Was the naming of the arguidos an unnecessary and dumb move?

[ShiningInLuz]

Making Sergey Malinka an arguido didn't have to be publicly evidenced.  That too was dumb.

Just as making Ricardo Rodrigues, Paulo Ribeiro and José Carlos da Silva arguidos was dumb.

Let me put this in as plain and blunt terms as I can.  If you want help or information from the people of Luz, do you p**s on them first?  It seems OG thinks that is the way to go.

It's a mistake the McCanns also made, IMO.

OG is NOT conducting an exhaustive investigation.  That should have started with the T9.  Epic fail.

I have no confidence that OG could organise a p**s-up in a brewery.  That's IMO.


158

[misty]

Making Sergey Malinka an arguido didn't have to be publicly evidenced.  That too was dumb.

Just as making Ricardo Rodrigues, Paulo Ribeiro and José Carlos da Silva arguidos was dumb.

Let me put this in as plain and blunt terms as I can.  If you want help or information from the people of Luz, do you p**s on them first?  It seems OG thinks that is the way to go.

It's a mistake the McCanns also made, IMO.

OG is NOT conducting an exhaustive investigation.  That should have started with the T9.  Epic fail.

I have no confidence that OG could organise a p**s-up in a brewery.  That's IMO.

What was dumb about wanting to question certain people under caution - people who had big question marks over them as a result of OG's analysis of the evidence already gathered? It would be more dumb not to question them. SY couldn't do it in the UK so how do you suppose they could eliminate them from whatever line of enquiry those arguidos were a part of?
OG will have spoken to ALL UK witnesses. That is routine when everything is drawn back to zero.
BTW why do you think SM had his arguido status lifted so quickly?

[ShiningInLuz]

What was dumb about wanting to question certain people under caution - people who had big question marks over them as a result of OG's analysis of the evidence already gathered? It would be more dumb not to question them. SY couldn't do it in the UK so how do you suppose they could eliminate them from whatever line of enquiry those arguidos were a part of?
OG will have spoken to ALL UK witnesses. That is routine when everything is drawn back to zero.
BTW why do you think SM had his arguido status lifted so quickly?

It is an intelligent question, so here is a civil answer.

Kate was questioned first as a witness, then her status was changed to arguido.  As a witness, Kate was legally obliged to answer each question, which she did.  As an arguido, she had the right to refuse to answer, which she did.

Sergey was questioned in 2007 as a witness, requiring him to answer all questions.  That he should be questioned in 2014 as an arguido, when he could refuse to answer, strikes me as dumb.  That he was announced as being a person no longer of interest relatively quickly, strikes me as fair and decent, but it strongly suggests the original decision was dumb.

The '3 burglars' are interesting.  For all I know, one or more could be involved.  In which case, making them witnesses first to ascertain basic non-incriminating facts seems smart, then imposing arguido status for crunchy questions seems the way to go.

If I get a chance, I will ask Snr Paulo Ribeiro how his interview went.

The media reported first that Sergey Malinka was no longer of interest.  The news that the other 3 were no longer of interest came shortly before the 10th anniversary.

[misty]

It is an intelligent question, so here is a civil answer.

Kate was questioned first as a witness, then her status was changed to arguido.  As a witness, Kate was legally obliged to answer each question, which she did.  As an arguido, she had the right to refuse to answer, which she did.

Sergey was questioned in 2007 as a witness, requiring him to answer all questions.  That he should be questioned in 2014 as an arguido, when he could refuse to answer, strikes me as dumb.  That he was announced as being a person no longer of interest relatively quickly, strikes me as fair and decent, but it strongly suggests the original decision was dumb.

The '3 burglars' are interesting.  For all I know, one or more could be involved.  In which case, making them witnesses first to ascertain basic non-incriminating facts seems smart, then imposing arguido status for crunchy questions seems the way to go.

If I get a chance, I will ask Snr Paulo Ribeiro how his interview went.

The media reported first that Sergey Malinka was no longer of interest.  The news that the other 3 were no longer of interest came shortly before the 10th anniversary.

Heri once posted on here that a source had told him one of the arguidos had spilled some beans & incriminated another of the arguidos. We didn't hear any more but I wonder where his source got that info from? Possibly the same place Blacksmith got the full list of people SY wanted to question back in 2014?

[barrier]

The media reported first that Sergey Malinka was no longer of interest.  The news that the other 3 were no longer of interest came shortly before the 10th anniversary.

Rowley in his question and answer session seemed to indicate that the other three were no longer of interest at the end of 2014,what have OG been up to since?

Q: How old were the suspects because I think you interviewed them originally through the Portuguese
beginning of July 2014?
MR: By the end of the year we were happy to have brought them out and we were moving on to other
parts of the investigation.

[Brietta]

It is an intelligent question, so here is a civil answer.

Kate was questioned first as a witness, then her status was changed to arguido.  As a witness, Kate was legally obliged to answer each question, which she did.  As an arguido, she had the right to refuse to answer, which she did.

Sergey was questioned in 2007 as a witness, requiring him to answer all questions.  That he should be questioned in 2014 as an arguido, when he could refuse to answer, strikes me as dumb.  That he was announced as being a person no longer of interest relatively quickly, strikes me as fair and decent, but it strongly suggests the original decision was dumb.

The '3 burglars' are interesting.  For all I know, one or more could be involved.  In which case, making them witnesses first to ascertain basic non-incriminating facts seems smart, then imposing arguido status for crunchy questions seems the way to go.

If I get a chance, I will ask Snr Paulo Ribeiro how his interview went.

The media reported first that Sergey Malinka was no longer of interest.  The news that the other 3 were no longer of interest came shortly before the 10th anniversary.

This is a Portuguese investigation. 
Scotland Yard are constrained by the rules imposed by the Portuguese Justice system.
Which dictates that those Portuguese Nationals questioned by the Portuguese police asking set rogatory questions on behalf of Scotland Yard, with the Brits looking on as observers, were made arguidos by the Portuguese in accordance with Portuguese law.
Scotland Yard were refused permission to go anywhere else with investigating these arguidos ... again in accordance with Portuguese Law and as usual where JITs are not the procedure, it is a long drawn out time wasting procedure.

The point I am making is that Scotland Yard are constrained when allowed to work in a foreign country by the laws and procedures of that country.

Therefore the "dumb" epithet you insist on, actually has nothing to do with Scotland Yard beyond the procedures they must follow in investigating a case on foreign soil.
In my opinion, you are failing to appreciate that your criticism is entirely of the Portuguese lawful imposition of protection for the rights of Portuguese citizens ... which you appear to think "dumb".

[G-Unit]

This is a Portuguese investigation. 
Scotland Yard are constrained by the rules imposed by the Portuguese Justice system.
Which dictates that those Portuguese Nationals questioned by the Portuguese police asking set rogatory questions on behalf of Scotland Yard, with the Brits looking on as observers, were made arguidos by the Portuguese in accordance with Portuguese law.
Scotland Yard were refused permission to go anywhere else with investigating these arguidos ... again in accordance with Portuguese Law and as usual where JITs are not the procedure, it is a long drawn out time wasting procedure.

The point I am making is that Scotland Yard are constrained when allowed to work in a foreign country by the laws and procedures of that country.

Therefore the "dumb" epithet you insist on, actually has nothing to do with Scotland Yard beyond the procedures they must follow in investigating a case on foreign soil.
In my opinion, you are failing to appreciate that your criticism is entirely of the Portuguese lawful imposition of protection for the rights of Portuguese citizens ... which you appear to think "dumb".

Was it the PJ who decided to make the men arguidos?

[Eleanor]

Was it the PJ who decided to make the men arguidos?

Of course it was.  No one else has the right, other than those being questioned.

[barrier]

Of course it was.  No one else has the right, other than those being questioned.

So its likely those being questioned asked then.

[G-Unit]

Of course it was.  No one else has the right, other than those being questioned.

I asked who made the decision, not who carried it out. Obviously the PJ put the status in place but why? Was it because the PJ decided it was the right thing to do or did the questions requested by OG made it unavoidable? It could have been because the men requested it.

[barrier]

I asked who made the decision, not who carried it out. Obviously the PJ put the status in place but why? Was it because the PJ decided it was the right thing to do or did the questions requested by OG made it unavoidable? It could have been because the men requested it.

When being asked did you murder Madeleine all protection necessary should have and looks to have been afforded the Arguidos.

https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/arguidos-answered-to-250-questions-and.html

Going away from topic though.

[Eleanor]

So its likely those being questioned asked then.

They had the right to do so.  I don't know if they did, but if it wasn't them then it would have to be done by The Portuguese Judiciary.

[Eleanor]

I asked who made the decision, not who carried it out. Obviously the PJ put the status in place but why? Was it because the PJ decided it was the right thing to do or did the questions requested by OG made it unavoidable? It could have been because the men requested it.

If the men were correctly advised then they could have asked.  We simply don't know who instituted this status so I doubt that anyone can answer as to who made the decision.

[G-Unit]

If the men were correctly advised then they could have asked.  We simply don't know who instituted this status so I doubt that anyone can answer as to who made the decision.

I agree. I think it's the PJ's job to make people arguidos, but why they did so in a particular case can't be assumed.

[Eleanor]

I agree. I think it's the PJ's job to make people arguidos, but why they did so in a particular case can't be assumed.

No, it isn't just The PJ's job to impose Arguido Status.  A Witness can ask for this, and cannot be refused.  We just don't know what happened on this occasion.

However, from what I can gather, a witness can ask to be made an Arguido and still answer any questions that might suit him to answer, or not.  Nothing can be implied by this.