Caporegime
Yes, but only if intent could be proved.
Madeleine McCann investigation 'cost £10 million to date'
- Thread starter lude1962
- Start date
Yes, but only if intent could be proved.
Soldato
That is the thing, here is how i would imagine it if it was in the UK and the was a burglar or whatever:
If they left the kid alone and went out but the police got a report of the situation and no harm came, then they probably would have got a warning or nothing.
If they left the kid alone, a burglar came and left without harming the kid but stealing the stuff (actually happened to a friend of mine and his brother at the age of 8/9 and nothing was even said to the single dad) probably warning or nothing.
If the same happened and the kid was unharmed but the burglar caught, then there probably would be no focus on the parents and the burglar would get it
If the kid was harmed and burglar caught, likely there would be a share of the blame but more so on the burglar obviously
If the burglar got away and the child was killed/kidnapped/harmed, then the parents would probably end up with some blame or something or at least more likely to receive warning with no criminal to focus blame on.
The above scenarios the parents did the same thing each time, left the kid alone but the results are different and likely the reaction to the incident would also be different due to the severity of the situation. Would it be right to focus more blame on the parents just because a criminal wasn't caught or that the circumstances were different but the crime the same for the parents?
For me, a punishment should have an aim to improve society or prevent future harm. I cant imagine what punishment you can give to the parents that would achieve anything positive. I agree that the parents share some blame but i cant help but feel there is no appropriate punishment to give out.
Forget the burglar scenario.
You leave a child of 3 on its own , the child chokes on a sweet.
If you are in the house it is a tragic accident.
If you are out at the pub it is neglect and you should expect to get prosecuted regardless of if the pub happens to be next door.
Society should be saying leaving a 3 year old unattended is NOT acceptable.
I am not saying you should get hung for such an offence but getting off scot free hardly discourages others either.
You leave a child of 3 on its own , the child chokes on a sweet.
If you are in the house it is a tragic accident.
If you are out at the pub it is neglect and you should expect to get prosecuted regardless of if the pub happens to be next door.
Society should be saying leaving a 3 year old unattended is NOT acceptable.
I am not saying you should get hung for such an offence but getting off scot free hardly discourages others either.
i guess i'm coming from the responsibility angle mostly, i have never seen or heard them say what they did was wrong or neglectful or take any responsibility.
So, according to the conspiracy theorists:
* the McCanns committed the perfect crime
* they immediately got the police involved
* they spent the next 13 years and countless sums of money keeping themselves in the public eye, thereby ensuring that every move they made would be scrutinised, analysed, and criticised by the public, the media, and Scotland Yard
* they somehow got away with it
They must be criminal masterminds!
13 years?
Caporegime
Before reading this thread I had always fully believed the Mcann's were at least hiding something.
A good point has been made a couple of times here though that why would they be keeping this in the public and helping to continue the investigation if they did actually have something to hide.
There is still something odd about them but it is a good point.
A good point has been made a couple of times here though that why would they be keeping this in the public and helping to continue the investigation if they did actually have something to hide.
There is still something odd about them but it is a good point.
Soldato
Sometimes the best way to hide is to hide in plain sight
Soldato
Considering she would be well into her teens by now, someone somewhere would have said or done something if she were still alive, hell she herself would have tried. I am aware that cases of kidnap and being held captive have gone unnoticed for longer but I some how doubt it would apply here.
Soldato
Yep........................as a secret agent, James Bond has been getting away with it for years
Caporegime
Dunno about that. Look at some of the cases in the states. Huge manhunts. Heavily publicised. They rock up 18 years later thinking their kidnapper was their mum or something.
Soldato
**** parents, **** people. Feel only sympathy for the girl and nothing for them two. I guess being middle class and coming from a professional background doesn't bring the same scrutiny as if you were working class. Just lots and lots of donations that other families were not so lucky to have when they needed help.
I'm not saying they did it but they always looked pretty hard faced on camera especially the mother.
Hopefully it plays on their mind everyday until their last, they are as much responsible as the person who took her in my eyes.
I'm not saying they did it but they always looked pretty hard faced on camera especially the mother.
Hopefully it plays on their mind everyday until their last, they are as much responsible as the person who took her in my eyes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
She's going on Britain's Got talent next!
You are in severe denial of facts. Of course they were having a "secret afterparty" that's the whole reason of the abandonment of the child. They wanted to go gouge on tapas and probably alcohol, without telling their children.
That is literally "secret" and "afterparty". I don't know how you can deny that.
Erm that is exactly what happened. More denial? Or are you insinuating that it was an inside job?
Again are you insinuating that it was an inside job? You seem to believe that the premises and child was absolutely secure. Therefore the only conclusion is that you must also believe that it was an inside job? Or you must believe that some sleeping security guard on the other side of the compound is adequate care for young children?
Because believing that the child was secure, while knowing that the child is obviously gone, suggests that you either think a ghost took her, or that it was an inside job.
Simply incorrect, unless you're assuming the "security" aspect includes the child's abandonment and consequent abduction. It's logically dependent. If a complete stranger abducted her then there was absolutely zero security.
You need to elaborate on your posts a little. Stating things like "They put their kids in a secure hotel room." needs some serious elaboration because the child is obviously missing.
Last edited:
Soldato
I love Evangelion's satire
Caporegime
What the hell are you talking about? Where's your evidence that they didn't tell their children?
They literally hung them out the window?
No, I think it was an outside job.
Nonsense. It means a complete stranger was able to overcome the security.
This is a joke?
I didn't know infanticide was considered a talent...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
So, according to the conspiracy theorists:
* the McCanns committed the perfect crime
* they immediately got the police involved
* they spent the next 13 years and countless sums of money keeping themselves in the public eye, thereby ensuring that every move they made would be scrutinised, analysed, and criticised by the public, the media, and Scotland Yard
* they somehow got away with it
They must be criminal masterminds!
Just for the record, many people who commit crimes put themselves right in the centre of the case, it's relatively common.
Second, if they lets say accidentally killed the kid, what do they do, return to the UK with a kid missing? If they killed the kid and did nothing, it would automatically be suspicious, someone asks where the kid is and they can't answer and never sought help, instantly obviously guilty.
People panic and do stupid things, like getting rid of a kid that died that they'll be held accountable for, then they think it through and realise that their only choice is to come forwards, in terms of seeking help and getting in front of it. It may fail but it's still your best shot at that point and if the police fail and think you're telling the truth then they'll be looking for an invisible man forever at which point you are almost in the clear.
There are also many cases where people who start the lie are effectively caught in it, they have to follow through. What would they do, after 6 months just be like guys, it's okay, she didn't matter to us that much, let's drop it?
If they did go to the police because it's the LESS suspicious option, they are now 100% locked into that.
As for countless sums of money, most of it is donated afaik, they started charities and there has been many/constant questions about the way they've spent that money. They've also, afaik, sold books on the whole situation making them more money. If they weren't spending any 'fake' finding her, again, suspicious.
Calling it a conspiracy theory based on those points is laughable because they are all easily explained and in fact have happened quite a lot of times.
You get a guy committing arson who involves himself in an investigation by pretending to be a witness, same for murders, serial killers even. The woman who pretended to be a 9/11 survivor for years before she was found out. After the initial lie she them absolutely threw herself into it. She didn't tell a small lie then back away from the media but got involved in survivor groups and support groups.
Last edited: