The tapas group and the 'reconstitution' that was never to take place.

[slartibartfast]

Starting with Carlos Pinto de Abreu, the very lawyer who advised Kate NOT to answer those 48 questions which I rather doubt any UK police officer would have been permitted to do.  There's  a great deal being said about Kate's refusal to answer but the question is whether they should have been asked in the first place.

It was why they were made arguidos. Just so they could be asked direct questions that could lead to incriminating answers.

[Jean-Pierre]

And interestingly just one week before the new law regarding arguidos came into effect.  Somebody jumping the gun do you think?

In my view, more  acse of acting before the rules changed.   Because once the rules changed the PJ would have been unable to constitute the McCanns as arguidos (because of the evidential barrier).  This would have limited thier ability to engage in a fishing expedition. 

[Mr Gray]

So the thread should be titled...reconstruction cancelled due to legal advice given to tapas group...that's accurate

[ferryman]

Starting with Carlos Pinto de Abreu, the very lawyer who advised Kate NOT to answer those 48 questions which I rather doubt any UK police officer would have been permitted to do.  There's  a great deal being said about Kate's refusal to answer but the question is whether they should have been asked in the first place.

I suspect that Portuguese law allows the asking of such questions to an arguido.

But emphatically and unreservedly, it does not to an informal witness.

That is the quid pro quo of the fact that informal witnesses cannot be legally represented.  Neither can they be asked accusing questions, though they must answer all questions put to them (they cannot invoke the right of silence).

[Eleanor]

It was why they were made arguidos. Just so they could be asked direct questions that could lead to incriminating answers.

Arguidos have the right to refuse to answer questions without any blame to themselves for doing so.

It's a potty system.  If a witness refuses to answer questions they are made Arguidos and don't have to answer questions. No incriminating answers. End of interrogation.

[Mr Gray]

Arguidos have the right to refuse to answer questions without any blame to themselves for doing so.

It's a potty system.  If a witness refuses to answer questions they are made Arguidos and don't have to answer questions. No incriminating answers. End of interrogation.

yes the PJ made them arguido...giving them the right to silence...then whinged when they used it...bizarre

[Eleanor]

And interestingly just one week before the new law regarding arguidos came into effect.  Somebody jumping the gun do you think?

Someone thought he had The McCanns over a barrel, but he somehow failed to realise that The McCanns could be asked no more questions.  Very hasty. In My Opinion.  The McCanns couldn't even be subjected to Rogatory Interviews.

[Cariad]

Someone thought he had The McCanns over a barrel, but he somehow failed to realise that The McCanns could be asked no more questions.  Very hasty. In My Opinion.  The McCanns couldn't even be subjected to Rogatory Interviews.

They could be asked questions, they could just refuse to answer them. The PJ might have assumed that since it was their child at stake, they'd want to help.....

[Mr Gray]

They could be asked questions, they could just refuse to answer them. The PJ might have assumed that since it was their child at stake, they'd want to help.....

If the questions were designed to help find their daughter I am sure they would have answered...why do you think their solicitor told them not to answer

[Silkywhiskers]

Email response from Rachael Oldfield

23 April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4225

From : Rachael Oldfield (<email address quoted>)
To : "Prior Stuart"
Cc : "Matthew Oldfield" (<email address quoted>)
Sent : Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008.
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your e-mail and the attached response from the PJ.

We remain unconvinced that this reconstruction is necessary. Our most
significant question hasn't been answered, ie, how is it going to help find Madeleine/materially benefit the search for her?

Point 14 of the PJ's response says that they consider this re-enactment "highly important". Why is that? What are they really trying to get out of a reconstruction?

Either they believe our version of the events of May 3rd 2007, or they don't. If they do, why the need for a reconstruction? If they don't believe us, do they want a reconstruction so we can convince them otherwise?

If the purpose of a reconstruction is to convince the Prosecutor to lift Kate and Gerry's arguido status then we would consider taking part in it. If it is to properly focus the investigation on the person seen carrying a child away from the apartment, again, we would consider taking part because that would help to find Madeleine.

We just need to be properly convinced of the reasons for doing a re-enactment.

We know you are the middle man in all this but we are sorry for more questions !
Please give either of us a call if you would like to talk through the above. Also if you feel this e-mail should be forwarded to the PJ please could you let us know.

Many thanks,
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield.

I have one word for the Tapas crew but it's not printable.

[Sherlock Holmes]

So the thread should be titled...reconstruction cancelled due to legal advice given to tapas group...that's accurate

Yes, a good point, davel. A better title would be that T9 were advised  not to co-operate, as opposed to having refused.

Regardless of what motivations or issues may or may not have applied on the Portuguese side, surely it would  be normal, understandable, and prudent, for lawyers representing T9 to have advised their clients not to have involved themselves in something like this. Even with the  best of intentions on both sides there could have been many problems and risks.

[pegasus]

If you look at what happened to JT, falsely accused of fabicating a sighting, and even more unjust, the accusatons made in interview against MO, it is not surprising that they did not accept flying back to Portugal.
They are innocent, and the question is: can Mr R see through the multiple incorrect bad-logic mis-deductions of the initial LP/Met/NPIA/PJ investigation?

[John]

I have altered the thread title to take account of what we know occurred.

[Wonderfulspam]

If you look at what happened to JT, falsely accused of fabicating a sighting, and even more unjust, the accusatons made in interview against MO, it is not surprising that they did not accept flying back to Portugal.
They are innocent, and the question is: can Mr R see through the multiple incorrect bad-logic mis-deductions of the initial LP/Met/NPIA/PJ investigation?

I wonder if Mr Redwood has sussed out that a passing burglar opened the shutters.

[Eleanor]

Oh Dear.  So they didn't refuse to take part because The McCanns told them to.  That puts a different light on things altogether.