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

[Carana]

"--- 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

Not clear to me, Jean-Pierre.

Were they actually able to read the report calmly, or was this a verbal confrontation waving a report in the air?

[AnneGuedes]

@ 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.

There are very complex cases on the ethics point of view. Is torture to be put aside if someone's life is at stake ? Imo certainly, if no life is in danger.

[AnneGuedes]

And what if this produces a false confession from an emotionally vulnerable suspect.  Would you see that as an acceptable outcome?

We have to reckon it does and rather frequently. This is why lawyers are requested.

[Jean-Pierre]

"--- 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

Not clear to me, Jean-Pierre.

Were they actually able to read the report calmly, or was this a verbal confrontation waving a report in the air?

Who knows.  Impossible to tell.  I could speculate that such interviews are often emotionally fraught, but that would be specualtion. 

[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.

As usual you assume far too much.

"Unlike their American counterparts, U.K. police interviewers are not allowed to lie to suspects or present them with false evidence in order to obtain a confession, further reducing the likelihood of a false confession (Kassin et al., 2010). In addition, the entire interview process in all interviews in England and Wales is electronically recorded"

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/1/33.full

Note the process- rebuttal followed by cite.

[AnneGuedes]

It is true that Mrs McCann answered quite a few of the questions along various interviews. Was she, consciously or not, trying to compensate her refusal to answer ?
Those questions aren't stressing questions, what would you consider "tricky" in the first one
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?
Note that Mrs McCann didn't mention where she looked nor what she touched in her statement. The open window irresistibly indicated where to search, imo. Did Mrs McCann open the door to look and listen outside ? Was the key on the lock, with her or left at the restaurant with Mr McCann ?

[icabodcrane]

In her book, Kate gives a clear and definite reason for not answering police questions.  She was following the advice of Carlos Pinto de Abreu,  her lawyer

It should be mentioned that this lawyer was at the McCann's villa  until 4.00 am the night before

He had accompanied Kate home after the first day of questioning, and she says, in her book, that she was horrified by his advice that she should consider confessing that Madeleine had died in the apartment and her body was hidden or disposed of

Kate goes on to say her confidence in Carlos evaporated almost as quickly as her faith in Portuguese justice,  and that not being able to  tell if he believed them or not was a major worry, to put it mildly

She added that she was no longer sure he had the backbone to stand up for them,  and that Gerry had demanded whether or not Carlos felt he was up to the job

A few hours later she was, it appears,  following his instructions without question

In the circumstances, and given Kate's obvious lack of faith in her lawyer,  she might, rather,  have followed the advice given by police liaison officer, Bob Small ( described by Kate as 'one of the good guys' ) the night before :

... "Just tell the truth"

 

[ferryman]

I shan't take the thread off-topic, but Snr De Abreau was swept away by the Eddie-and-Keela-roadshow ...

[Redblossom]

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.

Where in the files can I find where Kate Mccann already answered those 48 questions? Because the answers are not in her 6th September interview. The questions  (in the 49 lot from 7th September) asking if she had said what she had said when presented with dog and dna related evidence, ie that she couldn't explain anymore than she already had, suggests she made an answer about those issues, but where is it? Surely not, that she had been on contact with dead bodies previous and that could be an explanation? A formal or informal interview seems to be missing from the files.Those are the only questions put which suggest they were put before and answered, not all of them from the arguido interview.


Clarence Mitchell's interview on this issue from BBC after the files were publically released back in summer of 2008

[Mr Gray]

the refusal to answer questions is taken completely out of context. Kate had answerred questions over two sessions totalling over 20 hours or thereabouts before she realised that the pj simply wanted to continue questioning so as to incriminate her. Does anyone know how long Kate had answerred questions during that session before her solicitor decided enough was enough.

[ferryman]

Kate had answerred questions over two sessions totalling over 20 hours or thereabouts before she realised that the pj simply wanted to continue questioning so as to incriminate her.

Vital point.

Welcome to the board davel ...

[AnneGuedes]

she realised that the pj simply wanted to continue questioning so as to incriminate her.

This is pure defamation.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

she realised that the pj simply wanted to continue questioning so as to incriminate her.

This is pure defamation.

In exactly the same way as lying to implicate the Mccanns was.

[ferryman]

she realised that the pj simply wanted to continue questioning so as to incriminate her.

This is pure defamation.

Pure defamation why?

Where is the evidence that the McCanns wanted to put Madeleine up for adoption (one of the questions)?

[Jean-Pierre]

AnneGuedes.  Considering the questions that the PJ put to Mrs McCann as an aguida, wherethey honest and truthful about the "evidence" they held?

"--- 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."

I would suggest that on this basis Davel would be making "fair comment".