The Madeleine McCann Disappearance

[Mikefule]

When I was at primary school (aged under 11) I was left to look after a toddler and a baby while my parents went to the pub. I had no way of contacting them, and cannot recall any advice, instructions, or procedures being in place if anything happened.

We have an irrational way of assessing risk. If something becomes normal, it is perceived as risk free. If other people do it, it must be normal.

However, now I have a 3 year old grandson, his safety is top priority.

 

[escargot]

Just goes to show that one person's 'a bit thoughtless' is another person's 'outstandingly rude, completely beyond the pale.'

Everyone brought up their kids differently. I never left mine because I had nobody to leave them with, couldn't afford holidays, and basically spent fourteen years sitting at home until the oldest was old enough to be left in charge of the others. But I can't say I never left them for ten minutes in the house so I could pop to the post box and post a letter. They were in the house a three minute walk away, which was never out of my sight, but anything could have happened in those few minutes. But then, anything could have happened to the kids when they were upstairs whilst I was downstairs - they were those sorts of children.

You weren't going out socialising while they were in bed though. That's the difference.

I've mentioned before that it was not just them and their group who left their kids unattended at that location, but it was common practice for most parents to do this at that time. My friend used to do it as did his group. Stupidity I thought.

I bet that stopped tout suite.

 

[escargot]

When I was at primary school (aged under 11) I was left to look after a toddler and a baby while my parents went to the pub. I had no way of contacting them, and cannot recall any advice, instructions, or procedures being in place if anything happened.

That was illegal even then.

We have an irrational way of assessing risk. If something becomes normal, it is perceived as risk free. If other people do it, it must be normal.

However, now I have a 3 year old grandson, his safety is top priority.

Having your own offspring puts it all into perspective. Grandchildren too.

 

[Spookdaddy]

That was illegal even then...

There's actually no minimum age requirement for a babysitter in English law. As is often the case in such areas, common sense is acknowledged as a factor in the matter, and most secondary advice points out that if your babysitter is under sixteen then you as a parent are legally responsible for anything that might happen to them.

As I already stated on this thread a couple of years back (this is not in regard to babysitting, but in regard to leaving children unattended):

...Contrary to the comments which infer otherwise, there is no minimum age at which a child can be left on their own in English law, and it is not – in and of itself – a crime to do such a thing. As is not uncommon with such legislation, it allows for some pragmatism on the issue - and is based on circumstance, rather than the specific factor of age. It is probably inevitable that, not being as clear cut as is often claimed, the law is easy to misunderstand or misrepresent (a situation probably not helped by the leeway allowed in acknowledging individual judgement as a valid tool)...

...In regard to not leaving ‘a child alone if it places them at risk’: It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario in which an unattended child in any circumstances – even those which strictly apply the above advice – is entirely free from risk, and therefore the issue is really one of degree: it’s not really about whether a parent takes a risk, but whether they take an unreasonable risk.

And, to emphasise – as far as the law is concerned, being ‘alone’ is not the primary issue. I suspect – knowing a little about the relationship between law and language – that this is at least partly because it is difficult to define in a general sense at precisely what point a child becomes ‘alone’, and that it is more straightforward to make any judgement on the external risks involved than the state itself. (I’m talking about the law in general - not the particulars of the McCann case.)...

(Post #1858).

 

[escargot]

There's actually no minimum age requirement for a babysitter in English law. As is often the case in such areas, common sense is acknowledged as a factor in the matter, and most secondary advice points out that if your babysitter is under sixteen then you as a parent are legally responsible for anything that might happen to them.

As I already stated on this thread a couple of years back (this is not in regard to babysitting, but in regard to leaving children unattended):

(Post #1858).

The authorities would take a dim view if the house burned down.

 

[Spookdaddy]

The authorities would take a dim view if the house burned down.

Well, yes. But I think this is one of those areas of the law where, although it accepts that pragmatism and common sense are legitimate factors in the decisions made by the individual - the individual also has to accept that if things go wrong, they're totally fucking screwed.

 

[escargot]

Well, yes. But I think this is one of those areas of the law where, although it accepts that pragmatism and common sense are legitimate factors in the decisions made by the individual - the individual also has to accept that if things go wrong, they're totally fucking screwed.

Yup, our old friend the calculated risk. OK when dithering over which nag to put a fiver on. Not such a good idea when deciding whether to leave the kids alone while you're at the pub.

Of course, the kids are going to survive more often than the horse romps home. Win some, lose some.

 

[Recycled1]

When my son was 5 years old, I Ieft him at my mother's house while I had a weekend away.
I was quite shocked to learn she had left him in the house alone while she nipped up the road to the corner shop -about 5 minutes away, if that.
I don't think it crossed her mind to feel guilty about it -she probably did exactly the same when I was 5!

But I'd learnt in adult life that you didn't leave chilldren alone, even sensible, intelligent children.
I suppose standards have changed over the generations.

 

[Ghost In The Machine]

When my son was 5 years old, I Ieft him at my mother's house while I had a weekend away.
I was quite shocked to learn she had left him in the house alone while she nipped up the road to the corner shop -about 5 minutes away, if that.
I don't think it crossed her mind to feel guilty about it -she probably did exactly the same when I was 5!

But I'd learnt in adult life that you didn't leave chilldren alone, even sensible, intelligent children.
I suppose standards have changed over the generations.

Changes, doesn't it. My 1960s' childhood my parents were intentionally hands off - we'd roam for miles, ride bikes on the Great north Rd when we were five, climb trees when our parents were well out of sight, jump off 15 foot walls... But by the time I was a parent, things were different. (I had a hole in the heart and my parents decided to let me be active, rather than end up in a wheelchair as many kids with my defect did, in those days). Like most kids of my generation, we played out til it was dark. For us "playing out" might mean being 2 miles away in the woods, or right the other end of the village, or playing by a pond (when I couldn't swim) or anything. We were essentially feral!

ETA: That said, my mum would never have let me out of her sight when I was a baby/toddler of those children's ages.

What always puzzled me about this particular thing was that they were GPs so presumably when junior housemen or students, had worked in A & E. They'd know better than anyone the dangers unattended kids could get into. Added to that, one of the other kids of the tapas bar party, had had/was having a stomach bug - and anyone with young kids knows that those things rip through the entire group if you have a herd of kids. Who'd leave a kid who might start throwing up in the night, alone? Let alone a dr?

Someone in a neighbouring flat allegedly said they'd heard Madeleine crying when left alone another (the previous?) night, for an hour, and almost rang the police. So the child wasn't happy about being left alone there. Kids sometimes don't sleep well in strange places so even if she was asleep before they left, it wasn't a kind, or the sensible, thing to do. Because they'll have known, from the previous night, that she might wake up to find herself alone, and be afraid. (I feel sorry for the woman who has had to live with the guilt that she didn't call the police, that night, too as that might have averted what happened if the coppers had shown up the night before?)

 

[catseye]

Well, yes. But I think this is one of those areas of the law where, although it accepts that pragmatism and common sense are legitimate factors in the decisions made by the individual - the individual also has to accept that if things go wrong, they're totally fucking screwed.

Plus, of course, an 11 year old could well be at secondary school, and secondary school children are deemed old enough to be left alone (the school can send them home even if there is no adult at home to receive them, as long as they can get into the house).

 

[Earthly oddity]

Changes, doesn't it. My 1960s' childhood my parents were intentionally hands off - we'd roam for miles, ride bikes on the Great north Rd when we were five, climb trees when our parents were well out of sight, jump off 15 foot walls... But by the time I was a parent, things were different. (I had a hole in the heart and my parents decided to let me be active, rather than end up in a wheelchair as many kids with my defect did, in those days). Like most kids of my generation, we played out til it was dark. For us "playing out" might mean being 2 miles away in the woods, or right the other end of the village, or playing by a pond (when I couldn't swim) or anything. We were essentially feral!

ETA: That said, my mum would never have let me out of her sight when I was a baby/toddler of those children's ages.

What always puzzled me about this particular thing was that they were GPs so presumably when junior housemen or students, had worked in A & E. They'd know better than anyone the dangers unattended kids could get into. Added to that, one of the other kids of the tapas bar party, had had/was having a stomach bug - and anyone with young kids knows that those things rip through the entire group if you have a herd of kids. Who'd leave a kid who might start throwing up in the night, alone? Let alone a dr?

Someone in a neighbouring flat allegedly said they'd heard Madeleine crying when left alone another (the previous?) night, for an hour, and almost rang the police. So the child wasn't happy about being left alone there. Kids sometimes don't sleep well in strange places so even if she was asleep before they left, it wasn't a kind, or the sensible, thing to do. Because they'll have known, from the previous night, that she might wake up to find herself alone, and be afraid. (I feel sorry for the woman who has had to live with the guilt that she didn't call the police, that night, too as that might have averted what happened if the coppers had shown up the night before?)

I think you have summarised perfectly why some have demonised Madeline's parents. They should have known better, working in the medical sector, what accidents may so easily happen when children are alone - let alone any "stranger danger" or possible accident. It's been suggested they drugged the children - being medical staff they should have been aware of the doses given etc. Just leaving babies/toddlers unattended and assuming they will stay asleep in bed is not what you expect of medically trained people of that era.....So more sinister scenarios also come to mind for people trying to understand all the possibilities.

This following bit is just my opinion:
We may never ever know the truth of what happened now. And if the parents are totally innocent of anything other than neglect, they may never know. They should feel some level of guilt because they knowingly took a risk. That is their "punishment" - lifelong loss/feelings of regret/guilt.

With no additional evidence there is no way of solving the mystery of what actually happened.

Anyone who saw/heard anything before Madeline disappeared and considered calling the police and reporting the child being left alone would naturally wonder if it could have prevented what happened.

 

[escargot]

Also, and I've made this point before: young children shouldn't be left unsupervised, either alone or perhaps especially with babies and toddlers.

Older Sister or Brother might decide to feed the baby some nice nuts or make them up a bottle like Mummy does. They might decide to run Baby a hot bath. Anything could happen.

A child of Madeleine's age might have done any of that, or boiled the kettle and tipped it over themselves, or played with the matches or the sharp kitchen knives or tried Mummy's special sweeties or just gone for a walk...

All parents know that small kids can wake up unexpectedly in the night. If we're lucky they climb into bed with us and disturb our sleep. If we're not, well.

 

[catseye]

Also, and I've made this point before: young children shouldn't be left unsupervised, either alone or perhaps especially with babies and toddlers.

Older Sister or Brother might decide to feed the baby some nice nuts or make them up a bottle like Mummy does. They might decide to run Baby a hot bath. Anything could happen.

A child of Madeleine's age might have done any of that, or boiled the kettle and tipped it over themselves, or played with the matches or the sharp kitchen knives or tried Mummy's special sweeties or just gone for a walk...

All parents know that small kids can wake up unexpectedly in the night. If we're lucky they climb into bed with us and disturb our sleep. If we're not, well.

Yes, this is what puzzles me about the whole thing. Madeleine was known for waking up (I've said before that I identify very strongly here, as my eldest daughter was a non-sleeper of almost Olympic proportions and would wake up and wander out of the house in the middle of the night looking for wildlife). If you know you have a child who's prone to waking - why would you leave them unattended in an unlocked room? I'd guess the McCanns just thought it would 'probably be all right', but what was their contingency plan?

 

[Earthly oddity]

Yes, this is what puzzles me about the whole thing. Madeleine was known for waking up (I've said before that I identify very strongly here, as my eldest daughter was a non-sleeper of almost Olympic proportions and would wake up and wander out of the house in the middle of the night looking for wildlife). If you know you have a child who's prone to waking - why would you leave them unattended in an unlocked room? I'd guess the McCanns just thought it would 'probably be all right', but what was their contingency plan?

