In those circumstances it really depends on several factors including most importantly how said child died.What difference does it make how the child died? I'm questioning *your* motivation for staying in the spotlight and campaigning to have *your* crimes reviewed and re-investigated.
What difference does it make how the child died? I'm questioning *your* motivation for staying in the spotlight and campaigning to have *your* crimes reviewed and re-investigated.
In those circumstances it really depends on several factors including most importantly how said child died. In the heat of the moment people have been known to do some really stupid things and especially so if under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
You do not mention this in your scenario Alf, any particular reason?
so what stupid things have people done...the suggestion that a cover up has been going for several years and even encouraged a police force to open the case to investigate it again is totally ridiculous
could you give an example of a three yr old child dying from a head injury in a domestic enviroment...
I believe we have been here before but will a two-year-old do?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114474/Man-arrested-death-girl-2-died-falling-stairs-mother-away-New-York.html
A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said today: 'Shortly before 12.45am on Saturday police were called by Greater Manchester Ambulance Service to an incident in Ashton-under-Lyne.
'A two-year-old girl was reported to have fallen down the stairs, sustaining a head injury.
'The young girl was taken to hospital, but sadly died at 7.20pm on Sunday.
'An investigation into the circumstances of this incident are ongoing.'
A post-mortem examination revealed that the girl died from a head injury.
it seems it wont do at all John...
Roxie Archer, aged 23 months, suffered a fatal brain injury after she was "forcibly and repeatedly punched" by Ben Raftery while in his care
I thought you previously stated that children don't die from head injuries?#
A broken neck results in instant death in many cases.Domestic falls do not result in a broken neck
Scenario:
Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.
As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country.
The police are suspicious, the media which was supportive in the early days has turned on you, printing all sorts of uncomfortable headlines heavily hinting that you have done something untoward with your child.
Eventually you are made chief suspect in your child's disappearance and every aspect of your holiday, your relationship with your child and family and friends, your comings and goings etc is put under the microscope. The police bust their guts trying to find some evidence that you hid your child's body.
Meanwhile most people in your home country and in the country in which you holidayed are convinced you're guilty of something.
Eventually, after months of investigation and trying to build a case against you, the police concede they lack any evidence against you, and you are no longer suspects. The case is shelved indefinitely. You sue the media for libel and settle out of court - a nice big juicy payment for your bank account.
Now, at this point you'd be forgiven for going to ground, issuing one final statement to the media along the lines of "we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone, and just want to be left alone to grieve", then slink away into obscurity to spend all that lovely lolly you screwed out of the public and the papers.
But no. This is not what you do.
Instead you spend a small fortune on various private investigators, you write a book which gets serialised in the country's biggest circulation newspaper, you appear on TV chat shows, all allegedly to keep your child's profile high in the public consciousness even though you know what happened.
Then to cap it all, three whole years after the case was shelved you go to the highest man in your land, the prime minister, by sending him a letter demanding:
"a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to our child's disappearance".
You are granted your wish and the country's most esteemed police force is drafted in to sift through all the evidence all over again, at great cost to the public purse.
You make yourself available for more TV appearances, BBC Crimewatch even, appealing for people to come forward who may have actually seen something.
The question I have to ask you is:
ARE YOU F@@KING MAD????
If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?
What you have posted makes absolute sense but do not expect everyone to see the perfect logic you have presented
Imagine this scenario:
You are an aspiring model driving home with your boyfriend when a heated argument starts. He stops the car and you both get out ; you stab him 42 times from which injuries he dies.
You have a press conference at which you say your boyfriend was killed in a road rage attack by a fat man with staring eyes who stabbed your boyfriend over 30 times emotionally you ask for anyone with information to come forward.
Why the kin hell would you want to make up a story like that and appear before cameras telling the tale?
Imagine this scenario:
You are an aspiring model driving home with your boyfriend when a heated argument starts. He stops the car and you both get out ; you stab him 42 times from which injuries he dies.
You have a press conference at which you say your boyfriend was killed in a road rage attack by a fat man with staring eyes who stabbed your boyfriend over 30 times emotionally you ask for anyone with information to come forward.
Why the kin hell would you want to make up a story like that and appear before cameras telling the tale?
I think I remember that case - an american girl. IMO it's often a case of "Look what I've done and I'm getting away with it."What you have described, criminals repeatedly drawing attention to their crimes, taunting the police, challenging them to come after them is well documented and tends to point to some serious pathological character traits in the criminal. In my opinion this could be the only logical explanation that comes anywhere close to explaining the behaviour I have described in my scenario.
There have been many killers over the years who have been on TV all the time lapping up the attention and are narcissists. This is unprecedented though and would they keep going to these extraordinary lengths? Maybe the true narcissist is also deep down hoping to get caught? All that extra attention when caught like the court case, post prison interviews etc.
FWIW I don't think that to be the case here. There's always a counter argument though and there are many examples of killers basking in the limelight. I can think of several examples, but terrible with names. 1 guy taunted the police for years, was on TV all the time and when the case went cold handed himself into the police.
What you have described, criminals repeatedly drawing attention to their crimes, taunting the police, challenging them to come after them is well documented and tends to point to some serious pathological character traits in the criminal. In my opinion this could be the only logical explanation that comes anywhere close to explaining the behaviour I have described in my scenario.
What you have described, criminals repeatedly drawing attention to their crimes, taunting the police, challenging them to come after them is well documented and tends to point to some serious pathological character traits in the criminal. In my opinion this could be the only logical explanation that comes anywhere close to explaining the behaviour I have described in my scenario. so I guess the next question is - do sceptics really believe that the McCanns are both brazen psychopaths?
Yeah it's the only possibility I could imagine. What does a brazen psychopath look like? Does one necessarily need to be a psychopath? Though I guess extreme narcissism seems to manifest psychopathic traits. I mean if we were shown 5hrs worth of a psychopath chatting,conversing etc would any of us even know?
I think we would...and it would not be a professor of cardiology....the sort of people we need who dedicate their lives to helping others...we don't need those who dedicate their life to persecution...what use are they... no use at all ...think about it.
[ edited ]
Yeah it's the only possibility I could imagine. What does a brazen psychopath look like? Does one necessarily need to be a psychopath? Though I guess extreme narcissism seems to manifest psychopathic traits. I mean if we were shown 5hrs worth of a psychopath chatting,conversing etc would any of us even know?
I think we would...and it would not be a professor of cardiology....the sort of people we need who dedicate their lives to helping others...we don't need those who dedicate their life to persecution...what use are they... no use at all ...think about it.
[ edited ]
One trait shared by psychopaths and narcissists is lack of empathy. Empathy is needed when dealing with children because you have to be able to see things from the child's point of view.
Given that if what you say is correct, and that a significant percentage of all parents are psychopaths (for example all those who parents who have used holiday creches and who adopt the "leave them to cry themselves to sleep" method of baby rearing), then would you say that psychopathy is at play in the scenario I have outlined? Does it perhaps explain why, despite the case being shelved, *you* simply won't let the world forget about *your* missing child and go to great lengths to getting the case reviewed by the best police force in *your* country? Does that sound realisitc and plausible to you?
Interesting that you put different value on different people's lives.
You clearly don't know much about psychopaths. They aren't all serial killers or criminals. Many very successful people are psychopaths too.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/?no-ist
http://www.alternet.org/culture/10-careers-most-psychopaths
I certainly put different values on different people...
(http://live-admin-markwarner2.tigerbay.co.uk/resize.ashx?f=children-pool.jpg&w=605&h=340)I must obviously be some kind of weird parent anyway ... having dredged all the holiday brochures before booking the family holiday to ensure my children would have a really miserable holiday while I cavorted with my friends whose kids were similarly disadvantaged.
However I am stuck with trying to work out why, if my eldest had been the victim of a fatal accident, I would immediately clean up the area and dispose of her body in preference to seeking assistance and calling the authorities?
Is that a normal reaction and what one would do? Dunno ... but I think it must be because there are a few folks around who seem to be convinced that in the circumstances that is what one does while on holiday.
A simulated abduction is putting the blame on others, who have yet to be proven to exist.
Easier than taking responsibility for their own actions.
It's the 'not me gov' mentality.
I think we would...and it would not be a professor of cardiology....the sort of people we need who dedicate their lives to helping others...we don't need those who dedicate their life to persecution...what use are they... no use at all ...think about it.
[ edited ]
You make a very good point imo regarding the profession. Saying that everyone has a right to a point of view and are free to think and feel what they like. Dedicating your life to something like that though is something else. It's his life though and I think through open discourse it's more likely to be advantageous for everyone in the long run then to stifle debate.
Also, I guess we post on here for different reasons. Some are morally concerned like for instance I believe Alfie is, Jean-Pierre and perhaps you are too. Me, I like to play armchair detective and enjoy reading various theories abduction/disappearance etc. Overall I think it's a very sad story, mostly for Madeleine and the McCanns and imo will one day eventually be resolved.
[ edited ]
Given that if what you say is correct, and that a significant percentage of all parents are psychopaths (for example all those who parents who have used holiday creches and who adopt the "leave them to cry themselves to sleep" method of baby rearing), then would you say that psychopathy is at play in the scenario I have outlined? Does it perhaps explain why, despite the case being shelved, *you* simply won't let the world forget about *your* missing child and go to great lengths to getting the case reviewed by the best police force in *your* country? Does that sound realisitc and plausible to you?
You make a very good point imo regarding the profession. Saying that everyone has a right to a point of view and are free to think and feel what they like. Dedicating your life to something like that though is something else. It's his life though and I think through open discourse it's more likely to be advantageous for everyone in the long run then to stifle debate.
Also, I guess we post on here for different reasons. Some are morally concerned like for instance I believe Alfie is, Jean-Pierre and perhaps you are too. Me, I like to play armchair detective and enjoy reading various theories abduction/disappearance etc. Overall I think it's a very sad story, mostly for Madeleine and the McCanns and imo will one day eventually be resolved.
[ edited ]
Well thought out post and succinctly put, Lordpookles.
What are your 'armchair detective' thoughts as to why professional parents would endanger themselves by attempting to cover up an accident? Why not micromanage the scene starting by at least trying to make it look like a forced entry.
I doubt I would make a false claim of that nature without making sure the basics were in place to substantiate it.
In trying to erase all blame in the case, yes.How does my scenario achieve that?
Psychopaths and narcissists lack empathy, but they're not the only ones. It's not a natural quality, it has to be learned. Small children will hurt others without a thought. Empathy is taken very seriously in Denmark;
“The Danes teach empathy in schools, which is quite special.
http://www.mothermag.com/teaching-empathy-to-children/
Scenario:
Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.
As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country.
The police are suspicious, the media which was supportive in the early days has turned on you, printing all sorts of uncomfortable headlines heavily hinting that you have done something untoward with your child.
Eventually you are made chief suspect in your child's disappearance and every aspect of your holiday, your relationship with your child and family and friends, your comings and goings etc is put under the microscope. The police bust their guts trying to find some evidence that you hid your child's body.
Meanwhile most people in your home country and in the country in which you holidayed are convinced you're guilty of something.
Eventually, after months of investigation and trying to build a case against you, the police concede they lack any evidence against you, and you are no longer suspects. The case is shelved indefinitely. You sue the media for libel and settle out of court - a nice big juicy payment for your bank account.
Now, at this point you'd be forgiven for going to ground, issuing one final statement to the media along the lines of "we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone, and just want to be left alone to grieve", then slink away into obscurity to spend all that lovely lolly you screwed out of the public and the papers.
But no. This is not what you do.
Instead you spend a small fortune on various private investigators, you write a book which gets serialised in the country's biggest circulation newspaper, you appear on TV chat shows, all allegedly to keep your child's profile high in the public consciousness even though you know what happened.
Then to cap it all, three whole years after the case was shelved you go to the highest man in your land, the prime minister, by sending him a letter demanding:
"a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to our child's disappearance".
You are granted your wish and the country's most esteemed police force is drafted in to sift through all the evidence all over again, at great cost to the public purse.
You make yourself available for more TV appearances, BBC Crimewatch even, appealing for people to come forward who may have actually seen something.
The question I have to ask you is:
ARE YOU F@@KING MAD????
If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?
36
Family and friends would never allow you to drop it and Darren Vickers did the same so the police wouldn't suspect him i.e. reverse psychology.1) family and friends would never allow it? That's only in your opinion. Everyone's family and friends are different. Mine would I'm sure be understanding, possibly even encourage me to try and accept the inevitable and get on with my life, especially if my health appeared to be suffering. If I was a friend of someone in that situation that would be my advice, indeed it would have been my advice to the parents in Alfie's scenario when they were released from arguido status and the case shelved, not that they would have listened, as unlike me they still seem to have hope and are not easily defeated.
I would feel fairly confident if I knew there was no evidence the child had been harmed. If there was any it would have appeared by now.
1) family and friends would never allow it? That's only in your opinion. Everyone's family and friends are different. Mine would I'm sure be understanding, possibly even encourage me to try and accept the inevitable and get on with my life, especially if my health appeared to be suffering. If I was a friend of someone in that situation that would be my advice, indeed it would have been my advice to the parents in Alfie's scenario when they were released from arguido status and the case shelved, not that they would have listened, as unlike me they still seem to have hope and are not easily defeated.
2) Darren Vickers is not someone I am familiar with. Did the case against him get shelved, and did he campaign to the PM for his crimes to be reviewed by the Met? Perhaps you could provide me with a link?
Yes, we know.
I certainly do and I think most sensible intelligent poeple do...I value JO Cox far more than the man who murdered her
Well that's an easy one. Do you rank people in general by their choice of profession, by their unpaid good works, by their personal attributes or what? Who is the top person in the UK in your opinion? The Queen, her heir, the Prime Minister, or do they all come behind, for example, a Professor of Cardiac Imaging and Honorary Consultant Cardiologist?
so do you not rank poeple...top person to me...if i had to choose... is the Dalai Llama
to go a little deeper I would rank people on how far they fulfil their potential to help others
The human being is a complicated creature. People can never be taken at face value. It is wrong to assume that every doctor is a nice person who is kind and compassionate just as it is wrong to think every offender is cruel and dangerous. There is no such thing as one size fits all when it comes to judging people.
The human being is a complicated creature. People can never be taken at face value. It is wrong to assume that every doctor is a nice person who is kind and compassionate just as it is wrong to think every offender is cruel and dangerous. There is no such thing as one size fits all when it comes to judging people.
Never judge a book by it's cover
Handsome is as handsome does
A wolf in sheep's clothing
The human being is a complicated creature. People can never be taken at face value. It is wrong to assume that every doctor is a nice person who is kind and compassionate just as it is wrong to think every offender is cruel and dangerous. There is no such thing as one size fits all when it comes to judging people.
I would feel fairly confident if I knew there was no evidence the child had been harmed. If there was any it would have appeared by now.is that before or after a fully open transparent and comprehensive review by the best police department in your own country?
I'm not watching a video, just kindly answer my question please.
I'm not watching a video, just kindly answer my question please.
You're not seeing truth so it's no wonder you can never find it.dInstead of being rude why don't you simply answer my question? It only requires one word - yes or no. Did this murderer petition the PM and / or the police to conduct a fully comprehensive review of all the evidence against him after the case against him had been shelved or not?
Scenario:
Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.
As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country.
The police are suspicious, the media which was supportive in the early days has turned on you, printing all sorts of uncomfortable headlines heavily hinting that you have done something untoward with your child.
Eventually you are made chief suspect in your child's disappearance and every aspect of your holiday, your relationship with your child and family and friends, your comings and goings etc is put under the microscope. The police bust their guts trying to find some evidence that you hid your child's body.
Meanwhile most people in your home country and in the country in which you holidayed are convinced you're guilty of something.
Eventually, after months of investigation and trying to build a case against you, the police concede they lack any evidence against you, and you are no longer suspects. The case is shelved indefinitely. You sue the media for libel and settle out of court - a nice big juicy payment for your bank account.
Now, at this point you'd be forgiven for going to ground, issuing one final statement to the media along the lines of "we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone, and just want to be left alone to grieve", then slink away into obscurity to spend all that lovely lolly you screwed out of the public and the papers.
But no. This is not what you do.
Instead you spend a small fortune on various private investigators, you write a book which gets serialised in the country's biggest circulation newspaper, you appear on TV chat shows, all allegedly to keep your child's profile high in the public consciousness even though you know what happened.
Then to cap it all, three whole years after the case was shelved you go to the highest man in your land, the prime minister, by sending him a letter demanding:
"a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to our child's disappearance".
You are granted your wish and the country's most esteemed police force is drafted in to sift through all the evidence all over again, at great cost to the public purse.
You make yourself available for more TV appearances, BBC Crimewatch even, appealing for people to come forward who may have actually seen something.
The question I have to ask you is:
ARE YOU F@@KING MAD????
If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?
55
Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.....let's look at reasons since this is only a scenario:
1. you lose your temper- smack the child harder than you thought and he/she falls/ dies- you are worried that a post motrem reveals the child has been abused in some other way (more bruising etc)you are in a foreign country and are afraid you will be arrested and thrown in jail.
2. you leave instructions to your child that if they wake up to come and get you a door will be left unlocked- you are worried that he/she did that and had an accident causing his/ her death- you are in a foreign country and are afraid you will be arrested and thrown in jail.
3 the child wakes up and goes to mums room find sweets ( adult medicine/or calpol) and dies. -
you are in a foreign country and are afraid you will be arrested and thrown in jail.
You stage an abduction to deflect attention and use child friendly terms to re assure everyone that it was not your fault by saying, some thing similar to: it was like sitting in the garden- it's a cultural thing every one in the UK does it- we could see the apartment from where we were sitting- we were constantly checking the children (not mentioning just listening at the door), ( also, not mentioning that this was your preferred choice of child care you chose before you even left the UK) claiming that it felt safe. You call the media to get your story in first and like most professionals who are accused of anything, they stay very quiet about the details of what happened
( because they can catch you out) and only answer questions with deflection- or when suspected don't answer at all. When this ploy works you roll with it. You know the two police forces have no evidence, you know they will never find a body- job done. keep up the pretense until you are found out, you know you never will be found out so you are home laughing. Play the victim, bad mouth your accusers and those who suspect you.
"ARE YOU F@@KING MAD????
NO JUSTF@@@@KING CLEVER. THREW THEM OFF THE SCENT AND GOT FREEDOM AND A REALLY NICE LIFE THANKS
If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?
Like seriously? our reputation,our freedom, loosing our twins, careers, house, EVERYTHING! did I miss anything re the motivation?
oh yes regarding wanting ALL the information on them regarding this matter- they didn't get it it all- did they? and why did they need it? to check if they missed anything perhaps.
*You* had already gotten away with the crime. The case had been shelved for years, and yet *you* continue to draw attention to it and even go so far as demanding a joint review of all the evidence by the best police forces in Britain and Portugal.
Explain.
The thing is though Alf, getting away with it, whatever that might be, and having ones name cleared are two entirely different things.This discussion is becoming circular.
This discussion is becoming circular.
When the case was shelved the papers in *your* country routinely described *you* and the other suspect who was being investigated as having been "cleared". Of course a few sceptics would dispute the use of this term to describe *your* status, but certanly in the eyes of the average Joe on the streets cleared is what *you* have been.
To ths end, and knowing that *you* are guilty and that there cannot possibly be any evidence that points to anyone else as *you* dunnit, then how does pushing for a review of *your* crimes mean that *you* are ever likely to be even more cleared than *you* alrady have been?
It makes absolutely no sense.
How can you be cleared when the truth is unknown? I've given you an example of it happening which you wouldn't watch. You need to open your mind. The bigger the lie the more it's believed.How can *you* hope to be cleared by a complete review of all the evidence when there is no evidence that anyone else is involved? How does calling for a review clear you, exactly? That is what is being suggested as the motive for calling for a review, but how in reality would this achieve *your* aim?
*You* had already gotten away with the crime. The case had been shelved for years, and yet *you* continue to draw attention to it and even go so far as demanding a joint review of all the evidence by the best police forces in Britain and Portugal.
Explain.
This thread has been trimmed. Posters are reminded that this thread started by Alfie is purely a scenario and does not relate to any specific individual or individuals. Posts which associate this scenario with any real life case will be edited or removed.For Shining-In-Luz's benefit.
Whether at home or abroad in the unthinkable circumstance of the death of one of my children the first thing I would do (after screaming the place down) would be to inform those around me and to get official assistance.
In my case since I am not an MD that would be medical and police.
Whether at home or abroad in the unthinkable circumstance of one of my children vanishing from her bed during the night with the window to her bedroom opened wide by someone unknown ~ once I had made a search of the immediate area ~ I would inform the police and while waiting for their arrival keep searching with the help of friends and neighbours.
In the circumstances I would be screaming "abduction" ... why would the scene suggest anything else?
Scenario:Since this is a purely hypothetical scenario, here it is, sentence by sentence.
Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.
As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country.
The police are suspicious, the media which was supportive in the early days has turned on you, printing all sorts of uncomfortable headlines heavily hinting that you have done something untoward with your child.
Eventually you are made chief suspect in your child's disappearance and every aspect of your holiday, your relationship with your child and family and friends, your comings and goings etc is put under the microscope. The police bust their guts trying to find some evidence that you hid your child's body.
Meanwhile most people in your home country and in the country in which you holidayed are convinced you're guilty of something.
Eventually, after months of investigation and trying to build a case against you, the police concede they lack any evidence against you, and you are no longer suspects. The case is shelved indefinitely. You sue the media for libel and settle out of court - a nice big juicy payment for your bank account.
Now, at this point you'd be forgiven for going to ground, issuing one final statement to the media along the lines of "we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone, and just want to be left alone to grieve", then slink away into obscurity to spend all that lovely lolly you screwed out of the public and the papers.
But no. This is not what you do.
Instead you spend a small fortune on various private investigators, you write a book which gets serialised in the country's biggest circulation newspaper, you appear on TV chat shows, all allegedly to keep your child's profile high in the public consciousness even though you know what happened.
Then to cap it all, three whole years after the case was shelved you go to the highest man in your land, the prime minister, by sending him a letter demanding:
"a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to our child's disappearance".
You are granted your wish and the country's most esteemed police force is drafted in to sift through all the evidence all over again, at great cost to the public purse.
You make yourself available for more TV appearances, BBC Crimewatch even, appealing for people to come forward who may have actually seen something.
The question I have to ask you is:
ARE YOU F@@KING MAD????
If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?
69
Since this is a purely hypothetical scenario, here it is, sentence by sentence.
Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.
This would be because you are guilty of something, or feel the need to cover something up. That something could range from the simple e.g. neglect, to the horrendous e.g. you actually killed your own child. And a multitude of things between.
I can't remember the case in Scotland in detail, but the gist was the parent(s) claimed the child had wandered off in an attempt to conceal the fact that the child had been killed.
As a hypothetical scenario, this has fallen even before the first fence.
The recent case in Scotland would not fit into my hypothetical scenario. The child in Scotland was already known to be at risk and social services were working with the family. The same local authority were also monitoring the latest child to be murdered by a parent; something very wrong going on here.Hang on, have you suddenly become Alfie?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36397785
Back to my scenario now. I'm going with finding my child missing from bed and her bedroom window open.
I'm from a Northern Climate.
We do not have shutters on our windows to block out the sun. My experience of shutters is that they are solely for security purposes, when down, they are locked ... imagine my horror and terror when I discover that what I thought were security shutters were not ... and had been raised.
Scenario:As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country.
Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.
As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country.
The police are suspicious, the media which was supportive in the early days has turned on you, printing all sorts of uncomfortable headlines heavily hinting that you have done something untoward with your child.
Eventually you are made chief suspect in your child's disappearance and every aspect of your holiday, your relationship with your child and family and friends, your comings and goings etc is put under the microscope. The police bust their guts trying to find some evidence that you hid your child's body.
Meanwhile most people in your home country and in the country in which you holidayed are convinced you're guilty of something.
Eventually, after months of investigation and trying to build a case against you, the police concede they lack any evidence against you, and you are no longer suspects. The case is shelved indefinitely. You sue the media for libel and settle out of court - a nice big juicy payment for your bank account.
Now, at this point you'd be forgiven for going to ground, issuing one final statement to the media along the lines of "we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone, and just want to be left alone to grieve", then slink away into obscurity to spend all that lovely lolly you screwed out of the public and the papers.
But no. This is not what you do.
Instead you spend a small fortune on various private investigators, you write a book which gets serialised in the country's biggest circulation newspaper, you appear on TV chat shows, all allegedly to keep your child's profile high in the public consciousness even though you know what happened.
Then to cap it all, three whole years after the case was shelved you go to the highest man in your land, the prime minister, by sending him a letter demanding:
"a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to our child's disappearance".
You are granted your wish and the country's most esteemed police force is drafted in to sift through all the evidence all over again, at great cost to the public purse.
You make yourself available for more TV appearances, BBC Crimewatch even, appealing for people to come forward who may have actually seen something.
The question I have to ask you is:
ARE YOU F@@KING MAD????
If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?
69
Since this is a purely hypothetical scenario, here it is, sentence by sentence.
Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.
This would be because you are guilty of something, or feel the need to cover something up. That something could range from the simple e.g. neglect, to the horrendous e.g. you actually killed your own child. And a multitude of things between.
I can't remember the case in Scotland in detail, but the gist was the parent(s) claimed the child had wandered off in an attempt to conceal the fact that the child had been killed.
As a hypothetical scenario, this has fallen even before the first fence.
As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country.LOL. Why has my scenario failed again? By your own admission the part you have chosen to highlight has already happened twice so what is your issue? In any case this is only a scenario, designed to understand why anyone would choose to keep the spotlight on their own crimes and insist on a police review of their crimes so why are you trying so hard to pull it to pieces?
Moving on to sentence 2, I hit another issue in this hypothetical scenario.
It is not normal for 2 police forces to investigate what happened when you were holidaying. The norm is that wherever you were holidaying, that country's police force investigates. I can think of only 2 cases where both countries investigated. One is Ben Needham, where the UK has seen fit to investigate a crime on foreign soil. The other is Madeleine McCann, where the UK has seen fit to investigate a crime on foreign soil.
Are there others? If so, I would love to be enlightened.
If not, this hypothetical theorem has failed again.
Hang on, have you suddenly become Alfie?
LOL ... Nope, but I do think this could be a valuable thread given that the actions of an individual in a foreign land can very easily be open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding and vice versa.Thank goodness for that, Brietta I was getting a bit anxious for a moment.
The bigger the incident ~ the bigger the potential for disaster ~ aided and abetted by language and custom differences.
For example in Northern Europe shutters = security: we are unused to the concept that further south shutters = shade.
LOL ... Nope, but I do think this could be a valuable thread given that the actions of an individual in a foreign land can very easily be open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding and vice versa.
The bigger the incident ~ the bigger the potential for disaster ~ aided and abetted by language and custom differences.
For example in Northern Europe shutters = security: we are unused to the concept that further south shutters = shade.
This thread is to examine motive - motive for asking for a fully independent, transparent and thorough review of all the information held by police forces about a crime *you* have already been investigated for, a case which has long since been shelved. It is not to discuss how the review actually turned out, that's a separate thread. Get it now?
That's fine provided your original analysis is correct, which seems to be there are only two purposes for a shutter.
I would assume the purpose of a shutter was for, but not limited to, the following:
To control ingress of sunlight, to provide privacy, provide security or to protect against weather.
The security reason is usually the easiest to spot; it is the one with staples hasps and padlocks.
Thank goodness for that, Brietta I was getting a bit anxious for a moment.
If it is just a hypothetical discussion, in which case the shackles come off.
We are unusually security conscious, having been the first people in our town to have introduced 'Neighbourhood Watch'. This was many decades ago.
I go along with Brietta on this one. I would have expected the shutters to be security devices, yet they weren't.
Alice, I agree with your comments about additional uses for the shutters but first and foremost in my mind would have been that they were security devices. It would never have occurred to me to check for padlocks etc
We are unusually security conscious, having been the first people in our town to have introduced 'Neighbourhood Watch'. This was many decades ago.
I go along with Brietta on this one. I would have expected the shutters to be security devices, yet they weren't.
Alice, I agree with your comments about additional uses for the shutters but first and foremost in my mind would have been that they were security devices. It would never have occurred to me to check for padlocks etc
It could be for;
To find out what mistakes were made, what lessons have been learned and what information has not yet been collated.
If something like the above was the motivation then those calling for the review would clearly hold the opinion that mistakes were made, there were lessons to be learned and there was uncollated information.
So the desired outcome was for the review to find and highlight the 'mistakes' that were allegedly made, to demonstrate what lessons should be learned and to gather all information in one place.
Finding and highlighting 'mistakes' would officially discredit the original investigation and the direction it took. The people asking for the review may have had reason to believe that their own police force would indeed find the original investigation substandard. Discrediting the original investigation would also discredit it's findings.
Lessons to be learned might include a Europe-wide system such as the US Amber Alert one and perhaps more cross-jurisdiction investigations, which occur in relation to some crimes but not child disappearances. That would would change the fact that the country where the disappearance occurs have primacy.
Gathering all the information together could be very useful in the event that the case remained unsolved. The people concerned could be planning an unprecedented legal bid for the release of the information in such cases, rather than it just gathering dust in an archive. Interested parties could then examine it and use it themselves.
Back on topic, the only reason guilty people would call for a review would be either they were absolutely sure that no evidence of their involvement could be found or they were absolutely sure they would not be investigated..How could *you* be absolutely sure of either outcome in advance of asking for the review to take place? Are we veering back into conspiracy theory land here...?
Back on topic, the only reason guilty people would call for a review would be either they were absolutely sure that no evidence of their involvement could be found or they were absolutely sure they would not be investigated..
It is the different attitudes to everyday things which interest me, Sadie.
I don't think that you and I are by any means the only Northerners who assumed that once the shutters were down ... that was it ... security!
I think the assumption is perfectly illustrated by the commonly held belief accompanied by insistence that the shutters absolutely could not be raised from the outside. We now know that to be false. Probably as most Southerners already did for the simple reason shutters were a part of their daily lives for generations.
I believe that modern times have necessitated that the security aspect is now given more attention.
Yes, well that too of course - lol.
If guilty people were so supremely confident that they were already' home and dry' without a review - and could never be found out - why even bother to ask for one? That makes no sense.
What did they have to personally gain by a review if they knew no 'perpetrator' existed and so could never be found? What is the advantage to them in that outcome.
There's only one credible reason IMO why anyone would continually press for a review - and that is if they knew they were innocent and they hoped that the guilty party, who was still out there, could still be tracked down.
Anything else is way too far fetched for me.
AIMHO
If guilty people were so supremely confident that they were already' home and dry' without a review - and could never be found out - why even bother to ask for one? That makes no sense.
What did they have to personally gain by a review if they knew no 'perpetrator' existed and so could never be found? What is the advantage to them in that outcome.
There's only one credible reason IMO why anyone would continually press for a review - and that is if they knew they were innocent and they hoped that the guilty party, who was still out there, could still be tracked down.
Anything else is way too far fetched for me.
AIMHO
I believe that assumption is more likely to stem from ignorance of how roller shutters/blinds and their tensioning devices work rather than at what latitude one lived.
Scenario:
Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.
As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country.
The police are suspicious, the media which was supportive in the early days has turned on you, printing all sorts of uncomfortable headlines heavily hinting that you have done something untoward with your child.
Eventually you are made chief suspect in your child's disappearance and every aspect of your holiday, your relationship with your child and family and friends, your comings and goings etc is put under the microscope. The police bust their guts trying to find some evidence that you hid your child's body.
Meanwhile most people in your home country and in the country in which you holidayed are convinced you're guilty of something.
Eventually, after months of investigation and trying to build a case against you, the police concede they lack any evidence against you, and you are no longer suspects. The case is shelved indefinitely. You sue the media for libel and settle out of court - a nice big juicy payment for your bank account.
Now, at this point you'd be forgiven for going to ground, issuing one final statement to the media along the lines of "we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone, and just want to be left alone to grieve", then slink away into obscurity to spend all that lovely lolly you screwed out of the public and the papers.
But no. This is not what you do.
Instead you spend a small fortune on various private investigators, you write a book which gets serialised in the country's biggest circulation newspaper, you appear on TV chat shows, all allegedly to keep your child's profile high in the public consciousness even though you know what happened.
Then to cap it all, three whole years after the case was shelved you go to the highest man in your land, the prime minister, by sending him a letter demanding:
"a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to our child's disappearance".
You are granted your wish and the country's most esteemed police force is drafted in to sift through all the evidence all over again, at great cost to the public purse.
You make yourself available for more TV appearances, BBC Crimewatch even, appealing for people to come forward who may have actually seen something.
The question I have to ask you is:
ARE YOU F@@KING MAD????
If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?
69
In this scenario is the bit in bold being done by the hypothetical parties alone or the by hypothetical parties actively "encouraged" by one particular hypothetical news paper ?
The hypothetical newspaper which was serialising a book by the hypothetical parties at the time?
The hypothetical newspaper which was serialising a book by the hypothetical parties at the time?You're being a bit silly now, perhaps because you have no other option but to try ridicule to deflect from the point being made. What difference does it make to the scenario or *your* motive if a newspaper was assisting *you* in pushing for a review?
You're being a bit silly now, perhaps because you have no other option but to try ridicule to deflect from the point being made. What difference does it make to the scenario or *your* motive if a newspaper was assisting *you* in pushing for a review?
You're asking for a detailed explanation of the motives behind the actions of some people we don't know. Despite that, people have managed, based on a similar case, to suggest some things which may have made sense to the people involved. You have rejected all suggestions so there's not much point in people coming up with any more. It's all speculation anyway because only the people in your scenario know what their motives were.Do you seriously think that any of the motives you and others have come up with on this thread to explain why *you* want a full and comprehensive review of *your own* crimes are in any way credible or rational?
My observation is that certain people ie sceptics really don't want to give too much thought to this question because it can't be easily or rationally explained and still fit in with their beliefs. Far easier to put it out of their minds and continue nit-picking over minor discrepancies in statements and tut-tutting at "strange" body language.
Interesting exercise, but ultimately pointless as beliefs are obviously far too ingrained to take on board the only obvious and rational explanation.
Do you seriously think that any of the motives you and others have come up with on this thread to explain why *you* want a full and comprehensive review of *your own* crimes are in any way credible or rational?You are the one insisting this is an exercise in creative thinking.
Hand on heart?
Presumably you do, and presumably you believe that at least one of the aforementioned motives is applicable in a certain case we cannot mention on this thread.
I find that quite baffling really.
Did you ever for a moment consider that actually the real motive is all about finding out what happened to *your* child and who took her, and because actually *you* didn't have a hand in her disappearance after all?
Or is that really way more unlikely than any of the other motives you've come up with...? &%+((£
You are the one insisting this is an exercise in creative thinking.
The challenge was not to come up with the best explanation, it was to come up with any explanation that fitted the hypothetical constraints you put on it.
I see you are now admitting alternative explanations exist. At least that's a start.
I would agree Alfie, but nothing in this hypothetical case has ever been easily or rationally explained. Every 'fact' seems, on closer examination, to be not so factual after all. Every explanation is convoluted and nothing has ever been rationally explained. Why anyone would expect a rational explanation for requesting a review escapes me.It is only so because you wish it to be so. If you accept that the child was abducted then pretty much everything else makes perfect sense.
You are the one insisting this is an exercise in creative thinking.The challenge was to come up with a plausible logical motive. My scenario, my thread, my challenge. No one has yet provided one, though the ones that have been dreamt up so far have been quite entertaining, thanks to all.
The challenge was not to come up with the best explanation, it was to come up with any explanation that fitted the hypothetical constraints you put on it.
I see you are now admitting alternative explanations exist. At least that's a start.
It is only so because you wish it to be so. If you accept that the child was abducted then pretty much everything else makes perfect sense.
The challenge was to come up with a plausible logical motive. My scenario, my thread, my challenge. No one has yet provided one, though the ones that have been dreamt up so far have been quite entertaining, thanks to all.Make up your mind. A few posts back you were admitting alternatives exist, now you are asserting they don't.
The challenge was to come up with a plausible logical motive. My scenario, my thread, my challenge. No one has yet provided one, though the ones that have been dreamt up so far have been quite entertaining, thanks to all.
Thank goodness detective work (that counts!) is left to real policemen ....
Make up your mind. A few posts back you were admitting alternatives exist, now you are asserting they don't.
This strikes me as a thinly disguised attempt to put enough obstacles in the way that the end result must be that the parents in your scenario are innocent, but IMO it is backfiring, and actually quite damaging to your cause.
Basically, you are asserting that everything other than abduction must be incorrect, therefore abduction is correct. And, IMO, you're not doing a good job of it.
Make up your mind. A few posts back you were admitting alternatives exist, now you are asserting they don't.Coming from you I take that as a compliment.
This strikes me as a thinly disguised attempt to put enough obstacles in the way that the end result must be that the parents in your scenario are innocent, but IMO it is backfiring, and actually quite damaging to your cause.
Basically, you are asserting that everything other than abduction must be incorrect, therefore abduction is correct. And, IMO, you're not doing a good job of it.
It's been entertaining watching you try to insist that the only plausible logical motive is the one you prefer. First you have to demonstrate that your hypothetical people have been plausible and logical from day one. If they haven't, why should their reasons for requesting a review be plausible and logical?Then you have answered my scenario with the first option I gave - they must be f@@king mad. @)(++(*
True. Their results [with access to much more information than us] are impressive...............remind me, what have they achieved again?
If it made perfect sense I wouldn't be here. There is also the possibility that one of the people involved is completely innocent and that's the one who is driving the search and the review. Sometimes people really don't understand the nature of those they live with.Hmm..would love to challenge that idea with reference to the case we're not allowed to mention on this thread, but sadly we wouldn't be allowed as it would inevitably breach forum libel rules. Shame.
If it made perfect sense I wouldn't be here. There is also the possibility that one of the people involved is completely innocent and that's the one who is driving the search and the review. Sometimes people really don't understand the nature of those they live with.Interesting post GUnit
Coming from you I take that as a compliment.I have already explained a credible and plausible alternative, but I believe you totally ignored it. Here it is again.
If you think there are credible, plausible reasons why anyone in the scenario I have outlined would ask for a full and comrehensive review then that is your prerogative. Of course alternatives exist - the question is, how credible and plausible are they? You don't seem very keen to consider this question, in fact it seems to cause you some major irritation. It seems we're back to the old forum adage that all opinions are equally valid, as are all theories, however this is patent nonsense.
Then you have answered my scenario with the first option I gave - they must be f@@king mad. @)(++(*
I have already explained a credible and plausible alternative, but I believe you totally ignored it. Here it is again.
You commit a crime. You immediately plant stories in the media to show someone else did it. You get away with the crime. But the problem is the media, and the world has now turned against you, and your reputation is getting shredded.
Having got away with it once, in a foreign country, you decide that a review in your homeland has zero chance of catching you. So you do some PR and request a review you are confident will find diddly squat.
It really is that simple.
The forum does consider opinions to be of equal value, so we can discard that point.
And as for theorems, what we have had so far, is that Alfie considers abduction to be the case, therefore it must be abduction.
It demonstrates a poor understanding of statistics, and it demonstrates a poor understanding of the way the forum works. Thus far I am seeing little, possibly nothing, to support your hypothesis. Perhaps you would like to swap from bald assertion to something solid?
A very simple suggestion as to why a review can be confidently requested. It is plausible and logical. Do you have an answer to it or not?I strongly disagree that S-I-L's suggestion is plausible and logical, in fact it had already been mooted by someone else and I have already given my reasons why I think that.
Scenario:
Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.
As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country.
The police are suspicious, the media which was supportive in the early days has turned on you, printing all sorts of uncomfortable headlines heavily hinting that you have done something untoward with your child.
Eventually you are made chief suspect in your child's disappearance and every aspect of your holiday, your relationship with your child and family and friends, your comings and goings etc is put under the microscope. The police bust their guts trying to find some evidence that you hid your child's body.
Meanwhile most people in your home country and in the country in which you holidayed are convinced you're guilty of something.
Eventually, after months of investigation and trying to build a case against you, the police concede they lack any evidence against you, and you are no longer suspects. The case is shelved indefinitely. You sue the media for libel and settle out of court - a nice big juicy payment for your bank account.
Now, at this point you'd be forgiven for going to ground, issuing one final statement to the media along the lines of "we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone, and just want to be left alone to grieve", then slink away into obscurity to spend all that lovely lolly you screwed out of the public and the papers.
But no. This is not what you do.
Instead you spend a small fortune on various private investigators, you write a book which gets serialised in the country's biggest circulation newspaper, you appear on TV chat shows, all allegedly to keep your child's profile high in the public consciousness even though you know what happened.
Then to cap it all, three whole years after the case was shelved you go to the highest man in your land, the prime minister, by sending him a letter demanding:
"a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to our child's disappearance".
You are granted your wish and the country's most esteemed police force is drafted in to sift through all the evidence all over again, at great cost to the public purse.
You make yourself available for more TV appearances, BBC Crimewatch even, appealing for people to come forward who may have actually seen something.
The question I have to ask you is:
ARE YOU F@@KING MAD????
If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?
69
Excellent summation Alfie. This has been pointed out many times but for some reason people choose not to see the logic.How someone with a wife and five kids, fame, fortune and a knighthood could turn out to be a serial paedophile is hard to grasp, but we are being asked to do exactly that. Should we reject the allegations merely because they seem unlikely?
How people can think that relatively normal people could turn into devious child killers or cover up a fatal accident, hide a body in an unfamiliar place in a short space of time is hard to grasp.
I strongly disagree that S-I-L's suggestion is plausible and logical, in fact it had already been mooted by someone else and I have already given my reasons why I think that.So where is it hidden?
How someone with a wife and five kids, fame, fortune and a knighthood could turn out to be a serial paedophile is hard to grasp, but we are being asked to do exactly that. Should we reject the allegations merely because they seem unlikely?
By the way, Alfie's hypothetical scenario does not stipulate they are relatively normal people. It does not exclude that they may be a variation of Fred and Rose West, does it?
And that is the problem with this hypothetical scenario. By not being grounded in the laws re defamation, it is simply a Pandora's Box. Once opened, the demons can never be put back in again.
How someone with a wife and five kids, fame, fortune and a knighthood could turn out to be a serial paedophile is hard to grasp, but we are being asked to do exactly that. Should we reject the allegations merely because they seem unlikely?OK. Let's say they are Fred and Rosemary West, or a couple with a similar mindset, and their child has gone missing. They have been thoroughly investigated and the case against them is shelved because of an almost complete lack of evidence. Yet, despite this they continue to maintain as a high a profile as possible, and 4 years after the case was shelved go so far as asking the PM to instruct the country's best police force to review all the evidence amassed as part of the initial investigation. What possible motives can they have for doing so? A pathological, uncontrollable desire for attention or insanity I could just about accept, but anything other reasons? You have mooted one convoluted motive which involves some sort of conspiracy between themselves and the media which I will revisit later when less busy.
By the way, Alfie's hypothetical scenario does not stipulate they are relatively normal people. It does not exclude that they may be a variation of Fred and Rose West, does it?
And that is the problem with this hypothetical scenario. By not being grounded in the laws re defamation, it is simply a Pandora's Box. Once opened, the demons can never be put back in again.
we dont reject allegations because they seem unlikely we reject or accept them based on the evidence. The fact that this person was a paedophile does not give carte blanche to people to make any accusations they like purely because unlikely things happen.To be honest, I should have taken that epithet out when I approved the thread
Alfies scenario does imply normal people because he states anyone who would do this would have to be"f**king mad"
as far as the pandoras's box I think you are getting more than a little carried away.....no demons here at the moment and I don't expect any...perhaps you could expand
OK. Let's say they are Fred and Rosemary West, or a couple with a similar mindset, and their child has gone missing. They have been thoroughly investigated and the case against them is shelved because of an almost complete lack of evidence. Yet, despite this they continue to maintain as a high a profile as possible, and 4 years after the case was shelved go so far as asking the PM to instruct the country's best police force to review all the evidence amassed as part of the initial investigation. What possible motives can they have for doing so? A pathological, uncontrollable desire for attention or insanity I could just about accept, but anything other reasons? You have mooted one convoluted motive which involves some sort of conspiracy between themselves and the media which I will revisit later when less busy.And there is yet another solution to your hypothetical case, a desire to be in the public limelight, to mix with the rich and famous, to enjoy a lavish lifestyle funded by others, to be a someone.
I have already explained a credible and plausible alternative, but I believe you totally ignored it. Here it is again.
You commit a crime. You immediately plant stories in the media to show someone else did it. You get away with the crime. But the problem is the media, and the world has now turned against you, and your reputation is getting shredded.
Having got away with it once, in a foreign country, you decide that a review in your homeland has zero chance of catching you. So you do some PR and request a review you are confident will find diddly squat.
It really is that simple.
And there is yet another solution to your hypothetical case, a desire to be in the public limelight, to mix with the rich and famous, to enjoy a lavish lifestyle funded by others, to be a someone.
Jolly easy, this creative thinking, isn't it?
And if you actually are going to revisit what I said, please do so properly. It is neither convoluted nor does it involve a conspiracy theory, so I hope you will get your facts right.
It is the different attitudes to everyday things which interest me, Sadie.
I don't think that you and I are by any means the only Northerners who assumed that once the shutters were down ... that was it ... security!
I think the assumption is perfectly illustrated by the commonly held belief accompanied by insistence that the shutters absolutely could not be raised from the outside. We now know that to be false. Probably as most Southerners already did for the simple reason shutters were a part of their daily lives for generations.
I believe that modern times have necessitated that the security aspect is now given more attention.
On what basis do you decide that a review in your homeland has zero chance of uncovering some previously missed shreds of evidence that will end up putting you back in the frame again?I never mentioned anything about being properly cleared in the solution I described, since no amount of investigation can result in proper clearing. The best your hypothetical couple could do was to insist the investigation included them, so the public could be assured they had been investigated by a 'proper' investigation by a 'competent' police force, not by slap-dash corrupt Johnny foreigner. And in turn, any negative media attention could be met with a response of - it has been investigated by authorities where the incident happened - it has been investigated by homeland authorities - we have been thoroughly checked - and nothing has been found.
Why would you risk stirring this all up again 4 years later? The media would have surely moved on by now anyway, especially if you'd chosen to keep a low profile after the case had been shelved.
What do you ultimately gain by doing what you have described above? There is no chance of you being "properly cleared" as a result so - why do you do it?
All of the above in bold could be achieved without demanding a police review into your own misdeeds, do you not agree?The bold bit was "And there is yet another solution to your hypothetical case, a desire to be in the public limelight, to mix with the rich and famous, to enjoy a lavish lifestyle funded by others, to be a someone."
I never mentioned anything about being properly cleared in the solution I described, since no amount of investigation can result in proper clearing. The best your hypothetical couple could do was to insist the investigation included them, so the public could be assured they had been investigated by a 'proper' investigation by a 'competent' police force, not by slap-dash corrupt Johnny foreigner. And in turn, any negative media attention could be met with a response of - it has been investigated by authorities where the incident happened - it has been investigated by homeland authorities - we have been thoroughly checked - and nothing has been found.
As to getting away with it, the issue is getting away with what? If your hypothetical couple had disposed of the body in a rubbish bin, checked the bin to find it was empty, and not felt the police bearing down on them in the next few days, they could be supremely confident that no homeland enquiry years later was going to do better.
The bold bit was "And there is yet another solution to your hypothetical case, a desire to be in the public limelight, to mix with the rich and famous, to enjoy a lavish lifestyle funded by others, to be a someone."There are all sorts of ways to draw attention to yourself and maintaining your C-List celeb status without involving Scotland Yard. Katie Hopkins manages it! @)(++(*
No, I don't. Celebrities don't remain as celebrities without replenishing their celebrity status. The media loses interest unless there is something fresh to tell.
Your hypothetical couple would fade into the background unless something mega happened. One example of mega is a further investigation of the case by homeland police. You might get a further kindly interview on national television, to explain how cruelly fate has treated you. Another 15 minutes of fame in this hypothetical scenario.
Alfie thinks it would be plausible and logical for his hypothetical guilty people to fade into obscurity thanking their lucky stars they got away with it, but is it?Explain how a review conducted by the Met gives the protagonist control again...? &%+((£ Surely a comprehensive and thorough review of all the evidence by the country's leading police force is the most likely way of getting yourself back under the spotlight of suspicion. The stress of a review, followed by a renewed investigation would be utterly magnified not diminished. Nah, you'd have to be a masochist to put yourself through that. If the guilt really was that bad then I guess we can dispense with the notion that our protagonist is a psychopath. A confession would be a less stressful option to adressing that guilt IMO, than putting yourself through yet more years of police scrutiny.
There's no living in peace because their guilty knowledge is with them every minute of every day. Others can forget all about it but they can't. They live each day waiting to see if there's a piece of the jigsaw out there somewhere which will incriminate them. Every knock on the door, every phone call could be the one that brings everything crashing down.
They've already had years of living like that and they want it to end. They want everyone to accept that they're innocent and to stop speculating about them. A review of the original investigation could work for them. It could demonstrate that the suspicions raised by that investigation were completely unfounded. It could highlight all the mistakes that were made and discredit those who made them once and for all. The jigsaw piece could emerge, but they've searched for it for years themselves and haven't found it. Quite possibly it doesn't exist.
It's a gamble to ask for a review but the alternative is a lifetime of looking over your shoulder, being constantly on your guard, not being in control. Having control is very important to some people.
This scenario obviously makes sense to you, it makes very little sense to me for all the reasons I have previously stated. Anyone supremely confident that they have gotten away with it can happily get on their lives without a backward glance. As I said before, the media furore surrounding the case, which our protagonist had continually stoked with interviews, book serializations, crimewatch appearances, etc - none of that would have been necessary from the moment the case had been shelved. The protagonist would, a decade after the event have been a footnote in the public's and media's collective consciousness. I don't of course expect you to agree but my opinion is at least as valid as yours, so that'll do me. 8((()*/We're making more progress, I think.
We're making more progress, I think.Since when has speculation and creative thinking not been a product of an opinionated mind? Denigrate this thread as much as you like, I think (note: my opinion) it has been interesting, and I think (note: my opinion again) that others (not you obviously despite your regular contributions to the thread) have found it interesting too. Of course it is of no consequence. Nothing on this forum is of any real consequence, only someone very deluded would think otherwise (note: my opinion yet again).
Now we have that your outcome is merely your opinion. I am happy to agree that your opinion is worth no less and no more than mine, ditto anyone else on the forum.
However, we are discussing a purely hypothetical scenario, so it is not really about opinion. It is about speculation, and creative thinking. A simple mental exercise that is telling us very little of worth.
You have constructed a thread that has produced, thus far, multiple alternative solutions. Why? Because real life evidence has been excluded.
I'm hoping the environment in Portelas will be conducive to running a murder mystery dinner party. This thread strikes me as being on a par - a jolly bash with no real consequence, but unfortunately minus the dinner.
There are all sorts of ways to draw attention to yourself and maintaining your C-List celeb status without involving Scotland Yard. Katie Hopkins manages it! @)(++(*Your hypothetical couple achieve it by the 'missingness' of their child. Are you now suggesting they should seek an alternative route to fame later in life?
Your hypothetical couple achieve it by the 'missingness' of their child. Are you now suggesting they should seek an alternative route to fame later in life?I'm not suggesting anything - but anyone who is desperate for fame and attention does not need to enlist the services of the police (any police force will do btw) in order to keep their profile high.
Just as a point of interest, does your scenario involve the couple knowingly getting SY involved? Does your hypothetical couple live in London? Otherwise, doesn't it make more sense to assume the couple thought a review would be done by the police in their neck of the woods?
I have relocated the posts relating to statistics to the relevant historic thread.Yes, this has all been covered already John. If you're interested you might want to read back.
Has anyone considered that the guilty parents in Alf's scenario might have had no option but to pursue the need for a continued investigation if they were to retain an ounce of credibility? Surely abandoning all hope would in itself be suspicious?
Explain how a review conducted by the Met gives the protagonist control again...? &%+((£ Surely a comprehensive and thorough review of all the evidence by the country's leading police force is the most likely way of getting yourself back under the spotlight of suspicion. The stress of a review, followed by a renewed investigation would be utterly magnified not diminished. Nah, you'd have to be a masochist to put yourself through that. If the guilt really was that bad then I guess we can dispense with the notion that our protagonist is a psychopath. A confession would be a less stressful option to adressing that guilt IMO, than putting yourself through yet more years of police scrutiny.
Without the review control can never be regained; I did say it was a gamble. There was no mention of the Met, just that all the evidence held by two police forces should be independently reviewed, not investigated. There is also the point that it may have been seen as a good marketing ploy - there was no reason to believe the request would be granted. One of the police forces in particular was unlikely to agree as they would see it as an attempt to discredit them. Maybe it was a case of beware what you ask for.How does asking the police for a review into your own crimes and misdemeanours constitute a good marketing ploy?
I have relocated the posts relating to statistics to the relevant historic thread.Do we know of one person who would change their mind on the guilt of the couple based on them asking for a review
Has anyone considered that the guilty parents in Alf's scenario might have had no option but to pursue the need for a continued investigation if they were to retain an ounce of credibility? Surely abandoning all hope would in itself be suspicious?
I have relocated the posts relating to statistics to the relevant historic thread.
Has anyone considered that the guilty parents in Alf's scenario might have had no option but to pursue the need for a continued investigation if they were to retain an ounce of credibility? Surely abandoning all hope would in itself be suspicious?
How does asking the police for a review into your own crimes and misdemeanours constitute a good marketing ploy?
Imagine the pair had written a book about their ordeal. They are approached by a newspaper wanting to serialise the book. ThTey refuse, but are persuaded when the group which owns the newspaper offers to back their campaign for the Home Secretary to order a review. The news group now have an exclusive serialsation and a good marketing ploy. Sales should rise. The open letter may have been the idea of the news group; one of their executives 'persuaded the Prime Minister to agree to help.So they'd be gambling with their own liberty in order to help a newspaper sell more copies...?
So they'd be gambling with their own liberty in order to help a newspaper sell more copies...?
I have been wondering about a real life case with similarities to Alfie's scenario. Ben Butler seems to have assaulted his daughter twice and was prosecuted, found guilty and jailed. On appeal his conviction was overturned. Why did he not cut his losses and fade into obscurity? Instead he campaigned relentlessly for three years, protesting his innocence and asking for his daughter to be returned to him.
because he had been beaten by the system and lost his daughter...probably entitled to legal aid....and to inflict these injuries he must have some deep mental health problems...or f**king mad....so he qualifies on taht basis
I have been wondering about a real life case with similarities to Alfie's scenario. Ben Butler seems to have assaulted his daughter twice and was prosecuted, found guilty and jailed. On appeal his conviction was overturned. Why did he not cut his losses and fade into obscurity? Instead he campaigned relentlessly for three years, protesting his innocence and asking for his daughter to be returned to him.There you have your motive.
Having discovered my eldest child missing while on holiday abroad, when the police arrive, I am dismayed that they seem to be very relaxed about the situation being certain that she just got up and wandered out.
This despite me telling them through an interpreter about finding an open window in her bedroom ... and her shoes still being there.
Why weren't they publicising her disappearance? What's 'judicial secrecy'?
because he had been beaten by the system and lost his daughter...probably entitled to legal aid....and to inflict these injuries he must have some deep mental health problems...or f**king mad....so he qualifies on taht basisAnd that - perhaps a psychopath?
And that - perhaps a psychopath?
I've already suggested that being a psychopath might be a motivating factor in the protagonist in my scenario.
(snip) ... There is also the possibility that one of the people involved is completely innocent and that's the one who is driving the search and the review. ... (snip)Might this be the answer to the OP's question?
Might this be the answer to the OP's question?I don't see how.
I don't see how.Hypothetically it might explain the relentless genuine searching for the truth
Hypothetically it might explain the relentless genuine searching for the truth
Hypothetically it might explain the relentless genuine searching for the truthAs I've said before I'd like to see you put together a plausible scenario where one party has been entirely in the dark for 9 years and is completely innocent. It's stretching credulity to breaking point IMO.
As I've said before I'd like to see you put together a plausible scenario where one party has been entirely in the dark for 9 years and is completely innocent. It's stretching credulity to breaking point IMO.
Instead of saying it's incredulous, why don't you attempt to show why it is? My opinion is that it could happen. I can give cites where it has happened. Over to you for cites showing it's not possible.Hang on, YOU think it can be done, YOU show how it can be done, that's how theories are usually tested, by putting a detailed one forward for consideration - good luck with that and not breaching this forum's libel rules!
Hang on, YOU think it can be done, YOU show how it can be done, that's how theories are usually tested, by putting a detailed one forward for consideration - good luck with that and not breaching this forum's libel rules!
Can partners deceive those who love them? Hell yes! Most of these headlines refer to wives being deceived, but it could work both ways;And so all these examples prove what exactly? For a start do you know for a fact that in all these cases the partner was genuinely unaware and innocent? Secondly, you would need to consider (in the scenario that we are all interested in), how one partner could commit the crime of hiding a child's body in the circumstances without the other partner having any inkling over the course of the last 9 years or so, or why the innocent partner would do such a thing in the first place. Furthermore, you would have to consider why the innocent partner would be allowed to keep the focus on the crimes of the guilty partner for so long, and how a relationship in such fraught circumstances could endure for so long. If you can do all that and still come up with a plausible and convincing case for it then good luck to you.
Wife of GPML fraudster says she knew nothing about her husband's ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Fraudster-s-wife-says-knew-cad-husband-s-crim...
24 Nov 2014 - She denies any knowledge of her former husband's crime, claiming ... 'I was totally unaware of a lot of things that Gerry was doing,' she said.
Despite Red Flags, These Wives Had No Clue Their Husbands Were ...
allday.com/post/3835-despite-red-flags-these-wives...husbands.../2/
Completely unaware, Linda suspected nothing when she found her husband ... his crimes, including newspaper clippings, photos, and videos; in places his wife ...
Fugitive awaits extradition; wife unaware of husband's crimes ...
www.newson6.com/.../fugitive-awaits-extradition-wife-unaware-of-husban...
He is wanted in a double homicide in Florida and crimes in three other states McClarty, 22, was added to the FBI list just days before he was taken into custody ...
Ex-wife of crime boss 'never knew' about his gangland activities ...
www.independent.ie/.../exwife-of-crime-boss-never-knew-about-his-gan...
11 Feb 2016 - The ex-wife of a Dublin crime boss has said the city's gangs would "pat ... RTÉ's 'Liveline' that she was unaware of her ex-husband's activities.
The carte-blanche assumption that because there are deceitful people in the world, everyone in the world must be deceitful is extremely troubling.
Not least because people who espouse this view so often, themselves, turn out to be deceitful.
And so all these examples prove what exactly? For a start do you know for a fact that in all these cases the partner was genuinely unaware and innocent? Secondly, you would need to consider (in the scenario that we are all interested in), how one partner could commit the crime of hiding a child's body in the circumstances without the other partner having any inkling over the course of the last 9 years or so, or why the innocent partner would do such a thing in the first place. Furthermore, you would have to consider why the innocent partner would be allowed to keep the focus on the crimes of the guilty partner for so long, and how a relationship in such fraught circumstances could endure for so long. If you can do all that and still come up with a plausible and convincing case for it then good luck to you.
I don't have to come up with a scenario at all. I am providing a possible answer to the questions asked in your scenario. What you're now asking for is a scenario which precedes the starting point of yours, which was that your child disappears while you are on holiday and goes on to describe the actions which followed. My explanation covers why those actions may have followed.My scenario actually if you re-read it is addressed to *you* and is not about some imaginary couple so let's get that straight first. You are now saying that a possible explanation is that *you* are both innocent and guilty. Perhaps a new scenario is needed now - over to you.
I don't see how a guilty person could have stopped an innocent person from pursuing every avenue they could to find the missing child without arousing suspicion.
Similarly a relationship breakdown would have resulted in the guilty person being out of touch and unable to exert any influence on the steps taken by the innocent person.
My scenario actually if you re-read it is addressed to *you* and is not about some imaginary couple so let's get that straight first. You are now saying that a possible explanation is that *you* are both innocent and guilty. Perhaps a new scenario is needed now - over to you.
You singular? You included this when setting out your scenario, which suggests 'you plural';Fair enough you win. That's your answer then? One of them must be innocent?
"we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone,
One innocent one guilty.
As it is the innocent *you* who wrote the book, then there is no reason why *you* would lie in it, is there?
As it is the innocent *you* who wrote the book, then there is no reason why *you* would lie in it, is there?
That's your biased interpretation of events to which you are entitled. You are of course now trying to side-track from the subject of this thread which(in case you hadn't noticed) is "Would a guilty person keep a case alive for so long?" Have you already given your opinion on which of the 5 explanations I have listed above you think is the most likely in this case?
This thread is to examine the motives of someone (unspecified) who deliberately chooses to keep the focus on his / her own crimes and who actively petitions their government to review all the evidence, including that which is against them. Have you got anything to contribute to this thread or are you intent only on taking it off topic?
When that someone (unsepecified) deliberately publicises information to divert attention from leads considered pertinent by a raft of professional investigators the question has to be asked how eager was that someone to actually pursue the truth?How is appearing on a nationwide programme in which the unspecified person's criminal actions are discussed, recreated and highlighted "diverting attention" in your view?
How is appearing on a nationwide programme in which the unspecified person's criminal actions are discussed, recreated and highlighted "diverting attention" in your view?
Can anyone judge innocence or guilt simply by examining what people do or say after an event? According to the video posted earlier the answer is no. That's because guilty people do their best to behave as if they were innocent.If you are going to answer my post, at least have the decency to answer the question I posed first. If it is usual behaviour for the guilty involved in unsolved crimes to keep the spotlight on themselves and to petition for their crimes to be reviewed or reinvestigated by the police so as to appear innocent then there should be many, many examples of this having occurred in the past. So let's have some examples of this apparently usual phenomenon shall we?
If you have any evidence whatsoever that the hypothetical couple invited SY to investigate them, please provide it. It would truly be most revealing..
And how can I have bias in a hypothetical scenario?
Can partners deceive those who love them? Hell yes! Most of these headlines refer to wives being deceived, but it could work both ways;here are the 4 links G-Unit posted, reconstructed into working order
Wife of GPML fraudster says she knew nothing about her husband's ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Fraudster-s-wife-says-knew-cad-husband-s-crim...
24 Nov 2014 - She denies any knowledge of her former husband's crime, claiming ... 'I was totally unaware of a lot of things that Gerry was doing,' she said.
Despite Red Flags, These Wives Had No Clue Their Husbands Were ...
allday.com/post/3835-despite-red-flags-these-wives...husbands.../2/
Completely unaware, Linda suspected nothing when she found her husband ... his crimes, including newspaper clippings, photos, and videos; in places his wife ...
Fugitive awaits extradition; wife unaware of husband's crimes ...
www.newson6.com/.../fugitive-awaits-extradition-wife-unaware-of-husban...
He is wanted in a double homicide in Florida and crimes in three other states McClarty, 22, was added to the FBI list just days before he was taken into custody ...
Ex-wife of crime boss 'never knew' about his gangland activities ...
www.independent.ie/.../exwife-of-crime-boss-never-knew-about-his-gan...
11 Feb 2016 - The ex-wife of a Dublin crime boss has said the city's gangs would "pat ... RTÉ's 'Liveline' that she was unaware of her ex-husband's activities.
NO
And in the hypothetical situation the perpetrators knew for a fact there was no evidence then they wouldnt care
LOL I just spent time finding them and was in mddle to posting and you beat me to itSorry Merc (same thing has happened to me in past). The allday link is the most shocking IMO.
Great minds
Sorry Merc (same thing has happened to me in past). The allday link is the most shocking IMO.Will check it out tomorrow pegs,have to sleep now nite
Would this hypothetical person even know that the detectives were going to produce e-fits before they actually produced them?You mean the detectives employed - at considerable expense - by the hypothetical person to investigate his own crimes?
You mean the detectives employed - at considerable expense - by the hypothetical person to investigate his own crimes?
That's the one. How would he know they would go 'rogue' and do their own thing ? @)(++(*Well let's see....if that person was me and I'd employed detectives to investigate my child's disappearance, the child whose body I had hidden away somewhere I would expect these detectives to focus at some point in their investigation on sightings of the possible perpetrator (one of which was certainly me). I might also expect them as part of that investigation to ask the witnesses to describe the potential perpetrator, even to get an artist's impression of what this person might look like (crazy idea I know, maybe "normal" criminal types don't have such crazy ideas!)
Well let's see....if that person was me and I'd employed detectives to investigate my child's disappearance, the child whose body I had hidden away somewhere I would expect these detectives to focus at some point in their investigation on sightings of the possible perpetrator (one of which was certainly me). I might also expect them as part of that investigation to ask the witnesses to describe the potential perpetrator, even to get an artist's impression of what this person might look like (crazy idea I know, maybe "normal" criminal types don't have such crazy ideas!)
But if it is certain the hypothetical individual knew by the time the efits were drawn up that he had been all but recognised it would look strange if he was then to forbid the PIs any course of action they thought necessary. Anyway if the hypothetical individual was going to suppress anything produced or any information received which did not agree with their agenda then it wouldn't really matter what the PIs did.Of course it would be a whole lot simpler and a lot less strange to just not hire any PIs at all, or to tell everyone you had, but then actually never do. Who would be any the wiser? It makes little or no sense to hire professionals to gather information about your own crimes, for them to uncover evidence that you did it, then expect them to sit out their days knowing you have suppressed it and not to take that information to the police, or worse still the papers where they could stand to make a small fortune - what price for rock solid evidence of your guilt? It's an absurdly foolish risk you're suggesting, no doubt about it!
Of course the hypothetical individual would have to choose their next PIs more wisely and perhaps only give them access to the parts of the files they needed to.
Of course it would be a whole lot simpler and a lot less strange to just not hire any PIs at all, or to tell everyone you had, but then actually never do. Who would be any the wiser? It makes little or no sense to hire professionals to gather information about your own crimes, for them to uncover evidence that you did it, then expect them to sit out their days knowing you have suppressed it and not to take that information to the police, or worse still the papers where they could stand to make a small fortune - what price for rock solid evidence of your guilt? It's an absurdly foolish risk you're suggesting, no doubt about it!
Of course it could be that a helpful rich person suggested it and offered to help with the cost. Difficult to say 'no thanks' to such a kind offer.On the contrary, very easy to say no thanks. "I don't want to get in the way of the official investigation and piss off the Portuguese" "It's illegal to mount a private investigation in Portugal" "Thanks for your kind offer, perhaps we can take you up on it if and when the case is ever shelved?" When your very own liberty is at stake I'm sure you could come up with a few other excuses for turning down the opportunity of having professional investigators look for evidence of your own wrong-doing!
On the contrary, very easy to say no thanks. "I don't want to get in the way of the official investigation and piss off the Portuguese" "It's illegal to mount a private investigation in Portugal" "Thanks for your kind offer, perhaps we can take you up on it if and when the case is ever shelved?" When your very own liberty is at stake I'm sure you could come up with a few other excuses for turning down the opportunity of having professional investigators look for evidence of your own wrong-doing!
On the contrary, very easy to say no thanks. "I don't want to get in the way of the official investigation and piss off the Portuguese" "It's illegal to mount a private investigation in Portugal" "Thanks for your kind offer, perhaps we can take you up on it if and when the case is ever shelved?" When your very own liberty is at stake I'm sure you could come up with a few other excuses for turning down the opportunity of having professional investigators look for evidence of your own wrong-doing!
Thats a bad excuse if thats what the hypothetical parent did eventually do
Take a few steps back
IF you have carried off a crime and are sure you werent wtnessed and were arrogant enough to try and brush off any that might turn up and above all proclaim your innocence by employing detectives to search for your child, the perfect PR, you might well get away with it
@pegasus, shocking!!
Nobody can be SURE that they haven't been witnessed and that the Witness will not come forward at a later date.
Nobody can be SURE that they haven't been witnessed and that the Witness will not come forward at a later date.Any hypothetical perpetrator would know if there were any obvious close encounters, and from the media firestorm, would be well aware of whether any potential risks existed.
Any hypothetical perpetrator would know if there were any obvious close encounters, and from the media firestorm, would be well aware of whether any potential risks existed.
I agree to a point, but there would always be a niggling doubt. "Did someone see/ hear something?"
Info has come forward years after some cases. I doubt any intelligent persons would take the risk
I agree to a point, but there would always be a niggling doubt. "Did someone see/ hear something?"
Info has come forward years after some cases. I doubt any intelligent persons would take the risk
If the individual had sufficient control to keep a critical report so buried that arguably the best police force in the world had to gain permission from the directors of the hypothetical fund which paid for the PIs to even see it what did he have to fear?PIs have mouths, they cannot be controlled indefinitely. And by calling for a review you are challenging the police to ask for the report in the first place - quite nonsensical!
Nobody can be SURE that they haven't been witnessed and that the Witness will not come forward at a later date.In my scenario the protagonist WAS witnessed by numerous people.
Make sure you have an alibi if you were seen.A false alibi would require co-operation from a third party. Very risky, especially if you're relying on someone who isn't that close to you, such as a family member.
I believe it's called control.
They would have had control letting the case dwindle into history.
I believe it's called control.When you hand everything over to the police to review you relinquish control, unless you're suggesting out protagonist control the police too?
They aren't in charge of the case, the police are. Control freaks may think they are smarter and want more inside information/files to keep one step ahead of the police.
Why would you ask the PM for a review, going so far as to enlist the most widely read newspaper to help publicise your request, if it was the last thing in the world you actually wanted?
Assuming you actually did want a review then how would you be expected to demonstrate your "cock-a-hoopedness" when a review was granted?
Asking for and wanting are two very different things .
Asking for and wanting are two very different things .Explain.
Explain.
"I am asking for something but I don't want it" - why ask in the first place then?
Because you don't think your request will be granted?rWhat grounds would you have for thnkng your request wouldn't be granted and why even bother asking for a review in the first place? You could always have asked in a low key way without getting the media involved if you didn't really want it to happen.
rWhat grounds would you have for thnkng your request wouldn't be granted and why even bother asking for a review in the first place? You could always have asked in a low key way without getting the media involved if you didn't really want it to happen.
You know the evidence so far collected was not enough to bring charges so requesting a review of that same evidence would almost certainly throw up no new evidence against you. What wasn't predicted is that funding for a new investigation would be made available.Your answer above does not relate to the questions I asked.
Your answer above does not relate to the questions I asked.
Why don't you tell us the answer you will be happy with and save all this messing around?an answer which actually addresses the question posed will suffice, thanks for your rude interjection.
an answer which actually addresses the question posed will suffice, thanks for your rude interjection.
You're welcome, never seen such mobile goalposts.Perhaps you could explain your comment, with some examples?
Your answer above does not relate to the questions I asked.
You know the evidence so far collected was not enough to bring charges so requesting a review of that same evidence would almost certainly throw up no new evidence against you. What wasn't predicted is that funding for a new investigation would be made available.
Risky.
Too risky had someone committed murder or some dreadful deed
No one could be sure that a new investigative force wouldn't find new evidence
You have yourself have ably demonstrated the answer to your question. The individuals would have kept a search alive, including requesting reviews etc, so individuals like you could use that as a reason for believing that they were not guilty. Clever huh?Why do these people care what I think, and why risk their freedom on it? Far better to allow people like you and me to lose interest in the whole affair by slinking off into obscurity safe in the knowledge that there is no evidence against them. That makes far more sense to me, if not to you.
Why do these people care what I think, and why risk their freedom on it? Far better to allow people like you and me to lose interest in the whole affair by slinking off into obscurity safe in the knowledge that there is no evidence against them. That makes far more sense to me, if not to you.Scenario getting sillier by the moment.
Scenario getting sillier by the moment.And you don't think that's silly? How does asking the PM for a police review guarantee them more fame and fortune and minimise the opportunity for spending the rest of their lives in prison? It is quite possible to seek fame and fortune without enlisting the help of government and police as I have pointed out before. You could for example appear on Celebrity Big Brother, open your home to OK and Hello every few months, release an exercise DVD, run for mayor, have an affair with a famous actor, launch a brand of perfume, become a chat show host, etc etc etc, none of which involves putting your future liberty into the hands of the police.
Parents dispose of their child's body, and get fame and fortune in the process. Why would they continue to seek fame and fortune? Hmm, let me think about that. Could it be - more fame and fortune?
You know the evidence so far collected was not enough to bring charges so requesting a review of that same evidence would almost certainly throw up no new evidence against you. What wasn't predicted is that funding for a new investigation would be made available.
And you don't think that's silly? How does asking the PM for a police review guarantee them more fame and fortune and minimise the opportunity for spending the rest of their lives in prison? It is quite possible to seek fame and fortune without enlisting the help of government and police as I have pointed out before. You could for example appear on Celebrity Big Brother, open your home to OK and Hello every few months, release an exercise DVD, run for mayor, have an affair with a famous actor, launch a brand of perfume, become a chat show host, etc etc etc, none of which involves putting your future liberty into the hands of the police.Sorry, but this has gone from silly to farcical.
And you don't think that's silly? How does asking the PM for a police review guarantee them more fame and fortune and minimise the opportunity for spending the rest of their lives in prison? It is quite possible to seek fame and fortune without enlisting the help of government and police as I have pointed out before. You could for example appear on Celebrity Big Brother, open your home to OK and Hello every few months, release an exercise DVD, run for mayor, have an affair with a famous actor, launch a brand of perfume, become a chat show host, etc etc etc, none of which involves putting your future liberty into the hands of the police.
Sorry, but this has gone from silly to farcical.It is YOU making the claim that fame and fortune was the motivating factor. Appearing on CBB is one route open to B and C list celebs and media personalities to pursue this. Why is my suggestion more farcical than your suggestion that asking for a police review into their child's disappearance, thus risking their future liberty, was done to increase their fame and fortune?
The couple could appear on Celebrity Big Brother? Honestly? What would the inmates talk about? That sounds truly ghastly.
Is that why they asked for the case to be opened then?
And don't you think laughing and joking is silly in a police negotiation operation with a possible abductor?Sorry, where in my scenario does this fit in?
They didn't ask for it to be reopened, they asked for the evidence so far to be reviewed.With a view to what outcome?
With a view to what outcome?
It is YOU making the claim that fame and fortune was the motivating factor. Appearing on CBB is one route open to B and C list celebs and media personalities to pursue this. Why is my suggestion more farcical than your suggestion that asking for a police review into their child's disappearance, thus risking their future liberty, was done to increase their fame and fortune?I didn't make such a claim. It is not possible to make such a claim in a purely hypothetical case. It is, however, one indisputable reason for a hypothetical couple doing it, in your hypothetical scenario.
Police reviewing the evidence that you know is not strong enough to bring you to trial and putting the rumours of you guilt to rest. A new investigation was never on the cards.
Of course, at every step, the fact they were requesting a review was all over the media. A sure fire way to make yourself look innocent I'd have thought.
I didn't make such a claim. It is not possible to make such a claim in a purely hypothetical case. It is, however, one indisputable reason for a hypothetical couple doing it, in your hypothetical scenario.
There are lots of others, in your hypothetical scenario. They are just a lot more realistic than corpse-hiders-appear-on Celebrity-Big-Brother.
Hence the use of the term farcical.
I'm reminded of a saying from my childhood; 'There's nowt as quare as folk'. Translated it means there's nothing so strange or unpredictable as human beings.As I have already pointed out earlier today, there are less risky ways of maintaining your "fan-base" than asking the government to instruct the police to review all the evidence against you.
I have a horror of being in the public eye. Others crave it. Celebrities have been accused of being addicted to fame.
Why would fame be desirable to our hypothetical couple? What did it give them? A fan base.
People who believed everything they said. People who wrote to them sending money, cards, toys, love and sympathy. They really appreciated that, it kept them going through the bad times.
It also brought criticism, but they were able to dismiss that. Those who criticised were sad lonely people with nothing better to do, they didn't count.
Fame led to validation by the general public as far as they were concerned. Most people thought they were innocent and supported them. When official interest cooled after they were made arguidos their supporters continued to offer love and support. They were outraged that the pair were suspects. They were outraged that the search was being harmed. No matter what, their fans were there for them.
Popular support needs maintaining. Had they chosen obscurity people would have lost interest and taken up another cause.
Why do these people care what I think, and why risk their freedom on it? Far better to allow people like you and me to lose interest in the whole affair by slinking off into obscurity safe in the knowledge that there is no evidence against them. That makes far more sense to me, if not to you.
I'm reminded of a saying from my childhood; 'There's nowt as quare as folk'. Translated it means there's nothing so strange or unpredictable as human beings.
I have a horror of being in the public eye. Others crave it. Celebrities have been accused of being addicted to fame.
Why would fame be desirable to our hypothetical couple? What did it give them? A fan base.
People who believed everything they said. People who wrote to them sending money, cards, toys, love and sympathy. They really appreciated that, it kept them going through the bad times.
It also brought criticism, but they were able to dismiss that. Those who criticised were sad lonely people with nothing better to do, they didn't count.
Fame led to validation by the general public as far as they were concerned. Most people thought they were innocent and supported them. When official interest cooled after they were made arguidos their supporters continued to offer love and support. They were outraged that the pair were suspects. They were outraged that the search was being harmed. No matter what, their fans were there for them.
Popular support needs maintaining. Had they chosen obscurity people would have lost interest and taken up another cause.
Full of stuff including all the evidence against the hypothetical protagonist. Why you have to pedantically pick me up on everything to try and score points beats me.Would this be the evidence against the hypothetical protagonist that led to no charges first time round?
Sadie,
I don't think you have yet grasped that this is a purely hypothetical scenario which has nothing to do with reality.
Therefore I am free to come up with reason after reason, explanation after explanation, without fear of upsetting anyone reading this hypothetical tale.
Up until Alfie introduced the hypothetical files, I didn't know such files existed. Nor have I studied the hypothetical files for a second. I can't have as they are purely hypothetical.
When police investigate someone they usually keep files of that information do you dispute this? Therefore if I state in my scenario that the protagonist has been thoroughly investigated by the police it stands to reason that there will be files of evidence remaining once the case has been shelved.
The nearest parallel I can think of at the moment is Boris Johnson.In my opinion I think it has shown how utterly nonsensical is the idea of putting yourself up for further scrutiny by the police and all the risk that such a strategy entails simply for fame and fortune. You think this idea is utterly reasonable. But at the end of the day, all opinions are equally valid aren't they?
I said shelved with no charges. And that I cannot study hypothetical files. Hopefully you are not going to argue these points.
They got away with it, enjoyed the fame and fortune, and came back for more, purely hypothetically.
My sincere advice is to let this silly thread sink to the bottom. But do what you will.
Don't you see though GUnit, how easy it would have been to have let the case disappear into history? If they lost the support then they could have just let it fizzle out, they didn't they fought and fought hard. You have to admit that even now nine years later they still make the headlines, even if it's negative it all helps to keep the child's name in the news doesn't it?
Fame and the faux love and admiration from fans seems to be addictive. That's one possible answer.What is this "faux" love and admiration? Are you saying that the fanbase only pretends to love and admire? Why would they do that? Love and admiration from fans, faux or otherwise, can be earned in ways that don't have to involve the government or the police. And why would someone as morally deficient as our protagonist who has engaged in years of deception, including the burial of their own child and the fraud perpetuated off the back of it, wish to get involved in benevolent activities such as educating and lobbying against child abduction?
The faux love and admiration from fans helps to spread the 'We are a heartbroken family who are determined to search for ever for our child. How could we possibly be guilty of wrongdoing' message. That's another possible answer.
Once the 'not guilty' message is accepted the real work could begin; educating and advising others who have missing relatives. Lobbying governments all over the world to implement cross-border alerts and cross-border police operations. That's another possible answer.
What is this "faux" love and admiration? Are you saying that the fanbase only pretends to love and admire? Why would they do that? Love and admiration from fans, faux or otherwise, can be earned in ways that don't have to involve the government or the police. And why would someone as morally deficient as our protagonist who has engaged in years of deception, including the burial of their own child and the fraud perpetuated off the back of it, wish to get involved in benevolent activities such as educating and lobbying against child abduction?
This is a far-fetched fantasy IMO.
It's OK to love and admire people in the public eye if that's what you want. You have to be aware, though, that the person you love and admire is a 'public persona' created and presented for public consumption, not the actual real person. Your love and admiration is fake in that it's directed at a fake person.
For that reason you can't pretend to know the real person. You can't pretend to know what drives their actions and motivations. Those who think they can are deluding themselves just as a teenage girl does when she imagines she 'knows' the object of her devotion.
It's OK to love and admire people in the public eye if that's what you want. You have to be aware, though, that the person you love and admire is a 'public persona' created and presented for public consumption, not the actual real person. Your love and admiration is fake in that it's directed at a fake person."Faux" meaning not genuine, fake or false is not the right word for what you are describing. You were describing love and devotion towards someone in the public eye, it is possible to genuinely love and admire someone in the public eye, though obviously that love and admiration is seldom reciprocated. It doesn't necessarily follow that you also claim to know them or what motivates them.
For that reason you can't pretend to know the real person. You can't pretend to know what drives their actions and motivations. Those who think they can are deluding themselves just as a teenage girl does when she imagines she 'knows' the object of her devotion.
Sadie,
I don't think you have yet grasped that this is a purely hypothetical scenario which has nothing to do with reality.
Therefore I am free to come up with reason after reason, explanation after explanation, without fear of upsetting anyone reading this hypothetical tale.
Up until Alfie introduced the hypothetical files, I didn't know such files existed. Nor have I studied the hypothetical files for a second. I can't have as they are purely hypothetical.
"Faux" meaning not genuine, fake or false is not the right word for what you are describing. You were describing love and devotion towards someone in the public eye, it is possible to genuinely love and admire someone in the public eye, though obviously that love and admiration is seldom reciprocated. It doesn't necessarily follow that you also claim to know them or what motivates them.
It's also possible to be interested in, and have respect or concern for people in the public eye without either loving them or admiring them.
Oh yes I have. Don't kid yourself on that Shining.My conscience has no relevance in a hypothetical scenario, because it is merely a simple exercise in creative thinking.
But of course you are free to come up with reason after reason if your conscience allows it.
Likewise we are free to counter your reasons.
Your hypothesis was that only innocent people would act in a particular way. Many other reasons have been offered for their behaviour which you have rejected. Even so, no-one knows who's right because no-one knows what happened or what motives are driving the people's behaviour. If we all believed in others just because they said and did certain things we would make a lot of mistakes in my opinion.Not quite. I started this thread to examine what possible motives there may be for guilty people determinedly keeping the world's attention on them, whilst also petitioning their goverment to put pressure on their police to review the evidence of their crimes. We've had a number of possible motives put forward, some of which (mad, pyschopathic) are more believable than others. Some of the possible motives put forward are simply nonsensical IMO, as I have already pointed out.
Not quite. I started this thread to examine what possible motives there may be for guilty people determinedly keeping the world's attention on them, whilst also petitioning their goverment to put pressure on their police to review the evidence of their crimes. We've had a number of possible motives put forward, some of which (mad, pyschopathic) are more believable than others. Some of the possible motives put forward are simply nonsensical IMO, as I have already pointed out.
Scenario:Seeing as how resurrecting old threads is a bit of a trend atm, just thought I’d quote this rather sensible post by some chap called Alfie, just for a laugh like.
Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.
As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country.
The police are suspicious, the media which was supportive in the early days has turned on you, printing all sorts of uncomfortable headlines heavily hinting that you have done something untoward with your child.
Eventually you are made chief suspect in your child's disappearance and every aspect of your holiday, your relationship with your child and family and friends, your comings and goings etc is put under the microscope. The police bust their guts trying to find some evidence that you hid your child's body.
Meanwhile most people in your home country and in the country in which you holidayed are convinced you're guilty of something.
Eventually, after months of investigation and trying to build a case against you, the police concede they lack any evidence against you, and you are no longer suspects. The case is shelved indefinitely. You sue the media for libel and settle out of court - a nice big juicy payment for your bank account.
Now, at this point you'd be forgiven for going to ground, issuing one final statement to the media along the lines of "we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone, and just want to be left alone to grieve", then slink away into obscurity to spend all that lovely lolly you screwed out of the public and the papers.
But no. This is not what you do.
Instead you spend a small fortune on various private investigators, you write a book which gets serialised in the country's biggest circulation newspaper, you appear on TV chat shows, all allegedly to keep your child's profile high in the public consciousness even though you know what happened.
Then to cap it all, three whole years after the case was shelved you go to the highest man in your land, the prime minister, by sending him a letter demanding:
"a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to our child's disappearance".
You are granted your wish and the country's most esteemed police force is drafted in to sift through all the evidence all over again, at great cost to the public purse.
You make yourself available for more TV appearances, BBC Crimewatch even, appealing for people to come forward who may have actually seen something.
The question I have to ask you is:
ARE YOU F@@KING MAD????
If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?
277
Look now to me. I am not having another day of stress while I have to decide what is acceptable and what isn't.
John is going to have to decide.
You've tried to give the impression in the past it doesn't worry you !
Perhaps we need to examine some other cases where criminals have petitioned their government to get their crimes reviewed and reinvestigated by the authorities. I’m sure there must be numerous examples, just like there are numerous examples of children dying near instantaneously after plummeting off a sofa.
You've tried to give the impression in the past it doesn't worry you !
We get asked to come up with a plausible scenario, with supporters insisting there isn’t one, I come up with one, then the supporters cry libel.
Perhaps we need to acknowledge that we don't know how other people think. What seems logical to us doesn't necessarily seem logical to them.In which case there must be numerous examples of criminals behaving in a similarly illogical manner, ie: insisting that the authorities re-open an investigation into their own crimes.
In which case there must be numerous examples of criminals behaving in a similarly illogical manner, ie: insisting that the authorities re-open an investigation into their own crimes.
In which case there must be numerous examples of criminals behaving in a similarly illogical manner, ie: insisting that the authorities re-open an investigation into their own crimes.
If you mean the McCanns, they never asked for an investigation to be re-opened.Nor did they ask for a new investigation to be launched. They asked for a review of the archived investigation and, imo, were hoping that investigation (which named them as suspects) would be discredited.
Perhaps we need to examine some other cases where criminals have petitioned their government to get their crimes reviewed and reinvestigated by the authorities. I’m sure there must be numerous examples, just like there are numerous examples of children dying near instantaneously after plummeting off a sofa.
Oh God. Ghastly semantics again. There would have been no point.
You really are not very good at this.
I'm sure there are quotes by the McCanns asking for a re-opened or new investigation which can be found to prove me wrong. Or maybe not.....
If those quotes can't be found then I'm right and VS is wrong and I am good at this.
If you mean the McCanns, they never asked for an investigation to be re-opened.Nor did they ask for a new investigation to be launched. They asked for a review of the archived investigation and, imo, were hoping that investigation (which named them as suspects) would be discredited.Why, if they knew they were guilty, would they think that the mountain of evidence (upon which you and other sceptics have drawn to come to your opinions) would discredit the original investigation and not focus attention once more on themselves? Surely you must realise that what you have written makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?
I'm sure there are quotes by the McCanns asking for a re-opened or new investigation which can be found to prove me wrong. Or maybe not.....So explain exactly how you think that these two alleged criminals would benefit from having the Metropolitan police review all the evidence gathered in this case, much of which you believe incriminates them? Talk us through it.
If those quotes can't be found then I'm right and VS is wrong and I am good at this.
So explain exactly how you think that these two alleged criminals would benefit from having the Metropolitan police review all the evidence gathered in this case, much of which you believe incriminates them? Talk us through it.
Well lets start with the witness who saw a man staring at 5a, twice, he was wearing a black leather jacket, CB was known to wear a black leather jacket. This same witness has said it was CB that she saw.
Then there is the fact that he burgled apartments. He is a Paedophile and if he knew there was a child alone in an apartment do you think he would miss the opportunity of entering that apartment?
He was talking on the dark web about kidnapping something small.
He confessed to knowing all about what happened to Madeleine.
His phone pinged in the area of 5a.
He moved back to Germany not long after Madeleine disappeared.
He told a girlfriend he had a terrible job to do on the 3rd of May.
He got very agitated when anyone brought up missing Madeleine.
These are just some of them. We don't know what the German Police have on him.
Well lets start with the witness who saw a man staring at 5a, twice, he was wearing a black leather jacket, CB was known to wear a black leather jacket. This same witness has said it was CB that she saw.
Then there is the fact that he burgled apartments. He is a Paedophile and if he knew there was a child alone in an apartment do you think he would miss the opportunity of entering that apartment?
He was talking on the dark web about kidnapping something small.
He confessed to knowing all about what happened to Madeleine.
His phone pinged in the area of 5a.
He moved back to Germany not long after Madeleine disappeared.
He told a girlfriend he had a terrible job to do on the 3rd of May.
He got very agitated when anyone brought up missing Madeleine.
These are just some of them. We don't know what the German Police have on him.
How much of that information was published in the tabloids?
How much was embellished by the tabloids ?
So explain exactly how you think that these two alleged criminals would benefit from having the Metropolitan police review all the evidence gathered in this case, much of which you believe incriminates them? Talk us through it.And answer came there none.
How much of that information was published in the tabloids?
Are you saying they are lies?
Are you saying they are lies?The evidence I was referring to in my post is all the so-called evidence in the files against the McCanns that sceptics have based all their suspicions on, the evidence that thr McCanns themselves begged the government to be reviewed by the police after the case had been archived and was receding in people’s memories. Apparently this seems a perfectly explicable thing for criminals to do, yet no one can really explain why.
The evidence I was referring to in my post is all the so-called evidence in the files against the McCanns that sceptics have based all their suspicions on, the evidence that thr McCanns themselves begged the government to be reviewed by the police after the case had been archived and was receding in people’s memories. Apparently this seems a perfectly explicable thing for criminals to do, yet no one can really explain why.
The McCanns were told that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by them.When and by whom?
When and by whom?
The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.But clearly most sceptics do not agree and have based ALL their suspicions of the McCanns on the plethora of evidence that they can see in the files that points (in their opinion) to the McCanns. So I repeat: why ask your government for a review of all this supposedly incriminating evidence when you could simply slink back into obscurity safe in the knowledge that the authorites were now highly unlikely to ever re-open the case against you? Does it make any sense? Or are you happy with the explanation that the McCanns simply behaved in an entirely illogical fashion by asking for their own alleged crimes to be reviewed?
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
What does Judicial Police actually mean? I have always found this to be a bit worrying.
Do you come under its jurisdiction ?
If not what is to worry about as it won't affect you ?
But clearly most sceptics do not agree and have based ALL their suspicions of the McCanns on the plethora of evidence that they can see in the files that points (in their opinion) to the McCanns. So I repeat: why ask your government for a review of all this supposedly incriminating evidence when you could simply slink back into obscurity safe in the knowledge that the authorites were now highly unlikely to ever re-open the case against you? Does it make any sense? Or are you happy with the explanation that the McCanns simply behaved in an entirely illogical fashion by asking for their own alleged crimes to be reviewed?We’ll never get an answer to this that actually addresses these points head on will we?
We’ll never get an answer to this that actually addresses these points head on will we?
They looked really comfortable on Crimewatch didn't they, when the MET released the e-fits of 'the abductor' (which the McCanns weren't keen to publicise themselves for some reason).
If *insert Spams theory* what evidence do you think the police would ever be able to find against them?
The answer to my own question is none.
In the instance of spams theory, the McCanns could be fully confident the police wouldn't be able to either find Maddie or any firm evidence of their involvement.
It wouldn't look good to either the public, media or their friends & family, especially their own children, if they didn't appear to have made every effort to find their abducted daughter. They couldn't just slink back into obscurity, as you suggest, because the case is so high profile.
Except that is exactly what they have done, excepting for high days & holidays.
Perhaps they were advised that having a high profile was not helping things and finally took the message on board.
Except that is exactly what they have done, excepting for high days & holidays.
Perhaps they were advised that having a high profile was not helping things and finally took the message on board.
Except that is exactly what they have done, excepting for high days & holidays.
Perhaps they were advised that having a high profile was not helping things and finally took the message on board.
Except that is exactly what they have done, excepting for high days & holidays.Thanks for quoting the troll's idiotic post which I have now had the misfortune to have read. It would seem that the troll believes the McCanns executed the perfect crime and that they knew in advance of requesting a review from the Government that there was no evidence that could ever be pinned on them and that none of their Tapas co-conspirators would ever crack. Quite something, eh, to have such supreme confidence? And as far as justifying slinking back into obscurity, well of course they could have done so. They could have simply exhausted the fund, spent a million on sending the private investigators on a wild goose chase and none of their friends or family would have berated them for not doing everything they reasonably could to find Madeleine. They could have feigned nervous breakdown, health issues brought on by the trauma and the public hate cmpaign against them, they could have emigrated and started a new life - but they didn't did they? They pushed and they pushed and they pushed for the entire case to be reviewed and for fresh investigative and expert eyes to scrutinise all that damning evidence that the troll think points to their involvement. Utterly incredible.
Perhaps they were advised that having a high profile was not helping things and finally took the message on board.
Thanks for quoting the troll's idiotic post which I have now had the misfortune to have read. It would seem that the troll believes the McCanns executed the perfect crime and that they knew in advance of requesting a review from the Government that there was no evidence that could ever be pinned on them and that none of their Tapas co-conspirators would ever crack. Quite something, eh, to have such supreme confidence? And as far as justifying slinking back into obscurity, well of course they could have done so. They could have simply exhausted the fund, spent a million on sending the private investigators on a wild goose chase and none of their friends or family would have berated them for not doing everything they reasonably could to find Madeleine. They could have feigned nervous breakdown, health issues brought on by the trauma and the public hate cmpaign against them, they could have emigrated and started a new life - but they didn't did they? They pushed and they pushed and they pushed for the entire case to be reviewed and for fresh investigative and expert eyes to scrutinise all that damning evidence that the troll think points to their involvement. Utterly incredible.
Except that is exactly what they have done, excepting for high days & holidays.Has it not occurred to you that the reason they were able to step back is that their aim to get the case re-opened and reinvestigated had been achieved and that therefore there was no longer a need for them to keep the pressure up through public appearances and interviews?
Perhaps they were advised that having a high profile was not helping things and finally took the message on board.