Add this to your site

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Hampering Criminal Investigations

This week, news of a possible pedophile involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann surfaced. Madeleine's parents are now suing officials over claims that their daughter's investigation was hampered by police by saying that not only is Madeleine already dead, but that the parents were somehow involved.

What do you think? Did the police miss the mark by focusing their investigation on the parents and not looking further for other possibilities? In a husband/wife crime scenario, the spouse is always the first suspect, but should they always be the MAIN suspect?

Do you think the police handled the investigation appropriately?


DeLane said...

I think the parents would be persons of interest, but should not be investigated to the point of excluding all others.
That would be blatant lazy behavior on the part of the investigators.

Beth said...

I believe the parents acted irresponsibly by leaving the kids alone so they could have a nice dinner with their friends. They should have hired a babysitter.

I can see why they were targeted by police but the police should have been combing the area, looking at pedophiles and other offenders. They most likely spent valuable time focusing only on the parents. It probably was not top-notch police work.

It's a very sad case. That little girl has the most haunting eyes. She's beautiful.

Palooski65 said...

John Walsh, John/Patsy Ramsey, and the McCanns have all complained about the single focus that police seem to practice in these situations. John Walsh and the Ramseys have been vindicated and, in hindsight, it's easy to think the police should have broadened their scope.

Incidents like Susan Yates and other parent-inflicted deaths seem too incredible for the average person to believe--sadly, police know that percentage-wise, the perpetrator is usually someone close to home.

I try to imagine--if I were the sole authority, how would I proceed? I'd be one of those who would find it incredulous that someone close to the victim could visit such horror on a child.

I definitely think there is a need to simultaneously investigate. Maybe 70% of effort directed initially toward family/friends while 30% sends "feelers" into the public-at-large. As the investigations would continue, the percentages could shift.

I grieve for Patsy Ramsey who died of cancer with the stigma hanging over her head that she might have been involved in Jon Benet's murder. How sad--the loss and then to be suspicioned as the perpetrator.

Shirley McCann said...

I never thought the Ramsey's were guilty. Several of the detectives involved in the case didn't think they were guilty either. If anything good came out of that whole case, it's knowing that Patsy is now in heaven with her daughter.

I'm like you, Virginia. I'm probably the first one to say that the parents couldn't possibly do something so horrible to their children. But I also follow the Anthony case, and I do believe that the mom was somehow involved in that. If she didn't kill her daughter, she knows what happened. I'm looking forward to that one on court TV.

Palooski65 said...

Yes--the Anthony case is another, I'm certain, that is matricide. It will be another that will encourage police to continue to look at family/friends first--solidifies the statistics.

Little Casey was so adorable--I followed some of the online news. The pics of the mother out partying and living it up were so sad. The fact that she can't tell her story straight 2x's in a row also tends to incriminate her.

It will be one of those court cases that will be closely followed by many, I think. I know that I'll be drinking in every word.

I'm torn about how I feel about the g-mother--I think she knows more than she's willing to give up. It would be terribly difficult to divulge incriminating evidence against your own daughter. Not that I think she has direct knowledge----I just think she knows what her daughter is capable of doing. I have a problem with my tongue-in-cheek when she defends her.