Have you never been guilty,as most parents have, of some form of minor or major neglect of your own children? Have you never left your children knowing that you were damaging them or exposing them to harm by doing so? Have you never failed them?

Given your righteous indignation at the McCanns, you your own young children a perfect upbringing - or did you, like most of us, simply muddle through?

Friends of mine who came from dysfunctional families were the, less than perfect, parents of a young child who refused to eat anything but chocolate for years. These friends did not obtain the sort of specialised counselling their child badly needed, perhaps because they feared the involvement of Social Services. In my experience, the world is full of such less than perfect parents who fumble through care of their children as best as they can. Those who view themselves as perfect are often the most inadequate parents of all.

I recall leaving my two year old son in bed and alone in our house one time to pop next door to borrow sugar I’d run out of. Was I then guilty of neglect? Yes, I was. My son could have woken and been at risk. He could have been abducted. To leave him was a serious error of judgement on my part which I now regret. My point is we are all less than perfect and we all make such mistakes.

But presumably, as you’ve always been one of the, rare, perfect parents, Mr Bennett, nothing will stir your conscience and make you reconsider how much damage your private action against the McCanns will do to them and their other two children?

It’s my hope that you will reconsider.

Firstly, out of curiosity, may I ask you what your role with the police was?

Secondly, this talk of Gerry McCann being a freemason, I’ve not heard this before, where does it originate from?

I don’t know if anyone saw the recent Despatches programme on Channel 4 in the UK but it did raise an interesting possibility. Apparently if one were to leave the McCanns’ apartment via the patio doors and turned left, instead of right towards the gate & street, there is a passageway to the right which then leads to the car park at the front of the aprtment block.
The passageway & car park are/were badly lit at the time of the programme; it was suggested that this would be a viable route for someone to take to avoid being seen by somone at the gated entrance or on that street. Obviously access to the car park would then open a number of possible routes on foot or in a car.

Despatches had made up a team of ex-senior detectives and a retired criminal psychologist/profiler. They were hampered by a lack of co-operation from Mark Warners, who denied them access to the area around the pool & tapas bar. They only gained access to the passage way as the gate was insecure. Their conclusion was that an abduction had taken place although they didn’t state if they thought it a paedophile or not.

I’m not sure if the exact position G. McCann and Wilkins were in when they met & spoke but, if they were nearer to the street and gate than the patio doors, could they have missed someone walking in the opposite direction. Another problem of course is the whereabouts of the Irish teenager, I don’t know if she was in a position to have seen anyone leaving via the patio doors.

I totally agree with what you say, Exeter does seem to come up a lot in this case. Murat , Tanner , O’Brien , Goddard.
And now a possible DNA link to Madeleine with the clothing found in a bag close to the airport near Faro. If this is the clothing the abductor was wearing blue jeans and fleece,then Jane Tanner was telling lies when she gave her discription of the abductor.A shower curtain was also found, so it looks like after taking her he took a shower to remove all trace of her,then travelled towards Faro and discarded the bag.
I don’t believe a word O’Brien and Jane Tanner have said , O’Brien said his child was sick and he changed the sheets,the Ocean club staff didn’t give him clean sheets indeed they nothing a about the sheets, He was away from the tapas bar for over 30 minutes. Tanner then says she saw a man carrying a child away earlier, even describes the colour of his shoes, I would ask you would any of us remember all the colours that a person was wearing if you had only seen them for what must have been only seconds.

Firstly I haven’t been completely explicit in my theory due to the fact that I was purely expressing my own personal opinion and wasn’t intending on everyone debating my theory. I would also like to clarify that my personal opinion regarding this investigation does change often, I like to think I have a balanced view regarding the case and like to hear different theories…..hence my name !

But anyway since you asked I’ll try and answer your q’s……

If Gerry had accidentally killed Madeleine then yes I must agree he would be capable of persuading Kate to cover it up however I still stand by my guns that I don’t think the friends would get involved (could be wrong if all the talk about Gerry being a freemason is true).

Re: My thoughts about Tapas 7 involvement

I believe the abduction was well-planned and that Madeleine was targeted long before her arrival in PDL. I believe two of the friends could be involved in either child traffikking or a Paedophile ring…..the latter unfortunately seems to be the most likely due to Madeleine’s age, if they were selling a child they would’ve most likely abducted Sean or Amelie. I’m also a bit suspicious about the number of links to Exeter……

There have been many conflicting reports in the Media to say which two of the Tapas lot are wanting to change their story……at first I heard it was the Payne’s and then I heard it was Tanner and O’Brien - they had said in their statement they’d requested clean sheets for their sick daughter however this has been proved to be a lie…..why did they lie ? what else are they lying about ?

I believe that Madeleine WAS abducted but by whom and for what reasons I’m not completely sure but I’ve got a feeling Gerry knows more than what he’s letting on. I also think that one or more of the Tapas 7 are involved……child trafficking, paedophilia or revenge are just some of the thoughts spinning round in my head !
*********************************
So, without shooting you down in flames, I’d like to get something a little clearer, if you don’t mind. You can’t accept that Mrs. McCann, if she accidentally killed her daughter, could convince her husband to cover it up. What if it was the other way round? Mr. McCann convinced his wife to cover it up? You say you think “Gerry knows more than what he is letting on”.

You then say that you believe Madeleine was abducted and that one or more of the Tapas 7 is involved. So do you think that one of the Tapas 7 friends abducted Madeleine without the knowledge of Mr. & Mrs. McCann, (or one or the other of them?) Or do you think they (or one or the other) was complicit?

As for “taking the risk”. Whichever scenario you go for it seems there is an inherent risk which has been taken by all concerned. If it was Mr. or Mrs. McCann who did the deed, then the risk is obvious but they believed themselves to be well protected by their ‘important’ friends. If one or more of the Tapas 7 were involved, then the risk again is obvious, especially as their stories don’t tally and they’re considering changing them. And then there’s the risk that the McCanns might find out that one or some of their ‘friends’ were, in fact, enemies.

It would be helpful if you could be a little more explicit and then we could debate your theory more fully.

‘When’ she is found you won’t be rejoicing with the majority of the world instead you’ll be carrying on your little hate campaign in wanting Madeleine’s parents charged with neglect.

Before I get attacked by you staunch anti-McCann’s I’d just like to clarify I AM NOT in any shape or form a pro-McCann……I don’t give two hoots about K&G but I won’t condemn them yet, I for one believe in innocent until proven guilty and if there was any evidence they would be sitting in a cell by now….it has after all been a 6 month investigation.

I don’t particularly like them as people (going by how they’re portrayed in the media) and their parenting skills have a lot to be desired. There’s no way on earth I would leave such young children alone….I don’t even leave my children unattended in the car for just a few minutes.

If I was going on my gut feeling and if you allow me to express my opinion without shooting me down, this is how I see it…..

I can’t comprehend that if Kate had accidentally killed her daughter she would be capable of convincing Gerry and their friends to cover it up…..there’s no way on earth I would help a family member let alone a friend cover up and hide a 4yr olds body.
Perverting the course of justice is a serious matter and is dealt with just as seriously as manslaughter resulting in a custodial sentence so why take the risk ?????

I believe that Madeleine WAS abducted but by whom and for what reasons I’m not completely sure but I’ve got a feeling Gerry knows more than what he’s letting on. I also think that one or more of the Tapas 7 are involved……child trafficking, paedophilia or revenge are just some of the thoughts spinning round in my head !

I don’t believe any of these ’so-called sightings’ are for real and believe that the witnesses are being paid to try and lead the PJ/M3 on a merry goose chase……again by whom I don’t know.

I used to work for the Police and know that any details regarding investigations are kept confidential and wouldn’t be leaked to any Tom, Dick or Harry as it could compromise the case! There will be more going on behind the scenes than what we realise…….hence, I don’t believe anything that is printed in the Press !

And lastly, I think (and hope) Madeleine WILL be returned. Let’s hope that day is soon….x

A sensible voice! Unfortunately, on this forum if you even suggest anything less than total hatred for the McCanns there are certain posters who will name you as Team McCann. These posters are like the people who, in their ignorance, attacked a paediatrician rather than a paedophile. The image that springs to mind is that of the baying crowd from the old horror films . .pitchforks and flaming torches held aloft.

Chenier,

Both Andrew and myself are correct. You can insure a child’s life in England and Wales (and Scotland and Northern Ireland) and for more than burial costs too. If in doubt, please contact the Prudential who sold my wife and I a policy some years ago, and that type of policy is still available.

Andrew,

Hello, mate. You went to the same site as I did - spooky! Maybe we’ll have to watch our posting times again!!!!

Yes, I remember something of that kind. Can’t remember the exact words, but it sounded as if something was supposed to happen but not what had actually happened.

268 Peter O Says:

Edit…

I hate to break this to you, Peter O, but the purpose of child neglect charges has NOTHING TO DO with “discovering Madeleine’s fate.”

Edit…

++++++++++++++++++++

And that extract from your ludicrous outpourings today probably best illustrates why many people who pass by this forum wonder if anybody actually cares about Madeleine!

In case it’s escaped your attention:

• You are merely expressing opinion, like everyone else in here.

• You are not in possession of the evidence in this case, like everyone else in here.

• You are regurgitating media speculation, like everyone else in here.

• None of us in here are the ‘official’ investigating authority.

My opinion, which I do not have to justify to you or anyone else in here, is:

• The McCann’s know a lot more about the events leading up to Madeleine’s disappearance than has currently come to light.

• I do not have a clue what that involvement may be.

• There is an ongoing criminal investigation.

• There is currently no reason to assume that criminal investigation will not reach a ‘successful’ conclusion.

• The criminal investigation is not best served by a bunch of amateurs raising a spurious neglect case,

That said. If people persist in pressing that case, I believe/it is my opinion:

• That if the case ever came to court prior to the ‘successful’ conclusion of the Portuguese investigation that there is a reasonably chance it would not succeed.

• Team McCann would vigorously defend their alleged time line

• So, in my opinion, there is a reasonable chance that the neglect case against the McCann’s would be unproven AND they will have successfully defended their versions of events.

• Such an outcome would quite possibly swing public opinion in favour of the McCann’s.

As I noted in my previous post, your claims that I am a fully paid up member of Team McCann are amusing and show an appalling weakness in your own position. Why is it so difficult for people like yourself to accept that there are other free thinking individuals out there who hold a different opinion to you?

I could just as easily make a spurious case that you in fact are the fully paid up member of Team McCann and that your ‘brief’ is to encourage the suggested neglect case precisely because your legal team have advised that you have a very strong chance of winning such a case. I don’t believe that for a moment. It would be a completely facile argument because I couldn’t prove it, so why would I bother making the claim?

Could you please go do your haunting elsewhere? Shoo! Do I have to go get the exorcist to make you leave? We love our Will and his little cat family. so scat now! We are busy donig things here. There you go. That’s a good little…Chris….hmmmm. Oh, of course.

All real Anorakers, please carry on!

I think most people understand that there are differences. The questions they are asking indicate their suspicion that the McCanns will seek to benefit financially from Madeleine’s death/disappearance, and indeed, that is exactly what has happened, hasn’t it?

As for insurance, Anorakers well understand that the McCanns are smart and clever…but so are lots of other people. Killers cannot help but leave clues behind wherever they go for those who take the time to look at them in different ways, and luck always runs out.

These are just the laws of the universe.

People are smart, they are looking to see how the McCanns may have benefited from Madeleine being “gone.” There’s the possibility of insurance, but there’s also the possibility of the McCanns’ published, reiterated threats to sue virtually everyone on the planet.

And what are lawsuits about?

Money.

Which is what the McCanns seem to need, since they can’t pay their mortgage, Kate can’t or won’t hold a job, and they live a pricey lifestyle.

Will the McCanns reach out to the deep pockets of Mark Warner resorts?

If a UK child life insurance policy won’t do the MONEY trick, is there some other kind of policy they could have purchased, perhaps in another country, that would give them a windfall?

These are the questions we are asking here. And each one is a very good question.

Miss Marple asks: “What kind of friends are the parents, who seem to demand such a lot of their friends?”

You know the answer already–they are selfish, self-absorbed, and self-serving people who aren’t friends with anyone. And they are also very desperate people.

281 Peter O Says:
Edit….

You’re a smart fellow, Peter O, but you have discredited yourself. You are nothing but a pro-McCann voice advocating the non-enforcement of child neglect laws.

Shame on you, Peter O…
++++++++++++++++

Er, the fact that you think I’m pro-McCann probably summarises the value of that entire post.

I’ve lost track of the number of pro and anti-MCann’s who have either ‘outed’ or abused me as playing for the other side. I’m rather proud of the fact that it keeps happening. I hope it shows that there is potentially far more balance to my posts than many who are so wedded to their narrow beliefs or urge for mob justice.

Your “argument” is too abstract. Evidence that is presented to support a lesser charge is still available as evidence when prosecutors decide to charge the person with a more serious crime. Your “argument” is merely utter speculation that the police do not want to make public certain evidence. Though this may be true, it’s doubtful, because the main body of evidence regarding child neglect is already public.

“Re politics. You’re entitled to your opinion, but far too much ‘opinion’ in here borders on a ‘Witch Hunt’ mentality. People appear only too happy for the McCann’s to be charged with just about anything and tend to forget that Madeleine is the ‘central’ victim in this case.”

This is a very nice Team McCann argument. Guess what, the “central victim” in this case was a victim of child neglect. Nothing to do with a “witch hunt”.

“A successful neglect charge would not prove guilt in the far more serious charges that many suspect the McCann’s ought to be charged with.”

So what?

“Worse, if the case (successful or not) validated the McCann’s timeline – that the children were checked at the times they allege – it would be pretty damn difficult for a later case to then disagree with that timeline.”

Nonsense. What do you mean “validate”? — there really is no evidence that the children were checked, but if some evidence were presented, and this was regarded as conclusive, so what? Why would anyone want to disagree with a “conclusive” timeline? To the contrary, everyone would be happy that a conclusive timelilne was finally established.

“If pursued for child neglect charges the McCann PR machine would a) Defend the charges vigorously and, more importantly, b) Spin it to show that there is no evidence to support any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and therefore the authorities are just trying to stick any charges they possibly can on them. i.e. a ‘Witch Hunt’”

Frankly, who gives a shite how Team McCann would spin it? They will also spin the fact that the McCanns were not prosecuted for child neglect. So?

“A prosecution for child neglect (or whatever the appropriate legal term is) is not guaranteed to be successful in any case, taking into account the legal and PR muscle that the McCann’s appear to have at their disposal.”

Now, your argument is that we should be afraid of Team McCann’s legal and PR “muscle”?

“Ergo, if such charges failed, the PR machine would spin it such that the case proved that they were innocent of **ALL** charges.”

Who cares how the PR machine spins it? Frankly, your argument only makes sense as McCann PR spin! The McCanns could be cleared of all child neglect charges (for example, it turned out they were lying about the children being alone), and STILL be guilty of any number of other crimes.

“So, whatever the outcome of a ‘neglect’ charge, I have serious doubts that it would do much to move us closer to discovering Madeleine’s fate.”

I hate to break this to you, Peter O, but the purpose of child neglect charges has NOTHING TO DO with “discovering Madeleine’s fate.”

I do appreciate your revealing yourself as pro-McCann. You are clearly one of the guys assigned to appear on sites dominated by anti-McCann sentiments. Your strategy is to appear sympathetic with these views, while looking for opportunities to insert the TEAM MCCANN view.

