CostaJambo Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 Charging them is one thing, getting the evidence for a conviction is another kettle of fish. With the jobs they are in I would expect they would be able to get the best of legal representation to be found not guilty regardless of the charge, and would then be in a position where absolutely concrete evidence would be required before anyone even thought of dragging them back to court in future. The only sensible (although unsatisfactory) option available at present would be to leave them be in the hope that some new evidence either way is uncovered in the future. FWIW I agree that there is absolutely NO justification for leaving your kids alone in the circumstances in which these people did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Pivotonian Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 I cannot believe that anyone can justify their actions. They left alone, in a foreign country three young, defensless children while they went out and lapped up the easy life. We have no evidence that the poor wee girl was abducted by any predatory paedo or anyone else for that matter. I have two young children and find it completely abhorrant that I would even entertain leving my kids alone as they did. They failed that little girl and for that they should be punished just as any other crime would be. If that means 10 years imprisonment then that is 20 years too little for me. Appalling, appalling dereliction of duty. Are you seriously suggesting that they be put in prison for 30 years for leaving their children unattended for 20 or 30 minutes (incidentally, what has the fact that they were in a foreign country got to do with it?) ? Out of interest, how many years should, say, drunk drivers get if they cause the death of a child? More, or less than 30? Is it 50? 70? More than that? More pertinently, how many years should Jamie Bulger's mum have got for leaving her son outside the shop unattended? Isn't that a 'dereliction of duty'. Shouldn't the parents of ALL victims be locked up? After all, what were they doing allowing their children be attacked? IMHO this particular family have suffered enough already. Walk away from the baying mob and leave them to grieve for their child. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Pivotonian Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 Charging them is one thing, getting the evidence for a conviction is another kettle of fish. With the jobs they are in I would expect they would be able to get the best of legal representation to be found not guilty regardless of the charge, and would then be in a position where absolutely concrete evidence would be required before anyone even thought of dragging them back to court in future. The only sensible (although unsatisfactory) option available at present would be to leave them be in the hope that some new evidence either way is uncovered in the future. FWIW I agree that there is absolutely NO justification for leaving your kids alone in the circumstances in which these people did. We all know that they are a professional couple. So what is your point? Does their professional status mean that they they should be charged or not charged? What the devil has their level of income got to do with their level of guilt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1874robbo Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 We all know that they are a professional couple. So what is your point? Does their professional status mean that they they should be charged or not charged? What the devil has their level of income got to do with their level of guilt? It has nothing to do with it whatsoever but try telling that to the media,if that had been a young rough family from a council housing estate anywhere in britain they would have been hung drawn and quartered within 1 week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 It has nothing to do with it whatsoever but try telling that to the media,if that had been a young rough family from a council housing estate anywhere in britain they would have been hung drawn and quartered within 1 week. :blah::blah: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CostaJambo Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 We all know that they are a professional couple. So what is your point? Does their professional status mean that they they should be charged or not charged? What the devil has their level of income got to do with their level of guilt? Read the second sentence again, s.l.o.w.l.y. The point I am making is that being professionals they would be able to afford a decent lawyer and would probably be able to buy their way out of any charges due to shaky evidence. Nothing to do with their level of guilt whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Pivotonian Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Read the second sentence again, s.l.o.w.l.y. The point I am making is that being professionals they would be able to afford a decent lawyer and would probably be able to buy their way out of any charges due to shaky evidence. Nothing to do with their level of guilt whatsoever. I've read your post a few times actually and I'm still confused. Sorry. You seem to be saying that they would be likely to be found not-guilty because their lawyers would be able to argue against poor evidence. Are you suggesting that justice would be better served if the McCanns could only afford poor lawyers? Surely not. Maybe I'm being unfair. Are you simply saying that the evidence against the McCanns is poor and that they should not be charged with any crime? If so, we are probably in closer agreement than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.