Re: PETITION ASKING FOR THE McCANNS TO BE CHARGED WITH NEGLECT

by Phoebe 21.03.17 14:54

I've never understood why the McCanns, who lied about so much else, wouldn't have told another little porkie to save themselves if their big fear was being deemed negligent. Madeleine was allegedly seen alive and well by Gerry just after 9pm and he was still in the area talking to Jez at 9.15pm when Jane allegedly passed them. She walked around past Madeleine's window to enter by her front door. Russell again walked past on his way back for his reheated steak. No chance for abduction so far. Matt allegedly checked inside the apartment at 9.30pm-no sign of anything amiss. As Jane was now back next door but one, why didn't they ask her to say she did some listening checks outside Madeleine's instead of the made up tale of Tannerman? The McCanns could have easily claimed that first Russell, then Jane were listening out for their kids while minding Ella. That would have caused problems for negligence claims. I believe they persuaded Matt to lie about his check so why not lie about other checks? Why not also claim that the missing adult on previous nights was on constant checking patrol? To me, they welcomed negligence as without opportunity how could Madeleine have been abducted.

by Rogue-a-Tory 21.03.17 15:40

Agreed, I see the momentum surrounding neglect as a possible end game for OG.

Can’t find the abductor, he’s disappeared possibly dead. Charge the McCs with neglect, sentence that’s commuted due to mitigating circumstances – Charity work, ambassador, the country’s top heart researcher, model parents of the twins, the twins would suffer without Mr & Mrs etc. etc. Who knows, the prosecution might be fought and the defence wins.

But if convicted, once the sentence has been complete, leave them alone as their time has been done. The End

by Verdi 21.03.17 15:45

RosieandSam wrote:MADELEINE McCANN - WARD OF COURT

The complete High Court Hearing

07 July 2008

Address by Tim Scott Q.C. to the High Court of Justice on 07 July 2008, In open court: International Family Law Group

https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/madeleine-ward-of-court-lp-information.html

Thank you for the swift response. This is the particular reference snipped..

Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made. For example in an appropriate case (though not this one) an Order can be made against a mobile phone company to produce the call record of a phone. It was never the parents' wish that the proceedings should become adversarial.

On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you [4] in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents' solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it.

Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them. In due course the parents’ solicitors issued a further application seeking clarification of this. On 02 April 2008 you gave directions which were intended to lead to a hearing at which this question would be resolved. This is that hearing.

As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann's objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy.

Etc. etc. etc....

by Mirage 21.03.17 16:01

Verdi wrote:
RosieandSam wrote:MADELEINE McCANN - WARD OF COURT

The complete High Court Hearing

07 July 2008

Address by Tim Scott Q.C. to the High Court of Justice on 07 July 2008, In open court: International Family Law Group

https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/madeleine-ward-of-court-lp-information.html
Thank you for the swift response. This is the particular reference snipped..

Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made. For example in an appropriate case (though not this one) an Order can be made against a mobile phone company to produce the call record of a phone. It was never the parents' wish that the proceedings should become adversarial.

On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you [4] in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents' solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it.

Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them. In due course the parents’ solicitors issued a further application seeking clarification of this. On 02 April 2008 you gave directions which were intended to lead to a hearing at which this question would be resolved. This is that hearing.

As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann's objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy.

Etc. etc. etc....

While anxious to sift through files pertaining to themselves at Leicester Police HQ they never showed the slightest concern at hearing no feedback whatsoever from the hotline set up by Halligen. Hundreds of calls went unanswered while Halligen squandered around £500k of the fund, mainly on himself. Another crook they hired and they didn't even do their Suey McSueface thing.

Only one word for it. Ludicrous.

What an incurious pair of parents they are on the one hand. On the other, wanting to delve into the police investigation into themselves. Can't think why, can you?

by Mirage 21.03.17 16:26

All this guff about two people who were suspects in the case of their disappeared daughter using this WoC mechanism as leverage to look into the British police investigation into themselves is totally bizarre.

Can you imagine all those suspicious people in Broadchurch making the same court applications to ascertain how far up Creek Alley they were?

