Maddy McCann

[eddo]

Didn't the person that killed Jon Benet just get caught.

 

Yes, but they are only charging him with conspiracy to kidnap, kidnapping, robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, burglary, assault, and weapons related crimes for trying to steal some memorabilia in Nevada...

[hugo]

Didn't the person that killed Jon Benet just get caught.

 

Yep, it's on Nancy Grace tonight along with the capture of a yeti.

[Jhony5]

To get back on track. I'm starting to think this case may end up like the Jon Benet Ramsey case, and nobody will ever be held accountable. That case was a classic example of inept police work, mostly because the Boulder police were too proud to ask for assistance. It's sad when pride interferes with justice.

 

Both cases suffer from the same phenomenon. Tunnel vision. From the start. The parallels are obvious. From a trampled crime scene and tunnel vision to the practice of the police lying to the media to use them as some sort of third party investigation outlet.

 

It is sad a serious topic like this can get this kind of dark humor.

 

I was seriously disappointed to see it take this turn.

 

For someone with the word "joke" worked into their moniker, one would think you would be far more receptive toward dark humor.

[snafu]

Both cases suffer from the same phenomenon. Tunnel vision. From the start. The parallels are obvious. From a trampled crime scene and tunnel vision to the practice of the police lying to the media to use them as some sort of third party investigation outlet..

 

Tunnel vision? You think they're focising on just the parents? The media reports any investigation on the parents because it sells. That dosn't mean they aren't looking into all the avenues. But I think your absolutly right about the trampled crimes scenes though.

[timesjoke]

For someone with the word "joke" worked into their moniker, one would think you would be far more receptive toward dark humor.

 

What does my name have to do with anything?

 

Timesjoke is about how time gets the last laugh on everyone, hence my sig "no matter how hard you try, you can't beat time". I came up with the idea based on the song "time" by Pink Floyd.

 

 

My point was that this is a serious topic and why dirty it up with garbage like that. Why laugh at another person's real suffering, sure, mild suffering may be okay, but this is no laughing matter.

 

 

 

A young girl is dead and the pearnts who were supposed to keep her safe neglected that duty (at the least) and allowed her to become a victim. The parents had all the power to stop this from happening even if they did not kill her by simply showing reasonable care, nothing more.

 

 

As I keep saying, at the very least, both parents are guilty of child endangerment causing the death of a small child, they are horrible pieces of garbage, nothing more.

[Jhony5]

What does my name have to do with anything?

Purely observational irony. You are known here as Timesjoke, yet you have a similar sense of humor as does a wet dishrag. So I guess the jokes on us.

 

Timesjoke is about how time gets the last laugh on everyone, hence my sig "no matter how hard you try, you can't beat time". I came up with the idea based on the song "time" by Pink Floyd.

Great song from the greatest LP ever. However, upon hearing it, I always felt inclined to get into a warm tub and slit my wrists after writing a farewell note to my loved ones. It's just so depressingly accurate.

 

My point was that this is a serious topic and why dirty it up with garbage like that. Why laugh at another person's real suffering, sure, mild suffering may be okay, but this is no laughing matter.

 

I think you missed the point hombre. I am not laughing at them. I am laughing at you. And those like you. Whom drum up fantastic scenarios about the tragedies of others whom you do not know. A situation of which you know nothing about. Yet you are all to comfortable in branding them as murderous psychopaths.

 

As I keep saying, at the very least, both parents are guilty of child endangerment causing the death of a small child, they are horrible pieces of garbage, nothing more.

OR.........Maybe they are good loving parents that made a horrible mistake? Is there any evidence, even of the anecdotal variety, that shows them to be terrible, monstrous parents? I admit they made a decision that was wholeheartedly naive and irresponsible. If they made choices like this often, we would surely have seen other incidents involving their children being harmed while unsupervised.

 

 

Tunnel vision? You think they're focusing on just the parents? The media reports any investigation on the parents because it sells. That dosn't mean they aren't looking into all the avenues.

Yes the media tauts the "killer parents" angle for all its worth (FOX News being the worst offender). But the same thing happened with the Ramsey murders. They had their prime suspect right there, all they need to do is appeal to the media and pressure them, soon they will break. Why waste resources on investigating other avenues?

 

The media didn't name them as prime suspects. The police did.

[timesjoke]

Purely observational irony. You are known here as Timesjoke, yet you have a similar sense of humor as does a wet dishrag. So I guess the jokes on us.

 

While I admit you have a right to your opinion, I still find joking about dead children to be in very bad taste, but it seems taste is no longer a consideration these days.

 

Great song from the greatest LP ever. However, upon hearing it, I always felt inclined to get into a warm tub and slit my wrists after writing a farewell note to my loved ones. It's just so depressingly accurate.

 

Well, you can be depressed or instead make the most out of the time you have, I choose the latter.

 

 

I think you missed the point hombre. I am not laughing at them. I am laughing at you. And those like you. Whom drum up fantastic scenarios about the tragedies of others whom you do not know. A situation of which you know nothing about. Yet you are all to comfortable in branding them as murderous psychopaths.

 

It does not matter who you are directing the sick humor at, all that matters is it is sick, sick your mind could even twist that way.

 

How is it you claim superior knowledge, we are all stupid and talking about things we don't understand and you are the smart one?

 

You need to get over yourself.

 

 

OR.........Maybe they are good loving parents that made a horrible mistake? Is there any evidence, even of the anecdotal variety, that shows them to be terrible, monstrous parents? I admit they made a decision that was wholeheartedly naive and irresponsible. If they made choices like this often, we would surely have seen other incidents involving their children being harmed while unsupervised.

 

Most states now charge parents for leaving their kids in hot cars, why is this any different? It is not reasonable to leave very young children alone, it only takes a second for a child to die from an accident, you already admitted they could have used the house nanny but they refused to do even that easy step of responsible action, clearly they are very bad parents at the very least.

 

Their child is dead, they are the only people who had it in their power to prevent this death, do you dispute that fact?

 

Why keep making excuses for them?

 

Yes the media tauts the "killer parents" angle for all its worth (FOX News being the worst offender). But the same thing happened with the Ramsey murders. They had their prime suspect right there, all they need to do is appeal to the media and pressure them, soon they will break. Why waste resources on investigating other avenues?

 

The media didn't name them as prime suspects. The police did.

 

Why is it you want everyone to completely ignore the most likely criminals in this case (family members) and only chase the least likely aspect, (non family members)?

 

I play the averages, that is all anyone can do, these investigators are not mind readers and cannot see evidence that is not there. They must follow the most likely course for crimes of this nature.

 

Did you know most crimes are solved by someone involved incriminating themselves? Did you know mothers turn their kids into police more often than any other person or relationship to the criminal?

 

Cops are not miricle workers, sure they have better tools than ever before but still they are limited by the law of averages to not catch crooks without them making a mistake.

[Jhony5]

While I admit you have a right to your opinion, I still find joking about dead children to be in very bad taste, but it seems taste is no longer a consideration these days.

 

What's funnier than a dead baby?

A dead baby sitting next to a kid with down syndrome.

 

 

What's funnier than a dead baby?

A dead baby in a clown costume!

 

How do you know when a baby is a dead baby?

The dog plays with it more.

 

 

I see what you mean TJ. Bad taste indeed.

 

Well, you can be depressed or instead make the most out of the time you have, I choose the latter.

What if I choose to make the most out of my time when I'm depressed?

 

It does not matter who you are directing the sick humor at, all that matters is it is sick, sick your mind could even twist that way.

 

[attach=full]1280[/attach]

 

Meh..........I prefer mine with plenty of ranch dressing.

 

How is it you claim superior knowledge, we are all stupid and talking about things we don't understand and you are the smart one?

 

I haven't claimed "superior knowledge". I am, however, one of the few here that refuses to "Know" who did it. Was it the parents? Ya better come with some evidence if you want me to support that.

 

Their child is dead, they are the only people who had it in their power to prevent this death, do you dispute that fact?

So off to prison with them for 20 to life, right? Unless the police can prove that the McCann's killed their daughter, y'all need to back off.

 

We need to be careful when suggesting long prison terms for people that make parenting errors. If I let my daughter play in the backyard with her friends and she got nabbed by a pedophile, I would bet my check that somebody out there is going to be blaming me for it. Especially if they found marijuana in my system.

 

I can see the head lines; DRUG ADDICT NEGLECTS CHILD.

 

All of the sudden it is not the kidnappers fault, its my fault for smoking a joint last Friday.

 

This may seem irrelevant, but it is not. What the McCann's did was naive and fool hearty. But not outrageous in the least. Many many parents do sh t like this thinking "Whats the worst that could happen".

 

Why is it you want everyone to completely ignore the most likely criminals in this case (family members) and only chase the least likely aspect, (non family members)?

 

I play the averages, that is all anyone can do, these investigators are not mind readers and cannot see evidence that is not there. They must follow the most likely course for crimes of this nature.

This is not a game of blackjack. Contrary to popular belief, people get away with murder all the time.

 

The numbers are irretrievable, but logic tells me that if a child abduction goes unsolved, than the most likely culprit was a stranger. That is not saying that a family member couldn't get away with it. Only that the odds are going to be incredibly slim. Police say it all the time in reference to abduction/homicide investigations; "The most difficult cases are those involving a suspect that is unknown to the victim".

[snafu]

What's funnier than a dead baby?

A dead baby sitting next to a kid with down syndrome.

 

 

What's funnier than a dead baby?

