CB has been declared ‘arguido’ by the PJ.

[Wonderfulspam]

Ah Ha.  Back to being censored.  And I was only here for about ten minutes.

But you have to catch it while you may.

Don't worry.
Brietta deleted my entire on topic post about Brueckner's presence in the apartment.
Uncomfortable truth.
I do like good & fair, totally unbiased moderation. Brietta is famous for it.
I'll just post it all again later.

[Wonderfulspam]

Queue warni ng for criticising moderation.
I guess I'll just have to start a new thread about Brueckner's presence in the apartment.

[Wonderfulspam]

Oh, disruption apparently.
Pointing out facts about the case evidence is disrupting discussion of the case.
Interesting.

[Eleanor]

Oh, disruption apparently.
Pointing out facts about the case evidence is disrupting discussion of the case.
Interesting.

Not me, obviously.  Your discourses leave me laughing because your discourses are a howl a minute.

But there is  nothing to be done about you.  If John thinks that you are of some use then I can only worry about John.

[Eleanor]

Don't worry.
Brietta deleted my entire on topic post about Brueckner's presence in the apartment.
Uncomfortable truth.
I do like good & fair, totally unbiased moderation. Brietta is famous for it.
I'll just post it all again later.

I should try Gunit if I were you.

[Wonderfulspam]

I should try Gunit if I were you.

No, it was obviously Brietta because she didn't like inconvenient truths being espoused.

[Eleanor]

No, it was obviously Brietta because she didn't like inconvenient truths being espoused.

But you don't actually know that.  Although no doubt that Gunit would never sanction you. 

Well well, there's a surprise.  Gunit is the most partisan Moderator that this Forum ever had.

[G-Unit]

There need to be "strong indications of the practice of a crime".  Why would the PJ make CB an arguido if there is no evidence of an abduction?  Any ideas?

Here is the wording again;

1 – Subject to the provisions of Article 57, the formal acquisition of the status of defendant is mandatory
as soon as:
a) A person makes statements before any judicial authority or criminal police body during an inquiry
started against him, where there are grounds to suspect that such person has committed a criminal
offence;
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf

I don't know where the words you quoted came from, but they don't seem to appear in the Criminal Code.

[Eleanor]

Here is the wording again;

1 – Subject to the provisions of Article 57, the formal acquisition of the status of defendant is mandatory
as soon as:
a) A person makes statements before any judicial authority or criminal police body during an inquiry
started against him, where there are grounds to suspect that such person has committed a criminal
offence;
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf

I don't know where the words you quoted came from, but they don't seem to appear in the Criminal Code.

Well there you go.  As ever.  No one said nothing.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Here is the wording again;

1 – Subject to the provisions of Article 57, the formal acquisition of the status of defendant is mandatory
as soon as:
a) A person makes statements before any judicial authority or criminal police body during an inquiry
started against him, where there are grounds to suspect that such person has committed a criminal
offence;
https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf

I don't know where the words you quoted came from, but they don't seem to appear in the Criminal Code.

“In its statement, though, Portugal's office of public prosecutions said the move was not driven by timing, but by "strong indications" of the practice of a crime”

BBC website.

Madeleine McCann: Christian Brueckner declared formal suspect https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61183857

Why would the PJ make CB an arguido if there was no evidence of abduction?

[Wonderfulspam]

Teacher 'who saw Madeleine McCann in 2017 also spotted suspect's VW camper van'

A former teacher who claims she spotted missing Madeleine McCann at an Algarve supermarket in 2017 says she also remembers seeing suspect Christian Brueckner’s distinctive VW camper van nearby.

The German-speaking Portuguese woman, known only as Maria, went to police recently to tell them a girl she was “sure” was Maddie - because of the unique blemish in her right eye - had been beside her at Apolonia Supermarket in Gale near Albufeira.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-saw-madeleine-mccann-22414371


Must have been a different Maddie lookalike with matching eye defect, visible from several feet away.

Honest mistake, definitely not a made up sighting.

[G-Unit]

“In its statement, though, Portugal's office of public prosecutions said the move was not driven by timing, but by "strong indications" of the practice of a crime”

BBC website.

Madeleine McCann: Christian Brueckner declared formal suspect https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61183857

Why would the PJ make CB an arguido if there was no evidence of abduction?

The 'strong indications' are the grounds they have in this case, not the grounds required in every case.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The 'strong indications' are the grounds they have in this case, not the grounds required in every case.

And your point is?  Why has CB been made an arguido if there is no evidence of abduction?

[Wonderfulspam]

And your point is?  Why has CB been made an arguido if there is no evidence of abduction?

There is, someone said that Brueckner said he dunnit.

That's about it.

Do you know of any other abduction evidence, dear?

[G-Unit]

And your point is?  Why has CB been made an arguido if there is no evidence of abduction?

Is abduction the crime which is strongly indicated?