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

[Alice Purjorick]

As it stands that is merely your opinion

Err no! it is the opinion of the authors of a paper in "Toward a Prosecutor for the European Union Volume 1: A Comparative Analysis".

[bros]

Just to brush on my modest legal knowledge a have. 

Making someone arguidos is not dumb move actually it is a smart one and in Portugal the lawmakers have put this into a law so it is obligatory.

Scenario 1
1. If I call you at police station and ask you something regarding crime that occurred and you lie to me there is no consequences. 

Scenario 2
2. If I call you at police station on a request of a  judicial police(as party who enforce  Criminal Procedure Law in many countries) regarding crime that occurred and you lie to me you go to jail. First for obstruction of justice later for other things.On top of it all your statement are valid evidence against someone else in the court of law because are taken by judicial appointees this in many other countries are done by investigative judge.

So no worries professionals are doing  job here  let them go through everything will make sense at the end. Just patience.

[Mr Gray]

Just to brush on my modest legal knowledge a have. 

Making someone arguidos is not dumb move actually it is a smart one and in Portugal the lawmakers have put this into a law so it is obligatory.

Scenario 1
1. If I call you at police station and ask you something regarding crime that occurred and you lie to me there is no consequences. 

Scenario 2
2. If I call you at police station on a request of a  judicial police(as party who enforce  Criminal Procedure Law in many countries) regarding crime that occurred and you lie to me you go to jail. First for obstruction of justice later for other things.On top of it all your statement are valid evidence against someone else in the court of law because are taken by judicial appointees this in many other countries are done by investigative judge.

So no worries professionals are doing  job here  let them go through everything will make sense at the end. Just patience.

You make a really good point



As I understand and please provide a cite if you disagree
Arguido is similar to being interviewed under caution
Therefore none of the McCann's statements non arguido could be used as evidence against them

[Robittybob1]

You make a really good point



As I understand and please provide a cite if you disagree
Arguido is similar to being interviewed under caution
Therefore none of the McCann's statements non arguido could be used as evidence against them

You have that wrong.

[Mr Gray]

You have that wrong.

As I said if you disagree provide a cite
Why is it wrong

From what I understand its absolutely right

[Robittybob1]

As I said if you disagree provide a cite
Why is it wrong

From what I understand its absolutely right

Have you looked up Wikipedia?

[Mr Gray]

Have you looked up Wikipedia?

Yes

I'd already worked it out
Wikipedia confirms it

[stephen25000]

Well , let's have the cited in formation please.

[Robittybob1]

Well , let's have the cited in formation please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido

I objected to this statement "Therefore none of the McCann's statements non arguido could be used as evidence against them", for the non arguido statements must be the truth and if they were proven false they could be prosecuted for lying.
"the arguido must be presented with whatever evidence is held against them,[7] and unlike a witness has the right to remain silent,[8] not to answer any question that may incriminate the person, and does not face legal action for lying.[9]"

[stephen25000]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido

Thank you Rob.

[carlymichelle]

Thank you Rob.

bear in mind anybody can edit wikipedia   

[stephen25000]

bear in mind anybody can edit wikipedia   

I know Carly.

At least Rob made the effort.

[Mr Gray]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido

I objected to this statement "Therefore none of the McCann's statements non arguido could be used as evidence against them", for the non arguido statements must be the truth and if they were proven false they could be prosecuted for lying.
"the arguido must be presented with whatever evidence is held against them,[7] and unlike a witness has the right to remain silent,[8] not to answer any question that may incriminate the person, and does not face legal action for lying.[9]"

It's. Under comparison with common law systems
What you are referring to is perverting the course of justice which is exactly the same in the British system

Go further in to the article and it compares arguido with evidence under caution and Miranda rights and discusses the inadmissibility of evidence
Arguido s can be asked questions which could incriminate them which implies witnesses can't
Same as interview under caution

I reckon I'm right rob

[John]

I have always had a problem with the British interpretation of the Portuguese word arguido.  It has become widely accepted that it means official suspect but there is much more to it.  A better definition would be 'defendant'.

Someone suggested earlier that it is the equivalent in UK terms of being interviewed under caution. Arguidos are certainly cautioned as far as I understand prior to being interviewed and only then can their responses be later used in any trial but not if self-incrimitory.

I think we have to be careful before applying generalities to the term arguido.

The Portuguese wikipedia definition of arguido makes for better understanding.

https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido

[Mr Gray]

I have always had a problem with the British interpretation of the Portuguese word arguido.  It has become widely accepted that it means official suspect but there is much more to it.

Someone suggested earlier that it is the equivalent in UK terms of being interviewed under caution. Arguidos are certainly cautioned as far as I understand prior to being interviewed and only then can their responses be later used in any trial.

I think we have to be careful before applying generalities to the term arguido.

So unless made arguido the witness statements cannot be used as evidence against the McCann's in court

On topic
That's why it certainly isn't dumb making a witness arguido