Why is there so much support for Leonor Cipriano from McCann supporters?

[slartibartfast]

ad hom attack..reported

Debatable.

[Mr Gray]

It appears that the Portuguese are more accurate in their laws and rather than use broad brush words use more detailed descriptions to reduce the amount of wriggle room available to lawyers.

are you sure you know enough about Portuguese law to make that statement..are you sure there is no law re child neglect in Portugal...are you denying cipriano was tortured......that is a proven fact and posters have been banned from posting for disputing proven facts

[Mr Gray]

Debatable.

it is a personal attack on me...not my post...but you have given the green light for me to make similar attacks on other posters

[John]

so you are implying there is no law in Portugal of child neglect

I believe the AG was making the point that in order to prosecute it had to be wilful neglect as against simple neglect or carelessness.  The Portuguese criteria for these things no doubt differed from that we accept in the UK and Ireland.

[Mr Gray]

I believe the AG was making the point that in order to prosecute it had to be wilful neglect as against simply neglect or carelessness.

so child neglect does exist as a law in Portugal and the mccanns were not charged and are therefore not guilty of child neglect

[John]

so child neglect does exist as a law in Portugal and the mccanns were not charged and are therefore not guilty of child neglect

Criminal neglect yes.

[Mr Gray]

You are the one who is perpetually rabbiting about how your scientific training taught you to be precise and so on to the extent that only you among posters know A from a bulls foot.
You don't seem to be making a very good fist of being precise in this instance. The McCanns could not be prosecuted under Portuguese law for deliberate Abandonment and Exposure to danger which was the option available [note the lack of the word neglect]. The Portuguese report clearly states they neglected their children.

as the mods don't seem to want to act could you keep your personal criticism of me out of it as it disrupts the smooth running of the forum

[slartibartfast]

it is a personal attack on me...not my post...but you have given the green light for me to make similar attacks on other posters

I said it was debatable every post and report will be dealt with on its merit.

[Mr Gray]

I said it was debatable every post and report will be dealt with on its merit.

that's right so a similar post by me will be treated exactly the same

[Eleanor]

that's right so a similar post by me will be treated exactly the same

I think it was debatable, so therefor ignored.  Any similar post by you will be treated in the same fashion by me, and ignored as well.  This is often the case with Reported Posts, in so far as I am involved.

[Carana]

It appears that the Portuguese are more accurate in their laws and rather than use broad brush words use more detailed descriptions to reduce the amount of wriggle room available to lawyers.

Lawyers will inevitably argue.

I'm still interested in some basic questions (not an exclusive list, just a few off the top of my head):


- When were the premises of the crime scene sealed?

- When were these premises first inspected?

- Who by?

- What was the training and experience of those present regarding forensic expertise?

- What forensic evidence was recovered?

- What forensic evidence was analysed by trained forensic experts for potential dissimulation of a crime?
If there were any, who were they?

- What were the DNA results recovered that were necessarily (or even probably) of an incriminatory nature?

I could go on...

[ferryman]

Criminal neglect yes.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

To get out of the semantic quagmire, let's examine what the prosecutors said:

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.

Now, to pause for a moment, abandonment/neglect.  Are they synonymous?

You can't abandon someone without being negligent, and the McCanns were not guilty abandonment.

But can you be negligent without abandonment?

Dunno.

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 non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

So criminal neglect?

Maybe, in the abstract, such a thing exists.

Or maybe it is a figment of John's imagination.

(In fairness, I think, in English law, there is criminal negligence, probably Portuguese, too).

But none if it applicable to the McCanns.

[ferryman]

English law, possibly a useful link:

https://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/how-you-can-help/campaign/our-campaign-successes/neglect-law/

[Alice Purjorick]

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

To get out of the semantic quagmire, let's examine what the prosecutors said:

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.

Now, to pause for a moment, abandonment/neglect.  Are they synonymous?

You can't abandon someone without being negligent, and the McCanns were not guilty abandonment.

But can you be negligent without abandonment?

Dunno.

So criminal neglect?

Maybe, in the abstract, such a thing exists.

Or maybe it is a figment of John's imagination.

(In fairness, I think, in English law, there is criminal negligence, probably Portuguese, too).

But none if it applicable to the McCanns.

The red bit about covers it.
caution = care taken to avoid danger or mistakes.

[stephen25000]

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

To get out of the semantic quagmire, let's examine what the prosecutors said:

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.

Now, to pause for a moment, abandonment/neglect.  Are they synonymous?

You can't abandon someone without being negligent, and the McCanns were not guilty abandonment.

But can you be negligent without abandonment?

Dunno.

So criminal neglect?

Maybe, in the abstract, such a thing exists.

Or maybe it is a figment of John's imagination.

(In fairness, I think, in English law, there is criminal negligence, probably Portuguese, too).

But none if it applicable to the McCanns.

In ferryman world leaving children unprotected  for hours on end whilst wining and dining, is normal.

In the real world it's NEGLECT.