do you think maddie is alive or dead

[Donjeta]

The facts being (check all that you agree about):
The parents were in charge of the children's safety.
The children were too young to take care of themselves.
The children were left alone by the parents.
The apartment was left unlocked by the parents.
One of the children is now missing.
It is alleged that someone entered the unlocked apartment and kidnapped the missing child.

I would like to understand what you think the difference between stupid child endangerment and criminal child endangerment is. Whichever this is, the children were left alone in a dangerous situation.

But Gerry and Kate think it was within the standards of reasonable parenting. Blech.

 

[Jmoose]

I don't know really what the Pope has to do with it. He just prayed for Maddie, I don't think I would take that any thing.. But that is just me I guess.. And that was THAT pope.. We have a new one now...

Maybe. It just seems a long time to wait to file mere neglect charges. and their could be a statute of limitation on that.. I don't know.
I don't know that MANY people that commit crimes are never charged but there certainly are those cases..
Again, Their parenting choices that night don't seem criminal to me. IT seems stupid.I just don't know if it rises to criminal.

I think the Pope reference was that Mrs. McCann sought a visit with the Pope, and some think that's sort of questionable. Maybe not a curious thing to do for a Carholic, but looks self serving.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think the Pope reference was that Mrs. McCann sought a visit with the Pope, and some think that's sort of questionable. Maybe not a curious thing to do for a Carholic, but looks self serving.

I don't know why. She wanted him to pray for her DD. I find that normal actually. If I was Catholic I am sure it would give me comfort.

I don't see how that can look self serving. But I don't analyze things like that and try and make it something else. It is just what it is. A woman going to her spiritual leader for prayer.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The facts being (check all that you agree about):
The parents were in charge of the children's safety.
The children were too young to take care of themselves.
The children were left alone by the parents.
The apartment was left unlocked by the parents.
One of the children is now missing.
It is alleged that someone entered the unlocked apartment and kidnapped the missing child.

I would like to understand what you think the difference between stupid child endangerment and criminal child endangerment is. Whichever this is, the children were left alone in a dangerous situation.

But Gerry and Kate think it was within the standards of reasonable parenting. Blech.

They were going in and checking on them at intervals. They were not the only parents doing this. There was not a mass charge on all the parents using the same practice.

The child is missing. That is the crime. To me the parents choices in child care are secondary to the case.
I am curious about why they were not charged. And the only reason I can come up with is there is no basis in law for it.

 

[Donjeta]

I mentioned the pope just as a part of a brainstorming minute for possible reasons that people might not be charged for crimes and what I had in mind was that if you're of the religious affiliation that sees the pope as an authority figure to be reckoned with and you perceive (rightly or wrongly) that he has a certain opinion about the case it might influence your decisions consciously or subconsciously.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I mentioned the pope just as a part of a brainstorming minute for possible reasons that people might not be charged for crimes and what I had in mind was that if you're of the religious affiliation that sees the pope as an authority figure to be reckoned with and you perceive (rightly or wrongly) that he has a certain opinion about the case it might influence your decisions consciously or subconsciously.

I don't know how or why her going to the Pope would have any bearing whatsoever on this case or any other for that matter.
JMO.

 

[Donjeta]

They were going in and checking on them at intervals. They were not the only parents doing this. There was not a mass charge on all the parents using the same practice.

The child is missing. That is the crime. To me the parents choices in child care are secondary to the case.
I am curious about why they were not charged. And the only reason I can come up with is there is no basis in law for it.

Really? The only reason you can come up with? When there has just been a long discussion about lots of possible reasons that people may not get charged...?

BBM. That's why I said it could be a can of worms.
Theoretically you could charge and fill your jails with all the tourists who would rather drink wine and make merry than babysit their precious treasures but it would be bad for business and cost a fortune and I think many touristy places would rather just turn a blind eye and hope that the children come to no harm until the families are back home again.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

My thought process is this, People seem to find it abhorrent that they worked this method of keeping track of their kids. In my research I find that as a rule we are the hovering parents of the world and that there are a lot of cultures where this kind of practice is not out of the norm.
I would never do it, You would never do it, But that they were not charged at all, Kind of makes me think that according to police this was not criminal.
JMO.

 

[RANCH]

I don't know how or why her going to the Pope would have any bearing whatsoever on this case or any other for that matter.
JMO.

I agree. I don't see the Pope trying to influence whether someone is arrested for murder or not in this case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6701819.stm

here is a report of that meeting.. IT seems that he prayed over Maddies Picture. Sounds completely innocuous to me.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't know how or why her going to the Pope would have any bearing whatsoever on this case or any other for that matter.
JMO.

You know, the discussion would be more fruitful and more interesting if, whenever people summarily dismiss all other people's ideas, they would also take the trouble of formulating some thoughts on why.

I just posted about why I think it could have a bearing and Jmoose posted another take on why it could have a bearing. I freely admit that I could be wrong and I don't know if it was meant too seriously to begin with but it does not really enlighten me why I'm wrong if you just say, nope, I will not even bother considering what you just said.

 

[Donjeta]

I agree. I don't see the Pope trying to influence whether someone is arrested for murder or not in this case.

The point was not that the Pope was trying to do anything.

 

[Jmoose]

I don't know how or why her going to the Pope would have any bearing whatsoever on this case or any other for that matter.
JMO.

Because most people don't make a public spectacle of an audience with the Pope. I am a Catholic, and to me, it seems self serving-that's all. Most people wouldn't think that they had that option, or that they'd need to do that.

 

[Donjeta]

My thought process is this, People seem to find it abhorrent that they worked this method of keeping track of their kids. In my research I find that as a rule we are the hovering parents of the world and that there are a lot of cultures where this kind of practice is not out of the norm.
I would never do it, You would never do it, But that they were not charged at all, Kind of makes me think that according to police this was not criminal.
JMO.

Then why did they write court records saying that child neglect charges were being considered? Why would they even consider charges for something that isn't thought to be criminal?

 

[RANCH]

The point was not that the Pope was trying to do anything.

That's the way I took it to mean.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The point was not that the Pope was trying to do anything.

I understand that but I don't see that it means anything other than them going to the pope for prayer for their dd. Something most people would do in that situation.

It just adds up to nothing IMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Then why did they write court records saying that child neglect charges were being considered? Why would they even consider charges for something that isn't thought to be criminal?

They can consider anything but there were no charges brought. That could mean there was no basis for them upon further reflection.

 

[Jmoose]

They were going in and checking on them at intervals. They were not the only parents doing this. There was not a mass charge on all the parents using the same practice.

The child is missing. That is the crime. To me the parents choices in child care are secondary to the case.
I am curious about why they were not charged. And the only reason I can come up with is there is no basis in law for it.

There may actually be two crimes here-one that enabled the second, if she was, in fact, abducted. I realize that you think Maddie was abducted, but you don't know for sure. Or it may well be that, in fact, there is but one crime-committed and hidden by the parents. I actually lean towards abduction myself, but don't know for sure-and none of us do.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Because most people don't make a public spectacle of an audience with the Pope. I am a Catholic, and to me, it seems self serving-that's all. Most people wouldn't think that they had that option, or that they'd need to do that.

I don't think they made a public spectacle and have you ever seen the people weeping over meeting the Pope? People indeed make spectacles of themselves.
Maybe most people would not think they had that option But millions of people go to see the Pope.

It just seems to me it is just nothing people want to make to be something.
The Pope prays over and blesses people. That is just what he does.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There may actually be two crimes here-one that enabled the second, if she was, in fact, abducted. I realize that you think Maddie was abducted, but you don't know for sure. Or it may well be that, in fact, there is but one crime-committed and hidden by the parents. I actually lean towards abduction myself, but don't know for sure-and none of us do.

Maybe.. But then why no charges if they are sure the McCanns are so guilty?? That is what I am getting at. I do know that Madeleine was abducted. She is gone. No where to be found. That is abducted.

If there was a body I would be saying killed. But at this point I know she was abducted.

I don't believe that parents had anything to do with Maddie going missing. Nothing I have looked at points there for me. So yes I believe this was a stranger who abducted them.

I just can't for the life of me see why if you have the parents that could leave the country, And you can charge them to keep them and investigate them further why you would not do that. JMO