Former McCann PI "Who is protecting Maddie's kidnapper?"

[ShiningInLuz]

Could you explain why the pj would be discussing sentences with the McCanns lawyer when they had no evidence against them
That is just ridiculous and there is absolutely no reason for it
Apart from offering a deal
Can you come up with a better reason

I already have.  Read the thread.

[Mr Gray]

What point above?

The PJ seem to have taken a tack to ensure that Kate was informed by Carlos of a legal fact i.e. they chose not to merely hope that Carlos would do it, but tried to ensure it would happen.

So you claim that the pj simply wanted to inform the McCanns of their legal position
More absolute rubbish
Or is it normal practice to explain to all arguidos what the probable sensentence will be before they are even arrested or charged
You are digging a big hole for yourself and sounding ridiculous

[Mr Gray]

I already have.  Read the thread.

I've read it
To rattle their cage
To encourage them to admit to a lesser charge to avoid a greater one
That was the deal

[ferryman]

His report is.

Where is the actual brief from the Portuguese?  The one that came before Harrison's report.

Why would you expect one before Harrison's report?

[Brietta]

I assess this supposed deal in the following manner.

The PJ would not have brought it to Carlos' attention if they thought their case was strong.  I understand (Kate's book?) that there was a long discussion between the PJ and Carlos, seemingly about the 'evidence', before Carlos explained the law to the McCanns.

Speculation now follows.  My expectation is that the dogs were positioned as ultra-reliable, never failed blah blah blah.  My expectation is the DNA evidence was relayed as being strong.  In such a situation, it would have been remiss of Carlos not to discuss the 2 year option with Kate and it would have been remiss of Carlos not to recommend the 'no comment' route once arguidoed.

I have no reason to expect that Carlos had the expertise to assess the dog 'evidence' directly.  I have no reason to expect that Carlos had the expertise to assess the DNA evidence directly.

If Kate had admitted to body disposal there was basically no way this could have been disproved by the PJ.  As an arguida, she was entitled to say 'no comment' to anything that might incriminate her more, thus scuppering further progress by the PJ.

Here's the part being missed, the bit supporters cannot see.

Bringing the 2 year option to Carlos, Kate and Gerry should have been a very clear signal to all 3 that the PJ at that point in time were unable to prove body disposal or homicide i.e. that the case they had was weak.

That they did not have sufficient evidence to charge or to take Kate to court re either body concealment or body disposal.

There was no deal.  The PJ were cage-rattling in the hope that something would fall out before Kate and Gerry left for England.

At that point in time, I cannot tell if the PJ believed the line they had been fed about the wonder dogs.  Questions put later to Martin Grime suggest to me that a wonder dog capability had been fed to them, and that they had not performed an independent verification.

Carlos, Kate and Gerry failed to identify that the McCanns were in a strong position.

I believe this is confirmed in their freedom of movement.  From memory, it was also confirmed in their arguido interviews, where they were put on the lowest level of arguidodom, but I would need to check that point again.

That there are differing levels of 'arguidodom' is definitely a new one on me.

[Mr Gray]

That there are differing levels of 'arguidodom' is definitely a new one on me.

sil is totally wrong and there is only one level of arguido
Had the pj found evidence against them they could have applied to court to restrict movement

[ferryman]

The deal was "confess to hiding a child's body and "only" get two years".  End of.

Not quite end of.

The alternative was:

Deny hiding a body and face murder charges.

[Eleanor]

I'm afraid Eleanor, you have this the wrong way round.

The statistics as regards missing children are very clear.

For example, The Golden Hour.

The sheer fact, that despite the worldwide coverage of this case, in nearly 10 years, not one sign of Madeleine has emerged.

No, I don't have it wrong.  It is only your very sad attitude that completely destroys your ability to hope.

Poor old you.  I will go on hoping.

[ferryman]

A pertinent reminder.

Kate Mccann's  book is not gospel.

It is just a one sided and deeply biased version of events.

So what is Amaral's book?

[stephen25000]

So what is Amaral's book?

Would you care to remind me of the outcome of the Portuguese case ?

[stephen25000]

So what is Amaral's book?

P.S. Good.

You admit Kate Mccann's book is a biased version of what happened.

We have made progress.

[ferryman]

I'm afraid Eleanor, you have this the wrong way round.

The statistics as regards missing children are very clear.

For example, The Golden Hour.

The sheer fact, that despite the worldwide coverage of this case, in nearly 10 years, not one sign of Madeleine has emerged.

Statistics are irrelevant.

The crime of Peter Voisey was statistically impossible.

Except that his victim survived and lived to tell the tale.

And Peter Voisey remains in jail serving time for the crime.

[Eleanor]

I don't want to haggle over the date the law changed.  I believe Brietta has previously stated 8 days.

But I don't think it makes a difference.  The trigger was the McCanns making plain before the interviews that they were to leave Portugal in the near future.

You have seen the rigmarole that occurs when OG wants to interview someone, whether as a witness or an arguido, in Portugal.  There is another case active in Portugal where the 'suspect' has moved to Brazil, and people here are indignant because they don't understand why the man has not been arrested in Brazil.  They don't understand the process one sovereign country has to go through when the alleged suspect is in another sovereign country.

As to what might have happened if the McCanns had not made plain they were leaving, who knows.

The reason I say this is because I am bemused by what evidence OG can possibly have for their 4 arguidos, but it seems to have sufficed for whoever in Portugal assesses the request and decides whether to grant it or not.

This is bullshit.  The McCanns were always liable to return to Portugal, albeit with some dissent.  But it would always have happened If there had been any evidence.

You are now getting silly.

I have to tell you that I would defend France with my dying breath, but not ever for this shite.  Sometimes you have to remember what sort of Justice you want.

[ferryman]

Would you care to remind me of the outcome of the Portuguese case ?

There isn't one.

Operation Grange is not complete.

[stephen25000]

There isn't one.

Operation Grange is not complete.

The court case ferryman.