Wandering Off Topic

[Eleanor]

Pure speculation.

But nevertheless a fact.

[G-Unit]

What does that have to do with anything?

Kate's book goes - announcement to leave - then made arguidos.

It does not get simpler.

Amaral's book says it was the announcement that the McCanns were leaving that triggered the decision to interview them before they went..

[ShiningInLuz]

But nevertheless a fact.

Pure speculation by definition does not constitute a fact.

[Mr Gray]

Amaral's book says it was the announcement that the McCanns were leaving that triggered the decision to interview them before they went..

Interviewed yes... But what triggerred making them arguidos

[G-Unit]

Interviewed yes... But what triggerred making them arguidos

If there's a possibility that someone will incriminate themselves by answering the questions asked they must be made arguido so they can choose to stay silent and have a lawyer present.

[Mr Gray]

If there's a possibility that someone will incriminate themselves by answering the questions asked they must be made arguido so they can choose to stay silent and have a lawyer present.

But once the rules Re arguido changed they would need evidence to make them arguido and to ask incriminating questions

[ShiningInLuz]

But once the rules Re arguido changed they would need evidence to make them arguido and to ask incriminating questions

As they had already announced a departure date prior to the legal change, we will never know what might have happened.  It's pure speculation.

[Vertigo Swirl]

One might ask what was stopping the PJ making them arguidos earlier.

[Mr Gray]

As they had already announced a departure date prior to the legal change, we will never know what might have happened.  It's pure speculation.

Mosts posts here, are pure, speculation

[G-Unit]

But once the rules Re arguido changed they would need evidence to make them arguido and to ask incriminating questions

I don't know about that. Some changes took effect on 15th September 2007. According to the Portuguese Resident;

To name someone as “arguido” the criminal police force now requires validation by a judge.To protect the suspect’s rights, before the first interview, the person must be informed of the facts that are attributed to them and of the existing evidence, as long as this does not jeopardise the investigation or the fundamental rights of third parties.Interviews now have a maximum duration of four hours, where previously there was no time limit, and can be resumed for the same period of time but only with a minimum interval of an hour. Statements made in violation of these limits are considered void.
http://portugalresident.com/revisions-of-the-criminal-procedure-code

[G-Unit]

One might ask what was stopping the PJ making them arguidos earlier.

Perhaps Kate McCann was correct and they were waiting for the FSS report.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Perhaps Kate McCann was correct and they were waiting for the FSS report.

But there was no incriminating evidence in that report so why would that have been the trigger for making them arguidos?

[Brietta]

Kate McCann was interrogated for eleven hours on 6th September.

On the 7th she was constituted arguida to ensure she didn't incriminate herself by answering important questions they must have forgotten to ask on the 6th such as ... had she looked inside a wardrobe and showing her photographs was asked to describe what was in it?

She was asked what happened when she raised the alarm at the tapas ... and did she have her mobile phone with her?

Did she contact Sky News and did she ask for a priest?

As has already been said ... just the softening up process ... before the nitty gritty of the 'forensic evidence' was introduced as follows:
43   (Various films had been shown to her of the inspection by forensic dogs, where one can see their signalling indications of the scent of a human corpse and traces of human blood as well as the comments by the expert overseeing the exercise.)
Having seen the film and after the scent of a corpse was signalled in her bedroom near the wardrobe, and behind the sofa by the window in the sitting room, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.
Her response to the next four questions was exactly that ... "she could not explain anything more than she already had."

It has already been said the McCanns waited for a fortnight for this interrogation. They didn't have to in my opinion as they were still free agents.  Did they delay their journey home as a result of thinking the police were still looking for Madeleine? 

Obviously the 48 questions had all been asked at the eleven hour marathon Kate had endured the day before.  Therefore the intention in bringing them in and asking them again on the following day could only have been to enable Kate to be charged.  But the frail, vulnerable woman didn't half put a spoke in their wheel and instead of letting them absolve themselves of their incompetence really put the spotlight on it.  In my opinion.

[Brietta]

Pure speculation by definition does not constitute a fact.

So it isn't a fact that the Criminal Code was changed?  Have we been misinformed?

[Carana]

What goes around comes around imo, she is reaping her own crop.  Had she cooperated fully with the PJ back in 2007 we wouldn't be having this debate now.

No, perhaps not. Without the world's media watching, she and Gerry might have slipped down those stairs straight into sharing cells with a few other people I can think of.

Fed to pigs, cremated in someone's coffin... possibilities are endless to explain away the disappearance of kids. I expect any Stephen King novel could provide inspiration.