Madeleine McCann

goat2

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

the_pen_turner wrote: »

lying to police
washing maddies toy
instantly saying she was taken instead of just wandered off
stories not adding up
refusing to answer questions
going to play tennis
not spending every minute posible tearing the place apart trying to find her

etcetc

How do people know, they lied to police.
and what is the proper way to behave when a child is missing, they were under stress.
Did they play tennis while people were looking for their child in the early days,
How do people know they were not looking for their daughter, I am thinking it is all hear say.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

goat2 wrote: »

How do people know, they lied to police.
and what is the proper way to behave when a child is missing, they were under stress.
Did they play tennis while people were looking for their child in the early days,
How do people know they were not looking for their daughter, I am thinking it is all hear say.

its all in the files and has been posted here

limnam

the_pen_turner wrote: »

one or 2 odd things i can ignore or explain away not that many . everything you read about them is odd

To be honest it looks like a lot of people are way past looking at the case objectively.


They have their stance and they're not moving for a lot of people it seems to be a personal thing to battle their position rather than discuss the case, they ask questions not because they want to hear the answer as regardless it'll be rubbished.


There's no way anyone with the slightest bit of objectivity or common sense can look at all the "problems" with this case and then just blatantly rule out something other than a "run of the mill" abduction. It's head in the stand stuff.


As you said a number of the problems could be dismissed there's just far too many.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

It is the complete opposite of objectivity to pigeon hole your theory and refuse to bend all while admitting you have no proof to support said theory and you cannot even hash a basic timeline.

The complete opposite. And don’t even get me started on “common sense”.

But, horses for courses.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

I don’t see logistically how Kate and Gerry could have committed the crime they are accused of.
The timeline just doesn’t fit.

The only way the timeline fits is if Madeleine actually died days/weeks earlier and would involve independent witnesses, holidaymakers & hotel staff lying about seeing her alive up till 5:30pm on the day of her disappearance.
These are people who would have no reason to lie and no reason to protect Kate & Gerry.

So to clarify, I’m not asking for proof or evidence.

I’m just very interested in seeing a suggested timeline of events where Kate & Gerry killed their child and disposed of all evidence & the body while acting normal at a dinner party.
If anyone could offer one up I’d love to see it.

Mam of 4

retro:electro wrote: »

It is the complete opposite of objectivity to pigeon hole your theory and refuse to bend all while admitting you have no proof to support said theory and you cannot even hash a basic timeline.

The complete opposite. And don’t even get me started on “common sense”.

But, horses for courses.

I have no idea what happened to Madeleine , whether she was abducted , woke up went looking for her parents and someone grabbed her , whether she woke up , fell and hurt herself , or whether her parents were involved or not .

Am open minded to all possibilities of what may have happened but the truth is I doubt if any of us will ever know . Unless she was abducted and maybe years down the road will manage to get away from her abductors .

Sounds strange and far fetched I know , but look at the Elizabeth Smart* girl in the US..

*
Eta correct name , Colleen Smart was in H-A

nthclare

retro:electro wrote: »

It is the complete opposite of objectivity to pigeon hole your theory and refuse to bend all while admitting you have no proof to support said theory and you cannot even hash a basic timeline.

The complete opposite. And don’t even get me started on “common sense”.

But, horses for courses.

When I read your posts for some odd reason, I read it with a Scottish or Scouse accent.

Isn't that odd ?

limnam

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don’t see logistically how Kate and Gerry could have committed the crime they are accused of.
The timeline just doesn’t fit.

The only way the timeline fits is if Madeleine actually died days/weeks earlier and would involve independent witnesses, holidaymakers & hotel staff lying about seeing her alive up till 5:30pm on the day of her disappearance.
These are people who would have no reason to lie and no reason to protect Kate & Gerry.

So to clarify, I’m not asking for proof or evidence.

I’m just very interested in seeing a suggested timeline of events where Kate & Gerry killed their child and disposed of all evidence & the body while acting normal at a dinner party.
If anyone could offer one up I’d love to see it.

This asking constantly for a timeline is fairly boring at this point.


I'm not sure what your referring to them been accused of. I haven't accused them of anything in particular bar the fact based on all the lies/behavioral issues around are fairly bizzare for an innocent couple.


Lets say for instance (and i'm not accusing them of this) they sold Maddie off.


This for example would still have them involved but the timeline would be pretty much as it was. We'd just have no proof of the abduction, we don't anyway. Asking people to just come up with speculative time lines repeatedly adds nothing to the discussion. The timeline doesn't need to be adjusted for them to have _something_ to do with it.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

the_pen_turner wrote: »

washing maddies toy

Can I ask what people believe was on Madeline’s toy that motivated Kate to wash it? You do realise she had been carrying it around with her for weeks (70 days), and any sinister liquids would have been visible to most as she clutched it under the glare of the world’s media. While it may be regarded as an unusual decision, she explained her reasons for doing so and that she would wash it on the regular.
What do you feel is so suspicious about this decision? What do you think she was hiding?

the_pen_turner

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Can I ask what people believe was on Madeline’s toy that motivated Kate to wash it? You do realise she had been carrying it around with her for weeks (70 days), and any sinister liquids would have been visible to most as she clutched it under the glare of the world’s media. While it may be regarded as an unusual decision, she explained her reasons for doing so and that she would wash it on the regular.
What do you feel is so suspicious about this decision? What do you think she was hiding?

I have no problem with it being washed at any other time but why then , just after she went missing. Surely Kate would have gotten some comfort from having near by. It would have her smell off of it.

It is an incredibly odd thing to do .

I don't low what was on it if anything. I'm not saying there was just that it was odd

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

It wasn’t right after she went missing, it was 70 days later. You included her washing the cuddle cat in your run down of suspicious behaviour, I’m wondering what you find suspicious about washing a dirty toy that was routinely cleaned?
She did get comfort from it, which is why she clutched it close to her for months before it needed cleaning.



Here she is clutching it in the days after Madeline went missing, and it’s already filthy. Imagine it 70 days later?
It may be seen as an unusual decision but suspicious it is not. Can you elaborate on what you find suspicious about it?

And for those who say they laughed, played tennis etc etc in the days after she went missing, how anyone can look at that picture and see anything other than a totally broken woman is beyond me.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

Lots of info here on Cuddle cat worth reading.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078068/Rebuttal%20of%20"Fact"%2034

I think it's personal opinion. Some people will say the toy needed to be washed, others will say it should never be washed.

It is therefore odd to some and not others.

Personally, I could never wash the last tangible thing my child touched while she was safe. The smell of sunscreen and presence of dirt wouldn't be enough to make me wash it, but that's just my take on it.

Re the photo, of course she looks broken. Her child was gone .

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

nthclare wrote: »

When I read your posts for some odd reason, I read it with a Scottish or Scouse accent.

Isn't that odd ?

nthclare - Please don't post in this thread again

iamwhoiam

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Lots of info here on Cuddle cat worth reading.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078068/Rebuttal%20of%20"Fact"%2034

I think it's personal opinion. Some people will say the toy needed to be washed, others will say it should never be washed.

It is therefore odd to some and not others.

Personally, I could never wash the last tangible thing my child touched while she was safe. The smell of sunscreen and presence of dirt wouldn't be enough to make me wash it, but that's just my take on it.

Re the photo, of course she looks broken. Her child was gone .

Thats true , some kids like their cuddlies washed and some like them manky and smelly . My own daughter had a cuddly and we had to buy two because she always wanted it clean and smelling fresh .

nthclare

Boom_Bap wrote: »

nthclare - Please don't post in this thread again

Back seat moderation isn't acceptable on boards.ie.
I have a right to express how I hear things.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Personally, I could never wash the last tangible thing my child touched while she was safe. The smell of sunscreen and presence of dirt wouldn't be enough to make me wash it, but that's just my take on it.

And we’re back into judging the parents off our own standards and using that to fuel suspicion. People act differently in the wake of an unimaginable life event shocker.
I’m sure all scent of Madeline had been erased by the presence of sunscreen, dirt, sweat and other grime. It was probably untouchable at that stage.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

And we’re back into judging the parents off our own standards and using that to fuel suspicion. People act differently in the wake of an unimaginable life event shocker.
I’m sure all scent of Madeline had been erased by the presence of sunscreen, dirt, sweat and other grime. It was probably untouchable at that stage.

Untouchable?. I don't think it would ever be. Most certainly if it was the last thing my missing child likely held close.

It's not just the scent, it's the knowing it was the the last thing Madeleine ikely held close to her.I think it was her favourite toy.

Again, just because you would wash cuddle cat doesn't mean every mother would.

Some felt it was unusual behaviour. I can accept people may have different opinions

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

I never said I would wash it? But just because you wouldn’t wash it, doesn’t mean her decision to wash it is suspect as some posters are claiming. I too can accept others feel differently to me, asking them to elaborate on what they find suspicious about this detail is just that, nothing more nothing less.

When someone close to me died I cried into their favourite shirt for over 3 weeks. After those 3 weeks the shirt was full of tears and snot and totally manky. I made the decision to wash it and hang up back up and often still go into the room and touch it and sniff it. My decision to wash it doesn’t mean anything more other than I decided to wash it because I ruined it with tears. I can’t fathom what state it would be in had I decided to bring it outside and carry it with me for 70 days straight.

WinnyThePoo

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

nthclare wrote: »

Boom_Bap wrote: »

nthclare - Please don't post in this thread again

Back seat moderation isn't acceptable on boards.ie.
I have a right to express how I hear things.

Boom is the mod ya numpty

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

And just because you wouldn’t wash it, doesn’t mean her decision to wash it is suspect as some posters are claiming. I too can accept others feel differently to me, asking them to elaborate on what they find suspicious about this detail is just that, nothing more nothing less.

We have a little girl missing. A lot of people were very annoyed/outraged/saddened at the children being left alone and were quick to judge her parents. I think people saw suspicion everywhere, certainly at first. It's the nature of any mystery and that is unlikely to change.

I very much doubt anyone thinks the McCanns are guilty of anything just because Kate washed a toy. It is a cumulative thing, which is i imagine how most people come to form an opinion and theory.

For example, a cold demeanor. Not in itself proof of anything but adds to some people's suspicions.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I very much doubt anyone thinks the McCanns are guilty of anything just because Kate washed a toy.

Except for the poster who included this detail in their run down of suspicious behaviour and have yet to get back to me when I’ve asked them to elaborate.

I can accept we will agree to disagree.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Expect for the poster who included this detail in their run down of suspicious behaviour and have yet to get back to me when I’ve asked them to elaborate.

I can accept we will agree to disagree.

The poster had it in a list of suspicious behaviour. What is suspicious to one, may well not be to someone else. We all think differently about things.

Some people may have seen cold behaviour as a coping mechanism and not see that as strange at all. It's our own personal perceptions that form the basis of our theories in the absence of proof of anything.

cnocbui

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

We have a little girl missing. A lot of people were very annoyed/outraged/saddened at the children being left alone and were quick to judge her parents. I think people saw suspicion everywhere, certainly at first. It's the nature of any mystery and that is unlikely to change.

I very much doubt anyone thinks the McCanns are guilty of anything just because Kate washed a toy. It is a cumulative thing, which is i imagine how most people come to form an opinion and theory.

For example, a cold demeanor. Not in itself proof of anything but adds to some people's suspicions.

How'd that 'cold demeanour' as the basis for suspicion pan out in convicting Lindy Chamberlain and her husband for the murder of Azaria?

Sunflower 27

Something Else

cnocbui wrote: »

How'd that 'cold demeanour' as the basis for suspicion pan out in convicting Lindy Chamberlain and her husband for the murder of Azaria?

People will always form opinions based on behaviour, sometimes they will be right, sometimes wrong.

People will judge people on their standard of how they would act and make a judgement call.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

People forming suspicions based on odd behaviour and forming total fabrications and taking to message boards accusing parents of drugging and body disposal (admittedly) without a shred of proof are two totally different things.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

People forming suspicions based on odd behaviour and forming total fabrications and taking to message boards accusing parents of drugging and body disposal (admittedly) without a shred of proof are two totally different things.

I understand your annoyance, but again in the absence of proof of an abductor people are going to believe something else may have happened. The fact she is missing and not been seen by anyone since that night means whatever happened to her was most likely sinister in nature.

Like with any crime, the first suspects are those close to the victim. Given the circumstances of the disappearance (children being left alone), I think the McCanns were always going to have to refute accusations that they were involved.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I understand your annoyance, but again in the absence of proof of an abductor people are going to believe something else may have happened.

I’m not annoyed.
So in the absence of proof of an abductor what makes sense to you is to substitute that theory and throw around more accusations with even less proof of those?

Makes sense...

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Like with any crime, the first suspects are those close to the victim.

Yes and they were considered arguido and subsequently lifted. Thus, this baseless insistence they’re involved is futile.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m not annoyed.
So in the absence of an abductor what makes sense to you is to substitute that theory and throw around more accusations without even more proof of those?

Makes sense...

Again we are all entitled to form an opinion. I have mine, one that many on this very thread have also voiced.

This is a discussion board, and we are all discussing what may have happened the night Madeleine went missing, and in the years since. The fact myself and many others are posting opinions/theories here and haven't been banned means we are posting within accepted guidelines.

I accept you think it was an abduction. You can't expect others to not voice their opinion on a discussion board, regardless of how fervently you disagree with them.

With no proof of anything, this is going to continue to be a sad case open to a great deal of debate.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Again, I’ve never once said you cannot hold certain opinions, that is always going to be the case. I’ve been around here long enough to know the score at this stage.

However, if you react with such hostility to people questioning your theories (blatant accusations) and wanting links or proof well then maybe that is a reflection on the shaky ground from which your theory (accusation) is built and not a reflection on the poster asking the question.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Again, I’ve never once said you cannot hold certain opinions, that is always going to be the case. I’ve been around here long enough to know the score at this stage.

However, if you react with such hostility to people questioning your theories and looking for proof well then maybe that is a reflection on the shaky ground from which your theory is built and not a reflection on the poster asking the question.

I don't believe I have been hostile at all. I'd say rather reasoned, if in the absence of clarification that is directed at me.

We are all on shaky ground with regards to our theories. No one has proof of anything.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

But not everyone is making accusations of parents drugging children and subsequent body disposal.

Again, we’ll have to leave it there.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

But not everyone is making accusations of drugging children and body disposal.

Again, we’ll have to leave it there.

And again, not everyone believes she was sedated, so not everyone is going to say that.

We are all posting within the guidelines. If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's not up to you to say on a discussion board what should or shouldn't be posted regarding theories.

It's one thing to not agree, it's another entirely to expect people not to share their opinions. None of us can prove anything so you and your opinion has no more weight than anyone else's on here.

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Boom_Bap wrote: »

nthclare - Please don't post in this thread again

I'm lifting this after having discussed with nthclare

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

And again, not everyone believes she was sedated, so not everyone is going to say that.

You do though. But you have no proof of that.

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

We are all posting within the guidelines. If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's not up to you to say on a discussion board what should or shouldn't be posted regarding theories.

It's one thing to not agree, it's another entirely to expect people not to share their opinions. None of us can prove anything so you and your opinion has no more weight than anyone else's on here.

Can you point me to where I asked you not to discuss your opinions? Only a few days ago I asked you to link something of interest to me which you refused. You are accusing me of trying to back seat moderate the place for expecting you to have some sort of basis that formulates your accusations that Kate and Gerry drugged their child and buried her.
Asking for proof, a timeline, a link, something, anything that can assist you in your claims is not me trying to silence you. That is me being curious about how you formed your argument. It’s actually the opposite of silencing you when I have routinely given you more room to discuss- the fact you have shut up shop and are refusing is not my problem. No need to get so defensive. But yeah, like I said, we’ll leave it there yeah?

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

You do though. But you have no proof of that.



Can you point me to where I asked you not to discuss your opinions? Only a few days ago I asked you to link something of interest to me which you refused. You are accusing me of trying to back seat moderate the place for expecting you to have some sort of basis that formulates your accusations that Kate and Gerry drugged their child and buried her.
Asking for proof, a timeline, a link, something, anything that can assist you in your claims is not me trying to silence you. That is me being curious about how you formed your argument. The fact you have shut up shop and are refusing is not my problem. No need to get so defensive. But yeah, like I said, we’ll leave it there yeah?

I have formed my opinion by reading news articles and forums/blogs like this one . It's how most people have formed their opinion. I am no different to anyone else

I didn't "refuse" to post anything. I can't remember specific posts or threads I read that made me form an opinion years ago. It wasnt one or two links, but lots of different things that made me raise an eyebrow, made me question if there was more to this mystery than an unseen abductor.

This case has been pulled apart for decades online. There are even YouTube videos by body language experts.

So yes, I believe it was an accidental death. I can't post a link/s that will prove this to be what happened. There are however lots of blog articles out there that discuss this theory in depth if you want to look for them.

Every theory regarding what happened to Madeleine Mccannhas holes in it. It's why this case is open to do many different opinions and interpretations.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

So no link to where I told you not to discuss your opinions?
It must be great posting with the luxury of making all the accusations you like and not have to back them up one bit. Again, I’ve actually routinely given you room to elaborate on your beliefs. The fact you refuse to do so is not me silencing you.

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Every theory regarding what happened to Madeleine Mccannhas holes in it. It's why this case is open to do many different opinions and interpretations.

Some don’t blame the parents though. You know, the parents who were considered arguido and then subsequently lifted of the status. The parents of the remaining McCann children who have to read baseless accusations online that their parents drugged and buried their sister. The children some posters here claim to care about.

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I have formed my opinion by reading news articles and forums/blogs like this one . It's how most people have formed their opinion. I am no different to anyone else.

And I’m interested in seeing those news articles and forums which have assisted you in your accusations of drugging and burial.
It’s how most people have formed their opinion?? Anyone can write a shltty blog post claiming all sorts. I’d like to think most people have formed their opinion through deduction, reason and logic. But then again that might be asking too much.

