Why do you keep misrepresenting what I write? As MikeSA has also subsequently pointed out there is no need “to argue a neglect case” because the evidence was all provided by the McCanns in their interviews. There is no doubt that they committed child neglect.

The other “angles” to which you refer are the consequences of the neglect, which is also (in a general sense) not in doubt — that is to say, there is no doubt that the consequences were horrendously serious.

There is some doubt as to the details of the horrendous consequences. None of these details would mitigate the guilt for neglect, though some would exacerbate it more than others. Your own incredibly ridiculous argument shows that the only way the McCanns could have NOT neglected Madeleine during their drinking party is if they had first killed her.

“Tony Bennett’s ‘case’ centres around the allegations relating to the McCann’s evening child care arrangements.”

The so-called “allegations” were made by the McCanns themselves, and you are incorrect to call them “child care arrangements” because there was no child care involved. Only a pro-McCon would call the McCanns gross neglect “child care”.

If I may reiterate your own ludicrous “argument”, it was that IF the McCanns had first killed Madeleine, THEN they could not have later neglected her. Thus they lied about the neglect, and the fake neglect could not have resulted in a death that already occurred.

I was a little too polite, and called that a bit of sophistic, superficial pro-McCon irrelevant nonsense. If you actually think that your argument merits anything but derision, good for you. Be happy with what you can do.

For those who keep claiming that there is no case to answer in the UK because it happened in Portugal, read the Hague Convention, which is something Tony mentioned right up front.

There very definitely is a case to answer in the UK because the child and her parents reside/d in the UK.

Furthermore, based on case history (in the UK, several examples of which were highlighted by Tony and others), there are definite precedents where parents were successfully prosecuted for similar or far less serious offences, so based purely on precedent, it is a very strong case.

(As a matter of interest, I am informed that in New Zealand it is an offence to leave a child under the age of 14 unattended for any length of time, and any such offence would lead to the child being taken into protective custody. The McC’s are lucky they weren’t in NZ it would seem).

The evidence he intends leading against them are their own documented public interviews, some of it has been seen on video, and is in the public domain. It’s not in doubt, and any attempt on their part to deny the evidence will be admitting that they lied.

There does appear to be some valid concern about political interference in this case, and right now the McC’s and their “team” are sitting tight because their feet are not being held to the fire.

Tony’s public action is achieving exactly what needs to happen in this case, i.e. challenge these bizarre discrepencies publicly. Force any political hands to back off.

Tony is putting them between a rock and a hard place.

If the whole “neglect” issue is being fabricated to cover up something more sinister, then there is every chance that this action will smoke it out, and the cover up will be exposed.

I believe this is exactly what is required, it’s the equivalent of beating the bush to make the game break cover, and I am fully in support of it.

If neglect really is the only thing the McC’s are guilty of (there is that smidgen of a possibility, no matter how minute or bizarre it might seem), then they should be charged for it.

It’s quite clear that they have no sense of remorse about the wrongfullness of their actions, and the great unwashed would certainly not be afforded the same latitude as these truly abysmal examples of parents, who even now say “I keep having to tell myself I’m a responsible parent”.

No you don’t you silly cow, you’re not a responsible parent, so stop trying to bullsh!t yourself!

GAL obviously doesn’t have the family brain cell this evening. Seemingly it’s out elsewhere.

Edit…

My opinion is that it’s a PRO-McCANN argument, and your whole spiel about why the McCanns should not be prosecuted is PRO-McCANN. Why do you pretend otherwise?

++++++++++++

You have an interesting ‘grip’ on reality. You are trying to argue a neglect case from all kinds of angles that are currently the subject of a criminal investigation and which therefore will not be discussed in relation to Tony Bennett’s ‘case’. Tony Bennett’s ‘case’ centres around the allegations relating to the McCann’s evening child care arrangements.

You may feel the need to divide the world into Pro or Anti McCann in order to support your opinions, I don’t.

“Madeleine can only have disappeared whilst being neglected by her parents if indeed she was abducted. You can’t have it both ways.”

Your logic is exceedingly deficient, apparently due to your focus on your favorite specific scenarios. No abduction? Still, the McCanns neglect could have led to an intruder/pedophile killing the girl. Their neglect could have led to the girl’s death due to sudden allergic reaction. Their neglect could have led to a sedated girl having a fatal fall while wandering in a delirium.

