Whats the difference?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539093/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-guilty-child-neglect-says-lawyer-bizarre-courtroom-speech.html#comments

A lawyer is being attacked for comparing his client to the Mccans in leaving her child alone. The woman was prosecuted fro drink drive and child neglect after leaving her son asleep to visit a cashpoint. The lawyer defending her commented that she was away from her child for much less time than the Mccans and they had not been charged with neglect.

I want to know what the difference is.

What exactly are the rules on neglect these days? Obviously not whether harm comes to a child because harm most definitely came to Madeleine - even if she was immediately cared for by a most loving wonderful family the kidnap itself was harm. Obviously not time a child is left alone either as the woman in the above story left her child for far less time. Is neglect decided by the distance a person goes from where they leave their child? Or is it about driving over the limit? Would the Mcans have been charged with neglect if they had attempted to drive a car (we know they had been drinking).

I think if the McCanns were on benefits and had 4 more kids, they would have been charged.

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539093/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-guilty-child-neglect-says-lawyer-bizarre-courtroom-speech.html#comments

A lawyer is being attacked for comparing his client to the Mccans in leaving her child alone.  The woman was prosecuted fro drink drive and child neglect after leaving her son asleep to visit a cashpoint.  The lawyer defending her commented that she was away from her child for much less time than the Mccans and they had not been charged with neglect.

I want to know what the difference is.  

What exactly are the rules on neglect these days? Obviously not whether harm comes to a child because harm most definitely came to Madeleine - even if she was immediately cared for by a most loving wonderful family the kidnap itself was harm.  Obviously not time a child is left alone either as the woman in the above story left her child for far less time.  Is neglect decided by the distance a person goes from where they leave their child?  Or is it about driving over the limit?  Would the Mcans have been charged with neglect if they had attempted to drive a car (we know they had been drinking).  

The McCanns never actually left the complex where their children were sleeping, they were just a stones throw from their apartment, this cashpoint was obviously some distance from this womans home because she had to get into her car and drive there. It's not as if she was just popping to the corner of her road.

I think that would make a world of difference.

They were far enough from the apartment that a stranger was able to enter and steal their daughter without them being aware.

Are you saying neglect should be based on distance so a parent is alright leaving their child to go to a party at a house across the road but not a party 2 streets over?

I thought neglect was putting a child at unreasonable risk of foreseeable avoidable harm

sphinx wrote:They were far enough from the apartment that a stranger was able to enter and steal their daughter without them being aware.

Are you saying neglect should be based on distance so a parent is alright leaving their child to go to a party at a house across the road but not a party 2 streets over?

I thought neglect was putting a child at unreasonable risk of foreseeable avoidable harm

As far as it can be defined, this is the definition of neglect from The government guidance for England, Working together to safeguard children (HM Government, 2010)

"…the persistent failure to meet a child's basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child's health or development. Neglect may occur during pregnancy as a result of maternal substance abuse. Once a child is born, neglect may involve a parent or carer failing to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter (including exclusion from home or abandonment); protect a child from physical and emotional harm or danger; ensure adequate supervision (including the use of inadequate care-givers); or ensure access to appropriate medical care or treatment. It may also include neglect of, or unresponsiveness to, a child's basic emotional needs."


I suppose the fact that the parents in the McCann case were making regular trips to check on the children then there is an argument that they weren't failing in their duty to protect their kids, everyone knows you can't keep your eye on your kids every single second of the day or night. They hadn't left them to swan off down the local tapas bar in the town, they remained within sight of their apartment at all times.

I might call them stupid, thoughtless, even a bit selfish but I wouldn't call them neglectful.

Getting in your car and driving off away from your house/street/estate i think is a slightly different matter.

Spindleshanks wrote:

sphinx wrote:They were far enough from the apartment that a stranger was able to enter and steal their daughter without them being aware.

Are you saying neglect should be based on distance so a parent is alright leaving their child to go to a party at a house across the road but not a party 2 streets over?

I thought neglect was putting a child at unreasonable risk of foreseeable avoidable harm

As far as it can be defined, this is the definition of neglect from The government guidance for England, Working together to safeguard children (HM Government, 2010)

"…the persistent failure to meet a child's basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child's health or development. Neglect may occur during pregnancy as a result of maternal substance abuse. Once a child is born, neglect may involve a parent or carer failing to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter (including exclusion from home or abandonment); protect a child from physical and emotional harm or danger; ensure adequate supervision (including the use of inadequate care-givers); or ensure access to appropriate medical care or treatment. It may also include neglect of, or unresponsiveness to, a child's basic emotional needs."


I suppose the fact that the parents in the McCann case were making regular trips to check on the children then there is an argument that they weren't failing in their duty to protect their kids, everyone knows you can't keep your eye on your kids every single second of the day or night.  They hadn't left them to swan off down the local tapas bar in the town, they remained within sight of their apartment at all times.

I might call them stupid, thoughtless, even a bit selfish but I wouldn't call them neglectful.

Getting in your car and driving off away from your house/street/estate i think is a slightly different matter.

I would say that the fact the child could be removed without their knowledge indicates inadequate supervision.
I would say leaving 2 babies with a 4 year old would be defined as inadequate care giver

No people cannot be expected to watch their children every second - they can be expected to be close enough to react when there is major safety problem.

If they were within sight of the apartment why did they not see someone kidnapping their daughter?

sphinx wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

As far as it can be defined, this is the definition of neglect from The government guidance for England, Working together to safeguard children (HM Government, 2010)

"…the persistent failure to meet a child's basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child's health or development. Neglect may occur during pregnancy as a result of maternal substance abuse. Once a child is born, neglect may involve a parent or carer failing to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter (including exclusion from home or abandonment); protect a child from physical and emotional harm or danger; ensure adequate supervision (including the use of inadequate care-givers); or ensure access to appropriate medical care or treatment. It may also include neglect of, or unresponsiveness to, a child's basic emotional needs."


I suppose the fact that the parents in the McCann case were making regular trips to check on the children then there is an argument that they weren't failing in their duty to protect their kids, everyone knows you can't keep your eye on your kids every single second of the day or night.  They hadn't left them to swan off down the local tapas bar in the town, they remained within sight of their apartment at all times.

I might call them stupid, thoughtless, even a bit selfish but I wouldn't call them neglectful.

Getting in your car and driving off away from your house/street/estate i think is a slightly different matter.

I would say that the fact the child could be removed without their knowledge indicates  inadequate supervision.  
I would say leaving 2 babies with a 4 year old would be defined as inadequate care giver

No people cannot be expected to watch their children every second - they can be expected to be close enough to react when there is major safety problem.

If they were within sight of the apartment why did they not see someone kidnapping their daughter?

Do you remember the Gemma Lawrence case?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/policewomen-on-the-emotional-front-line-1-gemma-lawrence-case-1460633.html

The parents didn't see or hear their child being kidnapped either yet they were right there in the same caravan as her as it happened.

While the child of the woman going to the cashpoint suffered no harm whatsoever.

So on that logic being in the same property as a child is neglect being at a cashpoint is not.

The test I believe is reasonable avoidable harm.

Take a child falling out of bed, or becoming ill, or just having a nightmare - they cry out for assistance. That assistance does not come. The distress that would cause a child.

People cannot reasonably foresee kidnapping - but they can reasonably foresee a child waking for a multitude of reasons and needing somebody to be there. They can reasonably see a child crying for 50 minutes desperately needing someone - scared from a nightmare or with a graze from falling out of bed or even with soiled nightwear through being sick. I mean as parent I can remember how terribly distressed a toddler can be after a nightmare - and how even taking a few minutes to go to them because you are on the phone or in the middle of something is seen by them as taking ages - that terrified little face and the voice sobbing "I thought the monster had got you cause I cried for ages". Just being out of earshot of my kids at that age for an hour at a time was unimaginable unless there was another adult there. Hell even with babysitters I would worry they were crying and not being heard.

Anyway those are examples of predictable harm that can easily befall a child left alone in an apartment that someone can see from a distance and in my book it qualifies as neglect.

sphinx wrote:While the child of the woman going to the cashpoint suffered no harm whatsoever.

So on that logic being in the same property as a child is neglect being at a cashpoint is not.

The test I believe is reasonable avoidable harm.  

Take a child falling out of bed, or  becoming ill, or just having a nightmare - they cry out for assistance.  That assistance does not come.  The distress that would cause a child.

People cannot reasonably foresee kidnapping - but they can reasonably foresee a child waking for a multitude of reasons and needing somebody to be there.  They can reasonably see a child crying for 50 minutes desperately needing someone - scared from a nightmare or with a graze from falling out of bed or even with soiled nightwear through being sick.  I mean as  parent I can remember how terribly distressed a toddler can be after a nightmare - and how even taking a few minutes to go to them because you are on the phone or in the middle of something  is seen by them as taking ages - that terrified little face and the voice sobbing "I thought the monster had got you cause I cried for ages".  Just being out of earshot of my kids at that age for an hour at a time was unimaginable unless there was another adult there.  Hell even with babysitters I would worry they were crying and not being heard.

Anyway those are examples of predictable harm that can easily befall a child left alone in an apartment that someone can see from a distance and in my book it qualifies as neglect.

I don't think anyone can predict harm really. I doubt the parents whose child strangled herself in the cord of the blind in her room would have predicted that would happen, but by your reasoning it seems they should have.

I think with hindsight the McCanns know what they did was stupid and they are paying the ultimate price for it, but I don't think they were neglectful for going out for a meal once the kids were asleep necessarily particularly as the kids were being checked on. Most people know their own kids and will know if they are prone to waking during the night or having nightmares, mine never did, once they were asleep that was it until the morning.

Not so long ago, certain holiday parks in this country used to actively advocate parents going out and leaving their kids by offering a chalet listening service, they would go round listening at the chalet doors of parents who had signed up to it and call them over a tannoy if their child was crying. Was this really any different to that?

If there were 10 - 15 minute gaps in the listening service how was going to the cashpoint any different?

That is my point. I mean I can get to a cashpoint and back in less than 10 minutes in the car - takes over 20 on foot (that is a big hill) so it is possible that is all the woman was gone yet she is charged with neglect.

sphinx wrote:If there were 10 - 15 minute gaps in the listening service how was going to the cashpoint any different?

That is my point.  I mean I  can get to a cashpoint and back in less than 10 minutes in the car - takes over 20 on foot (that is a big hill) so it is possible that is all the woman was gone yet she is charged with neglect.

How long was she actually gone for, i don't think the article said.

The point still remains though that going off in the car she was nowhere in the near vicinity of her home unlike the McCanns to their apartment and the parents in these holiday parks.

All are disgusting animals, and should all be charged.

However the mccans were leaving their children much much longer than did the woman in the car.

Does a child left for an hour suffer less because the parents are closer than the child left 10 minutes because they parent is further away?

This is my point on defining neglect. Is it time away, distance away, or actual suffering experienced?

sphinx wrote:However the mccans were leaving their children much much longer than did the woman in the car.

Does a child left for an hour suffer less because the parents are closer than the child left 10 minutes because they parent is further away?

This is my point on defining neglect.  Is it time away, distance away, or actual suffering experienced?

It should be potential really shouldn't it, and then it's up to a judge or jury.

You could lock a 5 year old up in a house and leave him there all day - how far could you possibly travel in a day - maybe a quickie to France and back.

If the kid survives and nobody else knows, is it neglect just because the kid was happy sitting in front of the tv with a packet of biscuits, coke and crisps??

edit: I suppose I should add - yes, of course it's flipping neglect!

In the case of the woman nipping to the cash machine, the worst thing she is doing is going there drunk - multiplying the risk to her and other road users and therefore to her child if anything were to happen to her.

Neglect?

Yes.

Chances of crashing while nipping 5 minutes down the road sober - minimal.

Chances of crashing while 2.5 times over the limit - quite large.

sphinx wrote:However the mccans were leaving their children much much longer than did the woman in the car.

Does a child left for an hour suffer less because the parents are closer than the child left 10 minutes because they parent is further away?

This is my point on defining neglect.  Is it time away, distance away, or actual suffering experienced?

The McCann children weren't left for an hour, it wasn't only their parents looking in although how well the kids were checked on by the other parents is somewhat debateable.

You don't know this woman was only gone for 10 minutes, in fact the fact she crashed meant she was most likely away for a lot longer, what happens if she had been seriously injured in the crash, no one would have known that kid was alone, at least all the other parents knew the McCann kids were there.

I personally think that distance away has a lot to do with whether it is defined as neglect or not, did this woman who went off to the cashpoint let a neighbour know she was popping out and could they keep an ear open, doesn't sound that way from the article.

Anyway, I think trying to lay blame at the feet of the McCanns is detracting from the real issue here, which is some twat getting into their apartment and kidnapping their daughter for her never to be seen again.

No we dont know how long this woman was gone - we do know nothing happened to her child and she has been charged because something could of happened.

Yet the Mccans were gone long enough that something did happen and were not charged. The fact that the thing that happened was unpredictable does not change the fact that something did happen therefore it was long enough for something to happen.

How the hell it saying that the mccans are at least partially responsible detracting from the issue that the child was kidnapped?

Back to my opening post my problem is why the hell do people think it wrong to compare a woman who left her child alone with a couple who left their children alone? Why is the lawyer who made that comparison being attacked for making it? Even if you conclude the comparison is unfair surely you do not think it was unreasonable to make it in the first place?

Spindleshanks wrote:

sphinx wrote:While the child of the woman going to the cashpoint suffered no harm whatsoever.

So on that logic being in the same property as a child is neglect being at a cashpoint is not.

The test I believe is reasonable avoidable harm.  

Take a child falling out of bed, or  becoming ill, or just having a nightmare - they cry out for assistance.  That assistance does not come.  The distress that would cause a child.

People cannot reasonably foresee kidnapping - but they can reasonably foresee a child waking for a multitude of reasons and needing somebody to be there.  They can reasonably see a child crying for 50 minutes desperately needing someone - scared from a nightmare or with a graze from falling out of bed or even with soiled nightwear through being sick.  I mean as  parent I can remember how terribly distressed a toddler can be after a nightmare - and how even taking a few minutes to go to them because you are on the phone or in the middle of something  is seen by them as taking ages - that terrified little face and the voice sobbing "I thought the monster had got you cause I cried for ages".  Just being out of earshot of my kids at that age for an hour at a time was unimaginable unless there was another adult there.  Hell even with babysitters I would worry they were crying and not being heard.

Anyway those are examples of predictable harm that can easily befall a child left alone in an apartment that someone can see from a distance and in my book it qualifies as neglect.

I don't think anyone can predict harm really.  I doubt the parents whose child strangled herself in the cord of the blind in her room would have predicted that would happen, but by your reasoning it seems they should have.

I think with hindsight the McCanns know what they did was stupid and they are paying the ultimate price for it, but I don't think they were neglectful for going out for a meal once the kids were asleep necessarily particularly as the kids were being checked on.  Most people know their own kids and will know if they are prone to waking during the night or having nightmares, mine never did, once they were asleep that was it until the morning.

Not so long ago, certain holiday parks in this country used to actively advocate parents going out and leaving their kids by offering a chalet listening service, they would go round listening at the chalet doors of parents who had signed up to it and call them over a tannoy if their child was crying.  Was this really any different to that?

There's a world of difference. When there's a listening device people know instantly if a child's in trouble, but the McCanns only checked in every now and then. There's NEVER any excuse for leaving young children on their own. Ever.

Has nobody ever put their kids to bed and gone out in the garden on a nice summers evening?

Spindleshanks wrote:Has nobody ever put their kids to bed and gone out in the garden on a nice summers evening?

My kids bedroom window is open to the back garden so I could actually hear more sitting out in the garden then being downstairs inside - I know this from listening to the little darlings whispering when they were supposed to be asleep - I could not hear it in the front room I sure as hell could hear it in the back garden.

sphinx wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:Has nobody ever put their kids to bed and gone out in the garden on a nice summers evening?

My kids bedroom window is open to the back garden so I could actually hear more sitting out in the garden then being downstairs inside - I know this from listening to the little darlings whispering when they were supposed to be asleep - I could not hear it in the front room I sure as hell could hear it in the back garden.

What if their window faced the front though? would you refuse to go into the garden just in case?

Spindleshanks wrote:

sphinx wrote:

My kids bedroom window is open to the back garden so I could actually hear more sitting out in the garden then being downstairs inside - I know this from listening to the little darlings whispering when they were supposed to be asleep - I could not hear it in the front room I sure as hell could hear it in the back garden.

What if their window faced the front though?  would you refuse to go into the garden just in case?

If I had a garden that was 50 yards long full of bushes that prevented direct line of sight and I was going to throw a party that put several hundred people between me and the house then I would use a babysitter.

Otherwise in a normal sized back garden I would make sure the front door was locked and use a baby monitor (like one set of the Mccans party did).

I really dont see why there is this urge to excuse what the Mccans did. What the hell is wrong with saying yes they did a very bad thing. Doing a very bad thing does not mean they deserved what happened. Why this thing to have them innocent victims who did nothing wrong.

I believe the hotel offered a baby sitting service,they were not so hard up that they couldn't afford it were they? mind you ,thinking about it that may not of helped if she was snatched between visits.

sphinx wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

What if their window faced the front though?  would you refuse to go into the garden just in case?

If I had a garden that was 50 yards long full of bushes that prevented direct line of sight and I was going to throw a party that put several hundred people between me and the house then I would use a babysitter.

Otherwise in a normal sized back garden I would make sure the front door was locked and use a baby monitor (like one set of the Mccans party did).

I really dont see why there is this urge to excuse what the Mccans did.  What the hell is wrong with saying yes they did a very bad thing.  Doing a very bad thing does not mean they deserved what happened.  Why this thing to have them innocent victims who did nothing wrong.

Why should anyone have to excuse what course of action they took that night, I'm suggesting that many, many parents will have done exactly the same thing over the years with their kids remaining perfectly safe, as did another set of parents in that party who were also out in the tapas bar and popping back and forth to check on the children.

The McCanns weren't neglectful parents in my opinion, they didn't do anything wrong particularly, they stayed on the complex within very easy reach of their apartment, the kids were being checked at frequent intervals and all seemed well until it was Kate McCanns turn to check on the kids and she found their daughter gone.

With hindsight no doubt they would have done things differently, but they didn't and since they haven't been charged with neglect I would suggest that all the authorities involved have determined that their actions that night were not deemed to be neglectful. They could have been sat on the patio and the same thing happen.

nicko wrote:I believe the hotel offered a baby sitting service,they were not so hard up that they couldn't afford it were they?  mind you ,thinking about it that may not of helped if she was snatched between visits.

The same sort of service offered by Butlins and Pontins in this country and yeah it wouldn't have helped especially if as it seems someone was watching the apartment and quite possibly took the child to order.

Please remember they were not in a hotel they were in an apartment complex that was fully open to the public - it didnt even have the fencing of separation you get with holiday parks. Having said that I believe that the complex had on offer both a listening service and individual security checked sitters that would stay in peoples apartments. The Mccans failed to avail themselves of either service.

Spindleshanks wrote:

sphinx wrote:

If I had a garden that was 50 yards long full of bushes that prevented direct line of sight and I was going to throw a party that put several hundred people between me and the house then I would use a babysitter.

Otherwise in a normal sized back garden I would make sure the front door was locked and use a baby monitor (like one set of the Mccans party did).

I really dont see why there is this urge to excuse what the Mccans did.  What the hell is wrong with saying yes they did a very bad thing.  Doing a very bad thing does not mean they deserved what happened.  Why this thing to have them innocent victims who did nothing wrong.

Why should anyone have to excuse what course of action they took that night, I'm suggesting that many, many parents will have done exactly the same thing over the years with their kids remaining perfectly safe, as did another set of parents in that party who were also out in the tapas bar and popping back and forth to check on the children.

The McCanns weren't neglectful parents in my opinion, they didn't do anything wrong particularly, they stayed on the complex within very easy reach of their apartment, the kids were being checked at frequent intervals and all seemed well until it was Kate McCanns turn to check on the kids and she found their daughter gone.

With hindsight no doubt they would have done things differently, but they didn't and since they haven't been charged with neglect I would suggest that all the authorities involved have determined that their actions that night were not deemed to be neglectful.  They could have been sat on the patio and the same thing happen.

I would expect a parent who had left their child unattended and came back to find that child had suffered even so much as a nighmare to excuse themselves for being so careless as to be away.

the point isnt what the mccanns did or didnt do, its what The woman in the OP did.
Now no doubt someone will be along to correct me But...AT THE TIME british courts DID NOT have jusrisdiction over the actions of british subjects abroad, that was down to local law....and the Spaniards are , or weren't, very hot on child protection...so thats all irrelevant.
The woman in the OP comitted an act which is unlawful, within the jusrisdiction of the court trying her....

