Translate

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

As predicted.....,:

Afternoon all,

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.
https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights

And, so we’re not accused of not using information provided, the links published by Insane in his blog:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592547/pace-code-c-2017.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-rights-and-entitlements-english-revised-by-pace-code-c-2014

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"


In fact, here it is 

    1. if Operation Grange ever questions the McCanns, any of the remainder of the T9 or any person who may bear guilt in the case, the case will be killed. Finished.


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?

A little reminder


    1. We inform readers that what we intend to explain today is that if what is being requested is satisfied, the Maddie case will be killed.
Oh yes? Killed, you say?
    1. To be clear, precise and concise,
Not possible for you
    1. if Operation Grange ever questions the McCanns, any of the remainder of the T9 or any person who may bear guilt in the case, the case will be killed. Finished.
Will it? Will it really?

    1. Note, not seriously compromised but finished.
Okay-dokey. Why is that, then?

    1. This is the reason for one of the titles above “Entrapping Grange”, as easily can be seen there are people, and Colin Sutton is not alone, pressuring for that to happen.
*Removes tinfoil hat from pouch. Places it on head*
    1. Upfront a disclaimer. None of us are legal experts or have any educational background
So very true

13 comments:

  1. I know absolutely nothing about law but I feel sure that when the police are certain they can move forward and charge individuals then those who need to be questioned will be questioned.

    About the no longer suspended site I found it interesting to watch mostly silence from people who would normally defend, I just don't believe the statement that was issued about the credit card. I have my own theory that boundaries were pushed too far with all the latest revelations in the news and that the site was suspended by outside forces and maybe a lawyer could argue that if the site remained suspended their public persona could be further damaged. This is all speculation though but this is just what has crossed my mind in the last few days.

    Keep up the good work NT.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The paragraph "The caution is a warning that adverse inferences can be drawn..." is quite misleading actually. The caution is not, in itself, a warning of that at all. The caution is explicitly giving the person the right to remain silent. Adverse inferences have many conditions and restrictions, so to say the caution is a warning that adverse inferences can be drawn simply from remaining silent when questioned under caution is wrong. The caution only states anything witheld and then *later relied upon in court* would harm the defence. There are exceptions but Textusa needs to provide these to be transparent.

    Anyway, it's all a bit irrelevant isn't it, as I'm sure both the PJ and SY are fully aware of how to run an investigation above legal challenge.

    It seems that what Textusa is getting at here is; 'Grange are legit, stop banging on about them questioning McCanns because they're simply following the law.' What Blacksmith said, and what I go with because it simply *makes sense*, and hasn't been refuted, not once.
    But what Textusa is doing is making it all incredibly complicated, incorrect and misleading, completely annihilating the chance of that important message getting across: stop insisting Grange questions the McCanns.

    And people say Blacksmith talks in riddles? Give me strength.

    ReplyDelete
  3. She has also drawn the conclusion, and made the claim, that to question them would be to ''kill off'' the case, which is total balls. That's the problem - Textusa has never allowed her lack of knowledge about, or understanding of, a topic prevent her from making 'carved in stone' proclamations which she then defends to the hilt. Daft cow.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unpublished comment (Sade)

    Absolutely, be my guest

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. One is reminded that the all-knowing, white, condescending and superior British, enjoy spitting over the playground wall. On the other side, a Portuguese woman! I mean, Portuguese! Yet you delight in your cut and thrust, your gurgling intellect. You lot seem to forget that Textusa has had more than 10 years of vile abuse, and still hasn't buckled, or fallen. Keep defending the Realm and protecting the McCanns. After all, they too are British, aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Afternoon, anonymous halfwit, and welcome!

      Let's deal with your last point first, shall we?

      No-one here is defending the McCanns. It is testament to the marvelous job Textusa has done in brainwashing you that you would even think so. Try reading, dear; use those two round things nature implanted in your skull and cast them over the words on the pages, see if you can find anything resembling support of or defence of the McCanns.

      Now - onto the claim that Textusa has had ''10 years of vile abuse''

      Textusa has thoroughly earned any abuse which comes her way. Consider it payback for the 10 years of abuse she has heaped on Robert Murat, his mother, Mrs Fenn, a child witness and all the countless people she has accused of being involved in a vast conspiracy to cover up the death of a child. Consider it payback for her attempts to link me with numerous individuals for the express purpose of having her resident simpletons, like your good self, target me for abuse.
      As for her nationality, I really couldn't give a fuck. Nor am I some flag-waving brit like Baldylocks, so I'm afraid your inappropriate insults failed to hit home.

      Anyway, it's been lovely to chat. Do drop in again sometime, we'll do lunch.

      Delete
    2. You (with a full compliment of brain cells) are so thin-skinned all you can muster is your usual knee-jerk reaction (eg: Oh, Do Fuck Off!) cannot even 'see' the irony in what you write. I'd like you to point out where abuse was heaped on Murat, his mother, Mrs Fenn, etc by Textusa, for instance? We're talking about 'abuse' here - surely - from what I read on your blog - you are aware what abuse looks like, sounds like. Abuse - the like of which you chortle about, indulge in and encourage on your blog, you know? Or are you too blind and stupid to miss that? The answer would have to be yes. By the way, where are all those in-depth and forensics documents on the case you say you have 'lost?' Most recently I stumbled across the hilarious FSS body parts funny paper. Now THAT was a humdinger. Brain cells, indeed...

      Delete
    3. Oh dear, oh dear, I think you need to have a lie-down, Mrs Anonymous :)

      As regards the abuse of the people you named, have you been reading Textusa over the years or not? I could provide you with a link, Petal, but it would just be a link to her blog. She has spent years abusing innocent witnesses and third parties - so if you don't like the response, that's just tough titties, I'm afraid.

      My articles on the forensics are not really any of your business, sweetcheeks, but if you do stumble on them, let me know; I can't find the buggers.

      Now - you sound a bit upset - how about some camomile tea? That's supposed to be very soothing

      Delete
    4. As I already suspected, you've no evidence, whatsoever, that Textusa abused anyone on her blog. Let alone Murat, his mother, Mrs Fenn, or anyone else. You, on the other hand, are a different kettle of stinking fish entirely. You whine like a baby when your own abuse comes back to bite you on the arse, but incubate your own vile and toxic brand daily. Have a nice creepy day. I'm sure your merry band of 'followers' will enjoy your next repugnant barf.

      Delete
    5. Leaving so soon?

      Oh don't go, I was enjoying myself!
      If you really can't see how Textusa has abused countless witness, and incidentally is currently engaged in abusing anyone who doesn't believe her, then I really can't help you. Anyway, it's been lovely to chat, don't be a stranger

      Mwah xx

      Delete
    6. You only cement what I've already stated: you're an abuser who projects abuse from others. "I was enjoying myself," indeed. Still waiting on any evidence that Textusa 'abused' those you've mentioned. And yes, I've read her blog. Repugnant creep.

      Delete
    7. Ah, you're back - excellent!

      So tell me - Textusa maintains that Mrs Fenn lied, that Sky News falsified footage of the big round table and that Murat stored Maddie's body at his house.

      Don't those seem just the tiniest bit abusive to you, twinkletoes?

      Delete
    8. Oh my 😂
      I have to start off at the very beginning - let's make it nice and simple shall we 😄)
      *OUR CAPS* 😂

      "ONE (lol) is reminded that the all knowing, white - " hang on, what? White? Do you mean Caucasian? Which, you'll probably be delighted to discover, actually includes most people of European descent. So, less of the xenophobic accusations when ONE doesn't even understand such things. ONE wouldn't want to think you were implying racism against someone who disagrees with someone OF THE SAME RACE, not that race has anything to do with the disagreements whatsoever.

      As for the rest of it, well. Isn't Google a wonderful thing? When used correctly of course. Not so much, in the case of this commenter, who appears to have typed in "big words" and hurled some in Willy nilly. (NB Willy Nilly is tough titties older brother 😂)
      It's like quiz night all over again. A bottle of red for answers to the following ;
      What is "defending the Realm" ? (Is this Final Fantasy XVII?

      How does one "incubate" their "own vile and toxic brand daily"

      Answers on a postage stamp por favor!

      NB
      Apologies to any Portuguese nationals or relatives of, that had to suffer their nationality being used as a battering ram for the benefit of those who had nothing else to insult their critics with.

      Delete

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email nottextusa@gmail.com