UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: amaraltheofficeboy on May 28, 2013, 06:30:00 PM
-
Ya know - they had the perps - they had the evidence - they had them hook line and sinker - after all they could have forced them to "prove their innocence".
So why did they not stop them from getting on the Easyjet plane?
Why did they miss the opportunity to solve the crime without the hassle of Reg requests/interviews etc?
What were the hot shot authorities short of?
Why did they give permission for the culprits to flee the country and then criticise them afterwards for not coming back for a reconstruction?
Whose fault was it?
-
They did not 'give them permission' as such. Their address as given on the forms was in England. Therefore they were permitted to return to their home address. Of course the PJ could have tried to amend the Arguido status, but the law had changed from 'suspicion' to 'reasonable suspicion' (on the orders of the ECHR.)
-
Ya know - they had the perps - they had the evidence - they had them hook line and sinker - after all they could have forced them to "prove their innocence".
So why did they not stop them from getting on the Easyjet plane?
Why did they miss the opportunity to solve the crime without the hassle of Reg requests/interviews etc?
What were the hot shot authorities short of?
Why did they give permission for the culprits to flee the country and then criticise them afterwards for not coming back for a reconstruction?
Whose fault was it?
because they didn't have the evidence.
-
Them giving permission to leave a couple days after being made arguidos SMACKS of political interference to me
-
Them giving permission to leave a couple days after being made arguidos SMACKS of political interference to me
See above. The PJ had no right to stop them leaving.
-
Them giving permission to leave a couple days after being made arguidos SMACKS of political interference to me
I think you will see what political interference is if Portugal refuse to reopen the case.
-
Them giving permission to leave a couple days after being made arguidos SMACKS of political interference to me
See above. The PJ had no right to stop them leaving.
thats that then
-
Them giving permission to leave a couple days after being made arguidos SMACKS of political interference to me
See above. The PJ had no right to stop them leaving.
thats that then
Under what law could they stop unarrested and uncharged people from leaving the country?
-
Them giving permission to leave a couple days after being made arguidos SMACKS of political interference to me
I think you will see what political interference is if Portugal refuse to reopen the case.
Oh right dream on, I think camerons hands are full at the moment with all sorts of *stuff* that affects the *whole world* dont you think? maddies case is way way down on his radar even if its still in it anywhere
-
Them giving permission to leave a couple days after being made arguidos SMACKS of political interference to me
See above. The PJ had no right to stop them leaving.
thats that then
Under what law could they stop unarrested and uncharged people from leaving the country?
Ask someone who knows or cares but the question SHOULD be why the authorities let two arguidos just go home a day or so after if the police had had a theory they were involved and had been interviewing them a daybefore,, see? Interfereance
-
Ya know - they had the perps - they had the evidence - they had them hook line and sinker - after all they could have forced them to "prove their innocence".
So why did they not stop them from getting on the Easyjet plane?
Why did they miss the opportunity to solve the crime without the hassle of Reg requests/interviews etc?
What were the hot shot authorities short of?
Why did they give permission for the culprits to flee the country and then criticise them afterwards for not coming back for a reconstruction?
Whose fault was it?
because they didn't have the evidence.
Spot on davel
They didn't have the evidence.
Repeat: They didn't have the evidence
-
Wierd that police not having any evidence would send the suspects home pdq though after interrogating them, ergo it was nothing to do with police
-
the evidence (according to some) is that they failed to prove their innocence.
-
At anytime, if the PJ had enough evidence to charge the McCanns, whilst back here in Blighty, they could have asked the Police here to arrest them and extradite them to Portugal..
-
What was the evidence against them according to the Portuguese AG, do remind us please.
BUMPED
-
At anytime, if the PJ had enough evidence to charge the McCanns, whilst back here in Blighty, they could have asked the Police here to arrest them and extradite them to Portugal..
If Caplan could stop Pinchet from being extradited, what hope had the Portuguese of forcing the McCanns back to Portugal ?
-
Extradition treaty's ...ever heard of them
-
At anytime, if the PJ had enough evidence to charge the McCanns, whilst back here in Blighty, they could have asked the Police here to arrest them and extradite them to Portugal..
If Caplan could stop Pinchet from being extradited, what hope had the Portuguese of forcing the McCanns back to Portugal ?
NONE
-
At anytime, if the PJ had enough evidence to charge the McCanns, whilst back here in Blighty, they could have asked the Police here to arrest them and extradite them to Portugal..
If Caplan could stop Pinchet from being extradited, what hope had the Portuguese of forcing the McCanns back to Portugal ?
NONE
Another lie by you.. As there is a extradition treaty and the EAW in place, they had every opportunity to do it, but they didn't as no evidence....now please do try to get that through your sozzled fried brain
-
Another lie by you.. As there is a extradition treaty and the EAW in place, they had every opportunity to do it, but they didn't as no evidenJce....now please do try to get that through your sozzled fried brain
[/quote]
You dont need evidence for an eaw so banana back to you bozo
NONE
-
So if they didn't need evidence, why didn't they apply for one....Jeez
-
Ask the pj though they will probably answer u with a fart as your question is utterly stupid anyway in the first place
-
Them giving permission to leave a couple days after being made arguidos SMACKS of political interference to me
See above. The PJ had no right to stop them leaving.
thats that then
Under what law could they stop unarrested and uncharged people from leaving the country?
Ask someone who knows or cares but the question SHOULD be why the authorities let two arguidos just go home a day or so after if the police had had a theory they were involved and had been interviewing them a daybefore,, see? Interfereance
And the answer is, they did not have the power to stop them.
-
Ask the pj though they will probably answer u with a fart as your question is utterly stupid anyway in the first place
Answer was....because the AG knew they didn't do it, so there you go...goodbye
-
Ask the pj though they will probably answer u with a fart as your question is utterly stupid anyway in the first place
Answer was....because the AG knew they didn't do it, so there you go...goodbye
Steady on luv nite though LOL
8)--))
-
Another lie by you.. As there is a extradition treaty and the EAW in place, they had every opportunity to do it, but they didn't as no evidenJce....now please do try to get that through your sozzled fried brain
You dont need evidence for an eaw so banana back to you bozo
NONE
[/quote]
You most certainly do need to have reasonable suspicion to execute an EAW.
-
A European Arrest Warrant is what it says, it's used for extraditing people who are to be ARRESTED, not merely questioned. Quite certainly, within the EU, you need evidence to arrest people, even in Portugal actually. Also, it has to be an offence that carries a PRISON sentence.
An EAW may be issued for any offence punishable by the law of the issuing state with a maximum sentence of 12 months or more, or, where the person has already been sentenced, provided it is a sentence of at least four months imprisonment.
http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=14973
-
exactly if the PJ were so sure that the McCann's were involved - Amaral even said so - why didn't they simply trust their instincts and charge them - I mean they had all their ducks ready didn't they 8(0(*
I have always found it strange that all through the case all we ever hear about how the McCann's did this , the McCann's did that - how they trashed the crime scene , put pressure on the PJ. dictated the press etc etc - for goodness sake the Police had the power and the authority to charge them - use all their " evidence " - the dogs surely would have stood up in a jury I mean dogs never lie ??
-
exactly if the PJ were so sure that the McCann's were involved - Amaral even said so - why didn't they simply trust their instincts and charge them - I mean they had all their ducks ready didn't they 8(0(*
I have always found it strange that all through the case all we ever hear about how the McCann's did this , the McCann's did that - how they trashed the crime scene , put pressure on the PJ. dictated the press etc etc - for goodness sake the Police had the power and the authority to charge them - use all their " evidence " - the dogs surely would have stood up in a jury I mean dogs never lie ??
8@??)(
A simple comment but a good one