In what circumstances can the "No comment" response be considered suspicious?

[Brietta]

Recently you have made a number of responses which, IMO, boil down to you deciding that you are not responding.

You very definitely have not answered my question.

The 'supplementaries' were an honest attempt to clarify your position.  Without your clarification, I can only assume that you have nothing to back your assertion.

I find your ping-pong comment distasteful.

There was no personal attack in my queries.  Why you chose to raise personal attacks is beyond me.

Perhaps if you think your comment was off-topic, you should not have thrown it in to the mix.  Otherwise, it is up for discussion.

You asked, “Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?” and I have no idea where you may have got hold of that misapprehension ~ because it bears no relation to anything I have posted. 

Wasn’t the whole issue of the forty eight questions the fact that she answered only one of them?

Therefore logic dictates that when it is recorded “Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.”  It was obviously not with reference to the questions she was being asked as arguida.
Why would you think it does?

You asked, “Is there anything to support the assertion that Gerry was advised to remain silent by his lawyer?” 

Of course there is … why would you ask what is common knowledge? 

Kate was informed of her rights by a PJ inspector … I expect that is the procedure adopted prior to all interrogations, they had also been in conference at home with their lawyer who brought Kate home after her interview on the previous day and they discussed what was to follow at their next interviews.

Quote
Gerry wasn’t back from his interrogation until 1.30am.
Like me, he was officially declared an arguido at the start of the proceedings.

His intention had been to take Carlos’s advice, as I had done, and refuse to answer any questions.

But when the first question – along the lines of ‘Did you dispose of your daughter’s body?’ – was put to him for the third time, incensed by its sheer absurdity and offensiveness and by the way the interviewing officer was goading him, he simply couldn’t stop himself.
In these conditions, his reaction was perfectly understandable, but unfortunately our inconsistent responses to interrogation led to me being portrayed as ‘difficult’ or even ‘guilty’ in certain sections of the media and, of course, by the nutters who pour forth bile on the internet.
However, I suppose this was a minor problem in the grand scheme of things  End Quote  Kate McCann: MADELEINE

[G-Unit]

snip/

You asked, “Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?” and I have no idea where you may have got hold of that misapprehension ~ because it bears no relation to anything I have posted. 

Your post #10

Kate had been questioned for at least eleven hours the day before.  I suggest she had already answered question 47 at that time.

Incidentally, Kate was in the police station for 11 hours, but wasn't answering questions the whole time.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Is it ? Not to me it’s not.

I’ll never forget Kate McCann’s face the afternoon her arguida status was lifted. She looked terrified. I think even she was self aware enough to know how bad not answering questions in the investigation to find her daughter would look to the public.

Her mother, when they were made arguidos, said her daughter had answered all the police’s questions and was helping as much as she could. I’ll bet she was surprised too when she found out that wasn’t the case.

You know nothing of how Kate’s mother felt about it so inadvisable to place a bet on it IMO.  As for the “looking terrified” bit, that again is purely your interpretation.  The fact that you will “ never forget” a moment in the woman’s life and how she looked that day also IMO indicates a somewhat unhealthy obsession with her because I can assure you, despite being a so-called McCann supporter, I have absolutely no recollection of how Kate McCann looked on the day her arguida status was lifted. 

[Robittybob1]

I think not answering questions when your daughter is missing not only looks suspicious but also heartless.

They had plenty of opportunity to ask questions as a non-arguido and they did apparently according to Kate but once she was declared arguido - different situation altogether.

[Robittybob1]

Is it ? Not to me it’s not.

I’ll never forget Kate McCann’s face the afternoon her arguida status was lifted. She looked terrified. I think even she was self aware enough to know how bad not answering questions in the investigation to find her daughter would look to the public.

Her mother, when they were made arguidos, said her daughter had answered all the police’s questions and was helping as much as she could. I’ll bet she was surprised too when she found out that wasn’t the case.

Interesting that you saw Kate on this day.  In what capacity were you present?

[pathfinder73]

You asked, “Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?” and I have no idea where you may have got hold of that misapprehension ~ because it bears no relation to anything I have posted. 

Wasn’t the whole issue of the forty eight questions the fact that she answered only one of them?

Therefore logic dictates that when it is recorded “Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.”  It was obviously not with reference to the questions she was being asked as arguida.
Why would you think it does?

You asked, “Is there anything to support the assertion that Gerry was advised to remain silent by his lawyer?” 

Of course there is … why would you ask what is common knowledge? 

Kate was informed of her rights by a PJ inspector … I expect that is the procedure adopted prior to all interrogations, they had also been in conference at home with their lawyer who brought Kate home after her interview on the previous day and they discussed what was to follow at their next interviews.

Quote
Gerry wasn’t back from his interrogation until 1.30am.
Like me, he was officially declared an arguido at the start of the proceedings.

His intention had been to take Carlos’s advice, as I had done, and refuse to answer any questions.

But when the first question – along the lines of ‘Did you dispose of your daughter’s body?’ – was put to him for the third time, incensed by its sheer absurdity and offensiveness and by the way the interviewing officer was goading him, he simply couldn’t stop himself.
In these conditions, his reaction was perfectly understandable, but unfortunately our inconsistent responses to interrogation led to me being portrayed as ‘difficult’ or even ‘guilty’ in certain sections of the media and, of course, by the nutters who pour forth bile on the internet.
However, I suppose this was a minor problem in the grand scheme of things  End Quote  Kate McCann: MADELEINE

When they both answered contradictions happened. Under covers or on top of covers a disaster is the result.

[faithlilly]

You asked, “Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?” and I have no idea where you may have got hold of that misapprehension ~ because it bears no relation to anything I have posted. 

Wasn’t the whole issue of the forty eight questions the fact that she answered only one of them?

Therefore logic dictates that when it is recorded “Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.”  It was obviously not with reference to the questions she was being asked as arguida.
Why would you think it does?

You asked, “Is there anything to support the assertion that Gerry was advised to remain silent by his lawyer?” 

Of course there is … why would you ask what is common knowledge? 

Kate was informed of her rights by a PJ inspector … I expect that is the procedure adopted prior to all interrogations, they had also been in conference at home with their lawyer who brought Kate home after her interview on the previous day and they discussed what was to follow at their next interviews.

Quote
Gerry wasn’t back from his interrogation until 1.30am.
Like me, he was officially declared an arguido at the start of the proceedings.

His intention had been to take Carlos’s advice, as I had done, and refuse to answer any questions.

But when the first question – along the lines of ‘Did you dispose of your daughter’s body?’ – was put to him for the third time, incensed by its sheer absurdity and offensiveness and by the way the interviewing officer was goading him, he simply couldn’t stop himself.
In these conditions, his reaction was perfectly understandable, but unfortunately our inconsistent responses to interrogation led to me being portrayed as ‘difficult’ or even ‘guilty’ in certain sections of the media and, of course, by the nutters who pour forth bile on the internet.
However, I suppose this was a minor problem in the grand scheme of things  End Quote  Kate McCann: MADELEINE

Except the first question asked by the PJ wasn’t  ‘did you dispose of your daughter’s body’.

[faithlilly]

So only Kate’s word that Gerry had been advised by his lawyer to remain silent but didn’t because of the first question. A rudimentary reading of Gerry’s arguido statement shows this contention to be untrue. Makes you wonder what else in the book is untrue.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Except the first question asked by the PJ wasn’t  ‘did you dispose of your daughter’s body’.

What was the first question he was asked then?  What number question was the above?

[faithlilly]

What was the first question he was asked then?  What number question was the above?

‘When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this.’

So not ‘did you dispose of your daughter’s body ( constructed to enrage the reader I would assume )and certainly not asked three times.

[Vertigo Swirl]

‘When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this.’

So not ‘did you dispose of your daughter’s body ( constructed to enrage the reader I would assume )and certainly not asked three times.

Firstly not a verbatim recording of the actual words stated and secondly it was pretty close to what Kate said - what else did the police mean by "responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter did the police" mean exactly?  We already know they'd decided that disposing of her corpse in the hire car is exactly the theory they were pursuing, so....

[Admin]

Firstly not a verbatim recording of the actual words stated and secondly it was pretty close to what Kate said - what else did the police mean by "responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter did the police" mean exactly?  We already know they'd decided that disposing of her corpse in the hire car is exactly the theory they were pursuing, so....

Police will pursue many avenues in any investigation, it is therefore wrong to assume that their only interest was the McCanns simply because they chose to interview them formally.  Some out of the box thinking required here.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Police will pursue many avenues in any investigation, it is therefore wrong to assume that their only interest was the McCanns simply because they chose to interview them formally.  Some out of the box thinking required here.

I think the McCanns were very much  their only interest at the questioning of the couple when they were made arguidos.  Do you have any evidence of other lines of enquiry that Amaral and his team were pursuing in September 2007?

[faithlilly]

Firstly not a verbatim recording of the actual words stated and secondly it was pretty close to what Kate said - what else did the police mean by "responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter did the police" mean exactly?  We already know they'd decided that disposing of her corpse in the hire car is exactly the theory they were pursuing, so....

Not a verbatim recording.....that old chestnut!

TBH I think Gerry played a blinder.

[barrier]

Not a verbatim recording.....that old chestnut!

TBH I think Gerry played a blinder.

So when GM said he used the key in the first interview then changed his mind in the second one,the second may well be wrong and the first right,seeing as the statements aren't verbatim like.