GUILTY UK - Mikaeel Kular, 3, Edinburgh, Scotland, 15 Jan 2014 - #3

[CoverMeCagney]

Pyjama top, jogging bottoms, coat & shoes is suggestive of running short of time when you've got to take other kids somewhere & have to take a pre-schooler with you. I wonder if he was wearing the coat when he was found?

You've made me think. Could she have taken him to school drop off on Monday/Tuesday and just thrown his coat and shoes on over his pj's, and somethings happened when they got home? That would explain what she reported him wearing when he "went for a wander".

Also, she must have had a big car or people carrier as all of those kids would need to be in proper car/booster seats.

 

[Iplem]

You've made me think. Could she have taken him to school drop off on Monday/Tuesday and just thrown his coat and shoes on over his pj's, and somethings happened when they got home? That would explain what she reported him wearing when he "went for a wander". <snip>

That makes a lot of sense. The coat and shoes thing initially made me suspect the mother was lying (why would a kid do that and would he even be able to?) then I got to thinking why is she volunteering that little tidbit?

(edited)

 

[CoverMeCagney]

That makes a lot of sense. The coat and shoes thing initially made me suspect the mother was lying (why would a kid do that and would he even be able to?) then I got to thinking why is she volunteering that little tidbit?

(edited)

I wonder how far the car parking was from the flat. I wonder if she left him in it as he was sleeping so she could get jobs done in the flat. I wonder if he froze and on finding him she has panicked that this foolish mistake would cost her her children and so concocted the story she did. All my own random thoughts and ramblings, obviously. I did earlier surmise that he must have had visible injuries for the police to declare as murder so soon, but the possibily involvement of a suitcase might have prompted that...

 

[Inge Jones]

I did earlier surmise that he must have had visible injuries for the police to declare as murder so soon, but the possibily involvement of a suitcase might have prompted that...

Also, having read the definition of murder in Scottish law, a mother making a care decision that could be said to be reckless (eg surely leaving a 3-yr-old unsupervised in an apartment or in a car for more than about 5 mins counts as this?) which then causes death even by accident, *could* come under murder. Ie, with the Scottish definition, any child in someone's care who dies from something that could have been avoided if the caregiver had done something different, could potentially be treated as murder. So you might not need any signs of violence for that.

 

[Sarah]

Also, having read the definition of murder in Scottish law, a mother making a care decision that could be said to be reckless (eg surely leaving a 3-yr-old unsupervised in an apartment or in a car for more than about 5 mins counts as this?) which then causes death even by accident, *could* come under murder. Ie, with the Scottish definition, any child in someone's care who dies from something that could have been avoided if the caregiver had done something different, could potentially be treated as murder. So you might not need any signs of violence for that.

I wondered something similar way back in the thread Inge. I'm just not ready to speculate that she was a cold blooded killer unless some conclusive evidence comes out to prove it.

I doubt we'll hear anything new until the trial now and I don't particularly want to engage in idle speculation on no real basis. I like to think the best possible of people until proved otherwise though, so if she is indeed guilty, I hope that "wicked recklessness" does come into it - more for Mikaeel's sake than anything else.

Would a failure to seek medical attention for a critically ill child or going out and leaving a critically ill child alone count as "wicked recklessness" I wonder?

 

[Thespyma]

With regards to the foster parents, no it's not just you. I'm astounded that they felt it was right to make any comment at all. I'm less surprised by the friend making some kind of statement. I think it's common for friends, neighbours & acquaintances to make comments ( usually with the proviso that they are not named in the news story)

I am a little bit leery of their comment that they 'loved Mikaeel like their own child'. It could be true but I think it's also possible that there's an element of attention seeking going on, since they had to have been the ones who went to the press with their story in the first place as it wouldn't have been a matter of public record & Mikaeel's twin sisters temporary foster parents haven't been quoted at all.

I would have thought that temporary foster parents have to retain an element of professional distance whilst still giving nurturing care, from the children they care for on short term basis' since they aren't actually their own children, they are only temporary carers & getting too close might damage an already emotionally vulnerable child even further when they were taken back & upset the career as well when a child they 'loved like their own' was removed.