Yes, And this is in reply to Escargot too. This is what I have the most trouble with understanding - why they left their children alone.....I just end up going in a big circle back to that huge mistake/choice of theirs. Whatever happened, that is the unchangeable beginning of it all....

 

[ramonmercado]

Yes, this is what puzzles me about the whole thing. Madeleine was known for waking up (I've said before that I identify very strongly here, as my eldest daughter was a non-sleeper of almost Olympic proportions and would wake up and wander out of the house in the middle of the night looking for wildlife). If you know you have a child who's prone to waking - why would you leave them unattended in an unlocked room? I'd guess the McCanns just thought it would 'probably be all right', but what was their contingency plan?

Maybe they gave her sleeping tablets.

 

[catseye]

Maybe they gave her sleeping tablets.

Possibly. But ANY of the children could have woken and wandered.

 

[ramonmercado]

Possibly. But ANY of the children could have woken and wandered.

Maybe they misjudged the dose leading to Madeline wandering in a stupor.

 

[catseye]

Ah, it's all conjectural. Could haves and should haves. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, particularly in parenting. I doubt we'll ever really know what happened before Madeleine went missing, and it's probably not relevant anyway. I don't believe that her parents killed her and covered up her death. so it still comes down to what the hell happened to her and was anyone responsible or was it a tragic accident?

 

[escargot]

why they left their children alone.....I just end up going in a big circle back to that huge mistake/choice of theirs.

Yup, that was such a massive mistake. It wasn't a one-off though, as they and their friends did the same every night and had done on holidays for years. It's a wonder something serious hadn't already happened. If it had, maybe this time the parents would have been smarter.

Possibly. But ANY of the children could have woken and wandered.

Some people wonder if the kids were all doped up while the parents were socialising. Makes sense I s'pose, if you want to enjoy yourself without worrying about whether they're awake and missing you.

Have to say, on the few holidays the ex and I had with our lot our social life consisted of, well, sitting in a damp caravan watching TV and doing crosswords. Maybe reading a nice book. Hectic.

 

[ramonmercado]

Ah, it's all conjectural. Could haves and should haves. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, particularly in parenting. I doubt we'll ever really know what happened before Madeleine went missing, and it's probably not relevant anyway. I don't believe that her parents killed her and covered up her death. so it still comes down to what the hell happened to her and was anyone responsible or was it a tragic accident?

It could have been an accidental death due to sleeping tablet overdose and then a cover up by whoever.

 

[catseye]

Yup, that was such a massive mistake. It wasn't a one-off though, as they and their friends did the same every night and had done on holidays for years. It's a wonder something serious hadn't already happened. If it had, maybe this time the parents would have been smarter.


Some people wonder if the kids were all doped up while the parents were socialising. Makes sense I s'pose, if you want to enjoy yourself without worrying about whether they're awake and missing you.

Have to say, on the few holidays the ex and I had with our lot our social life consisted of, well, sitting in a damp caravan watching TV and doing crosswords. Maybe reading a nice book. Hectic.

I seem to remember staying in a B&B in Cornwall when I only had three, with my ex. We all went to bed at the same time! Had The Wanderer up on the top bunk so we would be woken if she got up and climbed down.

My only query about doping the children is that it wasn't JUST the McCanns - they were there with other families. If they'd been doping ALL the kids, that's an awful lot of drugs necessary - and the kids that had the stomach bug would have brought theirs back up again.

It could have been an accidental death due to sleeping tablet overdose and then a cover up by whoever.

I don't buy this. Doctors would know how to cover up a death without going to all the obfuscation of disappearing the body. Even an 'oops, we left some medication and the child managed to get into it thinking it was sweeties and took a load'.

 

[ramonmercado]

I don't buy this. Doctors would know how to cover up a death without going to all the obfuscation of disappearing the body. Even an 'oops, we left some medication and the child managed to get into it thinking it was sweeties and took a load'.

They were in a foreign jurisdiction though. Odd that they hired a PR adviser the next day.

 

[escargot]

My only query about doping the children is that it wasn't JUST the McCanns - they were there with other families. If they'd been doping ALL the kids, that's an awful lot of drugs necessary - and the kids that had the stomach bug would have brought theirs back up again.

Yup, it goes like this -

Good news: we're all going on holiday!
Bad news: the kids are coming.
Good news: If we drug them up we can go out every night!
Bad news:
Well, we know how that played out.

 

[Spookdaddy]

Genuine question:

Is there any proof that the McCann's actually drugged their children?

Or is it just another supposed fact (because it is repeated as fact in so many places) that has successfully negotiated the journey between allegation and illusory truth?

 

[escargot]

Genuine question:

Is there any proof that the McCann's actually drugged their children?

Or is it just another supposed fact (because it is repeated as fact in so many places) that has successfully negotiated the journey between allegation and illusory truth?

No, there is no proof or even the flimsiest evidence, just a theory put forward to explain why the parents expected the children to sleep soundly and not need supervision.

The McCanns were asked to provide hair samples from their other children to be tested for sedatives or whatever but they refused.

One theory goes that Madeleine was already dead and disposed of, possibly due to an overdoes, before the adults went out that night.
There is no evidence to support this either.

 

[MorningAngel]

The McCanns were asked to provide hair samples from their other children to be tested for sedatives or whatever but they refused.

It’s things like that that make people suspicious.

 

[escargot]

It’s things like that that make people suspicious.

Yup, you'd think 'If they're innocent there's no problem' but by the time, the McCanns were so used to suspicion and possibly efforts to downright fit them up, they were taking no chances.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...The McCanns were asked to provide hair samples from their other children to be tested for sedatives or whatever but they refused...

It’s things like that that make people suspicious.

And yet:

Tests show McCanns 'did not sedate Madeleine siblings'

Tests on Kate and Gerry McCann's other two children support their insistence that they never sedated their missing daughter Madeleine, it was reported today.

Analysis of hair samples from their two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie found no evidence of sedatives, according to London's Evening Standard....etc

Source

How does the one follow the other?

Let me put it another way:

One does not follow the other.

Another illusory truth - or something else I'm missing? Was the Independent's report a fabrication?

Again - it's another genuine question. It's possible the McCanns refused to submit samples for an earlier test - but I can't find any source that suggests this.

Edit: It appears (numbers vary depending on source) that at least 30 hair samples were taken from the apartment, with well over 400 taken in all. It seems logical that if you were looking for evidence of sedative use then you'd look for it here, because surely all of those hairs found in the apartment would have gone through a test process. (It's reported that 444 hairs were tested in all; it would beggar belief if all those taken from the actual apartment were not tested, and it would be equally unbelievable if none of those hairs were from the children). Source.

 

[ramonmercado]

Yup, you'd think 'If they're innocent there's no problem' but by the time, the McCanns were so used to suspicion and possibly efforts to downright fit them up, they were taking no chances.

So suspicious that they immediately spent money on a PR adviser rather than on trying to find Madeleine.

 

[Spookdaddy]

So suspicious that they immediately spent money on a PR adviser rather than on trying to find Madeleine.

To be honest, if the constant repetition of the misunderstood, the downright erroneous, and the provably false was going to be the norm from now on, that would be the first thing I'd do if I was arrested (and had the cash).

I really do not intend to be argumentative for the sake of it here. It just honestly really concerns me that when you bypass the documentaries, the books, the YouTube videos, the innuendo, the moral indignation, and dig right back through the sources to as close as you can to the events, how broad the disjunct can be with what is now reported as unquestioned fact.

I used the term 'illusory truth' before – and a case like this seems to me to perfectly illustrate how, when it comes to detail, repetition can become its own source material. And how many of the details have to be wrong before our idea of the whole is irrevocably fractured?

I honestly do not have a dog in the fight; for all I know the McCann’s are guilty of something - possibly the worst something imaginable. They might have boiled their daughter in a pot with bacon and new potatoes. But for evidence I’d need a bit more than they once bought a tin of potatoes, they own a saucepan, and they’re a bit fucking odd. (Oh, and that dogs trained to sniff out bodies by sniffing out pork smelled something that smelled like pork.)