The Cracked Mirror.

[Eleanor]

Oh Dear God, not another one who has no hope.  Another one who only thinks the worst.  Another one for whom life is  only dreadful.
Is there no hope in your soul?  Is there nothing that makes you think that this small child might still be alive?.  Do you think that every missing child is dead?  Do you think that every missing child is dead by the hands of their parents?  Do you even think about what you appear to think?

[faithlilly]

Oh Dear God, not another one who has no hope.  Another one who only thinks the worst.  Another one for whom life is  only dreadful.
Is there no hope in your soul?  Is there nothing that makes you think that this small child might still be alive?.  Do you think that every missing child is dead?  Do you think that every missing child is dead by the hands of their parents?  Do you even think about what you appear to think?

Do you ever think of actually directing your whine at someone specifically ?

[Chinagirl]

As Albertini is so set on the premise that "the McCanns have not proved their innocence," perhaps he could state what, in his opinion, they would now have to do remedy this.

Should Kate be forced to answer the 48 questions, despite their being couched in the "have you stopped beating you wife" mode?

What about a reconstruction?  Apart from the tapas 9, who else should take part; how would the exact conditions be replicated; how many variations should be tried out?

How would any of this ascertain what happened to Madeleine, where she is now (alive or dead), who abducted her?

 

[Albertini]

As Albertini is so set on the premise that "the McCanns have not proved their innocence," perhaps he could state what, in his opinion, they would now have to do remedy this.

Should Kate be forced to answer the 48 questions, despite their being couched in the "have you stopped beating you wife" mode?

What about a reconstruction?  Apart from the tapas 9, who else should take part; how would the exact conditions be replicated; how many variations should be tried out?

How would any of this ascertain what happened to Madeleine, where she is now (alive or dead), who abducted her?

To be accurate it is the AG's and Leicestershire Police's contention not mine.

In terms of what i think they should do?

Well first thing's first i am entirely comfortable at this stage that the Yard are investigating abduction scenarios.

Let them got on with it and get through these 38 persons of interest.

Then once that is done and if (as i suspect) it leads nowhere the way forward is pretty clear.

The 9 have to submit themselves unreservedly and individually for more in depth questioning about their actions and movements without the contraints of the rogatory framework.

After all as Menezez said in Court the group were lying about their checking routines.

The fundamental question remains for me were they lying to simply cover the neglect charges or to hide something more sinister?

Also as i have posted previously the group killed the investigation with the refusal to perform the reconstruction.

Why would they they seek to kill the investigation at the point at which it was reconstructing their statements? Why did they decide that not performing the actions of their statements was more important that the investigation remaining open into the missing child?

That's a big decision to make so the reasons to them must have been compelling. What were those reasons?

Then we come on to Jane Tanner. Once and for all a definite answer on the night in the surveilence van. If as she states in the Rogatory "she just thought (Murat) it was him (bundleman)" then there are serious repercussions regarding her testimony.

I would like to see a reconstruction done but i think the likelihood is very slim.

The bottom line is all roads, certainly from the files, lead back to the group, their statements and actions. Until all those issues are cleared up my opinion is that this case cannot move forward.

[Chinagirl]

And what about the 48 questions?  If Kate now answers them, could they "prove her innocence?

 

[Albertini]

And what about the 48 questions?  If Kate now answers them, could they "prove her innocence?

 

Depends on the answers given when viewed against other evidence gathered.

[Rachel Granada]

Depends on the answers given when viewed against other evidence gathered.

What, like "do you work in the daytime"?   

And question 45, amongst others, is now obsolete as there was no cadaver odour signalled in the car.  I understand that Eddie wasn't even put into the car.

[Albertini]

What, like "do you work in the daytime"?   

And question 45, amongst others, is now obsolete as there was no cadaver odour signalled in the car.  I understand that Eddie wasn't even put into the car.

So what was problem in answering them then?

[Rachel Granada]

So what was problem in answering them then?

I would imagine she was advised by her lawyer not to.  Question 47 gives you a hint of the PJ's agenda.  I've reproduced it below:

Confronted with the result of the sample of Madeleine's DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, found behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, as previously described, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.

[Albertini]

I would imagine she was advised by her lawyer not to.  Question 47 gives you a hint of the PJ's agenda.  I've reproduced it below:

Confronted with the result of the sample of Madeleine's DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, found behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, as previously described, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.

She was advised by her lawyer not to answer the question "whether she worked in the daytime"? Lol, ok.

[Rachel Granada]

She was advised by her lawyer not to answer the question "whether she worked in the daytime"? Lol, ok.

I would imagine that her lawyer would have advised her not to answer anything.  Had I been in Kate McCann's shoes, I would also have taken my lawyer's advice.  Especially as some of the questions contain blatant falsehoods.

[Benice]

I would imagine that her lawyer would have advised her not to answer anything.  Had I been in Kate McCann's shoes, I would also have taken my lawyer's advice.  Especially as some of the questions contain blatant falsehoods.

Agreed.   It's obvious her Lawyer advised her not to answer ANY questions.  That is normal advice.  His duty was to act in the best interests of his client - and if he had the slightest inkling that this interview was not about finding Madeleine but was purely an attempt to find a reason to arrest Kate - then his advice was correct. 

The reason Kate didn't answer the questions was not because she couldn't or didn't want to - it was because she followed her Lawyers advice.  As he was au fait with Portuguese law and she wasn't - she did the right thing.

Many of the questions she would have answered previously anyway - unless we are being asked to believe that this was the first time the PJ had asked her what happened when she went into 5A to do her check at 10.00p.m on the 3rd May.       Considering she was interviewed for 11 hours only the day before when she was a 'witness' and so was obliged by law to answer questions, one wonders why they didn't ask her many of the questions at that interview.

[Chinagirl]

Consider these two questions:

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?

If she'd answered "yes" to both of them, she would have had to explain why, particularly to quest. 41, as suspicion on her would have increased 100-fold.  Though unusual,  there are very good reasons for some parents to relinquish custody of their children, but such a consideration would have been highly suspect when that child had disappeared in mysterious circumstances.

If she'd answered "no," then it would have been considered that she was lying and the onus would have been back on the police to find evidence of this.  So no matter how she had answered this question - yes or no - she could not have "proved her innocence;" in fact, she'd have looked more guilty than ever.

[Rachel Granada]

Agreed.   It's obvious her Lawyer advised her not to answer ANY questions.  That is normal advice.  His duty was to act in the best interests of his client - and if he had the slightest inkling that this interview was not about finding Madeleine but was purely an attempt to find a reason to arrest Kate - then his advice was correct. 

The reason Kate didn't answer the questions was not because she couldn't or didn't want to - it was because she followed her Lawyers advice.  As he was au fait with Portuguese law and she wasn't - she did the right thing.

Many of the questions she would have answered previously anyway - unless we are being asked to believe that this was the first time the PJ had asked her what happened when she went into 5A to do her check at 10.00p.m on the 3rd May.       Considering she was interviewed for 11 hours only the day before when she was a 'witness' and so was obliged by law to answer questions, one wonders why they didn't ask her many of the questions at that interview.

Agreed - and I would also say that she would have already answered some of those questions already and your point about why did the PJ not ask her when she was still a witness is an excellent one.

[Benice]

To be accurate it is the AG's and Leicestershire Police's contention not mine.

In terms of what i think they should do?

Well first thing's first i am entirely comfortable at this stage that the Yard are investigating abduction scenarios.

Let them got on with it and get through these 38 persons of interest.

Then once that is done and if (as i suspect) it leads nowhere the way forward is pretty clear.

The 9 have to submit themselves unreservedly and individually for more in depth questioning about their actions and movements without the contraints of the rogatory framework.

After all as Menezez said in Court the group were lying about their checking routines.

The fundamental question remains for me were they lying to simply cover the neglect charges or to hide something more sinister?

Also as i have posted previously the group killed the investigation with the refusal to perform the reconstruction.

Why would they they seek to kill the investigation at the point at which it was reconstructing their statements? Why did they decide that not performing the actions of their statements was more important that the investigation remaining open into the missing child?

That's a big decision to make so the reasons to them must have been compelling. What were those reasons?

Then we come on to Jane Tanner. Once and for all a definite answer on the night in the surveilence van. If as she states in the Rogatory "she just thought (Murat) it was him (bundleman)" then there are serious repercussions regarding her testimony.

I would like to see a reconstruction done but i think the likelihood is very slim.

The bottom line is all roads, certainly from the files, lead back to the group, their statements and actions. Until all those issues are cleared up my opinion is that this case cannot move forward.

Jane Tanner never identified Murat as the man she saw at any time.

Her final words on Murat from her rog. statement:

4078    “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply    “No, I don’t, no”.

That seems pretty definite to me.