Madeleine McCann: Mari Luz Cortes connection, fact and fiction.

[G-Unit]

They are, in cases, where suspects do not speak english

You will, of course, have a cite for that. If true, then those who don't speak English have an advantage over those who speak it but can't read it.

[ShiningInLuz]

No... The fault lies with the PJ... The statements should have been recorded

Unless you can show a legal requirement, in Portugal, in 2007, to record such statements, you are simply misinforming the forum.

Was there such a requirement?

[Brietta]

Unless you can show a legal requirement, in Portugal, in 2007, to record such statements, you are simply misinforming the forum.

Was there such a requirement?

What does the European Court say about it in 2007?  If it says so ... I imagine that would cover Portugal's obligation.

[Mr Gray]

Unless you can show a legal requirement, in Portugal, in 2007, to record such statements, you are simply misinforming the forum.

Was there such a requirement?

I'm misinforming no one.... The PJs method of recording statements for non Portuguese speakers is woefully inadequate..... .as Sutton pointed out and is a recipe for error

[ShiningInLuz]

I'm misinforming no one.... The PJs method of recording statements for non Portuguese speakers is woefully inadequate..... .as Sutton pointed out and is a recipe for error

So you have presented your opinion as fact, knowing there was no such requirement?

That's not misinformation.

It's worse.

[G-Unit]

I'm misinforming no one.... The PJs method of recording statements for non Portuguese speakers is woefully inadequate..... .as Sutton pointed out and is a recipe for error

It is acceptable in Portugal, which is what matters. The opinions expressed by anyone else are irrelevant.

[barrier]

It is acceptable in Portugal, which is what matters. The opinions expressed by anyone else are irrelevant.

Except maybe to the key board warriors who make something out of nothing.

[Mr Gray]

It is acceptable in Portugal, which is what matters. The opinions expressed by anyone else are irrelevant.

the whole board is mostly opinion...so the whole board is irrelevant...but its a discussion forum and we discuss opinions

[Sunny]

No we don't... We have a non verbatim account of her statement written by Murat

Davel you originally said we didn't have copies of the rogatory statements so couldn't be certain they were correct then you said this

you still dont understand...the translations of the portuguese files are fairly accurate....we can check them. we cannot check the statemnts of the tapas or pennington.. because we dont have the original statements

Charlotte Pennington's statement has an original DVD image for you to see. It is in the link I attached.

Now you are changing the goalposts which will therefore make ALL the statements possibly innaccurate in your book, and certainly when it suits you.  All IMO.

[Mr Gray]

Davel you originally said we didn't have copies of the rogatory statements so couldn't be certain they were correct then you said this

you still dont understand...the translations of the portuguese files are fairly accurate....we can check them. we cannot check the statemnts of the tapas or pennington.. because we dont have the original statements

Charlotte Pennington's statement has an original DVD image for you to see. It is in the link I attached.

Now you are changing the goalposts which will therefore make ALL the statements possibly innaccurate in your book, and certainly when it suits you.  All IMO.

you seem to still misunderstand.......the Rogs are in english...and therefore may be reliable although the source from which they came is not reliable...what we cannot rely on is statements given in english in portugal which we do not have a record of....the amateur tarnslators...Murat for instance...have just given a non verbatim summarry of the stateemnt

[Alice Purjorick]

What does the European Court say about it in 2007?  If it says so ... I imagine that would cover Portugal's obligation.

Something like:
In various Member States not only the prosecution, but also judges and competent courts are charged with seeking both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. Member States which do not have an adversarial system should be able to maintain their current system provided that it complies with this Directive and with other relevant provisions of Union and international law.

I would imagine.

[Mr Gray]

Something like:
In various Member States not only the prosecution, but also judges and competent courts are charged with seeking both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. Member States which do not have an adversarial system should be able to maintain their current system provided that it complies with this Directive and with other relevant provisions of Union and international law.

I would imagine.

so it doesnt address that particular problem.....The ECHR does guarantee the right to a fair trial so being coerced into signing something you dont understand may well be covered there

[Alice Purjorick]

Then on the other hand the discussion needs to be carried on incognisance of [this is UK legislation]:

"When you cannot produce a witness statement as evidence.
A written witness statement is not admissible on its own as evidence at trial if
the defence do not agree with the evidence that has been written within it.
How the statement is used in court
The statement will be read out at the hearing, only if it has been agreed by both the
prosecution and defence. This allows for evidence to be given without having to call
the witness to attend. If there is no agreement, the statement will not be read out in
court.
A witness may refer to specific documents in a statement and these documents or
items of evidence will be ‘produced’ as exhibits in the case. Any document or object
referred to as an exhibit and identified in the statement will be treated as if it has
been produced by the person who made the statement.

It screws up the armchair keyboard tecs but ensures justice works reasonably.

[Alice Purjorick]

so it doesnt address that particular problem.....The ECHR does guarantee the right to a fair trial so being coerced into signing something you dont understand may well be covered there

Have you read the entire directive?

[Mr Gray]

Have you read the entire directive?

i domt need to...the right to a fair trial is guaranteed