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

[stephen25000]

Kate says so in her book
Are you accusing her of lying

So predictable.

Anyone can say anything in a book.

Has it been independently verified ?

Yes or No ?

..and try providing a cite.

[Mr Gray]

So predictable.

Anyone can say anything in a book.

Has it been independently verified ?

Yes or No ?

..and try providing a cite.

So are you accusing kate of lying

[ShiningInLuz]

Kate says so in her book
Are you accusing her of lying

Kate's book p252 is where she gives her opinion of the non-deal explained by her lawyer.  That is, 2 years for an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 2 years.  Kate opines that was a deal.  Philomena went further.

[stephen25000]

So are you accusing kate of lying

I am neither saying yes or no.

You can't provide independent verification of the deal, can you.

[Mr Gray]

Kate's book p252 is where she gives her opinion of the non-deal explained by her lawyer.  That is, 2 years for an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 2 years.  Kate opines that was a deal.  Philomena went further.

Could you provide a link where her lawyer described this a non deal
You can't because he doesnt

[ShiningInLuz]

Could you provide a link where her lawyer described this a non deal
You can't because he doesnt

Are you accusing Kate of lying in her book?

You have the cite already.  There is no point in further prevarication.

[jassi]

Could you provide a link where her lawyer described this a non deal
You can't because he doesnt

Like it matters ?

[Alfie]

It seems to me that the police would have been happy with a confession from Kate that they'd disposed of the body, never mind if they'd committed some grisly murder first.  That constitutes a deal does it not?  Case closed, a conviction, never mind what really happened...

[Mr Gray]

Are you accusing Kate of lying in her book?

You have the cite already.  There is no point in further prevarication.

There's no cite to the non deal there is a cite to the deal
Stick to the facts

[faithlilly]

To correct the misperception (inaccurate description!) by Philomena McCann of the deal as a 'plea-bargain'.

The deal was/is true; the description of the deal as a 'plea-bargain' not accurate.

Then why not just say that Kate was offered a deal and not that it was a 'misunderstanding' ?

[ShiningInLuz]

It seems to me that the police would have been happy with a confession from Kate that they'd disposed of the body, never mind if they'd committed some grisly murder first.  That constitutes a deal does it not?  Case closed, a conviction, never mind what really happened...

You still do not appear to understand the full importance of the PJ, via Carlos, explaining that if Kate admitted to body disposal, the maximum sentence would be two years.  Try thinking it through from the view point of the PJ.  Why would they try to get Carlos to explain this to his client?

Kate viewed 2 years for a crime attracting a maximum of 2 years as a deal.  You and other supporters seem to classify it as a deal.  I know for certain that stating the maximum was 2 years constituted no deal.  And since this went via Kate's lawyer, a man who would fully understand that the PJ had no power to set the actual sentence lower than the maximum, any notion that Kate was 'offered' less than 2 years is contrary to common sense and that which Kate herself wrote.

Why would the PJ get Carlos to explain the maximum for body disposal was 2 years?  Think, Alfie, think.

[Mr Gray]

You still do not appear to understand the full importance of the PJ, via Carlos, explaining that if Kate admitted to body disposal, the maximum sentence would be two years.  Try thinking it through from the view point of the PJ.  Why would they try to get Carlos to explain this to his client?

Kate viewed 2 years for a crime attracting a maximum of 2 years as a deal.  You and other supporters seem to classify it as a deal.  I know for certain that stating the maximum was 2 years constituted no deal.  And since this went via Kate's lawyer, a man who would fully understand that the PJ had no power to set the actual sentence lower than the maximum, any notion that Kate was 'offered' less than 2 years is contrary to common sense and that which Kate herself wrote.

Why would the PJ get Carlos to explain the maximum for body disposal was 2 years?  Think, Alfie, think.

Kate was told of what the PJ had said by her lawyer
If she ADMITTED  to the lesser crime then she would only get two years
That is an incentive to confess
That is offering a deal

[ferryman]

Kate's book p252 is where she gives her opinion of the non-deal explained by her lawyer.  That is, 2 years for an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 2 years.  Kate opines that was a deal.  Philomena went further.

It was a deal.

Confess to 'moving and handling a body' and 'you' [that's Kate!] will get a few years; OR 'you' [that's Kate] AND Gerry will face murder charges.

The wash-up of a murder enquiry was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos, accused of murdering their eldest daughter (among other crimes).

Oh, and the other half of the deal was that if Kate agreed to confess to 'moving and handling a body' she would get a few years, and Gerry let off scot-free; OR that the pair of them would be charged with murder

[stephen25000]

It was a deal.

Confess to 'moving and handling a body' and 'you' [that's Kate!] will get a few years; OR 'you' [that's Kate] AND Gerry will face murder charges.

The wash-up of a murder enquiry was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos, accused of murdering their eldest daughter (among other crimes).

Oh, and the other half of the deal was that if Kate agreed to confess to 'moving and handling a body' she would get a few years, and Gerry let off scot-free; OR that the pair of them would be charged with murder

It is the Courts who sets the sentence ferryman.

[ferryman]

It is the Courts who sets the sentence ferryman.

And?