The McCanns HAVE to be GUILTY of CHILD NEGLECT!

There is one thing you can be guaranteed to read if you ever look at a 'general interest' forum with a thread about the McCanns - Why did they leave their young children alone, night after night?
A typical post:
'What I don't understand is this. The McCanns are doctors, why could they not pay a few pounds for a babysitter? If a sixteen year old on benefit left their toddler to pop over to the pub, even if they checked every fifteen minutes, there would be hell to pay! Its very sad and I can't imagine what they are suffering, but they should have been charged with neglect!'
 
Well now, I believe this to be a vital point. If we believe Kate and Gerry, they just didn't 'feel comfortable' leaving their three toddlers 'with people they didn't really know'. Sounds fair, doesn't it? Well no, actually, not when you consider that all three same toddlers were left in the holiday creches, with 'people they didn't know well' for most of every DAY of their holidays!
However, I DON'T believe them! I also do not believe that the children WERE left alone at night. I have concluded that the children were all looked after by one adult each evening. If you study the statements, there happened to be an adult missing every evening - either they were 'sick' or their child was. Now, my experience of bugs is this - everyone gets ill at once! The bug in PT in May 07 seems to be very helpful and polite - ensuring only one person a day got ill (how convenient).
So. Say we now accept it is likely the children WERE NOT unattended, WHY ON EARTH would responsible parents claim to have committed one of the most nasty crimes, child neglect?
This, I believe, is crucial. There NEEDS to be neglect to allow for an abduction. If there is no neglect, THERE CAN BE NO ABDUCTION!
Why do I state this with such certainty? Well. Let's look at this another way. Madeleine McCann, for whatever reason, is no longer with her family. Had she not been 'left unattended' then that would leave whatever happened to her as being without a doubt either
a)The parents doing   OR
b)The act of a third party, with parents knowledge and cover-up.
After all, if they, or others, were always supervising the children, then it automatically follows that they would know EXACTLY what happened to her and where she was!
Only 'abandonment' of said children opens up the possibility of 'an abductor' spiriting poor Maddie away!
 
'Ahhh, but she COULD have been abducted whilst the parents slept at night! Why would they admit such a crime? It makes no sense!' Comes the next question.
Well, they COULD have said it happened this way. HOWEVER, considering the overwhelming majority of child murder/abduction cases are committed by the family, they would be first to come under suspicion, with only each other as an alibi. As the story is as it stands, they have the bar staff, other patrons and the Tapas members as witnesses to them being 'elsewhere' when Maddie was taken! Crafty, eh?
See, NO NEGLIGENCE=NO ABDUCTION!
They had no choice! Ultimately, 'neglect' is less serious to admit to than the other possibilities - concealment, perjury, possible manslaughter or worse...
And, astonishingly, the gamble not only paid off, they managed to gain public sympathy too! It's truly unbelievable.
 
As to 'Why were they not charged?' Let's just say, it wasn't because the police thought they had suffered enough. Although the McCanns ADMITTED an act that would, in all likelihood, put most people in jail, they WERE NOT CHARGED! In absence of proof of anything more serious, WHY didn't they make do with a neglect charge?
My belief is simple. You CANNOT charge someone. With a crime, even if self admitted, if you are aware they didn't do it! I truly think that the PJ were quite aware of the childcare arrangements of the Tapas group. No neglect, no charge.
Yet, as far as the public are concerned, Kate and Gerry just CANNOT EVER ADMIT to NOT neglecting their children!
 
There is the answer to wy the McCanns have to admit child neglect, and why their supporters seem to gloss over it - they have no choice - not EVER.

In her book, Kate talked about how it was [can't remember who]'s turn to be sick. I asked myself at the time, who takes it in turn to be sick? If there is a bug going round, you are mighty glad to avoid it - you don't queue up to catch it (unless you are a kid trying to avoid a test at school!). Wasn't the first one to be ill supposed to have eaten a dodgy sandwich or something? So what happened the next night - did whoever else it was go back to the airport to get another dodgy sandwich. It doesn't make sense.

