According to Kate McCann the choice was accidental killng or homicide.

[Mr Gray]

Speak to Alfie.

He's just produced a cite that such an offer could not, legally, be made. No plea bargains in Portugal.

#thats very simplistic....the PJ are not too interested in the law when it comes to extracting confessions...i'm sure you don't need any cites for that

[Alfie]

Given the length of time the case continued from this stage, it is hardly an accurate reflection of attitude within the PJ.

Irrelevant.  It was IMO the attitude at the time the arguidos were interviewed down the cop shop.  You don't think Amaral et al relished the opportunity of "solving" the most sensational missing persons case ever without any further ado?

[Miss Taken Identity]

#thats very simplistic....the PJ are not too interested in the law when it comes to extracting confessions...i'm sure you don't need any cites for that

...But I would love a cite where the PJ are not too interested in the law when it comes to extracting confessions- Kate didn't answer questions regarding hr missing daughter- tell us again how she was tarred and feathered and beaten to a pulp,waterboarded.. oops Sorry went jogging, met the pope, phoned the PM ..got keys to a church. Hmm yeah see what you mean those Pesky PJ's Her life was made hell by them.

[Alfie]

#thats very simplistic....the PJ are not too interested in the law when it comes to extracting confessions...i'm sure you don't need any cites for that

Nor do they seem that interested in evidence - a simple "I dunnit" would appear to be enough to secure a conviction.

[Mr Gray]

Nor do they seem that interested in evidence - a simple "I dunnit" would appear to be enough to secure a conviction.

Not even that it seems her ex husband said she told me she did it is enough

[ShiningInLuz]

#thats very simplistic....the PJ are not too interested in the law when it comes to extracting confessions...i'm sure you don't need any cites for that

Love it.  Ignore the legal situation.  Bash the PJ.

Simplistic or what?

[ShiningInLuz]

Irrelevant.  It was IMO the attitude at the time the arguidos were interviewed down the cop shop.  You don't think Amaral et al relished the opportunity of "solving" the most sensational missing persons case ever without any further ado?

Amaral et al?  Speculation, unless you have something to support it.  Do you?

[ShiningInLuz]

Nor do they seem that interested in evidence - a simple "I dunnit" would appear to be enough to secure a conviction.

Not according to the link you provided very recently.

[Alfie]

Amaral et al?  Speculation, unless you have something to support it.  Do you?

What are you wanting support for?  "Amaral et al"? Or my opinion?  Please refresh my memory - are we allowed to voice an opinion or not?

[Alfie]

Not according to the link you provided very recently.

That's the theory, what about the practise?  May I refer you to the Cipriano case...?

[Alice Purjorick]

That's the theory, what about the practise?  May I refer you to the Cipriano case...?

What again ? Of what relevance is the Cipriano case?. And not all the bollox that has been spouted for the last god knows how many years.
Try something different.

[ShiningInLuz]

What are you wanting support for?  "Amaral et al"? Or my opinion?  Please refresh my memory - are we allowed to voice an opinion or not?

"You don't think Amaral et al relished the opportunity of "solving" the most sensational missing persons case ever without any further ado?"

Support for painting the team as seeking the most expeditious route, without regard to legal process or the evidence.

That is both speculation and a smear.  For the first, you are OK to explain it as your opinion.  For the second, you are not.

[Mr Gray]

Love it.  Ignore the legal situation.  Bash the PJ.

Simplistic or what?

As we have evidence that the PJ are more than happy to ignore the law quoting the law is irrelevant

[Alfie]

"You don't think Amaral et al relished the opportunity of "solving" the most sensational missing persons case ever without any further ado?"

Support for painting the team as seeking the most expeditious route, without regard to legal process or the evidence.

That is both speculation and a smear.  For the first, you are OK to explain it as your opinion.  For the second, you are not.

Actually it was a question which you could simply have answered "no".  So I'm not allowed an opinion on the matter then?  I'd better shut up then before I get a warning or a ban, hadn't I!

[Mr Gray]

Not according to the link you provided very recently.

Sounds like you are not familiar with the copriano case
The evidence was basically
She said she dunnit
Apart from that b....r  all else