Madeleine McCann

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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

[danielf]

Originally Posted by slug

It has taken 3 months to find the blood.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

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

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

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

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

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.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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.

---------- Post added at 11:56 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

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?

No, because it would show them acting as distraught, concerned parents and attempt to draw suspicion away from them.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

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.

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.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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?

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

2) Who truly knows how the mind of a murderer works ?

---------- Post added at 12:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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 mrmistoffelees

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

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?

2) Who truly knows how the mind of a murderer works ?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

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

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?

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

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 Saaf_laandon_mo

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.

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.

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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

£946,843.92 ?

[r1ch]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

I don't think that's true - as I understand it, the police cannot arrest someone until they make them an 'official suspect' (arguido) but they don't have to give someone that they are investigating that status unless the person actually requests it.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

The point I am making is it is feasible that they could have murdered her, or been involved in covering up a death or the abduction. Something can be feasible and likely to happen even if its not happened. That's the point I'm making.

I have not said they've done it.

I have previously said, and I stand by it, that they have acted totally irresponsible in leaving her and the other 2 kids alone.

You seem to dismiss the feasibility of the fact that they could have done it by arguing that they have more to lose by covering it up, by the fact that they are intelligent enough to realise the difficulty of getting away with it and the risk of getting caught, and the fact that they have not been named in the investigation.

I'm of the opinion that whilst they might not have done it, its feasible they could have.

[Pia]

I'm not sure what to make of it all either, but i think that Mail article is highly irresponsible for insinuating the 'accident' cover up, if the parents didn't then imagine how much it's killing them people saying it?!

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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?

The whole point of performing an investigation is to collect evidence to lead towards a conviction. So until there is no evidence pertaining to a paticular thread of enquiry it remains an active lead.

Motive remans to be discovered, it;s the evidence that leads to motive in most cases.

The family have been investigated to a degree already, one of the press conferences was used to forensically psyschoanalyse the behavior of the parents. Actively advertising the fact that you know who your suspect is not the best route of action to take.