When was Murat ruled out?

[Mr Gray]

it says the decision to prosecute or close the case can be challenged within 28 days by the

defendant...or

the prosecutor..

The defendant might want to challenge the decision to prosecute and the prosecutor might wish to challenge the decision to close. That makes sense,...what you are claiming doesnt

as I said...why would any defendant having been told he wasnt going to be charged...wish to challenge that decision..
as I said...thats barmy

[The General]

it says the decision to prosecute or close the case can be challenged within 28 days by the

defendant...or

the prosecutor..

The defendant might want to challenge the decision to prosecute and the prosecutor might wish to challenge the decision to close. That makes sense,...what you are claiming doesnt

as I said...why would any defendant having been told he wasnt going to be charged...wish to challenge that decision..
as I said...thats barmy

An hour ago you stated that they weren't defendants at all. Don't think we can't see your constant revisionism in the face of being continually owned.

[Mr Gray]

An hour ago you stated that they weren't defendants at all. Don't think we can't see your constant revisionism in the face of being continually owned.

I dont see they are defendants probably just an awkward translation. It took some sorting out to understand it but I'm sure I'm absolutely right. ...but it needs an analytical mind to decipher it,... Gunit is wrong and should admit
defeat

[Mr Gray]

This might make it alittle clearer for some...


it says the decision to prosecute OR close the case can be challenged within 28 days by the

defendant..in respect to the facts that are prosecuted by the prosecutor

prosecutor...in respect of the facts that are not prosecited

perfect sense now...it does not say the defendant can challenge the decision to close the case..the challenge has to be on the facts to be prosecuted

[Mr Gray]

An hour ago you stated that they weren't defendants at all. Don't think we can't see your constant revisionism in the face of being continually owned.

Im actually right again...they are not defendants because the case was shelved....there are only defendants when the decision is to charge and in that case the defendants have the option to  challenge the decision to charge.

[Vertigo Swirl]

For those claiming the McCanns could have requested to keep the case open - open to do what exactly?  Resume the search for their daughter?  Or what?

[Mr Gray]

For those claiming the McCanns could have requested to keep the case open - open to do what exactly?  Resume the search for their daughter?  Or what?

They couldn't... They didn't have that choice.... The only decision they could question was to prosecute... Not to close... Gunit and Gueddes are wrong

[Robittybob1]

From the archiving report:
"The investigators are well aware of the fact that their work is not exempt of imperfection; they have worked with an enormous error margin, and what they have achieved is very little in terms of conclusive results, especially concerning the fate of the unfortunate child. Nevertheless, they always knew that action was necessary and in reality they acted intensively and with commitment, even at the risk of erring.

Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.

Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[Mr Gray]

From the archiving report:
"The investigators are well aware of the fact that their work is not exempt of imperfection; they have worked with an enormous error margin, and what they have achieved is very little in terms of conclusive results, especially concerning the fate of the unfortunate child. Nevertheless, they always knew that action was necessary and in reality they acted intensively and with commitment, even at the risk of erring.

Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.

Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

correct...case can be re opened if new evidence is produced.....which is EXACTLY what happened

[Vertigo Swirl]

From the archiving report:
"The investigators are well aware of the fact that their work is not exempt of imperfection; they have worked with an enormous error margin, and what they have achieved is very little in terms of conclusive results, especially concerning the fate of the unfortunate child. Nevertheless, they always knew that action was necessary and in reality they acted intensively and with commitment, even at the risk of erring.

Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.

Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

”An enormous error margin”. “achieved very little”.  Seems like a fair summary.

[Vertigo Swirl]

They couldn't... They didn't have that choice.... The only decision they could question was to prosecute... Not to close... Gunit and Gueddes are wrong

Of course but do you think we’ll have heard the last of it?  No.  The Groundhog Day effect means this same  factoid will be trotted out within a few months and we’ll have this discsussion all over again.

[Mr Gray]

An hour ago you stated that they weren't defendants at all. Don't think we can't see your constant revisionism in the face of being continually owned.

the parents were not defendants....defendants are thoes charged with a criminal offence ...Im surprised more posters cant see that

[Mr Gray]

The penal process is divided in 3 phases, the first, mandatory, being the criminal investigation. It is taken in charge by various police forces, directed by the Public Ministry, the PM itself being  under the control of a criminal inquiry judge. The second phase is the criminal inquiry. It is not mandatory and has to be requested either by the arguido(s), by the assistant(s) of the process or by a senior magistrate, but never by the Public Ministry. This phase, a kind of recourse against the criminal investigation, is orchestrated by the criminal inquiry judge and culminates in a crucial contradictory debate. Neither the McCann couple nor the "hierarchy" requested the criminal inquiry phase, a manner of agreeing with the conclusions of the criminal investigation. The last phase is eventually the judgement.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm

what seems to have happened is that Anne Gueddes misunderstood portuguese law and sceptics such a syourself have blindly followed her. This has gone unchallenged for several years...it just need someone like myself to look at the law to give the correct facts

[G-Unit]

what seems to have happened is that Anne Gueddes misunderstood portuguese law and sceptics such a syourself have blindly followed her. This has gone unchallenged for several years...it just need someone like myself to look at the law to give the correct facts

If you read Misty's info you will see that the criminal inquiry phase can be requested after charges are brought OR after the case is closed under Article 277. Obviously there are no defendants in the way you are defining the word after a case is closed, but those involved CAN request that the second phase is opened. A synonym of defendant is suspect, which is the meaning here in my opinion.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If you read Misty's info you will see that the criminal inquiry phase can be requested after charges are brought OR after the case is closed under Article 277. Obviously there are no defendants in the way you are defining the word after a case is closed, but those involved CAN request that the second phase is opened. A synonym of defendant is suspect, which is the meaning here in my opinion.

Charges were not brought and you said earlier that the case wasn’t closed...?  Sorry if this irks you, just pointing it out.

“The PJ never announced that the case was closed; the McCanns could have had it continue on request”.