CASE closed.

grumpy old git wrote:the point isnt what the mccanns did or didnt do, its what The woman in the OP did.
Now no doubt someone will be along to correct me But...AT THE TIME british courts DID NOT have jusrisdiction  over the actions of british subjects abroad, that was down to local law....and the Spaniards are , or weren't, very hot on child protection...so thats all irrelevant.
The woman in the OP comitted an act which is unlawful, within the jusrisdiction of the court trying her....

CASE closed.

No the point is that what the woman did was exactly the same as what the Mccans did and people should not be censored for saying so

Maybe Sphinx, but its irrelevant...in law...
The LAW is impersonal and bound by its own rules....the british courts had no jurisdiction over the McCanns...so no matter what you think of em (and I dont think very highly of them) using them as an example to mitigate what the woman in the OP did is mere emotive clap trap to try and sway the magistrates. and should be ignored..

its like a kid saying I shouldnt be punished for stealing cookies cos fred up the roads mum doesnt punish him.....nonsense.....

grumpy old git wrote:Maybe Sphinx, but its irrelevant...in law...
The LAW is impersonal and bound by its own rules....the british courts had no jurisdiction over the McCanns...so no matter what you think of em (and I dont think very highly of them) using them as an example to mitigate what the woman in the OP did is mere emotive clap trap to try and sway the magistrates. and should be ignored..

its like a kid saying I shouldnt be punished for stealing cookies cos fred up the roads mum doesnt punish him.....nonsense.....

Yes but I am not talking about the law I am asking why people who point out they did the same thing are attacked for saying so.

sphinx wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:Maybe Sphinx, but its irrelevant...in law...
The LAW is impersonal and bound by its own rules....the british courts had no jurisdiction over the McCanns...so no matter what you think of em (and I dont think very highly of them) using them as an example to mitigate what the woman in the OP did is mere emotive clap trap to try and sway the magistrates. and should be ignored..

its like a kid saying I shouldnt be punished for stealing cookies cos fred up the roads mum doesnt punish him.....nonsense.....

Yes but I am not talking about the law I am asking why people who point out they did the same thing are attacked for saying so.

perhaps because to do so is seen as agreeing with that lawyer excusing the actions of the woman in the OP?

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539093/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-guilty-child-neglect-says-lawyer-bizarre-courtroom-speech.html#comments

A lawyer is being attacked for comparing his client to the Mccans in leaving her child alone.  The woman was prosecuted fro drink drive and child neglect after leaving her son asleep to visit a cashpoint.  The lawyer defending her commented that she was away from her child for much less time than the Mccans and they had not been charged with neglect.

I want to know what the difference is.  

What exactly are the rules on neglect these days? Obviously not whether harm comes to a child because harm most definitely came to Madeleine - even if she was immediately cared for by a most loving wonderful family the kidnap itself was harm.  Obviously not time a child is left alone either as the woman in the above story left her child for far less time.  Is neglect decided by the distance a person goes from where they leave their child?  Or is it about driving over the limit?  Would the Mcans have been charged with neglect if they had attempted to drive a car (we know they had been drinking).  

The difference is this lady obviously doesnt have friends in high places.

grumpy old git wrote:Maybe Sphinx, but its irrelevant...in law...
The LAW is impersonal and bound by its own rules....the british courts had no jurisdiction over the McCanns...so no matter what you think of em (and I dont think very highly of them) using them as an example to mitigate what the woman in the OP did is mere emotive clap trap to try and sway the magistrates. and should be ignored..

its like a kid saying I shouldnt be punished for stealing cookies cos fred up the roads mum doesnt punish him.....nonsense.....

Well, of course, grumpy...but it's the extra-jurisdictional thing that is just chance.  I think the attorney is making the point that we see her client as a villain, while the McCanns are seen as victims.  Frankly, they both are remiss.

