Can of worms at the ready...and I'll just pop them open!!!
Comments
-
Well you could find out more if you wanted to. The chief investigating officer wrote a book, its available online, its all in there.
This case reminds me of when I was a kid, I had this teddy bear. I bloody loved it. It went everywhere with me, play school, the park, bed, on holiday. I loved it so much I even took it to dinner.
If the McCanns were 'like' the Philpotts I'm guessing this whole saga would have gone differently.0 -
goonz wrote:Something just seems fishy about the parents to me.
Fishy in a magaluf strip club sense, or in a suspicious sense.
At the end of the day they have blood on their hands, whether they did it themselves, covered something accidental up or she really was abducted. Had they not left her in an apartment on her own it the latter wouldnt have happened0 -
GiantMike wrote:
Er, yeah. Have you seen my car!Croptonboy wrote:
You're comparing a childs life to your car, really???GiantMike wrote:Clearly, if the parents had taken it in turns to continually stare at all their children, 24 hours a day, the chance of abduction is significantly reduced. Come to think of it, my car is in the car park and I'm not watching it. Presumably if somebody BREAKS THE LAW and steals it the interwebs will be full of people blaming me for leaving it unattended.
My point was that although the parents could be held to be negligent (I don't know the full details, I don't think anybody does) for leaving them unattended, the crime relies on a third party breaking the law.
You are right insofar that a third party is guilty of the abduction BUT parents are responsible for safeguarding their kids.
I don't know if you have kids, but I am sure they would be pleased to know that you put them on a pedestal, right up there with your car. Where do you value them, somewhere between a 3 and a 5 series. Not the M versions, obviously.
0 -
What's always intrigued me about this story, from the start is their assumed guilt, why? Still being pushed on here, 100 reasons why they are guilty! Rubbish repeated by idiots who know nothing about it. Seemed to be being criticised for 'holding it all together' originally, if I remember correctly, and 'being middle class' as well! Queer old world?.....0
-
Most of any abuse is done by a family member.Phil Fouracre wrote:What's always intrigued me about this story, from the start is their assumed guilt, why? Still being pushed on here, 100 reasons why they are guilty! Rubbish repeated by idiots who know nothing about it. Seemed to be being criticised for 'holding it all together' originally, if I remember correctly, and 'being middle class' as well! Queer old world?.....
Theres a starting point.
Thats where the police begin.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Why their assumed guilt? Because they left the children unattended. Do you have kids? Would you leave young children in bed alone out of sight and out of earshot? I certainly wouldn't and haven't.
I don't know if they are guilty of any wrongdoing beyond that. But I will tell you that I have two children and I would not have left them in the way that the McCanns have said they left their kids at that age.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:Why their assumed guilt? Because they left the children unattended. Do you have kids? Would you leave young children in bed alone out of sight and out of earshot? I certainly wouldn't and haven't.
I don't know if they are guilty of any wrongdoing beyond that. But I will tell you that I have two children and I would not have left them in the way that the McCanns have said they left their kids at that age.
+1
Anyone who leaves their kids "home alone" deserves all they get. Unfortunately the kids do not :evil:
If you put or allow very young children into a position of danger, you are guilty of neglect at best.
And the middle class quote is a joke. If they had been unemployed, people would be braying for their blood, and the media would be having a field day; "Chav's leave kids home alone to be murdered while out on bender spending YOUR money!" etc. No worrying whether they were guilty then or not.0 -
So they left all their kids unattended THEN they got rid of one of them?Veronese68 wrote:Why their assumed guilt? Because they left the children unattended. Do you have kids? Would you leave young children in bed alone out of sight and out of earshot? I certainly wouldn't and haven't.
So is that guilty of neglect or guilty of getting rid of Maddie? Very different crimes.Pituophis wrote:Anyone who leaves their kids "home alone" deserves all they get. Unfortunately the kids do not :evil:
If you put or allow very young children into a position of danger, you are guilty of neglect at best.
This is just more wild internet speculation by lots of people with very very few facts.0 -
GiantMike wrote:
So they left all their kids unattended THEN they got rid of one of them?Veronese68 wrote:Why their assumed guilt? Because they left the children unattended. Do you have kids? Would you leave young children in bed alone out of sight and out of earshot? I certainly wouldn't and haven't.
So is that guilty of neglect or guilty of getting rid of Maddie? Very different crimes.Pituophis wrote:Anyone who leaves their kids "home alone" deserves all they get. Unfortunately the kids do not :evil:
If you put or allow very young children into a position of danger, you are guilty of neglect at best.
This is just more wild internet speculation by lots of people with very very few facts.
You are right that no-one knows all the facts about what happened, otherwise Maddie would have been found.
The one thing that seems beyond doubt is that the parents left their very young kids alone whilst they themselves went out for a meal with friends. It is this action that other parents can't understand because they would never do it themselves. It seems such a selfish thing to do. That is why people find it difficult to empathise with the McCanns. Myself included.0 -
I've long thought that the McCann's know more about their daughter's disappearance than they're letting on.
What surprised me about this week's program was that even after Madeline told them she didn't like being left, they still continued to do so. Moreover, when Mrs McCann went to check on them she didn't even go into the bedroom, just checked that all was quiet.
It was only when she saw that the bedroom door was wider open than usual that she bothered to look into the room.
There's something rotten in the house of McCann.0 -
GiantMike wrote:
So they left all their kids unattended THEN they got rid of one of them?Veronese68 wrote:Why their assumed guilt? Because they left the children unattended. Do you have kids? Would you leave young children in bed alone out of sight and out of earshot? I certainly wouldn't and haven't.
So is that guilty of neglect or guilty of getting rid of Maddie? Very different crimes.Pituophis wrote:Anyone who leaves their kids "home alone" deserves all they get. Unfortunately the kids do not :evil:
If you put or allow very young children into a position of danger, you are guilty of neglect at best.
This is just more wild internet speculation by lots of people with very very few facts.
Not quite. I said it before, I'll say it again. The chief investigating officer wrote a book, you can read it. It tells you all of the facts of the case.0 -
"Gonçalo Amaral book
Just as the McCanns were cleared by the Portuguese attorney general in July 2008, Gonçalo Amaral, the officer in charge of the Portuguese investigation until October 2007, published a book, Maddie, a Verdade da Mentira ("Maddie, the Truth of the Lie"). It alleged that Madeleine had died in the holiday apartment and that the McCanns had invented the abduction"None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
I haven't read the book, but I do remember it being suggested that Mrs. McCann had allegedly drugged Maddie to make her sleep while they went out, and that it had actually killed her.SpainSte wrote:Not quite. I said it before, I'll say it again. The chief investigating officer wrote a book, you can read it. It tells you all of the facts of the case.
It tells you one guy's side of things, anyway...0 -
As Ballysmate said, they have openly admitted leaving the children. Take a look at this, I would say that makes leaving them against UK law and shows they have done wrong. We know they are guilty of neglect, only they know if they are guilty of more than that.Ballysmate wrote:GiantMike wrote:
So they left all their kids unattended THEN they got rid of one of them?Veronese68 wrote:Why their assumed guilt? Because they left the children unattended. Do you have kids? Would you leave young children in bed alone out of sight and out of earshot? I certainly wouldn't and haven't.
So is that guilty of neglect or guilty of getting rid of Maddie? Very different crimes.Pituophis wrote:Anyone who leaves their kids "home alone" deserves all they get. Unfortunately the kids do not :evil:
If you put or allow very young children into a position of danger, you are guilty of neglect at best.
This is just more wild internet speculation by lots of people with very very few facts.
You are right that no-one knows all the facts about what happened, otherwise Maddie would have been found.
The one thing that seems beyond doubt is that the parents left their very young kids alone whilst they themselves went out for a meal with friends. It is this action that other parents can't understand because they would never do it themselves. It seems such a selfish thing to do. That is why people find it difficult to empathise with the McCanns. Myself included.0 -
You're obviously have a better understanding of the case that I do. I didn't know they'd been charged with neglect and I certainly didn't realise they'd been convicted.Veronese68 wrote:We know they are guilty of neglect, only they know if they are guilty of more than that.0 -
GiantMike wrote:
That will make the Met's job a bit easier. Who did it then?SpainSte wrote:Not quite. I said it before, I'll say it again. The chief investigating officer wrote a book, you can read it. It tells you all of the facts of the case.
Yawn.
It does however cover the 100 questions that were posted earlier that you deemed to be the work of "keyboard warriors" who knew little about the case and that there was no evidence to support these claims. Well the book outlines the evidence and those questions are obvious questions that would arise as a result of the evidence that was collected by the portuguese police, in liason with the British police and a specialist British police dog team.0 -
Croptonboy wrote:I haven't read the book, but I do remember it being suggested that Mrs. McCann had allegedly drugged Maddie to make her sleep while they went out, and that it had actually killed her.SpainSte wrote:Not quite. I said it before, I'll say it again. The chief investigating officer wrote a book, you can read it. It tells you all of the facts of the case.
It tells you one guy's side of things, anyway...
"One guy" that was the chief investigating officer of the police force in charge of the investigation and is better placed than anyone else to make suggestions based on the available evidence.0 -
I obviously have a better understanding of what is being written than you as well.GiantMike wrote:
You're obviously have a better understanding of the case that I do. I didn't know they'd been charged with neglect and I certainly didn't realise they'd been convicted.Veronese68 wrote:We know they are guilty of neglect, only they know if they are guilty of more than that.
Did I say they've been charged and convicted of it? No, I said they are guilty of it, can you not tell the difference? They have freely admitted to leaving 3 children, 2 of them aged 18 months, alone in the apartment. You don't have to be charged and found guilty in a court of law to be guilty of something.
I dearly hope you don't have children if you have such difficulty grasping this concept.0 -
But you are implying that because they have said they left their children unattended (from which you are saying they are guilty of neglect which, criminally speaking, they aren't unless the evidence is tested in court) they may be guilty of something else, with the insinuation of something more sinister. I don't think anybody followed your train of thought and assumed they were guilty of parking offences. Yes, you're right, only they know what they did, but insinuations like yours are meaningless really, aren't they?Veronese68 wrote:
I obviously have a better understanding of what is being written than you as well.GiantMike wrote:
You're obviously have a better understanding of the case that I do. I didn't know they'd been charged with neglect and I certainly didn't realise they'd been convicted.Veronese68 wrote:We know they are guilty of neglect, only they know if they are guilty of more than that.
Did I say they've been charged and convicted of it? No, I said they are guilty of it, can you not tell the difference? They have freely admitted to leaving 3 children, 2 of them aged 18 months, alone in the apartment. You don't have to be charged and found guilty in a court of law to be guilty of something.
I dearly hope you don't have children if you have such difficulty grasping this concept.
I'm not defending the parents and I don't think you should have children or pets unless you are willing and able to look after them, but I don't like interweb warriors convicting people without evidence. It makes them look stupid. If people think the parents did it, based on evidence that they have seen and not just read about second- or even third-hand, they should tell the Police. If people are just re-stating internet gumf and throwing mud, they should be ashamed. We don't live in the dark ages and we don't have witch trials and lynch mobs. And some of what is being written here and elsewhere on the web is close to libel.0 -
Not on here they arent.GiantMike wrote:... And some of what is being written here and elsewhere on the web is close to libel.
Everyone is careful of what they write.
There are accusations of neglect, which have been admitted to, and questions about what happened.
I doubt anything on here could be libelous that is not referencing to another source.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
That's why I said 'close to'.daviesee wrote:
Not on here they arent.GiantMike wrote:... And some of what is being written here and elsewhere on the web is close to libel.
Everyone is careful of what they write.
There are accusations of neglect, which have been admitted to, and questions about what happened.
I doubt anything on here could be libelous that is not referencing to another source.0 -
I think you are reading too much into what I have written. When I say they are guilty of neglect I mean they left the children which is neglect to the eyes of most people, not talking about a criminal conviction. When I say at least I mean I have no idea what else they have done, they may or may not have done more I don't know. I am not convicting them without evidence, they freely admit to leaving the children unattended. I have nothing to be ashamed of, I say it is wrong to leave children of that age unattended and I stand by it.GiantMike wrote:
But you are implying that because they have said they left their children unattended (from which you are saying they are guilty of neglect which, criminally speaking, they aren't unless the evidence is tested in court) they may be guilty of something else, with the insinuation of something more sinister. I don't think anybody followed your train of thought and assumed they were guilty of parking offences. Yes, you're right, only they know what they did, but insinuations like yours are meaningless really, aren't they?Veronese68 wrote:
I obviously have a better understanding of what is being written than you as well.GiantMike wrote:
You're obviously have a better understanding of the case that I do. I didn't know they'd been charged with neglect and I certainly didn't realise they'd been convicted.Veronese68 wrote:We know they are guilty of neglect, only they know if they are guilty of more than that.
Did I say they've been charged and convicted of it? No, I said they are guilty of it, can you not tell the difference? They have freely admitted to leaving 3 children, 2 of them aged 18 months, alone in the apartment. You don't have to be charged and found guilty in a court of law to be guilty of something.
I dearly hope you don't have children if you have such difficulty grasping this concept.
I'm not defending the parents and I don't think you should have children or pets unless you are willing and able to look after them, but I don't like interweb warriors convicting people without evidence. It makes them look stupid. If people think the parents did it, based on evidence that they have seen and not just read about second- or even third-hand, they should tell the Police. If people are just re-stating internet gumf and throwing mud, they should be ashamed. We don't live in the dark ages and we don't have witch trials and lynch mobs. And some of what is being written here and elsewhere on the web is close to libel.
The thing that irritates me about the whole thing is that they are getting all of this publicity when I consider they were negligent. There are many more children that get abducted and we rarely hear mention of them.0 -
Beautiful blonde kid with big eyes gets abducted ... The nation is gripped
Ugly fat kid gets abducted... Nobody gives a stuff
It's just the way it is0 -
Terrible for the tot. The parents however are a couple of sh1ts and should be in clink for at least gross neglect.
I give you this, exchange abduction for burned to death along with her siblings in a fire caused by an electrical fault. If it had happened on a council estate and the parents had been down "the boozer" what kind of picture would have been painted of them by the media?
The McCanns, I'm sick to death of 'em.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Exactly ...
It amazes me how they have managed to milk the media for all these years. They seem to have been around as long as the Rolling Stones0 -
GiantMike wrote:
Princess Diana has been in the Mail and Express for the last 15 years.Mikey23 wrote:Exactly ...
It amazes me how they have managed to milk the media for all these years. They seem to have been around as long as the Rolling Stones
Exactly. we are p1ssed off reading about her as well.0
