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

[jassi]

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?

I tend to ask questions and make observations rather than engage in bouts of fisticuffs.

[Brietta]

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.

Delighted you've checked us out and decided to start posting with us.

You at least have chosen a topic which we haven't already discussed ad nauseam; but taking on board what Vertigo Swirl has said regarding libel is pertinent ... however if members take care to follow forum protocols throughout libel can be avoided as indeed it must.

Fresh ideas are always welcome and you seem to have a few.  Happy posting.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I tend to ask questions and make observations rather than engage in bouts of fisticuffs.

I ask questions too and get ridiculed for it.  I have no wish to fight, merely to  discuss calmly and rationally.

[barrier]

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.

I think ultimately if that theory is right then its highly likely both would know.

[JuristiK]

Thank you for the replies and welcome.  It seems there has been little consideration of this perspective, which I offer here solely as an alternative way to weigh and analyze the available information about the case.  There has seemingly been an automatic assumption that either both parents are culpable and aware (yes John, including in Amaral's theory) whether actively or by way of a "pact", or both are innocent.  I personally see nothing in the available evidence that compels either conclusion, or excludes the possibility one is innocent and one is not.

What interests me is to go back through the case and ask if removing this assumption of "both in or both out" alters how we might weigh and analyze the available evidence, such as it is.   I have already cited the example of how some view the McCanns sustained efforts over the years to keep the case active as supportive of their innocence.  Others often refer to how implausible it would be for both to go out for dinner with friends and behave seemingly normally.  Do those conclusions change if we consider a scenario in which only one was hiding something and the other was perfectly innocent?

What about if we read one parent's witness statement as factual and the other as not?  Does this advance our understanding of what may have happened?  Does it open up new possibilities?

Perhaps, perhaps not.  I can say I have had cases in which the mystery which evolved was caused by a primary motivation to conceal something from family members, not from law enforcement.  Sometimes the deception is not about something criminal,but other types of problems or personal issues. 

I am not concerned that advancing a different perspective from which to view various theoretical explanations for the available evidence is libellous.  Everything I say is premised on my belief there is presently insufficient evidence (at least in the public domain) to make any definitive conclusion on this terribly sad case. 

I live in a jurisdiction in which fair comment is a fairly broad defense to libel but studied in the UK and believe such discussion is well within the ambit of your law.   I think it is a shame this would inhibit full discussion of possible ways to analyze the official information available from the various police inquiries, provided of course those doing so have no malicious intent (and I do not see that on this forum).  I do not advance the above as a truthful or even terribly likely explanation for what happened to Madeleine--or at least, no more likely than abduction or accident in which neither parent played any role whatsoever. 

[Robittybob1]

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

And words can hurt!

[Robittybob1]

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.

Yet if Kate's recollection of the plea bargain was anything near correct they were willing to send Kate to prison and let Gerry keep on working.  So I tend to think GA assumed Kate was more involved than Gerry was.  I could be wrong of course.

I still think differently to GA in that  I tended to think Gerry kept secrets from Kate.  Gerry is not involved IMO but knows something about the circumstances leading up to MM's disappearance.  Is knowledge a crime?

[Robittybob1]

I think ultimately if that theory is right then its highly likely both would know.

But when would the other find out?  I'm sure plenty of married couples have secrets they keep from each other IMO. 

[misty]

Thank you for the replies and welcome.  It seems there has been little consideration of this perspective, which I offer here solely as an alternative way to weigh and analyze the available information about the case.  There has seemingly been an automatic assumption that either both parents are culpable and aware (yes John, including in Amaral's theory) whether actively or by way of a "pact", or both are innocent.  I personally see nothing in the available evidence that compels either conclusion, or excludes the possibility one is innocent and one is not.

What interests me is to go back through the case and ask if removing this assumption of "both in or both out" alters how we might weigh and analyze the available evidence, such as it is.   I have already cited the example of how some view the McCanns sustained efforts over the years to keep the case active as supportive of their innocence.  Others often refer to how implausible it would be for both to go out for dinner with friends and behave seemingly normally.  Do those conclusions change if we consider a scenario in which only one was hiding something and the other was perfectly innocent?

What about if we read one parent's witness statement as factual and the other as not?  Does this advance our understanding of what may have happened?  Does it open up new possibilities?

Perhaps, perhaps not.  I can say I have had cases in which the mystery which evolved was caused by a primary motivation to conceal something from family members, not from law enforcement.  Sometimes the deception is not about something criminal,but other types of problems or personal issues. 

I am not concerned that advancing a different perspective from which to view various theoretical explanations for the available evidence is libellous.  Everything I say is premised on my belief there is presently insufficient evidence (at least in the public domain) to make any definitive conclusion on this terribly sad case. 

I live in a jurisdiction in which fair comment is a fairly broad defense to libel but studied in the UK and believe such discussion is well within the ambit of your law.   I think it is a shame this would inhibit full discussion of possible ways to analyze the official information available from the various police inquiries, provided of course those doing so have no malicious intent (and I do not see that on this forum).  I do not advance the above as a truthful or even terribly likely explanation for what happened to Madeleine--or at least, no more likely than abduction or accident in which neither parent played any role whatsoever.

Welcome, JuristiK.

Are your theories of singular parental culpability based on the premise that Madeleine was still alive when the McCanns left for the Tapas Bar at 8.30pm?

[Robittybob1]

Welcome, JuristiK.

Are your theories of singular parental culpability based on the premise that Madeleine was still alive when the McCanns left for the Tapas Bar at 8.30pm?

If they were lying about that I would say they are both involved.

[misty]

If they were lying about that I would say they are both involved.

I totally agree, Rob, which is why I await confirmation of the starting point of the "one parent only involved" theories.

[Robittybob1]

I totally agree, Rob, which is why I await confirmation of the starting point of the "one parent only involved" theories.

My theory has a one parent involved component.  But the parent involved only knows about what was likely to happen (knowledge only.  Like a weather forecast - it could be right or could be nearly right).  So at some stage one parent knows. So for a definite time - it could be all day but it intensifies as the night wears on.

[misty]

My theory has a one parent involved component.  But the parent involved only knows about what was likely to happen (knowledge only.  Like a weather forecast - it could be right or could be nearly right).  So at some stage one parent knows. So for a definite time - it could be all day but it intensifies as the night wears on.

Has your theory changed again? I can't keep up!

[Robittybob1]

Has your theory changed again? I can't keep up!

I think theories have to change as more information comes to hand, but basically my theory has not changed much.  The prank theory - so you have those that know there was a prank being played on Kate, and whether Kate knew she was being pranked, and how much Gerry was involved, and whether the prank was ever completed. 

It is complicated but put it this way the prank theory hasn't been ruled out as yet.  Well not IMO at least, even though no one has agreed with it fully.

[jassi]

In my opinion any 'prank' being played is on the general public