A dead baby in a clown costume!

 

How do you know when a baby is a dead baby?

The dog plays with it more.

 

 

I see what you mean TJ. Bad taste indeed.

 

What if I choose to make the most out of my time when I'm depressed?

 

 

 

[attach=full]1281[/attach]

 

Meh..........I prefer mine with plenty of ranch dressing.

 

 

 

I haven't claimed "superior knowledge". I am, however, one of the few here that refuses to "Know" who did it. Was it the parents? Ya better come with some evidence if you want me to support that.

 

So off to prison with them for 20 to life, right? Unless the police can prove that the McCann's killed their daughter, y'all need to back off.

 

We need to be careful when suggesting long prison terms for people that make parenting errors. If I let my daughter play in the backyard with her friends and she got nabbed by a pedophile, I would bet my check that somebody out there is going to be blaming me for it. Especially if they found marijuana in my system.

 

I can see the head lines; DRUG ADDICT NEGLECTS CHILD.

 

All of the sudden it is not the kidnappers fault, its my fault for smoking a joint last Friday.

 

This may seem irrelevant, but it is not. What the McCann's did was naive and fool hearty. But not outrageous in the least. Many many parents do sh t like this thinking "Whats the worst that could happen".

 

This is not a game of blackjack. Contrary to popular belief, people get away with murder all the time.

 

The numbers are irretrievable, but logic tells me that if a child abduction goes unsolved, than the most likely culprit was a stranger. That is not saying that a family member couldn't get away with it. Only that the odds are going to be incredibly slim. Police say it all the time in reference to abduction/homicide investigations; "The most difficult cases are those involving a suspect that is unknown to the victim".

 

 

1) That picture is gross and probably is bad tasting.

2) How do you see it being logical that it would be a stranger that did the abduction just because it hasn’t been solved? I see it the other way around. Without outside evidence which almost is always found I would assume it was an inside job.

[Jhony5]

That picture is gross and probably is bad tasting

It's fake, just in case any of you wussys think that's a real baby.

 

How do you see it being logical that it would be a stranger that did the abduction just because it hasn?t been solved? I see it the other way around. Without outside evidence which almost is always found I would assume it was an inside job.

To be clear, I did not say "it was logical that a stranger did this". I said that the longer this case goes cold, the greater the odds are that it was a stranger abduction. If someone pointed to a creek and swore that there was gold in it, how long are you gonna pan dirt and not find any gold before you look in another creek? At what point do you admit that there is no gold here?

 

To get the gist of what I'm saying, do you think it would be easier to get away with a crime if the police had no idea who you are and you have no connection to the victim whatsoever?

 

Or would it be easier to get away with it if they suspect you, personally, and are exhausting all means to investigate you?

 

C'mon! Logically the stranger will get away with it far FAR FAR more often.

 

The difference between a stranger and a father/mother, in relation to a child abduction, is pure. One is a suspect on a list. The other is unknown. The one being investigated, or the one whom is not being investigated?

 

C'mon guys! This is simple stuff.

[hugo]

There are questions the answers to I would like to know. 1) were the McCann's in the habit of leaving their kids alone. 2) was there any evidence of forced entry?

 

If the answer to either question is no the McCann's most likely did it.

 

Answering my second question

 

Madeleine's parents 'left patio doors unlocked'

Last updated at 16:53pm on 13th May 2007

Police in Portugal are working on the theory that Madeleine was snatched through patio doors left unlocked by her parents as they dined just 40 yards away.

 

Until now, it was believed that shutters at the front of the apartment had been jemmied open by the little girl's abductors.

 

But Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa, spokesman for the investigation, has confided in British former Chief Inspector Albert Kirby that neither the windows nor their shutters had been tampered with.

 

Police in Portugal are working on the theory that Madeleine was snatched through patio doors

More....

 

Mr Kirby, who led the investigation into the abduction and murder of Liverpool-born toddler Jamie Bulger, revealed that it was the unlocked patio doors of the apartment that allowed Madeleine to be taken away swiftly and quietly.

 

Sources close to the investigation also confirmed that police attention was solely focused on the back of the apartment, which leads on to a small garden easily accessible from a public path through a gateway.

 

Gerry and Kate McCann would have used the patio doors as they checked on their daughter and her twin siblings during their meal near the Mark Warner holiday complex swimming pool and it is these doors that were left unsecured.

 

The McCanns and all their friends on the holiday left their patio doors open throughout the evenings for fear of fire.

 

Mr Kirby told The Mail on Sunday: "I had a very interesting chat with the officer in charge. The window shutters are not an issue.

 

"Their mechanism makes them almost impossible to open. The door was left unlocked. They did that every night.

 

"I think the police have a very specific understanding of what they are looking for."

