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

[Admin]

Reminder to all members!

Forum Rules

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts. Please remember that we do not always actively monitor the posted messages, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted messages express the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, please realize that they may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.

You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.

You have the ability, as you register, to choose your username. We advise that you keep the name appropriate. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason.  We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.

After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile. It is your responsibility to present clear and accurate information. Any information the forum owner or staff determines to be inaccurate or vulgar in nature will be removed, with or without prior notice. Appropriate sanctions may be applicable.

Please note that with each post, your IP address is recorded, in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted. This will only happen in the event of a major violation of this agreement.

Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.

Please treat all members with respect and accept gracefully that other users may not necessarily share your point of view.  Debates should be structured and constructive, they should not be used as a mechanism to disrupt or goad or provoke other users.  In the event that a breach of these rules occurs, moderators can invoke sanctions which can include pre authorisation of posts and a temporary ban.

These rules will be amended periodically as the need arises.

ADMIN

[sadie]

This was mainly written some hour or so ago, but I am popsting it because it is valid.

Rather than saying "but I’m sure you’ve got an answer for that too" you said "but I’m sure there is an answer for that too", I would consider that opinion, without putting the other person in the spotlight.

I wouild like to disagree with that Rob.  If the person keeps giving trumped up answers, why not highlight it, and personalise it?   

I fancy you are becoming a little too precious with your judgement in favour of the wrongdoer.  If a person has done wrong, why not highlight it rather than pretend that others are guilty?

I know that you are doing your best to be fair, but I think in this case you are taking it too far.  Soz.

No offense meant.

sadie x

[Robittybob1]

This was mainly written some hour or so ago, but I am popsting it because it is valid.

I wouild like to disagree with that Rob.  If the person keeps giving trumped up answers, why not highlight it, and personalise it?   

I fancy you are becoming a little too precious with your judgement in favour of the wrongdoer.  If a person has done wrong, why not highlight it rather than pretend that others are guilty?

I know that you are doing your best to be fair, but I think in this case you are taking it too far.  Soz.

No offense meant.

sadie x

I know there are fine lines to choose between at times, but criticise the argument rather than the person.  It might work.

[Brietta]

I find it suspicious that Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions, some regarding the behaviour of her daughter and how she coped with her....yet she had voluntarily discussed these issues in the press confirming her daughter was indeed 'difficult' and hard to cope with.

"Kate McCann has revealed that she struggled to control Madeleine McCann after the birth of her and Gerry's twins, it was revealed today.
Missing Madeleine would run around 'screaming...shouting for my attention', the mother-of-three said.

In an interview given to a Portuguese magazine before she was named as a suspect in the case of the four-year-old's disappearance, Kate also said the first six months of Madeleine's life were "very difficult" and that the girl had suffered from colic."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html

   Why not just answer those particular questions at the time? She had after all,  already confirmed her daughter was difficult to deal with. If it had nothing to do with her disappearance, why not answer those questions?

Quote
Wild stories were appearing in the papers about my ‘fragile’ mental state, my ‘inability to cope’ with my ‘hyperactive’ children, eating disorders and sedatives.

All complete bullshit              MADELEINE Kate McCann

[Brietta]

I think you may have misread my post. I wasn't agreeing with you that questions were asked twice, I was pointing out that Kate McCann wasn't questioned for 11 hours on 6th September.

As the question could have lead to the witness incriminating herself, the question you refer to couldn't have been asked legally without arguida status being in place. If it had been asked previously, then someone acted outwith the laws of Portugal. Kate McCann was interviewed officially on 4th May and 6th September only. There was allegedly, an unofficial interview on 8th August the details of which are not officially recorded.

Subsequent to pre arguida interrogation Tursday 6  September
Despite the time, Gerry rang Bob Small and, in a voice laced with panic, explained what was going on. Bob was shocked. He wasn’t aware of any forensic results, he told us, and certainly none suggesting what had just been shared with us. He tried his best to reassure Gerry. ‘Just tell them the truth. It’ll be OK,’ he insisted. Perhaps he was trying to convince himself.
It was almost 5am when we finally got to bed.

Friday 7 September
As anticipated, my interrogation began with João Carlos explaining that my status from this moment on had been changed from witness to arguida. He ran through the rights and obligations this conferred on me. I sat there quietly, trying to compose myself despite the anger bubbling below the surface. They haven’t been looking for Madeleine . . .
As anticipated, my interrogation began with João Carlos explaining that my status from this moment on had been changed from witness to arguida. He ran through the rights and obligations this conferred on me. I sat there quietly, trying to compose myself despite the anger bubbling below the surface. They haven’t been looking for Madeleine ...

MADELEINE  Kate McCann



You are mistaken.
The only possible opportunity for Kate to have already answered questions put to her as an arguida was at her interrogation on the 6th for the simple reason that prior to being questioned as an arguida on the 7th she was not questioned at any time on that date as a witness.
Right at the beginning her rights as an arguida were explained ... thereafter she did exactly as advised by her lawyer ... and that was to exercise the entitlement conferred on her by her change in status to remain silent.

[Robittybob1]

Did Kate use the word "Bullshit"?

[G-Unit]

Subsequent to pre arguida interrogation Tursday 6  September
Despite the time, Gerry rang Bob Small and, in a voice laced with panic, explained what was going on. Bob was shocked. He wasn’t aware of any forensic results, he told us, and certainly none suggesting what had just been shared with us. He tried his best to reassure Gerry. ‘Just tell them the truth. It’ll be OK,’ he insisted. Perhaps he was trying to convince himself.
It was almost 5am when we finally got to bed.

Friday 7 September
As anticipated, my interrogation began with João Carlos explaining that my status from this moment on had been changed from witness to arguida. He ran through the rights and obligations this conferred on me. I sat there quietly, trying to compose myself despite the anger bubbling below the surface. They haven’t been looking for Madeleine . . .
As anticipated, my interrogation began with João Carlos explaining that my status from this moment on had been changed from witness to arguida. He ran through the rights and obligations this conferred on me. I sat there quietly, trying to compose myself despite the anger bubbling below the surface. They haven’t been looking for Madeleine ...

MADELEINE  Kate McCann



You are mistaken.
The only possible opportunity for Kate to have already answered questions put to her as an arguida was at her interrogation on the 6th for the simple reason that prior to being questioned as an arguida on the 7th she was not questioned at any time on that date as a witness.
Right at the beginning her rights as an arguida were explained ... thereafter she did exactly as advised by her lawyer ... and that was to exercise the entitlement conferred on her by her change in status to remain silent.

She wasn't asked about the dogs or DNA until her 7th September arguida interview. Her husband rang Bob Small in a panic at 4am because of what their lawyer told them after Kate's return from the police station on 6th;

he explained how samples from both these sites had revealed Madeleine’s blood and one of them indicated a 15 out of 19 match with her DNA.[madeleine]

[Robittybob1]

She wasn't asked about the dogs or DNA until her 7th September arguida interview. Her husband rang Bob Small in a panic at 4am because of what their lawyer told them after Kate's return from the police station on 6th;

he explained how samples from both these sites had revealed Madeleine’s blood and one of them indicated a 15 out of 19 match with her DNA.[madeleine]

What edition are you quoting from for that is not what mine says on the final page of the chapter called "Fantasy Land"?

[faithlilly]

Quote
Wild stories were appearing in the papers about my ‘fragile’ mental state, my ‘inability to cope’ with my ‘hyperactive’ children, eating disorders and sedatives.

All complete bullshit              MADELEINE Kate McCann

As they say you can take the girl out of Liverpool.........?

[Vertigo Swirl]

As they say you can take the girl out of Liverpool.........?

I find this an incredibly snobbish comment, and this from someone who claims solidarity with the Hillsborough 96. 

[faithlilly]

I find this an incredibly snobbish comment.

Not really. She does have a habit of using the vernacular which comes across as rather common.

[Erngath]

As they say you can take the girl out of Liverpool.........?

I do hope any members of this forum who come from Liverpool find your comment as funny as you do.

[faithlilly]

I find this an incredibly snobbish comment, and this from someone who claims solidarity with the Hillsborough 96.

Absolutely, not something the good doctors were too concerned about when they sold their misery memoir to the Sun. Though to be honest I think some parts of the book were written exactly to cater to the base Sun reader.

[faithlilly]

Can you give cites for this personal insult?

It is a personal opinion.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Absolutely, not something the good doctors were too concerned about when they sold their misery memoir to the Sun. Though to be honest I think some parts of the book were written exactly to cater to the base Sun reader.

More breathtaking snobbery.