As we approach 2023, have we learned anything new?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[G-Unit]

"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

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[G-Unit]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

“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? 

[G-Unit]

in your opinion.

Well I've seen no evidence in official publications that it did say that.

[G-Unit]

“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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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."

[G-Unit]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[G-Unit]

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?