The Neglect question

[debunker]

n Portugal- no intent, no neglect.

In UK, open question but no-one has ever been so charged.

[stephen25000]

n Portugal- no intent, no neglect.

In UK, open question but no-one has ever been so charged.

Now cite the evidence for 'the fit up'.

[debunker]

Neglect is criminal.
The McCanns remain uncharged and unconvicted.
You remain terminally stupid.

You said the PJ  tried to fit up the Mccanns.
Now cite the evidence.
Secondly, stop the rubbish that you are neutral
That's blatant rubbish.

I am neutral- I do not assume any outcome.

The police ethic everywhere is to pin it on a likely perpertrator. The Prosecutor ethic is to test the evidence.

In this case the police case was found to be thin and hence an attempt to fit up the McCanns who remain innocent of any charges.

[debunker]

n Portugal- no intent, no neglect.

In UK, open question but no-one has ever been so charged.

Now cite the evidence for 'the fit up'.

The PJ wanted them charged.

The Prosecutor found no evidence against the Mccanns.

Sounds like a fit up to me.

[stephen25000]

n Portugal- no intent, no neglect.

In UK, open question but no-one has ever been so charged.

Now cite the evidence for 'the fit up'.

The PJ wanted them charged.

The Prosecutor found no evidence against the Mccanns.

Sounds like a fit up to me.

'Sounds like a fit up to me.'

[debunker]

PJ try to get the McCanns charged.

The Prosecutor finds they have no evidence to convict.

Sounds like a fit up to me.

What is a fit up except an attempt to get a conviction with insufficient evidence?

[stephen25000]

Stephen in answer to your simple question "Where's Madeleine?", the simple answer iis one that only her abductor can give.

Now prove there was an abductor.

I can't do that, however abduction remains the only viable explanation.  Now, getting back to this pathological need to criticise the McCanns for their supposed neglect - how many more years do you plan to keep going?

Utter cobblers, there is not one iota of proof of abduction.

The pathological obsession is in your continued support of the Mccanns.

[icabodcrane]

Ichabod, you're assuming that the McCanns would know that they would certainly face prosecution for neglect in such an event.  You think they would risk committing a worse crime with more severe consequences should they be found out?  What would be the motive of their friends in agreeing to cover up an accident?

Bump.

I was asking whether  members here think,  in such circumstances,  the McCanns would likely have faced negligence charges

I think almost certainly yes  .... and there would have been very  little public sympathy in that event 

In that scenario, I think the McCanns  would feel a negligence charge was almost inevitable   

[Redblossom]

No response to my post? That its very probably the mccanns didnt check on their kids for over three hours physically

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

@ the start Kate Mccann says it was all quiet and she'd be tempted just to turn back were it not for the door being more open than they had left it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
@
13.20 Gerry Mccann says after Matt Oldfield saying it was dead quiet, yes, as he was saying before, that Thursday was the only night he had stuck his head in the room as the door hadn't been just as it he had left it

Is it safe to assume that before that night no physical checks were ever made? And if you take into account some of the waiter and barmen's statements telling how the party would leave around midnight, that's a long time to leave three toddlers unchecked physically in an insecure apartment.

And all this under the banner of responsible parenting.

[Redblossom]

There are curious anomalies about the statement of Mrs Fenn.

Stretched as the PJ were, it remains an odd and surely askance priority that all employees of the tapas restaurant (including many off-duty the night Madeleine vanished) were interviewed weeks or months before Mrs Fenn.

The other oddity is that the ostensible reason for Mrs Fenn's interview was given in the press before she was interviewed, nothing to do with Madeleine, rather a crime of which Mrs Fenn herself was a victim --  a break-in and attempted burglary of her own flat:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560785/New-suspect-in-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

That crime gets a mention in Mrs Fenn's statement to police about Madeleine -- just -- right at the end.

I will add in an edit

When questioned she [Mrs Fenn] said that she never saw any strange person or action before or after the event. She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted robbery, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted robbery in the residence.

