So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?

[Mr Gray]

I made no such claim.  I said it was my understanding.

So your understanding is wrong
Fine

[ShiningInLuz]

not at all....the PJ tortured Cipriano....which is illegal.....so telling a few lies to Kate would be nothing for them. police do it all the time to get confessions

That is libel of both Kate and her lawyer Carlos, and the PJ, so kindly cease and desist.

Page 243 of 'madeleine'.  Kate covers that if she admitted to having hidden and disposed of Madeleine, she would get two years.  Gerry would go free.  This was in discussion with her lawyer after her Sep 2007 interview as a witness.  Kate also makes clear the information was not passed directly from the police, but via her lawyer.

Page 252 covers how this alleged deal was leaked by Team McCann to the public, and Kate's reaction to that leaking.  It also covers the PJ response of 'no deals', and Kate tries to rubbish this.

Kate fails to mention that her lawyer clarified in the media that this was not a deal.

Parapono's post has clarified the law, and is a somewhat more accurate explanation of Kate's legal position than Kate represents in her book.

It would be helpful if you posted information that has a grain of truth in it.  Before you start, the Cipriano case won't wash.  You are alleging the PJ lied about the legal explanation of Kate's position and that her lawyer Carlos was incompetent in duties to Kate.  Not even Kate alleges this.

Parapona has blown the Kate 'deal' myth out of the water.

It's time to move on.

[Mr Gray]

That is libel of both Kate and her lawyer Carlos, and the PJ, so kindly cease and desist.

Page 243 of 'madeleine'.  Kate covers that if she admitted to having hidden and disposed of Madeleine, she would get two years.  Gerry would go free.  This was in discussion with her lawyer after her Sep 2007 interview as a witness.  Kate also makes clear the information was not passed directly from the police, but via her lawyer.

Page 252 covers how this alleged deal was leaked by Team McCann to the public, and Kate's reaction to that leaking.  It also covers the PJ response of 'no deals', and Kate tries to rubbish this.

Kate fails to mention that her lawyer clarified in the media that this was not a deal.

Parapono's post has clarified the law, and is a somewhat more accurate explanation of Kate's legal position than Kate represents in her book.

It would be helpful if you posted information that has a grain of truth in it.  Before you start, the Cipriano case won't wash.  You are alleging the PJ lied about the legal explanation of Kate's position and that her lawyer Carlos was incompetent in duties to Kate.  Not even Kate alleges this.

Parapona has blown the Kate 'deal' myth out of the water.

It's time to move on.

kates claim is not blown out of the water...again you post your opinion as fact. I dont think it is unreasonable to suggest that a police force who tortures suspects would not bend the truth a little and offer kate a deal...through her lawyer or whatever......if you look at what kates lawyer actually said then its not as clear cut as you make out

[ShiningInLuz]

asking for a cite is not requiring assistance....its to test how reliable the information is....gunit has failed to support her post and your claim that parapono was the source was just plain wrong

Am I to take it you are going to continually post misinformation?  At NO time did I claim G-Unit's source was Parapono.  That is just more waffle.

[ferryman]

That is libel of both Kate and her lawyer Carlos, and the PJ, so kindly cease and desist.

Page 243 of 'madeleine'.  Kate covers that if she admitted to having hidden and disposed of Madeleine, she would get two years.  Gerry would go free.  This was in discussion with her lawyer after her Sep 2007 interview as a witness.  Kate also makes clear the information was not passed directly from the police, but via her lawyer.

Page 252 covers how this alleged deal was leaked by Team McCann to the public, and Kate's reaction to that leaking.  It also covers the PJ response of 'no deals', and Kate tries to rubbish this.

Kate fails to mention that her lawyer clarified in the media that this was not a deal.

Parapono's post has clarified the law, and is a somewhat more accurate explanation of Kate's legal position than Kate represents in her book.

It would be helpful if you posted information that has a grain of truth in it.  Before you start, the Cipriano case won't wash.  You are alleging the PJ lied about the legal explanation of Kate's position and that her lawyer Carlos was incompetent in duties to Kate.  Not even Kate alleges this.

Parapona has blown the Kate 'deal' myth out of the water.

It's time to move on.

How?

Parapona has merely confirmed what no one (so far as I am aware) ever disputed, that moving and concealing a body is a criminal offence in Portugal.

Meanwhile, the culmination of an enquiry in which Mark Harrison confirms, in numerous cites in his reports, that he was tasked to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered, was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos, accused of murdering their eldest daughter.

I have produced the cites, innumerable times on this board, and will do so again if required.

But it really ought not to be necessary.

Meanwhile, the 'plea-bargain' thing was journalist Giles Tremlett getting entirely the wrong-end of the stick on the basis of incomplete information, in an article written before the files were released.

[ShiningInLuz]

This is the translation of what Parapono quotes:

As far as I can tell, that confirms what (I think, most of us) surmised, that moving and hiding a corpse is an offence in Portugal.

It sheds no light whatever on Kate's account (supported in the files) of the 'deal' put to her and Gerry.

'supported the files' - cite please.

[Mr Gray]

Am I to take it you are going to continually post misinformation?  At NO time did I claim G-Unit's source was Parapono.  That is just more waffle.

You incorrectly claimed that the source of the information was parapono as regards a posted directed directly at gunit....i think it is you who is waffling

[ferryman]

'supported the files' - cite please.

How many cites do you want?

This is from early in the first of Harrison's 3 reports.

But I can provide others if you want them.

This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz.

Harrison offered to investigate other possibilities or scenarios (sic) on request.

In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination.

(Mark Harrison)

[ShiningInLuz]

Sometimes you're happy with "your understanding" of another's claim or alleged knowledge of the matter under discussion and sometimes you demand cites - does it very much depend on WHO is making the claim?

Alfie floggeth the dead horse once more.

How many times do I have to write I an not interested in this point and I prefer to wait until such information enters the public domain?

It does not matter which forum member is making a claim.  If it is germane to the case, it is normal to give a cite.  I don't see this as germane to the case and I did not cite Parapono.  I posted my understanding and made it clear it was my understanding, and forum rules do not require a cite for the such like.

[stephen25000]

Bottom line.

The Mccanns have to pay what they owe as regards legal fees.

It will prove interesting  to see if they try bankruptcy, since that could have repercussions.

[ferryman]

While I'm on a roll, I've long considered this the most libellous reference in Amaral's book, against stiff competition: 

After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.

AMAZING STATISTICS

Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.

The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.

Which, of course, all fully explains why Harrison concluded his third, and final, report with this (more in edit).

I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).

(Mark Harrison)

*Edited for spelling.

[ShiningInLuz]

Parapono is not a reliable cite
It would have to be something official
Not just a statement by an anonymous poster
Surely you can see that

I never claimed that Parapono was a reliable cite, did I?  I suggested Parapono might be able to assist, which is an altogether different thing.

I am happy to continue this rather pointless debate for as long as you misinterpret what happened in post after post.  It illustrates your approach when you are offered assistance.  Consequently, forum members can make up their own minds as to whether offering to help you is sage or not.

[ShiningInLuz]

So your understanding is wrong
Fine

Do you post elsewhere, Davel?  Do you read elsewhere, Davel?

Do I post elsewhere, Davel?  Do I read elsewhere, Davel?

Is Parapono restricted to this forum, Davel?

Your assertion is without foundation and thus fatally flawed.

[ShiningInLuz]

kates claim is not blown out of the water...again you post your opinion as fact. I dont think it is unreasonable to suggest that a police force who tortures suspects would not bend the truth a little and offer kate a deal...through her lawyer or whatever......if you look at what kates lawyer actually said then its not as clear cut as you make out

It's crystal clear from Kate's book, allied to the criminal code article posted on here.

I do not care what your opinion is about what happened.  You are speculating in the absence of facts.  The odd thing is you are contradicting how Kate described it in her book.

You have the page numbers, so try reading what Kate said of the matter in her own words.

[slartibartfast]

While I'm on a role, I've long considered this the most libellous reference in Amaral's book, against stiff competition: 

Which, of course, all fully explains why Harrison concluded his third, and final, report with this (more in edit).

(Mark Harrison)

Selective holding again?