Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?

[Alfred R Jones]

No judge would ever lie because investigation files are always made public and open to scrutiny. In a serious and sensitive case such as this one, the judge in no way would just take the word of the PJ with regard to the DNA results. He would have looked at them and agreed to the questioning because the preliminary results indicated Maddie's DNA. The judge and Ministério Público receive all of the paper work and make the important decisions, such as those regarding the questioning of the arguidos in this case. So according to that logic, the PJ was not lying when they asked those questions.

Are you telling us that every single question put to Kate would have been pre-authorised by a judge, including all the ones we are told would have followed on from Kate's answers if she had given any?  &%+((£

[Montclair]

Well Montclair, perhaps the kindest way of putting it is that either the Judge misread the FSS information or did not actually understand.  So someone was at fault.

Perhaps you could kindly have a look at the following questions.  They are quite specific - it would be interesting to see how they conform to the actual forensic results?


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?

So you are saying that all of those people (PJ, judges, Ministério Público, forensic specialists in Portugal, etc.) who had access to the first DNA results were stupid and unable to understand a DNA report and data?

The simplest and most logical explanation is that the preliminary results showed a match to Madeleine McCann and that the final report was a manipulation of the data with 37 alleles instead of the original 19 so that there would be doubt. Even that report never said that it was not Madeleine's DNA.

Alfred R.Jones: Of course, those questions would have to be approved and authorised by the judge leading the investigation.

[Alfred R Jones]

So you are saying that all of those people (PJ, judges, Ministério Público, forensic specialists in Portugal, etc.) who had access to the first DNA results were stupid and unable to understand a DNA report and data?

The simplest and most logical explanation is that the preliminary results showed a match to Madeleine McCann and that the final report was a manipulation of the data with 37 alleles instead of the original 19 so that there would be doubt. Even that report never said that it was not Madeleine's DNA.

Alfred R.Jones: Of course, those questions would have to be approved and authorised by the judge leading the investigation.

So in Portugal the police have no authority to pose any questions to arguidos without each question being pre-vetted and OK'ed by a judge...?

[Montclair]

So in Portugal the police have no authority to pose any questions to arguidos without each question being pre-vetted and OK'ed by a judge...?

Yep!

[Alfred R Jones]

Yep!

So, suppose Kate had answered a question and said something to the effect of "I hid something near a statue", then unless the judge had pre-agreed that the police may ask the question "what did you hide and which statue did you hide it near?", they would have had to wait to get a judge to OK them asking that question? 

[Montclair]

So, suppose Kate had answered a question and said something to the effect of "I hid something near a statue", then unless the judge had pre-agreed that the police may ask the question "what did you hide and which statue did you hide it near?", they would have had to wait to get a judge to OK them asking that question?

Unfortunately, that is the way it is. No matter what Kate answered the police could not ask any other questions, only the ones decided beforehand. The same procedure is used in trials here.

[Eleanor]

Unfortunately, that is the way it is. No matter what Kate answered the police could not ask any other questions, only the ones decided beforehand. The same procedure is used in trials here.

What about the questions before she was made an Arguida?

[Alfred R Jones]

Unfortunately, that is the way it is. No matter what Kate answered the police could not ask any other questions, only the ones decided beforehand. The same procedure is used in trials here.

So, basically anyone saying that there were more than 48 questions that would have followed on from Kate's prospective replies is talking crap, yes?

[Carana]

You do realise that the Polícia Judiciária is under the authority of the judicial system, this means that a judge leads the investigation. The PJ would not be able to ask the above questions without the judge being involved and giving his authorisation. This means that you are also calling the judge a liar.

Not sure about that. In the investigation phase, although hierarchically subordinate, the MP appears to leave the PJ to get on with the job, unless there's something specific that has to be approved (e.g. search warrants).

Artigo 58.º
(Constituição de arguido)
1 - Sem prejuízo do disposto no artigo anterior, é obrigatória a constituição de arguido logo que:
a) Correndo inquérito contra pessoa determinada, esta prestar declarações perante qualquer autoridade judiciária ou órgão de polícia criminal;
b) Tenha de ser aplicada a qualquer pessoa uma medida de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial;
c) Um suspeito for detido, nos termos e para os efeitos previstos nos artigos 254.º a 261.º; ou
d) For levantado auto de notícia que dê uma pessoa como agente de um crime e aquele lhe for comunicado.
2 - A constituição de arguido opera­se através da comunicação, oral ou por escrito, feita ao visado por uma autoridade judiciária ou um órgão de polícia criminal, de que a partir desse momento aquele deve considerar­se arguido num processo penal e da indicação e, se necessário, explicação dos direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.º que por essa razão passam a caber­lhe.
3 - A constituição de arguido implica a entrega, sempre que possível no próprio acto, de documento de que constem a identificação do processo e do defensor, se este tiver sido nomeado, e os direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.º.
4 - A omissão ou violação das formalidades previstas nos números anteriores implica que as declarações prestadas pela pessoa visada não podem ser utilizadas como prova contra ela.




Artigo 144.º
(Outros interrogatórios)
1 - Os subsequentes interrogatórios de arguido preso e os interrogatórios de arguido em liberdade são feitos no inquérito pelo Ministério Público e na instrução e em julgamento pelo respectivo juiz, obedecendo, em tudo quanto for aplicável, às disposições deste capítulo.
2 - No inquérito, os interrogatórios referidos no número anterior podem ser feitos por órgão de polícia criminal no qual o Ministério Público tenha delegado a sua realização.

 Artigo 270.º
(Actos que podem ser delegados pelo Ministério Público nos órgãos de polícia criminal)
1 - O Ministério Público pode conferir a órgãos de polícia criminal o encargo de procederem a quaisquer diligências e investigações relativas ao inquérito.
2 - Exceptuam­se do disposto no número anterior, além dos actos que são da competência exclusiva do juiz de instrução, nos termos dos artigos 268.º e 269.º, os actos seguintes:
a) Receber depoimentos ajuramentados, nos termos do artigo 138.º, n.º 3, segunda parte;
b) Ordenar a efectivação de perícia, nos termos do artigo 154.º;
c) Assistir a exame susceptível de ofender o pudor da pessoa, nos termos do artigo 172.º, n.º 2, segunda parte;
d) Ordenar ou autorizar revistas e buscas, nos termos e limites do artigo 174.º, n.ºs 3 e 4;
e) Quaisquer outros actos que a lei expressamente determinar que sejam presididos ou praticados pelo Ministério Público.
3 - O Ministério Público pode, porém, delegar em autoridades de polícia criminal a faculdade de ordenar a efectivação da perícia relativamente a determinados tipos de crime, em caso de urgência ou de perigo na demora, nomeadamente quando a perícia deva ser realizada conjuntamente com o exame de vestígios. Exceptuam-se a perícia que envolva a realização de autópsia médico-legal, bem como a prestação de esclarecimentos complementares e a realização de nova perícia nos termos do artigo 158.º.
4 - A delegação a que se refere o n.º 1 pode ser efectuada por despacho de natureza genérica que indique os tipos de crime ou os limites das penas aplicáveis aos crimes em investigação.


CPP 2000
http://paulosantos-adv.planetaclix.pt/CPP.htm

[Carana]

The role doesn't appear to be that of an instruction judge (in the sense of actively directing the investigation)... more rubber-stamping when and if needed.

What active role did the MP actually play up until the investigation phase was drawing to a close?

From memory, off the top of my head:

- approved disseminating Madeleiene's details
- reminded the PJ to get the translators to sign their legal forms
- approved / refused search warrants / phone tapping

[Montclair]

Not sure about that. In the investigation phase, although hierarchically subordinate, the MP appears to leave the PJ to get on with the job, unless there's something specific that has to be approved (e.g. search warrants).

Artigo 58.º
(Constituição de arguido)
1 - Sem prejuízo do disposto no artigo anterior, é obrigatória a constituição de arguido logo que:
a) Correndo inquérito contra pessoa determinada, esta prestar declarações perante qualquer autoridade judiciária ou órgão de polícia criminal;
b) Tenha de ser aplicada a qualquer pessoa uma medida de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial;
c) Um suspeito for detido, nos termos e para os efeitos previstos nos artigos 254.º a 261.º; ou
d) For levantado auto de notícia que dê uma pessoa como agente de um crime e aquele lhe for comunicado.
2 - A constituição de arguido opera­se através da comunicação, oral ou por escrito, feita ao visado por uma autoridade judiciária ou um órgão de polícia criminal, de que a partir desse momento aquele deve considerar­se arguido num processo penal e da indicação e, se necessário, explicação dos direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.º que por essa razão passam a caber­lhe.
3 - A constituição de arguido implica a entrega, sempre que possível no próprio acto, de documento de que constem a identificação do processo e do defensor, se este tiver sido nomeado, e os direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.º.
4 - A omissão ou violação das formalidades previstas nos números anteriores implica que as declarações prestadas pela pessoa visada não podem ser utilizadas como prova contra ela.




Artigo 144.º
(Outros interrogatórios)
1 - Os subsequentes interrogatórios de arguido preso e os interrogatórios de arguido em liberdade são feitos no inquérito pelo Ministério Público e na instrução e em julgamento pelo respectivo juiz, obedecendo, em tudo quanto for aplicável, às disposições deste capítulo.
2 - No inquérito, os interrogatórios referidos no número anterior podem ser feitos por órgão de polícia criminal no qual o Ministério Público tenha delegado a sua realização.

 Artigo 270.º
(Actos que podem ser delegados pelo Ministério Público nos órgãos de polícia criminal)
1 - O Ministério Público pode conferir a órgãos de polícia criminal o encargo de procederem a quaisquer diligências e investigações relativas ao inquérito.
2 - Exceptuam­se do disposto no número anterior, além dos actos que são da competência exclusiva do juiz de instrução, nos termos dos artigos 268.º e 269.º, os actos seguintes:
a) Receber depoimentos ajuramentados, nos termos do artigo 138.º, n.º 3, segunda parte;
b) Ordenar a efectivação de perícia, nos termos do artigo 154.º;
c) Assistir a exame susceptível de ofender o pudor da pessoa, nos termos do artigo 172.º, n.º 2, segunda parte;
d) Ordenar ou autorizar revistas e buscas, nos termos e limites do artigo 174.º, n.ºs 3 e 4;
e) Quaisquer outros actos que a lei expressamente determinar que sejam presididos ou praticados pelo Ministério Público.
3 - O Ministério Público pode, porém, delegar em autoridades de polícia criminal a faculdade de ordenar a efectivação da perícia relativamente a determinados tipos de crime, em caso de urgência ou de perigo na demora, nomeadamente quando a perícia deva ser realizada conjuntamente com o exame de vestígios. Exceptuam-se a perícia que envolva a realização de autópsia médico-legal, bem como a prestação de esclarecimentos complementares e a realização de nova perícia nos termos do artigo 158.º.
4 - A delegação a que se refere o n.º 1 pode ser efectuada por despacho de natureza genérica que indique os tipos de crime ou os limites das penas aplicáveis aos crimes em investigação.


CPP 2000
http://paulosantos-adv.planetaclix.pt/CPP.htm

You skipped point 1 of article 144, where it says that the subsequent interrogations of the remanded or freed arguidos are done in the investigation phase by the Ministério Público and in the "instrução" and trial phase by the judge, in accordance, as much as can be applied, with the dispositions of this chapter.

This case was surely under the authority of the MP. The MP can delegate the interrogation to the PJ but they remain the authority responsible for the investigation. Furthermore, there is no way that this sensitive and difficult case would not have been closely followed by the judicial authorities and the MP, in order to assure that everything was in accordance with the law.

[Carana]

You skipped point 1 of article 144, where it says that the subsequent interrogations of the remanded or freed arguidos are done in the investigation phase by the Ministério Público and in the "instrução" and trial phase by the judge, in accordance, as much as can be applied, with the dispositions of this chapter.

This case was surely under the authority of the MP. The MP can delegate the interrogation to the PJ but they remain the authority responsible for the investigation. Furthermore, there is no way that this sensitive and difficult case would not have been closely followed by the judicial authorities and the MP, in order to assure that everything was in accordance with the law.

In accordance with the law... yes, which is what I tried to point out: they were primarily ensuring that the legal formalities were adhered to. I don't see how that would extend to the content or quantity of questions the PJ had decided to ask.

[Eleanor]

What about the questions before she was made an Arguida?

[DCI]

In accordance with the law... yes, which is what I tried to point out: they were primarily ensuring that the legal formalities were adhered to. I don't see how that would extend to the content or quantity of questions the PJ had decided to ask.

So they sanctioned Gerry being told lies, about Madeliene's DNA, they knew was false, from Lowes email on 3rd September. Telling them

In an email dated September 3 2007 John Lowe, from the major incidents team at the Birmingham-based Forensic Science Service (FSS), said it was impossible to conclude whether the material definitely came from Madeliene.

[Jean-Pierre]

You skipped point 1 of article 144, where it says that the subsequent interrogations of the remanded or freed arguidos are done in the investigation phase by the Ministério Público and in the "instrução" and trial phase by the judge, in accordance, as much as can be applied, with the dispositions of this chapter.

This case was surely under the authority of the MP. The MP can delegate the interrogation to the PJ but they remain the authority responsible for the investigation. Furthermore, there is no way that this sensitive and difficult case would not have been closely followed by the judicial authorities and the MP, in order to assure that everything was in accordance with the law.

So going back to your first response, you are claiming the PJ had correctly understood the forensic evidence but that that evidence was "changed" as a result of interference?  Really?  Perhaps a rather simpler explanation is that the forensic evidence was misunderstood by a rather overenthusiastic coordinator?  Unless you can produce a copy of the preliminary report?

On this post - So the PJ are in a position to pursue further questions without reference to the MP.

A question for you - would, in your opinion,  the McCanns have been interviewed under arguido status following the changes to the CPP which took effect on 15th September 2007, and required actual evidence in order to impose the arguido regime?