Madeleine McCann's parents

sigma said:
How many children have gone missing since this girl went missing? Bet nobody knows how many or what their names are.
Click to expand...

April Jones is the one who comes to mind, her body never found, her parents distraut that they allowed her an extra thirty minutes playtime outside as she had got an really good report from school. Rewarding her for doing well, and then the ultimate punishment from the ^%#% who murdered her, refusing to admit what he did with her body, so all they had to bury was the fragments of her corpse found in his house.

I recall her name, but I will agree many of the others I do not.
 
Last edited:
Hikari Kisugi said:
Rachel Jones is the one who comes to mind, her body never found, her parents distraut that they allowed her an extra thirty minutes playtime outside as she had got an really good report from school. Rewarding her for doing well, and then the ultimate punishment from the ^%#% who murdered her, refusing to admit what he did with her body, so all they had to bury was the fragments of her corpse found in his house.

I recall her name, but I will agree many of the others I do not.
Click to expand...

April Jones
 
I am still disgusted when I see pictures of the McCanns smiling for the cameras just weeks after the disappearance. Everyone acts differently to grief but the cold, calculated press conferences they held rose my suspicions immediately. As a parent of a 3 yr old at the time of the incident, I couldn't believe how they kept it together. I would have been inconsolable, either with guilt, grief or rage (depending on which theory you believe). There is putting a brave face on things but to be smiling and state they are 'sleeping much better' just weeks afterwards I find chilling. The fact they didn't take part in the initial search that night was unbelievable. What parent wouldn't be out searching for their child under such circumstances? Unless of course they KNEW their was no point in searching.

What parent would let another bloke talk sexual innuendos regarding his 2/3 yr old daughter (the fingers in the mouth thing). Clearly they had little concern for any of their children's welfare to leave them alone like that, let alone the other things that went on.

All of the other suspicious, controversial and downright dodgy defences of the McCanns aside, there is one thing they cannot deny. The loss of Madeleine, under whatever extenuating circumstance be it abduction by another party or murder from within the family/Tapas 9, is no fault but their own. Had they spent the evening with their children in 5a or at the restaurant like any normal parent would, she would still (well possibly) be alive today.

/rage.
 
What "fingers in the mouth" thing?! What have I missed?

Edit: just read up on that David Payne dude. Disgusting!

So, David did it, Gerry and him hid the body possibly with help from Mathew. They then explained a "story" to the rest potentially about excess drugs to help her sleep and how this could damage his career etc which is why all were reluctant during questioning. Eventually Gerry told Kate the truth which seemingly broke her even more and turned her into the crazy mess who refers to her daughters own "perfect genitals"... Just a guess.

Or, even more disturbingly, they all knew what was going on and that's what these holidays were meant for and they're all as disgusting as each other. I find this harder to believe, but I'm at a loss as to why the women are keeping quiet if there is a cover up. It must impact all families in some way. Or maybe all this media money is hush money for the other families?
 
Last edited:
I just had to Google the rest of that "perfect genitals" quote, to try and see if it was true or not.

I am absolutely shocked by what I found, who says something like that about their daughter? sick and disgusting.
 
Xordium said:
But you actually get it. It can be an isolated incident.
Click to expand...

But it isn't that straight forward not least due to differences/difficulties between criminal and civil law. The former potentially can allow for a single act of negligence but it is normally tagged to a greater offence (manslaughter, actual harm etc) whereas the latter is where "persistent" kicks in. And it is the latter that applies to the majority of cases where negligent is the primary charge since that is the body of law available to LAs who, on the whole, would be the main force behind managing cases of child neglect.

In the Re Edwards case, for instance, the primary charge was manslaughter albeit arising from gross (possibly criminal) neglect. As a result, this would not be a useful precedent for the McCann situation unless it eventually became clear that Madeleine wandered off from the bedroom and died as a result of falling down some steps - which has been suggested. If, however, she was abducted, the chain of potential charges to be brought against the McCanns stops at (?civil) child neglect since the next step - the abduction - was a criminal act committed by a third party.

