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: Admin on December 24, 2022, 09:47:05 AM
-
Here we are on Christmas Eve as we approach the end of yet another year.
The topic that has led the way throughout the year in terms of the sheer volume of posts and the ability to stimulate debate is again the Madeline McCann case.
As such, I felt that the question has to be asked as to what if anything we have learned about the case in the past year?
Madeline disappeared from her parents holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on the 3 May 2007. Her whereabouts and what happened to her are as much of a mystery as they were almost 16 years ago.
-
Here we are on Christmas Eve as we approach the end of yet another year.
The topic that has led the way throughout the year in terms of the sheer volume of posts and the ability to stimulate debate is again the Madeline McCann case.
As such, I felt that the question has to be asked as to what if anything we have learned about the case in the past year?
Madeline disappeared from her parents holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on the 3 May 2007. Her whereabouts and what happened to her are as much of a mystery as they were almost 16 years ago.
To Sadie they're not... you just ask her!
-
On second thoughts better not. 8(8-))
-
Here we are on Christmas Eve as we approach the end of yet another year.
The topic that has led the way throughout the year in terms of the sheer volume of posts and the ability to stimulate debate is again the Madeline McCann case.
As such, I felt that the question has to be asked as to what if anything we have learned about the case in the past year?
Madeline disappeared from her parents holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on the 3 May 2007. Her whereabouts and what happened to her are as much of a mystery as they were almost 16 years ago.
This year we've learned that the concrete evidence against the new prime suspect, isn't sufficient to bring charges against him anytime in the foreseeable future.
Some of us already knew as much.
Others are still heavily in denial.
-
One thing we've just learned is that despite being the most written about little girl on the planet and certainly on this forum some people still can't spell her name right.
-
One thing we've just learned is that despite being the most written about little girl on the planet and certainly on this forum some people still can't spell her name right.
And that is really sad.
-
As far as Madeleine is concerned I think current knowledge has heightened the despair of the missed chances which dictated the conduct of the investigation into her disappearance from day one.
The case which the PJ tried to construct against her parents has led to the better understanding for many of the pitfalls of leaping to judgement without understanding facts and evidence.
-
This year we've learned that the concrete evidence against the new prime suspect, isn't sufficient to bring charges against him anytime in the foreseeable future.
Some of us already knew as much.
Others are still heavily in denial.
This year we also learned that there wasn't any trace of Maddie in Brueckner's campervan, although some of us could have told you that already, and that the McCann's lost their case at the ECHR.
-
Spammy has managed to Troll all three active Threads.
-
Spammy has managed to Troll all three active Threads.
Glad to be of service. Merry Christianmas.
-
Apologies for the misspelling, down to my autocorrect unfortunately.
I have followed this case off and on since 2007 and the longer it goes on the deeper the mystery goes imo.
In all sincerity, my belief is that we just don't know enough about the night that Madeleine disappeared. There are still just too many loose ends, too many conflicting versions of events, too many unknowns.
-
Apologies for the misspelling, down to my autocorrect unfortunately.
I have followed this case off and on since 2007 and the longer it goes on the deeper the mystery goes imo.
In all sincerity, my belief is that we just don't know enough about the night that Madeleine disappeared. There are still just too many loose ends, too many conflicting versions of events, too many unknowns.
We have two choices imo. We either agree with you, that we don't know enough to decide or we accept what the McCanns and SY say and go along with the stranger abduction.
The Germans seemed very confident that they were on the right track, but so far have not been able to bring charges. Imo the longer that continues the less likely it becomes.
At least the pursuit of Amaral by the McCanns seems to be finally at an end and he can relax now.
-
Now we're into 2023, we've learned that after 15 years the McCanns no longer value their supporters enough to post a simple thankyou message on their Web page.
-
We have two choices imo. We either agree with you, that we don't know enough to decide or we accept what the McCanns and SY say and go along with the stranger abduction.
The Germans seemed very confident that they were on the right track, but so far have not been able to bring charges. Imo the longer that continues the less likely it becomes.
At least the pursuit of Amaral by the McCanns seems to be finally at an end and he can relax now.
Perhaps they've finally realised they were flogging a dead horse that would have been better ignored.
Has there been any further change at the ECHR ?
-
Perhaps they've finally realised they were flogging a dead horse that would have been better ignored.
Has there been any further change at the ECHR ?
They had 3 months to appeal, can't remember the exact date of the judgement though. A source said, at the time of the verdict, that they were considering their options.
I can't imagine them declining to appeal.
-
Perhaps they've finally realised they were flogging a dead horse that would have been better ignored.
Has there been any further change at the ECHR ?
How it is at the moment, the 3 months ran out on the 20th Dec, whether its been appealed or its not been updated because of the holidays will become as clear as mud in the new year.
(https://i.imgur.com/XX404uT.png)
-
We have two choices imo. We either agree with you, that we don't know enough to decide or we accept what the McCanns and SY say and go along with the stranger abduction.
The Germans seemed very confident that they were on the right track, but so far have not been able to bring charges. Imo the longer that continues the less likely it becomes.
At least the pursuit of Amaral by the McCanns seems to be finally at an end and he can relax now.
What about Amaral's pursuit of The McCanns? But then I don't suppose that you have anything to say about that.
-
What about Amaral's pursuit of The McCanns?
Is there one ?
-
They had 3 months to appeal, can't remember the exact date of the judgement though. A source said, at the time of the verdict, that they were considering their options.
I can't imagine them declining to appeal.
Exceptional circumstances have to be met, what ever they are.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
Section 43.1
1. Within a period of three months from the date of the judgment
of the Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases,
request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.
-
Exceptional circumstances have to be met, what ever they are.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
Section 43.1
1. Within a period of three months from the date of the judgment
of the Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases,
request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.
Ah well there you have it. Without doubt McCann would considered their case to be exceptional
-
We have two choices imo. We either agree with you, that we don't know enough to decide or we accept what the McCanns and SY say and go along with the stranger abduction.
The Germans seemed very confident that they were on the right track, but so far have not been able to bring charges. Imo the longer that continues the less likely it becomes.
At least the pursuit of Amaral by the McCanns seems to be finally at an end and he can relax now.
Your last sentence tends to suggest that the wellbeing of Amaral is still a concern of yours. I thought he was best forgotten about?
-
Ah well there you have it. Without doubt McCann would considered their case to be exceptional
I thought they made it clear they weren’t appealing the judgement?
-
We have two choices imo. We either agree with you, that we don't know enough to decide or we accept what the McCanns and SY say and go along with the stranger abduction.
The Germans seemed very confident that they were on the right track, but so far have not been able to bring charges. Imo the longer that continues the less likely it becomes.
At least the pursuit of Amaral by the McCanns seems to be finally at an end and he can relax now.
It’s not just the McCanns and thr Met who believe Madeleine was abducted you know. Have you heard of the BKA? They think Christian Bruckner abducted and murdered her. The Portuguese seem to have gone along with this view too as he is currently the only arguido in the case. Even MWT thinks Madeleine was taken by a stranger. How do you account for this large number of wrong-headed experts and authorities all of whom seem to have thoroughly discounted the idea that the McCanns were involved? It must really do your head in.
-
Is it possible to learn anything new if one has a mind in an hermetically sealed chamber? Going by the content of the posts for 2023 so far, I think there are members here who will never shake off the confines of their belief in the portrayal of events circa 2007.
All quite sad really.
-
Is it possible to learn anything new if one has a mind in an hermetically sealed chamber? Going by the content of the posts for 2023 so far, I think there are members here who will never shake off the confines of their belief in the portrayal of events circa 2007.
All quite sad really.
No chance. No matter what happens or what is proven.
-
It’s not just the McCanns and thr Met who believe Madeleine was abducted you know. Have you heard of the BKA? They think Christian Bruckner abducted and murdered her. The Portuguese seem to have gone along with this view too as he is currently the only arguido in the case. Even MWT thinks Madeleine was taken by a stranger. How do you account for this large number of wrong-headed experts and authorities all of whom seem to have thoroughly discounted the idea that the McCanns were involved? It must really do your head in.
I think you are preaching to the unconvertable. Conspiracy theorists are quite obdurate. Real evidence is no use to them if there is a good going myth to be perpetrated.
The problem they have at present is that the majority of the real world where EVIDENCE still has some currency, is looking at them askance.
Don't forget they have witnessed the flagrant interference into evidence in a murder case investigation. Few are sympathetic to conduct such as that.
-
No chance. No matter what happens or what is proven.
What is getting to me is the sheer desperation of them trying-trying-trying, when they quite patently do not have a leg to stand on.
At the moment the ball is quite firmly in the BKA court. They are the guys with the evidence which convinced the Portuguese to lay charges against Brueckner. So it must be quite compelling.
-
No chance. No matter what happens or what is proven.
You think anything is going to be proven any time soon?
Wolters doesn't.
-
It’s not just the McCanns and thr Met who believe Madeleine was abducted you know. Have you heard of the BKA? They think Christian Bruckner abducted and murdered her. The Portuguese seem to have gone along with this view too as he is currently the only arguido in the case. Even MWT thinks Madeleine was taken by a stranger. How do you account for this large number of wrong-headed experts and authorities all of whom seem to have thoroughly discounted the idea that the McCanns were involved? It must really do your head in.
MWT believes the McCanns lied about the open window.
I wonder if he's entirely honest about his own conclusion?
-
And how are the three expert investigative forces getting on with proving Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
Having much luck with that are they?
No? Ah, well maybe Maddie just wasn't abducted then.
That's possible isn't it.
-
You think anything is going to be proven any time soon?
Wolters doesn't.
I think there is a fair chance that more than one of the charges he currently faces will be proven. The only knickers I see in a twist about murder charges are yours. Everyone else seems content to let the BKA and prosecutor get on with their job and that is as it should be.
-
I think there is a fair chance that more than one of the charges he currently faces will be proven. The only knickers I see in a twist about murder charges are yours. Everyone else seems content to let the BKA and prosecutor get on with their job and that is as it should be.
The charges to which you refer have precisely b....r all to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
You do realise that don't You?
-
And how are the three expert investigative forces getting on with proving Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
Having much luck with that are they?
No? Ah, well maybe Maddie just wasn't abducted then.
That's possible isn't it.
Spam Bombing the threads really is pathetic.
-
The charges to which you refer have precisely b....r all to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
You do realise that don't You?
Spam bomb alert!!
-
Spam Bombing the threads really is pathetic.
I wasn't spam bombing at all. I was engaging in the discussion, thankyou. It's just that you happen to disprove of my continual mockery of the 3 investigative forces & their progression into a total dead end.
-
Anyway, to be honest, my true belief is that 2023 really is going to be the year that the three expert investigative forces, armed as they are with all the abduction evidence, will prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Madeleine was taken in a strange act, by a criminal.
-
We certainly have learned a great deal of information about Madeleine's case which we never would have heard about if the investigation had not continued.
Some of us already knew that Goncalo Amaral was not a man to be trusted. Those who might have given him the benefit of the doubt must surely have been given something to ponder about when he deliberately broke cover and fabricated so called evidence, in a determined attack on a police investigation.
Unbelievable - but true!
There is now a suspect in the frame about whom we internet sleuths new nothing.
I think that's a lot to be going on with in 2023.
-
We have two choices imo. We either agree with you, that we don't know enough to decide or we accept what the McCanns and SY say and go along with the stranger abduction.
The Germans seemed very confident that they were on the right track, but so far have not been able to bring charges. Imo the longer that continues the less likely it becomes.
At least the pursuit of Amaral by the McCanns seems to be finally at an end and he can relax now.
Gonçalo Amaral must feel like the cat with the cheese after every court in Portugal and even the ECHR upheld his defence. The McCanns on the other hand must indeed feel that the weight of the world is on their shoulders.
At the end of the day however, has justice been done, been seen to have been done or has it in fact been denied? I for one am undecided.
-
Gonçalo Amaral must feel like the cat with the cheese after every court in Portugal and even the ECHR upheld his defence. The McCanns on the other hand must indeed feel that the weight of the world is on their shoulders.
At the end of the day however, has justice been done, been seen to have been done or has it in fact been denied? I for one am undecided.
I don't think justice has been done yet. But I think it is well on the way to being done starting with the German clear up of historic Portuguese crimes against women and children which were allowed to pile up with apparently little investigation, if any.
Just remains for it to be seen if the evidence relating to Madeleine's disappearance is strong enough to take to trial. My impression is that it will be.
I cannot imagine how the McCanns are able to cope with it all.
-
I don't think justice has been done yet. But I think it is well on the way to being done starting with the German clear up of historic Portuguese crimes against women and children which were allowed to pile up with apparently little investigation, if any.
Just remains for it to be seen if the evidence relating to Madeleine's disappearance is strong enough to take to trial. My impression is that it will be.
I cannot imagine how the McCanns are able to cope with it all.
Is there any evidence in particular that convinces you Brueckner will be facing trial?
Or is the hot air blowing from Wolters mouth enough for you?
-
Is there any evidence in particular that convinces you Brueckner will be facing trial?
Or is the hot air blowing from Wolters mouth enough for you?
The thread title is "2023, have we learned anything new?" Perhaps t'would be an idea for you refrain from your metronome posts of mememememememememe designed only for your amusement.
Just tremendously puerile and terribly boring and narcissistic.
-
Strictly speaking we also had not a revelation per se but more of a confirmation of the way in which the police - Amaral in particular - utilised leaks to journalists to establish their narrative.
No Portuguese police press conferences when Hugo Beaty's bar dealt with the press releases to order.
Sandra Felgueiras had absolutely no qualms about putting it on record.
Maddie case: Sandra Felgueiras devastates Gonçalo Amaral and explains that the girl may be alive
"I was deceived" was this way that the journalist of RTP, who accompanied the disappearance of the English child in 2007 in the Algarve, referred to the former inspector of the Judicial Police.
March 29, 2019
Sandra Felgueiras, one of RTP's best-known journalists and responsible for the information program 'Friday at 9', was one of Filomena Cautela's guests in '5 para a Meia Noite'. Asked about her participation in the Documentary about the Maddie case, broadcast on Netflix, the journalist decided to put "everything on clean plates".
In the documentary, Sandra reveals that her source was the former inspector of police Amaral and does not spare him criticism: "I was deceived and I was deceived in what? I was told (by Gonçalo Amaral) that the blood sample found in the car and in the McCann room corresponded, without a doubt, to Madeleine McCann."
"This created in me the conviction of the involvement of parents, because I believed deeply in Gonçalo Amaral. With him I maintained for several months a relationship of source and journalist", he explained.
This relationship changes in July 2008, more than a year after the child's disappearance: "When the secret files are finally made public – until then the process was a secret of justice – one learns what the results of the Birmingham laboratory say."
"The report was scary and it said: The blood sample has five allelos in 20 possible (from the room) and in the car 17 out of 20. However, the sample is so insignificant and so tiny that here in the laboratory, there are at least 100 people who have an identical sample, which makes this sample criminally unrevealing," said Sandra Felgueiras.
The journalist says she then called Gonçalo Amaral to ask for explanations. "If there is a probability that the child is alive, no matter how small and tiny, you don't go to the thesis 'the parents killed her' and you don't look for it anymore. This made me deeply disgusted," she admitted.
https://www.flash.pt/celebridades/nacional/detalhe/caso-maddie-sandra-felgueiras-arrasa-goncalo-amaral-e-explica-que-a-menina-pode-estar-viva
And that is precisely what Amaral did. He wrote Madeleine off without a shred of supporting evidence - "If there is a probability that the child is alive, no matter how small and tiny, you don't go to the thesis 'the parents killed her' and you don't look for it anymore.
This made me deeply disgusted,"
-
Breaking News!!!
The McCanns have put a New Years message on their website.
3 January, 2023
New Year Message
Happy New Year
We'd like to wish all our supporters a very happy, healthy and peaceful 2023. As has been the case over the many years without Madeleine, the kind messages of support and Christmas wishes which we have received have brought that extra touch of warmth and hope to our lives. Christmas and other celebratory events will never be the same with our family incomplete but we continue to make the best of our situation whilst never forgetting or giving up.
We head into the new year with continued determination and positivity.
May 2023 be a good one for us all.
With our best wishes and eternal thanks.
Kate, Gerry & family
http://findmadeleine.com/updates/index.html
-
The message is, they are never giving up!
Yeah, I long since realised that @)(++(*
-
The message is, they are never giving up!
Yeah, I long since realised that @)(++(*
What are they never giving up - Meat , alcohol. publicity ?
-
What are they never giving up - Meat , alcohol. publicity ?
The search for Madeleine, of course.
They continue to hope they'll meet their daughter again some day. Even though the three investigative forces have concrete evidence she was murdered by a paedophile.
-
It seems the resident troll’s New Year’s resolution was to redouble on his efforts to never give up trolling.
-
It seems the resident troll’s New Year’s resolution was to redouble on his efforts to never give up trolling.
I have no choice but to troll you guys I'm afraid, because you believe in ridiculous things such as the idea that Wolters has concrete evidence.
-
I have no choice but to troll you guys I'm afraid, because you believe in ridiculous things such as the idea that Wolters has concrete evidence.
Trolling is against the rules so go careful.
-
Trolling is against the rules so go careful.
As virtually every post the troll makes is intended to wind up supporters perhaps you could do something about it?
-
Trolling is against the rules so go careful.
Well, it's more wumming than trolling really. But VS always refers to my wummery as trolling for some reason. I'm against trolling. A troll might be the kind of person who'd write ill wishes on a memorial for a deceased. I would never do such a thing. But I have no qualms about winding people up on public forums. I think it's important that someone speaks up for the clinically insane community.
-
As virtually every post the troll makes is intended to wind up supporters perhaps you could do something about it?
But are they really? Or is it simply a coincidence that my opinions & perspective on things happen to wind you up?
Anyway, holidays over & back to work next week, so I won't have as much time to espouse opposing view points I'm afraid.
-
The search for Madeleine, of course.
They continue to hope they'll meet their daughter again some day. Even though the three investigative forces have concrete evidence she was murdered by a paedophile.
Please do not keep repeating lies.
As you well know SY are looking for a MISSING MADELEINE. How often do they have to stress that for such as you to stop the lies.
I wish they would prosecute.
And your reason, of course, is it to try and stop people searching for Madeleine ? Nobody is going to waste so much effort to try and find a body rather than a living Madeleine. Do you want The search to finish? Do you want for Madeleine to be lost for ever ?
You are not involved in any way, are you, WS ?
My mind keeps returning to Psychic Brian Ladd. As he awakened he had vivid 'dreams'. He had a pad and pencil by his bedside and as he awakened he rapidly jotted them down. One dream drawing had two sets of initials; the one set being WS. That surely couldn't be you, could it?
Does anyone have a copy of the pertinent "Brians Dream"? Could you post it please
All the above is from facts. Possible connections are from my querying brain and may be well off the mark, but it does need looking at, because your behaviour is not acceptable tbh. WS
-
Please do not keep repeating lies.
As you well know SY are looking for a MISSING MADELEINE. How often do they have to stress that for such as you to stop the lies.
I wish they would prosecute.
And your reason, of course, is it to try and stop people searching for Madeleine ? Nobody is going to waste so much effort to try and find a body rather than a living Madeleine. Do you want The search to finish? Do you want for Madeleine to be lost for ever ?
You are not involved in any way, are you, WS ?
My mind keeps returning to Psychic Brian Ladd. As he awakened he had vivid 'dreams'. He had a pad and pencil by his bedside and as he awakened he rapidly jotted them down. One dream drawing had two sets of initials; the one set being WS. That surely couldn't be you, could it?
Does anyone have a copy of the pertinent "Brians Dream"? Could you post it please
All the above is from facts. Possible connections are from my querying brain and may be well off the mark, but it does need looking at, because your behaviour is not acceptable tbh. WS
Well, my behaviour might be unacceptable to you perhaps. But I've no complaints about it. Nope. My own behaviour seems perfectly reasonable to me thankyou.
-
Well, my behaviour might be unacceptable to you perhaps. But I've no complaints about it. Nope. My own behaviour seems perfectly reasonable to me thankyou.
John
Please rid us of this deliberate and repeated lie teller.
He is not interested in Justice but only in fouling it up for Madeleine
Thank you, sadie
-
What have we learned?
We have learned nothing.
Apart from a handful of prime suspects.
The only thing known as certain is - something happened in 5a to Maddie.
As of this moment in time - no evidence at all ...including abduction.
-
What have we learned?
We have learned nothing.
Apart from a handful of prime suspects.
The only thing known as certain is - something happened in 5a to Maddie.
As of this moment in time - no evidence at all ...including abduction.
There is confirmation that Goncalo Amaral worked assiduously at undermining an active investigation into a missing person by publicising false information.
I think that is quite a significant revelation given how closely involved his association with the case has been.
-
There is confirmation that Goncalo Amaral worked assiduously at undermining an active investigation into a missing person by publicising false information.
I think that is quite a significant revelation given how closely involved his association with the case has been.
Goncalo Amaral worked assiduously...imo to get to the truth.
As for the active investigation ....we will see - probably will go the same place all the other persons of interest went.
-
Goncalo Amaral worked assiduously...imo to get to the truth.
As for the active investigation ....we will see - probably will go the same place all the other persons of interest went.
Amaral is a convicted perjurer who has tried to pervert the course of justice in Madeleine's case by publicising false information in response to an official police appeal.
These are the facts and I can well see why you would choose to ignore them.
-
Amaral is a convicted perjurer who has tried to pervert the course of justice in Madeleine's case by publicising false information in response to an official police appeal.
These are the facts and I can well see why you would choose to ignore them.
As I said previously....the mcc tried to sue him for all these so-called lies and failed.
convicted perjurer or not .......stands for nothing it seems or is not as bad as your posts make out.
Seems his belief is more to the truth ...than the abduction is.
-
Amaral is a convicted perjurer who has tried to pervert the course of justice in Madeleine's case by publicising false information in response to an official police appeal.
These are the facts and I can well see why you would choose to ignore them.
Shocking. This is the first time I've heard about all this. Truly outrageous behaviour from Amaral.
Someone should do something about it. Have you thought about reporting him to Wolters?
-
Amaral is a convicted perjurer who has tried to pervert the course of justice in Madeleine's case by publicising false information in response to an official police appeal.
These are the facts and I can well see why you would choose to ignore them.
by publicising false information
Seems to me that at this moment in time ...HCW is the culprit for that B
-
As I said previously....the mcc tried to sue him for all these so-called lies and failed.
convicted perjurer or not .......stands for nothing it seems or is not as bad as your posts make out.
Seems his belief is more to the truth ...than the abduction is.
Your intervention on Amaral's behalf is confirmation going into 2023 of exactly how much of an influence on sceptic logic Amaral has been and is.
Nothing could be clearer about the depths of perfidy sceptics are willing to tolerate than the attempt to take the heat off a suspect who is a convicted rapist and child molester by publishing lies about his appearance - complete with photoshopped images.
Amaral did that. It says a lot about sceptics that they are willing to tolerate and condone the actions of such a person.
-
Your intervention on Amaral's behalf is confirmation going into 2023 of exactly how much of an influence on sceptic logic Amaral has been and is.
Nothing could be clearer about the depths of perfidy sceptics are willing to tolerate than the attempt to take the heat off a suspect who is a convicted rapist and child molester by publishing lies about his appearance - complete with photoshopped images.
Amaral did that. It says a lot about sceptics that they are willing to tolerate and condone the actions of such a person.
So someone gave Amaral rubbish information. There wasn't any trace of Maddie in Brueckner's campervan either, but someone told Sandra F & Jon Clarke there was. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Do you really believe Amaral's dreadlocks & cartoon campervan damaged the case against Brueckner in any way? Wolters already had the concrete evidence before any of that.
-
The resident Wind Up Merchant has not the slightest intention of bothering to write a fresh script for 2023 ... the old repetitive mantra seems sufficient for all purposes.
-
by publicising false information
Seems to me that at this moment in time ...HCW is the culprit for that B
You do yourself or your cause absolutely no favours by posting libel. Nothing changes for sceptic techniques in 2023.
-
The resident Wind Up Merchant has not the slightest intention of bothering to write a fresh script for 2023 ... the old repetitive mantra seems sufficient for all purposes.
With respect Brietta, you're still spouting the same tired old crap, banging on about Amaral & dreadlocks again.
Maybe stop doing that, & I'll stop taking the Michael.
-
Your intervention on Amaral's behalf is confirmation going into 2023 of exactly how much of an influence on sceptic logic Amaral has been and is.
Nothing could be clearer about the depths of perfidy sceptics are willing to tolerate than the attempt to take the heat off a suspect who is a convicted rapist and child molester by publishing lies about his appearance - complete with photoshopped images.
Amaral did that. It says a lot about sceptics that they are willing to tolerate and condone the actions of such a person.
Wrong again as your posts usually are IYO as that's just all it is
I'm not trying to take the heat off anyone. Just saying like, the evidence isn't even lukewarm.
What it says about sceptics IMO....... is they have a mind of there own
-
With respect Brietta, you're still spouting the same tired old crap, banging on about Amaral & dreadlocks again.
Maybe stop doing that, & I'll stop taking the Michael.
Ahh but why did Amaral say these things, very strange I would say.
-
Wrong again as your posts usually are IYO as that's just all it is
I'm not trying to take the heat off anyone. Just saying like, the evidence isn't even lukewarm.
What it says about sceptics IMO....... is they have a mind of there own
You don't know what evidence they have.
-
You don't know what evidence they have.
No DNA or forensics, we know that.
Care to guess what evidence they might have?
-
You don't know what evidence they have.
Neither do you.
-
You don't know what evidence they have.
Quite, so we shouldn't assume that they have anything conclusive.
-
Nothing new has been learned imo. Nothing has ever been revealed which connects Brueckner to Madeleine's disappearance anyway. Lots of speculation but no evidence imo.
-
Wrong again as your posts usually are IYO as that's just all it is
I'm not trying to take the heat off anyone. Just saying like, the evidence isn't even lukewarm.
What it says about sceptics IMO....... is they have a mind of there own
Funny how you all happen to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Just as a matter of interest - why do you think Amaral mixed up an illustration of a suspect who habitually wore his hair short back and sides showing him wearing dreadlocks?
Information on why might progress the learning curve for 2023.
-
Nothing new has been learned imo. Nothing has ever been revealed which connects Brueckner to Madeleine's disappearance anyway. Lots of speculation but no evidence imo.
I beg to differ.
Brueckner was on Portuguese radar back in 2007.
Definitely totally unknown over the intervening period.
I think that is significant.
-
I beg to differ.
Brueckner was on Portuguese radar back in 2007.
Definitely totally unknown over the intervening period.
I think that is significant.
Portuguese radar? What does that even mean?
-
Portuguese radar? What does that even mean?
It means that in the midst of the search for a missing child - Portuguese police allegedly investigated paedophiles and child molesters.
One of these was Brueckner. Who incidentally was the owner of a phone which activated the antennae in Luz.
The police tried to follow through on that - but didn't.
It surprises me you are unfamiliar with the idiom - not! Just more tiresome WUMMING which is your forte.
on the radar (screen)
Considered important or noteworthy; within the spectrum of (someone's) awareness, attention, or consideration.
-
It means that in the midst of the search for a missing child - Portuguese police allegedly investigated paedophiles and child molesters.
One of these was Brueckner. Who incidentally was the owner of a phone which activated the antennae in Luz.
The police tried to follow through on that - but didn't.
It surprises me you are unfamiliar with the idiom - not! Just more tiresome WUMMING which is your forte.
on the radar (screen)
Considered important or noteworthy; within the spectrum of (someone's) awareness, attention, or consideration.
Was he definitely the owner of this phone then?
All the PJ knew about him in 2007 was that he'd molested two girls in his native Germany over a decade prior.
They had no probable cause. But yeah, they should have been kicking down his door the minute Maddie disappeared really, even though there was absolutely no evidence at all that pointed to his involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.
-
I beg to differ.
Brueckner was on Portuguese radar back in 2007.
Definitely totally unknown over the intervening period.
I think that is significant.
Brueckner was not mentioned to the PJ in 2007 and there's no evidence that they were interested in him.
-
Brueckner was not mentioned to the PJ in 2007 and there's no evidence that they were interested in him.
That is my point.
He was a Luz resident with a conviction for child abuse whose phone was active on the night Madeleine disappeared.
The police tried to speak to him. They failed. Thereafter they appear not to have bothered.
Amaral acknowledged this counted as an error ~ while carrying out the damage limitation exercise of owning up before discovery.
I thought you would have known about this. Don't you?
-
With respect Brietta, you're still spouting the same tired old crap, banging on about Amaral & dreadlocks again.
Maybe stop doing that, & I'll stop taking the Michael.
You are touchy about it aren't you? So Amaral and his dreadlocks etc have upset You WS
LOL.
Keep going Brie. 8((()*/
-
Nothing new has been learned imo. Nothing has ever been revealed which connects Brueckner to Madeleine's disappearance anyway. Lots of speculation but no evidence imo.
Are you sure of that ?
Hmmmm ....
-
That is my point.
He was a Luz resident with a conviction for child abuse whose phone was active on the night Madeleine disappeared.
The police tried to speak to him. They failed. Thereafter they appear not to have bothered.
Amaral acknowledged this counted as an error ~ while carrying out the damage limitation exercise of owning up before discovery.
I thought you would have known about this. Don't you?
Are you basing your opinion on something Amaral said? What makes you think the 'convicted liar' was telling the truth on this occasion I wonder? You don't believe anything else he says.
-
.
-
Thank god there's no Myster or retsyM on there!... otherwise I'd be in deep doo-doo. 8)><(
-
Are you basing your opinion on something Amaral said? What makes you think the 'convicted liar' was telling the truth on this occasion I wonder? You don't believe anything else he says.
I NEVER base an opinion on a single source! You DO know me much better than that despite your pretence otherwise.
-
Thanks Anthro. I thought that you might have the image. Anthropologists study psychics , witches, the supernatural, psychology etc., dont they? You have to be open minded and VERY clever to be an Anthropologist
I see The Brian Ladds dream image has been engineered to vanish. One cannot copy it, or at least I can't. Designed for a one off showing? I wonder why? If you cant see it to refer to it, this prevents further discussion.
So Brian Ladd saw a WS and an RS with Madeleine? But nothing aggressive there, thank goodness.
Says: They wanted a girl, or They wanted a cure
Any ideas who these could be anyone?
Take it into the Private Sector, if wished.
Intriguing stuff !
-
Thanks Anthro. I thought that you might have the image. Anthropologists study psychics , witches, the supernatural, psychology etc., dont they? You have to be open minded and VERY clever to be an Anthropologist
I see The Brian Ladds dream image has been engineered to vanish. One cannot copy it, or at least I can't. Designed for a one off showing? I wonder why? If you cant see it to refer to it, this prevents further discussion.
So Brian Ladd saw a WS and an RS with Madeleine? But nothing aggressive there, thank goodness.
Says: They wanted a girl, or They wanted a cure
Any ideas who these could be anyone?
Take it into the Private Sector, if wished.
Intriguing stuff !
No it hasn't... for anyone who wants to believe in this nonsense!...
(https://i.imgur.com/XAxKpW2.gif)
-
Thanks Anthro. I thought that you might have the image. Anthropologists study psychics , witches, the supernatural, psychology etc., dont they? You have to be open minded and VERY clever to be an Anthropologist
I see The Brian Ladds dream image has been engineered to vanish. One cannot copy it, or at least I can't. Designed for a one off showing? I wonder why? If you cant see it to refer to it, this prevents further discussion.
So Brian Ladd saw a WS and an RS with Madeleine? But nothing aggressive there, thank goodness.
Says: They wanted a girl, or They wanted a cure
Any ideas who these could be anyone?
Take it into the Private Sector, if wished.
Intriguing stuff !
Two other interesting things in the drawing, Sadie:
OCSBR = Ocean Club Summer Beach Resort
770 4227 = contact for Mark Warner, UK
-
Two other interesting things in the drawing, Sadie:
OCSBR = Ocean Club Summer Beach Resort
770 4227 = contact for Mark Warner, UK
Oh, thanks Anthro. You are a clever girl. I spent ages with OCBRS trying to fathom it and had wondered if it had to do with Bensafrim where there seemed to be some funny goings on, but I like your interpretation as much.
And then, the Mark Warner contact number. I wonder why?
Also 30's ? 5'10" (Agec and height?)
I am flummoxed that the second lot of initials are so faint because I remembered them as big and bold.
There is another Brians Dream drawing that shows the two people sitting on a bench or settee with a little girl (Madeleine?) between. Maybe it is that one where both lots of initials are bold?
You don't have that one too, do you?
-
Two other interesting things in the drawing, Sadie:
OCSBR = Ocean Club Summer Beach Resort
770 4227 = contact for Mark Warner, UK
And the best word of all:
SAFE
All the top psychics seem to be sure that Madeleine is safe
-
And the best word of all:
SAFE
All the top psychics seem to be sure that Madeleine is safe
Yeah, she's well safe blud, innit.
-
Thanks Anthro. I thought that you might have the image. Anthropologists study psychics , witches, the supernatural, psychology etc., dont they? You have to be open minded and VERY clever to be an Anthropologist
I see The Brian Ladds dream image has been engineered to vanish. One cannot copy it, or at least I can't. Designed for a one off showing? I wonder why? If you cant see it to refer to it, this prevents further discussion.
So Brian Ladd saw a WS and an RS with Madeleine? But nothing aggressive there, thank goodness.
Says: They wanted a girl, or They wanted a cure
Any ideas who these could be anyone?
Take it into the Private Sector, if wished.
Intriguing stuff !
It's a good job he didn't see the initials CB in his dream otherwise Bruckner would be screwed.
-
The Bottom Line... "Psychic drawings 'are no help' to Madeleine family"
Philomena McCann said the rough sketches, which were drawn by a former American soldier who claims he is able to draw predictions from his dreams, had been investigated by the authorities.
"Those drawings have been checked out," she said. "It's nonsense, there's nothing in it. We must have had hundreds of things like that sent to us. We have been contacted by thousands of mediums from all over the world who claim to know something. There's nothing in it."
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/psychic-drawings-are-no-help-to-madeleine-family-28507588.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/psychic-drawings-are-no-help-to-madeleine-family-28507588.html)
-
@Myster, your avatar did you play the game, windows 95 if I recall it was on or was it win 98 .
-
Oh, thanks Anthro. You are a clever girl. I spent ages with OCBRS trying to fathom it and had wondered if it had to do with Bensafrim where there seemed to be some funny goings on, but I like your interpretation as much.
And then, the Mark Warner contact number. I wonder why?
Also 30's ? 5'10" (Agec and height?)
I am flummoxed that the second lot of initials are so faint because I remembered them as big and bold.
There is another Brians Dream drawing that shows the two people sitting on a bench or settee with a little girl (Madeleine?) between. Maybe it is that one where both lots of initials are bold?
You don't have that one too, do you?
-
@Myster, your avatar did you play the game, windows 95 if I recall it was on or was it win 98 .
Picked up an old copy of the original Myst (one of the first computer games on CD as opposed to floppies) at a garage sale several years ago and have been hooked on Cyan's mind-challenging games in their various iterations ever since... Riven, Myst sequels and their most recent, Obduction (for which you need a hefty graphics card)... https://cyan.com/games/ (https://cyan.com/games/)
-
The Bottom Line... "Psychic drawings 'are no help' to Madeleine family"
Philomena McCann said the rough sketches, which were drawn by a former American soldier who claims he is able to draw predictions from his dreams, had been investigated by the authorities.
"Those drawings have been checked out," she said. "It's nonsense, there's nothing in it. We must have had hundreds of things like that sent to us. We have been contacted by thousands of mediums from all over the world who claim to know something. There's nothing in it."
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/psychic-drawings-are-no-help-to-madeleine-family-28507588.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/psychic-drawings-are-no-help-to-madeleine-family-28507588.html)
That's the problem with appealing to the public. Thousands of contacts, most of which are anything but helpful, paticularly psychics etc.
-
The Bottom Line... "Psychic drawings 'are no help' to Madeleine family"
Philomena McCann said the rough sketches, which were drawn by a former American soldier who claims he is able to draw predictions from his dreams, had been investigated by the authorities.
"Those drawings have been checked out," she said. "It's nonsense, there's nothing in it. We must have had hundreds of things like that sent to us. We have been contacted by thousands of mediums from all over the world who claim to know something. There's nothing in it."
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/psychic-drawings-are-no-help-to-madeleine-family-28507588.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/psychic-drawings-are-no-help-to-madeleine-family-28507588.html)
When one thinks about it, the situation regarding Madeleine McCann's disappearance remained one of great mystery and there were those determined it would remain so.
Madeleine's case was closed in 2008.
In effect everyone but her parents had written her off very early after her disappearance in 2007 and there was no official ongoing investigation. Apart from that organised and kept going by her parents and the private detectives employed by them.
2023 represents changed days since those dismal days when her parent's lobbying resulted in Madeleine's case being looked at again and the volume of un-investigated circumstances prevailing, dictated a new investigation taking place.
Even at that and in full possession of the fact that there was work to be done which never had been done at any stage of the proceedings - there remained a viciously vociferous coterie who just did not want the disappearance of this missing child who had never been properly looked for, investigated and perhaps the discovery of what her fate might have been. Even to the possibility that she might still be alive.
Part of the evidence which was not investigated when Madeleine vanished was there all the time and always had been there.
The key to unlocking it was a name.
Quite extraordinarily the Portuguese police had been in possession of that name and that key since 2007.
So going from a "hopeless case" from the time of her disappearance until its tenth anniversary, we are at the stage when an active police investigation into Madeleine's case is fact. No mean feat!
I definitely think we have learned a lot over the years. And I think we will probably learn a lot more in the years to come.
-
Don't Appeal to The Public. You might find out about something that you don't want to know.
Certainly nothing much has changed on this Forum with regard to the guilt of The McCanns. Anything else is irrelevant.
-
When one thinks about it, the situation regarding Madeleine McCann's disappearance remained one of great mystery and there were those determined it would remain so.
Madeleine's case was closed in 2008.
In effect everyone but her parents had written her off very early after her disappearance in 2007 and there was no official ongoing investigation. Apart from that organised and kept going by her parents and the private detectives employed by them.
2023 represents changed days since those dismal days when her parent's lobbying resulted in Madeleine's case being looked at again and the volume of un-investigated circumstances prevailing, dictated a new investigation taking place.
Even at that and in full possession of the fact that there was work to be done which never had been done at any stage of the proceedings - there remained a viciously vociferous coterie who just did not want the disappearance of this missing child who had never been properly looked for, investigated and perhaps the discovery of what her fate might have been. Even to the possibility that she might still be alive.
Part of the evidence which was not investigated when Madeleine vanished was there all the time and always had been there.
The key to unlocking it was a name.
Quite extraordinarily the Portuguese police had been in possession of that name and that key since 2007.
So going from a "hopeless case" from the time of her disappearance until its tenth anniversary, we are at the stage when an active police investigation into Madeleine's case is fact. No mean feat!
I definitely think we have learned a lot over the years. And I think we will probably learn a lot more in the years to come.
Well, the above isn't learning anything new is it....just the same old same old.
-
Well, the above isn't learning anything new is it....just the same old same old.
The same old ... the same old ...
All of which was in Portuguese police files from 2007 but which only became apparent when information was supplied as the result of a public appeal by her parents in Germany on the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
It took till then for information which was hidden in plain sight for all those years with Portuguese knowledge, to be revealed to an investigation which would do just that - INVESTIGATE!
So "same old" Portuguese investigative techniques with neglect of evidence swapped for unprejudiced fresh eyes.
I think that ranks as NEW. And I think it has enabled Madeleine's case to progress. Although I do appreciate your chagrin.
-
The same old ... the same old ...
All of which was in Portuguese police files from 2007 but which only became apparent when information was supplied as the result of a public appeal by her parents in Germany on the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
It took till then for information which was hidden in plain sight for all those years with Portuguese knowledge, to be revealed to an investigation which would do just that - INVESTIGATE!
So "same old" Portuguese investigative techniques with neglect of evidence swapped for unprejudiced fresh eyes.
I think that ranks as NEW. And I think it has enabled Madeleine's case to progress. Although I do appreciate your chagrin.
Yes, Madeleine's case has progressed. It has progressed to the point where the new prime suspect is never going be charged with anything related to Madeleine's disappearance. That's how convincing the concrete evidence against him is.
-
Does anyone know what Concrete Evidence actually means? Or is it a translation problem?
Whatever it means it can only be accepted by a Court.
For the time being Brueckner has been charged with similar crimes to which he has already been found guilty. The rest of it will wait.
-
Does anyone know what Concrete Evidence actually means? Or is it a translation problem?
Whatever it means it can only be accepted by a Court.
For the time being Brueckner has been charged with similar crimes to which he has already been found guilty. The rest of it will wait.
How are the rape of Behan or Brueckner masturbating in front of kids, in anyway similar to Madeleine's disappearance?
-
"The rest of it will wait"
There's still plenty of belief, among some members here, that Brueckner really will face charges at some point.
It's quite comical to witness such unshakeable belief in Wolters & the concrete evidence. Even though he's presented nothing of substance to either the MET or Madeleine's parents.
-
The same old ... the same old ...
All of which was in Portuguese police files from 2007 but which only became apparent when information was supplied as the result of a public appeal by her parents in Germany on the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
It took till then for information which was hidden in plain sight for all those years with Portuguese knowledge, to be revealed to an investigation which would do just that - INVESTIGATE!
So "same old" Portuguese investigative techniques with neglect of evidence swapped for unprejudiced fresh eyes.
I think that ranks as NEW. And I think it has enabled Madeleine's case to progress. Although I do appreciate your chagrin.
There was a lot in PJ files in 2007 ......a book was wrote about it
-
Yes, Madeleine's case has progressed. It has progressed to the point where the new prime suspect is never going be charged with anything related to Madeleine's disappearance. That's how convincing the concrete evidence against him is.
Sceptics boasted that their new pin up boy (AKA Patsy) would not face charges for other crimes against women and children.
He has been charged with two counts of child abuse and three charges of aggravated rape.
So I would not bank on relying on sceptic logic particularly as promoted by the self confessed Wind Up Merchant.
-
There was a lot in PJ files in 2007 ......a book was wrote about it
Actually there were many books written about Madeleine's case and no doubt there will be many more in the pipeline.
-
Sceptics boasted that their new pin up boy (AKA Patsy) would not face charges for other crimes against women and children.
He has been charged with two counts of child abuse and three charges of aggravated rape.
So I would not bank on relying on sceptic logic particularly as promoted by the self confessed Wind Up Merchant.
Did you ever see me state that Brueckner wouldn't be charged with unrelated offences?
No, you didn't, because I've never said anything of the sort.
In fact, I stated months ago that he he might be charged with other offences, but never with anything related to Madeleine. And here we are, still no murder charge for Brueckner, funnily enough & as much as you want to imagine Brueckner will be facing trial for Madeleine's 'abduction' one day, it simply isn't going to happen.
-
Actually there were many books written about Madeleine's case and no doubt there will be many more in the pipeline.
Yes, I know.
Not may it seems to back up the abduction though.
-
Sceptics boasted that their new pin up boy (AKA Patsy) would not face charges for other crimes against women and children.
He has been charged with two counts of child abuse and three charges of aggravated rape.
So I would not bank on relying on sceptic logic particularly as promoted by the self confessed Wind Up Merchant.
How childish ...... pin-up.
I don't know who you're referring to in your post, but it was obvious he needed information for other crimes.
This is why it seems imo ....the only reason maddie was included for maximum publicity
-
How childish ...... pin-up.
I don't know who you're referring to in your post, but it was obvious he needed information for other crimes.
This is why it seems imo ....the only reason maddie was included for maximum publicity
It's only obvious to some of us I'm afraid. Others will continue to believe Wolters really has a case against CB, because without that, they might have to admit that there's no real evidence Madeleine was abducted.
-
Yes, I know.
Not may it seems to back up the abduction though.
If you wish to continue propagating nonsense, don't let me stand in your way. I doubt there is any cure for true believers in conspiracy theories.
-
That's the problem with appealing to the public. Thousands of contacts, most of which are anything but helpful, paticularly psychics etc.
Wolters appealing to the public after fifteen years merely reveals he has absolutely nothing. @)(++(*
-
Wolters appealing to the public after fifteen years merely reveals he has absolutely nothing. @)(++(*
Fishing.
-
When one thinks about it, the situation regarding Madeleine McCann's disappearance remained one of great mystery and there were those determined it would remain so.
Madeleine's case was closed in 2008.
In effect everyone but her parents had written her off very early after her disappearance in 2007 and there was no official ongoing investigation. Apart from that organised and kept going by her parents and the private detectives employed by them.
2023 represents changed days since those dismal days when her parent's lobbying resulted in Madeleine's case being looked at again and the volume of un-investigated circumstances prevailing, dictated a new investigation taking place.
Even at that and in full possession of the fact that there was work to be done which never had been done at any stage of the proceedings - there remained a viciously vociferous coterie who just did not want the disappearance of this missing child who had never been properly looked for, investigated and perhaps the discovery of what her fate might have been. Even to the possibility that she might still be alive.
Part of the evidence which was not investigated when Madeleine vanished was there all the time and always had been there.
The key to unlocking it was a name.
Quite extraordinarily the Portuguese police had been in possession of that name and that key since 2007.
So going from a "hopeless case" from the time of her disappearance until its tenth anniversary, we are at the stage when an active police investigation into Madeleine's case is fact. No mean feat!
I definitely think we have learned a lot over the years. And I think we will probably learn a lot more in the years to come.
Anyone who has looked at this case from the beginning must surely be asking themself why Madeleine's parents behaved in the manor they did almost from the outset.
Instead of encompassing and working with the police they went against them, even refusing to answer the most basic questions in Kate McCann's case.
IMO nobody who had lost a child acts in such a manner.
-
Wolters appealing to the public after fifteen years merely reveals he has absolutely nothing. @)(++(*
No, he really is going to bring Brueckner to justice. Wait & see. Wolters already has enough to charge, just got to get those pesky rape & molestation cases over & done with first. It's too difficult to try 6 crimes concurrently, 5 is the maximum apparently.
-
Fishing.
He caught a massive Red Herring.
-
He caught a massive Red Herring.
The fish aren't the only things slippery in this case.
-
How childish ...... pin-up.
I don't know who you're referring to in your post, but it was obvious he needed information for other crimes.
This is why it seems imo ....the only reason maddie was included for maximum publicity
You must think about what you have posted in the light of what is actually happening. Currently there is NO information of any sort on Madeleine McCann.
I think that would still have been the case if Amaral had kept his mouth shut about the police suspect in 2019 when he blabbed all over the airwaves in Saunokonoko's pod cast.
The Germans are ensuring there is no possibility of a repeat performance and to that end they are running a very tight ship and are telling nobody nothing. So NOBODY least of all the Germans want "maximum publicity." Quite simply you are wrong on that. They DO NOT!
-
Anyone who has looked at this case from the beginning must surely be asking themself why Madeleine's parents behaved in the manor they did almost from the outset.
Instead of encompassing and working with the police they went against them, even refusing to answer the most basic questions in Kate McCann's case.
IMO nobody who had lost a child acts in such a manner.
But Kate was being framed! Wolters can prove it!
-
You must think about what you have posted in the light of what is actually happening. Currently there is NO information of any sort on Madeleine McCann.
I think that would still have been the case if Amaral had kept his mouth shut about the police suspect in 2019 when he blabbed all over the airwaves in Saunokonoko's pod cast.
The Germans are ensuring there is no possibility of a repeat performance and to that end they are running a very tight ship and are telling nobody nothing. So NOBODY least of all the Germans want "maximum publicity." Quite simply you are wrong on that. They DO NOT!
Least of all the MET, Madeleine's parents or a judge.
-
Anyone who has looked at this case from the beginning must surely be asking themself why Madeleine's parents behaved in the manor they did almost from the outset.
Instead of encompassing and working with the police they went against them, even refusing to answer the most basic questions in Kate McCann's case.
IMO nobody who had lost a child acts in such a manner.
With respect ~ all of that has been visited ad nauseam and in the main discredited. The agenda of 2007 has long since been superseded. We are in 2023 now and for most of us events have moved on.
And if you can tell me how to magic the attitudes the McCanns faced in 2017 from EXACTLY they same attitudes Amaral continues to promote to this day complete with "new" book ~ I will find it interesting no doubt. Gonçalo Amaral is ‘back’ … pointing finger squarely at Madeleine McCann’s parents
By Natasha Donn -25th August 2021 https://www.portugalresident.com/goncalo-amaral-is-back-pointing-finger-squarely-at-madeleine-mccanns-parents/
-
With respect ~ all of that has been visited ad nauseam and in the main discredited. The agenda of 2007 has long since been superseded. We are in 2023 now and for most of us events have moved on.
And if you can tell me how to magic the attitudes the McCanns faced in 2017 from EXACTLY they same attitudes Amaral continues to promote to this day complete with "new" book ~ I will find it interesting no doubt. Gonçalo Amaral is ‘back’ … pointing finger squarely at Madeleine McCann’s parents
By Natasha Donn -25th August 2021 https://www.portugalresident.com/goncalo-amaral-is-back-pointing-finger-squarely-at-madeleine-mccanns-parents/
We are in 2023 now and for most of us, events have moved on.
Yes well, it seems nothing has moved on since Maddie went missing apart from speculation.
If you have moved on to the latest suspect being guilty why are you still on here?
Bet the mccs love you........not.
why shouldn't he be pointing the finger squarely at the mcs ....he is not the only one who believes they are involved.
You are just a poster like everyone else ..you know no more or less than anyone else either.
-
We are in 2023 now and for most of us, events have moved on.
Yes well, it seems nothing has moved on since Maddie went missing apart from speculation.
If you have moved on to the latest suspect being guilty why are you still on here?
Bet the mccs love you........not.
why shouldn't he be pointing the finger squarely at the mcs ....he is not the only one who believes they are involved.
You are just a poster like everyone else ..you know no more or less than anyone else either.
The Braunschweig prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said on RTL request: "We still do not want to comment on Mr. Amaral's statements, because we assume that Mr. Amaral has no knowledge of the current state of the investigation and his statements are therefore completely irrelevant to us." He stressed that there was "not the slightest hint of suspicion against the parents".
According to Wolters, the Braunschweig authority has "material evidence" of the death of Madeleine McCann. In this context, the German child molester Christian B. is being investigated, who is in prison and against whom various proceedings are underway.
Wolters said that the investigation would certainly continue into next year. Whether it will come to an indictment in the case of Maddie, he could not estimate at the moment. "In particular, due to the absolutely necessary, but very time-consuming requests for mutual legal assistance to Portugal, the investigations can unfortunately not be conducted faster," the statement said.
https://www.rtl.de/cms/fall-maddie-mccann-entfuehrung-simuliert-ex-polizist-beschuldigt-eltern-4818135.html
-
"Wolters said that the investigation would certainly continue into next year. Whether it will come to an indictment in the case of Maddie, he could not estimate at the moment."
Yeah, it's just not happening, not late 2023 or any time ever. You can take that to the bank.
-
The Braunschweig prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said on RTL request: "We still do not want to comment on Mr. Amaral's statements, because we assume that Mr. Amaral has no knowledge of the current state of the investigation and his statements are therefore completely irrelevant to us." He stressed that there was "not the slightest hint of suspicion against the parents".
According to Wolters, the Braunschweig authority has "material evidence" of the death of Madeleine McCann. In this context, the German child molester Christian B. is being investigated, who is in prison and against whom various proceedings are underway.
Wolters said that the investigation would certainly continue into next year. Whether it will come to an indictment in the case of Maddie, he could not estimate at the moment. "In particular, due to the absolutely necessary, but very time-consuming requests for mutual legal assistance to Portugal, the investigations can unfortunately not be conducted faster," the statement said.
https://www.rtl.de/cms/fall-maddie-mccann-entfuehrung-simuliert-ex-polizist-beschuldigt-eltern-4818135.html
So fgs ......what does that prove exactly...........nothing.
Whether it will come to an indictment in the case of Maddie, he could not estimate at the moment.
-
So fgs ......what does that prove exactly...........nothing.
Whether it will come to an indictment in the case of Maddie, he could not estimate at the moment.
The concrete evidence is very convincing. If the public knew what it was they would be in no doubt.
"If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do but I can’t give you details because we don’t want the accused to know what we have on him"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-confident-public-23135968
But not a judge. Only the public would be convinced by it, because they are plebs. A judge however would see room for reasonable doubt.
-
The concrete evidence is very convincing. If the public knew what it was they would be in no doubt.
"If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do but I can’t give you details because we don’t want the accused to know what we have on him"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-confident-public-23135968
But not a judge. Only the public would be convinced by it, because they are plebs. A judge however would see room for reasonable doubt.
Makes you wonder what the UK police are doing looking for a missing Maddie.
When HCW has the evidence she is dead.
-
Makes you wonder what the UK police are doing looking for a missing Maddie.
When HCW has the evidence she is dead.
Perhaps, like some of us, they prefer to see rather than just believe.
-
So fgs ......what does that prove exactly...........nothing.
Whether it will come to an indictment in the case of Maddie, he could not estimate at the moment.
Madeleine's is an active ongoing case. As we speak there is a prime suspect for crimes against her under lock and key in a German prison. Where he is being held as a direct result of his guilt in crimes against women and children including aggravated rape.
This year he will be tried for another three aggravated rapes as well as further assaults on children. Up until the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance there had been absolutely no chance of this dangerous man being apprehended and removed from the opportunities in which he had indulged making him a danger to women and children.
The chief suspect in the Madeleine McCann case has been denied parole and branded a 'danger to society.
Lead German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told the Mirror: “His request was rejected on the grounds that he could not be given a positive social prognosis.
“In other words, the court has said it believes that the convict will commit further offences if released.”
Meg Hill
Tuesday 03 May 2022 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/madeleine-mccann-christian-brueckner-metropolitan-police-portuguese-germany-b2070206.html
-
I don't understand the problem here with The BKA, since most of you seem to think that Madeleine is dead anyway. So the only bone of contention appears to be with who dunnit. Same old same old. Nothing new.
-
Perhaps, like some of us, they prefer to see rather than just believe.
Well it seems a fact they are not convinced by HCW revelations.
"If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do"
-
Madeleine's is an active ongoing case. As we speak there is a prime suspect for crimes against her under lock and key in a German prison. Where he is being held as a direct result of his guilt in crimes against women and children including aggravated rape.
This year he will be tried for another three aggravated rapes as well as further assaults on children. Up until the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance there had been absolutely no chance of this dangerous man being apprehended and removed from the opportunities in which he had indulged making him a danger to women and children.
The chief suspect in the Madeleine McCann case has been denied parole and branded a 'danger to society.
Lead German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told the Mirror: “His request was rejected on the grounds that he could not be given a positive social prognosis.
“In other words, the court has said it believes that the convict will commit further offences if released.”
Meg Hill
Tuesday 03 May 2022 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/madeleine-mccann-christian-brueckner-metropolitan-police-portuguese-germany-b2070206.html
But he is still eligible for it in May 2023.
Brueckner will now stay in jail until at least May 2023, the next time a parole application can be made.
-
Perhaps, like some of us, they prefer to see rather than just believe.
Perhaps, like some, there are those who prefer to allow a dangerous sex offender better known as Patsy to wander the streets unimpeded.
Hopefully 2023 will see this danger to society suffer a further curtailment to his nefarious activities. Those who protest his innocence based on nothing but prejudice can always hope against hope for him.
-
I don't understand the problem here with The BKA, since most of you seem to think that Madeleine is dead anyway. So the only bone of contention appears to be with who dunnit. Same old same old. Nothing new.
As far as I can see from the sceptic 'logic' expressed ~ it doesn't matter who the suspect is or what they are suspected of doing ~ if the victim is Madeleine McCann they are automatically considered innocent.
We saw it first with the "arguidos" in 2014 who were accused of nothing but who had to be interviewed as 'persons of interest' - and we see it yet again with the 2022 "arguido".
-
Perhaps, like some, there are those who prefer to allow a dangerous sex offender better known as Patsy to wander the streets unimpeded.
Hopefully 2023 will see this danger to society suffer a further curtailment to his nefarious activities. Those who protest his innocence based on nothing but prejudice can always hope against hope for him.
I don't know if Brueckner is guilty of further crimes or not. The normal way of informing us of these crimes is by using the courts to convict criminals. Prosecutors are not authorised to pronounce guilt, it's not their job. The way the law works is that criminals can wander the streets unimpeded until found guilty by a court of law.
-
But he is still eligible for it in May 2023.
Brueckner will now stay in jail until at least May 2023, the next time a parole application can be made.
And you are hoping fervently for the release of a child molester and an aggravated rapist onto the streets.
One can only hope he parks his cartoon covered van in your garden and nowhere near mine.
-
Perhaps, like some, there are those who prefer to allow a dangerous sex offender better known as Patsy to wander the streets unimpeded.
Hopefully 2023 will see this danger to society suffer a further curtailment to his nefarious activities. Those who protest his innocence based on nothing but prejudice can always hope against hope for him.
why do you twist it into some sort of defense for CB.
When you know it just not believing that CB is involved in what happened to Maddie.
-
I don't know if Brueckner is guilty of further crimes or not. The normal way of informing us of these crimes is by using the courts to convict criminals. Prosecutors are not authorised to pronounce guilt, it's not their job. The way the law works is that criminals can wander the streets unimpeded until found guilty by a court of law.
The whole object of collecting evidence is to allow justice to be served. If the supporting evidence proves guilt justice will be delivered on the culprit.
This is an important step in the process with which sceptics are in disagreement. Because Brueckner is suspected of crimes against Madeleine McCann about which sceptics have a pet conspiracy theory, they automatically protest his innocence. Totally illogical!
-
And you are hoping fervently for the release of a child molester and an aggravated rapist onto the streets.
One can only hope he parks his cartoon covered van in your garden and nowhere near mine.
Did I say that ......No.
Another twisted post.
-
why do you twist it into some sort of defense for CB.
When you know it just not believing that CB is involved in what happened to Maddie.
You are basing your belief in Brueckner's innocence on your prejudice.
I prefer to wait for the BKA investigators to present the evidence they have gathered to a judge in a court of law and to allow die process to determine guilt or no guilt.
You are missing out that very important step in the process.
-
You are basing your belief in Brueckner's innocence on your prejudice.
I prefer to wait for the BKA investigators to present the evidence they have gathered to a judge in a court of law and to allow die process to determine guilt or no guilt.
You are missing out that very important step in the process.
You still haven't explained how you know the McCanns are innocent.
-
The whole object of collecting evidence is to allow justice to be served. If the supporting evidence proves guilt justice will be delivered on the culprit.
This is an important step in the process with which sceptics are in disagreement. Because Brueckner is suspected of crimes against Madeleine McCann about which sceptics have a pet conspiracy theory, they automatically protest his innocence. Totally illogical!
Well he won't be getting charged with anything related to Maddie any time in the foreseeable future, so that does tell us something about the strength of the concrete evidence against him really.
-
Well he won't be getting charged with anything related to Maddie any time in the foreseeable future, so that does tell us something about the strength of the concrete evidence against him really.
Is anyone else as bored by this fixated, mind numbing wind up merchant who epitomises the saying that empty vessels make the most noise.
-
Is anyone else as bored by this fixated, mind numbing wind up merchant who epitomises the saying that empty vessels make the most noise.
Wummy has his moments but he does talk some sense some of the time.
-
The whole object of collecting evidence is to allow justice to be served. If the supporting evidence proves guilt justice will be delivered on the culprit.
This is an important step in the process with which sceptics are in disagreement. Because Brueckner is suspected of crimes against Madeleine McCann about which sceptics have a pet conspiracy theory, they automatically protest his innocence. Totally illogical!
The Germans made the mistake of naming Bruckner so now that have to accept that basic error. Innocent until proven guilty applies to even Bruckner.
-
You are basing your belief in Brueckner's innocence on your prejudice.
I prefer to wait for the BKA investigators to present the evidence they have gathered to a judge in a court of law and to allow die process to determine guilt or no guilt.
You are missing out that very important step in the process.
No I'm basing it on a comment like this
And you are hoping fervently for the release of a child molester and an aggravated rapist onto the streets.
Twisting an opinon into something nast ...that you continue to do in your posts
-
Is anyone else as bored by this fixated, mind numbing wind up merchant who epitomises the saying that empty vessels make the most noise.
You can count me in. Although I largely ignore him.
-
The Germans made the mistake of naming Bruckner so now that have to accept that basic error. Innocent until proven guilty applies to even Bruckner.
The Germans did not name Brueckner.
-
Is anyone else as bored by this fixated, mind numbing wind up merchant who epitomises the saying that empty vessels make the most noise.
I promise I'll stop replying to your own obsessional & tedious postings, just as soon as soon as Wolters whips out the concrete evidence. You'll get back to me when that happens, won't you? It shouldn't be much longer now.
-
You can count me in. Although I largely ignore him.
But who would be the next target ?
-
Is anyone else as bored by this fixated, mind numbing wind up merchant who epitomises the saying that empty vessels make the most noise.
Seems that some could say the same about your long and boring posts.
-
Wummy has his moments but he does talk some sense some of the time.
When he does there in no cohesive attempt at answering the post.
-
The Germans made the mistake of naming Bruckner so now that have to accept that basic error. Innocent until proven guilty applies to even Bruckner.
Amaral made the first reference to the German paedophile in jail in Germany for other offences on Konokonoko's December podcast in December 2019.
At that time the media had never heard of Brueckner and they plumped for the only other deviant who fitted the description.
Amaral intervened in an active police investigation and released confidential identity information regarding the suspect which enabled the press to identify him.
-
Seems that some could say the same about your long and boring posts.
The daily obsession with Amaral is most entertaining. It's a substitute for evidence of abduction really. Because there isn't too much of that to speak of I'm afraid.
-
No I'm basing it on a comment like this
And you are hoping fervently for the release of a child molester and an aggravated rapist onto the streets.
Twisting an opinon into something nast ...that you continue to do in your posts
You cannot vociferously protest the innocence of Patsy - which is an opinion you have apparently formed without back-up evidence because Amaral says do - and accuse me of twisting it into something nasty.
-
The Germans did not name Brueckner.
And still have not named him.
-
Amaral made the first reference to the German paedophile in jail in Germany for other offences on Konokonoko's December podcast in December 2019.
At that time the media had never heard of Brueckner and they plumped for the only other deviant who fitted the description.
Amaral intervened in an active police investigation and released confidential identity information regarding the suspect which enabled the press to identify him.
Have you tried telling Hans Wolters about your concerns? Because I'm not sure continually complaining about it on here is going to rectify the matter for you I'm afraid. May I suggest you just try not to think about it as much instead? Maybe do other things, tend the garden, painting or crochet or something. I'm pressure washing the patio while the car is in for it's MOT at the moment, & do you know what, I hadn't even thought about Amaral until you kept bringing him up.
-
Seems that some could say the same about your long and boring posts.
My long and boring posts do the impossible by endeavouring to inform hermetically sealed minds. A thankless task!
But here goes some clarification regarding the Genesis of the naming but not shaming of Brueckner by Goncalo Amaral ~
Maddie prime suspect just a 'scapegoat', former lead Portuguese detective claims
By Mark Saunokonoko • Senior Journalist
Jun 4, 2020
Exclusive: The new prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann cold case is a "scapegoat", according to a former Portuguese detective who predicted today's significant developments more than a year ago.
Goncalo Amaral, who led the 2007 Portuguese police investigation when Madeleine mysteriously vanished, exclusively told Nine's hit podcast Maddie in April last year that British police were "preparing the end of the investigation, with a German pedophile who is in prison right now".
Speaking on the Maddie podcast, in a 2019 interview that has accurately foreshadowed today's developments, Mr Amaral confirmed the German had been on the Algarve.
"He was investigated by the [Policia Judiciaria, Portugal's police] at the time [and] when the case ended they discarded him," he said.
"The trailer that he lived in was taken to Germany for testing but nothing was found there."
Mr Amaral said the German suspect was a convicted sex offender and was serving sentences in Germany unrelated the disappearance of Madeleine, arguably the world's most famous missing person case.
The former cop hit out at Operation Grange, the long-running $20 million London Metropolitan Police investigation for Maddie.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/madeleine-mccann-german-suspect-a-scapegoat-portugal-detective-goncalo-amaral-claims-maddie-podcast/0ea5ef10-8717-4cfb-adea-a1c8baf2d357
-
Wummy has his moments but he does talk some sense some of the time.
Here's the thing....there's no 'News' to speak of at the moment.
The McCanns may or may not be appealing the verdict of the ECHR.
Brueckner is charged with unrelated offences.
The McCanns wished their supporters a happy new year.
That's about all really. There's certainly nothing happening in the Maddie case right now that we can speak of anyway. So, we can either tear lumps out of each other while regurgitating calpol all over Amaral's dreadlocks as he interferes with active investigations, or maybe we should all think about doing something more productive instead, at least until the next exciting developments anyway..
-
You cannot vociferously protest the innocence of Patsy - which is an opinion you have apparently formed without back-up evidence because Amaral says do - and accuse me of twisting it into something nasty.
See, You keep blaming GA ...yet I go from my own instincts, not anyone else's.
Have done this before I knew GA even existed.
Although he has stuck to his conviction and thus far has not been proved wrong.
Chances are he never will be.
-
See, You keep blaming GA ...yet I go from my own instincts, not anyone else's.
Have done this before I knew GA even existed.
Although he has stuck to his conviction and thus far has not been proved wrong.
Chances are he never will be.
Amaral was proved wrong when he was sacked from Madeleine's case in 2007and the forensic reports landed on Portuguese desks.
He was categorically proved wrong by the Portuguese prosecutors in 2008.
Sceptics just have not made the connection even now in 2023 between what is fact and what is fiction but after his last throw of the dice promoting false information, I think he has become conspicuous by his absence from the airwaves.
-
Here's the thing....there's no 'News' to speak of at the moment.
The McCanns may or may not be appealing the verdict of the ECHR.
The argument has gone from Amaral to Portugal to the ECHR. every one else's fault.
-
Guess who'll be next 8)--))
-
Reserving a space for Faithlilly...the latest accounts have just been filed.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-spent-7000-28912813
-
Thanks for the image, Anthro..
I have seen a similar one but I have never seen that particular image before.
Cheers.
-
Thanks for the image, Anthro..
I have seen a similar one but I have never seen that particular image before.
Cheers.
I see that the second Brian Ladd image has been removed. I am glad about that because the original image had been altered and falsefied by someone. The Phantom Image alterer strikes again?
There was no full name on the original, just initials
The first image too has been altered, but in that case, all I can see is that the size and boldness of the initials of both people have been changed. Once bold, hit you in the face in clarity, they are now insignificant in comparison. I wonder why they were changed and who did the changes?
Thank you for all your efforts Anthro.
sadie xxx
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No they haven't!... nothing's been removed or changed.
It's just one of the drawbacks of having an overactive imagination.
-
Reserving a space for Faithlilly...the latest accounts have just been filed.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-spent-7000-28912813
Well it may be new to Martin Fricker;
"The parents of Madeleine McCann had to use funds raised to search for their daughter to fight an ex-police officer who made “unfounded” claims about the case."
but those payments from the fund aren't new. The costs of suing Amaral have all been paid by the Fund. I'm not sure it's correct to say the McCanns 'had to' use the funds raised to search for their daughter. That was a choice made by all the directors, not just Madeleine's parents.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No they haven't!... nothing's been removed or changed.
It's just one of the drawbacks of having an overactive imagination.
Well it aint showing on my edition of UK Justice Forum. Are you saying that I get a different edition to you? .... a different edition maybe to everyone else?
Cos it aint showing on my edition of Justice forum.
Anthro. Please will you remove the last image asap.
Maybe also remove the first image cos that has been altered too. Thank you.
I do not want altered images against my name.
Why do you keep on picking on me, Myster? Repeatedly.
-
Well it aint showing on my edition of UK Justice Forum. Are you saying that I get a different edition to you? .... a different edition maybe to everyone else?
Cos it aint showing on my edition of Justice forum.
Anthro. Please will you remove the last image asap.
Maybe also remove the first image cos that has been altered too. Thank you.
I do not want altered images against my name.
Why do you keep on picking on me, Myster? Repeatedly.
Because you keep posting nonsense repeatedly. There's the rub.
How many others here can't see the images or think they've been altered? My bet is none.
-
Because you keep posting nonsense repeatedly. There's the rub.
How many others here can't see the images or think they've been altered? My bet is none.
You are able to manipulate this forum as you wish IMO. The image is back in place,
The images are not as they were originally as put out in the early days by Brian Ladd.
I have PM'd Anthro who was on forum at the time so will have received my message, asking her to remove both of them.
I suggest that the whole section is removed. You can do that if you wish.
Otherwise, John please remove the offending section. Thank you
-
You are able to manipulate this forum as you wish IMO. The image is back in place,
The images are not as they were originally as put out in the early days by Brian Ladd.
I have PM'd Anthro who was on forum at the time so will have received my message, asking her to remove both of them.
I suggest that the whole section is removed. You can do that if you wish.
Otherwise, John please remove the offending section. Thank you
It never disappeared at all.
Mods can't instantly remove posts... that must be left to the Gods.
-
It never disappeared at all.
Mods can't instantly remove posts... that must be left to the Gods.
As you have stated elsewhere, on another forum, you are from the Gods @)(++(* ... Me too! @)(++(*
Get it all deleted please. Over the passage of time, or maybe in the past couple of days the images have been changed.
I suggest you remove the whole section, because the second image (and the first to a lesser degree) are giving out false information. I do not do false information.
Thank you
-
Because you keep posting nonsense repeatedly. There's the rub.
How many others here can't see the images or think they've been altered? My bet is none.
Well, I for one don't even know what shes's talking about, not that there's anything new about that.
-
Here's the thing....there's no 'News' to speak of at the moment.
The McCanns may or may not be appealing the verdict of the ECHR.
Posted elsewhere that no appeal was made so it closed on the 20/12/2022.
-
Reserving a space for Faithlilly...the latest accounts have just been filed.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-spent-7000-28912813
What ever happened of the tale that the fund could be wiped out in the fight against Amaral.
2018.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6178661/Public-fund-Madeline-McCann-WIPED-upcoming-court-case.html
Public fund to find Madeleine McCann could be WIPED OUT if Kate and Gerry are forced to pay £750,000 to detective who claimed they covered up her death in upcoming court case
Kate and Gerry sued Goncalo Amaral for claims he made about Madeleine
Ex-detective Goncalo Amaral said they covered up their daughter's death
If they lose court case set to start in a few weeks they will have to pay £750,000
This sum of money would completely wipe out the public fund to find Madeleine
-
What ever happened of the tale that the fund could be wiped out in the fight against Amaral.
2018.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6178661/Public-fund-Madeline-McCann-WIPED-upcoming-court-case.html
Public fund to find Madeleine McCann could be WIPED OUT if Kate and Gerry are forced to pay £750,000 to detective who claimed they covered up her death in upcoming court case
Kate and Gerry sued Goncalo Amaral for claims he made about Madeleine
Ex-detective Goncalo Amaral said they covered up their daughter's death
If they lose court case set to start in a few weeks they will have to pay £750,000
This sum of money would completely wipe out the public fund to find Madeleine
Perhaps someone else paid the £750,000?
-
Perhaps someone else paid the £750,000?
Maybe the same person who told them they had a good chance of winning.
-
What ever happened of the tale that the fund could be wiped out in the fight against Amaral.
2018.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6178661/Public-fund-Madeline-McCann-WIPED-upcoming-court-case.html
Public fund to find Madeleine McCann could be WIPED OUT if Kate and Gerry are forced to pay £750,000 to detective who claimed they covered up her death in upcoming court case
Kate and Gerry sued Goncalo Amaral for claims he made about Madeleine
Ex-detective Goncalo Amaral said they covered up their daughter's death
If they lose court case set to start in a few weeks they will have to pay £750,000
This sum of money would completely wipe out the public fund to find Madeleine
Libel and Freedom of Speach are two different things.
-
Perhaps someone else paid the £750,000?
Maybe some was donated from the Amaral Fund. I seem to remember there was some sort of promise to donate to charitable causes.
-
Maybe some was donated from the Amaral Fund. I seem to remember there was some sort of promise to donate to charitable causes.
I don't think you've thought that through. Why would people collecting donations to help Amaral fight off his attackers (the McCanns and Madeleine's Fund, which bankrolled them) donate to that same cause?
-
I don't think you've thought that through. Why would people collecting donations to help Amaral fight off his attackers (the McCanns and Madeleine's Fund, which bankrolled them) donate to that same cause?
One thing we have learned for2023 - just as we have every year since 2007 - is an account of the moneys held by Madeleine's Fund.
How refreshing it would be to see the same transparency given to Amaral's Fund.
PS I do so LUV your terminology 🤡
Can you think of any reason why innocent people should not "ATTACK" the notion being put about by a criminal cop who is onto at least his fourth book with the false claim that they harmed their child.
The libel was made a long time ago when none of the information available to us now in 2023 still lurked incognito in the depths of police files/
Your posts are interesting only as descriptors of the huge gaps in your knowledge of more recent and current events; some of which are tremendously shocking yet still condoned by some.
-
One thing we have learned for2023 - just as we have every year since 2007 - is an account of the moneys held by Madeleine's Fund.
How refreshing it would be to see the same transparency given to Amaral's Fund.
PS I do so LUV your terminology 🤡
Can you think of any reason why innocent people should not "ATTACK" the notion being put about by a criminal cop who is onto at least his fourth book with the false claim that they harmed their child.
The libel was made a long time ago when none of the information available to us now in 2023 still lurked incognito in the depths of police files/
Your posts are interesting only as descriptors of the huge gaps in your knowledge of more recent and current events; some of which are tremendously shocking yet still condoned by some.
Whatever reasons have been given, there's no doubt there was a prolonged attack. If the victim collected £750,000 to compensate him I don't suppose he cares who paid the McCann's debt.
-
Whatever reasons have been given, there's no doubt there was a prolonged attack. If the victim collected £750,000 to compensate him I don't suppose he cares who paid the McCann's debt.
Name instances of what you consider to be "a prolonged attack" on Amaral. Thank You. Not on this thread though, there's plenty of on topic space left to discuss this "outrage" on his very own Goncalo Amaral thread.
-
Name instances of what you consider to be "a prolonged attack" on Amaral. Thank You. Not on this thread though, there's plenty of on topic space left to discuss this "outrage" on his very own Goncalo Amaral thread.
Oh, sorry. Now who dragged his name into the discussion of the latest news about Madeleine's Fund? Naughty naughty...
-
Oh, sorry. Now who dragged his name into the discussion of the latest news about Madeleine's Fund? Naughty naughty...
As we are now into the first month of 2023 your posts suggest you have not realised that things really have changed since sceptic halcyon days of 2007 when police speculation ran riot.
Fresh eyes using much of the information which was readily available to investigators very shortly after Madeleine disappeared have altered the direction of a moribund process which had stalled in the days after May o3.
An investigation which had been going nowhere has now taken off and has gone in the only direction which might lead to resolution.
-
As we are now into the first month of 2023 your posts suggest you have not realised that things really have changed since sceptic halcyon days of 2007 when police speculation ran riot.
Fresh eyes using much of the information which was readily available to investigators very shortly after Madeleine disappeared have altered the direction of a moribund process which had stalled in the days after May o3.
An investigation which had been going nowhere has now taken off and has gone in the only direction which might lead to resolution.
Yeah, it's already resolved in Brueckner's direction I'm afraid. They spent the last 5 years investigating him already & the 'evidence' against him consists of joke confessions & hot air.
-
Oh, sorry. Now who dragged his name into the discussion of the latest news about Madeleine's Fund? Naughty naughty...
Well there were quite a few who entered the discussion but the prime mover and shaker was your good self. Your posts serve to indicate a certain chagrin when Amaral's Opaque Fund is mentioned.
Perhaps 2023 will be the year when all will be revealed in the wake of all the information available to the PJ 2007 actually being investigated when Scotland Yard eventually opened Madeleine's case.
-
Yeah, it's already resolved in Brueckner's direction I'm afraid. They spent the last 5 years investigating him already & the 'evidence' against him consists of joke confessions & hot air.
Please refrain from spamming the boards and my posts unless you would like to start posting sensibly.
-
Please refrain from spamming the boards and my posts unless you would like to start posting sensibly.
I'm not even spamming. I read the list of recent posts on the forum as whole & reply to them, I'm not flicking through individual boards haunting your every post, but then, if you stop posting easily contestable ideas I wouldn't feel the need to correct you on matters.
-
Well there were quite a few who entered the discussion but the prime mover and shaker was your good self. Your posts serve to indicate a certain chagrin when Amaral's Opaque Fund is mentioned.
Perhaps 2023 will be the year when all will be revealed in the wake of all the information available to the PJ 2007 actually being investigated when Scotland Yard eventually opened Madeleine's case.
I wouldn't go getting your hopes up.
-
Well there were quite a few who entered the discussion but the prime mover and shaker was your good self. Your posts serve to indicate a certain chagrin when Amaral's Opaque Fund is mentioned.
Perhaps 2023 will be the year when all will be revealed in the wake of all the information available to the PJ 2007 actually being investigated when Scotland Yard eventually opened Madeleine's case.
It was you, as usual, who brought Amaral into an unrelated discussion.
-
It was you, as usual, who brought Amaral into an unrelated discussion.
Please nip off and find someone else to bicker with as you seem less than keen to discuss the changes which have happened and are marked in this the year 2023.
-
Please nip off and find someone else to bicker with as you seem less than keen to discuss the changes which have happened and are marked in this the year 2023.
Tell me which changes you are so keen to discuss and I'll oblige. I've seen only a 5 year investigation into a german man's connection to Madeleine's disappearance which hasn't advanced at all.
-
Maybe some was donated from the Amaral Fund. I seem to remember there was some sort of promise to donate to charitable causes.
Well, seeing GA has been mentioned by you on this thread.
The one thing we have learned [although not new] is GA has never waivered from his beliefs the abduction was fabricated.
Still nothing it seems.... to prove that it wasn't.
-
Tell me which changes you are so keen to discuss and I'll oblige. I've seen only a 5 year investigation into a german man's connection to Madeleine's disappearance which hasn't advanced at all.
What a disingenuous post. Are you really suggesting your inability to follow a thread while adhering to the topic?
-
Well, seeing GA has been mentioned by you on this thread.
The one thing we have learned [although not new] is GA has never waivered from his beliefs the abduction was fabricated.
Still nothing it seems.... to prove that it wasn't.
Plus ca change (plus c'est la meme chose). At a time of unprecedented change in the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's case, sceptics have been unable to progress beyond the investigative errors which derailed the initial investigation for many years.
Including the less than difficult function of managing to stay on topic with thread titles.
-
What a disingenuous post. Are you really suggesting your inability to follow a thread while adhering to the topic?
I've seen nothing concrete suggesting any new developments of note recently.
-
I've seen nothing concrete suggesting any new developments of note recently.
Of course you haven't.
Which is why I said your post was disingenuous.
-
Of course you haven't.
Which is why I said your post was disingenuous.
Well then solution is in your hands. What are the unprecedented changes and what new facts have we learned?
-
Well then solution is in your hands. What are the unprecedented changes and what new facts have we learned?
You have learned nothing and never will. And I can't handle late comers who jumped on the band wagon and actually know nothing anyway.
-
Well then solution is in your hands. What are the unprecedented changes and what new facts have we learned?
Sorry, you've got that entirely wrong with a even more particularly obtuse response than your usual.
It is not for me to play question and answer with you as an interrogator proudly displaying a mind so closed it is hermetically sealed. And which is so obviously incapable of discussing and supporting avowed prejudices. Life is far too short.
If you are unable to notice the transition from an allegedly "unsolvable" case to one which has the possibility and the hope of finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann all those years ago ~ your problem!
-
Plus ca change (plus c'est la meme chose). At a time of unprecedented change in the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's case, sceptics have been unable to progress beyond the investigative errors which derailed the initial investigation for many years.
Including the less than difficult function of managing to stay on topic with thread titles.
That is IMO because the case has never progressed.
Apart from the suspect of the day - that fizzles out so lets look for another one.
-
Sorry, you've got that entirely wrong with a even more particularly obtuse response than your usual.
It is not for me to play question and answer with you as an interrogator proudly displaying a mind so closed it is hermetically sealed. And which is so obviously incapable of discussing and supporting avowed prejudices. Life is far too short.
If you are unable to notice the transition from an allegedly "unsolvable" case to one which has the possibility and the hope of finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann all those years ago ~ your problem!
Well if you can't point out anything new I can only assume there's probably nothing new to discuss.
-
That is IMO because the case has never progressed.
Apart from the suspect of the day - that fizzles out so lets look for another one.
The McCanns and Murat were made arguidos solely on suspicion - not justifiable evidence. The Portuguese Penal Code changed in September 2007 when evidence, not suspicion, is now required to constitute an arguido.
Since the change in the penal code there has never been an arguido suspected of criminal offences against Madeleine - not even the oft quoted three amigos questioned under caution by the Portuguese on behalf of Scotland Yard.
Portuguese authorities make German ‘formal suspect’ in Madeleine McCann probe
Christian Brueckner has been made an ‘arguido’ – which translates as ‘formal suspect’.
Sophie Wingate
Friday 22 April 2022
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/christian-brueckner-madeleine-mccann-portuguese-bild-praia-da-luz-b2062938.html
That is a significant progression in Madeleine's case leading into 2023.
-
Well if you can't point out anything new I can only assume there's probably nothing new to discuss.
Please yourself as you normally do.
-
The McCanns and Murat were made arguidos solely on suspicion - not justifiable evidence. The Portuguese Penal Code changed in September 2007 when evidence, not suspicion, is now required to constitute an arguido.
Since the change in the penal code there has never been an arguido suspected of criminal offences against Madeleine - not even the oft quoted three amigos questioned under caution by the Portuguese on behalf of Scotland Yard.
Portuguese authorities make German ‘formal suspect’ in Madeleine McCann probe
Christian Brueckner has been made an ‘arguido’ – which translates as ‘formal suspect’.
Sophie Wingate
Friday 22 April 2022
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/christian-brueckner-madeleine-mccann-portuguese-bild-praia-da-luz-b2062938.html
That is a significant progression in Madeleine's case leading into 2023.
That is a significant progression in Madeleine's case leading into 2023.
April 2022..........leading into 2023. you class as progression. FGS.
-
That is a significant progression in Madeleine's case leading into 2023.
April 2022..........leading into 2023. you class as progression. FGS.
The preponderance you exhibit for lifting one sentence from each of my posts for criticism while disregarding the meaning of the post in its entirety, evidences your rather limited view of events and inability to grasp the bigger picture.
It has taken more than fifteen years to reach this stage in an investigation which the Portuguese gave up on after a few months.
I think that is indeed a progression - then I am interested in what happened to Madeleine - you and Amaral think you know.
-
Picked up an old copy of the original Myst (one of the first computer games on CD as opposed to floppies) at a garage sale several years ago and have been hooked on Cyan's mind-challenging games in their various iterations ever since... Riven, Myst sequels and their most recent, Obduction (for which you need a hefty graphics card)... https://cyan.com/games/ (https://cyan.com/games/)
You have the right sort of mind, qualifications and intellect,
Did you write/compose the computer game "Myst", Myster?
That was the best Chrissy present that I ever bought my hubby. Kept him busy for weeks.
I think he liked it better than football .. Yawn .... Oh, pardon me,!
Congratulations if it was your baby, Ret. Well done.
-
The McCanns and Murat were made arguidos solely on suspicion - not justifiable evidence. The Portuguese Penal Code changed in September 2007 when evidence, not suspicion, is now required to constitute an arguido.
Since the change in the penal code there has never been an arguido suspected of criminal offences against Madeleine - not even the oft quoted three amigos questioned under caution by the Portuguese on behalf of Scotland Yard.
Portuguese authorities make German ‘formal suspect’ in Madeleine McCann probe
Christian Brueckner has been made an ‘arguido’ – which translates as ‘formal suspect’.
Sophie Wingate
Friday 22 April 2022
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/christian-brueckner-madeleine-mccann-portuguese-bild-praia-da-luz-b2062938.html
That is a significant progression in Madeleine's case leading into 2023.
Interestingly, I came across an explanation of the changes made to the Portuguese Procedure Code which came into force in September 2007. The change relating to arguidos is described as;
To name someone as “arguido” the criminal police force now requires validation by a judge.
https://www.portugalresident.com/revisions-of-the-criminal-procedure-code/
No mention there of a requirement for specific evidence to be provided.
-
Interestingly, I came across an explanation of the changes made to the Portuguese Procedure Code which came into force in September 2007. The change relating to arguidos is described as;
To name someone as “arguido” the criminal police force now requires validation by a judge.
https://www.portugalresident.com/revisions-of-the-criminal-procedure-code/
No mention there of a requirement for specific evidence to be provided.
So how is a judge to come to a decision about whether or not to make someone an arguido? Toss of a coin?
-
So how is a judge to come to a decision about whether or not to make someone an arguido? Toss of a coin?
That would be up to the judge, I expect. There were already circumstance in which the PJ had to apply to a judge for permissions. Searches, phone tapping, admissability of evidence are all mentioned in the files as needing judicial input.
-
That would be up to the judge, I expect. There were already circumstance in which the PJ had to apply to a judge for permissions. Searches, phone tapping, admissability of evidence are all mentioned in the files as needing judicial input.
Yes we know it would be up to the judge but upon what would the judge rely to come to a decision about whether or not to make someone an arguido? Not evidence of wrongdoing according to you, so then what?
-
That would be up to the judge, I expect. There were already circumstance in which the PJ had to apply to a judge for permissions. Searches, phone tapping, admissability of evidence are all mentioned in the files as needing judicial input.
Where in the files does it mention admissibility of evidence.
The statements you continually refer to..the dog alerts .the DNA ...none of that would be admissible..that's one of the reasons I think sceptics are daft
-
Yes we know it would be up to the judge but upon what would the judge rely to come to a decision about whether or not to make someone an arguido? Not evidence of wrongdoing according to you, so then what?
According to the Portuguese Public Prosecution Service;
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
https://gddc.ministeriopublico.pt/pagina/notes-portuguese-legal-terms
-
Where in the files does it mention admissibility of evidence.
The statements you continually refer to..the dog alerts .the DNA ...none of that would be admissible..that's one of the reasons I think sceptics are daft
The judge refused to allow Kate's diaries to be included as evidence.
Conclusion 26-06-2008
(Presents invoice)
The photocopies of the 'diary' do not contain any material of interest to the ongoing investigation, but relate to the personal and inviolable personal experiences of any person.
Accordingly I order the diary's respective destruction.
Portimao
2008-06-27
Pedro Frias
Criminal Instruction Judge
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BIBLE.htm
-
Where in the files does it mention admissibility of evidence.
The statements you continually refer to..the dog alerts .the DNA ...none of that would be admissible..that's one of the reasons I think sceptics are daft
I think supporters should read the files and they would then know what the judge allowed and what wasn't allowed. Their opinions are irrelevant. Following the dog searches and alerts the PJ applied for a search warrant for the McCann's villa and it was granted;
Ministry of Justice
Lagos Court
SEARCH WARRANT
In Triplicate
Case: 201.070 GALGS
Inquiry ? Legal Acts
Date: 2nd August 2007
Subject: Search Warrant ? Valid for 20 days with strict observance of the proceedings laid down in articles n 176 ? 177 of the CPP. Competence of the Lagos Judge.
Dr Anjos Frias, Judge of the Lagos Court
ORDERS that according to the terms of articles 174 n 2, 176 n1, 177 n|1, 177n1, 296 n1 of the Penal Process Code a SEARCH will be made of the premises identified below, if necessary with forced entry whilst observing the legal formalities foreseen in articles 176 and 177 of the CPP, for the EFFECTIVE APPREHENSION of all elements that could clarify the investigation and instruction process according to the terms of article 178 of the same code.
The search should include the entire property, even the part occupied by people other than the suspects, including annexes and rented areas.
Before proceeding to effect the search, copy of the dispatch attached determining who had access to the place, mentioning that they can be present during the search and be accompanied or substituted by someone of confidence will be delivered. If the persons in reference are not present, copy of the dispatch can be delivered where possible to a family member, neighbour, caretaker or whoever acts as substitute, article 176, n 1 and 2 of the CPP.
All information will be included in the process files.
Location of Inquiry:
?McCann family residence?, respective garages and annexes, situated in Vista Mar, Luz Parque, Praia da Luz, if necessary with forced entry.
Signed and sealed
Judge Anjos Frias
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm#%20p8p2085
I hope this adds to people's knowledge, even if it's a long time ago.
-
According to the Portuguese Public Prosecution Service;
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
https://gddc.ministeriopublico.pt/pagina/notes-portuguese-legal-terms
What do you think “grounds to suspect” are based on? Gut feel?
-
I think supporters should read the files and they would then know what the judge allowed and what wasn't allowed. Their opinions are irrelevant. Following the dog searches and alerts the PJ applied for a search warrant for the McCann's villa and it was granted;
Ministry of Justice
Lagos Court
SEARCH WARRANT
In Triplicate
Case: 201.070 GALGS
Inquiry ? Legal Acts
Date: 2nd August 2007
Subject: Search Warrant ? Valid for 20 days with strict observance of the proceedings laid down in articles n 176 ? 177 of the CPP. Competence of the Lagos Judge.
Dr Anjos Frias, Judge of the Lagos Court
ORDERS that according to the terms of articles 174 n 2, 176 n1, 177 n|1, 177n1, 296 n1 of the Penal Process Code a SEARCH will be made of the premises identified below, if necessary with forced entry whilst observing the legal formalities foreseen in articles 176 and 177 of the CPP, for the EFFECTIVE APPREHENSION of all elements that could clarify the investigation and instruction process according to the terms of article 178 of the same code.
The search should include the entire property, even the part occupied by people other than the suspects, including annexes and rented areas.
Before proceeding to effect the search, copy of the dispatch attached determining who had access to the place, mentioning that they can be present during the search and be accompanied or substituted by someone of confidence will be delivered. If the persons in reference are not present, copy of the dispatch can be delivered where possible to a family member, neighbour, caretaker or whoever acts as substitute, article 176, n 1 and 2 of the CPP.
All information will be included in the process files.
Location of Inquiry:
?McCann family residence?, respective garages and annexes, situated in Vista Mar, Luz Parque, Praia da Luz, if necessary with forced entry.
Signed and sealed
Judge Anjos Frias
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm#%20p8p2085
I hope this adds to people's knowledge, even if it's a long time ago.
What’s this got to do with admissibility of evidence?
-
What do you think “grounds to suspect” are based on? Gut feel?
What do you think?
-
I think supporters should read the files and they would then know what the judge allowed and what wasn't allowed. Their opinions are irrelevant. Following the dog searches and alerts the PJ applied for a search warrant for the McCann's villa and it was granted;
Ministry of Justice
Lagos Court
SEARCH WARRANT
In Triplicate
Case: 201.070 GALGS
Inquiry ? Legal Acts
Date: 2nd August 2007
Subject: Search Warrant ? Valid for 20 days with strict observance of the proceedings laid down in articles n 176 ? 177 of the CPP. Competence of the Lagos Judge.
Dr Anjos Frias, Judge of the Lagos Court
ORDERS that according to the terms of articles 174 n 2, 176 n1, 177 n|1, 177n1, 296 n1 of the Penal Process Code a SEARCH will be made of the premises identified below, if necessary with forced entry whilst observing the legal formalities foreseen in articles 176 and 177 of the CPP, for the EFFECTIVE APPREHENSION of all elements that could clarify the investigation and instruction process according to the terms of article 178 of the same code.
The search should include the entire property, even the part occupied by people other than the suspects, including annexes and rented areas.
Before proceeding to effect the search, copy of the dispatch attached determining who had access to the place, mentioning that they can be present during the search and be accompanied or substituted by someone of confidence will be delivered. If the persons in reference are not present, copy of the dispatch can be delivered where possible to a family member, neighbour, caretaker or whoever acts as substitute, article 176, n 1 and 2 of the CPP.
All information will be included in the process files.
Location of Inquiry:
?McCann family residence?, respective garages and annexes, situated in Vista Mar, Luz Parque, Praia da Luz, if necessary with forced entry.
Signed and sealed
Judge Anjos Frias
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm#%20p8p2085
I hope this adds to people's knowledge, even if it's a long time ago.
Where in that does it discuss admissibility of evidence. I often find sceptics knowledge of the files sadly lacking
-
What do you think?
I asked you. You claimed there would be no requirement for specific evidence so what else would help the judge decide whether or not there were “grounds to suspect”?
-
What’s this got to do with admissibility of evidence?
It shows that judges were involved in the McCann investigation where required by law before September 2007 as well as after that date.
-
I asked you. You claimed there would be no requirement for specific evidence so what else would help the judge decide whether or not there were “grounds to suspect”?
What I actually said was that the change in the law didn't mention evidence as a member claims. The only change in September 2007 seems to be that a judge needs to ratify the decision to award arguido status to someone.
-
Interestingly, I came across an explanation of the changes made to the Portuguese Procedure Code which came into force in September 2007. The change relating to arguidos is described as;
To name someone as “arguido” the criminal police force now requires validation by a judge.
https://www.portugalresident.com/revisions-of-the-criminal-procedure-code/
No mention there of a requirement for specific evidence to be provided.
In the real world one supposes investigators such as the PJ would require to present evidence to a judge before an individual could be constituted arguido.
Insufficient or no evidence would be seen as a giant NO! NO!
I think the system in Germany might be similar to the one currently being pursued in Germany. Approval of the evidence prior to prosecution.
Or in our own country ~
Scotland - The procurator fiscal decides if there's enough evidence There must be at least 2 independent pieces of evidence for this, like: eye-witness stories fingerprint evidence other forensic or scientific evidence If they think more evidence is needed, the procurator fiscal may ask the police to do more investigating.
https://www.mygov.scot/police-investigation/the-decision-to-take-a-case-to-court#:~:text=The%20procurator%20fiscal%20decides%20if%20there%27s%20enough%20evidence,may%20ask%20the%20police%20to%20do%20more%20investigating.
England & Wales - CPS
The Code for Crown Prosecutors sets out the basic principles to be followed by Crown Prosecutors when they make case decisions. The decision on whether or not to charge a case against a suspect is based on the Full Code Test as outlined in the Code. The Full Code Test has two stages: (1)The evidential stage (2)The public interest stage
https://www.cps.gov.uk/principles-we-follow
My Opinion: one of the definitions of a Police State is one where the police are a law unto themselves as regard to deciding who shall and who will be prosecuted.
Most civilised societies have removed that opportunity for error, incompetence or even corruption by introducing the checks and balances of a competent and trained eye which is independent of the police.
Portugal having been a Police State and a Dictatorship just caught up with the rest of the world in September 2007 when introducing the requirement to oversee the police in matters of law.
You really do have a bee in your bonnet about Portugal being brought into line with other States in the EU. But if you stop to think about it - you might begin to see how logical it all really is ;)
-
It shows that judges were involved in the McCann investigation where required by law before September 2007 as well as after that date.
So when you were pontificating about supporters lack of knowledge of the files...and judge's ruling in the admissibility of evidence..you were spouting junk....as I thought
-
It shows that judges were involved in the McCann investigation where required by law before September 2007 as well as after that date.
Who claimed they were not?
-
What I actually said was that the change in the law didn't mention evidence as a member claims. The only change in September 2007 seems to be that a judge needs to ratify the decision to award arguido status to someone.
Whereas before a judge didn’t need to ratify the decision to award arguido status?
-
What I actually said was that the change in the law didn't mention evidence as a member claims. The only change in September 2007 seems to be that a judge needs to ratify the decision to award arguido status to someone.
So this guy’s lying is he?
“Previously the police did not need to provide any evidence to justify their suspicions, but this has now changed under the new penal code.
Attorney General, Fernando Pinto Monteiro said: "The law did not demand justified suspicions at the time in which they were made 'arguidos'.
"I do not know if they would be in light of the new code."
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/portuguese-police-rushed-to-make-mccanns-suspects-to-avoid-new-law-6623136.html
-
This guy must have been lying too
“Yesterday friends of the couple angrily accused police of a deliberate smear campaign as the McCann's lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu spoke out.
He said: "After September 15, a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen to make
him an arguido.
"Before September 15, it wasn't necessary. You could be made an arguido without any suspicions or evidence against you.
"Now to constitute anybody as an arguido it is necessary to have evidence in the file.
"That's why the national public prosecutor said that if this inquiry was launched now, maybe they would not have been made arguidos.
"Maybe that's why the inquiry happened then, why they were made arguidos eight days before the new laws came in."
-
Whereas before a judge didn’t need to ratify the decision to award arguido status?
I assume not.
-
Awarding the McCanns arguido status was done because the PJ suspected them. If a judge had needed to be involved we don't know what s/he would have decided or why. All I know is that a judge seemed to think there was justification, based on the results of the dog searches, to issue a search warrant for the McCann's villa and hire car on 1st August 2007.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
-
Awarding the McCanns arguido status was done because the PJ suspected them. If a judge had needed to be involved we don't know what s/he would have decided or why. All I know is that a judge seemed to think there was justification, based on the results of the dog searches, to issue a search warrant for the McCann's villa and hire car on 1st August 2007.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
Their lawyer and the attorney general of Portugal doubted that the McCanns would have been made arguidos after the law change. Is that not good enough for you?
-
Awarding the McCanns arguido status was done because the PJ suspected them. If a judge had needed to be involved we don't know what s/he would have decided or why. All I know is that a judge seemed to think there was justification, based on the results of the dog searches, to issue a search warrant for the McCann's villa and hire car on 1st August 2007.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
Sigh ... perhaps you might allow the reader to learn something from the files were you to indicate and address the information contained in the correct ones.
No wonder confusion abounds.
Snip
This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'
These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.
It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.
In this case the dogs signalled several places. The technicians of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered those vestiges ' vestiges that that on it's majority were not visible to the eye ' and sent them to the laboratories for the necessary forensic exams, in order to recover and identify the DNA profiles, that might be extracted from them.
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
Then you as a sceptic really cannot progress beyond the failed investigation of 2007 can you ... to do so would blow yours and Amaral's theories right out of the water.
There are files and there are files. Start reading and promulgating the correct ones and you might learn something.
-
Sigh ... perhaps you might allow the reader to learn something from the files were you to indicate and address the information contained in the correct ones.
No wonder confusion abounds.
Snip
This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'
These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.
It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.
In this case the dogs signalled several places. The technicians of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered those vestiges ' vestiges that that on it's majority were not visible to the eye ' and sent them to the laboratories for the necessary forensic exams, in order to recover and identify the DNA profiles, that might be extracted from them.
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm
Then you as a sceptic really cannot progress beyond the failed investigation of 2007 can you ... to do so would blow yours and Amaral's theories right out of the water.
There are files and there are files. Start reading and promulgating the correct ones and you might learn something.
Had the arguido status been requested after the law changed then the decision would have been made by a judge. What that judge's decision would have been no-one knows. I don't suppose s/he would have taken into account other's opinions. The decision would have been based on the law, not opinions.
-
Had the arguido status been requested after the law changed then the decision would have been made by a judge. What that judge's decision would have been no-one knows. I don't suppose s/he would have taken into account other's opinions. The decision would have been based on the law, not opinions.
Like Brueckner you mean?
-
Had the arguido status been requested after the law changed then the decision would have been made by a judge. What that judge's decision would have been no-one knows. I don't suppose s/he would have taken into account other's opinions. The decision would have been based on the law, not opinions.
"The decision would have been based on the law, not opinions."
Which is precisely what I have been endeavouring to impress upon you to no avail (complete with links and cites) for how many years is it now.
-
Like Brueckner you mean?
A very strange one that by all accounts.
The hypothesis featuring the McCanns with absolutely nothing going for it obviously took precedence over legitimate investigation of a man the theorist in chief Amaral, admits to knowing at the time was a paedophile who slipped through the net.
That was some opinion!
Snip
The former inspector of the JUDICIARY also says that Brueckner was actually on a "list of pedophiles who lived in the region" at the time of the crimes. "The agents knocked on the door but he wasn't home," Goncalo Amaral
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11381.msg700323#msg700323
-
"The decision would have been based on the law, not opinions."
Which is precisely what I have been endeavouring to impress upon you to no avail (complete with links and cites) for how many years is it now.
Pardon? I'm not the one whose cites are plucked mainly from the press.
-
Had the arguido status been requested after the law changed then the decision would have been made by a judge. What that judge's decision would have been no-one knows. I don't suppose s/he would have taken into account other's opinions. The decision would have been based on the law, not opinions.
The decision would have been based on the strength of the evidence or otherwise. There would have needed to be good grounds for making them arguidos (which two professionals commenting on the case felt that there would have been insufficient evidence for such a move).
-
The decision would have been based on the strength of the evidence or otherwise. There would have needed to be good grounds for making them arguidos (which two professionals commenting on the case felt that there would have been insufficient evidence for such a move).
Of course there was insufficient evidence. But not in the case of Brueckner, apparently.
-
https://instagram.com/iammadeleinemccan?igshid=MDM4ZDc5MmU=
Have you seen this information, the girl is claiming she might be Madeleine and Kate and Gerry have agreed to do a DNA test. Same time her family has disowned her, they did not want provide the birth certificate nor the photos she requested from them.
-
The decision would have been based on the strength of the evidence or otherwise. There would have needed to be good grounds for making them arguidos (which two professionals commenting on the case felt that there would have been insufficient evidence for such a move).
In December 2007, when the two professionals commented, they were unlikely to have had the knowledge which the PJ had.
-
In December 2007, when the two professionals commented, they were unlikely to have had the knowledge which the PJ had.
what evidence did the PJ have that would not have been known to the McCanns lawyer and the Attorney General of Portugal in December 2007? He AG’s comments came in 2012 btw.
-
In December 2007, when the two professionals commented, they were unlikely to have had the knowledge which the PJ had.
Is that a fact....or merely your opinion
-
In December 2007, when the two professionals commented, they were unlikely to have had the knowledge which the PJ had.
Why do you think this is relevant when its likely taht CB wil be convicted of murdering Maddie this year.
-
what evidence did the PJ have that would not have been known to the McCanns lawyer and the Attorney General of Portugal in December 2007? He AG’s comments came in 2012 btw.
Not according to the Mail;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500111/Portuguese-police-rushed-make-McCanns-suspects-avoid-new-law.html
-
Why do you think this is relevant when its likely taht CB wil be convicted of murdering Maddie this year.
Is that new news? I have learned that the claim that evidence has been required to create an arguido since September 2007 isn't recording in the current information available and wasn't reported at the time. It seems to have been an opinion expressed by the McCann's defense lawyer.
-
Not according to the Mail;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500111/Portuguese-police-rushed-make-McCanns-suspects-avoid-new-law.html
Does this mean that The PJ have Firm Evidence against Brueckner? And what could it be?
-
Is that new news? I have learned that the claim that evidence has been required to create an arguido since September 2007 isn't recording in the current information available and wasn't reported at the time. It seems to have been an opinion expressed by the McCann's defense lawyer.
Since what date in September
-
Not according to the Mail;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500111/Portuguese-police-rushed-make-McCanns-suspects-avoid-new-law.html
I can’t open that link
-
Is that new news? I have learned that the claim that evidence has been required to create an arguido since September 2007 isn't recording in the current information available and wasn't reported at the time. It seems to have been an opinion expressed by the McCann's defense lawyer.
What does this mean?
“In relation to the investigation stage of a crime, a provision has been included where if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed, an inquiry will not be initiated, which was not the case before”.
-
Pardon? I'm not the one whose cites are plucked mainly from the press.
You are pardoned.
-
What does this mean?
“In relation to the investigation stage of a crime, a provision has been included where if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed, an inquiry will not be initiated, which was not the case before”.
What is meant by 'inquiry'?
-
What is meant by 'inquiry'?
I asked the question, you seem to know everything about everything so why don't you tell me? You believe you've uncovered something of significance in the paragraph that follows the sentence I highlighted so kindly parse this one too for the benefit of us dimmos.
-
I asked the question, you seem to know everything about everything so why don't you tell me? You believe you've uncovered something of significance in the paragraph that follows the sentence I highlighted so kindly parse this one too for the benefit of us dimmos.
Thank you for the compliment but I only know what I know. I don't know what is meant by 'inquiry'. My best guess is that it refers to the inquiry stage of the process, which seems to follow the investigative stage.
-
Thank you for the compliment but I only know what I know. I don't know what is meant by 'inquiry'. My best guess is that it refers to the inquiry stage of the process, which seems to follow the investigative stage.
More pertinently what do you take to understand by the word grounds in the sentence "if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed"? What might give grounds to suspect that a crime had been committed? Perhaps inquiry means that stage in the investigation during which the arguidoship is conferred on a suspect so that they may be questioned? The sentence makes clear it is describing the investigative stage of the crime after all.
-
Thank you for the compliment but I only know what I know. I don't know what is meant by 'inquiry'. My best guess is that it refers to the inquiry stage of the process, which seems to follow the investigative stage.
What happened during the inquiry stage in the McCann case which followed the investigative stage? Can you highlight that bit in the files pertaining to the inquiry rather than the investigation?
-
More pertinently what do you take to understand by the word grounds in the sentence "if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed"? What might give grounds to suspect that a crime had been committed? Perhaps inquiry means that stage in the investigation during which the arguidoship is conferred on a suspect so that they may be questioned? The sentence makes clear it is describing the investigative stage of the crime after all.
An unconfirmed report of a crime by a member of the public?
-
An unconfirmed report of a crime by a member of the public?
What are you talking about?
-
What happened during the inquiry stage in the McCann case which followed the investigative stage? Can you highlight that bit in the files pertaining to the inquiry rather than the investigation?
I've got this;
These are the steps a case will go through, under Portuguese law, before reaching the final 'Trial Phase'.
1 - Police receive knowledge of an 'occurence'. They decide if it is likely to constitute a crime.
2 - After a maximum of 10 days, if it is likely to be a crime, the police have to report it to the Prosecutor Services (Ministério Público).
3 - The INQUIRY PHASE begins. The Ministério Público (MP) starts the investigation. A prosecutor heads the investigation, with the help of the police. Under certain circumstances, this phase can be under secrecy of justice (This results from the new code. Previously it was, by default, under secrecy of justice).
4 - Some powers can be delegated by the Ministério Público to the police (PJ).
5 - All is overseen by an INSTRUCTION JUDGE who has to approve certain measures like preventive arrest, etc.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id126.htm
-
I've got this;
These are the steps a case will go through, under Portuguese law, before reaching the final 'Trial Phase'.
1 - Police receive knowledge of an 'occurence'. They decide if it is likely to constitute a crime.
2 - After a maximum of 10 days, if it is likely to be a crime, the police have to report it to the Prosecutor Services (Ministério Público).
3 - The INQUIRY PHASE begins. The Ministério Público (MP) starts the investigation. A prosecutor heads the investigation, with the help of the police. Under certain circumstances, this phase can be under secrecy of justice (This results from the new code. Previously it was, by default, under secrecy of justice).
4 - Some powers can be delegated by the Ministério Público to the police (PJ).
5 - All is overseen by an INSTRUCTION JUDGE who has to approve certain measures like preventive arrest, etc.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id126.htm
so I was right and you were wrong then.
-
so I was right and you were wrong then.
I was;
An unconfirmed report of a crime by a member of the public?
-
I was;
An unconfirmed report of a crime by a member of the public?
you was what? What are you talking about?
-
I've learned that Gerry McCann no longer works as a consultant cardiologist and his wife Kate now works as a manager in a care home.
-
I've learned that Gerry McCann no longer works as a consultant cardiologist and his wife Kate now works as a manager in a care home.
I asked you to clarify one of your posts in a comment directly above this one. Could you please?
-
I asked you to clarify one of your posts in a comment directly above this one. Could you please?
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. My whole point was that nowhere in any official description of the changes in September 2007 does the word 'evidence' appear in connection with the awarding of arguido status. Does that word appear anywhere except in reports of what the McCann's defence lawyer said? If not, we have learned that it was his opinion of what the changes were, not necessarly a factual account.
-
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. My whole point was that nowhere in any official description of the changes in September 2007 does the word 'evidence' appear in connection with the awarding of arguido status. Does that word appear anywhere except in reports of what the McCann's defence lawyer said? If not, we have learned that it was his opinion of what the changes were, not necessarly a factual account.
Specifically when you said: “I was” - what were you? And when you said “an unconfirmed report of a crime by a member of the public?” what were you talking about?
Are you just playing word games again?
-
Specifically when you said: “I was” - what were you? And when you said “an unconfirmed report of a crime by a member of the public?” what were you talking about?
Are you just playing word games again?
Have you seen any official description of the changes which say that evidence is needed to declare someone an arguido?
-
Have you seen any official description of the changes which say that evidence is needed to declare someone an arguido?
Until you actually do me the courtesy of replying to my question I see no reason why I should reply to any that you put to me.
-
Who (apart from G-Unit) has come forward to say that what this man said at the time is a bare-faced lie? What does Amaral say about it, or any Portuguese law expert? Not that interested in the views of an old armchair detective from the Midlands quite frankly.
"It also appears to back up criticisms voiced by the McCanns' lawyer in Portugal, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, who suggested in December that police had waged a smear campaign against the couple by rushing to make them suspects on September 8 – just days before a new law would have made it impossible without firm evidence.
Portugal's Attorney General Fernando Pinto Monteiro has already admitted the McCanns, both 39, might not have been named arguidos after its introduction.
Mr Pinto de Abreu said: "Before September 15 last year you could be made an arguido without any suspicions or evidence against you.
"Now, to constitute someone as an arguido, it is necessary to have evidence in the file. That's why the national public prosecutor said that if this inquiry was launched now, maybe they would not have been made arguidos."
Asked whether he thought police acted deliberately as they knew the new law was coming in, he added: "I don't know if that's true, but yes, it's possible."
-
Who (apart from G-Unit) has come forward to say that what this man said at the time is a bare-faced lie? What does Amaral say about it, or any Portuguese law expert? Not that interested in the views of an old armchair detective from the Midlands quite frankly.
"It also appears to back up criticisms voiced by the McCanns' lawyer in Portugal, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, who suggested in December that police had waged a smear campaign against the couple by rushing to make them suspects on September 8 – just days before a new law would have made it impossible without firm evidence.
Portugal's Attorney General Fernando Pinto Monteiro has already admitted the McCanns, both 39, might not have been named arguidos after its introduction.
Mr Pinto de Abreu said: "Before September 15 last year you could be made an arguido without any suspicions or evidence against you.
"Now, to constitute someone as an arguido, it is necessary to have evidence in the file. That's why the national public prosecutor said that if this inquiry was launched now, maybe they would not have been made arguidos."
Asked whether he thought police acted deliberately as they knew the new law was coming in, he added: "I don't know if that's true, but yes, it's possible."
No. 1. I have accused no-one of bare-faced lying.
No. 2. Who is the old armchair detective and how do you know their location?
Bearing in mind that it was the lawyer's job to help the McCanns and cast doubt on the actions of the PJ, the only change to the law announced was that a judge had to authorise the awarding of arguido status. Evidence wasn't mentioned afaik.
-
No. 1. I have accused no-one of bare-faced lying.
No. 2. Who is the old armchair detective and how do you know their location?
Bearing in mind that it was the lawyer's job to help the McCanns and cast doubt on the actions of the PJ, the only change to the law announced was that a judge had to authorise the awarding of arguido status. Evidence wasn't mentioned afaik.
What I wrote before stands - you don't get answers from me about what I've written until you do me the courtesy and reply to mine. The ball is in your court.
-
What I wrote before stands - you don't get answers from me about what I've written until you do me the courtesy and reply to mine. The ball is in your court.
Carlos Pinto de Abreu is the lawyer who advised the McCanns on 6th/7th September 2007 that the PJ had a lot of evidence against them. (madeleine) What did he learn by December 2007 which led him to suggest that there was none? (Daily Mirror)
The only answer I need from anyone who can provide it is whether any official publication says that evidence is required before an arguido can be created, and that it wasn't needed before the law changed in September 2007.
-
When the McCanns were made arguidos was it as a result of "strong indications of the practice of a crime?" Because when CB was made an arguido that is what the authorities said. I wonder why...? *%87
-
When the McCanns were made arguidos was it as a result of "strong indications of the practice of a crime?" Because when CB was made an arguido that is what the authorities said. I wonder why...? *%87
This is the rub. Does Portugal have any evidence against Brueckner? If not then why have they made him an Arguido?
If Portugal is trying to stitch up Brueckner then equally they tried to stitch up The McCanns.
I don't want to know about The Statute of Limitations. This isn't Evidence.
-
This is the rub. Does Portugal have any evidence against Brueckner? If not then why have they made him an Arguido?
If Portugal is trying to stitch up Brueckner then equally they tried to stitch up The McCanns.
I don't want to know about The Statute of Limitations. This isn't Evidence.
Yes they do, he's a burgling rapist & paedophile who told his mates he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence.
That's their evidence.
-
Carlos Pinto de Abreu is the lawyer who advised the McCanns on 6th/7th September 2007 that the PJ had a lot of evidence against them. (madeleine) What did he learn by December 2007 which led him to suggest that there was none? (Daily Mirror)
The only answer I need from anyone who can provide it is whether any official publication says that evidence is required before an arguido can be created, and that it wasn't needed before the law changed in September 2007.
As part of the learning curve, I think it would be worth ascertaining in your attempt to rewrite recent Portuguese history whether or not you accept that there were changes to the Portuguese Civil Code in September 2007.
-
This is the rub. Does Portugal have any evidence against Brueckner? If not then why have they made him an Arguido?
If Portugal is trying to stitch up Brueckner then equally they tried to stitch up The McCanns.
I don't want to know about The Statute of Limitations. This isn't Evidence.
Interesting question.
I wonder if they went through the information they had on him which brought them to knock at his door in 2007.
Maybe there was evidence in that. At the least there may have been intelligence.
-
As part of the learning curve, I think it would be worth ascertaining in your attempt to rewrite recent Portuguese history whether or not you accept that there were changes to the Portuguese Civil Code in September 2007.
Are you referring to the 15th revision to the Criminal Procedure Code of the law number 48/2007, which was published on August 29, and came into effect on September 15th?
-
Are you referring to the 15th revision to the Criminal Procedure Code of the law number 48/2007, which was published on August 29, and came into effect on September 15th?
the simple answer is in the archiving report where it says....none of the indications used to make the mccanns arguidos. Best to refer to the original portuges...indeces...as i recall...does that mean evidence...and theres your answer..tia
-
Are you referring to the 15th revision to the Criminal Procedure Code of the law number 48/2007, which was published on August 29, and came into effect on September 15th?
I asked whether or not you accept that there were changes to the Portuguese Civil Code in September 2007. Seems your Google thingy is working OK, so what have you learned from it regarding changes to Portuguese law in September 2007.
Second time of asking ~ do you accept there were changes made in September 2007. Only this time round I'll do a deal with you and notify you of the relevant Article of the Penal Code and Law No. in exchange for your answer to the original question ;)
-
I asked whether or not you accept that there were changes to the Portuguese Civil Code in September 2007. Seems your Google thingy is working OK, so what have you learned from it regarding changes to Portuguese law in September 2007.
Second time of asking ~ do you accept there were changes made in September 2007. Only this time round I'll do a deal with you and notify you of the relevant Article of the Penal Code and Law No. in exchange for your answer to the original question ;)
Yes, there were changes. I've listed those of interest;
In relation to the investigation stage of a crime, a provision has been included where if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed, an inquiry will not be initiated, which was not the case before.
To name someone as “arguido” the criminal police force now requires validation by a judge.
To protect the suspect’s rights, before the first interview, the person must be informed of the facts that are attributed to them and of the existing evidence, as long as this does not jeopardise the investigation or the fundamental rights of third parties.
Interviews now have a maximum duration of four hours, where previously there was no time limit, and can be resumed for the same period of time but only with a minimum interval of an hour. Statements made in violation of these limits are considered void.
On the justice secrecy issue, the changes that were made created a less rigid system. From now on, secrecy may be set aside pending prevailing interests. The access of privileged content in proceedings has also been restricted. The parties can now be allowed access to the proceedings as long as the investigation or the fundamental rights of third parties are not affected.https://www.portugalresident.com/revisions-of-the-criminal-procedure-code/
-
That which I find most interesting is that Arguidos do not have to answer questions, even if they have already answered them previously. So what is the point of drawing up a list of questions other than trying to make someone look guilty by engaging the rights bestowed on them by The Portuguese Justice System?
This doesn't make sense.
-
That which I find most interesting is that Arguidos do not have to answer questions, even if they have already answered them previously. So what is the point of drawing up a list of questions other than trying to make someone look guilty by engaging the rights bestowed on them by The Portuguese Justice System?
This doesn't make sense.
Ehgland and Wales allows it's suspects the same right, as do 108 other countries.
-
Yes, there were changes. I've listed those of interest;
In relation to the investigation stage of a crime, a provision has been included where if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed, an inquiry will not be initiated, which was not the case before.
To name someone as “arguido” the criminal police force now requires validation by a judge.
To protect the suspect’s rights, before the first interview, the person must be informed of the facts that are attributed to them and of the existing evidence, as long as this does not jeopardise the investigation or the fundamental rights of third parties.
Interviews now have a maximum duration of four hours, where previously there was no time limit, and can be resumed for the same period of time but only with a minimum interval of an hour. Statements made in violation of these limits are considered void.
On the justice secrecy issue, the changes that were made created a less rigid system. From now on, secrecy may be set aside pending prevailing interests. The access of privileged content in proceedings has also been restricted. The parties can now be allowed access to the proceedings as long as the investigation or the fundamental rights of third parties are not affected.https://www.portugalresident.com/revisions-of-the-criminal-procedure-code/
The salient paragraph to our discussion is this one:
In relation to the investigation stage of a crime, a provision has been included where if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed, an inquiry will not be initiated, which was not the case before.
-
Ehgland and Wales allows it's suspects the same right, as do 108 other countries.
What? A Right to Silence do you mean? So why go through all of that rigmarole to get to something that they are entitled to anyway?
-
The salient paragraph to our discussion is this one:
In relation to the investigation stage of a crime, a provision has been included where if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed, an inquiry will not be initiated, which was not the case before.
I don't know why you think that's relevant. In the McCann case a missing child was reported to the PJ, so an inquiry, overseen by the Public Prosecutor, was begun.
-
I don't know why you think that's relevant. In the McCann case a missing child was reported to the PJ, so an inquiry, overseen by the Public Prosecutor, was begun.
Which in the case of The McCanns got them absolutely nowhere, other than to impose unfounded suspicion. Which is probably what it was all about anyway.
-
I don't know why you think that's relevant. In the McCann case a missing child was reported to the PJ, so an inquiry, overseen by the Public Prosecutor, was begun.
Is this paragraph not relevant to the decision-making process when conferring arguido status on someone? I thought that's what this whole petty argument was about?
-
Is this paragraph not relevant to the decision-making process when conferring arguido status on someone? I thought that's what this whole petty argument was about?
No. It's to do with judicial secrecy.
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).
https://gddc.ministeriopublico.pt/pagina/notes-portuguese-legal-terms
-
No. It's to do with judicial secrecy.
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).
https://gddc.ministeriopublico.pt/pagina/notes-portuguese-legal-terms
Huh?!
You raised the subject a few days ago by posting what you felt was proof that someone (such as CB) could still be made an arguido without the need for any specific evidence to be provided - where is the mention of judicial secrecy?
Interestingly, I came across an explanation of the changes made to the Portuguese Procedure Code which came into force in September 2007. The change relating to arguidos is described as;
To name someone as “arguido” the criminal police force now requires validation by a judge.
https://www.portugalresident.com/revisions-of-the-criminal-procedure-code/
No mention there of a requirement for specific evidence to be provided.
-
Has Brueckner ever been questioned by The PJ on this matter? If not how can he be an Arguido? Unless Portugal has changed the rules again.
-
Is this paragraph not relevant to the decision-making process when conferring arguido status on someone? I thought that's what this whole petty argument was about?
The argument followed my post saying that I could find no official record saying that creating an arguido required evidence of wrongdoing. We've been all round the houses since and it seems that an opinion offered by Carlos Pinto de Abreu was often quoted here, not any official publication. That's all.
-
The argument followed my post saying that I could find no official record saying that creating an arguido required evidence of wrongdoing. We've been all round the houses since and it seems that an opinion offered by Carlos Pinto de Abreu was often quoted here, not any official publication. That's all.
And what would he know, being only a Portuguese Defence Lawyer - obviously your understanding of the law would be superior to his. *%87
-
And what would he know, being only a Portuguese Defence Lawyer - obviously your understanding of the law would be superior to his. *%87
All I know is that he gave his view and so did João Taborda in the Portugal Resident. One mentioned evidence as a new requirement for awarding arguido status and the other didn't. Having looked at other sources, they don't mention evidence either.
-
All I know is that he gave his view and so did João Taborda in the Portugal Resident. One mentioned evidence as a new requirement for awarding arguido status and the other didn't. Having looked at other sources, they don't mention evidence either.
"In relation to the investigation stage of a crime, a provision has been included where if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed, an inquiry will not be initiated, which was not the case before".
My reading of that is - without evidence that a crime has been committed an inquiry will not be initiated. An inquiry being the stage at which someone is made an arguido". Why was it felt necessary to announce that there was strong indications of the practice of a crime wrt to CB, but not with the McCanns or Robert Murat?
-
"In relation to the investigation stage of a crime, a provision has been included where if there is no grounds that a crime has been committed, an inquiry will not be initiated, which was not the case before".
My reading of that is - without evidence that a crime has been committed an inquiry will not be initiated. An inquiry being the stage at which someone is made an arguido". Why was it felt necessary to announce that there was strong indications of the practice of a crime wrt to CB, but not with the McCanns or Robert Murat?
Imo your understanding is wrong. The inquiry is the investigation itself;
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.
https://gddc.ministeriopublico.pt/pagina/notes-portuguese-legal-terms
-
Imo your understanding is wrong. The inquiry is the investigation itself;
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.
https://gddc.ministeriopublico.pt/pagina/notes-portuguese-legal-terms
It's you whose understanding is wrong.
You earlier wrote:
" I don't know what is meant by 'inquiry'. My best guess is that it refers to the inquiry stage of the process, which seems to follow the investigative stage".
And I replied to your post with the following@:
Perhaps inquiry means that stage in the investigation during which the arguidoship is conferred on a suspect so that they may be questioned?
As your quote above makes clear the inquiry is the investigation stage during which perpetrators are identified not as you had stated the stage AFTER an investigation.
so I think on balance it is you that is mistaken.
Why would a Portuguese defence lawyer be unable to understand the law change and if he had been wrong why has no one ever come forward in 15+ years to say he was mistaken or lying? Not even Amaral? Why, when CB was made arguido was this as a result of "strong indications of the practice of a crime", when such a claim was not made wrt to the McCanns or Murat?
-
It's you whose understanding is wrong.
You earlier wrote:
And I replied to your post with the following@:
As your quote above makes clear the inquiry is the investigation stage during which perpetrators are identified not as you had stated the stage AFTER an investigation.
so I think on balance it is you that is mistaken.
Why would a Portuguese defence lawyer be unable to understand the law change and if he had been wrong why has no one ever come forward in 15+ years to say he was mistaken or lying? Not even Amaral? Why, when CB was made arguido was this as a result of "strong indications of the practice of a crime", when such a claim was not made wrt to the McCanns or Murat?
My cite makes it clear that the inquiry stage is simply the alternative name for the investigating stage. The passage you have picked out isn't relevant to the creation of arguidos.
-
My cite makes it clear that the inquiry stage is simply the alternative name for the investigating stage. The passage you have picked out isn't relevant to the creation of arguidos.
If it’s not relevant then why did you quote it in your inital post which you claimed proved evidence wasn’t required for the creating of arguidos?
I notice you have in typical fashion ignored the other points I made.
-
If it’s not relevant then why did you quote it in your inital post which you claimed proved evidence wasn’t required for the creating of arguidos?
I notice you have in typical fashion ignored the other points I made.
I've made my point; which I will repeat. The changes made in 2007 did not say that evidence was required to create an arguido. Carlos Pinto de Arbreu said that, not the legislation.
-
I've made my point; which I will repeat. The changes made in 2007 did not say that evidence was required to create an arguido. Carlos Pinto de Arbreu said that, not the legislation.
in your opinion.
-
“Sources have said the legal grounds for making Brueckner an arguido include the fact he allegedly confessed to a pal he had snatched Madeleine and mobile phone records placed him in Praia da Luz the night she vanished”.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-wait-key-26777523
What were the legal grounds for making the McCanns and Murat arguidos?
-
in your opinion.
Well I've seen no evidence in official publications that it did say that.
-
“Sources have said the legal grounds for making Brueckner an arguido include the fact he allegedly confessed to a pal he had snatched Madeleine and mobile phone records placed him in Praia da Luz the night she vanished”.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-wait-key-26777523
What were the legal grounds for making the McCanns and Murat arguidos?
So according to the Mirror a pal's allegations and use of a phone in the area are enough to make someone an arguido?
-
So according to the Mirror a pal's allegations and use of a phone in the area are enough to make someone an arguido?
Do you not class that as evidence then?
Upon what legal grounds were the McCanns constituted arguidos?
-
Do you think the Attorney General of Portugal simply doesn’t understand his own country’s laws?
Attorney General, Fernando Pinto Monteiro said: "The law did not demand justified suspicions at the time in which they (the McCanns) were made 'arguidos'.
"I do not know if they would be in light of the new code."
-
Do you think the Attorney General of Portugal simply doesn’t understand his own country’s laws?
Attorney General, Fernando Pinto Monteiro said: "The law did not demand justified suspicions at the time in which they (the McCanns) were made 'arguidos'.
"I do not know if they would be in light of the new code."
No he didn't know, because the answer would only have been revealed when a judge decided if the PJ's suspicions of the McCanns were justified or not.
-
No he didn't know, because the answer would only have been revealed when a judge decided if the PJ's suspicions of the McCanns were justified or not.
The law did not demand justified suspicions AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE MCCANNS WERE MADE ARGUIDOS.
Which bit of this do you not understand?
-
The law did not demand justified suspicions AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE MCCANNS WERE MADE ARGUIDOS.
Which bit of this do you not understand?
Who decided whether the PJ's suspicions were enough to confer arguido status on the couple then? Bearing in mind that they were overseen by the public prosecutor?
-
No he didn't know, because the answer would only have been revealed when a judge decided if the PJ's suspicions of the McCanns were justified or not.
The point is that no judge was given the opportunity to make that decision at the time the PJ unilaterally made them arguidos.
At that time there was no legal requirement in place to make the PJ do that.
Unlike the legislation in place which required permission to listen in to phone calls. Incidentally in the case of the McCanns this was refused whereas it was allowed for Murat.
Quite obviously you are entrenched in denial.
The Portuguese Legal code is constantly under revision and adapts along with changing circumstances. I have read that changes made in 2007 were generally credited with being among the best but with the flexibility for amendment and adjustments in the years since.
Brueckner as an arguido enjoyed legal rights post September 2007 which were not available to the McCanns pre September 2007 and it is to that situation the at the time Portuguese Attorney General made reference.
My opinion is that he is likely to know what he is talking about.
-
Who decided whether the PJ's suspicions were enough to confer arguido status on the couple then? Bearing in mind that they were overseen by the public prosecutor?
The law at the time allowed the Policia Judiciaria to make the decision and that is exactly what they did ~ despite being in possession of information from the FSS which blew their 'case' out of the water.
-
Who decided whether the PJ's suspicions were enough to confer arguido status on the couple then? Bearing in mind that they were overseen by the public prosecutor?
FGS, acknowledge what the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PORTUGAL said. “The law DID NOT DEMAND JUSTIFIED SUSPICIONS AT THE TIME THE MCCANNS WERE MADE ARGUIDOS”.
ergo
The law has changed and now DEMANDS JUSTIFIED SUSPICIONS.
If you can’t accept the words of the Attorney General of Portugal then I really don’t see the point in continuing this ridiculous conversation with you.
-
The point is that no judge was given the opportunity to make that decision at the time the PJ unilaterally made them arguidos.
At that time there was no legal requirement in place to make the PJ do that.
Unlike the legislation in place which required permission to listen in to phone calls. Incidentally in the case of the McCanns this was refused whereas it was allowed for Murat.
Quite obviously you are entrenched in denial.
The Portuguese Legal code is constantly under revision and adapts along with changing circumstances. I have read that changes made in 2007 were generally credited with being among the best but with the flexibility for amendment and adjustments in the years since.
Brueckner as an arguido enjoyed legal rights post September 2007 which were not available to the McCanns pre September 2007 and it is to that situation the at the time Portuguese Attorney General made reference.
My opinion is that he is likely to know what he is talking about.
The PJ and the prosecutor obeyed the law in force at the time, as the prosecutor pointed out;
Confronted with these elements, namely the possibility of the existence of a cadaver in the apartment and in the vehicle that was used by the parents, founded suspicions of their involvement were raised...
As they were summoned to depose again, while there was no plausible explanation for those situations and as they were to be confronted with the dogs' findings and with the lab information, which were susceptible of rendering them responsible as authors of crimes (at least, of neglectful homicide and of concealment of a cadaver), they were, obligatorily and inexorably, made arguidos, in strict obedience to article 59 nr. 1 of the Penal Process Code
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The McCann's lawyer was impressed at the time, Kate McCann reports, and he told them that the PJ had a lot of evidence against them. Then in December he told the Daily Mirror;
He said: "After September 15, a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen to make him an arguido.
"Before September 15, it wasn't necessary. You could be made an arguido without any suspicions or evidence against you.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500111/Portuguese-police-rushed-make-McCanns-suspects-avoid-new-law.html
So at the time de Abreu thought there was 'evidence', and the prosecutor and the PJ thought there were 'founded suspicions'.
-
The PJ and the prosecutor obeyed the law in force at the time, as the prosecutor pointed out;
Confronted with these elements, namely the possibility of the existence of a cadaver in the apartment and in the vehicle that was used by the parents, founded suspicions of their involvement were raised...
As they were summoned to depose again, while there was no plausible explanation for those situations and as they were to be confronted with the dogs' findings and with the lab information, which were susceptible of rendering them responsible as authors of crimes (at least, of neglectful homicide and of concealment of a cadaver), they were, obligatorily and inexorably, made arguidos, in strict obedience to article 59 nr. 1 of the Penal Process Code
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The McCann's lawyer was impressed at the time, Kate McCann reports, and he told them that the PJ had a lot of evidence against them. Then in December he told the Daily Mirror;
He said: "After September 15, a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen to make him an arguido.
"Before September 15, it wasn't necessary. You could be made an arguido without any suspicions or evidence against you.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500111/Portuguese-police-rushed-make-McCanns-suspects-avoid-new-law.html
So at the time de Abreu thought there was 'evidence', and the prosecutor and the PJ thought there were 'founded suspicions'.
Now isn't that just exactly what you have been having a cats in a sack about ~ "The PJ and the prosecutor obeyed the law in force at the time, as the prosecutor pointed out;" Of course they did!!!!
The argument is that a few days later the McCanns could not have been constituted arguidos for the very simple reason CHANGE IN THE LAW WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED IT WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
Do you think you've got that at last or do you intend to keep on at this incredible absurdity.
-
Now isn't that just exactly what you have been having a cats in a sack about ~ "The PJ and the prosecutor obeyed the law in force at the time, as the prosecutor pointed out;" Of course they did!!!!
The argument is that a few days later the McCanns could not have been constituted arguidos for the very simple reason CHANGE IN THE LAW WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED IT WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
Do you think you've got that at last or do you intend to keep on at this incredible absurdity.
It isn't a fact that a few days later the McCanns could not have been constituted arguidos, it's an opinion. The prosecutor said there were founded suspicions and if a judge had needed to ratify the arguido decision he could have agreed with the PJ and the prosecutor. Just because it's part of your mantra to say the PJ's suspicions were unfounded doesn't mean the judge would have agreed with you.
-
It isn't a fact that a few days later the McCanns could not have been constituted arguidos, it's an opinion. The prosecutor said there were founded suspicions and if a judge had needed to ratify the arguido decision he could have agreed with the PJ and the prosecutor. Just because it's part of your mantra to say the PJ's suspicions were unfounded doesn't mean the judge would have agreed with you.
One thing I can say with certainty that I have learned from exchanges with you is that incredulously I have never seen your like.
-
It isn't a fact that a few days later the McCanns could not have been constituted arguidos, it's an opinion. The prosecutor said there were founded suspicions and if a judge had needed to ratify the arguido decision he could have agreed with the PJ and the prosecutor. Just because it's part of your mantra to say the PJ's suspicions were unfounded doesn't mean the judge would have agreed with you.
so are you saying that the Attorney General of Portugal was wrong then and simply didn’t understand his own country’s laws?
-
so are you saying that the Attorney General of Portugal was wrong then and simply didn’t understand his own country’s laws?
Didn't he say he didn't know if they would have been made arguidos or not?
The Attorney General of Portugal has also admitted that he does not know whether the McCanns would have been made suspects in light of the new penal code which came into force on September 15 - eight days after the parents were made arguidos.
-
so are you saying that the Attorney General of Portugal was wrong then and simply didn’t understand his own country’s laws?
I think the plot has been well and truly lost when the lie of forensic results is still being used to justify and defend the indefensible.
Snip
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Seems every one is out of step with sceptic belief including the Attorney General of Portugal, the English forensic laboratory and the Portuguese forensic laboratory.
All proof positive that for some the clock has not moved from 2007 and not a shred of knowledge of any kind has been assimilated by them. All beyond very sad 😥
-
Didn't he say he didn't know if they would have been made arguidos or not?
The Attorney General of Portugal has also admitted that he does not know whether the McCanns would have been made suspects in light of the new penal code which came into force on September 15 - eight days after the parents were made arguidos.
Let's put it this way ~ had there been evidence post Amaral's dismissal which substantiated his death theory - they would have been charged and tried.
There was none.
Nor had there ever been any ~ not a smidgen, yet police suspicion was sufficient to constitute them as arguidos as the law then stood.
I know you understand that because you have posted as much.
Now let's move to the next stage and factor in a change in the law which nullified 'suspicion' as just cause and replaced it with the requirement for evidence.
The Portuguese Attorney General understood and accepted that. You seem not to.
-
Didn't he say he didn't know if they would have been made arguidos or not?
The Attorney General of Portugal has also admitted that he does not know whether the McCanns would have been made suspects in light of the new penal code which came into force on September 15 - eight days after the parents were made arguidos.
He also said the law changed too and had not demanded justified suspicions at the time the McCanns were made arguidos but now the law does. Do you disagree with him? Do you actually know more about Portuguese law than the Portuguese AG?
-
Let's put it this way ~ had there been evidence post Amaral's dismissal which substantiated his death theory - they would have been charged and tried.
There was none.
Nor had there ever been any ~ not a smidgen, yet police suspicion was sufficient to constitute them as arguidos as the law then stood.
I know you understand that because you have posted as much.
Now let's move to the next stage and factor in a change in the law which nullified 'suspicion' as just cause and replaced it with the requirement for evidence.
The Portuguese Attorney General understood and accepted that. You seem not to.
I think hairs are being split and straws clutched. What's the difference between founded suspicion (the public prosecutor) and justified suspicions (the attorney general)?
Attorney General, Fernando Pinto Monteiro said: "The law did not demand justified suspicions at the time in which they were made 'arguidos'.
"I do not know if they would be in light of the new code."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500111/Portuguese-police-rushed-make-McCanns-suspects-avoid-new-law.html
Where does he mention evidence? I await your cite with interest.
-
I think hairs are being split and straws clutched. What's the difference between founded suspicion (the public prosecutor) and justified suspicions (the attorney general)?
Attorney General, Fernando Pinto Monteiro said: "The law did not demand justified suspicions at the time in which they were made 'arguidos'.
"I do not know if they would be in light of the new code."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500111/Portuguese-police-rushed-make-McCanns-suspects-avoid-new-law.html
Where does he mention evidence? I await your cite with interest.
What do you think the main difference is between suspicion and founded or justified suspicion? What element do you think might be required for the latter but not the former?
-
What do you think the main difference is between suspicion and founded or justified suspicion? What element do you think might be required for the latter but not the former?
You obviously think there's a difference. Please explain using cites to uphold your argument.
-
If The McCanns were ever going to be arrested and charged it would have happened before the law was changed. It didn't happen then and hasn't happened since. So whatever the law was then and later is of no importance.
-
You obviously think there's a difference. Please explain using cites to uphold your argument.
Why on earth should I answer your question when you refuse to answer mine? You answer, then ask. Then I answer, that’s how it works. Give it a go, I dare you!
-
so are you saying that the Attorney General of Portugal was wrong then and simply didn’t understand his own country’s laws?
Let’s have an answer to this one for a start.
-
If The McCanns were ever going to be arrested and charged it would have happened before the law was changed. It didn't happen then and hasn't happened since. So whatever the law was then and later is of no importance.
Nevertheless the change in the law is regularly mentioned and the word evidence crops up each time. Only one Portuguese legal person used that word, imo; the one in the McCann's employ.
-
Nevertheless the change in the law is regularly mentioned and the word evidence crops up each time. Only one Portuguese legal person used that word, imo; the one in the McCann's employ.
Which is of no importance.
Incidentally, even if The McCanns were in some way involved they will never be arrested or charged because a fair trial would be impossible, mainly due to people like you persistently spreading utter garbage.
-
Nevertheless the change in the law is regularly mentioned and the word evidence crops up each time. Only one Portuguese legal person used that word, imo; the one in the McCann's employ.
it’s impossible to have justified suspicions without evidence, unless you can explain how?
-
Having puzzled about the stupidity of it all the penny has finally dropped. I actually thought I was witnessing a member in the process of suffering a brainstorm. Instead the forum is being played by a WUM who isn't Spam.
Another part of the learning curve falls into place.
-
Having puzzled about the stupidity of it all the penny has finally dropped. I actually thought I was witnessing a member in the process of suffering a brainstorm. Instead the forum is being played by a WUM who isn't Spam.
Another part of the learning curve falls into place.
Sticks and stones.....
How about posting facts instead of opinions posted as facts? The only difference I can find introduced by the change in the law in 2007 is that the PJ must apply to a judge for permission to declare someone an arguido. The PJ and the prosecutor thought they had good reason to make the McCanns arguidos and no-one knows what a judge would have decided. In my opinion, given the information they had at the time, I think a judge would have ratified the decision. There wasn't no evidence, there was insufficient to charge them. (The attorney general DID say that btw)
-
Sticks and stones.....
How about posting facts instead of opinions posted as facts? The only difference I can find introduced by the change in the law in 2007 is that the PJ must apply to a judge for permission to declare someone an arguido. The PJ and the prosecutor thought they had good reason to make the McCanns arguidos and no-one knows what a judge would have decided. In my opinion, given the information they had at the time, I think a judge would have ratified the decision. There wasn't no evidence, there was insufficient to charge them. (The attorney general DID say that btw)
Why are you continuing to ignore the one thing that the AG said which entirely contradicts you?
-
Why are you continuing to ignore the one thing that the AG said which entirely contradicts you?
Instead of asking questions just say what you mean.
-
Instead of asking questions just say what you mean.
I've said it umpteen times and you keep ignoring it. I'm beginning to think Brietta was spot on. You are IMO simply on the wind up, both on this thread and the other active thread atm.
-
I think that this Forum has been invaded. But that is only my opinion.
-
Sticks and stones.....
How about posting facts instead of opinions posted as facts? The only difference I can find introduced by the change in the law in 2007 is that the PJ must apply to a judge for permission to declare someone an arguido. The PJ and the prosecutor thought they had good reason to make the McCanns arguidos and no-one knows what a judge would have decided. In my opinion, given the information they had at the time, I think a judge would have ratified the decision. There wasn't no evidence, there was insufficient to charge them. (The attorney general DID say that btw)
It took a wee while for me to work it out. Seriously, I was concerned for you because I actually thought I was witnessing an on-line meltdown based on the pointless insanity of some of the assertions you have been posting on the threads.
There is a quaint honesty about the resident WUM who makes no bones about intent. Not that I suggest that applies to you. But nonetheless I have to admit you have broken the credulity barrier at least as far as I am concerned ~ making it impossible to take your posts seriously.
-
I think that this Forum has been invaded. But that is only my opinion.
I think we are learning a lot as well as having a lot of long standing prejudices verified.
It was to be expected though given that the years of investment in McCann hostility has come to nothing. I think there is a bit of floundering going on.
It started with Brueckner being outed by Amaral with his attempted spin. And whatever the eventual outcome for Brueckner, they will not stop there.
-
I've said it umpteen times and you keep ignoring it. I'm beginning to think Brietta was spot on. You are IMO simply on the wind up, both on this thread and the other active thread atm.
You've said a lot of things. Which one in particular are you referring to?
Some of you may get wound up by my posts, but that's not my intention. I could accuse you of deliberately winding me up by asking incessant questions, but I know it's up to me how I react, not you. Keep calm and carry on is what I do.
-
I've said it umpteen times and you keep ignoring it. I'm beginning to think Brietta was spot on. You are IMO simply on the wind up, both on this thread and the other active thread atm.
I'm kicking myself for not spotting it sooner. In retrospect it was as obvious as the nose on a face.
-
You've said a lot of things. Which one in particular are you referring to?
Some of you may get wound up by my posts, but that's not my intention. I could accuse you of deliberately winding me up by asking incessant questions, but I know it's up to me how I react, not you. Keep calm and carry on is what I do.
I think you've blown your cover once and for all. I did wonder about the Alice in Wonderland flavour of your posts of late. You really were on a mission but you overdid it a bit.
-
You've said a lot of things. Which one in particular are you referring to?
Some of you may get wound up by my posts, but that's not my intention. I could accuse you of deliberately winding me up by asking incessant questions, but I know it's up to me how I react, not you. Keep calm and carry on is what I do.
????
-
????
Let's try this one again shall we? This is I believe the 3rd time of posting
the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PORTUGAL said. “The law DID NOT DEMAND JUSTIFIED SUSPICIONS AT THE TIME THE MCCANNS WERE MADE ARGUIDOS”.
ergo
The law has changed and now DEMANDS JUSTIFIED SUSPICIONS.
Do you accept this or not?
Do you disagree with the Attorney General of Portugal?
Do you know more about his country's laws than he does?
-
I'm kicking myself for not spotting it sooner. In retrospect it was as obvious as the nose on a face.
Had a cite from an official source been provided stating that evidence was required to create arguidos following the change to the law in September 2007 this debate would have ceased. Instead there was a quote from the McCann's lawyer, then a lot of speculation about the meanings of words such as 'founded' and 'justified', and now a personal attack on the member asking for the cite.
-
Let's try this one again shall we? This is I believe the 3rd time of posting
the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PORTUGAL said. “The law DID NOT DEMAND JUSTIFIED SUSPICIONS AT THE TIME THE MCCANNS WERE MADE ARGUIDOS”.
ergo
The law has changed and now DEMANDS JUSTIFIED SUSPICIONS.
Do you accept this or not?
Do you disagree with the Attorney General of Portugal?
Do you know more about his country's laws than he does?
What he didn't say was that there were no justified suspicions in the McCann case. His prosecutor thought there were, although he used the words founded suspicions. What's the difference?
-
What he didn't say was that there were no justified suspicions in the McCann case. His prosecutor thought there were, although he used the words founded suspicions. What's the difference?
Could you concentrate on what he DID say for once? Do you accept the the law changed from previously NOT demanding justified suspicions to NOW demanding justified suspicions? If you can accept this, then we can proceed to discuss other aspects, if not then we can just carry on going round in circles.
-
Had a cite from an official source been provided stating that evidence was required to create arguidos following the change to the law in September 2007 this debate would have ceased. Instead there was a quote from the McCann's lawyer, then a lot of speculation about the meanings of words such as 'founded' and 'justified', and now a personal attack on the member asking for the cite.
Of course this "debate" will never cease.
Sceptics will do what they always have done which is why when the rest of the world has moved on after "learning something new" they are still wading around in the muck of 2007.
This very subject was "debated" on the forum nearly a year ago https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12353.msg681736#msg681736. You learned nothing then - and you intend to learn nothing now. Sceptics do not resolve - they merely revisit.
At least you have managed admit that Portuguese law was changed in September 2007 days after the McCanns were constituted arguidos. Took a while, but you got there. Now let's see if you can retain what you have learned and apply the knowledge in future references.
-
Could you concentrate on what he DID say for once? Do you accept the the law changed from previously NOT demanding justified suspicions to NOW demanding justified suspicions? If you can accept this, then we can proceed to discuss other aspects, if not then we can just carry on going round in circles.
Some people will never learn which is why we are still going full circle back to 2007 with torturer Almeida's meaningless half time report and the belief in the dogs. Both failures were recorded as such in the Levy files but that is overlooked in preference to the lies.
They just don't learn. But possibly we are just as bad by indulging them in the insanity of their conglomerate opinion.
-
Had a cite from an official source been provided stating that evidence was required to create arguidos following the change to the law in September 2007 this debate would have ceased. Instead there was a quote from the McCann's lawyer, then a lot of speculation about the meanings of words such as 'founded' and 'justified', and now a personal attack on the member asking for the cite.
So a quote from the Attorney General of Portugal in which he states that the law did not demand justified suspicions of the McCanns at the time does not suffice? Could you explain why not?
-
So a quote from the Attorney General of Portugal in which he states that the law did not demand justified suspicions of the McCanns at the time does not suffice? Could you explain why not?
So the PJ and the prosecutor complied with the law. Whether the judge would have ratified their decision after the law changed the AG doesn't know and neither do you.
-
So the PJ and the prosecutor complied with the law. Whether the judge would have ratified their decision after the law changed the AG doesn't know and neither do you.
Do you accept the the law changed from previously NOT demanding justified suspicions to NOW demanding justified suspicions?
I fully expect another swerve.
-
Do you accept the the law changed from previously NOT demanding justified suspicions to NOW demanding justified suspicions?
I fully expect another swerve.
I haven't seen it written anywhere, but I don't suppose the AG had any reason to make things up. Are justified suspicions evidence? I don't know.
-
I haven't seen it written anywhere, but I don't suppose the AG had any reason to make things up. Are justified suspicions evidence? I don't know.
What do you mean you haven’t seen it written anywhere? It was widely reported and I have quoted it numerous times in the last few days.
What do you think the difference is between a suspicion and a justified suspicion?
-
What do you mean you haven’t seen it written anywhere? It was widely reported and I have quoted it numerous times in the last few days.
What do you think the difference is between a suspicion and a justified suspicion?
It was written in newspapers and so was the AG's quote that the case was archived due to insufficient evidence. That suggests that there was evidence does it not?
I would think that there's not much difference between founded suspicions and justified suspicions.
-
It was written in newspapers and so was the AG's quote that the case was archived due to insufficient evidence. That suggests that there was evidence does it not?
I would think that there's not much difference between founded suspicions and justified suspicions.
1) I have never said there was no evidence
2) I was pointing out that the law change included a requirement for justified suspicion in order to be made an arguido whereas previously there was not such a requirement ( you have claimed this is not the case, contrary to the quote from the AG
3) I asked you what was the difference between suspicion and justified suspicion. I have never mentioned founded suspicion.
-
But seeing as you asked
reasonable suspicion
noun
: an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances
Founded suspicion” is a lower level of suspicion than the “reasonable suspicion” required to conduct a “stop” or Level 3 encounter. Upon a founded suspicion of criminality, the officer may approach a person to ask accusatory questions and may seek consent to search; however, consent must be voluntarily given.
suspicion -
a belief or idea that something may be true
-
1) I have never said there was no evidence
2) I was pointing out that the law change included a requirement for justified suspicion in order to be made an arguido whereas previously there was not such a requirement ( you have claimed this is not the case, contrary to the quote from the AG
3) I asked you what was the difference between suspicion and justified suspicion. I have never mentioned founded suspicion.
That's interesting. Because when I correct Moderators who make the demonstrably false claim that there was no evidence at all, against the McCanns, I get warning points.
Why haven't you been given points yet?
-
1) I have never said there was no evidence
2) I was pointing out that the law change included a requirement for justified suspicion in order to be made an arguido whereas previously there was not such a requirement ( you have claimed this is not the case, contrary to the quote from the AG
3) I asked you what was the difference between suspicion and justified suspicion. I have never mentioned founded suspicion.
I find it hard to believe that Encarnacao and Neves created arguidos based on unfounded or unjustified suspicions even before the change in the law.
-
I find it hard to believe that Encarnacao and Neves created arguidos based on unfounded or unjustified suspicions even before the change in the law.
They both believed the lies about the dogs no doubt
-
I find it hard to believe that Encarnacao and Neves created arguidos based on unfounded or unjustified suspicions even before the change in the law.
From memory, I'd waded through the changes in procedural law re "suspicion" and posted the differences. The only trace that I can now find is tangential.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=204301;topic=5673.45
-
From memory, I'd waded through the changes in procedural law re "suspicion" and posted the differences. The only trace that I can now find is tangential.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=204301;topic=5673.45
Nice one Carana, here's one of your old posts which explains the law change
Offline Carana
Executive Member
******
Posts: 13299
Total likes: 2171
Newbie
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The 'arguido' interviews and the impact of lawyers advice.
« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2013, 11:46:56 AM »
Quote
DCI
I think I've finally found what I was looking for re this arguido business.
(There are other subsections to the Articles, but I've just quoted the ones that are relevant to the point in question.)
Article 58 - a key change in 2007 was adding "...suspeita fundada..." (founded suspicion).
Without attempting a literal translation (i.e. my paraphrasing), I understand the difference to be:
- in the old one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person.
- in the new one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person when there was a well-founded suspicion of that person having committed a crime.
Article 61 - the old point 1.c moved down to 1.d. Again, my paraphrasing: The new 1.c concerns the right to be informed of the imputed facts before making a "declaration" to any entity.
(2000)
Artigo 58.º
(Constituição de arguido)
1 - Sem prejuízo do disposto no artigo anterior, é obrigatória a constituição de arguido logo que:
a) Correndo inquérito contra pessoa determinada, esta prestar declarações perante qualquer autoridade judiciária ou órgão de polícia criminal;
b) Tenha de ser aplicada a qualquer pessoa uma medida de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial;
c) Um suspeito for detido, nos termos e para os efeitos previstos nos artigos 254.º a 261.º; ou
d) For levantado auto de notícia que dê uma pessoa como agente de um crime e aquele lhe for comunicado.
(2007 - in force as of 15 September)
Artigo 58.o
Constituição de arguido
1 — Sem prejuízo do disposto no artigo anterior, é obrigatória a constituição de arguido logo que:
a) Correndo inquérito contra pessoa determinada em relação à qual haja suspeita fundada da prática de crime, esta prestar declarações perante qualquer autoridade judiciária ou órgão de polícia criminal;
b) Tenha de ser aplicada a qualquer pessoa uma medida de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial;
c) Um suspeito for detido, nos termos e para os efeitos previstos nos artigos 254.o a 261.o; ou
d) For levantado auto de notícia que dê uma pessoa como agente de um crime e aquele lhe for comunicado, salvo se a notícia for manifestamente infundada.
---
(2000)
Artigo 61.º
(Direitos e deveres processuais)
1 - O arguido goza, em especial, em qualquer fase do processo e, salvas as excepções da lei, dos direitos de:
a) Estar presente aos actos processuais que directamente lhe disserem respeito;
b) Ser ouvido pelo tribunal ou pelo juiz de instrução sempre que eles devam tomar qualquer decisão que pessoalmente o afecte;
c) Não responder a perguntas feitas, por qualquer entidade, sobre os factos que lhe forem imputados e sobre o conteúdo das declarações que acerca deles prestar;
d) Escolher defensor ou solicitar ao tribunal que lhe nomeie um;
e) Ser assistido por defensor em todos os actos processuais em que participar e, quando detido, comunicar, mesmo em privado, com ele;
f) Intervir no inquérito e na instrução, oferecendo provas e requerendo as diligências que se lhe afigurarem necessárias;
g) Ser informado, pela autoridade judiciária ou pelo órgão de polícia criminal perante os quais seja obrigado a comparecer, dos direitos que lhe assistem;
h) Recorrer, nos termos da lei, das decisões que lhe forem desfavoráveis.
Artigo 61.o
Direitos e deveres processuais
1 — O arguido goza, em especial, em qualquer fase do processo e salvas as excepções da lei, dos direitos de:
a) Estar presente aos actos processuais que directamente lhe disserem respeito;
b) Ser ouvido pelo tribunal ou pelo juiz de instrução sempre que eles devam tomar qualquer decisão que pessoalmente o afecte;
c) Ser informado dos factos que lhe são imputados antes de prestar declarações perante qualquer entidade;
d) Não responder a perguntas feitas, por qualquer entidade, sobre os factos que lhe forem imputados e sobre o conteúdo das declarações que acerca deles prestar;
e) Constituir advogado ou solicitar a nomeação de um defensor;
f) Ser assistido por defensor em todos os actos processuais em que participar e, quando detido, comunicar, mesmo em privado, com ele;
g) Intervir no inquérito e na instrução, oferecendo provas e requerendo as diligências que se lhe afigurarem necessárias;
h) Ser informado, pela autoridade judiciária ou pelo órgão de polícia criminal perante os quais seja obrigado a comparecer, dos direitos que lhe assistem;
i) Recorrer, nos termos da lei, das decisões que lhe forem desfavoráveis.
(2007)
2000 Penal Process Code: http://paulosantos-adv.planetaclix.pt/CPP.htm
2007: I can't find a valid online link. I'd downloaded it as a pdf.
ETA: the PJ might have had a bit of a problem if they'd interviewed them a week later as they would have been entitled to read the DNA "evidence". Ooops.
ETA2: reading it all again, I take back my first ETA just above, as it doesn't actually state that they would be entitled to read the "imputed facts", just to be informed of them.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 11:21:27 PM by Carana »
-
Nice one Carana, here's one of your old posts which explains the law change
Offline Carana
Executive Member
******
Posts: 13299
Total likes: 2171
Newbie
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The 'arguido' interviews and the impact of lawyers advice.
« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2013, 11:46:56 AM »
Quote
DCI
I think I've finally found what I was looking for re this arguido business.
(There are other subsections to the Articles, but I've just quoted the ones that are relevant to the point in question.)
Article 58 - a key change in 2007 was adding "...suspeita fundada..." (founded suspicion).
Without attempting a literal translation (i.e. my paraphrasing), I understand the difference to be:
- in the old one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person.
- in the new one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person when there was a well-founded suspicion of that person having committed a crime.
Article 61 - the old point 1.c moved down to 1.d. Again, my paraphrasing: The new 1.c concerns the right to be informed of the imputed facts before making a "declaration" to any entity.
(2000)
Artigo 58.º
(Constituição de arguido)
1 - Sem prejuízo do disposto no artigo anterior, é obrigatória a constituição de arguido logo que:
a) Correndo inquérito contra pessoa determinada, esta prestar declarações perante qualquer autoridade judiciária ou órgão de polícia criminal;
b) Tenha de ser aplicada a qualquer pessoa uma medida de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial;
c) Um suspeito for detido, nos termos e para os efeitos previstos nos artigos 254.º a 261.º; ou
d) For levantado auto de notícia que dê uma pessoa como agente de um crime e aquele lhe for comunicado.
(2007 - in force as of 15 September)
Artigo 58.o
Constituição de arguido
1 — Sem prejuízo do disposto no artigo anterior, é obrigatória a constituição de arguido logo que:
a) Correndo inquérito contra pessoa determinada em relação à qual haja suspeita fundada da prática de crime, esta prestar declarações perante qualquer autoridade judiciária ou órgão de polícia criminal;
b) Tenha de ser aplicada a qualquer pessoa uma medida de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial;
c) Um suspeito for detido, nos termos e para os efeitos previstos nos artigos 254.o a 261.o; ou
d) For levantado auto de notícia que dê uma pessoa como agente de um crime e aquele lhe for comunicado, salvo se a notícia for manifestamente infundada.
---
(2000)
Artigo 61.º
(Direitos e deveres processuais)
1 - O arguido goza, em especial, em qualquer fase do processo e, salvas as excepções da lei, dos direitos de:
a) Estar presente aos actos processuais que directamente lhe disserem respeito;
b) Ser ouvido pelo tribunal ou pelo juiz de instrução sempre que eles devam tomar qualquer decisão que pessoalmente o afecte;
c) Não responder a perguntas feitas, por qualquer entidade, sobre os factos que lhe forem imputados e sobre o conteúdo das declarações que acerca deles prestar;
d) Escolher defensor ou solicitar ao tribunal que lhe nomeie um;
e) Ser assistido por defensor em todos os actos processuais em que participar e, quando detido, comunicar, mesmo em privado, com ele;
f) Intervir no inquérito e na instrução, oferecendo provas e requerendo as diligências que se lhe afigurarem necessárias;
g) Ser informado, pela autoridade judiciária ou pelo órgão de polícia criminal perante os quais seja obrigado a comparecer, dos direitos que lhe assistem;
h) Recorrer, nos termos da lei, das decisões que lhe forem desfavoráveis.
Artigo 61.o
Direitos e deveres processuais
1 — O arguido goza, em especial, em qualquer fase do processo e salvas as excepções da lei, dos direitos de:
a) Estar presente aos actos processuais que directamente lhe disserem respeito;
b) Ser ouvido pelo tribunal ou pelo juiz de instrução sempre que eles devam tomar qualquer decisão que pessoalmente o afecte;
c) Ser informado dos factos que lhe são imputados antes de prestar declarações perante qualquer entidade;
d) Não responder a perguntas feitas, por qualquer entidade, sobre os factos que lhe forem imputados e sobre o conteúdo das declarações que acerca deles prestar;
e) Constituir advogado ou solicitar a nomeação de um defensor;
f) Ser assistido por defensor em todos os actos processuais em que participar e, quando detido, comunicar, mesmo em privado, com ele;
g) Intervir no inquérito e na instrução, oferecendo provas e requerendo as diligências que se lhe afigurarem necessárias;
h) Ser informado, pela autoridade judiciária ou pelo órgão de polícia criminal perante os quais seja obrigado a comparecer, dos direitos que lhe assistem;
i) Recorrer, nos termos da lei, das decisões que lhe forem desfavoráveis.
(2007)
2000 Penal Process Code: http://paulosantos-adv.planetaclix.pt/CPP.htm
2007: I can't find a valid online link. I'd downloaded it as a pdf.
ETA: the PJ might have had a bit of a problem if they'd interviewed them a week later as they would have been entitled to read the DNA "evidence". Ooops.
ETA2: reading it all again, I take back my first ETA just above, as it doesn't actually state that they would be entitled to read the "imputed facts", just to be informed of them.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 11:21:27 PM by Carana »
Founded suspicion! That's what the prosecutor said there was, even if the law didn't demand it at the time.
-
Founded suspicion! That's what the prosecutor said there was, even if the law didn't demand it at the time.
What Founded Suspicion?
This is getting really boring now?
-
What Founded Suspicion?
This is getting really boring now?
Article 58 - a key change in 2007 was adding "...suspeita fundada..." (founded suspicion).
Without attempting a literal translation (i.e. my paraphrasing), I understand the difference to be:
- in the old one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person.
- in the new one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person when there was a well-founded suspicion of that person having committed a crime.
-
Article 58 - a key change in 2007 was adding "...suspeita fundada..." (founded suspicion).
Without attempting a literal translation (i.e. my paraphrasing), I understand the difference to be:
- in the old one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person.
- in the new one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person when there was a well-founded suspicion of that person having committed a crime.
Quite. You missed that bit out when you had your revelation a few days back. IIRC you claimed that the only change to the law was that a judge had to validate an arguido.
-
Thanks VS! I couldn't find any trace of it, annoying as it had taken ages.
-
Article 58 - a key change in 2007 was adding "...suspeita fundada..." (founded suspicion).
Without attempting a literal translation (i.e. my paraphrasing), I understand the difference to be:
- in the old one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person.
- in the new one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person when there was a well-founded suspicion of that person having committed a crime.
A bit that is missing /not clear from that post is that arguidos had the right to be informed of the so-called evidence. on which the suspicions were based. For example showing them the dog videos presumably constituted "evidence".
However, AFAIK, they were never given the Lowe report to read (the only reference I've found was in Kate's book that a bit of paper had been waved in the air). Two doctors would have understood that the report hadn't ascertained the fate of the child, nor anything incriminatory. It was used as a bluff, IMO.
-
Quite. You missed that bit out when you had your revelation a few days back. IIRC you claimed that the only change to the law was that a judge had to validate an arguido.
I didn't find it, but neither did anyone else, did they? The AG wasn't far off, but the McCann's lawyer was. The media really doesn't supply reliable cites, does it?
-
I didn't find it, but neither did anyone else, did they? The AG wasn't far off, but the McCann's lawyer was. The media really doesn't supply reliable cites, does it?
Which cite are you referring to as being unreliable in this instance?
-
Thanks VS! I couldn't find any trace of it, annoying as it had taken ages.
Carana et al, I have found that most facts of evidence in favour of the Mccanns seems to vanish off this forum. I don't know who is doimg it, but I truly wonder WHY they are doing it.
-
Which cite are you referring to as being unreliable in this instance?
The report of Carlos Pinto de Abreu's opinion that evidence was needed to create an arguido. That's not what the legislation said.
-
The report of Carlos Pinto de Abreu's opinion that evidence was needed to create an arguido. That's not what the legislation said.
Was it not a direct quote?
Asked if he thought the police had rushed the process to bypass the new law, Mr Pinto de Abreu said: "I don't know, but yes, it's possible." He added: "Before September 15 you could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you."
-
Are you suggesting that the media made this quote up? It’s from The Telegraph
Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer on the McCanns’ defence team, said that under Portugal’s new penal code, police must have more than just suspicions to make somebody an arguido.
"On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.
"Before this date it wasn’t necessary. You could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you," he said.
"Maybe that is why the investigation took the turn it did - why they were named arguidos eight days before the new laws came in," said Mr Pinto de Abreu.
-
Are you suggesting that the media made this quote up? It’s from The Telegraph
Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer on the McCanns’ defence team, said that under Portugal’s new penal code, police must have more than just suspicions to make somebody an arguido.
"On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.
"Before this date it wasn’t necessary. You could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you," he said.
"Maybe that is why the investigation took the turn it did - why they were named arguidos eight days before the new laws came in," said Mr Pinto de Abreu.
Oh, he said it all right. What the media did was publish what he said without any of them making any effort whatsoever to check that what he said was correct. He said;
"Now to constitute anybody as an arguido it is necessary to have evidence in the file.
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/portuguese-police-rushed-to-make-mccanns-suspects-to-avoid-new-law-6623136.html
There was evidence in the file.
-
Oh, he said it all right. What the media did was publish what he said without any of them making any effort whatsoever to check that what he said was correct. He said;
"Now to constitute anybody as an arguido it is necessary to have evidence in the file.
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/portuguese-police-rushed-to-make-mccanns-suspects-to-avoid-new-law-6623136.html
There was evidence in the file.
False Evidence.
-
Oh, he said it all right. What the media did was publish what he said without any of them making any effort whatsoever to check that what he said was correct. He said;
"Now to constitute anybody as an arguido it is necessary to have evidence in the file.
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/portuguese-police-rushed-to-make-mccanns-suspects-to-avoid-new-law-6623136.html
There was evidence in the file.
You said the media doesn’t supply reliable cites. It simply reported accurately what the McCanns’ lawyer said. His viewpoint was also backed up by the PT AG, are the media supposed to immerse themselves in the finer details of PT law before reporting what these two supposedly reliable sources told them? Did the media in Portugal correct either of them, did anyone anywhere speak out at the time to say they were mistaken, or worse? I wonder why not, hmm….
-
Oh, he said it all right. What the media did was publish what he said without any of them making any effort whatsoever to check that what he said was correct. He said;
"Now to constitute anybody as an arguido it is necessary to have evidence in the file.
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/portuguese-police-rushed-to-make-mccanns-suspects-to-avoid-new-law-6623136.html
There was evidence in the file.
Out of interest do you consider that there was evidence in the file upon which to constitute Robert Murat an arguido?
-
False Evidence.
Not all of it, surely? It's a matter of choice what people believe and what they don't believe.
-
Not all of it, surely? It's a matter of choice what people believe and what they don't believe.
What Evidence was there in The Files that pointed to the guilt of The McCanns that was actually True?
-
Not all of it, surely? It's a matter of choice what people believe and what they don't believe.
I would never allow my beliefs to dictate traducing anyone in the deliberate fashion inflicted on not only the McCanns, but many other victims who became public property after being visited by tragedy.
I don't think that is a matter of choice. I think it is just common decency and humanity. I learned over the past few years there are some who are lacking in both as well as common sense. That is tempered by watching their influence and credibility wane over the same period.
-
What Evidence was there in The Files that pointed to the guilt of The McCanns that was actually True?
Again, it's a matter of opinion.
-
I would never allow my beliefs to dictate traducing anyone in the deliberate fashion inflicted on not only the McCanns, but many other victims who became public property after being visited by tragedy.
I don't think that is a matter of choice. I think it is just common decency and humanity. I learned over the past few years there are some who are lacking in both as well as common sense. That is tempered by watching their influence and credibility wane over the same period.
The victim in the McCann case was called Madeleine.
-
The victim in the McCann case was called Madeleine.
She was the principal victim yes, but when you have something or someone precious taken from you, you are also a victim, ergo Madeleine’s family are also victims in this crime.
-
Again, it's a matter of opinion.
No it isn't. It's a matter of Fact or not.
-
Out of interest do you consider that there was evidence in the file upon which to constitute Robert Murat an arguido?
I guess we will never know. @)(++(*
-
No it isn't. It's a matter of Fact or not.
exactly.
-
I guess we will never know. @)(++(*
Murat's name isn't McCann, Silly.
-
No it isn't. It's a matter of Fact or not.
Really? In my opinion Gerry McCann changed his stories. That's a fact that is rejected by those who support him. Opinions.....
-
Really? In my opinion Gerry McCann changed his stories. That's a fact that is rejected by those who support him. Opinions.....
Cites for these changes, if you please.
-
Really? In my opinion Gerry McCann changed his stories. That's a fact that is rejected by those who support him. Opinions.....
He changed or clarified the door he entered the apartment by, what other stories did he change? Of course he wouldn’t be the first person to change or clarify details in their initial statement, I mean look at Murat. Is his changing story evidence of guilt too in your opinion?
-
He changed or clarified the door he entered the apartment by, what other stories did he change? Of course he wouldn’t be the first person to change or clarify details in their initial statement, I mean look at Murat. Is his changing story evidence of guilt too in your opinion?
I say changed you say clarified. I know he changed it because the evidence is there. Not sure if clarified has any supporting evidence, I think that's your opinion.
How did Murat change his story?
-
I say changed you say clarified. I know he changed it because the evidence is there. Not sure if clarified has any supporting evidence, I think that's your opinion.
How did Murat change his story?
I said changed OR clarified actually. Describe all McCann’s changes.
As for Murat, your friends onCMOMM have a thread called “Murat’s 17 Lies”. God knows why they haven’t been sued, but perhaps you’d like to take a look and you will see the changes to his story which Bonkers Bennett et al have interpreted as lies.
-
I said changed OR clarified actually. Describe all McCann’s changes.
I'm sure you've heard it all before. I know I have, and all the 'explanations' offered by the McCanns and their supporters.
-
I said changed OR clarified actually. Describe all McCann’s changes.
As for Murat, your friends onCMOMM have a thread called “Murat’s 17 Lies”. God knows why they haven’t been sued, but perhaps you’d like to take a look and you will see the changes to his story which Bonkers Bennett et al have interpreted as lies.
Oh Dear. And I thought......Well, you all know what I thought.
-
I'm sure you've heard it all before. I know I have, and all the 'explanations' offered by the McCanns and their supporters.
And there are apparently 17 changes in Murat’s statements. So what?
-
And there are apparently 17 changes in Murat’s statements. So what?
Some people see Murat as involved in something, I think. I'm not one of them.
-
Some people see Murat as involved in something, I think. I'm not one of them.
Why not?! There are 17 changes in his statement!! That can only mean one thing, right?!
-
Really? In my opinion Gerry McCann changed his stories. That's a fact that is rejected by those who support him. Opinions.....
its rejected because there is no reliable admissible evidence to supprt it....I think thats quite reasonable
-
its rejected because there is no reliable admissible evidence to supprt it....I think thats quite reasonable
Opinion.
-
Opinion.
as are your claims...so noyhing proven
-
Opinion.
it is your opinion that a changed statement is relevant when it’s Gerry but irrelevant when it’s Murat. That’s inconsistent of you isn’t it.
-
it is your opinion that a changed statement is relevant when it’s Gerry but irrelevant when it’s Murat. That’s inconsistent of you isn’t it.
Fancy you accepting and quoting opinions from CMOMM! I'd check the veracity if I were you.
-
Fancy you accepting and quoting opinions from CMOMM! I'd check the veracity if I were you.
If you read my post again you will see that I don’t accept the opinions of your friends at CMOMM that Murat was lying but undoubtedly there ARE changes in his recollections, as many if not far more than in Gerry’s. You’re happy to ignore those though. Why?
-
If you read my post again you will see that I don’t accept the opinions of your friends at CMOMM that Murat was lying but undoubtedly there ARE changes in his recollections, as many if not far more than in Gerry’s. You’re happy to ignore those though. Why?
One person who should have had his movements at the forefront of his mind was Gerry MCann. If, as he maintained, his daughter was abducted it was vital that the information he gave to the police was correct.
-
One person who should have had his movements at the forefront of his mind was Gerry MCann. If, as he maintained, his daughter was abducted it was vital that the information he gave to the police was correct.
I would say the info Gerry gave was correct but taken down wrongly by the interpreter. we know Kate says in he rbook she had to correct the interpretr who became quiyt angry. In his arguido staement Gerry says he confirms everything he said in his previous two statements....the police raised no objections.
its a dogs dinner really and nothing can be proved either way
-
One person who should have had his movements at the forefront of his mind was Gerry MCann. If, as he maintained, his daughter was abducted it was vital that the information he gave to the police was correct.
It is apparent that you have learned nothing now that we have reached 2023 ~ any more than you did in 2007.
Humans learn by their mistakes - you know the thing - fire=hot and big furry animals with teeth and claws=wants to eat you. Safe to say that makes the fact your opinions have not altered one iota over that period of time puts your particular brand of human in danger of extinction. Looking around me the evidence is that you are part of a dying breed which has learned nothing from experience.
-
It is apparent that you have learned nothing now that we have reached 2023 ~ any more than you did in 2007.
Humans learn by their mistakes - you know the thing - fire=hot and big furry animals with teeth and claws=wants to eat you. Safe to say that makes the fact your opinions have not altered one iota over that period of time puts your particular brand of human in danger of extinction. Looking around me the evidence is that you are part of a dying breed which has learned nothing from experience.
Sadly, this dying breed has been at it since The Village Pump. Some poor souls are born like it. But at least they don't get to hang anyone anymore. Or send them to prison, as on this occasion they are still trying to do after sixteen years and no evidence.
-
I would say the info Gerry gave was correct but taken down wrongly by the interpreter. we know Kate says in he rbook she had to correct the interpretr who became quiyt angry. In his arguido staement Gerry says he confirms everything he said in his previous two statements....the police raised no objections.
its a dogs dinner really and nothing can be proved either way
Revisit to groundhog day animosity 🙄
You are right - "it's a dog's dinner"! Which the inability of those who have been chewing it up, regurgitating it then gobbling it all up again to continue the spewing cycle reigns supreme. All simply because of a bad dose of denial they are incapable of learning from the first hand experience and expertise of investigators.
Learn something!!! I think they would sooner prefer to pluck their eyes out before doing that,
-
I would say the info Gerry gave was correct but taken down wrongly by the interpreter. we know Kate says in he rbook she had to correct the interpretr who became quiyt angry. In his arguido staement Gerry says he confirms everything he said in his previous two statements....the police raised no objections.
its a dogs dinner really and nothing can be proved either way
That's your opinion, which I don't share.
-
It is apparent that you have learned nothing now that we have reached 2023 ~ any more than you did in 2007.
Humans learn by their mistakes - you know the thing - fire=hot and big furry animals with teeth and claws=wants to eat you. Safe to say that makes the fact your opinions have not altered one iota over that period of time puts your particular brand of human in danger of extinction. Looking around me the evidence is that you are part of a dying breed which has learned nothing from experience.
Thank you for your opinions, which, of course add nothing to the debate. Do you have an excuse to offer for Gerry McCann's changed stories?
-
Sadly, this dying breed has been at it since The Village Pump. Some poor souls are born like it. But at least they don't get to hang anyone anymore. Or send them to prison, as on this occasion they are still trying to do after sixteen years and no evidence.
I can only suffer a very, very quick glance at one of the leading "research instruments" last evening and could hardly believe the malice still swirling within.
The stupidity is unbelievable: sixteen years without a break and without noticing (except to protest 'innocence' on his behalf) that there is actually a prime suspect on the books who never had evidence against him checked out at the time.
Snip
Madeleine police scour thousands of telephone records, 04 October 2013
Thousands of tourists who were in Praia da Luz in May 2007, when the three-year-old disappeared from her holiday apartment, were warned yesterday to expect a phone call from detectives.
For the first time, a vast log of mobile phone traffic, relating to activity in the resort at the time of Madeleine's disappearance, is being examined.
It comes as Kate and Gerry McCann prepare for a television appeal in light of "fresh, substantive" material that has emerged in Scotland Yard's new criminal investigation. A new theory in the case is expected to be outlined when the couple appear alongside detectives on an episode of the BBC's Crimewatch programme on Monday, October 14.
Mark Rowley, Assistant Commissioner at the Met, said: "It's substantially different. This is not a bland 'come and help us' appeal. There is different material and a different understanding to be presented."
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id458.htm
-
I can only suffer a very, very quick glance at one of the leading "research instruments" last evening and could hardly believe the malice still swirling within.
The stupidity is unbelievable: sixteen years without a break and without noticing (except to protest 'innocence' on his behalf) that there is actually a prime suspect on the books who never had evidence against him checked out at the time.
Snip
Madeleine police scour thousands of telephone records, 04 October 2013
Thousands of tourists who were in Praia da Luz in May 2007, when the three-year-old disappeared from her holiday apartment, were warned yesterday to expect a phone call from detectives.
For the first time, a vast log of mobile phone traffic, relating to activity in the resort at the time of Madeleine's disappearance, is being examined.
It comes as Kate and Gerry McCann prepare for a television appeal in light of "fresh, substantive" material that has emerged in Scotland Yard's new criminal investigation. A new theory in the case is expected to be outlined when the couple appear alongside detectives on an episode of the BBC's Crimewatch programme on Monday, October 14.
Mark Rowley, Assistant Commissioner at the Met, said: "It's substantially different. This is not a bland 'come and help us' appeal. There is different material and a different understanding to be presented."
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id458.htm
Ah yes, when Redwood cleared the Tanner sighting out of the way and focused attention on the Smith sighting, where the child was actually seen and matched the missing child's description.
-
I can only suffer a very, very quick glance at one of the leading "research instruments" last evening and could hardly believe the malice still swirling within.
The stupidity is unbelievable: sixteen years without a break and without noticing (except to protest 'innocence' on his behalf) that there is actually a prime suspect on the books who never had evidence against him checked out at the time.
Snip
Madeleine police scour thousands of telephone records, 04 October 2013
Thousands of tourists who were in Praia da Luz in May 2007, when the three-year-old disappeared from her holiday apartment, were warned yesterday to expect a phone call from detectives.
For the first time, a vast log of mobile phone traffic, relating to activity in the resort at the time of Madeleine's disappearance, is being examined.
It comes as Kate and Gerry McCann prepare for a television appeal in light of "fresh, substantive" material that has emerged in Scotland Yard's new criminal investigation. A new theory in the case is expected to be outlined when the couple appear alongside detectives on an episode of the BBC's Crimewatch programme on Monday, October 14.
Mark Rowley, Assistant Commissioner at the Met, said: "It's substantially different. This is not a bland 'come and help us' appeal. There is different material and a different understanding to be presented."
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id458.htm
Evidence of what though? Evidence that he owned & used a phone? Well that's not much use really is it. No wonder he isn't being charged.
-
Thank you for your opinions, which, of course add nothing to the debate. Do you have an excuse to offer for Gerry McCann's changed stories?
You said, "Thank you for your opinions, which, of course add nothing to the debate." Let me know when you post something worth debating and not based on the errors of the past.
You exhibit your lack of knowledge in the way in which you persist in resurrecting shibboleths. Most likely as a result of your thought processes passing by what was actually going on over the past sixteen years.
Don't tell me you missed out on the following ~
Didn't the Policia Judiciaria investigators have something to say about witnesses as recorded in the reports they completed and attached to the information they passed on to their legal bosses.
Didn't these legal bosses make a ruling which resulted in the following- Madeleine's case was archived
- The status of arguido was lifted from Murat and McCanns
Do please keep up - that happened in 2008.
We are now in 2023 and by the admissions in your posts you seem to have drawn a blank on everything between then and 2007 so you have really missed out on an awful lot of information.
I don't think living in the past is good except for use as a base. Now and looking to the future is good and is to be recommended.
-
Are we actually having a debate here? You could have fooled me.
It's just a bunch of nasty hide bound people trying to do the impossible while the rest of us who are better informed remind them of their ignorance.
-
Ah yes, when Redwood cleared the Tanner sighting out of the way and focused attention on the Smith sighting, where the child was actually seen and matched the missing child's description.
🤣 That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But in the interest of "debate" allow me to point out a couple of thoughts arising from your previous critique.
Also worth noting - please don't criticise others who in your opinion lack debating skills, unless there is firm evidence the pot isn't decrying the colour of the kettle. - Your post above by not following through on the point I made is designed to discourage 'debate' and to deflect.
Just a reminder the post to which you are allegedly answering points out issues you seem to have blanked over the years. Such as information coming to the fore in 2013 which subsequently became a big issue. - On a 'debating' forum - your post above doesn't even pretend to be On Topic
There is relevance to the thread title in what I posted. Relevant then - relevant now - and relevant in 2013 when the diligence was carried out despite its availability in 2007.
-
Are we actually having a debate here? You could have fooled me.
It's just a bunch of nasty hide bound people trying to do the impossible while the rest of us who are better informed remind them of their ignorance.
None so blind ... Horse to water etc etc
I don't understand at all why the events over the past sixteen years haven't at least given pause for thought to even the most hide bound "truth seekers" whose main aim in life seems to be making sure the actual truth isn't allowed to raise its head above the parapet.
I go with your analogy about the village pump. It is a mentality. But it wasn't their fault entirely back in the day when information sources were very limited. There is no excuse for it in this internet age which paradoxically might even have made the situation worse.
-
I have learned that nothing printed or said by the media can be relied on.
-
None so blind ... Horse to water etc etc
I don't understand at all why the events over the past sixteen years haven't at least given pause for thought to even the most hide bound "truth seekers" whose main aim in life seems to be making sure the actual truth isn't allowed to raise its head above the parapet.
I go with your analogy about the village pump. It is a mentality. But it wasn't their fault entirely back in the day when information sources were very limited. There is no excuse for it in this internet age which paradoxically might even have made the situation worse.
The Internet has largely replaced the village pump or pub for many. Although in theory many people can have access to other opinions / sources of factual information, there is still a tendency towards the echo chamber of those attracted to a certain narrative, and quite possibly the comforting effect of finding a like-minded community (way beyond the subject of discussion).
-
I have also learned that the animosity from some towards others is excessive and, imo, slightly unhinged. I can't imagine getting so excited about the opnions of people I don't know.
-
I have also learned that the animosity from some towards others is excessive and, imo, slightly unhinged. I can't imagine getting so excited about the opnions of people I don't know.
Coming from the other side of the debate I cannot understand the mentality which drives some to stopping dead at a particular spot in time and using malicious or poorly understood information from then as ammunition to destroy a family of named individuals.
Using every fibre of their being every day and someone somewhere every second of every day to vent spleen on that innocent family for sixteen years while denigrating absolutely every endeavour any positive action to solve Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
My belief is that there is no justification for such indefensible behaviour particularly when it counters the magnificent work and effort investigators have put in to rectify a case which suffered initially from incompetence and neglect.
2007 is long past and gone. The future is still being forged here and now in 2023. Some cannot deal with that and I don't castigate them wholly for that but I really do sympathise with those unable to deal with the past and make no attempt see the future based on current events events.
-
One person who should have had his movements at the forefront of his mind was Gerry MCann. If, as he maintained, his daughter was abducted it was vital that the information he gave to the police was correct.
Of the information you believe he subsequently changed, which aspects do you feel would have had an impact on the search for his daughter by the police? What advantage do you think he gained by giving incorrect information initially which he then (under no duress to do so) subsequently corrected a few days later?
-
Thank you for your opinions, which, of course add nothing to the debate. Do you have an excuse to offer for Gerry McCann's changed stories?
Specifically which changed stories cause you the most suspicion and why?
-
I have learned that nothing printed or said by the media can be relied on.
Nothing? EVER? There was a train crash in Greece yesterday - do you accept the media reports are reasonably accurate or do you think they made the whole thing up?
-
I have also learned that the animosity from some towards others is excessive and, imo, slightly unhinged. I can't imagine getting so excited about the opnions of people I don't know.
Likewise I have learned that there are some people who view the McCanns so-called crimes as so utterly shocking, depraved and unforgiveable that they have been literally harping on about them day in day out for nearly 17 years. Talk about unhinged!
-
That's your opinion, which I don't share.
Correction..3 points...one is opinion..othe two factual. There is absolutely no way to know how accurate the witness statements were...that's fact not opinion