You are good, Peter O, but not that good…

In that case, I suggest you actually do the research and see what the specific sentence-ranges are. You are ignorant to suppose that a child neglect conviction will definitely result in a lesser sentence than an accidental homicide conviction.

And why do you use the phrase “trumped up neglect charge? ” Is this your way of identifying yourself as a TEAM MCCANN player? LOL. Very well, Peter, but I think you know that child neglect can result in several years imprisonment.

“As others have noted in here on numerous occasions, it’s a sad fact of life that far more serious crimes are committed against children and go unpunished.”

Yes, other pro-McConn , pro-child-neglect posters have argued that the McCanns should be left alone because other people have gotten away with even more serious crimes. What a terrific argument.

You’re a smart fellow, Peter O, but you have discredited yourself. You are nothing but a pro-McCann voice advocating the non-enforcement of child neglect laws.

Shame on you, Peter O…

Your “argument” is too abstract. Evidence that is presented to support a lesser charge is still available as evidence when prosecutors decide to charge the person with a more serious crime. Your “argument” is merely utter speculation that the police do not want to make public certain evidence. Though this may be true, it’s doubtful, because the main body of evidence regarding child neglect is already public.

“Re politics. You’re entitled to your opinion, but far too much ‘opinion’ in here borders on a ‘Witch Hunt’ mentality. People appear only too happy for the McCann’s to be charged with just about anything and tend to forget that Madeleine is the ‘central’ victim in this case.”

This is a very nice Team McCann argument. Guess what, the “central victim” in this case was a victim of child neglect. Nothing to do with a “witch hunt”.

“A successful neglect charge would not prove guilt in the far more serious charges that many suspect the McCann’s ought to be charged with.”

So what?

“Worse, if the case (successful or not) validated the McCann’s timeline – that the children were checked at the times they allege – it would be pretty damn difficult for a later case to then disagree with that timeline.”

Nonsense. What do you mean “validate”? — there really is no evidence that the children were checked, but if some evidence were presented, and this was regarded as conclusive, so what? Why would anyone want to disagree with a “conclusive” timeline? To the contrary, everyone would be happy that a conclusive timelilne was finally established.

“If pursued for child neglect charges the McCann PR machine would a) Defend the charges vigorously and, more importantly, b) Spin it to show that there is no evidence to support any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and therefore the authorities are just trying to stick any charges they possibly can on them. i.e. a ‘Witch Hunt’”

Frankly, who gives a shite how Team McCann would spin it? They will also spin the fact that the McCanns were not prosecuted for child neglect. So?

“A prosecution for child neglect (or whatever the appropriate legal term is) is not guaranteed to be successful in any case, taking into account the legal and PR muscle that the McCann’s appear to have at their disposal.”

Now, your argument is that we should be afraid of Team McCann’s legal and PR “muscle”?

“Ergo, if such charges failed, the PR machine would spin it such that the case proved that they were innocent of **ALL** charges.”

Who cares how the PR machine spins it? Frankly, your argument only makes sense as McCann PR spin! The McCanns could be cleared of all child neglect charges (for example, it turned out they were lying about the children being alone), and STILL be guilty of any number of other crimes.

“So, whatever the outcome of a ‘neglect’ charge, I have serious doubts that it would do much to move us closer to discovering Madeleine’s fate.”

I hate to break this to you, Peter O, but the purpose of child neglect charges has NOTHING TO DO with “discovering Madeleine’s fate.”

I do appreciate your revealing yourself as pro-McCann. You are clearly one of the guys assigned to appear on sites dominated by anti-McCann sentiments. Your strategy is to appear sympathetic with these views, while looking for opportunities to insert the TEAM MCCANN view.

You are good, Peter O, but not that good…. LOL…

Your ruminations on this subject are quite interesting to me. For “British” one might substitute “western” — or just “modern”…

“(1) Child fascism and infantalisation: by this I mean the hypocritical elevation of children to an inviolate state wherein they cannot be challenged in any way. But they can be used as an unassailable shield. A McCannic example of this is: “We’re doing this (whatever it is) for the twins”; “The Fund is for Madeleine” (we know otherwise); the carrying, by an adult (Mrs. McCann) of Cuddlecat which provides a totemic substitute for a child.”

Exactly! And of course the irony is that this case is really about the powerlessness of children. The McCanns represent a force that is saying children have no rights whatsoever, and that it is alright to leave toddlers alone, subject them to danger, abuse, etc. This indeed is a frightening “hypocritical elevation”. They appear to put Madeleine on a pedestal but in reality thought nothing of subjecting her to all manner of torment.

And, Judith, to put it bluntly, this is the psychology of pedophilia. Is that coincidental?

“(2) Religion: …to adopt an orthodox religion… is to be able, again, to hide behind an unassailable shield…. It is very difficult for the average person to reconcile someone religious with someone evil…”

With the McCanns, you have the aspect of them using Catholicism as a “shield” , as you put it, against the masses. But you also have them using it as a “shield” against the wrath of God. Look very closely at the McCann statements and you will notice that they constantly aim to put a kernel of truth inside of what is largely a lie. When we see this as a defense against the masses, we call it “spin”, but regarded as a communication with God, it is instead a kind of secret code, not meant for other people to understand. I pointed out one such example recently, in Gerry’s blog, when he states that they ‘have done everything to bring her back’ — this being a “true” reference to their failed effort at resuscitation, while being a “lie” if seen as meaning that they have tried to literally “find Madeleine”.

McCann statements are replete with this dual meaning — “earthly” meaning vs. “heavenly” meaning. I have seen others point out isolated instances (such as Kate’s odd “she knows we love her” in the interview), but no one seems to have noted that their entire “story” is fraught with such meaning.

Someone will put it together before long, I am sure, and write a book about it. Actually, the Portuguese police noticed this tendency early on, and that is why they questioned Kate about a particular Bible page that she crumpled up (due to emotion).

To sum this up very crudely, the McCanns found a way to convince themselves that , on one level, they are telling the truth (to God) and God will forgive them. On another level, they are deliberately lying to people, but they can justify that with a myriad of excuses — they have a life to live, twins to feed, etc etc.

“(3) Celebrity: … It is no wonder that narcissistic personalities like Mr. McCann, in particular, have leaped to grab this one. It is not exactly unassailable like children and religion, but it somehow dazzles people… and makes them somehow unable to equate the celebs obvious shortcomings and wrongdoings with anything other than a good or bad ‘performance’…”

On this aspect I had not thought deeply, but I think you are spot on.

There is something peculiar here about the way the narcissism intersects “religion” (true religiousness being a selflessness). Meanwhile, children are regarded as an object for the use of the narcissist –a child NOTregarded as another self that needs nurturing for its own sake.

The McCanns are not just poor at parenting… there is something fudamentally wrong with them. This is why they cannot even comprehend why people would despise them for the way they treated their children. And they seem to believe that they can “use” religion for their purposes just as they can “use” children for their purposes.

Is this too abstract? Well, let me just ask the reader if they would be willing to put their toddler in the care of Kate or Gerry — heck, even the McCann family is has said that they did not like to leave Kate alone with the children!

“(4) The pursuit of money…”

Thus, the “FUND” was born. The PR team was created. The McCanns likely reasoned… “well, Madeleine is dead, but it will serve no purpose to tell the truth… we can do a greater good by pretending it is an abduction… we will raise money… engage in politics… become famous… and in the end we will do a greater good than we could possibly do sitting in a jail…”

Human beings can convince themselves of anything! The McCanns , I am sure, really believe that by lying to the police and the public, they are saving themselves — but are saving themselves for the greater good.

Here is where I disagree with the McCanns. I think the greatest good they can do is to serve a maximum jail sentence (no parole I hope). If the McCanns get away with their crimes, children of the future will suffer for it. I despise the McCanns and anyone that supports them.