Was the naming of the arguidos an unnecessary and dumb move?

[John]

I believe the arguidos should not have been named publicly but I understand that is the way the Portuguese do it so who are we to criticise? 

[John]

Given the amount of thread cleaning which has been required recently, posters should ensure that their comments are relevant to the thread they intend to post on.  A single comment can take a thread off at a tangent so please bear this in mind.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

[Robittybob1]

I believe the arguidos should not have been named publicly but I understand that is the way the Portuguese do it so who are we to criticise?

If they weren't named everyone spoken to by the PJ would be under suspicion of being an arguido.

[sadie]

If they weren't named everyone spoken to by the PJ would be under suspicion of being an arguido.

I dont believe they should have been named and the names released to the public.

I would have thought that an organisation as l;arge as the PJ could have devised a system where they took the suspects somewhere else and questioned them in private, away from the public eye


I have never publicly divulged the name of my suspect, despite a multitude of pointers, because i am aware how devastating such publicity, especially in this potential [paedophillic and with global interest] case could be to the man i suspect.

Even in a mundane case, I would never, I hope, publicly point the finger at the culprit.


Apart from the awfulness of accusing someone, I am grounded enough to know that I could be wrong, despite all the scores of pointers.


PS This suspect of mine has never, as far as i am aware, been suggested on any other forum

[John]

I dont believe they should have been named and the names released to the public.

I would have thought that an organisation as l;arge as the PJ could have devised a system where they took the suspects somewhere else and questioned them in private, away from the public eye


I have never publicly divulged the name of my suspect, despite a multitude of pointers, because i am aware how devastating such publicity, especially in this potential [paedophillic and with global interest] case could be to the man i suspect.

Even in a mundane case, I would never, I hope, publicly point the finger at the culprit.


Apart from the awfulness of accusing someone, I am grounded enough to know that I could be wrong, despite all the scores of pointers.


PS This suspect of mine has never, as far as i am aware, been suggested on any other forum

I don't think the public should be given any information about a suspect unless and until he or she is charged. The stigma can be a life changer, one only needs to look at what happened to Chris Jefferies in the Yeates case.

[slartibartfast]

I dont believe they should have been named and the names released to the public.

I would have thought that an organisation as l;arge as the PJ could have devised a system where they took the suspects somewhere else and questioned them in private, away from the public eye


I have never publicly divulged the name of my suspect, despite a multitude of pointers, because i am aware how devastating such publicity, especially in this potential [paedophillic and with global interest] case could be to the man i suspect.

Even in a mundane case, I would never, I hope, publicly point the finger at the culprit.


Apart from the awfulness of accusing someone, I am grounded enough to know that I could be wrong, despite all the scores of pointers.


PS This suspect of mine has never, as far as i am aware, been suggested on any other forum

If you named someone you could be sued for libel, the police could not.

[sadie]

I don't think the public should be given any information about a suspect unless and until he or she is charged. The stigma can be a life changer, one only needs to look at what happened to Chris Jefferies in the Yeates case.

I am pleased to agree with you on this John.

[Robittybob1]

If you named someone you could be sued for libel, the police could not.

They are only naming them as arguidos which isn't any claim against that person so I can't see how they could sue.
I suppose they can make it sound dramatic  "Kate and Gerry McCann have been declared arguidos ..."

[Angelo222]

They are only naming them as arguidos which isn't any claim against that person so I can't see how they could sue.
I suppose they can make it sound dramatic  "Kate and Gerry McCann have been declared arguidos ..."

Do you think that being named as an arguido in a possible child abduction/murder case is reputation enhancing?

[Robittybob1]

Do you think that being named as an arguido in a possible child abduction/murder case is reputation enhancing?

Of course not but it could be very dependent on the level of involvement.  Like the McCanns said "we are not involved in the disappearance of our daughter ...." hence it didn't seem to worry them.

[barrier]

Of course not but it could be very dependent on the level of involvement.  Like the McCanns said "we are not involved in the disappearance of our daughter ...." hence it didn't seem to worry them.

The other side of the coin is that you are under suspicion just because you happened to use your mobile on the night of 3/05/2007.

[Robittybob1]

The other side of the coin is that you are under suspicion just because you happened to use your mobile on the night of 3/05/2007.

In that area, and phoning your colleagues in that area too. There was more to it than just a single call made.

[ShiningInLuz]

In that area, and phoning your colleagues in that area too. There was more to it than just a single call made.

Don't you phone or text your friends in your local area?  Or do you avoid it in case you get made suspects?

[barrier]

In that area, and phoning your colleagues in that area too. There was more to it than just a single call made.

That is suspicious?

[sadie]

That is suspicious?

Anything tghat happened on that night, in the pertinent area and at the right time, would be reagrded as suspicious, or worth looking at to a good investigator.