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

[ferryman]

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?

Perhaps, that the PJ realised, earlier than they let on, that they had screwed up in declaring Kate and Gerry arguido?

[Eleanor]

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?

My opinion?  I think they were threatening Kate.  And they had already lied to her

They let her leave because they had No Evidence.

[Eleanor]

Perhaps, that the PJ realised, earlier than they let on, that they had screwed up in declaring Kate and Gerry arguido?

No Perhaps about it.  They did screw up.

[ShiningInLuz]

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

Kate is the only source that I know of this, therefore asserting she was 'threatened' requires accepting Kate's word and classifying her words as constituting a threat.

The fact of the matter is she did not confess to body disposal.  She was not charged with homicide.  She left Portugal without hindrance.

I prefer the facts rather than accepting Kate's take on it in her book.

[faithlilly]

Portuguese secrecy laws.

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

Then why leave his comment open to interpretation? Why not stick his neck out a bit more?

And why has Kate or Gerry ever claimed that they were offered a deal?

[stephen25000]

No Perhaps about it.  They did screw up.

No Eleanor, it is the McCann's who screwed up.

[Eleanor]

Kate is the only source that I know of this, therefore asserting she was 'threatened' requires accepting Kate's word and classifying her words as constituting a threat.

The fact of the matter is she did not confess to body disposal.  She was not charged with homicide.  She left Portugal without hindrance.

I prefer the facts rather than accepting Kate's take on it in her book.

What "Facts?"  We don't appear to have any, if what you say is true.

[Mr Gray]

Kate is the only source that I know of this, therefore asserting she was 'threatened' requires accepting Kate's word and classifying her words as constituting a threat.

The fact of the matter is she did not confess to body disposal.  She was not charged with homicide.  She left Portugal without hindrance.

I prefer the facts rather than accepting Kate's take on it in her book.

The fact is her lawyer confirms that the conversation took place
The choice being admit the lesser charge or risk being charged with the more serious charge
That's an offer
You need to be consistent in only accepting facts
If you only accept facts then you should not speculate on other topics

[Mr Gray]

Kate is the only source that I know of this, therefore asserting she was 'threatened' requires accepting Kate's word and classifying her words as constituting a threat.

The fact of the matter is she did not confess to body disposal.  She was not charged with homicide.  She left Portugal without hindrance.

I prefer the facts rather than accepting Kate's take on it in her book.

You have stated that the lawyer said this was a misunderstanding
Who says this happened and why do you accept it to be true
Inconsistent

[ferryman]

Kate is the only source that I know of this, therefore asserting she was 'threatened' requires accepting Kate's word and classifying her words as constituting a threat.

The fact of the matter is she did not confess to body disposal.  She was not charged with homicide.  She left Portugal without hindrance.

I prefer the facts rather than accepting Kate's take on it in her book.

Kate's take supports the facts.

Equally, the facts support Kate's take.

[stephen25000]

Kate's take supports the facts.

Equally, the facts support Kate's take.

In your and some of your fellow Mccann backers perhaps.

That doesn't make it reality.

[ShiningInLuz]

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

(Mark Harrison).

What has Mark Harrison's brief got to do with anything?  Why do you think a cadaver dog was brought in to Luz?  It was not to look for a live child, was it.

I have no idea why the brief allegedly (I haven't checked a Portuguese version) uses the word murdered, rather than say 'dead'.  I can speculate on why 'murdered' might be the choice, but my speculation would not clarify anything.  Until the dogs deployed, all there was was a missing child, not even a dead child.  The dogs had very little to add in a search for a non-dead child.

[ferryman]

What has Mark Harrison's brief got to do with anything?  Why do you think a cadaver dog was brought in to Luz?  It was not to look for a live child, was it.

I have no idea why the brief allegedly (I haven't checked a Portuguese version) uses the word murdered, rather than say 'dead'.  I can speculate on why 'murdered' might be the choice, but my speculation would not clarify anything.  Until the dogs deployed, all there was was a missing child, not even a dead child.  The dogs had very little to add in a search for a non-dead child.

Translation doesn't come into this.  Mark Harrison is English and wrote his report in English.

Mark Harrison's original (English-written) report is there, for us to read.

[Mr Gray]

What has Mark Harrison's brief got to do with anything?  Why do you think a cadaver dog was brought in to Luz?  It was not to look for a live child, was it.

I have no idea why the brief allegedly (I haven't checked a Portuguese version) uses the word murdered, rather than say 'dead'.  I can speculate on why 'murdered' might be the choice, but my speculation would not clarify anything.  Until the dogs deployed, all there was was a missing child, not even a dead child.  The dogs had very little to add in a search for a non-dead child.

After the dogs we still only have a missing child
Maddie may still be alive

[Eleanor]

What has Mark Harrison's brief got to do with anything?  Why do you think a cadaver dog was brought in to Luz?  It was not to look for a live child, was it.

I have no idea why the brief allegedly (I haven't checked a Portuguese version) uses the word murdered, rather than say 'dead'.  I can speculate on why 'murdered' might be the choice, but my speculation would not clarify anything.  Until the dogs deployed, all there was was a missing child, not even a dead child.  The dogs had very little to add in a search for a non-dead child.

You are obfuscating.  No dead child has been found.