Was Kate McCann right to decline to answer the 48 questions?

[slartibartfast]

verbatim would be the mccanns statements being written down exactly as they were spoken...in english and then signed

They should have stayed in England then.

[John]

the pj did not have any case imo....the pj were looling for a confession..if thats not self incriminatory I dont know what is. The whole point of arguido status is the pj can ask incriminating questions...that has to be a fact.

Universally, police will always look for a confession and they aren't usually too bothered how they get it as long as their actions remain within the rules.

[John]

Apologies, here are my cites;

'madeleine' pdf doc.

Page 251

Carlos Pinto de Abreu and his assistant, Sofia,
were waiting for me inside. Carlos told me he’d
already had a long discussion with Luís Neves. It
wasn’t looking good, he said. (1)

Page 252
Carlos came over and told me
not to be so definite in some of my answers. (2)

Page 254
Carlos still looked very concerned. There was a
great deal we needed to discuss, he told us. He
reiterated that the situation was not good. The PJ
had a lot of ‘evidence’ against us, and I was certain
to be made an arguida in the morning. (1)

Page 257
What
would you do, Carlos? If one of your daughters was
missing, and this happened to you, what would you
do? Would you confess to a crime you hadn’t
committed, knowing full well it would mean everyone
would stop searching for her?’
‘I’d consider it, yes.’ (3)

Page 262
Today Carlos had
advised me not to answer any of the questions put to
me. He explained that this was my right as an
arguida and it was the safest option: any responses I
gave might unintentionally implicate me in some
way. (3)

Clearly Carlos Pinto de Abreu was concerned that Kate McCann would incriminate herself after he was briefed on the evidence held by the police.   The safe option?

Personally, I've never heard of a mother of a missing child needing a 'safe option', if she was innocent she had nothing to fear.

[John]

I don't think the pj had a case ...in fact they didn't because we have seen all the evidence
If they had wanted information to help the investigation they could have interviewed Kate as a witness
The fact they made her an arguido meant that they considered she might incriminate herself....in these circumstances more than enough reason to refuse to answer questions..imo

Actually we haven't, police will know much more than was ever put on paper.

[John]

Kate McCann never mentioned Amaral in her account of the happenings of 6th and 7th of September. Luis Neves was there and met with her lawyer. Luis Neves was head of the DCCB, Portugal's equivalent of SOCA in the UK. He and Guilhermino Encarnacão, the director of the Algarve Policia Judiciaria (PJ) were in charge of the investigation, not Amaral. Why do people insist on targeting Amaral as if he was the only person who was involved in decision making and analysis?

Amaral was the target and still is, even Correia admitted that in a moment of weakness..."The target has been hit".

[John]

I would think if a suspect refused to take the stand then those statements would come into play.

If a suspect refused to testify then there wouldn't be any opportunity to ask questions about them.  Asking another witness amounts to hearsay.

[G-Unit]

Clearly Carlos Pinto de Abreu was concerned that Kate McCann would incriminate herself after he was briefed on the evidence held by the police.   The safe option?

Personally, I've never heard of a mother of a missing child needing a 'safe option', if she was innocent she had nothing to fear.

He saw something we have never seen; Kate McCann under pressure. According to Fiona Payne she could be volatile;

Kate's very reactive, you know, she's, she's a completely different personality and, you know, if she's angry she'll show she's angry and when she's upset she'll show she's upset,

Gerry was more controlled;

Gerry can be, erm, he's more able to, to sort of see through all that and just think, hang on what's right for, what's right, what's going to get us further forward here, you know, getting upset and screaming at the Police isn't going to get us anywhere and he's always sort of pulling Kate back a bit really and saying, 'Look, that that's not going to help, we've got to do this',
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

[barrier]

If a suspect refused to testify then there wouldn't be any opportunity to ask questions about them.  Asking another witness amounts to hearsay.

Wouldn't their lawyer read it out then? I've no idea how it works in court,surely the part "you later rely on" comes into it,or is the jury not allowed to hear it?

[John]

Wouldn't their lawyer read it out then? I've no idea how it works in court,surely the part "you later rely on" comes into it,or is the jury not allowed to hear it?

Hearsay evidence is not usually permitted in a trial and that is why witnesses require to give evidence. 

[barrier]

Hearsay evidence is not usually permitted in a trial and that is why witnesses require to give evidence.

Wouldn't be hearsay would it,once cautioned its taken down,is it not signed by the suspect?

[John]

Wouldn't be hearsay would it,once cautioned its taken down,is it not signed by the suspect?

Only the person who made the statement can answer to it and that is why they go into the witness box. If a suspect chooses not to testify then their statements will not be seen by the jury. The same applies to audio and video recordings but the judge can allow them if he or she deems it relevant to the public interest. Similiarly, prior convictions aren't revealed to a jury.

Statements are used by the prosecution and the defence to prepare for trial.  Certainly, lawyers will direct questions to witnesses based on what they have already discovered in those statements in order to elicit an appropriate response.  At the end of the day however, it is what is heard from the witness box that counts.

[barrier]

Only the person who made the statement can answer to it and that is why they go into the witness box. If a suspect chooses not to testify then their statements will not be seen by the jury. The same applies to audio and video recordings but the judge can allow them if he or she deems it relevant to the public interest. Similiarly, prior convictions aren't revealed to a jury.

Statements are used by the prosecution and the defence to prepare for trial.  Certainly, lawyers will direct questions to witnesses based on what they have already discovered in those statements in order to elicit an appropriate response.  At the end of the day however, it is what is heard from the witness box that counts.

Thank you John.

[Mr Gray]

Only the person who made the statement can answer to it and that is why they go into the witness box. If a suspect chooses not to testify then their statements will not be seen by the jury. The same applies to audio and video recordings but the judge can allow them if he or she deems it relevant to the public interest. Similiarly, prior convictions aren't revealed to a jury.

Statements are used by the prosecution and the defence to prepare for trial.  Certainly, lawyers will direct questions to witnesses based on what they have already discovered in those statements in order to elicit an appropriate response.  At the end of the day however, it is what is heard from the witness box that counts.

not in the case of the ciprianos john.....

[Benice]

Only the person who made the statement can answer to it and that is why they go into the witness box. If a suspect chooses not to testify then their statements will not be seen by the jury. The same applies to audio and video recordings but the judge can allow them if he or she deems it relevant to the public interest. Similiarly, prior convictions aren't revealed to a jury.

Statements are used by the prosecution and the defence to prepare for trial.  Certainly, lawyers will direct questions to witnesses based on what they have already discovered in those statements in order to elicit an appropriate response.  At the end of the day however, it is what is heard from the witness box that counts.

I'm no expert on any of this, but my son is presently a witness in an ongoing murder trial.    According to him, statements made by the defendants at the police station (questions and their answers) are being read out (verbatim)  to the court.     The defendants have not appeared in the witness box so far, but whether this will change I have no idea at the moment.   Do you think they will be called now that their statements have been revealed to the jury - or can they still decline?

[Mr Gray]

I'm no expert on any of this, but my son is presently a witness in an ongoing murder trial.    According to him, statements made by the defendants at the police station (questions and their answers) are being read out (verbatim)  to the court.     The defendants have not appeared in the witness box so far, but whether this will change I have no idea at the moment.   Do you think they will be called now that their statements have been revealed to the jury - or can they still decline?

Its fairly basic law...they can of course decline to give evidence and any statement they have made under caution can be used in court as evidence against them