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

[debunker]

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.

Telepathic are you?

You are free to construct any fairy tale you want, but rather than state it as fact, please lable it as a guess before you post unsubstantiated bullshit.

[debunker]

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.

You do not understand the Rule of Law, Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence, or Presumption of Innocence.

I am pretty sure that you see all these as having been forced on Portugal and so not part of the State Apparatus that passed for the Law there until relatively recently.

[Lace]

Kate didn't answer the questions, as her lawyer had advised against it.

What would you do if suddenly the tables had turned,  they showed you a video of dogs who were supposedly alerting to cadaver scent in the apartment where your child had gone missing?

Being told there was 100% DNA found of your child in the apartment?

Would you not think to yourself,  hang on a minute they think I have done soemthing to my child.  Wouldn't you think they are going to find something in my answers to twist so that I am suspected of doing something.

Kate was advised not to answer because of this.

I wouldn't of answered either.

[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.

Telepathic are you?

You are free to construct any fairy tale you want, but rather than state it as fact, please lable it as a guess before you post unsubstantiated bullshit.

I wish you were courteous, nurse Debunker, and read carefully : If I were... is clearly hypothetical. Nobody knows why KMC didn't answer. So, if you want to stick to facts, which is your absolute right, you better not surf on this thread.

[Carana]

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.

Was Gerry advised to answer the questions?

[faithlilly]

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.

In your opinion.

[Jean-Pierre]

If you look at the report on Mrs McCanns interview the day before, from the files, you will see that she had already answered the questions, whilst a witness.

Therefore she was not withholding information or hiding anything which might have helped find Madeleine.

The formal questionning the following day as an aguida was simply the  police playing games.  Her lawyer was aware of this (I assume) and quite properly advised her to answer "no comment".  In my opinion this was good advice. 

I believe Mr McCann was shown a report on Madeleines DNA and told that they had found a 100% match.  This does rather suggest the police were on a fishing expedition.

[debunker]

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.

Telepathic are you?

You are free to construct any fairy tale you want, but rather than state it as fact, please lable it as a guess before you post unsubstantiated bullshit.

I wish you were courteous, nurse Debunker, and read carefully : If I were... is clearly hypothetical. Nobody knows why KMC didn't answer. So, if you want to stick to facts, which is your absolute right, you better not surf on this thread.

The conditional 'If' certainly makes it clear that you are constructing a fairy tale.

UNfortunarely the conditional does not apply to your rhetorical question and subsequent statement "Why was Kate chosen as the silent one ? Because she had the most delicate part, the discovery." That requires telepathy.

[debunker]

If you look at the report on Mrs McCanns interview the day before, from the files, you will see that she had already answered the questions, whilst a witness.

Therefore she was not withholding information or hiding anything which might have helped find Madeleine.

The formal questionning the following day as an aguida was simply the  police playing games.  Her lawyer was aware of this (I assume) and quite properly advised her to answer "no comment".  In my opinion this was good advice. 

I believe Mr McCann was shown a report on Madeleines DNA and told that they had found a 100% match.  This does rather suggest the police were on a fishing expedition.

Or lying?

[AnneGuedes]

Kate didn't answer the questions, as her lawyer had advised against it.

What would you do if suddenly the tables had turned,  they showed you a video of dogs who were supposedly alerting to cadaver scent in the apartment where your child had gone missing?

Being told there was 100% DNA found of your child in the apartment?

Would you not think to yourself,  hang on a minute they think I have done soemthing to my child.  Wouldn't you think they are going to find something in my answers to twist so that I am suspected of doing something.

Kate was advised not to answer because of this.

I wouldn't of answered either.

Mrs McCann wasn't petrified when she saw the video, though, she found it not convincing, as many on this forum and elsewhere and as me (but I decided to trust Mark Harrison). I'm a bit amazed the idea Madeleine could have been killed in the flat by the carrier, accidentally or not (more likely accidentally), before being carried away, was rejected. Why ? Blindness, refusal to face a possible reality ?
If the MC  case has shown something, it is that the UK protects and assists and advises very well and generously its citizens when abroad. So I don't buy the argument Mrs McCann risked to be the victim of an illegitimate procedure. This is a myth Philomena MC, out of disinformation I suppose, clumsily but successfully spread.

[AnneGuedes]

Was Gerry advised to answer the questions?

Wouldn't it have looked really fishy if both had refused to answer ?

[faithlilly]

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.

Telepathic are you?

You are free to construct any fairy tale you want, but rather than state it as fact, please lable it as a guess before you post unsubstantiated bullshit.

I wish you were courteous, nurse Debunker, and read carefully : If I were... is clearly hypothetical. Nobody knows why KMC didn't answer. So, if you want to stick to facts, which is your absolute right, you better not surf on this thread.

You are absolutely right, no one does know why Kate didn't answer the questions while Gerry, under the same threat of self-incrimination, did. What is less clear still is why,  after refusing to answer questions the police felt would take the investigation forward, the McCanns effectively lied to the media by claiming they had answered all the questions asked of them and were helping the investigation when it is clear, no matter what the reasons, that that is exactly what they weren't doing.

[faithlilly]

If you look at the report on Mrs McCanns interview the day before, from the files, you will see that she had already answered the questions, whilst a witness.

Therefore she was not withholding information or hiding anything which might have helped find Madeleine.

The formal questionning the following day as an aguida was simply the  police playing games.  Her lawyer was aware of this (I assume) and quite properly advised her to answer "no comment".  In my opinion this was good advice. 

I believe Mr McCann was shown a report on Madeleines DNA and told that they had found a 100% match.  This does rather suggest the police were on a fishing expedition.

Or lying?

It is a basic police technique. That we are mostly unaware of it here is because most police interrogations are never made public.

[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.

Telepathic are you?

You are free to construct any fairy tale you want, but rather than state it as fact, please lable it as a guess before you post unsubstantiated bullshit.

I wish you were courteous, nurse Debunker, and read carefully : If I were... is clearly hypothetical. Nobody knows why KMC didn't answer. So, if you want to stick to facts, which is your absolute right, you better not surf on this thread.

The conditional 'If' certainly makes it clear that you are constructing a fairy tale.

UNfortunarely the conditional does not apply to your rhetorical question and subsequent statement "Why was Kate chosen as the silent one ? Because she had the most delicate part, the discovery." That requires telepathy.

You know perfectly well it was part and end of what you call (rightly) a fairy tale.

[Jean-Pierre]

A brief excerpt from the arguido interview.

Given what we know about the forensic results, would Luz care to comment?
______________


"--- Signalled the presence of human blood in the trunk of the same vehicle, she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned.

--- Confronted with the result of the collection of DNA from MADELEINE, which analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, from behind the sofa and trunk of the vehicle, situations previously described, she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned."