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

[Eleanor]

Quite right but it only seems to be the McCanns ( and/or their supporters) who are really concerned about this. None of the other people who were arquido seem to be bothered.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Mr Gray]

It seemed very important to them that they be seen as innocent.

As I recall they claimed the archive report was evidence of their innocence which of course it is

[Eleanor]

It seemed very important to them that they be seen as innocent.

How very peculiar is that?

[ShiningInLuz]

As I recall they claimed the archive report was evidence of their innocence which of course it is

Nope.

Perhaps you missed the court case.

[Eleanor]

Nope.

Perhaps you missed the court case.

Have the other Arguidos been Archived?

[Eleanor]

Okay, you two.  Enough of going around in circles.  Thank You.

[Mr Gray]

Nope.

Perhaps you missed the court case.

No I didn't
Another thread if you wish to discuss further

[Angelo222]

As I recall they claimed the archive report was evidence of their innocence which of course it is

Yet another falsehood.

[Benice]

As I recall they claimed the archive report was evidence of their innocence which of course it is

The whole reason why their (and Murats) arguido status was removed was because NO evidence of guilt was found.      A natural course of action which complies with the democratic principle of 'innocent until proved guilty' IMO.

If no evidence of guilt can be produced against a person then their legal status is exactly the same as any other person who has never been charged with a crime.   They are regarded as innocent under the law and have exactly the same rights as everyone else in the land who have never been charged with a crime - all of whom are accepted and described by every civilised society as 'innocent'.     There are no exceptions.

AIMHO

[misty]

It only took the SC 9 years to alter the filing article in a report which had been publicly available & extremely well scrutinised by several legal entities within Portugal............

[Alice Purjorick]

The whole reason why their (and Murats) arguido status was removed was because NO evidence of guilt was found.      A natural course of action which complies with the democratic principle of 'innocent until proved guilty' IMO.

If no evidence of guilt can be produced against a person then their legal status is exactly the same as any other person who has never been charged with a crime.   They are regarded as innocent under the law and have exactly the same rights as everyone else in the land who have never been charged with a crime - all of whom are accepted and described by every civilised society as 'innocent'.     There are no exceptions.

AIMHO

That is not strictly true.
It is explained in a paper by a couple of learned Portuguese advogados in a reference book on European Law which I referenced in a post earlier only to have it whooshed by the Mods so I can't reference it again  but the bottom line is your assumption is incorrect...

[Mr Gray]

That is not strictly true.
It is explained in a paper by a couple of learned Portuguese advogados in a reference book on European Law which I referenced in a post earlier only to have it whooshed by the Mods so I can't reference it again  but the bottom line is your assumption is incorrect...

As it stands that is merely your opinion

[ShiningInLuz]

Have the other Arguidos been Archived?

As far as I understand, all 4 arguidos have been told they are no longer persons of interest.  Whether that means they have been de-arguidoed in legal terms is beyond me.

Neither the Oporto investigation nor OG has been archived, AFAIK.

And what jolly gems we will get our hands on if one or both grind to a halt is also a matter for conjecture.

[sadie]

I think there are people whose imaginations far outstrip Amaral's.

Hopefully, time will tell 

[G-Unit]

Hopefully, time will tell 

Some flights of fancy are too Dan Brown like to be taken seriously imo.