Why did Amaral and PJ suspect the McCanns and Murat as being somehow involved?

[Carana]

To get back to the opening post it must be pointed out that the status of 'arguido' is unique to Portuguese law.  Just a few days ago the judge at the libel trial in Lisbon went out of her way to make this very point when a witness referred to the McCanns as official suspects following a reference to the term.

The arguido has been explained elsewhere thus I will not labour the point save to say that such a status offers protection to any witness so designated.  The witness is not obliged to answer any questions put by police officers and is entitled to have a lawyer present when questioned.

Although the Portuguese deny that the arguido is a suspect there can be no denying that for any foreigner so designated it most certainly feels that way.  For their part the McCanns certainly felt as if they were suspects or suspected of something. Why else would the Portuguese detectives be questioning them in such terms?

There seems to be a negative connotation associated with the status. Ask Murat.

Arresting someone to ask probing questions seems to be general practice. Ask the landlord in the Jo Yeates case.

Lots of people are surely taken in for in-depth questioning in any major investigation all over the world.

My objection is the media attention and the assumption that those people are portrayed as guilty.

Once that negative portrayal is imprinted into the minds of the general public, later reports of "released without charge" don't seem to be registered in the public consciousness as much as the initial news.

If you were the person concerned, would you find that acceptable?

[Cariad]

There seems to be a negative connotation associated with the status. Ask Murat.

Arresting someone to ask probing questions seems to be general practice. Ask the landlord in the Jo Yeates case.

Lots of people are surely taken in for in-depth questioning in any major investigation all over the world.

My objection is the media attention and the assumption that those people are portrayed as guilty.

Once that negative portrayal is imprinted into the minds of the general public, later reports of "released without charge" don't seem to be registered in the public consciousness as much as the initial news.

If you were the person concerned, would you find that acceptable?

I remember saying to my husband that the police must have some sort of concrete evidence against Chris Jefferies, or else they wouldn't have released his name.

What he went through was horrific, however, it served to highlight how naive my original opinion was. I won't assume guilt from arrest ever again!

[DCI]

The press which were being feed like piranhas by members of the PJ, GNR, and Portuguese journalists.
Remember what Paulo Reis said, in his email to Stevo?
Even Amaral left files on his desk for a journo to read and get information of personal details of witness's.

Who sold Kate's diary's to CdM to print bits of, 2 days after Amarals book was released.
Which Portuguese woman journalist sold said diary's to the NOTW, for 18,000 Euro

It did not appear to be the original diary, but a copy that had been translated from English
into Portuguese.

The Sun newspaper on July 28, 2008, which said that extracts of Kate
McCann’s diary had emerged in Portugal.

A diary that the AG said should not be used!

[Angelo222]

when are you lot gong to "get it" madeleine's parents "are not" suspects and are not being investigated in the disappearance of their daughter madeleine.

"Neither her parents
or any members of the group
that were with her
are persons of interest
or suspects."-DCI REDWOOD

Do you really think i'm going to take the word of the idiot who tried to stitch up Barry George?

[Angelo222]

I remember saying to my husband that the police must have some sort of concrete evidence against Chris Jefferies, or else they wouldn't have released his name.

What he went through was horrific, however, it served to highlight how naive my original opinion was. I won't assume guilt from arrest ever again!

It was that bunch of morons at Sky News who started it all off.     Mark Stone was the reporter who pursued him if I remember correctly.   >@@(*&)

http://news.sky.com/story/894630/wrongly-accused-yeates-landlords-living-hell

[Cariad]

It was that bunch of morons at Sky News who started it all off.     Cant remember who the reporter guy was though??   >@@(*&)

http://news.sky.com/story/894630/wrongly-accused-yeates-landlords-living-hell

Thank you for the link. Chris Jefferies had the misfortune of looking a little "odd", but the good luck to be incredibly intelligent and articulate. He was able to fight to clear his name in a way that Barry George for example couldn't really.

In a perfect world it would never have happened, however, it does serve as an example that could make people stop and think before jumping to conclusions again. It has for me anyway.

[Benice]

The press which were being feed like piranhas by members of the PJ, GNR, and Portuguese journalists.
Remember what Paulo Reis said, in his email to Stevo?
Even Amaral left files on his desk for a journo to read and get information of personal details of witness's.

Who sold Kate's diary's to CdM to print bits of, 2 days after Amarals book was released.
Which Portuguese woman journalist sold said diary's to the NOTW, for 18,000 EuroIt did not appear to be the original diary, but a copy that had been translated from English
into Portuguese.

The Sun newspaper on July 28, 2008, which said that extracts of Kate
McCann’s diary had emerged in Portugal.

A diary that the AG said should not be used!

I find it shocking that no investigation appears to have been carried out re Kates diary, which had been 'taken into custody' from the McCanns apartment. by the PJ - and so was in their sole possession.    And which, after all copies of it were ordered by the GA to be destroyed, was then illegally distributed for public consumption.   One can only assume a PJ Officer was involved.     Surely ignoring a direct order from the GA should have automatically resulted in an enquiry.

IIRC correctly Lord Leveson was just as shocked and intimated that he would be making further enquiries about that.  Whether he was able to find anything out - I do not know as I've never seen any further reference to it.

[Angelo222]

I find it shocking that no investigation appears to have been carried out re Kates diary, which had been 'taken into custody' from the McCanns apartment. by the PJ - and so was in their sole possession.    And which, after all copies of it were ordered by the GA to be destroyed, was then illegally distributed for public consumption.   One can only assume a PJ Officer was involved.     Surely ignoring a direct order from the GA should have automatically resulted in an enquiry.

IIRC correctly Lord Leveson was just as shocked and intimated that he would be making further enquiries about that.  Whether he was able to find anything out - I do not know as I've never seen any further reference to it.

I totally agree Benice, there is no justification whatsoever for such conduct.

[Carana]

And i think that an asusmption that Gerry was lying would be a valid one, how can you get so spectacularly wrong the door you went in through only 14 hours after the event?

I believe (and i also agree) that Amaral and his team thought they were trying to create entry points to support the ability of an abductor to get in and the inital story for the group was that the entry point was through the patio door and then out through the window for said abductor.

When that didn't fly because of the Wilkins meeting at the bottom of the steps to the patio the 10th May statement then said he didn't go through the front door and it wasn't locked.

To any investigator it is not unreasonable to assume that such fundamental changes and alterations to statements concerning entry and exit points coupled with locked and unlocked would raise suspicion.

Why didn't the police officer taking the statement on 4 May not question that apparent contradiction at the time to clarify?

[jassi]

Why didn't the police officer taking the statement on 4 May not question that apparent contradiction at the time to clarify?

Perhaps the statements were taken by different officers and the second officer had no knowledge  of the earlier statement.

[Matthew Wyse]

Perhaps the statements were taken by different officers and the second officer had no knowledge  of the earlier statement.

      > that's why you have a coordinator.

[Victoria]

Do you really think i'm going to take the word of the idiot who tried to stitch up Barry George?

Presumably you have no problem taking the word of convicted criminal Amaral.