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.