apartment to the McCanns said they heard a child crying and calling for daddy for 75 minutes on one of the previous nights.
Not exactly checking on them every 30 minutes is it?
My comment thus:
Do you know what being 'in the public eye' means? Do you know what 'celebrity' means?
Well in this case you've failed to follow your own general rule in not researching what I'd said before expressing a comment or opinion on what I'd said. You've a nice high opinion of yourself, but alas it would seem to be misplaced.
So you wouldn't entertain any suggestion that the parents were responsible?
Can you share the evidence you have for eliminating them from suspicion?
And that is not meant to be a smartass dig - am genuinely interested, but however I wrote it it sounded like I was being a condescending twat!!
Maybe you do stuff with your kids that I wouldn't feel comfortable with....
And yes, I understood the bolded bits in your other post were your responses, that's my point, who reads the mirror and thinks whats in there is worthy of even prompting a question? It's selective drivel skewed to support whatever bullshit they are pushing on that particular day.
So you think my attitude to it is to feel superior? Seriously?
If my opinion to never leave my kids alone in their room whilst I go out for dinner on holiday is superior, then feck it. Because to me it's called common sense and the bare minimum of good parenting.
Nope, while I don't blame them for the consequences, I'd never take that level of risk. Because I would blame myself.
Pot and kettle come to mind cider.
So good parenting is the moral high ground huh? I'm happy with that then. It means my boys are safer.
Eyepopper, you claim to have access to all this well researched evidence which proves the parents weren't involved, yet you haven't posted any. Why?
How do you define what an acceptable level of risk is? And what happens if the worst case scenario happens and the rest of the world question your judgement.
I'm not saying they should have left the kid in the room, but given that none of us really know what happened, and the bigger scheme of things, I dont see why it should be anymore than a footnote in the story, along with the fact that they are middle class doctors, yet they seem to be two points almost always brought up, in some sort of weird attack on the parents.
Because I have a job cider. Use your chubby little fingers to google, or you could just stick to the tabloid summaries.
Well a lot of it is gut. No way I'd leave them they way they did. I wouldn't be able to do it. To be honest I'm not sure you actually get it, you are speaking entirely in theory, but most parents are a lot more protective of their kids than to do what the McCann's did. For me an acceptable level of risk is allowing them to attend a supervised birthday party. I don't even allow play dates where I don't know the parents. Why are you consistently mentioning their class and occupation? It's only relevant in tabloid land, but the story is relevant universally.
Is it that much of a risk though? Child abduction, by someone not known to the parents, is a pretty rare thing.
I'm not really convinced the McCanns took anymore of a risk that night, than they did as they drove to the airport, with her in the car.
Pops, you're the one who seems hell bent know defending them because they are "middle class doctors". I don't see that as the reason why anyone here is having a pop at them at all. The only reference to their social status had been that if they were worse off then the media would be much crueler and I find it hard to argue with that.
As I said, a lot of it is gut.. The idea that they would be in a building unsupervised seems a pretty basic no go for me. I think child abduction might be more prevalent if parents habitually left crying children unsupervised as was the case here? You have to see why doing it twice in a row would make it more likely? The random element is removed. They did it 5 nights. I would say that was a lot more risky that a car journey. A lot of parenting is instinct and my instinct is to keep a close eye on mine.
Suddenly you have a job and are thus unable to post? You've been keeping up a fair rate of posting thus far, Eyepopper. Could it instead simply be that you haven't actually done all this research you're claiming?
Could you at least describe the nature of the research you're claiming to have conducted? It could prove very useful.
I'm telling you that leaving you're kids alone for a prolonged period of time five nights in a row, creating a pattern that a potential abducter could easily see in a foreign country is pretty indefensible. I wouldn't be calling out for them to be further punished but it is nothing short of a disgrace.
There's something mental about this whole thing...
Haven't they had these e-fits for years, just not made them public till now?
The parents look dodgey too, not just from what happened that holiday, their body language and stuff in interviews looks strange. Plus, haven't they become authors? The dad just looks cold and calculated, looks like a serial killer himself, the Mrs, looks frightened imo. But that's only my opinion, and I've never won a game of cluedo, so my input is shit anyway.
This is also one of the longest "missing" cases I can remember being in the news as often as it is, especially considering we're 6 years on.
I don't even understand how they're allowed to keep their other kids.
Haven't they had these e-fits for years, just not made them public till now?
The parents look dodgey too, not just from what happened that holiday, their body language and stuff in interviews looks strange. Plus, haven't they become authors? The dad just looks cold and calculated, looks like a serial killer himself, the Mrs, looks frightened imo. But that's only my opinion, and I've never won a game of cluedo, so my input is shit anyway.
This is also one of the longest "missing" cases I can remember being in the news as often as it is, especially considering we're 6 years on.
I don't even understand how they're allowed to keep their other kids.
This is from Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ruction-end-distasteful-slurs-Kate-Gerry.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ruction-end-distasteful-slurs-Kate-Gerry.html
So the theory that the McCanns may have been responsible was not dreamed up by the Portuguese police, as is often claimed, but was instead first suspected by the British police.
Instinct and gut can be very irrational though. When people say in this thread things like "you'd understand if you were a parent" I'm sure they're right in that. Parents thought processes are driven by an overwhelming desire to protect and that often makes them worry about things that aren't a significant danger. I don't think, were I a parent, I would be able to do what the McCanns did, because I would worry too much and not be able to enjoy my meal. I think most of that worry would be irrational though.
A fair point.
Someone coming in to take the children isn't the only risk either. One of the staff that she could have recognised could have been robbing the room and was worried about being identified so killed her, she could have injured herself with any number of dangerous objects in the room, she could have wandered off, fallen in the pool, there's so many reasons why not to leave a 3 year old unsupervised to make the fear of doing so anything but irrational.
Not as it turns out.
As for parents worrying about things that aren't a significant danger. I have no specifics in mind in my desire to make sure my kids are ok. That's why I'm saying instinct is a huge part, but it's also quite logical when examined. They are quite stupid little creatures in many ways, which is why they need us to stick by them for longer than most animals' offspring. I need to be closer to them than they are to a road for example. If that's a big deal maybe one shouldn't have kids. They deserve to be minded as well as you can mind them, and leaving them unattended 5 nights in a row is not doing that.
It's a rare thing but in Summer destinations, especially around hotel areas there's always a significant risk of something bad happening to your kid when you leave it unattended in a room for a prolonged period of time. If it happens a few times in a row and anyone who might be watching them for any reason whatsoever can easily notice the habit then it becomes a lot more risky too.
She could have been abducted, she could have hurt herself, hell she could have wandered away for all they know - you don't like a 3-year old by herself no matter what are the circumstances. If you want to have some spare time without children on your holiday just leave them back in the country with their grandparents or other relatives and go by yourself.
Like with most missing people it's a bit of a strange case where the most probable outcome at this point is the body being found and identified a few years from now. Hopefully this isn't the case even if it means her being sold to some rich family that can't have children and brought up by them but I wouldn't be too hopeful on that. It's very rare for people who had been missing for years to show up all well.
Exactly, it's a 3-year old. Even if you can dismiss the possibility of her being hurt or abducted by a stranger with absolute certainty she can still leave the room by herself and wander off because she thinks there's a fairy down the road or she might simply want to see what's on the top shelf of your cabinet only to fall down on her back and kill herself. There are so many possibilities here that I can't really fathom how a responsible parent could ever think that it was a good idea.
Sadly she's just too distinctive and child to make that theory about being adopted and still happily alive even a remote possibility.