Mark Williams-Thomas making new three part crime series for Ch5.

[G-Unit]

There were no indications which justified making the McCanns arguidps.  It was done at a time when the PJ could do so without let or hindrance since no evidence was required.

The situation is entirely different for Brueckner.  Portuguese law has changed and the requirement for firm evidence is required not a whim.

But you know that already.  Just another slur, which is really tiresome even for you.

Since MWT ninety minute programme just doesn't go there - neither should you.

If someone mentions the McCanns I reserve the right to answer, and it would make a refreshing change if personal accusations aimed at me ceased.

I can't find this change in the Portuguese law which you keep publicising? The only thing I can find is this;

"The status of defendant following communication by a criminal police body is reported to the judicial
authority within 10 days. The judicial authority shall have a 10-day period for examination and validation
or non-validation of the act."
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf

I don't know if that happened in 2007, but I expect it will now.

[Eleanor]

If someone mentions the McCanns I reserve the right to answer, and it would make a refreshing change if personal accusations aimed at me ceased.

I can't find this change in the Portuguese law which you keep publicising? The only thing I can find is this;

"The status of defendant following communication by a criminal police body is reported to the judicial
authority within 10 days. The judicial authority shall have a 10-day period for examination and validation
or non-validation of the act."
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf

I don't know if that happened in 2007, but I expect it will now.

It already has happened.  And a long time ago.

You are remarkably ignorant for someone who appears to know it all.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If someone mentions the McCanns I reserve the right to answer, and it would make a refreshing change if personal accusations aimed at me ceased.

I can't find this change in the Portuguese law which you keep publicising? The only thing I can find is this;

"The status of defendant following communication by a criminal police body is reported to the judicial
authority within 10 days. The judicial authority shall have a 10-day period for examination and validation
or non-validation of the act."
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf

I don't know if that happened in 2007, but I expect it will now.

were you unaware that the PJ rushed to make the McCanns arguidos when they did before the law changed?

[G-Unit]

It already has happened.  And a long time ago.

You are remarkably ignorant for someone who appears to know it all.

If I knew it all I wouldn't ask questions.

Ignorant or reluctant to accept word of mouth as truth? There's no mention in the 2015 version of the CPC of firm evidence being needed to declare someone an arguido. All it says is that 'grounds to suspect' them are required.

[G-Unit]

were you unaware that the PJ rushed to make the McCanns arguidos when they did before the law changed?

Says who? I know the McCanns notified the PJ that they were leaving Portugal, which meant they needed to question them before they went. Imo the imminent disappearance of their suspects was a factor in the equation. Making them arguidos ensured that they couldn't go without permission.

[sadie]

Says who? I know the McCanns notified the PJ that they were leaving Portugal, which meant they needed to question them before they went. Imo the imminent disappearance of their suspects was a factor in the equation. Making them arguidos ensured that they couldn't go without permission.

I think that you will find that your order of actions is backwards on.

They were made arquidos and apart from the desperation at that, lies implicating them/Gerry/Kate were told to Gerry when Amaral called him in. for questioning

The Mccanns recognised that the situation was absolutely hopeless because of this ..... And they decided to leave.



Once again you got the order wrong, Gunit.  IMO

[Eleanor]

Says who? I know the McCanns notified the PJ that they were leaving Portugal, which meant they needed to question them before they went. Imo the imminent disappearance of their suspects was a factor in the equation. Making them arguidos ensured that they couldn't go without permission.

What Suspects?  There was nothing to suspect them of.

[Brietta]

If someone mentions the McCanns I reserve the right to answer, and it would make a refreshing change if personal accusations aimed at me ceased.

I can't find this change in the Portuguese law which you keep publicising? The only thing I can find is this;

"The status of defendant following communication by a criminal police body is reported to the judicial
authority within 10 days. The judicial authority shall have a 10-day period for examination and validation
or non-validation of the act."
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf

I don't know if that happened in 2007, but I expect it will now.

You definitely have this propensity for being unable to post according to the topic of threads.  Since this is the MWT thread might be worthwhile treating it accordingly.

You may consider that a "personal accusation aimed at you" - I consider it an irrefutable statement of fact.

[G-Unit]

I think that you will find that your order of actions is backwards on.

They were made arquidos and apart from the desperation at that, lies implicating them/Gerry/Kate were told to Gerry when Amaral called him in. for questioning

The Mccanns recognised that the situation was absolutely hopeless because of this ..... And they decided to leave.



Once again you got the order wrong, Gunit.  IMO

Apparently we're posting off topic, so my answer can be found here;

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg683446#msg683446

[G-Unit]

You definitely have this propensity for being unable to post according to the topic of threads.  Since this is the MWT thread might be worthwhile treating it accordingly.

You may consider that a "personal accusation aimed at you" - I consider it an irrefutable statement of fact.

Very much 'on topic'; please present your evidence that the law relating to arguidos says that 'firm evidence' was required to constitute CB an arguido.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Says who? I know the McCanns notified the PJ that they were leaving Portugal, which meant they needed to question them before they went. Imo the imminent disappearance of their suspects was a factor in the equation. Making them arguidos ensured that they couldn't go without permission.

I hope this helps.

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/portuguese-police-rushed-to-make-mccanns-suspects-to-avoid-new-law-6623136.html

[G-Unit]

There is corroberation that Brueckner was dealing drugs in 2007, and travelling to Spain to get them;

Michael Tatschl, now the father of a child, explained that the last time he was in Portugal was in February 2007, just a few months before Madeleine's disappearance. “I returned to Praia da Luz in February 2007 and found Christian camped near the city. He was loving it and I think he sold drugs. I stayed with him for a while and then I returned to Spain ”.

https://magg.sapo.pt/atualidade/artigos/sei-que-foi-ele-amigo-do-suspeito-de-raptar-maddie-nao-tem-duvidas-sobre-o-seu-envolvimento


Also;

Within weeks of three-year-old Madeleine’s abduction Christian B followed him to Orgiva, Andalucia.

Tatschl said: “In late May or early June he arrived in Spain with his big American camper van. He knew I had connections to the marijuana world and could help him make money.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11919717/best-pal-madeleine-mccann-christian-b-guilty/

[faithlilly]

Very much 'on topic'; please present your evidence that the law relating to arguidos says that 'firm evidence' was required to constitute CB an arguido.

The same kind of evidence as that against the three men made arguido around the 10th anniversary I would presume.

Of course we all know how that worked out.

[G-Unit]

The same kind of evidence as that against the three men made arguido around the 10th anniversary I would presume.

Of course we all know how that worked out.

They phoned each other and were burglars. A bit like CB then, only they can't prove he was phoned.

[Vertigo Swirl]

They phoned each other and were burglars. A bit like CB then, only they can't prove he was phoned.

There has to be evidence of a crime committed before you can be made an arguido now, but not when the McCanns were made arguidos, however it seems that some people think that unless your surname is McCann anyone made an arguido in this case is bound to be innocent.