What would be interesting would be to know whether there have been any prosecutions specifically for child neglect arising from one act. I freely admit that this is not my area and would happily be proven wrong!
 
stulid said:
I just had to Google the rest of that "perfect genitals" quote, to try and see if it was true or not.

I am absolutely shocked by what I found, who says something like that about their daughter? sick and disgusting.
Click to expand...

Of all the things you could say why the hell that springs to mind I have no idea.
 
stulid said:
I just had to Google the rest of that "perfect genitals" quote, to try and see if it was true or not.

I am absolutely shocked by what I found, who says something like that about their daughter? sick and disgusting.
Click to expand...

Horrendous. It must be difficult not to imagine the evil things that might be happening to an abducted child - down to the finest of details - but to publish those thoughts in a book for public consumption is, just, well, I don't even have the words to describe how awful that is. :confused:
 
NVP said:
So, David did it, Gerry and him hid the body possibly with help from Mathew. They then explained a "story" to the rest potentially about excess drugs to help her sleep and how this could damage his career etc which is why all were reluctant during questioning. Eventually Gerry told Kate the truth which seemingly broke her even more and turned her into the crazy mess who refers to her daughters own "perfect genitals"... Just a guess.
Click to expand...

Is there any chance you could also get Puerto Ricans and Aliens into that guess?
 
DanielMMS said:
I freely admit that this is not my area and would happily be proven wrong!
Click to expand...

1) There was not a single instance in this case. There were repeated instances one of which is focused on - the rest should not be ignored.
2) What other category would you place single untoward actions into - sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc? Neglect is the obvious category.
3) I'll pull an appeal to expertise on this one. This is my area and was a large remit of you job if you want to go from a bland definition for documents then be my guest. However, you are wrong. A simple google would provide your answer. Ask the actual question and not for a definition and you will find plenty of evidence where this has been put into practice.
 
Xordium said:
1) There was not a single instance in this case. There were repeated instances one of which is focused on - the rest should not be ignored.
2) What other category would you place single untoward actions into - sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc? Neglect is the obvious category.
3) I'll pull an appeal to expertise on this one. This is my area and was a large remit of you job if you want to go from a bland definition for documents then be my guest. However, you are wrong. A simple google would provide your answer. Ask the actual question and not for a definition and you will find plenty of evidence where this has been put into practice.
Click to expand...

1. I have not said that there was only one instance. The question is whether 5 nights on holiday would qualify as being "persistent" if their background has been that of appropriate parenting.
2. Surely neglect is a subset of abuse. So sexual/physical abuse would fall into the abuse category? Not neglect. Or am I misunderstanding you?
3. There really is no need to get quite so condescending! Perhaps I should look at Google but I have instead looked through more formal sources and my problem is that I still struggle to find a legal case where child negligent that could potentially not be considered persistent is the primary charge whereas there are plenty of cases where the primary charge is something else.
 
just read some articles about David Payne and his alleged acts during conversation on holiday and it turns my stomach to think somebody would act out things of that nature about their own and other children (those of close friends). I think he needs to be looked at with closer scrutiny if it has not been done already
 
DanielMMS said:
1. I have not said that there was only one instance. The question is whether 5 nights on holiday would qualify as being "persistent" if their background has been that of appropriate parenting.
2. Surely neglect is a subset of abuse. So sexual/physical abuse would fall into the abuse category? Not neglect. Or am I misunderstanding you?
3. There really is no need to get quite so condescending! Perhaps I should look at Google but I have instead looked through more formal sources and my problem is that I still struggle to find a legal case where child negligent that could potentially not be considered persistent is the primary charge whereas there are plenty of cases where the primary charge is something else.
Click to expand...

1) Yes one instance is enough.

2) Child abuse is categorised as emotional, physical, sexual or neglect. Maybe you shouldn't be arguing a point if you don't grasp that.

3) There is no need to argue points with someone when you haven't done them the courtesy of even looking up the basic definitions and their context. Saves you a whole lot of typing and everyone else some time. You bu your own admission know little about it. I think if you are going to argue something then you should find something out about it especially if you are going to be getting the basics wrong. Just my opinion and just me. I have little time for people who don't know what they don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom