Author Topic: Wandering Off Topic  (Read 1465095 times)

0 Members and 16 Guests are viewing this topic.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #885 on: May 27, 2016, 12:47:49 PM »
With the exception of 'statutory offences' (forget them!) it seems to be an identical requirement of both penal codes (our own, adversarial and the Portuguese inquisitorial) that the commission of any crime requires both of two elements; guilty conduct and guilty intent.

The absence of either element means no crime (in either penal code).

Abandonment and intent, as the former Minister of Internal Affairs makes quite clear.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #886 on: May 27, 2016, 12:48:42 PM »
Abandonment and intent, as the former Minister of Internal Affairs makes quite clear.

Intent to what?

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #887 on: May 27, 2016, 04:32:49 PM »
With the exception of 'statutory offences' (forget them!) it seems to be an identical requirement of both penal codes (our own, adversarial and the Portuguese inquisitorial) that the commission of any crime requires both of two elements; guilty conduct and guilty intent.

The absence of either element means no crime (in either penal code).

Must let guy sent down for 4.5 years for causing death by dangerous driving today know.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #888 on: May 27, 2016, 04:39:33 PM »
Intent to what?

Intent ???

Leaving the children ALONE, REPEATEDLY, whilst they drank free wine and ate.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #889 on: May 27, 2016, 05:08:49 PM »

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #890 on: May 27, 2016, 05:19:14 PM »
Intent ???

Leaving the children ALONE, REPEATEDLY, whilst they drank free wine and ate.
The McCanns intended to enjoy a relaxed evening a few dozen metres from where their children slept and to check on them at regular intervals, they did not intend for one of their kids to be abducted, it's very simple to understand really when you think about it.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #891 on: May 27, 2016, 05:37:50 PM »
The McCanns intended to enjoy a relaxed evening a few dozen metres from where their children slept and to check on them at regular intervals, they did not intend for one of their kids to be abducted, it's very simple to understand really when you think about it.

Ah, abduction.

What abduction alf, and please give the proof of abduction.

There is no excuse for what the mccanns did, and don't try pretending there was.

They weren't in the back garden.

They were in a foreign country, with a language they did not know. etc., etc.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #892 on: May 27, 2016, 05:42:59 PM »
Ah, abduction.

What abduction alf, and please give the proof of abduction.

There is no excuse for what the mccanns did, and don't try pretending there was.

They weren't in the back garden.

They were in a foreign country, with a language they did not know. etc., etc.
We were talking about intent weren't we?  What did the McCanns intend to do that caused Madeleine to disappear then in your view?

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #893 on: May 27, 2016, 05:52:42 PM »
We were talking about intent weren't we?  What did the McCanns intend to do that caused Madeleine to disappear then in your view?

Tut , tut.

If you has been reading and comprehending my and others posts.

You would know that already.

Offline John

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #894 on: May 27, 2016, 06:24:40 PM »
A reminder to keep posts amiable please. TY
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #895 on: May 27, 2016, 06:57:02 PM »
We were talking about intent weren't we?  What did the McCanns intend to do that caused Madeleine to disappear then in your view?

They intended to leave their children alone every night before they even booked the holiday. Think about the risks involved .. or not, if you are a supporter of such parenting behaviour.

 If the flat had caught fire for instance...who would be to blame ... not the parents because they were no where near the kids!
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline pegasus

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #896 on: May 27, 2016, 06:57:50 PM »
(snip) a few dozen metres from where their children slept (snip)
a few   seven

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 07:05:36 PM by pegasus »

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #897 on: May 27, 2016, 07:17:05 PM »
They intended to leave their children alone every night before they even booked the holiday. Think about the risks involved .. or not, if you are a supporter of such parenting behaviour.

 If the flat had caught fire for instance...who would be to blame ... not the parents because they were no where near the kids!
They did not intend to leave them unchecked all evening long, and they didn't.  If the flat had caught fire I have no doubt that they would have been in attendance within 60 seconds, assuming the apartments contained working fire alarms, which I believe is a statutory requirement of such apartments.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #898 on: May 27, 2016, 07:26:11 PM »
Interesting if true. What time did SY/crimewatch say kate went to check?

They are being smart - around 10 but the suspicious phone calls report revealed it matching mine. 9:51 Kate left to check. Alarm raised by 9:54/55. Smithman was spotted later - it all fits.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #899 on: May 27, 2016, 07:28:53 PM »
They did not intend to leave them unchecked all evening long, and they didn't.  If the flat had caught fire I have no doubt that they would have been in attendance within 60 seconds, assuming the apartments contained working fire alarms, which I believe is a statutory requirement of such apartments.

I never said "They did not intend to leave them unchecked all evening long". I clearly stated they intended to leave the children alone every night before they went on holiday, without doing a risk assessment . Do you have any idea how long it takes to survive smoke inhilation? anyway no matter, they did not do a risk assessment.
 
Re the checking you mention. There was no set schedule ie every 15 or 20 or 30 minute intervals. these were NOT physical checks just 'listening at doors' IF the checking was as often as you and they try to make out, there would have been no time for  an'abductor' . someone would have bumped into him/her/ they surely.
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin