Reopening the case following the Archive Report.

[Angelo222]

When they were offered the opportunity to have the case reopened by the investigating authority who counts ie the Portuguese, they were strangely silent.  Mr Amaral commented, the parents only had to ask for the case to be reopened but they didn't avail of the opportunity.

56
 

[sadie]

When they were offered the opportunity to have the case reopened by the investigating authority who counts ie the Portuguese, they were strangely silent.  Mr Amaral commented, the parents only had to ask for the case to be reopened but they didn't avail of the opportunity.

With what happened inn the Michael Cook case, The Leonor Cipriano case and in the Madeleine case? 
Physical torture , physical torture again and mental torture in ther Mccann case and disinformation  in abundance in each case


At that stage with the same group of detectives at the helm, they would have been mad to consider them tbh.

[Eleanor]

When they were offered the opportunity to have the case reopened by the investigating authority who counts ie the Portuguese, they were strangely silent.  Mr Amaral commented, the parents only had to ask for the case to be reopened but they didn't avail of the opportunity.

By the rules of Portuguese Law, The McCanns needed new evidence before they could make such a request, which they didn't have at the time.

[Carana]

When they were offered the opportunity to have the case reopened by the investigating authority who counts ie the Portuguese, they were strangely silent.  Mr Amaral commented, the parents only had to ask for the case to be reopened but they didn't avail of the opportunity.

Angelo, this was discussed, again, just a few days ago. It was not, as Amaral has asserted, just a matter of a stamp on a letter.

G-Unit dug out the relevant passage:


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.

[G-Unit]

Angelo, this was discussed, again, just a few days ago. It was not, as Amaral has asserted, just a matter of a stamp on a letter.

G-Unit dug out the relevant passage:


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.

I have no cite for this, but as I understand it;

Once the archiving was announced, the arguidos had 20 days to ask for the case to move to the 'instruction' phase. This involves an 'instruction judge' holding an autonomous investigation and an instruction debate between all the parties. At the end of this the judge decides whether a trial should take place or not.

Asking for this would have given the McCanns' lawyer a chance to put their arguments to a judge. Had he decided not to proceed to trial it would have helped to allay suspicions, I would think.

Even after the 20 day deadline offering to take part in the reconstruction or to answer the questions Kate declined to answer would have sufficed.

[Carana]

I have no cite for this, but as I understand it;

Once the archiving was announced, the arguidos had 20 days to ask for the case to move to the 'instruction' phase. This involves an 'instruction judge' holding an autonomous investigation and an instruction debate between all the parties. At the end of this the judge decides whether a trial should take place or not.

Asking for this would have given the McCanns' lawyer a chance to put their arguments to a judge. Had he decided not to proceed to trial it would have helped to allay suspicions, I would think.

Even after the 20 day deadline offering to take part in the reconstruction or to answer the questions Kate declined to answer would have sufficed.

As you said, the key point in the instruction phase is whether a trial should take place or not. That may well be important if you have been charged, but how does it help against a decision to archive the case?

[Carana]

I have no cite for this, but as I understand it;

Once the archiving was announced, the arguidos had 20 days to ask for the case to move to the 'instruction' phase. This involves an 'instruction judge' holding an autonomous investigation and an instruction debate between all the parties. At the end of this the judge decides whether a trial should take place or not.

Asking for this would have given the McCanns' lawyer a chance to put their arguments to a judge. Had he decided not to proceed to trial it would have helped to allay suspicions, I would think.

Even after the 20 day deadline offering to take part in the reconstruction or to answer the questions Kate declined to answer would have sufficed.

Sufficed to do what?

Keeping the investigation open would have required providing new evidence that hadn't been taken into account in the archival ruling.

Where do you start? And how are you supposed to provide that new evidence that would have overturned the ruling?

[Mr Gray]

I have no cite for this, but as I understand it;

Once the archiving was announced, the arguidos had 20 days to ask for the case to move to the 'instruction' phase. This involves an 'instruction judge' holding an autonomous investigation and an instruction debate between all the parties. At the end of this the judge decides whether a trial should take place or not.

Asking for this would have given the McCanns' lawyer a chance to put their arguments to a judge. Had he decided not to proceed to trial it would have helped to allay suspicions, I would think.

Even after the 20 day deadline offering to take part in the reconstruction or to answer the questions Kate declined to answer would have sufficed.

please do not state your opinion as fact...it detracts from your credibility.

[ferryman]

Sufficed to do what?

Keeping the investigation open would have required providing new evidence that hadn't been taken into account in the archival ruling.

Where do you start? And how are you supposed to provide that new evidence that would have overturned the ruling?

Especially hard on the heels of a shelved investigation that was deemed to have exhausted all extant avenues ....

[Carana]

Especially hard on the heels of a shelved investigation that was deemed to have exhausted all extant avenues ....

How on earth were they supposed to have read and digested the entire process and pinpointed what could have been investigated further within 20 days (even allowing for the summer recess) in order to keep the investigation active.

It would have required new "pertinent, relevant and credible" evidence to have overturned the verdict... which was to archive the case.

[ferryman]

How on earth were they supposed to have read and digested the entire process and pinpointed what could have been investigated further within 20 days (even allowing for the summer recess) in order to keep the investigation active.

It would have required new "pertinent, relevant and credible" evidence to have overturned the verdict... which was to archive the case.

In Portuguese ....

Robert Murat had a head-start on them there.

He could read Portuguese.

But it would have been a tall order, even for him ....

[Carana]

In Portuguese ....

Robert Murat had a head-start on them there.

He could read Portuguese.

But it would have been a tall order, even for him ....

I have no idea whether Murat was privy to the entire process file or not.

What on earth could he have presented as evidence to overturn the archiving ruling?

[G-Unit]

Especially hard on the heels of a shelved investigation that was deemed to have exhausted all extant avenues ....

There was a diligence which couldn't be carried out due to the witnesses refusing to take part in the reconstruction. Approaching the PJ and offering to take part would have constituted new evidence I would think.
 

[G-Unit]

How on earth were they supposed to have read and digested the entire process and pinpointed what could have been investigated further within 20 days (even allowing for the summer recess) in order to keep the investigation active.

It would have required new "pertinent, relevant and credible" evidence to have overturned the verdict... which was to archive the case.

What were they paying lawyers for?

[Carana]

There was a diligence which couldn't be carried out due to the witnesses refusing to take part in the reconstruction. Approaching the PJ and offering to take part would have constituted new evidence I would think.

How, bearing in mind the laws?