Author Topic: Abduction  (Read 17655 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Abduction
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2018, 06:59:42 PM »

That is great "Despite the official explanation from the Portuguese authorities, the English police also considered an unofficial explanation"  Two types of explanation - one official and the other unofficial and they are different!
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Abduction
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2018, 07:06:09 PM »
That is great "Despite the official explanation from the Portuguese authorities, the English police also considered an unofficial explanation"  Two types of explanation - one official and the other unofficial and they are different!

Two perfectly legitimate reasons IMO.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Abduction
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2018, 07:20:46 PM »
Two perfectly legitimate reasons IMO.
But then couldn't they just make up any excuse "unofficially" to get into someone's bank account?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Abduction
« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2018, 08:11:33 PM »
"One theory is that the burglars raided the McCanns’ flat and were panicked into snatching the youngster when she woke up.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622233/British-police-leading-hunt-Madeleine-McCann-banned-searching-homes-burglary-suspects.html#ixzz535Mn7mFs "

I still think a more probable outcome is they desisted from their burglary when Madeleine woke up and she went to find her mum over at the Tapas, and for some reason she didn't get that far.
There was Kate's evidence of an attempted break in, no evidence found by the PJ of anyone going through the window.  Once the front door has been opened by Madeleine someone else closed it after her and left via the patio door.   For the front door appears to have been closed when Kate did her check.

Given that even a low level burglar knows his business and the sentences associated with being caught why would the burglar place himself in the position of increased exposure by knocking over the joint, as you might say, at night with a child in occupation rather than in daylight when the place is empty thereby reducing the risk?

I don'tknow about Portugal but England is this:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/domestic-burglary/

Other aggravating factors include:

    Child at home (or returns home) when offence committed
    Offence committed at night


I am sure there is an expert on Portuguese law here who has the answer with cite at their fingertips.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Abduction
« Reply #34 on: January 03, 2018, 08:16:27 PM »
But then couldn't they just make up any excuse "unofficially" to get into someone's bank account?

Whose bank account are we considering here?
Mine as "the contractor wot dunnit" was is any one of a dozen countries who would tell you to sit on a sharp stick if you asked. My client could have been anyone anywhere..........always given that you go for the pre-planned snatch.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline barrier

Re: Abduction
« Reply #35 on: January 03, 2018, 08:53:44 PM »
It most certainly isn't and they appear to be no longer of any interest to OG.

There is no appear,they are not no longer subject of further investigation.

Mark Rowley assistant commissioner of the MET.


Quote
The team has looked at in excess of 600 individuals who were identified as being potentially significant to the disappearance. In 2013 the team identified four individuals they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciária and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation.

There was no burglary gone wrong that can be linked to an alleged abduction.imo.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2018, 08:55:54 PM by barrier »
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Carana

Re: Abduction
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2018, 08:57:32 PM »
Given that even a low level burglar knows his business and the sentences associated with being caught why would the burglar place himself in the position of increased exposure by knocking over the joint, as you might say, at night with a child in occupation rather than in daylight when the place is empty thereby reducing the risk?

I don'tknow about Portugal but England is this:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/domestic-burglary/

Other aggravating factors include:

    Child at home (or returns home) when offence committed
    Offence committed at night


I am sure there is an expert on Portuguese law here who has the answer with cite at their fingertips.


While we wait for an expert...
I can't see anything resembling those particular aggravating factors.

2007 Penal Code

CAPÍTULO II
Dos crimes contra a propriedade
Artigo 203.o
Furto
1 - Quem, com ilegítima intenção de apropriação para si ou para outra pessoa, subtrair coisa móvel alheia, é punido com pena de prisão até 3 anos ou com pena de multa.
2 - A tentativa é punível.
3 - O procedimento criminal depende de queixa.
Artigo 204.o Furto qualificado
98
 ASSEMBLEIA DA REPÚBLICA
1 - Quem furtar coisa móvel alheia:
a) De valor elevado;
b) Colocada ou transportada em veículo ou colocada em lugar destinado ao depósito de objectos ou transportada por passageiros utentes de transporte colectivo, mesmo que a subtracção tenha lugar na estação, gare ou cais;
c) Afecta ao culto religioso ou à veneração da memória dos mortos e que se encontre em lugar destinado ao culto ou em cemitério;
d) Explorando situação de especial debilidade da vítima, de desastre, acidente, calamidade pública ou perigo comum;
e) Fechada em gaveta, cofre ou outro receptáculo equipados com fechadura ou outro dispositivo especialmente destinado à sua segurança;
f) Introduzindo-se ilegitimamente em habitação, ainda que móvel, estabelecimento comercial ou industrial ou espaço fechado, ou aí permanecendo escondido com intenção de furtar;
g) Com usurpação de título, uniforme ou insígnia de empregado público, civil ou militar, ou alegando falsa ordem de autoridade pública;
h) Fazendo da prática de furtos modo de vida; ou
i) Deixando a vítima em difícil situação económica;
é punido com pena de prisão até 5 anos ou com pena de multa até 600 dias. 2 - Quem furtar coisa móvel alheia:
a) De valor consideravelmente elevado;
b) Que possua significado importante para o desenvolvimento tecnológico ou
económico;
c) Que por sua natureza seja altamente perigosa;
d) Que possua importante valor científico, artístico ou histórico e se encontre em colecção ou exposição públicas ou acessíveis ao público;
99
 ASSEMBLEIA DA REPÚBLICA
e) Penetrando em habitação, ainda que móvel, estabelecimento comercial ou industrial ou outro espaço fechado, por arrombamento, escalamento ou chaves falsas;
f) Trazendo, no momento do crime, arma aparente ou oculta; ou
g) Como membro de bando destinado à prática reiterada de crimes contra o
património, com a colaboração de pelo menos outro membro do bando;
é punido com pena de prisão de 2 a 8 anos.
3 - Se na mesma conduta concorrerem mais do que um dos requisitos referidos nos números anteriores, só é considerado para efeito de determinação da pena aplicável o que tiver efeito agravante mais forte, sendo o outro ou outros valorados na medida da pena.
4 - Não há lugar à qualificação se a coisa furtada for de diminuto valor.

Pure googlish, I'm afraid.

CHAPTER II
Of crimes against property
Article 203
Theft
1 - Who, with illegitimate intention of appropriation for himself or for another person, subtract something alien from others, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to 3 years or with a fine.
2 - The attempt is punishable.
3 - Criminal procedure depends on complaint.

Article 204 Qualified theft
98
 ASSEMBLEIA DA REPÚBLICA
1 - Whoever steals another's mobile thing:
a) Of high value;
(b) placed or carried in a vehicle or placed in a place intended for the storage of objects or carried by passengers using public transport, even if the subtraction takes place at the station, gare or pier;
c) It affects the religious cult or the veneration of the memory of the dead and that is in place destined to the cult or in cemetery;
d) Exploring situations of special weakness of the victim, disaster, accident, public calamity or common danger;
e) Closed in a drawer, safe or other receptacle equipped with a lock or other device specially designed for its safety;
f) Introducing illegitimately in housing, even if mobile, commercial or industrial establishment or closed space, or there hiding with the intention of stealing;
g) With usurpation of title, uniform or insignia of public, civil or military employee, or alleging false order of public authority;
h) Making the practice of stealing a way of life; or
i) Leaving the victim in difficult economic situation;
shall be punished with imprisonment up to 5 years or with a fine of up to 600 days. 2 - Whoever steals another's mobile thing:
(a) of a considerably high value;
(b) which has significant significance for the technological development or
economic;
c) that by its nature is highly dangerous;
d) That it possesses important scientific, artistic or historical value and is in a collection or exhibition public or accessible to the public;
99
 ASSEMBLEIA DA REPÚBLICA
e) Penetrating into housing, even if mobile, commercial or industrial establishment or other enclosed space, by break-in, escalation or false keys;
f) Bringing, at the time of the crime, an apparent or hidden weapon; or
g) As a member of the gang destined to the repeated practice of crimes against
with the collaboration of at least one other member of the band;
is punished with imprisonment from 2 to 8 years.
3 - If in the same conduct more than one of the requirements referred to in the previous paragraphs, only the one that has the strongest aggravating effect is considered for the purpose of determining the applicable penalty, the other one or others being valued as a penalty.
4 - There is no place to qualify if the thing stolen is of small value.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Abduction
« Reply #37 on: January 03, 2018, 09:01:26 PM »
There is no appear,they are not no longer subject of further investigation.

Mark Rowley assistant commissioner of the MET.


There was no burglary gone wrong that can be linked to an alleged abduction.imo.

Im happy to accept that Rowley is telling the truth...are you...he also says the Mccanns are not suspects

Offline barrier

Re: Abduction
« Reply #38 on: January 03, 2018, 09:03:42 PM »
Im happy to accept that Rowley is telling the truth...are you...he also says the Mccanns are not suspects

Cite for Rowley actually using those words.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Abduction
« Reply #39 on: January 03, 2018, 09:18:29 PM »
Whose bank account are we considering here?
Mine as "the contractor wot dunnit" was is any one of a dozen countries who would tell you to sit on a sharp stick if you asked. My client could have been anyone anywhere..........always given that you go for the pre-planned snatch.
In our case I thought we were looking at Gerry and 3 or 4 local guys living in and around PdL.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Abduction
« Reply #40 on: January 03, 2018, 09:20:44 PM »
There is no appear,they are not no longer subject of further investigation.

Mark Rowley assistant commissioner of the MET.


There was no burglary gone wrong that can be linked to an alleged abduction.imo.
It depends on evidence.  "The enquiries did not find any evidence"  If new evidence came up that could change.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Abduction
« Reply #41 on: January 03, 2018, 09:29:59 PM »
Cite for Rowley actually using those words.

Rowley also said Maddie was abducted....I'm happy to accept Rowley is telling the truth and it seems you are too

Offline jassi

Re: Abduction
« Reply #42 on: January 03, 2018, 09:33:37 PM »
It depends on evidence.  "The enquiries did not find any evidence"  If new evidence came up that could change.

Of course it could. New evidence could lead to all sorts of ......... coming out of the woodwork, or from under stones
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Abduction
« Reply #43 on: January 03, 2018, 09:35:56 PM »
Of course it could. New evidence could lead to all sorts of ......... coming out of the woodwork, or from under stones
You forgot to mention me. 
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline barrier

Re: Abduction
« Reply #44 on: January 03, 2018, 09:36:18 PM »
Im happy to accept that Rowley is telling the truth...are you...he also says the Mccanns are not suspects

Cite for Rowley actually using those words.

Rowley also said Maddie was abducted....I'm happy to accept Rowley is telling the truth and it seems you are too

Thought as much,Rowley has not uttered those words about McCanns not being suspects.
I'll decide what I believe, not you,thanks all the same.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.