Mrs Justice Hogg oversaw this palaver, didn't she? If memory serves, she made an impassioned plea to the abductor to return Madeleine. I'm not a bit surprised.

by **sharonl** 21.03.17 21:06

I am sorry but I don't agree with this petition at all. A person should only be charged with a crime if they have been proven to have committed that crime.

I strongly believe that Madeleine died on April 29th, the Government were immediately involved and a cover-up was planned with witnesses being planted to back up the McCanns story that Madeleine disappeared whilst they were out on May 3rd. This neglect story is nothing more than an alibi. Just look how well that old line "Madeleine disappeared from her parents apartment on May 3rd whilst her parents dined at the nearby Tapas bar" is promoted in every article in the media. And, if it is correct that Madeleine died on that 2nd night, would the group really risk leaving the remaining children alone? Then we have the suggestion from Goncalo Amaral and the PJ that all the children were sleeping in one apartment, add to this the fact that at least one member of the group was missing from the tapas each night.

If Madeleine died on that 2nd night and the group were in fact, more cautious after that, and as we know, they all went to the Millennium restaurant for tea before retiring for an early night on the first night, then clearly there was no neglect.

If the McCanns were telling the truth about being away from the apartment when Madeleine met her fate, how could they be suspected of being involved in her disappearance? And if it were true that someone else abducted or killed Madeleine whilst the McCanns were out, surely the agonising loss of their daughter would be more than enough to punish them.

Moreover, if the McCanns were responsible for Madeleines' disappearance then they should be charged with whatever crime or crimes they have really committed and not get off on a lesser charge of neglect.

by Verdi 21.03.17 21:19

Now we have the unofficial version of the ward of court application, from the horses mouth - shhh you know who. Please note this extract is from a text entitled The Birth of our Campaign winkwink

and the panama hat is a non-entity..

>> So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We’d warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key, so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the media lying in wait outside. In they came, dressed in bow ties and braces– the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh. They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads reading ‘lawyer’. Not to worry: it was their presence and input that were important.

As well as this initial meeting we had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of that weekend to explore how they might be able to assist us. There had already been some speculation in the press, based on those erroneous reports that when Madeleine was taken we were dining ‘hundreds of metres away’, that we could face prosecution for negligence.

After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’. This had hardly been our biggest concern, but it was reassuring to hear, all the same. The lawyers then talked to us about applying for an order tomake Madeleine a ward of court.

Wardship status gives the courts certain statutory powers to act on a child’s behalf in any legal disputes and to bypass some of the data-protection laws that deal with access to information (hotel guest records, for example, and airline passenger lists), when knowledge of this information is considered to be in the interests of the child in question. Such an order could be useful in acquiring records not otherwise available to us that might be relevant in our case . We decided to proceed with an application, which was granted in due course. <<

by **sharonl** 21.03.17 22:07

Unfortunately the PJ still believe that Madeleine disappeared on May 3rd, they don't seem to realise the extent of the cover-up, government intervention and planted witness that sent them on a wild goose chase. No wonder there is a lack of evidence about what happened to Madeleine on May 3rd, nothing happened that night.
What we really need is a translator to summarise the findings of our research so that we can submit it to the PJ and someone in Portugal who can set up a petition to re-open the case based on the evidence that Madeleine died earlier in the week.

by sandancer 21.03.17 22:07

Verdi wrote:Now we have the unofficial version of the ward of court application, from the horses mouth - shhh you know who. Please note this extract is from a text entitled The Birth of our Campaign and the panama hat is a non-entity..

>> So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We’d warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key, so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the media lying in wait outside. In they came, dressed in bow ties and braces– the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh. They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads reading ‘lawyer’. Not to worry: it was their presence and input that were important.

As well as this initial meeting we had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of that weekend to explore how they might be able to assist us. There had already been some speculation in the press, based on those erroneous reports that when Madeleine was taken we were dining ‘hundreds of metres away’, that we could face prosecution for negligence.

After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’. This had hardly been our biggest concern, but it was reassuring to hear, all the same. The lawyers then talked to us about applying for an order tomake Madeleine a ward of court.

Wardship status gives the courts certain statutory powers to act on a child’s behalf in any legal disputes and to bypass some of the data-protection laws that deal with access to information (hotel guest records, for example, and airline passenger lists), when knowledge of this information is considered to be in the interests of the child in question. Such an order could be useful in acquiring records not otherwise available to us that might be relevant in our case . We decided to proceed with an application, which was granted in due course. <<

So some bloke wearing a bow tie , braces and a panama hat big grin

. tells you

Your behaviour was " well within the bounds of reasonable parenting " and you expect us to believe it spit coffee

Please , do think we are stupid ?

Ludicrous aaagh

by **Jill Havern** 21.03.17 22:11

Sharon, I've put a translator widget on PeterMac's e-book blog.

I don't know how accurate it would be.

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Dr Amaral has the link.

by **sharonl** 21.03.17 22:29

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Sharon, I've put a translator widget on PeterMac's e-book blog.

I don't know how accurate it would be.

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Dr Amaral has the link.

Brilliant

Somehow we need to get this information over there

Edited by Mod to add>> Petition signatures now at 119,600 - that's 18,600 added since this morning - Mod

by Joss 22.03.17 3:01

jeanmonroe wrote:
Joss wrote:
Phoebe wrote:I suspect the McCanns would welcome being charged with neglect. Remember Gerry -"Did you say every 15 minutes? It's widely reported that we've said we were checking every half hour". Between Tracey's "tooth and nail" article (completely unnecessary as there was no plan to charge them with neglect) and now this timely petition, I smell a rat. The McCanns obstructed the investigation with changing statements, refusal to answer questions and refusal to attend a reconstruction. Perhaps "Hollie" should concentrate on these failings as a starting point.

Parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if they leave a child unsupervised "in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health".
Punishment can range from a fine to 10 years imprisonment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2286498/Parents-face-jail-for-leaving-children-home-alone.html

Portuguese Penal 'code'

"Article138" - Exposure or abandonment

1 – Whomever places another person’s life in danger:

a) By exposing her/him in a location that subjects her/him to a situation from which she/he cannot defend herself/himself on her/his own; or
b) Abandoning her/him without defence, due to age, physical deficiency or illness, whenever it was the agent’s (parent/guardian) duty to guard, watch over or assist the person;

is punished with a prison sentence of 1 to 5 years.

2 – If the fact is practised by an ascendant or a descendant, adopter or adoptee of the victim, the agent (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison sentence of 2 to 5 years.

3 – If the fact results in:

a) A serious offence to physical integrity, the agent (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison sentence of 2 to 8 years;
b) Death, the agent (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison sentence of 3 to 10 years."

It is very important to note that this crime has to be committed with 'dolo' (roughly: intent), as described under article 14 of the Portuguese Penal Code.

Quite 'how' the McCan'ts didn't 'commit' ANY of the 'above' is 'beyond' me!

Thanks for posting up Portugal laws on neglect. My bad thinking the U.K. could charge them, lol.

by Joss 22.03.17 3:08

The way i see it the McC's could of either been charged with child neglect resulting in the death of one of their children, or murder of one of their children. The neglect they admitted to, so no problem there, but murder not so much. And if the dogs evidence and DNA evidence is factored in then it is known that Madeleine died in the apartment. So a case of neglect causing death to a minor child, or worse the murder of that child but that would have to be a circumstantial case and more difficult to prove. I can't think of anything else they could possibly be charged with?

by Joss 22.03.17 3:19

Do Petitions really ever change anything anyway?

by **Jill Havern** 22.03.17 9:08

I asked PeterMac to kindly clarify the situation as here's his response:

Portugal has sole authority for everything
EXCEPT
Murder, which could be tried in England
Fraud, which has been committed in England.
P

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/jurisdiction/

Jurisdiction: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
www.cps.gov.uk
Jurisdiction. Principle. Code for Crown Prosecutors - Considerations ; General principles ; Resolving jurisdictional conflicts . Where the offence occurred on a ...

Resolving jurisdictional conflicts
Where the offence occurred on a single territory

Generally, an offence will only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, unless there is a specific provision to ground jurisdiction, for instance where specific statutes enable the UK to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction:

sexual offences against children (section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) A new section 72 was substituted by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14 July 2008 onwards. It is important to ensure that any prosecution is brought under the provision in force at the time the alleged conduct occured as the terms of the substantive provisions and details of the offences they cover are not identical;
murder and manslaughter (subsection 9 and 10 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
fraud (the 2006 Act imposes extra territorial jurisdiction in respect od offences in subsection. 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006) and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 still applies to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968);
terrorism (subsection 59, 62-63 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006);
bribery (The Bribery Act 2010 repeals the common law and the statutory offences of corruption for offences committed wholly on or after 1 July 2011. For those offences the Bribery Act imposes extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 109 of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001 still applies to provide extre-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011.

For a list of particular offences with an extra-territorial reach see Archbold .

http://legalresearch.westlaw.co.uk/books/archbold-criminal-pleading-evidence-practice/

by pennylane 22.03.17 10:12

Joss wrote:The way i see it the McC's could of either been charged with child neglect resulting in the death of one of their children, or murder of one of their children. The neglect they admitted to, so no problem there, but murder not so much. And if the dogs evidence and DNA evidence is factored in then it is known that Madeleine died in the apartment. So a case of neglect causing death to a minor child, or worse the murder of that child but that would have to be a circumstantial case and more difficult to prove. I can't think of anything else they could possibly be charged with?

Reckless Endangerment: of three under 4 year old children.

Cruelty: Leaving three toddlers alone 5 nights in a row (by their own admission), even after M allegedly asked where they were (last night) when they cried.

by Roxyroo 22.03.17 11:49

Phoebe wrote:I've never understood why the McCanns, who lied about so much else, wouldn't have told another little porkie to save themselves if their big fear was being deemed negligent. Madeleine was allegedly seen alive and well by Gerry just after 9pm and he was still in the area talking to Jez at 9.15pm when Jane allegedly passed them. She walked around past Madeleine's window to enter by her front door. Russell again walked past on his way back for his reheated steak. No chance for abduction so far. Matt allegedly checked inside the apartment at 9.30pm-no sign of anything amiss. As Jane was now back next door but one, why didn't they ask her to say she did some listening checks outside Madeleine's instead of the made up tale of Tannerman? The McCanns could have easily claimed that first Russell, then Jane were listening out for their kids while minding Ella. That would have caused problems for negligence claims. I believe they persuaded Matt to lie about his check so why not lie about other checks? Why not also claim that the missing adult on previous nights was on constant checking patrol? To me, they welcomed negligence as without opportunity how could Madeleine have been abducted.

I've always had a suspicion that Matt was meant to discover Madeleine missing

-------

A Mod comments: @Roxyroo - Presumably that means that you think that that Matt Oldfield had no idea before his 9.30pm check that Madeleine might not be there - in other words he know NOTHING about the hoax? Remember also that Kate McCann reported that Matt said, as she rose to do a check at 9.30pm: "I'll check on Maddie for you". Why didn't he say: "I'll check on the children for you"? The safest rule about the events of that evening is to believe nothing that any of the Tapas 9 say about them - Mod

by Verdi 22.03.17 12:20

sandancer wrote:
Verdi wrote:Now we have the unofficial version of the ward of court application, from the horses mouth - shhh you know who. Please note this extract is from a text entitled The Birth of our Campaign and the panama hat is a non-entity..

>> So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We’d warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key, so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the media lying in wait outside. In they came, dressed in bow ties and braces– the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh. They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads reading ‘lawyer’. Not to worry: it was their presence and input that were important.

As well as this initial meeting we had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of that weekend to explore how they might be able to assist us. There had already been some speculation in the press, based on those erroneous reports that when Madeleine was taken we were dining ‘hundreds of metres away’, that we could face prosecution for negligence.

After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’. This had hardly been our biggest concern, but it was reassuring to hear, all the same. The lawyers then talked to us about applying for an order tomake Madeleine a ward of court.

Wardship status gives the courts certain statutory powers to act on a child’s behalf in any legal disputes and to bypass some of the data-protection laws that deal with access to information (hotel guest records, for example, and airline passenger lists), when knowledge of this information is considered to be in the interests of the child in question. Such an order could be useful in acquiring records not otherwise available to us that might be relevant in our case . We decided to proceed with an application, which was granted in due course. <<

So some bloke wearing a bow tie , braces and a panama hat . tells you

Your behaviour was " well within the bounds of reasonable parenting " and you expect us to believe it

Please , do think we are stupid ?

Ludicrous

PETITION ASKING FOR THE McCANNS TO BE CHARGED WITH NEGLECT - Page 2 Travel-tourism-english-english_man_abroad-british_abroad-tourist-tourists-ntan6_low

".... he wasn't dressed like a tourist ...."

by Cheshire Cat 22.03.17 12:28

Negligence leading to abduction was, I am sure the alibi. But the PJ undermined this alibi when Eddie and Keela indicated death and blood. So the McCann's are stuck with the neglect alibi which actually supports PJ/GA/Pat Brown theory, in that the risk of a small and unsupervised child being accidentally killed is believable, feasible and much, much, much more likely than abduction.
Although Pat Brown works within the 'authority' provided by the official Police Investigation (and who can blame her!) GA has also drawn attention to the paedophilia aspects of this case and gently steered us towards the possibility of something more sinister occurring. I believe neglect leading to accidental death and cover-up is not a road the McCann's would wish to travel down...

by Joss 22.03.17 15:11

pennylane wrote:
Joss wrote:The way i see it the McC's could of either been charged with child neglect resulting in the death of one of their children, or murder of one of their children. The neglect they admitted to, so no problem there, but murder not so much. And if the dogs evidence and DNA evidence is factored in then it is known that Madeleine died in the apartment. So a case of neglect causing death to a minor child, or worse the murder of that child but that would have to be a circumstantial case and more difficult to prove. I can't think of anything else they could possibly be charged with?
Reckless Endangerment: of three under 4 year old children.

Cruelty: Leaving three toddlers alone 5 nights in a row (by their own admission), even after M allegedly asked where they were (last night) when they cried.

Yes, but i think that would all come under the charge of Child Negligence wouldn't it?
(quote)
Neglect
Neglect is the ongoing failure to meet a child's basic needs and is the most common form of child abuse.
A child may be left hungry or dirty, without adequate clothing, shelter, supervision, medical or health care.
A child may be put in danger or not protected from physical or emotional harm.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-abuse-and-neglect/neglect/

by Phoebe 22.03.17 15:34

In Matthew Oldfield's 4/5/07 statement to the P.J. he claims that "In the afternoon the children have a sleep in their respective apartments under the supervision of an adult" while the others get on with sporting activities. Why would this system have been abandoned for night time activities? His 9pm check was listening outside the apartment. If that was good enough at 9pm why the need to enter the apartment half an hour later when the children were even more likely to be deeply asleep? On May 10th he tells the P.J. that both he and Kate were reluctant to go on the holiday because of the lack of baby listening services, yet we are to believe he carelessly left his baby, suffering from gastro enteritis and liable to vomit, alone unsupervised? He suggests the McCanns lunched with the group everyday but is unsure if they were there on Thurs. He can't recall whether it was he or Russell who volunteered him for the 9.30 check. The only thing I believe about Oldfield is that there was no way he was going to agree to being the last to see Madeleine hence the "did he check?" on the sticker book.

by pennylane 22.03.17 15:41

Joss wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Joss wrote:The way i see it the McC's could of either been charged with child neglect resulting in the death of one of their children, or murder of one of their children. The neglect they admitted to, so no problem there, but murder not so much. And if the dogs evidence and DNA evidence is factored in then it is known that Madeleine died in the apartment. So a case of neglect causing death to a minor child, or worse the murder of that child but that would have to be a circumstantial case and more difficult to prove. I can't think of anything else they could possibly be charged with?
Reckless Endangerment: of three under 4 year old children.

Cruelty: Leaving three toddlers alone 5 nights in a row (by their own admission), even after M allegedly asked where they were (last night) when they cried.
Yes, but i think that would all come under the charge of Child Negligence wouldn't it?
(quote)
Neglect
Neglect is the ongoing failure to meet a child's basic needs and is the most common form of child abuse.
A child may be left hungry or dirty, without adequate clothing, shelter, supervision, medical or health care.
A child may be put in danger or not protected from physical or emotional harm.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-abuse-and-neglect/neglect/

Yes I'm sure you are right Joss! They do all come under the Neglect umbrella and that is the only possibly provable charge. If sedation leading to death occurred, that would be more serious (imo) and be considered Felony Reckless Endangerment.... at least in the US? Of course without proof, it's a non starter.

by Joss 22.03.17 15:55

pennylane wrote:
Joss wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Joss wrote:The way i see it the McC's could of either been charged with child neglect resulting in the death of one of their children, or murder of one of their children. The neglect they admitted to, so no problem there, but murder not so much. And if the dogs evidence and DNA evidence is factored in then it is known that Madeleine died in the apartment. So a case of neglect causing death to a minor child, or worse the murder of that child but that would have to be a circumstantial case and more difficult to prove. I can't think of anything else they could possibly be charged with?
Reckless Endangerment: of three under 4 year old children.

Cruelty: Leaving three toddlers alone 5 nights in a row (by their own admission), even after M allegedly asked where they were (last night) when they cried.
Yes, but i think that would all come under the charge of Child Negligence wouldn't it?
(quote)
Neglect
Neglect is the ongoing failure to meet a child's basic needs and is the most common form of child abuse.
A child may be left hungry or dirty, without adequate clothing, shelter, supervision, medical or health care.
A child may be put in danger or not protected from physical or emotional harm.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-abuse-and-neglect/neglect/
Yes I'm sure you are right Joss! They do all come under the Neglect umbrella and that is the only possibly provable charge. If sedation leading to death occurred, that would be more serious (imo) and be considered Felony Reckless Endangerment.... at least in the US? Of course without proof, it's a non starter.

And this in Portugal,
Portuguese Judicial Code

Article 138

Exposure or abandonment

1- To whom places in danger the life of another person:
a) Expose the person in a place and situation, who cannot defend by herself; or
b) Abandon without defense, everytime it is up to the “agent” to keep, assist and watch the person;

2 – If the fact is practiced by ascendant or descendant, adopter or adoptee, the agent is punished with an arrest sentence from 2 to 5 years.

3 - If the fact results:
a) Serious offense to the physical integrity, the agent is punished with an arrest sentence from 2 to 8 years;

by pennylane 22.03.17 17:02

Joss wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Joss wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Joss wrote:The way i see it the McC's could of either been charged with child neglect resulting in the death of one of their children, or murder of one of their children. The neglect they admitted to, so no problem there, but murder not so much. And if the dogs evidence and DNA evidence is factored in then it is known that Madeleine died in the apartment. So a case of neglect causing death to a minor child, or worse the murder of that child but that would have to be a circumstantial case and more difficult to prove. I can't think of anything else they could possibly be charged with?
Reckless Endangerment: of three under 4 year old children.

Cruelty: Leaving three toddlers alone 5 nights in a row (by their own admission), even after M allegedly asked where they were (last night) when they cried.
Yes, but i think that would all come under the charge of Child Negligence wouldn't it?
(quote)
Neglect
Neglect is the ongoing failure to meet a child's basic needs and is the most common form of child abuse.
A child may be left hungry or dirty, without adequate clothing, shelter, supervision, medical or health care.
A child may be put in danger or not protected from physical or emotional harm.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-abuse-and-neglect/neglect/
Yes I'm sure you are right Joss! They do all come under the Neglect umbrella and that is the only possibly provable charge. If sedation leading to death occurred, that would be more serious (imo) and be considered Felony Reckless Endangerment.... at least in the US? Of course without proof, it's a non starter.
And this in Portugal,
Portuguese Judicial Code

Article 138

Exposure or abandonment

1- To whom places in danger the life of another person:
a) Expose the person in a place and situation, who cannot defend by herself; or
b) Abandon without defense, everytime it is up to the “agent” to keep, assist and watch the person;

2 – If the fact is practiced by ascendant or descendant, adopter or adoptee, the agent is punished with an arrest sentence from 2 to 5 years.

3 - If the fact results:
a) Serious offense to the physical integrity, the agent is punished with an arrest sentence from 2 to 8 years;

Good find!

It's clear (to me at least) that IF three toddlers were sedated, and left alone nightly so parents could go to a local bar, and one died as a result..... the charges would be swift, the repercussions far reaching, and the scandal monumental.

by wills 22.03.17 20:35

So let us assume that the Mcscams were tried for neglect only. Would Social Services be empowered to put the twins into some kind of 'care'?

Log in for more topics