[Toy Soldier]

Know what I do find sort of telling? No one has any problem whatsoever with speculation surrounding the Stephen Avery "Making a Murderer" stuff, documentaries about it, countless theories, it's all sort of accepted as being fine to have opinions and theories...

...but try to suggest an alternate theory in the Maddie case, or suggest that any of the surrounding events aren't whiter-than-white and above board and could have happened to anyone and oh it's fine to all leave your kids alone, at night, in unlocked apartments, in a foreign country... and you get shot down from all angles. Because Middle Class British Folks! How dare you suggest they are anything other than exemplary parents. You must simply believe the also entirely assumed / guesswork narrative that Maddie was abducted. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that she was abducted by a paedophile. The evidence is that she was left alone in a room, and that she silently disappeared from that room while her siblings were left asleep and unharmed. That's it. That's the whole story, as far as 100% verified evidence goes.

But it's fine to theorise that she was abducted by MI5 trained stealth Gypsy paedophiles... just don't dare theorise that anyone else had anything to do with it

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Know what I do find sort of telling? No one has any problem whatsoever with speculation surrounding the Stephen Avery "Making a Murderer" stuff, documentaries about it, countless theories, it's all sort of accepted as being fine to have opinions and theories...

...but try to suggest an alternate theory in the Maddie case, or suggest that any of the surrounding events aren't whiter-than-white and above board and could have happened to anyone and oh it's fine to all leave your kids alone, at night, in unlocked apartments, in a foreign country... and you get shot down from all angles. Because Middle Class British Folks! How dare you suggest they are anything other than exemplary parents. You must simply believe the also entirely assumed / guesswork narrative that Maddie was abducted. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that she was abducted by a paedophile. The evidence is that she was left alone in a room, and that she silently disappeared from that room while her siblings were left asleep and unharmed. That's it. That's the whole story, as far as 100% verified evidence goes.

But it's fine to theorise that she was abducted by MI5 trained stealth Gypsy paedophiles... just don't dare theorise that anyone else had anything to do with it

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Know what I do find sort of telling? No one has any problem whatsoever with speculation surrounding the Stephen Avery "Making a Murderer" stuff, documentaries about it, countless theories, it's all sort of accepted as being fine to have opinions and theories...

...but try to suggest an alternate theory in the Maddie case, or suggest that any of the surrounding events aren't whiter-than-white and above board and could have happened to anyone and oh it's fine to all leave your kids alone, at night, in unlocked apartments, in a foreign country... and you get shot down from all angles. Because Middle Class British Folks! How dare you suggest they are anything other than exemplary parents. You must simply believe the also entirely assumed / guesswork narrative that Maddie was abducted. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that she was abducted by a paedophile. The evidence is that she was left alone in a room, and that she silently disappeared from that room while her siblings were left asleep and unharmed. That's it. That's the whole story, as far as 100% verified evidence goes.

But it's fine to theorise that she was abducted by MI5 trained stealth Gypsy paedophiles... just don't dare theorise that anyone else had anything to do with it

I find it incredible that leaving babies on their own in strange surroundings is accepted as something alot of parents do when this simply isn't the case parents I have encountered have baby monitors IN THEIR HOMES fgs

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I find it incredible that leaving babies on their own in strange surroundings is accepted as something alot of parents do when this simply isn't the case parents I have encountered have baby monitors IN THEIR HOMES fgs

I know :/ My youngest used to regularly wake up in the night up until he was 8/9ish, he would have totally freaked out if he woke up in the dark with no adult there, just that reason alone would have made me not leave him alone at home or anywhere else

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I find it incredible that leaving babies on their own in strange surroundings is accepted as something alot of parents do when this simply isn't the case parents I have encountered have baby monitors IN THEIR HOMES fgs

I ran a parenting forum for 3 and a half years, nothing surprises me any more. Like you, I assumed that parents leaving their kids in such risky circumstances must be rare - until a thread came up about something called "monitor minding"... which is, basically, giving a baby monitor to a neighbour within monitor range (sometimes next door, but some mentioned several doors down / opposite sides of the street), putting the kids to bed and then going out leaving them alone in the house . People are doing this with babies just a few months old! And seem to think nothing of it.

Another one that came up, was a news story about parents doping up their kids with various meds for flights... the thread started out with people being incredulous / couln't believe anyone would do it / how risky it is to give kids adult meds at any time let alone at 60,000 feet with no access to medical help... and then... all hell broke loose because - yep, you guessed it - a few of our members had done it and thought it was fine and were "horribly offended" that it was being suggested that they were being risky. One of them was giving her 4 year old "drowsy" antihistamines EVERY DAY for regular journies in the car... the mind boggles.

But yeah this stuff is much more common than I'd ever imagined.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Believe what you want to believe, Im past caring to be honest

It's not a case of me believing any particular theory, for all I know they might be guilty (although personally I think it's very unlikely). What I'm saying is that noone can be certain either way because there simply isn't the evidence. Just a bunch of stuff that looks kinda dodgy and I don't think that's enough to condemn someone as a child murderer.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Know what I do find sort of telling? No one has any problem whatsoever with speculation surrounding the Stephen Avery "Making a Murderer" stuff, documentaries about it, countless theories, it's all sort of accepted as being fine to have opinions and theories...

...but try to suggest an alternate theory in the Maddie case, or suggest that any of the surrounding events aren't whiter-than-white and above board and could have happened to anyone and oh it's fine to all leave your kids alone, at night, in unlocked apartments, in a foreign country... and you get shot down from all angles. Because Middle Class British Folks! How dare you suggest they are anything other than exemplary parents. You must simply believe the also entirely assumed / guesswork narrative that Maddie was abducted. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that she was abducted by a paedophile. The evidence is that she was left alone in a room, and that she silently disappeared from that room while her siblings were left asleep and unharmed. That's it. That's the whole story, as far as 100% verified evidence goes.

But it's fine to theorise that she was abducted by MI5 trained stealth Gypsy paedophiles... just don't dare theorise that anyone else had anything to do with it

There's nothing wrong with theorising if that's all it is, and if people are aware that their theories are simply that. It can become dangerous when people start to believe their theories and go on to perpetuate them as fact, when the result is someone being labeled a child killer.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I know :/ My youngest used to regularly wake up in the night up until he was 8/9ish, he would have totally freaked out if he woke up in the dark with no adult there, just that reason alone would have made me not leave him alone at home or anywhere else

We didn't even leave my first daughter with other people when she was young as she used to wake and look for us. Luckily, when she hit about 5, she started sleeping like a log. Too well if anything. No amount of noise wakes her (she used to be SUCH a light sleeper) and getting her OUT of bed for school is a military operation.

My younger daughter doesn't GAF who happens to be there if she wakes up (which she does, semi regularly). She just barrels back down the stairs and starts playing. Or just plays right there in the bedroom in the pitch dark .

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

We didn't even leave my first daughter with other people when she was young as she used to wake and look for us. Luckily, when she hit about 5, she started sleeping like a log. Too well if anything. No amount of noise wakes her (she used to be SUCH a light sleeper) and getting her OUT of bed for school is a military operation.

My younger daughter doesn't GAF who happens to be there if she wakes up (which she does, semi regularly). She just barrels back down the stairs and starts playing. Or just plays right there in the bedroom in the pitch dark .

and also, not only did they leave those babies alone like that, they did it after Maddie had told them that she and her younger brother had woken up the previous night and cried because they couldn't find their parents...... that is heartless to me

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I ran a parenting forum for 3 and a half years, nothing surprises me any more. Like you, I assumed that parents leaving their kids in such risky circumstances must be rare - until a thread came up about something called "monitor minding"... which is, basically, giving a baby monitor to a neighbour within monitor range (sometimes next door, but some mentioned several doors down / opposite sides of the street), putting the kids to bed and then going out leaving them alone in the house . People are doing this with babies just a few months old! And seem to think nothing of it.

Another one that came up, was a news story about parents doping up their kids with various meds for flights... the thread started out with people being incredulous / couln't believe anyone would do it / how risky it is to give kids adult meds at any time let alone at 60,000 feet with no access to medical help... and then... all hell broke loose because - yep, you guessed it - a few of our members had done it and thought it was fine and were "horribly offended" that it was being suggested that they were being risky. One of them was giving her 4 year old "drowsy" antihistamines EVERY DAY for regular journies in the car... the mind boggles.

But yeah this stuff is much more common than I'd ever imagined.

We did the baby monitor once when my eldest was about 14 months we were in a hotel with no baby sitting facilities, we did a test run from from the restaurant to see if the range was okay, sat down to dinner after 10 minutes of silence we got freaked out that the monitor wasn't working properly so went back to the room and got take out, we couldn't relax so it wasn't worth it. Even now when I leave my teens at home I worry the house will catch fire or one of them will trip and fall down the stairs

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Know what I do find sort of telling? No one has any problem whatsoever with speculation surrounding the Stephen Avery "Making a Murderer" stuff, documentaries about it, countless theories, it's all sort of accepted as being fine to have opinions and theories...

...but try to suggest an alternate theory in the Maddie case, or suggest that any of the surrounding events aren't whiter-than-white and above board and could have happened to anyone and oh it's fine to all leave your kids alone, at night, in unlocked apartments, in a foreign country... and you get shot down from all angles. Because Middle Class British Folks! How dare you suggest they are anything other than exemplary parents. You must simply believe the also entirely assumed / guesswork narrative that Maddie was abducted. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that she was abducted by a paedophile. The evidence is that she was left alone in a room, and that she silently disappeared from that room while her siblings were left asleep and unharmed. That's it. That's the whole story, as far as 100% verified evidence goes.

But it's fine to theorise that she was abducted by MI5 trained stealth Gypsy paedophiles... just don't dare theorise that anyone else had anything to do with it

..'sort of telling' of what, I wonder...the two things are not comparable at all...even in disregarding that 'Making a Murderer' was a documentary series, specifically outlining two serious crimes/one of which was a murder and with the sole intent to create speculation and intrigue..because the fist crime, that Stephen was found guilty of in a court of law, he was in fact innocent of...and he still professes innocence to the murder of Teresa, having experienced his 'guilt being manipulated once' by police and a judicial system...(I'm going to assume you meant me when you said that because of the few people involved in that thread, of which I was one of... and I'm not speculating any guilt with the MaCanns, other than their leaving the children alone that night...)...my personal theory was that Stephen killed her, which is the thoughts I gave in the thread, 'my theory' as it were ..Stephen Avery, the person that has been charged and convicted of her murder is the one who is also guilty of it, both in my personal thoughts and presently in the eyes of the law..but whatever speculations and theories anyone concluded from it all, it's what a specific series was aimed at doing/causing because if Stephen didn't kill her, then there is still a murderer out there and free....there was a body/remains of one, so there was a definite murder and a murderer, absolutely no question or doubt at all about that...there is no body here, so there is not necessarily any death, let alone a murder or someone responsible for that death, in the way that many of the public have speculated...what there is, is a disappearance of an unattended child and much obvious interest and speculation about her disappearance....


...very shabby indeed TS, as to what would be 'sort of telling'...or in drawing any comparison at all in the two things...

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Know what I do find sort of telling? No one has any problem whatsoever with speculation surrounding the Stephen Avery "Making a Murderer" stuff, documentaries about it, countless theories, it's all sort of accepted as being fine to have opinions and theories...

...but try to suggest an alternate theory in the Maddie case, or suggest that any of the surrounding events aren't whiter-than-white and above board and could have happened to anyone and oh it's fine to all leave your kids alone, at night, in unlocked apartments, in a foreign country... and you get shot down from all angles. Because Middle Class British Folks! How dare you suggest they are anything other than exemplary parents. You must simply believe the also entirely assumed / guesswork narrative that Maddie was abducted. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that she was abducted by a paedophile. The evidence is that she was left alone in a room, and that she silently disappeared from that room while her siblings were left asleep and unharmed. That's it. That's the whole story, as far as 100% verified evidence goes.

But it's fine to theorise that she was abducted by MI5 trained stealth Gypsy paedophiles... just don't dare theorise that anyone else had anything to do with it

Another great post.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..'sort of telling' of what, I wonder...the two things are not comparable at all...even in disregarding that 'Making a Murderer' was a documentary series, specifically outlining two serious crimes/one of which was a murder and with the sole intent to create speculation and intrigue..because the fist crime, that Stephen was found guilty of in a court of law, he was in fact innocent of...and he still professes innocence to the murder of Teresa, having experienced his 'guilt being manipulated once' by police and a judicial system...(I'm going to assume you meant me when you said that because of the few people involved in that thread, of which I was one of... and I'm not speculating any guilt with the MaCanns, other than their leaving the children alone that night...)...my personal theory was that Stephen killed her, which is the thoughts I gave in the thread, 'my theory' as it were ..Stephen Avery, the person that has been charged and convicted of her murder is the one who is also guilty of it, both in my personal thoughts and presently in the eyes of the law..but whatever speculations and theories anyone concluded from it all, it's what a specific series was aimed at doing/causing because if Stephen didn't kill her, then there is still a murderer out there and free....there was a body/remains of one, so there was a definite murder and a murderer, absolutely no question or doubt at all about that...there is no body here, so there is not necessarily any death, let alone a murder or someone responsible for that death, in the way that many of the public have speculated...what there is, is a disappearance of an unattended child and much obvious interest and speculation about her disappearance....


...very shabby indeed TS, as to what would be 'sort of telling'...or in drawing any comparison at all in the two things...

