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

[ferryman]

Why in heavens name would the McCann's lawyer be commenting on something that was said by Gerry's sister on British television?

This is what Giles Tremlett said in his piece for The Guardian:

That explains the outrage 10 days ago, on the evening that Gerry and Kate McCann were declared formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter. Police were still questioning Gerry McCann when, already, his sister Philomena was telling Sky they had offered Kate McCann a reduced two-year sentence if she admitted to killing her daughter accidentally, hiding the body and then secretly disposing of it weeks later.

On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.

ETA that while Tremlett was right to say there was no offer of a plea bargain, there was emphatically, and unreservedly, an offer.

Just not an offer that was, also, a plea-bargain.

[ferryman]

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

Portuguese secrecy laws.

Kate's lawyer probably stuck his neck out saying as much as he did.

[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.

Kate was right that there was a deal; Philomena McCann wrong to describe the deal as a 'plea-bargain'.

That is what Kate's lawyer corrected, Philomena McCanns description of the deal as a 'plea-bargain'.

[stephen25000]

Kate was right that there was a deal; Philomena McCann wrong to describe the deal as a 'plea-bargain'.

That is what Kate's lawyer corrected, Philomena McCanns description of the deal as a 'plea-bargain'.

No deal.

[ferryman]

No deal.

It's all in the files, if you read them correctly.

A deal.

[Eleanor]

Why suggest a Murder Charge if The PJ weren't offering a deal?  Or is that just emotional blackmail?

[ShiningInLuz]

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

From your response, I can tell that you too have not grasped the importance of the PJ getting Carlos to explain to Kate the maximum sentence for body disposal.

Simply repeating the word deal does not match the facts nor does it change the truth.  The law states the maximum for body disposal is two years.  The PJ does not determine the sentence, something Carlos must have been aware of.  So there was no deal, and McCann propaganda on this was refuted by Kate's lawyer.

[ferryman]

From your response, I can tell that you too have not grasped the importance of the PJ getting Carlos to explain to Kate the maximum sentence for body disposal.

Simply repeating the word deal does not match the facts nor does it change the truth.  The law states the maximum for body disposal is two years.  The PJ does not determine the sentence, something Carlos must have been aware of.  So there was no deal, and McCann propaganda on this was refuted by Kate's lawyer.

]
Of course there was a deal (at least offered).

Kate says so in her book.

Mark Harrison makes abundantly plain that he was tasked by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered, and did so.

The culmination of a murder enquiry was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos, accused of murdering their eldest daughter.

Arguido status, as we know, stops just short of actual charges being brought, and the arguido status was rushed in just before a change in Portuguese law that would have required the PJ to justify their grounds for the arguido status.

Why do you accuse Kate of lying?

[Eleanor]

From your response, I can tell that you too have not grasped the importance of the PJ getting Carlos to explain to Kate the maximum sentence for body disposal.

Simply repeating the word deal does not match the facts nor does it change the truth.  The law states the maximum for body disposal is two years.  The PJ does not determine the sentence, something Carlos must have been aware of.  So there was no deal, and McCann propaganda on this was refuted by Kate's lawyer.

So, what is the sentence for Murder?  I believe Kate was threatened with this.  Or am I wrong?

[ferryman]

So, what is the sentence for Murder?  I believe Kate was threatened with this.  Or am I wrong?

You are right.

But (others) are accusing Kate of lying (I think).

[ShiningInLuz]

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

I do wish you would stop dishing out nonsense about murder because I am getting tired out editing it out of your posts.  In future, I will take the simpler route of simply deleting such posts.

Amaral's theory is accidental death followed by a cover-up. 

As to what Carlos said, Kate's book says she would have got longer if she was charged with homicide.  She fails to consider what would have happened if she was not charged, and for some reason she fails to mention the small matter of a trial.

She was not charged, and her movements were not restricted.  Those are the indisputable facts of the case.

The details of her discussion with Carlos is pure McCann spin-doctoring.

[stephen25000]

It's all in the files, if you read them correctly.

A deal.

Fantasy, appears to be your specialty, IMO.

[ferryman]

I do wish you would stop dishing out nonsense about murder because I am getting tired out editing it out of your posts.  In future, I will take the simpler route of simply deleting such posts.

Amaral's theory is accidental death followed by a cover-up. 

As to what Carlos said, Kate's book says she would have got longer if she was charged with homicide.  She fails to consider what would have happened if she was not charged, and for some reason she fails to mention the small matter of a trial.

She was not charged, and her movements were not restricted.  Those are the indisputable facts of the case.

The details of her discussion with Carlos is pure McCann spin-doctoring.

Do you want tp delete Mark Harrison's 'nonsense' as well?

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.

(Mark Harrison).

[ShiningInLuz]

Why suggest a Murder Charge if The PJ weren't offering a deal?  Or is that just emotional blackmail?

Try thinking it through from the PJ viewpoint at the time this information was conveyed to Kate by Carlos.  Add into your evaluation the fact that Kate was permitted to leave Portugal.  What is the answer?

[Eleanor]

I do wish you would stop dishing out nonsense about murder because I am getting tired out editing it out of your posts.  In future, I will take the simpler route of simply deleting such posts.

Amaral's theory is accidental death followed by a cover-up. 

As to what Carlos said, Kate's book says she would have got longer if she was charged with homicide.  She fails to consider what would have happened if she was not charged, and for some reason she fails to mention the small matter of a trial.

She was not charged, and her movements were not restricted.  Those are the indisputable facts of the case.

The details of her discussion with Carlos is pure McCann spin-doctoring.

So, there's an "If" in there somewhere.  But why mention Murder in the first place?

I am not happy with the explanations of what was actually said.  But it all sounds very threatening to me.