Is it any wonder that initial investigators arrived at the conclusions they did?

[The General]

In what way did Kate's exercise of her legal rights impede the police inquiry into Madeleine's case?  Bearing in mind the questions were not about Madeleine's case but about Kate's and the best way to lay criminal charges against her ... an entirely different case altogether don't you think.

No, you're missing your own point - this isn't about 'impeding', you upped the ante here, you think she actively progressed the investigation by refusing to answer questions. Let's not muddy the waters. That's not squirming; that's doing Agadoo

[barrier]

Do you recall the importance of the "Golden Hours" for a missing child investigation and the considered importance of early intervention.

Madeleine's investigation was seriously derailed when the PJ stopped looking for a live child and started seriosly investigating her parents instead.

From thereon in the police ceased looking for Madeleine until her case was reviewed in 2011.

As I said in my post there are those who resent with a vengeance the legitimate search for this missing girl whose "golden hours" were wantonly squandered.  Are you one of them?

What could have happened in them golden hours,the alleged crime scene was tampered with if you believe a tale about an open window what else was compromised before even a policeman entered 5a,golden minutes more like,lost for ever.There are those that resent with a vengence that the PJ up until 2017 at least, when they say that they have to consider other scenarios as well as abduction,are you one of them,seeing as you want to get personal,which frankly should be above a senior mod,or not as the case maybe.

[Brietta]

What could have happened in them golden hours,the alleged crime scene was tampered with if you believe a tale about an open window what else was compromised before even a policeman entered 5a,golden minutes more like,lost for ever.There are those that resent with a vengence that the PJ up until 2017 at least, when they say that they have to consider other scenarios as well as abduction,are you one of them,seeing as you want to get personal,which frankly should be above a senior mod,or not as the case maybe.

I am a great believer in law and order and in the police taking criminal cases in hand with a view to solving them.  In my opinion to equate criticism of official ineptitude with a personal attack is risible.

I believe there is still a thread in the member's area asking ... "What did Amaral & co get right?" ... perhaps you might like to add to its content and put your money where your mouth is.

While we are on the subject of what is available on the forum, allow me to recommend for your attention ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.0  A visit there could very well be worth your while too.

[Mr Gray]

No, you're missing your own point - this isn't about 'impeding', you upped the ante here, you think she actively progressed the investigation by refusing to answer questions. Let's not muddy the waters. That's not squirming; that's doing Agadoo

Imo... The investigation was going in the wring direction and would have continued to do so if Kate had answered the question s.  By not answering she forced the PJ to put up or shut up... They had to admit they had no real evidence against the McCann's... Could SY have got involved if the mccanns had still been arguidos.  .or worse still arrested and charged by an inept police force

[G-Unit]

In what way did Kate's exercise of her legal rights impede the police inquiry into Madeleine's case?  Bearing in mind the questions were not about Madeleine's case but about Kate's and the best way to lay criminal charges against her ... an entirely different case altogether don't you think.

I was responding to the suggestion that Kate McCann's refusal to answer questions moved the investigation on, not how it was impeded.

You seem to have separated 'Madeleine's case' and 'Kate's case', ignoring the fact that they are two sides of the same coin; the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

[The General]

Imo... The investigation was going in the wring direction and would have continued to do so if Kate had answered the question s.  By not answering she forced the PJ to put up or shut up... They had to admit they had no real evidence against the McCann's... Could SY have got involved if the mccanns had still been arguidos.  .or worse still arrested and charged by an inept police force

There's a lot of assumptions there Davros. Maybe Kate would have provided useful information.
Are you then suggesting that it was better to leave it all be and not question them? And should we adopt this stance for every investigation that appears to be going awry?
It's certainly a novel approach.

[Mr Gray]

There's a lot of assumptions there Davros. Maybe Kate would have provided useful information.
Are you then suggesting that it was better to leave it all be and not question them? And should we adopt this stance for every investigation that appears to be going awry?
It's certainly a novel approach.

For those who have followed the Cade it's clear that the PJ thought Kate was involved and wanted reason to arrest and or charge.  If Kate was innocent... As I think she is that would have been disastrous for the investigation.
The idea that only the guilty refuse to answer questions is preposterous... That's not opinion... It's fact

[Brietta]

I was responding to the suggestion that Kate McCann's refusal to answer questions moved the investigation on, not how it was impeded.

You seem to have separated 'Madeleine's case' and 'Kate's case', ignoring the fact that they are two sides of the same coin; the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

If there had been a shred of evidence which linked Kate McCann to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann your post might be worth some discussion.
As it is that one of the few proven conclusions reached by the Policia Judiciaria in either Kate or Madeleine's cases was Kate's innocence of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance I think such discussion is an irrelevance.

[The General]

For those who have followed the Cade it's clear that the PJ thought Kate was involved and wanted reason to arrest and or charge.  If Kate was innocent... As I think she is that would have been disastrous for the investigation.
The idea that only the guilty refuse to answer questions is preposterous... That's not opinion... It's fact

I think the first step is to question. If the PJ thought she was guilty, then reinforced that perception of guilt by her refusing to answer questions, then they would have arrested her, with or without the answers.

[Holly Goodhead]

I did note in DC's book that shortly after the McCanns were made arguidos Portuguese law changed and that this may have speeded up the process?  DC explained that the new legislation would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to have made the McCanns and RM arguidos.   

[Mr Gray]

I think the first step is to question. If the PJ thought she was guilty, then reinforced that perception of guilt by her refusing to answer questions, then they would have arrested her, with or without the answers.

They need evidence to arrest... Police can't arrest people for not answering questions

[The General]

They need evidence to arrest... Police can't arrest people for not answering questions

No, you seem to have difficulty understanding the basic concept (the old Davros mantra).
If you're so certain they 'wanted to arrest / charge' her, then they could have. They could have done so (while they were torturing her) in the presence of her lawyer. Because them being at least cognisant of the fact that arguido status allows silence as opposed to compliance, despite them being cast as total idiots, they would know that there was a high probability that she would be advised of that course of action.
Once the ground rules had been established, why do you think they were going through the motions of asking 40 more questions, knowing the response they would get? At that point they're not establishing any facts, they're establishing process and is evidence in itself.

Edit: Besides, plea bargain or no, I believe frank, informal discussions were held prior to the interview with all parties - I'm not saying 'plea bargain', but something went down that made Amaral so very, very sure of his case.

[Mr Gray]

No, you seem to have difficulty understanding the basic concept (the old Davros mantra).
If you're so certain they 'wanted to arrest / charge' her, then they could have. They could have done so (while they were torturing her) in the presence of her lawyer. Because them being at least cognisant of the fact that arguido status allows silence as opposed to compliance, despite them being cast as total idiots, they would know that there was a high probability that she would be advised of that course of action.
Once the ground rules had been established, why do you think they were going through the motions of asking 40 more questions, knowing the response they would get? At that point they're not establishing any facts, they're establishing process and is evidence in itself.

Edit: Besides, plea bargain or no, I believe frank, informal discussions were held prior to the interview with all parties - I'm not saying 'plea bargain', but something went down that made Amaral so very, very sure of his case.

More opinion as fact... I think they were looking for evidence to arrest / charge
Sceptics seem to think only the guilty refuse to answer questions... That isn't true... Fact not opinion

[The General]

More opinion as fact... I think they were looking for evidence to arrest / charge
Sceptics seem to think only the guilty refuse to answer questions... That isn't true... Fact not opinion

Now you're just on a wind up. You've just accused me of stating opinion as fact, by replying stating opinion as fact.
And your second sentence - that's also your opinion - a very flawed one.

[Mr Gray]

Now you're just on a wind up. You've just accused me of stating opinion as fact, by replying stating opinion as fact.
And your second sentence - that's also your opinion - a very flawed one.

Innocent people may refuse to answer police questions... That is a fact