Well, just as I predicted, the rancid tart has decided to try to pick holes in the argument.
Returning to the subject of jurisdiction and whether the McCanns should be interviewed by Operation Grange, as many voices, including Colin Sutton are suggesting, we are taking the discussion in steps.
The reason, is that we expect to be bombarded with questions and contradictions.
If we don’t get that bombardment, then something is wrong with our critics who said what we had said to be complete nonsense. We are now giving them the chance to criticise and/or correct us.
if we showed our arguments as a whole, the expected bombardment would happen on all fronts and then we would run the risk of missing to respond to something. By doing it in steps we make sure that doesn’t happen.
Also, if we get a fair criticism or correction, we can consider before making any false assumptions at the next step. Build our case on solid blocks.
We will start with the police caution in England and Wales.
PeterMac on CMOMM argued that an interview under police caution and arguido status is “EXACTLY the same” (our caps, he wrote it in bold).
We disagree. Whilst there may be some similarities, such as the right not to answer questions and have a lawyer present, similarity does not mean the same.
And, so we’re not accused of not using information provided, the links published by Insane in his blog:
The wording of the caution is:
“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
The caution is a warning that adverse inferences can be drawn by a jury in court when the defendant has exercised the right of silence when questioned under police caution. This includes not stating any alibi, not answering questions as to presence at a time or place, about substances or objects found...
In other words, In the UK exercising the right to silence can have negative consequences in court. Any lies that were told under caution can be used as evidence.
We will look at arguido status as the next step and make comparisons.
But first, let’s see if there’s any disagreement about this summary.
As you are well aware, what you CLAIMED was that if the McCanns were ever interviewed by Operation Grange, they could never be charged by any crime in Portugal, because there was no equivalent to the status of "Arguido"
This is complete bollocks.
However, you will pick over the rights and responsibilities of each, picking out any difference as, contrary to your lying claims, you will never accept when you are in the wrong
There will always be differences between the law from one jurisdiction to another - there are significant differences between England/Wales and Scotland, for example - but that does not mean that your claim has any substance. It doesn't. But that is hardly unusual for you, is it, Mrs Swingathon?
- Oh yes? Killed, you say?
- Not possible for you
- Will it? Will it really?
- Okay-dokey. Why is that, then?
- *Removes tinfoil hat from pouch. Places it on head*
- So very true