For those who still feel differently

May 1, 2008 at 6:44 PM
8 comments

Kate McCann left her three year old child unsupervised in a apartment, in a foreign country; to go out for drinks with friends. It is unlikely we'll ever know if she had any further involvement in the disappearance (and probable death) of Madeline. But the Portuguese police named her as a formal suspect.

Maxine Carr, a young woman of limited intellect, provided a false alibi for Soham murderer Ian Huntley. Her actions had very little impact on the investigation. She was imprisoned for perverting the course of justice.

Kate McCann is a candidate for sainthood. Maxine Carr lives in hiding, for fear of vigilante attacks.

Funny old world.......

8 comments

Tags:

This also appears in:

UK Voxers
- 205 members

Comments

I agree about Kate McCann, leaving a three year old on their own anywhere is negligent, to do so in a foreign country is almost hard to believe.

However, we have evidence only that she was negligent, where as Maxine Carr deliberately tried to protect a man guilty of a massively evil crime. Limited intellect can never be used as an excuse, I think she got off lightly.

Also, she didn't just leave a three year old - she left the babies as well.

It's still the person that abducted the child that committed the crime - I have no doubt that the McCanns have been beating themselves up over leaving the kids much more than anyone else ever could - of course they wouldn't have done it if it had occurred to them they were in danger.

I agree with Pete on Maxine Carr. So what if her actions didn't impact much on the investigation - she was protecting a killer.

I understand that people r upset about the little girl but what about the father, it was my understanding that he to was at that dinner and that both of them took turns checking in on the children. If u r going to be hard about the mothers actions you should be hard on the fathers as well.

salaryman replied to Dee Dee Rules!’s comment:
May 5, 2008
Reply

The father is equally at fault; but my post is about the contrasting treatment of the two women. One is painted by the press and public as the next Myra Hindley, the other as the next Lady Di.

Pete/Plubby - before the McCann's hired some very expensive PR expertise, the public were turning to the view that perhaps the police were right in their suspicions. Kate McCann is now well on her way to beatification.

My issue isn't with the McCann's (although if you were to ask me what I think happened I'm sure my view would differ from yours); but with the different treatment the two women received. Which I think that's got a lot to do with how they look, and what social class they come from.

But what about the basic principles of habeas corpus? The onus is on the authorities to prove that some case exists against her. This they have not done - if they had enough evidence for a case they'd have brought one. Whether she did it or not is inconsequential to the principles of being innocent until proven guilty. The treatment of these two people is different because one has been proven guilty of something repulsively disgusting, while the other has not been proven guilty of anything and is as likely the victim as the perpetrator.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the McCanns are perfect, but I'll be worried about society the day we treat people who have no proven case against them in the same way we treat people who are known to be guilty of bad crimes.

'guilty vs not proven guilty' is a fair point

For those who still feel differently

Comments

Post a comment

About Me

Links

My Groups

Neighborhood

Tags

Archives