Kate's refusal on legal advice to answer those 48 questions.

[Eleanor]

Whether it makes sense to you or not that is Portuguese law.

Now back to those questions that the PJ allegedly didn't take a record of !

I don't suppose you could show me a copy, could you?  Not that I am insisting.

[faithlilly]

I don't suppose you could show me a copy, could you?  Not that I am insisting.

Now Eleanor please don't make yourself look any more duplicitous than you do already. You have been following this case for long enough to know that what I posted is absolutely true.

The arguido status is a form of protection against self-incrimination. I guess that's why supporters tried to suggest soon after the status was bestowed on the McCanns that they had actually asked to be made arguidos themselves.

[Eleanor]

Now Eleanor please don't make yourself look any more duplicitous than you do already. You have been following this case for long enough to know that what I posted is absolutely true.

The arguido status is a form of protection against self-incrimination. I guess that's why supporters tried to suggest soon after the status was bestowed on the McCanns that they had actually asked to be made arguidos themselves.

No, I don't know that what you have posted is absolutely true.  But if you don't want to post up the proof then that is fine by me.

[faithlilly]

No, I don't know that what you have posted is absolutely true.  But if you don't want to post up the proof then that is fine by me.

Then if you don't know the truth of my post after following the case for some time should you really be taking part in a discussion you know very little about ?

Bottom line Eleanor, you have been exposed while trying to mislead this forum and to cover your embarrassment you are now making a song and dance with regard to the production of a piece of information that has long been in the public domain.

Word of advice either don't post information you know to be untrue or accept that when you do people will point it out.

[Brietta]

Whether it makes sense to you or not that is Portuguese law.

Now back to those questions that the PJ allegedly didn't take a record of !

I think the clue that these questions had already been asked and already answered lies in the words, "did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?"
Of course that has already been pointed out on this thread, but why let the truth get in the way of a perfectly useable myth.

[faithlilly]

I think the clue that these questions had already been asked and already answered lies in the words, "did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?"
Of course that has already been pointed out on this thread, but why let the truth get in the way of a perfectly useable myth.

Kate had already made two statements and this is what she is referring to.

Unless of course you can make a coherent argument that this is not the case ?

[Eleanor]

Then if you don't know the truth of my post after following the case for some time should you really be taking part in a discussion you know very little about ?

Bottom line Eleanor, you have been exposed while trying to mislead this forum and to cover your embarrassment you are now making a song and dance with regard to the production of a piece of information that has long been in the public domain.

Word of advice either don't post information you know to be untrue or accept that when you do people will point it out.

Nope, you are wrong about that.  Why should anyone take your word anymore than mine?  Unless they seriously want to, of course, which would not surprise me.  Kate had answered at least several of those questions previously, as any fool can see.

I understand The Arguido Status, complicated though it is, but as far as I can see it is seriously flawed and achieves very little, other than to cast doubt on the innocence of anyone.  Fortunately it can no longer be bestowed by the whim of some corrupt PJ Officer with an agenda.

[Eleanor]

It seems to have been forgotten that Kate and Gerry were told lies about the Forensic Evidence during these Interviews.  I wonder why The PJ did that.

[faithlilly]

Nope, you are wrong about that.  Why should anyone take your word anymore than mine?  Unless they seriously want to, of course, which would not surprise me.  Kate had answered at least several of those questions previously, as any fool can see.

I understand The Arguido Status, complicated though it is, but as far as I can see it is seriously flawed and achieves very little, other than to cast doubt on the innocence of anyone.  Fortunately it can no longer be bestowed by the whim of some corrupt PJ Officer with an agenda.

No one should take anything either you or I say at face value and I would hope they would research the information themselves but that doesn't change the fact that you have no proof that Kate had been asked questions that weren't recorded or indeed was not simply referring to her previous, recorded answers when she answered her arguido questions.

[Eleanor]

No one should take anything either you or I say at face value and I would hope they would research the information themselves but that doesn't change the fact that you have no proof that Kate had been asked questions that weren't recorded or indeed was not simply referring to her previous, recorded answers when she answered her arguido questions.

And you haven't produced proof that that she was.  But as I said, I am not insisting.

Let's just leave it at that.  Unless you want to carry on.

[Mr Gray]

Which you have to admit was a smooth move on Dr Amaral's part. Something that any policeman in the world would have done under similar circumstances.

depends whether you think he is a ace detective or a buffoon....the amazing thing is that opinion is so polarised

[Mr Gray]

Which you have to admit was a smooth move on Dr Amaral's part. Something that any policeman in the world would have done under similar circumstances.

but Redwood and the new PJ team have come to a completely different view from amaral

[Montclair]

Which you have to admit was a smooth move on Dr Amaral's part. Something that any policeman in the world would have done under similar circumstances.

Once again, the investigation was not a one man show and it wasn't up to Gonçalo Amaral to decide whether to make the McCanns arguidos or not. It was a decision made with the judges from the Ministério Público, the head of the PJ Alípio Ribeiro and the other officers, such as Guilhermino de Encarnação. All this criticism of Gonçalo Amaral and the way he "ran" the investigation is totally pointless seeing that he was not the person who called the shots or made the important decisions. But there are those who continue with this battle because they do not know who else to blame.

[Brietta]

Kate had already made two statements and this is what she is referring to.

Unless of course you can make a coherent argument that this is not the case ?

Dr Kate McCann or Kate Marie Healy as she is referred to here was questioned extensively prior to being made an arguida.

You are surely raising the incompetence of the PJ interviewing procedure if they did not ask the really essential questions which she was obliged to answer but waited until she had the protection of her arguida status when she was not obliged.
Just how 'essential' these questions were is revealed when one actually reads them

Or was it a propaganda ploy, designed to promote the smear of a mother who would not answer these 48 simple questions to obstruct the police investigating her daughter's disappearance?
If so, it appears to have had the desired effect as people like you are still promoting the '48 Questions' only for the detriment of Kate Marie Healey.

 
58 to 65 Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy 2007.05.04
Processo 01  Pages 58 to 65 
TRANSLATIONS  BY ANNA ESSE /ALBYM
 Kate Marie Healy's statement 04/05/07 @ 14.20pm
 Kate's interview took place on the day after Madeleine's disappearance, 04/05/07 at 2.20pm.
On the subject of the proceedings:
The interviewee was heard as a victim, being the mother of the minor.
///////
2539 to 2551 Interrogation of Kate Marie Healy 2007.09.06 with pictures of 5 A, Tapas table and layout of 5A   
10-PROCESSO 10 VOLUME Xa (Pages 2539 to 2551)
Kate Marie Healy's statement 06/09/07 @ 3.00pm
TRANSLATIONS  BY CARMERINA32
KATE MARIE HEALY ' STATEMENT
(from DVD)
September 6/2007 3pm at Portimao
Of British nationality, cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present taken from a list provided by the Consulate, ADSR.
Also present Carlos Pinto de Abreu, attorney.
KMH confirms all of what was stated before the Policy on May 4, 2007, the day following the events under investigation.
The interview was stopped at 5PM for a rest period, to be recommenced at 5:15 PM.
At this moment, and because it was so late, 11 PM, the interview was interrupted and will be continued tomorrow morning.
///////
Procedural Rights and Duties Defendant/ "Arguido" K McCann
10 Processos Vol X Pages 2553 to 2554
also OUTROS APENSOS IX, Volume I Pages 35 to 36 
Portimao Criminal Investigation Department
Being Held as a Defendant
(Procedural rights and duties set forth in section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Act n? 34/2004 of July 29, 2004)
Defendant: Kate Marie Healy (identified on page 58)
Date he (sic) was held a defendant: 07-09-2007
Defence counsel: Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, CP 9786L
Procedural Rights - Not to answer the questions asked by any entity about the facts he is charged with and about the contents of his statement concerning them,

[Carana]

@ Brietta. Just a detail, there seems to have been a translation glitch in the English version of the official arguido rights. The original says arguido, and it was translated as defendant. An arguido can be translated as defendant, but in a trial situation.