When was Murat ruled out?

[G-Unit]

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

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

In context, my post was clarifying that the PJ didn't announce anything similar to OG as you claimed.

[Vertigo Swirl]

In context, my post was clarifying that the PJ didn't announce anything similar to OG as you claimed.

you wrote
“Apparently the police can tell people they are no longer of interest, so they could be said to have been cleared of suspicion.

Scotland Yard announced there was no evidence to implicate the four men and the case against them had been closed”

I wrote

“which is more or less what happened in Portugal when the case was archived”.

I didn’t use the word closed.  I didn’t say it was identical.   I used the words “more or less”.  I stand by what I said.  The PT authorities announced there was a lack of evidence against the arguidos and the case was “archived” pending further evidence being brought forward.  The world’s media interpreted this as “being cleared” as did all three arguidos.  Everything else is just semantics, unless you are telling me Robert Murat is still in the frame along with the McCanns?

[Mr Gray]

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

the fact is Anne G misunderstood and you beleived her. if you read the post by misty its clear that the next stage can be requested by the defendants in respect to the facts which are PROSECUTED.

Its clear that defendants can request the next stage to question the reason for prosecution of the DEFENDANTS....it's there in mistys post... Read it

In the McCann case the case was shelved with no charges and no defendants...therefore no one to request the next stage.

It is  alittle difficult to understand but if you read it again carefully you will see i'm absolutely 100% correct.


The Mccanns did not have the option to keep the case open...another myth bites the dust

[Robittybob1]

the fact is Anne G misunderstood and you beleived her. if you read the post by misty its clear that the next stage can be requested by the defendants in respect to the facts which are PROSECUTED.

Its clear that defendants can request the next stage to question the reason for prosecution of the DEFENDANTS....it's there in mistys post... Read it

In the McCann case the case was shelved with no charges and no defendants...therefore no one to request the next stage.

It is  alittle difficult to understand but if you read it again carefully you will see i'm absolutely 100% correct.


The Mccanns did not have the option to keep the case open...another myth bites the dust

I'm surprised by that. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

If a one time suspect who is no longer an official suspect and is not being investigated by the police has the status "not ruled out" or "not cleared" what does that mean for them exactly?  Are they still under suspicion?  Are they a little bit more suspicious than someone who was never a suspect?  What?  Why should a perfectly innocent person who had the misfortune to be a one time suspect in any unsolved criminal case but who was never prosecuted be tainted by the expression "not cleared" or "not ruled out"?  How is that fair and not grounds for pursuing a libel or slander case?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Suppose I wrote a book trying to make the case that Robert Murat was involved in the disappearance, based on my misunderstanding of the evidence.  Suppose it was a big seller in Portugal.  Suppose Robert Murat objected to in and sued me for damages on the basis that he was cleared of all involvement by the archiving report which found that there was a lack of evidence against him.  Would the court find in my favour as he was supposedly never cleared or ruled out?

[Robittybob1]

Suppose I wrote a book trying to make the case that Robert Murat was involved in the disappearance, based on my misunderstanding of the evidence.  Suppose it was a big seller in Portugal.  Suppose Robert Murat objected to in and sued me for damages on the basis that he was cleared of all involvement by the archiving report which found that there was a lack of evidence against him.  Would the court find in my favour as he was supposedly never cleared or ruled out?

Does your surname rhyme with "Amaral"?  If it doesn't I don't like your chances.

[G-Unit]

the fact is Anne G misunderstood and you beleived her. if you read the post by misty its clear that the next stage can be requested by the defendants in respect to the facts which are PROSECUTED.

Its clear that defendants can request the next stage to question the reason for prosecution of the DEFENDANTS....it's there in mistys post... Read it

In the McCann case the case was shelved with no charges and no defendants...therefore no one to request the next stage.

It is  alittle difficult to understand but if you read it again carefully you will see i'm absolutely 100% correct.


The Mccanns did not have the option to keep the case open...another myth bites the dust

They had the option to request a judicial inquiry phase;

The purpose of the preliminary judicial inquiry is judicial confirmation of the decision to prosecute OR TO CLOSE THE INQUIRY, in order to submit (or not submit) the case to trial.

[Mr Gray]

They had the option to request a judicial inquiry phase;

The purpose of the preliminary judicial inquiry is judicial confirmation of the decision to prosecute OR TO CLOSE THE INQUIRY, in order to submit (or not submit) the case to trial.

You are still misundestanding it and need to read it again.

The defendant has the power to question the decision to prosecute and the Prosecutor has the power to question the order to close.

the mccanns would only have the opportunity to request the judicial inquiry stage is if they were to be prosecuted and they were the defendants. Defendant is defined as someone who has been charged with a crime... a suspect or arguido is not a defendant

[Vertigo Swirl]

They had the option to request a judicial inquiry phase;

The purpose of the preliminary judicial inquiry is judicial confirmation of the decision to prosecute OR TO CLOSE THE INQUIRY, in order to submit (or not submit) the case to trial.

So no opportunity at all for them to request that the case continue in any useful way as far as finding Madeleine was concerned.  This issue of "the McCanns could have kept the case open" is used by sceptic to imply that the McCanns didn't want the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance to continue which is a completely disingenuous argument and just more propaganda designed to paint the mcCanns in a bad light.  Won't stop you bringing it up though, time and time again.

[G-Unit]

You are still misundestanding it and need to read it again.

The defendant has the power to question the decision to prosecute and the Prosecutor has the power to question the order to close.

the mccanns would only have the opportunity to request the judicial inquiry stage is if they were to be prosecuted and they were the defendants. Defendant is defined as someone who has been charged with a crime... a suspect or arguido is not a defendant

In Portugal an arguido is a defendant;

Defendant: Kate Marie Healy (identified on page 58)

Date he (sic) was held a defendant: 07-09-2007
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm

[Mr Gray]

In Portugal an arguido is a defendant;

Defendant: Kate Marie Healy (identified on page 58)

Date he (sic) was held a defendant: 07-09-2007
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm

They were not arguido or defendant once the case was closed
The post by misty makes it clear that the defendant can only request the next stage to challenge the evidence against them...that means they can only request the next stage if they have been charged

[G-Unit]

They were not arguido or defendant once the case was closed
The post by misty makes it clear that the defendant can only request the next stage to challenge the evidence against them...that means they can only request the next stage if they have been charged

You are saying that only cases where someone has been charged can proceed to the inquiry phase then? It clearly mentions cases which have been closed, however.

[Mr Gray]

You are saying that only cases where someone has been charged can proceed to the inquiry phase then? It clearly mentions cases which have been closed, however.

Of course it does... Have you not followed my explanation.. In the mccanns case where the case was closed the prosecutor  could apply for the next stage... I have already explained this... Its in mistys post

[G-Unit]

Of course it does... Have you not followed my explanation.. In the mccanns case where the case was closed the prosecutor  could apply for the next stage... I have already explained this... Its in mistys post

You are not correct in my opinion. The Article is quite clear. The defendant can, within 20 days OF THE RULING TO DISCONTINUE THE PROCEEDINGS apply for the opening of the preliminary jusicial stage. This is my final word on the subject.

Article 287

Application for the opening of the preliminary judicial stage

1 - The opening of the preliminary judicial stage may be requested within a 20-day period counted from
the date of service of the bill of indictment or of the ruling to discontinue the proceedings:
a) By the defendant
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf