Justice 4 ALL Madeleine McCann Family
You need to be a member of this forum in order to view its entire contents.
We welcome applications to join the forum from genuine caring compassionate people that wish to support Mr Mrs McCann in their never ending resolve to finding their daughter Madeleine and bringing her back home where she truly belongs.

All applicants are checked out so people with no sense, no moral compass, no rationality and only half a brain cell and even less grip on reality and who are devoid of all logic - need NOT apply!
This also applies to ex-members, who no longer want to be members, yet spend their lives viewing this forum and telling people they no longer want to be members.
This is said without prejudice with no one in particular in mind.

Abduction of a Child from Home - Further Information.

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Abduction of a Child from Home - Further Information.

Post by dianeh on Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:24 pm

I just watched 20/20 about the case of Riley Fox. She was a beautiful three year old that disappeared while asleep on the couch in the family home. She was later found dead in the rived. She had been raped, bound with duct tape and thrown into the water alive, and had drowned. This happened in Wilmington Illinois, just ouside of Chicago in 2004.

I wont go into the whole details of what happened next, but many months later after a very lengthy interrogation (and with elections for DA etc within weeks) he confessed to killing his daughter. His brother got a very good defence attorney interested and she only takes cases where she believes the accused to be guilty. The police made up some ridiculous theory about him accidentally killing her, then staging it to look like a sexual assault (doesnt quite explain why he threw his live daughter in the river though). The defense was able to get DNA on the Y chromosome from the child, which proved it wasnt the father. So he was exonerated. He was facing the death penalty.

As to why he confessed, it apparently has to do with a 14 hour interrogation and not being able to see a way out of the room. It is apparently quite common, according to the defense attorney, which is why corroborating evidence is mandatory. But the DNA was hard to get, so the police decided they didnt need it (a very small sample). The defense pursued it and it proved he was innocent. The police also did other things, insisting no abduction took place because there was no evidence of break in (but the back door was broken and there ws evidence the person was looking for a way out), the blanket she was wrapped in wasnt tested, no fingerprinting done of the window (looking for a way out) or the door, and then it looks as thought the police got stuck in a rut and took the wrong path. Any of this sounding familiar?

Why am I telling this story?

Riley was abducted from her home and murdered, but someone who is not of her family. It may be that the culprit is known to the family, or it may be that is a predatory paedophile who took a liking to the little girl, but whoever it was took a chance on stealing the girl out of the house while the father was home. The mother was away for the night.

Children are abducted from their homes by strangers, or acquaintances, or neighbourhood people. Not all crimes concerning children in their own homes are done by the parents.

Let me quote one of the Fox's defense witnesses, Professor Ann Burgess

Professor Ann Burgess of Boston College, who was worked with the FBI profiling killers, testified on behalf of the Foxes that cases involving intruders are not as rare as many think. "There're many cases where an intruder comes in and and takes a child, Elizabeth Smart, absolutely, perfect case."


If you would like to read more about this here is the link to the 20/20 story.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6196896&page=1

This is a portal to a site that has the video and transcript. About half way down the page is a reference to 'Who killed Riley Fox?"and links to the video.

And I want to add.

Prof Burgess is an EXPERT in this field. Mr Bennet is NOT. Which one will you believe?
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Abduction of a Child from Home - Further Information.

Post by Pedro Silva on Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:39 pm

Prof. Burgess, of course, without any doubt. Rest in peace Riley Fox. Amen.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5566
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Riley Fox..

Post by Marilyn on Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:45 am

Dianeh, this case is an example of why no-one can be trusted with the death penalty.
Too many examples of police/judicial incompetence, corruption and the gullibility/blood-lust of the public.
No-way are we there yet .. so we just have to stomach the injustice of the obviously guilty not being sufficiently punished... to protect the innocents who are still being framed in too many countries .. 3rd world and 1st too.

And there is JonBenet .. her pyscopathic killer(s) is still out there... and her parents were almost framed for her slaughter & it has taken years to exonerate them too. Their lives were ruined beyond repair and Patsy died never knowing who murdered her beautiful daughter.

Depressing...

:pale:

Marilyn
Master
Master

Number of posts : 428
Location : Geneva
Registration date : 2008-07-03

Back to top Go down

Hi Diane

Post by Rosie on Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:01 am

dianeh wrote:I just watched 20/20 about the case of Riley Fox. She was a beautiful three year old that disappeared while asleep on the couch in the family home. She was later found dead in the rived. She had been raped, bound with duct tape and thrown into the water alive, and had drowned. This happened in Wilmington Illinois, just ouside of Chicago in 2004.

I wont go into the whole details of what happened next, but many months later after a very lengthy interrogation (and with elections for DA etc within weeks) he confessed to killing his daughter. His brother got a very good defence attorney interested and she only takes cases where she believes the accused to be guilty. The police made up some ridiculous theory about him accidentally killing her, then staging it to look like a sexual assault (doesnt quite explain why he threw his live daughter in the river though). The defense was able to get DNA on the Y chromosome from the child, which proved it wasnt the father. So he was exonerated. He was facing the death penalty.

As to why he confessed, it apparently has to do with a 14 hour interrogation and not being able to see a way out of the room. It is apparently quite common, according to the defense attorney, which is why corroborating evidence is mandatory. But the DNA was hard to get, so the police decided they didnt need it (a very small sample). The defense pursued it and it proved he was innocent. The police also did other things, insisting no abduction took place because there was no evidence of break in (but the back door was broken and there ws evidence the person was looking for a way out), the blanket she was wrapped in wasnt tested, no fingerprinting done of the window (looking for a way out) or the door, and then it looks as thought the police got stuck in a rut and took the wrong path. Any of this sounding familiar?

Why am I telling this story?

Riley was abducted from her home and murdered, but someone who is not of her family. It may be that the culprit is known to the family, or it may be that is a predatory paedophile who took a liking to the little girl, but whoever it was took a chance on stealing the girl out of the house while the father was home. The mother was away for the night.

Children are abducted from their homes by strangers, or acquaintances, or neighbourhood people. Not all crimes concerning children in their own homes are done by the parents.

Let me quote one of the Fox's defense witnesses, Professor Ann Burgess

Professor Ann Burgess of Boston College, who was worked with the FBI profiling killers, testified on behalf of the Foxes that cases involving intruders are not as rare as many think. "There're many cases where an intruder comes in and and takes a child, Elizabeth Smart, absolutely, perfect case."


If you would like to read more about this here is the link to the 20/20 story.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6196896&page=1

This is a portal to a site that has the video and transcript. About half way down the page is a reference to 'Who killed Riley Fox?"and links to the video.

And I want to add.

Prof Burgess is an EXPERT in this field. Mr Bennet is NOT. Which one will you believe?

I just went to abc news and I watched the video, it is in several parts and you have to scroll down to pick the others up after watching the first part. One thing semed to jump out at me, the police say Kevin Fox confessed to killing Riley accidentally and then staged it to look like an abduction and that he placed duct tape ver her mouth and placed her in the river, if he killed her, why would he put tape over her mouth before putting her in the river?

I cannot believe how many eerie similarities there with Riley's abduction, to that of Madeleine McCann's. So much for bennett's book.

I suggest that BEFORE bennett goes much further with his ridiculous book, that he views the footage of what happened to Riley's daddy.

When is there going to be a public inquiry held into the dreadful bungling of the investigation of Madeleine McCann's abduction?

Bennett and his cohorts appear to be on some kind of power trip, they really believe they have the right to demand answers of the McCanns, they don't! If they really want to help children as they say they want to do, then they will add to the growing calls and pressure for Portugal to hold a full and independent public inquiry. Until this basic step is taken, no one, least of all Madeleine's parents are going to discover what happened to Madeleine.

God bless these poor children.

Until then one word sums up what I think and feel about bennett and his cohorts and that is - PATHETIC!

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Rosie

Post by dianeh on Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:35 am

The Foxes were very unlucky to have lost Riley that way, but very lucky that it didnt result in the loss of the father as well. It was only a very good defense attorney who questioned an 'inconclusive' finding on the DNA taken from Riley's body, that resulted in his acquittal.

The similarities really concern just what happens when a miscarriage of justice takes place. The sherriff etc clearly went on the wrong track about the father, and did from the start. Why else would they not have done forensics on the blanket, or treated the whole house as a crime scene, taking fingerprints from the doors and windows, and checking for things such as blood in the house.

I was so upset when I watched the show, especially about how little Riley died. So young, so beautiful, so innocent. But I made myself watch it because I knew that the DNA had been used to free the father, I saw the ad. And I could see the similarities between that and Madeleine's case. Also, I saw shorts of Prof Burgess, and this is exactly the thing that makes Bennett look to be a fool, so I forced myself to watch. Crying a lot about that beautiful little girl.

Yesterday was a bad day for me. I watched the 20/20 show about Riley, read the NOTW article about Baby P (Peter). Completely overwhelming. I wish I hadnt read about Baby P, but I am glad I watched the show about Riley. Perhaps this information will help the McCanns. And after this, my kids got lots of cuddles and hugs.

One thing as well. This re-inforces my point about a lone predatory paedophile. I have always felt if it was a lone paedophile, that Madeleine's body would have been found, as they dont cover their tracks very well. As with Riley. She was dumped and left to drown, only a few km's from her home. And this is because it is too risky to go far with the body in the car. This person will have killed before and will kill again.

The thing is Rosie, about the police theory, is that the father would not have taped her mouth and thrown her in the river alive, albeit unconcious (as the theory goes). If he thought she was dead, he would have called 911. But even if he wanted to try to remove the evidence,he wouldnt have mutilated his daughter and tied her up. And remember the police theory is that he accidentally killed her (or thought he did) by knocking her into the wall or the bath or something. It is just as stupid as cutting up Joanne and feeding her to the pigs, or placing Madeleine in the freezer. Thank goodness for the tiny DNA sample, which although cannot be used to show who killed her, can definitely be used to exclude people.
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Diane

Post by Rosie on Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:11 pm

Isn't Carlos Rodriguez, the private detective in Riley's case, the same private detective that went to Portugal and talked to everyone undercover? He concluded that Madeleine had been abducted.
Apparently he is part Portuguese, so could converse with people fluently about that night.

TBH I have not read about little baby P, I have heard bits about it on TV, but even that I have found to be completely harrowing and have turned it off. That poor dear little child. I got very cross today with a person that is supposed to represent children's rights, saying the people that did this are nit responsible for their actions, society is to blame.

Honestly, it is political correctness gone berserk! I don't damned well care what a rotten childhood these people had, they had a choice, NOT to hurt a poor innocent, defenseless baby, how dare she say this?

I hope these people NEVER come out of prison again.

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Abduction of a Child from Home - Further Information.

Post by clairesy on Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:32 pm

Rosiepops wrote:Isn't Carlos Rodriguez, the private detective in Riley's case, the same private detective that went to Portugal and talked to everyone undercover? He concluded that Madeleine had been abducted.
Apparently he is part Portuguese, so could converse with people fluently about that night.

TBH I have not read about little baby P, I have heard bits about it on TV, but even that I have found to be completely harrowing and have turned it off. That poor dear little child. I got very cross today with a person that is supposed to represent children's rights, saying the people that did this are nit responsible for their actions, society is to blame.

Honestly, it is political correctness gone berserk! I don't damned well care what a rotten childhood these people had, they had a choice, NOT to hurt a poor innocent, defenseless baby, how dare she say this?

I hope these people NEVER come out of prison again.

well said rosie...doesn't matter how bad your childhood is...as an adult you now whats right and wrong. There are many many poeple all over the world who have experienced some sort of upset during their childhoods...they don't grow up to go out and harm someone else.You cannot use the excuse of bad childhood experiences for you deluded treatment of others.Infact that's actually a insult to those poeple who have had an upsetting childhood.Its almost as if we are saying they are all unstable!!!pfffffffft
And i don't think that's a fair judgment.
avatar
clairesy
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 2698
Age : 32
Location : uk
Registration date : 2008-06-04

Back to top Go down

Rosie

Post by dianeh on Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:23 pm

I didnt know that Carlos Rodriguez went to Portugal. I wouldnt be surprised though. I googled him but cant find anything connecting him with the McCanns. But that doesnt mean anything, especially if he was not open about going there.

Carlos Rodriguez and his partner are trying to find Riley's killer. They have asked a number of people for DNA samples in Wilmington, and none have matched to the DNA found. Its funny but it looks as though everyone just co-operates, although they dont have to, and I guess its because they are innocent. The DNA test will show only the Y chromosome match, and that can be to anyone in a family, so if a brother or cousin is tested, they would show up, even if innocent. But it then gives the investigators something to go on, at least they know it is someone in the family, even if not the person who gave the sample.

And it is worth relating that the Foxes won a $3.5 million court case against the authorities for the wrongful arrest (at least I think that is what it was) and not because the father was arrested, but because the police didnt do their job properly, with procedures not being followed and evidence overlooked, as well as the forcing of a confession. That is also very interesting.
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Clairesy and Diane

Post by Rosie on Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:38 pm

dianeh wrote:I didnt know that Carlos Rodriguez went to Portugal. I wouldnt be surprised though. I googled him but cant find anything connecting him with the McCanns. But that doesnt mean anything, especially if he was not open about going there.

Carlos Rodriguez and his partner are trying to find Riley's killer. They have asked a number of people for DNA samples in Wilmington, and none have matched to the DNA found. Its funny but it looks as though everyone just co-operates, although they dont have to, and I guess its because they are innocent. The DNA test will show only the Y chromosome match, and that can be to anyone in a family, so if a brother or cousin is tested, they would show up, even if innocent. But it then gives the investigators something to go on, at least they know it is someone in the family, even if not the person who gave the sample.

And it is worth relating that the Foxes won a $3.5 million court case against the authorities for the wrongful arrest (at least I think that is what it was) and not because the father was arrested, but because the police didnt do their job properly, with procedures not being followed and evidence overlooked, as well as the forcing of a confession. That is also very interesting.

You are correct Clairesy, plenty of people have had dreadful childhoods, they do not go and hurt and torture their own children. They are adults they have a choice, nowhere in their addled minds could it have said 'yes it's OK to torture a baby/child or in fact anyone, but a defenceless innocent child? Come on, these idiots have to STOP giving people that do these unspeakable things excuses for their behaviour because there are not any! There is no excuse for what they have done, none at all, zero.
I only hope that poor little mite is at rest and peace now away from those pure evil creatures that did this to him. Bless his dear little heart and all those responsible for not doing their jobs properly need to take their share of the blame for this.

Too many times we hear "We must learn from the mistakes, so this never happens again!" But it does happen again, it DID happen again and I do not want to see those mealy mouthed words and neither do I want to look at my TV and see that woman sitting there making excuses for these people, there are NO bloody excuses. We need to see ACTION. Children MUST be protected. Sorry Clairesy for ranting, I am shaking with anger here.

Diane

I think Carlos Rodriguez did go under cover to Portugal, I believe he popped up in a video that was made for CNN.

The similarities between what the police tried on with Kevin Fox and what they tried to do to Gerry and Kate McCann are striking. You note that even when it has been comprehensively proved that Kevin did not hurt his child, still the police refuse to admit they cocked up and presented false evidence and maybe even lied. I understand that they are asking questions of corruption here too.

What amazes me is that "Bent Tits" research for that thing he laughably calls a book must have been done on the back of a fag packet! It is ridiculous. If he was taken to court for libel it is not up to eh McCanns to prove they did not do it, it is up to "bent tits" to prove they did and he simply cannot do this. I do hope they take him to court. He could then get to see how a legal team will dismantle his spurious claims!

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Abduction of a Child from Home - Further Information.

Post by concorde on Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:05 am

Too many times the blame is put onto a bad childhood for the evil crimes that are committed. I do not understand why someone would want to put another child through what they went through. I understand that it is called the 'cycle of abuse.' All I know is that the things that happened to me in my childhood I would never want another child to go through. For that very reason I would want to give nothing but love to a child. I think it is a convenient excuse now to bring up the bad childhood of someone who has committed a crime. I have no sympathy at all with those who do such things and use this as an excuse.

concorde
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 4
Location : North West England
Registration date : 2008-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Abduction of a Child from Home - Further Information.

Post by Guest on Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:18 am

Sometimes those that have been mistreated will do the complete opposite for their own children.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Bleeping experts !!

Post by Marilyn on Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:48 pm

Just want to say I also get fed up with the lame excuses of various experts on the issues of violent crime .. particularly making excuses for those who commit horrors against children. I believe we come with our basic character already sorted before we are born.. I don't believe in nurture vs nature .. I believe it is nature itself and we own it. Bad childhoods do not necessarily make bad adulthoods; the poor do not necessarily become thieves; the rich & beautiful are not always "good"; women are not always natural mothers & fathers often get a hard time unjustly ..etc. We are what we are despite our childhoods, whether it was good or bad .. which explains psychopaths .. how do you learn to be one of those? You can't learn to be cruel .. it comes naturally to some and it's in the jigsaw of their genes because some people are born with important pieces missing. OK .. will get off my soapbox now.

And we all have free will .. we are responsible for what we do to others; unless we are truly insane - definitely so and not as a plea bargain.

Marilyn
Master
Master

Number of posts : 428
Location : Geneva
Registration date : 2008-07-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Abduction of a Child from Home - Further Information.

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum