43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
-------------------------------------------------------
Kate certainly wasn't asked any of these questions in May.
She probably was asked them on September the 6th. But that was my point. Kate had already answered them.
And according to you she had answered the rest on May the 4th.
So this was just an exercise to make Kate look bad.
She probably was asked ? Where ?
I'm sorry but a generic statement from Kate in no way proves your contention. Further even Kate doesn't claim in her book that she was asked certain questions twice, in fact quite the opposite.
So why are you claiming it ?
ETA Passage from Kate's book that deals with her questioning on the 7th of September.
"As anticipated, my interrogation began with João Carlos explaining that my status from this moment on had been changed from witness to arguida. He ran through the rights and obligations this conferred on me. I sat there quietly, trying to compose myself despite the anger bubbling below the surface. They haven’t beenlooking for Madeleine . . . Then they started. What had I seen and heard after entering apartment 5A at 10pm on 3 May 2007? Who called the police? At what time? Who contacted the media? It’s actually quite difficult not to answer when someone asks you a question. The natural reaction is to reply, out of politeness if nothing else. And of course the urge to say what I thought about some of their vile and ridiculous insinuations was hard to suppress. On the other hand, I was very weary and at least repeating ‘No comment’ didn’t involve engaging my brain. It certainly speeded up the translation process. With luck it would mean these proceedings wouldn’t drag on any longer than they had to.
Ricardo Paiva played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, which did nothing to maintain my equilibrium. This was the man who had invited us to his home for dinner. Our children had played with his son. ‘The twins were restless in the UK so you sedated them?’ he was saying. ‘In the UK you were trying to give Madeleine to a family member? You get stressed and frustrated with the kids?’ I knew exactly where this line of questioning was going and, as much as it riled me, I refused to rise to it.
If I’m honest, I’d been quite nervous about seeing the videos of the dogs. I had no idea what to expect, although I was quite sure something couldn’t be quite right about the results they had apparently produced. We knew from Bob Small that the responses of specialist dogs were, or ought to be, classed as intelligence, not evidence, but in my head I’d built up these film clips into the most damning ‘evidence’ imaginable; the ‘I rest my case, Your Honour’ finale. Now Ricardo was giving me his spiel about the dogs. ‘These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate,’ he said, waving an A4 document in front of me. ‘Two hundred cases and they’ve never failed. We have gone to the best laboratory in the world using low-copy DNA techniques.’ His emphasis suggested this was the gold standard. I just stared at him, unable to hide my contempt. What did he know about low-copy DNA? I was so tempted to ask him to elaborate. These dogs had never been used in Portugal before, and he knew little more about them, either, than I did.
Ricardo started the video player. I saw the dogs going into apartment 5A, one at a time, with the handler, PC Martin Grime (then of the South Yorkshire police, later self-employed). Each dog ran around the apartment, jumping over beds, into the wardrobe and generally having a good sniff. At one point, the handler directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site. The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science.
In footage of the apartment next door to ours, one of the dogs began to root in the corner of a room near a piece of furniture. PC Grime summoned the dog and they left the flat.
The film show continued. Now we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic. It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an ‘unblinded’ study, one that is susceptible to bias. One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle. The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed, returning to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking."
