1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

Maddie case will be decided until the end of July - Diário de Notícias

Investigation. Archiving, accusation or new diligences are the options

At a time when the speculation about the foreseen dates for a decision about the Maddie case increases, the office of Pinto Monteiro, the Republic’s Attorney General, guaranteed to DN that the deadline that was imposed on the Public Ministry’s prosecutors terminates at the end of this month.

During this week, some newspapers pointed at next week and at the 2nd of August for the Public Ministry to reach a decision about the process.

This decision may be the archiving of the process, the deduction of an accusation or the scheduling of new diligences, after the PJ delivered its final report about the investigation to the Public Ministry.

“There was no set deadline given” in that sense by Pinto Monteiro, Pinto Monteiro’s office told DN. What was requested from the magistrates is that within a reasonable time frame, and before the end of the month, they concluded whether or not there is a need to carry out further diligences or if the process is ready for the final dispatch”.

On the other hand, while many reinforce the idea that Gerry and Kate McCann, arguidos due to a suspicion of involvement in their daughter’s disappearance, may be accused of the practice of the crime of exposure and abandonment of a minor, which is punished with a prison sentence of up to five years, the lawyer João Grade dos Santos, while having no knowledge of the process, is peremptory when he states to DN that “the crime of abandonment demands intent”.

And “as long as intent is not proved, crime cannot be considered”, the lawyer stressed, reminding that “it is only a crime when the person who abandons knows that under those circumstances the minor will be at risk”.

And he exemplifies: “A father leaves a son at home and he knows that anything may happen. But if that never occurs to him, then it’s not a crime anymore”, he explains. “If someone grabs a child and takes her into the mountains and leaves her there overnight, then it is a crime, because the person knows that the child is at risk”.

source: Diário de Notícias, 11.07.2008


  1. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If a person does not have the concept of what is safe parenting and needlessly exposes their child to danger but claims to be unaware of said danger, isn't it still negligence?

    Most responsible parents know you cannot leave very young children alone at home. They KNOW it. How can educated doctors not have a concept of that when the average Joe understands it?

    In the McCanns' case, they cannot claim ignorance of the potential dangers, the least of all abduction, that can befall such very young children when left unsupervised. Kate McCann would have been aware of the dangers because of her physician training in family practice.

    If they are not charged for negligence and abandonment, I believe it will be because of political reasons, not legal ones.

  2. Jolie..they wer not ignorant of the law, they knew full well it was not right to leave three young children alone in an unlit room while they pissed it up...hence the "summit" to discuss the implications of admitting the kds were home alone BEFORE THEY CALLED THE P.J!! Also the way they then lied about the time checks....oh they knew full well it was wrong, they just didnt give aa fuck.


Powered by Blogger.