Portuguese contradict SY statements: Daily Mail - what is this all about?

sallypelt wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:

Finn wrote:

sallypelt wrote:

Seek truth wrote:

lj wrote:No, the SY has after all this time and money nothing, nop, nada. They know their 38 plus or minus is one big red herring. They continuously let it seem as if they do everything in their power to solve the case, especially as far as their cooperation with the PJ is concerned. Their ultimate goal is something like: we could have found him/them, but the PJ did not want to solve the case.

It is a repeat of 2007: when the Brits refused to give any medical and financial information, keep the parents under suspicion updated of the investigation, screwed up the DNA evidence, lost some material in that process, sabotaged further interrogation of the tapas friends by  first not reacting, later declaring the International Letter of Request was not correct and so on and so forth.

Anyone who still believe SY is doing a proper investigation is rather naive imo. It's wagging the dog done by a LE group who has experience in screwing up investigations.

 YOU SAID IT ALL !!

 
Lets not forget SY have actually been involved since 2007.

Well, I have to question why some people are here, if all they are seeing is a "whitewash" from SY. I would like for you to explain, what is it you want, if you don't want the police to investigate? I am at a loss of what your motive is

I don't think it's a case of not wanting the police to investigate, sallypelt, I think it's a matter of not having confidence in the investigation.

 I for one am not going to accept the SY review if they just come up with some random sex offender with very loose evidence.

Think of it this way if it wound up tomorrow and they concluded Hewlett probably did it, would you be happy to leave it there?

Do you really think that THAT is going to happen?

I will ask the same question, again. What is it some people want? If the police are NOT going to do anything, then what is the point of being here?
I agree that we have to be careful, and not listen to everything we hear, but I understand enough about the law to know that if they  just wanted this to go away, they would have left things as they were.

Now, I am not going to say anything else on the subject in regards to a "whitewash". I've said my piece, and I will concentrate on what the likes of Russian doll and those who have an understanding of how the law works.

Monty Heck wrote:
For the investigation as announced by SY to move forward, the co-operation of the Portuguese is essential, yet the two forces seem to be poles apart in their views.  It looks as if SY might need to review their position and actually take up the investigation where the PJ were forced to leave off, and rule in or out the T9 before interviewing anyone else, to acheive the Portuguese co-operation they cannot do without.  As they have not budged from that stance over the past 6 years, so why should they do so now?  If there is a genuine desire to find out what happened to this child, a way has to be found through this apparent stand off and SY's recent announcement is the least helpful way of achieving that.

jd wrote:It would certainly change the goalposts of the trial now there is a suspect arrested

PeterMac wrote:In a "normal" case you arrest the suspect and interview him/her, using the evidence you have gathered during the enquiry to break down any denial or alibi.
It is difficult to see what they are going to do here.

"Do you want to tell me what happened?
"No.
"Did you enter apartment 5A
"No.
"Your fingerprints were not found - how do you explain that ?
"I can't
"There is no sign of your opening the shutter - surely you realise how damning that is ?
"I can't explain it.
"The people who were standing outside in the street did not hear you going in or out. You must be able to explain why not
"Not really
You had almost no time at all to get in and sedate the children, and then get out again.  That alone is conclusive.
"Whatever.
"There is enough lack of evidence to let you remain free for a very long time.  Is that really what you want ?
"If that's what the enquiry thinks . . .

aiyoyo wrote:

jd wrote:It would certainly change the goalposts of the trial now there is a suspect arrested

Personally I think his trial has been intentionally delayed to avoid complication for the imminent arrest expected to happen within few weeks.    

The inevitable question has to be : WHO is going to be arrested?  Abductor or Murderer?  Not that difficult to deduce really going by recent reports.   Read articles/statements not literally but between the lines and the implication of what's coming is clear and it is going to SHOCK not only the nation but the world.

Generally while it is normal under portuguese system for a long wait for a trial date, but once allocated and process gets underway it's not normal for long delay between processes, as happened where Amaral's case is concerned
His trial process has reached an impasse due to failed out of court negotiations.  
From a logical, practical and legal viewpoint the process (already started) should follow the natural course of being processed fairly closely and in reasonable time frame to a conclusion, and not left hanging in limbo;  unless there's a good valid reason for that.

If a foreseeable event about to take place soon is going to have an impact on this trial, then that is valid reason to delay this one.
Two trials that have a relation to each other cannot be allowed to take place concurrently because of sub-judice in that one will prejudice the other.

If we go by the party who asked for the Out of Court settlement,an educated guess would tell us which of the two parties is about to be crashed and living in fear.

The Police and Press are playing with words.  The newspapers are preparing the public as  seen by them building up the case for poles opposite contrast to afford the greatest sensationalisation that's to come  that is going to sell papers.