Were the McCanns innocent in the eyes of the law?

[Robittybob1]

No its absolutely true - check it out.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido

OK "The rights of an arguido[edit]
If a person becomes an arguido, they automatically gain certain rights that a witness or suspect would not have.[7] An arguido has the right to be accompanied by a lawyer when questioned.[5] The investigating police may ask the arguido more direct accusatory questions (the answers to which would not be admissible in court if possibly self-incriminatory and asked of a non-arguido) but the arguido must be presented with whatever evidence is held against them,[7] and unlike a witness has the right to remain silent,[8] not to answer any question that may incriminate the person, and does not face legal action for lying.[9]
Witnesses in criminal investigations are legally bound to co-operate with the police and do not have the right to silence and face legal actions if they lie.[7][9] Because of the legal advantages, some individuals apply for arguido status to be given to themselves, e.g. when it would appear that the police suspect them but are trying to use their witness status to extract as much information as possible.[7]
A person who has arguido status has not been formally accused of a crime, arrested or charged,[10] and not all arguidos are subsequently charged.[1] The police may ask a court to restrict an arguido's movement and oblige them to not leave the country.[1] Arguidos cannot change their place of residence, without permission from a court.[10] There is no time limit on the status.[11]"

There is no time limit on the status so if the McCanns were still suspects that should have remained in place other than being removed.  OK so they ended up with what evidence against the McCanns.  Was it "none", so the arguido status could not be maintained?

[Alfie]

If the McCanns are the PJ's chief suspects as some believe why have they not been reconstituted as arguidos or questioned again as arguidos?  Any ideas?

[jassi]

No idea.  I imagine that when the case was archived the aguido status ended.
I have no pretence to any knowledge of Portuguese law.

[jassi]

If the McCanns are the PJ's chief suspects as some believe why have they not been reconstituted as arguidos or questioned again as arguidos?  Any ideas?

Can this be done in if they are not in Portugal?

[Alfie]

Can this be done in if they are not in Portugal?

I should think so.  People can be tried and found guilty in absentia so why not?

[stephen25000]

Indeed ... and hasn't Kate McCann received some stick for choosing to exercise her arguido given rights.

..and not choosing to answer most of the questions, in case her answers contradicted her husbands.

As if they would.

[The Singularity]

..and not choosing to answer most of the questions, in case her answers contradicted her husbands.

As if they would.

Is this in reference to the highly publicised 48 questions that Kate said no comment to whilst being interviewed?

[stephen25000]

Making them 'suspects' may have been legal by a margin of eight or nine days.  It was undoubtedly a personal disaster for the McCanns ... and may have had disastrous consequences for Madeleine's case.

Madeleine may well have been collateral damage in what appears to be recognised as a war of attrition against her parents.


Alipio Ribeiro, the Policia Judiciaria's national director, has said he believes the decision to make the McCanns "arguidos" last September was taken too quickly and without thorough enough assessment.

Ribeiro tells Portugal's Catholic Church-owned Radio Renascenca: "I think there perhaps should have been another assessment before the McCanns were made official suspects. I don't have any doubt about that ... there was a certain hastiness."

The admission is the first by the Policia Judiciaria that the case of the missing four-year-old has been mishandled and gives a substantial boost to the McCanns' hope that those investigating Madeleine's disappearance have now moved away from the theory that they accidentally killed her.

It also appears to back up criticisms voiced by the McCanns' lawyer in Portugal, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, who suggested in December that police had waged a smear campaign against the couple by rushing to make them suspects on September 8 – just days before a new law would have made it impossible without firm evidence.

Mr Pinto de Abreu said: "Before September 15 last year you could be made an arguido without any suspicions or evidence against you.

"Now, to constitute someone as an arguido, it is necessary to have evidence in the file. That's why the national public prosecutor said that if this inquiry was launched now, maybe they would not have been made arguidos."

Asked whether he thought police acted deliberately as they knew the new law was coming in, he added: "I don't know if that's true, but yes, it's possible."

He added: "Many people who may have vital information have possibly not come forward as they wrongly suspected the McCanns."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/police-chief-we-were-too-quick-to-make-gerry-and-kate-arguidos-6669654.html

The 'personal disaster' as you call it, is a result of their actions, and the lack of evidence that an abduction ever took place.

The disaster, was for the future of Madeleine.

[ferryman]

I should think so.  People can be tried and found guilty in absentia so why not?

Barely a year after Madeleine was abducted:

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Content/documents/Pdfs/tia.pdf

On 6 June 2008 EU Ministers of Justice reached an agreement on rules that would
enable judgments reached in trials in absentia to be recognised across the EU.1
 

[stephen25000]

Barely a year after Madeleine was abducted:

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Content/documents/Pdfs/tia.pdf

Brietta said yesterday, in case you have forgotten, don't state opinions as fact.

Abduction ferryman, is not a fact, merely an opinion.

[jassi]

The link talks of  a proposal. Was it ever ratified ?  Is it law?

[ferryman]

Brietta said yesterday, in case you have forgotten, don't state opinions as fact.

Abduction ferryman, is not a fact, merely an opinion.

I am stating fact as fact.

Always have.

[stephen25000]

I am stating fact as fact.

Always have.

Abduction is not a fact ferryman.

Time to get over your dogma.

[ferryman]

The link talks of  a proposal. Was it ever ratified ?  Is it law?

The question at issue is whether such judgements would be recognised across the EU; long recognised in individual EU countries.

[Brietta]

Brietta said yesterday, in case you have forgotten, don't state opinions as fact.

Abduction ferryman, is not a fact, merely an opinion.

It seems to have been much more than an 'opinion' for the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard ... both investigative bodies have spent a considerable amount of time, resources and money investigating abduction.