Whats the difference?

First topic message reminder :

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).

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

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.

Then the method is not reliable as evidence, as many factors can mistake the dog into believing the wrong conclusion, take the Shannon Matthews case for example, there the dog smelled death but was not of the girl as she was found alive was she not?
Such evidence is not conclusive!

grumpy old git wrote:CAN...is different to doing it 100% reliably.....

Saying they cannot as in the statement I was answering suggests they cannot do it at all.

I am not saying whether or not the dogs in the Mccan case were accurate - I am just saying that it cannot be declared 100% they were inaccurate.

True enough Sphinx, but that is putting the tail before the donkey....
IN LAW....which is what matters here....they are not sound evidence...so the case the portugese authorities made was flawed and thus unsustainable.

As wreckless and irresponsible as the Mcanns were, they are paying the ultimate price...not knowing where maddie is or even if she is alive must be the worst feeling for any parent .

Joy Division wrote:As wreckless and irresponsible as the Mcanns were, they are paying the ultimate price...not knowing where maddie is or even if she is alive must be the worst feeling for any parent .

Yes it must and no they dont deserve it but neither is it a reason for claiming total innocence.