Maddie cops seek yet more cash

[Vertigo Swirl]

Sorry, what question did you actually ask then?

Are you actually incapable of looking back over half a dozen posts?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm denying that the change in the law specifically mentioned evidence. If it did, and I haven't noticed a cite saying that, I will naturally apologise.

LOL.

[G-Unit]

Are you actually incapable of looking back over half a dozen posts?

Please try to curb your aggression towards others. I don't understand what exactly you are asking me.

[G-Unit]

LOL.

LOL to you too!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Please try to curb your aggression towards others. I don't understand what exactly you are asking me.

There was no aggression in my post, just bemusement that you are asking me to repeat a question which I asked only a few posts earlier and which is there for you to find with the barest minimum of effort.  I realise it's just your way of deflecting and winding me up, so I would respectfully request that you curb your WUMming.

[Vertigo Swirl]

LOL to you too!

Silly post.
You've made me quote myself for the umpteenth time in order to show you that it wasn't just Abreu who made the claim about the necessity now for evidence when being made an arguido, from one of my posts back in February when clearly your WUMming was beginning to work on me, hence the use of capitals. 

Let's try this one again shall we?  This is I believe the 3rd time of posting

the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PORTUGAL said.  “The law DID NOT DEMAND JUSTIFIED SUSPICIONS AT THE TIME THE MCCANNS WERE MADE ARGUIDOS”.

ergo

The law has changed and now DEMANDS JUSTIFIED SUSPICIONS.

Do you accept this or not?

Do you disagree with the Attorney General of Portugal?

Do you know more about his country's laws than he does?

[G-Unit]

There was no aggression in my post, just bemusement that you are asking me to repeat a question which I asked only a few posts earlier and which is there for you to find with the barest minimum of effort.  I realise it's just your way of deflecting and winding me up, so I would respectfully request that you curb your WUMming.

It seems you are actually incapable of understanding that I have re-read your posts and can't see an unanswered question, which is why I asked you to clarify. Your refusal suggests to me that you are the one deflecting and wumming. Please desist and ask clear questions if you can.

[G-Unit]

Silly post.
You've made me quote myself for the umpteenth time in order to show you that it wasn't just Abreu who made the claim about the necessity now for evidence when being made an arguido, from one of my posts back in February when clearly your WUMming was beginning to work on me, hence the use of capitals. 

So you think the words 'justified suspicion' and 'evidence' are interchangeable?

[Eleanor]

So you think the words 'justified suspicion' and 'evidence' are interchangeable?

You can't have a Justified Suspicion without Evidence.  Plain English.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So you think the words 'justified suspicion' and 'evidence' are interchangeable?

How does one justify a suspicion? 

[Vertigo Swirl]

It seems you are actually incapable of understanding that I have re-read your posts and can't see an unanswered question, which is why I asked you to clarify. Your refusal suggests to me that you are the one deflecting and wumming. Please desist and ask clear questions if you can.

The question I asked was
Do you take any comfort from this?
You claimed I asked what it was that interests you in the case.  That was not the question I asked.  So you answered a question I did not ask.  Do you understand now?

[Eleanor]

How does one justify a suspicion?

With Evidence.  Otherwise it can't be justified.

I suspect that we might have a bit of a problem here, with the understanding of The English Language.

[G-Unit]

The question I asked was
Do you take any comfort from this?
You claimed I asked what it was that interests you in the case.  That was not the question I asked.  So you answered a question I did not ask.  Do you understand now?

I apologise for not realising your question required an answer, comfortable seemed such a bizarre concept to me. The answer is no.

[G-Unit]

With Evidence.  Otherwise it can't be justified.

I suspect that we might have a bit of a problem here, with the understanding of The English Language.

According to KMc Carlos Pinto de Abreu told her after her interview with the PJ on 6th September that the PJ had a lot of evidence against her and her husband and she was sure to be made arguido the following day. He seems to have believed there was justified suspicion at that time to create KMc as an arguida.

[Eleanor]

According to KMc Carlos Pinto de Abreu told her after her interview with the PJ on 6th September that the PJ had a lot of evidence against her and her husband and she was sure to be made arguido the following day. He seems to have believed there was justified suspicion at that time to create KMc as an arguida.

Justified Suspicion wasn't required at the time.  Any old stitch up would do.  So he wasn't wrong about that.  What he seems to have believed is irrelevant because you don't know.  So stop second guessing because this is bordering on Libel.