Author Topic: What was the point of the arguido questions asked of Kate and Gerry McCann?  (Read 2816 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Davel

I was NOT expressing an opinion this was said:


http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-in-english-former-maddie-cop-interview/24788 

check out the qote marks:

""GA: Up until being declared an arguido, Kate, at the request of her lawyer, co-operated. When questions became of a nature that could incriminate her, she was made an arguido, her rights and duties were read out to her in English and thereafter she opted for the right to remain silent."
"

You will have to delete Robs as well for not other reason than you are a mod and you can  &%%6  oh  the  power.

And if we are not llowed to discuss from newspapers then can you please refrain from doing so as well- to show  fairness.

Many thankies

The quote shows again amaral got things totally back to front... Can you not see that
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline ShiningInLuz

In my opinion confirming the important point you made was that Kate and Gerry McCann co-operated fully with the Policia Judiciaria and answered all their questions at all times.
Over a marathon PJ interview lasting over eleven hours Kate answered every question put to her just prior to being made an arguida.  She exercised her legal entitlement to silence having been 'read her rights'.  What is wrong with that, pray?

It is worth bearing in mind that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos on the basis of the Amaral investigation's failure to fully comprehend forensic information.

Competent investigation of the facts of the case led by another coordinator, including a proper understanding of the forensic evidence meant that there was no evidence to charge anyone with anything.  Which in my opinion proves that there was no evidence to justify making anyone an arguido in the first place.

This is a prejudicial situation recognised and addressed in the Portuguese Criminal Code by a change in the law which came into effect days after Kate and Gerry were made arguidos to ensure that evidence justifying the imposition had to be put before a magistrate.

In my opinion the arguido questions fade into insignificance when balanced against the imposition of arguido status in the face of a known impending change in the law under which it would most likely not have been allowed.
Witnesses are obliged by law to answer questions put to them.  The connotations associated with 'co-operated' do not apply.  They were obliged to do so.

Gerry, AFAIK, answered all the questions put to him.  Kate did not.

The sequence of events is that Kate and Gerry made it clear they were going to leave Portugal.  The PJ had a choice of interviewing them before they left or not.  They chose to conduct the interviews.  Based on what they had at that time, they were legally obliged to constitute K & G as arguidos.

None of this has anything to do with an impending legal change in Portugal.

Perhaps we can now return to an analysis of the arguido questions asked of Kate and Gerry McCann?
Portelas installed. Plus Gonçalo!  And F1!  And the World Cup!

Offline Davel

Witnesses are obliged by law to answer questions put to them.  The connotations associated with 'co-operated' do not apply.  They were obliged to do so.

Gerry, AFAIK, answered all the questions put to him.  Kate did not.

The sequence of events is that Kate and Gerry made it clear they were going to leave Portugal.  The PJ had a choice of interviewing them before they left or not.  They chose to conduct the interviews.  Based on what they had at that time, they were legally obliged to constitute K & G as arguidos.

None of this has anything to do with an impending legal change in Portugal.

Perhaps we can now return to an analysis of the arguido questions asked of Kate and Gerry McCann?

Need to correct you on your first point

The mccanns we're under no obligation to answer any questions  as, witnesses... They simply declare themselves arguido
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline ShiningInLuz

The quote shows again amaral got things totally back to front... Can you not see that
Has what back to front?

As a witness, she was obliged to answer questions put to her.

As an arguida, she had the right to refuse to answer most questions, and chose to do just that.
Portelas installed. Plus Gonçalo!  And F1!  And the World Cup!

Offline ShiningInLuz

Need to correct you on your first point

The mccanns we're under no obligation to answer any questions  as, witnesses... They simply declare themselves arguido
Unless Kate's book is incorrect, they were constituted arguidos.  If you have anything to the contrary, please provide a cite.
Portelas installed. Plus Gonçalo!  And F1!  And the World Cup!

Offline Davel

Unless Kate's book is incorrect, they were constituted arguidos.  If you have anything to the contrary, please provide a cite.

Witnesses, do not have to answer any questions if they choose not to... They simply declare themselves arguidos
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline ShiningInLuz

Witnesses, do not have to answer any questions if they choose not to... They simply declare themselves arguidos
What has that got to do with any pertinent fact?

Either give a cite that Kate &/or Gerry self-declared themselves as arguidos, or give it a rest.

You appear to be deflecting from the point of the thread, and that point is interesting.
Portelas installed. Plus Gonçalo!  And F1!  And the World Cup!

Offline Davel

What has that got to do with any pertinent fact?

Either give a cite that Kate &/or Gerry self-declared themselves as arguidos, or give it a rest.

You appear to be deflecting from the point of the thread, and that point is interesting.

You seem to misunderstand and have totally missed the point on which I corrected you..

Witnesses do not have to answer questions... They have a choice.
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline Davel

What has that got to do with any pertinent fact?

Either give a cite that Kate &/or Gerry self-declared themselves as arguidos, or give it a rest.

You appear to be deflecting from the point of the thread, and that point is interesting.

I have never claimed the McCann's declared themselves arguidos
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline slartibartfast

Amaral has it back to front.. Kateanswerred all questions  as a witness but not.... As an arguido.. This was done on the advice of her lawyer

That’s what the GA quote said?
Helping Elite sufferers of NPD for over 2 years...

Offline Davel

That’s what the GA quote said?

No amaral said Kate answerred all witness questions on the adice of her lawyer but did not answer  the srguido questions..
Kate told us, she took her lawyers, advice on the arguido questions... So he's back to front
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline slartibartfast

In my opinion confirming the important point you made was that Kate and Gerry McCann co-operated fully with the Policia Judiciaria and answered all their questions at all times.
Over a marathon PJ interview lasting over eleven hours Kate answered every question put to her just prior to being made an arguida.  She exercised her legal entitlement to silence having been 'read her rights'.  What is wrong with that, pray?

It is worth bearing in mind that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos on the basis of the Amaral investigation's failure to fully comprehend forensic information.

Competent investigation of the facts of the case led by another coordinator, including a proper understanding of the forensic evidence meant that there was no evidence to charge anyone with anything.  Which in my opinion proves that there was no evidence to justify making anyone an arguido in the first place.

This is a prejudicial situation recognised and addressed in the Portuguese Criminal Code by a change in the law which came into effect days after Kate and Gerry were made arguidos to ensure that evidence justifying the imposition had to be put before a magistrate.

In my opinion the arguido questions fade into insignificance when balanced against the imposition of arguido status in the face of a known impending change in the law under which it would most likely not have been allowed.

IMO the PJ only needed enough suspicion to make someone an arguido so they could ask more incriminating questions which were not an option as witnesses. They were made arguidos to protect themselves. There was no misunderstanding of the evidence there was enough suspicion to change their status IMO.
Helping Elite sufferers of NPD for over 2 years...

Offline slartibartfast

No amaral said Kate answerred all witness questions on the adice of her lawyer but did not answer  the srguido questions..
Kate told us, she took her lawyers, advice on the arguido questions... So he's back to front

So they both agreed she had the advice of her lawyer. You would assume it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that he gave advice for both eventualities.
Helping Elite sufferers of NPD for over 2 years...

Offline Davel

So they both agreed she had the advice of her lawyer. You would assume it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that he gave advice for both eventualities.

Amaral is stating it as, a fact for the witness, statement... Of which there is no record  ...but fails to mention the advice of her lawyer on arguido... for which there us, a record
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline Davel

IMO the PJ only needed enough suspicion to make someone an arguido so they could ask more incriminating questions which were not an option as witnesses. They were made arguidos to protect themselves. There was no misunderstanding of the evidence there was enough suspicion to change their status IMO.

As I understand  evidence was needed at that time to declare someone arguido.. The law changed a few days later

UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION