Why cause a fuss or court publicity if you were guilty of a crime?

[Eleanor]

Don't bite, Eleanor, its exactly what they want. 

Yes, I know that, DCI.  And thank you for commenting.  But if I can't post without being insulted and goaded then I see no point.
I have been defending The McCanns for six years now, and I have been insulted and banned by everything that is the worst in human psyche.  I have presented The Facts, which are still ignored.  And now I have lost track of what it is all about, other than a Hate Fest.
I am not interested in semantics which have no place in a Court of Law.  The McCanns are Innocent by Law, and I have still to see one single piece of evidence that says otherwise.
I do not believe that The McCanns ever neglected their children. And No, I do not any longer wish to discuss this.

But if this Forum should in future wish to protect my right to comment on The Facts without fear of someone insulting me, then I will continue.  If this Forum does not wish to do this then I will continue to retaliate against those who first attack me.

[Lyall]

So do you trust Amaral?

Nope, I don't trust any of the players in the case - they've all either told lies or seriously distorted the truth at various times in my opinion. Do I need to trust Amaral? I can think for myself.

[Mr Gray]

Yes well she believed the PM no less about Iraq. And has seen the whitewash inquiries since that crime.

She believed the police about the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 and Barry George and Stefan Kiszko and numerous other cases.

She's no revolutionary, but just doesn't believe in authorities anymore. And she's not alone.

I was actually shocked at her reaction to Redwood's words, and only mentioned it because if people like my Ma are thinking that way - you should take note. It's not a few online "loonies". Never was.

The Guildford 4 etc are not examples of corrupt authorities but rogue elements within. That's why the decision to overturn the judgements were made by the authorities  who therefore could be trusted. as for Tony Blair there were many dissenting voices within his own party but he had too much power. Would a politician get away with this again?
Those who feel they have broken free from the authorities , such as the Ickites have just swapped one master for another and are now being controlled by him...sheeple.

[AnneGuedes]

A test of logic?

If one or more people were guilty of a serious crime which involved a missing child then why on earth would they launch a huge public campaign and have the eyes of the world on them 24/7 making it totally impossible to dispose of any incriminating evidence?
 
If they were so clever as to have committed this crime in the first place without leaving conclusive forensic evidence, don't you think they would have tried to avoid extensive publicity so that they could go about their business with impunity?

Is it a case of logic or is there something more sinister at play here?


PS. Thanks to Mo Stache for the original thought.

The answer is in the question.

[AnneGuedes]

Did they have any other choice in the circumstances? A story like this cannot break and die away quickly. You cannot lose a child in mysterious circumstances and slink away out of the public eye.

Many children die daily because of domestic accidents. Every summer some fall in swimming pools and sometimes this is noted just 30 seconds too late. These dramas aren't described in tabloids because, however mediocre they are, tabloids have a certain respect for grief and their readers also.
If you pretend your child has been abducted (the McCanns aren't the only ones), this is an event.  If you don't act as if your child was findable, you are an event.
The more you claim there's no evidence your child was harmed, the more people are intrigued and then observe you. If you vanish after a while, they'll start to suspect.
So you're bound to insist again and again. It is your only chance to make them have at least a tiny doubt about your culpability.
The McCanns wanted more, they wanted to be declared innocent. They'll have to satisfy themselves with the tiny doubt that the sceptics have (as sceptic, they can't reject the abduction thesis). 

[Redblossom]

Many children die daily because of domestic accidents. Every summer some fall in swimming pools and sometimes this is noted just 30 seconds too late. These dramas aren't described in tabloids because, however mediocre they are, tabloids have a certain respect for grief and their readers also.
If you pretend your child has been abducted (the McCanns aren't the only ones), this is an event.  If you don't act as if your child was findable, you are an event.
The more you claim there's no evidence your child was harmed, the more people are intrigued and then observe you. If you vanish after a while, they'll start to suspect.
So you're bound to insist again and again. It is your only chance to make them have at least a tiny doubt about your culpability.
The McCanns wanted more, they wanted to be declared innocent. They'll have to satisfy themselves with the tiny doubt that the sceptics have (as sceptic, they can't reject the abduction thesis).

very insightful theory as ever