do you think maddie is alive or dead

[Jmoose]

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.

The entire world rarely is privy to the fact that someone sought an audience with the Pope as with the McCanns. The Pope is not a tool or device to be used to show the world "see-I love and miss my daughter so much that I went to the trouble and expense to have the Holy Father pray over my daughter's picture-this proves that I did not hurt or neglect her!"

 

[Donjeta]

That's the way I took it to mean.

Well, it kind of illustrates the point I was trying to make about the pope. People's decisions are influenced by perceptions. We may have a not a very accurate idea what the pope or another authority figure or a role model really thinks about something but if we think he thinks something it might influence our decisions if his opinions are important to us. There is quite a bit of research about the ways people are influenced by subtle cues that they don't always even realize.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The entire world rarely is privy to the fact that someone sought an audience with the Pope as with the McCanns. The Pope is not a tool or device to be used to show the world "see-I love and miss my daughter so much that I went to the trouble and expense to have the Holy Father pray over my daughter's picture-this proves that I did not hurt or neglect her!"

Do you think the Mccanns could have done it in private? It looks like all they did is arrange to be there when they could run into the pope. Not any special meeting or anything. Just I want to see the pope. He was their spiritual leader and they went to him for a blessing and prayer. I just don't see the big deal in that.

If they hadn't people would have said.. " they are guilty.. that is why they did not go to the pope.. "

It just does not mean anything to me.

 

[Donjeta]

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

JMO but I think thirteen months would probably have been enough time to reflect and find out that leaving toddlers alone is culturally normal and totally legal and non-criminal in Portugal.

 

[Donjeta]

Do you think the Mccanns could have done it in private? It looks like all they did is arrange to be there when they could run into the pope. Not any special meeting or anything. Just I want to see the pope. He was their spiritual leader and they went to him for a blessing and prayer. I just don't see the big deal in that.

If they hadn't people would have said.. " they are guilty.. that is why they did not go to the pope.. "

It just does not mean anything to me.

BBM. I've followed many criminal cases here on WS and elsewhere that had Catholic people involved and I don't think I've ever seen this argument used. Can't remember a single instant of people saying that someone is guilty because they didn't meet the pope.

 

[RANCH]

Well, it kind of illustrates the point I was trying to make about the pope. People's decisions are influenced by perceptions. We may have a not a very accurate idea what the pope or another authority figure or a role model really thinks about something but if we think he thinks something it might influence our decisions if his opinions are important to us. There is quite a bit of research about the ways people are influenced by subtle cues that they don't always even realize.

I'm not following you. I don't see the Pope doing anything that would influence peoples feelings about this case. MOO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM. I've followed many criminal cases here on WS and elsewhere that had Catholic people involved and I don't think I've ever seen this argument used. Can't remember a single instant of people saying that someone is guilty because they didn't meet the pope.

Im just saying it means nothing.. Whether they went or didn't does not mean anything.. Just that they wanted a blessing for Maddie. A prayer. I just don't see how this fits into the case at all.

It is just is a non issue for me.

 

[Donjeta]

I'm not following you. I don't see the Pope doing anything that would influence peoples feelings about this case. MOO.

He's perhaps not been doing much but people's feelings are influenced by any number of things, sometimes irrational. Such as the perception of which groups people are affiliated with.

Say, if you're a devout [insert religion here] and tend to think that devout [insert devotees of that religion] as a group are The Good Guys then you are more likely to think that someone is a good guy if he or she is perceived as [devotee of that religion] and gets good press as the head honcho of [insert religion] looks upon them with a kindly eye.

Some people may be able to just consider the bare facts but it's a pretty well documented phenomenon in social psychology that if someone is seen as part of your own in-group they tend to be evaluated more positively.

 

[Donjeta]

Im just saying it means nothing.. Whether they went or didn't does not mean anything.. Just that they wanted a blessing for Maddie. A prayer. I just don't see how this fits into the case at all.

It is just is a non issue for me.

We are arguing two different debates I think.
I have never said that it was wrong of them to go or that it says anything about whether they're guilty of anything or not.

Just saying that people are influenced by perceptions, that's all. That's why PR and advertizing is such a huge industry.

 

[RANCH]

He's perhaps not been doing much but people's feelings are influenced by any number of things, sometimes irrational. Such as the perception of which groups people are affiliated with.

Say, if you're a devout [insert religion here] and tend to think that devout [insert devotees of that religion] as a group are The Good Guys then you are more likely to think that someone is a good guy if he or she is perceived as [devotee of that religion] and gets good press as the head honcho of [insert religion] looks upon them with a kindly eye.

Some people may be able to just consider the bare facts but it's a pretty well documented phenomenon in social psychology that if someone is seen as part of your own in-group they tend to be evaluated more positively.

I still don't see what that has to do with the Pope. I'm with Scarlett in that it's a non issue. I think that the Pope will meet up and pray with sinners and non sinners so what he does is meaningless in affecting peoples feelings about a case. MOO.

 

[Jmoose]

Do you think the Mccanns could have done it in private? It looks like all they did is arrange to be there when they could run into the pope. Not any special meeting or anything. Just I want to see the pope. He was their spiritual leader and they went to him for a blessing and prayer. I just don't see the big deal in that.

If they hadn't people would have said.. " they are guilty.. that is why they did not go to the pope.. "

It just does not mean anything to me.

Yes I do think they could have and should have, and additionally shouldn't have discussed it publically-isn't it their private grief, after all?

You and I have had discussions before about facts vs. beliefs as far as some of these cases go-In Sarah Majoras' case, you were sure that her boyfriend had something to do with it, and he was way out of town! The McCanns were well within the range to harm their daughter, and yet you see nothing that leads you there. With their "close" proximity and access to their children, it is possible, but not for you, and yet in a case where your suspect had no access to his girlfriend, there is a distinct possibilty.

Nobody would have said "those Catholics would have gone to the Pope if they were innocent-so that makes them guilty!". Sometimes it isn't what you do that matters, but how you do it, that does, ScarlettScarpetta. The McCanns have rejected the notion that they have any blame in losing their daughter. I actually think that some, if not many, people would feel differently if they expressed the thought that they should never have left those children alone.

As Donjeta said, it's unlikely that the police would have charged anyone in such a case of neglect, if it meant that Portugal's only attraction (resorts) became a place where people couldn't leave their kids alone while they ate and drank-tourists would just go elsewhere with their money.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

He's perhaps not been doing much but people's feelings are influenced by any number of things, sometimes irrational. Such as the perception of which groups people are affiliated with.

Say, if you're a devout [insert religion here] and tend to think that devout [insert devotees of that religion] as a group are The Good Guys then you are more likely to think that someone is a good guy if he or she is perceived as [devotee of that religion] and gets good press as the head honcho of [insert religion] looks upon them with a kindly eye.

Some people may be able to just consider the bare facts but it's a pretty well documented phenomenon in social psychology that if someone is seen as part of your own in-group they tend to be evaluated more positively.

The thing is that peoples feelings have nothing to do with the case though.
It just means nothing. People feel things based on the sum of their own experiences and whether or not they went to the pope has nothing to do with Why Maddie is missing. JMO

 

[Jmoose]

The thing is that peoples feelings have nothing to do with the case though.
It just means nothing. People feel things based on the sum of their own experiences and whether or not they went to the pope has nothing to do with Why Maddie is missing. JMO

Right-she's missing because the parents were negligent.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes I do think they could have and should have, and additionally shouldn't have discussed it publically-isn't it their private grief, after all?

You and I have had discussions before about facts vs. beliefs as far as some of these cases go-In Sarah Majoras' case, you were sure that her boyfriend had something to do with it, and he was way out of town! The McCanns were well within the range to harm their daughter, and yet you see nothing that leads you there. With their "close" proximity and access to their children, it is possible, but not for you, and yet in a case where your suspect had no access to his girlfriend, there is a distinct possibilty.

Nobody would have said "those Catholics would have gone to the Pope if they were innocent-so that makes them guilty!". Sometimes it isn't what you do that matters, but how you do it, that does, ScarlettScarpetta. The McCanns have rejected the notion that they have any blame in losing their daughter. I actually think that some, if not many, people would feel differently if they expressed the thought that they should never have left those children alone.

As Donjeta said, it's unlikely that the police would have charged anyone in such a case of neglect, if it meant that Portugal's only attraction (resorts) became a place where people couldn't leave their kids alone while they ate and drank-tourists would just go elsewhere with their money.

I don't cross cases. One case at a time and I keep them separate unless crossed by the same offender. So I will only discuss the case I am one currently.

I don't see any thing that leads me to believe these parents hurt Maddie. Nothing. To kill her and then hide her so well that no one found her, To dispose of her in a way that would take thought and consideration and planning, I don't see that here.

I don't see the reason they would kill their DD. I don't see an accident turning into lets hide the body.. It makes no sense. None. These are smart people. I think that over time most people believe they are guilty because they left the kids alone. It was a dumb thing to do but it does not lead to them being responsible for her disappearance to me.. Well in the sense that they made her disappear. I am sure that many people think that that mistake cost Maddie her life and I can not argue with people thinking that. I get it. They certainly did give opportunity in their methods that night, But I don't believe they themselves had anything to do with it. I don't believe that what they did rose to criminal behavior. I just think it was dumb.

 

[Donjeta]

I still don't see what that has to do with the Pope. I'm with Scarlett in that it's a non issue. I think that the Pope will meet up and pray with sinners and non sinners so what he does is meaningless in affecting peoples feelings about a case. MOO.

BBM. I don't really believe that. It was self-evident that the Pope is the head honcho in the above scenario. It was pretty obvious, I would think.

Both guilty and innocent people can indeed approach the Pope and other religious figures for any number of reasons including prayers for their loved ones or prayers for their souls etc. and it's in his job description to pray with the lot of them. So far so good.

But once you're the most important religious authority alive of a religion that has 1.2 billion members what you do is unlikely to be meaningless very often. JMO. You may not influence everyone all the time or in the same way but you will end up having some effect on somebody more often than you think. MOO.

Jmoose has a good point though. It's not as much what the Pope does and the people he meets as the way the press writes about what the Pope does and the people he meets.

Her parents, who are devout Catholics, flew to Rome from the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz in tycoon Sir Philip Green's private jet.

Mr McCann said the goodness that had been generated by "one evil act" had restored his faith.

That is excellent PR if you think that devout Catholics and people of faith are less likely to harm their children. (you might of course think otherwise)

 

[Donjeta]

I don't cross cases. One case at a time and I keep them separate unless crossed by the same offender. So I will only discuss the case I am one currently.

I don't see any thing that leads me to believe these parents hurt Maddie. Nothing. To kill her and then hide her so well that no one found her, To dispose of her in a way that would take thought and consideration and planning, I don't see that here.

I don't see the reason they would kill their DD. I don't see an accident turning into lets hide the body.. It makes no sense. None. These are smart people. I think that over time most people believe they are guilty because they left the kids alone. It was a dumb thing to do but it does not lead to them being responsible for her disappearance to me.. Well in the sense that they made her disappear. I am sure that many people think that that mistake cost Maddie her life and I can not argue with people thinking that. I get it. They certainly did give opportunity in their methods that night, But I don't believe they themselves had anything to do with it. I don't believe that what they did rose to criminal behavior. I just think it was dumb.

They're smart when it's an argument for their innocence and dumb when it's an argument for their innocence?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

They're smart when it's an argument for their innocence and dumb when it's an argument for their innocence?

Planning to kill someone and hide the body so well that there is no evidence and they don't find it takes a different kind of smarts.

They are not even at home where they know all the ins and outs, They are in another country..
It just does not make any sense. I don't see the opportunity either. I just don't see it. It takes a lot of time to plan it and then to execute the plan.

I believe someone went into that room and took her. That is what fits as I look at what happened that night.

 

[Jmoose]

I don't cross cases. One case at a time and I keep them separate unless crossed by the same offender. So I will only discuss the case I am one currently.

I don't see any thing that leads me to believe these parents hurt Maddie. Nothing. To kill her and then hide her so well that no one found her, To dispose of her in a way that would take thought and consideration and planning, I don't see that here.

I don't see the reason they would kill their DD. I don't see an accident turning into lets hide the body.. It makes no sense. None. These are smart people. I think that over time most people believe they are guilty because they left the kids alone. It was a dumb thing to do but it does not lead to them being responsible for her disappearance to me.. Well in the sense that they made her disappear. I am sure that many people think that that mistake cost Maddie her life and I can not argue with people thinking that. I get it. They certainly did give opportunity in their methods that night, But I don't believe they themselves had anything to do with it. I don't believe that what they did rose to criminal behavior. I just think it was dumb.

I try to think these things through logically-typically the last person to see one who has been killed or has disappeared, likely knows something that LE would want to know. So for example, in Sarah's case, since the boyfriend was out of town and it was verified, I was pretty sure he didn't push her into the canal. In Maddie's case, the parents were solely responsible for leaving her and her siblings alone with the door and windows all unlocked in a world where anything can and does happen, I think the parents have some responsibility. I am not sure why you don't.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Because if someone took her, That is the blame right there. On the person that took her. If I went by a person's home and their babies were asleep on the couch and the parents were in the back yard I would not think of walking into their home. Most people would not.

The criminal is still the criminal.

Just because your kids are playing outside out of your eyesight does not mean someone is allowed to take them. The weight of the guilt is still on the person who commits the act against the child.. Not the one who let the kids out of their sight.

 

[Donjeta]

Because if someone took her, That is the blame right there. On the person that took her. If I went by a person's home and their babies were asleep on the couch and the parents were in the back yard I would not think of walking into their home. Most people would not.

The criminal is still the criminal.

Just because your kids are playing outside out of your eyesight does not mean someone is allowed to take them. The weight of the guilt is still on the person who commits the act against the child.. Not the one who let the kids out of their sight.

Just a question.
Let's say you have small children, about two or three years old. You leave them in the care of someone you trust and go some place.

You come home and find out that despite being responsible for your children the person you trusted left the children alone and they drowned.

Would you think that the person did nothing wrong?

JMO but the person who abducts children bears the guilt of abduction. The person or persons who neglect their responsibility to look after the welfare of children bear the guilt for endangering the children. Sometimes there are situations where more than one person is guilty of something.