|
MadeleineMcCann
Aimoo Forum List |
Ticket |
Today |
Member |
Search |
Who's On |
Help |
Sign In |
|
|
| Title: Neglect | |
| MadeleineMcCann > IMPORTANT INFO > Individual Topics | Go to subcategory： |
| Author | Content |
TinLizzy
|
|||||||
|
Date Posted：05/30/2010 3:40 AMCopy HTML No Neglect=No Abduction=G & K Responsible for Disappearance
Could the T9 have only claimed to leave their children alone, with infrequent checks, during their nights at the tapas bar to allow for the 'abduction' scenario? If they (in reality) had been looking after the children, as most would expect, then there would have been no opportunity for the 'abduction' and the McCanns would have been accountable for Madeleine's disappearance. What are the chances that 9 individuals would not care about the security of their children? Regardless of the anger towards them (because of their claims of neglect) they appear (when reading the statements) to be very caring about their children, (particularly ROB and MO) and childcare was important to them when booking the holiday. Matthew seems to be stumbling in his Rogatory as if he was claiming about the importance of childcare but attempting to change it to fit with leaving the children alone. Quote:
MATTHEW OLDFIELD we were concerned that if one member of the group, we were all going, oh perhaps we’ll be the Billy no mates, the really unpopular ones will get stuck at the Millennium and, you know, we won’t be able to, we won’t be able to go out and visit our friends because we’re not going to leave, you know, we’re not going to leave to, erm, to go and see them and we won’t be able to share child care and so it would be fairly difficult and it was a big issue because they couldn’t guarantee, the couldn’t allocate the rooms, erm, for us and they said it’ll have to wait until you get in the resort, erm, but in the end it was sort of quite quiet and so they sort of could stick us really close together. I can’t remember why I started talking about that?” One comment by Rachel about Ella having a bath in their apartment (possibly on Thursday night but could be other nights) made me think... Why would that happen if the child was staying in her own apartment? Quote:
RACHAEL Reply “Yeah. Erm we went back to the apartments, erm I think err, we all headed off at the same time I think and erm, can’t remember whether that night E**a and, E**a might have had a bath in our apartment with G***e, not sure, I think it might have been that night, but we headed back, yeah probably about half seven, half seven, twenty to eight, which was kind of later than we would normally”. There was always (except unknown for Monday) someone away from the table each night. Sunday - MO Monday - No information Tuesday - ROB Wednesday - Rachael. Rachael and Matthew were next door to McCanns and one apartment away from ROB and JT Thursday was different... The preparations for the 'abduction' may have been in place for Thursday night during their time at the tapas and although it appears the children were all left alone, according to their 'created timeline' (which may or may not be corroborated with the reception register) there were only a few minutes when everyone was at the table leaving noone available to watch the children... Apart from a few minutes here and there, someone was away from the table and able to watch the children until one of the others arrived.. ROB until 8.50pm approx MO 8.55-9.05pm approx JT - 9.10-9.20pm approx MO - 9.25-9.35 approx JT - 9.40 approx As I see it, only the time between MO returning and Gerry leaving at 9.05pm, Jane returning at 9.20pm and MO and ROB leaving at 9.25pm approx was when everyone was at the table and unable to watch the children. That is presuming that the 'created timeline' is correct. Although the timeline may have been correct, I do not believe the 'activity' during that time was as stated. Waiters claim in their statements that only the men got up from the table, often for periods of 15 minutes, which is longer than the times 'established' to check on the children, and they often reheated their meals. <!-- m -->http://madeleinemccann.aimoo.com/Staff- ... 37541.html<!-- m --> Quote:
Joaquim J.M. BaptistaIt was normal for the men of the dining group, to get up and leave the restaurant and return minutes later. The witness is not aware of where the men were going to but that they would be gone for about 15 minutes; • The witness can speak clearly to these events because many times he had to bring back the entre/dinner plate of said client(s), until they returned to the table; For the abduction to have been credible (particularly on Thursday) they had to claim to have left the children but they needed to (in reality) watch the children and so established a timeline that showed the children were left alone even though it was possible someone was watching them. Apart from the meeting with Jez (on the planned 'abduction' night, I see nothing to confirm they were going backwards and forwards to the apartments to 'check' on children (unless the reception register confirms otherwise) but many things that lead me to believe the possibility the children may have been looked after.. 1) The importance of childcare when booking... 2 )Tanner child bathed in Oldfield's apartment at bedtime. 3) Someone missing from the table during the week. 4) Only a few minutes when everyone was at the table on Thursday and unavailable for watching the children (according to their created timeline) 5) Gerry commenting about leaving the children alone (more thn once he said this to Jez - Tuesday lunch and Thursday) 6) MO looking after Evie during the day when ROB needed to do something (will search for statement) 7) The slim chance that 9 responsible adults would ALL decide to not ensure their children were secure and safe while on holiday. If this was the case and the children WERE watched then I believe the McCanns would be in BIG trouble explaining how and why Madeleine disappeared. http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/timelines-hideho-s-research-f174/may-3rd-simulated-abduction-or-neglect-t8762.htm May 3rd - Simulated Abduction OR Neglect? Isn't it one or the other? <!-- google_ad_section_end -->The police files tell us that Madeleine died and the McCanns created a simulated abduction that night. The McCanns 'tell' us they left Madeleine alone in the apartment with the twins behind an unlocked door. I don't believe anything the McCanns say and I am not going to believe them about this...... I believe the dogs and I believe the police.. They used the hour and a half to execute the 'plan'. The McCanns needed us to believe it was neglect or their abduction plan would not have been 'believed'... They didn't leave the Madeleine and the twins alone... Madeleine was dead that night... They are not guilty of neglect..they are guilty of far worse! Last edited by HiDeHo on Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:54 pm; edited 1 time in total Whether they are guilty of neglect on other nights, we don't know, but, in my opinion to claim 'neglect' for May 3rd (when they were probably organising the 'abduction' plan) is giving credibility to an abduction being possible, which is why I believe the McCanns were discussing their checking system with others (Jez Wilkins etc) The accusation of Neglect is used to the McCann's benefit. It expresses anger towards them (which they undoubtedly deserve) but at the same time subliminally suggests that because Madeleine was left alone with the twins that this may be the reason they are guilty for her disappearance (abduction). They were very likely planning the abduction that night and their statement that the children were left alone in the room that night was probably to give credibility to an abduction being possible. 'Neglect' on May 3rd (with the 'appropriate' amount of checks) came from their mouths and I don't believe them for one minute... The police tell us they were staging a simulated abduction. The reason there were so many checks that night was because there were things that had to be 'set up' (like an attempt at the shutters?) Had it been a normal night where they had truly left the children on their own, then the checks would have not been so frequent (in my opinion) Matthew Oldfield says he came back at approximately 9.00pm, tells Gerry he had listened for the children and Gerry leaves immediately after at 9.05pm? They weren't checking children that were left alone...they were doing something far more sinister. Thats what the police 'tell' us... Am I missing something? Maybe the McCanns left their apartment that night...the children were soundly asleep...Madeleine in her bed and the twins in their cots... After less than half an hour Matt checked and things were quiet... Gerry checked five minutes later and saw Madeleine with her favourite blanket, thinking how lucky he was... Twenty minutes later, Matthew checked again and everything was fine. Half an hour later Madeleine was gone. Thats what they want us to believe.... Thats the circumstance that creates the 'neglect' issue. According to the police Madeleine was dead that night. Statements regarding the checking are questionable.... Matt 'supposedly' checked the children when he went to 'chivvy up' the Paynes but Dianne Webster denied categorically that she had not seen him even though a year later, after speaking with her daughter and son-in-law that she 'vaguely' remembers passing him.
I want to see them accountable for what was really happening that night and not for the 'safe' accusation of neglect that 'implies' that the opportunity was there for an abduction to happen. Take neglect out of the scenario and we are left with them being responsible for not only her disappearance, but why they deemed it necessary to hide her death and subsequently avoid an autopsy. How can you neglect a child that is dead? It's because of all the discrepancies before May 3rd that leads me to believe it did happen at an earlier time. If it was about neglect then they would be defending their parenting skills...they would never have admitted the door was left unlocked. etc. If it was about neglect it would have transpired exactly as they say.. Madeleine left alone with the twins in the apartment..vulnerable...and ultimately disappeared because of their neglect! They LIED ABOUT NEGLECT as a trade-off to allow for the opportunity for an abductor and as a smokescreen for what they had arranged for that night.... The faked abduction.... Not a night out drinking and eating with their friends and leaving the children alone in the apartment...<!-- google_ad_section_end --> |
||||||
|
TinLizzy
|
Share to:
#1
|
||||||
|
Re：Neglect Date Posted：07/31/2010 1:36 PMCopy HTML http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic7764-160.html
Another thing to keep in mind is that they all claim to have left the children. Not only unusual to have them all agree about something but also, why should they be believed when there is little else that they they have stated that seems worthy of being classified as undeniable truth. As has been mentioned before...what are the chances that ALL of the T9 would be 'comforable' leaving their children..very little chance I would say... There was no abduction and therefore to facilitate the opportunity, they all chose to acknowledge leaving their children (in the statements). I beleive the probable reality they were no different to any of us on this forum regarding the security of their children. They probably lied to help the McCanns explain the disappearance of Madeleine... Why? We don't know, but to blindly believe the 'supposed' neglect' helps the McCanns tremendously because without that there would have been no opportunity of an abduction and THEN how would Madeleine's disappearance be explained? |
||||||
|
TinLizzy
|
Share to:
#2
|
||||||
|
Re：Neglect Date Posted：07/31/2010 1:55 PMCopy HTML http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic7764-150.html
Compiling the timelines has helped to highlight when the discrepancies started and this is why I believe something happened to Maddie earlier in the week. Rachael made a booking for the tapas on Sunday but the receptionist claims it was one of the men saying "the group had many small children whom they would leave alone when they went to dine" The supervisor claims nothing was mentioned about childcare. . Quote: RACHAEL I think Matt was up by that stage, think he came out in the afternoon, erm and then we’d booked to eat in the Tapas Bar that night because The Millennium had just been one kind of a bit of trek and a bit too stressful with all the kids and it was, thought it would be quite nice to have dinner by ourselves, so erm I booked a table for eight thirty in the Tapas for us and we just thought we’d do our own sort of baby listening as you know we, well you know if we’d been in another Mark WARNER resort that’s what would have happened”. 00.29.02 1578 “When you say us, who do you mean”? Reply “As a group so”. 1578 “The whole group”? Reply “Yeah. So basically we’d go and have dinner and then we’d sort of run back you know every fifteen twenty minutes and have a listen at the door and make sure nobody’s screaming their head off”. 1578 “So you, you booked the table on the Sunday evening”? Reply “On the Sunday yes”. ---the Sunday night had worked well with us sort of eating dinner as adults and you know just going back to check on the children, erm that, but at the Tapas, they said they, you could only book in the morning, you couldn’t kind of block book or anything like that, you had to kind of call them at you know, eight or nine o’clock and say that you wanted a table for that night, erm and because we were a big group of nine, erm I begged and pleaded with them to let us book for the whole week, a table at eight thirty every night, erm”. 00.36.51 1578 “When did you do that”? Reply “Because otherwise”. 1578 “No sorry, when”? Reply “Oh when, that was on the Monday morning, Luisa Ana de Noronha de Azevedo Coutinho Receptionist Quote: Sunday 29th April one of the elements of the group arrived with the child Madeleine McCann, she does not know his name and can only say that he was male and tall and thin and that he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30. When questioned, she confirms that the man was not the father of the girl but one of the members of the group whom was often seen in his company The man justified his request by saying that the group had many small children whom they would leave alone when they went to dine. She said that at intervals some two parents would go to the apartments to see if everything was OK. Quote: Tiago Rochas Barreiros Tapas Supervisor When the table was reserved, nothing was mentioned about checking on the children and the only concern was in accommodating the entire group <!