Pamela Fenn

From the article:

Pamela Fenn, 70, who lives in the apartment above where the McCanns were staying, and her niece, who is flying to Portugal from the UK, will be among those spoken to.
Mrs Fenn has said that in the weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance she scared off an intruder in her apartment.
There was no apparent sign of a break-in and it is thought the man may have had a key to let himself into the flat. She will be making a formal statement today at police headquarters in the city of Portimao. There was also another burglary in the complex a few weeks before in which police also suspected the intruder had a key.
Mrs Fenn's niece was staying with her aunt in the week that the McCanns were on holiday. She saw a suspicious-looking man hanging around the McCanns' apartment about the time Madeleine vanished.
She has spoken to British police and told them that he matched the description of a suspect seen leaving the scene with a child wrapped up in a blanket on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.
The police are working on the assumption that the four-year-old is dead, but that "strong theory" is not believed to be related to the new lead.
Unconfirmed reports in a Portuguese tabloid claimed that British police are also awaiting instructions from the Policia Judiciaria relating to an English resident.
Kate and Gerry McCann have still not been briefed on any developments but hope to meet detectives this week.

Unquote

Just goes to show what cobblers the papers write doesnt it? Even broadsheets. the man that Mrs Fenn's niece saw bore a resemblance to the man who was seen by Jane Tanner.? Oh for sure. Only problem is Mrs Fenn's nice said he was blonde with a number one haircut, shaved etc, whereas Jane Tanner said he had a lot of thick black long glossy hair LOL... i would call THAT a journalistic anomaly 

[Eleanor]

Stephen in answer to your simple question "Where's Madeleine?", the simple answer iis one that only her abductor can give.

Now prove there was an abductor.

I can't do that, however abduction remains the only viable explanation.  Now, getting back to this pathological need to criticise the McCanns for their supposed neglect - how many more years do you plan to keep going?

Utter cobblers, there is not one iota of proof of abduction.

The pathological obsession is in your continued support of the Mccanns.

So everyone who believes in the Rule of Law and Innocent until Proven Guilty is pathological?

[stephen25000]

Stephen in answer to your simple question "Where's Madeleine?", the simple answer iis one that only her abductor can give.

Now prove there was an abductor.

I can't do that, however abduction remains the only viable explanation.  Now, getting back to this pathological need to criticise the McCanns for their supposed neglect - how many more years do you plan to keep going?

Utter cobblers, there is not one iota of proof of abduction.

The pathological obsession is in your continued support of the Mccanns.

So everyone who believes in the Rule of Law and Innocent until Proven Guilty is pathological?

Oh dear, ruffled a few feathers have I.

So it's OK for me to be called pathological, but if I turn it on the head, not so OK ?

Is that it ?

By the way, as a brief reminder, if needed, the case in Portugal was shelved, not closed.

Now do you really believe in the 'rule of law' or are you defending the Mccanns from they so blatantly failed to do ?

[stephen25000]

Stephen, you still haven't revealed how many more years you feel it will be necessary to castigate the McCanns for their alleged neglect or why you feel compelled to do this.  What do you think it will achieve (other than to make you feel superior and righteous)?

Tell you what.

When I see people on the other side of the fence not castigate or attack those who don't believe the Mccanns version of events.

I have seen abuse from both sides of the fence and I have heard that threats have been made to people on both sides of the debate, including providing addresses, phone numbers,threatening family members, other personal details, etc.

Those are the ones you should be criticizing.

You may not like my views, but I have not believed the Mccanns accounts from fairly early on. So here's a challenge for you.

Show me why I'm wrong.

[Eleanor]

I do most definitely believe in the rule of law.  It's been around for a long time. 
I also believe that The McCanns are innocent, primarily due to logistics and the nigh on impossibility of them having hidden a body successfully in two different places in an area that they didn't know.
But even if I had any serious suspicion, the rule of law still applies.  Even in Portugal, strange though that might seem.

[Eleanor]

The Case was Shelved because Madeleine hasn't been found.  They were hardly likely to close the case under those circumstances.