Cops Suspect Parents In Missing British Girl Case

Actually, I don't see what miller said as such an unlikely scenerio.

When I was a small child, a hurricaine was approaching, and both my parents went outside (still on our property) to check on something being secure.

I woke up, no one was there, I was frightened. I jumped up and ran out of the house looking for them, thinking the storm had swept them away.

I ran around for a good long time in a panic before they came upon me. They had been right around the corner of our hour, very near by (like yards away) the entire time.

I could see a child waking in a hotel room, going off to look for her parents, not seeing them right there at a nearby table, and them not seeing her for the 10 seconds it would take her to wander away.

The gist of my comment was not, as you took it, the unlikability of such scenario, but the very fact that people just throw hypothesis which have neither rhyme nor reason (or foundation)...

oh....ok, sorry.

I'm not on either side. I started out by saying that I woudn't be surprised if it were the parents.
I also condemned the parents for leaving the kids alone, if she was in fact, taken by a stranger.
I'm not committed to either scenerio.

About the only theory I think is nonsense, is that she just woke up and wandered off, because someone would've found her and called the cops. I doubt that a predator happened by and picked her up on the side of the road, (although stranger things have happened.)
So, unless she wandered off and fell down a well....there really is only the
two possibilities.

There is nothing wrong, bizarre or sick about all of us trying to figure out what happened.
The actual facts are sketchy, the media gives us contradictory information....and on top of it all, we're human.
If this were a hundred years ago, we would know nothing about this, or if we did, we would only have the tiny bit of information printed in the newspaper. But it's 2007; we get information 24/7 in every way, shape and form from every part of the globe. We also know about forensics and how information can be gleaned from a microscopic piece of evidence.

It's no wonder that we all try to figure out what happened. We've been trained to be curious and to find answers, and we're impatient.

The police are only doing their job. The couple is defended by the best possible legal and public relations teams. (I personally hope the couple is exonerated for the sake of their twin babies.)

Chai, what I mean is that pretty much, the stars would have to be in allignment at that exact time for her parents to be absent, her to wake up and wander out, a predator to be driving or walking by.......

I'd like to think that a great percentage of "finders" would simply call the police or take her to a police station....or essentially, do the right thing.

I agree with you happycat.

I would hope that anyone who found a lost child would do the right thing.

But hoping for something doesn't make it happen.

I think many people underestimate the opportunistic nature of someone interested in abducting a child.

#1 I think there are more people like that around than many people would care to admit. They could be the barista who just served you a latte, or the person in the office next to you at work, or the person buying a bag of onions at the market.

#2 I believe people like that are, as I said, opportunistic. I don't believe the stars would have to be anywhere near in alignment for "someone" to notice a child alone, follow the child around the corner, etc.

Despite all this, I'm personally keeping an open mind as to what happened that night, and that means for me not guess what the odds are of any particular thing happening.

In fact, it doesn't matter at all what the odds of anything are. Whatever had happened on that night has already transpired. That means figuring the odds of any particular thing is meaningless. Whatever happened, there is a 100% chance that it actually did happen.

I'm just checking in to see if any actual further evidence has come to light.

Msolga and I have already talked about what appear to be similarities in the two cases (without having a clue what has happened in the current case, I cannot comment on whether there IS similarity.)


Lindy Chamberlain ("that woman") was "cleared" (the level of hysterical rumour and innuendo against her was such that the coroner publicly broadcast his judgment) of involvement in her daughter's death at a coronial inquest after the death.


The Northern Territory police had become convinced she had killed the baby (Azaria) and pursued the case.


She was later convicted of murder, and her husband of being an accessory after the fact.


Much of the case was based on stunningly inept forensic evidence....


For example, the forensic scientiest, Joy Kuhl as I recall, testified that there was blood, containing traces of foetal blood (foetal blood apparently gradually is replaced after birth, but is normally still present in a baby of Azaria's age), including an "arterial spray," was present in the front left seat well of the Chamberlain's car.


This material turned out to be spillage of a liquid sound deadener, similar patterns of which were found to be present in large numbers of other cars of that make and model.


Chamberlain was released after various people contested the claims made by the forensic people, as well as other pieces of evidence, but this was on parole...it was kind of a way of the Territory government releasing her without admitting any fault in their case.


Later, the baby's matinee jacket was found near Uluru...presumably dropped by the dingo.


Eventually, Lindy was cleared.



Many people still believe she is some kind of evil force, and that she is guilty. The atmosphere around this case was truly Salem like....it was as though some strange fever gripped many people, including police and media.


A large part of this reaction was engendered by Lindy's apparent calm in front of the media, and when pursued by police. It just wasn't "natural."

Thanks for the Lindy Chamberlain details, dlowan.

I'm not advocating for any particular scenario -- noooo idea. But I do see a lot of ways that the kid wandering off could have happened.

1.) She wanders off, and then somehow becomes severely injured or is killed purely by accident.

2.) She wanders off, is in fact found by someone, and that someone is concerned about being accused of being a kidnapper and so doesn't go to the police. ("Oh, you just happened to FIND her, huh?") That one could end a few ways.

3.) She wanders off, is found by a non-child-molester but not-nice person who figures that there is some money to be made from the situation -- ransom maybe -- and something goes wrong at some point.

I don't know how populous the resort was, how hard it would have been to avoid people. I wouldn't be surprised if she'd received some variation of the "stranger danger" lecture and purposely kept away from people she didn't know, in terms of scenario #1.

Again, it does seem unlikely to me too, but nothing really seems likely. That the parents did it doesn't seem likely either, for a number of reasons, and I'm someone who has suspected parents before -- it's not something I automatically discount.

I suppose, with that extremely high profiled team of lawyers and the their excellently presspersons the McCanns easily should be able to get out of any suspicion.

That doesn't solve the case, though.

I certainly hope the case is solved. If they didn't do it, I'd hope that is proven, otherwise suspicion will linger forever. If they did do it and covered it up, I hope that is proven as well, and that they face the consequences.

photos from Praia da Luz

this may have been posted before. the poster of the photos comments on the distances involve at the end of the blog.

I didn't have a sense of the walls/sight lines/distances til I saw these.

That's very informative ehbeth.

Thanks

Yeah, that helps. Always nice to be able to visualize things, if only in a general way.

I don't really get the stuff about the window, though... didn't I read somewhere that the doors were unlocked? Is it that the door is in a more visible area? (I never quite figured out where the door is...)

This is from that link by wandeljw on page 12 of this thread -

Why was Madeleine's bedroom window and shutter open?
Kate and Gerry McCann told police that the window shutter in Madeleine's bedroom, which could not been seen from the restaurant, had been forced open.
Police tests showed the heavy metal shutter had not been forced up from the outside, so must have been pulled open from inside the room.
Assuming that the abductor entered through the apartment's unlocked patio windows, why would he or she not leave by the same way or the use the front door?
Or was the window opened to make it appear as if an intruder had used it to enter the bedroom?



It explains about the window, and I infer that the door is facing an inner courtyard/patio, as was an open window - if this is all true, of course.

dlowan, thank you. I remember the hoopla and judging in the media at the time and thought it was horrific. How sad that was. She would have been stoned to death in an earlier time.

Of course we hope no one would kill their own child, but it has been known to happen. That poor woman. On a side note, I wonder if she moved to another country after all the ruckus had died down.

Just as a matter of interest...

My friend attended a wedding reception at a well known Manchester hotel.

In the dining room next to the function suite, they were filming an re-enactment of that fateful meal the McCanns had with their friends for a T.V. drama/doc.

I expect the viewing figures will be high...

I would be quite upset if I were the bride. The wedding will be forever associated with the terrible events.

x

People are weird!!