Was stranger abduction unlikely due to the checking regime?

[ShiningInLuz]

Before I get accused of working against the McCanns by SIL can I point out the way this discussion has gone thus far:
G-Unit has posited that sedating your kids in order to enjoy a bit of "me" time is something that thousands of parents do and is therefore not morally reprehensible behaviour or the action of monsters.  Well, if true then whatever these "normal" non-morally reprehenisble parents are routinely and "normally"sedating their kids with is going to be something available over the counter and suitable for children. 

If however the suggestion is that something was used on the McCann children that was NOT available over the counter, and NOT suitable for giving to children then I'm afraid we have strayed from "normal, non-monstrous"parental behaviour into rather more sinister and dangerous territory.  Agreed?

Sorry, your logic is more convoluted than the spag in spag bol.  Didn't get it.

I have no wish to comment on G-Unit's position.  I will leave that to G-Unit.

Is it possible to come up with a hypothesis in which the McCanns, nay the T9, felt the need to cover up an accidental death?  It requires about a mental age of 8 to do so.  Of course, just because such a reason can be easily constructed does not mean it happened that way.

Agreed?

[Mr Gray]

Sorry, your logic is more convoluted than the spag in spag bol.  Didn't get it.

I have no wish to comment on G-Unit's position.  I will leave that to G-Unit.

Is it possible to come up with a hypothesis in which the McCanns, nay the T9, felt the need to cover up an accidental death?  It requires about a mental age of 8 to do so.  Of course, just because such a reason can be easily constructed does not mean it happened that way.

Agreed?

it may well be possible to come up with a hypothesis but it would be very obvious it came from an 8 yr old

[ShiningInLuz]

it may well be possible to come up with a hypothesis but it would be very obvious it came from an 8 yr old

And?

[Mr Gray]

And?

and there is no thesis that holds water to explain why they would cover up an accidental death......in fact there hasnt been a thesis that expalins an accidental death. a fall off the sofa wouldnt do it

[Robittybob1]

and there is no thesis that holds water to explain why they would cover up an accidental death......in fact there hasnt been a thesis that expalins an accidental death. a fall off the sofa wouldnt do it

But a fall from a twizzing might be enough.

[Alfie]

Please point out which post G-Unit mentioned sedation in this thread?

Quote from: G-Unit on Today at 09:32:05 AM
The problem is that you are describing behaviour as a whole. You're ignoring the timeline element. Many parents have admitted to sedating their children on flights and long road trips, so sedating them so the parents can have a trouble-free night out isn't beyond the bounds of possibility. Neither does it make a parent into a 'monster'.

Sedation can, like any other choice, lead to unexpected consequences. Some children can have adverse reactions, even death. This could present parents with another choice. Medical attention, such as an autopsy, may reveal the sedation; it may even have caused or contributed to the death. Now something that wasn't a big deal has become a potential disaster. The parents could lose their jobs, their remaining children and the love and respect of family and friends. The choice now is own up or not. Owning up won't help the child, but could destroy the remaining family. Deciding not to own up has got to be considered, and if that becomes the decision it still doesn't make the parents into 'monsters'. In their eyes they have been forced to take a decision they don't want to take because the alternative is ruin.

Other unexpected consequences follow, including the Fund. The parents are now trapped by their previous choices and have to keep going because owning up has now become pretty much impossible. The consequences will be even worse than they expected earlier.

Taking the timeline into account shows how things could develop and lead to people making unpalatable decisions.
It isn't bizarre and it doesn't mean they are monsters. Just people making very difficult decisions under duress.

[Alfie]

Sorry, your logic is more convoluted than the spag in spag bol.  Didn't get it.

I have no wish to comment on G-Unit's position.  I will leave that to G-Unit.

Is it possible to come up with a hypothesis in which the McCanns, nay the T9, felt the need to cover up an accidental death?  It requires about a mental age of 8 to do so.  Of course, just because such a reason can be easily constructed does not mean it happened that way.

Agreed?

My logic is perfect, if you don't get it then that's not my problem.  I don't engage with rude moderators so consider this my last response to you.

[G-Unit]

Quote from: G-Unit on Today at 09:32:05 AM
The problem is that you are describing behaviour as a whole. You're ignoring the timeline element. Many parents have admitted to sedating their children on flights and long road trips, so sedating them so the parents can have a trouble-free night out isn't beyond the bounds of possibility. Neither does it make a parent into a 'monster'.

Sedation can, like any other choice, lead to unexpected consequences. Some children can have adverse reactions, even death. This could present parents with another choice. Medical attention, such as an autopsy, may reveal the sedation; it may even have caused or contributed to the death. Now something that wasn't a big deal has become a potential disaster. The parents could lose their jobs, their remaining children and the love and respect of family and friends. The choice now is own up or not. Owning up won't help the child, but could destroy the remaining family. Deciding not to own up has got to be considered, and if that becomes the decision it still doesn't make the parents into 'monsters'. In their eyes they have been forced to take a decision they don't want to take because the alternative is ruin.

Other unexpected consequences follow, including the Fund. The parents are now trapped by their previous choices and have to keep going because owning up has now become pretty much impossible. The consequences will be even worse than they expected earlier.

Taking the timeline into account shows how things could develop and lead to people making unpalatable decisions.
It isn't bizarre and it doesn't mean they are monsters. Just people making very difficult decisions under duress.

In reply to posts suh as this one, of course;

 Reply #83 on: February 28, 2017, 11:22:46 PM »
Quote
And of course the one thing I was forgetting from my scenario above is the overdosing of sedatives malarkey.  So, on top of it all we;ve got these parents that we mustn't call evil and we mustn't call monsters who have been over-sedating their kids all holiday so that they can go and eat and drink with their mates,which is the cause directly or indirectly of one of the kids' deaths. The death that they then plot together to cover up by furtively digging a hole somewhere and burying the body or tossing it in the garbage or hiding it under a rock and then claiming a million quid in pensioner and kiddies money to enrich themselves.  Oh no, we mustn't say that such people are monsters, only a bit misguided perhaps.  Caught up in the  moment.  In a bit of a pickle poor things.  Is that better?
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LIBEL.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THE MCCANNS DID ANY OF THE ABOVE.  I AM SIMPLY HIGHLIGHTING THE ABSURDITY OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY WERE CAPABLE OF THESE MONSTROUS ACTS WHILST ALSO BEING NORMAL LOVING PARENTS WITH NO PREVIOUS HISTORY OF SUSPECT BEHAVIOUR,

[Alfie]

In reply to posts suh as this one, of course;

 Reply #83 on: February 28, 2017, 11:22:46 PM »
Quote
And of course the one thing I was forgetting from my scenario above is the overdosing of sedatives malarkey.  So, on top of it all we;ve got these parents that we mustn't call evil and we mustn't call monsters who have been over-sedating their kids all holiday so that they can go and eat and drink with their mates,which is the cause directly or indirectly of one of the kids' deaths. The death that they then plot together to cover up by furtively digging a hole somewhere and burying the body or tossing it in the garbage or hiding it under a rock and then claiming a million quid in pensioner and kiddies money to enrich themselves.  Oh no, we mustn't say that such people are monsters, only a bit misguided perhaps.  Caught up in the  moment.  In a bit of a pickle poor things.  Is that better?
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LIBEL.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THE MCCANNS DID ANY OF THE ABOVE.  I AM SIMPLY HIGHLIGHTING THE ABSURDITY OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY WERE CAPABLE OF THESE MONSTROUS ACTS WHILST ALSO BEING NORMAL LOVING PARENTS WITH NO PREVIOUS HISTORY OF SUSPECT BEHAVIOUR,

Great post, thanks for re-posting.

[G-Unit]

Great post, thanks for re-posting.

It's certainly a great example of this;

1. describe something in the worst possible terms you can.
2. point out how absolutely beyond the pale your description is.
3. argue that only monsters could do what you described.
4. conclude that there are no monsters so your scenario didn't happen.

Of course if your description was wrong, you've achieved nothing.

[ferryman]

It's certainly a great example of this;

1. describe something in the worst possible terms you can.
2. point out how absolutely beyond the pale your description is.
3. argue that only monsters could do what you described.
4. conclude that there are no monsters so your scenario didn't happen.

Of course if your description was wrong, you've achieved nothing.

And if you are wrong, you are falsely accusing someone innocent.

[G-Unit]

And if you are wrong, you are falsely accusing someone innocent.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, unlike some.

[Alfie]

It's certainly a great example of this;

1. describe something in the worst possible terms you can.
2. point out how absolutely beyond the pale your description is.
3. argue that only monsters could do what you described.
4. conclude that there are no monsters so your scenario didn't happen.

Of course if your description was wrong, you've achieved nothing.

Nothing that I described is anything more than I have heard mooted repeatedly by many sceptics, it's certainly no worse than what you yourself have suggested.  And yes, you would have to be morally bereft, a monster,  to repeatedly and often sedate your own children with some illicit substance, the discovery of which in the body of your dead child would cause you such a serious problem that skulking about in the night with her body looking for a hidey hole is a preferable course of action.  I have NOT concluded there are no monsters, I have simply asked you if you consider the McCanns capable of such monstrous, morally reprehensible and criminal behaviour?  Rhetorically of course, as I know that the answer is yes you do.

[Brietta]

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, unlike some.

I recommend you read defamation law in the UK which explains two types of innuendo ...

• false innuendo: which is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
• legal innuendo: is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.

Using the device of a disclaimer regarding an innuendo made, would I imagine be no defence in law against in an accusation for defamation.

[G-Unit]

I recommend you read defamation law in the UK which explains two types of innuendo ...

• false innuendo: which is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
• legal innuendo: is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.

Using the device of a disclaimer regarding an innuendo made, would I imagine be no defence in law against in an accusation for defamation.

Another member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because....................

My reply said that their reason for rejecting the scenario was flawed because................

The discussion was never about whether the scenario actually took place, it was about whether the member's reason for rejecting the scenario was valid or not valid.