Madeleine McCann cops ask Home Office for more money to continue search for missing child

well if I were on the case, and I was "investigating" abroad... id be finding leads all over Europe... case might go on until I hit retirement age (coincidently)

Why are you still here Detective edscdk? I thought you were spending 2 weeks chasing leads at the 5* all inclusive club mojito spa and resort in Tenerife? Hurry, you wouldn't want to miss your flight, if you have to rebook they may not have any business class seats left, you wouldn't want to investigate in premium economy!
 
Didn't kill their daughter.
Literally? No.

But they did leave their four year old and two year olds alone, in an unlocked room, out of sight and sound, while they got lagered up with their mates night after night.

So whatever happened to their daughter is absolutely a result of their neglect.
 
But they did leave their four year old and two year olds alone, in an unlocked room, out of sight and sound, while they got lagered up with their mates night after night.

'Lagered up'? 'Night after night'? They had a quiet, respectable, unremarkable dinner on one particular night, and the children were checked at two separate intervals.

The police have publicly stated that Madeleine was taken moments before Kate came for her check at 22:00, which just goes to show how close this case came to never happening at all.

Were the McCanns negligent? Absolutely: they left their children alone, and the door unlocked. Were they getting 'lagered up'? Absolutely not.

So whatever happened to their daughter is absolutely a result of their neglect.

This was not the conclusion of the police. If you have a problem with that, go and argue with them.

It does seem a bit odd to be continuing to throw money at this case, it's not like they've got many hot leads is it?

It's utterly pointless, should have been shut down years ago.
 
I've just been looking on the CPS website and can't see how these two haven't been prosecuted along the following guidelines:
Child cruelty, neglect and violence
Section 1(1) Children and Young Persons Act 1933 was amended on 3 May 2015, by Part 5 Section 66 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to update and modernise some of the language. The amended version provides that the offence is made out if:

  • a person who has attained the age of sixteen years;
  • who has responsibility for any child or young person under that age;
  • willfully (i.e. intentionally or recklessly - see R v Turbill and Broadway [2013] EWCA Crim 1422;
  • assaults, ill-treats (whether physically or otherwise), neglects, abandons or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated (whether physically or otherwise), neglected, abandoned, or exposed;
  • in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (whether the suffering or injury is of a physical or a psychological nature).
The offence covers a variety of conduct that can compendiously or separately amount to child cruelty. The four generally accepted categories are assault and ill-treatment, failure to protect, neglect and abandonment.
Causing or allowing death or serious physical harm
Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 created the offence of causing or allowing the death a child or vulnerable adult. The Section was amended by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Act 2012. The amendment came into force on 2 July 2012 and extended the offence in section 5 to cover cases of causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm.

This stand-alone offence imposes a duty upon members of a household to take reasonable steps to protect children or vulnerable adults within that household from the foreseeable risk of serious physical harm from other household members.

The offence is made out where evidence exists to establish the following elements:

  • a child or vulnerable adult ("V") has died or suffered serious physical harm;
  • the death or serious physical harm was the result of an unlawful act, course of conduct or omission of a person ("D") who was a member of the same household as V and who had frequent contact with V;
  • there existed at the time of death a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to V by the unlawful act of any member of that household and either:
    1. D was the person whose unlawful act caused V''s death or serious physical harm; or
    2. D was, or ought to have been, aware of that risk and failed to take such steps as he or she could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from that risk of serious physical harm; and
    3. the death or serious physical harm occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen
 
The police have publicly stated that Madeleine was taken moments before Kate came for her check at 22:00, which just goes to show how close this case came to never happening at all.

You're assuming that the last check was THE LAST check and that they wouldn't have carried on gorging themselves on cheap party foods and drinking with their mates all night long, had maddy still been there?
 
What a complete and utter load of baloney. If she was still there at 22:00 then how can you say that she wouldn't have been taken at 23:00.

You assume that if she wasn't taken at 22:00, that she wouldn't have been abducted at any later stage of the night???
 
The police have publicly stated that Madeleine was taken moments before Kate came for her check at 22:00, which just goes to show how close this case came to never happening at all.
I can't see how they can possibly make that judgement given there is no evidence to support an abduction theory.
 
If you are hungry and your children are asleep, you can order a pizza, or just send one parent out of TWO parents to go grab some food.

NOTHING about what these two parents did is "respectable" in the slightest.
 
I've just been looking on the CPS website and can't see how these two haven't been prosecuted along the following guidelines:

Probably because the offence doesn't have extra territorial jurisdiction so UK law doesn't apply. ..


There is no extra territorial jurisdiction for offences contrary to Section 1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended by Part 5 Section 66 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.

Therefore in order to charge an offence contrary to this section, any assault and ill-treatment, failure to protect, neglect and abandonment or any attempt to commit such an offence must have taken place in this jurisdiction.
 
What on earth are they spending £150k on every 6 months? Especially on a case that is over 11 years old now when at the same time they're talking about how stretched police budgets are etc

Uh, salaries?

Perhaps a better question is why the HO sees fit to continue funding this particular investigation when they're the ones slashing policing budgets in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom