UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mr Moderator on June 10, 2014, 10:31:09 PM
-
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann orthodox, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
To clarify then, the archiving report is effectively declaring that the McCanns failed to take every opportunity provided to them in order to prove their innocence and by their own actions created a situation whereby the investigation had to be shelved.
Far from being cleared the archiving report raises more questions than provides answers.
The 48 questions which Kate McCann refused to answer when questioned by the Portuguese police investigating the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine.
These are the questions:
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
49. THE QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER:
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html#ixzz34VCmDWYw
-
To clarify then, the archiving report is effectively declaring that the McCanns failed to take every opportunity provided to them in order to prove their innocence and by their own actions created a situation whereby the investigation had to be shelved.
Correct, furthermore link this in to the 48 questions Kate refused to answer. The only question she answered was:
"You are aware, are you, that by not answering you're jeopardising the investigation into your daughter's fate?"
To which she replied, "yes".
Now there can only be two possible outcomes as a result of them choosing to deliberately sabotaging the investigation and answering in the affirmative to a question relating to them damaging the only investigation, and at that time, by the only police force in the world looking for their daughter.
[... moderated ...]
-
Correct, furthermore link this in to the 48 questions Kate refused to answer. The only question she answered was:
"You are aware, are you, that by not answering you're jeopardising the investigation into your daughter's fate?"
To which she replied, "yes".
Now there can only be two possible outcomes as a result of them choosing to deliberately sabotaging the investigation and answering in the affirmative to a question relating to them damaging the only investigation, and at that time, by the only police force in the world looking for their daughter.
[... moderated ...]
At the time that the McCanns were made arguidos can you tell me exactly what the PJ were doing to find Madeleine?
-
Correct, furthermore link this in to the 48 questions Kate refused to answer. The only question she answered was:
"You are aware, are you, that by not answering you're jeopardising the investigation into your daughter's fate?"
To which she replied, "yes".
Now there can only be two possible outcomes as a result of them choosing to deliberately sabotaging the investigation and answering in the affirmative to a question relating to them damaging the only investigation, and at that time, by the only police force in the world looking for their daughter.
[... moderated ...]
The PJ were not looking for Madeleine at this stage. They were now investigating her parents.
I think your quote has lost something in translation? I don't think the following is quite as you have quoted it.
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'
-
At the time that the McCanns were made arguidos can you tell me exactly what the PJ were doing to find Madeleine?
They were running the only investigation that was searching for their missing child.
To sabotage the investigation was to effectively sign the poor child's death warrant.
-
They were running the only investigation that was searching for their missing child.
To sabotage the investigation was to effectively sign the poor child's death warrant.
But I thought you were of the opinion she had died on the 3rd May or before?
-
The PJ were not looking for Madeleine at this stage. They were now investigating her parents.
I think your quote has lost something in translation? I don't think the following is quite as you have quoted it.
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'
Yes they were looking for Madeleine, but the parents clearly didn't like where the investigation was looking at that time.
That says far more about the parents than it does about the investigation.
So kate did answer in the affirmative to that question put to her.
-
Yes they were looking for Madeleine, but the parents clearly didn't like where the investigation was looking at that time.
That says far more about the parents than it does about the investigation.
So kate did answer in the affirmative to that question put to her.
Where were they looking for Madeleine? How were they looking for her? By asking her mother a bunch of dumbass questions?
-
But I thought you were of the opinion she had died on the 3rd May or before?
My opinions have no bearing on this issue.
The point is that if the parents genuinely believed the child had been abducted, then by refusing to answer the question and by sabotaging the investigation, THEY the parents were signing the child's death warrant.
However if the parents knew what happened to the child on the 3rd May or before then their answers would not matter nor have the monstrous connotations their actions and answers imbues if they genuinely felt the child had been abducted.
-
Where were they looking for Madeleine? How were they looking for her? By asking her mother a bunch of dumbass questions?
Irrelevant. They were following the leads and evidence they had. Are you disputing that the investigation was not trying to find out what happened to Madeleine??
Really?
-
My opinions have no bearing on this issue.
The point is that if the parents genuinely believed the child had been abducted, then by refusing to answer the question and by sabotaging the investigation, THEY the parents were signing the child's death warrant.
However if the parents knew what happened to the child on the 3rd May or before then their answers would not matter nor have the monstrous connotations their actions and answers imbues if they genuinely felt the child had been abducted.
This is absurd and you must surely know it. The McCanns were the main suspects. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine if you can that they had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance (a big leap for a doubter I know). Now tell me how answering those questions is going to save Madeleine from the hands of whoever took her.
-
Irrelevant. They were following the leads and evidence they had. Are you disputing that the investigation was not trying to find out what happened to Madeleine??
Really?
They were trying to establish the parents guilt. The fact that they never conducted searches like the ones being carried out now indicate that they weren't all that bothered about finding the child, dead or alive.
-
Yes they were looking for Madeleine, but the parents clearly didn't like where the investigation was looking at that time.
That says far more about the parents than it does about the investigation.
So kate did answer in the affirmative to that question put to her.
These 'questions' had already been answered.
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
-
This is absurd and you must sureky know it. The McCanns were the main suspects. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine if you can that they had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance (a big leap for a doubter I know). Now tell me how answering those questions is going to save Madeleine from the hands of whoever took her.
Utter drivel. The McCann's were main suspects to the PJ through their statements actions and investigative diligences. Clear them up by answering every question and performing everything required to prove their innocence (to quote the archiving report) which would then force the PJ to look elsewhere.
You're not going to be spouting the loony conspiracy "fitting up" theory that a country could somehow fit up the parents in the most high profile criminal case in the world at that time?
If you are going down this road just let me know so i can dig my tin foil hat out.
-
They were trying to establish the parents guilt. The fact that they never conducted searches like the ones being carried out now indicate that they weren't all that bothered about finding the child, dead or alive.
Crikey, you are going down this fitting up route.
Give me a minute to get my hat.
-
They were trying to establish the parents guilt. The fact that they never conducted searches like the ones being carried out now indicate that they weren't all that bothered about finding the child, dead or alive.
this is disgusting and false do you not know how hared the pj worked to find m?
they were searching cars atr borders becasue gerry had them looking all over the world
-
Irrelevant. They were following the leads and evidence they had. Are you disputing that the investigation was not trying to find out what happened to Madeleine??
Really?
Possibly ... but at this stage they had decided a 'confession' from Madeleine's parents was their obvious course of action to wind up the case.
-
These 'questions' had already been answered.
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
Irrelevant. Your daughter is missing. You want to find her if she's been abducted. The only way to do that is to ensure the investigation remains open.
Answer them again, and then again if necessary. Do anything and everything to keep that investigation alive, because that's the only way you are going to have your daughter found.
It beggars belief that they were so nonchalant about ensuring the investigation stopped looking for their child.
-
Possibly ... but at this stage they had decided a 'confession' from Madeleine's parents was their obvious course of action to wind up the case.
Possibly?? Really? that's your credibility in this discussion gone.
-
Utter drivel. The McCann's were main suspects to the PJ through their statements actions and investigative diligences. Clear them up by answering every question and performing everything required to prove their innocence (to quote the archiving report) which would then force the PJ to look elsewhere.
You're not going to be spouting the loony conspiracy "fitting up" theory that a country could somehow fit up the parents in the most high profile criminal case in the world at that time?
If you are going down this road just let me know so i can dig my tin foil hat out.
Gerry answered all his questions - did he prove his innocence?
You tell me what other investigations into the child's disappearance were going on in tandem whilst"trying to establish the parents innocence"? What other theories were the PJ pursuing in August and September 2007? How could answering any of the 48 questions put to Kate have established her innocence anyway?
I'm not talking about "fitting up", I'm talking about the dogged pursuance of one line of enquiry only which led down a dead end and which did absolutely nothing whatsoever to help find a missing little girl.
-
Irrelevant. Your daughter is missing. You want to find her if she's been abducted. The only way to do that is to ensure the investigation remains open.
Answer them again, and then again if necessary. Do anything and everything to keep that investigation alive, because that's the only way you are going to have your daughter found.
It beggars belief that they were so nonchalant about ensuring the investigation stopped looking for their child.
WOW ~ I've got it ~ it was the twins wot dunnit, probably phoned madeleine's friends at school to consult if a fridge would be of use for concealment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
-
this is disgusting and false do you not know how hared the pj worked to find m?
they were searching cars atr borders becasue gerry had them looking all over the world
Please tell me how many days in total the PJ spent conducting searches in the area.
Your last sentence makes little sense by the way. Were the PJ wrong to search cars at the borders? In fact DID they do this at all?
-
WOW ~ I've got it ~ it was the twins wot dunnit, probably phoned madeleine's friends at school to consult if a fridge would be of use for concealment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
Yeah, top questions that if only Kate had answered would have proven her innocence once and for all!
-
Possibly?? Really? that's your credibility in this discussion gone.
Albertini - the minute you hit the post button on '48 questions' what little cred. you may have had flew out the window.
-
Please tell me how many days in total the PJ spent conducting searches in the area.
Your last sentence makes little sense by the way. Were the PJ wrong to search cars at the borders? In fact DID they do this at all?
Remind me Alfred, did the police search cars leaving Wales on the night April Jones went missing ?
-
Remind me Alfred, did the police search cars leaving Wales on the night April Jones went missing ?
I have no idea. Did they? Are we now allowed to make comparisons with April Jones case? In which case, how many weeks did police devote to looking for her, compared to say, the PJ's efforts for Madeleine?
-
Irrelevant. Your daughter is missing. You want to find her if she's been abducted. The only way to do that is to ensure the investigation remains open.
Answer them again, and then again if necessary. Do anything and everything to keep that investigation alive, because that's the only way you are going to have your daughter found.
It beggars belief that they were so nonchalant about ensuring the investigation stopped looking for their child.
As the Drs McCann already knew the only people still looking for Madeleine were themselves.
They had to hire private detectives.
They lobbied everyone they could to the highest level of government.
Only their persistence enabled the reopening of Madeleine's case.
Only now is an official police search being conducted for Madeleine - this would not be happening if people who hold the views you do had had their way.
So who obstructs the search for Madeleine? Look close to home because it most certainly is not her family.
-
I have no idea. Did they? Are we now allowed to make comparisons with April Jones case? In which case, how many weeks did police devote to looking for her, compared to say, the PJ's efforts for Madeleine?
And how many other police authorities who are looking for missing children search cars at their, often vast, borders as a priority ?
If your answer is as before how can you possibly claim the PJ were somehow derelict in their duty by not searching borders if you have no idea what the actual protocol is when a child goes missing ?
-
Gerry answered all his questions - did he prove his innocence?
You tell me what other investigations into the child's disappearance were going on in tandem whilst"trying to establish the parents innocence"? What other theories were the PJ pursuing in August and September 2007? How could answering any of the 48 questions put to Kate have established her innocence anyway?
I'm not talking about "fitting up", I'm talking about the dogged pursuance of one line of enquiry only which led down a dead end and which did absolutely nothing whatsoever to help find a missing little girl.
You would have to ask the PJ investigators at the time what they felt of his innocence given the answers he gave. You answer the questions then when those questions lead to more questions you answer those as well. You sit there and answer everything they throw at you.
Then when they ask you to perform a reconstitution you either take part fully (if you've got nothing to hide) or you walk into the police station and say "look we can see why our statements may seem contradictory, let's sit down and iron these issues out with you".
By doing so fully and telling the truth (presumably) you force the investigation to look elsewhere. It does not matter if you now or the McCann's then didn't like the direction the investigation was heading they have to suck it up tackle it head on using the sword of truth for the sake of their daughter and to force the investigation to look elsewhere.
What they did was effectively choose self preservation at the expense of keeping open the official police investigation which was trying to establish the truth of what happened to their daughter.
You do also realise though don't you and presumably accept that IF the McCann's were involved and IF the McCann's were lying then their actions fit perfectly in ensuring they got away with it.
-
Yeah, top questions that if only Kate had answered would have proven her innocence once and for all!
Stop being so facetious. No one said that by answering those questions she would definitively prove her innocence one way or another. But full cooperation in all aspects of the investigation (not just the 48 questions) would certainly help the PJ to rule the parents in or out of their enquiries.
-
Albertini - the minute you hit the post button on '48 questions' what little cred. you may have had flew out the window.
I stated "are you suggesting the PJ weren't looking to find out what happened to the child".
Your reply was "possibly".
So you are stating that an official police force in your opinion may not have been trying to find the child.
That's why your credibility has just gone up in a puff of smoke.
You're no better than the nutters on Havern's forum who think the SY investigation is a whitewash.
In relation to the 48 questions I quoted a question whereby Kate McCann gave an answer which if she genuinely believed her daughter had been abducted, she sat there in the interview room and gave an answer which effectively signed the poor child's death warrant.
The questions put to Kate are irrelevant, what's important is it demonstrates the lack of cooperation and ultimately sabotage of the investigation by the McCann's into determining what happened to their child.
If you are prepared to choose self preservation, sabotage and non cooperation with the official investigation looking for your child and you genuinely don't know what's happened to her, you are, in my book, and my most right minded peoples minds, a monster.
However if you do know the fate of the child then the tactics employed make perfect sense.
It's really that simple.
-
It seems a trifle strange to me that Kate's original answers to the questions weren't recorded. So they make her an Arguida, after which she isn't obliged to answer, and then recorded the fact that she refused on this second occasion. This sounds fearfully like a publicity stunt to me.
-
It seems a trifle strange to me that Kate's original answers to the questions weren't recorded. So they make her an Arguida, after which she isn't obliged to answer, and then recorded the fact that she refused on this second occasion. This sounds fearfully like a publicity stunt to me.
Well I'm sure it does to you, given your well established persuasion.
it still does not escape the bald facts that Kate's (and Gerry's) actions signed her own child's death warrant, which is utterly despicable.
-
Well I'm sure it does to you, given your well established persuasion.
it still does not escape the bald facts that Kate's (and Gerry's) actions signed her own child's death warrant, which is utterly despicable.
So answering the questions the first time around wasn't enough? How did that sign Madeleine's death warrant? The PJ already had their answers.
Gerry, however, did answer the questions, against legal advice. How did that sign Madeleine's death warrant?
This reply to my post is codswallop.
-
Albertini...you are posting the same rubbish you posted last year and was fully discussed for a week. let me tell you why what you are posting is absurd...
first no one has to or should have to prove their innocence.....have you ever heard of this before in any legal case.
it impossible to prove innocence,,did OJ prove his innocence when he was tried for the murder of his wife...no
The Pj according to amaral had decided the parents were guilty and were not looking elsewhere if Kate had answered the 48 questions they would have found 48 more...then 48 more...this is how the police work.the only way to stop this is to refuse to answer any more questions and force the police to act on the evidence they have...in this case nothing...and stop the harassment. The Pj investigation had no where to go..kates not answering questions did not stall the investigation..it was already stalled. Your statement that she signed maddies death warrant is plainly ridiculous.
As far as I am concerned kate did the right thing.
The archiving report states that there was no evidence against the mccanns,,,the pj acted disgracefully towards the parents as far as I am concerned.....because amaral misunderstood the dog and the forensic evidence..now hes going on about links to MI5..the man is a complete fool as far as I am concerned
Perhaps you could tell me what evidence there is to link the mccanns to a crme....SY certainly don't think there is any
-
Well I'm sure it does to you, given your well established persuasion.
it still does not escape the bald facts that Kate's (and Gerry's) actions signed her own child's death warrant, which is utterly despicable.
only in your rather strange world...I doubt if many would agree with you
-
Well I'm sure it does to you, given your well established persuasion.
it still does not escape the bald facts that Kate's (and Gerry's) actions signed her own child's death warrant, which is utterly despicable.
you seem to confuse opinion and facts,,,this is your opinion..not a fact...no wonder all your conclusions are so perverse
-
Albertini...you are posting the same rubbish you posted last year and was fully discussed for a week. let me tell you why what you are posting is absurd...
first no one has to or should have to prove their innocence.....have you ever heard of this before in any legal case.
it impossible to prove innocence,,did OJ prove his innocence when he was tried for the murder of his wife...no
The Pj according to amaral had decided the parents were guilty and were not looking elsewhere if Kate had answered the 48 questions they would have found 48 more...then 48 more...this is how the police work.the only way to stop this is to refuse to answer any more questions and force the police to act on the evidence they have...in this case nothing...and stop the harassment. The Pj investigation had no where to go..kates not answering questions did not stall the investigation..it was already stalled. Your statement that she signed maddies death warrant is plainly ridiculous.
As far as I am concerned kate did the right thing.
The archiving report states that there was no evidence against the mccanns,,,the pj acted disgracefully towards the parents as far as I am concerned.....because amaral misunderstood the dog and the forensic evidence..now hes going on about links to MI5..the man is a complete fool as far as I am concerned
Perhaps you could tell me what evidence there is to link the mccanns to a crme....SY certainly don't think there is any
Like I said you don't understand what the archiving report means. You didn't understand then and you still don't. The term demonstrating their innocence was written by a lawyer in a legal archiving summary.
Do you think if it was "rubbish" it would have gone in there?
You are calling it rubbish because you are not a lawyer and you don't understand it.
As last year you fail spectacularly to differentiate between a police investigation which the archiving report was based on and a legal case with judicial finding.
As you were told last year police forces around the world seek to rule people out of their enquiries by establishing innocence to the crime .
The investigation was following the evidence uncovered. Had it been allowed to run its course then then PJ would have been more likely to have been able to find out what had happened to their child.
By refusing to cooperate they ended it abandoning their daughter to her fate.
The investigation stalled when they refused to cooperate with the diligence required by the investigation.
If you think that a conscious decision to sabotage an investigation which was the only one looking for your child is right you are one sick puppy.
The point again that you miss is that the investigation was stopped by the McCann's actions preventing any further evidence being discovered against them or anyone else for that matter.
It is not the same as investigation fully running its course and discovering no evidence.
But I don't expect you to understand it now when you struggled so badly with it last year.
-
Like I said you don't understand what the archiving report means. You didn't understand then and you still don't. The term demonstrating their innocence was written by a lawyer in a legal archiving summary.
Do you think if it was "rubbish" it would have gone in there?
You are calling it rubbish because you are not a lawyer and you don't understand it.
As last year you fail spectacularly to differentiate between a police investigation which the archiving report was based on and a legal case with judicial finding.
As you were told last year police forces around the world seek to rule people out of their enquiries by establishing innocence to the crime .
The investigation was following the evidence uncovered. Had it been allowed to run its course then then PJ would have been more likely to have been able to find out what had happened to their child.
By refusing to cooperate they ended it abandoning their daughter to her fate.
The investigation stalled when they refused to cooperate with the diligence required by the investigation.
If you think that a conscious decision to sabotage an investigation which was the only one looking for your child is right you are one sick puppy.
The point again that you miss is that the investigation was stopped by the McCann's actions preventing any further evidence being discovered against them or anyone else for that matter.
It is not the same as investigation fully running its course and discovering no evidence.
But I don't expect you to understand it now when you struggled so badly with it last year.
Excellent post Albertini. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Like I said you don't understand what the archiving report means. You didn't understand then and you still don't. The term demonstrating their innocence was written by a lawyer in a legal archiving summary.
Do you think if it was "rubbish" it would have gone in there?
You are calling it rubbish because you are not a lawyer and you don't understand it.
As last year you fail spectacularly to differentiate between a police investigation which the archiving report was based on and a legal case with judicial finding.
As you were told last year police forces around the world seek to rule people out of their enquiries by establishing innocence to the crime .
The investigation was following the evidence uncovered. Had it been allowed to run its course then then PJ would have been more likely to have been able to find out what had happened to their child.
By refusing to cooperate they ended it abandoning their daughter to her fate.
The investigation stalled when they refused to cooperate with the diligence required by the investigation.
If you think that a conscious decision to sabotage an investigation which was the only one looking for your child is right you are one sick puppy.
The point again that you miss is that the investigation was stopped by the McCann's actions preventing any further evidence being discovered against them or anyone else for that matter.
It is not the same as investigation fully running its course and discovering no evidence.
But I don't expect you to understand it now when you struggled so badly with it last year.
How did Kate's refusal to answer the questions on the second occasion they were put to her, prevent The PJ from discovering or pursuing evidence against other persons?
And how did Gerry's answers sign Madeleine's death warrant?
-
Like I said you don't understand what the archiving report means. You didn't understand then and you still don't. The term demonstrating their innocence was written by a lawyer in a legal archiving summary.
Do you think if it was "rubbish" it would have gone in there?
You are calling it rubbish because you are not a lawyer and you don't understand it.
As last year you fail spectacularly to differentiate between a police investigation which the archiving report was based on and a legal case with judicial finding.
As you were told last year police forces around the world seek to rule people out of their enquiries by establishing innocence to the crime .
The investigation was following the evidence uncovered. Had it been allowed to run its course then then PJ would have been more likely to have been able to find out what had happened to their child.
By refusing to cooperate they ended it abandoning their daughter to her fate.
The investigation stalled when they refused to cooperate with the diligence required by the investigation.
If you think that a conscious decision to sabotage an investigation which was the only one looking for your child is right you are one sick puppy.
The point again that you miss is that the investigation was stopped by the McCann's actions preventing any further evidence being discovered against them or anyone else for that matter.
It is not the same as investigation fully running its course and discovering no evidence.
But I don't expect you to understand it now when you struggled so badly with it last year.
First you cant separate opinion from fact...secondly you want to overturn the whole legal system...in fact practically the whole worlds legal system and move the burden of proof onto the defendant..a totally ridiculous stance....
So once again...what evidence did amaral have against the mccanns to make them arguido...
Remember mccannns not suspects..get over it
-
So to get back on track...the evidence used by amaral to suspect the mccanns and make them arguidos was discounted by the archiving report
-
So to get back on track...the evidence used by amaral to suspect the mccanns and make them arguidos was discounted by the archiving report
No dave. There was insufficient evidence to charge anyone.
-
Irrelevant. Your daughter is missing. You want to find her if she's been abducted. The only way to do that is to ensure the investigation remains open.
Answer them again, and then again if necessary. Do anything and everything to keep that investigation alive, because that's the only way you are going to have your daughter found.
It beggars belief that they were so nonchalant about ensuring the investigation stopped looking for their child.
Why would it have kept the investigation alive? Once there are arguidos, the clock is ticking to either bring charges or to shelve the case. See Article 276 of the CPP.
Artigo 276.º
(Prazos de duração máxima do inquérito)
1 - O Ministério Público encerra o inquérito, arquivandoo ou deduzindo acusação, nos prazos máximos de seis meses, se houver arguidos presos ou sob obrigação de permanência na habitação, ou de oito meses, se os não houver.
2 - O prazo de seis meses referido no número anterior é elevado:
a) Para oito meses, quando o inquérito tiver por objecto um dos crimes referidos no artigo 215.º, n.º 2;
b) Para dez meses, quando, independentemente do tipo de crime, o procedimento se revelar de excepcional complexidade, nos termos do artigo 215.º, n.º 3, parte final;
c) Para doze meses, nos casos referidos no artigo 215.º, n.º 3.
3 - Para efeito do disposto nos números anteriores, o prazo contase a partir do momento em que o inquérito tiver passado a correr contra pessoa determinada ou em que se tiver verificado a constituição de arguido.
4 - Sempre que tiver conhecimento de que os prazos referidos no número anterior foram excedidos, o Procurador-Geral da República pode mandar avocar o inquérito e procede de acordo com o disposto no artigo 109.º.
http://paulosantos-adv.planetaclix.pt/CPP.htm
Article 276. º
(Maximum limit for the survey)
1 - The Public Ministry terminating the investigation, arquivandoo or deducting charges, the maximum term of six months, if arrested or under obligation to remain in the dwelling, or eight months defendants, if there is not.
2 - The period of six months referred to in the preceding paragraph is high:
a) For eight months, when the investigation any matter relating to the offenses referred to in Article 215, paragraph 2..;
b) For ten months when, regardless of the type of crime, the procedure proved exceptionally complex, under Article 215, paragraph 3, the final part..;
c) For twelve months, in the cases referred to in Article 215., no. 3.
3 - For the purposes of the preceding paragraphs, the term contase from the time the survey has passed to run against a person or that he has checked the constitution of the accused.
4 - Where is aware that the deadlines referred to above have been exceeded, the Attorney General's Office may have to call the inquiry and proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Article 109..
-
No dave. There was insufficient evidence to charge anyone.
there usually is when you are innocent
-
there usually is when you are innocent
They haven't been charged ?
and we've been through that already...................
-
They haven't been charged ?
and we've been through that already...................
yes you are not usually charged when you are innocent
-
Stop being so facetious. No one said that by answering those questions she would definitively prove her innocence one way or another. But full cooperation in all aspects of the investigation (not just the 48 questions) would certainly help the PJ to rule the parents in or out of their enquiries.
Rubbish. The McCanns had given several statements to the police in the preceding months, answering many of those 48 questions before. They co-operated fully with the police right up until the moment the police made it clear to them that THEY were the main suspects and that NO ONE was looking for their daughter. Answering those questions again would have achieved nothing IMO.
Why did the police not ask: did you give your children sedatives to sleep, did you find Madeleine dead on one of your checks, did you hide her body? If they had and the McCanns replied "no" to all questions would that have been the end of it? Of course not!! So how, exactly, would the McCanns have been able to prove their innocence to the PJ, pray tell?
-
How did Kate's refusal to answer the questions on the second occasion they were put to her, prevent The PJ from discovering or pursuing evidence against other persons?
And how did Gerry's answers sign Madeleine's death warrant?
Because by refusing to co-operate with the investigation, and after being told that it would harm the investigation by them not doing they still sought to bring it to a close.
If they genuinely believed the child had been abducted and being told how important their cooperation was to keep the investigation alive and open, by refusing to assist the PJ, they were abandoning Madeleine to her fate with the abductor.
-
Stop being so facetious. No one said that by answering those questions she would definitively prove her innocence one way or another. But full cooperation in all aspects of the investigation (not just the 48 questions) would certainly help the PJ to rule the parents in or out of their enquiries.
so you accept that it would be impossible for the mccanns to prove their innocence..progress at last
-
only in your rather strange world...I doubt if many would agree with you
So you think i am strange?
Yet you agree with a course of action taken by the Mccann's which ran as follows:
You believe your daughter had been abducted
You refuse to co-operate with the police in the full knowledge that by doing so the investigation attempting to discover what had happened to your child and find her would close and no one would be looking for her.
-
yes you are not usually charged when you are innocent
They haven't been charged dave.
-
you seem to confuse opinion and facts,,,this is your opinion..not a fact...no wonder all your conclusions are so perverse
Nope not at all.
You think that my condemnation for someone who would wilfully sabotage the investigation looking for your missing child who you believe has been abducted, is perverse, says rather more about you than it does me.
-
How did Kate's refusal to answer the questions on the second occasion they were put to her, prevent The PJ from discovering or pursuing evidence against other persons?
And how did Gerry's answers sign Madeleine's death warrant?
And how did not answering questions like this one harm the search for Madeleine and sign her death warrant?
Quote
38- At a certain point you stopped working, why?
Unquote
-
First you cant separate opinion from fact...secondly you want to overturn the whole legal system...in fact practically the whole worlds legal system and move the burden of proof onto the defendant..a totally ridiculous stance....
So once again...what evidence did amaral have against the mccanns to make them arguido...
Remember mccannns not suspects..get over it
Anything not factual feel free to correct.
I am not wanting to overturn anything, i am explaining to you what an official Portuguese legal document, written by a Portuguese lawyer says and means.
You believe that this document is an overturning of whole legal systems. Lol, Really?
Don't you think it's more likely given who it was written by (a lawyer) and the nature of the document that it's your failure to understand what it means which is the problem and not the document itself.
-
Nope not at all.
You think that my condemnation for someone who would wilfully sabotage the investigation looking for your missing child who you believe has been abducted, is perverse, says rather more about you than it does me.
No I think saying the bald FACT is that not answering questions...etc...which is your opinion...not fact ...I think the fact you want to change the whole worlds justice system and move the burden of proof to the defendant...that's perverse...the fact that that you continue to state that not answering the questions sabotaged the investigation...well that's plain barmy
-
Rubbish. The McCanns had given several statements to the police in the preceding months, answering many of those 48 questions before. They co-operated fully with the police right up until the moment the police made it clear to them that THEY were the main suspects and that NO ONE was looking for their daughter. Answering those questions again would have achieved nothing IMO.
Why did the police not ask: did you give your children sedatives to sleep, did you find Madeleine dead on one of your checks, did you hide her body? If they had and the McCanns replied "no" to all questions would that have been the end of it? Of course not!! So how, exactly, would the McCanns have been able to prove their innocence to the PJ, pray tell?
The questions you or the McCann's believe should or should not have been asked are now and were then irrelevant.
It's not up to you or them to determine whether a question posed by the investigation is a valid one.
You answer the bloody things and keep answering them until the police are confidently able to rule you of their enquiries.
If they ask you to perform a diligence which they believe will help the investigation move forward, you do it. then you do it again if needs be, for the sake of your missing daughter.
You don't wilfully go out and sabotage the very investigation which is trying to find your child.
-
Anything not factual feel free to correct.
I am not wanting to overturn anything, i am explaining to you what an official Portuguese legal document, written by a Portuguese lawyer says and means.
You believe that this document is an overturning of whole legal systems. Lol, Really?
Don't you think it's more likely given who it was written by (a lawyer) and the nature of the document that it's your failure to understand what it means which is the problem and not the document itself.
You're on an ignorance roll today Davey boy!
The FACT is that the document doesn't say "prove"...as I have shown countless times
-
so you accept that it would be impossible for the mccanns to prove their innocence..progress at last
Nope.
But it doesn't matter what i think. It's what the police and lawyer writing the report think.
They think then that they were unable to prove their innocence.
-
And how did not answering questions like this one harm the search for Madeleine and sign her death warrant?
Quote
38- At a certain point you stopped working, why?
Unquote
(Admin. Maybe the 48 questions should have it's own thread?)
Answered already.
The questions themselves are irrelevant. It's about doing everything in your power to ensure the police investigation continues to find out what happened to your child.
-
The questions you or the McCann's believe should or should not have been asked are now and were then irrelevant.
It's not up to you or them to determine whether a question posed by the investigation is a valid one.
You answer the bloody things and keep answering them until the police are confidently able to rule you of their enquiries.
If they ask you to perform a diligence which they believe will help the investigation move forward, you do it. then you do it again if needs be, for the sake of your missing daughter.
You don't wilfully go out and sabotage the very investigation which is trying to find your child.
Once again I ask you, how would answering those 48 questions, or even 480 or 4800 questions rule out the McCanns? And, you have studiously avoided addressing Bernice's post regarding the pointlessness of a reconstruction - perhaps you could also explain how that would have been conducted, whose timelines they would have adopted, and how THAT would have proven the McCanns' innocence? And why do you keep on insisting the McCanns refused to take part in the reconstruction when you KNOW this is untrue?
-
Answered already.
The questions themselves are irrelevant. It's about doing everything in your power to ensure the police investigation continues to find out what happened to your child.
When the thrust of the questioning is to implicate you and you know you are innocent, for the sake of the child as much as anything else, you exercise your right to silence.
The Ciprianos exercised their right to silence.
They were convicted.
-
Because by refusing to co-operate with the investigation, and after being told that it would harm the investigation by them not doing they still sought to bring it to a close.
If they genuinely believed the child had been abducted and being told how important their cooperation was to keep the investigation alive and open, by refusing to assist the PJ, they were abandoning Madeleine to her fate with the abductor.
Does an Arguido have the right to silence?
If so, why were The McCanns given this status if The PJ wanted them to repeat the answers that they had already given?
The case wasn't shelved for a further seven or eight months, so how did The McCanns force this conclusion?
-
No I think saying the bald FACT is that not answering questions...etc...which is your opinion...not fact ...I think the fact you want to change the whole worlds justice system and move the burden of proof to the defendant...that's perverse...the fact that that you continue to state that not answering the questions sabotaged the investigation...well that's plain barmy
Drivel as per usual.
The bald facts are this:
Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions the investigation put to her apart form one question where she answered in the affirmative when she was asked if she knew that by not answering she was hindering the investigation.
The Mccann's and friends refused to participate in the reconstruction. Whilst the McCann's wrote they would attend their spokesman had already stated their lawyers would block them from returning.
These are facts.
Then it comes down to a sense of human decency as to whether you regard the price of your refusal to co-operate and self preserve is more important to you then the police investigation continuing to run and look for your missing child.
-
Does an Arguido have the right to silence?
If so, why were The McCanns given this status if The PJ wanted them to repeat the answers that they had already given?
The case wasn't shelved for a further seven or eight months, so how did The McCanns force this conclusion?
There is a distinction that by Portuguese law, informal witnesses don't have a right to silence but neither can be asked leading or incriminating questions.
To ask leading questions, a person must, first, be made arguido. That also carries the right not to answer questions.
-
Drivel as per usual.
The bald facts are this:
Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions the investigation put to her apart form one question where she answered in the affirmative when she was asked if she knew that by not answering she was hindering the investigation.
The Mccann's and friends refused to participate in the reconstruction. Whilst the McCann's wrote they would attend their spokesman had already stated their lawyers would block them from returning.
These are facts.
Then it comes down to a sense of human decency as to whether you regard the price of your refusal to co-operate and self preserve is more important to you then the police investigation continuing to run and look for your missing child.
The PJ were not looking for a missing child at that stage. The questions made that quite obvious.
-
There is a distinction that by Portuguese law, informal witnesses don't have a right to silence but neither can be asked leading or incriminating questions.
To ask leading questions, a person must, first, be made arguido. That also carries the right not to answer questions.
"Leading Questions." Precisely.
-
Drivel as per usual.
The bald facts are this:
Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions the investigation put to her apart form one question where she answered in the affirmative when she was asked if she knew that by not answering she was hindering the investigation.
The Mccann's and friends refused to participate in the reconstruction. Whilst the McCann's wrote they would attend their spokesman had already stated their lawyers would block them from returning.
These are facts.
Then it comes down to a sense of human decency as to whether you regard the price of your refusal to co-operate and self preserve is more important to you then the police investigation continuing to run and look for your missing child.
Why are you still banging on about the irrelevant reconstitution?
But shifting the time line, Scotland Yard have demonstrated that the crime of abduction was perfectly feasible.
-
Once again I ask you, how would answering those 48 questions, or even 480 or 4800 questions rule out the McCanns? And, you have studiously avoided addressing Bernice's post regarding the pointlessness of a reconstruction - perhaps you could also explain how that would have been conducted, whose timelines they would have adopted, and how THAT would have proven the McCanns' innocence? And why do you keep on insisting the McCanns refused to take part in the reconstruction when you KNOW this is untrue?
You just don't get it do you? it's not about the detail of the questions nor the detail of what diligences the investigation wanted them to perform.
Those are irrelevant.
It's the fact by not co-operating and being told your non co-operation is harming the search for your missing child you wilfully continue down that path jeopardising the search for your missing child.
Your posting style is one of answering questions with questions. My opinions on the questions or the diligences, like yours and like the McCann's at the time mean nothing.
-
The PJ were not looking for a missing child at that stage. The questions made that quite obvious.
And your evidence for this statement is........
-
And your evidence for this statement is........
Self-evident in the questions, and in the arguido/a status of Kate and Gerry.
-
And your evidence for this statement is........
I can read, you know. And I suspect that I understand more about The Law than you do. Including Portuguese Law.
-
Why are you still banging on about the irrelevant reconstitution?
But shifting the time line, Scotland Yard have demonstrated that the crime of abduction was perfectly feasible.
Great, so had the McCann's performed it as requested the PJ presumably they could have come to the same conclusion as SY and the hunt for Maddie would have continued, and the PJ would have been forced to look for an abductor.
The parents refusal to take part prevented this from happening.
Says everything you need to know.
-
Great, so had the McCann's performed it as requested the PJ presumably they could have come to the same conclusion as SY and the hunt for Maddie would have continued, and the PJ would have been forced to look for an abductor.
The parents refusal to take part prevented this from happening.
Says everything you need to know.
The McCanns did not refuse to take part. They accepted one of the dates suggested.
-
You just don't get it do you? it's not about the detail of the questions nor the detail of what diligences the investigation wanted them to perform.
Those are irrelevant.
It's the fact by not co-operating and being told your non co-operation is harming the search for your missing child you wilfully continue down that path jeopardising the search for your missing child.
Your posting style is one of answering questions with questions. My opinions on the questions or the diligences, like yours and like the McCann's at the time mean nothing.
So, are you saying if Kate McCann had, like her husband, answered every single one of the questions put to her (questions that were clearly designed to establish her guilt) then the police would have been closer to finding her child? Please explain how.
-
Self-evident in the questions, and in the arguido/a status of Kate and Gerry.
So you have no evidence then.
-
I can read, you know. And I suspect that I understand more about The Law than you do. Including Portuguese Law.
Good for you! So nothing then, no evidence.
-
And your evidence for this statement is........
What evidence is there that the police WERE looking for a missing child at this stage? None!
-
Does an Arguido have the right to silence?
If so, why were The McCanns given this status if The PJ wanted them to repeat the answers that they had already given?
The case wasn't shelved for a further seven or eight months, so how did The McCanns force this conclusion?
They spent some time the following year trying to arrange the reconstitution.
-
Great, so had the McCann's performed it as requested the PJ presumably they could have come to the same conclusion as SY and the hunt for Maddie would have continued, and the PJ would have been forced to look for an abductor.
The parents refusal to take part prevented this from happening.
Says everything you need to know.
SY managed it without a reconstitution.
Why couldn't the PJ?
-
What evidence is there that the police WERE looking for a missing child at this stage? None!
So you are seriously suggesting that the largest police investigation in Portugal's history really wasn't looking for the child?
Time to crack out the tinfoil again Alfred.
-
SY managed it without a reconstitution.
Why couldn't the PJ?
The means may differ but the ends would have been the same.
I'm glad you mentioned it actually Ferryman because now, thanks to you, we have an inarguable reason as to the reason why the reconstitution was necessary.
Had the Mccann's co-operated and taken part it would have provided the PJ with the same window of opportunity for abduction the forensic examination of the timelines SY discovered.
The PJ could have been doing 7 years ago what SY are doing now.
The McCann's and their friends prevented it from happening.
Utterly shocking.
-
So you think i am strange?
Yet you agree with a course of action taken by the Mccann's which ran as follows:
You believe your daughter had been abducted
You refuse to co-operate with the police in the full knowledge that by doing so the investigation attempting to discover what had happened to your child and find her would close and no one would be looking for her.
If you believe that you're even more of a basket case than i previously thought.
I think you're assuming that the system worked like it does in the UK, where suspects can be ruled out and the police go back to searching other avenues. It didn't. As I just pointed out the only options were for charges to be brought or for the case to be archived within the short timeframe.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3963.msg160402#msg160402
IFFF someone different had suddently turned up on the PJ's doorstep with a spontaneous confession and / or Madeleine had suddenly been found, then the PJ would have had to investigate this other party, but that could have happened at any point anyway, questions or not.
-
Self-evident in the questions, and in the arguido/a status of Kate and Gerry.
They had found no evidence of abduction.
UK police suggested they investigate parental involvement.
Don't you remember.
-
'you know you are innocent'
A presumption yet to be tested in court.
Anyone accused knows whether they are innocent or guilty.
The police must have credible reason to believe a person guilty before a trial can take place.
In the Madeleine investigation, the police had none to suppose the McCanns guilty.
-
Anyone accused knows whether they are innocent or guilty.
The police must have credible reason to believe a person guilty before a trial can take place.
In the Madeleine investigation, the police had none to suppose the McCanns guilty.
They had indications, the forensics were inconclusive.
YOU don't know whether the mccanns were innocent or guilty.
Your belief in them is based on 'faith'.
-
So you are seriously suggesting that the largest police investigation in Portugal's history really wasn't looking for the child?
Time to crack out the tinfoil again Alfred.
The GNR and rescue services did try to find her in the early days, and the PJ checked out potential sightings (or asked their counterparts elsewhere to do so).
That's not the issue though. Once they had arguidos, the clock was ticking to mount a case against them before the deadline expired.
Amaral got booted because of his diplomatic gaffe in which he was fuming that the UK police were continuing to send in any potential other leads.
-
So you are seriously suggesting that the largest police investigation in Portugal's history really wasn't looking for the child?
Time to crack out the tinfoil again Alfred.
How about you link to evidence that they gathered whilst looking for the child at the time of the arguido questions and notes of actions taken by the police at this time. Should be in the files....
-
That is a statement and UNPROVEN. 8**8:/:
"I suspect." This is English for "I think."
-
Nope not at all.
You think that my condemnation for someone who would wilfully sabotage the investigation looking for your missing child who you believe has been abducted, is perverse, says rather more about you than it does me.
It will be interesting to see how the supporters react if the alleged POI take the same course of action as Kate and refuse to answer the questions put to them. Will we hear cries of ' no wonder they haven't answered, the PJ/SY are trying to fit them up' or something rather less charitable ?
-
It will be interesting to see how the supporters react if the alleged POI take the same course of action as Kate and refuse to answer the questions put to them. Will we hear cries of ' no wonder they haven't answered, the PJ/SY are trying to fit them up' or something rather less charitable ?
And it will be interesting to see the doubters' reactions if and when these POIs are made arguidos by the PJ...how will you spin that one, out of interest?
-
Ah, but we believe in the rule of law. This does not include the lead detective selling his thesis for loads a money, and generally attempting to influence public opinion.
If The PJ arrest someone, I shall wait and see. But no doubt CdM and Amaral will have things to say.
-
Albertini has made a brilliant case as to why kate did not answer the 48 questions and why they did not return for the reconstruction. Had amaral been this expert that some have tried to portray him as then I'm sure the mccanns would have co operated fully. In fact the criminal amaral led a bungled investigation...not my words....it is well documented...he is no expert ...eventually sacked..and thats why the mccanns were absolutely right to have nothing but contempt for him
-
As perfect innocents, how could they have said anything to implicate themselves, or each other ?
Just look at the 48 Questions. They were designed to attempt to trip them up. And look at Forums in general. Every word The McCanns have ever said has been twisted out of all recognition. Do you think a barrister wouldn't try to do the same?
-
Just look at the 48 Questions. They were designed to attempt to trip them up. And look at Forums in general. Every word The McCanns have ever said has been twisted out of all recognition. Do you think a barrister wouldn't try to do the same?
So are you suggesting that however innocent a person might be, they should never answer any question in case it is later twisted?
-
So are you suggesting that however innocent a person might be, they should never answer any question in case it is later twisted?
But Kate did answer the questions. The PJ failed to record that interview.
-
So are you suggesting that however innocent a person might be, they should never answer any question in case it is later twisted?
certainly not if you suspect that the police are trying to charge you with a crime for which you are innocent...and certainly not with an investigator with the track record of amaral in the cipriano case...
Remember kate had already been interviewed for 18 or so hours and answered every question put to her
-
But Kate did answer the questions. The PJ failed to record that interview.
Sorry but could you provide a cite for that because I have never heard of it.
-
Every day a new excuse @)(++(*
-
Sorry but could you provide a cite for that because I have never heard of it.
Read The Questions. If you had done so you would know that Kate had answered the questions on the previous day.
-
Just look at the 48 Questions. They were designed to attempt to trip them up. And look at Forums in general. Every word The McCanns have ever said has been twisted out of all recognition. Do you think a barrister wouldn't try to do the same?
The main reason for Kate not answering any of the 48 questions was so that there would be no discrepancies between her answers and Gerry's. IIRC, this was the first time that they were questioned separately.
-
The main reason for Kate not answering any of the 48 questions was so that there would be no discrepancies between her answers and Gerry's. IIRC, this was the first time that they were questioned separately.
No, you are wrong. Kate was questioned alone on the previous day.
-
Read The Questions. If you had done so you would know that Kate had answered the questions on the previous day.
No Eleanor this is what you posted :
"But Kate did answer the questions. The PJ failed to record that interview."
Now this is demonstrably untrue as there is a record of the questions put to Kate on the 6th of September and her answers in the files, and those questions are completely different from the ones she was asked on the 7th, after she had been made an arguido.
Which begs the question Eleanor, why are you trying to mislead people ? Isn't the truth enough to exonerate the McCanns ?
-
No Eleanor this is what you posted :
"But Kate did answer the questions. The PJ failed to record that interview."
Now this is demonstrably untrue as there is a record of the questions put to Kate on the 6th of September and her answers in the files, and those questions are completely different from the ones she was asked on the 7th, after she had been made an arguido.
Which begs the question Eleanor, why are you trying to mislead people ? Isn't the truth enough to exonerate the McCanns ?
Read The Questions. Several of them say, "Have you anything more to say than you have already said?"
-
Read The Questions. Several of them say, "Have you anything more to say than you have already said?"
Let's stick to the point Eleanor.
You claimed that Kate had been interviewed but the PJ hadn't recorded her answers. I have demonstrated this is untrue.
Now do you have any evidence to support your claim or do you wish to withdraw it and admit you were consciously trying to mislead ?
-
Let's stick to the point Eleanor.
You claimed that Kate had been interviewed but the PJ hadn't recorded her answers. I have demonstrated this is untrue.
Now do you have any evidence to support your claim or do you wish to withdraw it and admit you were consciously trying to mislead ?
No you have not demonstrated that what I said is untrue. And I never consciously try to mislead. It is the likes of you who are the masters of that.
Now, perhaps you can tell me why so many of The Arguida Questions are phrased in such a fashion as to leave no doubt that they had been asked before. Are these questions listed in this interview that you say is in The Files?
-
No you have not demonstrated that what I said is untrue. And I never consciously try to mislead. It is the likes of you who are the masters of that.
Now, perhaps you can tell me why so many of The Arguida Questions are phrased in such a fashion as to leave no doubt that they had been asked before. Are these questions listed in this interview that you say is in The Files?
You are either consciously trying to mislead or simply do not understand the context of the questions.
-
You are either consciously trying to mislead or simply do not understand the context of the questions.
In Your Opinion. Allegedly.
-
In Your Opinion. Allegedly.
It's not my opinion, it is a demonstrable fact.
You have either consciously put forward a scenario, knowing it was false or didn't understand when Kate answered that she could not add to what she had already said she meant in previous, recorded statements.
-
No you have not demonstrated that what I said is untrue. And I never consciously try to mislead. It is the likes of you who are the masters of that.
Now, perhaps you can tell me why so many of The Arguida Questions are phrased in such a fashion as to leave no doubt that they had been asked before. Are these questions listed in this interview that you say is in The Files?
Nothing unusual in that. Police forces the world over repeatedly ask the same questions over and over.
-
Maybe it is a question of procedure. The McCanns may have been asked questions when their status was "witness" which had to be asked again when their status changed to "arguida & arguido".
Or the Portuguese Sweeney was trying to fit 'em up then shovel off to the nearest bar jobs a good un done dusted guv.
My money would be on procedure.
At which point they both had a right to refuse. Gerry didn't refuse and Kate did. Nothing strange about that, much as some people would like to make it so.
-
Maybe it is a question of procedure. The McCanns may have been asked questions when their status was "witness" which had to be asked again when their status changed to "arguida & arguido".
Or the Portuguese Sweeney was trying to fit 'em up then shovel off to the nearest bar jobs a good un done dusted guv.
My money would be on procedure.
Any question that may incriminate them could only have been asked after they were made arguido and arguida, in much the same way as a caution works in the UK.
So the McCanns would not have been asked their arguido questions before and Eleanor's claim that Kate had but the PJ had not recorded her answers is patent nonsense.
-
Maybe it is a question of procedure. The McCanns may have been asked questions when their status was "witness" which had to be asked again when their status changed to "arguida & arguido".
Or the Portuguese Sweeney was trying to fit 'em up then shovel off to the nearest bar jobs a good un done dusted guv.
My money would be on procedure.
ive made this point before....kate may well have been asked and answered some of these question before but the pj were now looking for evidence to use AGAINST the mccanns....kate did the right thing
-
Any question that may incriminate them could only have been asked after they were made arguido and arguida, in much the same way as a caution works in the UK.
So the McCanns would not have been asked their arguido questions before and Eleanor's claim that Kate had but the PJ had not recorded her answers is patent nonsense.
The Drs McCann were made arguidos just days before the change in Portuguese law came into effect which meant that there had to be evidence before a person could be made arguido or arguida.
-
The Drs McCann were made arguidos just days before the change in Portuguese law came into effect which meant that there had to be evidence before a person could be made arguido or arguida.
All of which changes the premise of my post not one jot.
-
The Drs McCann were made arguidos just days before the change in Portuguese law came into effect which meant that there had to be evidence before a person could be made arguido or arguida.
amaral knew that if he waited he would not be able to make them arguidos
-
Any question that may incriminate them could only have been asked after they were made arguido and arguida, in much the same way as a caution works in the UK.
So the McCanns would not have been asked their arguido questions before and Eleanor's claim that Kate had but the PJ had not recorded her answers is patent nonsense.
This doesn't make sense, I'm afraid. What is the point in waiting until someone is an Arguido before asking incriminating questions if the Arguido isn't obliged to or going to answer?
In some cases it is the fact that someone refuses to answer that gets them the Arguido status in the first place.
All that Amaral accomplished was to ensure that he would get no more answers. This is why Kate and Gerry were not submitted to a Rogatory Interview.
And don't tell me he wasn't trying to fit them up because he patently was.
-
The Drs McCann were made arguidos just days before the change in Portuguese law came into effect which meant that there had to be evidence before a person could be made arguido or arguida.
They had no evidence then and still no evidence to this day...so not guilty until proven other wise.. when are the doubters going to get this in their heads..
-
No evidence today does not mean no evidence tomorrow.
Doubt will always remain until someone has been convicted in a court of law for whatever it was that happened to her.
-
This doesn't make sense, I'm afraid. What is the point in waiting until someone is an Arguido before asking incriminating questions if the Arguido isn't obliged to or going to answer?
In some cases it is the fact that someone refuses to answer that gets them the Arguido status in the first place.
All that Amaral accomplished was to ensure that he would get no more answers. This is why Kate and Gerry were not submitted to a Rogatory Interview.
And don't tell me he wasn't trying to fit them up because he patently was.
Whether it makes sense to you or not that is Portuguese law.
Now back to those questions that the PJ allegedly didn't take a record of !
-
Whether it makes sense to you or not that is Portuguese law.
Now back to those questions that the PJ allegedly didn't take a record of !
I don't suppose you could show me a copy, could you? Not that I am insisting.
-
I don't suppose you could show me a copy, could you? Not that I am insisting.
Now Eleanor please don't make yourself look any more duplicitous than you do already. You have been following this case for long enough to know that what I posted is absolutely true.
The arguido status is a form of protection against self-incrimination. I guess that's why supporters tried to suggest soon after the status was bestowed on the McCanns that they had actually asked to be made arguidos themselves.
-
Now Eleanor please don't make yourself look any more duplicitous than you do already. You have been following this case for long enough to know that what I posted is absolutely true.
The arguido status is a form of protection against self-incrimination. I guess that's why supporters tried to suggest soon after the status was bestowed on the McCanns that they had actually asked to be made arguidos themselves.
No, I don't know that what you have posted is absolutely true. But if you don't want to post up the proof then that is fine by me.
-
No, I don't know that what you have posted is absolutely true. But if you don't want to post up the proof then that is fine by me.
Then if you don't know the truth of my post after following the case for some time should you really be taking part in a discussion you know very little about ?
Bottom line Eleanor, you have been exposed while trying to mislead this forum and to cover your embarrassment you are now making a song and dance with regard to the production of a piece of information that has long been in the public domain.
Word of advice either don't post information you know to be untrue or accept that when you do people will point it out.
-
Whether it makes sense to you or not that is Portuguese law.
Now back to those questions that the PJ allegedly didn't take a record of !
I think the clue that these questions had already been asked and already answered lies in the words, "did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?"
Of course that has already been pointed out on this thread, but why let the truth get in the way of a perfectly useable myth.
-
I think the clue that these questions had already been asked and already answered lies in the words, "did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?"
Of course that has already been pointed out on this thread, but why let the truth get in the way of a perfectly useable myth.
Kate had already made two statements and this is what she is referring to.
Unless of course you can make a coherent argument that this is not the case ?
-
Then if you don't know the truth of my post after following the case for some time should you really be taking part in a discussion you know very little about ?
Bottom line Eleanor, you have been exposed while trying to mislead this forum and to cover your embarrassment you are now making a song and dance with regard to the production of a piece of information that has long been in the public domain.
Word of advice either don't post information you know to be untrue or accept that when you do people will point it out.
Nope, you are wrong about that. Why should anyone take your word anymore than mine? Unless they seriously want to, of course, which would not surprise me. Kate had answered at least several of those questions previously, as any fool can see.
I understand The Arguido Status, complicated though it is, but as far as I can see it is seriously flawed and achieves very little, other than to cast doubt on the innocence of anyone. Fortunately it can no longer be bestowed by the whim of some corrupt PJ Officer with an agenda.
-
It seems to have been forgotten that Kate and Gerry were told lies about the Forensic Evidence during these Interviews. I wonder why The PJ did that.
-
Nope, you are wrong about that. Why should anyone take your word anymore than mine? Unless they seriously want to, of course, which would not surprise me. Kate had answered at least several of those questions previously, as any fool can see.
I understand The Arguido Status, complicated though it is, but as far as I can see it is seriously flawed and achieves very little, other than to cast doubt on the innocence of anyone. Fortunately it can no longer be bestowed by the whim of some corrupt PJ Officer with an agenda.
No one should take anything either you or I say at face value and I would hope they would research the information themselves but that doesn't change the fact that you have no proof that Kate had been asked questions that weren't recorded or indeed was not simply referring to her previous, recorded answers when she answered her arguido questions.
-
No one should take anything either you or I say at face value and I would hope they would research the information themselves but that doesn't change the fact that you have no proof that Kate had been asked questions that weren't recorded or indeed was not simply referring to her previous, recorded answers when she answered her arguido questions.
And you haven't produced proof that that she was. But as I said, I am not insisting.
Let's just leave it at that. Unless you want to carry on.
-
Which you have to admit was a smooth move on Dr Amaral's part. Something that any policeman in the world would have done under similar circumstances.
depends whether you think he is a ace detective or a buffoon....the amazing thing is that opinion is so polarised
-
Which you have to admit was a smooth move on Dr Amaral's part. Something that any policeman in the world would have done under similar circumstances.
but Redwood and the new PJ team have come to a completely different view from amaral
-
Which you have to admit was a smooth move on Dr Amaral's part. Something that any policeman in the world would have done under similar circumstances.
Once again, the investigation was not a one man show and it wasn't up to Gonçalo Amaral to decide whether to make the McCanns arguidos or not. It was a decision made with the judges from the Ministério Público, the head of the PJ Alípio Ribeiro and the other officers, such as Guilhermino de Encarnação. All this criticism of Gonçalo Amaral and the way he "ran" the investigation is totally pointless seeing that he was not the person who called the shots or made the important decisions. But there are those who continue with this battle because they do not know who else to blame.
-
Kate had already made two statements and this is what she is referring to.
Unless of course you can make a coherent argument that this is not the case ?
Dr Kate McCann or Kate Marie Healy as she is referred to here was questioned extensively prior to being made an arguida.
You are surely raising the incompetence of the PJ interviewing procedure if they did not ask the really essential questions which she was obliged to answer but waited until she had the protection of her arguida status when she was not obliged.
Just how 'essential' these questions were is revealed when one actually reads them
Or was it a propaganda ploy, designed to promote the smear of a mother who would not answer these 48 simple questions to obstruct the police investigating her daughter's disappearance?
If so, it appears to have had the desired effect as people like you are still promoting the '48 Questions' only for the detriment of Kate Marie Healey.
58 to 65 Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy 2007.05.04
Processo 01 Pages 58 to 65
TRANSLATIONS BY ANNA ESSE /ALBYM
Kate Marie Healy's statement 04/05/07 @ 14.20pm
Kate's interview took place on the day after Madeleine's disappearance, 04/05/07 at 2.20pm.
On the subject of the proceedings:
The interviewee was heard as a victim, being the mother of the minor.
///////
2539 to 2551 Interrogation of Kate Marie Healy 2007.09.06 with pictures of 5 A, Tapas table and layout of 5A
10-PROCESSO 10 VOLUME Xa (Pages 2539 to 2551)
Kate Marie Healy's statement 06/09/07 @ 3.00pm
TRANSLATIONS BY CARMERINA32
KATE MARIE HEALY ' STATEMENT
(from DVD)
September 6/2007 3pm at Portimao
Of British nationality, cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present taken from a list provided by the Consulate, ADSR.
Also present Carlos Pinto de Abreu, attorney.
KMH confirms all of what was stated before the Policy on May 4, 2007, the day following the events under investigation.
The interview was stopped at 5PM for a rest period, to be recommenced at 5:15 PM.
At this moment, and because it was so late, 11 PM, the interview was interrupted and will be continued tomorrow morning.
///////
Procedural Rights and Duties Defendant/ "Arguido" K McCann
10 Processos Vol X Pages 2553 to 2554
also OUTROS APENSOS IX, Volume I Pages 35 to 36
Portimao Criminal Investigation Department
Being Held as a Defendant
(Procedural rights and duties set forth in section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Act n? 34/2004 of July 29, 2004)
Defendant: Kate Marie Healy (identified on page 58)
Date he (sic) was held a defendant: 07-09-2007
Defence counsel: Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, CP 9786L
Procedural Rights - Not to answer the questions asked by any entity about the facts he is charged with and about the contents of his statement concerning them,
-
@ Brietta. Just a detail, there seems to have been a translation glitch in the English version of the official arguido rights. The original says arguido, and it was translated as defendant. An arguido can be translated as defendant, but in a trial situation.
-
I have no proper basis for an opinion either way. The man had a career spanning 20 odd years.
But if one know there is a time limit after which one cannot perform a specific task then one is bleedin' stupid to run oneself out of time.
It wasn't quite like that though, as it. Portugal were about to change the law regarding Arguidos and a need for evidence. Amaral knew he didn't have any evidence.
-
Dr Kate McCann or Kate Marie Healy as she is referred to here was questioned extensively prior to being made an arguida.
You are surely raising the incompetence of the PJ interviewing procedure if they did not ask the really essential questions which she was obliged to answer but waited until she had the protection of her arguida status when she was not obliged.
Just how 'essential' these questions were is revealed when one actually reads them
Or was it a propaganda ploy, designed to promote the smear of a mother who would not answer these 48 simple questions to obstruct the police investigating her daughter's disappearance?
If so, it appears to have had the desired effect as people like you are still promoting the '48 Questions' only for the detriment of Kate Marie Healey.
58 to 65 Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy 2007.05.04
Processo 01 Pages 58 to 65
TRANSLATIONS BY ANNA ESSE /ALBYM
Kate Marie Healy's statement 04/05/07 @ 14.20pm
Kate's interview took place on the day after Madeleine's disappearance, 04/05/07 at 2.20pm.
On the subject of the proceedings:
The interviewee was heard as a victim, being the mother of the minor.
///////
2539 to 2551 Interrogation of Kate Marie Healy 2007.09.06 with pictures of 5 A, Tapas table and layout of 5A
10-PROCESSO 10 VOLUME Xa (Pages 2539 to 2551)
Kate Marie Healy's statement 06/09/07 @ 3.00pm
TRANSLATIONS BY CARMERINA32
KATE MARIE HEALY ' STATEMENT
(from DVD)
September 6/2007 3pm at Portimao
Of British nationality, cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present taken from a list provided by the Consulate, ADSR.
Also present Carlos Pinto de Abreu, attorney.
KMH confirms all of what was stated before the Policy on May 4, 2007, the day following the events under investigation.
The interview was stopped at 5PM for a rest period, to be recommenced at 5:15 PM.
At this moment, and because it was so late, 11 PM, the interview was interrupted and will be continued tomorrow morning.
///////
Procedural Rights and Duties Defendant/ "Arguido" K McCann
10 Processos Vol X Pages 2553 to 2554
also OUTROS APENSOS IX, Volume I Pages 35 to 36
Portimao Criminal Investigation Department
Being Held as a Defendant
(Procedural rights and duties set forth in section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Act n? 34/2004 of July 29, 2004)
Defendant: Kate Marie Healy (identified on page 58)
Date he (sic) was held a defendant: 07-09-2007
Defence counsel: Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, CP 9786L
Procedural Rights - Not to answer the questions asked by any entity about the facts he is charged with and about the contents of his statement concerning them,
The arguido status protects the individual from incriminating themselves and the witness MUST be made an arguido before any questions which may put them in that position are asked by the PJ. This is what happened to the McCanns.
What part of this don't you understand ?
-
The arguido status protects the individual from incriminating themselves and the witness MUST be made an arguido before any questions which may put them in that position are asked by the PJ. This is what happened to the McCanns.
What part of this don't you understand ?
I understand it ... perhaps it is something you should point out to those who do not ...
ie the 48 question shock horror brigade.
But you've got to admit - an absolutely brilliant propaganda tool to smear madeleine's mother - which has stood the test of time - seven years to be exact.
-
As The Met are talking of the investigation carrying on for possibly months that makes a nonsense of your statement.
no it doesn't...amaral came to his conclusion within days it seems
-
I understand it ... perhaps it is something you should point out to those who do not ...
ie the 48 question shock horror brigade.
But you've got to admit - an absolutely brilliant propaganda tool to smear madeleine's mother - which has stood the test of time - seven years to be exact.
Then Kate should have answered those 48 questions. She placed the weapon in the sceptics hands.
-
Once again, the investigation was not a one man show and it wasn't up to Gonçalo Amaral to decide whether to make the McCanns arguidos or not. It was a decision made with the judges from the Ministério Público, the head of the PJ Alípio Ribeiro and the other officers, such as Guilhermino de Encarnação. All this criticism of Gonçalo Amaral and the way he "ran" the investigation is totally pointless seeing that he was not the person who called the shots or made the important decisions. But there are those who continue with this battle because they do not know who else to blame.
He may well have consulted with Encarnação and applied for permission from a magistrate.
However, what's Alípio Ribeiro got to do with the decision? He seemed to think it wasn't a bright idea to have done so at that time...
Alípio Ribeiro on McCann's Case (original statement): Question: Do you consider or not that there was a precipitation in establishing Kate and Gary (the journalist doesn’t say Gerry) as arguidos (suspects) in this process?
Alípio Ribeiro: In this moment, at this point in time, with the experience that I have of the magistracy from the Public Ministry… even, as you may know the constitution of arguidos in the processes are not… the director of the Judiciary, doesn’t give orders, constitute or not constitute, and he cannot. …maybe, there should have been another assessment. For that I have no doubts.
Question: There was some precipitation then?
Alípio Ribeiro: There was some precipitation. (asserting)
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/02/mccann-case-statements-of-alipio.html
-
He may well have consulted with Encarnação and applied for permission from a magistrate.
However, what's Alípio Ribeiro got to do with the decision? He seemed to think it wasn't a bright idea to have done so at that time...
Alípio Ribeiro on McCann's Case (original statement): Question: Do you consider or not that there was a precipitation in establishing Kate and Gary (the journalist doesn’t say Gerry) as arguidos (suspects) in this process?
Alípio Ribeiro: In this moment, at this point in time, with the experience that I have of the magistracy from the Public Ministry… even, as you may know the constitution of arguidos in the processes are not… the director of the Judiciary, doesn’t give orders, constitute or not constitute, and he cannot. …maybe, there should have been another assessment. For that I have no doubts.
Question: There was some precipitation then?
Alípio Ribeiro: There was some precipitation. (asserting)
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/02/mccann-case-statements-of-alipio.html
I'm sure he did think it was too soon because more information could have been gained from them as witnesses rather than arguidos, as Kate so ably demonstrated,
-
I'm sure he did think it was too soon because more information could have been gained from them as witnesses rather than arguidos, as Kate so ably demonstrated,
Catch 22. They couldn't be asked leading questions. And then they didn't have to answer leading questions.
-
Catch 22. They couldn't be asked leading questions. And then they didn't have to answer leading questions.
But they could have been asked questions which added to the PJ's knowledge of the indicent without the McCanns implicating themselves.
-
But they could have been asked questions which added to the PJ's knowledge of the indicent without the McCanns implicating themselves.
I couldn't agree more. This would have been much the better option.
-
But they could have been asked questions which added to the PJ's knowledge of the indicent without the McCanns implicating themselves.
yes what a fool amaral was
-
yes what a fool amaral was
He certainly made mistakes but has admitted that himself and to be fair his mistakes could have, theoretically, let the McCanns off the hook as well as wrongly convict them.
-
He certainly made mistakes but has admitted that himself and to be fair his mistakes could have, theoretically, let the McCanns off the hook as well as wrongly convict them.
not much of an expert
-
yes what a fool amaral was
Some people here are so blinded by their prejudices and hate that they ignore any information that goes against their anger against one person. Perhaps one day you may actually understand the fact that Gonçalo Amaral did not lead the investigation and did not make these decisions all by himself. He did not have the power nor the authority, but you need a scapegoat.
The person who first brought up the possibility that Madeleine had died was Mark Harrison, who was recommended by the Leicestershire police.
-
Some people here are so blinded by their prejudices and hate that they ignore any information that goes against their anger against one person. Perhaps one day you may actually understand the fact that Gonçalo Amaral did not lead the investigation and did not make these decisions all by himself. He did not have the power nor the authority, but you need a scapegoat.
The person who first brought up the possibility that Madeleine had died was Mark Harrison, who was recommended by the Leicestershire police.
no prejudice here just a sound understanding of the facts...it was obvious that as soon as it was established that maddie was missing that death was a possibility
-
no prejudice here just a sound understanding of the facts...it was obvious that as soon as it was established that maddie was missing that death was a possibility
You have no understanding of the facts. The PJ spent the first 3 months investigation an abduction and when Mark Harrison suggested that the child probably died, the investigation took another turn.
-
You have no understanding of the facts. The PJ spent the first 3 months investigation an abduction and when Mark Harrison suggested that the child probably died, the investigation took another turn.
Which is of course exactly what the McCanns wanted.
-
You have no understanding of the facts. The PJ spent the first 3 months investigation an abduction and when Mark Harrison suggested that the child probably died, the investigation took another turn.
Do you have a cite for that, please.
The only one I can find does not say that.
4. In this particular case, based on the information and on your experience, what is the possibility that a cadaver was occulted?
To this question I am not in possession of any information or sufficient knowledge to comment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
-
You have no understanding of the facts. The PJ spent the first 3 months investigation an abduction and when Mark Harrison suggested that the child probably died, the investigation took another turn.
I thought it was Kate's dream which caused a major turning point in the case?
I still can't believe that any policeman would actually consider a dream by anyone - let alone a grieving mother - to be remotely relevant.
Seriously - what sort of police force does that - and still expects to be regarded as professionals?
The mind boggles.
-
I thought it was Kate's dream which caused a major turning point in the case?
I still can't believe that any policeman would actually consider a dream by anyone - let alone a grieving mother - to be remotely relevant.
Seriously - what sort of police force does that - and still expects to be regarded as professionals?
The mind boggles.
I presume there is proof of this rather than some newspaper article ?
-
I presume there is proof of this rather than some newspaper article ?
"Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe?"
WOW!! I can see why failure to answer that one threw a spanner into the works.
-
kate did exactly the right thing not to answer the 48 questions. If she had answered those they would have asked another 48...
-
"Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe?"
WOW!! I can see why failure to answer that one threw a spanner into the works.
What on earth ???
Talk about getting desperate.
-
kate did exactly the right thing not to answer the 48 questions. If she had answered those they would have asked another 48...
"Did you call Sky News?"
... and another 48 after that ... and one can see at a glance how absolutely essential this line of forensic questioning was in the search for Madeleine.
-
"Did you call Sky News?"
... and another 48 after that ... and one can see at a glance how absolutely essential this line of forensic questioning was in the search for Madeleine.
Are you a police officer by chance ?
Just for reference purposes, why not cut and paste all the questions ?
-
Are you a police officer by chance ?
Just for reference purposes, why not cut and paste all the questions ?
Why?
Much more interesting to analyse them one by one ... then we can collate our findings ... and determine exactly how they were to fit into the search for Madeleine ... and exactly the way in which a repeat of the answers already given by Dr Kate McCann in a marathon session the day before and in the six hours that day in conjunction with the answers given by Dr Gerry McCann ... impeded the PJ in that search.
You will be able to make an informed contribution as one of those who make that assertion.
-
Why?
Much more interesting to analyse them one by one ... then we can collate our findings ... and determine exactly how they were to fit into the search for Madeleine ... and exactly the way in which a repeat of the answers already given by Dr Kate McCann in a marathon session the day before and in the six hours that day in conjunction with the answers given by Dr Gerry McCann ... impeded the PJ in that search.
You will be able to make an informed contribution as one of those who make that assertion.
The whole point was, to see if their stories were consistent, and they managed to avoid that by her not answering them.
Haven't you worked that one out yet ?
Meanwhile, here they are from the mail online.............
These are the questions:
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html#ixzz34VCmDWYw
-
The whole point was, to see if their stories were consistent, and they managed to avoid that by her not answering them.
Haven't you worked that one out yet ?
Meanwhile, here they are from the mail online.............
These are the questions:
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html#ixzz34VCmDWYw
Haven't you worked out ... the questions had already been answered ... if not before, but during marathon questioning sessions.
-
Haven't you worked out ... the questions had already been answered ... if not before, but during marathon questioning sessions.
Would you be kind enough to list the earlier answers to these questions, or at least indicate where they may be found?
-
Haven't you worked out ... the questions had already been answered ... if not before, but during marathon questioning sessions.
Not by kate mccann.
She managed to get out of that.
-
Would you be kind enough to list the earlier answers to these questions, or at least indicate where they may be found?
Ask Albertini and Faithlilly. They seem to know where these other questions and answers are recorded.
-
Ask Albertini and Faithlilly. They seem to know where these other questions and answers are recorded.
I was asking Brietta, as she raised the point, though answers from anyone would be helpful.
-
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
What? Are we being asked to believe that the PJ had no way of finding that out unless it was via Kate McCann - and that if she didn't tell them she was jeopardising the investigaton?
I can understand that a non English speaker might be puzzled by the purely' literal' translation of that phrase - but any interpretor or even a UK policeman working alongside the PJ could have explained it to them in a flash.
IIRC there was a suggestion by Amaral (?) that it was a medical term used by doctors when a patient died. (from memory - so am happy to be corrected if necessary). Quite wrong of course - but so easy for the PJ to have established that with the minimum of effort.
-
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
What? Are we being asked to believe that the PJ had no way of finding that out unless it was via Kate McCann - and that if she didn't tell them she was jeopardising the investigaton?
I can understand that a non English speaker might be puzzled by the purely' literal' translation of that phrase - but any interpretor or even a UK policeman working alongside the PJ could have explained it to them in a flash.
IIRC there was a suggestion by Amaral (?) that it was a medical term used by doctors when a patient died. (from memory - so am happy to be corrected if necessary). Quite wrong of course - but so easy for the PJ to have established that with the minimum of effort.
..of course he could have been asking her why she felt they had let M down? But the answer to that may have implied some blame.
-
Ask Albertini and Faithlilly. They seem to know where these other questions and answers are recorded.
They aren't listed anywhere as they hadn't been asked before.
Kate attended three interrogations. One on the 4th May and the 6 and 7th of September and if the answer to any of the September the 7th questions are not in her two previous statements then the questions were not asked.
Of course if other forum members think I am incorrect I'm sure they will be able to post the duplicated questions.
-
They aren't listed anywhere as they hadn't been asked before.
Kate attended three interrogations. One on the 4th May and the 6 and 7th of September and if the answer to any of the September the 7th questions are not in her two previous statements then the questions were not asked.
Of course if other forum members think I am incorrect I'm sure they will be able to post the duplicated questions.
So who did ask the questions that had obviously been previously asked?
All I said was that these questions and answers didn't appear to have been recorded.
Perhaps it was Albertini who said that they were recorded.
-
So who did ask the questions that had obviously been previously asked?
All I said was that these questions and answers didn't appear to have been recorded.
Perhaps it was Albertini who said that they were recorded.
The questions previously asked and answers given are in Kate's 4th May and 6th September statements and it is those answers she refers the PJ to in her 7th September interview.
Why is that for you to understand ?
-
So who did ask the questions that had obviously been previously asked?
All I said was that these questions and answers didn't appear to have been recorded.
Perhaps it was Albertini who said that they were recorded.
The assumption being made is that we have access to all the files.
We do not.
That some of these exact questions had already been answered as the arguida was unable to add anything to what she had answered before when she did not have the privilege of refusing to answer - it is self explanatory.
However I think the scandal here is not that she did not answer but that she has been so vilified for exercising her right not to answer.
These questions were not designed to assist in finding Madeleine McCann - they were designed to incriminate Kate McCann.
-
The assumption being made is that we have access to all the files.
We do not.
That some of these exact questions had already been answered as the arguida was unable to add anything to what she had answered before when she did not have the privilege of refusing to answer - it is self explanatory.
However I think the scandal here is not that she did not answer but that she has been so vilified for exercising her right not to answer.
These questions were not designed to assist in finding Madeleine McCann - they were designed to incriminate Kate McCann.
Could you therefore furnish me with the questions already asked Briette or are they, conveniently, in the files we don't have access to ? Of course if the answers are in those 'files' it makes a nonsense of the claim that Kate's answers were not recorded.
Reading back over the questions it seems Kate, in the main, used the ' she wasn't to add anything' retort when viewing the cadaver dog video. Are you suggesting she was shown this before and asked questions about it ?
-
The questions previously asked and answers given are in Kate's 4th May and 6th September statements and it is those answers she refers the PJ to in her 7th September interview.
Why is that for you to understand ?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
-------------------------------------------------------
Kate certainly wasn't asked any of these questions in May.
She probably was asked them on September the 6th. But that was my point. Kate had already answered them.
And according to you she had answered the rest on May the 4th.
So this was just an exercise to make Kate look bad.
-
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
-------------------------------------------------------
Kate certainly wasn't asked any of these questions in May.
She probably was asked them on September the 6th. But that was my point. Kate had already answered them.
And according to you she had answered the rest on May the 4th.
So this was just an exercise to make Kate look bad.
She probably was asked ? Where ?
I'm sorry but a generic statement from Kate in no way proves your contention. Further even Kate doesn't claim in her book that she was asked certain questions twice, in fact quite the opposite.
So why are you claiming it ?
ETA Passage from Kate's book that deals with her questioning on the 7th of September.
"As anticipated, my interrogation began with João Carlos explaining that my status from this moment on had been changed from witness to arguida. He ran through the rights and obligations this conferred on me. I sat there quietly, trying to compose myself despite the anger bubbling below the surface. They haven’t beenlooking for Madeleine . . . Then they started. What had I seen and heard after entering apartment 5A at 10pm on 3 May 2007? Who called the police? At what time? Who contacted the media? It’s actually quite difficult not to answer when someone asks you a question. The natural reaction is to reply, out of politeness if nothing else. And of course the urge to say what I thought about some of their vile and ridiculous insinuations was hard to suppress. On the other hand, I was very weary and at least repeating ‘No comment’ didn’t involve engaging my brain. It certainly speeded up the translation process. With luck it would mean these proceedings wouldn’t drag on any longer than they had to.
Ricardo Paiva played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, which did nothing to maintain my equilibrium. This was the man who had invited us to his home for dinner. Our children had played with his son. ‘The twins were restless in the UK so you sedated them?’ he was saying. ‘In the UK you were trying to give Madeleine to a family member? You get stressed and frustrated with the kids?’ I knew exactly where this line of questioning was going and, as much as it riled me, I refused to rise to it.
If I’m honest, I’d been quite nervous about seeing the videos of the dogs. I had no idea what to expect, although I was quite sure something couldn’t be quite right about the results they had apparently produced. We knew from Bob Small that the responses of specialist dogs were, or ought to be, classed as intelligence, not evidence, but in my head I’d built up these film clips into the most damning ‘evidence’ imaginable; the ‘I rest my case, Your Honour’ finale. Now Ricardo was giving me his spiel about the dogs. ‘These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate,’ he said, waving an A4 document in front of me. ‘Two hundred cases and they’ve never failed. We have gone to the best laboratory in the world using low-copy DNA techniques.’ His emphasis suggested this was the gold standard. I just stared at him, unable to hide my contempt. What did he know about low-copy DNA? I was so tempted to ask him to elaborate. These dogs had never been used in Portugal before, and he knew little more about them, either, than I did.
Ricardo started the video player. I saw the dogs going into apartment 5A, one at a time, with the handler, PC Martin Grime (then of the South Yorkshire police, later self-employed). Each dog ran around the apartment, jumping over beds, into the wardrobe and generally having a good sniff. At one point, the handler directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site. The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science.
In footage of the apartment next door to ours, one of the dogs began to root in the corner of a room near a piece of furniture. PC Grime summoned the dog and they left the flat.
The film show continued. Now we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic. It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an ‘unblinded’ study, one that is susceptible to bias. One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle. The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed, returning to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking."
-
Have it your own way, whatever that is. I don't really care. It didn't work, whatever it was. The McCanns didn't have to answer anymore questions.
-
The questions previously asked and answers given are in Kate's 4th May and 6th September statements and it is those answers she refers the PJ to in her 7th September interview.
Why is that for you to understand ?
Not necessarily. An unusual "informal" interview took place on 8 August (cf pp. 212-214 of madeleine. There's no official record of that.
Then, her description of the arguido interview in which Paiva pauses the dog videos, telling her that blood had been found in the Scenic corresponding to Madeleines's DNA and asks her to explain it.
"These were the only times I didn't respond with a 'no comment". Instead I said I couldn't explain it, but neither could he." (p250)
That's not what the arguido statement says on paper, though, is it? That would seem slightly different, if her account is accurate, from "she couldn't explain any more than she already had", wouldn't it?
-
She probably was asked ? Where ?
I'm sorry but a generic statement from Kate in no way proves your contention. Further even Kate doesn't claim in her book that she was asked certain questions twice, in fact quite the opposite.
So why are you claiming it ?
ETA Passage from Kate's book that deals with her questioning on the 7th of September.
"As anticipated, my interrogation began with João Carlos explaining that my status from this moment on had been changed from witness to arguida. He ran through the rights and obligations this conferred on me. I sat there quietly, trying to compose myself despite the anger bubbling below the surface. They haven’t beenlooking for Madeleine . . . Then they started. What had I seen and heard after entering apartment 5A at 10pm on 3 May 2007? Who called the police? At what time? Who contacted the media? It’s actually quite difficult not to answer when someone asks you a question. The natural reaction is to reply, out of politeness if nothing else. And of course the urge to say what I thought about some of their vile and ridiculous insinuations was hard to suppress. On the other hand, I was very weary and at least repeating ‘No comment’ didn’t involve engaging my brain. It certainly speeded up the translation process. With luck it would mean these proceedings wouldn’t drag on any longer than they had to.
Ricardo Paiva played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, which did nothing to maintain my equilibrium. This was the man who had invited us to his home for dinner. Our children had played with his son. ‘The twins were restless in the UK so you sedated them?’ he was saying. ‘In the UK you were trying to give Madeleine to a family member? You get stressed and frustrated with the kids?’ I knew exactly where this line of questioning was going and, as much as it riled me, I refused to rise to it.
If I’m honest, I’d been quite nervous about seeing the videos of the dogs. I had no idea what to expect, although I was quite sure something couldn’t be quite right about the results they had apparently produced. We knew from Bob Small that the responses of specialist dogs were, or ought to be, classed as intelligence, not evidence, but in my head I’d built up these film clips into the most damning ‘evidence’ imaginable; the ‘I rest my case, Your Honour’ finale. Now Ricardo was giving me his spiel about the dogs. ‘These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate,’ he said, waving an A4 document in front of me. ‘Two hundred cases and they’ve never failed. We have gone to the best laboratory in the world using low-copy DNA techniques.’ His emphasis suggested this was the gold standard. I just stared at him, unable to hide my contempt. What did he know about low-copy DNA? I was so tempted to ask him to elaborate. These dogs had never been used in Portugal before, and he knew little more about them, either, than I did.
Ricardo started the video player. I saw the dogs going into apartment 5A, one at a time, with the handler, PC Martin Grime (then of the South Yorkshire police, later self-employed). Each dog ran around the apartment, jumping over beds, into the wardrobe and generally having a good sniff. At one point, the handler directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site. The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science.
In footage of the apartment next door to ours, one of the dogs began to root in the corner of a room near a piece of furniture. PC Grime summoned the dog and they left the flat.
The film show continued. Now we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic. It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an ‘unblinded’ study, one that is susceptible to bias. One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle. The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed, returning to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking."
Thanks, for that. If you have the Kindle version, would you mind posting the next paragraph as well, please. I have the paper version.
-
Thanks, for that. If you have the Kindle version, would you mind posting the next paragraph as well, please. I have the paper version.
"
Each time a dog gave a signal, Ricardo would pause the video and inform me that blood had been found in this site and that the DNA from the sample matched Madeleine’s. He would stare at me intently and ask me to explain this. These were the only times I didn’t respond with a ‘No comment.’ Instead I said I couldn’t explain it, but neither could he. I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘f..king tosser, f..king tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘f..king tosser . . .’
When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler. From what I saw of the dogs’ responses, this certainly seemed to me to be what was happening here. We would later learn that in his written report, PC Grime had emphasized that such alerts cannot be relied upon without corroborating evidence."
-
Have it your own way, whatever that is. I don't really care. It didn't work, whatever it was. The McCanns didn't have to answer anymore questions.
Do you agree that if Kate had previously been asked the questions regarding the dog alerts she would have mentioned it in her book ?
It is quite clear from the passage I posted that the first time Kate had seen the dog videos, or been asked any of the questions related to it, was on the 7th of September.
Which makes a bit of a nonsense of your claim that Kate had been asked the questions already but the incompetent PJ had not recorded them, doesn't it. Shall we just be charitable and say that perhaps your investigative skills just don't cut the mustard anymore eh.
-
"
Each time a dog gave a signal, Ricardo would pause the video and inform me that blood had been found in this site and that the DNA from the sample matched Madeleine’s. He would stare at me intently and ask me to explain this. These were the only times I didn’t respond with a ‘No comment.’ Instead I said I couldn’t explain it, but neither could he. I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘f.....g tosser, f.....g tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘f.....g tosser . . .’
When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler. From what I saw of the dogs’ responses, this certainly seemed to me to be what was happening here. We would later learn that in his written report, PC Grime had emphasized that such alerts cannot be relied upon without corroborating evidence."
Thanks Faithlilly. The official arguido statement doesn't mention this. Wouldn't a recorded verbatim interview clarify what was actually said?
-
Thanks Faithlilly. The official arguido statement doesn't mention this. Wouldn't a recorded verbatim interview clarify what was actually said?
Absolutely but unfortunately that was not how interviews were conducted in Portugal at the time.
-
Absolutely but unfortunately that was not how interviews were conducted in Portugal at the time.
So that's it then. We are never going to know exactly what was said. And I wasn't wrong after all.
-
So that's it then. We are never going to know exactly what was said. And I wasn't wrong after all.
We know what was said because Kate tells us so and nowhere did she say that she had seen or been questioned about the dog video before her arguido interview on the 7th of September.
So you are most assuredly wrong and you are only embarrassing yourself by trying to claim otherwise.
-
We know what was said because Kate tells us so and nowhere did she say that she had seen or been questioned about the dog video before her arguido interview on the 7th of September.
So you are most assuredly wrong and you are only embarrassing yourself by trying to claim otherwise.
But she was question at a time when the questions and answers were not recorded. That is what I said.
-
Do you agree that if Kate had previously been asked the questions regarding the dog alerts she would have mentioned it in her book ?
It is quite clear from the passage I posted that the first time Kate had seen the dog videos, or been asked any of the questions related to it, was on the 7th of September.
Which makes a bit of a nonsense of your claim that Kate had been asked the questions already but the incompetent PJ had not recorded them, doesn't it. Shall we just be charitable and say that perhaps your investigative skills just don't cut the mustard anymore eh.
The way in which the announcement of ‘proof’ of Madeleine’s death was handled was imo a form of abuse made all the more reprehensible when it was based on a total misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the forensic results.
So the skills of Dr Amaral's team to read and understand conclusions outlined in official documents most certainly did not cut the mustard and just added to the list of incompetency they evidenced throughout.
-
But she was question at a time when the questions and answers were not recorded. That is what I said.
No you said, and I can post the verbatim claim if you like, that Kate had been asked certain questions twice but the PJ hadn't recorded her answers. I have proved that to be absolutely false.
-
No you said, and I can post the verbatim claim if you like, that Kate had been asked certain questions twice but the PJ hadn't recorded her answers. I have proved that to be absolutely false.
So why did they say, "other than what you have already explained." Perhaps you can answer that for me.
Was she asked these things on the same day but before she was made an Arguida?
-
The way in which the announcement of ‘proof’ of Madeleine’s death was handled was imo a form of abuse made all the more reprehensible when it was based on a total misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the forensic results.
So the skills of Dr Amaral's team to read and understand conclusions outlined in official documents most certainly did not cut the mustard and just added to the list of incompetency they evidenced throughout.
Thank you for your opinion Brietta.
So do you now agree that Kate's statement that she could not add anything more than she already had did not prove she had been asked certain questions before ?
-
So why did they say, "other than what you have already explained." Perhaps you can answer that for me.
Was she asked these things on the same day but before she was made an Arguida?
Kate doesn't say she was asked any question more than once and, in this, her recollection seems to be absolutely clear.
-
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm merely sorting out the truthful wheat from the supporter chaff and letting readers of this forum question why the chaff was needed in the first place.
Then you must explain why as an addendum to each question it was stated that Dr McCann said she couldn’t explain any more than she already had?
Quite obviously she had already answered pertinent questions regarding the couch, the wardrobe, the boot of the hire vehicle, whether or not she had seen the video.
As a mother who knew perfectly well she had neither harmed her daughter nor disposed of her daughter's body how could she possibly explain the inexplicable.
As later became evident the fact the questions were based on incompetent understanding of the forensic results makes them even more of a nonsense.
-
Thank you for your opinion Brietta.
So do you now agree that Kate's statement that she could not add anything more than she already had did not prove she had been asked certain questions before ?
I most certainly do not agree. Probably never crossed her mind she might have to prove which questions she had answered or had not been obliged to answer.
The fact that it is clearly stated that she could not "explain any more than she already had" says it for her.
So either she answered as best she could ... or the files are wrong.
-
Then you must explain why as an addendum to each question it was stated that Dr McCann said she couldn’t explain any more than she already had?
Quite obviously she had already answered pertinent questions regarding the couch, the wardrobe, the boot of the hire vehicle, whether or not she had seen the video.
As a mother who knew perfectly well she had neither harmed her daughter nor disposed of her daughter's body how could she possibly explain the inexplicable.
As later became evident the fact the questions were based on incompetent understanding of the forensic results makes them even more of a nonsense.
The 'couldn't explain' addendum was only added to questions about the cadaver dog film and we know from Kate herself, not the files but her own words, that the first time she had seen the film or been asked the subsequent questions was after she had been made an arguido on the 7th of September.
All other questions elicited a 'no comment'.
-
From the book...
"On September 6th, a little before 3pm, Kate arrives at the DIC in Portimão, accompanied by her press officer. Her lawyer has already arrived and the interview room is ready. The crowd has been building up for a while. Going through the door, Kate laughs as she says that this media scrum is good for tourism.
Her lawyer requests that she be heard as a witness and not interrogated as an arguida. We don't agree with what, to us, constitutes a backward step. Some officers involved in the investigation seem to be hoping for the miracle of a confession. We remain skeptical.
We finally decide to question her as a witness, but not to impose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children. From that time on, everything she said could be held against her. According to the principle of non-incrimination, she would then have to be declared arguida since we have sufficient evidence to do that."
"At 8 o'clock, we have a break to have something to eat, then the interrogation continues until 11pm."
"On September 7th at 11am, Kate Healy is declared an arguida on the basis of strong presumptions of the crime of concealing a body and simulating an abduction. She states her name and gives her address as her home in Great Britain. Taking advantage of the right accorded to her by her status, she remains silent and does not answer questions concerning the circumstances of her daughter's death on May 3rd 2007, in the Ocean Club apartment."
-
The 'couldn't explain' addendum was only added to questions about the cadaver dog film and we know from Kate herself, not the files but her own words, that the first time she had seen the film or been asked the subsequent questions was after she had been made an arguido on the 7th of September.
All other questions elicited a 'no comment'.
The fact that she had not seen the video does not preclude that she had not answered questions. Dr Gerry McCann asked to see the forensic evidence he was being questioned on and was refused.
The addendum could not have been more specific not least in tense ... " did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?"
It was neither "no comment" nor was it " I can't explain" and I think the tell is "already had".
Since she was not obliged to answer any questions at all ... I really do take my hat off to the propaganda skills which have kept this going for seven years ... if the case of a missing had been given half the attention smearing her parents has ... we might be a lot further down the road of finding out what happened to her and who was actually responsible.
I sincerely hope when the PJ and the Met get round to questioning the identified persons of interest, they do not take these questions as a model of how to advance an inquiry.
No worries there ... I am absolutely certain ... they will not.
-
So there you have it, only questions which related to events prior to 5.30pm on 3rd May 2007 were asked while Kate and Gerry McCann were witnesses. Questions relating to events after 5.3pm were only asked once arguido status was invoked.
-
The fact that she had not seen the video does not preclude that she had not answered questions. Dr Gerry McCann asked to see the forensic evidence he was being questioned on and was refused.
The addendum could not have been more specific not least in tense ... " did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?"
It was neither "no comment" nor was it " I can't explain" and I think the tell is "already had".
Since she was not obliged to answer any questions at all ... I really do take my hat off to the propaganda skills which have kept this going for seven years ... if the case of a missing had been given half the attention smearing her parents has ... we might be a lot further down the road of finding out what happened to her and who was actually responsible.
I sincerely hope when the PJ and the Met get round to questioning the identified persons of interest, they do not take these questions as a model of how to advance an inquiry.
No worries there ... I am absolutely certain ... they will not.
As we are continually told by supporters the statements in the files were translated several times so how can we be sure that how specific the wording or the tense was ?
If Kate had been asked incriminating questions before she had been made an arguido don't you think she would have said so ?
-
It is a detectives job to consider everyone a potential suspect and given the discrepancies in the tapas-9 accounts, not at all surprising.
The claim however was that within days the McCanns were the prime suspects and that is patently untrue.
-
So there you have it, only questions which related to events prior to 5.30pm on 3rd May 2007 were asked while Kate and Gerry McCann were witnesses. Questions relating to events after 5.3pm were only asked once arguido status was invoked.
Mind you mind then posting the extracts concerning the informal interview of 8 August, please.
-
Amaral clearly states in his book that he had doubts about the McCanns' version of events by the 4th May 2007 - sadly (!) I don't have a digital copy of the book to verify this but as you do perhaps you can find it - near the beginning I should think.
Sooner than that.
Within hours (according to the Grate Man Himself)
DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?
GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour. The procedures in this type of case are to find out who the persons are, who the missing person is, in this case the missing child, and to find out all the antecedents. And now the first question that is asked from the English authorities, from the British police forces, is that one. Who were the parents, that group of people, and who was the child, was she the target of abuse, was she not. Then, it evolves, it’s a formal procedure, its general for all cases and when the first statements are made, that’s the day when we start to suspect that something is wrong. Things evolved, they were suspects until we reached the work of the English dogs and then the suspicions ultimately became indicia [evidence].
He was being interviewed by the even GRATER man, Duarte Levy, so it must be true ...
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/02/exclusive-interview-to-former-pj.html
-
Rightly so since it is a detectives job to consider everyone a potential suspect and given the discrepancies in the tapas-9 accounts, not at all surprising.
The claim however was that within days the McCanns were the prime suspects and that is patently untrue.
Who claimed that?
-
Mind you mind then posting the extracts concerning the informal interview of 8 August, please.
There is no specific reference to 8th August, do you have a page number?
-
As we are continually told by supporters the statements in the files were translated several times so how can we be sure that how specific the wording or the tense was ?
If Kate had been asked incriminating questions before she had been made an arguido don't you think she would have said so ?
Supporters?
Apparently the translation of Dr Amaral's book which is on the internet is riddled with error ... we have discussed the subject on this forum.
She would have been required to answer questions incriminating or not prior to being made arguida.
Once she was constituted arguida she enjoyed the full protection of the law and was not required to answer questions whether incriminating or not.
Surprised you do not know that.
-
Supporters?
Apparently the translation of Dr Amaral's book which is on the internet is riddled with error ... we have discussed the subject on this forum.
She would have been required to answer questions incriminating or not prior to being made arguida.
Once she was constituted arguida she enjoyed the full protection of the law and was not required to answer questions whether incriminating or not.
Surprised you do not know that.
This is what Amaral says about the arguido status and non-incrimination ( thank you Mr Moderator for the quote )
'We finally decide to question her as a witness, but not to impose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children. From that time on, everything she said could be held against her. According to the principle of non-incrimination, she would then have to be declared arguida since we have sufficient evidence to do that."
-
This is what Amaral says about the arguido status and non-incrimination ( thank you Mr Moderator for the quote )
'We finally decide to question her as a witness, but not to impose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children. From that time on, everything she said could be held against her. According to the principle of non-incrimination, she would then have to be declared arguida since we have sufficient evidence to do that."
what makes that statement very strange is that amaral did not need evidence to impose the arguido status
-
To clarify then, the archiving report is effectively declaring that the McCanns failed to take every opportunity provided to them in order to prove their innocence and by their own actions created a situation whereby the investigation had to be shelved.
Far from being cleared the archiving report raises more questions than provides answers.
The 48 questions which Kate McCann refused to answer when questioned by the Portuguese police investigating the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine.
These are the questions:
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
49. THE QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER:
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html#ixzz34VCmDWYw
What type of judicial system expects people to PROVE their innocence
-
What indeed?
Still, I maintain that the prosecutors were 80% sound ...
-
What type of judicial system expects people to PROVE their innocence
This is fascism in the extreme
-
This is fascism in the extreme
What a stupid statement. In a criminal investigation, everyone involved is considered a suspect until they have been cleared one way or another. That is how it works, simple. Even the LP stated in the court in London that there was no evidence which eliminated the parents from any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
-
What a stupid statement. In a criminal investigation, everyone involved is considered a suspect until they have been cleared one way or another. That is how it works, simple. Even the LP stated in the court in London that there was no evidence which eliminated the parents from any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
The element of fascism is in the assumption that anyone should have to prove their innocence
It is a wholesale assault on the presumption of innocence
-
What a stupid statement. In a criminal investigation, everyone involved is considered a suspect until they have been cleared one way or another. That is how it works, simple. Even the LP stated in the court in London that there was no evidence which eliminated the parents from any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
In this country is the onus on the suspect to prove their innocence or the prosecution to prove guilt? What sort of evidence would eliminate parents from any involvement above and beyond that which already exists?
-
In this country is the onus on the suspect to prove their innocence or the prosecution to prove guilt? What sort of evidence would eliminate parents from any involvement above and beyond that which already exists?
The McCanns were not the suspects, right? And the prosecutors didn't even step in yet, when they were made arguidos. So what are you talking about, actually? We are not talking here about the McCanns having to prove their innocence in the court, what indeed would be totally against the presumption of innocence rule. We are talking here about an active investigation and the parents that were supposed to prove their innocence as in eliminate themselves from the pool of suspects. And it's weird when the parents of the missing child deny to do that, not allowing the investigators to concentrate fully on the other leads.
-
In this country is the onus on the suspect to prove their innocence or the prosecution to prove guilt? What sort of evidence would eliminate parents from any involvement above and beyond that which already exists?
AFAIK, the parents weren't being prosecuted and weren't in a court of law. As for your question about the evidence which would eliminate the parents, I suggest you ask the LP.
-
AFAIK, the parents weren't being prosecuted and weren't in a court of law. As for your question about the evidence which would eliminate the parents, I suggest you ask the LP.
Yep.
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
-
Sorry to swing off on a tangent but based on the topic title, does anybody posess a cite for Kate not answering the questions due to legal advice?
From Madeleine - Friday 7th September 2007
I wasn’t taken to the interrogation room until 11.50am, so my late arrival made no difference, as I’d been pretty sure it wouldn’t: I was getting used to the PJ’s concept of time. The same people were present as the day before. 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 unintentionaly implicate me in some way. He knew the system better than I ever would, so it struck me as prudent to accept his guidance.
-
Yep.
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
A statement made while the McCanns were arguidos and before the files had been released.
There is now abundant evidence that eliminates the McCanns from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Interesting. A Thread on which I have opted to be Notified hasn't notified me for four hours, and nearly three pages. Is this a glitch in the works, or some attempt to keep me out of this discussion?
-
A statement made while the McCanns were arguidos and before the files had been released.
There is now abundant evidence that eliminates the McCanns from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.
No there aint.
-
Interesting. A Thread on which I have opted to be Notified hasn't notified me for four hours, and nearly three pages. Is this a glitch in the works, or some attempt to keep me out of this discussion?
I don't think you have missed much Eleanor. 8(0(*
-
Yep.
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
Wasn't it LP and the PJ who jointly prepared the questions for the arguidos? At least that is what Gonçalo relates.
-
At least that is what Gonçalo relates.
Goncalo also relates that Harrison switched the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead.
Harrison did no such thing ...
-
I don't think you have missed much Eleanor. 8(0(*
Apparently not, but does one ever?
Mitch Lang.
-
The McCanns were not the suspects, right? And the prosecutors didn't even step in yet, when they were made arguidos. So what are you talking about, actually? We are not talking here about the McCanns having to prove their innocence in the court, what indeed would be totally against the presumption of innocence rule. We are talking here about an active investigation and the parents that were supposed to prove their innocence as in eliminate themselves from the pool of suspects. And it's weird when the parents of the missing child deny to do that, not allowing the investigators to concentrate fully on the other leads.
What do you mean "The McCanns were not the suspects, right?" What were they then? Since when has the onus been on those being questioned by police to "prove their innocence"? It is entirely up to the police to build a case against their suspects, and one way they can do this is by asking leading questions designed to incriminate those they are questioning.
-
What a stupid statement. In a criminal investigation, everyone involved is considered a suspect until they have been cleared one way or another. That is how it works, simple. Even the LP stated in the court in London that there was no evidence which eliminated the parents from any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
rubbish...can you name one case anywhere in the world where suspects have been asked to prove their innocence...it is fascism in the extreme
-
What do you mean "The McCanns were not the suspects, right?" What were they then? Since when has the onus been on those being questioned by police to "prove their innocence"? It is entirely up to the police to build a case against their suspects, and one way they can do this is by asking leading questions designed to incriminate those they are questioning.
So simple, or not, depending on whether or not there is any evidence, which there wasn't.
The PJ were fishing, and it backfired. But since The McCanns had no idea of what had happened, then it was always going to back fire.
But trying to explain that no one has to prove their innocence, which is pretty nearly nigh on impossible, is a bit of a waste of time. Apart from the fact that they never had to.
This is the rub. Any otherwise then The McCanns would have been charged. They weren't.
And you all can shriek Insufficient Evidence until the cows come home. This was, and remains a fact.
-
rubbish...can you name one case anywhere in the world where suspects have been asked to prove their innocence...it is fascism in the extreme
Is refusal to cooperate an indicator of guilt or innocence? A one word response will suffice.
-
Is refusal to cooperate an indicator of guilt or innocence? A one word response will suffice.
it is an indicator of neither....ask colin stagg
-
Is refusal to cooperate an indicator of guilt or innocence? A one word response will suffice.
No.
-
Is refusal to cooperate an indicator of guilt or innocence? A one word response will suffice.
Probably !
-
Is refusal to cooperate an indicator of guilt or innocence? A one word response will suffice.
Gerry answered all his questions.
Kate exercised her right of silence.
Both were acquitted.
-
Gerry answered all his questions.
Kate exercised her right of silence.
Both were acquitted.
Neither were acquitted. Their arguido status was dropped as a result of the case being archived.
-
Neither were acquitted. Their arguido status was dropped as a result of the case being archived.
cleared of all suspicion is probably semantically more accurate.
-
cleared of all suspicion is probably semantically more accurate.
I think no evidence was offered against them is probably nearer the mark.
-
Neither were acquitted. Their arguido status was dropped as a result of the case being archived.
So Murat has not been acquitted either then?
-
So Murat has not been acquitted either then?
No.
It is not within the AG's power to acquit.
-
I think no evidence was offered against them is probably nearer the mark.
No evidence to offer.
-
No evidence to offer.
Remember.
Insufficient does not mean None.
-
Remember.
Insufficient does not mean None.
There was no evidence against either McCann.
-
There was no evidence against either McCann.
Insufficient evidence to charge anyone.
'TYPE OF CRIME UNKNOWN'.
Have you listened to the Nick Ferrari program today dave ?
-
actually it is...the archiving report doesn't mention proving innocence...off now
Oh Davey, more drivel.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrate
dem·on·strate
verb \ˈde-mən-ˌstrāt\
: to prove (something) by showing examples of it : to show evidence of (something)
: to prove (something) by being an example of it : to be evidence of (something)
: to show (a quality, feeling, etc.) clearly to other people
-
cleared of all suspicion is probably semantically more accurate.
No.
The prosecutor's opinion was that there was no evidence found that they had committed a crime BUT the investigation was "disturbed" i.e. incomplete. It was incomplete because for reasons unknown the group decided to not co-operate to enable to the investigation to be completed.
So no evidence was found against the McCann's in the completed part of the investigation BUT the investigation was not finished because the McCann's and their friend prevented the investigation from completing its work.
Huge, massive difference.
-
Oh Davey, more drivel.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrate
dem·on·strate
verb \ˈde-mən-ˌstrāt\
: to prove (something) by showing examples of it : to show evidence of (something)
: to prove (something) by being an example of it : to be evidence of (something)
: to show (a quality, feeling, etc.) clearly to other people
: to prove (something) by being an example of it : to be evidence of (something)
Indeed
They protested their innocence & then, by not cooperating fully, (or their buddies not doing so, if you prefer) they didn't do a great deal to be an example of it.
-
People don't cooperate unless they have something to hide.
Especially if they are keen to find their missing daughter.
Or do you know different ?
The Drs McCann were desperately keen to find their missing daughter as has been proved over the past seven years search culminating in the official inquiry in process now.
They could not do this from behind bars.
So it is hardly surprising that Dr Kate McCann exercised her right under Portuguese law not to co-operate in putting herself there.
In the full knowledge no-one would be looking for Madeleine.
-
The Drs McCann were desperately keen to find their missing daughter as has been proved over the past seven years search culminating in the official inquiry in process now.
They could not do this from behind bars.
So it is hardly surprising that Dr Kate McCann exercised her right under Portuguese law not to co-operate in putting herself there.
In the full knowledge no-one would be looking for Madeleine.
Are you seriously suggesting an official police investigation into a missing child, wasn't actually looking for that child?
Have you borrpwed Alfred's tin foil helmet yet?
These conspiracy theories of yours and other Mccann supporters are comical to the point of lunacy.
-
I would however expect supposedly innocent parents of a child they claim has been abducted to do anything and answer everything thrown at them to ensure the police investigation remained open and active.
Even when the tenor of the questioning makes patently obvious that the police are trying to stitch you up for the crimes of others against your daughter?
Amazing!
The Mccans knew they were innocent and that the PJ were trying to pin an unjust rap on them.
I don't criticise Gerry for answering questions.
And I don't criticise Kate for declining to do so.
-
I would however expect supposedly innocent parents of a child they claim has been abducted to do anything and answer everything thrown at them to ensure the police investigation remained open and active.
Even when the tenor of the questioning makes patently obvious that the police are trying to stitch you up for the crimes of others against your daughter?
Amazing!
The Mccans knew they were innocent and that the PJ were trying to pin an unjust rap on them.
I don't criticise Gerry for answering questions.
And I don't criticise Kate for declining to do so.
Shame on you as well.
Can you tell me exactly what evidence they could have brought to court which could have stitched them up?
The forensics? They were analysed in the UK.
So what fitting up could they have done and with what evidence?
-
Shame on you as well.
Can you tell me exactly what evidence they could have brought to court which could have stitched them up?
The forensics? They were analysed in the UK.
So what fitting up could they have done and with what evidence?
Perhaps you are missing the distinction between trying and succeeding?
-
But they didn't abandon their daughter. They have spent the last 7 years of their lives keeping her profile high, spending thousands on detectives, etc. Perhaps you could explain why the McCanns should have had confidence and faith in the PJ in September 2007?
By ensuring the investigation was closed, despite by being warned their non co-operation would harm the hunt for their child, the left their daughter to her fate for 7 years.
That is abandoning your child, after all this was the official investigation by the official police force of the country she disappeared in.
To attempt to argue "well they've been campaigning for the last 7 years to get it reopened" is more than a tad rich and hypocritical because had they co-operated IT WOULD NOT have been closed in the first place and would not have needed 7 years to reopen it.
7 years which could have meant an alive and well Madeleine could have been brought home at any point over those last 7 years.
The investigstion now has nothing whatsoever to do with their decision to not co-operate wit the PJ and to allow the child to be left to fend for herself for the last 7 years.
-
Once again, the investigation was not a one man show and it wasn't up to Gonçalo Amaral to decide whether to make the McCanns arguidos or not. It was a decision made with the judges from the Ministério Público, the head of the PJ Alípio Ribeiro and the other officers, such as Guilhermino de Encarnação. All this criticism of Gonçalo Amaral and the way he "ran" the investigation is totally pointless seeing that he was not the person who called the shots or made the important decisions. But there are those who continue with this battle because they do not know who else to blame.
- Alípio Ribeiro is on record as being critical of the decision, saying that it was premature.
- Yes, he would no doubt have consulted Guilhermino de Encarnação and team colleagues.
- If my understanding of the following is correct, the decision on arguido status (whether requested or imposed) doesn't involve the MP.
Há que notar, que a aquisição – quer por assunção, quer por constituição – da qualidade de arguido não pressupõe a intervenção do Ministério Público.
http://octalberto.no.sapo.pt/estrutura_fundamental_do_processo_penal.htm
- From what I can determine from the files, the magistrate's office played a fairly passive role (and there are provisions in the CPP regarding a certain amount of delegation to the PJ). They reminded the PJ to get the interpreters to sign legal forms; gave authorisation for her photo and description to be publicised (which is actually something that Amaral did do quickly, to his credit); and responded to requests for court orders (search warrants, phone-tapping, etc.).
- A question, though. I agree that Amaral was the coordinator and not an inspector, but unless his role was a glorified office boy, if he wasn't the head of the team in Portimão.... who was?
-
By ensuring the investigation was closed, despite by being warned their non co-operation would harm the hunt for their child, the left their daughter to her fate for 7 years.
That is abandoning your child, after all this was the official investigation by the official police force of the country she disappeared in.
To attempt to argue "well they've been campaigning for the last 7 years to get it reopened" is more than a tad rich and hypocritical because had they co-operated IT WOULD NOT have been closed in the first place and would not have needed 7 years to reopen it.
7 years which could have meant an alive and well Madeleine could have been brought home at any point over those last 7 years.
The investigstion now has nothing whatsoever to do with their decision to not co-operate wit the PJ and to allow the child to be left to fend for herself for the last 7 years.
all this is just your opinion...and blatantly false..imo
-
all this is just your opinion...and blatantly false..imo
There is the crux of the matter.
Your opinion and no more than that.
-
By ensuring the investigation was closed, despite by being warned their non co-operation would harm the hunt for their child, the left their daughter to her fate for 7 years.
That is abandoning your child, after all this was the official investigation by the official police force of the country she disappeared in.
To attempt to argue "well they've been campaigning for the last 7 years to get it reopened" is more than a tad rich and hypocritical because had they co-operated IT WOULD NOT have been closed in the first place and would not have needed 7 years to reopen it.
7 years which could have meant an alive and well Madeleine could have been brought home at any point over those last 7 years.
The investigstion now has nothing whatsoever to do with their decision to not co-operate wit the PJ and to allow the child to be left to fend for herself for the last 7 years.
All of this is 100% true & entirely factually correct.
-
There is the crux of the matter.
Your opinion and no more than that.
exactly...all opinion...
-
Im simply answering questions posed on the forum by others.,..and we know what you think of those who don't answer questions
Yeah, if they don't answer I usually give up asking them.
-
By ensuring the investigation was closed, despite by being warned their non co-operation would harm the hunt for their child, the left their daughter to her fate for 7 years.
That is abandoning your child, after all this was the official investigation by the official police force of the country she disappeared in.
To attempt to argue "well they've been campaigning for the last 7 years to get it reopened" is more than a tad rich and hypocritical because had they co-operated IT WOULD NOT have been closed in the first place and would not have needed 7 years to reopen it.
7 years which could have meant an alive and well Madeleine could have been brought home at any point over those last 7 years.
The investigstion now has nothing whatsoever to do with their decision to not co-operate wit the PJ and to allow the child to be left to fend for herself for the last 7 years.
Could you please provide supporting evidence as to how it could have kept the investigation open (preferably from the Penal Procedure Code or other credible source)? You keep saying this, but don't back it up.
-
Could you please provide supporting evidence as to how it could have kept the investigation open (preferably from the Penal Procedure Code or other credible source)? You keep saying this, but don't back it up.
The archiving summary states categorically that the investigation was disturbed as a result of their decision.
This was the main/only diligence that Rebelo wanted to perform. When it wasn't agreed to the investigation was shelved.
Do you think Rebelo would have asked for it if he was going to shelve the investigation?
-
What sort of justice system depends its suspects to fully co-operate or case shelved?
-
The archiving summary states categorically that the investigation was disturbed as a result of their decision.
This was the main/only diligence that Rebelo wanted to perform. When it wasn't agreed to the investigation was shelved.
Do you think Rebelo would have asked for it if he was going to shelve the investigation?
Rebelo's task seems to have been to verify the "findings" of the previous team in order to bring the case to the public prosecutor for consideration.
That doesn't answer my question to Albertini concerning his/her assumption that the case would have moved on to consider further avenues of investigation.
-
The archiving summary states categorically that the investigation was disturbed as a result of their decision.
This was the main/only diligence that Rebelo wanted to perform. When it wasn't agreed to the investigation was shelved.
Do you think Rebelo would have asked for it if he was going to shelve the investigation?
if this was the only diligence rebelo wanted to perform then he had nothing else to continue the investigation with apart from the parents..those questions would not have helped take the investigation forward..he had nothing and that was why the investigation was shelved.
Are you totally blind...SY have had to take over because the PJ were incompetent...how are SY continuing to investigate when the pj stopped...the pj have made Portugal a laughing stock
-
if this was the only diligence rebelo wanted to perform then he had nothing else to continue the investigation with apart from the parents..those questions would not have helped take the investigation forward..he had nothing and that was why the investigation was shelved.
Are you totally blind...SY have had to take over because the PJ were incompetent...how are SY continuing to investigate when the pj stopped...the pj have made Portugal a laughing stock
...and after 8 million, SY have found?
-
if this was the only diligence rebelo wanted to perform then he had nothing else to continue the investigation with apart from the parents..those questions would not have helped take the investigation forward..he had nothing and that was why the investigation was shelved.
Are you totally blind...SY have had to take over because the PJ were incompetent...how are SY continuing to investigate when the pj stopped...the pj have made Portugal a laughing stock
SY haven't taken over the investigation at all. They started a new one because they were instructed to by the Prime Minister - no other reason.
-
SY haven't taken over the investigation at all. They started a new one because they were instructed to by the Prime Minister - no other reason.
Operation Grange was set up in 2011 to review Madeleine McCann's case.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434
There was sufficient evidence in 2013 - after reviewing the files for two years - to allow the recommendation to be forwarded that Madeleine's case should be reopened.
No new inquiry ... just a fresh unbiased look at cold case evidence which wasn't properly worked at the time ... and the reopening of her case ... proving the evidence was there for seven years.
So the apologists for that incompetence, cannot pin the failure of Madeleine's case on her mum's refusal to answer 48 self incriminating questions ... the blame for that can and should be laid directly at the feet of incompetent police work.
Yard has 'the best opportunity' to find Madeleine McCann
A 'cold case' review of the Madeleine McCann case has led Scotland Yard detectives to identify potential suspects involved in her disappearance from an Algarve resort
By Padraic Flanagan
11:37AM GMT 19 Mar 2014
Operation Grange, staffed by a team of Scotland Yard's finest detectives and paid for by the Home Office, offers the best opportunity to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
While the Yard cannot rectify the mistakes made in the initial inquiry, when the Portuguese police were accused of failing to seal off the area where Madeleine had been staying and gather all available forensic evidence, the inquiry team has had access to all the files.
This has enabled detectives to look at the case with an objective eye and form fresh theories about what may have happened to Madeleine. Their determination has prompted quiet optimism that a breakthrough may be possible.
The review has led detectives to uncover “new evidence and new witnesses” in the case. Among the most recent revelations was the Yard’s desire to interview three burglars who were in Praia da Luz when Madeleine went missing.
It has also emerged that the Met Police have identified more than 40 “persons of interest” after reviewing all the evidence, and have formally asked Portugal for more help with their inquiry, which has been running since 2011.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10707520/Yard-has-the-best-opportunity-to-find-Madeleine-McCann.html
-
Rebelo's task seems to have been to verify the "findings" of the previous team in order to bring the case to the public prosecutor for consideration.
That doesn't answer my question to Albertini concerning his/her assumption that the case would have moved on to consider further avenues of investigation.
Given the discrepancies it was surely the only sensible way to move the case forward. To try and iron out the inconsistencies and see where that took the investigation.
With regards to your question it does actually answer it. As ferryman pointed out had they performed the reconstitution then this would have been a real time forensic anaylsis of the timelines SY state they have performed to find a what they claim to the media was a window of opportunity.
The investigation could have ruled out the McCann's and been forced to look at abduction.
The McCann's, their friends and their lawyers put paid to that and in doing so prevented the Portuguese from moving the investigation forward.
Shame on them all.
-
Given the discrepancies it was surely the only sensible way to move the case forward. To try and iron out the inconsistencies and see where that took the investigation.
With regards to your question it does actually answer it. As ferryman pointed out had they performed the reconstitution then this would have been a real time forensic anaylsis of the timelines SY state they have performed to find a what they claim to the media was a window of opportunity.
The no estivation could have ruled out the McCann's and been forced to look at abduction.
The McCann's, their friends and their lawyers put paid to that and in doing so prevented the Portuguese from moving the investigation forward.
Shame on them all.
Your post is simply your very biased opinion and has no value..imo
-
Operation Grange was set up in 2011 to review Madeleine McCann's case.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434
There was sufficient evidence in 2013 - after reviewing the files for two years - to allow the recommendation to be forwarded that Madeleine's case should be reopened.
No new inquiry ... just a fresh unbiased look at cold case evidence which wasn't properly worked at the time ... and the reopening of her case ... proving the evidence was there for seven years.
So the apologists for that incompetence, cannot pin the failure of Madeleine's case on her mum's refusal to answer 48 self incriminating questions ... the blame for that can and should be laid directly at the feet of incompetent police work.
Yard has 'the best opportunity' to find Madeleine McCann
A 'cold case' review of the Madeleine McCann case has led Scotland Yard detectives to identify potential suspects involved in her disappearance from an Algarve resort
By Padraic Flanagan
11:37AM GMT 19 Mar 2014
Operation Grange, staffed by a team of Scotland Yard's finest detectives and paid for by the Home Office, offers the best opportunity to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
While the Yard cannot rectify the mistakes made in the initial inquiry, when the Portuguese police were accused of failing to seal off the area where Madeleine had been staying and gather all available forensic evidence, the inquiry team has had access to all the files.
This has enabled detectives to look at the case with an objective eye and form fresh theories about what may have happened to Madeleine. Their determination has prompted quiet optimism that a breakthrough may be possible.
The review has led detectives to uncover “new evidence and new witnesses” in the case. Among the most recent revelations was the Yard’s desire to interview three burglars who were in Praia da Luz when Madeleine went missing.
It has also emerged that the Met Police have identified more than 40 “persons of interest” after reviewing all the evidence, and have formally asked Portugal for more help with their inquiry, which has been running since 2011.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10707520/Yard-has-the-best-opportunity-to-find-Madeleine-McCann.html
You seem to forget that the PJ team in Oporto, who are involved in the reopened Portuguese investigation are following completely different lines to SY with their separate investigation.
-
Given the discrepancies it was surely the only sensible way to move the case forward. To try and iron out the inconsistencies and see where that took the investigation.
With regards to your question it does actually answer it. As ferryman pointed out had they performed the reconstitution then this would have been a real time forensic anaylsis of the timelines SY state they have performed to find a what they claim to the media was a window of opportunity.
The no estivation could have ruled out the McCann's and been forced to look at abduction.
The McCann's, their friends and their lawyers put paid to that and in doing so prevented the Portuguese from moving the investigation forward.
Shame on them all.
so you admit that the pj were not looking at abduction...thank you
-
if this was the only diligence rebelo wanted to perform then he had nothing else to continue the investigation with apart from the parents..those questions would not have helped take the investigation forward..he had nothing and that was why the investigation was shelved.
Nope. As has been pointed out this exercise would have been the equivalent of SY's forensic analysis of the timelines SY say they performed 7 years later. As such it would I have either provided a new timeline and window of opportunity to concentrate on or it would have provided an opportunity to take matters further regarding the McCann's.
Are you totally blind...SY have had to take over because the PJ were incompetent...how are SY continuing to investigate when the pj stopped...the pj have made Portugal a laughing stock
Are you still spouting your drivel and chucking the insults out like smarties?
One would have presumed you would have learnt your lesson after having two posts removed last night by the mods.
Can you provide evidence where the PJ have formally appointed SY to take over their investigation? You will also note that the PJ are also investigating the case again.
-
You seem to forget that the PJ team in Oporto, who are involved in the reopened Portuguese investigation are following completely different lines to SY with their separate investigation.
yes they were looking at tractorman....what a brilliant lot of detectives. In my view the pj reopened because they knew that if they didn't they would be forced by the uk...it was a face saving exercise
-
so you admit that the pj were not looking at abduction...thank you
At the time of Rebelo's reconstruction parental involvement was one of the lines of enquiries, yes.
Thank you.
-
yes they were looking at tractorman....what a brilliant lot of detectives. In my view the pj reopened because they knew that if they didn't they would be forced by the uk...it was a face saving exercise
Have you seen the new case files? Wow, you have a real scoop there, you should share the details.
-
Nope. As has been pointed out this exercise would have been the equivalent of SY's forensic analysis of the timelines SY say they performed 7 years later. As such it would I have either provided a new timeline and window of opportunity to concentrate on or it would have provided an opportunity to take matters further regarding the McCann's.
Are you still spouting your drivel and chucking the insults out like smarties?
One would have presumed you would have learnt your lesson after having two posts removed last night by the mods.
Can you provide evidence where the PJ have formally appointed SY to take over their investigation? You will also note that the PJ are also investigating the case again.
the pj have been forced to follow SYs line of investigation...I don't see the pj investigating anything...everything now is SY driven
-
yes they were looking at tractorman....what a brilliant lot of detectives. In my view the pj reopened because they knew that if they didn't they would be forced by the uk...it was a face saving exercise
Portugal is a sovereign state and can't be forced to do anything.
-
At the time of Rebelo's reconstruction parental involvement was one of the lines of enquiries, yes.
Thank you.
you said if the parents were ruled out the pj would be forced to look at abduction...so they were not doing that ..in your opinion
-
yes they were looking at tractorman....what a brilliant lot of detectives. In my view the pj reopened because they knew that if they didn't they would be forced by the uk...it was a face saving exercise
As opposed to the brilliant SY detectives looking for burglarising drug traffickers who buried the child within sight of their front doors?
Don't believe all you read.
-
the pj have been forced to follow SYs line of investigation...I don't see the pj investigating anything...everything now is SY driven
Portugal is complying with requests from UK. They are not saying what the Oporto team are doing.
-
That's right I did say that.
What your lack of brain power highlights is that you can't understand the fact that investigations can have multiple lines of enquiries, theories as well as suspects and all of these can be ruled out (or in) by a process of elimination or uncovering new evidence.
Theories have a place. However the evidence should not be made to fit the theory. The theory should follow the evidence. If it does not it is merely fantasy.
The fatal weakness of Dr Amaral's investigation was in trying to effect the former.
Close analysis of the 48 questions show they held no evidential value whatsoever as they were based on misinterpretation of forensics.
In effect they show up the amateurishness of the investigators and rather than being used however successfully in the propaganda campaign directed at Dr McCann, they should have been quietly shelved. They are evidence of incompetence which show these particular investigators up as amateurs when it comes to interpreting the results of properly conducted forensic tests.
-
Theories have a place. However the evidence should not be made to fit the theory. The theory should follow the evidence. If it does not it is merely fantasy.
The fatal weakness of Dr Amaral's investigation was in trying to effect the former.
Close analysis of the 48 questions show they held no evidential value whatsoever as they were based on misinterpretation of forensics.
In effect they show up the amateurishness of the investigators and rather than being used however successfully in the propaganda campaign directed at Dr McCann, they should have been quietly shelved. They are evidence of incompetence which show these particular investigators up as amateurs when it comes to interpreting the results of properly conducted forensic tests.
what a wonderful synopsis
-
One you cannot comprehend?
Exactly, it is one that neither I, nor any right thinking person can comprehend. A system that can only bring suspects to court if they co-operate fully co-operate with the investigation into their alleged crimes is a pretty pathetic one IMO.
-
Indeed Kate did have the right to remain silent- I have no issues with the process of the law what so ever.
whether it is Kate's or Amaral's. I am for 'justice' which is why I joined this forum.
However, as a mother myself, that last question left me with a feeling of exasperation.
Pj- you do know that by refusing to answer this might harm the investigation into your daughters disappearance... she replied "YES". Yes, she did know she could cause harm to the investigation- and to be very fair, the questions asked would not have compromised Kate's presumed innocence.
Neither would a reconstruction, why would it? unless they had something to hide?
-
First off, the pursuer(s) are as much obliged to be in attendance as the defendant.
Secondly, neither of them were present at the vast majority of the hearings.
Thirdly, only someone with something to hide would have refused to answer all the PJ questions. Gerry answered them so why didn't Kate?
Fourthly, along with the other protagonists they never attended the reconstruction.
Protagonist > a leading character
I disagree. Kate was the first of the two to be interviewed as an arguido. She chose to follow her lawyer's advice.
The set of questions were not the same.
-
First off, the pursuer(s) are as much obliged to be in attendance as the defendant.
Secondly, neither of them were present at the vast majority of the hearings.
Thirdly, only someone with something to hide would have refused to answer all the PJ questions. Gerry answered them so why didn't Kate?
Fourthly, along with the other protagonists they never attended the reconstruction.
Protagonist > a leading character
Come off it John - the questions were a fishing expedition. They had sod all to do with finding Madeleine. Kates lawyer saw that.
Kate had already answered questions that were relevant to finding Madeleine in her witness interview the previous day.
Arguidos have a right to silence for a very good reason.
The last question was a disgrace.
-
The last question was a disgrace.
Some might say the 'disgrace' lay in the answer given
-
Come off it John - the questions were a fishing expedition. They had sod all to do with finding Madeleine. Kates lawyer saw that.
Kate had already answered questions that were relevant to finding Madeleine in her witness interview the previous day.
Arguidos have a right to silence for a very good reason.
The last question was a disgrace.
As you know well, she didn't want to answer the questions in case their accounts didn't tally.
-
As you know well, she didn't want to answer the questions in case their accounts didn't tally.
and what evidence do you have for that...none
-
As you know well, she didn't want to answer the questions in case their accounts didn't tally.
And you know this how?
-
Kate could have answered every single one of those questions and a 1000 more and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the direction of the investigation at the time, nor to the opinions of those who "doubt" the McCanns. And that IS a fact.
-
Come off it John - the questions were a fishing expedition. They had sod all to do with finding Madeleine. Kates lawyer saw that.
Kate had already answered questions that were relevant to finding Madeleine in her witness interview the previous day.
Arguidos have a right to silence for a very good reason.
The last question was a disgrace.
Agreed, of course the questions were a fishing exercise but remember they were jointly put together by both the PJ and officers from Leicestershire Constabulary (as it was then known). Normal police practise where suspects are concerned.
-
Kate could have answered every single one of those questions and a 1000 more and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the direction of the investigation at the time, nor to the opinions of those who "doubt" the McCanns. And that IS a fact.
So why didn't she? This was one of the mistakes they made imo.
A lawyer will always err on the side of caution, the McCann's lawyer didn't know if they were guilty or innocent any more than the police did. If Kate was completely innocent she should have answered every question put to her and more.
In addition, continually criticising the police who were trying to find your missing child was a no-brainer for stupidity.
-
Agreed, of course the questions were a fishing exercise but remember they were jointly put together by both the PJ and officers from Leicestershire Constabulary (as it was then known). Normal police practise where suspects are concerned.
before I accuse you of posting rubbish do you have any evidence that the questions were a joint exercise...if not I can call your post rubbish
-
Agreed, of course the questions were a fishing exercise but remember they were jointly put together by both the PJ and officers from Leicestershire Constabulary (as it was then known). Normal police practise where suspects are concerned.
So if these questions were put together beforehand, who added the last one, since they wouldn't have known that Kate was going to refuse to answer before she actually did?
-
So why didn't she? This was one of the mistakes they made imo.
A lawyer will always err on the side of caution, the McCann's lawyer didn't know if they were guilty or innocent any more than the police did. If Kate was completely innocent she should have answered every question put to her and more.
In addition, continually criticising the police who were trying to find your missing child was a no-brainer for stupidity.
so you think the mccanns should have congratulated the pj for making them prime suspects...and tell them what a great job they were doing
-
So if these questions were put together beforehand, who added the last one, since they wouldn't have known that Kate was going to refuse to answer before she actually did?
Because it is so hard to get, that there is a probability the person who has a right to remain silent might use it. Sure.
-
So why didn't she? This was one of the mistakes they made imo.
A lawyer will always err on the side of caution, the McCann's lawyer didn't know if they were guilty or innocent any more than the police did. If Kate was completely innocent she should have answered every question put to her and more.
In addition, continually criticising the police who were trying to find your missing child was a no-brainer for stupidity.
She didn't because she was advised not to, it's as simple as that. In the same position, you might well be advised to do the same even if you're innocent. Did you not watch the video clip I posted a couple of weeks back about why you should NEVER answer police questions, even if you've nothing to hide? It was very thought-provoking IMO.
And in addition, criticising the police for concentrating all their efforts on proving you've dunnit (when you haven't) instead of looking for the person who did is perfectly justifiable - IMO again.
-
So why didn't she? This was one of the mistakes they made imo.
A lawyer will always err on the side of caution, the McCann's lawyer didn't know if they were guilty or innocent any more than the police did. If Kate was completely innocent she should have answered every question put to her and more.
In addition, continually criticising the police who were trying to find your missing child was a no-brainer for stupidity.
I think by then it had rather dawned on the McCanns which way the police investigation under Amaral was heading.
If you know the police were trying to fit you up for something you did not do, then remaining silent is by far the best strategy.
-
Because it is so hard to get, that there is a probability the person who has a right to remain silent might use it. Sure.
Well there's a turn up. So The PJ suspected that Kate would refuse.
-
I think by then it had rather dawned on the McCanns which way the police investigation under Amaral was heading.
If you know the police were trying to fit you up for something you did not do, then remaining silent is by far the best strategy.
The thing is, when the police think they have their man, they will use any scrap of information you provide them (even the seemingly most innocuous detail) to try and use it against you - that's their job. Kate's solicitor knew that only too well. Say Kate had said "yes, Madeleine was a poor sleeper and yes I sometimes found her a difficult child and yes, sometimes I would give her Calpol when she was feverish at night" - then suddenly you have motive and means, despite the fact that pretty much any mother would say the same thing when asked similar questions.
-
Well there's a turn up. So The PJ suspected that Kate would refuse.
It's not what I wrote, but whatever...
-
I can see why posters want to make such a big deal about the failure to answer questions...the case is so weak against the mccanns that every little scrap has to be amplified to try and show guilt
-
I can see why posters want to make such a big deal about the failure to answer questions...the case is so weak against the mccanns that every little scrap has to be amplified to try and show guilt
Its very obvious that the 48 questions is a real hornets nest. @)(++(*
-
Its very obvious that the 48 questions is a real hornets nest. @)(++(*
No, what the "48 Questions" is is just another of the many sticks with which to beat the McCanns. It's a tool, a handy McCann-whacker, the reality is, in the real world, it's totally no longer of any consequence whatsoever.
-
No, what the "48 Questions" is is just another of the many sticks with which to beat the McCanns. It's a tool, a handy McCann-whacker, the reality is, in the real world, it's totally no longer of any consequence whatsoever.
its all they have Alfred....
-
Its very obvious that the 48 questions is a real hornets nest. @)(++(*
John - sit down and read them with an open mind.
-
Its very obvious that the 48 questions is a real hornets nest. @)(++(*
so john...you claimed that Leicester police helped draw up the questions..is it true or is it rubbish
-
so john...you claimed that Leicester police helped draw up the questions..is it true or is it rubbish
and if they did, what's your problem ?
-
before I accuse you of posting rubbish do you have any evidence that the questions were a joint exercise...if not I can call your post rubbish
Do you think LC were just there for the hell of it?
In respect of the arguido interviews, Amaral states in his book (page 84)
English and Portuguese investigators actively prepare the interviews and draw up a list of questions focussing particularly on the course of events on the night of the disappearance.
-
Which case would that be? have they been charged with something?
I must have missed that while I was out hiding woodcutters axes.
they have been accused ..charged and found guilty
-
Which court was that in and what was the charge?
Trial by social media, and the charge was "McCanns Dunnit, but we're not sure wot exactly".
-
Which court was that in and what was the charge?
you have obviously been asleep..well done Alfred
-
Trial by social media, and the charge was "McCanns Dunnit, but we're not sure wot exactly".
Well for a start the mccanns left all three children, unnecessarily in peril, for several successive evenings in an unlocked apartment, or so they claim, and without independently verified checks.
They failed to return with their associates for the reenactment and otherwise did not fully cooperate with the investigation.
They hid behind the arguido status and let's not forget the dogs who only indicated in their apartment.
Claimed an abduction, for which there is only hearsay, and no physical evidence at all.
Claimed the shutters were jemmied through a family associate, and then strenuously denied it.
Set up a fund with friends and family, from which they used money to pay 2 mortgage payments , subsequently repayed.
'Discovered' religion, even though km's mother, said neither was a devout Catholic. The very same religion which doesn't allow IVF for it's devotees.
Good enough for starters ???
-
quote"
49. THE QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER:
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'" unquote
Now lets go and ask Team why they are suing Mr Amaral
um err em well something about him writing a book which ....oh yes his book is affecting the search for their daughter...or words to that effect.. oh and the suffering of the family, apart from Maddie because "there is no evidence of her suffering-being harmed said Gerry.
Irony Much!
-
Well for a start the mccanns left all three children, unnecessarily in peril, for several successive evenings in an unlocked apartment, or so they claim, and without independently verified checks.
They failed to return with their associates for the reenactment and otherwise did not fully cooperate with the investigation.
They hid behind the arguido status and let's not forget the dogs who only indicated in their apartment.
Claimed an abduction, for which there is only hearsay, and no physical evidence at all.
Claimed the shutters were jemmied through a family associate, and then strenuously denied it.
Set up a fund with friends and family, from which they used money to pay 2 mortgage payments , subsequently repayed.
'Discovered' religion, even though km's mother, said neither was a devout Catholic. The very same religion which doesn't allow IVF for it's devotees.
Good enough for starters ???
Thanks for perfectly illustrating "trial by media" on the charge "the McCanns dunnit but we're not sure wot exactly".
-
Of course the right to silence is place because in many legal systems, it is seen as correct that a suspect should not be required to provide evidence against themselves.
-
before I accuse you of posting rubbish do you have any evidence that the questions were a joint exercise...if not I can call your post rubbish
Do you think LC were just there for the hell of it?
In respect of the arguido interviews, Amaral states in his book (page 84)
English and Portuguese investigators actively prepare the interviews and draw up a list of questions focussing particularly on the course of events on the night of the disappearance.
Bumped for Davel since he wrongly refers to it on another thread as not being answered. Context is Kate and Gerry McCann's arguido interviews.
-
I simply do not believe that The Leicester Constabulary were in any way involved in those spurious questions. And I don't believe a word Amaral says.
-
I simply do not believe that The Leicester Constabulary were in any way involved in those spurious questions. And I don't believe a word Amaral says.
funnily enough those of us who dont believe a word of the mcanns get abused by the likes of you hypocrite much
-
Do you think LC were just there for the hell of it?
In respect of the arguido interviews, Amaral states in his book (page 84)
Bumped for Davel since he wrongly refers to it on another thread as not being answered. Context is Kate and Gerry McCann's arguido interviews.
my post was at 7.12.........johns was at 7.20 so when I made my post it had not been answered...so I rightly referred to it as not being answered...doesn't matter you can just delete threads where you are shown to be wrong. Could you supply the context of this statement because I don't believe that the uk police would ask questions such as ...did you call sky news.......we know amaral is a proven liar in court...the book is the subject of a libel case for being inaccurate...
several reasons not to believe the book
-
my post was at 7.12.........johns was at 7.20 so when I made my post it had not been answered...so I rightly referred to it as not being answered...doesn't matter you can just delete threads where you are shown to be wrong. Could you supply the context of this statement because I don't believe that the uk police would ask questions such as ...did you call sky news.......we know amaral is a proven liar in court...the book is the subject of a libel case for being inaccurate...
several reasons not to believe the book
Then please give the exact link to the report, AND NOT YOUR 'WORDS' .
-
my post was at 7.12.........johns was at 7.20 so when I made my post it had not been answered...so I rightly referred to it as not being answered...doesn't matter you can just delete threads where you are shown to be wrong. Could you supply the context of this statement because I don't believe that the uk police would ask questions such as ...did you call sky news.......we know amaral is a proven liar in court...the book is the subject of a libel case for being inaccurate...
several reasons not to believe the book
Granted that some details in Gonçalo's book are open to question but anyone who believes for a second that he made it up about Leicestershire Constabulary cooperating in the arguido questions just don't understand how the law works. If he had lied about it he effectively had put his head on the chopping block and even he isn't that stupid. @)(++(*
So how many issues is that now that I have shown you to be wrong over the last few days Dave? First it was the word 'appeared' which isn't used in the Archiving Report and now the word prove which does appear? I find it so useful to have Spanish and Portuguese as second languages.
-
Granted that some details in Gonçalo's book are open to question but anyone who believes for a second that he made it up about Leicestershire Constabulary cooperating in the arguido questions just don't understand how the law works. If he had lied about it he effectively had put his head on the chopping block and even he isn't that stupid. @)(++(*
So how many issues is that now that I have shown you to be wrong over the last few days Dave? First it was the word 'appeared' which isn't used in the Archiving Report and now the word prove which does appear? I find it so useful to have Spanish and Portuguese as second languages.
not sure what you are talking about with the appeared...could you tell me more...I think you get quite a few things wrong john...so how much input did the uk police have in the questions..truth is you don't know
-
not sure what you are talking about with the appeared...could you tell me more...I think you get quite a few things wrong john...so how much input did the uk police have in the questions..truth is you don't know
As you say, only the cops will know how much input each of them had. Do you think we would get an answer from LP if we submitted a freedom of information request?
-
As you say, only the cops will know how much input each of them had. Do you think we would get an answer from LP if we submitted a freedom of information request?
could always try
-
As you say, only the cops will know how much input each of them had. Do you think we would get an answer from LP if we submitted a freedom of information request?
No respectable Police Force is going to admit to contributing to those spurious questions. All the real crooks in the area would fall about laughing.
"No Comment, Guv."
-
How do you know that Kate refused to answer the 48 questions because her lawyer advised her not to? It is possible that Kate and Gerry decided that one of them would not answer any questions while the other one did in order to avoid any blatant discrepencies in their replies.
-
How do you know that Kate refused to answer the 48 questions because her lawyer advised her not to? It is possible that Kate and Gerry decided that one of them would not answer any questions while the other one did in order to avoid any blatant discrepencies in their replies.
I shouldn't think so. They could both have refused. But no one is interested in what Gerry had to say. People just want a stick with which to beat Kate.
I have never even seen the questions that Gerry was asked, let alone his answers. While Kate's 48 are embedded in my brain.
-
I shouldn't think so. They could both have refused. But no one is interested in what Gerry had to say. People just want a stick with which to beat Kate.
I have never even seen the questions that Gerry was asked, let alone his answers. While Kate's 48 are embedded in my brain.
Weren't they the same questions ?
-
Weren't they the same questions ?
I don't know. You tell me. It's his answers that I am most interested in.
-
Weren't they the same questions ?
It doesn't really matter because they didn't know before hand what they were going to be asked and to avoid any glaring differences it would be much easier to have one of them refuse to answer any questions.
-
It doesn't really matter because they didn't know before hand what they were going to be asked and to avoid any glaring differences it would be much easier to have one of them refuse to answer any questions.
Why would you expect their answers to be identical - they weren't joined at the hip all day long on May 3rd.
It seems to me that Kate's questions were specifically designed for her to answer - and not Gerry.
-
So, were there any questions that would incriminate Kate? she could lie under oath,who would know?
There was No valid reason for her to not answer those questions.
especially as I have mentioned: By not answering Kate conceded (answered YES) that it could harm the investigation/search as to what happened to her daughter.
Then she rants on at a police officer-accusing him for doing the exact same thing! EVEN taking him to court!
Completely disgraceful behavior by a mother.
Kate's questions would be slightly different as they had different answers regarding when they last saw their daughter-at different times for eg. "allegedly"
-
So, were there any questions that would incriminate Kate? she could lie under oath,who would know?
There was No valid reason for her to not answer those questions.
especially as I have mentioned: By not answering Kate conceded (answered YES) that it could harm the investigation/search as to what happened to her daughter.
Then she rants on at a police officer-accusing him for doing the exact same thing! EVEN taking him to court!
Completely disgraceful behavior by a mother.
Kate's questions would be slightly different as they had different answers regarding when they last saw their daughter-at different times for eg. "allegedly"
"If The Investigation thinks so." You forgot that bit. But then people like you often do.
-
I reckon they just couldn't afford for there to be discrepancies in their answers so they decided she should say nowt and he would do all the talking - it is what he excels at.
-
I reckon they just couldn't afford for there to be discrepancies in their answers so they decided she should say nowt and he would do all the talking - it is what he excels at.
why would there be discrepancies in their answers? Didn't they have 3 whole months in which to rehearse their story, allegedly?
-
Indeed they did, but they wouldn't know the exact nature & format of the questions so it might have been difficult to ensure compatible answers. Perhaps better not to risk it, particularly as Kate seemed to think the police were trying to fit her up.
-
The investigation did THINK SO that is my point...and Kate knew that. and answered YES.
...that was for the benefit of those who needed clarification-in case I didn;t make it clear enough.
PLEASE NOTE:
I will not tolerate any goading-trolling on this forum. If you have a valid point regarding my posts please feel free to correct them -evidence- your argument to the thread and not directly at me.
If we have a difference of opinion do not feel so obliged to begin a name calling session- I will not respond, it is beneath me as an adult.
-
Indeed they did, but they wouldn't know the exact nature & format of the questions so it might have been difficult to ensure compatible answers. Perhaps better not to risk it, particularly as Kate seemed to think the police were trying to fit her up.
I don't see why it would have been difficult - agree on the story, in detail, and stick to it. No problem.
-
Easy to get tricked by these cunning cops - not worth the risk
-
Easy to get tricked by these cunning cops - not worth the risk
Very true. Thanks for acknowledging that the cops were trying every trick in book to elicit incriminating evidence from her and well done to her and her lawyer for not falling for it.
"Did you find Madeleine a bit of a handful?" "Yes, sometimes she would drive me round the bend"
"Did she have difficulty getting to sleep at night?" "Yes, sometimes it would take ages for her to drop off"
"Did you ever give her anything to help her sleep?" "Yes, sometimes if she had a fever or was teething we'd give her Calpol"
"Aha! So it's obvious you couldn't cope with this unruly child and driven to distraction you sedated her, correct?!"
Means, motive, opportunity, all sewn up.
-
Very true. Thanks for acknowledging that the cops were trying every trick in book to elicit incriminating evidence from her and well done to her and her lawyer for not falling for it.
"Did you find Madeleine a bit of a handful?" "Yes, sometimes she would drive me round the bend"
"Did she have difficulty getting to sleep at night?" "Yes, sometimes it would take ages for her to drop off"
"Did you ever give her anything to help her sleep?" "Yes, sometimes if she had a fever or was teething we'd give her Calpol"
"Aha! So it's obvious you couldn't cope with this unruly child and driven to distraction you sedated her, correct?!"
Means, motive, opportunity, all sewn up.
I fear it's true the world over. That's one of the reasons they repeatedly go over the same questions, trying to find weaknesses. I believe it's standard UK practice as well.
-
I fear it's true the world over. That's one of the reasons they repeatedly go over the same questions, trying to find weaknesses. I believe it's standard UK practice as well.
Yes you're right, and now you can hopefully see why even an innocent person should think twice before handing the police their balls on a plate, so to speak.
-
I've never had any problem in appreciating that not answering questions makes you look like a shifty criminal.
A tactical PR mistake I feel,
-
I've never had any problem in appreciating that not answering questions makes you look like a shifty criminal.
A tactical PR mistake I feel,
with something to hide too
-
I've never had any problem in appreciating that not answering questions makes you look like a shifty criminal.
A tactical PR mistake I feel,
Actually I agree with that as well. Regardless of the fact that the PJ were trying to stitch her up, I think Kate should have ignored her solicitor's advice, no matter how well-intentioned it was. That said, when you're in such an intimidating situation in a foreign country with a dodgy reputation for questioning suspects, and when the only person on your side and who knows how the police and the law works tells you to do something, you're probably more inclined to do as they say.
-
Very true. Thanks for acknowledging that the cops were trying every trick in book to elicit incriminating evidence from her and well done to her and her lawyer for not falling for it.
"Did you find Madeleine a bit of a handful?" "Yes, sometimes she would drive me round the bend"
"Did she have difficulty getting to sleep at night?" "Yes, sometimes it would take ages for her to drop off"
"Did you ever give her anything to help her sleep?" "Yes, sometimes if she had a fever or was teething we'd give her Calpol"
"Aha! So it's obvious you couldn't cope with this unruly child and driven to distraction you sedated her, correct?!"
Means, motive, opportunity, all sewn up.
You forgot the humdinger ... "Is true, that in England, you even considered handing Madeleine's custody over to a relative ?"
Although I suppose there could be no misinterprting a straightforward "No, it is not true" given in response
Here's the thing though ... that same question was also put to Gerry McCann ( was it true that Kate had considered handing Madeleine's custody over to a relative )
He didn't give a definitive "No it's not true" either
He just said 'not as far as he was aware'
What does the forum make of that ?
-
You forgot the humdinger ... "Is true, that in England, you even considered handing Madeleine's custody over to a relative ?"
Although I suppose there could be no misinterprting a straightforward "No, it is not true" given in response
Here's the thing though ... that same question was also put to Gerry McCann ( was it true that Kate had considered handing Madeleine's custody over to a relative )
He didn't give a definitive "No it's not true" either
He just said 'not as far as he was aware'
What does the forum make of that ?
I think the fact that you are still discussing this after seven years is a little crazy
-
You forgot the humdinger ... "Is true, that in England, you even considered handing Madeleine's custody over to a relative ?"
Although I suppose there could be no misinterprting a straightforward "No, it is not true" given in response
Here's the thing though ... that same question was also put to Gerry McCann ( was it true that Kate had considered handing Madeleine's custody over to a relative )
He didn't give a definitive "No it's not true" either
He just said 'not as far as he was aware'
What does the forum make of that ?
So Gerry was asked if Kate had considered handing the custody of Madeleine to a relative? What a crock of shite.
So they were after Kate. But we knew that already.
-
You forgot the humdinger ... "Is true, that in England, you even considered handing Madeleine's custody over to a relative ?"
Although I suppose there could be no misinterprting a straightforward "No, it is not true" given in response
Here's the thing though ... that same question was also put to Gerry McCann ( was it true that Kate had considered handing Madeleine's custody over to a relative )
He didn't give a definitive "No it's not true" either
He just said 'not as far as he was aware'
What does the forum make of that ?
How would he know what Kate was considering unless she told him? So, 'not as far as he was aware' was the correct response. It was probably said incredulously or sardonically in any case, manner and tone of voice is completely lost in these transcripts.
-
Where did the police get this idea from anyway?
-
I think the fact that you are still discussing this after seven years is a little crazy
there is that as well.
-
It does make you wonder. Maybe Leicestershire police spoke to Social services about the McCanns.
-
The right to remain silent is an important part of UK law, and I assume of Portugeuse law too.
It is a right designed in part to protect innocent people.
It is a very strange idea, that if someone takes the right to remain silent they must be guilty, and if someone doesn't they must be innocent.
If that were so, we wouldn't need courts at all, would we?
-
You forgot the humdinger ... "Is true, that in England, you even considered handing Madeleine's custody over to a relative ?"
Although I suppose there could be no misinterprting a straightforward "No, it is not true" given in response
Here's the thing though ... that same question was also put to Gerry McCann ( was it true that Kate had considered handing Madeleine's custody over to a relative )
He didn't give a definitive "No it's not true" either
He just said 'not as far as he was aware'
What does the forum make of that ?
IMO he was being sarcastic - as Kate also was in her one and only reply.
From memory so could be wrong - but wasn't that particular question lifted from some newspaper article? How professional is that?
-
It does make you wonder. Maybe Leicestershire police spoke to Social services about the McCanns.
Maybe CdM made it up. Just like they made it up about Gerry not being Madeleine's father.
-
Maybe CdM made it up. Just like they made it up about Gerry not being Madeleine's father.
So they did. I'd forgotten that. What a piece of trash that paper is. I'm surprised the police didn't ask Gerry that one actually.
-
So they did. I'd forgotten that. What a piece of trash that paper is. I'm surprised the police didn't ask Gerry that one actually.
He might have lamped them one. But let's face it, they used every other trick in the book with false forensics.
-
He might have lamped them one. But let's face it, they used every other trick in the book with false forensics.
I suppose it is (just!) conceivable that they didn't understand the forensics themselves.
But even if that's the case, there's still no excuse.
They were surrounded by people who did.
They only had to ask ...
-
So they did. I'd forgotten that. What a piece of trash that paper is. I'm surprised the police didn't ask Gerry that one actually.
IIRC, it wasn't CdM that carried the story but it was 24 Horas.
-
So they did. I'd forgotten that. What a piece of trash that paper is. I'm surprised the police didn't ask Gerry that one actually.
I'm not sure that they quite made it up.
There might very well be a clue in the files as to the provenance of the leak ...
-
IIRC, it wasn't CdM that carried the story but it was 24 Horas.
That'll do. It was a Portuguese gutter rag.
-
I'm not sure that they quite made it up.
There might very well be a clue in the files as to the provenance of the leak ...
Not...........? Oh well, that wouldn't surprise me.
-
IMO he was being sarcastic - as Kate also was in her one and only reply.
From memory so could be wrong - but wasn't that particular question lifted from some newspaper article? How professional is that?
We don't know why the police asked if Kate had considered giving Madeleine's custody over to a relative
We do know that neither she nor Gerry anwered "No" to that question
-
We don't know why the police asked if Kate had considered giving Madeleine's custody over to a relative
We do know that neither she nor Gerry anwered "No" to that question
So what do you infer from this then?
-
Not...........? Oh well, that wouldn't surprise me.
The true sequence of events: Gerry provided the FSS with a saliva sample he said was from Madeleine.
The FSS confirmed that the profile from the saliva was that of a female daughter of the McCanns, but raised a slight doubt that it might have been Amelie's rather than Madeleine's.
That was resolved easily, simply by taking Amelie's DNA and comparing it with the DNA from the saliva.
The two profiles were different, confirming that they had Madeleine's DNA.
Now read this exchange between Amaral and the Portuguese forensic laboratory:
Letter to the National Forensics Institute (INML) from Goncalo Amaral
17th August 2007
The present inquiry is in relation to the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May from P da L.
The English authorities in possession of elements collected from the family home in Leicestershire, which are being examined in an unidentified laboratory, traced the girl's DNA profile, in annex to this document.
As it is necessary to the investigation we request the following:
1. Whether in the tests done by the INML Madeleine's profile was established?
2. In the case of a positive answer to point 1, that it should be determined whether the girl is the daughter of the parents identified ? Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Healy.
3. Information about whether the profile obtained by the INML corresponds to the profile traced in the English laboratory, on the request of the British authorities.
4. If there are differences between the English and Portuguese profiles that a report should be drawn up for this inquiry.
5. In the follow-up of point 4, we request to be informed whether in the English profile the girl is the daughter of the McCann couple.
6. Other information that might be of use to the investigation.
Signed G. Amaral
09-Processos Vol IX Page 2419
Vol IX Page 2419
And the bewildered response
Reply from the Forensics Institute (INML) to Goncalo Amaral
22-08-2007
Reply to Queries
- We inform you that none of the samples received by this institute were designated as supposedly belonging to the missing girl and we therefore, cannot reply to this query.
- Samples were studied - hair and a piece of cloth - nuclear DNA profiles only being obtained from 4 samples, which upon comparison with the DNA profiles of Kate and Gerry, could not belong to the girl.
- The samples were then studied using mitochondrial DNA analysis, the same was done for the other samples, giving the results in accordance with our report of 9th July No. 2007/000226 LX-BC.
- As requested in point 5, it was determined that the profile obtained by the British lab could belong to a son/daughter of the McCanns.
- The comparison of the profiles obtained in autossomic STR from Kate and Gerry McCann with the profile obtained was carried out.
Signed
A short while later, the canard broke ...
-
There was also some misunderstanding regarding Gerry's relationship to Maddie, with regards to the way she was conceived. IVF.
Sometimes the fathers sperm is used and sometimes it may not, sometimes it may or may not be the mother eggs that are used, either way Maddie is/was his daughter.
But again, the police are quite right to question the parents.
-
There was also some misunderstanding regarding Gerry's relationship to Maddie, with regards to the way she was conceived. IVF.
Sometimes the fathers sperm is used and sometimes it may not, sometimes it may or may not be the mother eggs that are used, either way Maddie is/was his daughter.
But again, the police are quite right to question the parents.
there was no misunderstanding...apart from the portuguese ragtops
-
On 6th-7th Sept 2007 did these two witnesses have seperate, or shared, legal representation?
-
"There are strong arguments for keeping the right to silence. They were set out by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, which concluded in 1981 that it should be retained. It is wrong to assume that only a guilty person chooses to be silent. There are several reasons why an innocent suspect might remain silent - confusion, the need to protect someone else, or even a sense of outrage at the accusation."
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/oct/21/right-to-silence-civil-rights
-
On 6th-7th Sept 2007 did these two witnesses have seperate, or shared, legal representation?
Kate and Gerry you mean ?
Yes they did
Kate sacked him when they got back to Blighty though and appointed another top Portuguese lawyer to represent her seperately
Gerry stuck with the original brief
-
"There are strong arguments for keeping the right to silence. They were set out by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, which concluded in 1981 that it should be retained. It is wrong to assume that only a guilty person chooses to be silent. There are several reasons why an innocent suspect might remain silent - confusion, the need to protect someone else, or even a sense of outrage at the accusation."
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/oct/21/right-to-silence-civil-rights
It seems that some posters on here find it totally accepatable for amaral to play every legal (and illegal) trick in the book but the mccanns have to play by the queensbury rules
-
Kate and Gerry you mean ?
Yes they did
Kate sacked him when they got back to Blighty though and appointed another top Portuguese lawyer to represent her seperately
Gerry stuck with the original brief
Thankyou.
-
It seems that some posters on here find it totally accepatable for amaral to play every legal (and illegal) trick in the book but the mccanns have to play by the queensbury rules
Well I am agreeing absolutely with you that KM even though she is innocent did exactly the right thing taking her lawyers advice on 7 Sept 2007.
Re the opposing view - that it somehow implies guilt - has anyone with that view spent just half an hour reading anything from the available literature on the subject?
-
I'm not surprised with all the contradictions coming out in the 6 Sept interview. We decided to not take the kids out before Gerry left for tennis. Gerry then sent DP around to take the kids out to the play area. Kate saying came in front door, Gerry said patio. She was best keeping her trap shut.
-
It is interesting to read other peoples assumptions that they 'know' why people are suspect about the McCanns.
I have never questioned Kate's right to not answer the questions. I do believe in justice, and that forms a good part of it.
I see no reason to criticize the police for asking questions- in order to establish what happened to her daughter.
My issue is this: why did she answer "YES" to the last question, knowing that it may affect the search for her daughter, and then create a circus about a book accusing the author of the self same thing?
Not only is this double standards, it is a bit rich for people to support Kate's civil liberties, but deny other peoples right to freedom of speech and expression.
NB: The book was unbanned ! The search was not harmed due to it's contents, because there were still sightings. The McCanns have no legal authority on a Global playing field, Mr Amarals book can be, read online, or purchased from many book shops.
-
I assume that if two individuals are granted the protection of arguido status, it would be sensible to have seperate lawyers.
-
there was no misunderstanding...apart from the portuguese ragtops
Sorry, you will have to explain what you mean by ragtop, I assume you don't mean roof for a convertible car?
-
Actually I agree with that as well. Regardless of the fact that the PJ were trying to stitch her up, I think Kate should have ignored her solicitor's advice, no matter how well-intentioned it was. That said, when you're in such an intimidating situation in a foreign country with a dodgy reputation for questioning suspects, and when the only person on your side and who knows how the police and the law works tells you to do something, you're probably more inclined to do as they say.
It wasn't a matter of stitching anyone up Alfie, Gonçalo states that some officers involved in the investigation believed that they were involved to such an extent that they were hoping for the miracle of a confession. Remember this was the day before Kate was designated an arguida.
Book extract.
"On September 6th, a little before 3pm, Kate arrives at the DIC in Portimão, accompanied by her press officer. Her lawyer has already arrived and the interview room is ready. The crowd has been building up for a while. Going through the door, Kate laughs as she says that this media scrum is good for tourism.
Her lawyer requests that she be heard as a witness and not interrogated as an arguida. We don't agree with what, to us, constitutes a backward step. Some officers involved in the investigation seem to be hoping for the miracle of a confession. We remain skeptical.
We finally decide to question her as a witness, but not to impose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children. From that time on, everything she said could be held against her. According to the principle of non-incrimination, she would then have to be declared arguida since we have sufficient evidence to do that."
"At 8 o'clock, we have a break to have something to eat, then the interrogation continues until 11pm."
"On September 7th at 11am, Kate Healy is declared an arguida on the basis of strong presumptions of the crime of concealing a body and simulating an abduction. She states her name and gives her address as her home in Great Britain. Taking advantage of the right accorded to her by her status, she remains silent and does not answer questions concerning the circumstances of her daughter's death on May 3rd 2007, in the Ocean Club apartment."
-
And then The Law changed some three or four days later, at which point they would have needed more than a presumption to make anyone an Arguido.
Amaral was aware of this change in The Law that was about to happen, so this was just a PR exercise to make The McCanns look bad in the eyes of Public Opinion.
It backfired spectacularly. No more interviews, not even Rogatory Interviews.
-
It wasn't a matter of stitching anyone up Alfie, Gonçalo states that some officers involved in the investigation believed that they were involved to such an extent that they were hoping for the miracle of a confession. Remember this was the day before Kate was designated an arguida.
Book extract.
"On September 6th, a little before 3pm, Kate arrives at the DIC in Portimão, accompanied by her press officer. Her lawyer has already arrived and the interview room is ready. The crowd has been building up for a while. Going through the door, Kate laughs as she says that this media scrum is good for tourism.
Her lawyer requests that she be heard as a witness and not interrogated as an arguida. We don't agree with what, to us, constitutes a backward step. Some officers involved in the investigation seem to be hoping for the miracle of a confession. We remain skeptical.
We finally decide to question her as a witness, but not to impose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children. From that time on, everything she said could be held against her. According to the principle of non-incrimination, she would then have to be declared arguida since we have sufficient evidence to do that."
"At 8 o'clock, we have a break to have something to eat, then the interrogation continues until 11pm."
"On September 7th at 11am, Kate Healy is declared an arguida on the basis of strong presumptions of the crime of concealing a body and simulating an abduction. She states her name and gives her address as her home in Great Britain. Taking advantage of the right accorded to her by her status, she remains silent and does not answer questions concerning the circumstances of her daughter's death on May 3rd 2007, in the Ocean Club apartment."
Interesting post and as ha already been pointed out amaral is NOT talking about having evidence that the mccanns are involved but a presumption...its their in amarals own words..even he admits he has no evidence
-
It is interesting to read other peoples assumptions that they 'know' why people are suspect about the McCanns.
I have never questioned Kate's right to not answer the questions. I do believe in justice, and that forms a good part of it.
I see no reason to criticize the police for asking questions- in order to establish what happened to her daughter.
My issue is this: why did she answer "YES" to the last question, knowing that it may affect the search for her daughter, and then create a circus about a book accusing the author of the self same thing?
Not only is this double standards, it is a bit rich for people to support Kate's civil liberties, but deny other peoples right to freedom of speech and expression.
NB: The book was unbanned ! The search was not harmed due to it's contents, because there were still sightings. The McCanns have no legal authority on a Global playing field, Mr Amarals book can be, read online, or purchased from many book shops.
My issue is this: why did she answer "YES" to the last question, knowing that it may affect the search for her daughter, and then create a circus about a book accusing the author of the self same thing?
No matter what of, if you were falsely accused, the one thing you would know beyond doubt is that you were innocent.
Under those circumstances, would you actively cooperate with a line of enquiry that was seeking to implicate you?
I certainly wouldn't.
-
My issue is this: why did she answer "YES" to the last question, knowing that it may affect the search for her daughter, and then create a circus about a book accusing the author of the self same thing?
No matter what of, if you were falsely accused, the one thing you would know beyond doubt is that you were innocent.
Under those circumstances, would you actively cooperate with a line of enquiry that was seeking to implicate you?
I certainly wouldn't.
I would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even if some of it painted me in a bad light.
-
I would too 'Slartibartfast
Especially if I was worried about my 3 year old daughter.
Police have to ask not nice questions. It was a not nice situation for anyone.
The Philpotts burned their 6 children alive- the police had to investigate.
The police suspected them...Questioned them.
Can you imagine any parents doing that because of wicked intentions to blame someone else?
I honestly still get shocked by crimes against children- I still get horrified.