cressida Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Ian Collins (Talk Radio - through the night) said he used to work in a Hotel abroad, and said 80% of parents would leave the children in their rooms after they had been put to bed and come downstairs to the bars to have a drink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungbeetle Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I have to say, Kate McCann is a grade A, top notch yummy mummy though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddie Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Ian Collins (Talk Radio - through the night) said he used to work in a Hotel abroad, and said 80% of parents would leave the children in their rooms after they had been put to bed and come downstairs to the bars to have a drink I'm not making excuses here, but the McCanns didn't leave their three babies in a hotel room, they left them in an unlocked apartment that was outside the Mark Warner complex. If Madeleine had woken up and wanted her Mummy, she could have gone through the unlocked patio doors (The Mcs said they left the doors unlocked for easy access to check on them.) She then would have gone down some steps, up a foot path past the swimming pool to find her Mum in the Tapas bar, or if she had decided to turn left, when she went down the steps, be on the main road, but admitedly wouldn't have been busy off season, this is the reason there are so many "stories" and "rumours" flying around, because of all the obvious what ifs??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julado Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I wasn't suggesting that you were, but many actually took all the Malta sightings seriously, and now we have the Belgium cafe. You seem to be agreeing with me, on the one hand about not allowing anyone getting too near, in this case the waiting staff for fear of seeing the eye defect. I am curious though as to why you give this sighting credibility, when the setting is so obviously unlikely because of the extremely high risk factor. "Stupid" is not a word I would have thought would apply to Madeleine's would be abductors either! You misunderstand me....it is not for me to say if any sighting is credible and worthy of investigation.....only the Portuguese police know what is worth investigation and what is not. I must admit had I kidnapped a child (and believe me I wouldn't) the last thing I would do is take the child out and risk being caught. But crazy people do crazy things and to profile any case you have to get into the mindset of the kind of person who may have taken Madeleine. The person responsible may be so warped that they are taking her out which means then people see her, hence the sightings. The person responsible might be playing an elaborate game of cat and mouse......who is to say, not any of us on SF for a start and certainly not me. This is just my theory. If the profilers have come to any conclusion then they will follow up leads which to many people seem fanciful or far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmaker2 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 With all respect julado, I think you miss the point that I was making. Firstly I'm not saying that I know better than the police. But by the same token the police have been obliged to follow up every lead in this case even if they think it is highly unlikely that Madeleine was ever there. Even a Maltese police spokesman said that he highly doubted that Madeleine had ever been taken to the area because of the obvious reasons I have previously mentioned. A lot of the investigative sightings have been more about eliminating them from the investigation rather than really pursuing Madeline's abductors. Also you have to imagine how it would look, with the eyes of the world news media looking on, if the Maltese or Belgium police didn't bother following up any reported sightings. So my point is that, just because the local police forces seem to be taking their local sightings seriously, it's more likely do with making their respective countries and it's police force look good in the eye's of the world, no police force wants bad publicity. To me the press has been instrumental in sensationalising these sightings without really examining the likelyhood of the possible sightings. You don't need to bring in profilers to work out that criminals don't generally want to be caught unless they are trying to make some sort of statement, with that being the case a little common sense would tell you that there never was any likelyhood that Madeleine was in Malta or indeed in the Belgium cafe. Sorry but your theory about playing "cat and mouse" I really don't buy, certainly not in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivelin6 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 An interview with Kate McCann was broadcast on Woman's Hour yesterday. After listening, I'm even more convinced that something is rather amiss about this sad, sorry saga.......http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/01/2007_32_wed.shtml..... I must disagree, although not one of the biggest fans of the McCans, I didn't see anything in the interview which made them seem any more suspcious than before. It didn't change my opinion about them either, I still believe they were neglectful, naive parents who should have known better. I'll keep an open mind about whether they were involved at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeP Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 Mod. Note Just a general request - can I remind people not to make unsubstantiated accusations about any of the people involved in this case. We're still totally in the dark about what happened - let's not get carried away. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julado Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Kingmaker2....I didn't say that the police know better than YOU. I said that the police and the profilers know better than any of us on here (including me)....that is their job....it was not an individual attack on you. We are all on this thread speculating and throwing our thoughts on the matter into this public arena for debate. Anything I have put forward is no more right or wrong than anyone else including you. You don't have to buy my theory any more than I have to buy yours or anyone else's. In fact whether you buy it concerns me not. You have one viewpoint, I have another as do other postees on this thread. Its as simple as that. This thread is merely a swapping of ideas and debate about the issues concerning Madeleine. None of us ACTUALLY know what has happened to her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiffRaff Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I'm not making excuses here, but the McCanns didn't leave their three babies in a hotel room, they left them in an unlocked apartment that was outside the Mark Warner complex. If Madeleine had woken up and wanted her Mummy, she could have gone through the unlocked patio doors (The Mcs said they left the doors unlocked for easy access to check on them.) She then would have gone down some steps, up a foot path past the swimming pool to find her Mum in the Tapas bar, or if she had decided to turn left, when she went down the steps, be on the main road, but admitedly wouldn't have been busy off season, this is the reason there are so many "stories" and "rumours" flying around, because of all the obvious what ifs??? Apparently there were some roadworks taking place locally as well, with the trenches being filled in a day/couple of days after the child's disappearance. It's possible that the girl could've fallen in one of these, knocked unconscious or worse, and being a little tot, not spotted by the workers when the trenches were being filled. The obvious thing would've been to excavate the trenches and check, but once again the police/authorities seem to have chosen a different path.... Their methods do seem more than a little baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmaker2 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Kingmaker2....I didn't say that the police know better than YOU. I said that the police and the profilers know better than any of us on here (including me)....that is their job....it was not an individual attack on you. None of us ACTUALLY know what has happened to her. Err is this a case of forum "lost in translation syndrome"? I'm not thinking it was an individual attack at all. The point I was making is that the likelyhood of the latest sighting being Madeline is pretty small, despite the fact that the media have sensationalised the story just like the Malta sightings leading many of their readers to blindly believe that there is a good chance that it was Madeleine, when in fact the exact opposite is the case, there was only an slim possiblity. The truth is that the chances of the Belgium sighting being Madeliene is very small indeed. I am not speculating on any theories on what happened to Madeleine but merely appling logic to the latest claims, nothing more nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.