The sad mantra about neglect

[gilet]

Any source for that ?

Yes, I recommend you read Amaral's book.  I am surprised that you have not already done so.

That is where he describes the meeting in which that early reconstruction was discussed and discloses that the PJ decided it was not feasible because of the difficulties of closing air space, disruption to tourists etc.

If you don't have a copy, I will dig out the citation for you. Let me know if you haven't got round to reading it or don't have access to the book.

[gilet]

All witnesses' statements ! You ignore the files, having the one and only idée fixe to defend McCanns sceptics aren't interested in. We, sceptics, care for Madeleine's fate, can't you understand that ?

As this thread is about the "sad mantra of neglect" please refer to any documents within the PJ files (statements or otherwise) which lend credence to the notion that the McCanns neglected their daughter Madeleine or her siblings.

It is you who is saying that people are ignoring such statements/documents so for the sake of debate, please indicate which statements/documents you wish us to analyse in the context of this thread.

[gilet]

I will start not with a statement (but am perfectly willing do discuss such statements if there are any which directly relate to this thread) but with the Archival report which I believe is very clear in outlining why the crime of neglect/abandonment of the children cannot be pursued against the McCanns, namely that the crime never occurred.

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not – despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore, the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
 
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.
 
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The prosecutor clearly outlines the reasons why no such crime was committed. It is for others now to explain why they disagree with this senior lawyer in his conclusions.

Processo XVII 4343-4344

[AnneGuedes]

Yes, I recommend you read Amaral's book.  I am surprised that you have not already done so.

That is where he describes the meeting in which that early reconstruction was discussed and discloses that the PJ decided it was not feasible because of the difficulties of closing air space, disruption to tourists etc.

If you don't have a copy, I will dig out the citation for you. Let me know if you haven't got round to reading it or don't have access to the book.

I see you omit a point : the PJ feared the McCanns and their friends would be considered as suspects and the effect on it on public opinion.
Here is the original text in case you were ready to pay a professional translation..
se temia que se achasse que os pais de Maddie e os seus amigos estariam a ser considerados suspeitos e, naturalmente, não queríamos um julgamento na praça pública.

[AnneGuedes]

As this thread is about the "sad mantra of neglect" please refer to any documents within the PJ files (statements or otherwise) which lend credence to the notion that the McCanns neglected their daughter Madeleine or her siblings.

It is you who is saying that people are ignoring such statements/documents so for the sake of debate, please indicate which statements/documents you wish us to analyse in the context of this thread.

Kindly delete the quotation you used above, which wasn't directed to you nor to "people" and didn't concern at all the neglect issue.

[gilet]

Kindly delete the quotation you used above, which wasn't directed to you nor to "people" and didn't concern at all the neglect issue.

Don't be ridiculous. I will not remove the quote (whichever quote that may be).

I am posting on a thread related to neglect and everything I have posted here relates to that topic. The same cannot be said about other posters' contributions.

Incidentally, if your post was not addressed at "people" what kind of creatures were your intended audience?

[Jean-Pierre]

Kindly delete the quotation you used above, which wasn't directed to you nor to "people" and didn't concern at all the neglect issue.

Anne - which quotation are you referring to in Gilet's post?

[gilet]

I see you omit a point : the PJ feared the McCanns and their friends would be considered as suspects and the effect on it on public opinion.
Here is the original text in case you were ready to pay a professional translation..
se temia que se achasse que os pais de Maddie e os seus amigos estariam a ser considerados suspeitos e, naturalmente, não queríamos um julgamento na praça pública.

No need for a professional translation, thank you. I can fully understand that without reference to a translator.

There were a number of claims made as to why the staging of a reconstruction was refused when it may have been of greatest value.

Those two that you have added are interesting in that they are the specific ones which would have still been relevant even during an out of season reconstruction much later in the case. Why when they were given as reasons not to do a reconstruction in the earlier instance were they ignored when a later reconstruction was demanded I wonder?

[gilet]

I don't believe it is being aggressive to repeat almost three hours after you made an insinuation about a quote I had made that you need to identify that quote as I do not believe I posted anything incorrectly.

Are you going to answer this question or are you going to simply ignore it?

[Mo Stache]

All witnesses' statements ! You ignore the files, having the one and only idée fixe to defend McCanns sceptics aren't interested in. We, sceptics, care for Madeleine's fate, can't you understand that ?

only if that fate is as a result of her parents actions and none by an outsider.

[gilet]

I know what is fair and what isnt,thanks for your concern though and have a wonderful afternoon
 

A shame then that you don't demonstrate that knowledge in your posts. It is not fair to speculate about the parents of a missing child being drunk on 14 or more bottles of wine when you have admitted the original myth was wrong.

[AnneGuedes]

only if that fate is as a result of her parents actions and none by an outsider.

You have to admit the idea of an outsider didn't pass her parents' mind. Admitting it did would mean they're somehow guilty..
We, sceptics, are like those parents, we find it hard to believe..