 

Mr Kirby believes Portuguese police will solve the case of the missing toddler within days. He said: "I am impressed by the investigation. I have a feeling we will have a result by the end of the next week."

 

Of course, you really need to question leaving children alone in a place that is susceptible to fire to the degree people commonly leave doors unlocked. If the McCann's are not guilty of murder they need to be removed from the human gene pool for being grossly stupid.

[timesjoke]

I see what you mean TJ. Bad taste indeed.

 

How do you get 100 babies into a mail box?

 

Food processor.

 

 

How do you get them back out?

 

 

With a straw.

 

 

 

The part that makes your joke tasteless is when you get specific about a "real" death of a child. It is insensitive and if it was your dead child people were making jokes about you would fly into a rage, and so would I.

 

 

What if I choose to make the most out of my time when I'm depressed?

 

I see that the same as using military and intelligence together.

 

 

I haven't claimed "superior knowledge". I am, however, one of the few here that refuses to "Know" who did it. Was it the parents? Ya better come with some evidence if you want me to support that.

 

I have always said my beliefs are based on what I know so far but am completely open to new evidence.

 

I cannot ignore cadavar dog hits, that is 100% foolproof, there was dead bodies in those two places.

 

I cannot ignore no forced entry.

 

I cannot ignore the statistics that say close family ore the most likely people to harm small children.

 

I cannot ignore their refusal to allow hair samples to be taken on the living kid to see if there was any trace of drugs.

 

 

At the end of the day, we do have 100% proof that they are in fact guilty of child endangerment that led to the death of their child, you cannot dispute that and so far, nobody is willing to hold them accountable for that fact.

 

So off to prison with them for 20 to life, right? Unless the police can prove that the McCann's killed their daughter, y'all need to back off.

 

You dodged the question, so I will ask it again:

 

Their child is dead, they are the only people who had it in their power to prevent this death, do you dispute that fact?

 

 

All of the sudden it is not the kidnappers fault, its my fault for smoking a joint last Friday.

 

Obviously if your stoned or drunk, or any other mind altering state, it can affect your judgement. If your imparement caused you to neglect your child, then yes, you should be at least partly responsible.

 

I see this the same as driving a car, if it is illegal to drive drunk or stonned, then it should be illegal to do something ten times more important like watching children. This brings to mind the story of the kid killed by the dog while the grandmother (I think) was stoned and drunk, her imparement caused the harm to the child.

 

This may seem irrelevant, but it is not. What the McCann's did was naive and fool hearty. But not outrageous in the least. Many many parents do sh t like this thinking "Whats the worst that could happen".

 

While I dispute your claim about how often parents put their children into mortal danger, the frequency things happen do not make them right or wrong.

 

I don't care how many parents do crap like this, it is wrong and giving them a pass just makes parents know they cannot ever be held accountable for their actions and will cause more harm to children.

 

These parents are highly educated doctors, if they don't know better then to leave the tiny children alone and helpless in a room while they go out to dinner and have fun, who can we expect to know?

 

It is called responsibility, only the parents are responsible in this situation, so why can't we hold them responsible?

 

This is not a game of blackjack. Contrary to popular belief, people get away with murder all the time.

 

No it is not a game, but everything in life is making judgements, judgements made based on many factors, including things like statistics.

 

Would you start looking for a serial killer in a Harlem womens center?

 

No, because most serial killers are middle aged to young white males, so you start there and work that angle until something comes along to take you into another direction.

 

 

The numbers are irretrievable, but logic tells me that if a child abduction goes unsolved, than the most likely culprit was a stranger. That is not saying that a family member couldn't get away with it. Only that the odds are going to be incredibly slim. Police say it all the time in reference to abduction/homicide investigations; "The most difficult cases are those involving a suspect that is unknown to the victim".

 

Logic does not say a longer time means a stranger did the crime, it is instead the exact opposite.

 

With the absence of things like forced entry and no evidence of an intruder of any kind, that proves it is not a spontanious act. The person committing the crime had plenty of time to do what needed to be done to ensure there was no evidence against him/her. A stranger would be constantly concerned for the unexpected return of the parents and that would force some kind of mistake, some kind of error that would be traced back if not to him, then to the possibility of a stranger being involved.

 

 

This is for all purposes, a perfect crime. No evidence of any kind to prove an outside person was involved, that level of perfection does not happen without time, a precious comodity an outsider does not have much of.

 

No, based on the evidence available at this time, only the parents had the time to pull this off so perfectly in my opinion. I do hope some evidence comes along to prove otherwise because no parent wants to think killing your own children is possible, but just because it is distastful, does not make it untrue.

[Jhony5]

How do you get 100 babies into a mail box?

 

Food processor.

 

How do you get them back out?

 

With a straw.

 

The part that makes your joke tasteless is when you get specific about a "real" death of a child. It is insensitive and if it was your dead child people were making jokes about you would fly into a rage, and so would I.

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.

 

I see that the same as using military and intelligence together.

So you're saying that a manic depressive personality cannot also be an optimist? "This glass makes me sad, but at least its half full".

 

I cannot ignore cadavar dog hits, that is 100% foolproof, there was dead bodies in those two places.

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.

 

I cannot ignore no forced entry.

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.

 

I cannot ignore the statistics that say close family are the most likely people to harm small children.

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.

 

I cannot ignore their refusal to allow hair samples to be taken on the living kid to see if there was any trace of drugs.

Here is where I start asking for you to back things up. Back it up. I have heard this whispered all about. But have yet to see any verification of such.

 

At the end of the day, we do have 100% proof that they are in fact guilty of child endangerment that led to the death of their child, you cannot dispute that and so far, nobody is willing to hold them accountable for that fact.

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.

 

You dodged the question, so I will ask it again:

 

Their child is dead, they are the only people who had it in their power to prevent this death, do you dispute that fact?

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.

 

 

While I dispute your claim about how often parents put their children into mortal danger, the frequency things happen do not make them right or wrong.

 

I don't care how many parents do crap like this, it is wrong and giving them a pass just makes parents know they cannot ever be held accountable for their actions and will cause more harm to children.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

It is called responsibility, only the parents are responsible in this situation, so why can't we hold them responsible?

We should hold them to some level of accountability. But at what level? Misdemeanor endangerment? Felony neglect? Murder one?

Would you start looking for a serial killer in a Harlem womens center?

You do have a sense of humor. Kudos!

 

Logic does not say a longer time means a stranger did the crime, it is instead the exact opposite.

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

This is for all purposes, a perfect crime. No evidence of any kind to prove an outside person was involved, that level of perfection does not happen without time, a precious commodity an outsider does not have much of.

 

No, based on the evidence available at this time, only the parents had the time to pull this off so perfectly in my opinion. I do hope some evidence comes along to prove otherwise because no parent wants to think killing your own children is possible, but just because it is distastful, does not make it untrue.

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?

[Old Salt]

Just a few comments and then I'll butt back out.

 

This happened in a foreign country. Laws and rules of evidence are different than in the US (a la Natalie Holloway).

 

The family was staying in a "holiday village". My experience is that they're normally gated communities. Maybe not in this case - I don't know. If it was, the families probably felt fairly safe leaving their children while they ate with their friends - which seemed to be the norm during their stay there. {No, I don't condone leaving small children unattended.}

 

Lack of physical evidence at the scene could be chalked up to a couple of things: Police incompetence for one, or did the maid maybe come in and clean (refer back to police incompetence)?

 

Just my two cents.

[timesjoke]

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?

 

Hell 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.

[ImWithStupid]

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.

 

True. I always thought that the parents of Polly Klaas, Megan Kanka, and Adam Walsh should have been thrown in jail for negligently allowing their kids to be raped and or murdered.

 

If they only locked them in their bedrooms, put tiger traps outside the windows of their homes and didn't loose sight of their kids for a minute at the mall, they would be fine.

[timesjoke]

True. I always thought that the parents of Polly Klaas, Megan Kanka, and Adam Walsh should have been thrown in jail for negligently allowing their kids to be raped and or murdered.

 

If they only locked them in their bedrooms, put tiger traps outside the windows of their homes and didn't loose sight of their kids for a minute at the mall, they would be fine.

 

 

If you don't care enough about your children to watch them, why should anyone else care about them?

 

 

Obviously you are using the standard "I can't argue with facts so I will resort to rediclious exagerations" method but to a certain degree, even your stupid comeback is dead on.

 

If not the parents, then who?

 

If the parents who created the children do not love them enough to truly care for them, who will care enough for them?

 

I get so depressed when people talk like the world should be one big daycare facility where everyone is pampered and taken care of and never have to take responsibility for themselves or anything else for that matter.

 

It is time to wake up, the world is a dangerious place, if you do not take care of your children, something bad will most likely happen to them, stop acting surprised when your irresponsibility leads to bad results.

[Jhony5]

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.

Oh c'mon. "Disingenuous" is a multisyllabic word. I counted 5 syllables. Thats at least a thousand dollar word, man.

 

I am not the only one whom doubts the police even got a hit. This wasn't done on television. There is no record of this event. All there is to support this is the word of known liars, police. Add to all that the fact that Mrs McCann works with dead bodies on a near daily basis, I have plenty of room to dismiss this so-called canine evidence.

 

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,.

What the dogs do know is to sniff for a chemical compound that is produced specifically when human flesh rots. Which, as was pointed out, is a scent that Mrs McCann most definitely has on her clothing.

 

Also, there is no such thing as 100% accuracy with police dogs. Do a little research and you will see that even in the best of circumstances, there is plenty of room for error.

 

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.

They did not "chose" to have their child abducted/murdered. They choose to eat dinner not 40 yards away for a few hours while their children slept. They have their punishment. Their child is gone, possibly forever. What purpose is served by ruining their other two children's lives by slamming them in prison for a naive mistake? HUH? You think it will be better for their other two children to have mommy and daddy taken away for many years?

 

Do you think that Bobby Sue in a Bumblescum Arkansas trailer park is going to keep a better eye on her child because some British f ckers got put in prison for neglect? The McCann's do not need to pay for their actions any more than they already have.

 

Again, where is even one shread of evidence to support an abduction?

Where is Maddy?

 

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?

That question is too broad. Rephrase it and narrow it down to specifics and I will be happy to reply.

 

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.

A hotel employee would be the perfect fit for this. The employees were forgotten in the early hours of this flawed investigation. It took over 60 hours after the missing child was reported before they made any attempt at interviewing the hotel employees. That is despicable.

 

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 separate kinds of perpetrators. There is death evidence with the cadaver 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.

You misunderstand. I am speaking toward the motivation for abducting a child. Which is almost always for violent/sexual gratification. A very very small percentage of abductions are committed for the purpose of keeping and raising a child. Which may also be the case here. Either way, all three categories are befitting the motivations of a stranger.

 

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.

Are you telling me that you find it entirely unfeasible that a man could enter through an unlocked rear door, walk a few feet to a bed, scoop up a sleeping child in a blanket and walk away without leaving evidence? Because I'll take that bet.

 

Let delve into who is investigating this abduction. We are not talking about Americas finest, the FBI. Whom are called in on every child abduction that is reported in America. What we have in Portugal is a former fascist state that still employees officers that were trained under fascism. They are incompetent, poorly trained and dubious.

 

Here is the scumbag that is leading the investigation;

[attach=full]1282[/attach]

 

Fine looking gentleman, aye?

 

Here is an example of how this man handled a past missing child report with no body;

Cipriano was convicted of murder and jailed, along with her brother Joao, even though Joana's body was never found.

 

A photograph of Cipriano's face covered in bruises following her police interview has been published in Portuguese newspapers.

 

Now Mr Amaral has himself become an "arguido" - Portuguese for suspect.

 

Embarrassingly, police still do not have any arguidos in their Madeleine hunt apart from Robert Murat, who looks increasingly likely to be cleared of any involvement.

 

The bizarre development caps a miserable week for the Portuguese force following sustained criticism of their bungling efforts to find Gerry and Kate McCann's little girl.

 

Joana vanished in September 2004 from her home in Figueira, seven miles from Praia da Luz where Madeleine was abducted 38 days ago.

 

The alleged attack on Joana's mother occurred when she was questioned without a lawyer over her daughter's apparent abduction.

 

 

 

Goncalo Amaral is one of five officers accused over the beating of Leonor Cipriano

It is claimed she was left with bruises all over her face and body, according to the newspaper Jornal de Noticias.

 

She lodged a formal complaint about her treatment which was followed up by the Ministerio Publico - or District Attorney's department.

 

Now the department has charged three officers with torture, a fourth with omission of evidence and a fifth with falsification of documents.

 

It is not known which charge applies to Mr Amaral because a spokesman would not specify which officers had been charged with which offense.

 

And here is what he did to her when he "questioned" her;

.

 

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.

TJ, you are taking the word of very bad police officers to support your allegations. These men that have investigated the McCann case couldn't catch a cold in a hospital waiting room in January.

 

You cannot ignore that this is not the FBI or an American police agency. This is the Portuguese police. Well known for being sh t.

[ImWithStupid]

I think you missed my point with the sarcastic post I made.

 

You're the one who thinks that we shoot and kill thieves, because they don't contribute to society, but thinks that we should blame the parents of murdered kids for not protecting them enough.

 

You might not realize it but through much of this thread, you sound like you blame the parents more then murdering chi-mos.

[timesjoke]

Oh c'mon. "Disingenuous" is a multisyllabic word. I counted 5 syllables. Thats at least a thousand dollar word, man.

 

Not in this day and age of the online dictonary, the value of words dropped considerably after every lazy idiot could look them up so easily.

 

I am not the only one whom doubts the police even got a hit. This wasn't done on television. There is no record of this event. All there is to support this is the word of known liars, police. Add to all that the fact that Mrs McCann works with dead bodies on a near daily basis, I have plenty of room to dismiss this so-called canine evidence.

 

And you have proof that every police officer there is telling lies?

 

Your swinging that paintbrush of yours pretty wildly against people who could not have stopped the death of this little girl but get pissed at me and others for putting any blame on the two adults in this situation that "could" have prevented this situation.

 

I think your priorities are a little screwed up sir.

 

 

You can doubt whatever you like but you cannot prove anything is lie so until you can prove it, their proof stands, the cadavar dogs did hit on dead bodies.

 

 

It is impossible for them to hit on clothes from mrs.cain, for two reasons, the time seperating the two periods and the fact that it is impossible for her to be wearing clothing exposed to dead rotting flesh, you see, doctors wear gowns that stay at the hospital, if she was capable of taking that chemical away with her, then she could also cary diseases and such.

 

 

It is called biohazzard my friend, do you have any idea the lawsuits that come from contaminating the outside world with things from a hospital? She would not have the ability to leave the premisis with any contaninates on them, so there goes your idea........

 

 

What the dogs do know is to sniff for a chemical compound that is produced specifically when human flesh rots. Which, as was pointed out, is a scent that Mrs McCann most definitely has on her clothing.

 

Already proven to be impossible. They wear gowns, there is no direct contact between dead bodies at hospitals/morgs and doctors civilien clothing.

 

 

Also, there is no such thing as 100% accuracy with police dogs. Do a little research and you will see that even in the best of circumstances, there is plenty of room for error.

 

Not with cadavar dogs, it is like being pregnant, yes or no.

 

 

They did not "chose" to have their child abducted/murdered. They choose to eat dinner not 40 yards away for a few hours while their children slept. They have their punishment. Their child is gone, possibly forever. What purpose is served by ruining their other two children's lives by slamming them in prison for a naive mistake? HUH? You think it will be better for their other two children to have mommy and daddy taken away for many years?

 

But they did "choose" to put their children at risk. Putting them in jail and protecting their remaining children from a similar lack of good judgement would be prudent in my opinion.

 

 

Do you think that Bobby Sue in a Bumblescum Arkansas trailer park is going to keep a better eye on her child because some British f ckers got put in prison for neglect? The McCann's do not need to pay for their actions any more than they already have.

 

 

Every bad example has a result, it a a case of baby steps, one little step at a time we are making the death of children meaningless, the first step was to make it socially acceptable to kill babies in the womb, now they are working on small children, we will see how long it takes.

 

 

Where is Maddy?

 

Good question for her parents, they were the last we can prove had contact with her.

 

 

That question is too broad. Rephrase it and narrow it down to specifics and I will be happy to reply.

 

Don't play games with it, just answer the question, if irresponsibility from a stranger caused the death of your child, how much punnishment would you believe is fair for that unintentional death? Remember, this is choice, the parents had an easy choice to get the babysitter but refused to do it. At the least we are talking gross negligance and child endangerment.

 

 

A hotel employee would be the perfect fit for this. The employees were forgotten in the early hours of this flawed investigation. It took over 60 hours after the missing child was reported before they made any attempt at interviewing the hotel employees. That is despicable.

 

Not really, they would know the layout, that is true but still no way to conceal a child, dead or alive. People notice when an employee is there on their day off for example, no not a worker, I doubt that is possible.

 

 

You misunderstand. I am speaking toward the motivation for abducting a child. Which is almost always for violent/sexual gratification. A very very small percentage of abductions are committed for the purpose of keeping and raising a child. Which may also be the case here. Either way, all three categories are befitting the motivations of a stranger.

 

There is no evidence of an abduction, so no reason to run off into the distance twisting motivations for something that never happened as far as we know.

 

Are you telling me that you find it entirely unfeasible that a man could enter through an unlocked rear door, walk a few feet to a bed, scoop up a sleeping child in a blanket and walk away without leaving evidence? Because I'll take that bet.

 

It is not just that, there is approaching the room undetected at a popular and busy resort and then leave again with an unwilling child and not one person notice anything, no, I do not see that as possible at first glance.

 

 

 

Fine looking gentleman, aye?

 

Personal attacks on someone you know nothing about have nothing to do with this.

 

TJ, you are taking the word of very bad police officers to support your allegations. These men that have investigated the McCann case couldn't catch a cold in a hospital waiting room in January.

 

You cannot ignore that this is not the FBI or an American police agency. This is the Portuguese police. Well known for being sh t.

 

A resort town cannot exist without at least marginal decent police to keep the peace.

 

If they were as bad as you claim crime would be out of control there, no they are not that bad.

 

You just need them to be evil and incompetant to fulfil your assumtions.

[Jhony5]

Wow TJ. You completely ran roughshod over the entire aspect of faulty policing in Portugal. Do you really want to support your inane theory so badly that you will display such confidence in an investigation, and investigators, that I have provided SO many examples of?

 

Not with cadaver dogs, it is like being pregnant, yes or no.

....and who the f ck told you that buddy? There are fallible. As well as their handlers.

 

here is an excerpt from an interview with a cadaver dog handler;

 

She has bad days' date=' I have bad days, we work together as a team. If I misinterpret what she is telling me, [b']we’re fallible[/b].

 

Boooyah?

 

Article about cadaver dog training methodology - written by Jonni Joyce.

Most of the problems that I have witnessed in working cadaver dogs can be traced back to the lack of foundation training during the early training of the dog and handler.

Knock it off TJ. We get your point, but there are a few GLARING problems with the cadaver dog evidence you are leaning on.

 

Portuguese police are crooked liars that were trained by fascist.

 

The lead investigator has been in trouble before for assaulting a mother of a missing child.

 

Police dogs are all fallible.

 

read this,,,,,,,,,PLEASE

Can you trust a cadaver dog if there's no cadaver? - By Torie Bosch - Slate Magazine

Not in this day and age of the online dictionary, the value of words dropped considerably after every lazy idiot could look them up so easily.

Do not question my vocabulary, friend.

 

It is impossible for them to hit on clothes from mrs.cain, for two reasons, the time seperating the two periods and the fact that it is impossible for her to be wearing clothing exposed to dead rotting flesh, you see, doctors wear gowns that stay at the hospital, if she was capable of taking that chemical away with her, then she could also cary diseases and such.

 

 

It is called biohazzard my friend, do you have any idea the lawsuits that come from contaminating the outside world with things from a hospital? She would not have the ability to leave the premisis with any contaninates on them, so there goes your idea........

Actually my "idea" is supported by the Brittish police. As well there IS evidence of a yet unidentified person;

 

A letter from the head of the British investigation says that Portuguese detectives have been unable to identify a number of samples recovered at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz.

 

The Times has learnt that detectives recovered unidentified DNA and fingerprints during a series of earlier searches. They have also been unable to trace a number of mobile telephone calls made on the evening that Madeleine was reported missing, six days before her fourth birthday.

 

The operation — which comes a month after Kate and Gerry McCann were named as suspects over the disappearance of their daughter — suggests that detectives cannot rule out the possibility that a stranger might have stolen the child from her bed.

As to the scent of death on Mrs McCann; The smell permeates hair, through clothing onto under-clothing, as well as personal effects i.e. purse cell phone etc. Transmitted back and forth.

Don't play games with it, just answer the question, if irresponsibility from a stranger caused the death of your child, how much punishment would you believe is fair for that unintentional death?

"Don't play games with it".

 

God damn man, you are a cynical lot. The question is entirely without a scenario. Under what circumstance, is my question? F ck it, I'll do it myself since you aren't capable. Let's say I was allowing a friend to baby sit my daughter and they did the EXACT same thing as the McCanns did. I would be pissed, but I would not want to press charges. It would do no good. There is no point to it. I would want revenge on the person that has my daughter, not the person that was supposed to be watching her.

 

I am forgiving of mistakes made unintentionally, under certain circumstance. Now if the person I allowed to watch my daughter was driving drunk and hurt my daughter, now we're talking jailtime.

 

It is not just that, there is approaching the room undetected at a popular and busy resort and then leave again with an unwilling child and not one person notice anything, no, I do not see that as possible at first glance.

I thought you said you had children? Because any 3-4 year old I have EVER been around; could be picked up while sleeping, placed in a container and overnighted to Africa and they wouldn't wake up. My daughter is 8 and I can pick her up in the living room while she is asleep and carry her to the bedroom without waking her.

 

Personal attacks on someone you know nothing about have nothing to do with this.

LOL..........

 

I posted a real, verifiable example of one of the lead investigators and his past transgressions, that are clearly documented. You are personally attacking the McCanns, strongly insinuating that they are murderers. And YOUR GONNA F CKING TELL ME NOT TO MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS?

 

HA HA HA and HA.

 

A resort town cannot exist without at least marginal decent police to keep the peace.

Nor can it exist if children keep getting abducted. I posted a recent case wherein a mother was railroaded, beaten severally and convicted with nothing but anecdotal evidence (AND NO BODY). Not surprising that the local officials would rather attack the parents then have the idea floating around that Portugal is unsafe.

[snafu]

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.

 

 

Fire phobic? How convient. I don't believe that one at all. so was this resort made of balsa wood or something? And they don't have fire alarms? I call bull .

[Jhony5]

Fire phobic? How convient. I don't believe that one at all.

 

You have never met anyone with overblown phobias? The word about their habit of leaving an exit door unlocked was offered up by their family members. Apparently they did this sort of thing all the time.

[snafu]

So they leave their doors unlocked all the time or just when they leave the kids alone? Again bull .

[atlantic]

So they leave their doors unlocked all the time or just when they leave the kids alone? Again bull .

I actually know two mothers, one is single, who leave their doors unlocked all the time, the single mom told me a week ago that she came home at midnight last week to find her things have been moved around. I have warned them both several times, in this day and age you would think people would be educated enough to know better. Both women are college graduates but stupid as hell apparently.