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

[Brietta]

The 'couldn't explain' addendum was only added to questions about the cadaver dog film and we know from Kate herself, not the files but her own words, that the first time she had seen the film or been asked the subsequent questions was after she had been made an arguido on the 7th of September.

All other questions elicited a 'no comment'.

The fact that she had not seen the video does not preclude that she had not answered questions.  Dr Gerry McCann asked to see the forensic evidence he was being questioned on and was refused.

The addendum could not have been more specific not least in tense ... " did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?"

It was neither "no comment" nor was it " I can't explain" and I think the tell is "already had".

Since she was not obliged to answer any questions at all ... I really do take my hat off to the propaganda skills which have kept this going for seven years ... if the case of a missing had been given half the attention smearing her parents has ... we might be a lot further down the road of finding out what happened to her and who was actually responsible.

I sincerely hope when the PJ and the Met get round to questioning the identified persons of interest, they do not take these questions as a model of how to advance an inquiry.

No worries there ... I am absolutely certain ... they will not.

[Mr Moderator]

So there you have it, only questions which related to events prior to 5.30pm on 3rd May 2007 were asked while Kate and Gerry McCann were witnesses.  Questions relating to events after 5.3pm were only asked once arguido status was invoked.

[faithlilly]

The fact that she had not seen the video does not preclude that she had not answered questions.  Dr Gerry McCann asked to see the forensic evidence he was being questioned on and was refused.

The addendum could not have been more specific not least in tense ... " did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?"

It was neither "no comment" nor was it " I can't explain" and I think the tell is "already had".

Since she was not obliged to answer any questions at all ... I really do take my hat off to the propaganda skills which have kept this going for seven years ... if the case of a missing had been given half the attention smearing her parents has ... we might be a lot further down the road of finding out what happened to her and who was actually responsible.

I sincerely hope when the PJ and the Met get round to questioning the identified persons of interest, they do not take these questions as a model of how to advance an inquiry.

No worries there ... I am absolutely certain ... they will not.

As we are continually told by supporters the statements in the files were translated several times so how can we be sure that how specific the wording or the tense was ?

If Kate had been asked incriminating questions before she had been made an arguido don't you think she would have said so ?

[Mr Moderator]

It is a detectives job to consider everyone a potential suspect and given the discrepancies in the tapas-9 accounts, not at all surprising.

The claim however was that within days the McCanns were the prime suspects and that is patently untrue.

[Carana]

So there you have it, only questions which related to events prior to 5.30pm on 3rd May 2007 were asked while Kate and Gerry McCann were witnesses.  Questions relating to events after 5.3pm were only asked once arguido status was invoked.

Mind you mind then posting the extracts concerning the informal interview of 8 August, please.

[ferryman]

Amaral clearly states in his book that he had doubts about the McCanns' version of events by the 4th May 2007 - sadly (!) I don't have a digital copy of the book to verify this but as you do perhaps you can find it - near the beginning I should think.

Sooner than that.

Within hours (according to the Grate Man Himself)

DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?

GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour. The procedures in this type of case are to find out who the persons are, who the missing person is, in this case the missing child, and to find out all the antecedents. And now the first question that is asked from the English authorities, from the British police forces, is that one. Who were the parents, that group of people, and who was the child, was she the target of abuse, was she not. Then, it evolves, it’s a formal procedure, its general for all cases and when the first statements are made, that’s the day when we start to suspect that something is wrong. Things evolved, they were suspects until we reached the work of the English dogs and then the suspicions ultimately became indicia [evidence].

He was being interviewed by the even GRATER man, Duarte Levy, so it must be true ...

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/02/exclusive-interview-to-former-pj.html

[Alfred R Jones]

Rightly so since it is a detectives job to consider everyone a potential suspect and given the discrepancies in the tapas-9 accounts, not at all surprising.

The claim however was that within days the McCanns were the prime suspects and that is patently untrue.

Who claimed that?

[Mr Moderator]

Mind you mind then posting the extracts concerning the informal interview of 8 August, please.

There is no specific reference to 8th August, do you have a page number?

[Brietta]

As we are continually told by supporters the statements in the files were translated several times so how can we be sure that how specific the wording or the tense was ?

If Kate had been asked incriminating questions before she had been made an arguido don't you think she would have said so ?

Supporters? 

Apparently the translation of Dr Amaral's book which is on the internet is riddled with error ... we have discussed the subject on this forum.

She would have been required to answer questions incriminating or not prior to being made arguida.

Once she was constituted arguida she enjoyed the full protection of the law and was not required to answer questions whether incriminating or not.

Surprised you do not know that.

[faithlilly]

Supporters? 

Apparently the translation of Dr Amaral's book which is on the internet is riddled with error ... we have discussed the subject on this forum.

She would have been required to answer questions incriminating or not prior to being made arguida.

Once she was constituted arguida she enjoyed the full protection of the law and was not required to answer questions whether incriminating or not.

Surprised you do not know that.

This is what Amaral says about the arguido status and non-incrimination  ( thank you Mr Moderator for the quote )

'We finally decide to question her as a witness, but not to impose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children. From that time on, everything she said could be held against her. According to the principle of non-incrimination, she would then have to be declared arguida since we have sufficient evidence to do that."

[Mr Gray]

This is what Amaral says about the arguido status and non-incrimination  ( thank you Mr Moderator for the quote )

'We finally decide to question her as a witness, but not to impose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children. From that time on, everything she said could be held against her. According to the principle of non-incrimination, she would then have to be declared arguida since we have sufficient evidence to do that."

what makes that statement very strange is that amaral did not need evidence to impose the arguido status

[Mr Gray]

To clarify then, the archiving report is effectively declaring that the McCanns failed to take every opportunity provided to them in order to prove their innocence and by their own actions created a situation whereby the investigation had to be shelved.

Far from being cleared the archiving report raises more questions than provides answers.

The 48 questions which Kate McCann refused to answer when questioned by the Portuguese police investigating the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine.

These are the questions:

1. 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?
2.  Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4.  Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13.  Who took place in the searches?
14.  Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17.  Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18.  How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
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?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
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?

49. THE QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER:

Q.  Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A.  'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html#ixzz34VCmDWYw

What type of judicial system expects people to PROVE their innocence

[ferryman]

What indeed?

Still, I maintain that the prosecutors were 80% sound ...

[Mr Gray]

What type of judicial system expects people to PROVE their innocence

This is fascism in the extreme

[Montclair]

This is fascism in the extreme

What a stupid statement. In a criminal investigation, everyone involved is considered a suspect until they have been cleared one way or another. That is how it works, simple. Even the LP stated in the court in London that there was no evidence which eliminated the parents from any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.