UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: stephen25000 on January 13, 2014, 08:55:00 PM
-
Now here is a case worthy of comparison.
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/limit-crash-mum-left-year-old-home/story-20436401-detail/story.html#ixzz2qJUcSSTg
So the mccanns behaviour is now being used as an 'excuse' for others.
It beggars belief.
-
A few extracts from the same link
Acceptable to the mods I hope.
''Gareth Morgan, defending, asked the magistrates not to impose a custodial sentence saying the woman had not touched a drop of alcohol since the night she left her son alone last October 30.
He said: "The parents of Madeleine McCann were guilty of child neglect for leaving their little girl much longer than my client.
"They were never prosecuted for it.
"The mother in this case is ashamed and remorseful at putting her young child at risk in the way she did."
-
Now here is a case worthy of comparison.
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/limit-crash-mum-left-year-old-home/story-20436401-detail/story.html#ixzz2qJUcSSTg
So the mccanns behaviour is now being used as an 'excuse' for others.
It beggars belief.
Very interesting, stephen25000 - and exactly what is to be feared
-
Very interesting, stephen25000 - and exactly what is to be feared
Thanks CPN.
This story could not have come at a more appropriate time.
-
Very interesting, stephen25000 - and exactly what is to be feared
you make it sound like some biblical plague...
-
Madeleine McCann case used as reason not to jail over-the-limit crash mum who'd left five-year-old home alone.
A MUM left her five-year-old son who had Asperger’s Syndrome home alone at night - but was caught after a road rage row with another driver.
The professional woman was over the limit when she went out for a drive leaving her little boy asleep on the settee.
She crashed into a car at traffic lights - and when police went to her home they found the "vulnerable" little boy all alone.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, admitted child neglect and was facing a jail term.
But her lawyer pleaded for her freedom - because Kate and Gerry McCann were never prosecuted for leaving daughter Madeleine alone in their holiday apartment.
Read more...
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/limit-crash-mum-left-year-old-home/story-20436401-detail/story.html
-
There are posts about this on the "latest news" thread
-
And now it all starts, enter the first of many who are now willing to use the McCann case as a get out of jail free card.
Thank you CPN...I have now merged the posts.
-
And now it all starts, enter the first of many who are now willing to use the McCann case as a get out of jail free card.
I guess it makes a change from the " leaving young children alone is something we all do" mantra
-
How many other offences are there?
Driving without due care and attention.
Driving while over the drink-drive limit (2 and a half times)
Causing an accident resulting in an accident
Leaving the scene of an accident without reporting it.
And it doesn't sound as though she had much of a plan in place to check on the welfare of her son.
-
Blimey, I cant believe a lawyer actually argued that in court, I mean, naming the Mccanns and saying they were negligent and werent prosecuted......
Thats got to be a first....not sure what to make of it, poor defence but shocked he said it
-
The woman cannot be identified for legal reasons, what the hell is that all about? Anyone got any suggestions?
-
The woman cannot be identified for legal reasons, what the hell is that all about? Anyone got any suggestions?
So the child is not identified
-
Wait until carter ruck get hold of him @)(++(*
fat chance, let them try
new legal battle?Dont think so lol
-
So the child is not identified
There must be more to it than that Redblossom surely?
-
There must be more to it than that Redblossom surely?
I'm CPN, not Redblossom!
As far as I am aware, anonymity is usually granted in cases where the identities of children are not to be released - and therefore the identity of the parents also
-
Blimey, I cant believe a lawyer actually argued that in court, I mean, naming the Mccanns and saying they were negligent and werent prosecuted......
Thats got to be a first....not sure what to make of it, poor defence but shocked he said it
Simply something the defence lawyer argued in court, and a contradictory defence at that, given that, as he himself says, the McCanns were never prosecuted.
It is a moot point the legal status of the McCanns' childcare arrangements in Portugal, and those arrangements certainly cannot be used as any kind of legal precedent in another country.
An attempt by the media to stir things up.
This would only be a 'story' if the magistrates themselves had been swayed into basing their verdict upon that particular part of the defence's argument - and there is nothing in the article to suggest they did.
-
Simply something the defence lawyer argued in court, and a contradictory defence at that, given that, as he himself says, the McCanns were never prosecuted.
It is a moot point the legal status of the McCanns' childcare arrangements in Portugal, and those arrangements certainly cannot be used as any kind of legal precedent in another country.
An attempt by the media to stir things up.
This would only be a 'story' if the magistrates themselves had been swayed into basing their verdict upon that particular part of the defence's argument - and there is nothing in the article to suggest they did.
It is not the legal precedent that is highlighted here ... it is the kernel of perception that if the McCanns can be publicly exhonerated as behaving 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting' when they left their very young infants alone and vulnerable, then it's a green light to all feckess and cavalier parents who might be tempted to 'pop out' at night for whatever reason
As long as they're back in half an hour ... that's 'OK' parenting
-
Now here is a case worthy of comparison.
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/limit-crash-mum-left-year-old-home/story-20436401-detail/story.html#ixzz2qJUcSSTg
So the mccanns behaviour is now being used as an 'excuse' for others.
It beggars belief.
A misleading headline IMO, Stephen.
Exaggerated further by the large picture of Madeleine below it.
-
It is not the legal precedent that is highlighted here ... it is the kernel of perception that if the McCanns can be publicly exhonerated as behaving 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting' when they left their very young infants alone and vulnerable, then it's a green light to all feckess and cavalier parents who might be tempted to 'pop out' at night for whatever reason
As long as they're back in half an hour ... that's 'OK' parenting
And that's exactly what the article wants to manipulate us into focusing on.
Court cases are not based on kernels of perception. They are based - among other things - on legal precedents.
The article cites an argument of the defence, but omits to mention anything about what the verdict of the magistrates was actually based on.
And whatever it was based on, it was not on a case that never even came to trial.
The woman in this article clearly behaved abysmally, and in the absence of legal precedent to get her off the hook, the defense lawyer was scraping the very bottom of the barrel for arguments.
The entire article is a twisting of the facts. The woman broke the law on several serious counts and the picture at the top of the page is of poor little Madeleine McCann. Journalism at its worst.
-
And that's exactly what the article wants to manipulate us into focusing on.
Court cases are not based on kernels of perception. They are based - among other things - on legal precedents.
The article cites an argument of the defence, but omits to mention anything about what the verdict of the magistrates was actually based on.
And whatever it was based on, it was not on a case that never even came to trial.
The woman in this article clearly behaved abysmally, and in the absence of legal precedent to get her off the hook, the defense lawyer was scraping the very bottom of the barrel for arguments.
The entire article is a twisting of the facts. The woman broke the law on several serious accounts and the picture at the top of the page is of poor little Madeleine McCann. Journalism at its worst.
This woman "behaved abysmally ?" ... and broke the law on several serious counts ?
Why are you avoiding the very crux of this story ... that this woman ( as her lawyer pointed out ) did something very similar to the McCanns with direct regard to her child
She left him alone and unsupervised while he was asleep at night ( according to her lawyer for a shorter time than the McCanns left Madeleine alone and unsupervised )
I am not being manipulated into focussing on that point ... it IS the point
-
This woman "behaved abysmally ?" ... and broke the law on several serious counts ?
Why are you avoiding the very crux of this story ... that this woman ( as her lawyer pointed out ) did something very similar to the McCanns with direct regard to her child
She left him alone and unsupervised while he was asleep at night ( according to her lawyer for a shorter time than the McCanns left Madeleine alone and unsupervised )
I am not being manipulated into focussing on that point ... it IS the point
That's where we disagree, icabod.
The Madeleine case is most certainly not the point. The woman's defence lawyer, obviously for want of a better argument, made a point of mentioning the McCanns. Then a journalist found out and stuck a picture of Madeleine at the top of the story for the purpose of selling copy.
That does not make it the point of the trial.
I am sure that the court transcript did not have a banner headline and picture at the top of it.
The point of this trial was to deliver a verdict on the defendant's behaviour and to sentence accordingly. The fact that there is no reference whatsoever in the article as to what the sentence is actually based on is a clear demonstration of the journalist's attempt to skew the 'story' into one about the actions of parents McCann. It is not an article about the reality of the trial.
Yes, you can say that it shows that the McCanns' negligence in leaving their children alone has been taken as some sort of get out of jail free card, as John puts it. But the McCanns have been criticised by many for leaving their children. There is no evidence that anyone makes light of leaving kids because of the McCann case; if anything people have taken it as a lesson and are probably more careful. The fact that an attorney alluded to the case in open court - as part of a flimsy argument not based on anything to do with law - albeit is the only difference.
-
This woman "behaved abysmally ?" ... and broke the law on several serious counts ?
Why are you avoiding the very crux of this story ... that this woman ( as her lawyer pointed out ) did something very similar to the McCanns with direct regard to her child
She left him alone and unsupervised while he was asleep at night ( according to her lawyer for a shorter time than the McCanns left Madeleine alone and unsupervised )
I am not being manipulated into focussing on that point ... it IS the point
Your wording reminds me of one of my favourite cameos from across the pond:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1CqcvgDrU
-
That's where we disagree, icabod.
The Madeleine case is most certainly not the point. The woman's defence lawyer, obviously for want of a better argument, made a point of mentioning the McCanns. Then a journalist found out and stuck a picture of Madeleine at the top of the story for the purpose of selling copy.
That does not make it the point of the trial.
I am sure that the court transcript did not have a banner headline and picture at the top of it.
The point of this trial was to deliver a verdict on the defendant's behaviour and to sentence accordingly. The fact that there is no reference whatsoever in the article as to what the sentence is actually based on is a clear demonstration of the journalist's attempt to skew the 'story' into one about the actions of parents McCann. It is not an article about the reality of the trial.
Yes, you can say that it shows that the McCanns' negligence in leaving their children alone has been taken as some sort of get out of jail free card, as John puts it. But the McCanns have been criticised by many for leaving their children. There is no evidence that anyone makes light of leaving kids because of the McCann case; if anything people have taken it as a lesson and are probably more careful. The fact that the attorney alluded to the case in open court - as part of a flimsy argument not based on anything to do with law - is the only difference.
This particular trial is not 'the point' of this discussion
The point is that the woman in this story did something very similar to the McCanns with regard to her child's welfare
She left him sleeping while she went out at night ( for a period of time shorter than the McCanns left Madeleine asleep at night when they went out, according to her lawyer )
Why are you avoiding that when it is the issue that is truely relevant to this forum ?
You say this woman's behaviour was 'abysmal'
In what way was the McCann's behaviour any less so ?
-
The defence lawyer thought he was onto something in relation to the child neglect charge by pointing out that the McCanns were not charged with neglect yet they left three young children alone for much longer. Some of these days a case similar to the McCanns is going to hit the headlines and we will then see if justice is dependent on ones professional status and on whether your brother is a pal of the sitting Prime Minster.
-
This particular trial is not 'the point' of this discussion
The point is that the woman in this story did something very similar to the McCanns with regard to her child's welfare
She left him sleeping while she went out at night ( for a period of time shorter than the McCanns left Madeleine asleep at night when they went out, according to her lawyer )
Why are you avoiding that when it is the issue that is truely relevant to this forum ?
You say this woman's behaviour was 'abysmal'
In what way was the McCann's behaviour any less so ?
Here is my thought process, icabod.
The defense lawyer tried to get his dodgy client off the hook by invoking a scenario he considered to be similar to that of hers (or at least felt he could peddle as a something sufficiently similar).
In fact, similar as the McCann scenario may be, it is not something that could ever serve as a legal precedent in a court case. The McCanns have never been charged or tried on this matter. His reasons for bringing the case up in court were therefore questionable.
Therefore the motive for the journalist composing the story - not merely reporting events at court, but focusing on the Madeleine element and creating a page with a large photograph of her at the top - were even more suspect. He was not commenting on the trial; he was making a point of focus out of one particular part of the lawyer's defense in order to produce material for a negative story about the McCanns.
I'm not saying the McCanns were right to leave their children - I have just been writing my criticism about it on another thread - but the McCanns' guilt doesn't make the journalist's intentions any less transparent.
-
The defence lawyer thought he was onto something in relation to the child neglect charge by pointing out that the McCanns were not charged with neglect yet they left three young children alone for much longer. Some of these days a case similar to the McCanns is going to hit the headlines and we will then see if justice is dependent on ones professional status and on whether your brother is a pal of the sitting Prime Minster.
But how does that relate to this case, Angelo?
We don't know why she got the sentence she got and what the rationale of the magistrates may have been.
That information is probably publicly available - though it certainly wasn't mentioned by the journalist. That could spoil his story.
-
Thinking more about what is bothering me most about this article, icabod - one among many negative articles about the McCanns - it is the journalist's implication that the McCann scenario is being used as a precedent.
But he carefully avoids any reference to what the verdict was based on. It may have had nothing to do with the McCann case at all.
-
But how does that relate to this case, Angelo?
We don't know why she got the sentence she got and what the rationale of the magistrates may have been.
That information is probably publicly available - though it certainly wasn't mentioned by the journalist. That could spoil his story.
The woman, who can not be identified for legal reasons, admitted child neglect, drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident.
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/limit-crash-mum-left-year-old-home/story-20436401-detail/story.html#ixzz2qLDktDoa
-
But how does that relate to this case, Angelo?
We don't know why she got the sentence she got and what the rationale of the magistrates may have been.
That information is probably publicly available - though it certainly wasn't mentioned by the journalist. That could spoil his story.
Angelo's point is perfectly relevant
What happens when a case hits the courts where parents nip up the road at night for a beer or two with neighbours, checking on the kids they've left sleeping at home every half hour ... and one of the kids wonders out of the door they left unlocked in search of mum and dad ... and gets run over and killed
What happens ?
Will the court say the child was killed because her parents were negligent ... or will they say the parents had acted 'within the bounds of reasonabe parenting' ? and dismiss the child's death as misadventure
It matters that the McCanns behaviour has been excused because of the inevitable comparisons
-
And that's exactly what the article wants to manipulate us into focusing on.
Court cases are not based on kernels of perception. They are based - among other things - on legal precedents.
The article cites an argument of the defence, but omits to mention anything about what the verdict of the magistrates was actually based on.
And whatever it was based on, it was not on a case that never even came to trial.
The woman in this article clearly behaved abysmally, and in the absence of legal precedent to get her off the hook, the defense lawyer was scraping the very bottom of the barrel for arguments.
The entire article is a twisting of the facts. The woman broke the law on several serious counts and the picture at the top of the page is of poor little Madeleine McCann. Journalism at its worst.
[/b]
Yes but this is what they do all the time. Maddy found in greece. Maddy found in Ireland, so on and so forth. Thats why i never READ the blooming papers as most part they are rubbish.
There was another case in Portugal a women was arrested new year I believe.
IT does make a mockery though of child care doesn't it, when one gets away with it, and others dont....goose for gander etc. It wasnt just McCanns parenting either there were more parents involved who ALL got away with it.
Pray tell me what's the difference between sitting in a bar/restaurant drinking and eating and leaving your 3 young children alone for 30 minutes at a time, then being over the limit and leaving your child alone to get some money from the cashpoint.
DRINK DRIVING is the only offence. Not the leaving of children on their own. D.I.S.G.U.S.T.I.N.G. on all accounts, but sadly people do it and some get away with it.
This is actually a sad case I fear. A lone mother pushed to the limits, working, having a child with behavioural and learning difficulties and obviously she has a drink problem which takes away all your skills and you do things you would never normally do because of it. Because of her error of judgement she nearly lost her child, and she has lost her job.
Because of the error of judgement on the part of the McCanns they did LOOSE THEIR CHILD.
Alcohol is the route of all evil........there are far too many people stressed to hell now and there is a drinking problem in this country and sadly it is starting younger and younger.
Some of the worse cases i have seen has been on holiday, with parents so drunk they can hardly stand up and they have young children to care for.
Anyway it is terrible journalism but it works both ways sadly.
Anywoo the media is making a mint out of the poor girl McCann and it needs to stop.
-
A misleading headline IMO, Stephen.
Exaggerated further by the large picture of Madeleine below it.
The headlines in this case are frequently misleading as is the overuse of Madeleine's photographs.
However, it has to be remembered the Mccanns have exploited the papers repeatedly for their own needs.
Also in the mirror.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-lawyer-gareth-morgan-3020133#ixzz2qKMHmR9C
-
Angelo's point is perfectly relevant
What happens when a case hits the courts where parents nip up the road at night for a beer or two with neighbours, checking on the kids they've left sleeping at home every half hour ... and one of the kids wonders out of the door they left unlocked in search of mum and dad ... and gets run over and killed
What happens ?
Will the court say the child was killed because her parents were negligent ... or will they say the parents had acted 'within the bounds of reasonabe parenting' ? and dismiss the child's death as misadventure
It matters that the McCanns behaviour has been excused because of the inevitable comparisons
I would have thought the fact that the McCann's lost their daughter because they left them alone, would be a deterrent to other parents not to leave their children alone.
The argument against anyone trying to use the same argument should be 'You knew the outcome of the McCann case, that the child was taken, yet you still left your child alone'.
-
I would have thought the fact that the McCann's lost their daughter because they left them alone, would be a deterrent to other parents not to leave their children alone.
The argument against anyone trying to use the same argument should be 'You knew the outcome of the McCann case, that the child was taken, yet you still left your child alone'.
Please get your facts right.
It has not been proven Madeleine was 'taken'.
That is supposition.
What I do believe is that more people will look up the background to this case and see that the mccann deliberately and repeatedly left their 3 young children unprotected and in they claim an unlocked residence.
Was this woman's house unlocked by the way ?
-
Please get your facts right.
It has not been proven Madeleine was 'taken'.
That is supposition.
What I do believe is that more people will look up the background to this case and see that the mccann deliberately and repeatedly left their 3 young children unprotected and in they claim an unlocked residence.
Was this woman's house unlocked by the way ?
Ok for you, Stephen 'you know the child disappeared' how is that?
Were the McCann's drunk? were the McCann's drink driving? were the McCann's miles away?
Would you have wanted them prosecuted on the top of losing their daughter Stephen?
-
Are you anti's so desperate that you have to use this womans downfall to try and prove a point to get at the McCann's..its quite pathetic imo..
-
Please get your facts right.
It has not been proven Madeleine was 'taken'.
That is supposition.
What I do believe is that more people will look up the background to this case and see that the mccann deliberately and repeatedly left their 3 young children unprotected and in they claim an unlocked residence.
Was this woman's house unlocked by the way ?
What do you think happened to Madeleine then Stephen?
-
What do you think happened to Madeleine then Stephen?
I've made that clear some time ago.
-
I've made that clear some time ago.
Humour me. What do you relly think?
-
Humour me. What do you relly think?
On the balance of probabilities, I believe Madeleine is no longer alive.
I presume you can comprehend that ?
-
On the balance of probabilities, I believe Madeleine is no longer alive.
I presume you can comprehend that ?
Of course. That is logical, sadly.
What do you think happened to her?
-
Of course. That is logical, sadly.
What do you think happened to her?
She had an accident from which she didn't recover.
