Has there ever been a theory of only one parent involvement?

[JuristiK]

This is my first post after reading extensively and mulling over this case intermittently for the past several years, so please do not savage me. 

I am not advocating such a theory although I can fairly easily posit at least two scenarios which would only involve one parent, not both.  It is extremely curious to me that those who believe the McCanns to be involved always assume both are, rather than conceding the possibility only one parent is culpable and the other parent was, and presumably remains, completely unaware.

A theory of sole parent culpability seems to me to be no more or less plausible than all other theories and has the distinct advantage of explaining why the McCanns have sustained their efforts at publicity and police review over the years.  If only one parent was involved, these efforts can be interpreted quite differently--not evidence of innocence of both parents (as many here argue) but only of one of them.  For the other culpable parent, these efforts are not a counterintuitive charade to convince the public and law enforcement but more fundamentally a necessary façade kept up for their innocent spouse, who genuinely wants the search efforts to continue.

If such a theory of sole parent involvement has been developed or discussed, can someone please refer me to it?  Again, I stress that I don't necessarily believe this but nor do I discount it. I have some interesting thoughts along these lines that would include a woke and wandered scenario and also account for the Smithman sighting.  However, there is simply not enough evidence available to rule anything out, leaving only a range of more or less implausible --but not impossible-- explanations.  All in my opinion, et cetera.

[barrier]

This is my first post after reading extensively and mulling over this case intermittently for the past several years, so please do not savage me. 

I am not advocating such a theory although I can fairly easily posit at least two scenarios which would only involve one parent, not both.  It is extremely curious to me that those who believe the McCanns to be involved always assume both are, rather than conceding the possibility only one parent is culpable and the other parent was, and presumably remains, completely unaware.

A theory of sole parent culpability seems to me to be no more or less plausible than all other theories and has the distinct advantage of explaining why the McCanns have sustained their efforts at publicity and police review over the years.  If only one parent was involved, these efforts can be interpreted quite differently--not evidence of innocence of both parents (as many here argue) but only of one of them.  For the other culpable parent, these efforts are not a counterintuitive charade to convince the public and law enforcement but more fundamentally a necessary façade kept up for their innocent spouse, who genuinely wants the search efforts to continue.

If such a theory of sole parent involvement has been developed or discussed, can someone please refer me to it?  Again, I stress that I don't necessarily believe this but nor do I discount it. I have some interesting thoughts along these lines that would include a woke and wandered scenario and also account for the Smithman sighting.  However, there is simply not enough evidence available to rule anything out, leaving only a range of more or less implausible --but not impossible-- explanations.  All in my opinion, et cetera.

Just remember if anything  is thrown at you it'll be words nothing more nothing less,just words.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't really see how this discussion can progress any further without stepping deeper into libellous territory. 

[G-Unit]

This is my first post after reading extensively and mulling over this case intermittently for the past several years, so please do not savage me. 

I am not advocating such a theory although I can fairly easily posit at least two scenarios which would only involve one parent, not both.  It is extremely curious to me that those who believe the McCanns to be involved always assume both are, rather than conceding the possibility only one parent is culpable and the other parent was, and presumably remains, completely unaware.

A theory of sole parent culpability seems to me to be no more or less plausible than all other theories and has the distinct advantage of explaining why the McCanns have sustained their efforts at publicity and police review over the years.  If only one parent was involved, these efforts can be interpreted quite differently--not evidence of innocence of both parents (as many here argue) but only of one of them.  For the other culpable parent, these efforts are not a counterintuitive charade to convince the public and law enforcement but more fundamentally a necessary façade kept up for their innocent spouse, who genuinely wants the search efforts to continue.

If such a theory of sole parent involvement has been developed or discussed, can someone please refer me to it?  Again, I stress that I don't necessarily believe this but nor do I discount it. I have some interesting thoughts along these lines that would include a woke and wandered scenario and also account for the Smithman sighting.  However, there is simply not enough evidence available to rule anything out, leaving only a range of more or less implausible --but not impossible-- explanations.  All in my opinion, et cetera.

It's possible for people to convince themselves that they are telling the truth when they're not.

[slartibartfast]

I don't really see how this discussion can progress any further without stepping deeper into libellous territory.

You don’t want it discussed?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You don’t want it discussed?

I'm happy to discuss it but please advise on how we may do so without libelling anyone. 

[slartibartfast]

I'm happy to discuss it but please advise on how we may do so without libelling anyone.

Make sure it is backed up with evidence, is clearly marked as opinion and makes no claim as to knowledge of other’s thoughts and motivations.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Make sure it is backed up with evidence, is clearly marked as opinion and makes no claim as to knowledge of other’s thoughts and motivations.

OK - let's start with evidence.  What evidence is there that one parent is involved and one parent isn't? 

[John]

This is my first post after reading extensively and mulling over this case intermittently for the past several years, so please do not savage me. 

I am not advocating such a theory although I can fairly easily posit at least two scenarios which would only involve one parent, not both.  It is extremely curious to me that those who believe the McCanns to be involved always assume both are, rather than conceding the possibility only one parent is culpable and the other parent was, and presumably remains, completely unaware.

A theory of sole parent culpability seems to me to be no more or less plausible than all other theories and has the distinct advantage of explaining why the McCanns have sustained their efforts at publicity and police review over the years.  If only one parent was involved, these efforts can be interpreted quite differently--not evidence of innocence of both parents (as many here argue) but only of one of them.  For the other culpable parent, these efforts are not a counterintuitive charade to convince the public and law enforcement but more fundamentally a necessary façade kept up for their innocent spouse, who genuinely wants the search efforts to continue.

If such a theory of sole parent involvement has been developed or discussed, can someone please refer me to it?  Again, I stress that I don't necessarily believe this but nor do I discount it. I have some interesting thoughts along these lines that would include a woke and wandered scenario and also account for the Smithman sighting.  However, there is simply not enough evidence available to rule anything out, leaving only a range of more or less implausible --but not impossible-- explanations.  All in my opinion, et cetera.

Welcome to the forum JuristiK, its always good to read some fresh thoughts on the mystery.  Our rules prohibit any savaging.

I think I'm right in saying that even Amaral's theory ultimately involved both parents.

[Miss Taken Identity]

This is my first post after reading extensively and mulling over this case intermittently for the past several years, so please do not savage me. 

I am not advocating such a theory although I can fairly easily posit at least two scenarios which would only involve one parent, not both.  It is extremely curious to me that those who believe the McCanns to be involved always assume both are, rather than conceding the possibility only one parent is culpable and the other parent was, and presumably remains, completely unaware.

A theory of sole parent culpability seems to me to be no more or less plausible than all other theories and has the distinct advantage of explaining why the McCanns have sustained their efforts at publicity and police review over the years.  If only one parent was involved, these efforts can be interpreted quite differently--not evidence of innocence of both parents (as many here argue) but only of one of them.  For the other culpable parent, these efforts are not a counterintuitive charade to convince the public and law enforcement but more fundamentally a necessary façade kept up for their innocent spouse, who genuinely wants the search efforts to continue.

If such a theory of sole parent involvement has been developed or discussed, can someone please refer me to it?  Again, I stress that I don't necessarily believe this but nor do I discount it. I have some interesting thoughts along these lines that would include a woke and wandered scenario and also account for the Smithman sighting.  However, there is simply not enough evidence available to rule anything out, leaving only a range of more or less implausible --but not impossible-- explanations.  All in my opinion, et cetera.

Welcome to the forum Justicik.  This is an interesting theory and I am glad you mentioned theory some get upset at moving away from the 'abduction' story. And be prepared to be called nasty troll, and try not to mention parent involvement-even as a theory too much- posts will get swiped, AND NEVER EVER  EVER mention abuse of any kind in ANY theory..

With regards to your theory, I agree this is quite probable. This theory along with another similar one; where one parent was involved then confessed to the other and they both made a pact. All probable.

 It was discussed with a friend, who is a senior police officer ,who works closely with child protection. It is not rare for children to be abused/murdered by a husband /partner and for the  wife /partner to cover for them. We see this is the news all the time.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Welcome to the forum Justicik.  This is an interesting theory and I am glad you mentioned theory some get upset at moving away from the 'abduction' story. And be prepared to be called nasty troll, and try not to mention parent involvement-even as a theory too much- posts will get swiped, AND NEVER EVER  EVER mention abuse of any kind in ANY theory..

With regards to your theory, I agree this is quite probable. This theory along with another similar one; where one parent was involved then confessed to the other and they both made a pact. All probable.

 It was discussed with a friend, who is a senior police officer ,who works closely with child protection. It is not rare for children to be abused/murdered by a husband /partner and for the  wife /partner to cover for them. We see this is the news all the time.

This is not the theory JuristiK wishes to discuss though - he or she wishes to discuss one parent involvement only.

[Miss Taken Identity]

This is not the theory JuristiK wishes to discuss though - he or she wishes to discuss one parent involvement only.

I am thinking he/she just won't mind me mentioning it on his/her thread. The fact it doesn't meet with your approval is of no consequence.

This is another thread you do not approve of so  maybe you should ask yourself why bother reading and engaging with it? after all we don't want you getting stressed about what people say which you disagree with.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I am thinking he/she just won't mind me mentioning it on his/her thread. The fact it doesn't meet with your approval is of no consequence.

This is another thread you do not approve of so  maybe you should ask yourself why bother reading and engaging with it? after all we don't want you getting stressed about what people say which you disagree with.

I neither disapprove of this thread, nor am I stressed about it.  Believe it or not, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to directly challenge every theory of parental involvement you want to throw up, I simply know that the rules of this forum will prevent an open and frank discussion about it because of the no libel rule, which IMO is a shame.

[jassi]

I neither disapprove of this thread, nor am I stressed about it. Believe it or not, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to directly challenge every theory of parental involvement you want to throw up, I simply know that the rules of this forum will prevent an open and frank discussion about it because of the no libel rule, which IMO is a shame.

Why would you get pleasure from such a thankless chore ? Are you just argumentative by nature?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why would you get pleasure from such a thankless chore ? Are you just argumentative by nature?

Yes I am quite.  I enjoy the cut and thrust of intelligent debate, particularly on this issue as it has interested me for a number of years.  I don't see it as a thankless chore, just something that exercises the mind, and it also provides something to do in my downtime.  But enough about me, what about you?