Rugster Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Well if they found a body why are we still looking 7 years later? Cadaverine is not a body. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Bud Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Thing is though, if it was Gerry, where was he taking her? Would he honestly carry a dead kid through the town? If she was alive, was he giving her to someone else?? That brings up more questions than it answers. It also means that he would have to have been away from the meal for a reasonable length of time, which would have been picked up by the rest of the Tapas bunch. And I cant believe for a minute they're in on it. Description (beige trousers/blazer) also matches the guy they've just discounted as taking his kid from the creche. The description matched the trousers Gerry was wearing that night right down to the buttons on the hips. Point I was making though is it's interesting how the media and last night's Crimewatch are so selective in the facts they report - at no point last night was it mentioned that Smith thought the man was Gerry, that the cadaver dogs found the scent of a dead body in the flat and car, that Kate refused to answer 48 police questions, etc. So much publicity but the public doesnt get to hear the full story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 So if I can get this straight, people donated money to a fund to help search for a missing child and funds were released to pay a mortgage contribution because and I quote, " always had the ability to assist the family financially if necessary" Was there a list available of what funds would be released for, if it was deemed necessary to assist the family? I know this is old news but jesus Christ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 The spending of the money has to be approved by an independent body not related to the McCann's. That independent body approved two payments of £2,000 in each instance, for two mortgage payments on their home. Who are these people? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Who are these people? :lol: We demand to know 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Who are these people? INDEPENDENT PEOPLE!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I take it that luke mccormick shouldnt have been jailed as he was clearly remorseafterful and suffered greatly himself after he drove drunk and killed two weans in a car crash Shot my gran in the face last year. Absolutely gutted about it and really miss her - some nights I can't even sleep thinking about how stupid I was. Just turned myself in yesterday but the polis agreed I was clearly feeling pretty bad about it and that was punishment enough. Fucking result Seemingly, investigations were conducted into the alleged negligence of the McCanns - the result of these investigations were that no actual laws were broken. Most people seem to think that they were negligent, but the investigations concluded otherwise. Drink driving is against the law, as is shooting your gran in the face - the reason you haven't been prosecuted is that you made it up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dariusz Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 The description matched the trousers Gerry was wearing that night right down to the buttons on the hips. Point I was making though is it's interesting how the media and last night's Crimewatch are so selective in the facts they report - at no point last night was it mentioned that Smith thought the man was Gerry, that the cadaver dogs found the scent of a dead body in the flat and car, that Kate refused to answer 48 police questions, etc. So much publicity but the public doesnt get to hear the full story. Some of that may have already been discounted by evidence though. So say for example there is evidence to prove that it couldnt have been Gerry, it would be a complete waste of time mentioning it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Seemingly, investigations were conducted into the alleged negligence of the McCanns - the result of these investigations were that no actual laws were broken. Most people seem to think that they were negligent, but the investigations concluded otherwise. Only because there wasn't enough evidence under Portugese law. There's plenty of crimes out there that go unpunished because there wasn't enough evidence. Would have interesting to see what jail term they would have got in this country. But that's hypothetical of course 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Would have interesting to see what jail term they would have got in this country. Had they been found guilty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Had they been found guilty. Just a hunch, but I think they would have, if you relate it to the case further up the thread 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Just a hunch, but I think they would have, if you relate it to the case further up the thread Possibly - maybe, given the strength of public feeling, there should be an inquiry into whether they would have been found guilty of negligence, as defined by British Law? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 The description matched the trousers Gerry was wearing that night right down to the buttons on the hips. Point I was making though is it's interesting how the media and last night's Crimewatch are so selective in the facts they report - at no point last night was it mentioned that Smith thought the man was Gerry, that the cadaver dogs found the scent of a dead body in the flat and car, that Kate refused to answer 48 police questions, etc. So much publicity but the public doesnt get to hear the full story. You can't blame the BBC - the McCann's hired Carter-Ruck (theme tune: 'Putting Out The Writs') who as all good Private Eye readers know is the favourite gagging lawyer for those with the cash and something to hide. The Express group got hammered & ever since then the press in this country have been very careful what they say about the McCanns. They're finding however it to be a different story when trying to gag the press abroad, particularly Gonçalo Amaral (the original officer in charge of the investigation, who claims that the case was next to doomed from the start due to political interference for reasons having little to do with justice). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballymoneyyin Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I think the pertinent question is, who abducted the boy in the efits lower jaw? Did he go into Maccies and have about 14 Big Macs during the course of the kidnapping? I should contact the authorities. Thats my centre half in my FM 13 22/23 season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Just a hunch, but I think they would have, if you relate it to the case further up the thread Just from Wiki, but still: "leaving a young child unsupervised may be considered neglect, especially if doing so places the child in danger" Ooft. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 You can't blame the BBC - the McCann's hired Carter-Ruck (theme tune: 'Putting Out The Writs') who as all good Private Eye readers know is the favourite gagging lawyer for those with the cash and something to hide. The Express group got hammered & ever since then the press in this country have been very careful what they say about the McCanns. They're finding however it to be a different story when trying to gag the press abroad, particularly Gonçalo Amaral (the original officer in charge of the investigation, who claims that the case was next to doomed from the start due to political interference for reasons having little to do with justice). Employing a lawyer should definitely be seen as the same thing as guilt imo. Same with winning injunctions - clearly if the court finds that someone has libelled you, you must be guilty. And while we're at it, the same goes for refusing to answer questions. Right to remain silent? Me arse, right to remain guilty more like. (Incase it's not coming across, I'm being sarcastic). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Just from Wiki, but still: "leaving a young child unsupervised may be considered neglect, especially if doing so places the child in danger" Ooft. Neglect is one of the four categories of child abuse (along with physical, sexual and emotional abuse). It is defined as 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 and development. Neglect may occur during pregnancy as a result of maternal substance misuse and once the child is born, neglect may involve failure to: Provide adequate food, clothing or shelter (including exclusion from home or abandonment) Protect from physical and emotional harm or danger Meet or respond to basic emotional needs Ensure adequate supervision including the use of adequate care-takers Ensure access to appropriate medical care or treatment Ensure that her/his educational needs are met Ensure that her/his opportunities for intellectual stimulation are met http://www3.hants.gov.uk/cs-neglect I'm no lawyer but the one in bold surely would fit. The tragic circumstances surrounding this no one could argue that they ensured adequate supervision, particularly when a crèche was available to them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I should contact the authorities. Thats my centre half in my FM 13 22/23 season. Man comes back from the future and abducts child. Case solved. Employing a lawyer should definitely be seen as the same thing as guilt imo. Same with winning injunctions - clearly if the court finds that someone has libelled you, you must be guilty. And while we're at it, the same goes for refusing to answer questions. Right to remain silent? Me arse, right to remain guilty more like. (Incase it's not coming across, I'm being sarcastic). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snsj0L8-4Iw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomDom Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Employing a lawyer should definitely be seen as the same thing as guilt imo. Same with winning injunctions - clearly if the court finds that someone has libelled you, you must be guilty. And while we're at it, the same goes for refusing to answer questions. Right to remain silent? Me arse, right to remain guilty more like. (Incase it's not coming across, I'm being sarcastic). I had to explain to someone on Twitter that refusal to answer questions is absolutely the right thing to do, and it was like talking to a brick wall. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 http://www3.hants.gov.uk/cs-neglect I'm no lawyer but the one in bold surely would fit. The tragic circumstances surrounding this no one could argue that they ensured adequate supervision, particularly when a crèche was available to them. Yup - by that definition, it looks like they were negligent. Isn't it bad enough, though, to have to live with the knowledge that your negligence led to the abduction of your child? That would be torture, imo. (assuming that they weren't involved in the abduction) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.