Why didn't Kate McCann answer the questions of the PJ?

[Luz]

After almost five months searching for a child that didn't appear, following every lead for the most fantasist sightings imaginable, the second hypothesis, also supported by a British expert (that the child had not been abducted but had died) had finally gotten some confirmation from the forensic analysis conducted by FSS (not conclusive but indicative nevertheless).

On September, 7th, 2007, Mrs Kate Healy was questioned by the Polícia Judiciária (Inspectors João Carlos, Paulo Ferreira and Ricardo Paiva). The first part of the interview was about generalities like, how was Madeleine's behaviour, her relationship with her siblings, her relation with parents and relatives, etc.

After that they had to introduce recent data from the investigation and according to Portuguese Process Penal Code it was necessary to grant Ms Healy all the means to her defense in case her answers could incriminate her. So she was declared arguido, which granted her, unlike before (as witness) the right to not respond or even to lie.

Ms Healy, had already been alerted by the PJ that she would be considered arguido during this interview, by her liason Inspector ( a privilege that is granted to practically nobody), Mr. Ricardo Paiva, and as such she was accompanied by her lawyer.

The questions asked were:
[Taken from the Telegraph.co.uk so my translation won't be cause for questioning]


1- On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

2- Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)

3- (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

4- Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?

5- How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?

6- Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?

7- Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.

8- Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?

9- When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?

10- What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?

11- Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?

12- Who contacted the authorities?

13- Who took place in the searches?

14- Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?

15- Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?

16- What does “we let her down” mean?

17- Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?

18- How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?

19- During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?

20- Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?

21- Who did you phone after the occurrence?

22- Did you call Sky News?

23- Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?

24- Did you ask for a priest?

25- By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?

26- Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?

27- What was your behaviour that night?

28- Did you manage to sleep?

29- Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?

30- What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?

31- Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?

32- What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?

33- What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?

34- As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?

35- What is your medical specialty?

36- Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?

37- Did you work every day?

38- At a certain point you stopped working, why?

39- Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?

40- Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?

41- Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?

42- In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?

43- In the case files you were forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44- When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45- When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46- When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47- When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

48- Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

A Question She Did Answer

- Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardizing the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

- “Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.”

Is this a reasonable behaviour from a mother whose child had missing for more about 5 months?
She didn't cooperate with the investigation, she didn't request for the process to stay open in order to proceed the investigation, all she wanted was a review that will only go through what has already been investigated, she doesn't have any PIs investigating anymore but continues expecting donations to the Fund...

WHY DIDN'T MRS. HEALY/MCCANN COOPERATE WITH THE POLICE?

[Luz]

Ok, I'll be the first one to respond.

She didn't answer because she was afraid that if she told the truth she would implicate herself and if lying she could be judged for perjury.

But what answer could implicate this mother of a disappeared child? That's what we cannot understand if she is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.


Admin note:
She wasn't under oath so she couldn't have been prosecuted for perjury.

[AnneGuedes]

Ok, I'll be the first one to respond.

She didn't answer because she was afraid that if she told the truth she would implicate herself and if lying she could be judged for perjury.

I'll be the second.
She didn't answer simply because she was told not to by her lawyer. He had some reasons for that, might have exposed them to her, and convinced her.

[Eleanor]

That is not the full transcription of The Question.

You cannot be adjudged of perjury if you are an Arguida and are later proved to have been lying.

Not a good start to this Thread.

[Luz]

Ok, I'll be the first one to respond.

She didn't answer because she was afraid that if she told the truth she would implicate herself and if lying she could be judged for perjury.

I'll be the second.
She didn't answer simply because she was told not to by her lawyer. He had some reasons for that, might have exposed them to her, and convinced her.

Yes. In fact I suspect that it was from that probable conversation between client and attorney that arouse that ridiculous allegation, offered by Ms. Filomena to the media, that Kate Healy had been offered a deal by the police.
Probably the lawyer explained to her that if she confessed she would be condemned for aggravated negligence and not for murder or manslaughter as she eventually risked.

[Luz]

That is not the full transcription of The Question.

You cannot be adjudged of perjury if you are an Arguida and are later proved to have been lying.

Not a good start to this Thread.

If there is proof against the testimony, yes you commit perjury if you repeat in court what you declared in the police questioning.

[Luz]

What does it matter if it's the full questionary or not?! As a matter of fact it is and it is the one published by the Telegraph, so you trolls wouldn't accuse me of distorting the translation.

What is in question is WHY DIDN'T SHE ANSWER.

Cowards, you don't answer, do you?

[AnneGuedes]

That is not the full transcription of The Question.

You cannot be adjudged of perjury if you are an Arguida and are later proved to have been lying.

Not a good start to this Thread.

I don't think you should comment Mrs McCann's attitude, Luz. As an arguida you have the right not to answer, but properly speaking you've not a right to lie  (even if you do..) ! Silence here means everything and nothing.

[AnneGuedes]

That is not the full transcription of The Question.

You cannot be adjudged of perjury if you are an Arguida and are later proved to have been lying.

Not a good start to this Thread.

If there is proof against the testimony, yes you commit perjury if you repeat in court what you declared in the police questioning.

I thought that a witness' testimony only had value when repeated in court by the witness, whereas an arguido didn't have to repeat his/her statement in court.

[AnneGuedes]

If I were a lawyer, had to support two arguidos and had read in their statements some contradictions, I'd probably and carefully tell one not to answer to no question and tell the other to answer to all questions. First step at least. There never was a second one, good for him ! Why was Kate chosen as the silent one ? Because she had the most delicate part, the discovery.

[Luz]

Anne Guedes, I think that her silence in here means everything.

She didn't speak so that she wouldn't compromise herself. We know that only what is produced in Court is valid for the trial, but if she had spoken and in Court said something different or refused to answer (like Leonor Cipriano did) it could be sensed as very incriminating, even though she didn't offer any evidence.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[debunker]

Ok, I'll be the first one to respond.

She didn't answer because she was afraid that if she told the truth she would implicate herself and if lying she could be judged for perjury.

But what answer could implicate this mother of a disappeared child? That's what we cannot understand if she is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

Bullshit. An arguido is not required to tell the truth, a witness is. Learn your basic Portuguese Law.

[debunker]

That is not the full transcription of The Question.

You cannot be adjudged of perjury if you are an Arguida and are later proved to have been lying.

Not a good start to this Thread.

If there is proof against the testimony, yes you commit perjury if you repeat in court what you declared in the police questioning.

"NO"  Give me any reference to a case where someone has been convicted of perjury in court for lying to the court in their own defence. People do it everyday and there are vanishingly small cases of perjury heard.

[debunker]

What does it matter if it's the full questionary or not?! As a matter of fact it is and it is the one published by the Telegraph, so you trolls wouldn't accuse me of distorting the translation.

What is in question is WHY DIDN'T SHE ANSWER.

Cowards, you don't answer, do you?

She didn't answer because she had the RIGHT under Portuguese Law to not answer.

If I thought the police were trying to build a case against me, I would 'no comment' like this until the cows come home.

Under the Rule of Law the State has to produce evidence; they can no longer force suspects to incriminate themselves (although there is excellent documentary evidence that this has been the case in Portugal.)

A better question might be to ask why the McCanns were made Arguido ion the day before Portugal was forced by the European Court to change its rules on questioning. The day on which they were made Arguido was the last day when only 'suspicion of committing a crime' was replaced by 'reasonable suspicion of committing a crime'. The PJ knew they did not have enough evidence to show 'reasonable suspicion and so tried to circumvent the new law.

[debunker]

That is not the full transcription of The Question.

You cannot be adjudged of perjury if you are an Arguida and are later proved to have been lying.

Not a good start to this Thread.

If there is proof against the testimony, yes you commit perjury if you repeat in court what you declared in the police questioning.

I thought that a witness' testimony only had value when repeated in court by the witness, whereas an arguido didn't have to repeat his/her statement in court.

Immaterial.