As to that 'accident', there are several possibilities.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10570273/Madeleine-McCann-lawyer-claims-parents-guilty-of-neglect-for-leaving-her.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-lawyer-gareth-morgan-3020133
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/360395/Drunk-mum-spared-jail-for-leaving-boy-at-home-as-she-was-not-as-bad-as-the-McCanns-
Doing the rounds....awaiting the Mail
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539093/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-guilty-child-neglect-says-lawyer-bizarre-courtroom-speech.html Redblossom
-
And when do you think that accident occured?
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539093/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-guilty-child-neglect-says-lawyer-bizarre-courtroom-speech.html Redblossom
@)(++(*
Thanks CPN they must have read my mind lol
-
What about this case...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/227553/Police-caution-mum-for-leaving-son-14-to-mind-three-year-old-brother
Its bizarre, i thought you could leave legally a child at 13. I used to baby sit a lot at 14.
-
Thinking more about what is bothering me most about this article, icabod - one among many negative articles about the McCanns - it is the journalist's implication that the McCann scenario is being used as a precedent.
But he carefully avoids any reference to what the verdict was based on. It may have had nothing to do with the McCann case at all.
I agree with your previous comments on this.
There is a hint of what may have helped her avoid a custodial sentence, though.
Probation officer Graham Craig said the little boy, an only child, was "extremely vulnerable" because of his Asperger's syndrome.
Mr Craig said: "His mother accepts full responsibility and knows that a potentially catastrophic situation could have developed at home while she was out.
"She accepts making a series of poor decisions and that alcohol was a factor."
Gareth Morgan, defending, asked the magistrates not to impose a custodial sentence saying the woman had not touched a drop of alcohol since the night she left her son alone last October 30.
He said: "The parents of Madeleine McCann were guilty of child neglect for leaving their little girl much longer than my client.
"They were never prosecuted for it.
"The mother in this case is ashamed and remorseful at putting her young child at risk in the way she did."
I presume that the child welfare board would have weighed up the pros and cons of the potential effects of separating the child from his mother. Beyond that she admitted responsibility and demonstrated her willingness to improve by not having touched alcohol since the events of that night.
The lawyer's comment might have been more of a throwaway remark that the tabloids latched onto. Any opportunity to use "Madeleine" as a key word generates more revenue.
-
The lawyer's comment might have been more of a throwaway remark that the tabloids latched onto. Any opportunity to use "Madeleine" as a key word generates more revenue.
how does it do that? If papers are free to read online? or do you think people see "Maddie" on the front pages and buy the paper even if its not their regular...and what nearly seven years later, dont thnk so somehow
-
What about this case...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/227553/Police-caution-mum-for-leaving-son-14-to-mind-three-year-old-brother
Its bizarre, i thought you could leave legally a child at 13. I used to baby sit a lot at 14.
I found that strange as well. Cautioned for an act of cruelty???
I suppose it might depend on the teenager in question. Some are more responsible at that age than others.
-
how does it do that? If papers are free to read online? or do you think people see "Maddie" on the front pages and buy the paper even if its not their regular...and what nearly seven years later, dont thnk so somehow
I'm not sure how many "papers" read online. ;)
Seriously, I'd agree that the key word may generate less revenue than several years ago, but there is no doubt renewed interest recently due to other news about the case.
-
I'm not sure how many "papers" read online. ;)
Seriously, I'd agree that the key word may generate less revenue than several years ago, but there is no doubt renewed interest recently due to other news about the case.
Ha ha very funy carana lol
Still would like to know how more money is made by these stories.....this far long gone...do you seriously think there are many readers who MUST buy a paper because "Maddie" is in the front page? If they dont already regularly buy that paper? Do you seriously thnk most of the populatin are still interested? Like 6 yrs back? i dont think so, if anythng most are probabiy sick to the back teeth with any regular headlines aboutt one child for so long
-
Ha ha very funy carana lol
Still would like to know how more money is made by these stories.....this far long gone...do you seriously think there are many readers who MUST buy a paper because "Maddie" is in the front page? If they dont already regularly buy that paper? Do you seriously thnk most of the populatin are still interested? Like 6 yrs back? i dont think so, if anythng most are probabiy sick to the back teeth with any regular headlines aboutt one child for so long
I'm hunting for an oldish article that I found fascinating and I think you might find it interesting as well. I'll post it if and when I find it.
Yes, I do think that even people who may have more or less forgotten about the case might be tempted to buy a paper out of curiosity in the event of an eventual "breakthrough".
Aside from the written press, the explosion of the Internet meant that key words were THE thing to generate revenue for the online press. The basic idea was that including popular key words into articles (or metatags) would improve traffic. If you improve traffic, you increase the amount of people viewing online ads. An increased audience viewing online ads improved revenue.
-
There's a whole industry built around key words and optimisation.
You create your ads
You create ads and choose keywords, which are words or phrases related to your business. Get keyword ideas
Your ads appear on Google
When people search on Google using one of your keywords, your ad may appear next to the search results. Now you're advertising to an audience that's already interested in you.
You attract customers
People can simply click on your ad to make a purchase or learn more about you.
Google: Google adwords.
-
The lawyer's comment might have been more of a throwaway remark that the tabloids latched onto. Any opportunity to use "Madeleine" as a key word generates more revenue.
Sounds like it. No case could be based upon a so-called argument like this, and therefore no lawyer worth his salt would attempt to build a case around it.
Notice how the papers (links above) describe the lawyer's speech as 'bizarre'.
That's exactly what it is.
-
Ha ha very funy carana lol
Still would like to know how more money is made by these stories.....this far long gone...do you seriously think there are many readers who MUST buy a paper because "Maddie" is in the front page? If they dont already regularly buy that paper? Do you seriously thnk most of the populatin are still interested? Like 6 yrs back? i dont think so, if anythng most are probabiy sick to the back teeth with any regular headlines aboutt one child for so long
So why turn the story into one about Madeleine McCann when it had absolutely nothing to do with the McCann case?
-
I'm hunting for an oldish article that I found fascinating and I think you might find it interesting as well. I'll post it if and when I find it.
Yes, I do think that even people who may have more or less forgotten about the case might be tempted to buy a paper out of curiosity in the event of an eventual "breakthrough".
Aside from the written press, the explosion of the Internet meant that key words were THE thing to generate revenue for the online press. The basic idea was that including popular key words into articles (or metatags) would improve traffic. If you improve traffic, you increase the amount of people viewing online ads. An increased audience viewing online ads improved revenue.
But that occurs for everything, not just the Maddie case, Im sure the Kardashians or Big Brother are making loads of money for the papers, the Maddie case, not IMO....there has to be a very small minority of people clicking! it just is so not the same as in 2007 when it was an everyday unfolding story.....these days we have stupid headlines like Maddie found in Ireland....which has followed umpteen ridiculous and vacuous articles, as I said, majority of jo bloggs are uninterested and/or have been made immune
-
So why turn the story into one about Madeleine McCann when it had absolutely nothing to do with the McCann case?
Err, because it did?...the lawyers argument? they didnt make it up....though they had a choice whether to print it
-
Err, because it did?...the lawyers argument? they didnt make it up....though they had a choice whether to print it
I bet they couldn't resist. Because it was said in court, they are free to report it without any danger of a visit from one of CR's minions.
-
I bet they couldn't resist. Because it was said in court, they are free to report it without any danger of a visit from one of CR's minions.
And why couldnt they resist, such a hurtful and unhelpful coverage, untrue to form
>@@(*&)
-
Err, because it did?...the lawyers argument? they didnt make it up....though they had a choice whether to print it
He probably did say that. But was it an ideal "association" to use in view of the renewed interest in the "Madeleine" case and thus the key words? Have there been no other cases involving xxyyzz that would attract such traffic? If not, why the comparison with this case in particular?
-
He probably did say that. But was it an ideal "association" to use in view of the renewed interest in the "Madeleine" case and thus the key words? Have there been no other cases involving xxyyzz that would attract such traffic? If not, why the comparison with this case in particular?
no he did not "probably" say that Carana, he actually did say it
As for why he did, thats up to him to answer....unless you are suggesting the lawyer was on commission from the paper industry to increase traffic! Oh well...what was I saying earlier about conspiracy theories? perhaps thats how he personally saw it? Who knows hey But Im sure ths womans trial wasnt coordinated to tally with all new news n the Maddie case....and the lawyer took advantage of this....deary me
-
no he did not "probably" say that Carana, he actually did say it
As for why he did, thats up to him to answer....unless you are suggesting the lawyer was on commission from the paper industry to increase traffic! Oh well...what was I saying earlier about conspiracy theories? perhaps thats how he personally saw it? Who knows hey?
Or perhaps that's how his client saw it and he felt it worth trying as a defence.
-
Err, because it did?...the lawyers argument? they didnt make it up....though they had a choice whether to print it
The lawyer didn't have an argument. It was a random comment. The McCanns leaving their children is not a legal precedent because they were never tried.
They may be one day, who knows - but so far they have not been.
-
Or perhaps that's how his client saw it and he felt it worth trying as a defence.
Yes, that is the logical conclusion to draw
The lawyer clearly felt that his client's case, in terms of the negligence charge, was very similar to the McCanns, in that in both cases a young child was left alone and unsupervised whilst asleep
By drawing that comparison he highlighted the issue that the McCanns had not been charged with negligence, and, therefore, his client, who had left her child alone for a shorter period than the McCanns, should not have been charged either
The comparison he drew, in terms of negligence, was a fair one, I think, but that aspect of this story seems to have been pointedly avoided on this thread
-
Or perhaps that's how his client saw it and he felt it worth trying as a defence.
Well it wasn't a good defense was it? It was baseless. And ridiculed by the press as such - so it backfired really.
-
The lawyer didn't have an argument. It was a random comment. The McCanns leaving their children is not a legal precedent because they were never tried.
They may be one day, who knows - but so far they have not been.
His comment was part of his argument, whichever it was, my response to you was about why the press linked the two cases....it was not them that did so...
-
Many defences aren't very good, but if there is nothing to lose, why not.
Not sure that the papers have ridiculed it, rather printed it with impunity.
-
Yes, that is the logical conclusion to draw
The lawyer clearly felt that his client's case, in terms of the negligence charge, was very similar to the McCanns, in that in both cases a young child was left alone and unsupervised whilst asleep
By drawing that comparison he highlighted the issue that the McCanns had not been charged with negligence, and, therefore, his client, who had left her child alone for a shorter period than the McCanns, should not have been charged either
The comparison he drew, in terms of negligence, was a fair one, I think, but that aspect of this story seems to have been pointedly avoided on this thread
That may have been what it looked like he was trying to do. But he couldn't have been doing that as it holds no basis in law.
It is perhaps a point for a tabloid newspaper to pick up on, true - but not something a judge is going to base his decision on.
If the lawyer's argument is a good and relevant one, where is the evidence that the magistrates actually took it into account and sentenced accordingly?
-
His comment was part of his argument, whichever it was, my response to you was about why the press linked the two cases....it was not them that did so...
I think that's right, Red. The comment was part of his argument. We don't have details about the main body of his argument from these articles.
The point is that the press picked up on this aspect of his argument and left out the rest.
-
Yes, that is the logical conclusion to draw
The lawyer clearly felt that his client's case, in terms of the negligence charge, was very similar to the McCanns, in that in both cases a young child was left alone and unsupervised whilst asleep
By drawing that comparison he highlighted the issue that the McCanns had not been charged with negligence, and, therefore, his client, who had left her child alone for a shorter period than the McCanns, should not have been charged either
The comparison he drew, in terms of negligence, was a fair one, I think, but that aspect of this story seems to have been pointedly avoided on this thread
I see your point, she was charged with and pleaded gulty to child neglect.....the lawyer said she left her child alone for less of a time than the Mccanns did...sometimes the British justice system can be too harsh...if only she had got a cab if she was unfit to drive she would still have her job at least.....and no criminal record to boot
-
Many defences aren't very good, but if there is nothing to lose, why not.
Not sure that the papers have ridiculed it, rather printed it with impunity.
Well there's a difference between a weak defense and saying something that is not a legal argument. A judge may consider the first but he will dismiss the latter.
-
Well there's a difference between a weak defense and saying something that is not a legal argument. A judge may consider the first but he will dismiss the latter.
But is there any legal precedent anywhere for parents leaving their kids alone and one gets stolen and they are charged?
-
Many defences aren't very good, but if there is nothing to lose, why not.
Not sure that the papers have ridiculed it, rather printed it with impunity.
I don't see that the papers have 'ridiculed' the comparison this lawyer drew between his client's child care decisions and those of the McCanns either ... how could they when the comparison is perfectly valid ?