-- m -->http://madeleinemccann.aimoo.com/Staff- ... 25112.html<!-- m --> Gerry discussed child care with Jez on Tuesday as he walked to the creche with Russell and Jez. Quote: He recalled walking to the crèche with Gerry who had left Madeleine with the staff. This was about 1230 hrs on Tues 1 May. He then went on to explain that the children could be left with the staff during the evening and that most would be picked up before 10pm. It was not an unusual sight to see people walking through the site at night with a child in their arms asleep. The crèche would also provide a blanket to cover the child if required. He had taken up this facility hence his knowledge of the procedure. Wednesday evening in tapas Quote: We found out that the group of families were occupying ground floor flats near the swimming pool and they were leaving the children by themselves in order for them to go to the restaurant in the evenings. They would then go regularly to check the children who would be asleep. No Neglect=No Abduction=G & K Responsible for Disappearance I, like a few others, don't believe the children were left alone for the time periods stated between 'checks'. I have been trying to put together the possible scenario of the little more than an hour while they were dining at the tapas that night, keeping in mind that there was no abduction and I believe this hour or so was used to prepare for the faked abduction. Firstly, I will 'presume' that the monitor for the Paynes is acceptable ...for now. Other days (Monday, no information to confirm either way) there was someone away from the table.. Sunday - MO Monday - No information Tuesday - ROB Wednesday - Rachael. Rachael had suggested the possibility on Thursday that one of the Tanner children may have had a bath in their apartment, which leads me to the belief of the possibility that they shared the child minding in each others' apartment (MO Sunday, ROB Tuesday, Rachael Wednesday) <!-- l -->post484.html#p484<!-- l --> Quote: Reply “Yeah. Erm we went back to the apartments, erm I think err, we all headed off at the same time I think and erm, can’t remember whether that night E**a and, E**a might have had a bath in our apartment with G***e, not sure, I think it might have been that night, On Thursday, ROB did not arrive at the tapas at the same time as Jane, he arrived later. Could he have been watching the children (including the twins?) in the Oldfields apartment? Very soon after he arrived at the table, MO left..supposedly to check on Paynes but because they all claim different places they 'met' I question whether this was the reason and whether they actually saw him. He arrived back at the table and Gerry almost immediately left, with Jane following shortly after. Was Gerry going to the apartment to try to 'jemmy' the shutters in preparation for the 'abduction'? Jane, maybe, went to check all the children in the Oldfield's apartment. Shortly after Jane's return (at approx 9.20) MO and ROB BOTH left. (9.25pm approx) MO went to check the children, ROB was maybe trying to 'jemmy' the shutters (which is why there were the two of them that left?) Jane left at 9.40 approx and stayed in 'the' apartment Maybe the twins were 'sedated' so they didn't see or hear what was happening. ROB returned just before the arranged time of 10.00pm (for Kate to leave) Co-incidentally it was noted (not sure which statements) when someone asked, that the time was 10pm. On the other nights the children could have been watched by one of the tapas. For the abduction to have been credible on Thursday they had to claim to have left the children but they needed to (in reality) watch the children and so established a timeline that showed the children were left alone even though they weren't. Apart from a few minutes here and there, someone was away from the table and able to watch the children until one of the others arrived.. ROB until 8.50pm approx MO 8.55-9.05pm approx JT - 9.10-9.20pm approx MO - 9.25-9.35 approx JT - 9.40 approx As I see it, only the time between MO returning and Gerry leaving at 9.05pm, Jane returning at 9.20pm and MO and ROB leaving at 9.25pm approx was when everyone was at the table and unable to watch the children. That is presuming that the 'created timeline' is correct. Although the timeline may have been correct, I do not believe the 'activity' during that time was as stated. In order to see a possibility of the above scenario, one has to be of the belief that the T9 DID care about their children and the reason there is so much anger directed to them regarding 'neglect' is because it was a 'trade-off' to allow for an 'abduction to be 'credible'. Had they acknowedged (what may be the truth) and that the children were watched, then the 'abduction' would not have been able to be used as the reason for Madeleine's disappearance and the McCanns would have had a lot more to answer for. Without the 'neglect' issue supported by the T7, this case may have been solved as the abduction could not have happened. Thursday meeting From previous conversations had with Gerry, I am of the notion of the usual routine of the group in relation to checking on their children when they were in the Tapas Bar. I also was aware of the location of the McCann apartment. Naturally when I met him that night, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children. One has to wonder why it was such a topic of conversation during the chats between Jez and Gerry. His meeting with Jez outside the apartment would have been a benefit to him (otherwise I think he may have not stopped to chat). It helped confirm the checks and leaving the children (although his reason for being there may not have been to check the children) |
||||||
|
TinLizzy
|
Share to:
#3
|
||||||
|
Re：Neglect Date Posted：07/31/2010 2:09 PMCopy HTML
|
||||||
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#4
|
||||||
|
Re：Neglect Date Posted：06/17/2011 11:37 PMCopy HTML bump for neglect issues
Did MO let slip they were goinmg to watch the children? Matthew Oldfield ---the whole point of going to MARK WARNER, apart from, you know, the sort of the sport and things, is this issue of child care, ---that was the sort of thing that we were looking for when we booked the MARK WARNER because, it kind of seems funny when you look at it from this perspective, but at the time, it was just about having a safe environment ---we were concerned that if one member of the group, we were all going, oh perhaps we’ll be the Billy no mates, the really unpopular ones will get stuck at the Millennium and, you know, we won’t be able to, we won’t be able to go out and visit our friends because we’re not going to leave, you know, we’re not going to leave to, erm, to go and see them and we won’t be able to share childcare topic41.html Quote: Jane Tanner "...at that point we thought we can either do it between ourselves and one night one couple you know stay back and then do the baby listening...." |
||||||
|
TinLizzy
|
Share to:
#5
|
||||||
|
Re：Neglect Date Posted：04/15/2012 7:23 PMCopy HTML  Was there really neglect? According to statements, Matthew Oldfield was in 5B on Sunday night and Rachael was there on Wednesday... This apartment was so close to Apartment 5A that they could hear through the walls.... Tuesday, Russell O'Brien was in apartment 5D with only one apartment separating his apartment from the Oldfields and then the McCanns. (a few steps away if checked from the entrance to the apartments.) The Paynes had a monitor but were only one floor above. Quick and easy enough for someone, to keep an eye out for children rather than have everyone keep returning back from the tapas. Tuesday night, Najoya the quiz mistress did not see Kate or David Payne between approx nine and ten pm so they may have been in the apartments. Thursday there was only a few minutes during the evening when everyone was (supposedly) at the table. An adult was very near to the children Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and probably Thursday... Only Monday is unknown...it is not known if everyone was at the table on Monday, there may have been someone watching the children. What are the chances that 9 adults would choose to leave their children alone and not ask the person that was close by to keep an eye on them? Why would they claim they were 'neglecting' their children when, for the most part, there was someone close? How could an abduction have happened if the children were being watched? Who would have been targeted as irresponsible if they claimed the children were being watched and the 'abduction' happened during their time? They HAD to claim the children were 'neglected' or the 'plan' wouldn't have worked. How could they have said they were watching the children (as I believe they were) and used an 'abduction' to explain why Madeleine was missing? They have GAINED from the neglect issue also.... Each time that someone claims they were irresponsible and neglectful to their children, leaving them alone....it infers that Madeleine disappeared because she was left alone, and only supports the abduction theory IMO. According to the files and the dogs, Madeleine died in the apartment and they had no alternative but to 'suggest' it happened while she was left alone, when it was very probable that she died for another reason and 'abduction' and 'neglect' was the ONLY way they could explain her disappearance, rather than the truth...which could have been that the children were being 'relatively' cared for by someone close by, she died (because of an unknown reason) and they had to hide the truth the only way they knew how.... Madeleine may not have died because she wasn't being looked after..... To suggest neglect, suggests she was vulnerable to an intruder...which is what they want everyone to believe. I don't believe it for one minute. |
||||||
|
TinLizzy
|
Share to:
#6
|
||||||
|
Re：Neglect Date Posted：04/17/2012 11:57 AMCopy HTML January 31 2012 Title: It HELPS the McCanns to claim they were NEGLECTFUL!
I have archived many of my posts on this subject as I tend to ramble on about it so often as I have always believed it to be the case, and often I see my old posts asking if I am the only one to think this way? Every time the neglect issue is raised and the McCann's blamed for it I almost hear a cheer from TM. Without realising it, a post that blames the McCanns for neglect, leaving their little ones alone while they go dining at the tapas, leaves the reader subconsciously thinking that the neglect is why Madeleine disappeared and inadvertently suggesting the abduction was the reason she disappeared. They NEEDED to suggest neglect or the abduction wouldn't have been possible. Kate refers to Wednesday night (in her book) as 'Rachaels turn to be sick'....My opinion is that it is very possible they were watching the children relatively responsibly...each taking turns to stay near all the apartments (or in one or two) and something may have happened to Madeleine. Rather than one person being responsible (which they would also have been singled out as a target had the 'abductor' taken Madeleine on their 'turn') it was agreed to incorporate the checking to eliminate one person being responsible. There was a MAJOR reason for not reporting her death...that is another discussion.....but they ENCOURAGED the neglect issue. The mantra in every storylne about them dining in the tapas....Gerry telling Jez more than once about leaving the children...the first time TUESDAY lunchtime! Contrived even at that point (one reason that supports something happening to Madeleine earlier in the week imo) There was no reason that they could not have said from the start that there was always someone back at the apartments looking after the children..(which according to their statements there was...MO on Sunday, ROB on Tuesday, Rachael on Wednesday) so why didnt they protect themselves against neglect by stating that? They NEEDED neglect to give the abductor the 'window' of opportunity..(all of THREE MINUTES which I believe was one of their major errors). An abductor could not have taken a child that was being watched. I could go on forever, as I have posted on this issue more times than anything else and i feel like a broken record, but for those that would like to see some of the reasons that have supported my belief there are lots of examples here.
May 3rd Simulated Abduction or Neglect Neglect (Statements that show they cared about childcare)http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Individual-Topics/Neglect-1-796651.html I ABSOLUTELY believe there was no neglect for NUMEROUS reasons. 1) The McCanns claim it to be true. I believe nothing else, why should I believe that? 2) Rachael claims to have had Ella in her apartment for a bath. 3) Gerry told everyone he could about leaving the children alone (so everyone would believe the abduction when they heard it. 4) On video the waiter claims they did not leave the table within short periods of time and he is sure they didn't leave for more than 45 mins. 5) There are many statements that show they really cared about the childcare arrangements prior to arriving (particularly MO) and JT I think. 6) For those of us that believe something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week then every night was 'faked' as being normal...hence the contrived 'checking. 7) The waiter claims that a few times the meal had to be reheated...could that have been because the person that was watching the children was relieved and able to get to the table for the meal? 8) On a video there is undercover filming of Mrs Fenns hairdressers where they claim that the McCanns were at Chaplins...It doesnt make it true, but if they did go there after the tapas they would need someone watching the children. Whether we like them or not, I do believe they all loved their children and would not neglect them in any way. 9) When I write these neglect threads, I always get the feeling that if the McCanns see it they would 'hate' me...because once you take away neglect you are left with them being accountable for what REALLY happened to Madeleine, because she couldnt have been abducted while being watched so how would they explain her disappearance? Even better.....How could they explain the truth about what happened to little Madeleine? |
||||||
|
TinLizzy
|
Share to:
#7
|
||||||
|
Re：Neglect Date Posted：04/17/2012 11:59 AMCopy HTML
|
||||||
|
TinLizzy
|
Share to:
#8
|
||||||
|
Re：Neglect Date Posted：04/17/2012 12:00 PMCopy HTML
|
||||||
|
TinLizzy
|
Share to:
#9
|
||||||
|
Re：Neglect Date Posted：04/17/2012 12:01 PMCopy HTML No abduction so NEGLECT is irrelevant?
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->Neglect (not looking after the children properly every evening) is used to justify anger towards the Mc's and it has overshadowed what they really appear to be accountable for and that is what happened to Madeleine! Am I the only one who feels that the Mc's are 'getting away' with concealing Madeleine's death and faking an abduction because everyone is so focused on the need to be angry with them about neglect? It's something the Mc's are, no doubt, happy to hide behind....Its better for them to have everyone angry about neglect (which they may/may not be guilty of). The outrage about 'neglect' suggests she was in the apartment that night and there was an opportunity for an abduction and they are, therefore, not responsible for her disappearance.. There is no indication that an abduction was likely so 'neglect' is irrelevant |
Copyright © 2000- Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.
