MadeleineMcCann Aimoo Forum List | Ticket | Today | Member | Search | Who's On | Help | Sign In | |
MadeleineMcCann > IMPORTANT INFO > DIscrepancies by Topic Go to subcategory:
Author Content
TinLizzy
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:1787
  • Posts:1787
  • From:Canada
  • Register:11/07/2008 1:17 AM

Date Posted:01/01/2012 6:07 AMCopy 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.

Copyright © 2000- Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.