Tim Minchin - genius!

http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Tim_Minchin

Faked abduction?

Imagine if a child went missing and her parents set up a fund, but then used it to pay their Mortgage!

Imagine the same people then threatening to sue people for 'harassment' because they printed the reasons why the child couldnt have been abducted.

Imagine they also sued to get a book written by the policeman who led the search for their child for stating the evidence as to why he suspected the parents - and getting away with it!

Thats what some people think is happening!

http://fakedabduction.com/


Its a topsy turvey, incredibly ludicrous world!

More drivel in the Sunday papers

As we are confronted by yet more Sunday newspaper propaganda about Madeleine McCann, who whilst as unique as the rest of us was hardly the ideal subject of an abduction (a flaw in her eye being a 'trademark' as recognised by her less than fatherly father), I think its important to remember that had her parents taken proper care of her we would never have heard of her.

One check is not sufficient in a two hour period.

Ludicrous assertions that the McCann's friends were operating a non-reciprocated 'listening service' do not convince me that this was sufficient a supplement to defend such poor parenting.

Madeleine, to her parents, should have been considered irreplaceable before they lost her.

To most of us she was no more special than many other little mousey haired child. It is hardly credible that she was the only and special target of an international abduction gang!

Can you imagine it? Lets leave this little blonde haired twinset with no distinguishing marks and take that bigger one with the visible flaw - maybe it isnt just a visible sign of some deeper genetic disorder?

Drug the other two though, whilst we are at it! Ludicrous.

Sunday Express

Sunday Express is suggesting that requests for assistance from the Portuguese police werent getting through Leicestershire police.

This is the Police force that (incredibly!) carries a link to the McCann money making 'fund'.

This was the very same issue that resulted in Sr Amaral's complaint which led to him being removed and replaced by the 'political' policeman, Rubello.

McCann's checking doubts

If we put aside our doubts about the frequency of checking of the children and look at the facts as they have been presented by the McCann's and their friends, it looks like this:

Kate and Gerald left the children at 8:30 pm. The bedroom door, in which they slept, was shut, the rear patio door was unlocked. The front door was locked.

We do not know if they left via the unlocked door, it seems likely. Was the gate at the bottom of the stairs locked in some way? We dont know - it seems unlikely as this would negate the leaving of the back door unlocked.

At 9:05 pm Gerald left the tapas bar and checked the children. The assumption is that he went in through the gate and up the steps to the back door, which was open.

He went to the lavatory, checked the children - opening the bedroom door to do so, as he had his 'proud father' moment. Did he go to the lavatory first? We dont know. He left the apartment at 9:10. Did he leave by the back or front door? It seems likely that it was the back door, as we must assume this was why it was left open - it was a shorter entry route. By 9:15 he was chatting with the producer.

At 9:30 Matt Oldfield checked the children. He didnt see Madeleine, just the twins. Did he open the door? It must have been opened or already open, did he open the door? Did he shut it after?
We dont know. All we know is that he didnt see Madeleine.

At 10 pm Kate did her check, she was tempted only to listen and leave but noticed the door open, she went to shut the door and was in the process of shutting it when a gust of wind pushed it against her. Unlike Matt she did check all the children and found Madeleine gone, the window open, the shutter raised.

Some of this events need to be clarified, but the basic facts as told by the McCanns are that checks where Madeleine was actually seen to be in bed did not happen regularly, as there was only one such check, Gerry McCann at 9:05 - 9:10.

So here's the thing, wouldn't you, if you were a parent who's small child had gone missing, be searching the local streets - asking questions about culverts, drains, roadworks?

Why have they not sent investigators to the local council in PDL to scour the maps of the routes taken by the services provided by the utilities?

Isn't it more likely that Madeleine wandered out of the apartment than the fantastic stories being invented to 'prove' an abductor?

So the question is, why arent the mcCann's reacting in this way? Why are they focussed completely on abduction?

I think we know why, do we not?

Another non-abduction

So the little New Zealand girl was not abducted.
So how did she come to be washed like an autumn leaf down a drain pipe? A tragic accident, a brief moment of distraction that led to the inevitable loss.
The McCanns tell us they checked 'regularly' on the three children, they claim their 'listening service' operated without timing, but was sufficient, was 'just like the service offered by the resort' ( a service that the resort claims was not even offered - they ran a baby-sitting, not a 'listening', service).

But can a listening service be sufficient?

Was one check by Gerry McCann, the loving father, taking a few moments out to return and urinate, sufficient?

Personally, I dont think so.