Crank, Hoax, Cruel Joke or Hope?

[WotNxt]

Thats shocking that like - it's like saying "we can't charge him, but oooh watch out, he's a kiddie fiddler".

Poor bloke.

That may actually be their intention. Just because they don't have enough evidence to charge him it doesn't mean he isn't guilty. The officers involved may know that either:

1. he is guilty but they cannot meet the onerous burden of proof a court would require to convict
OR
2. he is innocent but they have checked his background and found he has a history of this kind of thing

If either of the above two scenarios apply then I think they are quite right to publicly humiliate him - whether it is legal or not. I suspect that the journo involved in getting him questioned in the first place probably knows more about him than the media are allowed to print.

We may never know the real facts behind his involvement in this but the Portuguese police do know he lied in regard to a phone call to the computer guy on the night of the abduction. He has done himself no favours there.

[SallyAnne]

That may actually be their intention. Just because they don't have enough evidence to charge him it doesn't mean he isn't guilty. The officers involved may know that either:

1. he is guilty but they cannot meet the onerous burden of proof a court would require to convict
OR
2. he is innocent but they have checked his background and found he has a history of this kind of thing

If either of the above two scenarios apply then I think they are quite right to publicly humiliate him - whether it is legal or not. I suspect that the journo involved in getting him questioned in the first place probably knows more about him than the media are allowed to print.

We may never know the real facts behind his involvement in this but the Portuguese police do know he lied in regard to a phone call to the computer guy on the night of the abduction. He has done himself no favours there.

Jesus wept - and people think I talk tulipe!!

Your attitude is exactly why blokes shouldn't be named in circumstances like this - you've immediately thought "if the police have brought him in there must be SOMETHING funny about him. He must be a kiddie fiddler". You've tarred that bloke! Even if someone else is found guilty!

Its innocent until proven guilty you know!

And the only reason that reporter bint shopped him (other than getting herself and her paper a prize story) was because he was helping to much.

Your reason for finding him gulity? A phone call to a computer guy (who's innocent aswell!!!) that he couldn't remember! ffs.

[Bluebird]

Jesus wept - and people think I talk tulipe!!

Your attitude is exactly why blokes shouldn't be named in circumstances like this - you've immediately thought "if the police have brought him in there must be SOMETHING funny about him. He must be a kiddie fiddler". You've tarred that bloke! Even if someone else is found guilty!

Its innocent until proven guilty you know!

And the only reason that reporter bint shopped him (other than getting herself and her paper a prize story) was because he was helping to much.

Your reason for finding him gulity? A phone call to a computer guy (who's innocent aswell!!!) that he couldn't remember! ffs.

ahhh, now I see what you're doing.

as soon as we all suss out that SA did the abducting [ guilty by her over zealous finger pointing at the parents ], you now back track by saying that a guy who is obviously guilty isn't, thereby pointing the finger of suspision back at him.

My god SA you are a master crim - or I'm barking mad.

[SallyAnne]

ahhh, now I see what you're doing.

as soon as we all suss out that SA did the abducting [ guilty by her over zealous finger pointing at the parents ], you now back track by saying that a guy who is obviously guilty isn't, thereby pointing the finger of suspision back at him.

My god SA you are a master crim - or I'm barking mad.

I dont think he's guilty! but I do think you're barking mad (In a nice way, obviosuly)

[Bluebird]

I dont think he's guilty! but I do think you're barking mad (In a nice way, obviosuly)

woof!

or as the dogs say in Wales

wwfffff!

[SallyAnne]

woof!

or as the dogs say in Wales

wwfffff!

[WotNxt]

Jesus wept - and people think I talk tulipe!!

Well, clearly, you do.

Your attitude is exactly why blokes shouldn't be named in circumstances like this - you've immediately thought "if the police have brought him in there must be SOMETHING funny about him.

They didn't just bring him in, he ended up with arguido status which as I understand it means that he is allowed to refuse to answer questions. So, I'm a human being then with normal reactions to such things.

He must be a kiddie fiddler". You've tarred that bloke! I haven't tarred anyone. Even if someone else is found guilty!

Its innocent until proven guilty you know!

Based on my (up close) personal experience of how such investigations work (NOTE: my kiddie was fiddled with and it wasn't me doing the fiddling before you ask!) there is far more to his involvement or prior history than we are being told. Additionally, "innocent until proven guilty" may apply in the eyes of the law - not necessarily in the reality of the crime. If the Portuguese equivalent of our CPS are anything like our CPS then they will want A1 cast-iron proof and a full written confession before they charge him. Don't expect this anytime soon.

And the only reason that reporter bint shopped him (other than getting herself and her paper a prize story) was because he was helping to much.

Do you really think he would have got arguido status simply because he was "helping to (sic) much"? You really are naive, aren't you.

Your reason for finding him gulity? A phone call to a computer guy (who's innocent aswell!!!) that he couldn't remember! ffs.

Oh come on! Wake up and smell the sh1t - it stinks! He didn't simply "not remember" it. He didn't remember it when specifically asked about recent contact with the computer guy during an offical police interview - there is a huge difference. This could have been a mistake by him but ask yourself would you have made such a mistake when being put int he frame for such a crime?

Maybe he IS innocent in this particular crime but he seems to be hiding something he doesn't want the police to know about - ask yourself why that is ...

[SallyAnne]

Well, clearly, you do.

They didn't just bring him in, he ended up with arguido status which as I understand it means that he is allowed to refuse to answer questions. So, I'm a human being then with normal reactions to such things.

Based on my (up close) personal experience of how such investigations work (NOTE: my kiddie was fiddled with and it wasn't me doing the fiddling before you ask!) there is far more to his involvement or prior history than we are being told. Additionally, "innocent until proven guilty" may apply in the eyes of the law - not necessarily in the reality of the crime. If the Portuguese equivalent of our CPS are anything like our CPS then they will want A1 cast-iron proof and a full written confession before they charge him. Don't expect this anytime soon.

Do you really think he would have got arguido status simply because he was "helping to (sic) much"? You really are naive, aren't you.

Oh come on! Wake up and smell the sh1t - it stinks! He didn't simply "not remember" it. He didn't remember it when specifically asked about recent contact with the computer guy during an offical police interview - there is a huge difference. This could have been a mistake by him but ask yourself would you have made such a mistake when being put int he frame for such a crime?

Maybe he IS innocent in this particular crime but he seems to be hiding something he doesn't want the police to know about - ask yourself why that is ...

Mate, it's absolutely horrible that your child suffered abuse. We all feel for you there. I cant believe you think I would come out and say "was it you?" like - what a complete over reaction.

I believe your personal trouble has clouded your judgement over this one.

We dont know whwther it was the police or the British guy himself who asked for that status. I would imagine it was him, as he's entitled to more rights with it. He knows the stigma of something like this, and he was probably rightly advised to get as much protection as possible. The press (and the world at larged) had already tarred him as a suspect, even when he had witness status...so why not formally make himself a suspect and get himself protected?
Thats what I'd do (and what you would do asell in that situation).

Lets not forget, theman was released without charges because there wasn't enough evidence. This could also mean here wasn't ANY evidence!! Why are you interpreting that as meaning "he still must be guilty"? Are you saying that every person who has ever been questioned by police about child abuse (or any crime for that matter) must automatically be guilty of that crime? Else why would the police question them?

Just think about what you're saying for a second.

[freakydancer]

Mate, it's absolutely horrible that your child suffered abuse. We all feel for you there. I cant believe you think I would come out and say "was it you?" like - what a complete over reaction.

I believe your personal trouble has clouded your judgement over this one.

We dont know whwther it was the police or the British guy himself who asked for that status. I would imagine it was him, as he's entitled to more rights with it. He knows the stigma of something like this, and he was probably rightly advised to get as much protection as possible. The press (and the world at larged) had already tarred him as a suspect, even when he had witness status...so why not formally make himself a suspect and get himself protected?
Thats what I'd do (and what you would do asell in that situation).

Lets not forget, theman was released without charges because there wasn't enough evidence. This could also mean here wasn't ANY evidence!! Why are you interpreting that as meaning "he still must be guilty"? Are you saying that every person who has ever been questioned by police about child abuse (or any crime for that matter) must automatically be guilty of that crime? Else why would the police question them?

Just think about what you're saying for a second.

You are Miss Marple and I claim my free weekend in some stately home in Devon.

[lfc69]

Sally - You seem to be defending this guy on the basis of "look no proof - innocent until proved guilty and all that ", yet on the other hand pointing fingers and insinuating the parents are in on it because "it doesn't feel right".

You maybe a fat bird who likes to have her cake and eat it, but not in this scenario I'm afraid.


P.S. This is nothing against you, I normally find your posts charming and funny.