Originally Posted by Chris T (Post 34370032)

The fact that something has happened before does not make it any more likely that it has happened here. Each individual case has to stand on its own evidence.

It is a fact of human nature that we as a species are capable of hurting and destroying our own children. There is no news there. What we have to do is look at the circumstances here and ask how likely is it that this has happened.

When child murder occurs in the UK the body - or bodies - are usually found, and found within a reasonabley sort space of time. They are not well disposed of because the vast majority of people are not professional killers with an understanding of how to defeat police search techniques.

The challenge of disposing of a body in wholly unfamiliar territory is all the greater - enough to dissuade all but the most determined from trying and to make it less likely that a body could remain concealed for long.

What is lacking in all these 'The family did it' conspiracy theories is a convincing motive. 'covering up a tragic accident' does not stack up as a motive as the family do not have the skill to cover it up and they have far too much to lose.

Originally Posted by slug (Post 34370027)

It has taken 3 months to find the blood.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 34370028)

What better way to divert attention ??

unlikely perhaps, but not impossible EDIT: In fact im pretty sure it has been done in the recent past

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 34370036)

The point remains, until it can be completely disproved that there is no parentl involvment then it has to remain a possibility

Originally Posted by Chris T (Post 34370032)

The fact that something has happened before does not make it any more likely that it has happened here. Each individual case has to stand on its own evidence.

It is a fact of human nature that we as a species are capable of hurting and destroying our own children. There is no news there. What we have to do is look at the circumstances here and ask how likely is it that this has happened.

When child murder occurs in the UK the body - or bodies - are usually found, and found within a reasonabley sort space of time. They are not well disposed of because the vast majority of people are not professional killers with an understanding of how to defeat police search techniques.

The challenge of disposing of a body in wholly unfamiliar territory is all the greater - enough to dissuade all but the most determined from trying and to make it less likely that a body could remain concealed for long.

What is lacking in all these 'The family did it' conspiracy theories is a convincing motive. 'covering up a tragic accident' does not stack up as a motive as the family do not have the skill to cover it up and they have far too much to lose.

Originally Posted by Chris T (Post 34370041)

Granted, but it's so far down the list of possibilities I don't think it warrants continued, detailed discussion - and never forget that in any court of law it would not be for the McCanns to disprove anything, quite the reverse. The Prosecution would have a mountain to climb in order to demonstrate such a wholly improbable scenario as this.

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 34370037)

Actually, it has taken three months for the police to go look for blood.

---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------



Keeping it at the center of attention would appear unwise for the guilty party?

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo (Post 34370043)

How long did it take to find the murdered kids killed by Hindley? Arent some of those bodies still missing?

What makes a professional killer, doing it more than once or doing it once and getting away with it?

Most killers/murderors/cover uppers have a lot to lose anyway (but they go ahead and do it anyway), that would not be just unique to Maddie's parents.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 34370049)

Until it is proven that the parents have no responsibility in the incident then however improbable it may seem It is met with the same level of investigation as any other line of enquiry the way however it is handled is of a compeltely different nature.

Originally Posted by Chris T (Post 34370052)

I don't think that's a reasonable comparison - policing was a very different thing back then and forensics was practically non-existent.

Much more appropriate to consider how quickly Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were discovered.

Answer me these:
What did the McCanns have to lose by coming clean and reporting an accidental death?
What did the McCanns have to gain by murdering their daughter and disposing of her body?

Originally Posted by Chris T (Post 34370052)

I don't think that's a reasonable comparison - policing was a very different thing back then and forensics was practically non-existent.

Much more appropriate to consider how quickly Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were discovered.

Answer me these:
What did the McCanns have to lose by coming clean and reporting an accidental death?
What did the McCanns have to gain by murdering their daughter and disposing of her body?

---------- Post added at 12:00 ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 ----------



That's not true. No police enquiry has limitless resources. As an investigation proceeds, it focuses more effort on the more likely lines of enquiry. Not discounting and actively pursuing are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 34370054)

1) Somone has already said, The could face potential child neglect charges which if found guilty could resort to them serviing a custodial sentence in a Portugese prison and losing the rest of their children

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 34370054)

Wrong, wrong and wrong, If the need is seen fit then resources are made from across multiple forces until every line can be followed.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo (Post 34370061)

Chris your are right that in law you need evidence to convict someone. That does not been that all guilty people are convicted though does it. Some perpertrators have got away with things due to a lack of evidence, leaving the courtroom smirking. I'm sure we could dig up some examples of where evidence has pointed to the guilty party doing it but they have got away with it.

I've reversed into a car damaged it, got away with it because there's no evidence or witnesses. Not exactly murder but it hilights the point Im making.

Originally Posted by Chris T (Post 34370052)

What did the McCanns have to gain by murdering their daughter and disposing of her body?

Originally Posted by Chris T (Post 34370065)

There is also the very handy point of Portuguese law that states the police must name the McCanns as suspects if they are actively investigating them. That they have not done this should not be overlooked.

Originally Posted by Chris T (Post 34370065)

In which case, I'm not sure what point you're making. The fact that parents murder their children does not mean that Madeline's parents murdered her. The fact that other people get away with crimes does not mean that the McCanns are getting away with a crime.

'It is possible that the McCanns were responsible for the disappearance of their daughter' is a factual statement. It is possible. But that statement by itself doesn't get us anywhere. Where is the probable cause? Where is the evidence? Without any of this, there seems little point in constant repetition of what can only be baseless speculation.

There is also the very handy point of Portuguese law that states the police must name the McCanns as suspects if they are actively investigating them. That they have not done this should not be overlooked.

Originally Posted by Chris T (Post 34370057)

And on balancing that against the chances of successfully hiding the body so as to avoid the inevitable charge of murder that would follow ... does it really stack up?



Sorry counsel, but that's not admissable. Very, very few murders have no motive at all. The jury has a right to expect you to offer a reason *why*.

Further to both (1) and (2) - where is the evidence? Suspicion and speculation is not evidence, neither will it become evidence merely by constant repetition.

---------- Post added at 12:05 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------



In which case, are the family actively being investigated, and what can that tell us about what the police belive is likely or unlikely to have happened here?