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

It doesn't look good. I mean there have been plenty of coincidences over the years with this case but being in the area at the time, putting his Jag in someone else's name a day later and prior convictions for incidents with young girls is pretty telling so far.
 
Tek81 said:
Given that the accused has a history of recording the abuse of his victims, I suspect that the authorities have found video evidence of her death. Utterly sickening. Also, in relation to the parents, the only thing they are guilty of is neglect; leaving their children alone in the apartment. Imo..
Click to expand...
So firstly the guy should never have been walking free to have been able allegedly have kidnapped the girl. If you’ve got a history of this sort of thing even going to the extent of recording the crimes you are not fit to mingle with other humans.

Secondly until we know otherwise these are just allegations and so far trial by media. Let them do their jobs first and wait for the man to actually be convicted.

Last but not least wtf were they doing leaving their children unattended, even leaving the door unlocked and slightly ajar, then doing the most incompetent series of kid patrols known to parenting. That is behaviour not fitting of their respective positions in society. Neglect at best dodgy quite possibly.
 
Doobedoo said:
So firstly the guy should never have been walking free to have been able allegedly have kidnapped the girl. If you’ve got a history of this sort of thing even going to the extent of recording the crimes you are not fit to mingle with other humans.

Secondly until we know otherwise these are just allegations and so far trial by media. Let them do their jobs first and wait for the man to actually be convicted.

Last but not least wtf were they doing leaving their children unattended, even leaving the door unlocked and slightly ajar, then doing the most incompetent series of kid patrols known to parenting. That is behaviour not fitting of their respective positions in society. Neglect at best dodgy quite possibly.
Click to expand...

Dodgy in what sense? That they were directly responsible for her death?
 
Tek81 said:
Dodgy in what sense? That they were directly responsible for her death?
Click to expand...
Who knows but that isn’t normal parenting. Kids have been taken off families for lesser circumstances. Their actions either directly or indirectly led to a child being quite possibly murdered. That’s not a whoopsie situation that is neglect that led to a death. Innocent or not that is a crime from people who you would really expect to know better.
 
MikeTheNative said:
It sounds like he has said something to a fellow inmate who has then told police.
Click to expand...
Trial by Media involving a convicted criminal as the key witness using hear say?

  • The law on hearsay is set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) sections 114 - 136.
  • "Hearsay" means a "statement not made in oral evidence that is evidence of any matter stated." (Section 114(1) CJA 2003).
  • Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in criminal proceedings except where there is some statutory provision which renders it admissible or where a common law rule making it admissible is preserved by section 118 CJA, or by agreement of all parties to the proceedings, or where the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible (section 114(1) CJA 2003).
  • There is no absolute principle that a conviction based solely or decisively on hearsay evidence is unfair as there are counter balancing measures in the hearsay framework of the CJA to make the trial fairR v Horncastle[2010] 2 AC 373.).
  • Written notice must be given under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 to the other party and to the court when making an application to admit hearsay evidence in the following cases:
    • in the interests of justice (under section 114 (1) (d) CJA 2003);
    • where a witness is unavailable (section 116 CJA 2003);
    • where the evidence is in a statement prepared for the purposes of criminal proceedings (section 117(1)(c) CJA);
    • where the evidence is multiple hearsay (section 121 CJA 2003).
  • Courts have an express power to exclude hearsay evidence (section 126 CJA 2003) and to stop a case where hearsay evidence is unconvincing (section 125 CJA 2003).
Click to expand...

Need more before I venture outside to gather my pitchfork.
 
diamount said:
Has to be more substantial than a prison snitch. I don't believe they would let the media know otherwise.
Click to expand...
You would certainly hope so. I heard something about phone conversations but only caught a little bit of it.

Never the less let’s hold in the rage until the guy is actually convicted. Innocent until proven guilty was a phrase I used to hear from time to time.
 
Doobedoo said:
Never the less let’s hold in the rage until the guy is actually convicted.
Click to expand...

I wonder which country he will get tried in, assuming that is even possible? Portugal, presumably?

Innocent until proven guilty was a phrase I used to hear from time to time.
Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty is a principle for courts, not for uninvolved observers.
 
Mr Jack said:
I wonder which country he will get tried in, assuming that is even possible? Portugal, presumably?



Innocent until proven guilty is a principle for courts, not for uninvolved observers.
Click to expand...
Why not these observers understand and often insist on democratic principles. Surely it’s not right to pick and choose when and when not to use them. The Media have a responsibility perhaps if they worried less about viewing/advertising numbers and more about integrity we may listen more closely.
 
Doobedoo said:
Why not these observers understand and often insist on democratic principles. Surely it’s not right to pick and choose when and when not to use them. The Media have a responsibility perhaps if they worried less about viewing/advertising numbers and more about integrity we may listen more closely.
Click to expand...

The media should behave better in all things, that is true. But I mostly see "innocent until proven guilty" thrown not at the media but at people discussing high profile cases, or in protection of people who have been credibly accused of things not proven in court - or, in some cases, who have actively avoided facing the trial that would determine that guilt. Innocent until proven guilty is the appropriate criteria for the state, because it is the guard against the state's application of its ultimate sanctions: e.g. the deprivation of liberty. You and I have no such power.
 
Mr Jack said:
You and I have no such power.
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t think so reading some of the more political threads.

I agree we have no power and completely understand what you are saying. Still whiffs a bit of hypocrisy.

Discuss it however people feel but it’s probably not the right thing to do it with one hand on the pitchfork.
 
Gerard said:
Only thing they can hope for is the location of her body, assuming it wasn't disposed of in such a way where there was nothing of it left.
Click to expand...

If they do find a body, and somehow manage to DNA match the killer, a lot of people in this thread (like the brexit one) will suddenly go very quiet

Unless of course by some strange turn of events they end up proving the mccanns did it, then we'll never hear the end of it :D

I do hope they manage to bring this to an end though, even if it shows up the UK investigation team
 
I watched that documentary on Netflix surely this will end up as another red herring, the doc heavily implied it was the Mccanns responsible or at the very least extremely suspicious.

Episode 3 with the dogs sniffing the apartment and smelling blood was extremely disturbing.
 
Kirksty said:
I watched that documentary on Netflix surely this will end up as another red herring, the doc heavily implied it was the Mccanns responsible or at the very least extremely suspicious.

Episode 3 with the dogs sniffing the apartment and smelling blood was extremely disturbing.
Click to expand...

I thought that was already debunked?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom