UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mr Gray on September 03, 2020, 03:50:54 PM
-
Sceptics seem to think Murat has been ruled out...or cleared. Could one of these sceptics explain when and by whom Murat was ruled out.
-
Sceptics seem to think Murat has been ruled out...or cleared. Could one of these sceptics explain when and by whom Murat was ruled out.
Maybe arguidii remain 'ruled in' until the conclusion.
-
Maybe arguidii remain 'ruled in' until the conclusion.
Are you sure that's the correct plural.. You spelt murder as muyder... Were you having trouble with your r's
-
Are you sure that's the correct plural.. You spelt murder as muyder... Were you having trouble with your r's
I'm pretty sure that's the correct plural and I was using the New York spelling of 'murder'.
-
I'm pretty sure that's the correct plural and I was using the New York spelling of 'murder'.
Wow... I'm still working on my English spellings
-
Wow... I'm still working on my English spellings
Totally had not noticed.
-
Sceptics seem to think Murat has been ruled out...or cleared. Could one of these sceptics explain when and by whom Murat was ruled out.
If the McCanns have not been ruled out or cleared, then neither has Murat, it's as simple as that. Perhaps someone ought to tell him he is still not in the clear?
-
Let’s not forget the more recent arguidos in this case. All still uncleared and there cannot be ruled out.
-
Sceptics seem to think Murat has been ruled out...or cleared. Could one of these sceptics explain when and by whom Murat was ruled out.
Who said he was ruled out? It's plain from the PJ files that he was rigorously investigated early on, but not during the last 12 months preceeding the archiving of the case.
-
Who said he was ruled out? It's plain from the PJ files that he was rigorously investigated early on, but not during the last 12 months preceeding the archiving of the case.
so he hasnt been ruled out....in your opinion
-
so he hasnt been ruled out....in your opinion
Well, the police haven't said he's not a suspect, so that rules him in, along with the other 7.5 billion of earths inhabitants who the police also haven't said are not suspects.
-
Who said he was ruled out? It's plain from the PJ files that he was rigorously investigated early on, but not during the last 12 months preceeding the archiving of the case.
are there not some discrepancies in his statements
-
Well, the police haven't said he's not a suspect, so that rules him in, along with the other 7.5 billion of earths inhabitants who the police also haven't said are not suspects.
so he hasnt been ruled out...in your opinion
-
so he hasnt been ruled out...in your opinion
The only people on planet earth that have been ruled out are the McCanns, which is remarkable considering there is more evidence against them than there is against the rest of the world.
-
The only people on planet earth that have been ruled out are the McCanns, which is remarkable considering there is more evidence against them than there is against the rest of the world.
glad you think the McCanns have been ruled out
-
theres no worthwhile evidence against either of them.
-
theres no worthwhile evidence against either of them.
But there is a mountain of evidence against Brueckner?
What was it again?
-
That doesn't mean they didn't do it.
There's more evidence against them than there is Robert Murat.
remember there was a partial dna match with several scientists from the FSS ...ould be one of them
-
But there is a mountain of evidence against Brueckner?
What was it again?
can you keep a secret
-
can you keep a secret
Not for 13 years like some.
-
Not for 13 years like some.
HCW can...so hes not saying
-
HCW can...so hes not saying
He's got nothing. Brueckner is innocent.
-
theres no worthwhile evidence against either McCann
Apparently it's libelous to say there is evidence against the McCanns.
-
He's got nothing. Brueckner is innocent.
I think based on all the evidence there a reasonable chance hes guity
-
I think based on all the evidence there a reasonable chance hes guity
What evidence?
-
Apparently it's libelous to say there is evidence against the McCanns.
of course theres evidence...but its all rubbish...
-
What evidence?
I cant be bothered to discuss it with you...its like discussing the existence of god with a jehovas witness...pointless
-
of course theres evidence...but its all rubbish...
Not like the evidence against Brueckner, which is what again?
-
Tell that to Brietta, she keeps giving me warning points for stating a fact.
the fact is ..there is evidence...but its total rubbish. Im sure if you post that in futuure you will be fine.
the smith sighting is evidence....but no more than those who've claimed to have seen the loch ness monster...ghosts...and Elvis in the local chip shop
-
the fact is ..there is evidence...but its total rubbish. Im sure if you post that in futuure you will be fine.
the smith sighting is evidence....but no more than those who've claimed to have seen the loch ness monster...ghosts...and Elvis in the local chip shop
Nonsense.
Ghosts, the loch ness monster & elvis weren't present at the Ocean club May 3rd.
Gerry was.
-
Nonsense.
Ghosts, the loch ness monster & elvis weren't present at the Ocean club May 3rd.
yes he was at the ocean club.. there is evidence toi support tHat...he was there when Smith came out of the pub...possibly a bit worse for wear
-
yes he was at the ocean club.. there is evidence toi support tHat...he was there when Smith came out of the pub...possibly a bit worse for wear
There's also evidence he wasn't.
-
Evidence is evidence.
But my warning points keep increasing despite this fact.
I agree with you...evidence is evidence...and sometimes of no significance at all.
-
Nonsense.
Ghosts, the loch ness monster & elvis weren't present at the Ocean club May 3rd.
How do you know this?
-
How do you know this?
quite...there is no evidence..never mind proof that nessie was not off the coast close to LUz...no evidence that Ghosts were not responsible for cadaver odour...
-
quite...there is no evidence..never mind proof that nessie was noy of the coast close to LUz...no evidence that Ghosts were not responsible for cadaver odour...
No evidence Elvis wasn’t there that night, in fact no evidence that Elvis is dead and buried at Graceland, only a bunch of rumours in the tabloid press, that’s all.
-
Murat said in a trailer for the Netflix show that he felt like he was being set up.
He told 5 News in the above video that he has tried to move on since being cleared in the case, and he hopes it’s finally resolved.
More than 20 new suspects were uncovered by British police in recent years, the television station reported, which added that Madeleine’s parents were also named as suspects but later “completely cleared.”
https://heavy.com/entertainment/2019/03/robert-murat/
-
Didn't Amaral threaten Murat? And then he tried to get Jane Tanner to stitch up Murat. So you can't say that Amaral didn't try at the one thing he is quite good at.
But at least The McCanns and Murat got quite a lot of money from lies that were leaked to the Press by The Investigation.
As to when Murat was ruled out, you will have to ask The Sceptics. I was a bit befuddled by it all at the time.
Was Murat mentioned in Amaral's work of fiction?
-
Didn't Amaral threaten Murat? And then he tried to get Jane Tanner to stitch up Murat. So you can't say that Amaral didn't try at the one thing he is quite good at.
But at least The McCanns and Murat got quite a lot of money from lies that were leaked to the Press by The Investigation.
As to when Murat was ruled out, you will have to ask The Sceptics. I was a bit befuddled by it all at the time.
Was Murat mentioned in Amaral's work of fiction?
Murat was certainly mentioned in Kate’s diary.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/17-July8/CORREIO_DA_MANHA1_29_07_2008.htm
And Tanner didn’t need any help to stitch Murat up, she appeared to be a very willing participant.
-
Murat was certainly mentioned in Kate’s diary.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/17-July8/CORREIO_DA_MANHA1_29_07_2008.htm
And Tanner didn’t need any help to stitch Murat up, she appeared to be a very willing participant.
Such a pity that Amaral didn't get a statement from Jane Tanner saying that she recognised Robert Murat.
-
Such a pity that Amaral didn't get a statement from Jane Tanner saying that she recognised Robert Murat.
Absolutely but he’d have been very aware that by putting the incident in his book it would be brought to the attention of many other people, including English policemen, who were there at the time. BTW have you ever heard any of the English police who were there at the time refute Amaral’s claim ? Besides Tanner’s attempted denial while being questioned about the incident in her rogatory was less than convincing.
-
Such a pity that Amaral didn't get a statement from Jane Tanner saying that she recognised Robert Murat.
That would have been a clincher leaving Amaral with another speedily resolved 'murder' case under his belt and no-one looking for Madeleine.
Fortunately Jane stuck to what she had seen and never deviated from it ... and the person she saw was not Murat.
-
That would have been a clincher leaving Amaral with another speedily resolved 'murder' case under his belt and no-one looking for Madeleine.
Fortunately Jane stuck to what she had seen and never deviated from it ... and the person she saw was not Murat.
She certainly wasn’t as forceful in her rogatory that she hadn’t seen Murat as you suggest.
-
She certainly wasn’t as forceful in her rogatory that she hadn’t seen Murat as you suggest.
From start to finish including in her rogatory statement, Jane Tanner never deviated from what she had seen. If Amaral's attempt at surveillance had worked out as he thought it would she would have been wheeched off to put her signature to a statement before she could blink.
No witness statement + no signature = no identification then or at any later time.
So when exactly was it that Murat was ruled out ?
-
Murat was certainly mentioned in Kate’s diary.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/17-July8/CORREIO_DA_MANHA1_29_07_2008.htm
And Tanner didn’t need any help to stitch Murat up, she appeared to be a very willing participant.
Jane Tanner didn't know PJ were already suspicious of one of the 3 unknown men she was asked to consider as the potential abductor in the ID "walk by". She also didn't know one of them was RM. The suspicions originated from Lori Campbell & Inspector Varandas, to name but 2.
-
Jane Tanner didn't know PJ were already suspicious of one of the 3 unknown men she was asked to consider as the potential abductor in the ID "walk by". She also didn't know one of them was RM. The suspicions originated from Lori Campbell & Inspector Varandas, to name but 2.
It seems there was a point when Jane Tanner thought it was Murat that she saw;
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
-
It seems there was a point when Jane Tanner thought it was Murat that she saw;
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
How many times have we got to go through this...?
-
It seems there was a point when Jane Tanner thought it was Murat that she saw;
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
The question is had Murat been ruled out or cleared..
When and by whom
-
The question is had Murat been ruled out or cleared..
When and by whom
Murat’s status is identical to that of the McCanns therefore if they haven’t been ruled out or cleared then neither has he or any of the other arguidos.
-
How many times have we got to go through this...?
If people want to discuss Jane Tanner's rogatory interview they must take into account everything she said imo.
-
The question is had Murat been ruled out or cleared..
When and by whom
Who said he had been ruled out or cleared?
-
Who said he had been ruled out or cleared?
So you agree he hasn't...that's fine
-
If people want to discuss Jane Tanner's rogatory interview they must take into account everything she said imo.
are the rogatories a verbatim record of everything she said in the interview? I believe they are. i also believe that as such they record every utterence but without any accompanying commentary to record emphasis, pauses for reflection, two people speaking over each other or sentnces started and trailing off unfinished, all of which happen in normal speech and which imo explain the otherwise illogicial two sentences of speech by JT that gets constantly targetted to make some stupid point on the internet.
-
Who said he had been ruled out or cleared?
Do you think Murat still thinks he hasn't been officially cleared of suspicion and that he is still ruled in to the McCann disappearance? And if he took legal action against a paper that said he was still a suspect would he lose on that basis, in your opinion?
-
So what's the evidence against Murat?
That he made a phone call on the evening of May 3rd?
You know who else made phone calls that night?
The McCanns.
-
are the rogatories a verbatim record of everything she said in the interview? I believe they are. i also believe that as such they record every utterence but without any accompanying commentary to record emphasis, pauses for reflection, two people speaking over each other or sentnces started and trailing off unfinished, all of which happen in normal speech and which imo explain the otherwise illogicial two sentences of speech by JT that gets constantly targetted to make some stupid point on the internet.
I think it's because some posters have no experience in the recording of verbatim interviews. all the umms and errs are quite normal in the circumstances. the whole point is every word said is recorded verbatim, unlike the Pj witness interviews
-
So what's the evidence against Murat?
That he made a phone call on the evening of May 3rd?
You know who else made phone calls that night?
The McCanns.
the question is ..has he been cleared...the answer is a resounding ..no
-
the question is ..has he been cleared...the answer is a resounding ..no
My question is, what's the evidence against him?
There isn't any.
-
My question is, what's the evidence against him?
There isn't any.
thats your questiobn..you need to start another thread....you are off topic
-
My question is, what's the evidence against him?
There isn't any.
So what? he hasn't been cleared and that's the main thing. Because he was once an arguido he cannot claim the system ruled him out of the investigation. Poor guy.
-
So what? he hasn't been cleared and that's the main thing. Because he was once an arguido he cannot claim the system ruled him out of the investigation. Poor guy.
He hasn't been cleared but there's no evidence against him.
That's pretty damning for everyone whom there's no evidence against.
-
It seems there was a point when Jane Tanner thought it was Murat that she saw;
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
You know perfectly well the logical explanation for that ... Carana has had to bring it to the forum often enough.
If Jane Tanner had been able to give a formal identification of Robert Murat there would be a witness statement to that effect. I believe the big gun was around for such an event which patently did not happen.
So Murat was NEVER ruled in by Jane.
So when was it Murat was ruled out ? Any cogent idea ?
-
He hasn't been cleared but there's no evidence against him.
That's pretty damning for everyone whom there's no evidence against.
so he hasnt been cleared....there is evidence against him but nothing of any significance.
-
so he hasnt been cleared....there is evidence against him but nothing of any significance.
Yes but what is it?
A reporter thought he was Ian Huntley.
He made a phone call.
What else?
-
Yes but what is it?
A reporter thought he was Ian Huntley.
He made a phone call.
What else?
You agree he has nt been ruled out...even though there is next to no evidence against him....what do you have to do to be ruled out I wonder
-
Absolutely but he’d have been very aware that by putting the incident in his book it would be brought to the attention of many other people, including English policemen, who were there at the time. BTW have you ever heard any of the English police who were there at the time refute Amaral’s claim ? Besides Tanner’s attempted denial while being questioned about the incident in her rogatory was less than convincing.
What has this got to do with a signed statement from Jane Tanner that Amaral failed to get?
No Statement. No Proof.
-
You know perfectly well the logical explanation for that ... Carana has had to bring it to the forum often enough.
If Jane Tanner had been able to give a formal identification of Robert Murat there would be a witness statement to that effect. I believe the big gun was around for such an event which patently did not happen.
So Murat was NEVER ruled in by Jane.
So when was it Murat was ruled out ? Any cogent idea ?
Jane told the PJ that Murat was the same man crossing the road - saw him side on. Murat had thicker hair like the real Tannerman aka Totman. Neither are short haired Smithman. Or do you believe this reconstruction did not take place?
-
You know perfectly well the logical explanation for that ... Carana has had to bring it to the forum often enough.
If Jane Tanner had been able to give a formal identification of Robert Murat there would be a witness statement to that effect. I believe the big gun was around for such an event which patently did not happen.
So Murat was NEVER ruled in by Jane.
So when was it Murat was ruled out ? Any cogent idea ?
Has she? All I can find is this;
Exactly, Benice. It's clear to me that they are both talking at the same time in some instances.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.msg229597;topicseen#msg229597
-
Do you think Murat still thinks he hasn't been officially cleared of suspicion and that he is still ruled in to the McCann disappearance? And if he took legal action against a paper that said he was still a suspect would he lose on that basis, in your opinion?
No response to this I see. ^^^
-
He hasn't been cleared but there's no evidence against him.
That's pretty damning for everyone whom there's no evidence against.
So he's still in the frame then, and wouldn't have a leg to stand on in any lawsuit against anyone who claimed he hadn't been cleared and was still ruled in as a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. Glad we got that one sorted.
-
So he's still in the frame then, and wouldn't have a leg to stand on in any lawsuit against anyone who claimed he hadn't been cleared and was still ruled in as a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. Glad we got that one sorted.
You haven't been cleared either.
The only people on planet earth who have been formally cleared are the McCanns, on account of all that abduction evidence the police discovered.
What was that again?
-
From start to finish including in her rogatory statement, Jane Tanner never deviated from what she had seen. If Amaral's attempt at surveillance had worked out as he thought it would she would have been wheeched off to put her signature to a statement before she could blink.
No witness statement + no signature = no identification then or at any later time.
So when exactly was it that Murat was ruled out ?
I believe the sort of surveillance operation undertook was illegal in Portugal.
Why do you think none of the English officers there like Bob a Small have ever refuted Amaral’s claim ?
-
You haven't been cleared either.
The only people on planet earth who have been formally cleared are the McCanns, on account of all that abduction evidence the police discovered.
What was that again?
So does that make me a suspect then?
-
So does that make me a suspect then?
Everyone is a suspect, except the McCanns.
Where were you on May 3rd?
Did you make any phone calls that night?
-
Everyone is a suspect, except the McCanns.
Where were you on May 3rd?
Did you make any phone calls that night?
I've never been to Portugal. Does that still make me a suspect?
-
I've never been to Portugal. Does that still make me a suspect?
That's exactly what someone who travelled to Portugal & abducted Maddie would say.
-
That's exactly what someone who travelled to Portugal & abducted Maddie would say.
It's also exactly what someone who'd never travelled to Portugal would say. Why haven't I been arrested and questioned?
-
It's also exactly what someone who'd never travelled to Portugal would say. Why haven't I been arrested and questioned?
Why hasn't Brueckner?
-
I think based on all the evidence there a reasonable chance hes guity
Absolute tosh Dave. There is nothing that connects Brueckner directly with Madeleine at this point in time. I would call your assertion wishful thinking and nothing more.
-
Why hasn't Brueckner?
It's been explained to you why not, many times. Now explain why I haven't been arrested and questioned as I haven't been ruled out.
-
Absolute tosh Dave. There is nothing that connects Brueckner directly with Madeleine at this point in time. I would call your assertion wishful thinking and nothing more.
The German Prosecutor has inimated that there is, so either he is a liar or he is telling the truth. It's a fair assumption to make that he is telling the truth. If this is not a fair assumption kindly explain why you are calling him a liar, and explain why this wouldn't be a libellous statement.
-
Absolute tosh Dave. There is nothing that connects Brueckner directly with Madeleine at this point in time. I would call your assertion wishful thinking and nothing more.
Then in which case you are on a sticky wicket, John.
Never would I have wanted to gainsay you. But please don't try me.
-
Then in which case you are on a sticky wicket, John.
Never would I have wanted to gainsay you. But please don't try me.
Brueckner is a prize scapegoat imo.
The reality is that the Germans have nothing of any significance Eleanor. If they had anything of consequence they would have followed police protocol and informed the parents of the missing child. Since the McCanns still insist that Madeleine might still be alive then that never happened.
It would appear that neither SY nor the Portuguese appear to be much impressed by his unproven claims.
-
The German Prosecutor has inimated that there is, so either he is a liar or he is telling the truth. It's a fair assumption to make that he is telling the truth. If this is not a fair assumption kindly explain why you are calling him a liar, and explain why this wouldn't be a libellous statement.
In my opinion he is a glory hunter, a chancer, a bluffer, who is seeking to exploit Madeleine for his own benefit. Brueckner is no Saint but he is also not a murderer according to all we know.
-
The reality is that the Germans have nothing of any significance Eleanor. If they had anything of consequence they would have followed police protocol and informed the parents of the missing child. Since the McCanns still insist that Madeleine might still be alive then that never happened.
I think you are totally wrong John. HCW has clearly said he has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM and he also explained why he wasn't interviewing CB or sharing the info with SY or the PJ.. Or the parents
-
In my opinion he is a glory hunter, a chancer, a bluffer, who is seeking to exploit Madeleine for his own benefit. Brueckner is no Saint but he is also not a murderer according to all we know.
I think he's extremely competent... We shall see.
There is a time when every murderer has not committed s murder... Every single one
-
In my opinion he is a glory hunter, a chancer, a bluffer, who is seeking to exploit Madeleine for his own benefit. Brueckner is no Saint but he is also not a murderer according to all we know.
How well do you know HCW John? Please tell me why we should accept your character assassiination of him, and what you think the man stands to gain, if, in a few months time, no charges are ever brought?
-
I think you are totally wrong John. HCW has clearly said he has enough evidence to show his suspect killed MM and he also explained why he wasn't interviewing CB or sharing the info with SY or the PJ.. Or the parents
If he had such strong evidence Brueckner would have been charged by now. Clearly he was hoping that some lowlife would emerge from the woodwork and provide significant information about Brueckner but again this hasn't happened.
-
If he had such strong evidence Brueckner would have been charged by now. Clearly he was hoping that some lowlife would emerge from the woodwork and provide significant information about Brueckner but again this hadn't happened.
I thought that already had happened?
-
If he had such strong evidence Brueckner would have been charged by now. Clearly he was hoping that some lowlife would emerge from the woodwork and provide significant information about Brueckner but again this hadn't happened.
He's building his case... You think he's a bluffer and a chancer... I see a very competent person... We shall see
-
How well do you know HCW John? Please tell me why we should accept your character assassiination of him, and what you think the man stands to gain, if, in a few months time, no charges are ever brought?
He had already lost credibility with both the Portuguese and London police. Brueckner had the right to be presumed innocent just like any free person but that is not how this farce has played out. The German prosecutor has overplayed his hand in naming Brueckner in my opinion. He took a risk in doing so, hoping that someone would come forward with crucial information but it hasn't happened.
-
He's building his case... You think he's a bluffer and a chance... I see a very competent person... We shall see
Indeed...time will tell.
-
He had already lost credibility with both the Portuguese and London police.
A strange and untrue statement imo.....I havent seen taht at all. Simon Foy of the London police was full of praise for him
-
He had already lost credibility with both the Portuguese and London police.
Please provide the cites
-
Please provide the cites
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8411085/Portuguese-police-incensed-German-prosecutors-claims-theyve-slow-help-Madeleine-probe.html
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8411085/Portuguese-police-incensed-German-prosecutors-claims-theyve-slow-help-Madeleine-probe.html
Hes had the guts to call the portuguese for what they are imo....from what I have seen the case has taken ages due to the portuguese not agreeing to a joint investigtion...where is there any evidence of the London police criticisng him
-
Brueckner is a prize scapegoat imo.
The reality is that the Germans have nothing of any significance Eleanor. If they had anything of consequence they would have followed police protocol and informed the parents of the missing child. Since the McCanns still insist that Madeleine might still be alive then that never happened.
It would appear that neither SY nor the Portuguese appear to be much impressed by his unproven claims.
So you think that The McCanns are culpable.
Your Comment isn't even reasonable.
I am fast getting to the point wherein I don't want to be here.
Is there never to be.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8411085/Portuguese-police-incensed-German-prosecutors-claims-theyve-slow-help-Madeleine-probe.html
An unnamed police source for the PJ in the Daily Mail?* Got anything more credible? What about a cite for thr Met having no faith in the German prosecutor?
* It was probably a quote given to them by the Top RentaGob aka Amaral.
-
A strange and untrue statement imo.....I havent seen taht at all. Simon Foy of the London police was full of praise for him
Simon Foy: "It was perfectly clear to us, that the McCanns themselves had nothing, at all, to do with the actual disappearance of the child"
Richard Bilton: "Why?"
Simon Foy: Because, it was, it was just obvious, from, you know; that everything stacked up that they were, they were where they were when the child went missing"
@)(++(* what a farce just like the cheap talking Germans!
-
Simon Foy: "It was perfectly clear to us, that the McCanns themselves had nothing, at all, to do with the actual disappearance of the child"
Richard Bilton: "Why?"
Simon Foy: Because, it was, it was just obvious, from, you know; that everything stacked up that they were, they were where they were when the child went missing"
@)(++(* what a farce just like the cheap talking Germans!
This is palpably untrue. There is not one independent witness who puts Gerry at the tapas bar before the alarm.
-
Murat’s only alibi was his mum. Say no more!
-
This is palpably untrue. There is not one independent witness who puts Gerry at the tapas bar before the alarm.
Foy doesn't know what time Madeleine went missing at. He should have answered no comment 8)--))
-
Foy doesn't know what time Madeleine went missing at. He should have answered no comment 8)--))
So what have the Pj been doing for the past 13 yeras...why havent they arressted or even questioned the McCanns...I find your theories bonkers by the way
-
So what have the Pj been doing for the past 13 yeras...why havent they arressted or even questioned the McCanns...I find your theories bonkers by the way
According to Pathfinder they are ruling everyone else out before getting round to charging the McCanns. According to Spam I haven’t yet been ruled out so until I am and another 5, 999,999,998 people have been them McCanns will remain at large.
-
He had already lost credibility with both the Portuguese and London police. Brueckner had the right to be presumed innocent just like any free person but that is not how this farce has played out. The German prosecutor has overplayed his hand in naming Brueckner in my opinion. He took a risk in doing so, hoping that someone would come forward with crucial information but it hasn't happened.
I bet Wolter's has been told to keep his mouth shut about other police forces in this case after his recent blunders.
-
I bet Wolter's has been told to keep his mouth shut about other police forces in this case after his recent blunders.
what blunders...you do talk such claptrap...what are the PJ doing about the McCanns..put up or shut up
-
According to Pathfinder they are ruling everyone else out before getting round to charging the McCanns. According to Spam I haven’t yet been ruled out so until I am and another 5, 999,999,998 people have been them McCanns will remain at large.
Who is there to rule out? Every pedo living in PDL on 3 May 2007? Nope come back to earth there is only one to rule out and that is Smithman.
-
what blunders...you do talk such claptrap...what are the PJ doing about the McCanns..put up or shut up
Yeah blunders - talking about the PJ searching the wells that have nothing to do with his suspect etc. He would have been told to keep his trap shut.
-
Yeah blunders - talking about the PJ searching the wells that have nothing to do with his suspect etc. He would have been told to keep his trap shut.
What were the well searches about then? Please provide a cite.
-
Who is there to rule out? Every pedo living in PDL on 3 May 2007? Nope come back to earth there is only one to rule out and that is Smithman.
According to you Smithman is Gerry. what are the PJ currently doing to rule out Gerry? You seem to know everything so tell us what practical steps they are taking to do this.
-
Yeah blunders - talking about the PJ searching the wells that have nothing to do with his suspect etc. He would have been told to keep his trap shut.
Sorry but your posts are more claptrap imo...if the Pj suspect the McCanns ..what are they doing about it for 13 years
-
According to you Smithman is Gerry. what are the PJ currently doing to rule out Gerry? You seem to know everything so tell us what practical steps they are taking to do this.
According to witness Martin Smith I think you will find. I was not in PDL.
-
According to witness Martin Smith I think you will find. I was not in PDL.
You can't answer a simple question.. What are the PJ doing Re the mccanns
-
What were the well searches about then? Please provide a cite.
Mr Wolters said of the well searches today: "I read about it, but the measures were not taken in consultation with the BKA (Germany’s equivalent of the FBI) or us.
"The Portuguese police are investigating themselves. We don't know what knowledge they are based on."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12114277/prosecutor-leading-probe-into-madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-b-had-no-idea-portuguese-cops-were-searching-wells/
Mr Wolters said: "I think the Portuguese officials still think that Maddie's parents are responsible for her disappearance.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11835061/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-portuguese-cops/
-
According to witness Martin Smith I think you will find. I was not in PDL.
You are in 100% agreement with Martin Smith (despite not being inPdL yourself) are you not?
-
Mr Wolters said of the well searches today: "I read about it, but the measures were not taken in consultation with the BKA (Germany’s equivalent of the FBI) or us.
"The Portuguese police are investigating themselves. We don't know what knowledge they are based on."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12114277/prosecutor-leading-probe-into-madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-b-had-no-idea-portuguese-cops-were-searching-wells/
Mr Wolters said: "I think the Portuguese officials still think that Maddie's parents are responsible for her disappearance.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11835061/madeleine-mccann-prosecutor-portuguese-cops/
What were the well searches about then? Please provide a cite.
-
He first said Portugal still believe the parents are responsible and later revealed the wells were nothing to do with his suspect. Work it out Sherlock.
-
He first said Portugal still believe the parents are responsible and later revealed the wells were nothing to do with his suspect. Work it out Sherlock.
I already have Sherlock...so for the third time...what are the PJ doing about the McCanns ...apart from saying they are not suspets and no evidence against them
-
He first said Portugal still believe the parents are responsible and later revealed the wells were nothing to do with his suspect. Work it out Sherlock.
Please provide a cite for “the wells were nothing to do with his suspect”, thanks Sherlock.
-
I already have Sherlock...so for the third time...what are the PJ doing about the McCanns ...apart from saying they are not suspets and no evidence against them
The PJ have said the McCanns are NOT suspects.
-
Please provide a cite for “the wells were nothing to do woth his suspect”, thanks Sherlock.
I already have.
-
I already have.
No you haven’t. Where does it say the well searches were nothing to do with CB? Please provide a cite.
-
No you haven’t. Where does it say the well searches were nothing to do with CB? Please provide a cite.
It was media speculation that they were connected to CB. They also speculated that another twenty were going to be searched and that didn't happen. Media stories are often merely rumour.
-
It was media speculation that they were connected to CB. They also speculated that another twenty were going to be searched and that didn't happen. Media stories are often merely rumour.
Pathfinder has stated as fact that the well searches were nothing to do with CB. What are you going to do about it Moderator?
-
No you haven’t. Where does it say the well searches were nothing to do with CB? Please provide a cite.
Don't even bother to ask. The Sceptics will defend Brueckner in a way in which they will never defend The McCanns. They actually want The McCanns to be guilty and would so much rather that some horror story didn't do this.
I have no real understanding of this. I don't understand people like this, excepting that it is in genes. Some people are born thinking like this. It happened many centuries ago. And nothing to be done about it now.
These were these people at The Village Pump who still exist to this day. The Internet is only The Village Pump.
-
Yeah blunders - talking about the PJ searching the wells that have nothing to do with his suspect etc. He would have been told to keep his trap shut.
^^^ Pathfinder tells us that the well searches have nothing to do with CB. Is this now an established fact? I thought we didn’t accept such statements without proper cites, one that explicitly states the well searches were unconnected with the german suspect.
-
Don't even bother to ask. The Sceptics will defend Brueckner in a way in which they will never defend The McCanns. They actually want The McCanns to be guilty and would so much rather that some horror story didn't do this.
I have no real understanding of this. I don't understand people like this, excepting that it is in genes. Some people are born thinking like this. It happened many centuries ago. And nothing to be done about it now.
These were these people at The Village Pump who still exist to this day. The Internet is only The Village Pump.
Who is defending Brueckner ? I thought you were all for innocent until proven guilty ? Brueckner is a nasty piece of work, you have no argument there, but, so far there is absolutely nothing in the public domain that categorically ties him to the McCann case and until there is he, in your own words, is innocent. Does that mean you are defending him too ?
-
^^^ Pathfinder tells us that the well searches have nothing to do with CB. Is this now an established fact? I thought we didn’t accept such statements without proper cites, one that explicitly states the well searches were unconnected with the german suspect.
It doesn't actually matter. The Germans will get him, or not. But I don't think he will be running free any time soon.
Madeleine? Perhaps a bit too late now and I am tired of blaming Amaral. He was just a walking disaster and we all know that.
He tried to involve Robert Murat, but only because he knew that The McCanns could not have done this alone.
Amaral was one very stupid and very nasty little man. On his own head be it.
-
Who is defending Brueckner ? I thought you were all for innocent until proven guilty ? Brueckner is a nasty piece of work, you have no argument there, but, so far there is absolutely nothing in the public domain that categorically ties him to the McCann case and until there is he, in your own words, is innocent. Does that mean you are defending him too ?
I don't have to defend him. It ain't my bag, Mate. I have always been more concerned with the Innocence of The McCanns.
I am just having a bit of a bad one with the rampant effing hypocrisy. Which I certainly don't need to explain to you.
-
I don't have to defend him. It ain't my bag, Mate. I have always been more concerned with the Innocence of The McCanns.
I am just having a bit of a bad one with the rampant effing hypocrisy. Which I certainly don't need to explain to you.
Hypocrisy works both ways and those who cried the loudest about a lack of evidence against the parents, even before the files were released, are the same members now hanging Brueckner before a scintilla of direct evidence against him has been produced.
-
No you haven’t. Where does it say the well searches were nothing to do with CB? Please provide a cite.
The Germans would know if the PJ was carrying out searches to do with their suspect. Wolters did not know anything about it as he was reported to have said. You are definitely no Sherlock @)(++(*
-
I don't have to defend him. It ain't my bag, Mate. I have always been more concerned with the Innocence of The McCanns.
I am just having a bit of a bad one with the rampant effing hypocrisy. Which I certainly don't need to explain to you.
Are posts that break no forum rules deleted on a whim now ?
-
The Germans would know if the PJ was carrying out searches to do with their suspect. Wolters did not know anything about it as he was reported to have said. You are definitely no Sherlock @)(++(*
So no cite then, just an insult, why am I not surprised?
-
Are posts that break no forum rules deleted on a whim now ?
Posts which break forum rules are NOT deleted on a whim. They are deleted because they are breaking forum rules just exactly as this goading , looking for trouble one is.
Not to mention that it is off topic and should have been posted elsewhere in its own special thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.msg419741#msg419741
This is a new day. Let's start it off without snide remarks (against forum rules) and criticism of moderation (against forum rules) and moderators (against forum rules).
That short sentence you posted contains how many reasons (all rule breakers) for deletion????????????????
In my opinion were posters to post more responsibly and with more thought there would be far fewer deletions as well as a better posting experience for all members.
-
Are posts that break no forum rules deleted on a whim now ?
Absolutely not and this is being addressed.
-
Absolutely not and this is being addressed.
Is this the correct thread to be raising this topic... You seem to be sanctioning off topic posts. Criticism of moderation has it's own thread
-
Absolutely not and this is being addressed.
Why aren't posts that DO break forum rules (ie: making of statements of fact without appropriate cites) being dealt with? See Pathfinder's insistence that the well searches in PdL were nothing to do with CB despite no cites that this was the case.
-
Didn't Amaral threaten Murat? And then he tried to get Jane Tanner to stitch up Murat. So you can't say that Amaral didn't try at the one thing he is quite good at.
But at least The McCanns and Murat got quite a lot of money from lies that were leaked to the Press by The Investigation.
As to when Murat was ruled out, you will have to ask The Sceptics. I was a bit befuddled by it all at the time.
Was Murat mentioned in Amaral's work of fiction?
I don't know when Murat was ruled out, or even if he has been, as far as the investigation is concerned, but IMO, he was ruled out as far as public opinion is concerned, when he won his £600,000 in libel damages .
-
Why aren't posts that DO break forum rules (ie: making of statements of fact without appropriate cites) being dealt with? See Pathfinder's insistence that the well searches in PdL were nothing to do with CB despite no cites that this was the case.
I gave you the cite. Wolters said he knew nothing about those searches. If it was to do with his suspect then he would know.
-
^^^ Pathfinder tells us that the well searches have nothing to do with CB. Is this now an established fact? I thought we didn’t accept such statements without proper cites, one that explicitly states the well searches were unconnected with the german suspect.
German prosecutors were not told about fresh searches for Madeleine McCann – and say they do not even know what prompted them.
Portuguese police sent divers to explore three wells last week near where German suspect Christian Brueckner used to hang out.
But Braunschweig public prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters has revealed he was not alerted in advance...
Mr Wolters, overseeing the investigation into paedophile Brueckner, said of Thursday’s search: “I read about it, but the measures were not taken in consultation with us.
“The Portuguese police are investigating themselves. We don’t know what knowledge they are based on.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-failed-tell-22350130
-
German prosecutors were not told about fresh searches for Madeleine McCann – and say they do not even know what prompted them.
Portuguese police sent divers to explore three wells last week near where German suspect Christian Brueckner used to hang out.
But Braunschweig public prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters has revealed he was not alerted in advance...
Mr Wolters, overseeing the investigation into paedophile Brueckner, said of Thursday’s search: “I read about it, but the measures were not taken in consultation with us.
“The Portuguese police are investigating themselves. We don’t know what knowledge they are based on.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-failed-tell-22350130
If it's in the mirror it must be true... Lol
-
If it's in the mirror it must be true... Lol
At least that story contains a quote by a named source.
-
At least that story contains a quote by a named source.
still dont know how accurate it is...papers arent as accurate as you seem to think
-
I gave you the cite. Wolters said he knew nothing about those searches. If it was to do with his suspect then he would know.
That does not follow and is simply your interpretation. No cite given.
-
German prosecutors were not told about fresh searches for Madeleine McCann – and say they do not even know what prompted them.
Portuguese police sent divers to explore three wells last week near where German suspect Christian Brueckner used to hang out.
But Braunschweig public prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters has revealed he was not alerted in advance...
Mr Wolters, overseeing the investigation into paedophile Brueckner, said of Thursday’s search: “I read about it, but the measures were not taken in consultation with us.
“The Portuguese police are investigating themselves. We don’t know what knowledge they are based on.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-failed-tell-22350130
So where is the cite that the well searches were nothing to do with CB then? Still waiting...
-
Absolutely not and this is being addressed.
Thank you that’s good to know.
-
Suppose the PJ were given a local tip-off about CB's movements or whereabouts that placed him the vicinity of one of these wells. WOuld you expect them to file it in the bin or would you expect them to ask the Germans' permission to search wells in their own country first?
Just wondering.
-
I gave you the cite. Wolters said he knew nothing about those searches. If it was to do with his suspect then he would know.
The Portuguese didn't tell him but they were searching for Madeleines body in the wells, if not why did they say this -
However, Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha said no evidence Madeleine’s body had been abandoned in the wells had been found.
-
They will be looking for a body. SY tried after the Smithman efits Crimewatch response.
Police probing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal say there was an "overwhelming response" to an appeal on the BBC's Crimewatch, with almost 1,000 calls and emails.
Mr Mather told BBC Radio 4's Today programme a number of different names for the "key 10pm sighting" were mentioned and several callers suggested the same name.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24530186
-
They will be looking for a body. SY tried after the Smithman efits Crimewatch response.
Police probing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal say there was an "overwhelming response" to an appeal on the BBC's Crimewatch, with almost 1,000 calls and emails.
Mr Mather told BBC Radio 4's Today programme a number of different names for the "key 10pm sighting" were mentioned and several callers suggested the same name.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24530186
?
-
?
The same reaction I have when I read most of Pathfinders posts.
-
?
Smithman is the reason the PJ came on board with SY and why the case is still on-going. They haven't named him yet. Until they do it remains open!
The PJ came on board in 2013 because of dead tractorman? If they said that it was because people will believe any old nonsense in this case @)(++(*
Synopsis/ quick highlights: Euclides Monteiro has an alibi for the time when Maddie disappeared, his DNA was tested back in 2008 and no matches were found, he does not have a record of child sex abuse.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/85may14/RTP_02_50_2014.htm
-
Smithman is the reason the PJ came on board with SY and why the case is still on-going. They haven't named him yet. Until they do it remains open!
The PJ came on board in 2013 because of dead tractorman? If they said that it was because people will believe any old nonsense in this case @)(++(*
Synopsis/ quick highlights: Euclides Monteiro has an alibi for the time when Maddie disappeared, his DNA was tested back in 2008 and no matches were found, he does not have a record of child sex abuse.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/85may14/RTP_02_50_2014.htm
His wife was his alibi and doesn’t remember if they were watching television or whether her husband was writing a poem on his computer at the time. There is no link to his DNA. He might have been an informer. My thinking.
-
His wife was his alibi and doesn’t remember if they were watching television or whether her husband was writing a poem on his computer at the time. There is no link to his DNA. He might have been an informer. My thinking.
An informer who took his secret to the grave....I wonder if he was given alittle help along the way
-
An informer who took his secret to the grave....I wonder if he was given alittle help along the way
Like what?
-
Like what?
If someone had a secret..knowledge of who took maddie for instance...he could well have been murdered to silence him
-
An informer who took his secret to the grave....I wonder if he was given alittle help along the way
Yes, Davel. It is also suggested that he died while on a trailer when the tractor had an accident on a golf course. So much for the derogatory ‘Tractorman’.
-
An informer who took his secret to the grave....I wonder if he was given alittle help along the way
You are a sucker for believing any old tripe Inspector Clueless.
-
You are a sucker for believing any old tripe Inspector Clueless.
The problem with those of little education and intelligence is that they do not realise how little they know and how stupid they are
-
You are a sucker for believing any old tripe Inspector Clueless.
Yet, you have it all figured out that Madeleine’s father IS ‘Smithman’, regardless Mr Smith saying he would not be able to identify ‘Smithman’ on a photo. Has your theory and conviction gained any momentum lately? If not, perhaps consider it a non-theory.
-
You are a sucker for believing any old tripe Inspector Clueless.
I thought abuse of other members was not tolerated?
-
Yet, you have it all figured out that Madeleine’s father IS ‘Smithman’, regardless Mr Smith saying he would not be able to identify ‘Smithman’ on a photo. Has your theory and conviction gained any momentum lately? If not, perhaps consider it a non-theory.
Smithman is unidentified. I suggest you present your evidence to Operation Grange as I've done.
-
I thought abuse of other members was not tolerated?
i'm sure rob will be along soon to remove the offending post....
-
Smithman is unidentified. I suggest you present your evidence to Operation Grange as I've done.
Well done for cheering them up...I bet they had a good laugh
-
Yet, you have it all figured out that Madeleine’s father IS ‘Smithman’, regardless Mr Smith saying he would not be able to identify ‘Smithman’ on a photo. Has your theory and conviction gained any momentum lately? If not, perhaps consider it a non-theory.
Your theory that Brueckner sold golf balls to some black dude before taking Maddie & Joana on holiday to Morocco is much more convincing.
-
Could it be that Grange has cost 12 million because they have to read all the rubbish sent to them by lunatics before tossing them in the bin...
-
Smithman is unidentified. I suggest you present your evidence to Operation Grange as I've done.
How long ago did you do that? I hope you didn’t write it riddles like you do on here.
-
Your theory that Brueckner sold golf balls to some black dude before taking Maddie & Joana on holiday to Morocco is much more convincing.
Why do you want to free a drug trafficker /paedophile / rapist?
-
The problem with those of little education and intelligence is that they do not realise how little they know and how stupid they are
Your honesty does you credit.
-
Your honesty does you credit.
Your ignorance unfortunately does the opposite
-
Your ignorance unfortunately does the opposite
That ignore button doesn’t seem to be working.
-
That ignore button doesn’t seem to be working.
you dont understand the ignore button...add that to the list of things you don't understand
-
you dont understand the ignore button...add that to the list of things you don't understand
Comedy gold.
-
Comedy gold.
All the best comics are incredibly intelligent...thanks
-
All the best comics are incredibly intelligent...thanks
All the best comics were psychologically compromised.
-
All the best comics were psychologically compromised.
were...arent there any present, best comics...your argument is therefore logically flawed
-
were...arent there any present, best comics...your argument is therefore logically flawed
Whizzer and Chips and Cor!!! were the best comics, but if I’d known they were psychologically compromised I’d have switched to the Dandy - who knows what mental harm I’ve done to myself.
-
were...arent there any present, best comics...your argument is therefore logically flawed
There are good comics now...the greats inspired our present crop.
-
There are good comics now...the greats inspired our present crop.
you really expose your ignorance yet again...you almost certainly have little knowledge of our present crop...
Have you watched afterlife with Ricky Gervais..incredibly funny..perceptive... yes he may well have been inspired by others...but hes built on it
Sacha Baron Cohen...perhaps you are just a liitle out of touch
-
you really expose your ignorance yet again...you almost certainly have little knowledge of our present crop...
Have you watched afterlife with Ricky Gervais..incredibly funny..perceptive... yes he may well have been inspired by others...but hes built on it
Sacha Baron Cohen...perhapss you are just a liitle out of touch
Can you not have an adult conversation without insults ?
Ricky Gervais’s comedy is wonderfully complex but even he will agree that he learned from the masters.
Sasha Baron Cohen....old news.
Fresh faces such as James Acaster, Aisling Bea, Daniel Kitson and Desiree Burch will no doubt make their mark in time but their comedy will always, in part, be formed by the lessons they learned from the great comedians such as Tony Hancock, Spike Milligan and Monty Python.
-
Can you not have an adult conversation without insults ?
Ricky Gervais’s comedy is wonderfully complex but even he will agree that he learned from the masters.
Sasha Baron Cohen....old news.
Fresh faces such as James Acaster, Aisling Bea, Daniel Kitson and Desiree Burch will no doubt make their mark in time but their comedy will always, in part, be formed by the lessons they learned from the great comedians such as Tony Hancock, Spike Milligan and Monty Python.
What you dont realise or accept is that everyone learns from those who have gone before...if Einstein had been born in 3000 BC ...he would not have come up with relativity.
does anyone really have original thought...which came first..the chicken or the egg...I actually know the answer...its obvious.. the question that no one can answer..but I can
-
What you dont realise or accept is that everyone learns from those who have gone before...if Einstein had been born in 3000 BC ...he would not have come up with relativity.
does anyone really have original thought...which came first..the chicken or the egg...I actually know the answer...its obvious
Lovely. Well done.
Back on ignore please.
-
Lovely. Well done.
Back on ignore please.
something you need to understand ...having lost the argument...thats my choice not yours
-
something you need to understand ...having lost the argument...thats my choice not yours
Nope...it’s mine.
Sorted.
-
Your theory that Brueckner sold golf balls to some black dude before taking Maddie & Joana on holiday to Morocco is much more convincing.
Have I missed something?
-
They will be looking for a body. SY tried after the Smithman efits Crimewatch response.
Police probing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal say there was an "overwhelming response" to an appeal on the BBC's Crimewatch, with almost 1,000 calls and emails.
Mr Mather told BBC Radio 4's Today programme a number of different names for the "key 10pm sighting" were mentioned and several callers suggested the same name.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24530186
You quoted that Wolters didn't know about the searches of the wells, you said if they were to do with his client he would know.
I then posted this - However, Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha said no evidence Madeleine’s body had been abandoned in the wells had been found.
You then for some reason jumped to the Smiths sighting, which is very confusing.
-
You quoted that Wolters didn't know about the searches of the wells, you said if they were to do with his client he would know.
I then posted this - However, Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha said no evidence Madeleine’s body had been abandoned in the wells had been found.
You then for some reason jumped to the Smiths sighting, which is very confusing.
Where is the evidence that they were looking for a body in those three wells?
-
Where is the evidence that they were looking for a body in those three wells?
The evidence is in the statement the Portuguese Police give.
-
The evidence is in the statement the Portuguese Police give.
I'm very sorry, but where can I find it, I seem to have missed that.
-
What you dont realise or accept is that everyone learns from those who have gone before...if Einstein had been born in 3000 BC ...he would not have come up with relativity.
does anyone really have original thought...which came first..the chicken or the egg...I actually know the answer...its obvious.. the question that no one can answer..but I can
Cringeposting at its finest. Worthy of a screenshot.
-
Cringeposting at its finest. Worthy of a screenshot.
its quality...im impressed with the greeks...i was expalining to my young son the proof that there are an infinite number of primes...its quite simple....but elegant.. Euclid at his best...
-
its quality...im impressed with the greeks...i was expalining to my young son the proof that there are an infinite number of primes...its quite simple....but elegant.. Euclid at his best...
When was Murat ruled out?
-
When was Murat ruled out?
he wasnt....
-
The evidence is in the statement the Portuguese Police give.
I found this;
Portugal’s state broadcaster RTP says that detectives have discovered “fundamental evidence” relating to prime suspect, German paedophile Christian Brückner, but these claims have not been verified by police.
Previously, police sources told the Telegraph that because the German authorities are running the investigation, the Portuguese police will only conduct searches if they are requested to do so.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/10/portuguese-police-search-wells-near-praia-da-luz-body-madeleine/
-
he wasnt....
...and that's how you get back on topic.
What's the definition of 'cleared'? 'Barry George' cleared, or 'OJ' cleared?
Let's settle the terms of reference.
-
...and that's how you get back on topic.
What's the definition of 'cleared'? 'Barry George' cleared, or 'OJ' cleared?
Let's settle the terms of reference.
Good point.
-
...and that's how you get back on topic.
What's the definition of 'cleared'? 'Barry George' cleared, or 'OJ' cleared?
Let's settle the terms of reference.
Neither cleared..Good to get back on topic..
Even a trial fails to clear
-
...and that's how you get back on topic.
What's the definition of 'cleared'? 'Barry George' cleared, or 'OJ' cleared?
Let's settle the terms of reference.
Apparently the police can tell people they are no longer of interest, so they could be said to have been cleared of suspicion.
Scotland Yard announced there was no evidence to implicate the four men and the case against them had been closed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39779256
-
I found this;
Portugal’s state broadcaster RTP says that detectives have discovered “fundamental evidence” relating to prime suspect, German paedophile Christian Brückner, but these claims have not been verified by police.
Previously, police sources told the Telegraph that because the German authorities are running the investigation, the Portuguese police will only conduct searches if they are requested to do so.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/10/portuguese-police-search-wells-near-praia-da-luz-body-madeleine/
So does that mean if someone walked into a Portuguese police station with information of this crime committed in Portugal and where possible evidence or a body may be found the police would do nothing until the Germans told them to investigate it?
-
Apparently the police can tell people they are no longer of interest, so they could be said to have been cleared of suspicion.
Scotland Yard announced there was no evidence to implicate the four men and the case against them had been closed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39779256
Which is more or less what happeend in Portugal when the case was archived originally.
-
Which is more or less what happeend in Portugal when the case was archived originally.
The PJ never announced that the case was closed; the McCanns could have had it continue on request.
-
The PJ never announced that the case was closed; the McCanns could have had it continue on request.
Do you have a cite for that or remove your post...
-
The PJ never announced that the case was closed; the McCanns could have had it continue on request.
Amazing. So in Portugal it’s up to the chief suspects to decide whether or not the police should continue investigating them. What a larf.
-
Amazing. So in Portugal it’s up to the chief suspects to decide whether or not the police should continue investigating them. What a larf.
Oh the stamp on the letter? Nonsense.
-
Oh the stamp on the letter? Nonsense.
Was that more lies from amaral
-
Apparently the police can tell people they are no longer of interest, so they could be said to have been cleared of suspicion.
Scotland Yard announced there was no evidence to implicate the four men and the case against them had been closed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39779256
Three of them were supposed to be the main players in the supposed burglaries, not even a hint to a link to the german suspect.
-
Apparently the police can tell people they are no longer of interest, so they could be said to have been cleared of suspicion.
Scotland Yard announced there was no evidence to implicate the four men and the case against them had been closed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39779256
Just as the McCanns were cleared of suspicion when the arguido status was removed.....not suspects according and no evidence against them... That's cleared.
What most don't realise is the SC didn't say they haven't been cleared
-
The PJ never announced that the case was closed; the McCanns could have had it continue on request.
You really need to provide a cite... It's opinion as fact afaiac
-
Have I missed something?
I think that you are confusing Anthro with me, but you have gotten my thoughts all backwards on.
Still that seems a pattern that you have established
-
I think that you are confusing Anthro with me, but you have gotten my thoughts all backwards on.
Still that seems a pattern that you have established
Can you explain that criticism a bit better Sadie?
-
Your theory that Brueckner sold golf balls to some black dude before taking Maddie & Joana on holiday to Morocco is much more convincing.
Hi Rob, Sadie’s comment is in response to this post.
-
Hi Rob, Sadie’s comment is in response to this post.
Thanks Anthro 8((()*/
-
The PJ never announced that the case was closed; the McCanns could have had it continue on request.
Can you providee a cite for this..its an important point which I do not beleive is true
-
The McCann case never closed in the UK.
2009 - Operation Task
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/S0DfB3200UI/AAAAAAAAHOk/IKeALDP6maM/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/op-task-publication-strategy%282%29_Page_1.jpg)
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf
-
Can you providee a cite for this..its an important point which I do not beleive is true
The penal process is divided in 3 phases, the first, mandatory, being the criminal investigation. It is taken in charge by various police forces, directed by the Public Ministry, the PM itself being under the control of a criminal inquiry judge. The second phase is the criminal inquiry. It is not mandatory and has to be requested either by the arguido(s), by the assistant(s) of the process or by a senior magistrate, but never by the Public Ministry. This phase, a kind of recourse against the criminal investigation, is orchestrated by the criminal inquiry judge and culminates in a crucial contradictory debate. Neither the McCann couple nor the "hierarchy" requested the criminal inquiry phase, a manner of agreeing with the conclusions of the criminal investigation. The last phase is eventually the judgement.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
-
The penal process is divided in 3 phases, the first, mandatory, being the criminal investigation. It is taken in charge by various police forces, directed by the Public Ministry, the PM itself being under the control of a criminal inquiry judge. The second phase is the criminal inquiry. It is not mandatory and has to be requested either by the arguido(s), by the assistant(s) of the process or by a senior magistrate, but never by the Public Ministry. This phase, a kind of recourse against the criminal investigation, is orchestrated by the criminal inquiry judge and culminates in a crucial contradictory debate. Neither the McCann couple nor the "hierarchy" requested the criminal inquiry phase, a manner of agreeing with the conclusions of the criminal investigation. The last phase is eventually the judgement.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
Doesn't really make a lot of sense.. From what I read under the new penal code the clock started ticking once the mccanns were made arguidos and either the mccanns had to be charged or the case, archived
-
this case that remain unclear. How any case can be archived, sustained on a 57-page document that lists nothing but doubts, can only be justified by the need to comply with the new Penal Process Code, which was enforced on the 15th of September 2007. Under the new code, any judicial process starts a countdown on the day that the first arguido is made: after 8 months, with two possible extensions of 3 months each, there has to be a decision to either accuse, or archive the case.
-
The strategy the Russians use on the internet - dilute the truth, bury it in any debate and wear everyone sane down.
Sound familiar.
-
yep, sounds exactly like the campaign of misinformation that has been waging against the McCanns online by sceptic bots, hundreds of ‘em. Yeuch.
-
The penal process is divided in 3 phases, the first, mandatory, being the criminal investigation. It is taken in charge by various police forces, directed by the Public Ministry, the PM itself being under the control of a criminal inquiry judge. The second phase is the criminal inquiry. It is not mandatory and has to be requested either by the arguido(s), by the assistant(s) of the process or by a senior magistrate, but never by the Public Ministry. This phase, a kind of recourse against the criminal investigation, is orchestrated by the criminal inquiry judge and culminates in a crucial contradictory debate. Neither the McCann couple nor the "hierarchy" requested the criminal inquiry phase, a manner of agreeing with the conclusions of the criminal investigation. The last phase is eventually the judgement.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
Wha’s the difference between a criminal investigation and a criminal inquiry?
-
Wha’s the difference between a criminal investigation and a criminal inquiry?
You seem to be under the impression that I exist to educate you. My cite was merely to demonstrate the truth of my claim; the McCanns could have requested a criminal enquiry rather than allow the archiving to be carried out.
-
You seem to be under the impression that I exist to educate you. My cite was merely to demonstrate the truth of my claim; the McCanns could have requested a criminal enquiry rather than allow the archiving to be carried out.
Touchy! I was asking a reasonable question. If you don’t know the answer just say “I don’t know”. If there is a difference (which presumably there is) then it may be that the McCanns could not request that the investigation into their daughter’s disappearance continue (which would have been useful) only the inquiry, but what does that mean exactly? The wording in your cite makes it sound like an appeal against the conclusions of the investigation, not an actual continuation of the investigation itself.
-
IMO it is complete nonsense to suggest that the PT police can be compelled to re-open and continue investigating a case on the say so of its chief suspects. It makes no sense whatsoever. In fact there is a time limit of 8 months on any investigation before it ends according to the below quote (remember thr crime of body occultation of which the McCanns were suspected only carries a two year sentence allegedly, so how could the McCanns have forced the investigation to be continued at that point?) So IMO it is absolute hogwash to say the McCanns could have requested the investigation into their daughter’s disappearance to continue.
“What time limits apply to the investigation and the inquiry?
The investigation must be completed within six months if any suspect is remanded in custody (or assigned to residence), and eight months if no-one is in custody, in cases of terrorism or violent or highly organised crime, and crimes carrying a maximum penalty of more than eight years in prison”.
-
You seem to be under the impression that I exist to educate you. My cite was merely to demonstrate the truth of my claim; the McCanns could have requested a criminal enquiry rather than allow the archiving to be carried out.
i don't see that your cite demonstates the truth of your claim.
first...who wrote it....it is not part of the court judgement it seems to have been added by the person who translated it....written by Anne Gueddes ...what qualification does she have in portuguese law?
second..it says that it is not mandatory...so her is no guarantee that the mccanns could have had the case reopenned even if there is any sense in this jumbled note.
third...the actual court judgement from the prosecutor says...and im sure he understands portuguese law bwtter than you..
14. On 21/7/2008, the Republic General Prosecutor informed through a "note for the social communication" that the investigation mentioned in 5. would be shelved and could be reopened at the instigation of the Public Ministry or at the request of any interested party, if new evidence brought forth serious, relevant and consistent inquiries (n° 20).
based on all that I see your claim as being false
-
IMO it is complete nonsense to suggest that the PT police can be compelled to re-open and continue investigating a case on the say so of its chief suspects. It makes no sense whatsoever. In fact there is a time limit of 8 months on any investigation before it ends according to the below quote (remember thr crime of body occultation of which the McCanns were suspected only carries a two year sentence allegedly, so how could the McCanns have forced the investigation to be continued at that point?) So IMO it is absolute hogwash to say the McCanns could have requested the investigation into their daughter’s disappearance to continue.
“What time limits apply to the investigation and the inquiry?
The investigation must be completed within six months if any suspect is remanded in custody (or assigned to residence), and eight months if no-one is in custody, in cases of terrorism or violent or highly organised crime, and crimes carrying a maximum penalty of more than eight years in prison”.
I didn't claim that the PJ could be compelled to continue an investigation. I claimed that the arguidos could have requested that the case continue to the inquiry phase, which is true.
-
I didn't claim that the PJ could be compelled to continue an investigation. I claimed that the arguidos could have requested that the case continue to the inquiry phase, which is true.
No you didn’t. You actually claimed
The PJ never announced that the case was closed; the McCanns could have had it continue on request. bWhat is the Inquiry phase?
-
I didn't claim that the PJ could be compelled to continue an investigation. I claimed that the arguidos could have requested that the case continue to the inquiry phase, which is true.
you havent shown it to be true you have supplied a post from Anne Gueddes that is garbled and no expert on portuguese law. ive supplied a cite from the prosecutor showing it could only be opened with new evidence
-
you havent shown it to be true you have supplied a post from Anne Gueddes that is garbled and no expert on portuguese law. ive supplied a cite from the prosecutor showing it could only be opened with new evidence
Your cite is taken from a translation supplied by Anne Gueddes also.
After an archiving dispatch was issued there was a period of time during which the arguidos (or others) had an opportunity to request progressing to the inquiry phase. It's mentioned here;
Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
-
Your cite is taken from a translation supplied by Anne Gueddes also.
After an archiving dispatch was issued there was a period of time during which the arguidos (or others) had an opportunity to request progressing to the inquiry phase. It's mentioned here;
Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
Mine is a translation where the original Portuguese is provided and is part of the SC judgement
Yours is Annes personal addition and not part of any official announcement
-
What gunit seems be saying is that an arguido who has been cleared if that status due to lack of e evidence can ask for the investigation to be continued so that the authorities can continue to investigate them... Barmy
-
What gunit seems be saying is that an arguido who has been cleared if that status due to lack of e evidence can ask for the investigation to be continued so that the authorities can continue to investigate them... Barmy
A lack of evidence doesn't clear anyone.
-
What gunit seems be saying is that an arguido who has been cleared if that status due to lack of e evidence can ask for the investigation to be continued so that the authorities can continue to investigate them... Barmy
can ask for the investigation to be continued so that the authorities can continue to investigate them... Barmy
Not enough evidence ...is not the same as lack of evidence.
What would be barmy as you say was if there was no evidence at all.
-
Here's the English wording of the relevant Portuguese Law. The McCanns would not have wanted the case to be officially closed & there was only one other option for them imo, i.e. what Davel has already posted.
-
A lack of evidence doesn't clear anyone.
That's why I've never said it does.... It is however evidence of innocence
-
That's why I've never said it does.... It is however evidence of innocence
What were you trying to say then?
arguido who has been cleared if that status due to lack of e evidence
-
Here's the English wording of the relevant Portuguese Law. The McCanns would not have wanted the case to be officially closed & there was only one other option for them imo, i.e. what Davel has already posted.
Thank you Misty. They had 28 days to request a criminal inquiry phase by a judge, as I said. As you say, they preferred to accept the archiving of the case.
-
What were you trying to say then?
arguido who has been cleared if that status due to lack of e evidence
im not trying to say anything....my post makes perfect sense..if you didnt understand it the first you wont the second time
-
Thank you Misty. They had 28 days to request a criminal inquiry phase by a judge, as I said. As you say, they preferred to accept the archiving of the case.
it says "the defendant"....the McCanns had not been charged...they are not defendants
-
it says "the defendant"....the McCanns had not been charged...they are not defendants
They don't have to be charged, the inquiry can be requested in a case where the prosecutor proposes the closure of the case rather than a charge.
-
They don't have to be charged, the inquiry can be requested in a case where the prosecutor proposes the closure of the case rather than a charge.
Im just analysing it and im convinced you are mistaken.
-
it says the decision to prosecute or close the case can be challenged within 28 days by the
defendant...or
the prosecutor..
The defendant might want to challenge the decision to prosecute and the prosecutor might wish to challenge the decision to close. That makes sense,...what you are claiming doesnt
as I said...why would any defendant having been told he wasnt going to be charged...wish to challenge that decision..
as I said...thats barmy
-
it says the decision to prosecute or close the case can be challenged within 28 days by the
defendant...or
the prosecutor..
The defendant might want to challenge the decision to prosecute and the prosecutor might wish to challenge the decision to close. That makes sense,...what you are claiming doesnt
as I said...why would any defendant having been told he wasnt going to be charged...wish to challenge that decision..
as I said...thats barmy
An hour ago you stated that they weren't defendants at all. Don't think we can't see your constant revisionism in the face of being continually owned.
-
An hour ago you stated that they weren't defendants at all. Don't think we can't see your constant revisionism in the face of being continually owned.
I dont see they are defendants probably just an awkward translation. It took some sorting out to understand it but I'm sure I'm absolutely right. ...but it needs an analytical mind to decipher it,... Gunit is wrong and should admit
defeat
-
This might make it alittle clearer for some...
it says the decision to prosecute OR close the case can be challenged within 28 days by the
defendant..in respect to the facts that are prosecuted by the prosecutor
prosecutor...in respect of the facts that are not prosecited
perfect sense now...it does not say the defendant can challenge the decision to close the case..the challenge has to be on the facts to be prosecuted
-
An hour ago you stated that they weren't defendants at all. Don't think we can't see your constant revisionism in the face of being continually owned.
Im actually right again...they are not defendants because the case was shelved....there are only defendants when the decision is to charge and in that case the defendants have the option to challenge the decision to charge.
-
For those claiming the McCanns could have requested to keep the case open - open to do what exactly? Resume the search for their daughter? Or what?
-
For those claiming the McCanns could have requested to keep the case open - open to do what exactly? Resume the search for their daughter? Or what?
They couldn't... They didn't have that choice.... The only decision they could question was to prosecute... Not to close... Gunit and Gueddes are wrong
-
From the archiving report:
"The investigators are well aware of the fact that their work is not exempt of imperfection; they have worked with an enormous error margin, and what they have achieved is very little in terms of conclusive results, especially concerning the fate of the unfortunate child. Nevertheless, they always knew that action was necessary and in reality they acted intensively and with commitment, even at the risk of erring.
Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.
Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
From the archiving report:
"The investigators are well aware of the fact that their work is not exempt of imperfection; they have worked with an enormous error margin, and what they have achieved is very little in terms of conclusive results, especially concerning the fate of the unfortunate child. Nevertheless, they always knew that action was necessary and in reality they acted intensively and with commitment, even at the risk of erring.
Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.
Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
correct...case can be re opened if new evidence is produced.....which is EXACTLY what happened
-
From the archiving report:
"The investigators are well aware of the fact that their work is not exempt of imperfection; they have worked with an enormous error margin, and what they have achieved is very little in terms of conclusive results, especially concerning the fate of the unfortunate child. Nevertheless, they always knew that action was necessary and in reality they acted intensively and with commitment, even at the risk of erring.
Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.
Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
”An enormous error margin”. “achieved very little”. Seems like a fair summary.
-
They couldn't... They didn't have that choice.... The only decision they could question was to prosecute... Not to close... Gunit and Gueddes are wrong
Of course but do you think we’ll have heard the last of it? No. The Groundhog Day effect means this same factoid will be trotted out within a few months and we’ll have this discsussion all over again.
-
An hour ago you stated that they weren't defendants at all. Don't think we can't see your constant revisionism in the face of being continually owned.
the parents were not defendants....defendants are thoes charged with a criminal offence ...Im surprised more posters cant see that
-
The penal process is divided in 3 phases, the first, mandatory, being the criminal investigation. It is taken in charge by various police forces, directed by the Public Ministry, the PM itself being under the control of a criminal inquiry judge. The second phase is the criminal inquiry. It is not mandatory and has to be requested either by the arguido(s), by the assistant(s) of the process or by a senior magistrate, but never by the Public Ministry. This phase, a kind of recourse against the criminal investigation, is orchestrated by the criminal inquiry judge and culminates in a crucial contradictory debate. Neither the McCann couple nor the "hierarchy" requested the criminal inquiry phase, a manner of agreeing with the conclusions of the criminal investigation. The last phase is eventually the judgement.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
what seems to have happened is that Anne Gueddes misunderstood portuguese law and sceptics such a syourself have blindly followed her. This has gone unchallenged for several years...it just need someone like myself to look at the law to give the correct facts
-
what seems to have happened is that Anne Gueddes misunderstood portuguese law and sceptics such a syourself have blindly followed her. This has gone unchallenged for several years...it just need someone like myself to look at the law to give the correct facts
If you read Misty's info you will see that the criminal inquiry phase can be requested after charges are brought OR after the case is closed under Article 277. Obviously there are no defendants in the way you are defining the word after a case is closed, but those involved CAN request that the second phase is opened. A synonym of defendant is suspect, which is the meaning here in my opinion.
-
If you read Misty's info you will see that the criminal inquiry phase can be requested after charges are brought OR after the case is closed under Article 277. Obviously there are no defendants in the way you are defining the word after a case is closed, but those involved CAN request that the second phase is opened. A synonym of defendant is suspect, which is the meaning here in my opinion.
Charges were not brought and you said earlier that the case wasn’t closed...? Sorry if this irks you, just pointing it out.
“The PJ never announced that the case was closed; the McCanns could have had it continue on request”.
-
Charges were not brought and you said earlier that the case wasn’t closed...? Sorry if this irks you, just pointing it out.
“The PJ never announced that the case was closed; the McCanns could have had it continue on request”.
In context, my post was clarifying that the PJ didn't announce anything similar to OG as you claimed.
-
In context, my post was clarifying that the PJ didn't announce anything similar to OG as you claimed.
you wrote
“Apparently the police can tell people they are no longer of interest, so they could be said to have been cleared of suspicion.
Scotland Yard announced there was no evidence to implicate the four men and the case against them had been closed”
I wrote
“which is more or less what happened in Portugal when the case was archived”.
I didn’t use the word closed. I didn’t say it was identical. I used the words “more or less”. I stand by what I said. The PT authorities announced there was a lack of evidence against the arguidos and the case was “archived” pending further evidence being brought forward. The world’s media interpreted this as “being cleared” as did all three arguidos. Everything else is just semantics, unless you are telling me Robert Murat is still in the frame along with the McCanns?
-
If you read Misty's info you will see that the criminal inquiry phase can be requested after charges are brought OR after the case is closed under Article 277. Obviously there are no defendants in the way you are defining the word after a case is closed, but those involved CAN request that the second phase is opened. A synonym of defendant is suspect, which is the meaning here in my opinion.
the fact is Anne G misunderstood and you beleived her. if you read the post by misty its clear that the next stage can be requested by the defendants in respect to the facts which are PROSECUTED.
Its clear that defendants can request the next stage to question the reason for prosecution of the DEFENDANTS....it's there in mistys post... Read it
In the McCann case the case was shelved with no charges and no defendants...therefore no one to request the next stage.
It is alittle difficult to understand but if you read it again carefully you will see i'm absolutely 100% correct.
The Mccanns did not have the option to keep the case open...another myth bites the dust
-
the fact is Anne G misunderstood and you beleived her. if you read the post by misty its clear that the next stage can be requested by the defendants in respect to the facts which are PROSECUTED.
Its clear that defendants can request the next stage to question the reason for prosecution of the DEFENDANTS....it's there in mistys post... Read it
In the McCann case the case was shelved with no charges and no defendants...therefore no one to request the next stage.
It is alittle difficult to understand but if you read it again carefully you will see i'm absolutely 100% correct.
The Mccanns did not have the option to keep the case open...another myth bites the dust
I'm surprised by that.
-
If a one time suspect who is no longer an official suspect and is not being investigated by the police has the status "not ruled out" or "not cleared" what does that mean for them exactly? Are they still under suspicion? Are they a little bit more suspicious than someone who was never a suspect? What? Why should a perfectly innocent person who had the misfortune to be a one time suspect in any unsolved criminal case but who was never prosecuted be tainted by the expression "not cleared" or "not ruled out"? How is that fair and not grounds for pursuing a libel or slander case?
-
Suppose I wrote a book trying to make the case that Robert Murat was involved in the disappearance, based on my misunderstanding of the evidence. Suppose it was a big seller in Portugal. Suppose Robert Murat objected to in and sued me for damages on the basis that he was cleared of all involvement by the archiving report which found that there was a lack of evidence against him. Would the court find in my favour as he was supposedly never cleared or ruled out?
-
Suppose I wrote a book trying to make the case that Robert Murat was involved in the disappearance, based on my misunderstanding of the evidence. Suppose it was a big seller in Portugal. Suppose Robert Murat objected to in and sued me for damages on the basis that he was cleared of all involvement by the archiving report which found that there was a lack of evidence against him. Would the court find in my favour as he was supposedly never cleared or ruled out?
Does your surname rhyme with "Amaral"? If it doesn't I don't like your chances.
-
the fact is Anne G misunderstood and you beleived her. if you read the post by misty its clear that the next stage can be requested by the defendants in respect to the facts which are PROSECUTED.
Its clear that defendants can request the next stage to question the reason for prosecution of the DEFENDANTS....it's there in mistys post... Read it
In the McCann case the case was shelved with no charges and no defendants...therefore no one to request the next stage.
It is alittle difficult to understand but if you read it again carefully you will see i'm absolutely 100% correct.
The Mccanns did not have the option to keep the case open...another myth bites the dust
They had the option to request a judicial inquiry phase;
The purpose of the preliminary judicial inquiry is judicial confirmation of the decision to prosecute OR TO CLOSE THE INQUIRY, in order to submit (or not submit) the case to trial.
-
They had the option to request a judicial inquiry phase;
The purpose of the preliminary judicial inquiry is judicial confirmation of the decision to prosecute OR TO CLOSE THE INQUIRY, in order to submit (or not submit) the case to trial.
You are still misundestanding it and need to read it again.
The defendant has the power to question the decision to prosecute and the Prosecutor has the power to question the order to close.
the mccanns would only have the opportunity to request the judicial inquiry stage is if they were to be prosecuted and they were the defendants. Defendant is defined as someone who has been charged with a crime... a suspect or arguido is not a defendant
-
They had the option to request a judicial inquiry phase;
The purpose of the preliminary judicial inquiry is judicial confirmation of the decision to prosecute OR TO CLOSE THE INQUIRY, in order to submit (or not submit) the case to trial.
So no opportunity at all for them to request that the case continue in any useful way as far as finding Madeleine was concerned. This issue of "the McCanns could have kept the case open" is used by sceptic to imply that the McCanns didn't want the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance to continue which is a completely disingenuous argument and just more propaganda designed to paint the mcCanns in a bad light. Won't stop you bringing it up though, time and time again.
-
You are still misundestanding it and need to read it again.
The defendant has the power to question the decision to prosecute and the Prosecutor has the power to question the order to close.
the mccanns would only have the opportunity to request the judicial inquiry stage is if they were to be prosecuted and they were the defendants. Defendant is defined as someone who has been charged with a crime... a suspect or arguido is not a defendant
In Portugal an arguido is a defendant;
Defendant: Kate Marie Healy (identified on page 58)
Date he (sic) was held a defendant: 07-09-2007
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2565.jpg)
-
In Portugal an arguido is a defendant;
Defendant: Kate Marie Healy (identified on page 58)
Date he (sic) was held a defendant: 07-09-2007
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2565.jpg)
They were not arguido or defendant once the case was closed
The post by misty makes it clear that the defendant can only request the next stage to challenge the evidence against them...that means they can only request the next stage if they have been charged
-
They were not arguido or defendant once the case was closed
The post by misty makes it clear that the defendant can only request the next stage to challenge the evidence against them...that means they can only request the next stage if they have been charged
You are saying that only cases where someone has been charged can proceed to the inquiry phase then? It clearly mentions cases which have been closed, however.
-
You are saying that only cases where someone has been charged can proceed to the inquiry phase then? It clearly mentions cases which have been closed, however.
Of course it does... Have you not followed my explanation.. In the mccanns case where the case was closed the prosecutor could apply for the next stage... I have already explained this... Its in mistys post
-
Of course it does... Have you not followed my explanation.. In the mccanns case where the case was closed the prosecutor could apply for the next stage... I have already explained this... Its in mistys post
You are not correct in my opinion. The Article is quite clear. The defendant can, within 20 days OF THE RULING TO DISCONTINUE THE PROCEEDINGS apply for the opening of the preliminary jusicial stage. This is my final word on the subject.
Article 287
Application for the opening of the preliminary judicial stage
1 - The opening of the preliminary judicial stage may be requested within a 20-day period counted from
the date of service of the bill of indictment or of the ruling to discontinue the proceedings:
a) By the defendant
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf
-
You are not correct in my opinion. The Article is quite clear. The defendant can, within 20 days OF THE RULING TO DISCONTINUE THE PROCEEDINGS apply for the opening of the preliminary jusicial stage. This is my final word on the subject.
Article 287
Application for the opening of the preliminary judicial stage
1 - The opening of the preliminary judicial stage may be requested within a 20-day period counted from
the date of service of the bill of indictment or of the ruling to discontinue the proceedings:
a) By the defendant
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf
I'm a 100 % correct... In your post it ends with the
a, the defendant... Could you post what comes after the word defendant.. And I think you will realise you are wrong. I'll look at mistys post which includes the words following the defendant explaining on what grounds the defendant can ask for a continuation
-
I'm a 100 % correct... In your post it ends with the
a, the defendant... Could you post what comes after the word defendant.. And I think you will realise you are wrong. I'll look at mistys post which includes the words following the defendant explaining on what grounds the defendant can ask for a continuation
From my understanding it was on the basis of new evidence being submitted.
-
Here's the English wording of the relevant Portuguese Law. The McCanns would not have wanted the case to be officially closed & there was only one other option for them imo, i.e. what Davel has already posted.
the defendant...in respect of the facts that are prosescuted by the prosecuter..
so the defendant can make the request to challenge th efacts that they are being prosecuted for...thats it. Not to simply keep the case going...its avery specific provision.
once the case is shelved the McCanns are no longer arguidos, are not being charged with anything and then have nothing they can callenge
Unfortunately mistys file doesnt appear in the quote so I will provide a link to the original post.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11725.msg617575#msg617575
I havent looked at the link gunit has posted but im pretty sure it will say exactly as ive predicted...it will say defendants...but it has a caveat
-
From my understanding it was on the basis of new evidence being submitted.
Its seperate from this. THe mcccans had no right simply to request the reopening...they did if new evidence was founnd.
-
the defendant...in respect of the facts that are prosescuted by the prosecuter..
so the defendant can make the request to challenge th efacts that they are being prosecuted for...thats it. Not to simply keep the case going...its avery specific provision.
once the case is shelved the McCanns are no longer arguidos, are not being charged with anything and then have nothing they can callenge
But then they remain forever in the former arguido status, of never been cleared, and hence remain convicted in the court of public opinion for life.
-
But then they remain forever in the former arguido status, of never been cleared, and hence remain convicted in the court of public opinion for life.
they are no longer arguidos and are not convicted in the court of public opinion...by some yes...but we don't know and I doubt if its a majority
-
they are no longer arguidos and are not convicted in the court of public opinion...by some yes...but we don't know and I doubt if its a majority
I think you'll find it is. The mere fact they left the kids alone convicts them in the COPO [court of public opinion].
What is worse a criminal charge or a conviction in the court of public opinion?
-
You are not correct in my opinion. The Article is quite clear. The defendant can, within 20 days OF THE RULING TO DISCONTINUE THE PROCEEDINGS apply for the opening of the preliminary jusicial stage. This is my final word on the subject.
Article 287
Application for the opening of the preliminary judicial stage
1 - The opening of the preliminary judicial stage may be requested within a 20-day period counted from
the date of service of the bill of indictment or of the ruling to discontinue the proceedings:
a) By the defendant
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf
as I correctly predicted there is a caveat after the word "defendant" which you chose not to quote. A more complete quote from your link is...
a) By the defendant, as regards facts based upon which the Public Prosecutor submitted a bill of
indictment or the party assisting the Public Prosecutor produced its accusation, where the proceedings
depend
So the defendant can ask for continuation based on the facts of the charges against them. this is exactly as i have said all along. The McCanns having had no charges made against them had no right to request the continuation. its about time you accepted that your claim which you and others have beleived for 13 years is wrong.
-
I think you'll find it is. The mere fact they left the kids alone convicts them in the COPO [court of public opinion].
What is worse a criminal charge or a conviction in the court of public opinion?
I see a lot of sympathty for them....and dont accept your view on the decision of the court of public opinion.
-
Article 286
Purpose and scope of the preliminary judicial stage
1 - The purpose of the preliminary judicial stage is to have the Examining Judge confirm the decision to
prosecute or to discontinue the proceedings with a view to establishing whether the case is to be tried in
a higher court.
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf
-
Article 286
Purpose and scope of the preliminary judicial stage
1 - The purpose of the preliminary judicial stage is to have the Examining Judge confirm the decision to
prosecute or to discontinue the proceedings with a view to establishing whether the case is to be tried in
a higher court.
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf
What "higher court"? Is that the court one above the Court of Public Opinion (COPO)?
-
http://gddc.ministeriopublico.pt/pagina/notes-portuguese-legal-terms
Início » Atividade » Legislação traduzida » Notes on Portuguese Legal Terms
NOTES ON PORTUGUESE LEGAL TERMS
ARGUIDO
(The status of “arguido”/ defendant)
The status of arguido (defendant) is granted when an inquiry has been opened or an investigation is led regarding a specific person, if there are grounds to suspect that such person has committed a criminal offence and when that person is heard by a judicial authority – Public Prosecutor or Examining Judge – or a criminal police body, or where a coercive or patrimonial guarantee measure must be imposed or the suspect is detained. When acquiring the status of arguido, the person benefits from a set of procedural rights and duties covered by law.
Under this status, the person is no longer a simple participant in proceedings, differently from the suspect who does not have a specific status, but is indeed a subject in court, and has the right to: be assisted by a defence counsel; attend all procedural acts that directly affect him; be heard in court or before the examining judge whenever they render a decision that may personally affect him; be informed on charges against him prior to making statements before any authority; take part in the inquiry (and in the examination – instrução - before the Examining Court) by providing evidence and requesting any measures found necessary; request the opening of the examination stage (instrução) where the Public Prosecutor has formally charged him, in order to challenge this decision and to prevent it from being submitted to a criminal court.
[Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), Articles 57-67]
CÚMULO JURÍDICO
(Sentence computation)
Where a sentence is merged, i.e. computed together, with the sentences of other court cases, the maximum sentence that may be imposed as an aggregate penalty will have an upper limit comprehending the addition of all partly sentences imposed in all sets of proceedings. However, the upper limit of the merged sentence (aggregate sentence) may not exceed 25 years, which corresponds to the highest custodial sentence concretely applicable in Portugal, or 900 days in the case of a merged fine. The lower limit corresponds to the highest of the sentences concretely applied to the several criminal offences.
The computation of sentences (cúmulo) is the result of a specific trial where the court examines the relevant previous sentences to be merged, and considers the facts perpetrated by the defendant and his personality altogether in order to render a new sentence punishing the criminal activity of the defendant under trial as a whole. The defendant must be present during the trial hearing and can present his own arguments.
The cúmulo is done by the court where the defendant had his latest conviction, provided that the facts underlying those proceedings have been perpetrated prior to the date of the sentences to be merged.
The sentences to be computed or merged must be final and res judicatae. Time already served in prison in the scope of the merged sentences is deducted from the aggregate penalty to be imposed as cúmulo.
[Portuguese Criminal Code (CCP), Articles 30, 77, 78]
INQUÉRITO
(The inquiry or criminal investigation)
The “inquiry” (inquérito), led by a Public Prosecutor,is the stage that opens criminal proceedings with the purpose of investigating the possible perpetration of a crime, detecting its perpetrators and their responsibility and collecting evidence in view of a decision on whether there will be a formal charge or prosecution.
Unlike in the previous system of criminal procedure where the inquiry was covered by legal secrecy, since 15 September 2007 - when new rules were enforced by Law 48/2007 which amended the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure -, the investigation is now public as a rule, except where the law specifically provides for the possibility of secrecy in order to safeguard: (i) the investigation aims; (ii) the rights of subjects or parties in proceedings (CCP, Article 86, paragraphs 2 and 3).
INSTRUÇÃO
(The examining stage)
The arguido (or the assistente, i.e. the party assisting the public prosecutor) may request the opening of the examining stage (instrução) under the supervision of an Examining Judge (Juíz de Instrução), who may or may not confirm the well-grounded of the Public Prosecutor decision on whether to prosecute or to dismiss the case (CCP, Article 286, paragraph 1).
The application is not subject to any particular formalities, but should briefly indicate (CCP, Article 287, paragraph 2):
the factual and legal reasons for disagreement as to the prosecution; and, if that is the case,
which investigative acts the applicant believes should be carried out, what evidence should be taken into consideration and what facts are expected to be proven thereby.
The application may only be rejected as being extemporaneous, by lack of jurisdiction of the judge or by legal inadmissibility of the examining stage (CCP, Article 287, paragraph 3).
This stage is concluded by a preliminary hearing before the Examining Judge, which is attended by the Public Prosecutor, the defendant, the defence counsel, the party assisting the public prosecutor and his/her lawyer (CCP, Article 289).
After the preliminary hearing, the Judge decides on whether or not to submit the case to a criminal court for trial (CCP, Article 308).
-
the defendant...in respect of the facts that are prosescuted by the prosecuter..
so the defendant can make the request to challenge th efacts that they are being prosecuted for...thats it. Not to simply keep the case going...its avery specific provision.
once the case is shelved the McCanns are no longer arguidos, are not being charged with anything and then have nothing they can callenge
Unfortunately mistys file doesnt appear in the quote so I will provide a link to the original post.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11725.msg617575#msg617575
I havent looked at the link gunit has posted but im pretty sure it will say exactly as ive predicted...it will say defendants...but it has a caveat
Sorry, link is http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf Page 6/18
-
Article 286
Purpose and scope of the preliminary judicial stage
1 - The purpose of the preliminary judicial stage is to have the Examining Judge confirm the decision to
prosecute or to discontinue the proceedings with a view to establishing whether the case is to be tried in
a higher court.
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf
How many timed do you need to be told before you understand..
The defendant has the right to challenge the decision to prosecute
The prosecutor has the right to challenge discontinuation
It's as simple as that
The McCanns had no right to reopen the case
Anne G got it wrong... And so have you
-
How many timed do you need to be told before you understand..
The defendant has the right to challenge the decision to prosecute
The prosecutor has the right to challenge discontinuation
It's as simple as that
The McCanns had no right to reopen the case
Anne G got it wrong... And so have you
Why would the prosecutor want to challenge discontinuation when that was his own decision?
-
Why would the prosecutor want to challenge discontinuation when that was his own decision?
its all there in the links you have provided..
-
1 - The opening of the preliminary judicial stage may be requested within a 20-day period counted from
the date of service of the bill of indictment or of the ruling to discontinue the proceedings:
a) By the defendant, as regards facts based upon which the Public Prosecutor submitted a bill of
indictment or the party assisting the Public Prosecutor produced its accusation, where the proceedings
depend upon private accusation; or
b) By the party assisting the Public Prosecutor, where the proceedings do not depend upon private
accusation, as regards facts based upon which the Public Prosecutor has not submitted a bill of
indictment.
so if a bill of indictment is issued ...the defendant can make the request
if a bill of indictmnet is not issued...ie case shelved...arguido status removed...the party assisting the public prosecutor can request the next stage
-
1 - The opening of the preliminary judicial stage may be requested within a 20-day period counted from
the date of service of the bill of indictment or of the ruling to discontinue the proceedings:
a) By the defendant, as regards facts based upon which the Public Prosecutor submitted a bill of
indictment or the party assisting the Public Prosecutor produced its accusation, where the proceedings
depend upon private accusation; or
b) By the party assisting the Public Prosecutor, where the proceedings do not depend upon private
accusation, as regards facts based upon which the Public Prosecutor has not submitted a bill of
indictment.
You've misinterpreted that totally, and unsurprisingly.
so if a bill of indictment is issued ...the defendant can make the request
if a bill of indictmnet is not issued...ie case shelved...arguido status removed...the party assisting the public prosecutor can request the next stage
-
Ive misinterpreted nothing...I'm 100% correct. Thats why when gunit made her post 269 I was able to predict she had ommitted the caveat when referring to the defendant.
if you disagree explain what I have misinterpreted. Sceptics have been believing a myth for 13 years...i've exposed it
-
Ive misinterpreted nothing...I'm 100% correct. Thats why when gunit made her post 269 I was able to predict she had ommitted the caveat when referring to the defendant.
if you disagree explain what I have misinterpreted. Sceptics have been believing a myth for 13 years...i've exposed it
rob...you have edited my post when what i did was to extract the generals post from mine. Could you therefore correct the Generals post where he has inadvertantly posted incorrectley
-
rob...you have edited my post when what i did was to extract the generals post from mine. Could you therefore correct the Generals post where he has inadvertantly posted incorrectley
Can't remember the exact issue I'm sorry. It was minor, but I'm trying to limit the rubbishing of other member's intellect.
-
Can't remember the exact issue I'm sorry. It was minor, but I'm trying to limit the rubbishing of other member's intellect.
Excellent.. It was the general rubbishing mine... But I don't take a lot of notice...
The general posted this towards me..
You've misinterpreted that totally, and unsurprisingly.
-
Excellent.. It was the general rubbishing mine... But I don't take a lot of notice...
I noticed it wasn't just one way, but you need to be the example of good manners on the forum being one of the most prolific posters.
I think you know how do it right. You'll be just as effective.
-
I noticed it wasn't just one way, but you need to be the example of good manners on the forum being one of the most prolific posters.
I think you know how do it right. You'll be just as effective.
I'm already doing it right
-
I'm already doing it right
And I appreciate that.
-
And I appreciate that.
8((()*/