• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed The Madeleine McCann Case.

That doesn't necessarily mean they were breaking the law, though.

Of course.

There were reports at the time that they could be prosecuted in Portugal for their bad parenting. If that was true and even though they weren’t prosecuted (for whatever reason or reasons) that doesn’t mean their behaviour was lawful.
 
Mind reading?

You may have heard of this new-fangled thing called Google, which is a search engine, where you can search for pages to get information.



https://www.irishmirror.ie/showbiz/celebrity-news/kate-gerry-mccann-vow-fight-10060767

Took 0.65 seconds.

Also, for those who doubt they were stupid and neglectful:

They didn't even lock the door.

The problem is one can imagine other instances where locking the door might have had a bad outcome. Locking doors is not a universal phenomenon. If you look at old photographs you see how people used to leave a child in a pram outside when they used to shop. They still do in Sweden. If you were Dutch you would be left in a hutch in the garden to get fresh air.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21537988
https://daddytypes.com/2013/03/04/its_my_kind_in_a_box_babyhok_the_dutch_baby_hutch.php

This is an interesting example of relative risk. In reality the risk of stranger abduction of a child is small, the risks of being killed by a parent much higher. Or the cat sitting on the babies face. Arguably being with the parent or the cat is the high risk option! Don't get me started on swimming pools! Legislating for child safe pools saved many Australian lives.
 
The police can ask anybody they like to come in for questioning any time they like. If one of those persons is a real suspect (= probable cause they were involved in the crime in question) then a failure to let them know they are a suspect could prejudice any later trial.

Kate McCann was made an arguido. Was given fifty questions, of which I believe she answered only one. I dare say her lawyer advised her to keep shtum because what mother with a missing child wouldn't want to tell the police everything they know of the circumstances surrounding it? However, as an arguido (formal suspect), your words can be used against you in court and in any case the burden of proof is on the police and prosecutors, so the reasoning is, 'If they think I did it, let them prove it! It is not in my interest to help them convict me! (Which is what they are after, with their trick questions).'

So when the tabloids report the latest arguido, the German anti-social paedophhile offender (also recidivist burglar and thief) refused to answer the Portuguese police's questions as an arguido as to where he was on the night the little girl went missing, it is not really so strange he refuses to answer.

The papers report that the McCanns 'welcome' this development. I wonder if this is because they themselves can no longer come under suspicion. That has to be a relief, I guess.
One who is smart enough, and well advised enough, to see a police force desperate for a difficult case to go away, if only temporarily?
:rolleyes:
 
We used to send children to work down the coalmines.

Do you really think there is an equivalence between children working in coal mines and whether you can leave your infant in a pram outside of a shop or in the garden?

If you do then a skeptic site is not for you.
 
Do you really think there is an equivalence between children working in coal mines and whether you can leave your infant in a pram outside of a shop or in the garden?

If you do then a skeptic site is not for you.
You appear to have missed the point of my comment.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom