Consider this scenario - Would a guilty person keep their case alive for many years?

[ferryman]

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. 

[G-Unit]

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.

No one has said everyone in the world is deceitful as far as I know, so there's no need to let that trouble you ferryman. 

[G-Unit]

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.

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.

[Alfie]

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.

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.

[G-Unit]

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';

"we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone,

One innocent one guilty.

[Alfie]

You singular? You included this when setting out your scenario, which suggests 'you plural';

"we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone,

One innocent one guilty.

Fair enough you win.  That's your answer then? One of them must be innocent?

[Alfie]

As it is the innocent *you* who wrote the book, then there is no reason why *you* would lie in it,  is there?

[John]

As it is the innocent *you* who wrote the book, then there is no reason why *you* would lie in it,  is there?

To answer the opening post.  A guilty person in normal circumstances will not want to prolong a case against them if there is no evidence of wrongdoing but as pointed out previously there are often reasons why the norm is not always evident.

[G-Unit]

As it is the innocent *you* who wrote the book, then there is no reason why *you* would lie in it,  is there?

I never said anyone 'must' be innocent, It was a possibility not a certainty.

As far as lying goes it depends what you mean by 'lying'  There are white lies, exaggerations, omissions, misunderstandings and passing on wrong information you received from others. People may believe they are telling the truth but still be technically lying.

In a video of an interview with Gerry McCann, for example, he said Portugal had no helicopters to use in the search because they didn't have a Royal Navy! According to Kate's book the police told Gerry there were no helicopters saying 'this is not the UK'. Of course a helicopter searched PdL the same day. They didn't see it because they were at the police station. Does that mean someone lied? Probably not, but wrong information was given out.

[Brietta]

The more publicity "my" missing daughter's case attracts the more thought will be given to the initial allegations around which the police constructed their case against me.
Were I guilty the last thing I would want would be further scrutiny of a situation from which I had walked clear.
   

• I asked to see a priest.
  Why should that have been considered suspicious?  Whatever happens in this foreign land, it is the normal thing to do where I come from.
• The bedroom window was open.
  Why would I impart that information were it untrue?
  If I intended to mislead that there had been a break in ... did they think I would have been stupid enough not to make sure it actually looked as if there had been one.
• Why would any rational person assume that on finding my daughter dead ... that my immediate thought would have been concealment of her body?
  How could I possibly have engineered such a thing in an area unfamiliar to me, where I knew no-one and had no access to any means of disposal of a dearly loved child's body. 
  I was also aware that I had started a hue and cry as soon as I raised the alarm that she was gone.  Nor did I have any idea of what resources the police would deploy ... assuming they would implement missing child procedures with immediate effect.

The longer the case could be kept in the public eye the more chance that someone who knows what happened may be moved to let me know what happened to my precious child.

That would be reason enough for me to do everything in my power to keep the case going for as long as it was possible to do so.

[Alice Purjorick]

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?

How does one know what a guilty person (generic) will and will not do ?

[Alfie]

Would it be considered unusual, unprecedented even, for someone who was guilty of a crime to appear willingly in person on a widely watched TV programme such as Crimewatch knowing that the programme was going to heavily feature details of the crime they had committed, and was going to include a photofit of themselves? 

[faithlilly]

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?

[Alfie]

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?

[G-Unit]

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.