I could be wrong about that though as I (thankfully) have no knowledge of foster care or foster parents.

I'm not trying to slate foster parents here as I think they do fantastic work

I have had several friends who fostered abused children. Three couples took in battered babies with broken bones and severe abuse. They all got very attached to the babies but knew they would be only in their lives for a short time. It seemed to me the best foster parents DO love those children as if they were their own. Babies need to feel they are loved and those taking care of them feel a parental like attachment. One case was particularly heart breaking. The little baby boy was 6 weeks old when the foster mum came to visit me. He was such a doll but had both legs and one arm in a cast from spiral fractures. He had been injured by his mother who had "snapped". He stayed in foster care for almost a year. I am glad the foster parents loved him and treated him as though he were theirs. He needed that loving foundation to replace the horror of his first weeks of life.

 

[haden]

I think some people in here are making up things.. trying to diagnose Mikaeel..well I don't see anything wrong with him, no sunken eyes, no eyes patches or anything.. this is someone's pure imagination and please do not make it into facts or myths.. To me, on his photos, he looks perfectly healthy and normal!

Like the thing with the suitcase.. well... the suitcase is a rumour, it hasn't been confirmed.. it might be just someone's imagination..

And for the foster care, it was mentioned that it was for a short period of time..

Do some maths.. he was 3 years old, this is 36 months, minus 18 months in Edinburgh, that makes it 18 months in Fife..
He wasn't in care all of his time in Fife, just some of his time, as it was reported that he also was born and lived in Fife.. and was seen by neighbours playing there as a small kid..

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Do some maths.. he was 3 years old, this is 36 months, minus 18 months in Edinburgh, that makes it 18 months in Fife..
He wasn't in care all of his time in Fife, just some of his time, as it was reported that he also was born and lived in Fife.. and was seen by neighbours playing there as a small kid..

He was 44 months (would have been 4 in May), just clarifying!

 

[onthecounter]

I think some people in here are making up things.. trying to diagnose Mikaeel..well I don't see anything wrong with him, no sunken eyes, no eyes patches or anything.. this is someone's pure imagination and please do not make it into facts or myths.. To me, on his photos, he looks perfectly healthy and normal!

Like the thing with the suitcase.. well... the suitcase is a rumour, it hasn't been confirmed.. it might be just someone's imagination..

And for the foster care, it was mentioned that it was for a short period of time..

Do some maths.. he was 3 years old, this is 36 months, minus 18 months in Edinburgh, that makes it 18 months in Fife..
He wasn't in care all of his time in Fife, just some of his time, as it was reported that he also was born and lived in Fife.. and was seen by neighbours playing there as a small kid..

I mentioned the sunken eyes, and it is my opinion, and I have a right to my opinion just like everyone else does, so I don't know why you are singling me out. Nearly every comment on here is an opinion piece, only a portion of which will turn out to be correct including yours... Your hypocrisy is astounding, you might as well say 'the opinions I hold are very rational, however those of others with whom I disagree are complete fantasy'.

 

[haden]

I mentioned the sunken eyes, and it is my opinion, and I have a right to my opinion just like everyone else does, so I don't know why you are singling me out. Nearly every comment on here is an opinion piece, only a portion of which will turn out to be correct including yours...

Well, this case is slowly turning into Madeleine McCann case, where lots of thing were made up..

I remember Madeleine being 'diagnosed' too by some armchair detectives and one rumour turned to another one..

Like 'the suitcase' in this case.. it is becoming 'a fact' when it actually hasn't been confirmed..

And when the things really become known then some people who read about sunken eyes and the suitcase would say ' oh. c'mon weren't his eyes bruised and wasn't he put in a suitcase'

This is how internet myths start!

And then they get so complicated in forming the public opinion when they actually came out of someone's big imagination!

I am not saying yours .. I am just saying that this is not a fact!

 

[Alyce]

I think some people in here are making up things.. trying to diagnose Mikaeel..well I don't see anything wrong with him, no sunken eyes, no eyes patches or anything.. this is someone's pure imagination and please do not make it into facts or myths.. To me, on his photos, he looks perfectly healthy and normal!

Like the thing with the suitcase.. well... the suitcase is a rumour, it hasn't been confirmed.. it might be just someone's imagination..

And for the foster care, it was mentioned that it was for a short period of time..

Do some maths.. he was 3 years old, this is 36 months, minus 18 months in Edinburgh, that makes it 18 months in Fife..
He wasn't in care all of his time in Fife, just some of his time, as it was reported that he also was born and lived in Fife.. and was seen by neighbours playing there as a small kid..

He was closer to 4 than 3 ( 44 months as has been said )

We know he was born when the family lived in Fife, so he did have almost 2 years living there before going into care for 18 months ( approx. March 2012 to Sept 2013 if quotes of 18 months in care are correct ).

RK and her three older children were said to have moved to Edinburgh 18 months ago, but as far as I am aware, the twins were only returned to her last September, so they had only lived in Edinburgh for 4 months.

 

[haden]

He was closer to 4 than 3 ( 44 months as has been said )

We know he was born when the family lived in Fife, so he did have almost 2 years living there before going into care for 18 months ( approx. March 2012 to Sept 2013 if quotes of 18 months in care are correct ).

RK and her three older children were said to have moved to Edinburgh 18 months ago, but as far as I am aware, the twins were only returned to her last September, so they had only lived in Edinburgh for 4 months.

Is there a newspaper article stating that he was in care for 18 months?

From what I read he was in care on short term basis

The youngster, who was found more than 30 miles away from his home on Friday night, is said to have been put into foster care because of concerns for his welfare.
Ziggy Ford and her husband cared for the boy, one of five children, who it is claimed was returned to his mother after social workers thought she could cope.
A friend of the 49-year-old told The Sun: &#8220;They took him on a short-term basis. They loved him like he was their own son.&#8221;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn.../Mikaeel-Kular-was-put-into-foster-care-.html

 

[Iplem]

I mentioned the sunken eyes, and it is my opinion, and I have a right to my opinion just like everyone else does <snip>

You do, indeed.

<snip>

Like 'the suitcase' in this case.. it is becoming 'a fact' when it actually hasn't been confirmed..

And when the things really become known then some people who read about sunken eyes and the suitcase would say ' oh. c'mon weren't his eyes bruised and wasn't he put in a suitcase'

This is how internet myths start!

And then they get so complicated in forming the public opinion when they actually came out of someone's big imagination! <snip>

I think you're being a bit unfair, it's currently general discussion, we are permitted to think aloud in this way. You were surmising yourself about the drug gang stuff a few pages back. It has already been pointed out that the 'suitcase' came from a neighbour, and may be just a rumour.

 

[haden]

You do, indeed.



I think you're being a bit unfair, it's currently general discussion, we are permitted to think aloud in this way. You were surmising yourself about the drug gang stuff a few pages back. It has already been pointed out that the 'suitcase' came from a neighbour, and may be just a rumour.

But the suitcase is a rumour. It hasn't been mentioned in any of the newspaper articles and I don't believe he was put in a suitcase.

We cannot take it into a consideration as if it was a fact, because it isn't a fact.

Same goes for his looks.. IMO, there is no proof that Michael was singled out of RK's children, and that he was looking unwell and that he was abused in any way.

We simply don't know and we cannot make up stuff.

Things that are published in the media or said by the police these are facts that are known.. although the media also has to be some trusted media source..

 

[CoverMeCagney]

But the suitcase is a rumour. It hasn't been mentioned in any of the newspaper articles and I don't believe he was put in a suitcase.

We cannot take it into a consideration as if it was a fact, because it isn't a fact.

Same goes for his looks.. IMO, there is no proof that Michael was singled out of RK's children, and that he was looking unwell and that he was abused in any way.

We simply don't know and we cannot make up stuff.

Things that are published in the media or said by the police these are facts that are known.. although the media also has to be some trusted media source..

We're all entitled to discuss our thoughts (not so long ago you reckoned an older sibling killed him!), but you are right that it's essential to separate the fact from the conjecture.

 

[Iplem]

But the suitcase is a rumour. It hasn't been mentioned in any of the newspaper articles and I don't believe he was put in a suitcase.

We cannot take it into a consideration as if it was a fact, because it isn't a fact.

Same goes for his looks.. IMO, there is no proof that Michael was singled out of RK's children, and that he was looking unwell and that he was abused in any way.

We simply don't know and we cannot make up stuff.

Things that are published in the media or said by the police these are facts that are known.. although the media also has to be some trusted media source..

That's all correct, but I don't think anyone has been presenting their ideas as if they're absolute facts. We've just been talking about it generally, putting ideas into the mix as they come along. Did you read the last few pages closely or just skim them? We are allowed 'IMO/MOO' etc on this forum.

 

[haden]

We're all entitled to discuss our thoughts (not so long ago you reckoned an older sibling killed him!), but you are right that it's essential to separate the fact from the conjecture.

Yes, I said that was IMO and 'maybe' but the suitcase in some recent posts I have seen has been repeated as a fact and this is what poked my eye.

It is not a fact.

If people wrote: 'in case if it was true he was been put in a suitcase' than I would be fine with it.

And in several posts it has been repeated that he was in care for 18 months.. and this is simple not true.. Where this 18 months comes from?

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Yes, I said that was IMO and 'maybe' but the suitcase in some recent posts I have seen has been repeated as a fact and this is what poked my eye.

It is not a fact.

If people wrote: 'in case if it was true he was been put in a suitcase' than I would be fine with it.

And in several posts it has been repeated that he was in care for 18 months.. and this is simple not true.. Where this 18 months comes from?

How do you know it's "simply not true"?

Granted the 18 month thing came from a fb comment seemingly from a friend of the foster parents, and it has been - wrongly - jumped on as a given. However, it's the only timeframe that has been alleged and I guess it's human nature to use it. I think everyone is sensible enough to realise that lots of it is speculation, there have been some wild theories out there. The truth will out!

 

[haden]

How do you know it's "simply not true"?

Granted the 18 month thing came from a fb comment seemingly from a friend of the foster parents, and it has been - wrongly - jumped on as a given. However, it's the only timeframe that has been alleged and I guess it's human nature to use it. I think everyone is sensible enough to realise that lots of it is speculation, there have been some wild theories out there. The truth will out!

I understand what you are saying but 18 months of baby's life is not 'short-time basis' as it was reported in the media and constantly picking up that he was in care for 18 months is not what was said in the media.

Maybe he was there for 18 months but maybe he was there for a month or two.. how can we possibly know this if it hasn't been reported?

As, for example, if he was there for 18 weeks or 8 weeks would this change the view of the situation?

I don't have a clue how this fostering system works and what 'short-term' basis means but to me it feels much less than 18 months, that is a year and a half and that is not a short-term.

I also don't understand if a family can change this.. as for example if my sisters child is moved to a care then could I ( for example) request to be the carer.. would the social service allow this knowing that I am seeing my sister on regular basis and that my sister would therefore be seeing the child.

 

[YidArmyRach]

I think some people in here are making up things.. trying to diagnose Mikaeel..well I don't see anything wrong with him, no sunken eyes, no eyes patches or anything.. this is someone's pure imagination and please do not make it into facts or myths.. To me, on his photos, he looks perfectly healthy and normal!

Like the thing with the suitcase.. well... the suitcase is a rumour, it hasn't been confirmed.. it might be just someone's imagination..

And for the foster care, it was mentioned that it was for a short period of time..

Do some maths.. he was 3 years old, this is 36 months, minus 18 months in Edinburgh, that makes it 18 months in Fife..
He wasn't in care all of his time in Fife, just some of his time, as it was reported that he also was born and lived in Fife.. and was seen by neighbours playing there as a small kid..

A lot of the newspapers were reporting that they'd only lived in Edinburgh since the summer.

It is believed that the family, including Mikaeel, his twin sister and their three older siblings lived at a detached house in the town's Dunvegan Avenue until around last summer, when they moved to Edinburgh.

http://edinburgh.stv.tv/60339/