[QUOTE=Slacker]
It’s sadly true though, in a vast majority of cases involving children, the parents or other family member had something to do with it. Anyone got the numbers? It’s gotta be something like 85% or higher.
When we talked about this in criminal justice classes in college, I didn’t know whether to find this fact comforting (cause my daughter has good relatives) or disturbing (that so many people can be so horrible to their children).
[/QUOTE]
Slacker, I can’t really disagree with that generalization. I’m not going to fight your numbers, though I hope you’re overstating the case.
I will suggest, however, it’s not simply an artifact of crime on children. That is most violent crime is perpetuated upon the victims by people they know well: family, lovers, then friends and acquaintances. Assaults by strangers, are very rare.
[QUOTE=wolf_meister]
My God think of the irony of that. The parents rented the same car three weeks after the kidnappers/murderers rented it. :eek:
[/QUOTE]
That’s the one part of this thread that would have made the CSI episode memorable.
[QUOTE=MoodIndigo1]
I’ve wondered about the leaving a 4-year-old and 2-year-old twins ALONE while they went to dinner. How could they trust that the children would stay asleep? Could Madeleine have been given something to ensure that she stay asleep?
[/QUOTE]
We had a huge bitch-slap here about leaving kids alone when this was all fresh news - I don’t think anyone then realised that your average doctor would quite easily be able to do that. But then again, the easy access to sedatives proves nothing.
[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
2) I read a report where, immediately after her disappearance, her mother came racing down yelling “they’ve taken her.” Not “she’s gone” or “I can’t find her.” Très suspicious, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, but without a decent cite, I’m going to put this down to either paraphrase or translation.
[QUOTE=tagos]
So many miscarriages of justice in the UK seem to revolve around dodgy forensic ‘evidence.’ If microscopic traces of blood were in the apartment then it’s not unreasonable to imagine the parent’s shoes or clothing could have become contaminated and transferred the blood. Or it was just plain planted there by police in the international spotlight.
I’m still taking this with a large shaking of bacon salt.
[/QUOTE]
I’m with you. ‘Traces of blood’…Billie-Jo Jenkins?
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting] vivalostwages, I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the story, but the family was on vacation, and though I don’t approve of their leaving the kids alone, this means (a) they left the kids in a hotel room, which was nearby and (2) hiring a babysitter would have been harder (though not impossible).
[/QUOTE]
IIRC in the previous thread on this, it was brought up that where they were staying has a program that you get the kids in PJs, drop them off to be surprivised while you have supper, and can pick them up afterwards.
[QUOTE=Shirley Ujest]
Why bring someone in 5 months into this event? If he/she/they did it, they would have plenty of time to rehearse a story from any angle.
[/QUOTE]
I think that the blood in the car is relatively new evidence.
[QUOTE=MoodIndigo1]
I’ve wondered about the leaving a 4-year-old and 2-year-old twins ALONE while they went to dinner. How could they trust that the children would stay asleep? Could Madeleine have been given something to ensure that she stay asleep?
Lots of questions.
[/QUOTE]
I have a 7 year old and 2.5 year old twins. These parents are freaking insane to leave their kids ALONE. That’s a recipe for disaster all by itself, much less this “kidnap” scenario.
[QUOTE=vivalostwages]
I’ve heard that it’s common in some places (though I don’t think the UK is one of them) to leave kids in strollers outside a cafe window while the parent goes inside to have a cup of coffee or such. Not such a great idea, IMHO, nor does it fly well if they try to do it here.
[/QUOTE]
I live in one of the countries where it’s common to leave babies outside a shop or cafe from time to time, and everyone I’ve heard speaking about this has been unanimous that what these parents did is… odd. The babies you see outside here are babies, usually not even old enough to sit up alone, left to nap in their prams while Mom or Dad goes into a building - but always stays where they can see and/or hear the child. Sometimes babies are also left to sleep outside on apartment balconies or in the yard of their house, but again, we’re talking infants. There’s a belief that sleeping in the fresh air is healthful and promotes better sleep. But there’s also an understanding that once a kid is mobile, you’re asking for trouble. And out of earshot for hours, “checking up” every thirty minutes or so? That would be a serious no-no.
I remember when I was a wee flod that the neighborhood moms would go “visiting” on one another’s porches on warm summer evenings, after the kids were in bed. The houses were so close together that they trusted they could hear any crying or other trouble through the open windows. I didn’t mind a bit. Some of us got quite a bit of reading done while our moms were out front yacking But again, that’s a far cry from going to a restaurant where you can neither see nor hear what’s happening inside the room.
Something about this whole case is just not adding up for me, and I’m afraid that if and when the general public ever hears the true story we’re going to wish we hadn’t
I have been following this story since it happened, I’ll add some comments. Sorry this is going to be long.
[QUOTE=Flutterby]
IIRC in the previous thread on this, it was brought up that where they were staying has a program that you get the kids in PJs, drop them off to be surprivised while you have supper, and can pick them up afterwards.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve not seen any mention of that in any story. This Chronology makes no mention of that, it just says:
If you’ve got a link for the looking-after kids program I’d like to see it (I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I’ve not seen anyone say that).
Regardless of the truth of the case I think the whole media circus has been ridiculous. As NinjaChick said upthread, kids disappear all the time. The wall-to-wall coverage is just taking attention, time and money away from other cases which might actually benefit from some of the above. Yes it’s tragic, but it was no longer news. Until the parents became suspects. Worse, if they are charged, even if they’re not found guilty, then it’s going to add a tinge of doubt to the next missing child case.
In the UK there was a lot of mumbling about leaving your kids alone and there’s been a lot of quiet muttering about the parents actions on that night and since then. It’ll not take much for public opinion to turn against them, on the news last night people are already moving from “whole-hearted support” to something more guarded.
There are a couple of problems with either theory of events. If she was abducted then did the guy just happen by and act on impluse, how did they know no one would be about. Or had they been stalking the family. Surely someone would have seen something.
On the other hand if the parents are involved then why keep repeating the “we’ll never give up” mantra, they must know that that’s not going to work. Although it’s possible that they’ve not thought it through.
Personally this case has reminded me of a particular CSI episode from the start, in the episode we discover that the wife had discovered the kid dead (one of the siblings had done it accidentally IIRC) and concocted the kidnapping story as a cover.
I’d hope the Madeleine turns up safe and well someday soon, but whatever the truth is I just don’t seem it happening. And I don’t see the coverage subsiding anytime soon, although I do see it taking a nasty turn.
To my mind there is just too much fucking rumor and opinion_as_fact, both on this board, in the media and elsewhere. Our access to reliable information is very limited and far too much is being concluded from conjecture and leaks. Maybe the parents are guilty, maybe not. Only when we have the full facts - and I don’t believe for a second we have but a small fraction of what the investigating police have - can we begin to make firm conclusions as to guilt or otherwise. Please, lets not hang anyone until after a trial.
[QUOTE=flodnak]
I live in one of the countries where it’s common to leave babies outside a shop or cafe from time to time, and everyone I’ve heard speaking about this has been unanimous that what these parents did is… odd.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for clarifying that part about customs elsewhere – I’ve been puzzled when that’s mentioned in the media, but now it makes sense.
And I totally agree, leaving sleeping toddlers completely alone, out of sight AND earshot, is nuts. Particularly in an unfamiliar environment, like a hotel room – did they babyproof that room before they left the kids alone? It’s just weird.
That 85% it’s the parents or a close relative guess upthread (can’t find it right now) is close. This study says for kids under 12, the parents are the perpetrators 60% of the time, and friends/family acquaintances are the second most likely.
I looked all this up last year when I learned that many mothers are afraid to let their preschoolers play in their own backyards these days, for fear that someone’s going to reach over the fence and snatch them. That’s really not where the risk lies - and, it’s not the age group that’s at the greatest risk!
There’s a group within the dept of justice, NISMART that publishes studies on child abductions. A survey asked how many children are kidnapped by random strangers every year. The most popular answer (no cite) was 5,000. In truth, the number is 115.
From the NISMART study of data in 1999, (hereand here) published in 2002 (stereotypical kidnappings are strangers, non-family is anybody they or the family already knew):
…percent of… number of…number of
…70,000,000…“stereotypical”…rough…non-family…rough…family
Age (years)…child population…kidnappings…likelihood…abductions…likelihood…abductions
0–5…33%…20…1 in million…4,300…2 in 10,000…90,500
6–11…34%…24…1 in million…6,800…3 in 10,000…71,000
12–14…17%…45…1 in 250,000…13,000…1 in 1,000…36,200
15–17…17%…20…1 in 500,000…34,100…3 in 1,000…7,200
And, the leading cause of death for kids under age 14 (1,451 children in 2005) is automobile accidents.
The Ocean Club is where the McCann’s were staying when it happened, and I got that directly from that section. The childcare offered is a big selling point for their family resorts (it’s the first thing mentioned on the main page) for peace of mind of the parents so they don’t have to go out to dinner and rush back every half hour to check..
[QUOTE=chowder]
So why didn’t the McCanns avail themselves of this service?
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps because the restaurant was just a couple hundred meters away and they trusted themselves to go check every 30mins rather than some resort employee to do more or less the same thing. Or perhaps because she was already chopped into little bits. Who knows?
[QUOTE=VCO3]
I’ve never doubted for a second that the parents are behind this, and the real mystery is why they did it and what happened. Occam’s Razor simply demands that explanation.
These things always end up pointing to the parents.
[/QUOTE]
Do you even understand what Occam’s Razor is? It has nothing to do with proof. It only says that you should ***start ***looking at the simplest explanations first, not to ***end ***there. And your last statement is just too stupid to comment on . . . even if the parents ***are ***guilty.
I just read that the McCanns are trying to clarify their legal status so that they can leave Portugal. Mrs. McCann had vowed to not leave until her daughter was found. Perhaps the police are putting the McCanns under this scrutiny, not because they truly think they had something to do with it, but to give them an incentive to leave already.
I guess L&O SVU is waiting until the whole thing blows over to write their version (or it’ll be the season premiere) and you can bet your last jar of bacon salt they’ll have the mom as the guilty party
But again, that’s a far cry from going to a restaurant where you can neither see nor hear what’s happening inside the room.