“If they are directly responsible for Madeleine deaththen, certainly on May 3rd, she wasn’t neglected because in all probability she was already ‘missing’.”"

There you go again, using the typical pro-McCon strategy of covertly insisting that if others claim Madeleine is dead, then they must be claiming that the McCanns are “directly responsible” by which you clearly mean some direct action (such as hitting her). I have just pointed out that an intruder could have killed her, she could have died by allergic reaction (which can happen hours or days after an injection), or she could have had a fatal fall after waking up. In all of these cases the McCanns’ neglect is what leads to the girl’s death.

In effect, you are arguing that IF THE MCCANNS KILLED THE GIRL AND LIED ABOUT THEIR CHILD NEGLECT, THEN THAT PARTICLUAR NEGLECT COULD NOT HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN HER DEATH.

“If you have satisfied yourself that my arguments are “superficial” then I’m happy for you.”

If you are happy with your foolish argument, good for you. Sorry, I can’t think of any other word better than “superficial” (or “pro-McCann”) to describe the reasoning you employ to “argue” that the McCanns should not be prosecuted for neglect.

You are only referring to ONE of many possible death scenarios — that the girl died prior to the Tapas drinking/game session by Kate’s hand (or Gerry’s) and that the parents were LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING, including their neglect, their meager checking, etc. Yes, I grant you that IN THIS CASE, the neglect initially falsely admitted would have been a lie, and so could not have been responsible for the death. And yet EVEN IN THIS CASE, we still have the admitted neglect that took place for several nights in a row. So we could still argue that it is likely this habitual neglect exacerbates to some degree the guilt in accidentally killing the girl, for it demonstrates a continuing attitude of callous disregard for the children.

And, as I pointed out, there are other ways that the girl could have died while being neglected — intruder, sedative reaction, fatal fall while wandering, to name just 3 of them.

“I’m sorry, but a doubt any standalone case into Child Neglect will venture into areas of consequences at this stage.”

I disagree. The main “consequence” that she disappeared — was either abducted or killed — is clear. Any forensic evidence that proves the girl died — even if it proves nothing else — is sufficient to show that their negligence not only led to that death, but led to our not knowing what happened to her.

“You say, “The death EXACERBATES the neglect.” This statement can only be true if Madeleine was abducted as a consequence of the McCann’s alleged inadequate child care arrangements.”

Completely false logic. The girl could have died as a result of neglect in several ways. And IF she did NOT die as a result of this alleged (alleged by the McCanns themselves!) negligence, but prior to it as in your supposition, then the McCanns should face charges for lying and obstructing justice — as well as neglect that took place for several nights previous.

“We are both expressing opinions, mine differs from yours. You insist on seeing the world as largely Pro or Anti McCann’s and label anyone who doesn’t agree with your view of the world as Pro McCann. ”

I labelled you pro-McCann because your arguments are exactly the same as those employed by these posters, but are annoyingly fitted out with all manner of empty rhetoric and subterfuge. In your post, you have done nothing but presume that to say the parents are “directly responsible” for the death is to say that they killed her “directly”, with a blow to the head or some such. That is not so. If, for example, they were giving her sedative injections, and she had a fatal allergic reaction that took place hours or days after such an injection, they are still DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for her death. It does not really matter if she died BEFORE the Tapas party, or during it. Either way, the parents come out guilty of “neglect leading to death”.

What a sophist argument to claim that maybe the McCanns killed the girl before the party, and if so, their neglect during the party played no part.

My opinion is that it’s a PRO-McCANN argument, and your whole spiel about why the McCanns should not be prosecuted is PRO-McCANN. Why do you pretend otherwise?

Jehovas witnesses seem to have ‘loose’ relationships and ‘wider families’. I wonder if there is something here of relevance? Two children born by IVF at the same time (someone posted somewhere - I forget where!) - to different mothers. The strong religious aspect - Kates calling her mum and asking for the priests contact information.

The McCann’s are trying to convince the world that Madeleine was abducted. If she wasn’t, then their own alleged lack of child care arrangements are very likely part of the fabrication of evidence.

“We” do not have evidence that Madeleine’s body was in the back of the Renault. The “PJ” may have this evidence. At present that doesn’t appear to be sufficient fr them to press charges.

Madeleine can only have disappeared whilst being neglected by her parents if indeed she was abducted. You can’t have it both ways. If they are directly responsible for Madeleine death then, certainly on May 3rd, she wasn’t neglected because in all probability she was already ‘missing’.

I’m sorry, but a doubt any standalone case into Child Neglect will venture into areas of consequences at this stage. There is a criminal investigation under way that is attempting to determine whether Madeleine was abducted or harmed by those closest to her.

If you have satisfied yourself that my arguments are “superficial” then I’m happy for you. I don’t agree with you, but there you go, it’s called a “difference of opinion”.

You say, “The death EXACERBATES the neglect.” This statement can only be true if Madeleine was abducted as a consequence of the McCann’s alleged inadequate child care arrangements.

We are both expressing opinions, mine differs from yours. You insist on seeing the world as largely Pro or Anti McCann’s and label anyone who doesn’t agree with your view of the world as Pro McCann. That, in my view, is fairly “superficial” argument whenever it’s employed by anyone, whichever side of the Anti/Pro divide they may fall into.

Bang goes Dr G P McCann and Dr K McCann’s excuse against Child Neglect in one go.

Previously they have “excused” themselves by implying that they thought it was safe to
leave their 3 children alone.

A case of let your lies eventually betray you.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1293308,00.html?f=vg

So, Gerry and Kate were concerned BEFORE Madeleine was ‘abducted’ (by a faceless height shifting predator who was in the apartment - no wait - outside the apartment….

Sky says…

‘Mr (Mr? - very polite) McCann said that before Madeleine disappeared, he and his wife became concerned by the security at the back of their Praia da Luz holiday apartment when “maybe the weak spots were at the front”.

Sky goes on to quote …

“But you just don’t think there’s any trouble and it’s certainly the furthest thing from our mind.”

Huh? But you said…

..Oh never mind, I guess trying to say you were worried and trying not to get accused of taking the risk with your kiddies is a little challenging (this guy has huge financial backing, media savvy resources and is a heart ‘expert’ - incredible he cant tell a simple story without a contradiction getting in again!).

Yes, Mr Murat’s girlfriend is very pretty , and the husband (who is also no doubt very pretty ) BUT it’s too late for any of that. Madeleine AINT COMING BACK…… Where the hell is she….. I rest my case………..

“It’s still online, with the girlfriend’s picture: Here’s the link:”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=494747&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

I did not count them, but I think the majority of the 50 comments are very “anti-McCann” — has there been a change in the British media policy regarding this case, due to public pressure?

“Forgive me, perhaps I’ve misunderstood. But isn’t this stating the obvious? Aren’t the prerequisites you mention - absence of a body and adequate DNA (1) and (2) preventing the whole case from moving forward, which (if they had the body and the right DNA) would not only stop the McCanns from claiming Madeleine was alive and from soliciting donations but probably bang them up in jail as well? Or have I missed your point?”

My points were similar, but in some ways opposite to what you write.

There has been considerable emphasis on “lack of a body” but I am instead emphasizing the “irrefutable proof that there was a body in the car”.

Again, Team McCann has mesmerized everyone into thinking about reliability of DNA, but if the DNA comes from a corpse, it need not be 100% to constitute PROOF that the body was (to simplify) from the McCann family.

That is to say, a body is not needed to prove that Madeleine died. Neither is DNA that absolutely links to Madeleine.

If the body was from the McCann family, it absolutely had to have been Madeleine’s body. This requires only partial DNA that matches to the family, not to an individual, if it comes from a corpse.

So if it is established without doubt that Madeleine is dead, the parents can be forbidden to further raise money to search for her, to claim that she is alive, etc.

And of course the investigation can still attempt to prove that the McCanns knew of Madeleine’s death, were involved in the disposal of the body, etc. If only this much can be proven, they should receive very harsh sentences. Also, they would be liable for severe sentencing due to what would then be prosecutable defrauding of the public.

Early on, Kate’s FIRST REACTION to the corpse evidence, was to insist that abductors probably planted it in the car. Then Team McCann switched to focusing on DNA reliability and the lack of a body.

So if the *existence* of Madeleine’s body is proven, I assume the McCanns will revert to their earlier claim that abductors planted it. How credible would that be in court? People driving the Renault could all claim they had no idea a body was in the boot, but this becomes less credible since Kate and Gerry claimed they used it to put garbage in, etc.

Slainte

191
Judith C Says:
“(31) Hideki
You quote some of the the inconsistencies, the manipulation, the lies, the spin, the conflicting statements , the dredging up of old news of the McScam team with some degree of surprise and even a little hope that people will cotton on.”

Oh, well, I can only defend myself by saying that “at worst I am naive”.

“Doesn’t the whole scene remind you of something? Nu Labour’s tactics maybe? And they got elected three times!”

Hmmmm… politicians are allowed to lie as much as they like. Perhaps it is Gerry’s aspirations in this arena that have him (a bit prematurely) engaging in lies and cover-up, as if the death of his daughter was just another matter to be handled by his political advisors.

His near-immediate phone call to Susan Healy was revealing, telling her “we need you to accept that there was an abduction”. You’d have to be MUCH WORSE THAN NAIVE not to know what that meant. You’re either on the team, or off the team, Granny…

They stopped using it a while ago. They aint gonna be prosecuted. That’s IT.

“If there is a leak of bodily fluids from any human corpse found in the hire car, that needs to be investigated. Done. These traces have been linked to Madeleine, as a moderate match to her DNA has been reported.How many different interpretations can you make of this set of “facts”, how many innocent explanations? ”

As far as I can see, there is NO OTHER INTERPRETATION other than that Madeleine is dead and the body was in the car. The focus on 100% matching for DNA is a ridiculous distraction. The twins did not die. Kate and Gerry did not die. No other McCann associated with the car died. Madeleine is the only one unaccounted for. So a partial DNA match to the family is sufficient to prove that she died.

“How many more Madeleine candicates yet to emerge? Just how stupid are we supposed to be…”

Unfortunately, there seems to be no way for a court to issue an injunction against the McCanns to prevent them from encouraging “sightings” of their dead daughter, while receiving donations to “find” the girl — money that they use for their own private and personal finances.

And as I’ve remarked to you, you have never provided any meaningful basis for this ridiculous unfounded belief. Feel free to continue believing it, but you have never given any concrete reasons anyone else should.

True, Team McCann will try to get whatever “benefit” or advantage they can out of any situation. However, they benefit most when everyone leaves them alone (pun intended) about child neglect. It buys them time to continue defrauding the public, soliciting donations for a dead daughter that they falsely claim to “know” has been abducted.

“If Tony Bennett’s case ever makes it to a ‘court’ it is unwise to assume his case would be proven, in my opinion.”

Another empty piece of rhetoric. Peter O, you are good at that! It is Tony’s PURPOSE to get the courts to make a determination on the case, and it goes without saying that we cannot ASSUME what the verdict will be. My opinions do not rest on an “assumption” that the McCanns will be found guilty of child neglect (although I certainly hope they are).

“I frankly am stunned that anyone could assert:“I have always felt that the crux of this case is about child neglect (and/or child abuse) — NOT about whether Madeleine was accidentally killed by sedatives inducing an allergic reaction. “

I’m frankly NOT stunned that you won’t acknowledge the simple point I was making. Your so-called argument, made by many pro-McConn people, plays into the hands of Team McCann. They are trying to portray the accusations against them as resting principally on the charge that they killed their daughter — the most difficult thing to prove, and the one thing that even the vast majority of anti-McCanns say they do not know.

“The death of an individual, a child or otherwise, is a permanent and irreversible loss. ”

Thanks for the information, Peter O. However, the death of Madeleine is NOT BEING IGNORED in the focus on child neglect. The reason is that child neglect which results in a death (or abduction,) is ALWAYS treated more severely by a court. In this case, we have the evidence that Madeleine’s body was in the Renault. She disappeared while being neglected by her parents.

My point was simply that if you add up all the potential sentences for crimes that the McCanns may be convicted of in relation to Madeleine’s disappearance, “accidental murder” does not bring the most years in prison — EXCEPT when it is aggravated by neglect and abuse! If the girl died of an allergic reaction to a sedative administered by the McCanns, for example.

In fact, a the child neglect charge, if heard by a court, would likely result in an early acknowledgement that Madeleine is dead, because the trial will of necessity go into the CONSEQUENCES of the neglect.

“While lack of care for children, especially ones own, is unforgivable, that really does pale into insignificance compared to the death of a child.”

I have just shown you why your superficial argument is wrong — neglect does NOT “pale into insignificance” no matter how much you or other pro-McCann posters wish it would.

The death EXACERBATES the neglect. In contrast , had there been no neglect at all, and an unfortunate accidental death occurred, the parents would receive justified sympathy, and the court would not give them the harshest of sentences.

Hugely relevant

It does lead on toa main road, stair gate or not. Would you do it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=484850&in_page_id=1811