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

[faithlilly]

Have it your own way, whatever that is.  I don't really care.  It didn't work, whatever it was.  The McCanns didn't have to answer anymore questions.

Do you agree that if Kate had previously been asked the questions regarding the dog alerts she would have mentioned it in her book ?

It is quite clear from the passage I posted that the first time Kate had seen the dog videos, or been asked any of the questions related to it, was on the 7th of September.

Which makes a bit of a nonsense of your claim that Kate had been asked the questions already but the incompetent PJ had not recorded them, doesn't it. Shall we just be charitable and say that perhaps your investigative skills just don't cut the mustard anymore eh.

[Carana]

"
Each time a dog gave a signal, Ricardo would pause the video and inform me that blood had been found in this site and that the DNA from the sample matched Madeleine’s. He would stare at me intently and ask me to explain this. These were the only times I didn’t respond with a ‘No comment.’ Instead I said I couldn’t explain it, but neither could he. I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘f.....g tosser, f.....g tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘f.....g tosser . . .’

When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler. From what I saw of the dogs’ responses, this certainly seemed to me to be what was happening here. We would later learn that in his written report, PC Grime had emphasized that such alerts cannot be relied upon without corroborating evidence."

Thanks Faithlilly. The official arguido statement doesn't mention this. Wouldn't a recorded verbatim interview clarify what was actually said?

[faithlilly]

Thanks Faithlilly. The official arguido statement doesn't mention this. Wouldn't a recorded verbatim interview clarify what was actually said?

Absolutely but unfortunately that was not how interviews were conducted in Portugal at the time.

[Eleanor]

Absolutely but unfortunately that was not how interviews were conducted in Portugal at the time.

So that's it then.  We are never going to know exactly what was said.  And I wasn't wrong after all.

[faithlilly]

So that's it then.  We are never going to know exactly what was said.  And I wasn't wrong after all.

We know what was said because Kate tells us so and nowhere did she say that she had seen or been questioned about the dog video before her arguido interview on the 7th of September.

So you are most assuredly wrong and you are only embarrassing yourself by trying to claim otherwise.

[Eleanor]

We know what was said because Kate tells us so and nowhere did she say that she had seen or been questioned about the dog video before her arguido interview on the 7th of September.

So you are most assuredly wrong and you are only embarrassing yourself by trying to claim otherwise.

But she was question at a time when the questions and answers were not recorded.  That is what I said.

[Brietta]

Do you agree that if Kate had previously been asked the questions regarding the dog alerts she would have mentioned it in her book ?

It is quite clear from the passage I posted that the first time Kate had seen the dog videos, or been asked any of the questions related to it, was on the 7th of September.

Which makes a bit of a nonsense of your claim that Kate had been asked the questions already but the incompetent PJ had not recorded them, doesn't it. Shall we just be charitable and say that perhaps your investigative skills just don't cut the mustard anymore eh.

The way in which the announcement of ‘proof’ of Madeleine’s death was handled was imo a form of abuse made all the more reprehensible when it was based on a total misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the forensic results.
So the skills of Dr Amaral's team to read and understand conclusions outlined in official documents most certainly did not cut the mustard and just added to the list of incompetency they evidenced throughout.

[faithlilly]

But she was question at a time when the questions and answers were not recorded.  That is what I said.

No you said, and I can post the verbatim claim if you like, that Kate had been asked certain questions twice but the PJ hadn't recorded her answers. I have proved that to be absolutely false.

[Eleanor]

No you said, and I can post the verbatim claim if you like, that Kate had been asked certain questions twice but the PJ hadn't recorded her answers. I have proved that to be absolutely false.

So why did they say, "other than what you have already explained."  Perhaps you can answer that for me.

Was she asked these things on the same day but before she was made an Arguida?

[faithlilly]

The way in which the announcement of ‘proof’ of Madeleine’s death was handled was imo a form of abuse made all the more reprehensible when it was based on a total misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the forensic results.
So the skills of Dr Amaral's team to read and understand conclusions outlined in official documents most certainly did not cut the mustard and just added to the list of incompetency they evidenced throughout.

Thank you for your opinion Brietta.

So do you now agree that Kate's statement that she could not add anything more than she already had did not prove she had been asked certain questions before ?

[faithlilly]

So why did they say, "other than what you have already explained."  Perhaps you can answer that for me.

Was she asked these things on the same day but before she was made an Arguida?

Kate doesn't say she was asked any question more than once and, in this, her recollection seems to be absolutely clear.

[Brietta]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm merely sorting out the truthful wheat from the supporter chaff and letting readers of this forum question why the chaff was needed in the first place.

Then you must explain why as an addendum to each question it was stated that Dr McCann said she couldn’t explain any more than she already had?

Quite obviously she had already answered pertinent questions regarding the couch, the wardrobe, the boot of the hire vehicle, whether or not she had seen the video.

As a mother who knew perfectly well she had neither harmed her daughter nor disposed of her daughter's body how could she possibly explain the inexplicable.

As later became evident the fact the questions were based on incompetent understanding of the forensic results makes them even more of a nonsense.

[Brietta]

Thank you for your opinion Brietta.

So do you now agree that Kate's statement that she could not add anything more than she already had did not prove she had been asked certain questions before ?

I most certainly do not agree.  Probably never crossed her mind she might have to prove which questions she had answered or had not been obliged to answer.

The fact that it is clearly stated that she could not "explain any more than she already had" says it for her.

So either she answered as best she could ... or the files are wrong.

[faithlilly]

Then you must explain why as an addendum to each question it was stated that Dr McCann said she couldn’t explain any more than she already had?

Quite obviously she had already answered pertinent questions regarding the couch, the wardrobe, the boot of the hire vehicle, whether or not she had seen the video.

As a mother who knew perfectly well she had neither harmed her daughter nor disposed of her daughter's body how could she possibly explain the inexplicable.

As later became evident the fact the questions were based on incompetent understanding of the forensic results makes them even more of a nonsense.

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'.

[Mr Moderator]

From the book...

"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."