You can talk about 10' away or 20-yds away, it doesn't matter.  You develop an instinct of what is or is not safe with children.  I remember when my wife, daughter and I first moved to Tucson.  My daughter was about 9 mos. old.  We took a short trip to Nogales, Mexico for lunch.  In the restaurant, the mommacita came out of the kitchen to adore our daughter.  Lifting her and hugging her, she noted she was going to dash into the kitchen to show the others.  My wife immediately jumped and signaled me, too.  We were close on the heels of our daughter. Otherwise she could have been passed out a back door, never to be seen again.

The point is that my wife had that instinct...sooner than I, frankly.  You have it when you are always vigilant and can 'feel' any threat or danger.  The McCann's didn't have that instinct and the woman in the OP certainly didn't.

Spindleshanks wrote:Has nobody ever put their kids to bed and gone out in the garden on a nice summers evening?

Not without a monitor

grumpy old git wrote:the point isnt what the mccanns did or didnt do, its what The woman in the OP did.
Now no doubt someone will be along to correct me But...AT THE TIME british courts DID NOT have jusrisdiction  over the actions of british subjects abroad, that was down to local law....and the Spaniards are , or weren't, very hot on child protection...so thats all irrelevant.
The woman in the OP comitted an act which is unlawful, within the jusrisdiction of the court trying her....

CASE closed.

It was Portugal and they tried very hard to bring a prosecution

well nems...spain...portugal......they all look the same to me   

yes they did, but for the wrong reasons...they tried to make a case for murder....a different kettle of fish....and bedeviled by second rate evidence too.

grumpy old git wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes but I am not talking about the law I am asking why people who point out they did the same thing are attacked for saying so.

perhaps because to do so is seen as agreeing with that lawyer excusing the actions of the woman in the OP?

Some may see it as excusing the women others see it as condemning the mccans. It is this second group that attacks those who say it.

sphinx wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:
perhaps because to do so is seen as agreeing with that lawyer excusing the actions of the woman in the OP?

Some may see it as excusing the women others see it as condemning the mccans.  It is this second group that attacks those who say it.

Well, nobody is excusing the woman in the OP, contrary to the urging of the lawyer. So, that backfires. By elimination, that leaves only one question: Are the McCanns villains or victims.

I think clearly they've got no one but themselves to blame. They may be victims in a sense, but they are much more to be blamed.

yep true and yet both the McCanns and this other woman are two peas from the same pod....

grumpy old git wrote:well nems...spain...portugal......they all look the same to me   

yes they did, but for the wrong reasons...they tried to make a case for murder....a different kettle of fish....and bedeviled by second rate evidence too.

Nah, the dog didnt lie. It was at best accidental death, more likely murder

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Some may see it as excusing the women others see it as condemning the mccans.  It is this second group that attacks those who say it.

Well, nobody is excusing the woman in the OP, contrary to the urging of the lawyer.  So, that backfires.  By elimination, that leaves only one question: Are the McCanns villains or victims.

I think clearly they've got no one but themselves to blame.  They may be victims in a sense, but they are much more to be blamed.

In my opinion Madeleine was the only victim no matter how much the McCanns cast themselves in that role

NemsAgain wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:well nems...spain...portugal......they all look the same to me   

yes they did, but for the wrong reasons...they tried to make a case for murder....a different kettle of fish....and bedeviled by second rate evidence too.

Nah, the dog didnt lie. It was at best accidental death, more likely murder

No nems the dog didnt lie...sigh..........
thats what I mean by second rate evidence,

You see everybody believes that dna evidence is foolproof and wholey accurate
everybody believes that these dogs are infallible..
everybody believes......etc etc etc.....

BECAUSE they have been told that is how it is.

let me tell you dna evidence is not conclusive (in MOST cases except rape...I mean theres only ONE way to get that much dna there) but in most other cases ALL it can do is put the donor at the crime scene, it cant tell you when, it cant tell you why, and it most certainly cant tell you that the butler did it with the candle stick. But the masses have been trained to believe otherwise.

cadaver dogs are good.....for sniffing out bodies buried or in cover, but to say they are good for saying a body has BEEN at a location simply isnt true....they would react just the same if you had used your car to carry the weeks meat shopping home, They are not 100% specific to HUMAN bodies so again, not good evidence and certainly NOT conclusive.

grumpy old git wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

Nah, the dog didnt lie. It was at best accidental death, more likely murder

No nems the dog didnt lie...sigh..........
thats what I mean by second rate evidence,

You see everybody believes that dna evidence is foolproof and wholey accurate
everybody believes that these dogs are infallible..
everybody believes......etc etc etc.....

BECAUSE they have been told that is how it is.

let me tell you dna evidence is not conclusive (in MOST cases except rape...I mean theres only ONE way to get that much dna there) but in most other cases ALL it can do is put the donor at the crime scene, it cant tell you when, it cant tell you why, and it most certainly cant tell you that the butler did it with the candle stick. But the masses have been trained to believe otherwise.

cadaver dogs are good.....for sniffing out bodies buried or in cover, but to say they are good for saying a body has BEEN at a location simply isnt true....they would react just the same if you had used your car to carry the weeks meat shopping home, They are not 100% specific to HUMAN bodies so again, not good evidence and certainly NOT conclusive.  

Actually dogs can differentiate between meat and a dead human - there have been tests done and on a true crimes episode years ago they showed a case where a guy buried his victim poured concrete over them, dumped couple of hundred pounds of meat from the slaughter house on top concreted over that and then filled the soil in again before digging a few other places and just dumping meat. The dog indicated - the meat was dug up and the cops said the dog was wrong - handler insisted they dug deeper and the body was found - ground radar discovered other pits with meat but the dog did not indicate on any other them.

true crimes episode???

nuf said....like Csi ...training for the masses....

sphinx wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

No nems the dog didnt lie...sigh..........
thats what I mean by second rate evidence,

You see everybody believes that dna evidence is foolproof and wholey accurate
everybody believes that these dogs are infallible..
everybody believes......etc etc etc.....

BECAUSE they have been told that is how it is.

let me tell you dna evidence is not conclusive (in MOST cases except rape...I mean theres only ONE way to get that much dna there) but in most other cases ALL it can do is put the donor at the crime scene, it cant tell you when, it cant tell you why, and it most certainly cant tell you that the butler did it with the candle stick. But the masses have been trained to believe otherwise.

cadaver dogs are good.....for sniffing out bodies buried or in cover, but to say they are good for saying a body has BEEN at a location simply isnt true....they would react just the same if you had used your car to carry the weeks meat shopping home, They are not 100% specific to HUMAN bodies so again, not good evidence and certainly NOT conclusive.  

Actually dogs can differentiate between meat and a dead human - there have been tests done and on a true crimes episode years ago they showed a case where a guy buried his victim poured concrete over them, dumped couple of hundred pounds of meat from the slaughter house on top concreted over that and then filled the soil in again before digging a few other places and just dumping meat.  The dog indicated - the meat was dug up and the cops said the dog was wrong - handler insisted they dug deeper and the body was found - ground radar discovered other pits with meat but the dog did not indicate on any other them.

Do you want many examples when the dog get them wrong?

Dogs are not 100% accurate even the famous ones get it wrong and badly wrong at times!

grumpy old git wrote:true crimes episode???

nuf said....like Csi ...training for the masses....

uh no this is a non fiction case versus fiction.

Try documentary.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually dogs can differentiate between meat and a dead human - there have been tests done and on a true crimes episode years ago they showed a case where a guy buried his victim poured concrete over them, dumped couple of hundred pounds of meat from the slaughter house on top concreted over that and then filled the soil in again before digging a few other places and just dumping meat.  The dog indicated - the meat was dug up and the cops said the dog was wrong - handler insisted they dug deeper and the body was found - ground radar discovered other pits with meat but the dog did not indicate on any other them.

Do you want many examples when the dog get them wrong?

Dogs are not 100% accurate even the famous ones get it wrong and badly wrong at times!

I have not said they do not get it wrong - I have said they can differentiate between dead human and dead anything else.

CAN...is different to doing it 100% reliably.....

NemsAgain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, nobody is excusing the woman in the OP, contrary to the urging of the lawyer.  So, that backfires.  By elimination, that leaves only one question: Are the McCanns villains or victims.

I think clearly they've got no one but themselves to blame.  They may be victims in a sense, but they are much more to be blamed.

In my opinion Madeleine was the only victim no matter how much the McCanns cast themselves in that role

I would agree with that. It's almost a semantic argument.

I mention it because, apart from the McCann's negligent status, someone was, further, criminally liable for what happened to Madeleine. If you bifurcate the question that way, the McCanns were victim family members.