Wandering Off Topic

[slartibartfast]

A John McEnroe quote does come to mind.

So no cite then.

[ShiningInLuz]

You posted:
Snip
“Kate's book said they were planning to leave.

p232 "We'd waited almost 4 weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we were leaving the country.  Otherwise, why now?  As far as we knew, they didn't have the forensics results back yet."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8044.msg397529#msg397529

Were I you I would also C&P the response to your post which was:
Snip
23rd August;
In any case, as we were now being kept in the dark, we didn’t know much about it ourselves by this stage
[Madeleine]
Clearly the PJ had no intention of telling them anything, let alone if the forensic results were back. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8044.msg397546#msg397546

Kate says they were being kept in the dark … in my opinion they knew relations had cooled considerably … if to the extent they had any inkling of being made arguidos ~ you would have to provide a cite for that, because I cannot.

What you have provided is proof the McCanns didn’t cut and run as claimed by some bloggers.  Their decision to leave when the lease on the rented villa expired was already known and may indeed have been the catalyst for the undue haste in making them arguidos.

All before having any evidence at all let alone sufficient evidence in justification. 

Perhaps in the hope of extracting a confession to 'solve' yet another case; which would have been farcical as confirmed when the forensic evidence was returned and interpreted correctly.

The discussion was about impending legal changes.

Nothing in your post is relevant to that, is it?

[jassi]

The only conclusion I can reach is that the British authorities are reluctant to admit defeat in case the Portuguese then pull something out of the hat and make them look foolish.

Maybe this 'last lead' may provide the answer, maybe not.

[jassi]

I guess there would be no grounds to claim that. Very few Portuguese police have visited UK over this case  and certainly it's not the sort of place to come for a suntan

[Vertigo Swirl]

I guess there would be no grounds to claim that. Very few Portuguese police have visited UK over this case  and certainly it's not the sort of place to come for a suntan

Very droll I’m sure.

[Robittybob1]

I dont think your cite supports your claim.. Im fairly sure I have seen articles that support the claim that the mccanns were made arguido shortly before the law was changed... Ill see if I can dig one out

They were but I was looking for the reason of the timing.  Kate was expecting it, but did not really expand on the reason but thought it had something to do with something happening 4 weeks earlier and that seems to be the cadaver dog examinations and the fact they were planing to leave Portugal.

[Mr Gray]

They were but I was looking for the reason of the timing.  Kate was expecting it, but did not really expand on the reason but thought it had something to do with something happening 4 weeks earlier and that seems to be the cadaver dog examinations and the fact they were planing to leave Portugal.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

[Robittybob1]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

"The couple’s Portuguese lawyer has claimed that detectives may have deliberately fast-tracked the investigation to ensure they were put in the frame."

"May have" means it is only a suspicion at best.  It is only the PJ who know the actual reason.

[ShiningInLuz]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

On which date did the McCanns announce they were to leave Portugal?

On which date did the McCanns plan to leave Portugal?

Were these dates before 15 Sep 2007?

And surely Kate and Gerry could simply have removed themselves from Portugal until the law changed?

The legislation change argument is a dead duck.

[G-Unit]

On which date did the McCanns announce they were to leave Portugal?

On which date did the McCanns plan to leave Portugal?

Were these dates before 15 Sep 2007?

And surely Kate and Gerry could simply have removed themselves from Portugal until the law changed?

The legislation change argument is a dead duck.

Interesting dates

8th August Interview with Neves and Encarnacao;

Neves stated bluntly that they didn’t believe my version of events. It ‘didn’t fit’ [madeleine]

27th August Esther McVey advised Kate to go home for her own safety and to protect Madeleine's good name.

om the same day they were told to vacate their villa by 11th September. (2 week's notice)

Monday 10th September. Date chosen for leaving Portugal.

Unknown date. Bob Small notifies the PJ the date the McCanns plan to leave.

Monday 3rd September. McCanns told of pending interviews.

We’d waited almost four weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we would be leaving the country. Otherwise, why now? As far as we knew, they didn’t have the forensic results back yet. [madeleine]

Kate seemed to think that the PJ wouldn't interview them until they had the forensic results, Why she thought she would know when they came back I don't know.

On Saturday 8th September the PJ gave permission for them to leave, which they did at 7am the following day.

[Alice Purjorick]

On which date did the McCanns announce they were to leave Portugal?

On which date did the McCanns plan to leave Portugal?

Were these dates before 15 Sep 2007?

And surely Kate and Gerry could simply have removed themselves from Portugal until the law changed?

The legislation change argument is a dead duck.

It certainly is until someone can show the change was retrospective.
If the argument has legs that should be easy enough to prove. It might even say how it was to be implemented regarding live investigations and open cases.
I am sure a supporter will come along shortly with a "cut and paste" of the relevant legislation.

[Brietta]

The discussion was about impending legal changes.

Nothing in your post is relevant to that, is it?

I'm replying to the interpretation you chose to put on my post. 

What was in the minds of those who made the McCanns arguidos with such undue hate?

• was it because they knew the McCanns were getting ready to return home?
• was it because of the impending change to the legal code which would have compelled them to produce firm evidence without which it would have been impossible to have made them arguidos?
• or was it the perfect storm of the combination of all three - the McCann notification of leaving - the change in the law - the lack of credible evidence?

[ShiningInLuz]

I'm replying to the interpretation you chose to put on my post. 

What was in the minds of those who made the McCanns arguidos with such undue hate?

• was it because they knew the McCanns were getting ready to return home?
• was it because of the impending change to the legal code which would have compelled them to produce firm evidence without which it would have been impossible to have made them arguidos?
• or was it the perfect storm of the combination of all three - the McCann notification of leaving - the change in the law - the lack of credible evidence?

Speculate ad infinitum.

The McCanns announced they were leaving, and their announced departure date was before the law changed.

[Mr Gray]

Speculate ad infinitum.

The McCanns announced they were leaving, and their announced departure date was before the law changed.

could you tell us on what date the PJ decided they would make the mccanns arguidos...without that your views are speculation

[Brietta]

Speculate ad infinitum.

The McCanns announced they were leaving, and their announced departure date was before the law changed.

Without evidence ... there is absolutely no way that the Portuguese authorities would have sanctioned making the request for the McCann's return to Portugal to be questioned as arguidos.
I believe the PJ were aware there was no evidence ... hence the undue haste to have the case 'wrapped up' ASAP choosing what they thought was the weakest link ie the distraught mother of the missing child.

Therefore in my opinion the leaving was not the problem but the change to the code most certainly was.