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

[Alfie]

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.

Why do you bother responding to my posts when I'm too f..king dense to understand anything or even think clearly? 
Anyway - what Davel said... 

[Alfie]

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.

Why was this information even brought up then?  Explain.  Why wasn't she told the maximum sentence for sedating her children, manslaughter or murder or fraud or failing to cooperate with a police investigation (assuming all these are crimes in Portugal - but who knows, maybe they are not..?)

[ShiningInLuz]

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

First, the supposed deal was made before either Kate or Gerry was arguidoed  It went - Kate interviewed as witness - discussion with Carlos re charges and associated sentencing - Kate interviewed as arguida - Gerry interviewed as arguido.

Second in advance of this sequence, the McCanns had already made public that they were shortly to return to England.  The PJ had the alternative of letting them leave without further interview, further developing the case, hoping for more solid results, and trying to extradite the McCanns.

Or they could do what they did and interview the McCanns before they left Portugal, which is what they did.

That decided, the McCanns had to be given arguido status.  It was not a PJ choice.  It was a requirement.

[ferryman]

First, the supposed deal was made before either Kate or Gerry was arguidoed  It went - Kate interviewed as witness - discussion with Carlos re charges and associated sentencing - Kate interviewed as arguida - Gerry interviewed as arguido.

Second in advance of this sequence, the McCanns had already made public that they were shortly to return to England.  The PJ had the alternative of letting them leave without further interview, further developing the case, hoping for more solid results, and trying to extradite the McCanns.

Or they could do what they did and interview the McCanns before they left Portugal, which is what they did.

That decided, the McCanns had to be given arguido status.  It was not a PJ choice.  It was a requirement.

It was a PJ choice to misrepresent the forensic results.

Or was that incompetence?

[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.

I can now see where you are confused
You seem to think that the deal related to the length of the sentence...as your post above makes clear

The deal was plead guilty to the lesser charge and you won't face the more serious charge

That should make more sense to you now

[Eleanor]

First, the supposed deal was made before either Kate or Gerry was arguidoed  It went - Kate interviewed as witness - discussion with Carlos re charges and associated sentencing - Kate interviewed as arguida - Gerry interviewed as arguido.

Second in advance of this sequence, the McCanns had already made public that they were shortly to return to England.  The PJ had the alternative of letting them leave without further interview, further developing the case, hoping for more solid results, and trying to extradite the McCanns.

Or they could do what they did and interview the McCanns before they left Portugal, which is what they did.

That decided, the McCanns had to be given arguido status.  It was not a PJ choice.  It was a requirement.

But three days later and with the change in Law, The PJ would not have been allowed to do this.

What does that tell you?

[stephen25000]

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

Really, so where would that be then ?


..and let's not forget, not one trace of her, despite the unparalleled publicity surrounding the case.

[Mr Gray]

Really, so where would that be then ?


..and let's not forget, not one trace of her, despite the unparalleled publicity surrounding the case.

Are you denying there is no proof of Maddies death
Therefore she may still be alive

[stephen25000]

Are you denying there is no proof of Maddies death
Therefore she may still be alive

I asked you, where she might be , if she was alive.

[faithlilly]

Why was this information even brought up then?  Explain.  Why wasn't she told the maximum sentence for sedating her children, manslaughter or murder or fraud or failing to cooperate with a police investigation (assuming all these are crimes in Portugal - but who knows, maybe they are not..?)

Perhaps because they weren't accusing her of any of those crimes?

[Mr Gray]

I asked you, where she might be , if she was alive.

And I do not wish to speculate where she might be

[Alfie]

Perhaps because they weren't accusing her of any of those crimes?

Did they accuse her of hiding her child's body?  Why did they assume she had not murdered her child in cold blood then?

[stephen25000]

And I do not wish to speculate

You are speculating,  by saying that she may be alive, when there has been absolutely no trace of her since she disappeared.

[Mr Gray]

You are speculating,  by saying that she is alive, when there has been absolutely no trace of her since she disappeared.

How many times have I told you
I have never said Maddie is alive

[stephen25000]

How many times have I told you
I have never said Maddie is alive

Try reading the amended post.