- Awards
- 21
One rumor over the years was that the parent's overly administered cough syrup to keep her quiet while they went out, and when they came home, she'd croaked.
- Awards
- 32
I remember reading this one, but at the same time I thought so many people could be coming up reasons behind her disappearance. If they did do this what happened to the body and how did it fit into the time-line on when they reported her missing. Though as I type this, I have no idea the details on how all this came out.
- Awards
- 21
I think they ate her. And then later felt bad about it.
- Awards
- 32
- Awards
- 21
The guilt must be paralyzing, to wake up every day for the rest of your life and think, "My God, I actually ate my own daughter!"
Madeleine
- Awards
- 2
Madeleine McCann was officially reported “taken” on the night of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007 from the McCann’s holiday resort in Praia da Luz, Portugal. Two sniffer dogs with different specialities and outstanding records were sent in from Britain almost 3 months later after the British specialist assigned to help Portuguese police himself reached the conclusion she was dead and it was time to look for a body:
Could you believe that it was Maddie who died in Apartment 5A?
- Eddie was an Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog – trained to not only be able to detect decomposing flesh, bone, body fluid and blood on objects that had come in contact with a body, but also to detect remains buried on land or submerged in water, all to cellular levels only recoverable in certain forensic labs. He had even picked out cadaver odour from the remains of totally burnt out car, where human DNA was eventually found that was the murder victim. When locating a spot, the level of his bark tells a tale.
- Keela was a Crime Scene Investigation dog who could detect human blood in minute quantities, and pick it out from other types of blood or decomposing material, and even from anything that had been cleaned with chemicals or bleach. She was also trained to give a passive alert – to freeze with her nose as close as possible to the subject matter without touching it.
Could you believe that it was Maddie who died in Apartment 5A?
- Awards
- 52
I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann but why haven't her parents been charged with child neglect for leaving their children alone in apartment while they went out boozing and making merry with their mates?
- Awards
- 2
Is what happened here neglect or bad-parenting? Is being 80 paces or 3 minutes away from a left alone sleeping child neglect? Can you pin-point neglect if there's no discernible signs of physical abuse? The facts of the case for a chargeable offense of neglect would be what exactly ….under UK law?
- Awards
- 52
NSPCC guidelines say that under no circumstances should babies, toddlers or young children be left by themselves.
Even though there is no set age in the law on when children can be left alone, parents can still be prosecuted for leaving children alone. If it is deemed that children have been neglected because there are no adults around, criminal proceedings can be brought against the parents. If they are found guilty of neglect, they can face a fine or a prison sentence.
In 2014, dad Tim Haines, 53, was prosecuted for leaving his sick two-year-old daughter, Iset, alone in a car for five minutes while he went into a chemist to buy some Calpol.
Quaffing wine in a restaurant doesn't constitue being at home looking after your children and appears worse than leaving a child in a car for 5 mins.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 2
Guidelines are never the law cast in stone. UK law sets no age limit when children can be left alone. Prosecutions for leaving children alone have been over children up to the age of 14.
"If it is deemed that children have been neglected because there are no adults around..." – how is that determined? By someone’s offended sensibilities?
"...criminal proceedings can be brought" – can though, not must. Obviously, other factors are considered. Nothing’s always black and white.
Tim Haines was arrested for “wilful exposure of a child to a risk of harm”. He denied the allegations against him. Was found guilty by a magistrate’s court, then handed an absolute discharge. ….But he appealed anyway, because he could not accept having the offence on his record. His appeal was successful. Reportedly, the judge said: “Is that supposed to be a crime?”
The Ocean Club had a nightly booking by the Tapas 9 for dinner at a particular table on the restaurant’s terrace. From that table, the group of holidaying friends could see their adjoining apartment blocks some 50 metres away as the crow flies, beyond a swimming pool, landscaping/shrubbery and a side-road. The McCann’s apartment was on the corner of that side road and the main road that ran down past the entrance to the Tapas Restaurant.
The apartment had a front entrance and a side entrance. Because of the swimming pool and shrubbery/landscaping being between the side entrance to their apartment and their table, the McCanns said they would usually leave the restaurant by its main entrance at night and take the main road back to their apartment – a distance of 70 metres, they said. A British reporter walked from the table to the front gate of the McCanns via the restaurant’s main entrance and timed it at 80 paces.
If a child’s parent is seated some 80 paces away from the child – would that not be like being in the garden of your compound and the child asleep upstairs?
The Tapas 9 say they took turns to check on their children at intervals (15-30 minutes). I agree, that appears worse than leaving a child alone for 5 mins. I think, though, that a child is safer asleep in their own bed than asleep in a car parked on a main road (as opposed to parked in a driveway).
"If it is deemed that children have been neglected because there are no adults around..." – how is that determined? By someone’s offended sensibilities?
"...criminal proceedings can be brought" – can though, not must. Obviously, other factors are considered. Nothing’s always black and white.
Tim Haines was arrested for “wilful exposure of a child to a risk of harm”. He denied the allegations against him. Was found guilty by a magistrate’s court, then handed an absolute discharge. ….But he appealed anyway, because he could not accept having the offence on his record. His appeal was successful. Reportedly, the judge said: “Is that supposed to be a crime?”
Are you really “looking after your children” when they’re asleep in one or more rooms and you’re in another?
The Ocean Club had a nightly booking by the Tapas 9 for dinner at a particular table on the restaurant’s terrace. From that table, the group of holidaying friends could see their adjoining apartment blocks some 50 metres away as the crow flies, beyond a swimming pool, landscaping/shrubbery and a side-road. The McCann’s apartment was on the corner of that side road and the main road that ran down past the entrance to the Tapas Restaurant.
The apartment had a front entrance and a side entrance. Because of the swimming pool and shrubbery/landscaping being between the side entrance to their apartment and their table, the McCanns said they would usually leave the restaurant by its main entrance at night and take the main road back to their apartment – a distance of 70 metres, they said. A British reporter walked from the table to the front gate of the McCanns via the restaurant’s main entrance and timed it at 80 paces.
If a child’s parent is seated some 80 paces away from the child – would that not be like being in the garden of your compound and the child asleep upstairs?
The Tapas 9 say they took turns to check on their children at intervals (15-30 minutes). I agree, that appears worse than leaving a child alone for 5 mins. I think, though, that a child is safer asleep in their own bed than asleep in a car parked on a main road (as opposed to parked in a driveway).
Last edited:
- Awards
- 52
I still think they should be prosecuted so both sides can bring forward their evidence and a court will decide whether it's responsible to leave your infant children alone while you go out socialising with friends.
- Awards
- 2
For now, I’m ignoring all the stuff that’s at that news link to try and start from the top.
What do we know?
That we have a child who vanished, seemingly disappeared off the face of the earth without a trace, 11 years and 4 months ago just days shy of her 4th birthday.
The child disappeared because….
- She left home of her own accord
- She was abducted (alive) at the outset
- She was murdered at the outset – whatever her whereabouts might have been at that moment, in a non-abduction scenario – by someone, possibly in the presence of others; and her body is unfound at the spot she died, or else been hidden by one or more persons.
- She died an accidental death (wherever she might have been in a non-abduction scenario) either when alone or in the presence of one or more persons – and her body is unfound at the spot she died, or else been hidden by one or more persons.
From these 4 foundational scenarios come those theories on Sarah’s list.
To know which theory is more likely, rather than going through one by one on the list, I feel it's easier if we look at the foundational scenarios first to see what can be eliminated or made less of a priority by assessing what evidence (circumstantial or better) there is to support each of the foundational scenarios.
Maybe, better still, we should look at what evidence (circumstantial or better) there is that does not support/would disprove any of these foundational scenarios.
Anyone disagree?
Last edited:
- Awards
- 2
^ And if we do that, I would add: beware two things.
Beware what we think to be evidence. It might not be at all as seen through the eyes of experts or the court. Question what we have been taking for granted.
Example: Say, a picture touted as being the last photograph ever taken of Madeleine McCann is published for the world to see and know. We'll believe that’s true because a Voice of Authority has said it is and they must know better.
Therefore, as investigators we bank on that photograph being good evidence that Maddie was alive at the date and time stated on it and proceed full tilt with our investigations with that as a reference point of knowing when she was last seen.
But, what if we are wrong? Hypothetically, an expert can come along later and say they can't rule out the possibility that the date and time on the photograph have been altered, even though the photograph itself is genuine (ie, not manipulated in its composition/photo-shopped). That photograph can't be relied on.
Beware false assumptions, too.
An example: The last video I posted on this thread had the title Who Died in the McCann’s Apartment?
Since the bouquet of death was detected in Apartment 5A by a highly trained and top-rated human cadaver dog, the presumption was that the dog was not wrong. From there the assumption flowed that someone died in that apartment. Hence the question in the video title.
But, hang on. Couldn’t someone have died elsewhere, and their body brought into the apartment before being moved again?
As I’ve said, the title of the video was Who Died in the McCann’s Apartment? How many of you assumed that “McCann’s” was referring to Maddie’s family?
Yes, blink. Er, wot?
Sure, that was the apartment that Maddie’s family rented in the Mark Warner-owned Ocean Resort complex. But it’s possible they were not the “McCann’s” being referred to.
How many of you know that the actual owner of Apartment 5A was a woman who’d married a McCann, and whose late husband was not in any way related to the family of Dr Gerald McCann?
I didn’t, until I stumbled across that tid-bit of info yesterday. Apparently, the odds of Maddie’s family renting a place from a stranger who turned out to share the same family name as them was 7,500: 1, according to Sky News Crime Correspondent Martin Blunt.
Beware what we think to be evidence. It might not be at all as seen through the eyes of experts or the court. Question what we have been taking for granted.
Example: Say, a picture touted as being the last photograph ever taken of Madeleine McCann is published for the world to see and know. We'll believe that’s true because a Voice of Authority has said it is and they must know better.
Therefore, as investigators we bank on that photograph being good evidence that Maddie was alive at the date and time stated on it and proceed full tilt with our investigations with that as a reference point of knowing when she was last seen.
But, what if we are wrong? Hypothetically, an expert can come along later and say they can't rule out the possibility that the date and time on the photograph have been altered, even though the photograph itself is genuine (ie, not manipulated in its composition/photo-shopped). That photograph can't be relied on.
Beware false assumptions, too.
An example: The last video I posted on this thread had the title Who Died in the McCann’s Apartment?
Since the bouquet of death was detected in Apartment 5A by a highly trained and top-rated human cadaver dog, the presumption was that the dog was not wrong. From there the assumption flowed that someone died in that apartment. Hence the question in the video title.
But, hang on. Couldn’t someone have died elsewhere, and their body brought into the apartment before being moved again?
As I’ve said, the title of the video was Who Died in the McCann’s Apartment? How many of you assumed that “McCann’s” was referring to Maddie’s family?
Yes, blink. Er, wot?
Sure, that was the apartment that Maddie’s family rented in the Mark Warner-owned Ocean Resort complex. But it’s possible they were not the “McCann’s” being referred to.
How many of you know that the actual owner of Apartment 5A was a woman who’d married a McCann, and whose late husband was not in any way related to the family of Dr Gerald McCann?
I didn’t, until I stumbled across that tid-bit of info yesterday. Apparently, the odds of Maddie’s family renting a place from a stranger who turned out to share the same family name as them was 7,500: 1, according to Sky News Crime Correspondent Martin Blunt.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 2
Another day, another opinion on YouTube on all things McCann. Here’s one from yesterday:
I don’t know about you guys, but I definitely am not interested in solving the case, and have never had the dream/intention to.
My interest is in learning (and sharing) what it was that the Portuguese police saw (picked up on) that made the team led by inspector Tavares de Almeida reach the conclusions that they did. These are stated in Inspector de Almeida’s (now considered interim) report of September 10, 2007. It was addressed to the Portuguese Coordinator of the case – policing in Portugal is shared by several agencies – who at that time was Gonçalo Amaral, the head of the police judiciaire CID in Portimão town, in Faro district.
There have been other developments in the case since then.
In Portugal, the case began as a non-criminal situation of ‘child gone walkabout, find and rescue’ very late at night. On the following day (May 4th, 2007), because of the need to balance the interests of the child, parents and investigation, the case was classified as “Abduction??” on a report to district-level authorities. Mr Amaral has explained that the double question marks was to underscore the doubts police already had by that day. That classification made the case a criminal investigation.
Every reported sighting of Madeleine that could be credible will always necessitate a fresh look at the timeline of events given by the Tapas 9 and many have done that. The danger in trying to solve the case lies in cherry picking whose statements to keep and whose to ignore, or dismiss on little more than speculative grounds. whenever the statements conflict. Why has someone changed their statement? To have to guess is to not know the reality.
I don’t think the likes of Michael Winger, https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/239499/i-know-what-happened-to-maddie/ whose simple video about Madeleine McCann can be viewed here, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7249512/madeleine-mccann-met-police-home-office-funding-search/ are folk who don’t care about Madeleine, or her family (and that includes her younger siblings).
I doubt Mr Winger come to the case with a view to solving it. Rather, to provide some missing pieces; using a skill-set not everyone has (much like Eddie and Keela and the rest of their highly trained brethren). He gave what he saw.
“Your post about AI seems a welcomed respite from what the lazy masses have done to Madeleine's case. If it's not something out of a soap opera, they're not interested. This mass of people don't care to see the case solved. They continue to exploit Madeleine from her grave. They turn their backs on facts, evidence; and demand that their ‘suspicions’, ‘opinions’ be heard. They are no different, better than Madeleine's parents, and they're just that damn stupid to see the dividing line.”
I don’t know about you guys, but I definitely am not interested in solving the case, and have never had the dream/intention to.
My interest is in learning (and sharing) what it was that the Portuguese police saw (picked up on) that made the team led by inspector Tavares de Almeida reach the conclusions that they did. These are stated in Inspector de Almeida’s (now considered interim) report of September 10, 2007. It was addressed to the Portuguese Coordinator of the case – policing in Portugal is shared by several agencies – who at that time was Gonçalo Amaral, the head of the police judiciaire CID in Portimão town, in Faro district.
There have been other developments in the case since then.
In Portugal, the case began as a non-criminal situation of ‘child gone walkabout, find and rescue’ very late at night. On the following day (May 4th, 2007), because of the need to balance the interests of the child, parents and investigation, the case was classified as “Abduction??” on a report to district-level authorities. Mr Amaral has explained that the double question marks was to underscore the doubts police already had by that day. That classification made the case a criminal investigation.
Every reported sighting of Madeleine that could be credible will always necessitate a fresh look at the timeline of events given by the Tapas 9 and many have done that. The danger in trying to solve the case lies in cherry picking whose statements to keep and whose to ignore, or dismiss on little more than speculative grounds. whenever the statements conflict. Why has someone changed their statement? To have to guess is to not know the reality.
I don’t think the likes of Michael Winger, https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/239499/i-know-what-happened-to-maddie/ whose simple video about Madeleine McCann can be viewed here, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7249512/madeleine-mccann-met-police-home-office-funding-search/ are folk who don’t care about Madeleine, or her family (and that includes her younger siblings).
I doubt Mr Winger come to the case with a view to solving it. Rather, to provide some missing pieces; using a skill-set not everyone has (much like Eddie and Keela and the rest of their highly trained brethren). He gave what he saw.
- Awards
- 21
Now coming up on 20 years...
They sedated their daughter, and, in a foreign country, left the door of their room unlocked and slightly ajar. When the mother went to check on her, she returned to the restaurant and, as overheard by several people, said immediately, "They've taken her!"
Some of the money raised for their daughter was used to pay the MacCanns' mortgage (okay, maybe they had financial problems) and the mother has monetized Madeleine's disappearance in numerous ways.
I'm sorry, but from Day One, the parents have seemed as shady as f**k. Just like the Ramseys.
They sedated their daughter, and, in a foreign country, left the door of their room unlocked and slightly ajar. When the mother went to check on her, she returned to the restaurant and, as overheard by several people, said immediately, "They've taken her!"
Some of the money raised for their daughter was used to pay the MacCanns' mortgage (okay, maybe they had financial problems) and the mother has monetized Madeleine's disappearance in numerous ways.
I'm sorry, but from Day One, the parents have seemed as shady as f**k. Just like the Ramseys.
Last edited: