Missing 3 Year Old boy Edinburgh

Iris wrote:She certainly wasn't uneducated, she had an HND in Beauty Therapy (equivalent to 2nd year University level) and ran her own business. (To enter an HND programme requires at least two Highers.)   Her stepfather was a property developer, her father was a GP and the whole family are from the very posh end of Edinburgh.  Although she was living in social housing, she was middle class.  She was charged under her married name as she has never divorced.

It occurred to me that there must be really good evidence before the PF has agreed a charge of murder.  Injuries on the wee body, perhaps.  Of course it may get to Court and the Judge decides to downgrade it to Culpable Homicide, depending on the evidence, that happens quite a lot.  But murder under Scots law is incredibly difficult to prove without very strong corroborating evidence.  I dread to think what they've actually found.

Maybe it's not so much what they found, maybe they had a witness - like one of the siblings?

widowan wrote:

Iris wrote:She certainly wasn't uneducated, she had an HND in Beauty Therapy (equivalent to 2nd year University level) and ran her own business. (To enter an HND programme requires at least two Highers.)   Her stepfather was a property developer, her father was a GP and the whole family are from the very posh end of Edinburgh.  Although she was living in social housing, she was middle class.  She was charged under her married name as she has never divorced.

It occurred to me that there must be really good evidence before the PF has agreed a charge of murder.  Injuries on the wee body, perhaps.  Of course it may get to Court and the Judge decides to downgrade it to Culpable Homicide, depending on the evidence, that happens quite a lot.  But murder under Scots law is incredibly difficult to prove without very strong corroborating evidence.  I dread to think what they've actually found.

Maybe it's not so much what they found, maybe they had a witness - like one of the siblings?

Even with that, Widowan, proof of a crime in Scotland requires "corroboration" - i.e. two witnesses. That's why policemen, bailiffs, sheriffs officers etc always work in pairs. It's a legal requirement. The word of just one witness is not sufficient. They must have something really watertight to be going down this road.

or a confession, when they found the body?

In conjunction with the murder charge the mother has also been charged with "attempting to defeat the ends of justice". No surprising since she appears to have lied/misled police about Mikaeel's "disappearance".

I can't help but think there are many who should be charged with the same "offence" in the case of Madeleine.

Exactly. that same charge and neglect leading to harm - however I can see how it did not turn out that way.

Iris wrote:

widowan wrote:

Iris wrote:She certainly wasn't uneducated, she had an HND in Beauty Therapy (equivalent to 2nd year University level) and ran her own business. (To enter an HND programme requires at least two Highers.)   Her stepfather was a property developer, her father was a GP and the whole family are from the very posh end of Edinburgh.  Although she was living in social housing, she was middle class.  She was charged under her married name as she has never divorced.

It occurred to me that there must be really good evidence before the PF has agreed a charge of murder.  Injuries on the wee body, perhaps.  Of course it may get to Court and the Judge decides to downgrade it to Culpable Homicide, depending on the evidence, that happens quite a lot.  But murder under Scots law is incredibly difficult to prove without very strong corroborating evidence.  I dread to think what they've actually found.

Maybe it's not so much what they found, maybe they had a witness - like one of the siblings?

Even with that, Widowan, proof of a crime in Scotland requires "corroboration" - i.e. two witnesses.  That's why policemen, bailiffs, sheriffs officers etc always work in pairs.  It's a legal requirement.  The word of just one witness is not sufficient.  They must have something really watertight to be going down this road.

In the crime scene photo they show the tape going out of the house and then kind of picking up on the other side of the fence, and into the woods.

That seems to indicate that the body was carried through the home - it's not crime scene tape taping off the area where they found the body, it's on the ground like a trail into the wood.

Possibly someone saw her going in there with a tennis bag (or other) but even there just because she disposed of the body doesn't mean she killed him on purpose - murder I presume is premeditated, otherwise it'd be manslaughter? How can anyone kill a child on purpose is beyond me.

I suppose we'll find out how much of this was her just breaking down and admitting it when being questioned - and witnesses -

I think the post mortum will tell more.

widowan wrote:or a confession, when they found the body?

Yes, confession plus one witness would be corroboration, as the perpetrator is also a witness. At least I think that's how it works.

Even neglect leading to harm is still "only" Culpable Homicide. :(

Well, it is very likely he was killed in his home and since most people would not kill someone in front of a neighbor or independent witness, I presume that witness is her older kid/s - or that a neighbor heard it.

I did wonder seeing that line of tape if they had used the dogs. I don't suppose when they went to that house to check things out, just on the supposition that the child might be there, with other family - or if they suspected a death, that the mum might have hidden him near a place she used to live which they seem to like to do - where they last lived when Social Services were involved say - that they took a tracking dog.

It would be interesting if the dogs were used and helped to solve this so quickly.

For ex, if one had alerted in the apt (human remains) and then was taken to this home and led right through the home to the fence then on the other side, into the woods. I don't understand what the tape is for otherwise, as it isn't yellow scene tape that they use to rope areas off and keep people from putting footprints or disturbing evidence. But surely if they'd had dogs into that apt the media would have copped on to that

The police did a great job.

In the photo gallery of the search on Sky - Mother Charged with Murder - it shows 11 photos, the 10th of which shows a man with a dog on a leash in amongst the yellow uniforms and what I presume are civilian searchers.

Were the searches conducted only in the suburb where he lived? Because from the aerial view it seems very unlikely place to hide a body, it is too cultivated.

I wondered if the searchers also searched the area around Fife or if only the police did that, while also pursuing the angle that he could have wandered out and be in the area where he was living at the time and from which he was taken.

From what I saw no members of the public searched in Fife. It seemed to me that when they went to Fife they had an idea of what was the likely outcome. But that's only my opinion. Very sad.

I have just heard the statement spoken by the ACC on local radio. He sounds disgusted. Practically spat the words out. "What I can tell you... is that she has been charged with... MURDER." I wouldn't like to be in custody with those polis, I can tell you. :(

MaryB wrote:From what I saw no members of the public searched in Fife.  It seemed to me that when they went to Fife they had an idea of what was the likely outcome.  But that's only my opinion.  Very sad.

I got that impression also. And if the sister is the one taking care of the kids, then she can't be the one suspected of helping or even of knowing what happened.

I got the feeling that the uproar with all the searching was done in one area, possibly keeping the mother ignorant of the other angle of investigation so she would continue to talk with them - and how can she refuse, she is meant to be the mother of a missing child & would cooperate - so they would keep giving her enough rope to hang herself with all these lies about chest infections and so on.

meanwhile they are quietly pursuing the other "theory" which is that mum herself did this and if that is the case the place to look is within a mile or two of her current or last home and certainly to carefully interview the 5 and 8 year olds and check with neighbors who shared walls with their flat -

She couldn't keep the cops from talking with the older kids - they could have heard or seen something, like the abductor sneaking in - and no matter how scared or threatened they were by their mother, it would be obvious if the boy hadn't been at home the night prior - had been missing for weeks or had something terrible done to him by the mother.

They probably checked out her social media presence as well, and her cell phone - someone who runs their own business and has he busy social life would not turn the phone off for a few hours at a time the day the child first turned up "missing" and that sort of thing.

The tele always refers to 'sniffer dogs'... remarkably silly. There are the relatively common tracker dogs, breeds various, which will smell a person's clothes and follow an individual's scent trail, and there are rare and highly trained EVRD dogs which detect human blood, and for cadaver dogs the cadaverine and putrescine of human decomposition. The latter are usually spaniels. I definitely saw a springer spaniel in a doggie harness prancing along with his/her handler. Though they only provide 'indicative' evidence... with the body found... well...

Of couse in another well known case no body has been found or is ever likely to be found. :-(

I don't know about that the world is full of surprises. Yes im an eternal optimist.

There are dogs that can follow a cadaver scent trail as well I think? - as with the Laci Peterson case, Merlin the tracking dog tracked the person's scent away from the house, to the husband's work space, and along the highway. At least I think he was an EVR dog.

But even if they had a tracking dog, it would have been able to follow the boy's scent out of the house - if it went into the garage and stopped vs went out the front door, that would tell you something.

As a result of enquiries the body of a young child was recovered in Fife just before midnight.

The discovery is understood to have been made on land surrounding a house in Kirkcaldy, Fife, which is owned by Mikaeel's aunt Pandeep Kular.

The body was removed from the scene at around 3pm on Saturday afternoon.

Sky News Scotland Correspondent James Matthews said: "There is no suggestion that police want to speak to her (the aunt) about any of this at this stage."

"He was such a cute lad, always running around the street. I can't believe it's happened in my street - I'm really scared now."

------------

The aunt has the other kids - or at least SOME aunt is meant to. So I presume that the house owned by the aunt is rented elsewhere. If she still lived there and the body was found behind it there is NO WAY she would not be a person of interest.

WHAT inquiries resulted in the finding of the body, then? If not the aunt's - who claimed to be shocked by this, etc - then whose?

How did Rosie get herself and the baby into and out of the house or behind it, to deposit the body?

How is a 3 year old a lad "running about the streets?" Really? My 3 year olds did not freely run about the streets. That's madness. Maybe they saw the older kids of the family running about, but a toddler?

I'm almost sure I read the house in Fife was rented out and no member of the family lived there.

MaryB wrote:I'm almost sure I read the house in Fife was rented out and no member of the family lived there.  

@ MaryB and widowan

Hi , I read the house was owned by Rosdeep and her divorced Husband and rented out to a Doctor?

Her Sister Parleen is the children's Cousin , did Rosdeep drive to the Forest at the back of the House because she knew the Area and Pardeep went with her, but Pardeep is not being charged with aiding and abetting , so i reckon Rosdeep did it on her own.

Panda wrote:

MaryB wrote:I'm almost sure I read the house in Fife was rented out and no member of the family lived there.  

@ MaryB and widowan

Hi , I read the house was owned by Rosdeep and her divorced Husband and rented out to a Doctor?

Her Sister Parleen is the children's Cousin , did Rosdeep drive to the Forest at the back of the House because she knew the Area and Pardeep went with her, but Pardeep is not being charged with aiding and abetting , so i reckon Rosdeep did it on her own.

She could do it on her own but the tape seems to lead out the house to the area behind it  - not sure why.

How else would Rosie get the body where she left it? Carrying it from the end of the block? or going through the house to toss it over the fence and then climb over herself?

Someone told the police this. they didn't just happen upon that child's body in the woods behind auntie's house.

Someone knew and mentioned that this was a place of interest. They specifically say that it was as a result of inquiries. Maybe inquiries as to where mum had lived before but it seems to me like they had insider info to find the body so quickly.

Someone I presume saw Rosie in that area and for no good reason and in the timeframe that would make her a suspect!

I think that this is one case that we will eventually know the truth. Sad as it is, it is usually the mother when a 3-year-old goes missing and is found dead.

The McCanns recognized the similarities to their "story" from the beginning and were careful to distance themselves from this incident.

Only difference was that the police didn't have foreign interference pushing the "abduction" theory from the get go.

jinvta wrote:I think that this is one case that we will eventually know the truth. Sad as it is, it is usually the mother when a 3-year-old goes missing and is found dead.

The McCanns recognized the similarities to their "story" from the beginning and were careful to distance themselves from this incident.

Only difference was that the police didn't have foreign interference pushing the "abduction" theory from the get go.

There were more reasons to suspect Rosie here that the McCanns, from a police perspective - once you heard the child had not been in nursery due to a chest infection since December - but yes, having no Ambassador to interfere would help the police get a quick solve.

widowan wrote:

jinvta wrote:I think that this is one case that we will eventually know the truth. Sad as it is, it is usually the mother when a 3-year-old goes missing and is found dead.

The McCanns recognized the similarities to their "story" from the beginning and were careful to distance themselves from this incident.

Only difference was that the police didn't have foreign interference pushing the "abduction" theory from the get go.

There were more reasons to suspect Rosie here that the McCanns, from a police perspective - once you heard the child had not been in nursery due to a chest infection since December - but yes, having no Ambassador to interfere would help the police get a quick solve.

A child crying for nearly 2 hours on the 1st May that disappears on 3rd; the Home Office not supplying the McCanns medical information and credit card statements; the blood and cadaver dog alerts; Jane Tanner's laughable alibi for Gerry, the Smith statements, the Gaspar statements, a multitude of changes to the McCann's version of events, and on and on.  Legions of reasons to suspect Madeleine's parents of a heinous crime!

pennylane wrote:

widowan wrote:

jinvta wrote:I think that this is one case that we will eventually know the truth. Sad as it is, it is usually the mother when a 3-year-old goes missing and is found dead.

The McCanns recognized the similarities to their "story" from the beginning and were careful to distance themselves from this incident.

Only difference was that the police didn't have foreign interference pushing the "abduction" theory from the get go.

There were more reasons to suspect Rosie here that the McCanns, from a police perspective - once you heard the child had not been in nursery due to a chest infection since December - but yes, having no Ambassador to interfere would help the police get a quick solve.

A child crying for nearly 2 hours on the 1st May that disappears on 3rd; the Home Office not supplying the McCanns medical information and credit card statements; the blood and cadaver dog alerts; Jane Tanner's laughable alibi for Gerry, the Smith statements, the Gaspar statements, a multitude of changes to the McCann's version of events, and on and on.  Legions of reasons to suspect Madeleine's parents of a heinous crime!

Exactly pennylane. I still go with the friends in high places theory. Beggars belief that they're still at large and allowed to spout their lies continually.