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

So can I ask why they then feel it’s acceptable to make claims surrounding drugging children, accidental death, disposing of her in a gym bag and subsequent and cover up

You don't think it's acceptable for people to post their opinion when it doesn't tally with yours.i.e. you don't think those opinions should be on here.

Everyone is entitled to express what they like within the forum guidelines.

limnam

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

You don't think it's acceptable for people to post their opinion when it doesn't tally with yours.i.e. you don't think those opinions should be on here.

Everyone is entitled to express what they like within the forum guidelines.

Fairly bizarre that people can claim the McCanns innocence without any proof or evidence yet challenge other theories without proof or evidence

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Ah now at least quote the whole post:

retro:electro wrote: »

Most people here agreed with a post stating there was NO PROOF to suggest anyhing happened either way. So can I ask why they then feel it’s acceptable to make claims surrounding drugging children, accidental death, disposing of her in a gym bag and subsequent and cover up?.

Again, you agree you have no proof. Me then wondering how it is you’ve formulated your theory (accusation) is not me silencing you. It’s asking you to elaborate.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

Fairly bizarre that people can claim the McCanns innocence without any proof or evidence yet challenge other theories without proof or evidence

Yeah that would be because of the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

:rolleyes:

Sunflower 27

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Ah now at least quote the whole post:




Again, you agree you have no proof. Me then wondering how it is you’ve formulated your theory (accusation) is not me silencing you. It’s asking you to elaborate.

Why did I need the first part of the post? It's quite clear you think opinions of parental involvement shouldn't be on here if they are not substantiated with proof. I.e. you are clearly saying those opinions have no place here. Of course they do. We can all post our opinions.

You asked me where you said people weren't entitled to express their opinions and I showed you.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Actually we are not allowed to speculate without proof, it’s in the charter.

You have consistently accused the McCann’s of drugging Madeline and disposing of her body. I have routinely asked what has motivated you to form this opinion, you have routinely refused to elaborate. That is not me telling you what you can and cannot say, that is you refusing to engage further because you have nothing to back up your beliefs. Like I said, that is a reflection on the fragility of your claims and not on me for asking the question.

Boom_Bap

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

retro & sunshine - it's going round in circles a bit at this stage.
I don't think there is going to be an agreement, so let's move forward.

Andy Magic

Boom_Bap wrote: »

retro & sunshine - it's going round in circles a bit at this stage.
I don't think there is going to be an agreement, so let's move forward.

Yeah the thread has been derailed at this stage. Maybe this is what someone wanted.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Andy Magic wrote: »

Yeah the thread has been derailed at this stage. Maybe this is what someone wanted.

And posts like this are what, on topic?

Kingp35

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Andy Magic wrote: »

Yeah the thread has been derailed at this stage. Maybe this is what someone wanted.

It's posts like this that derail the thread.

Mod Note: Andy Magic don't post in this thread again.

flatty

My take on all of this is.
1. The tapas 9 were more interested in not looking bad for leaving their children unattended than they were in providing evidence after the events of the night, hence the timelines are a little bent. Understandable in some ways at the time, less so once the gravity became clear.
2. None of them seem particularly pleasant.
3. Jane Tanner is a very strange person.
And that's it. What happened to the poor mite, we will likely never know. There is no way on earth that her parents were involved, though I wonder if with hindsight they regret their decision to go against police advice and go public. They have always seemed bullish and confrontational, which is just a coping mechanism I suspect.
The only options are targeted abduction, botched burglary, or she wandered out and came to harm.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

flatty wrote: »

My take on all of this is.
1. The tapas 9 were more interested in not looking bad for leaving their children unattended than they were in providing evidence after the events of the night, hence the timelines are a little bent. Understandable in some ways at the time, less so once the gravity became clear.
2. None of them seem particularly pleasant.
3. Jane Tanner is a very strange person.
And that's it. What happened to the poor mite, we will likely never know. There is no way on earth that her parents were involved, though I wonder if with hindsight they regret their decision to go against police advice and go public. They have always seemed bullish and confrontational, which is just a coping mechanism I suspect.
The only options are targeted abduction, botched burglary, or she wandered out and came to harm.

i dont see anything that would exclude the parents

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i dont see anything that would exclude the parents

There is no proof that includes the parents. So logic would dictate that by default, for now, they are excluded.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

There is no proof that includes the parents. So logic would dictate that by default, for now, they are excluded.

you cannot rule anyone out until its proven they didnt or couldnt do it.

surely your more likely to know your attacker (intentional or otherwise)