OK OK, I get it. You have a sense of humor. I would never make a joke about the death of someones child either to them, or in a manner in which they might actually see it or hear it themselves. There is a difference.
Making dead child jokes about "real" dead children was my only point, I am glad you can now see where I was comming from.
If it is even true. You are operating under the assumption that it is true. I am not. I won't go as far as to call the police "scrupulous". I will only say that I believe this was a "fishing" tactic. They didn't get a nibble I presume. As nothing came of this.
The dogs know nothing of politics and police ploys, all they know is if there was a dead body there or not and to give their signal,.
Hugo stated it in his below post; The McCanns were apparently fire-phobic and left the sliding door unlocked. A rear door is a more probable entry point for a burglar/abductor.
There are other signs that can be there if an outside person is involved, my main point was there is nothing to indicate a reason to look elsewhere.
I can.
Numbers have their place. Probability factors and statistical averages are useful. But they are only meant to act as a guide in expediting an investigation.
As I have already said, every investigation must have a starting point and then you follow the evidence available from there.
Maybe so. But this does not make them murderers. Nor should it qualify them for prison time. Blaming the parents is a sideshow distraction from solving the abduction.
There is no evidence supporting an abduction, but there is evidence showing a death, not murder, but yes, a death. The dogs hit on a dead body, unless there was another dead body in that room, it must have been the little girl.
They contributed to the death of their child, and yes, that means they should go to prison.
Actually I forgetfully went astray. I am not known for dodging. Rather quite the opposite. I am quite frank.
First off. No, their child is not dead. Or at least we, and the police, should not be operating under that assumption. Lets call it a missing persons case, not a homicide. To refer to a missing person as a homicide is disingenuous.
So, were the parents the only ones whom had the power to prevent this abduction?
Yes.
Again, where is even one shread of evidence to support an abduction?
The only evidence is for a death, not a murder, but still a death, so calling it an abduction when there is nothign to support that assumption is disingenuous, but I give you credit for using a .25 cent word.
My brother is a police officer and his wife a highly paid accountant. Professionals, ya know, "good people". But I cannot count the times I've gone to their house and they will be outside while their 2 and 5 year old are inside, unsupervised, just getting into all manner of sh t. I have told him numerous times "One of these days you are going to find that little girl of yours floating face down in the tub". Deaf ears. Man I have known and witnessed so much bad parenting along these lines, from otherwise loving and caring parents, that I cannot fathom typing it all down.
Again, bad parenting becomming common does not excuse bad parenting. If parents do not care about their children enough to show a little concern for their safety, that was their choice.
The children do not have the luxery of forcing the parents to give a .
I am not going to approach this as if I would do this, because I wouldn't. But honestly, the McCann's were less than 40 yards away eating dinner. I can throw a rock 40 yards. That isn't far. Let's not act like they left the kids and drove a few miles down to a beach front restaurant.
To quote Vin Diesel "It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning is winning"
The distance involved does not matter, only that they were irresponsible and caused the child's death through their lack of taking responsibility.
It was irresponsible. Foolish. Naive. Yes. But this does not mean we should hang them from the nearest tree. If other perspective irresponsible parents want to extrapolate something of use from this, they should fear their child being stolen, raped, killed, or any combination thereof.
The child had no choice in this situation, only the parents has a choice, and their choice was to cause the death of their child through neglect.
We should hold them to some level of accountability. But at what level? Misdemeanor endangerment? Felony neglect? Murder one?
The punnishment you would ask from a stranger causing the death of your child through neglect would be fair, so tell us, what would you ask for in that case?
You do have a sense of humor. Kudos!
I already knew that, but thanks for your acknoledgment.
Back it up!
Don't just say it. Prove it. Or at the very least, provide me with an intelligent thought-line that supports this.
I already did, the time element is the biggest problem, a stranger that knows nothing about the layout of the home, the time shedules of the involved parties, what might happen, all things are chaos for a stranger and makes it almost impossible to pull off the perfect crime.
In my understanding of any violent or sexual offense, the hardest cases to solve are those that involve a stranger unknown to the victim. Therefor, if the case is harder to solve if a stranger is involved, and a particular case IS hard to solve; than I would begin to understand that it is likely that a stranger was involved.
I though you believed it was only an abduction, not a violent offense?
You see, you keep trying to twist different kinds of statistics together for seperate kinds of perpetrators. There is death evidence with the cadavar dogs, death to a young child in a strange Country is going to fall on the parents as the most likely cause, either directly or by accident.
for a stranger, killing a child is a very specific action by a perpetrator, for him to focus down on this child to kill her and him not know her could only mean a serial killer, a Ted Bundy kind of person. We would see other similar acts either before or after, to pull it off that cleanly, clearly shows he is not new to the art, new serials do tend to be sloppy, but learn to perfect themselves as they kill more.
So, in my opinion, the parents had something to do with the death of their child, or we have a serial killer. There is no evidence supporting a serial, so I lean tword the parents.
You're a cop. You take a case involving a missing child. You get a list of all the family members, friends, acquaintances, co-workers and you whittle the list down. You clear the list. They all check out, alibis and such, and where does that leave you say.......6 months into an investigation? Must be a stranger, right?
**** no, not if there is no evidence taking me that way. The rule is you follow the evidence, sure you keep your eyes open for anything but you only follow evidence.
Even serials leave some trace, some bit of evidence, many cases they want to be followed, they want credit for their actions.
Either way, you bang on the elements of the case, most criminals have some kind of alibis and through hard police work, those alibis get proven wrong, think about it, if they kill and cover up the death of their child, why not tell a few lies?
But what if there is no corroborating evidence that it was a stranger? No DNA. Not finger/foot/hand/shoe prints. No hair that is of unknown origin. So does this lack of evidence suffice as anything but anecdotal? Of course not. The lack of "something" being present does not indicate that this "something" doesn't exist. I don't see any ghosts in this house. Does this mean I have proven ghosts do not exist?
No evidence is evidence my friend. For example, you have a murder weapon but you have no prints on it, this tells us that it was cleaned before use and the killer wore gloves, or the weapon was cleaned after the act. This distinction can prove premeditated murder over say manslaughter or even self-defense.
Why are you assuming that this was a perfectly executed crime? Perhaps, the more likely possibility is that this was a far less than perfect investigation. That mistakes were made by the perpetrators, yet these mistakes got lost in the fog of war, as it were?
I am not making any assumptions, I am making a theory about what I feel happened based on the available evidence.
It is you that is ignoring the available evidence and making assumptions about there being a stranger involved when there is not one shread of proof to support that assumption.
