‘Maddie police were ignored’ Detectives have waited five months for Scotland Yard leads.

[Mr Gray]

Since dave, asking the same questions again and again of witnesses, is pointless.

Don't you agree.

you said new evidence was needed..who said SY want to ask the same questions...making things up again

[jassi]

Actually, we don't know that they want to ask any questions - merely something of unknown origin put out by a tabloid newspaper.

[stephen25000]

you said new evidence was needed..who said SY want to ask the same questions...making things up again

No dave.

The Portuguese want reasons to question the three men again.

[ShiningInLuz]

Not quite sure why it is getting a bit heated when there is nothing to get heated about, but kindly settle down a bit.  Thanks.

[Alice Purjorick]

Are you being argumentative for the sake of it ... or do you really fail to understand my original post which said ...

They certainly aren't allowing them access to the three defendants whether or not that is the hold-up in the case.

Which was in reference to the Portuguese newspaper article also in the post which stated ... "At the time, British police sent a letter rogatory to Portugal to ask for information about the three men who were then made defendants." Translated from the original Portuguese "Na altura, a polícia inglesa enviou uma carta rogatória para Portugal a pedir informações sobre os três homens, que foram depois constituídos arguidos." not by me ... but by Google.
If you have a problem with their translation ... do please take being 'slap dash' up with them.

I was merely asking why the use of the word "defendant" when manifestly the men are not defendants.
You must realise they are not so why perpetrate errors by use of the word; I take it from your response you are suggesting your post is not your responsibility ?

[Brietta]

I was merely asking why the use of the word "defendant" when manifestly the men are not defendants.
You must realise they are not so why perpetrate errors by use of the word; I take it from your response you are suggesting your post is not your responsibility ?

If you think there is a translation error ... please take it up with Google Translate ... they are always asking language experts to improve their content and here is your chance.

I think you should now drop this little vendetta (a prolonged bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone) and take heed of Shining's civil request to settle down (not particularly directed at you, but everyone, including me), which I echo.  Thankyou

[stephen25000]

If you think there is a translation error ... please take it up with Google Translate ... they are always asking language experts to improve their content and here is your chance.

I think you should now drop this little vendetta (a prolonged bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone) and take heed of Shining's civil request to settle down (not particularly directed at you, but everyone, including me), which I echo.  Thankyou

 

Why a need to explain the meaning of the vendetta Brietta ?

A word easily used to describe the McCanns pursuit of Amaral, and which has proved to be their Achilles Heel.

[Carana]

I was merely asking why the use of the word "defendant" when manifestly the men are not defendants.
You must realise they are not so why perpetrate errors by use of the word; I take it from your response you are suggesting your post is not your responsibility ?

It's a Google translate error, when taken in context.

Arguido is a term that covers everything from being interviewed as a person of interest right through to the end of the judicial road.

For some reason, it often gets translated as "defendant" (including by whoever translated the arguido blurb for the McCanns), which wouldn't be applicable in a UK sense until a trial... but in PT it's the same term at whatever stage.

[Brietta]

It's a Google translate error, when taken in context.

Arguido is a term that covers everything from being interviewed as a person of interest right through to the end of the judicial road.

For some reason, it often gets translated as "defendant" (including by whoever translated the arguido blurb for the McCanns), which wouldn't be applicable in a UK sense until a trial... but in PT it's the same term at whatever stage.

Thank you Carana.  I think that is a succinct explanation which makes the term easy to understand.

[Admin]

I am disappointed to note that one or two members have chosen to disturb the equilibrium of the forum this evening after a pleasant days posting. This will cease immediately otherwise I will invoke bans.

If any member is the subject of an unprovoked and unjustified attack please pm me immediately.

Admin

[Miss Taken Identity]

If you think there is a translation error ... please take it up with Google Translate ... they are always asking language experts to improve their content and here is your chance.

I think you should now drop this little vendetta (a prolonged bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone) and take heed of Shining's civil request to settle down (not particularly directed at you, but everyone, including me), which I echo.  Thankyou

As this is a UK forum, calling someone a defendant implies they have been charged, which if you are a supporter, which Brietta you are, then this would validate your argument that three people are 'in the frame' so to speak. A bit disingenuous in my opinion.
Blaming google translation is a cop out. You knew what you were doing (that lost i translation malarkey, won't wash).

So for the record, lets be clear about this. No one in Portugal is being held to account for the disappearance of Little Maddie, and the UK press via 'family sources' are feeding BS to the public and people on  this forum are trying to validate these'publicity seeking' claims.  To try and keep any suspicion about them at arms lenght.

[Admin]

As this is a UK forum, calling someone a defendant implies they have been charged, which if you are a supporter, which Brietta you are, then this would validate your argument that three people are 'in the frame' so to speak. A bit disingenuous in my opinion.
Blaming google translation is a cop out. You knew what you were doing (that lost i translation malarkey, won't wash).

So for the record, lets be clear about this. No one in Portugal is being held to account for the disappearance of Little Maddie, and the UK press via 'family sources' are feeding BS to the public and people on  this forum are trying to validate these'publicity seeking' claims.  To try and keep any suspicion about them at arms lenght.

Actually a defendant is someone accused of a crime, they don't have to be charged. 

Remember too that any witness can seek arguido status regardless of whether they are accused or not so referring to an arguido as a suspect, an accused or a defendant might not be strictly correct.  What they are is an arguido.

[Mr Gray]

As this is a UK forum, calling someone a defendant implies they have been charged, which if you are a supporter, which Brietta you are, then this would validate your argument that three people are 'in the frame' so to speak. A bit disingenuous in my opinion.
Blaming google translation is a cop out. You knew what you were doing (that lost i translation malarkey, won't wash).

So for the record, lets be clear about this. No one in Portugal is being held to account for the disappearance of Little Maddie, and the UK press via 'family sources' are feeding BS to the public and people on  this forum are trying to validate these'publicity seeking' claims.  To try and keep any suspicion about them at arms lenght.

I don't believe that to be at all true...quoting fantasy as fact

[Miss Taken Identity]

...Yes indeed.
And to make that clear they were NOT suspects either: They were reported to have been 'people of interest' along with others. People of interest as I have mentioned before can be of interest with regards they saw something. For an example: perhaps the 'burglars' saw little maddie in the street wandering, or saw something else suspicious like 'tannerman' or 'smith man', To imply they are suspected of an abduction  is a very serious statement. Which should be retracted, as not everyone  who reads these posts will appreciate mods  who want to use google translate to trash people from other countries. ofcourse I may be wrong...

Can we have a new vote on Mods?

[Admin]

...Yes indeed.
And to make that clear they were NOT suspects either: They were reported to have been 'people of interest' along with others. People of interest as I have mentioned before can be of interest with regards they saw something. For an example: perhaps the 'burglars' saw little maddie in the street wandering, or saw something else suspicious like 'tannerman' or 'smith man', To imply they are suspected of an abduction  is a very serious statement. Which should be retracted, as not everyone  who reads these posts will appreciate mods  who want to use google translate to trash people from other countries. ofcourse I may be wrong...

Can we have a new vote on Mods?

The great British Press must take the blame for referring to the three Portuguese guys as suspects.  But then what can we expect of them when they label sceptics as trolls too?  In fact, do we even know for sure if they are or were arguidos?  My understanding is that they all complied freely with investigators so such a status was unnecessary.