It is a 'friend of the McCanns' who has expressed outrage at the comparison, although I cannot imagine on what grounds, given that the sleeping child in this case was left unattended for a shorter period of time than Madeleine was ... and is, as we speak, alive and well in Merthyr Tydfil
-
I don't see that the papers have 'ridiculed' the comparison this lawyer drew between his client's child care decisions and those of the McCanns either ... how could they when the comparison is perfectly valid ?
It is a 'friend of the McCanns' who has expressed outrage at the comparison, although I cannot imagine on what grounds, given that the sleeping child in this case was left unattended for a shorter period of time than Madeleine was ... and is, as we speak, alive and well in Merthyr Tydfil
They have not ridiculed the comparison. They have ridiculed the idea of a lawyer standing up and attempting to use the comparison as a legal defense. (Describing his performance in court as a 'bizarre courtroom speech' is not exactly complementary).
I don't disagree with you that the comparison could have been valid in terms of negligence. You are speaking more of the moral aspect of the situation, and I the legal.
-
I think that's right, Red. The comment was part of his argument. We don't have details about the main body of his argument from these articles.
The point is that the press picked up on this aspect of his argument and left out the rest.
Well, there's no reason for us to ignore the aspect the press chose to pick up on, is there ?
What is your opinion Sherlock ... do you think that by leaving her five year old asleep while she went to the cashpoint, and returing in less than half an hour she was deserving of a charge of negligence ? ( the fact that she was driving over the limit and left the scene of an accident are seperate charges )
Or do you think that by leaving her sleeping child alone and unsupervised for a short period of time ( less than half an hour ) her actions were within the bounds of reasonable parenting ?
I would like to know the opinion of the forum in general on that point, but yours, in particular, since you have been quite active in this thread
-
But is there any legal precedent anywhere for parents leaving their kids alone and one gets stolen and they are charged?
There are plenty precedents surely for children coming to harm alone in the home and the parents being charged. Believe me I am very critical of the McCanns for leaving the children because of what could have happened in the apartment itself, never mind the question of abduction. Just read the NSPCC website and it says that parents can be prosecuted for leaving children at home in circumstances which can cause them unnecessary distress or expose them to danger. Leaving a child to cry for and hour and a quarter is already causing undue distress to a person in my opinion.
-
Well, there's no reason for us to ignore the aspect the press chose to pick up on, is there ?
What is your opinion Sherlock ... do you think that by leaving her five year old asleep while she went to the cashpoint, and returing in less than half an hour she was deserving of a charge of negligence ? ( the fact that she was driving over the limit and left the scene of an accident are seperate charges )
Or do you think that by leaving her sleeping child alone and unsupervised for a short period of time ( less than half an hour ) her actions were within the bounds of reasonable parenting ?
I would like to know the opinion of the forum in general on that point, but yours, in particular, since you have been quite active in this thread
I think her actions were completely wrong. My previous post sums up my attitude to parents who leave their children.
-
I think her actions were completely wrong. My previous post sums up my attitude to parents who leave their children.
Do you think she was properly charged with negligence for leaving her five year old asleep while she went to the cashpoint, returning in less than half an hour ?
-
I think her actions were completely wrong. My previous post sums up my attitude to parents who leave their children.
You can educate and train people to be good teachers and doctors but I'm afraid parenting skills are God-given.
-
Well, there's no reason for us to ignore the aspect the press chose to pick up on, is there ?
No, there's no reason to ignore it, bearing in mind the context in which the comments were made - the poor defense of a rather desperate defense lawyer in quite an unenviable position with regard to the client he was representing.
I don't think there's a concern that the McCanns' neglectful behaviour will result in a spate of cases of parents being let off the hook for dangerous 'parenting' like that of the woman above, because, once again, there is absolutely no legal basis for it.
Were the McCanns ever to be charged with anything - a theoretical possibility for the future - that could change things.
As matters stand, the Madeleine case has given most people a jolt with regard to their childcare arrangements, especially on holiday, and children are probably safer as a result rather than the opposite.
-
In theory, there is no legal base for anything until a precedent is set. At some point an argument has to be accepted to make that precedent.
-
The lawyer involved appears to have gone to ground.
Even if there had been prosecutions for neglect in Portugal that precedent would have no legal status in a British Court. So I am really surprised at this lawyers 'outrageous' suggestion.
-
There are plenty precedents surely for children coming to harm alone in the home and the parents being charged. Believe me I am very critical of the McCanns for leaving the children because of what could have happened in the apartment itself, never mind the question of abduction. Just read the NSPCC website and it says that parents can be prosecuted for leaving children at home in circumstances which can cause them unnecessary distress or expose them to danger. Leaving a child to cry for and hour and a quarter is already causing undue distress to a person in my opinion.
Well this little boy didnt come to harm and the mother was out for less than half an hour and she was charged with child neglect.....bit draconian....and one reason perhaps the lawyer and or his client made the comparison......I was asking about absent parents and subsequent abduction and neglect charges arising from that.....I suppose they are rare or non existent as Ive never heard of a case where a young child was abducted when the parents were out
>@@(*&)
Eta have the authorities/this judge set an extra precedent then on what is neglect?
-
It's also clear that the defense lawyer raised the McCann case because it's a famous one.
There must be plenty of other cases he could have brought to the attention of the court and the judges which were more relevant to his client's situation and would have therefore have been of far greater power in assisting his client.
-
You can educate and train people to be good teachers and doctors but I'm afraid parenting skills are God-given.
Instinctive parenting skills, yes. But you can train inadequate parents to parent better.
When I did my training there used to be homes for inadequate mothers (as, genuinely, they were called!) where mothers and their children were sent for maybe a month, maybe three months, with fathers visiting at weekends. etc. They were used as an alternative to prosecution as it was felt that the mothers' parenting skills could be bettered with supervision and guidance. And I know quite a lot about this, as my dissertation was written on "Care and treatment for the Inadequate mother" - don't ask me more, I've no idea where the dissertation now is! - if, indeed it has not long been chucked away!
-
In theory, there is no legal base for anything until a precedent is set. At some point an argument has to be accepted to make that precedent.
Yes. But the argument itself still has to be based on something in order for it to become a precedent for future cases. The McCanns were never tried and sentenced so there is no judgement to cite as a precedent for how someone else should be sentenced.
If a person robs a bank and gets off scot free, you're not going to argue that the next man should be let off.
-
If a person robs a bank and gets off scot free, you're not going to argue that the next man should be let off.
LOL!
-
Do you think she was properly charged with negligence for leaving her five year old asleep while she went to the cashpoint, returning in less than half an hour ?
Well I'm not a judge but the question of sentencing in this case is more complicated because she committed a number of offences all in one, including injuring someone.
It seems to me that she got off pretty lightly, but that's really from the peanut gallery.
-
If she popped out for and went to the cash machine sober and came back I doubt it would have even made court or she would have been charged of anything
I think she committed three different crimes whilst out might have had something to do with being charged -
drink driving
dangerous driving
leaving the scene
all pretty serious - and must have been contributory to being also charged for neglect. If the McCann's had broken numerous laws whilst dining at the restauitrant such as this then I am sure there would have been charges
at the end of the day we have a legal system we have to put our faith in - there will always be mistakes and you will never satisfy everyone - just look at Duggan case
but this case had very little to do with McCann's
-
If she popped out for and went to the cash machine sober and came back I doubt it would have even made court or she would have been charged of anything
I think she committed three different crimes whilst out might have had something to do with being charged -
drink driving
dangerous driving
leaving the scene
all pretty serious - and must have been contributory to being also charged for neglect. If the McCann's had broken numerous laws whilst dining at the restauitrant such as this then I am sure there would have been charges
at the end of the day we have a legal system we have to put our faith in - there will always be mistakes and you will never satisfy everyone - just look at Duggan case
but this case had very little to do with McCann's
The charges of drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident were entirely seperate from the charge of negligence, which was made on the basis of her having left her five year old alone while he was asleep, to make a less than half hour trip to the cashpoint
Implying that the other charges had an impact on the negligence charge is simply wrong
If this woman had arranged for an adult to watch her son while she went to the cashpoint then the other charges would still have been made ... but no charge of negligence would
-
It would be interesting to see court transcript, so that we could see what the lawyer actually argued and what the magistrate's logic was in sentencing.
Unfortunately the journalists have not provided us with any of this information, and without knowing the specifics we can only speculate as to why the judgement was what it was.
-
.
-
The charges of drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident were entirely seperate from the charge of negligence, which was made on the basis of her having left her five year old alone while he was asleep, to make a less than half hour trip to the cashpoint
Implying that the other charges had an impact on the negligence charge is simply wrong
If this woman had arranged for an adult to watch her son while she went to the cashpoint then the other charges would still have been made ... but no charge of negligence would
Probably just as well she left the child - if she had taken him in the car with her he could have been injured.
-
The charges of drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident were entirely seperate from the charge of negligence, which was made on the basis of her having left her five year old alone while he was asleep, to make a less than half hour trip to the cashpoint
Implying that the other charges had an impact on the negligence charge is simply wrong
If this woman had arranged for an adult to watch her son while she went to the cashpoint then the other charges would still have been made ... but no charge of negligence would
sorry but how do you know there is no link ? If she had left the flat sober - went down to the cash machine and got siome cash out and returned - but was reported for leaving her child then IMO she would have had nothing but maybe a caution at worst
IMO the fact that she was drunk , driving and had an accident had everything to do with looking at the fact she was incapable of looking after the child hence the charge - to say there is no link to the charges doesn't make sense - the judge would take everything into consideration
anyway as SH says we don't have the summing up or transcripts so all surmising
-
I looked at this for a while wondering whether to post because of my prejudice against boozers (the three shifts a day type). But what the hell?
The woman committed the same sin as the McCanns. The law says that parents can be prosecuted if they leave a child unsupervised ‘in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health’. I believe Portuguese law is similar but their “thing” is abandonment which in the McCann case would have been difficult to prove. There is certainly a best practice published by the NSPCC. So the sin was committed when the door closed shutting the kid(s) in. Previous comments about within the bounds of responsible parenting notwithstanding.
https://www.gov.uk/law-on-leaving-your-child-home-alone
In this case the rest occurred because the woman was driving pissed out of her head probably to the hole in the wall for some folding stuff to buy another bottle. I feel sorry for the child; unless his dad takes an interest he will wind up in care.
The lawyer was probably ill advised to make the alleged comment he did on several levels.
-
sorry but how do you know there is no link ? If she had left the flat sober - went down to the cash machine and got siome cash out and returned - but was reported for leaving her child then IMO she would have had nothing but maybe a caution at worst
IMO the fact that she was drunk , driving and had an accident had everything to do with looking at the fact she was incapable of looking after the child hence the charge - to say there is no link to the charges doesn't make sense - the judge would take everything into consideration
anyway as SH says we don't have the summing up or transcripts so all surmising
If the police had been alerted and found that a five year old was home alone they would have charged this woman on her return , whether she had been drinking or not
If you are suggesting that the fact she had been drinking was a contributory factor to the neglect charge, then that is another comparison this lawyer may have drawn ... the McCanns had been drinking too
-
Do you think she was properly charged with negligence for leaving her five year old asleep while she went to the cashpoint, returning in less than half an hour ?
Where does it say that she returned in less than half an hour?
-
The charges of drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident were entirely seperate from the charge of negligence, which was made on the basis of her having left her five year old alone while he was asleep, to make a less than half hour trip to the cashpoint
Implying that the other charges had an impact on the negligence charge is simply wrong
If this woman had arranged for an adult to watch her son while she went to the cashpoint then the other charges would still have been made ... but no charge of negligence would
I'm not sure about that. Would the charge of neglect not be the sum total of her actions, even though she also faced separate charges?
-
No, there's no reason to ignore it, bearing in mind the context in which the comments were made - the poor defense of a rather desperate defense lawyer in quite an unenviable position with regard to the client he was representing.
I don't think there's a concern that the McCanns' neglectful behaviour will result in a spate of cases of parents being let off the hook for dangerous 'parenting' like that of the woman above, because, once again, there is absolutely no legal basis for it.
Were the McCanns ever to be charged with anything - a theoretical possibility for the future - that could change things.
As matters stand, the Madeleine case has given most people a jolt with regard to their childcare arrangements, especially on holiday, and children are probably safer as a result rather than the opposite.
[/b]I
I do agree that many people may have rejected the 'Baby L istening' service offered to holidaymakers as a direct result of what happened to Madeleine. However it seems that Baby Alarms are now a popular substitute - and IMO they could not possibly guarantee that a child is safe from abduciton. The very fact that parents have the baby alarms with them in full public view - is advertising the fact that their child/children is alone. IMO they should by law only be allowed to be used in the home.
