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

[Carana]

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?

[Redblossom]

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

[jassi]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

 

[icabodcrane]

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

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Redblossom]

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...

[jassi]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Redblossom]

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

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Redblossom]

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?

[icabodcrane]

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 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.