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

[Brietta]

We don't know what the FSS were telling the Portuguese initially since it appears to have changed by the time the final forensic report appeared.  The Portuguese police cannot be blamed for the shortcomings of the now defunct FSS.

There was nothing wrong with the FSS report and it was most definitely to hand during the arguido interviews.  The PJ either did not want to understand the final result or they did and ignored it in their eagerness to extract a confession.

Kate says in her book: "When Gerry asked to see the DNA report, Ricardo became quite flustered, waving PC Grime’s document in the air and saying, ‘It is the dogs that are important!’"

That is so wrong on two points.

• as an arguido, by law he was entitled to see the evidence against him ... he was denied that right
• the dogs may have convinced the investigators ... but without forensics to back up the 'indications' that is all they were, 'indications' ... and as we saw from video shot in Jersey, Eddie was rather prone to indicate

Alipio Ribeiro, national director of the Policia Judiciaria said in a radio interview there was a “certain hastiness” in making the McCanns suspects.

I think he was right ... and I think the whole episode may have contributed to Amaral's ultimate sacking from the case ... it must have been a huge embarrassment when the 'evidence' the PJ thought they had was wrong because the forensics just had not been understood.

[stephen25000]

The question given was whether or not Kate was right not to answer the forty eight questions presented to her as an arguida ... and the answer must be, that of course she was.
In my opinion anything at all would have sufficed to give the police their excuse to lock her up and metaphorically speaking lock up any possibility with her that Madeleine had, of someone who cared enough about her to keep on searching for the living breathing child she may be.

The police had given up on that as the cites I included in my previous post prove.  They decided in the golden hours of her disappearance that she was dead and they also decided exactly who was responsible and apart from a small detour via Murat they held to that throughout.

An investigation relying on a dream is not in my opinion credible.  An investigation which is incapable of understanding forensic evidence is not in my opinion fit for purpose ... there simply is no excuse for it.

In my opinion Kate used the only defence her daughter had to be looked for and that was her silence.  As it was until she got the ear of the then home secretary Alan Johnson in 2010 only she and Gerry had been fighting in Madeleine's corner and on many fronts.
The fact they had to take on all comers to achieve what they did is probably one of the most distasteful episodes imaginable. But achieve it they did ... and all credit to them for doing so and it started when Kate kept herself out of jail when as an arguida she exercised her rights ... good on her!

'...good on her...'  ?

Why  ?


Who else is to blame for their predicament ?

Why do people some people seem unable to take responsibility for their own actions and let others sort the mess they created ?

[Mr Gray]

'...good on her...'  ?

Why  ?


Who else is to blame for their predicament ?

Why do people some people seem unable to take responsibility for their own actions and let others sort the mess they created ?

the mccanns are not wholly responsible for this mess ...imo....plus many people  do not take responsibilty for their own actions and society has to step in to help. As a Doctor Gerry treats many patients who have contributed to their own illness

[Benice]

I think from the outset, like now.

Reputation etc etc has always been at the forefront for the mccanns.

If only as much care had been put into looking after maddie, instead of themselves

Its always been about them, even now.

He answered questions, she didn't. always a plan to safeguard themselves.

all the above post IMO

On the contrary IMO it is sceptics who have made it ''all about them''.     Faced with no evidence against them  - every facial expression, every word they speak, every step they take, in fact every single last little thing they do is leapt upon and dissected over and over again with the sole aim of proving what 'nasty evil' people they are and so it must be them wotdunnit.    There are forums full of people making it 'all about the McCanns' on a personal level day in day out even now.
 
As for them conspiring together and deciding that Gerry would answer questions and Kate wouldn't.    Then once again - a favourite claim by sceptics  (and also Amaral)  imo.      i.e  When all else fails, just claim a conspiracy.

All in my opinion.

[Eleanor]

What I would like to know is what happens if a Witness refuses to answer questions.

[Robittybob1]

What I would like to know is what happens if a Witness refuses to answer questions.

They just have to say "I can't remember".

[G-Unit]

People seem to be arguing this point using the benefit of hindsight; i.e. saying she was right because the questions were deceitful, repeats, irrelevant and so on.

Kate made her decision without the benefit of knowing what questions were going to asked, so they had no bearing on it.

She took the advice of her lawyer to stay silent. He clearly thought she might make her situation worse if she spoke.

Gerry had different advice when he rang Bob Small. 'Just tell them the truth' he said [madeleine].

Kate doesn't specifically tell us that their lawyer advised Gerry to be silent but either way he followed Bob Small's advice and answered.

I think Kate McCann was right to take her lawyer's advice in order to protect herself.

[Benice]

People seem to be arguing this point using the benefit of hindsight; i.e. saying she was right because the questions were deceitful, repeats, irrelevant and so on.

Kate made her decision without the benefit of knowing what questions were going to asked, so they had no bearing on it.

She took the advice of her lawyer to stay silent. He clearly thought she might make her situation worse if she spoke.

Gerry had different advice when he rang Bob Small. 'Just tell them the truth' he said [madeleine].

Kate doesn't specifically tell us that their lawyer advised Gerry to be silent but either way he followed Bob Small's advice and answered.

I think Kate McCann was right to take her lawyer's advice in order to protect herself. As a more volatile person than her husband she could well have made her situation worse had she spoken.

IMO Kate's lawyer had been persuaded by the PJ that the case they had against her was much stronger than it actually was- and that influenced his advice to her.  In view of that he decided to take no chances - which IMO was the correct thing to do and his advice to remain silent had nothing to do with her 'volatility' but was based purely on what he believed to be the situation at the time.  IMO

AIMHO

[kizzy]

On the contrary IMO it is sceptics who have made it ''all about them''.     Faced with no evidence against them  - every facial expression, every word they speak, every step they take, in fact every single last little thing they do is leapt upon and dissected over and over again with the sole aim of proving what 'nasty evil' people they are and so it must be them wotdunnit.    There are forums full of people making it 'all about the McCanns' on a personal level day in day out even now.
 
As for them conspiring together and deciding that Gerry would answer questions and Kate wouldn't.    Then once again - a favourite claim by sceptics  (and also Amaral)  imo.      i.e  When all else fails, just claim a conspiracy.

All in my opinion.

It is about them, who was she thinking of by not answering the questions.

What ever anyone knows about this case,whether an abundance of knowledge or small amount.

It goes back to the beginning, nothing has been proved. whether they were involved or not.

They were not cleared of involvement.

IMO

[kizzy]

What leads you to believe that those of us who believe in innocent until proven otherwise, are not on "Madeleine's side"
Can you give examples to prove this?

Can you give examples, proving otherwise.

Do you think she should have answered the questions, for maddie's sake.

We don't have to prove maddies innocence do we, or what she suffered.

MY POST IS imo

[jassi]

I have never understood what was so contentious about any of  these questions that she refused to answer them .
She must have decided in advance to be uncooperative.

[Brietta]

People seem to be arguing this point using the benefit of hindsight; i.e. saying she was right because the questions were deceitful, repeats, irrelevant and so on.

Kate made her decision without the benefit of knowing what questions were going to asked, so they had no bearing on it.

She took the advice of her lawyer to stay silent. He clearly thought she might make her situation worse if she spoke.

Gerry had different advice when he rang Bob Small. 'Just tell them the truth' he said [madeleine].

Kate doesn't specifically tell us that their lawyer advised Gerry to be silent but either way he followed Bob Small's advice and answered.

I think Kate McCann was right to take her lawyer's advice in order to protect herself. As a more volatile person than her husband she could well have made her situation worse had she spoken.

Kate had already answered the questions asked on previous occasions but in my opinion, in accordance with the Portuguese Penal Code the answers could not be used against her because she had not been in effect "read her rights" ~ she had to be an arguida for that. 

In my opinion you are entirely wrong about 'hindsight'.

In her book, detailed experiencing this in real time and in real life and made her intelligent analysis of the situation as it affected her and Madeleine's separate cases at the time which in my opinion gave her the resolve not to indulge in providing hostages to fortune against them both.

In my opinion it was the correct thing to do under the circumstances at the time.

[jassi]

Kate had already answered the questions asked on previous occasions but in my opinion, in accordance with the Portuguese Penal Code the answers could not be used against her because she had not been in effect "read her rights" ~ she had to be an arguida for that. 

In my opinion you are entirely wrong about 'hindsight'.

In her book, detailed experiencing this in real time and in real life and made her intelligent analysis of the situation as it affected her and Madeleine's separate cases at the time which in my opinion gave her the resolve not to indulge in providing hostages to fortune against them both.

In my opinion it was the correct thing to do under the circumstances at the time.

Do we know that for sure? Have we seen the answers she gave?

[Brietta]

I have never understood what was so contentious about any of  these questions that she refused to answer them .
She must have decided in advance to be uncooperative.

Read John's informative posts on the subject of questioning a suspect ... bearing in mind his first hand and therefore expert opinion from the policing angle.

[Brietta]

Do we know that for sure? Have we seen the answers she gave?

Yes we know it for sure as far as some of the questions are concerned.