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

[Mr Gray]

Another post high on emotion and low on fact.  Where to begin?

Your opinion of what the PJ would and would not 'accept' is irrelevant, as is mine.  As is Kate's.  As is her lawyer's.

She was with her lawyer, so any process had to be legal, unless you think her lawyer was not up to the mark.

It matters not a jot what the aim of the PJ was.  It was an opportunity to progress the truth about Madeleine.  An opportunity which Kate spurned.

Kate put Kate above Madeleine.

Your post is totally biased
The questions were not designed to further the search for Maddie but to try and incriminate Kate
If that was not the case she case could have been interviewed as a witness
Kate did exactly the right thing and your suggestion that she put herself hove Maddie is tripe

[Benice]

Another post high on emotion and low on fact.  Where to begin?

Your opinion of what the PJ would and would not 'accept' is irrelevant, as is mine.  As is Kate's.  As is her lawyer's.

She was with her lawyer, so any process had to be legal, unless you think her lawyer was not up to the mark.

It matters not a jot what the aim of the PJ was.  It was an opportunity to progress the truth about Madeleine.  An opportunity which Kate spurned.

Kate put Kate above Madeleine.

In your opinion.   In my opinion the PJ put pinning the crime on Kate above anything else - including Madeleine.

I cannot believe that anyone who has read the 48 questions can put any other interpretation on them.
IMO

[ShiningInLuz]

Yes I am serious.  The only way Kate could have provided information to assist the police in finding Madeleine that she had not already given them is if she actually had some knowledge about where Madeleine had gone.  Do you think she possesses such information?

Try reading her first statement again.  No door slamming shut in the wind.  Consequently, there was a lot for Kate to say that had not already been said.

Turn your question on its head.  If Kate did not know where Madeleine had gone she was in no danger of incriminating herself.

[Alfie]

Try reading her first statement again.  No door slamming shut in the wind.  Consequently, there was a lot for Kate to say that had not already been said.

Turn your question on its head.  If Kate did not know where Madeleine had gone she was in no danger of incriminating herself.

I have just given you an example of how answering leading questions can give the police ammunition to start building a case against you.  Fine you don't accept this.  Your choice.  As for doors slamming shut in the wind or not, was that one of the 48 questions, and if it was, how does the answer help find Madeleine, if Kate had no idea where she was?

[ShiningInLuz]

For example - Madeleine's sleeping habits at home or relationship with her mother - what relevance would this be in the case of stranger abduction?  They are only relevant if Kate is somehow involved.  Assuming Kate is not involved why should she answer such questions, and how does answering them help find an abductor?

Kate's first statement says that Madeleine was not on medication. 

Assuming you are actually referring to the 48 questions, Kate covered your points in her book.  So why on earth cover them in 2011 whilst bemoaning the lack of an investigation but fail to cover them in Sep 2007 when an active investigation was underway?

Your final question is disingenuous.  It wasn't up to Kate to set the interview agenda or to control which questions she would permit the PJ to ask.

[Mr Gray]

Try reading her first statement again.  No door slamming shut in the wind.  Consequently, there was a lot for Kate to say that had not already been said.

Turn your question on its head.  If Kate did not know where Madeleine had gone she was in no danger of incriminating herself.

very simplistic
Innocent people incriminate themselves and are jailed
That is a fact

[ShiningInLuz]

Assuming Kate did not have a hand in her child's disappearance but imagine for a moment she answered - "yes Madeleine was a difficult child and had sleep problems" - there we have the beginnings of a glimmer of a motive.  Leading questions designed to self-incriminate.

Are you being serious?

Was Kate so unintelligent or inarticulate in Sep 2007 that she could not say in Sep 2007 what she wrote in her book in 2011?  Would you honestly have us believe that?

Sorry, I give this proposition a zero out of 10.

[faithlilly]

I didn't say it would be different.  Gerry chose to answer the questions, his prerogative.  Clearly he didn't give the PJ any ammunition, he obviously played a blinder.  Well done Gerry. 

Yet ten years down the line the SC have now stated both he and his wife cannot be considered innocent. Bit of a pyrrhic victory I'm sure you'll agree?

[Robittybob1]

Yet ten years down the line the SC have now stated both he and his wife cannot be considered innocent. Bit of a pyrrhic victory I'm sure you'll agree?

That doesn't imply they are guilty either does it?

[ShiningInLuz]

very simplistic
Innocent people incriminate themselves and are jailed
That is a fact

Very simplistic yourself.

The logical outcome of your pearl of wisdom is that innocent people should never give information to the police on the basis it might incriminate them.  Which is nonsense.

[ShiningInLuz]

Your post is totally biased
The questions were not designed to further the search for Maddie but to try and incriminate Kate
If that was not the case she case could have been interviewed as a witness
Kate did exactly the right thing and your suggestion that she put herself hove Maddie is tripe

It doesn't matter a jot what the questions were designed to do.  Kate did not get to set the agenda or specify the questions to be asked.  Police interviews don't work that way, but it would appear a number of supporters think that should have been how it was done.

If Kate had answered the questions and achieved the same clean bill of health that Gerry had, then the PJ would have been forced to move on from that position.

And you know full well why Kate had to be interviewed as an arguido, so let's not head down that diversion.

[The Singularity]

Kate's legal counsel was a contributing fact here so essentially, her brief gave her advice which she followed - who wouldn't do?

Foreign country, different systems, having a legal counsel to advise would be absolutely critical to finding Madeline and progressing the investigation because the legal counsel surely would not deliberately give advice to Mrs McCann that would in someway incriminate her?

[Alfie]

Kate's first statement says that Madeleine was not on medication. 

Assuming you are actually referring to the 48 questions, Kate covered your points in her book.  So why on earth cover them in 2011 whilst bemoaning the lack of an investigation but fail to cover them in Sep 2007 when an active investigation was underway?

Your final question is disingenuous.  It wasn't up to Kate to set the interview agenda or to control which questions she would permit the PJ to ask.

Bizarre post.  She covered them in her book because she chose to, and wasn't under investigation by the police at the time, so not at any risk of incriminating herself in a criminal investigation or being thrown in the slammer.   Kate did control the interview agenda very well by refusing to answer any of the PJ's devious (and in some cases rather stupid) questions.  Good for her I say.

[Alfie]

Very simplistic yourself.

The logical outcome of your pearl of wisdom is that innocent people should never give information to the police on the basis it might incriminate them.  Which is nonsense.

You should watch this then because not giving the police any information even if you are completely innocent is very good advice indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

[ShiningInLuz]

Kate's legal counsel was a contributing fact here so essentially, her brief gave her advice which she followed - who wouldn't do?

Foreign country, different systems, having a legal counsel to advise would be absolutely critical to finding Madeline and progressing the investigation because the legal counsel surely would not deliberately give advice to Mrs McCann that would in someway incriminate her?

First, you have this from Kate.  Did her lawyer actually confirm this?

Second, you have the issue that Kate chose to answer certain questions whilst refusing to answer the bulk.  So why did she answer any questions whatsoever?  Did she do so with her lawyer's advice or against it?