Miraflores wrote:In her book, Kate talked about how it was [can't remember who]'s turn to be sick. I asked myself at the time, who takes it in turn to be sick? If there is a bug going round, you are mighty glad to avoid it - you don't queue up to catch it (unless you are a kid trying to avoid a test at school!). Wasn't the first one to be ill supposed to have eaten a dodgy sandwich or something? So what happened the next night - did whoever else it was go back to the airport to get another dodgy sandwich. It doesn't make sense.

No, Miraflores, it doesn't make sense, but I think that is the idea. Another example of K stating the truth wrapped in an ambiguous statement, hoping the reader will pick up on the innocent reason. In this case the 'turn' meaning their mighty bad luck in getting the bug, when the REAL meaning IS actually 'turn' implying a queue or list - their 'turn to be sick' a euphemism or cover for 'their turn to stay behind and babysit'. If you get me? I can't explain it well, other than it's a turn of phrase. Kate likes to THINK she is clever in that way - ha!

Good post rainbow-fairy , especially this bit, "You CANNOT charge someone with a crime, even if self admitted, if you are aware they didn't do it!

I do think this hits the nail right on the head.

Stella wrote:Good post rainbow-fairy [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] , especially this bit, "You CANNOT charge someone with a crime, even if self admitted, if you are aware they didn't do it!

I do think this hits the nail right on the head.

Thank you, Stella! I think it's something that gets overlooked and lost amongst all the confusion. It's a simple statement, but true nonetheless. Maybe that's the problem? It's so simple it isn't even thought of?
Simply put: I believe that K+G WOULD have been charged considering they 'admitted' it, but the evidence was there to prove the fib. ;-)

Precisely.

Without neglect, the issues are far more sinister as to what really happened to Madeleine and when?

Stella wrote:Without neglect, the issues are far more sinister as to what really happened to Madeleine and when?

An accident to a drug befuddled child, falling onto ceramic tiles seems perfectly possible to me. Presumably with drugs which weren't properly prescribed and could get those administering them struck off. This is no more sinister than neglect. Why the enormous coverup and sanctification of K & G though? One of life's mysteries which I don't expect ever to see resolved.

However, I do sense that the general public are getting fed up with the Kate & Gerry show.

If no 'neglect', then death in the care of an adult changes everything.

Who was looking after her at that time? In which apartment was she? On what day did it happen? Was child abuse involved?

The list can go on and on and on. All very difficult questions if no 'neglect'.

Miraflores wrote:

Stella wrote:Without neglect, the issues are far more sinister as to what really happened to Madeleine and when?

An accident to a drug befuddled child, falling onto ceramic tiles seems perfectly possible to me. Presumably with drugs which weren't properly prescribed and could get those administering them struck off. This is no more sinister than neglect. Why the enormous coverup and sanctification of K & G though? One of life's mysteries which I don't expect ever to see resolved.

However, I do sense that the general public are getting fed up with the Kate & Gerry show.

With all due respect, Miraflores, this is FAR more sinister than neglect (of which, I believe, there was none). EVEN IF it was an accident involving a drugged child, isn't that already MUCH MORE serious than neglect? Drugging a child is ABUSE! As the post above says, K+G NEED to admit neglect, or else the whole house of cards falls down! The general public, yes, weary of the McCann show. But also slowly realising the truth about the lie...

Stella, you got it! Perfectly. :-)

Offences against the Person Act 1861 which is still the basis for prosecuting personal injury, short of murder in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but can also be used for manslaughter and/or murder outside of these countries states the following:
9) Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen's dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, ... may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished ... in England or Ireland; Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act.

The Children and Young Peoples Act 1933 states: that 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’.

Wilful neglect that leads to death has been prosecuted successfully in the UK as manslaughter, this could be what the Mccanns are facing

Invinoveritas wrote:Offences against the Person Act 1861 which is still the basis for prosecuting personal injury, short of murder in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but can also be used for manslaughter and/or murder outside of these countries states the following:
9) Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen's dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, ... may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished ... in England or Ireland; Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act.

The Children and Young Peoples Act 1933 states: that 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’.

Wilful neglect that leads to death has been prosecuted successfully in the UK as manslaughter, this could be what the Mccanns are facing

Thank you, Invinoveritas, that is very interesting.
So, have I got this right? - Even though it happened in PT, if it were proven that MBM died as a result of K and/or G's actions, they COULD be prosecuted by a UK court?

I guess the same thing would apply to everyone who helped cover it up as well.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Invinoveritas wrote:Offences against the Person Act 1861 which is still the basis for prosecuting personal injury, short of murder in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but can also be used for manslaughter and/or murder outside of these countries states the following:
9) Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen's dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, ... may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished ... in England or Ireland; Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act.

The Children and Young Peoples Act 1933 states: that 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’.

Wilful neglect that leads to death has been prosecuted successfully in the UK as manslaughter, this could be what the Mccanns are facing

Thank you, Invinoveritas, that is very interesting.
So, have I got this right? - Even though it happened in PT, if it were proven that MBM died as a result of K and/or G's actions, they COULD be prosecuted by a UK court?

Correct rainbow-fairy, although it would be interesting to read what PeterMac has to say about this

Stella wrote:I guess the same thing would apply to everyone who helped cover it up as well. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Stella, if that be the case, methinks a new prison needs to be built, sharpish! ;-)

A very big one at that.

Invinoveritas wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Invinoveritas wrote:Offences against the Person Act 1861 which is still the basis for prosecuting personal injury, short of murder in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but can also be used for manslaughter and/or murder outside of these countries states the following:
9) Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen's dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, ... may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished ... in England or Ireland; Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act.

The Children and Young Peoples Act 1933 states: that 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’.

Wilful neglect that leads to death has been prosecuted successfully in the UK as manslaughter, this could be what the Mccanns are facing

Thank you, Invinoveritas, that is very interesting.
So, have I got this right? - Even though it happened in PT, if it were proven that MBM died as a result of K and/or G's actions, they COULD be prosecuted by a UK court?

Correct rainbow-fairy, although it would be interesting to read what PeterMac has to say about this

Indeed it would, though I'm pretty sure IIRC, PeterMac doesn't. Believe the 'neglect' angle. Apologies if I've misunderstood that though!

Stella wrote:A very big one at that. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You got it! On a massive scale LOL ;-)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A story from the Leicester area about a mother who left her children alone to go drinking. I wonder, hypothetically speaking, how a couple from an apparently better social class would have been treated.

From PJ Files: (my bold)

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.



The main "flaw" of the PJ investigation is the kid-gloves handling of the McCanns, largely due to political interference from the UK.

Had this disappearance happened on British soil, I am confident that charges for neglect/abandonment would have been the least of the McCanns concerns...

Quilty as hell for child neglect, but they always put the blame on someone else.  When M cryed for 75 minutes it must have been because a rehearsing abducter was there, not because she was scared that mummy and daddy weren't there.

I just find it sickening that KM is an ambassador for missing children, had this happened in the UK she would have been charged with child neglect and endangerment and had Social Services all over her, she says she feels guilty every single day.  Just wondering what for, neglecting her children or something else?

tracey1270 wrote:I just find it sickening that KM is an ambassador for missing children

imo It is a disgrace for all that grieving parents. I'm "glad" they did not succeed in hijacking the amber-alert.

Sietah wrote:Quilty as hell for child neglect, but they always put the blame on someone else.  When M cryed for 75 minutes it must have been because a rehearsing abducter was there, not because she was scared that mummy and daddy weren't there.

That's one hilarious avatar you got there!

Sietah wrote:

tracey1270 wrote:I just find it sickening that KM is an ambassador for missing children

imo It is a disgrace for all that grieving parents. I'm "glad" they did not succeed in hijacking the amber-alert.

Boy did they try though!