Netflix launches new 8-part documentary about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

[Brietta]

The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.

Therefore logic dictates that a private conversation ... the subject of which no longer fell under the secrecy law because it had been officially released under the auspices of a named police spokesperson ... and which we would not have known about but for Kate's book which was published well after Madeleine's case was archived ... could not possibly be construed as breaking the secrecy laws.
It defies logic to promote that it does ... in my opinion ~just something else dreamt up to keep up the harassment on the family of a missing child.

The information was no longer secret immediately the police spokesperson released it to the public domain a full three weeks before the fluid nonsense of hilarity was promoted ... and when that hit the skids ... replaced by falsely accusing Kate of an impossibility using the same material.
Nothing if not inventive.

[Robittybob1]

https://www.portugalresident.com/2007/05/30/secrecy-of-justice-in-portugal/

"Basically, it means that once an issue is in the Justice system, then all information surrounding the issue cannot be divulged to anyone outside the process.

With regard to a criminal investigation, this means that the law enforcement agency carrying out the investigation cannot give any information out to the media.

This includes the name of any person they may wish to interview or any aspect of their enquiry. They cannot say what is happening to forensic examinations or the result of them. If they take someone into custody, they will not give any information out as to the identity of that person."

You will never stop two police officers talking to each other, and I can't imagine how a law will stop two suspects talking to each other.
So I would suggest that Kate talking to her family or to her friends would hardly be considered against the secrecy of justice rule

[faithlilly]

The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.

Therefore logic dictates that a private conversation ... the subject of which no longer fell under the secrecy law because it had been officially released under the auspices of a named police spokesperson ... and which we would not have known about but for Kate's book which was published well after Madeleine's case was archived ... could not possibly be construed as breaking the secrecy laws.
It defies logic to promote that it does ... in my opinion ~just something else dreamt up to keep up the harassment on the family of a missing child.

The information was no longer secret immediately the police spokesperson released it to the public domain a full three weeks before the fluid nonsense of hilarity was promoted ... and when that hit the skids ... replaced by falsely accusing Kate of an impossibility using the same material.
Nothing if not inventive.

“The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.”

Do you have a cite for this claim ?

[Brietta]

No it is not self-evident.  Freud was fully aware of what was going on from media reports which is why he reached out to them in the first place.  The idea that he, by now a friend of the McCanns, stopped being aware of media stories about the case including the dog alerts three weeks earlier is quite ludicrous.  IMO.  Why are you sticking up for Faithlilly’s false accusation?

The fact that he was able to lighten the load a little on what must have been a severely traumatised couple who were coming to terms with the police giving up on the search for their living child having been convinced she was dead ... must have come as a Godsend to Kate and Gerry.

[Brietta]

“The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.”

Do you have a cite for this claim ?

What claim is that?

[John]

The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.

Therefore logic dictates that a private conversation ... the subject of which no longer fell under the secrecy law because it had been officially released under the auspices of a named police spokesperson ... and which we would not have known about but for Kate's book which was published well after Madeleine's case was archived ... could not possibly be construed as breaking the secrecy laws.
It defies logic to promote that it does ... in my opinion ~just something else dreamt up to keep up the harassment on the family of a missing child.

The information was no longer secret immediately the police spokesperson released it to the public domain a full three weeks before the fluid nonsense of hilarity was promoted ... and when that hit the skids ... replaced by falsely accusing Kate of an impossibility using the same material.
Nothing if not inventive.

The requirement to maintain judicial secrecy didn't end simply because the police choose to release certain facts into the public domain.  The McCanns shouldn't have discussed or disclosed any information relating to the investigation to anyone outside of the investigation let alone to someone who was later uncloaked as a paedophile who sexually abused girls as young as 10 for decades. I hasten to add that the McCanns weren't to know that the former TV personality was a paedophile thus all the more reason for them not to discuss the case with someone they really didn't know.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/sir-clement-freud-exposed-as-a-paedophile-as-police-urged-to-pro/

[Vertigo Swirl]

Quite simply, anyone involved in the investigation should not be revealing information related to said investigation to outsiders.

the police broke their own judicial secrecy law by revealing the dog alerts to the media.  The whole world knew about them (apart from CF you seem to think).  Are you telling me that technically the McCanns could have been arrested, charged and imprisoned for referring to this breach of judicial secrecy by the police?  Oh my days, Portuguese justice just gets crazier the more I discover about it!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Quite simply, anyone involved in the investigation should not be revealing information related to said investigation to outsiders.

How can you reveal secret information that has already been revealed by the police and the world’s media?

[Vertigo Swirl]

“The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.”

Do you have a cite for this claim ?

I provided a link to a newspaper article dated 7th August which proves it.  The CF meeting took place 3rd September.  Do keep up (as you are fond of saying!)

[Vertigo Swirl]

Were the McCanns breaking judicial secrecy by referring to their arguido status at the time?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Was Gerry breaking judicial secrecy when he protested his innocence at the bottom of the steps of an aeroplane on their return to Britain? 

[Mr Gray]

just another pathetic ridiculous stick with which to beat the mccanns...if posters calim they have broken the law could the post the law with the precise wording. Are thye not allowed to discuss DNA  or cadaver dogs...these are not specific to their case.
Was Rowley breaking secfecy when he said they had not been questioned under caution...was PDC guilty when he said they were not suspects and no evidence.
so any accusaytion of breaking the law...a criminal act and therefore libellous needs to be backed with evidence.
So what precisely is the law...have SY and the PJ broke it

[Vertigo Swirl]

just another pathetic ridiculous stick with which to beat the mccanns...if posters calim they have broken the law could the post the law with the precise wording. Are thye not allowed to discuss DNA  or cadaver dogs...these are not specific to their case.
Was Rowley breaking secfecy when he said they had not been questioned under caution...was PDC guilty when he said they were not suspects and no evidence.
so any accusaytion of breaking the law...a criminal act and therefore libellous needs to be backed with evidence.
So what precisely is the law...have SY and the PJ broke it

Isn’t it ironic that the Portuguese Police flagrantly break their own law, but it’s the McCanns who get it in the neck for a private discussion about cadaver dogs.   

[Mr Gray]

Isn’t it ironic that the Portuguese Police flagrantly break their own law, but it’s the McCanns who get it in the neck for a private discussion about cadaver dogs.   

Surely it's not against the law to discuss cadaver dogs... And their reliability... That is not specific to the case

[faithlilly]

What claim is that?

That information re the dogs was in the public domain three weeks prior to the meeting with Freud.