Latest news on the search for Madeleine McCann

[Mr Gray]

You are no Mr. Spock davel.

It is also quite possible that kate mccann refused to answer to cover the truth and not just because her legal adviser told her to do so. Also, there would have been the danger of contradicting her husband's account of events. Remember her answer to the last question.

So implicitly, as we know the mccanns did not fully cooperate with the investigation.

As to the new arguidos, they were investigated by the Portuguese before , and they found nothing.

and quite frankly there would now be a fear of being 'fitted up' for a crime whose nature has not be ascertained.

no not answering questions is NOT a sign of guilt

[jassi]

no not answering questions is NOT a sign of guilt

It very well could be, but it is certainly not evidence of guilt.

[Benice]

The change in the law which came into force days after the Drs McCann were made arguidos means that evidence had to be presented against the "new arguidos" before they could be constituted as such.

I presume if they refuse to answer questions that evidence will be strong enough to allow proceedings to continue; as we have seen in Mr Malinka's case, he appears to have been successful in contesting the evidence presented against him; the other three remain arguidos.

Time will tell.

A good point Brietta.   This was not the position when the McCanns were made arguidos.   It would appear that the change in law means that evidence of a far more substantial nature is now a pre-requisiite to making someone an Arguido than was required re the McCanns.  (A 'dream' probably wouldn't qualify nowadays)   

On the other hand (from memory)  -  I understand 'witnesses' can  ASK to be made arguidos - I presume to give themselves protection that doesn't exist as 'witnesses'. 

Just as a matter of interest - if that is the case - do we actually know whether the current arguidos were declared arguidos by the PJ , or requested that status themselves?

[Wonderfulspam]

A good point Brietta.   This was not the position when the McCanns were made arguidos.   It would appear that the change in law means that evidence of a far more substantial nature is now a pre-requisiite to making someone an Arguido than was required re the McCanns.  (A 'dream' probably wouldn't qualify nowadays)   

On the other hand (from memory)  -  I understand 'witnesses' can  ASK to be made arguidos - I presume to give themselves protection that doesn't exist as 'witnesses'. 

Just as a matter of interest - if that is the case - do we actually know whether the current arguidos were declared arguidos by the PJ , or requested that status themselves?

According to a TVI report (30.06.14), 'At the request of the British authorities four people will be constituted as arguidos', and according to SIC on the same date, 'All these steps have exclusively to do with the English investigation, which has not found any echo on the investigative line of enquiry being followed by the Judiciary Police'


The evidence against 'em is probably phone calls, living, working & pilfering in the local area, most damning evidence indeed.

[Eleanor]

Since Substantial Evidence is required to afford one the status of Arguido, and that only The Portuguese Judicial System can bestow this, either someone is telling porkies, or these people requested it themselves.

[Wonderfulspam]

Since Substantial Evidence is required to afford one the status of Arguido, and that only The Portuguese Judicial System can bestow this, either someone is telling porkies, or these people requested it themselves.

Can't help but think that if there were substantial evidence against 'em, the PJ would be investigating that themselves, not SY via rogatory letters whilst the PJ investigate dead tractor driving heroin addicts who prefer kidnap to employment tribunals.

[bros]

Law office representing Sergei Malinka during the July 2014 questioning stated something along this line: Due to complicated nature of interview his interview will continue tomorrow 2nd day which was not case with the other arguidos.

[ferryman]

A good point Brietta.   This was not the position when the McCanns were made arguidos.   It would appear that the change in law means that evidence of a far more substantial nature is now a pre-requisiite to making someone an Arguido than was required re the McCanns.  (A 'dream' probably wouldn't qualify nowadays)   

On the other hand (from memory)  -  I understand 'witnesses' can  ASK to be made arguidos - I presume to give themselves protection that doesn't exist as 'witnesses'. 

Just as a matter of interest - if that is the case - do we actually know whether the current arguidos were declared arguidos by the PJ , or requested that status themselves?

Spoil-sports, these legislators ...

Taking up the theme of your post more seriously, much was made at the time (that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos) that the arguido status was applied that arguido status is for the protection of the accused, and part of that protection is that arguido interviews are not recorded.

We know that they are recorded because we've read the record, but still, there is something in the claim.

Yes, records are kept of arguido interviews, but (judging by the record we read) scarcely complete or full records.

More significantly, nothing said to police in police interviews may be used in court against an arguido if the arguido is charged and taken to court, unless, whatever has been said to the police is repeated in court.

One of the bones of contention in the Cipriano trial was that Joao and and his sister both exercised their right of silence in court, yet "confessions" made to police formed a part of court proceedings.

That is where the protection (when things work as they should) comes in.

[Eleanor]

Can't help but think that if there were substantial evidence against 'em, the PJ would be investigating that themselves, not SY via rogatory letters whilst the PJ investigate dead tractor driving heroin addicts who prefer kidnap to employment tribunals.

You might think that The PJ would investigate it themselves, but they don't appear to be doing this.
This is what leads me to suspect that The Four Aruidos requested this status for themselves.  Possibly to do with Burglary.

Very sensible, if you ask me.  And they can still answer questions if they want to.  However, a "No Comment" to just one or two questions might raise red flags.  Better not to answer any of them, I think.

What do you think?

[Wonderfulspam]

Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing.

[ferryman]

You might think that The PJ would investigate it themselves, but they don't appear to be doing this.
This is what leads me to suspect that The Four Aruidos requested this status for themselves.  Possibly to do with Burglary.

Very sensible, if you ask me.  And they can still answer questions if they want to.  However, a "No Comment" to just one or two questions might raise red flags.  Better not to answer any of them, I think.

What do you think?

It certainly was right that witnesses could request to be made arguidos.

I don't know if it still is.

Slightly disturbing, in one sense, that there is that provision. 

Informal witnesses are obliged to answer all questions put to them (they cannot invoke the right of silence).

But the quid pro quo is that neither can they be asked leading or incriminating questions.

Only after the arguido status has been imposed may a more aggressive line of questioning be pursued. 

If a witness feels compelled to request arguido status, that can only be because the line of questioning has become more aggressive or inquisitorial ...

[ferryman]

Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing.

Policemen with solid evidence to back up their suspicions don't lie, fabricate and misrepresent.

[Eleanor]

Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing.

They might hide a Burglary or two.  But still not be involved in an abduction.  There could well have been more than one crime going on that night.

[Eleanor]

It certainly was right that witnesses could request to be made arguidos.

I don't know if it still is.

Slightly disturbing, in one sense, that there is that provision. 

Informal witnesses are obliged to answer all questions put to them (they cannot invoke the right of silence).

But the quid pro quo is that neither can they be asked leading or incriminating questions.

Only after the arguido status has been imposed may a more aggressive line of questioning be pursued. 

If a witness feels compelled to request arguido status, that can only be because the line of questioning has become more aggressive or inquisitorial ...

"Informal Witnesses are obliged to answer all questions."  Oh really.  Who thought up that one?  No one can be forced to answer questions. 
This might raise some problems with Police Station Stairs, of course, but I can't see that happening on this occasion.

[ferryman]

"Informal Witnesses are obliged to answer all questions."  Oh really.  Who thought up that one?  No one can be forced to answer questions. 
This might raise some problems with Police Station Stairs, of course, but I can't see that happening on this occasion.

That is (or was!) the position under Portuguese law, with the proviso that they can't be asked leading or incriminating questions.

Informal witnesses are also not entitled to legal representation (although, if questioning goes as it should, they ought not to need it).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6657977.stm

(sic)

Mr Rego said: "Sometimes when they [the police] suspect someone, they call that person in as a witness.

"They don't constitute him as arguido and they extract as much information from him as they can, because as a witness he cannot refuse to collaborate with the police.