-
[/b]I
I do agree that many people may have rejected the 'Baby L istening' service offered to holidaymakers as a direct result of what happened to Madeleine. However it seems that Baby Alarms are now a popular substitute - and IMO they could not possibly guarantee that a child is safe from abduciton. The very fact that parents have the baby alarms with them in full public view - is advertising the fact that their child/children is alone. IMO they should by law only be allowed to be used in the home.
Not by law, imo, but out of common sense.
-
Probably just as well she left the child - if she had taken him in the car with her he could have been injured.
... and what if the child had woken, and gone outside looking for mum, stumbling into the path of a passing car in the process
It would not have been a 'just as well' that she left him vulnerable then , would it ?
-
... and what if the child had woken, and gone outside looking for mum, stumbling into the path of a passing car in the process
It would not have been a 'just as well' that she left him vulnerable then , would it ?
It was a slightly facetious comment --maybe in poor taste. All I meant was that she was not in a position, unfortunately, to 'parent' in or out of the house.
-
Not by law, imo, but out of common sense.
Unfortunately Anne - human beings suffer from a universal misconception. And that is that nasty things only ever happen to other people. They do not realise that to everyone else on the planet they ARE the 'other people.
That is why IMO sometimes the law has to be applied.
-
[/b]I
I do agree that many people may have rejected the 'Baby L istening' service offered to holidaymakers as a direct result of what happened to Madeleine. However it seems that Baby Alarms are now a popular substitute - and IMO they could not possibly guarantee that a child is safe from abduciton. The very fact that parents have the baby alarms with them in full public view - is advertising the fact that their child/children is alone. IMO they should by law only be allowed to be used in the home.
I don't know where you get the idea that parents routinely go out for the night on holiday and place a baby monitor amongst the crockery and wine glasses on a restaurant table
We had a monitor back in the day
It was on the living room carpet, and we had one ear on it constantly, whilst watching TV on a low volume .... waiting for any cough, or muffled cry ... even the sound of a gentle rustle of the sheet would elicit a 'whup' .... and the obligatory trot up the stairs to have a look 'just in case'
It's no good I suppose ... there is just no way I can relate to the cavalier attitude that group displayed toward the care of their children that week
-
I don't know where you get the idea that parents routinely go out for the night on holiday and place a baby monitor amongst the crockery and wine glasses on a restaurant table
We had a monitor back in the day
It was on the living room carpet, and we had one ear on it constantly, whilst watching TV on a low volume .... waiting for any cough, or muffled cry ... even the sound of a gentle rustle of the sheet would elicit a 'whup' .... and the obligatory trot up the stairs to have a look 'just in case'
It's no good I suppose ... there is just no way I can relate to the cavalier attitude that group displayed toward the care of their children that week
I understand there are state of the art Baby Monitors available which have ranges of many hundreds of feet. When my own son was on holiday last year he was surprised by the number of people sitting at the bar/restaurant who had baby monitors with them. I also remember reading an article long ago which mentioned people in a ski resort sitting in bars with their baby alarms on their tables.
No doubt this will not be given any major publicity unless a child is abducted. IMO that possibililty could be prevented by laws confining their use to inside the home.
-
I understand there are state of the art Baby Monitors available which have ranges of many hundreds of feet. When my own son was on holiday last year he was surprised by the number of people sitting at the bar/restaurant who had baby monitors with them. I also remember reading an article long ago which mentioned people in a ski resort sitting in bars with their baby alarms on their tables.
No doubt this will not be given any major publicity unless a child is abducted. IMO that possibililty could be prevented by laws confining their use to inside the home.
Probably does need a law.
What use is hearing something amiss if you're hundreds of feet away?
-
... and what if the child had woken, and gone outside looking for mum, stumbling into the path of a passing car in the process
It would not have been a 'just as well' that she left him vulnerable then , would it ?
What if something unexpected happens ? An earthquake for instance, a fire in your building (this is quick) or an assault that leaves you half dead in the corner ? I kept imagining these things when my kids were young.
-
What use is hearing something amiss if you're hundreds of feet away?
You can sing a lullaby... or actually have it played in mp3 format... Poor kids..
-
... and what if the child had woken, and gone outside looking for mum, stumbling into the path of a passing car in the process
It would not have been a 'just as well' that she left him vulnerable then , would it ?
Do you really think Madeleine would have gone outside in her pajamas and wandered around with no shoes on - in the dark on quite a chilly windy night - AND taken the trouble to close 3 doors behind her? I find that very hard to believe.
-
What if something unexpected happens ? An earthquake for instance, a fire in your building (this is quick) or an assault that leaves you half dead in the corner ? I kept imagining these things when my kids were young.
If people felt like that then why would they ever put their chldren in a car - knowing full well that thousands of children have died in car accidents?
People do not think in those terms - otherwise they would never leave the house.
-
Do you really think Madeleine would have gone outside in her pajamas and wandered around with no shoes on - in the dark on quite a chilly windy night - AND taken the trouble to close 3 doors behind her? I find that very hard to believe.
I wasn't talking about Madeleine Benice, I was talking about the little boy who is the subject of this thread
Like his mother's lawyer, you have made a comparison
-
Unfortunately Anne - human beings suffer from a universal misconception. And that is that nasty things only ever happen to other people. They do not realise that to everyone else on the planet they ARE the 'other people.
That is why IMO sometimes the law has to be applied.
"It" only happens to others, yes, that's universal.
There are many laws already, perhaps too many, the problem is to apply them.
-
I wasn't talking about Madeleine Benice, I was talking about the little boy who is the subject of this thread
Like his mother's lawyer, you have made a comparison
Sorry - my mistake. But my post is still relevant IMO - as Madeleine was brought into that case.
-
If people felt like that then why would they ever put their chldren in a car - knowing full well that thousands of children have died in car accidents?
People do not think in those terms - otherwise they would never leave the house.
No, imagining is one thing, acting another. Never let one overwhelm the other.
-
Do you really think Madeleine would have gone outside in her pajamas and wandered around with no shoes on - in the dark on quite a chilly windy night - AND taken the trouble to close 3 doors behind her? I find that very hard to believe.
That's a good point Benice which I don't recall having seen anyone make previously. A bit like the Joana Cipriano case where the presence of the girls shoes and sandals evidenced her return.
Does anyone know if Madeleine used slippers on holiday?
-
That's a good point Benice which I don't recall having seen anyone make previously. A bit like the Joana Cipriano case where the presence of the girls shoes and sandals evidenced her return.
Does anyone know if Madeleine used slippers on holiday?
Her red shoes were apparently found at home. There is no evidence, aside from an uncorroborated witness statement from someone who didn't even live there, that all her footwear was found at home.