Kate McCann admits in her book that private criminal investigations in Portugal were illegal.

[sadie]

The illegality comes from the obstruction of justice element previously referred to.  The involvement of private investigators in a live criminal case could have had serious repercussions for any trial.  That said the PJ were only too glad to receive leads from Método 3 up until the point their true agenda was revealed.

What was their true agenda then, John?

[Alfred R Jones]

What was their true agenda then, John?

Yes, I'd like to know the answer to this question to.  If Metodo 3's "agenda" was not to find a missing child at the behest of her parents, then what was it, pray tell?

[Jean-Pierre]

Yes, I'd like to know the answer to this question to.  If Metodo 3's "agenda" was not to find a missing child at the behest of her parents, then what was it, pray tell?

It would be interesting to hear your view on this John

[Alice Purjorick]

You have made this point several times and I agree to a certain extent...therefore it is wrong to claim that private investigations as described are illegal in Portugal....we simply don't know that they are...

What I have also noticed is that you have only made this point to those who say investigations are legal but never to those who say they are illegal....

the bias is very apparrent

The point I am making to all and sundry is that there is no reliable evidence on this forum to make a decision one way or another so how is that biased? With regard to bias your own is startlingly obvious so what is your objection to someone having a bias which is opposed to your own? And why bother making the point. No one on this forum is truly unbiased as far I observe.

[Mr Gray]

The point I am making to all and sundry is that there is no reliable evidence on this forum to make a decision one way or another so how is that biased? With regard to bias your own is startlingly obvious so what is your objection to someone having a bias which is opposed to your own? And why bother making the point. No one on this forum is truly unbiased as far I observe.

I've no objection to bias. What I am saying is that you are demonstrating your bias by only making this point in response to posts by McCann supporters...you are absolutely right there is no reliable evidence either way so it is wrong to say that the mccanns and their detectives have broken any laws

[Mr Gray]

The mccanns broke the law.

It's quite clear cut.

so there you are Stephen according to alice you are totally wrong

[stephen25000]

so there you are Stephen according to alice you are totally wrong

I know this is a difficult concept to grasp for you, but try watching the channel 5 program where Halligen's PI employee admits it was illegal.

[Alice Purjorick]

I've no objection to bias. What I am saying is that you are demonstrating your bias by only making this point in response to posts by McCann supporters...you are absolutely right there is no reliable evidence either way so it is wrong to say that the mccanns and their detectives have broken any laws

As we have debated to death: It would be questionable whether the McCanns had broken the law even their detectives had; it would depend on how any contract had been constructed. It is also equally incorrect to say the McCanns detectives have not broken the law. In the event they both had prosecution would depend on whether a conviction could be secured on the evidence available and all that it implies. As we have agreed there is no evidence either way. So why not leave it that? instead of doing the political thing of presenting the same fact in a different manner over and over again depending upon your particular bias.

[Mr Gray]

As we have debated to death: It would be questionable whether the McCanns had broken the law even their detectives had; it would depend on how any contract had been constructed. It is also equally incorrect to say the McCanns detectives have not broken the law. In the event they both had prosecution would depend on whether a conviction could be secured on the evidence available and all that it implies. As we have agreed there is no evidence either way. So why not leave it that? instead of doing the political thing of presenting the same fact in a different manner over and over again depending upon your particular bias.

perhaps you could ask Stephen to read your posts because he continues to insist the mccanns have broken the law....
what you fail to notice is the thread starts with an accusation that the mccanns broke the law...my stance all along has been there is no evidence the mccanns broke the law...you confirm, in your opinion, I am correct

[Mr Gray]

I know this is a difficult concept to grasp for you, but try watching the channel 5 program where Halligen's PI employee admits it was illegal.

seem alice agrees with me stephen

[Carana]

As we have debated to death: It would be questionable whether the McCanns had broken the law even their detectives had; it would depend on how any contract had been constructed. It is also equally incorrect to say the McCanns detectives have not broken the law. In the event they both had prosecution would depend on whether a conviction could be secured on the evidence available and all that it implies. As we have agreed there is no evidence either way. So why not leave it that? instead of doing the political thing of presenting the same fact in a different manner over and over again depending upon your particular bias.

I have no problem that evidence presented by the McCanns via a PI would not be valid in court... but that wasn't the issue.

The issue is whether efforts to help find her, with any potentially useful info presented to the PJ, were illegal per se.

With several PT posters on here, I would have thought that at least one of them could have presented the relevant article in the PT penal code by now.

[Eleanor]

perhaps it would be better if you took a rest and let posters get on with debating

Perhaps you might watch your language.

[ferryman]

I have no problem that evidence presented by the McCanns via a PI would not be valid in court... but that wasn't the issue.

The issue is whether efforts to help find her, with any potentially useful info presented to the PJ, were illegal per se.

With several PT posters on here, I would have thought that at least one of them could have presented the relevant article in the PT penal code by now.

Kate and Gerry must have taken (I'm sure) sound advice, or Kate wouldn't have said what she did in her book.

Kate has an uncanny knack of being right about these things.

Are you sure you've read the whole of the Portuguese penal code?

Or could there be a part you've missed?

[faithlilly]

Kate and Gerry must have taken (I'm sure) sound advice, or Kate wouldn't have said what she did in her book.

Kate has an uncanny knack of being right about these things.

Are you sure you've read the whole of the Portuguese penal code?

Or could there be a part you've missed?

 

[Carana]

Kate and Gerry must have taken (I'm sure) sound advice, or Kate wouldn't have said what she did in her book.

Kate has an uncanny knack of being right about these things.

Are you sure you've read the whole of the Portuguese penal code?

Or could there be a part you've missed?

I might have missed it, which is why I been asking the PT speakers on here to help locate the relevant article for months. Still no reply from any of them.