Madeleine case used in Court as reason not to jail absent mother.

[CPN]

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

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

[icabodcrane]

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 ?

[Angelo222]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Angelo222]

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

[icabodcrane]

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