I don't want to speak for TS but what i took him to mean re the Steve Avery case was people were happy to speculate and to suggest that it may have been Teresas brother or ex B/f or Brendans brother and step dad etc, I don't think he was specifically referring to you Ammi just a general observation on how one thing is ok to do but the other is not

[*mazedsalv**]

I've always had an idea that they are either guilty or at least know something they have not told the press.

Why did they not get the "blame the parents" asap after the disappearance just like other kidnap stories? Oh I know why because they are not working class or live in a council estate. If they were, they'd get the same reaction as the media gave to Shannon Matthews and her family. But the Mum was responsible for hiding her for money right?

I bet these two are doing the same, and have her either hidden her, covering for someone for whatever reason or did something terrible to her... and the fact they come across as "richer", they must be innocent, right? LOL.

It doesn't add up, for stuff like Sarah Payne, Milly Dowler, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, the family of those disappearances actually made sense, and in all cases, they found who was responsible.

The fact she ignored questions asked to her makes me suspicious. If my child was missing, I'd do anything i could do help assist the police.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I don't want to speak for TS but what i took him to mean re the Steve Avery case was people were happy to speculate and to suggest that it may have been Teresas brother or ex B/f or Brendans brother and step dad etc, I don't think he was specifically referring to you Ammi just a general observation on how one thing is ok to do but the other is not

..the two are not comparable at all though because a crime/murder had occurred and a murderer had been charged and sentenced and it was described as an 'unprecedented thriller series' and made to invite theories and speculations etc...I'm not going to divert the thread anymore with Making of a Murderer because it has no connection to any similarities with Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever...and to make any connection at all and relate it to anyone else's opinions was extremely shabby...imo of course...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I don't want to speak for TS but what i took him to mean re the Steve Avery case was people were happy to speculate and to suggest that it may have been Teresas brother or ex B/f or Brendans brother and step dad etc, I don't think he was specifically referring to you Ammi just a general observation on how one thing is ok to do but the other is not

That's pretty much it Niamh and no it wasn't directed at Ammi... just generally people getting up-in-arms about any speculation on the McCann case. People generally don't have much problem with speculation over... welll... pretty much anything at all that has a high media profile. But the McCann's seem to get "special consideration" because they are (or were) basically a prefab of "good old English". Two white, middle class, middle England, middle aged, well spoken, well educated doctors. Just two respectable people and wonderful parents (or course, they were middle class doctors!) who were doing absolutely nothing wrong and fell on the wrong side of fate, and on the right side of a Union Jack teacosy.

If it was little Tiffany snatched out of a grubby hotel room in Faliraki while parents Wayne and Candice were out doing shots at the club down the road, they would be absolutely slaughtered in the press, in public chit-chat, and on forums, and far fewer people (if anyone) would be strapping up their ranty-boots to defend them. The reality is, the situation would be exactly the same.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..the two are not comparable at all though because a crime/murder had occurred and a murderer had been charged and sentenced and it was described as an 'unprecedented thriller series' and made to invite theories and speculations etc...I'm not going to divert the thread anymore with Making of a Murderer because it has no connection to any similarities with Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever...and to make any connection at all and relate it to anyone else's opinions was extremely shabby...imo of course...

Of course it's comparable. A crime was committed (this part is certain in both cases) and people are speculating / debating over what may actually have happened. You say that the difference is that a murderer was charged and sentenced in one case whereas in the other no one has ever been charged and an exact scenario has never even been accepted by the authorities as the true chain of events.

If anything, is it not far LESS appropriate to speculate over a case where a verdict has already been given in a court of law, than on one where literally no one even claims to know exactly what happened? There is no status-quo timeline to accept, other than that "a little girl went missing somehow". It's wide open for speculation... and not much else.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That's pretty much it Niamh and no it wasn't directed at Ammi... just generally people getting up-in-arms about any speculation on the McCann case. People generally don't have much problem with speculation over... welll... pretty much anything at all that has a high media profile. But the McCann's seem to get "special consideration" because they are (or were) basically a prefab of "good old English". Two white, middle class, middle England, middle aged, well spoken, well educated doctors. Just two respectable people and wonderful parents (or course, they were middle class doctors!) who were doing absolutely nothing wrong and fell on the wrong side of fate, and on the right side of a Union Jack teacosy.

If it was little Tiffany snatched out of a grubby hotel room in Faliraki while parents Wayne and Candice were out doing shots at the club down the road, they would be absolutely slaughtered in the press, in public chit-chat, and on forums, and far fewer people (if anyone) would be strapping up their ranty-boots to defend them. The reality is, the situation would be exactly the same.

...Making of a Murderer/the Stephen Avery case was never a high media profile case in the UK, I doubt many people had heard of it at all..it was a series, intended to cause the speculation that it caused...it would have pretty much failed, if it hadn't because it was made for 'entertainment' value, like any series...as for the rest of your condescending post, well I personally find that very telling as well...I would very much say that the McCanns have been completely 'slaughtered' in the last nine years, they couldn't really have been anymore slaughtered than they have...

[Kazanne]

Can anyone make sense of this ?

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That's pretty much it Niamh and no it wasn't directed at Ammi... just generally people getting up-in-arms about any speculation on the McCann case. People generally don't have much problem with speculation over... welll... pretty much anything at all that has a high media profile. But the McCann's seem to get "special consideration" because they are (or were) basically a prefab of "good old English". Two white, middle class, middle England, middle aged, well spoken, well educated doctors. Just two respectable people and wonderful parents (or course, they were middle class doctors!) who were doing absolutely nothing wrong and fell on the wrong side of fate, and on the right side of a Union Jack teacosy.

If it was little Tiffany snatched out of a grubby hotel room in Faliraki while parents Wayne and Candice were out doing shots at the club down the road, they would be absolutely slaughtered in the press, in public chit-chat, and on forums, and far fewer people (if anyone) would be strapping up their ranty-boots to defend them. The reality is, the situation would be exactly the same.

Totally agree. I also dont think Wayne and Candice would have the connections to contact the media as quicky as the M<cCanns.

[James]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That's pretty much it Niamh and no it wasn't directed at Ammi... just generally people getting up-in-arms about any speculation on the McCann case. People generally don't have much problem with speculation over... welll... pretty much anything at all that has a high media profile. But the McCann's seem to get "special consideration" because they are (or were) basically a prefab of "good old English". Two white, middle class, middle England, middle aged, well spoken, well educated doctors. Just two respectable people and wonderful parents (or course, they were middle class doctors!) who were doing absolutely nothing wrong and fell on the wrong side of fate, and on the right side of a Union Jack teacosy.

If it was little Tiffany snatched out of a grubby hotel room in Faliraki while parents Wayne and Candice were out doing shots at the club down the road, they would be absolutely slaughtered in the press, in public chit-chat, and on forums, and far fewer people (if anyone) would be strapping up their ranty-boots to defend them. The reality is, the situation would be exactly the same.

The reactions to the McCanns have gone completely the other way now - they get more criticism for being middle-class.

From Wikipedia:

The couple's middle-class status, at first protective, soon turned into a weapon against them. They were harshly criticized for having left their children alone, despite the availability of Ocean Club babysitters. Seventeen thousand people signed an online petition in June 2007 asking Leicestershire Social Services to investigate. The argument ran that a working-class couple might have faced child-abandonment charges, but a group of doctors on a posh holiday had been let off the hook.[169].....

.....The [Leveson] inquiry heard that the editor of the Daily Express, in particular, had become "obsessed" by the McCanns. Lord Justice Leveson called the Express articles "complete piffle"; Roy Greenslade described them as "a sustained campaign of vitriol."[171] British tabloids would simply repeat Portuguese tabloid stories, which in turn made no mention of sources. "Maddie 'Sold' By Hard-Up McCanns" ran a headline in the Daily Star.[172]

Kate McCann..... came in for particular attention, considered too attractive, too thin, too well-dressed, too intense, too controlled and not mumsy enough, according to media analyst Caroline Bainbridge. Much of the commentary came from female journalists.[173] Several tabloids criticized her for not crying in public, despite her obvious distress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disapp...Media_coverage

http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...tarapologiesto

[Vicky.]

Ask your husband love.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

My main theory and opinion is that they medicated the children and Maddie woke and in a disorientated state, somehow fell in between the couch and the window, perhaps looking for her parents and hit her head. The McCanns then panicked because of the sedation and the fact they had been left alone and so decided to cover it up. Unfortunately, I fear no one will know the truth and it saddens me that Maddie has not been laid to rest properly.

My theory too.

I'm not sure Kate had *much* to do with the whole finding and hiding thing though. I do think it was mainly Gerry as Kate seems to be rather emotional whereas he comes across as a cold blooded psycho at times tbh.

She obviously knows now what happened that night

The poor twins though, will go searching themselves before long for what happened. I wonder what they will make of the actual police files and such given they will have heard the 'fantasy' version (which is bad enough)

[Kazanne]

“Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found.”

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2814905/mad...Px2tWC41QPs.99

[Vicky.]

Since when has it been allowed to discuss (in the media) the Mcs sitting on the 'prime suspect' photo for 5 years before Redwood showed it to the world as a 'new discovery'

[Kizzy]

I thought they sued anyone who even suggested they were ever suspected?