The 'ARGUIDO' status revisited.

[Montclair]

Some members still have difficulty accepting that the McCanns were suspects in the disappearance of their own daughter.  The only reason they were constituted arguido was as a precursor to being charged in connection with that disappearance.  I have no doubt that had Dr Amaral (Chief Detective and Coordinator) not been removed from his post that this would have happened as he and his team were convinced of the McCanns involvement.

The McCanns must consider themselves very fortunate that this did not occur as a Portuguese jury could very well have convicted them.

Just a reminder that Gonçalo Amaral was NOT Chief Detective!
AFAIK, the Portuguese authorities were required by law to make the McCanns arguidos because the questions they were to be asked could incriminate them. I believe that the decision to make them arguidos was made by the judges in the Ministério Público and the head of the PJ. The investigators in the PJ do not have the authority to make someone an arguido.

[Mr Gray]

Amaral was convinced because he didn't understand the dna findings  or the  dogs alerts...he isn't an expert in either...both would have been useless in court

[Benice]

The MP, not the PJ, decides whether the charges are sufficient to bring someone to Court.
The McCanns were fortunate that there's no record of the August interviews (they were "informal"). What was said and not said then is likely what led Gonçalo Amaral to require from the MP the statute of arguido for the McCanns. This statute was granted as a  (human right) prevention against any self incrimination in the course of a tense interrogatory (it also protected the PJ of eventual accusations of abuse). Nobody protested when Mr Murat was constituted an arguido, his potential guilt seeming within the expected "normalities". But in the McCanns case it was entirely different. These parents had always been the victims (a statement of the PJ, joined to their first statements, says they are victims, not witnesses).
The statute of arguido is a shield against the always possible failures of any system of justice, but from the need of a shield one infers that justice has arguments against someone.         This is why the McCanns reacted so violently when they were informed that a lawyer was required for the next interviews.   From the presence of a lawyer, the media would immediately deduce that the McCanns were possibly not as white as they pretended,  a new and scandalous idea. And that's what effectively happened          All the questioning about what meant exactly the (banal) word "arguido" is related to the reversal of the situation and its possible implications.

You claim that as if it was a proven 'fact'.        Where is your proof that the McCanns were 'pretending' to be 'whiter' than they really were? 

[AnneGuedes]

You claim that as if it was a proven 'fact'.        Where is your proof that the McCanns were 'pretending' to be 'whiter' than they really were?

Benice, put your glasses on and read all the sentence, please, instead of jumping on your high horses !
You certainly haven't heard the McCanns pretend they were guilty.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I am no expert on Portuguese law, but talking to a couple of colleages it seems that Portuguese law diverges somewhat from other european codes. 

My understanding (and I am happy to be corrected of course) is that this stems from history.  Under the Salazar regime (The Estado Novo) it was effectively a police state. 

Someone called in as a witness in a criminal investigation was (and still are) legally bound to co-operate with the police, do not have the right to silence and face legal actions if they lie.  They were also not entitled to be legally represented. 

With the overturning of the regime, and with Portugal becoming a decomcratic state, the Salazar code was not rewritten, but was modified to provide for rights.  The right to remain silent, and to legal representation by either being declared, or declaring onself, an arguido.   This provided for rights similar to those under other regimes, but not exactly comparable. 

Once an arguido, one will remain one until the end of the investigation. 

And you are correct, Sherlock, the root is the latin arguere - which is also the root of Argue in English. 

     

Thank you for this very interesting background information, Jean-Pierre.

May I ask if you are a lawyer?

[Redblossom]

The absolutely ridiculous suggestion touted inthis thread that the Mccanns were made arguidos on a whim had in the shower by some copper and had the "new laws" not  come in they wouldnt have, is just that, well, ridiculous to the extreme, talk about clutching at straws for no purpose whatsoever...oh hang on.....

[VIXTE]

The absolutely ridiculous suggestion touted inthis thread that the Mccanns were made arguidos on a whim had in the shower by some copper and had the "new laws" not  come in they wouldnt have, is just that, well, ridiculous to the extreme, talk about clutching at straws for no purpose whatsoever...oh hang on.....

Yep.. such an irony.. when almost everyone in the town.. including the cop in shower are the arguidos themselves..

[Redblossom]

Yep.. such an irony.. when almost everyone in the town.. including the cop in shower are the arguidos themselves..

Only remember three myself in this case

[ferryman]

It is certainly someone against whom suspicions, arguments exist.
The McCanns were lucky to be "constituted arguidos" (that's the correct form, you're not an arguido) because of the rights that this statute provides. Had she not been made arguida, Mrs McCann would have been compelled to answer the 48 questions among which the first were crucial.
In France it is called "assisted witness", but I think it is much less used than in Portugal.

Untrue.

By Portuguese law, informal witnesses cannot be asked leading or incriminating questions.

The McCanns were made arguidos precisely so that they could be asked the questions they were.

I'm sure Amaral explains that somewhere in his book.

[Benice]

Benice, put your glasses on and read all the sentence, please, instead of jumping on your high horses !
You certainly haven't heard the McCanns pretend they were guilty.

What you said is quite clear and is there for all to see.  However as English is not your first language I'll leave it there.     

[sadie]

I agree with Benice, Anne. 

What you are saying is libellous, imo

[The Singularity]

Some members still have difficulty accepting that the McCanns were suspects in the disappearance of their own daughter.  The only reason they were constituted arguido was as a precursor to being charged in connection with that disappearance.  I have no doubt that had Dr Amaral (Chief Detective and Coordinator) not been removed from his post that this would have happened as he and his team were convinced of the McCanns involvement.

The McCanns must consider themselves very fortunate that this did not occur as a Portuguese jury could very well have convicted them.

John, with respect, on what evidence are you saying would have convinced a jury to convict them? Snr Amaral was removed from the case because of his unprofessionalism and quite possibly because he had become fixated on Kate McCann to the point of ignoring other leads.

I'm quite sure you are right in that Amaral would have bulldozed the other leads out of the way to get Kate in the frame and charged but I do hope that his choice to do so would be dismissed by his superiors because of the scant lack of evidence to support his obessional drive to prosecute Kate.

[Montclair]

John, with respect, on what evidence are you saying would have convinced a jury to convict them? Snr Amaral was removed from the case because of his unprofessionalism and quite possibly because he had become fixated on Kate McCann to the point of ignoring other leads.

I'm quite sure you are right in that Amaral would have bulldozed the other leads out of the way to get Kate in the frame and charged but I do hope that his choice to do so would be dismissed by his superiors because of the scant lack of evidence to support his obessional drive to prosecute Kate.

Your comment shows that you have absolutely no idea as to how criminal investigations are carried out in Portugal! Judges from the Ministerio Publico oversee investigations and all of the diligences done by the PJ.

[John]

John, with respect, on what evidence are you saying would have convinced a jury to convict them? Snr Amaral was removed from the case because of his unprofessionalism and quite possibly because he had become fixated on Kate McCann to the point of ignoring other leads.

I'm quite sure you are right in that Amaral would have bulldozed the other leads out of the way to get Kate in the frame and charged but I do hope that his choice to do so would be dismissed by his superiors because of the scant lack of evidence to support his obessional drive to prosecute Kate.

I said a jury 'could very well have convicted them'.  I didn't say they would have done so.  Whatever would have happened would have been extremely unpleasant for them.  The removal of Dr Amaral was a gift from heaven.

[Redblossom]

I said a jury 'could very well have convicted them'.  I didn't say they would have done so.  Whatever would have happened would have been extremely unpleasant for them.  The removal of Dr Amaral was a gift from heaven.

Or they could have been charged,tried and acquitted and history would be different today