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

[AnneGuedes]

Debunker : If I thought the police were trying to build a case against me, I would 'no comment' like this until the cows come home.
"thought" ? What do you mean ?  If you there were facts supporting you're thinking the police... ?
Not understandable, sorry : If you knew of facts that support your thought the police were trying to build a case against you, you would... ?

[AnneGuedes]

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?

Certainly lying if they said it was a 100% match. But did they it or is it a myth ? JP says "I believe"...

[faithlilly]

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.

If the alleged abductor had killed Madeleine then taken her body with him there would not have been enough time for the cadaver scent to develop. For there to have been time for cadaver scent to develop Madeleine would have to have been dead before her parents left the apartment  or very shortly afterwards but certainly not after 9.05-9.15 when Gerry claimed to have seen her last. The police knew this as did the Mccanns and thus the necessity to discredit the dogs.

[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.

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.

yes it is.  Which is one of the reasons for those interviewed under caution to be legally represented.  And for the right to remain silent, without that being held against should teh case subsequently come to court.

Much has been made of Kate McCanns refusal to answer the "48 questions".  What do those who use this to imply that she has something to hide or is guilty, make of the police blatently lying in order to try to trap her?

[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.

yes it is.  Which is one of the reasons for those interviewed under caution to be legally represented.  And for the right to remain silent, without that being held against should teh case subsequently come to court.

Much has been made of Kate McCanns refusal to answer the "48 questions".  What do those who use this to imply that she has something to hide or is guilty, make of the police blatently lying in order to try to trap her?

If it had subsequently proved that she had harmed her daughter I don't think they'd have been in the least concerned.

[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.

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.

Not that I expect you to do it- Cite? For the McCanns 'lying' and claiming that they had answered all the questions.

[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.

Or lying?

Certainly lying if they said it was a 100% match. But did they it or is it a myth ? JP says "I believe"...

"--- 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."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm

[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?

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

British police may NOT lie to interviewees. You watch too much bad TV. English rules of evidence do not allow statements gained from lies told by the police. In the USA it is legal.

[Jean-Pierre]

@ faithlilly "If it had subsequently proved that she had harmed her daughter I don't think they'd have been in the least concerned."

As they haven't, then they should be.  Or do you think the end justifies the means. 

[debunker]

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.

If the alleged abductor had killed Madeleine then taken her body with him there would not have been enough time for the cadaver scent to develop. For there to have been time for cadaver scent to develop Madeleine would have to have been dead before her parents left the apartment  or very shortly afterwards but certainly not after 9.05-9.15 when Gerry claimed to have seen her last. The police knew this as did the Mccanns and thus the necessity to discredit the dogs.

There is no reliable evidence that there was a cadaver in 5a. Read the dog threads.

[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.

If the alleged abductor had killed Madeleine then taken her body with him there would not have been enough time for the cadaver scent to develop. For there to have been time for cadaver scent to develop Madeleine would have to have been dead before her parents left the apartment  or very shortly afterwards but certainly not after 9.05-9.15 when Gerry claimed to have seen her last. The police knew this as did the Mccanns and thus the necessity to discredit the dogs.

Out of reason Mrs McCann had to infer that no stranger could be involved, but I meant an emotional reaction I'm surprised she didn't have.

[faithlilly]

@ faithlilly "If it had subsequently proved that she had harmed her daughter I don't think they'd have been in the least concerned."

As they haven't, then they should be.  Or do you think the end justifies the means.

In some cases, such as the death of a child, absolutely, unless the 'means' involves torture.

[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.

British police may NOT lie to interviewees. You watch too much bad TV. English rules of evidence do not allow statements gained from lies told by the police. In the USA it is legal.

As usual you assume far too much.

[AnneGuedes]

I'm shocked to read here and there unpleasant and factly unfounded comments on the Portuguese police. If there's one thing I don't doubt in this tenebrous case, it is the care the various Portuguese forces deployed to try and find a little girl they were immediately very concerned with. They did mistakes, the first of it was due to their fatal inferiority complex, but they can't be suspected of neglect.  I find it interesting to analyse those mistakes, but not fair  to make global negative judgements. I'm sure for example GA isn't a "[ censored word ]". I crossed his way in a court corridor, I looked at him, he turned his eyes. I'm not and I don't look Portuguese, so I thought : gosh this guy was badly hurt.

[Jean-Pierre]

@ faithlilly "If it had subsequently proved that she had harmed her daughter I don't think they'd have been in the least concerned."

As they haven't, then they should be.  Or do you think the end justifies the means.

In some cases, such as the death of a child, absolutely, unless the 'means' involves torture.

And herein lies a problem.  Where would you draw the line?  "inventing" evidence?  "lying" about the evidence?  And what if this produces a false confession from an emotionally vulnerable suspect.  Would you see that as an acceptable outcome?