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: John on June 07, 2018, 11:19:37 AM
-
In certain circumstances police will always consider the "No comment" response to be suspicious. As an example of this I refer to the Channel 5 crime documentary "Countdown to murder" The Soap Star Killer. This documentary features a reconstruction of the events that led to the horrific murder of former EastEnders actress Gemma McCluskie in 2012 and the subsequent search for her body.
Gemma McCluskie's brother Tony lived with her and was the last person to see her alive. Police were not satisfied with the answers he gave when initially questioned so he became an official suspect.
From the documentary timestamp 36.21
Narrator Caroline Catz: McCluskie was interviewed under caution but the only reply he gave was "No comment"
Former DCI John Nicholson: It was his right as it is everybody's right if they are arrrested for a criminal offence to make a no comment interview but given on the face of it his sister had been abducted, murdered, dismembered, the normal person I would suggest would want to do everything they can to try and identify who was responsible but Tony chose not to do that.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x230mdc
185
-
In certain circumstances police will always consider the "No comment" response to be suspicious. As an example of this I refer to the Channel 5 crime documentary "Countdown to murder" The Soap Star Killer. This documentary features a reconstruction of the events that led to the horrific murder of former EastEnders actress Gemma McCluskie in 2012 and the subsequent search for her body.
Gemma McCluskie's brother Tony lived with her and was the last person to see her alive. Police were not satisfied with the answers he gave when initially questioned so he became an official suspect.
From the documentary timestamp 36.21
Narrator Caroline Catz: McCluskie was interviewed under caution but the only reply he gave was "No comment"
Former DCI John Nicholson: It was his right as it is everybody's right if they are arrrested for a criminal offence to make a no comment interview but given on the face of it his sister had been abducted, murdered, dismembered, the normal person I would suggest would want to do everything they can to try and identify who was responsible but Tony chose not to do that.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x230mdc
Demonstrates a probably typical police view.
-
I would suggest would want to do everything they can to try and identify who was responsible but Tony chose not to do that.
-
The general attitude by those who support the "No comment" response even when someone is totally innocent of any crime appears to be because of incrimination. The question is though, if a suspect is totally innocent, how can they possibly incriminate themself?
-
I would suggest would want to do everything they can to try and identify who was responsible but Tony chose not to do that.
Same as kmccann.
In the case of KM the police interrogator did make it crystal clear at the end of the arguida interview session that a refusal to answer questions would be unhelpful to the investigation.
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.'
I'm still puzzled at this response?
-
The general attitude by those who support the "No comment" response even when someone is totally innocent of any crime appears to be because of incrimination. The question is though, if a suspect is totally innocent, how can they possibly incriminate themself?
Agreed, tell the truth, the whole truth even if it doesn’t paint you in the best possible light. People do silly things and make mistakes, trying to cover it up only makes people suspicious.
-
The no comment is odd - if you have nothing to hide
https://www.thinkforensic.co.uk/no-comment/
No Comment!
How many times have you watched a police interrogation on the TV and heard the words ‘No comment’? It’s usually when the suspect is ‘bang to rights’, after evidence has been unearthed that’s practically indisputable. When they’re cornered.
Anyone in this situation may think that, by saying nothing, they’re avoiding further incrimination. But answering ‘no comment’ may actually make their situation worse.
In TV world, suspects happily chat away to officers about what they’ve been up to before the scene cuts to a harrassed lawyer, climbing the steps two at a time, as they rush to the police station. And the first thing they’re seen to do is speak to their client alone, to give advice and counsel. Cue the scene of the next interview, and whatever the interrogating officer says, the answer is continually ‘no comment’.
That’s just the small screen’s interpretation of the interview process. Real life, says Richard Atkinson, chair of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, couldn’t be more different. ‘Solicitors don’t advise their clients to give ‘no comment’ responses as a matter of course. You have to assess all the factors at the police station, when deciding whether to advise a client to answer questions, to put in a prepared statement, or to give a no comment interview.’
We could all probably recite the disclaimer police officers give when arresting someone; for instance, does this sound familar? ‘You do not have to say anything if you do not wish to do so, but anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.’
In 1994 this wording was subtly changed. The caution is now: ‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.’
-
In the case of KM the police interrogator did make it crystal clear at the end of the arguida interview session that a refusal to answer questions would be unhelpful to the investigation.
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.'
I'm still puzzled at this response?
I'm not at all puzzled, John.
They had made her an arguido to interrogate her regarding "the death and concealment of her daughter's body".
At this stage the investigation was directed against her ... not looking for Madeleine.
IMO she did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th". Gerry was a mug to have disregarded the lawyer's advice to remain silent and answered everything ... on the other hand, I get the impression it was not Gerry they had in their sights.
-
I'm not at all puzzled, John.
They had made her an arguido to interrogate her regarding "the death and concealment of her daughter's body".
At this stage the investigation was directed against her ... not looking for Madeleine.
She did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th". In my opinion Gerry was a mug to have disregarded the lawyer's advice to remain silent and answered everything ... on the other hand, I get the impression it was not Gerry they had in their sights.
She did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th"
How do you know her lawyer advised her to do this - or is it iyo
-
I'm not at all puzzled, John.
They had made her an arguido to interrogate her regarding "the death and concealment of her daughter's body".
At this stage the investigation was directed against her ... not looking for Madeleine.
She did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th". In my opinion Gerry was a mug to have disregarded the lawyer's advice to remain silent and answered everything ... on the other hand, I get the impression it was not Gerry they had in their sights.
Have you anything to support that statement?
-
47 Confronted with the result of the sample of Madeleine's DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, found behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, as previously described, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm?lsf
Kate had been questioned for at least eleven hours the day before. I suggest she had already answered question 47 at that time.
As to the value of the question ... I suggest a visit to the PJ files detailing the forensic results might prove informative.
-
47 Confronted with the result of the sample of Madeleine's DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, found behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, as previously described, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm?lsf
Kate had been questioned for at least eleven hours the day before. I suggest she had already answered question 47 at that time.
As to the value of the question ... I suggest a visit to the PJ files detailing the forensic results might prove informative.
Mrs McCann used her right to remain silent and only answered one question.
So she chose to remain silent - not on advice from her lawyer.
-
Mrs McCann used her right to remain silent and only answered one question.
So she chose to remain silent - not on advice from her lawyer.
So her lawyer was in attendance with her at the arguida interrogation why?
-
47 Confronted with the result of the sample of Madeleine's DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, found behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, as previously described, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm?lsf
Kate had been questioned for at least eleven hours the day before. I suggest she had already answered question 47 at that time.
As to the value of the question ... I suggest a visit to the PJ files detailing the forensic results might prove informative.
Given that - there is no record of this in the Files - and - to ask this required Kate was made an arguida - then I see nothing to support your suggestion - quite the opposite.
-
I'm not at all puzzled, John.
They had made her an arguido to interrogate her regarding "the death and concealment of her daughter's body".
At this stage the investigation was directed against her ... not looking for Madeleine.
She did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th". In my opinion Gerry was a mug to have disregarded the lawyer's advice to remain silent and answered everything ... on the other hand, I get the impression it was not Gerry they had in their sights.
Is there anything to support the assertion that Gerry was advised to remain silent by his lawyer?
-
Given that - there is no record of this in the Files - and - to ask this required Kate was made an arguida - then I see nothing to support your suggestion - quite the opposite.
I'm sorry, is it your contention these were not the questions asked and the answers given at the arguida interrogation?
-
So her lawyer was in attendance with her at the arguida interrogation why?
Why.
You said
She did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th"
So your post was only in your opinion and not - what she was told to do by her lawyer.
She was the one who decided not to answer the questions.
-
I'm sorry, is it your contention these were not the questions asked and the answers given at the arguida interrogation?
You ran the interview the day before with the asking of Q47.
Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?
-
You ran the interview the day before with the asking of Q47.
Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?
No ... that is not what I was contending.
-
No ... that is not what I was contending.
So what were you contending?
-
So what were you contending?
I have answered your question ... I'm not accepting supplementaries. I am far more concerned with adhering to the thread title rather than indulging in ping pong with you ... considering we are only on page two of which the deflection into personal attack seems to have been fast tracked.
As John has already noted Saturday is early this week.
-
I'm not at all puzzled, John.
They had made her an arguido to interrogate her regarding "the death and concealment of her daughter's body".
At this stage the investigation was directed against her ... not looking for Madeleine.
She did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th". In my opinion Gerry was a mug to have disregarded the lawyer's advice to remain silent and answered everything ... on the other hand, I get the impression it was not Gerry they had in their sights.
It is nothing new for police to focus in on the parents of a missing child when their disappearance is suspicious, to be honest I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner. All Kate McCann had to do was answer their questions, establish that she was a credible witness then move on to whatever was next. All she managed to do as far as the police were concerned was to look guilty, attract even more police attention and give the press a field day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562418/Kate-McCann-to-become-Madeleine-suspect.html
(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2017/04/13/TELEMMGLPICT000005935184_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqwK6tk8Q3rEaxYQ7kp43_mQqaHeW285OKfEG4F0qPw7s.jpeg?imwidth=450)
-
Ithink another reason why no comment can be suspicious.
Should anyone use ‘no comment’ (or opt for silence) when being formally questioned, the gravitas and intensity of the situation would be taken into account by a jury. However, suspects should also expect a grilling in court, regarding their reluctance to answer when they had the chance. Remembering crucial evidence many months later – as opposed to when everything is fresh in their minds – is likely to arouse suspicion, not douse it.
If you’re innocent, and have proof of this, there’s really no reason to give ‘no comment’ when interviewed; it’s common sense. But if you’re not innocent, or you have little evidence to prove you are, it seems uttering ‘no comment’ won’t necessarily save your skin. Ultimately, it just delays the inevitable…
-
Ithink another reason why no comment can be suspicious.
Should anyone use ‘no comment’ (or opt for silence) when being formally questioned, the gravitas and intensity of the situation would be taken into account by a jury. However, suspects should also expect a grilling in court, regarding their reluctance to answer when they had the chance. Remembering crucial evidence many months later – as opposed to when everything is fresh in their minds – is likely to arouse suspicion, not douse it.
If you’re innocent, and have proof of this, there’s really no reason to give ‘no comment’ when interviewed; it’s common sense. But if you’re not innocent, or you have little evidence to prove you are, it seems uttering ‘no comment’ won’t necessarily save your skin. Ultimately, it just delays the inevitable…
What is the inevitable in this case?
-
What is the inevitable in this case?
That those 48 questions might be answered yet?
-
That those 48 questions might be answered yet?
You really don't know if they have been answered previously.
If they have been, and I think they will have been, we may never know the answers.
I'm not sure your response was the one that Kizzys post was implying.
-
Why.
You said
She did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th"
So your post was only in your opinion and not - what she was told to do by her lawyer.
She was the one who decided not to answer the questions.
Kate reveals in her book that she didn't answer on her lawyers advice after he had discussions with the PJ. There is no corroboration of this however. IMO she did the wrong thing, she should have cooperated fully with the police as is normal for parents of any missing infant.
-
I have answered your question ... I'm not accepting supplementaries. I am far more concerned with adhering to the thread title rather than indulging in ping pong with you ... considering we are only on page two of which the deflection into personal attack seems to have been fast tracked.
As John has already noted Saturday is early this week.
Recently you have made a number of responses which, IMO, boil down to you deciding that you are not responding.
You very definitely have not answered my question.
The 'supplementaries' were an honest attempt to clarify your position. Without your clarification, I can only assume that you have nothing to back your assertion.
I find your ping-pong comment distasteful.
There was no personal attack in my queries. Why you chose to raise personal attacks is beyond me.
Perhaps if you think your comment was off-topic, you should not have thrown it in to the mix. Otherwise, it is up for discussion.
-
Kate reveals in her book that she didn't answer on her lawyers advice after he had discussions with the PJ. There is no corroboration of this however. IMO she did the wrong thing, she should have cooperated fully with the police as is normal for parents of any missing infant.
IMO she is going to say that in her book as she needs a reason to have not answered the questions.
She should have answered the questions no two ways about it.- she had done enough damage as it was.
IMO It makes you wonder by not answering them - what she could have said to incriminate herself
obviously something was bothering her imo
-
You really don't know if they have been answered previously.
If they have been, and I think they will have been, we may never know the answers.
I'm not sure your response was the one that Kizzys post was implying.
Exactly what was i implying E
-
Exactly what was i implying E
I'm waiting for you to answer my question . k.
-
I'm waiting for you to answer my question . k.
Oh right - just seen it.
well it wasn't me who said it - i just posted it.
-
The general attitude by those who support the "No comment" response even when someone is totally innocent of any crime appears to be because of incrimination. The question is though, if a suspect is totally innocent, how can they possibly incriminate themself?
Kate McCann, by answering the questions truthfully, could have handed the police a motive on a plate. For example:
A: yes I did find Madeleine a handful at times. She could be difficult and demanding and very active, always jumping off the sofa.
A: yes, we sometimes gave her Calpol to help her settle at night, if she was under the weather
A: yes, I sometimes struggled coping with 3 children under 4.
etc, etc, etc
So, here we have a woman by her own admission found her child difficult, who struggled to cope with 3 young children (one of whom was a bit of a handful) and who gave them drugs to settle them. Say no more - there's your motive and means right there.
-
A motive is not sufficient to bring a prosecution.
-
Kate McCann, by answering the questions truthfully, could have handed the police a motive on a plate. For example:
A: yes I did find Madeleine a handful at times. She could be difficult and demanding and very active, always jumping off the sofa.
A: yes, we sometimes gave her Calpol to help her settle at night, if she was under the weather
A: yes, I sometimes struggled coping with 3 children under 4.
etc, etc, etc
So, here we have a woman by her own admission found her child difficult, who struggled to cope with 3 young children (one of whom was a bit of a handful) and who gave them drugs to settle them. Say no more - there's your motive and means right there.
OH fgs you must be a man....if that the best excuse for not answering the questions.... *&^^&
Ever heard of the terrible 2s 3s 4s ...most women with children that age have problems coping but they just do
Its natural - part of being a good mother....not a reason to harm an investigation incase it incriminates you.
-
OH fgs you must be a man....if that the best excuse for not answering the questions.... *&^^&
Ever heard of the terrible 2s 3s 4s ...most women with children that age have problems coping but they just do
Its natural - part of being a good mother....not a reason to harm an investigation incase it incriminates you.
i think you have totally misunderstood my post, never mind.
-
A motive is not sufficient to bring a prosecution.
It was in the Cipriano case from what I can recall.
-
Will anyone here bother to read this? Probably not
https://www.aslettlaw.com/criminal-defense/people-unintentionally-incriminate/
-
i think you have totally misunderstood my post, never mind.
I Don't see how - iyo maddie was a problem child then - so that's why she didn't answer the questions.
Are you only guessing or do u know the mccanns..I thought maddie was suppose to be well behaved.
-
A motive is not sufficient to bring a prosecution.
Means, motive and opportunity are the basic requirements before a prosecution can even be considered.
-
Will anyone here bother to read this? Probably not
https://www.aslettlaw.com/criminal-defense/people-unintentionally-incriminate/
I Think that's an advertisement - to always have a lawyer with you. kmccann did
-
I Think that's an advertisement - to always have a lawyer with you. kmccann did
So you didn't read it?
-
In certain circumstances police will always consider the "No comment" response to be suspicious. As an example of this I refer to the Channel 5 crime documentary "Countdown to murder" The Soap Star Killer. This documentary features a reconstruction of the events that led to the horrific murder of former EastEnders actress Gemma McCluskie in 2012 and the subsequent search for her body.
Gemma McCluskie's brother Tony lived with her and was the last person to see her alive. Police were not satisfied with the answers he gave when initially questioned so he became an official suspect.
From the documentary timestamp 36.21
Narrator Caroline Catz: McCluskie was interviewed under caution but the only reply he gave was "No comment"
Former DCI John Nicholson: It was his right as it is everybody's right if they are arrrested for a criminal offence to make a no comment interview but given on the face of it his sister had been abducted, murdered, dismembered, the normal person I would suggest would want to do everything they can to try and identify who was responsible but Tony chose not to do that.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x230mdc
26
Can we infer anything from the fact that Kate McCann refused to answer questions once made an arguido John? Does it mean she is more likely than not to be guilty of something?
-
I Don't see how - iyo maddie was a problem child then - so that's why she didn't answer the questions.
Are you only guessing or do u know the mccanns..I thought maddie was suppose to be well behaved.
I was giving you an example of how a perfectly innocent response can be twisted into a motive. I'm not saying that the answers I gave as examples would have been the answers Kate gave, I have no idea how she would have answered them.
-
So you didn't read it?
Yes i did.- how else would i know it was an advertisement the lawyer was at the bottom to contact and a telephonist.
-
Yes i did.- how else would i know it was an advertisement the lawyer was at the bottom to contact and a telephonist.
By reading the banner at the top and bottom? You didn't comment on anything in the article so that's what led me to believe you hadn't.
-
Here's another article that isn't an advertisment
http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/advice-from-cops-dont-talk-to-cops/
"Far too many Americans mistakenly think: “If the police want to ask me a few questions, and I know in my heart I have done nothing wrong, surely it cannot hurt to cooperate with them and do whatever I can to allay their suspicions and clear things up.” That attitude is certainly understandable, but it can be a deadly mistake, and it can land you in prison for a crime you did not commit, perhaps for the rest of your life"
-
Here's another article that isn't an advertisment
http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/advice-from-cops-dont-talk-to-cops/
"Far too many Americans mistakenly think: “If the police want to ask me a few questions, and I know in my heart I have done nothing wrong, surely it cannot hurt to cooperate with them and do whatever I can to allay their suspicions and clear things up.” That attitude is certainly understandable, but it can be a deadly mistake, and it can land you in prison for a crime you did not commit, perhaps for the rest of your life"
she should have done all she could to help the investigation - not harm it
She was the one who found maddie gone.
Strange how the one who last saw maddie with his proud father moment to prove she was there answered all his
IMO they wasn't expecting to be made arguidos especially when the thought they was bezzy mates with L N
Wasn't ready with there answers for them both to answer - as to what happened afterwards. imo
-
she should have done all she could to help the investigation - not harm it
She was the one who found maddie gone.
Strange how the one who last saw maddie with his proud father moment to prove she was there answered all his
IMO they wasn't expecting to be made arguidos especially when the thought they was bezzy mates with L N
Wasn't ready with there answers for them both to answer - as to what happened afterwards. imo
How did she harm the investigation?
-
How did she harm the investigation?
That's what she was told - and did she care....no
-
That's what she was told - and did she care....no
Given that the police thought she was involved in the disappearance the only way she harmed the investigation was by failing to give them any grounds for arresting and charging her. Is that what you think she should have done to be helpful?
-
Given that the police thought she was involved in the disappearance the only way she harmed the investigation was by failing to give them any grounds for arresting and charging her. Is that what you think she should have done to be helpful?
If she was telling the truth she had nothing to fear - do you honestly think with the world watching there would have been a miscarriage of justice.
All she had to do was be honest - where as if she had something to hide by all means don't answer them imo
IMO being to lenient and bending over backwards to accommodate them was there biggest mistake.
-
If she was telling the truth she had nothing to fear - do you honestly think with the world watching there would have been a miscarriage of justice.
All she had to do was be honest - where as if she had something to hide by all means don't answer them imo
IMO being to lenient and bending over backwards to accommodate them was there biggest mistake.
Why do you say “if she was telling the truth she had nothing to fear” when you believe she is hiding something? If on the other hand she told the truth and had nothing to hide then the investigation into her daughter’s disappearance would not have progressed one millimetre by answering one million questions, never mind 48.
-
If she was telling the truth she had nothing to fear - do you honestly think with the world watching there would have been a miscarriage of justice.
All she had to do was be honest - where as if she had something to hide by all means don't answer them imo
IMO being to lenient and bending over backwards to accommodate them was there biggest mistake.
Who's mistake?
-
If she was telling the truth she had nothing to fear - do you honestly think with the world watching there would have been a miscarriage of justice.
All she had to do was be honest - where as if she had something to hide by all means don't answer them imo
IMO being to lenient and bending over backwards to accommodate them was there biggest mistake.
In all reality I think she was more concerned with the allegations of neglect which Amaral was considering. She was probably terrified that she would be made an example of and that could have had serious repercussions for any future career. By extension you could apply the same argument to O'Brien and Tanner who also initially left their daughter alone in the apartment.
-
In all reality I think she was more concerned with the allegations of neglect which Amaral was considering. She was probably terrified that she would be made an example of and that could have had serious repercussions for any future career. By extension you could apply the same argument to O'Brien and Tanner who also initially left their daughter alone in the apartment.
Yes i think you are right there John - spot on
IMO reputation /career have always come first.
-
Yes i think you are right there John - spot on
IMO reputation /career have always come first.
All supposition, based on little more that antipathy towards the parents.
-
All supposition, based on little more that antipathy towards the parents.
Well if that's what Vertigo thinks.
-
Well if that's what Vertigo thinks.
That is my opinion yes.
-
I have never been in a situation where I felt that I was in danger of being stitched up in a foreign country.
If my lawyer had advised me not to answer, I might well have taken that advice, although I doubt that anyone can say for sure what they would have done in what is, after all, a hypothetical situation for most of us, and most probably not the exact ciircumstances for any of us who has indeed been in even a vaguely similar situation.
I expect that I've posted this before (a presentation by a US law professor and a police officer on why people should take the 5th amendment).
Don't Talk to the Police
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)
-
The general attitude by those who support the "No comment" response even when someone is totally innocent of any crime appears to be because of incrimination. The question is though, if a suspect is totally innocent, how can they possibly incriminate themself?
Theres been a good programme on Channel 4 Monday nights called 24 hrs in custody,this week just gone a man was arrested in regards a murder by a knifing he answered no comment when questioned turns out he had nothing to do with the murder but when arrested but he was carrying a weapon.
-
On the other hand, I'm watching a few unfolding situations in the media, and I do find taking the 5th as indicative of something to hide.
Either they do have something to hide, or they fear - for reasons unknown - that they are being stitched up.
Or their legal counsel advises to shut up while they attempt to get up to speed.
Lots of possibilities...
-
Theres been a good programme on Channel 4 Monday nights called 24 hrs in custody,this week just gone a man was arrested in regards a murder by a knifing he answered no comment when questioned turns out he had nothing to do with the murder but when arrested but he was carrying a weapon.
Thanks Barrier, I'll keep a look out for the programme.
-
Thanks Barrier, I'll keep a look out for the programme.
Don't know what your viewing platform is but its on catch up via Now tv.
-
On the other hand, I'm watching a few unfolding situations in the media, and I do find taking the 5th as indicative of something to hide.
Either they do have something to hide, or they fear - for reasons unknown - that they are being stitched up.
Or their legal counsel advises to shut up while they attempt to get up to speed.
Lots of possibilities...
I think not answering questions when your daughter is missing not only looks suspicious but also heartless.
-
Yes i think you are right there John - spot on
IMO reputation /career have always come first.
As it turned out, her career prospects plummeted although not those of her husband.
-
I thought Mi Dearios that in Portugal it went a little bit loik dis; I belive I have actually posted this previously/
Arguido Rights.
The Portuguese procedural system assigns the arguido the right to remain silent during the procedure from the moment he/she is formally designated arguido/arguida.
The fact that the arguido decides to remain silent cannot be detrimental to himself. Moreover the CCP does not threaten with a sanction of anykind the arguido that having decided to talk instead of remaining silent makes false declarations.
This does not confer a right to lie merely a right not to be punished for lying.
As a consequence of the right to remain silent the arguido has no duty of any kind to cooperate with investigative authorities for the purpose of determining the truth.
It should also be noted that as a refraction of the privilege against self incrimination the arguido cannot under any circumstances make a declaration under oath.(CCP Article14(3)).
-
I think not answering questions when your daughter is missing not only looks suspicious but also heartless.
Why heartless when the people asking the questions believe you hid her body? If you had nothing to do with her disappearance why would not giving the police answers to their questions about you and your behaviour and attitudes to your children harm the investigation into her disappearance?
-
As it turned out, her career prospects plummeted although not those of her husband.
do you have a cite for that?
-
I thought Mi Dearios that in Portugal it went a little bit loik dis; I belive I have actually posted this previously/
Arguido Rights.
The Portuguese procedural system assigns the arguido the right to remain silent during the procedure from the moment he/she is formally designated arguido/arguida.
The fact that the arguido decides to remain silent cannot be detrimental to himself. Moreover the CCP does not threaten with a sanction of anykind the arguido that having decided to talk instead of remaining silent makes false declarations.
This does not confer a right to lie merely a right not to be punished for lying.
As a consequence of the right to remain silent the arguido has no duty of any kind to cooperate with investigative authorities for the purpose of determining the truth.
It should also be noted that as a refraction of the privilege against self incrimination the arguido cannot under any circumstances make a declaration under oath.(CCP Article14(3)).
Yes, it's a principle in the legal system of many countries.
However, that is not necessarily how the public views it.
-
I was giving you an example of how a perfectly innocent response can be twisted into a motive. I'm not saying that the answers I gave as examples would have been the answers Kate gave, I have no idea how she would have answered them.
I can also see how whatever she answered could have been twisted to fit into a prosecution theory.
IMO, the so-called "interim" report offers some intriguing insights if one compares some of the questions to the contents of that document.
-
Why heartless when the people asking the questions believe you hid her body? If you had nothing to do with her disappearance why would not giving the police answers to their questions about you and your behaviour and attitudes to your children harm the investigation into her disappearance?
TBH it wouldn’t have mattered what the questions were Kate would still have stayed silent.
-
Yes, it's a principle in the legal system of many countries.
However, that is not necessarily how the public views it.
As long as the judge recognises it and directs accordingly we should be OK.
Provided of course the legislation has passed the LBJ test:
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered..
Try telling the public that!
-
TBH it wouldn’t have mattered what the questions were Kate would still have stayed silent.
Quite understandable too in the circumstances.
-
Quite understandable too in the circumstances.
Is it ? Not to me it’s not.
I’ll never forget Kate McCann’s face the afternoon her arguida status was lifted. She looked terrified. I think even she was self aware enough to know how bad not answering questions in the investigation to find her daughter would look to the public.
Her mother, when they were made arguidos, said her daughter had answered all the police’s questions and was helping as much as she could. I’ll bet she was surprised too when she found out that wasn’t the case.
-
Recently you have made a number of responses which, IMO, boil down to you deciding that you are not responding.
You very definitely have not answered my question.
The 'supplementaries' were an honest attempt to clarify your position. Without your clarification, I can only assume that you have nothing to back your assertion.
I find your ping-pong comment distasteful.
There was no personal attack in my queries. Why you chose to raise personal attacks is beyond me.
Perhaps if you think your comment was off-topic, you should not have thrown it in to the mix. Otherwise, it is up for discussion.
You asked, “Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?” and I have no idea where you may have got hold of that misapprehension ~ because it bears no relation to anything I have posted.
Wasn’t the whole issue of the forty eight questions the fact that she answered only one of them?
Therefore logic dictates that when it is recorded “Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.” It was obviously not with reference to the questions she was being asked as arguida.
Why would you think it does?
You asked, “Is there anything to support the assertion that Gerry was advised to remain silent by his lawyer?”
Of course there is … why would you ask what is common knowledge?
Kate was informed of her rights by a PJ inspector … I expect that is the procedure adopted prior to all interrogations, they had also been in conference at home with their lawyer who brought Kate home after her interview on the previous day and they discussed what was to follow at their next interviews.
Quote
Gerry wasn’t back from his interrogation until 1.30am.
Like me, he was officially declared an arguido at the start of the proceedings.
His intention had been to take Carlos’s advice, as I had done, and refuse to answer any questions.
But when the first question – along the lines of ‘Did you dispose of your daughter’s body?’ – was put to him for the third time, incensed by its sheer absurdity and offensiveness and by the way the interviewing officer was goading him, he simply couldn’t stop himself.
In these conditions, his reaction was perfectly understandable, but unfortunately our inconsistent responses to interrogation led to me being portrayed as ‘difficult’ or even ‘guilty’ in certain sections of the media and, of course, by the nutters who pour forth bile on the internet.
However, I suppose this was a minor problem in the grand scheme of things End Quote Kate McCann: MADELEINE
-
snip/
You asked, “Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?” and I have no idea where you may have got hold of that misapprehension ~ because it bears no relation to anything I have posted.
Your post #10
Kate had been questioned for at least eleven hours the day before. I suggest she had already answered question 47 at that time.
Incidentally, Kate was in the police station for 11 hours, but wasn't answering questions the whole time.
-
Is it ? Not to me it’s not.
I’ll never forget Kate McCann’s face the afternoon her arguida status was lifted. She looked terrified. I think even she was self aware enough to know how bad not answering questions in the investigation to find her daughter would look to the public.
Her mother, when they were made arguidos, said her daughter had answered all the police’s questions and was helping as much as she could. I’ll bet she was surprised too when she found out that wasn’t the case.
You know nothing of how Kate’s mother felt about it so inadvisable to place a bet on it IMO. As for the “looking terrified” bit, that again is purely your interpretation. The fact that you will “ never forget” a moment in the woman’s life and how she looked that day also IMO indicates a somewhat unhealthy obsession with her because I can assure you, despite being a so-called McCann supporter, I have absolutely no recollection of how Kate McCann looked on the day her arguida status was lifted.
-
I think not answering questions when your daughter is missing not only looks suspicious but also heartless.
They had plenty of opportunity to ask questions as a non-arguido and they did apparently according to Kate but once she was declared arguido - different situation altogether.
-
Is it ? Not to me it’s not.
I’ll never forget Kate McCann’s face the afternoon her arguida status was lifted. She looked terrified. I think even she was self aware enough to know how bad not answering questions in the investigation to find her daughter would look to the public.
Her mother, when they were made arguidos, said her daughter had answered all the police’s questions and was helping as much as she could. I’ll bet she was surprised too when she found out that wasn’t the case.
Interesting that you saw Kate on this day. In what capacity were you present?
-
You asked, “Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?” and I have no idea where you may have got hold of that misapprehension ~ because it bears no relation to anything I have posted.
Wasn’t the whole issue of the forty eight questions the fact that she answered only one of them?
Therefore logic dictates that when it is recorded “Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.” It was obviously not with reference to the questions she was being asked as arguida.
Why would you think it does?
You asked, “Is there anything to support the assertion that Gerry was advised to remain silent by his lawyer?”
Of course there is … why would you ask what is common knowledge?
Kate was informed of her rights by a PJ inspector … I expect that is the procedure adopted prior to all interrogations, they had also been in conference at home with their lawyer who brought Kate home after her interview on the previous day and they discussed what was to follow at their next interviews.
Quote
Gerry wasn’t back from his interrogation until 1.30am.
Like me, he was officially declared an arguido at the start of the proceedings.
His intention had been to take Carlos’s advice, as I had done, and refuse to answer any questions.
But when the first question – along the lines of ‘Did you dispose of your daughter’s body?’ – was put to him for the third time, incensed by its sheer absurdity and offensiveness and by the way the interviewing officer was goading him, he simply couldn’t stop himself.
In these conditions, his reaction was perfectly understandable, but unfortunately our inconsistent responses to interrogation led to me being portrayed as ‘difficult’ or even ‘guilty’ in certain sections of the media and, of course, by the nutters who pour forth bile on the internet.
However, I suppose this was a minor problem in the grand scheme of things End Quote Kate McCann: MADELEINE
When they both answered contradictions happened. Under covers or on top of covers a disaster is the result.
-
You asked, “Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?” and I have no idea where you may have got hold of that misapprehension ~ because it bears no relation to anything I have posted.
Wasn’t the whole issue of the forty eight questions the fact that she answered only one of them?
Therefore logic dictates that when it is recorded “Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.” It was obviously not with reference to the questions she was being asked as arguida.
Why would you think it does?
You asked, “Is there anything to support the assertion that Gerry was advised to remain silent by his lawyer?”
Of course there is … why would you ask what is common knowledge?
Kate was informed of her rights by a PJ inspector … I expect that is the procedure adopted prior to all interrogations, they had also been in conference at home with their lawyer who brought Kate home after her interview on the previous day and they discussed what was to follow at their next interviews.
Quote
Gerry wasn’t back from his interrogation until 1.30am.
Like me, he was officially declared an arguido at the start of the proceedings.
His intention had been to take Carlos’s advice, as I had done, and refuse to answer any questions.
But when the first question – along the lines of ‘Did you dispose of your daughter’s body?’ – was put to him for the third time, incensed by its sheer absurdity and offensiveness and by the way the interviewing officer was goading him, he simply couldn’t stop himself.
In these conditions, his reaction was perfectly understandable, but unfortunately our inconsistent responses to interrogation led to me being portrayed as ‘difficult’ or even ‘guilty’ in certain sections of the media and, of course, by the nutters who pour forth bile on the internet.
However, I suppose this was a minor problem in the grand scheme of things End Quote Kate McCann: MADELEINE
Except the first question asked by the PJ wasn’t ‘did you dispose of your daughter’s body’.
-
So only Kate’s word that Gerry had been advised by his lawyer to remain silent but didn’t because of the first question. A rudimentary reading of Gerry’s arguido statement shows this contention to be untrue. Makes you wonder what else in the book is untrue.
-
Except the first question asked by the PJ wasn’t ‘did you dispose of your daughter’s body’.
What was the first question he was asked then? What number question was the above?
-
What was the first question he was asked then? What number question was the above?
‘When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this.’
So not ‘did you dispose of your daughter’s body ( constructed to enrage the reader I would assume )and certainly not asked three times.
-
‘When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this.’
So not ‘did you dispose of your daughter’s body ( constructed to enrage the reader I would assume )and certainly not asked three times.
Firstly not a verbatim recording of the actual words stated and secondly it was pretty close to what Kate said - what else did the police mean by "responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter did the police" mean exactly? We already know they'd decided that disposing of her corpse in the hire car is exactly the theory they were pursuing, so....
-
Firstly not a verbatim recording of the actual words stated and secondly it was pretty close to what Kate said - what else did the police mean by "responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter did the police" mean exactly? We already know they'd decided that disposing of her corpse in the hire car is exactly the theory they were pursuing, so....
Police will pursue many avenues in any investigation, it is therefore wrong to assume that their only interest was the McCanns simply because they chose to interview them formally. Some out of the box thinking required here.
-
Police will pursue many avenues in any investigation, it is therefore wrong to assume that their only interest was the McCanns simply because they chose to interview them formally. Some out of the box thinking required here.
I think the McCanns were very much their only interest at the questioning of the couple when they were made arguidos. Do you have any evidence of other lines of enquiry that Amaral and his team were pursuing in September 2007?
-
Firstly not a verbatim recording of the actual words stated and secondly it was pretty close to what Kate said - what else did the police mean by "responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter did the police" mean exactly? We already know they'd decided that disposing of her corpse in the hire car is exactly the theory they were pursuing, so....
Not a verbatim recording.....that old chestnut!
TBH I think Gerry played a blinder.
-
Not a verbatim recording.....that old chestnut!
TBH I think Gerry played a blinder.
So when GM said he used the key in the first interview then changed his mind in the second one,the second may well be wrong and the first right,seeing as the statements aren't verbatim like.
-
Not a verbatim recording.....that old chestnut!
TBH I think Gerry played a blinder.
Why do you think the lawyer didn't advise Gerry to remain silent but did with Kate?
-
So when GM said he used the key in the first interview then changed his mind in the second one,the second may well be wrong and the first right,seeing as the statements aren't verbatim like.
I'm not disputing the gist of what was said, only the exact phraseology. The interviews were not recorded verbatim so the questions and answers given were inevitably paraphrased. Kate said Gerry was asked if he'd hidden his daughter's body. He may well have been. Or the translator may have interpreted the police question as such. Or Gerry may have told Kate that is what he was asked but remembered it differently to what he was asked. We just don't know. So to say that because the two questions don't match identically proves that Kate is writing untruths in her book (with the obvious implication that entails) is somewhat unfair in my book. No doubt you have a completely different take on it, so fire away.
-
Why do you think the lawyer didn't advise Gerry to remain silent but did with Kate?
According to Kate's book, Gerry was advised to remain silent by Carlos PdA.
-
Why do you think the lawyer didn't advise Gerry to remain silent but did with Kate?
Or that Kate wasn’t to remain silent at all ?
-
So when GM said he used the key in the first interview then changed his mind in the second one,the second may well be wrong and the first right,seeing as the statements aren't verbatim like.
True. If the statements are unreliable then everything said in them is unreliable. That's the timeline out the window for a start.
-
Or that Kate wasn’t to remain silent at all ?
If Kate's book is entirely fictional in your view perhaps you should stop using it as evidence to prove your point about anything at all? Perhaps she only said she muttered "f..king tossers" under her breath but actually didn't. Perhaps we should simply disregard every word written or uttered by the McCanns on the basis that not a single word can be trusted to be true. How's that?
-
snip/
Your post #10
Kate had been questioned for at least eleven hours the day before. I suggest she had already answered question 47 at that time.
Incidentally, Kate was in the police station for 11 hours, but wasn't answering questions the whole time.
Exactly.
I think the clue that she had already been asked these questions may lie in the fact she is recorded as saying that she could add nothing further to what she already had, so she had been asked them before.
Snip
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?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html
44- Também assinalado, pelo cão de detecção, sangue humano por detrás do sofá , disse que não podia explicar nada mais do que já referira
Ler mais em: https://www.cmjornal.pt/exclusivos/detalhe/as-48-perguntas-que-ficaram-sem-resposta
****** ****** ******
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?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html
45- Assinalado o odor de cadáver proveniente da viatura que alugaram um mês depois do desaparecimento disse que não pode explicar nada mais do que já referiu?
Ler mais em: https://www.cmjornal.pt/exclusivos/detalhe/as-48-perguntas-que-ficaram-sem-resposta
The 48 questions that went unanswered September 7, 2007.
Kate McCann entered the Portimão Judicial Police in the morning and the interrogation was extended until the evening. It was heard as a witness, but the tension in the air was evident. For the first time, people gathered at the door of the PJ's facilities and murmured words of distrust toward the couple.
That day the CM had reported that the dogs had detected a corpse odor on Maddie's mother's clothing. A proof that the authorities intended to use as trump, in an inquiry that only the following day changed course, after the PJ did not see clarified their doubts.
Kate began by answering all the questions, but when being constituted defendant stopped talking. He returned to silence in the company of the lawyer, and accepted all the insinuations provocatively.
Less than 48 hours later, Kate and Gerry travel to England with the twins, leaving behind the investigation the disappearance of their daughter, who had been four years old. They later assured that they would return if that was necessary - which they never did, although formally they had not been summoned to return - and are no longer accused of involvement in concealing the child's corpse.
Today the CM reveals the 48 questions that Kate did not want to answer in the interrogation and which reflect the investigators' doubts.
More than a year after Maddie disappears, many of these questions remain unanswered.
APPROPS FOR THE MCCANN COUPLE
Kate and Gerry McCann's visit to Portimão's PJ facilities marked a turning point in the relationship between the couple and the couple: the curious people who spent the day in the street sucked Maddie's mother and father, criticizing mainly the "absence of visible suffering" from Kate. Also the foreign press was present in great number.
PROCESS PASSES TO BE PUBLIC ALREADY AFTER TOMORROW
From tomorrow, all the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine will be made available to defendants, witnesses, lawyers and also journalists, because it is a case of manifest public interest.
The case, which was filed on July 21, will also be accessible to the general public, a situation that will allow a genuine scrutiny of the work carried out by the Judiciary Police.
This decision, which turned out to be a case involving a child, was only announced after Portuguese lawyers for the McCann family, Carlos Pinto de Abreu and Rogério Alves, asked the Court of Portimão to give priority to access to the cars .
Already last Wednesday the court had asked all interested parties who had previously requested the consultation of the records to leave a CD in the registry, since the process will be provided in digital format.
The closure of the investigation to the disappearance of the girl, which occurred on May 3, 2007, in the Algarve, precipitated the lifting of the secret of justice, which had been extended precisely until August.
Ler mais em: https://www.cmjornal.pt/exclusivos/detalhe/as-48-perguntas-que-ficaram-sem-resposta
-
Why do you think the lawyer didn't advise Gerry to remain silent but did with Kate?
VS I wonder why you ask peoples opinions based on what Kate says in her book. What Kate said which cannot be verified surely couldn't possibly be answered.
To ask opinions is then open to then to accuse people of being unkind to the McCanns if they do not answer in a positive light and then claim it is only an opinion- is pointless really. Bit goading If I am to be honest about it.
-
True. If the statements are unreliable then everything said in them is unreliable. That's the timeline out the window for a start.
...then there is the door measuring... the top of covers and under covers because it was hot/cold night...
-
If Kate's book is entirely fictional in your view perhaps you should stop using it as evidence to prove your point about anything at all? Perhaps she only said she muttered "f....ing tossers" under her breath but actually didn't. Perhaps we should simply disregard every word written or uttered by the McCanns on the basis that not a single word can be trusted to be true. How's that?
Not at all. If what they say is verified by another independent source then I’m willing to believe them.
-
Except the first question asked by the PJ wasn’t ‘did you dispose of your daughter’s body’.
Sorry to be pedantic ... but that statement from you requires a cite. Thank you
-
Sorry to be pedantic ... but that statement from you requires a cite. Thank you
The cite is quoted above.
-
Not at all. If what they say is verified by another independent source then I’m willing to believe them.
Are they?
-
If Kate's book is entirely fictional in your view perhaps you should stop using it as evidence to prove your point about anything at all? Perhaps she only said she muttered "f....ing tossers" under her breath but actually didn't. Perhaps we should simply disregard every word written or uttered by the McCanns on the basis that not a single word can be trusted to be true. How's that?
That is exactly what I would do If I read it... However, there is no harm in pointing out some ikle discrepancies... now is there.
-
The cite is quoted above.
Where? I do not see a cite supporting the assertion you made; be so kind as to point it out. Thankyou
-
That is exactly what I would do If I read it... However , there is no harm in point out some ikle discrepancies... now is there.
Did you mean "ickle"?
-
Not at all. If what they say is verified by another independent source then I’m willing to believe them.
So sometimes they're truthful but only when you deem it so, is that right? Who verified Gerry McCann's stated time of 10.13pm for the alarm being raised? No one to the best of my knowledge but you choose to believe him on that particular point. I wonder why...?
-
So sometimes they're truthful but only when you deem it so, is that right? Who verified Gerry McCann's stated time of 10.13pm for the alarm being raised? No one to the best of my knowledge but you choose to believe him on that particular point. I wonder why...?
Perhaps some things can be verified and some can't. It isn't difficult really.
-
So sometimes they're truthful but only when you deem it so, is that right? Who verified Gerry McCann's stated time of 10.13pm for the alarm being raised? No one to the best of my knowledge but you choose to believe him on that particular point. I wonder why...?
I didn’t categorically say the time was correct, I said IF, and if Gerry had enough time to be Smithman.
-
I didn’t categorically say the time was correct, I said IF, and if Gerry had enough time to be Smithman.
You have to therefore concede that if that time is wrong (highly likely taking into account everyone else's statements and the fact that the PJ concluded the alarm was raised at 10pm) that Gerry could not have been Smithman, which blows a rather large hole in your theory.
-
You have to therefore concede that if that time is wrong (highly likely taking into account everyone else's statements and the fact that the PJ concluded the alarm was raised at 10pm) that Gerry could not have been Smithman, which blows a rather large hole in your theory.
Did the PJ conclude the alarm was raised at 10pm precisely? It would appear the PJ were at a loss to try and get anything with a time on it to make any sense at all. and much later just to check and make sure they were all telling the truth the PJ requested a reconstruction of which the TAPAS 9 refused to do... so well there you have it.
-
You have to therefore concede that if that time is wrong (highly likely taking into account everyone else's statements and the fact that the PJ concluded the alarm was raised at 10pm) that Gerry could not have been Smithman, which blows a rather large hole in your theory.
Most of the witnesses put the alarm at ‘around 10pm’. I think 10.13 could be considered ‘around 10pm’.
Gerry’s very precise about the time. That’s odd if it was a guess.
-
Most of the witnesses put the alarm at ‘around 10pm’. I think 10.13 could be considered ‘around 10pm’.
Gerry’s very precise about the time. That’s odd if it was a guess.
Nothing if not precise is our Gerry. Didn't he have the door angled at 5 degrees?
-
Except the first question asked by the PJ wasn’t ‘did you dispose of your daughter’s body’.
Is it revealed in the files what Gerry was asked?
-
If Kate's book is entirely fictional in your view perhaps you should stop using it as evidence to prove your point about anything at all? Perhaps she only said she muttered "f....ing tossers" under her breath but actually didn't. Perhaps we should simply disregard every word written or uttered by the McCanns on the basis that not a single word can be trusted to be true. How's that?
It really doesn't matter whether she said it, muttered it or thought it imo. She made a point of writing it three times in her book which says more about her in my opinion.
-
Most of the witnesses put the alarm at ‘around 10pm’. I think 10.13 could be considered ‘around 10pm’.
Gerry’s very precise about the time. That’s odd if it was a guess.
10.13 is around quarter past 10, not 10pm. Odd that given most others put the alarm earlier that he wuld deliberately destroy a perfect alibi by going “off message” but I’m sure you’ve got an answer for that too.
-
Most of the witnesses put the alarm at ‘around 10pm’. I think 10.13 could be considered ‘around 10pm’.
Gerry’s very precise about the time. That’s odd if it was a guess.
Cite please.
-
10.13 is around quarter past 10, not 10pm. Odd that given most others put the alarm earlier that he wuld deliberately destroy a perfect alibi by going “off message” but I’m sure you’ve got an answer for that too.
I'm wiping posts deemed of a "personal attack", so just be careful here please "but I’m sure you’ve got an answer for that too" is about the limit IMO.
-
I'm wiping posts deemed of a "personal attack", so just be careful here please "but I’m sure you’ve got an answer for that too" is about the limit IMO.
Thank you.
-
Thank you.
Rather than saying "but I’m sure you’ve got an answer for that too" you said "but I’m sure there is an answer for that too", I would consider that opinion, without putting the other person in the spotlight.
-
Rather than saying "but I’m sure you’ve got an answer for that too" you said "but I’m sure there is an answer for that too", I would consider that opinion, without putting the other person in the spotlight.
I’m fairly certain there is no logical answer for it. On the other hand I fully expect Faithlilly has answered that particular conundrum to her own satisfaction. Whether she chooses to share it with us or not is quite another matter. I believe it is valid to ask other posters their opinions on certain matters pertaining to the case but it seems to me that these days doing so is frowned on, as if it’s prying or no one’s business. Well I disagree. If you come on a forum like this and publicly pontificate on the case, be prepared to have your opinions questioned and to be asked more questions about your opinions. IMO.
-
I’m fairly certain there is no logical answer for it. On the other hand I fully expect Faithlilly has answered that particular conundrum to her own satisfaction. Whether she chooses to share it with us or not is quite another matter. I believe it is valid to ask other posters their opinions on certain matters pertaining to the case but it seems to me that these days doing so is frowned on, as if it’s prying or no one’s business. Well I disagree. If you come on a forum like this and publicly pontificate on the case, be prepared to have your opinions questioned and to be asked more questions about your opinions. IMO.
I allowed your post, but I questioned it considering a had already wiped a few earlier ones. Ask for someone's opinion, no problem just don't make it sound like a personal snipe please.
Here is an example "On the other hand I fully expect Faithlilly has answered that particular conundrum to her own satisfaction. Whether she chooses to share it with us or not is quite another matter. I believe it is valid to ask other posters their opinions on certain matters pertaining to the case but it seems to me that these days doing so is frowned on, as if it’s prying or no one’s business", acceptable.
Unacceptable:
"On the other hand I fully expect "the know it all" Faithlilly has answered that particular conundrum to her own "selfish" satisfaction. Whether she chooses to share it with us or not is quite another matter "but quite expected considering". I believe it is valid to ask other posters their opinions on certain matters pertaining to the case but it seems to me that these days doing so is frowned on, as if it’s prying or no one’s business."
-
I allowed your post, but I questioned it considering a had already wiped a few earlier ones. Ask for someone's opinion, no problem just don't make it sound like a personal snipe please.
Here is an example "On the other hand I fully expect Faithlilly has answered that particular conundrum to her own satisfaction. Whether she chooses to share it with us or not is quite another matter. I believe it is valid to ask other posters their opinions on certain matters pertaining to the case but it seems to me that these days doing so is frowned on, as if it’s prying or no one’s business", acceptable.
Unacceptable:
"On the other hand I fully expect "the know it all" Faithlilly has answered that particular conundrum to her own "selfish" satisfaction. Whether she chooses to share it with us or not is quite another matter "but quite expected considering". I believe it is valid to ask other posters their opinions on certain matters pertaining to the case but it seems to me that these days doing so is frowned on, as if it’s prying or no one’s business."
Can you please make it clear that you have inserted words into my original paragraph that I did not write. Furthermore I do not believe I have had any posts removed today?
-
Can you please make it clear that you have inserted words into my original paragraph that I did not write. Furthermore I do not believe I have had any posts removed today?
OK the inserted bits are mine and are in quotations but just to demonstrate what I consider "personal attack".
I never said who's posts they were that were deleted. But if I'm being fair I have to apply the same criteria to all parties.
-
Recap:
The game is in Portugal.
Arguido's 3 handed team designated Team A.[A1 A2 A3 no names allowed].
The Judiciary Team B. [B1 etc no names allowed]
Witnesses Team C [Full names allowed].
Objective Team A to avoid being charged with an offence jointly or severally.
Objective Team B to determine what if any crime has been committed and to charge someone with same.
Objective Team C to comply with laws applying to witnesses and avoid being charged.
The Basic Rules are below.
Questioning an Arguido (Including but Not Limited To)
• It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime.
• Since the purpose of questioning is precisely to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and who is the perpetrator the questioning may be ordered with a lesser degree of suspicion.
• This measure may be executed by a judge the PP or the criminal police.
• The defence lawyer must be informed of the time and place of the questioning but the lawyers presence is not mandatory unless the arguido is in custodial detention.
• The Portuguese procedural system assigns the arguido the right to remain silent during the procedure from the moment he/she is formally designated Arguido/Arguida.
• The fact that the arguido decides to remain silent cannot be detrimental to himself.
• The CCP does not threaten with a sanction of any kind the arguido that having decided to talk instead of remaining silent makes false declarations.
• Any declaration that the arguido makes during the preliminary phases of the procedure has very limited evidentiary value.
• As a consequence of the right to remain silent the arguido has no duty of any kind to cooperate with investigative authorities for the purpose of determining the truth.
• As a consequence of the privilege against self incrimination the arguido cannot make a declaration under oath.(CCP Article14(3)).
Questioning Witnesses. (Including but Not Limited To)
• A witness is obliged to cooperate with the inquiry.
• A witness may be punished for lying or obstruction.
General
Testimony obtained under duress is not admissible in Portuguese courts.
The game.
Identify how each team will approach the game to achieve their objective using the rules to their advantage.
Three responses required per poster, Team A, Team B, Team C 8(>((
'Night all
-
If she was telling the truth she had nothing to fear - do you honestly think with the world watching there would have been a miscarriage of justice.
All she had to do was be honest - where as if she had something to hide by all means don't answer them imo
IMO being to lenient and bending over backwards to accommodate them was there biggest mistake.
I tend to agree but the PJ were in a no win situation, damned if they did and damned if they didn't. The case was like a poisoned chalice for the detectives on the ground imo. Having a foreign police force shadow your every move must have been intolerable.
-
10.13 is around quarter past 10, not 10pm. Odd that given most others put the alarm earlier that he wuld deliberately destroy a perfect alibi by going “off message” but I’m sure you’ve got an answer for that too.
I’d put 10.13 ‘around 10’ but hey, we’re all different.
-
I’d put 10.13 ‘around 10’ but hey, we’re all different.
a) of course you would, it suits your theory b) yes we are.
-
Exactly.
I think the clue that she had already been asked these questions may lie in the fact she is recorded as saying that she could add nothing further to what she already had, so she had been asked them before.
Snip
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?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html
44- Também assinalado, pelo cão de detecção, sangue humano por detrás do sofá , disse que não podia explicar nada mais do que já referira
Ler mais em: https://www.cmjornal.pt/exclusivos/detalhe/as-48-perguntas-que-ficaram-sem-resposta
****** ****** ******
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?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html
45- Assinalado o odor de cadáver proveniente da viatura que alugaram um mês depois do desaparecimento disse que não pode explicar nada mais do que já referiu?
Ler mais em: https://www.cmjornal.pt/exclusivos/detalhe/as-48-perguntas-que-ficaram-sem-resposta
The 48 questions that went unanswered September 7, 2007.
Kate McCann entered the Portimão Judicial Police in the morning and the interrogation was extended until the evening. It was heard as a witness, but the tension in the air was evident. For the first time, people gathered at the door of the PJ's facilities and murmured words of distrust toward the couple.
That day the CM had reported that the dogs had detected a corpse odor on Maddie's mother's clothing. A proof that the authorities intended to use as trump, in an inquiry that only the following day changed course, after the PJ did not see clarified their doubts.
Kate began by answering all the questions, but when being constituted defendant stopped talking. He returned to silence in the company of the lawyer, and accepted all the insinuations provocatively.
Less than 48 hours later, Kate and Gerry travel to England with the twins, leaving behind the investigation the disappearance of their daughter, who had been four years old. They later assured that they would return if that was necessary - which they never did, although formally they had not been summoned to return - and are no longer accused of involvement in concealing the child's corpse.
Today the CM reveals the 48 questions that Kate did not want to answer in the interrogation and which reflect the investigators' doubts.
More than a year after Maddie disappears, many of these questions remain unanswered.
APPROPS FOR THE MCCANN COUPLE
Kate and Gerry McCann's visit to Portimão's PJ facilities marked a turning point in the relationship between the couple and the couple: the curious people who spent the day in the street sucked Maddie's mother and father, criticizing mainly the "absence of visible suffering" from Kate. Also the foreign press was present in great number.
PROCESS PASSES TO BE PUBLIC ALREADY AFTER TOMORROW
From tomorrow, all the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine will be made available to defendants, witnesses, lawyers and also journalists, because it is a case of manifest public interest.
The case, which was filed on July 21, will also be accessible to the general public, a situation that will allow a genuine scrutiny of the work carried out by the Judiciary Police.
This decision, which turned out to be a case involving a child, was only announced after Portuguese lawyers for the McCann family, Carlos Pinto de Abreu and Rogério Alves, asked the Court of Portimão to give priority to access to the cars .
Already last Wednesday the court had asked all interested parties who had previously requested the consultation of the records to leave a CD in the registry, since the process will be provided in digital format.
The closure of the investigation to the disappearance of the girl, which occurred on May 3, 2007, in the Algarve, precipitated the lifting of the secret of justice, which had been extended precisely until August.
Ler mais em: https://www.cmjornal.pt/exclusivos/detalhe/as-48-perguntas-que-ficaram-sem-resposta
I think you may have misread my post. I wasn't agreeing with you that questions were asked twice, I was pointing out that Kate McCann wasn't questioned for 11 hours on 6th September.
As the question could have lead to the witness incriminating herself, the question you refer to couldn't have been asked legally without arguida status being in place. If it had been asked previously, then someone acted outwith the laws of Portugal. Kate McCann was interviewed officially on 4th May and 6th September only. There was allegedly, an unofficial interview on 8th August the details of which are not officially recorded.
-
I tend to agree but the PJ were in a no win situation, damned if they did and damned if they didn't. The case was like a poisoned chalice for the detectives on the ground imo. Having a foreign police force shadow your every move must have been intolerable.
Not to mention the media circus, which those poor parents had to 'suffer'. Then the illegal PI's traipsing around...
-
I think you may have misread my post. I wasn't agreeing with you that questions were asked twice, I was pointing out that Kate McCann wasn't questioned for 11 hours on 6th September.
As the question could have lead to the witness incriminating herself, the question you refer to couldn't have been asked legally without arguida status being in place. If it had been asked previously, then someone acted outwith the laws of Portugal. Kate McCann was interviewed officially on 4th May and 6th September only. There was allegedly, an unofficial interview on 8th August the details of which are not officially recorded.
2 things grab me about the 'chats' interviews.
1. when were the initial investigating Portuguese police told about an 'abduction' and not looking for a missing child?
2. In the beginning were the parents allowed to sit in on briefings?
-
I find it suspicious that Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions, some regarding the behaviour of her daughter and how she coped with her....yet she had voluntarily discussed these issues in the press confirming her daughter was indeed 'difficult' and hard to cope with.
"Kate McCann has revealed that she struggled to control Madeleine McCann after the birth of her and Gerry's twins, it was revealed today.
Missing Madeleine would run around 'screaming...shouting for my attention', the mother-of-three said.
In an interview given to a Portuguese magazine before she was named as a suspect in the case of the four-year-old's disappearance, Kate also said the first six months of Madeleine's life were "very difficult" and that the girl had suffered from colic."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html)
Why not just answer those particular questions at the time? She had after all, already confirmed her daughter was difficult to deal with. If it had nothing to do with her disappearance, why not answer those questions?
-
I find it suspicious that Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions, some regarding the behaviour of her daughter and how she coped with her....yet she had voluntarily discussed these issues in the press confirming her daughter was indeed 'difficult' and hard to cope with.
"Kate McCann has revealed that she struggled to control Madeleine McCann after the birth of her and Gerry's twins, it was revealed today.
Missing Madeleine would run around 'screaming...shouting for my attention', the mother-of-three said.
In an interview given to a Portuguese magazine before she was named as a suspect in the case of the four-year-old's disappearance, Kate also said the first six months of Madeleine's life were "very difficult" and that the girl had suffered from colic."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html)
Why not just answer those particular questions at the time? She had after all, already confirmed her daughter was difficult to deal with. If it had nothing to do with her disappearance, why not answer those questions?
I think they knew they were going to be judged on leaving the children alone, I believe they had to potray a 'loving' family and all very happy.. not a normal family at all! My sister almost killed me , really almost died,for wearing her expensive makeup lol.
-
I think they knew they were going to be judged on leaving the children alone, I believe they had to potray a 'loving' family and all very happy.. not a normal family at all! My sister almost killed me , really almost died,for wearing her expensive makeup lol.
No comment.
-
I find it suspicious that Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions, some regarding the behaviour of her daughter and how she coped with her....yet she had voluntarily discussed these issues in the press confirming her daughter was indeed 'difficult' and hard to cope with.
"Kate McCann has revealed that she struggled to control Madeleine McCann after the birth of her and Gerry's twins, it was revealed today.
Missing Madeleine would run around 'screaming...shouting for my attention', the mother-of-three said.
In an interview given to a Portuguese magazine before she was named as a suspect in the case of the four-year-old's disappearance, Kate also said the first six months of Madeleine's life were "very difficult" and that the girl had suffered from colic."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html)
Why not just answer those particular questions at the time? She had after all, already confirmed her daughter was difficult to deal with. If it had nothing to do with her disappearance, why not answer those questions?
Have you read all of this thread? This particular issue has already been covered by me in my posts. Whether you choose to accept it or not is of course another matter.
-
Reminder to all members!
Forum Rules
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts. Please remember that we do not always actively monitor the posted messages, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted messages express the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, please realize that they may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.
You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.
You have the ability, as you register, to choose your username. We advise that you keep the name appropriate. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason. We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.
After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile. It is your responsibility to present clear and accurate information. Any information the forum owner or staff determines to be inaccurate or vulgar in nature will be removed, with or without prior notice. Appropriate sanctions may be applicable.
Please note that with each post, your IP address is recorded, in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted. This will only happen in the event of a major violation of this agreement.
Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.
Please treat all members with respect and accept gracefully that other users may not necessarily share your point of view. Debates should be structured and constructive, they should not be used as a mechanism to disrupt or goad or provoke other users. In the event that a breach of these rules occurs, moderators can invoke sanctions which can include pre authorisation of posts and a temporary ban.
These rules will be amended periodically as the need arises.
ADMIN
-
This was mainly written some hour or so ago, but I am popsting it because it is valid.
Rather than saying "but I’m sure you’ve got an answer for that too" you said "but I’m sure there is an answer for that too", I would consider that opinion, without putting the other person in the spotlight.
I wouild like to disagree with that Rob. If the person keeps giving trumped up answers, why not highlight it, and personalise it?
I fancy you are becoming a little too precious with your judgement in favour of the wrongdoer. If a person has done wrong, why not highlight it rather than pretend that others are guilty?
I know that you are doing your best to be fair, but I think in this case you are taking it too far. Soz.
No offense meant.
sadie x
-
This was mainly written some hour or so ago, but I am popsting it because it is valid.
I wouild like to disagree with that Rob. If the person keeps giving trumped up answers, why not highlight it, and personalise it?
I fancy you are becoming a little too precious with your judgement in favour of the wrongdoer. If a person has done wrong, why not highlight it rather than pretend that others are guilty?
I know that you are doing your best to be fair, but I think in this case you are taking it too far. Soz.
No offense meant.
sadie x
I know there are fine lines to choose between at times, but criticise the argument rather than the person. It might work.
-
I find it suspicious that Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions, some regarding the behaviour of her daughter and how she coped with her....yet she had voluntarily discussed these issues in the press confirming her daughter was indeed 'difficult' and hard to cope with.
"Kate McCann has revealed that she struggled to control Madeleine McCann after the birth of her and Gerry's twins, it was revealed today.
Missing Madeleine would run around 'screaming...shouting for my attention', the mother-of-three said.
In an interview given to a Portuguese magazine before she was named as a suspect in the case of the four-year-old's disappearance, Kate also said the first six months of Madeleine's life were "very difficult" and that the girl had suffered from colic."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html)
Why not just answer those particular questions at the time? She had after all, already confirmed her daughter was difficult to deal with. If it had nothing to do with her disappearance, why not answer those questions?
Quote
Wild stories were appearing in the papers about my ‘fragile’ mental state, my ‘inability to cope’ with my ‘hyperactive’ children, eating disorders and sedatives.
All complete bullshit MADELEINE Kate McCann
-
I think you may have misread my post. I wasn't agreeing with you that questions were asked twice, I was pointing out that Kate McCann wasn't questioned for 11 hours on 6th September.
As the question could have lead to the witness incriminating herself, the question you refer to couldn't have been asked legally without arguida status being in place. If it had been asked previously, then someone acted outwith the laws of Portugal. Kate McCann was interviewed officially on 4th May and 6th September only. There was allegedly, an unofficial interview on 8th August the details of which are not officially recorded.
Subsequent to pre arguida interrogation Tursday 6 September
Despite the time, Gerry rang Bob Small and, in a voice laced with panic, explained what was going on. Bob was shocked. He wasn’t aware of any forensic results, he told us, and certainly none suggesting what had just been shared with us. He tried his best to reassure Gerry. ‘Just tell them the truth. It’ll be OK,’ he insisted. Perhaps he was trying to convince himself.
It was almost 5am when we finally got to bed.
Friday 7 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 been looking for Madeleine . . .
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 been looking for Madeleine ...
MADELEINE Kate McCann
You are mistaken.
The only possible opportunity for Kate to have already answered questions put to her as an arguida was at her interrogation on the 6th for the simple reason that prior to being questioned as an arguida on the 7th she was not questioned at any time on that date as a witness.
Right at the beginning her rights as an arguida were explained ... thereafter she did exactly as advised by her lawyer ... and that was to exercise the entitlement conferred on her by her change in status to remain silent.
-
Did Kate use the word "Bullshit"?
-
Subsequent to pre arguida interrogation Tursday 6 September
Despite the time, Gerry rang Bob Small and, in a voice laced with panic, explained what was going on. Bob was shocked. He wasn’t aware of any forensic results, he told us, and certainly none suggesting what had just been shared with us. He tried his best to reassure Gerry. ‘Just tell them the truth. It’ll be OK,’ he insisted. Perhaps he was trying to convince himself.
It was almost 5am when we finally got to bed.
Friday 7 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 been looking for Madeleine . . .
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 been looking for Madeleine ...
MADELEINE Kate McCann
You are mistaken.
The only possible opportunity for Kate to have already answered questions put to her as an arguida was at her interrogation on the 6th for the simple reason that prior to being questioned as an arguida on the 7th she was not questioned at any time on that date as a witness.
Right at the beginning her rights as an arguida were explained ... thereafter she did exactly as advised by her lawyer ... and that was to exercise the entitlement conferred on her by her change in status to remain silent.
She wasn't asked about the dogs or DNA until her 7th September arguida interview. Her husband rang Bob Small in a panic at 4am because of what their lawyer told them after Kate's return from the police station on 6th;
he explained how samples from both these sites had revealed Madeleine’s blood and one of them indicated a 15 out of 19 match with her DNA.[madeleine]
-
She wasn't asked about the dogs or DNA until her 7th September arguida interview. Her husband rang Bob Small in a panic at 4am because of what their lawyer told them after Kate's return from the police station on 6th;
he explained how samples from both these sites had revealed Madeleine’s blood and one of them indicated a 15 out of 19 match with her DNA.[madeleine]
What edition are you quoting from for that is not what mine says on the final page of the chapter called "Fantasy Land"?
-
Quote
Wild stories were appearing in the papers about my ‘fragile’ mental state, my ‘inability to cope’ with my ‘hyperactive’ children, eating disorders and sedatives.
All complete bullshit MADELEINE Kate McCann
As they say you can take the girl out of Liverpool.........? @)(++(*
-
As they say you can take the girl out of Liverpool.........? @)(++(*
I find this an incredibly snobbish comment, and this from someone who claims solidarity with the Hillsborough 96.
-
I find this an incredibly snobbish comment.
Not really. She does have a habit of using the vernacular which comes across as rather common.
-
As they say you can take the girl out of Liverpool.........? @)(++(*
I do hope any members of this forum who come from Liverpool find your comment as funny as you do.
-
I find this an incredibly snobbish comment, and this from someone who claims solidarity with the Hillsborough 96.
Absolutely, not something the good doctors were too concerned about when they sold their misery memoir to the Sun. Though to be honest I think some parts of the book were written exactly to cater to the base Sun reader.
-
Can you give cites for this personal insult?
It is a personal opinion.
-
Absolutely, not something the good doctors were too concerned about when they sold their misery memoir to the Sun. Though to be honest I think some parts of the book were written exactly to cater to the base Sun reader.
More breathtaking snobbery.
-
Imo it can be considered "suspicious" if there is a mountain of evidence against a suspect which points to their guilt and they refuse to explain any of it .
As for the McCanns I thought at the time how ridiculous it was that they were arrested and made suspects.
-
More breathtaking snobbery.
Are you trying to pretend that the average Sun reader is a free thinking intellectual rather than a intellectually stunted little Englander ?
-
It is a personal opinion.
Back up your opinion with cites.
Cites which prove your post is correct.
-
Are you trying to pretend that the average Sun reader is a free thinking intellectual rather than a intellectually stunted little Englander ?
Even more breathtaking snobbery, typical of the middle class lefty - total contempt for the working class of this country.
BTW it's "an intellectually stunted little Englander".
-
Its a problem over there for sure.
-
Even more breathtaking snobbery, typical of the middle class lefty - total contempt for the working class of this country.
BTW it's "an intellectually stunted little Englander".
Apologies. Sometimes my iPad does its own thing.
As to my contempt for the working class, not so. What I do have contempt for are the readers of a poisonous rag who use it simply to feed their racist, bigoted and masochinistic views.
-
Did Kate use the word "Bullshit"?
That she did, Robitty.
As we know the unrelenting propaganda campaign directed against her included bullshit about her mental state and bullshit about her inability to cope with her children.
I don't usually use the descriptive word myself but considering the utterly unsubstantiated rubbish appearing in the Portuguese press and copied to tabloids elsewhere ... I think her description of it all remarkably restrained.
-
Apologies. Sometimes my iPad does its own thing.
As to my contempt for the working class, not so. What I do have contempt for are the readers of a poisonous rag who use it simply to feed their racist, bigoted and masochinistic views.
I note your post to me has been removed and rightly so.
I have never made any derogatory post towards the Portuguese people.
-
Apologies. Sometimes my iPad does its own thing.
As to my contempt for the working class, not so. What I do have contempt for are the readers of a poisonous rag who use it simply to feed their racist, bigoted and masochinistic views.
What's a masochinistic view? It seems to me you have decided that all readers of the Sun are "masochinistic (sic), racist and bigoted which is, in itself quite a bigoted view in my opinion.
ETA: the Sun has a "multiplatform" reach of over 7 million - what a lot of racist bigots with masochinistic views!
https://www.newsworks.org.uk/the-sun
-
That she did, Robitty.
As we know the unrelenting propaganda campaign directed against her included bullshit about her mental state and bullshit about her inability to cope with her children.
I don't usually use the descriptive word myself but considering the utterly unsubstantiated rubbish appearing in the Portuguese press and copied to tabloids elsewhere ... I think her description of it all remarkably restrained.
If the ‘ unsubstantiated rubbish’ first appeared in the Portuguese press why not sue them ? Why go after the UK tabloids?
-
That she did, Robitty.
As we know the unrelenting propaganda campaign directed against her included bullshit about her mental state and bullshit about her inability to cope with her children.
I don't usually use the descriptive word myself but considering the utterly unsubstantiated rubbish appearing in the Portuguese press and copied to tabloids elsewhere ... I think her description of it all remarkably restrained.
The word "shit" has been used on this forum to describe Madeleine's parents.
So adding the bull to that word should hardly cause such a stramash.
-
What's a masochinistic view? It seems to me you have decided that all readers of the Sun are "masochinistic (sic), racist and bigoted which is, in itself quite a bigoted view in my opinion.
Apologies again misogynistic.
Tell me VS, do you read the Sun and if not why not ?
-
Apologies again misogynistic.
Tell me VS, do you read the Sun and if not why not ?
I sometimes look at it online, but I mainly read the Times, why?
-
I sometimes look at it online, but I mainly read the Times, why?
Why don’t you buy the Sun?
-
Why don’t you buy the Sun?
The same reason I don't tend to buy any tabloid. Personal choice. That doesn't mean I despise people that do, or stereotype them all as racists and misogynists as you seem to.
-
The same reason I don't tend to buy any tabloid. Personal choice. That doesn't mean I despise people that do, or stereotype them all as racists and misogynists as you seem to.
Why don’t you buy tabloids?
-
Why don’t you buy tabloids?
These pointless questions will cease now. Or else.
-
Why don’t you buy tabloids?
Because if I want to read a newspaper I will read one that deals in news that interests me, ie: politics, world news, business, rather than celebrity exposes and true life stories. Have you got what you wanted yet?
-
Because if I want to read a newspaper I will read one that deals in news that interests me, ie: politics, world news, business, rather than celebrity exposes and true life stories. Have you got what you wanted yet?
Please do not reply to these pointless questions, or I will have to wipe the lot.
-
Imo it can be considered "suspicious" if there is a mountain of evidence against a suspect which points to their guilt and they refuse to explain any of it .
As for the McCanns I thought at the time how ridiculous it was that they were arrested and made suspects.
In my opinion the right to silence is a protection for the innocent. Everyone is innocent until there is evidence against them which can be proved in a court of law.
In my opinion it is not for a suspect to 'explain' anything allegedly 'pointing to their guilt' ... it is the job of the police to gather evidence to substantiate any 'mountain of evidence' they may think are pointers to guilt.
As we have seen from the questions asked of Kate at the arguida interrogation ... the police simply did not understand the forensics they thought pointed to Kate's guilt ... all they had to do to rectify that would have bee to check it out with their own forensic experts.
Which I believe is precisely one of the diligences carried out by the Rebelo investigation who sent a four strong team of experts, including Francisco Corte-Real, vice-president of Portugal's forensic crime service to Britain to confer with the British experts.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/forensic-experts-discuss-dna-samples-in-madeleine-inquiry-1-2477684
Therefore I think your initial reaction to Kate and Gerry being made arguidos was about right, although it is worth bearing in mind that they were never arrested.
As is obvious from the PJ Final Report all things having been considered there was no further questioning of Kate or Gerry nor charges laid against them. The Rebelo investigation having checked out the forensics in what was initially thought to have been grounds to make them arguidos in the first place proving groundless when looked at closely by experts.
Fully vindicating Kate taking her lawyer's advice not to answer the questions put to her as arguida. Forcing the police to investigate further, albeit with another coordinator in place, and finding no evidence against her.
-
Imo it can be considered "suspicious" if there is a mountain of evidence against a suspect which points to their guilt and they refuse to explain any of it .
As for the McCanns I thought at the time how ridiculous it was that they were arrested and made suspects.
They were never arrested. Nor was anyone else in direct connection with her disappearance that I can recall.
-
They were never arrested. Nor was anyone else in direct connection with her disappearance that I can recall.
So there is still much ignorance around, even on this Forum.
-
They were never arrested. Nor was anyone else in direct connection with her disappearance that I can recall.
Was it equivalent to being arrested? Was it optional to attend? Could they leave when they wanted too? If not they seem to be in custody of a sort. They were not charged with any crime. There were no bail conditions at the end of the day.
-
Was it equivalent to being arrested? Was it optional to attend? Could they leave when they wanted too? If not they seem to be in custody of a sort. They were not charged with any crime. There were no bail conditions at the end of the day.
No, it wasn't equivalent to being arrested, although they might have been if they had refused.
Once made Arquidos they probably had no right to refuse, but they weren't asked to attend again after that.
And neither were they called upon for Rogatory Interviews in Britain.
-
Was it equivalent to being arrested? Was it optional to attend? Could they leave when they wanted too? If not they seem to be in custody of a sort. They were not charged with any crime. There were no bail conditions at the end of the day.
No, it's not the equivalent of being arrested. Please don't ask me to wade through 100s of pages of legal Portuguese gibberish for all the articles related to arrests. 8(8-))
Optional? I haven't checked into that. It would have been badly seen, at the very least.
Leaving - their lease expired at the end of August, and they got an extension in order to be there for the forthcoming interviews. The PJ were aware of that, but I can't remember offhand when they were informed. They could have found out anyway.
Bail conditions. They were not even arrested, let alone charged, so how could bail conditions apply?
-
No, it's not the equivalent of being arrested. Please don't ask me to wade through 100s of pages of legal Portuguese gibberish for all the articles related to arrests. 8(8-))
Optional? I haven't checked into that. It would have been badly seen, at the very least.
Leaving - their lease expired at the end of August, and they got an extension in order to be there for the forthcoming interviews. The PJ were aware of that, but I can't remember offhand when they were informed. They could have found out anyway.
Bail conditions. They were not even arrested, let alone charged, so how could bail conditions apply?
Someone makes a point of saying there were no bail conditions. Gerry's lawyer makes the announcement https://youtu.be/VGsbPZtUue4?t=72
-
Someone makes a point of saying there were no bail conditions. Gerry's lawyer makes the announcement https://youtu.be/VGsbPZtUue4?t=72
Yes. No bail conditions, no charges. And no, they weren't even arrested.
-
Yes. No bail conditions, no charges. And no, they weren't even arrested.
if they had to attend and they weren't free to leave what is the difference?
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arrest-vs-detention-how-tell-whether-you-ve-been-arrested-simply-detained.html
"Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You’ve Been Arrested or Simply Detained
It’s possible for the police to arrest you—intentionally or not—before saying that you’re under arrest." That was interesting.
In the arguido situation it seems you are summoned to attend, but once through the door you would not be free to leave till the PJ decide you may go hours and hours later.
-
Yes. No bail conditions, no charges. And no, they weren't even arrested.
In my opinion that could only be that the police never had anything on them to begin with and it all hinged on the arguida interview.
They thought Kate was a soft nut to crack having witnessed her in her most private moments vulnerable and despairing about the loss of her daughter. They underestimated the mother love and rage which kicked in at the moment it became plain to her they had abandoned any thought of looking for Madeleine and a conviction would wrap the case up nicely for them.
-
In my opinion that could only be that the police never had anything on them to begin with and it all hinged on the arguida interview.
They thought Kate was a soft nut to crack having witnessed her in her most private moments vulnerable and despairing about the loss of her daughter. They underestimated the mother love and rage which kicked in at the moment it became plain to her they had abandoned any thought of looking for Madeleine and a conviction would wrap the case up nicely for them.
I suspect it would have had a very different outcome had Kate not refused to answer the 48 questions.
-
I suspect it would have had a very different outcome had Kate not refused to answer the 48 questions.
I don't suppose we could have your actual opinion on this, could we?
This is Deflection at its finest.
-
I suspect it would have had a very different outcome had Kate not refused to answer the 48 questions.
IMO any attempt at reputation management has had a significant effect on the longevity of the interest in the case.
-
I suspect it would have had a very different outcome had Kate not refused to answer the 48 questions.
doubt it made any diference whatsoever...would you like to tell us why you think it would
-
I don't suppose we could have your actual opinion on this, could we?
This is Deflection at its finest.
How is a comment on failure to answer questions deflection from “no comment” being suspicious?
-
very tricky to answer.
-
doubt it made any diference whatsoever...would you like to tell us why you think it would
Someone posted previously that the PJ were intent upon taking advantage of the situation. Kate was undoubtedly experiencing enormous pressure and in those circumstances all sorts of things tend to get revealed. Her lawyer knew that the situation had the potential to end badly thus his advice to not answer any questions.
-
Someone posted previously that the PJ were intent upon taking advantage of the situation. Kate was undoubtedly experiencing enormous pressure and in those circumstances all sorts of things tend to get revealed. Her lawyer knew that the situation had the potential to end badly thus his advice to not answer any questions.
So her lawyer must have thought she would incriminate herself?
-
So her lawyer must have thought she would incriminate herself?
A logical conclusion.
-
So her lawyer must have thought she would incriminate herself?
Innocent people can incriminate themselves, as I have already shown on this thread.
-
Innocent people can incriminate themselves, as I have already shown on this thread.
...but so can guilty people and those with a guilty conscience.
-
Innocent people can incriminate themselves, as I have already shown on this thread.
No you haven’t IMO. You have quoted a law firm whose main thrust was you should talk to a lawyer and an academic article mainly concerned with getting legal representation. No real world examples.
One interesting quote...
The second way people unintentionally incriminate themselves–and I see this a lot in domestic violence cases–is deleting emails, text messages, and voicemails.
-
So her lawyer must have thought she would incriminate herself?
There would appear to be protection of both witnesses and arguidos against self-incrimination. Only evidence produced or examined during a trial may be used to secure a conviction or acquittal. See CCP Article 355
The issue may have been to prevent the authorities from finding "entry points" to unpick the stories thus uncovering more lines of questioning. A bit like a badger uncurling a hedgehog.
-
OT, but a thought for the pot.
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1008017104522498049
-
No you haven’t IMO. You have quoted a law firm whose main thrust was you should talk to a lawyer and an academic article mainly concerned with getting legal representation. No real world examples.
One interesting quote...
Are you really trying to suggest an innocent person cannot incriminate themselves... That is ridiculous imo
-
No you haven’t IMO. You have quoted a law firm whose main thrust was you should talk to a lawyer and an academic article mainly concerned with getting legal representation. No real world examples.
One interesting quote...
LOL. Are you trying to tell me that there has never been a miscarriage of justice resulting in an innocent person going to prison owing to something they said to the police?
-
Truthful statements by an innocent person
An incriminating statement includes any statement that tends to increase the danger that the person making the statement will be accused, charged or prosecuted – even if the statement is true, and even if the person is innocent of any crime. Thus, even a person who is innocent of any crime who testifies truthfully can be incriminated by that testimony. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the Fifth Amendment privilege:
protects the innocent as well as the guilty.... one of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men . . . who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances..... truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth.[27]
The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated:
Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege.[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person
-
LOL. Are you trying to tell me that there has never been a miscarriage of justice resulting in an innocent person going to prison owing to something they said to the police?
There's a guy on Death Row for a detail he didn't think to mention during his initial interview.
-
Are you really trying to suggest an innocent person cannot incriminate themselves... That is ridiculous imo
Well give us a real world cite of someone, of similar intelligence to Kate, doing so.
-
Well give us a real world cite of someone, of similar intelligence to Kate, doing so.
LOL again. Are you going to reject every example on the basis that Kate has a genius IQ, perchance...?
-
Well give us a real world cite of someone, of similar intelligence to Kate, doing so.
What a ridiculous idea... Give me a cite where someone of the intelligence of Kate is being questioned by a police force in a foreign country who thinks she is trying to cover up the death of her daughter... You might then realise the situation Kate found herself in was quite unique
-
Truthful statements by an innocent person
An incriminating statement includes any statement that tends to increase the danger that the person making the statement will be accused, charged or prosecuted – even if the statement is true, and even if the person is innocent of any crime. Thus, even a person who is innocent of any crime who testifies truthfully can be incriminated by that testimony. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the Fifth Amendment privilege:
protects the innocent as well as the guilty.... one of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men . . . who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances..... truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth.[27]
The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated:
Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege.[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person
A good post VS but the case we are examining is that of a missing toddler. How could the parents of that child possibly incriminate themselves if they had absolutely nothing to hide in the first place? That is the million dollar question for me.
-
What a ridiculous idea... Give me a cite where someone of the intelligence of Kate is being questioned by a police force in a foreign country who thinks she is trying to cover up the death of her daughter... You might then realise the situation Kate found herself in was quite unique
I never mentioned foreign countries or police. It’s up to you and VS to find a cite.
-
I never mentioned foreign countries or police. It’s up to you and VS to find a cite.
It's not up to me to find anything... It's not important that you don't understand the simple fact that innocent people can incriminate themselves
-
A good post VS but the case we are examining is that of a missing toddler. How could the parents of that child possibly incriminate themselves if they had absolutely nothing to hide in the first place? That is the million dollar question for me.
I have already given some examples earlier in this thread.
-
I never mentioned foreign countries or police. It’s up to you and VS to find a cite.
Please tell us how you will decide whether on not the individual is of similar intelligence to Kate?
-
Please tell us how you will decide whether on not the individual is of similar intelligence to Kate?
We'll perform an IQ test and a polygraph on the same day.
-
We'll perform an IQ test and a polygraph on the same day.
Polygraph?
Anyone volunteering for a polygraph must be mad
https://www.brodenmickelsen.com/blog/why-polygraph-tests-are-not-admissible-in-court/