Too much entertainment in the news today. People oft times forget that we're talking about a little girl and they delve deep into the soap opera aspects and inherent entertainment value of believing the parents were the killers.
And the most likely percentage of being guilty, don't forget that little tidbit.
I think everybody knows that. This is not exactly a stunning revelation of forensic demographics.
And yet you want the parents to be completely ignored as suspects even though they have the highest degree of possible guilt.
There is a twist to this statistic, however. Let's say 85% of all murdered children involve a family member. That 85% is, of course, chopped off of a 100% block of solved cases. The twist is where stranger abductions come into play. The highest percentage of unsolved child murders/missing children are perpetrated by strangers, or non-family members.
Being as they were never solved, how would you know that?
Obviously you are making that up, I can just as easily say that all unsolved abductions and murders of children are done by the parents and what would that mean?
Nothing, just like the **** you just said.
Most crime against children of this sort is done by relatives and close friends, these parents are the only ones that match the statistics, clearly until a good reason comes up to no longer consider them, they should remain as the prime suspects.
The police, naturally, want it to be a family member. If this is true, than they have a list to work their way down. Once that list is finished, then they're f cked.
How do you know what the police "want" you a mind reader now?
Again, more made up **** to try and support an unlikely scenario of the parents not being involved in some way.
The longer this case goes unsolved, the more indicative it is of the parents innocence. Given the strict timeline involved, the parents would have to be either very very lucky, or possess a murderous savvy the likes of which Ted Bundy would be jealous.
Actually, it is the opposite, the longer it remains unsolved, the greater the chance it was the parents are guilty. A stranger must act quickly, he must take chances and cannot prepare for every possibility so there is almost always a mistake somewhere, as time goes by and everything is more closely looked at, it shows that great care and time went into making that body dissapear, that means only the parents had the ability to put so much detail into the crime.
Are you actually debating this and have no real knowledge other than what you read on the cover of the Enquirer while you wait to check out at the grocery?
No, I am very well educated in the situation and have a much greater understanding of investigations then you do being as I have done a few.
Seriously, the "cadaver dogs" bit was a line of sh t. How can you not see this? This is a Moroccan resort town who's economy relies heavily on tourist dollars. They cannot have people thinking that a child abductor is at play on their field. Sorry to say it, but politics have taken precedent over good police work here.
Cadavar dogs don't know anything about politics, they only do what they are trained to do. They are trained to detect dead bodies, that is what they did, what people did with that information after the fact has nothing to do with the validity of the hits.
So, as I have been adamantly asserting, the "biological evidence" in the apartment is faulty and most likely just trace evidence that Maddy was there. Which we already know.
We don;t know that because the details of what was found was not released, but they did say fluids in one report, at least a small about of fluid in the vehicle, that is not easily written off.
Now the bit about the cadaver dogs;
Now if the dogs even did actually hit, which I have my doubts, then there is still a plausible and wholeheartedly logical explanation for this. The dogs smelled death on a woman that works daily with corpses. How quaint!
The scent could not be transmitted in that way unless she had handled "fresh" dead bodies and never washed her hands before touching the floor of both the room and the vehicle, that is not plausable.
Thats simple. They obviously didn't regard leaving their kids across the hall with any more worry than they would to do this at home. This is not a monstrous act. It is the act of complacent and irresponsible parents. If they had regarded this as an obstacle (The only reason why they would use strong amounts of sedatives) than why wouldn't they just pick up the phone and call the in-house babysitter? Am I making sense yet?
Unless the drug use was the most common way they used, people tend to creat habbits and if they used the drug method at home, they would use it while away from home as well. Clearly they "could" have used the bebysitter if they wanted to, it was their choice, but they refused to get a sitter, very troubling fact to me.
No. They felt safe due to an irresponsible amount of complacency. The knowledge that their children, any children this age, would be fast asleep and would sleep through a train wreck. I know, thats stupid. But people are stupid more than they are not. Just because you nor I would do this, hardly signifies that no one would do this.
Again, you were not there and cannot read their minds so where we must make an "assumption" we should stay in the most reasonable and common assumptions in cases like these. A reasonable parent would never leave their tiny children unattended without knowing for sure they would not get into mischief. Being as they refused to get a sitter, there must have been another reason they were so sure the kids were not going to get into anything.
A hair follicle test performed on the other two children, searching for trace amounts of whatever sedatives that these doctors had access too, could have cleared up this baseless theory. To mention such things without proof is akin to injecting theories of alien abduction into the matter.
It was requested and denied, another thing that draws suspicion.
What? I thought you liked statistical averages? Now you're against such notions?
Because a lone pedophile is an unknowable, unseen entity. The existence of a ***/slave trade in these parts has nary a whisper attached. Such things leave resonant traces. Word spreads and cases support such activity. Nothing to this angle exists. Therefor it is logical to assume that the perpetrator is a pedophillac male, 35 years of age, acting alone.
Again, you like statistical averages. I got plenty to fire back at 'cha.
And is my reason for bring it up.
You clearly feel it reasonable to talk of averages to "assume" a male molester was involved but they account for a very tiny number of attacks on children in the world and is stistically very doubtful in a situation like this.
Only the parents had provable access, a possible good motive, and the knowledge to pull this off in such a seemless and perfect way.
More paramount is the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to indicate the parents did it. Which is an abominable oversight.
Nope, there is lots of evidence. They were the only ones with access to the children, they had plenty of time and knowledge to pull off this perfect crime, they have very unbelievable stories about why they refused to get a sitter and have everything to lose in life if guilty.
Dead body hits in the appartment and vehicle as well as DNA evidence in that vehicle.
The only evidence in the case directly points at the parents, not one shred of evidence points to anyone else.
All the police have been able to prove concerning the parents, is that Maddy was at some point in the apartment and around here parents. Both of which we already know.
So clearly they were the only ones proven to have access.
For Maddy's DNA to get in that car, hired after she went missing, is not even worthy of note. I find my daughters hair entangled in my own, days after dropping her off to her mother.
But she was never in the car, at least not alive anyway.
There is no reason or evidence pointing toward the parents. All we have here is a speculative theory that lacks corroboration on any level.
What are you talking about, all of the evidence directly points at the parents.
There may not be a lot of evidence, but what they have is against the parents. There is not one thing that proves anyone else was involved, that is where the lack of evidence falls to further show the parents are the only ones who could have done it.
So far, but I am hoping new information does come along to prove it otherwise.
You act like people want it to be the parents but most of us dred any story of a parent hurting their child. It ****** us off and makes us wonder how a parent could do something like this. It is much easier to accept actions like this from a stranger, without an emotional bond to the child then a parent who by every right should never be able to do it.
But reality tells us that they are the most likely responsible people, no matter how much we may want it to be otherwise.
