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

[John]

Actually I agree with that as well.  Regardless of the fact that the PJ were trying to stitch her up, I think Kate should have ignored her solicitor's advice, no matter how well-intentioned it was.  That said, when you're in such an intimidating situation in a foreign country with a dodgy reputation for questioning suspects, and when the only person on your side and who knows how the police and the law works tells you to do something, you're probably more inclined to do as they say.

It wasn't a matter of stitching anyone up Alfie, Gonçalo states that some officers involved in the investigation believed that they were involved to such an extent that they were hoping for the miracle of a confession.  Remember this was the day before Kate was designated an arguida.

Book extract.

"On September 6th, a little before 3pm, Kate arrives at the DIC in Portimão, accompanied by her press officer. Her lawyer has already arrived and the interview room is ready. The crowd has been building up for a while. Going through the door, Kate laughs as she says that this media scrum is good for tourism.

Her lawyer requests that she be heard as a witness and not interrogated as an arguida. We don't agree with what, to us, constitutes a backward step. Some officers involved in the investigation seem to be hoping for the miracle of a confession. We remain skeptical.

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."

"At 8 o'clock, we have a break to have something to eat, then the interrogation continues until 11pm."

"On September 7th at 11am, Kate Healy is declared an arguida on the basis of strong presumptions of the crime of concealing a body and simulating an abduction. She states her name and gives her address as her home in Great Britain. Taking advantage of the right accorded to her by her status, she remains silent and does not answer questions concerning the circumstances of her daughter's death on May 3rd 2007, in the Ocean Club apartment."

[Eleanor]

And then The Law changed some three or four days later, at which point they would have needed more than a presumption to make anyone an Arguido.

Amaral was aware of this change in The Law that was about to happen, so this was just a PR exercise to make The McCanns look bad in the eyes of Public Opinion.

It backfired spectacularly.  No more interviews, not even Rogatory Interviews.

[Mr Gray]

It wasn't a matter of stitching anyone up Alfie, Gonçalo states that some officers involved in the investigation believed that they were involved to such an extent that they were hoping for the miracle of a confession.  Remember this was the day before Kate was designated an arguida.

Book extract.

"On September 6th, a little before 3pm, Kate arrives at the DIC in Portimão, accompanied by her press officer. Her lawyer has already arrived and the interview room is ready. The crowd has been building up for a while. Going through the door, Kate laughs as she says that this media scrum is good for tourism.

Her lawyer requests that she be heard as a witness and not interrogated as an arguida. We don't agree with what, to us, constitutes a backward step. Some officers involved in the investigation seem to be hoping for the miracle of a confession. We remain skeptical.

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."

"At 8 o'clock, we have a break to have something to eat, then the interrogation continues until 11pm."

"On September 7th at 11am, Kate Healy is declared an arguida on the basis of strong presumptions of the crime of concealing a body and simulating an abduction. She states her name and gives her address as her home in Great Britain. Taking advantage of the right accorded to her by her status, she remains silent and does not answer questions concerning the circumstances of her daughter's death on May 3rd 2007, in the Ocean Club apartment."

Interesting post and as ha already been pointed out amaral is NOT talking about having evidence that the mccanns are involved but a presumption...its their in amarals own words..even he admits he has no evidence

[ferryman]

It is interesting to read other peoples assumptions that they 'know' why people are suspect about the McCanns.

I have never questioned Kate's right to not answer the questions. I do believe in justice, and that forms a good part of it.
 I see no reason to criticize the police for asking questions- in order to establish what happened to her daughter.

My issue is this: why did she answer "YES" to the last question, knowing that it may affect the search for her daughter, and then create a circus about a book accusing  the author of the self same thing?

Not only is this double standards, it is a bit rich for people to support Kate's civil liberties, but deny other peoples right to freedom of speech and expression.

NB: The book was unbanned !  The search was not harmed due to it's contents, because there were still sightings. The McCanns have no legal authority on a Global playing field, Mr Amarals book can be, read online, or purchased from many book shops.

My issue is this: why did she answer "YES" to the last question, knowing that it may affect the search for her daughter, and then create a circus about a book accusing  the author of the self same thing?

No matter what of, if you were falsely accused, the one thing you would know beyond doubt is that you were innocent.

Under those circumstances, would you actively cooperate with a line of enquiry that was seeking to implicate you?

I certainly wouldn't.

[slartibartfast]

My issue is this: why did she answer "YES" to the last question, knowing that it may affect the search for her daughter, and then create a circus about a book accusing  the author of the self same thing?

No matter what of, if you were falsely accused, the one thing you would know beyond doubt is that you were innocent.

Under those circumstances, would you actively cooperate with a line of enquiry that was seeking to implicate you?

I certainly wouldn't.

I would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even if some of it painted me in a bad light.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I would too 'Slartibartfast
Especially if I was worried about my  3 year old daughter.

Police have to ask not nice questions. It was a not nice situation for anyone.

The Philpotts burned their 6 children alive- the police had to investigate.
The police suspected them...Questioned them.

Can you imagine any parents doing that because of wicked intentions to blame someone else?
I honestly still get shocked by crimes against children- I still get horrified.