Defo bumped off, but these new inquiries will end up as nothing, just like any new inquiries into Maddie McCann.

No, it wasn't. It is a factual statement about the lack of jurisdiction in the matter by police in this country and this "digging" and "hiding" stuff is just weird!


Neither do I. But you're going off the subject again.


The way I read it, the issue of whether to charge them with child neglect can logically only have been considered once the authorities in principle felt that the McCann's account was the most credible. But personally I am of the view that to even consider a charge that they abandoned/neglected their child, in the circumstances set out, would be doomed to failure anyway.


I don't see the connection, though I do see the argument that if you accept they didn't kill their own child, then her disappearance is punishment enough for them.


No it doesn't, I would bet she was, sadly, abducted and killed by someone, just not the McCanns.


Well, we don't need Columbo to figure that, but the point was that all possible charges were in turn considered, including murder, and including abandonment/neglect.


Now you're bullting. You're digging and digging to hide the fact that YOU WROTE:

You cannot escape the fact that this plainly implies you DID think exactly that thought. You're ignoring it in the hope your bluster will smokescreen it, but it won't.


Except it wouldn't have to, as the possibility of a child neglect charge was indeed considered, as I set out.


Er, I think you're getting a bit carried away now.


Fair enough.

If someone had been arguing about the British police charging them with child neglect then your point would have been warranted. As no one had, it was simply a stupid comment. As pretty much anyone reading this thread can see.



You were claiming that I thought the Portuguese police never considered charging them with child neglect. I never wrote that, I never alluded to that, I never thought that. I was just pointing that out.



Which I am in agreement with. Which I was arguing. Until you helpfully chimed in with the fact the British police don't have jurisdiction.



The Portuguese police wrongly jumped to the conclusion that Madeline was dead because of their misreading of DNA evidence, and named the parents as suspects. The Portuguese police then briefed the British press about the fact the McCann's were the murderers. The British tabloid press then did what the British tabloid press does and went to town to destroy them.

Given the fact that the Portuguese police have massively screwed up with that. Given the fact that the British tabloids, having been pushed wrongly into hammering the McCann's, were now likely to be focusing back on Portuguese police very sharply, it would make it almost impossible to charge the McCann's with child neglect, even if they did deserve it (which I don't think they did).



I prefer to believe she is safe and abducted by someone and sold to some loon who really wanted kids, but is otherwise safe and bringing her up well.

The Portuguese police were briefing that the McCann's killed Madeline. Around the same time that you say they were considering charging them with child neglect.



We didn't need Columbo to point out that British police wouldn't be charging the McCann's with child neglect, but you felt it was important to point it out.



There is a missing child. There is a possibly murdered child. The police believed that the McCann's were involved in her murder. By all means consider a possible child neglect case and leave that possible case open should the girl be soon discovered. But a potential child neglect case is of almost complete irrelevance compared to the abduction and possible murder of a child.



Considered because the police should consider each possible outcome. But obviously shelved because of higher priorities, and also IMO, because a child neglect case wasn't supported by the facts.

<resigned sigh>
OK if I have to spell it out for you then so be it.
1. My post was a sarcastic comment, aimed at the apparent misunderstandings being posted about what might/should be charged.
2. Nobody was so arguing. They were suggesting that the Portuguese police should charge the parents with neglect.
3. Anyone who was involved in this discussion seemed to be ignorant of the fact that, in reality, the Portuguese police had already given detailed consideration to such charges, and presumably ruled them out (as none were ever brought).
4. The post mocks that ignorance, since obviously a poster who wasn't ignorant of the fact wouldn't suggest that the [iPortuguese[/i police should pursue a course that they had already pursued and rejected. (They would instead point out that decision and criticise it).
5. Therefore the sarcasm in the post is in the implicit assumption it makes that these posters do know this fact, a simple device used to mock the fact that they do not.


This is getting really tiresome. Your sarcastic comment (which I've quoted several times now) has a clear implication and that won't change however many times you swerve explaining why else you would have posted what you did. Though I'm curious how you pointed out something that you never wrote, alluded to, nor thought. That would be a good trick.


To be precise, around the time that the Supreme Court in Evora said they were.


You know, in an odd way, you almost got the sarcasm, didn't you? A bit more attention and you wouldn't have made quite such a fool of yourself!


See what you're doing? You're now posting on the basis that the police could and did consider all possibilities, including child neglect. As if you knew they had considered child neglect, all along. But you didn't. You had no clue. You believed they hadn't. You believed they thought the McCanns "dun it" and so looked into murder charges, and not neglect. Because you thought looking at possible neglect charges would be illogical.





YOU then spelled out your mistaken belief, I'll quote the full extract, for the avoidance of doubt:

Game, set and match. Though dead horses should not assume they can rest easy.

TBH this is pointless arguing. All the evidence is all in the thread.

You've obviously claimed the position of judge as well as participant.

My judgement is that you tried to make a joke with your British cops don't have jurisdiction comment. It wasn't funny, it was stupid and you got pi55ed off after you were called on it.

But hey, you called dibs on being judge so I've lost.

Indeed, I keep quoting it:



You're not arguing, you are just in denial as to what you meant, but we all know.