First thing I am going to say is that I don't have permission of the author to copy this comment here, but I hope that in the circumstances he'll be okay with it. If not, I'll remove it.
Okay - so thanks to one of my contributors, I was pointed in the direction of this from PeterMac, in response to Textusa's ''End of days" proclamations. This was on the CMOMM forum.
We need to distil out the flabby thinking at the beginning.I have decided to leave the whole piece in, to avoid any accusations of cherry-picking from it. I should also mention that the post was accompanied by this:
He never spells out what he thinks they should be prosecuted for
Consider these bits .
The crime happened in Portugal. What crime ?
For it [What crime ?] to be prosecuted outside Portugal, where the crime happened, [What crime ?]
and there be no consequences there is only one way for that to happen: Portugal agreeing fully to that.
So, to the question will Portugal accept that the McCanns are prosecuted by the British in Britain? The answer seems to be a clear no. For what crime ?
Sovereignty determines that the McCanns have to be prosecuted in Portugal. For what crime ?
Only if the UK wants to insult Portugal and face the consequences on the international stage for doing so, will the McCanns ever be prosecuted in Britain for what happened in Luz. What DID happen in Luz ?He then throws in a whole page about prosecution in England for crimes committed elsewhere
Ss. 9 and 10 OAPA 1861 refers ONLY to homicide
The Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (“GCA”) is talking about War crimes and torture
Unless we believe Madeleine was killed by her parents neither has any relevance to the case.
Portugal has a case of (the Portuguese equivalent of) failing to report a death, failing to produce a body for burial, and possibly another couple of minor administrative things -
but without conclusive proof cannot go further
England has a possible case of a Fraud, and a conspiracy to defraud, but without proof that Madeleine is dead and that the parents knew, or reasonably suspected this cannot go further
Now look at this nonsense
In a country’s jurisdiction laws from other countries are not accepted even if the issue in question is the same.
This is simply wrong. The whole point of the EAW is that countries DO accept the laws of others if they have an equivalent crime on their own statute books.
The recent case of not extraditing Puigdemont from Germany is a classic. German law specifies that there has to be an element of violence in the crime of sedition or whatever. Spanish law doesn't. The Spanish want him back, but the Germans can find no evidence of violence and so will not extradite him. Which is why the Spanish have changed tack and started to look at Financial crimes. (think Al Capone)
And then he starts on about "arguido" status and says it does not exist in England.
It is exactly the same as being interviewed under Caution with a lawyer present, and everything recorded on tape or video
But in any event it is a red herring (remember that ?) because BritPol would not interview about Portuguese crime, only about English crime
As someone has posted, if the 6,500 words were cut down to bullet points on one side of A4 it would be easier to see the flaws
Reply from PeterMac (retired Police Superintendent with 30 years experience plus a Law degree):
I am going to say up front that I absolutely do not agree with PeterMac on some issues, but that does not mean that there are not areas of agreement between us, too.
What he has said here echoes what I said in my response to Textusa, in particular what I pointed out about an interview under caution. Textusa's claim about the arguido status having no equivalent is just plain wrong. So thank you, PeterMac, for pointing that out.
Anyhoo - back to Her Loonyship ......
There then occurred the following exchanges:
To say that Textusa shows double standards here would be a massive understatement. She lists the rights and responsibilities of an arguido then demands the reader ''compares both" despite the fact that she hasn't listed the rights of someone interviewed under caution. She then demands that the poster who raised the question provides a link to the answer!
I think I can see where she is going with this - she is going to try to pretend that minor differences between the two prove she is right. But those minor differences are not the point. The point is that she claimed that to interview the McCanns would be to forever preclude them facing charges in Portugal, and that was absolute bollocks
This bit made me laugh out loud, though
So, if we understood you, whatever PeterMac tells you, you assume to be true?That, Textusa, is precisely what you do, a fact that was not lost on the anon who asked you the question.
It’s your choice and we must respect it. All we can say is that’s how con-artists make a living.
For anyone who wants to compare, the rights of a person being questioned in the UK are listed under PACE - see here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592547/pace-code-c-2017.pdf
And explained here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-rights-and-entitlements-english-revised-by-pace-code-c-2014
As usual, she has painted herself into a corner, silly cow.