UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on March 26, 2018, 04:13:40 AM
-
I was thinking of reverse analysing these questions to see if we can get an idea as to what the the PJ were hoping to uncover?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/48_Questions_07_09_07.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
-
The phrase "arguido questions" only comes up 7 times on a search. That in itself is quite surprising for the term 48 questions will be a lot more frequent in fact a total of 82 times.
Usually they are discussed with the intention of wondering why they weren't answered, but here I want to see if we can figure out why that particular question was asked, and what is the history behind those questions.
-
No doubt the topic has been looked at in various ways before:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1364.0 "Why didn't Kate McCann answer the questions of the PJ?" that thread could have some useful ideas to explore.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2447.0 "Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?" Somehow got around to discussing the 48 questions.
-
I had previously raised in http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9114.msg445637#msg445637
"In fact I will have to examine them closely, but do any of Gerry's arguido questions allude to, in any way, Gerry possibly being Smithman?"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
"When questioned, he states that from the first moment, after the first fruitless searches, he thought that Madeleine had been abducted and it was this information that he gave to everyone to whom he spoke. He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own or opened the blinds and window in the room."
The questions Gerry faced don't seem so focused, I can't see a theme as yet.
There were no questions that seemed to be about Gerry's alibi in the 10 -15 minutes prior to Kate's alert.
IMO if Gerry was Smithman then it had to be prior to Kate checking their apartment.
-
Benice provided a good observation http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4460.msg166703#msg166703
"Why would you expect their answers to be identical - they weren't joined at the hip all day long on May 3rd.
It seems to me that Kate's questions were specifically designed for her to answer - and not Gerry."
That seems to be fair comment IMO.
-
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-in-english-former-maddie-cop-interview/24788 "Exclusive in English: Former ‘Maddie Cop’ interview"
"TPN: Did the police offer a plea bargain to Kate McCann?
GA: No.
TPN: But did you not suggest she consider a plea bargain?
GA: We only explained the nature of certain crimes. Her lawyer was there, you can ask him.
TPN: Did Kate and Gerry McCann answer all the questions that you posed to them as fully as possible?
GA: Up until being declared an arguido, Kate, at the request of her lawyer, co-operated. When questions became of a nature that could incriminate her, she was made an arguido, her rights and duties were read out to her in English and thereafter she opted for the right to remain silent.
TPN: And Gerry McCann?
GA: He answered all questions, before and after being made an arguido."
Considering Kate said there was talk of a homicide charge, the questions to Kate do seem on the side of search the possibility of Kate killing Madeleine. But when did that happen? I don't know and I'm not sure if the PJ knew the theory either.
-
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-in-english-former-maddie-cop-interview/24788 "Exclusive in English: Former ‘Maddie Cop’ interview"
"TPN: Did the police offer a plea bargain to Kate McCann?
GA: No.
TPN: But did you not suggest she consider a plea bargain?
GA: We only explained the nature of certain crimes. Her lawyer was there, you can ask him.
TPN: Did Kate and Gerry McCann answer all the questions that you posed to them as fully as possible?
GA: Up until being declared an arguido, Kate, at the request of her lawyer, co-operated. When questions became of a nature that could incriminate her, she was made an arguido, her rights and duties were read out to her in English and thereafter she opted for the right to remain silent.
TPN: And Gerry McCann?
GA: He answered all questions, before and after being made an arguido."
Considering Kate said there was talk of a homicide charge, the questions to Kate do seem on the side of search the possibility of Kate killing Madeleine. But when did that happen? I don't know and I'm not sure if the PJ knew the theory either.
"GA: Up until being declared an arguido, Kate, at the request of her lawyer, co-operated. When questions became of a nature that could incriminate her, she was made an arguido, her rights and duties were read out to her in English and thereafter she opted for the right to remain silent."
Oh this is interesting in bold. incriminating herself? Do we know what THOSE questions were? and they could have been different from Gerry. The PJ must have picked up on something to ask Kate possibly incriminating questions.
-
"GA: Up until being declared an arguido, Kate, at the request of her lawyer, co-operated. When questions became of a nature that could incriminate her, she was made an arguido, her rights and duties were read out to her in English and thereafter she opted for the right to remain silent."
Oh this is interesting in bold. incriminating herself? Do we know what THOSE questions were? and they could have been different from Gerry. The PJ must have picked up on something to ask Kate possibly incriminating questions.
Amaral has it back to front.. Kateanswerred all questions as a witness but not.... As an arguido.. This was done on the advice of her lawyer
-
Amaral has it back to front.. Kateanswerred all questions as a witness but not.... As an arguido.. This was done on the advice of her lawyer
Yes, And I agree she had a right to do so... especially if she was going to incriminate herself.
-
Yes, And I agree she had a right to do so...
And especially if innocent people can incriminate themselves
-
And especially if innocent people can incriminate themselves
Oh... how would they do that exactly? looking at the questions she was asked- none seem to say" look you dun it so admit it"
Or did I miss something.
-
Oh... how would they do that exactly? looking at the questions she was asked- none seem to say" look you dun it so admit it"
Or did I miss something.
Not much point in discussing the same thing over again... I'll leave you to it
-
"GA: Up until being declared an arguido, Kate, at the request of her lawyer, co-operated. When questions became of a nature that could incriminate her, she was made an arguido, her rights and duties were read out to her in English and thereafter she opted for the right to remain silent."
Oh this is interesting in bold. incriminating herself? Do we know what THOSE questions were? and they could have been different from Gerry. The PJ must have picked up on something to ask Kate possibly incriminating questions.
Please remember to indicate when you are expressing your own opinion in your posts ... you continually fail to do so and is going to result in deletion.
-
Amaral has it back to front.. Kateanswerred all questions as a witness but not.... As an arguido.. This was done on the advice of her lawyer
In my opinion confirming the important point you made was that Kate and Gerry McCann co-operated fully with the Policia Judiciaria and answered all their questions at all times.
Over a marathon PJ interview lasting over eleven hours Kate answered every question put to her just prior to being made an arguida. She exercised her legal entitlement to silence having been 'read her rights'. What is wrong with that, pray?
It is worth bearing in mind that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos on the basis of the Amaral investigation's failure to fully comprehend forensic information.
Competent investigation of the facts of the case led by another coordinator, including a proper understanding of the forensic evidence meant that there was no evidence to charge anyone with anything. Which in my opinion proves that there was no evidence to justify making anyone an arguido in the first place.
This is a prejudicial situation recognised and addressed in the Portuguese Criminal Code by a change in the law which came into effect days after Kate and Gerry were made arguidos to ensure that evidence justifying the imposition had to be put before a magistrate.
In my opinion the arguido questions fade into insignificance when balanced against the imposition of arguido status in the face of a known impending change in the law under which it would most likely not have been allowed.
-
Please remember to indicate when you are expressing your own opinion in your posts ... you continually fail to do so and is going to result in deletion.
I was NOT expressing an opinion this was said:
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-in-english-former-maddie-cop-interview/24788
check out the quote marks:
""GA: Up until being declared an arguido, Kate, at the request of her lawyer, co-operated. When questions became of a nature that could incriminate her, she was made an arguido, her rights and duties were read out to her in English and thereafter she opted for the right to remain silent."
-
I was NOT expressing an opinion this was said:
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-in-english-former-maddie-cop-interview/24788
check out the qote marks:
""GA: Up until being declared an arguido, Kate, at the request of her lawyer, co-operated. When questions became of a nature that could incriminate her, she was made an arguido, her rights and duties were read out to her in English and thereafter she opted for the right to remain silent."
"
You will have to delete Robs as well for not other reason than you are a mod and you can &%%6 oh the power.
And if we are not llowed to discuss from newspapers then can you please refrain from doing so as well- to show fairness.
Many thankies
The quote shows again amaral got things totally back to front... Can you not see that
-
In my opinion confirming the important point you made was that Kate and Gerry McCann co-operated fully with the Policia Judiciaria and answered all their questions at all times.
Over a marathon PJ interview lasting over eleven hours Kate answered every question put to her just prior to being made an arguida. She exercised her legal entitlement to silence having been 'read her rights'. What is wrong with that, pray?
It is worth bearing in mind that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos on the basis of the Amaral investigation's failure to fully comprehend forensic information.
Competent investigation of the facts of the case led by another coordinator, including a proper understanding of the forensic evidence meant that there was no evidence to charge anyone with anything. Which in my opinion proves that there was no evidence to justify making anyone an arguido in the first place.
This is a prejudicial situation recognised and addressed in the Portuguese Criminal Code by a change in the law which came into effect days after Kate and Gerry were made arguidos to ensure that evidence justifying the imposition had to be put before a magistrate.
In my opinion the arguido questions fade into insignificance when balanced against the imposition of arguido status in the face of a known impending change in the law under which it would most likely not have been allowed.
Witnesses are obliged by law to answer questions put to them. The connotations associated with 'co-operated' do not apply. They were obliged to do so.
Gerry, AFAIK, answered all the questions put to him. Kate did not.
The sequence of events is that Kate and Gerry made it clear they were going to leave Portugal. The PJ had a choice of interviewing them before they left or not. They chose to conduct the interviews. Based on what they had at that time, they were legally obliged to constitute K & G as arguidos.
None of this has anything to do with an impending legal change in Portugal.
Perhaps we can now return to an analysis of the arguido questions asked of Kate and Gerry McCann?
-
Witnesses are obliged by law to answer questions put to them. The connotations associated with 'co-operated' do not apply. They were obliged to do so.
Gerry, AFAIK, answered all the questions put to him. Kate did not.
The sequence of events is that Kate and Gerry made it clear they were going to leave Portugal. The PJ had a choice of interviewing them before they left or not. They chose to conduct the interviews. Based on what they had at that time, they were legally obliged to constitute K & G as arguidos.
None of this has anything to do with an impending legal change in Portugal.
Perhaps we can now return to an analysis of the arguido questions asked of Kate and Gerry McCann?
Need to correct you on your first point
The mccanns we're under no obligation to answer any questions as, witnesses... They simply declare themselves arguido
-
The quote shows again amaral got things totally back to front... Can you not see that
Has what back to front?
As a witness, she was obliged to answer questions put to her.
As an arguida, she had the right to refuse to answer most questions, and chose to do just that.
-
Need to correct you on your first point
The mccanns we're under no obligation to answer any questions as, witnesses... They simply declare themselves arguido
Unless Kate's book is incorrect, they were constituted arguidos. If you have anything to the contrary, please provide a cite.
-
Unless Kate's book is incorrect, they were constituted arguidos. If you have anything to the contrary, please provide a cite.
Witnesses, do not have to answer any questions if they choose not to... They simply declare themselves arguidos
-
Witnesses, do not have to answer any questions if they choose not to... They simply declare themselves arguidos
What has that got to do with any pertinent fact?
Either give a cite that Kate &/or Gerry self-declared themselves as arguidos, or give it a rest.
You appear to be deflecting from the point of the thread, and that point is interesting.
-
What has that got to do with any pertinent fact?
Either give a cite that Kate &/or Gerry self-declared themselves as arguidos, or give it a rest.
You appear to be deflecting from the point of the thread, and that point is interesting.
You seem to misunderstand and have totally missed the point on which I corrected you..
Witnesses do not have to answer questions... They have a choice.
-
What has that got to do with any pertinent fact?
Either give a cite that Kate &/or Gerry self-declared themselves as arguidos, or give it a rest.
You appear to be deflecting from the point of the thread, and that point is interesting.
I have never claimed the McCann's declared themselves arguidos
-
Amaral has it back to front.. Kateanswerred all questions as a witness but not.... As an arguido.. This was done on the advice of her lawyer
That’s what the GA quote said?
-
That’s what the GA quote said?
No amaral said Kate answerred all witness questions on the adice of her lawyer but did not answer the srguido questions..
Kate told us, she took her lawyers, advice on the arguido questions... So he's back to front
-
In my opinion confirming the important point you made was that Kate and Gerry McCann co-operated fully with the Policia Judiciaria and answered all their questions at all times.
Over a marathon PJ interview lasting over eleven hours Kate answered every question put to her just prior to being made an arguida. She exercised her legal entitlement to silence having been 'read her rights'. What is wrong with that, pray?
It is worth bearing in mind that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos on the basis of the Amaral investigation's failure to fully comprehend forensic information.
Competent investigation of the facts of the case led by another coordinator, including a proper understanding of the forensic evidence meant that there was no evidence to charge anyone with anything. Which in my opinion proves that there was no evidence to justify making anyone an arguido in the first place.
This is a prejudicial situation recognised and addressed in the Portuguese Criminal Code by a change in the law which came into effect days after Kate and Gerry were made arguidos to ensure that evidence justifying the imposition had to be put before a magistrate.
In my opinion the arguido questions fade into insignificance when balanced against the imposition of arguido status in the face of a known impending change in the law under which it would most likely not have been allowed.
IMO the PJ only needed enough suspicion to make someone an arguido so they could ask more incriminating questions which were not an option as witnesses. They were made arguidos to protect themselves. There was no misunderstanding of the evidence there was enough suspicion to change their status IMO.
-
No amaral said Kate answerred all witness questions on the adice of her lawyer but did not answer the srguido questions..
Kate told us, she took her lawyers, advice on the arguido questions... So he's back to front
So they both agreed she had the advice of her lawyer. You would assume it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that he gave advice for both eventualities.
-
So they both agreed she had the advice of her lawyer. You would assume it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that he gave advice for both eventualities.
Amaral is stating it as, a fact for the witness, statement... Of which there is no record ...but fails to mention the advice of her lawyer on arguido... for which there us, a record
-
IMO the PJ only needed enough suspicion to make someone an arguido so they could ask more incriminating questions which were not an option as witnesses. They were made arguidos to protect themselves. There was no misunderstanding of the evidence there was enough suspicion to change their status IMO.
As I understand evidence was needed at that time to declare someone arguido.. The law changed a few days later
-
IMO the PJ only needed enough suspicion to make someone an arguido so they could ask more incriminating questions which were not an option as witnesses. They were made arguidos to protect themselves. There was no misunderstanding of the evidence there was enough suspicion to change their status IMO.
They were made arguidos on the assumption the dog indications were proof of cadaver ... the forensics did not back that up ... therefore they were made arguidos on a false premise.
-
IMO the PJ only needed enough suspicion to make someone an arguido so they could ask more incriminating questions which were not an option as witnesses. They were made arguidos to protect themselves. There was no misunderstanding of the evidence there was enough suspicion to change their status IMO.
The archiving report says, all the evidence used to make them arguido was later found not to be confirmed.. Or words to that effect
-
IMO the PJ only needed enough suspicion to make someone an arguido so they could ask more incriminating questions which were not an option as witnesses. They were made arguidos to protect themselves. There was no misunderstanding of the evidence there was enough suspicion to change their status IMO.
In my opinion they were made arguidos to add more pressure on a fragile Kate to encourage total collapse and a false confession.
No going back after that is there if what happened to Leonor Cipriano is anything to go by.
Case 'solved' ... missing child written off ... RESULT!!
In my opinion engendering that kind of suspicion on grieving parents anxious only to find their daughter ... was a particularly monstrous tactic to employ.
Police 'rushed Madeleine McCann case'
A new penal code was introduced on Sep 15
By Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz5:01PM GMT 05 Dec 2007
Madeleine McCann’s parents might have been spared the anguish of being named suspects over her disappearance if Portuguese police had not rushed their case through before a change in the law, it has been claimed.
Kate and Gerry McCann were made arguidos - formal suspects - just eight days before new legal measures were introduced which would have required firmer evidence against them.
The couple’s Portuguese lawyer has claimed that detectives may have deliberately fast-tracked the investigation to ensure they were put in the frame.
Investigators named the McCanns, both 39, as arguidos on September 7 after allegedly finding microscopic traces of blood in their holiday apartment and "bodily fluids" they thought could have belonged to Madeleine in the boot of their hire car.
Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer on the McCanns’ defence team, said that under Portugal’s new penal code, police must have more than just suspicions to make somebody an arguido.
"On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.
"Before this date it wasn’t necessary. You could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you," he said.
"Maybe that is why the investigation took the turn it did - why they were named arguidos eight days before the new laws came in," said Mr Pinto de Abreu.
His comments followed those of Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General, who recently admitted the McCanns may not have been made suspects under the new laws.
"At the time when the McCanns were made 'arguidos' the law did not demand justified suspicions. I do not know if they would be (arguidos) in light of the new Code," he said in an interview with the Portuguese magazine Visao.
Clarence Mitchell, the official spokesman of the McCanns, said he hoped the introduction of the new law would work in their favour.
"Being declared arguidos almost three months ago caused the McCanns’ immense anguish and continues to do so," he said.
"To think they could have been saved that under a law introduced only days later makes a mockery of the case against them.
"They are entirely innocent victims of a horrible crime that has taken away their daughter and they want to be cleared as soon as possible so the focus can return to finding Madeleine.
"If it is true that changes to the law would have meant that they would not have been made arguidos that’s all the more reason for their status to be dropped now.
"Regardless of any changes in the law they should be eliminated forthwith from the inquiry."
Portuguese police were told last week that forensic results requested from Birmingham’s Forensic Science Service had so far proved "inconclusive".
They plan to travel to Britain next week to re-interview the McCanns and the seven friends who dined with them at the Tapas restaurant on the night of May 3, when Madeleine went missing from the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html
-
They were made arguidos on the assumption the dog indications were proof of cadaver ... the forensics did not back that up ... therefore they were made arguidos on a false premise.
Not false just not proved. There are many scenarios where Madeleine could have died in the apartment without their being any corrobarating forensics.
-
Not false just not proved. There are many scenarios where Madeleine could have died in the apartment without their being any corrobarating forensics.
But no evidence of her death
The enemy to knowledge is not ignorance but the presumption of knowledge ...again springs to mind
-
"GA: Up until being declared an arguido, Kate, at the request of her lawyer, co-operated. When questions became of a nature that could incriminate her, she was made an arguido, her rights and duties were read out to her in English and thereafter she opted for the right to remain silent."
Oh this is interesting in bold. incriminating herself? Do we know what THOSE questions were? and they could have been different from Gerry. The PJ must have picked up on something to ask Kate possibly incriminating questions.
OK what I can't make out is they are both made arguidos but only Kate is asked the questions that could be incriminating herself. Did they put the focus on the wrong person? This business about Kate being in prison and Gerry carrying on working even if it was a misunderstanding something must have been said along those lines. IMO.
-
OK what I can't make out is they are both made arguidos but only Kate is asked the questions that could be incriminating herself. Did they put the focus on the wrong person? Thus business about Kate being in prison and Gerry carrying on working even if it was a misunderstanding something must have been said along those lines. IMO.
I would say both we're asked questions that could be self incriminating... The whole point is that there, are very good reasons why innocent people should not answer questions in these, situations
-
What has that got to do with any pertinent fact?
Either give a cite that Kate &/or Gerry self-declared themselves as arguidos, or give it a rest.
You appear to be deflecting from the point of the thread, and that point is interesting.
From Kate's statement it appears the question became incriminating, she stopped answering them, they made her an arguido. So what order is that? They didn't make her an arguido and then asked her simple questions which she answered and she refused to answer them when they became too hard.
-
No amaral said Kate answerred all witness questions on the adice of her lawyer but did not answer the srguido questions..
Kate told us, she took her lawyers, advice on the arguido questions... So he's back to front
Where are the actual words? Where are the quotes - we need them side by side. IMO.
-
From Kate's statement it appears the question became incriminating, she stopped answering them, they made her an arguido. So what order is that? They didn't make her an arguido and then asked her simple questions which she answered and she refused to answer them when they became too hard.
I'm afraid you are, wrong rob... Kate, answered all the, questions put to her as, a, witness..
As I recall the, atmosphere changed once the dogs alerted. Kate, was, advised it was possible she could be, arrested and advised not to answer any questions... The pj then made her an arguido
-
Where are the actual words? Where are the quotes - we need them side by side. IMO.
It's, all in Kate's, book and been posted several times
-
They were made arguidos on the assumption the dog indications were proof of cadaver ... the forensics did not back that up ... therefore they were made arguidos on a false premise.
Suspicions can be right or wrong. But I do accept they had suspicions against Kate even if the forensic evidence was inconclusive.
They can always say there were inconsistencies in their statements.
-
In my opinion they were made arguidos to add more pressure on a fragile Kate to encourage total collapse and a false confession.
No going back after that is there if what happened to Leonor Cipriano is anything to go by.
Case 'solved' ... missing child written off ... RESULT!!
In my opinion engendering that kind of suspicion on grieving parents anxious only to find their daughter ... was a particularly monstrous tactic to employ.
Police 'rushed Madeleine McCann case'
A new penal code was introduced on Sep 15
By Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz5:01PM GMT 05 Dec 2007
Madeleine McCann’s parents might have been spared the anguish of being named suspects over her disappearance if Portuguese police had not rushed their case through before a change in the law, it has been claimed.
Kate and Gerry McCann were made arguidos - formal suspects - just eight days before new legal measures were introduced which would have required firmer evidence against them.
The couple’s Portuguese lawyer has claimed that detectives may have deliberately fast-tracked the investigation to ensure they were put in the frame.
Investigators named the McCanns, both 39, as arguidos on September 7 after allegedly finding microscopic traces of blood in their holiday apartment and "bodily fluids" they thought could have belonged to Madeleine in the boot of their hire car.
Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer on the McCanns’ defence team, said that under Portugal’s new penal code, police must have more than just suspicions to make somebody an arguido.
"On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.
"Before this date it wasn’t necessary. You could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you," he said.
"Maybe that is why the investigation took the turn it did - why they were named arguidos eight days before the new laws came in," said Mr Pinto de Abreu.
His comments followed those of Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General, who recently admitted the McCanns may not have been made suspects under the new laws.
"At the time when the McCanns were made 'arguidos' the law did not demand justified suspicions. I do not know if they would be (arguidos) in light of the new Code," he said in an interview with the Portuguese magazine Visao.
Clarence Mitchell, the official spokesman of the McCanns, said he hoped the introduction of the new law would work in their favour.
"Being declared arguidos almost three months ago caused the McCanns’ immense anguish and continues to do so," he said.
"To think they could have been saved that under a law introduced only days later makes a mockery of the case against them.
"They are entirely innocent victims of a horrible crime that has taken away their daughter and they want to be cleared as soon as possible so the focus can return to finding Madeleine.
"If it is true that changes to the law would have meant that they would not have been made arguidos that’s all the more reason for their status to be dropped now.
"Regardless of any changes in the law they should be eliminated forthwith from the inquiry."
Portuguese police were told last week that forensic results requested from Birmingham’s Forensic Science Service had so far proved "inconclusive".
They plan to travel to Britain next week to re-interview the McCanns and the seven friends who dined with them at the Tapas restaurant on the night of May 3, when Madeleine went missing from the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html
Here we go again. I dare say I will have to dig it out of Kate's book again. I must remember to bookmark the pages to make it easier next time round.
The McCanns stated they were leaving Portugal. Leaving before any change in the law.
The PJ opted to interview the McCanns, before they left Portugal.
Based on what they had, that required making the McCanns arguidos.
Who knows what would have happened if the McCanns had stayed. Not Fiona Govan. And judging by the article, not Carlos Pinto de Abreu.
-
Here we go again. I dare say I will have to dig it out of Kate's book again. I must remember to bookmark the pages to make it easier next time round.
The McCanns stated they were leaving Portugal. Leaving before any change in the law.
The PJ opted to interview the McCanns, before they left Portugal.
Based on what they had, that required making the McCanns arguidos.
Who knows what would have happened if the McCanns had stayed. Not Fiona Govan. And judging by the article, not Carlos Pinto de Abreu.
based on what they had...and none of what they had was confirmed...had they stayed no one would know w aht might have happened...thats why they very sensibly left...imo
-
Questioning of the Suspect or Arguido Pre-Trial
It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime; however since the purpose of questioning is precisely to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and who is the perpetrator the questioning may be ordered with a lesser degree of suspicion. This measure may be executed by a judge the PP or the criminal police. The defence lawyer must be informed of the time and place of the questioning but the lawyers presence is not mandatory unless the arguido is in custodial detention. The arguido has the right to remain silent and any declaration that he/she makes during the preliminary phases of the procedure has very limited evidentiary value.
"Toward a Prosecutor for the European Union Volume 1: A Comparative Analysis page 554"
-
From Kate's statement it appears the question became incriminating, she stopped answering them, they made her an arguido. So what order is that? They didn't make her an arguido and then asked her simple questions which she answered and she refused to answer them when they became too hard.
What?
Check the pre-arguido and the arguido interviews.
-
In my opinion they were made arguidos to add more pressure on a fragile Kate to encourage total collapse and a false confession.
No going back after that is there if what happened to Leonor Cipriano is anything to go by.
Case 'solved' ... missing child written off ... RESULT!!
In my opinion engendering that kind of suspicion on grieving parents anxious only to find their daughter ... was a particularly monstrous tactic to employ.
Police 'rushed Madeleine McCann case'
A new penal code was introduced on Sep 15
By Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz5:01PM GMT 05 Dec 2007
Madeleine McCann’s parents might have been spared the anguish of being named suspects over her disappearance if Portuguese police had not rushed their case through before a change in the law, it has been claimed.
Kate and Gerry McCann were made arguidos - formal suspects - just eight days before new legal measures were introduced which would have required firmer evidence against them.
The couple’s Portuguese lawyer has claimed that detectives may have deliberately fast-tracked the investigation to ensure they were put in the frame.
Investigators named the McCanns, both 39, as arguidos on September 7 after allegedly finding microscopic traces of blood in their holiday apartment and "bodily fluids" they thought could have belonged to Madeleine in the boot of their hire car.
Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer on the McCanns’ defence team, said that under Portugal’s new penal code, police must have more than just suspicions to make somebody an arguido.
"On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.
"Before this date it wasn’t necessary. You could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you," he said.
"Maybe that is why the investigation took the turn it did - why they were named arguidos eight days before the new laws came in," said Mr Pinto de Abreu.
His comments followed those of Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General, who recently admitted the McCanns may not have been made suspects under the new laws.
"At the time when the McCanns were made 'arguidos' the law did not demand justified suspicions. I do not know if they would be (arguidos) in light of the new Code," he said in an interview with the Portuguese magazine Visao.
Clarence Mitchell, the official spokesman of the McCanns, said he hoped the introduction of the new law would work in their favour.
"Being declared arguidos almost three months ago caused the McCanns’ immense anguish and continues to do so," he said.
"To think they could have been saved that under a law introduced only days later makes a mockery of the case against them.
"They are entirely innocent victims of a horrible crime that has taken away their daughter and they want to be cleared as soon as possible so the focus can return to finding Madeleine.
"If it is true that changes to the law would have meant that they would not have been made arguidos that’s all the more reason for their status to be dropped now.
"Regardless of any changes in the law they should be eliminated forthwith from the inquiry."
Portuguese police were told last week that forensic results requested from Birmingham’s Forensic Science Service had so far proved "inconclusive".
They plan to travel to Britain next week to re-interview the McCanns and the seven friends who dined with them at the Tapas restaurant on the night of May 3, when Madeleine went missing from the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html
"In my opinion they were made arguidos to add more pressure on a fragile Kate to encourage total collapse and a false confession.
"
hahaha yes ofcourse.
"In my opinion engendering that kind of suspicion on grieving parents anxious only to find their daughter ... was a particularly monstrous tactic to employ."
Well that would come under 'investigating' what happened to their daughter- which we are led to believe they wanted her back... so asking questions from the people who claim to have seen her last at her bed time should not be an issue.
-
What?
Check the pre-arguido and the arguido interviews.
At the end of Kate's interview "At this moment, and because it was so late, 11 PM, the interview was interrupted and will be continued tomorrow morning."
Do you think it went straight from that interview "September 6/2007 3pm at Portimao" into the full blown arguido interview the next day "Kate Marie Healy's statement 07 Sep 07 @ 11am"?
It seems odd that it changed from that rather informative interview on the 6th to the full blown arguido interview on the 7th. What made it change from one type of interview to the other? It seems as if there is a step missing.
But it is confirmed in Kate's book.
-
Amaral is stating it as, a fact for the witness, statement... Of which there is no record ...but fails to mention the advice of her lawyer on arguido... for which there us, a record
So you are taking Kate’s word over Amaral’s?
-
At the end of Kate's interview "At this moment, and because it was so late, 11 PM, the interview was interrupted and will be continued tomorrow morning."
Do you think it went straight from that interview "September 6/2007 3pm at Portimao" into the full blown arguido interview the next day "Kate Marie Healy's statement 07 Sep 07 @ 11am"?
It seems odd that it changed from that rather informative interview on the 6th to the full blown arguido interview on the 7th. What made it change from one type of interview to the other? It seems as if there is a step missing.
But it is confirmed in Kate's book.
What I did find odd was the statement says 11:00 AM Kate says it started 11:45. "Kate Marie Healy's statement 07 Sep 07 @ 11am" Minor issue.
But what about this sentence? "Asked if she wished to respond on the facts that are imputed, she responded:"
I ask where are the facts that are imputed?
Further down "--- It is put to her the facts about her, she said she does not wish to make statements."
I ask: OK what were the facts put to her? How come the translator missed writing them down?
-
So you are taking Kate’s word over Amaral’s?
Which one is it who has the criminal conviction for perjury?
-
What I did find odd was the statement says 11:00 AM Kate says it started 11:45. "Kate Marie Healy's statement 07 Sep 07 @ 11am" Minor issue.
But what about this sentence? "Asked if she wished to respond on the facts that are imputed, she responded:"
I ask where are the facts that are imputed?
Further down "--- It is put to her the facts about her, she said she does not wish to make statements."
I ask: OK what were the facts put to her? How come the translator missed writing them down?
What a pity there is no electronic record either in video or audio of these arguido interviews.
-
OK can someone explain to me what the phrase "she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned" means IYO?
"43 --- In this 'auto' [official document recording an official action] there were shown several films of canine inspections, forensic in character, where can be seen the marking by them of indications of human cadaver smell and blood traces also human, and solely human, as well as the comments of the expert responsible for that inspection activity.
--- The viewing ended and after signs of cadaver odour in her bedroom next to the cupboard and behind the sofa against the window of the living room, she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned."
Is she saying she is agreeing with what Martin Grime says on tape.? If that is the case are these question answered? For I think Gerry answered some questions the same way and it is commented that Gerry answered all his questions.
Gerry: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
"During this interview several films of a forensic nature showing sniffer dogs were shown where their signalling can be seen regarding indication of cadaver odour and traces of blood also human, and only of a human nature, as well as the comments made by the expert in charge of the procedure.
-- After viewing the films and after the signalling of cadaver odour in their room next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa against the window in the living room, he says that he has no comments, neither has he any explanation for this fact.
--- Also, the dog that detects human blood signalled human blood behind the sofa mentioned above, he says that he cannot explain this fact.
-- Regarding the cadaver odour in the car that was rented at the end of May, (xx)-DA-27, he says he cannot explain more than what he already has.
--- Regarding the presence of human blood in the boot of the same vehicle, he says that he has not explanation for this fact.
-- When confronted with the fact that Madeleine's DNA was collected from behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle and analyzed by a British laboratory, situations also described before, he says that he cannot explain.
--- When asked if on any occasion Madeleine was injured, he says that he has no comments.
-- When questioned, he says he is the usual driver of the car. In addition to G. the car could also be driven by his wife Kate, sister in law Sandy and a cousin of Kate's by the name Michael.
-- When asked if he has anything to add he says that he has not seen any proof that his daughter Madeleine is dead, and therefore he will continue to search for her in the hopes she is alive. He knows nothing more than what has been said."
Is "she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned." any worse than he says that he cannot explain. or he says that he has no comments. or he says that he has no comments, neither has he any explanation for this fact.?
-
But no evidence of her death
The enemy to knowledge is not ignorance but the presumption of knowledge ...again springs to mind
And absolutely no evidence of an abductor yet still you believe it.
-
And absolutely no evidence of an abductor yet still you believe it to be the mist probable explanation
I would say there is evidence of, abduction... That's, why I believe it to be the most probable explanation
-
OK can someone explain to me what the phrase "she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned" means IYO?
"43 --- In this 'auto' [official document recording an official action] there were shown several films of canine inspections, forensic in character, where can be seen the marking by them of indications of human cadaver smell and blood traces also human, and solely human, as well as the comments of the expert responsible for that inspection activity.
--- The viewing ended and after signs of cadaver odour in her bedroom next to the cupboard and behind the sofa against the window of the living room, she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned."
Is she saying she is agreeing with what Martin Grime says on tape.? If that is the case are these question answered? For I think Gerry answered some questions the same way and it is commented that Gerry answered all his questions.
Gerry: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
"During this interview several films of a forensic nature showing sniffer dogs were shown where their signalling can be seen regarding indication of cadaver odour and traces of blood also human, and only of a human nature, as well as the comments made by the expert in charge of the procedure.
-- After viewing the films and after the signalling of cadaver odour in their room next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa against the window in the living room, he says that he has no comments, neither has he any explanation for this fact.
--- Also, the dog that detects human blood signalled human blood behind the sofa mentioned above, he says that he cannot explain this fact.
-- Regarding the cadaver odour in the car that was rented at the end of May, (xx)-DA-27, he says he cannot explain more than what he already has.
--- Regarding the presence of human blood in the boot of the same vehicle, he says that he has not explanation for this fact.
-- When confronted with the fact that Madeleine's DNA was collected from behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle and analyzed by a British laboratory, situations also described before, he says that he cannot explain.
--- When asked if on any occasion Madeleine was injured, he says that he has no comments.
-- When questioned, he says he is the usual driver of the car. In addition to G. the car could also be driven by his wife Kate, sister in law Sandy and a cousin of Kate's by the name Michael.
-- When asked if he has anything to add he says that he has not seen any proof that his daughter Madeleine is dead, and therefore he will continue to search for her in the hopes she is alive. He knows nothing more than what has been said."
Is "she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned." any worse than he says that he cannot explain. or he says that he has no comments. or he says that he has no comments, neither has he any explanation for this fact.?
Kate had spent thirteen hours in a police station the day and the night before the arguido interview. She was questioned until the small hours of the morning.
It is obvious in my opinion, that when she says she couldn't explain anything more than she had already mentioned she had already been asked and had already answered the questions at some time during her marathon interrogation the day before when she had been questioned for eleven hours.
Rather puts the "48 question" arguido session into context and perspective, in my opinion.
-
I would say there is evidence of, abduction... That's, why I believe it
Just as the alerts to cadaver scent need corroborating evidence so does abduction. Do you have that evidence because if not it’s simply an opinion.
-
Just as the alerts to cadaver scent need corroborating evidence so does abduction. Do you have that evidence because if not it’s simply an opinion.
As I have said many times and explained why... I believe abduction to be way ahead the most probable solution.. Based on the evidence
-
At the end of Kate's interview "At this moment, and because it was so late, 11 PM, the interview was interrupted and will be continued tomorrow morning."
Do you think it went straight from that interview "September 6/2007 3pm at Portimao" into the full blown arguido interview the next day "Kate Marie Healy's statement 07 Sep 07 @ 11am"?
It seems odd that it changed from that rather informative interview on the 6th to the full blown arguido interview on the 7th. What made it change from one type of interview to the other? It seems as if there is a step missing.
But it is confirmed in Kate's book.
The nature of the questions changed, as did the place / time of where she was / what she observed. Asking potentially self-incriminating questions requires arguido status.
-
As I have said many times and explained why... I believe abduction to be way ahead the most probable solution.. Based on the evidence
Then supply the evidence. Let us see what you base your opinion on.
-
Then supply the evidence. Let us see what you base your opinion on.
Read back I've done it many times
-
Read back I've done it many times
You aren’t stalling are you Davel ?
Let me help get you started.
Forensic traces of someone in the apartment....none
Evidence of illegal entry into apartment....none
-
You aren’t stalling are you Davel ?
There, a, whole thread on it
-
There, a, whole thread on it
Oh
Edit: removed hounding comment
-
You aren’t stalling are you Davel ?
Let me help get you started.
Forensic traces of someone in the apartment....none
Evidence of illegal entry into apartment....none
Perhaps if competent forensic procedures had been followed, such evidence would have been found. IMO
-
You would have us believe that there is copious evidence to an abduction yet seem reluctant to furnish the rest of the forum with it. Why ? If you have provided it before then surely it’s just a simple matter of cut and pasting the information?
-
You would have us believe that there is copious evidence to an abduction yet seem reluctant to furnish the rest of the forum with it. Why ? If you have provided it before then surely it’s just a simple matter of cut and pasting the information?
What's the point when you obviously have a very short memory.. You will forget it all tomorrow... It's, all been done before...
-
What's the point when you obviously have a very short memory.. You will forget it all tomorrow... It's, all been done before...
If I recall correctly nobody has ever been able to produce any evidence of abduction which begs the question as to why SY have been dogmatic in their approach to this theory in the face of such absence?
-
If I recall correctly nobody has ever been able to produce any evidence of abduction which begs the question as to why SY have been dogmatic in their approach to this theory?
SY said based on the evidence they believe maddie was abducted...
3 possibilities
Parental involvement... Very unlikely ...based on evidence
Woke and wandered... Highly unlikely according to the final report... Presumably they have some evidence to make such a statement
Leaves, abduction
-
If I recall correctly nobody has ever been able to produce any evidence of abduction which begs the question as to why SY have been dogmatic in their approach to this theory in the face of such absence?
I assume , perhaps mistakenly, that when SY ask for extra funding, they have to present some evidence, information, details which warrant the extra money.
-
You aren’t stalling are you Davel ?
Let me help get you started.
Forensic traces of someone in the apartment....none
Evidence of illegal entry into apartment....none
Because the abduction happened after Madeleine left the apartment on her own IMO. so we don't expect
"Forensic traces of someone in the apartment....nor
Evidence of illegal entry into apartment.
-
Because the abduction happened after Madeleine left the apartment on her own IMO. so we don't expect
"Forensic traces of someone in the apartment....nor
Evidence of illegal entry into apartment.
The forensic exam may well not have been thorough and the patio door was open
-
SY said based on the evidence they believe maddie was abducted...
3 possibilities
Parental involvement... Very unlikely ...based on evidence
Woke and wandered... Highly unlikely according to the final report... Presumably they have some evidence to make such a statement
Leaves, abduction
"Woke and wandered... Highly unlikely according to the final report... Presumably they have some evidence to make such a statement " The only evidence comes from the parents and they think they are involved. The PJ can't use that as reliable evidence IMO.
The McCanns also say they didn't do it, but the PJ don't believe them on that note.
-
"Woke and wandered... Highly unlikely according to the final report... Presumably they have some evidence to make such a statement " The only evidence comes from the parents and they think they are involved. The PJ can't use that as reliable evidence IMO.
The McCanns also say they didn't do it, but the PJ don't believe them on that note.
You are making an assumption that the only evidence is from the parents... More likely in my opinion the pj had some evidence
-
"Woke and wandered... Highly unlikely according to the final report... Presumably they have some evidence to make such a statement " The only evidence comes from the parents and they think they are involved. The PJ can't use that as reliable evidence IMO.
The McCanns also say they didn't do it, but the PJ don't believe them on that note.
Woke and wandered is the only theory which IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE!!
She might well have been abducted afterwards but the difficulty is that if this is ever established then the blame goes back to the parents.
-
"Woke and wandered... Highly unlikely according to the final report... Presumably they have some evidence to make such a statement " The only evidence comes from the parents and they think they are involved. The PJ can't use that as reliable evidence IMO.
The McCanns also say they didn't do it, but the PJ don't believe them on that note.
Is this supposed to be double-think, whereby both investigations stress that the parents aren't suspects but it's a wink to the world in general that they are?
Confused.com
-
Woke and wandered is the only theory which IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE!!
What evidence?
-
What evidence?
Tracking dogs (oK as bad as the cadaver dog alerts)
-
Woke and wandered is the only theory which IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE!!
She might well have been abducted afterwards but the difficulty is that if this is ever established then the blame goes back to the parents.
good to see you think parental involvement is not supported by the evidence
-
Woke and wandered is the only theory which IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE!!
She might well have been abducted afterwards but the difficulty is that if this is ever established then the blame goes back to the parents.
I don't understand that really, what they did doesn't change from one scenario to the next.
-
Is this supposed to be double-think, whereby both investigations stress that the parents aren't suspects but it's a wink to the world in general that they are?
Confused.com
Surely you don't believe anything the police say in the middle of a live investigation?
-
What evidence?
Well let's see *%6^
For starters, two sniffer dogs deployed independently very shortly after she was reported missing followed HER SCENT out of the apartment and around the block to the car park opposite mini reception where it mysteriously disappeared just like her.
-
Surely you don't believe anything the police say in the middle of a live investigation?
I take everything that is going on a piece all the bits together to reach a conclusion...the sniffer dog evidence you are basing your theory on is not relaible
-
I don't understand that really, what they did doesn't change from one scenario to the next.
The difference is that in my scenario their negligence created the situation.
-
Well let's see *%6^
For starters, two sniffer dogs deployed independently very shortly after she was reported missing followed HER SCENT out of the apartment and around the block to the car park opposite mini reception where it mysteriously disappeared just like her.
read the files again the two dogs were not independent and it was suggested that the second dog simply followed the trail of the first...it was also suggested that the trail could have been laid down the previous day
-
I take everything that is going on a piece all the bits together to reach a conclusion...the sniffer dog evidence you are basing your theory on is not relaible
I'm afraid your attempt to discredit those dogs won't work. Both dogs followed her scent over the exact same ground.
-
read the files again the two dogs were not independent and it was suggested that the second dog simply followed the trail of the first...it was also suggested that the trail could have been laid down the previous day
Sniffer dogs seldom fail as all experts know and by using two dogs the GNR corroborated the finding.
-
I'm afraid your attempt to discredit those dogs won't work. Both dogs followed her scent over the exact same ground.
have you read what it says in the files...exactly what I have said
-
have you read what it says in the files...exactly what I have said
Try thinking outside the box davel. Several British detectives also agree that it is a distinct possibility.
-
Try thinking outside the box davel. Several British detectives also agree that it is a distinct possibility.
I'm not saying it is not a possibility..im saying the evidence you quote is not as strong as you think
-
Well let's see *%6^
For starters, two sniffer dogs deployed independently very shortly after she was reported missing followed HER SCENT out of the apartment and around the block to the car park opposite mini reception where it mysteriously disappeared just like her.
It should be taken into account that the second sniffer dog may have been conditioned by the first sniffer dog. That is to say that in the case of doubt, the second dog may have followed the second of the first.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
you need to read the files to get a true picture of the evidence you are relying on
-
Try thinking outside the box davel. Several British detectives also agree that it is a distinct possibility.
Its two uk detectives...and they don't have all the evidence
-
Its two uk detectives...and they don't have all the evidence
Have you not seen the video depicting a large group of retired senior detectives who considered woke and wandered a distinct possibility? It's common sense in any event as there was no evidence whatsoever of any intruder having entered 5a.
Now back to the thread theme, the point of the arguido questions asked of Kate and Gerry McCann. Clearly they were questions which were selected in order to establish the suspects genuineness to cooperating with the investigation.
-
What's the point when you obviously have a very short memory.. You will forget it all tomorrow... It's, all been done before...
You are not answering Davel because you know that there is no evidence.
-
You are not answering Davel because you know that there is no evidence.
You are welcome to think what you want... It's of no importance
-
You are welcome to think what you want... It's of no importance
Rather like an opinion not backed up with evidence.
-
Have you not seen the video depicting a large group of retired senior detectives who considered woke and wandered a distinct possibility? It's common sense in any event as there was no evidence whatsoever of any intruder having entered 5a.
Now back to the thread theme, the point of the arguido questions asked of Kate and Gerry McCann. Clearly they were questions which were selected in order to establish the suspects genuineness to cooperating with the investigation.
Indeed! And it was interesting that Kate refused to answer such questions, and one has to wonder why?
leaving no stone unturned one would have thought the inconvenience of being questioned during a stressful time, would be worth it to be ruled out as a suspect and for the PJ to then direct another theory. IMO
-
Indeed! And it was interesting that Kate refused to answer such questions, and one has to wonder why?
leaving no stone unturned one would have thought the inconvenience of being questioned during a stressful time, would be worth it to be ruled out as a suspect and for the PJ to then direct another theory. IMO
Which of the 48 questions relate to the woke and wandered scenario?
-
Rather like an opinion not backed up with evidence.
Funny how some when backed into a corner always say "it is of no importance" having spent three pages arguing the toss over it.... *%87
-
Have you not seen the video depicting a large group of retired senior detectives who considered woke and wandered a distinct possibility? It's common sense in any event as there was no evidence whatsoever of any intruder having entered 5a.
Now back to the thread theme, the point of the arguido questions asked of Kate and Gerry McCann. Clearly they were questions which were selected in order to establish the suspects genuineness to cooperating with the investigation.
If you are thinking of the same video that I am, it is risible. They got so much wrong, imo of course.
They seemed to be led by one ex officer who pushed his agenda and they all agreed
-
Which of the 48 questions relate to the woke and wandered scenario?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/48_Questions_07_09_07.htm
"01--- Asked, on May 03, 2007, at 22:00, when she entered the apartment what she saw and did, where he looked, and what she touched [handled], she did not respond."
That would be the most important in an simple woke and wandered situation. I.e. were the doors and gates found opened more than they should?
"06 --- Asked why she said from the outset that MADELEINE was kidnapped [abducted], she did not respond."
If Kate is thinking Madeleine was abducted from the apartment that thought rules out woke and wandered.
"08 ---Why she had not asked the twins at that time what had happened to their sister, or why she had not asked them later, she did not respond."
So does that mean Kate had told them at an earlier time she had not asked the twins what had happened? Why didn't the PJ do it themselves if it was so important.
-
Some of the questions asked of Kate McCann suggest that the PJ had suspicions that her relationships with her children were not as smooth as had been claimed. According to the Portuguese media it was her diaries which aroused these suspicions. As her diaries were not allowed to be included in the files we can't check what she actually wrote in them.
-
Some of the questions asked of Kate McCann suggest that the PJ had suspicions that her relationships with her children were not as smooth as had been claimed. According to the Portuguese media it was her diaries which aroused these suspicions. As her diaries were not allowed to be included in the files we can't check what she actually wrote in them.
What questions were those in your opinion?
Rightly so did Portuguese judge Pedro dos Anjos Frios instruct the PJ to destroy photocopies of Kate's private diary and disallowed the inclusion as 'evidence'.
That a prejudicial version which could only have had one source was leaked to the Portuguese press is in my opinion yet another disgrace and tends to confirm Philomena McCann's opinion that it was "just another way to stick the knife in".
I don't see the point of your post in repeating nonsensical allegations wrongly released and wrongly printed in the Portuguese press. Amaral's book gives us his take on what aroused his and his team's suspicion and makes no mention of the diary.
The News of the World allayed any curiosity anyone might have by jumping the gun and printing it too. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/NOTW-14-09-08.htm Leveson was less than complementary about that infringement.
So even a prop designed to be cathartic in an hour of need was twisted and turned to be used against Kate and is continued even today.
Snip
Kate was frequently seen writing her journal in private moments after Madeleine went missing from the family's holiday apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz 133 days ago.
Philomena McCann, Gerry's sister, said she advised her sister-in-law to keep the diary to show Madeleine how much they loved her.
She said: "I asked Kate to keep this journal because at first the Portuguese police were doing very little.
"A lot of the things that happened were only because of the family contacting the media.
"So I said to Kate that it would be a good idea if someone wrote down, for Madeleine, notes on everything that was happening, because we have to prove to Madeleine how much we looked for her and how much we love her.
"That wee girl will be thinking, 'They're not looking for me. My mummy, daddy and my aunties - they don't love me because they can't find me'.
"I was just thinking about how insecure Madeleine would be, so Kate has been keeping that journal faithfully every day.
"She's been writing down everything that we've been doing so we can prove to Madeleine that we have worked so hard to try and find her, that we've put our lives on hold to search for her and show our love for her is unending."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481645/McCanns-facing-fresh-slurs-Portuguese-press-Kates-diaries.html#ixzz5B2kcpOOq
-
What questions were those in your opinion?
Rightly so did Portuguese judge Pedro dos Anjos Frios instruct the PJ to destroy photocopies of Kate's private diary and disallowed the inclusion as 'evidence'.
That a prejudicial version which could only have had one source was leaked to the Portuguese press is in my opinion yet another disgrace and tends to confirm Philomena McCann's opinion that it was "just another way to stick the knife in".
I don't see the point of your post in repeating nonsensical allegations wrongly released and wrongly printed in the Portuguese press. Amaral's book gives us his take on what aroused his and his team's suspicion and makes no mention of the diary.
The News of the World allayed any curiosity anyone might have by jumping the gun and printing it too. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/NOTW-14-09-08.htm Leveson was less than complementary about that infringement.
So even a prop designed to be cathartic in an hour of need was twisted and turned to be used against Kate and is continued even today.
Snip
Kate was frequently seen writing her journal in private moments after Madeleine went missing from the family's holiday apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz 133 days ago.
Philomena McCann, Gerry's sister, said she advised her sister-in-law to keep the diary to show Madeleine how much they loved her.
She said: "I asked Kate to keep this journal because at first the Portuguese police were doing very little.
"A lot of the things that happened were only because of the family contacting the media.
"So I said to Kate that it would be a good idea if someone wrote down, for Madeleine, notes on everything that was happening, because we have to prove to Madeleine how much we looked for her and how much we love her.
"That wee girl will be thinking, 'They're not looking for me. My mummy, daddy and my aunties - they don't love me because they can't find me'.
"I was just thinking about how insecure Madeleine would be, so Kate has been keeping that journal faithfully every day.
"She's been writing down everything that we've been doing so we can prove to Madeleine that we have worked so hard to try and find her, that we've put our lives on hold to search for her and show our love for her is unending."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481645/McCanns-facing-fresh-slurs-Portuguese-press-Kates-diaries.html#ixzz5B2kcpOOq
Asked whether or not it is true that the twins have difficulty sleeping, that they are restless and that that causes her uneasiness, she did not respond.
--- Asked whether or not it is true that at certain times she felt desperate [driven to despair; angered; exasperated] by the attitude of the children and that that left her much disquiet [unease], she did not respond.
--- Asked whether or not it is true that in England she was thinking to deliver MADELEINE into the custody [guardianship] of a family member, she did not respond.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm
The News of the World printed some of her diary entries, but did they print all of them? Clearly not;
The 135-page journal covering April 28, 2007 to Tuesday, July 31
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/NOTW-14-09-08.htm
April 28th -30th and May 1st and 2nd weren't printed.
According to Kate McCann it wasn't a family member who suggested writing things down;
Hugh asked me whether I was keeping a diary. Quite apart from the fact that I was an emotional wreck and hadn’t had time to blink for the past week, the idea had never crossed my mind. I hadn’t kept a diary since my early teens......I didn’t begin in earnest until 23 May, twenty days after Madeleine was taken......I went back and filled in the blank pages with notes of our activities and my recollections of every day since 3 May 2007. [madeleine]
So did Kate go back to 28th April or 3rd May? Was it Philomena's suggestion or Hugh's? What did the undisclosed entries say?
-
This interview appears to be around the time of the arguido interview.
She says they won't be refusing to answer any questions. Strange? https://youtu.be/wOkpiJ6DEco
-
I agree with G-Unit that some of those questions were probably inspired by the diary.
There were supposedly a couple of entries in her diary about one or the other of the twins having a meltdown after their normal bedtime. I presume that that was in the upheaval after Madeleine disappeared. I don't see anything particularly odd about noting the odd toddler bedtime tantrum as part of a recap of the day. This evidently got leaked and got morphed into her being unable to cope with her kids (in general).
Kate McCann was obsessed with getting her children to sleep, 11 September 2008
Antena3
Espejo Público
Madrid, 11.09.2008 | 11:39 h.
Thanks to 'ines' for translation
snip
A mother obsessed by her children's sleep, noted in expressions such as these: "Sean slept with us for most of the night after half an hour of hysteria at 12.30". Or on another page: "I tried to take Sean and Amelie to bed at 9.30, but it became very late again, especially with Amelie".
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id166.htm
The only thing that comes to mind about supposedly wanting to hand custody of M over to a relative, might also have come from the diary, if Kate had mentioned applying to the UK Family Court re the Ward of Court application process. I find it quite likely that the PJ just assumed that it must have been for adoption or a custody dispute, as opposed to seeking the court's assistance to bring her back home if she were found abroad.
-
Warning to all posters:
As we approach the Easter weekend I want to make it very clear that continued disruptive behaviour will NOT be tolerated, sanctions will be applied where necessary. As a sign of goodwill however ahead of the holidays, I am revoking all warning points.
Moderators are expected to lead by example but should those moderating skills fall short of what is expected, permissions will be revoked.
Have a great Easter everyone but please keep the above in mind before commenting.
-
Indeed! And it was interesting that Kate refused to answer such questions, and one has to wonder why?
leaving no stone unturned one would have thought the inconvenience of being questioned during a stressful time, would be worth it to be ruled out as a suspect and for the PJ to then direct another theory. IMO
Stressed? I think Kate was a bit more than stressed. I wonder what you would do if you had been in her shoes. Kate had already been questioned for hours, the PJ more or less accused her of having something to do with Madeleine's disappearance. They said they had evidence. What state would you be in I wonder? In a foreign country being accused of lying about her daughter's disappearance and being accused of hiding her body. I think I would definately listen to my lawyer, say nothing, then nothing can be twisted against me. If Kate had been arrested, no one would be looking for Madeleine, everyone would believe what the PJ had said. IMO
-
Stressed? I think Kate was a bit more than stressed. I wonder what you would do if you had been in her shoes. Kate had already been questioned for hours, the PJ more or less accused her of having something to do with Madeleine's disappearance. They said they had evidence. What state would you be in I wonder? In a foreign country being accused of lying about her daughter's disappearance and being accused of hiding her body. I think I would definately listen to my lawyer, say nothing, then nothing can be twisted against me. If Kate had been arrested, no one would be looking for Madeleine, everyone would believe what the PJ had said. IMO
"I wonder what you would do if you had been in her shoes"
-
I put IMO after my post.
So, in your opinion, Kate should have answered the questions?
-
I put IMO after my post.
So, in your opinion, Kate should have answered the questions?
So the whole post was just your opinion, including the bit about 'her shoes'? As we don't know what being in 'her shoes' means, how can we say how we would have reacted?
-
So the whole post was just your opinion, including the bit about 'her shoes'? As we don't know what being in 'her shoes' means, how can we say how we would have reacted?
Everyone's posts are their opinion.
You can imagine what it was like for Kate surely 'put yourself in her shoes' as the saying goes. Imagine being questioned for hours, accused, told they had evidence of your child being dead, that they wanted you to confess, and then ask why Kate didn't answer the questions. IMO
-
Stressed? I think Kate was a bit more than stressed. I wonder what you would do if you had been in her shoes. Kate had already been questioned for hours, the PJ more or less accused her of having something to do with Madeleine's disappearance. They said they had evidence. What state would you be in I wonder? In a foreign country being accused of lying about her daughter's disappearance and being accused of hiding her body. I think I would definately listen to my lawyer, say nothing, then nothing can be twisted against me. If Kate had been arrested, no one would be looking for Madeleine, everyone would believe what the PJ had said. IMO
I sometimes wonder if she was more concerned with being prosecuted for neglect resulting in her being struck off as a doctor or her missing child?
-
I sometimes wonder if she was more concerned with being prosecuted for neglect resulting in her being struck off as a doctor or her missing child?
Kate was being accused of lying to the Police Angelo, they had admitted they had left the children alone, and if they had been prosecuted then the rest of the friends should have been too.
Kate was being accused of hiding Madeleine's body, she was told they had proof that Madeleine was dead. They were hoping for a confession IMO.
-
I sometimes wonder if she was more concerned with being prosecuted for neglect resulting in her being struck off as a doctor or her missing child?
That would be a double blow - missing child and being struck off. Anyone would try and prevent that IMO.
-
That would be a double blow - missing child and being struck off. Anyone would try and prevent that IMO.
If you had accidentally killed your child do you really think that at that moment in time you would give a toss about a career?
-
If you had accidentally killed your child do you really think that at that moment in time you would give a toss about a career?
Time of the arguido questions is 4 months later. IMO Immediately you might be thinking the child will be found and I don't want to be struck off.
If in the unlikely event she had accidentally killed her child, she would think "that really wasn't my fault and I don't want to be struck off for an accident".
Being struck off might always be a consideration.
-
Gerry's arguido questions:
I am curious as to how one line of text disappears from the document Line 65 is blank yet the water mark shows through so it is not blanked out by obscuring it.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2571.jpg)
There isn't much evidence of the questions that were actually asked but they could be similar to the ones Kate was asked if they were relevant to Gerry.
-
Gerry's arguido questions:
Several times I get the sense that Gerry is using the question answer time to turn against the PJ investigation.
"--- When questioned he says that he did not request a priest, but to Kate to seek spiritual help."
Gerry emphasising the spiritual help aspect. What's wrong with that? He is basically questioning them.
"--- Regarding the disclosure of Madeleine's photograph, he says that he gave the authorities a photograph from a digital camera, and he thinks it was Russell who printed it at the main 24-hour reception of the complex. He made the delivery thereof, or of these pictures on A4 paper to the Police, and he is sure he never delivered any of these photographs to GNR."
Did the GNR end up with some of the photos printed off by Russell?
I like this answer: "-- When questioned if the twins woke while the apartment was being searched, he replies negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, and can find no reason for it happening. He still thought at this moment that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later."
The PJ would not have liked that answer. The PJ keep trying to make out the McCanns only requested drug sampling to be done at a much later stage.
Snap: "When questioned, he says he never gave his children anything to help them sleep, nor did Kate." Snap.
The PJ really fail on this question too: "When asked why he did not ask the twins what happened to their sister, he says that when the events took place they still did not speak fluently, which is now a normal developmental difficulty. At this point he did not ask them because he thought that they would not have the correct perception of what had happened, in addition to thinking that they would have been sleeping."
Next question was also a fail: "--- When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they stayed inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way."
Why didn't they persist with this line of inquiry? "--- When asked about the contents of the wardrobe in his room that can be seen in the photographs, he says that on top is a suitcase and below a pile of dirty clothes that he cannot make out. This wardrobe was opened to look for Madeleine."
Well anyone can see it is a suitcase, but who's suitcase was it? Did anyone look inside of it? Did they take this suitcase away at some later stage? When?
-
Gerry's arguido questions: Pretty sensible answers on the whole.
"--- When asked if in fact they went to the apartment every half hour, he says it is true, and that this was never created to justify absences during dinner.
--- When asked what the expression 'we let her down' means, he says that it has to do with the fact that they were not present when Madeleine was abducted. It was Kate who first used this expression.
There seemed to be only one question that really threw him: "--- When asked if on any occasion Madeleine was injured, he says that he has no comments."
Toward the end of the interview he is asked this again: "-- The lawyer for the defence says he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn't know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared."
I don't quite follow his reasoning there. Is he saying he does want to agree with the Press just because of what they have reported.
-
Gerry's arguido questions: I still think he blew it though.
"--- The third check was made by Kate at around 22:00. He does not know how long it was before Kate returned, but he does remember that shortly before she returned he was thinking of going to see what was going on, as it seemed a long time and he thought that one of children might have woken up. "
I have previously looked into how long the others think Kate was taking and most answers were under 5 minutes. So why was Gerry getting impatient? Even if one of the kids had woken up Kate was more than capable of putting the child back to bed.
Gerry I think you failed on that one.
-
Would anyone care to help me understand this bolded part? "When questioned, he says that he works at the Emergency Room of the hospital where he works every 15 days, however he is not usually called out at night, and if this happens then it is once for 4 days prevention. Kate's specialty is general medicine, and works two days a week. After the birth of the twins, Kate did not work for a year, on maternity leave, and currently works part-time as above."
Did he work once every 15 days?
-
Wold anyone care to help me understand this bolded part? "When questioned, he says that he works at the Emergency Room of the hospital where he works every 15 days, however he is not usually called out at night, and if this happens then it is once for 4 days prevention. Kate's specialty is general medicine, and works two days a week. After the birth of the twins, Kate did not work for a year, on maternity leave, and currently works part-time as above."
It is understandable that there has been much concentration on the historic information taken from whatever information there is to hand because there is little or no information coming out from the current investigation.
Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria have gone over the information in fine detail over a number of years independent of each other and both discovered huge gaps in the information emanating from the start of the investigation till it was archived.
In particular both police forces confirmed that many witnesses were never interviewed at the time ... " - terá identificado testemunhas que nunca foram inquiridas enquanto o processo esteve a decorrer, até Julho de 2008.
Isso mesmo é confirmado num comunicado divulgado esta."
" - will have identified witnesses who were never interviewed while the proceedings were in progress, until July 2008."
It is abundantly clear that having raked over the cold coals beloved of forum myth neither Scotland Yard nor the PJ have expressed an interest in Kate or Gerry ... in fact the contrary.
"A reanálise do processo volta a centrar a investigação na tese de rapto, a principal linha seguida pela Scotland Yard, que também abriu uma investigação ao desaparecimento de Maddie. A equipa da PJ do Porto terá ficado convicta dessa tese perante a observação cuidada de toda a informação existente no processo."
"The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process."
Therefore the two investigation which have as their focus the kidnapping of Madeleine McCann have studied and moved on from where we were at the time of disasters such as the arguido debacle which took the focus off Madeleine and which took two reviews years later to get it back.
We don't know much of what is going on for the simple reason that the current process both Portuguese and British is being conducted under Portuguese secrecy laws which this time round are being strictly adhered to and respected.
"O inquérito vai continuar a correr na Procuradoria da República de Portimão, que, segundo a nota, requereu ao juiz de instrução que o inquérito fique sujeito ao segredo de justiça."
"The investigation will continue to run at the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Portimão, which, according to the statement, asked the investigating judge that the investigation be subject to the secrecy of justice."
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
In my opinion all well worth taking on board as we pore over every nuance of an investigation which took the wrong course and whose adherents can't see the wood for the trees ... SY and the PJ have looked at it all already and as a result both are working resolutely on trying to solve what they consider to be Madeleine's abduction.
-
Gerry's arguido questions: I still think he blew it though.
"--- The third check was made by Kate at around 22:00. He does not know how long it was before Kate returned, but he does remember that shortly before she returned he was thinking of going to see what was going on, as it seemed a long time and he thought that one of children might have woken up. "
I have previously looked into how long the others think Kate was taking and most answers were under 5 minutes. So why was Gerry getting impatient? Even if one of the kids had woken up Kate was more than capable of putting the child back to bed.
Gerry I think you failed on that one.
Are you pointing the finger at Gerry?
-
Are you pointing the finger at Gerry?
Being concerned about how long Kate took has always worried me. Gerry can take 15 minutes himself but worries if she is coming up to 5 minutes. It doesn't sound like a healthy situation.
-
Being concerned about how long Kate took has always worried me. Gerry can take 15 minutes himself but worries if she is coming up to 5 minutes. It doesn't sound like a healthy situation.
It seems a valid question. Kate had eaten her food so it wasn't as if it was going cold in her absence. She too might have gone t'lavvy or met an acquaintance en route.
-
Being concerned about how long Kate took has always worried me. Gerry can take 15 minutes himself but worries if she is coming up to 5 minutes. It doesn't sound like a healthy situation.
Gerry stopped and had a chat with Jez en route.
As Jassi says -snip- Kate had eaten her food so it wasn't as if it was going cold in her absence. She too might have gone t'lavvy or met an acquaintance en route.
And it all depends on what going to the lavvie involved for each of thyem. Gerry seems very protective of Kate. He is her rock, maybe because he is so protective?
-
Gerry seems very protective of Kate. He is her rock, maybe because he is so protective?
There could be a very good reason for that imo.
-
There could be a very good reason for that imo.
*%6^
Care to share the very good reason with us, John?
-
Gerry stopped and had a chat with Jez en route.
As Jassi says
And it all depends on what going to the lavvie involved for each of thyem. Gerry seems very protective of Kate. He is her rock, maybe because he is so protective?
Did they have much contact that day? The night before Gerry had left her at the Tapas bar and walked off and left her there alone and she came back later and decided to sleep on her own. Next night she is left to look after the kids while he is playing tennis. Kate is allowed to go running on her own.
All that and he gets concerned she is away for 5 minutes that feels like 10. He makes her go, timed to the minute but doesn't know how long she actually took for her check. It doesn't add up to me.
-
Would anyone care to help me understand this bolded part? "When questioned, he says that he works at the Emergency Room of the hospital where he works every 15 days, however he is not usually called out at night, and if this happens then it is once for 4 days prevention. Kate's specialty is general medicine, and works two days a week. After the birth of the twins, Kate did not work for a year, on maternity leave, and currently works part-time as above."
Did he work once every 15 days?
That's an amazing find rob... You are obviously much more perceptive than I gave you credit for... So why was, Gerry only working once every 15 days... Very strange
Was Gerry on restricted duties.... Was he under investigation
-
Did they have much contact that day? The night before Gerry had left her at the Tapas bar and walked off and left her there alone and she came back later and decided to sleep on her own. Next night she is left to look after the kids while he is playing tennis. Kate is allowed to go running on her own.
All that and he gets concerned she is away for 5 minutes that feels like 10. He makes her go, timed to the minute but doesn't know how long she actually took for her check. It doesn't add up to me.
Oh Rob, quite a lot of things don't add up. the DP visit, which he can't recall why he went or what Kate was wearing but recalled the angel children???... oh so many things.
-
Oh Rob, quite a lot of things don't add up. the DP visit, which he can't recall why he went or what Kate was wearing but recalled the angel children???... oh so many things.
That was odd.
-
That's an amazing find rob... You are obviously much more perceptive than I gave you credit for... So why was, Gerry only working once every 15 days... Very strange
Was Gerry on restricted duties.... Was he under investigation
Doesn't say once every fifteen days though does it.
-
That's an amazing find rob... You are obviously much more perceptive than I gave you credit for... So why was, Gerry only working once every 15 days... Very strange
Was Gerry on restricted duties.... Was he under investigation
On gardening leave, just popping in twice a month to deal with emergencies?
Is it feasible that his regular work as a cardiologist wasn't in the emergency ward, but that he did two shifts a month in one? Or is that too far-fetched?
-
On gardening leave, just popping in twice a month to deal with emergencies?
Is it feasible that his regular work as a cardiologist wasn't in the emergency ward, but that he did two shifts a month in one? Or is that too far-fetched?
I wasn't being serious... More like Gerry worked 15 days on and then several days off.... Looks like very poor translation of his actual statement
-
I wasn't being serious... More like Gerry worked 15 days on and then several days off.... Looks like very poor translation of his actual statement
Neither was I. ;)
I had a look at the original, but I still don't find it clear.
In the light of the general gist of the questions, IMO, they could have been more interested in how many night shifts he could have worked (Kate being left with three toddlers and potentially blowing a fuse).
Despite the fact that Kate didn't answer many of the arguido questions, I find the "TdeA report", submitted shortly thereafter, gives a potential insight into what the PJ were trying to establish.
-
Neither was I. ;)
I had a look at the original, but I still don't find it clear.
In the light of the general gist of the questions, IMO, they could have been more interested in how many night shifts he could have worked (Kate being left with three toddlers and potentially blowing a fuse).
Despite the fact that Kate didn't answer many of the arguido questions, I find the "TdeA report", submitted shortly thereafter, gives a potential insight into what the PJ were trying to establish.
As a consultant, he would be unlikely to work any night shifts, though he would have on-call duties, a very different thing
-
As a consultant, he would be unlikely to work any night shifts, though he would have on-call duties, a very different thing
And still difficult to see the relevance of these questions
-
That's an amazing find rob... You are obviously much more perceptive than I gave you credit for... So why was, Gerry only working once every 15 days... Very strange
Was Gerry on restricted duties.... Was he under investigation
I was thinking the interpreter may have misunderstood the arrangement. Could it be 15 days on and 15 days off?
-
Doesn't say once every fifteen days though does it.
But what it says, what does it mean?
-
But what it says, what does it mean?
Just chatting to my son... Ex hospital doctor... And he said it just doesn't make any sense at all... No one works 15 days in a row and Gerry was a cardiologist so wouldn't work in the... Emergency room... He also said... Why are you still on that forum
-
Why are you still on that forum
8((()*/ Just the same with my family, so I generally come on late at night
-
Are you pointing the finger at Gerry?
IMO, with all the money spent on the case in the past few months [about ? £400,000] I think that it is totally ill conceived to even consider that SY are honing in on Gerry. If they had one of the Tapas Group in their sights, then it would have all been tied up long ago IMO.
So many people witnessed where each member of that group was virtually all through the holiday that SY and the Porto PJ special group must know each members exact movements long ago.
With their faces plastered all over the media, every possible witness would recognise them.
For an expert police Force like the Met. finding enough info to charge a single person would be easy peasy IMO; they do it every day.
With such a major amount being spent since they got onto this latest phase, it has to be a large organised group that is being sorted out IMO. Now that would be demanding.
Tbh, it is crazy to even think that they have spent all this (later) money to try and charge Gerry or any of the others in the group. It defies logic.
AIMHO
-
Just chatting to my son... Ex hospital doctor... And he said it just doesn't make any sense at all... No one works 15 days in a row and Gerry was a cardiologist so wouldn't work in the... Emergency room... He also said... Why are you still on that forum
That's kids for you.
-
Gerry's arguido questions: I still think he blew it though.
"--- The third check was made by Kate at around 22:00. He does not know how long it was before Kate returned, but he does remember that shortly before she returned he was thinking of going to see what was going on, as it seemed a long time and he thought that one of children might have woken up. "
I have previously looked into how long the others think Kate was taking and most answers were under 5 minutes. So why was Gerry getting impatient? Even if one of the kids had woken up Kate was more than capable of putting the child back to bed.
Gerry I think you failed on that one.
Good point,the impatience could have been - when kmccann returned it was all systems go.
Like anticipation of waiting for something to happen, a minute can seem like eternity.
-
Good point,the impatience could have been - when kmccann returned it was all systems go.
Like anticipation of waiting for something to happen, a minute can seem like eternity.
It's amazing that SY and the PJ can't spot these blatant clear signs that you armchair detectives can
-
It's amazing that SY and the PJ can't spot these blatant clear signs that you armchair detectives can
why was he concerned, i mean he wasn't concerned leaving the children in the first place.
Bit late at the end of the night - when it was to late.
He had no reason to think anything was wrong, when he took just as long himself.
-
If she had answered these simple questions,maybe it would have shown how long she was.
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe)
Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with?
Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm?
Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister, or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
-
So why do you think Gerry was so worried Davel?
-
If she had answered these simple questions,maybe it would have shown how long she was.
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe)
Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with?
Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm?
Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister, or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
What does "how long she was" mean? I'm not familiar with that expression.
-
So why do you think Gerry was so worried Davel?
C'mon Rob.
If your first born, much loved, daughter had suddenly vanished from her bed.
And the realisation that she had likely been abducted, hit you .... and then the realisation that you were being seriously considered to have done the dirty deed.
If you knew about the Cipriano case and what happened there
And the PJ then told you that they had evidence and could prove that you had carried her dead body in your car .... something you absolutely knew to be untrue
.... would you be worried that they were stitching you up?
Come on Rob, please be realistic.
-
I was referring to why he was worried kate took so long.
-
@ Kizzy
Ah. Do you mean how long Kate took between leaving the table and coming back screaming?
-
@ Kizzy
Ah. Do you mean how long Kate took between leaving the table and coming back screaming?
Sorry Carana, only just seen ur post, but yes u got it.
-
Your a poster - on a forum like me, everything you post is IYO.
But it's the opinion of SY and the Portuguese investigation too.. Which gives it more credibility
-
But it's the opinion of SY and the Portuguese investigation too.. Which gives it more credibility
I think the only time you can claim that - is when the investigation is finished.
As for now you may as well b at square one, nothing as yet, has been proved - with any credibility
-
I think the only time you can claim that - is when the investigation is finished.
As for now you may as well b at square one, nothing as yet, has been proved - with any credibility
I can claim that is exactly what both investigations have said....
-
So why do you think Gerry was so worried Davel?
I don't know... Why do you think he was... Was it only 5 min.... Was he worried at all the other visits she made
-
I don't know... Why do you think he was... Was it only 5 min.... Was he worried at all the other visits she made
lol another one, because he said he was.
quote
Gerry's arguido questions: I still think he blew it though.
"--- The third check was made by Kate at around 22:00. He does not know how long it was before Kate returned, but he does remember that shortly before she returned he was thinking of going to see what was going on, as it seemed a long time and he thought that one of children might have woken up. "
I have previously looked into how long the others think Kate was taking and most answers were under 5 minutes. So why was Gerry getting impatient? Even if one of the kids had woken up Kate was more than capable of putting the child back to bed.
Gerry I think you failed on that one.
-
If she had answered these simple questions,maybe it would have shown how long she was.
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe)
Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with?
Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm?
Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister, or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
Why didn't the PJ interview her again until 6 September? She apparently wasn't in a good state on 10 May, but what about at any time after that?
I don't find many of those questions relevant to ascertaining how long she was there. In a panic situation, time can seem longer or shorter. Whether it was a few minutes either way, she doesn't appear to have been away that long. On the other hand, even 5+ mins may have started to seem long for a trip that would normally only take 3 round-trip.
-
Why didn't the PJ interview her again until 6 September? She apparently wasn't in a good state on 10 May, but what about at any time after that?
I don't find many of those questions relevant to ascertaining how long she was there. In a panic situation, time can seem longer or shorter. Whether it was a few minutes either way, she doesn't appear to have been away that long. On the other hand, even 5+ mins may have started to seem long for a trip that would normally only take 3 round-trip.
No one is in a good state, when something happens to your child - but police interview usually within hours.
Why should she be any different.
not really sure of ur point.
-
No one is in a good state, when something happens to your child - but police interview usually within hours.
Why should she be any different.
not really sure of ur point.
Are you suggesting Kate was not interviewed on May 4 and May 10? If so, a cite will be required.
-
Are you suggesting Kate was not interviewed on May 4 and May 10? If so, a cite will be required.
She was interviewed on May 4, then not again (formally) until the pre-arguido interview on Sept 6.
-
Are you suggesting Kate was not interviewed on May 4 and May 10? If so, a cite will be required.
I Wasn't suggesting anything, so what are you.
-
I don't know... Why do you think he was... Was it only 5 min.... Was he worried at all the other visits she made
Think of a reason Davel. He was worried it seemed like 10 minutes when everyone else said the check was only about 5 minutes.
-
Think of a reason Davel. He was worried it seemed like 10 minutes when everyone else said the check was only about 5 minutes.
In the UK... The term gone for 5 minutes relates to a non specific short period of time.... How's that for a starter
-
Kate said you know, she'd go up and check, do her check and within a couple of minutes later she came back and shouting Madeleines gone.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
She was gone at least several, at least several minutes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
-
Kate said you know, she'd go up and check, do her check and within a couple of minutes later she came back and shouting Madeleines gone.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
She was gone at least several, at least several minutes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
I don't know if you checked them all, but I think none say it was more that 5 minutes. Gerry had a watch so he should have been precisely aware of how long Kate had taken.
-
looking at the earlier statement for clues http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm:
"----- Half and hour later without anything to signal, it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house."
That does make sense in actual fact, him knowing precisely when she left him but not knowing when he started to worry about her being in his view late.
I thought everyone else was saying Kate was saying someone had taken Madeleine but here Gerry is saying "saying that MADELEINE had disappeared". Has he changed it?
-
This next bit seems like the the most stupid thing a doctor could decide:
"----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside. "
He has just gone and interfered with the most important and easiest part of the crime scene to preserve, the shutters. Surely he is not that thick.
How come it was not immediately call the police, that very instant? Fail again Gerry.
-
Which of the arguido questions /answers covers this part?
"He refutes, peremptorily, the notion [idea/hypothesis] that MADELEINE could have left the apartment by her own means."
Is that based on fact or just opinion? There was nothing stopping Madeleine leaving by the front door so why was is he so adamant that this did not happen?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
"When questioned, he states that from the first moment, after the first fruitless searches, he thought that Madeleine had been abducted and it was this information that he gave to everyone to whom he spoke. He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own or opened the blinds and window in the room."
What is he thinking? "He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own". In fact there was nothing stopping Madeleine going out the front door.
-
Which of the arguido questions /answers covers this part?
"He refutes, peremptorily, the notion [idea/hypothesis] that MADELEINE could have left the apartment by her own means."
Is that based on fact or just opinion? There was nothing stopping Madeleine leaving by the front door so was is he so adamant that this did not happen?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
"When questioned, he states that from the first moment, after the first fruitless searches, he thought that Madeleine had been abducted and it was this information that he gave to everyone to whom he spoke. He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own or opened the blinds and window in the room."
What is he thinking? "He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own". In fact there was nothing stopping Madeleine going out the front door.
He is Madeleines father and only he and Kate know whether Madeleine was capable of opening the door, patio door or window. Only he ande Kate know whether Madeleine would do such a thing if she were able.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree TBH
SY would not have needed to spend over £400,000 in the latest stage of their investigation if they KNEW or SUSPECTED that Gerry was responsible. They do that sort of investigation successfully on a daily basis, it would be simplicity itsef to them.
Nor would they have needed that much money if they KNEW or SUSPECTED that any of the Tapas group were involved.
It seems to me that they are looking at a large well established organisation probably run by famous very elite people. For unravelling such an organisation they would need time and mega bucks.
TBH Rob, you are completely wrong
AIMHO
-
looking at the earlier statement for clues http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm:
"----- Half and hour later without anything to signal, it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house."
That does make sense in actual fact, him knowing precisely when she left him but not knowing when he started to worry about her being in his view late.
I thought everyone else was saying Kate was saying someone had taken Madeleine but here Gerry is saying "saying that MADELEINE had disappeared". Has he changed it?
You're forgetting that this isn't a verbatim report. There's no way of knowing what the question was or what the officer chose to type.
The word used was "estranhar" which can apparently mean to wonder.
Re the time: whether he actually said around 10 minutes, or whether that's what the officer understood as sufficient time for him to wonder if everything was ok... who knows? And what's so important about whether she was gone "a few minutes" or "around 10"?
The UK police said they'd done a forensic timeline, so I expect that they're capable of working out how long she was there and what she did during that time.
-
He is Madeleines father and only he and Kate know whether Madeleine was capable of opening the door, patio door or window. Only he ande Kate know whether Madeleine would do such a thing if she were able.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree TBH
SY would not have needed to spend over £400,000 in the latest stage of their investigation if they KNEW or SUSPECTED that Gerry was responsible. They do that sort of investigation successfully on a daily basis, it would be simplicity itsef to them.
Nor would they have needed that much money if they KNEW or SUSPECTED that any of the Tapas group were involved.
It seems to me that they are looking at a large well established organisation probably run by famous very elite people. For unravelling such an organisation they would need time and mega bucks.
TBH Rob, you are completely wrong
AIMHO
What I'm trying to get across is that we are not being told the full story. I'm not saying or even implying Gerry did anything which resulted in Madeleine's abduction, but possible knowledge of the situation prior to that. I see him having knowledge of something he isn't telling us. That could be the reason he is anxious.
If she had no hope of getting outside why did they look in the immediate area? What were they thinking someone took her out and dumped her real close by?
-
You're forgetting that this isn't a verbatim report. There's no way of knowing what the question was or what the officer chose to type.
The word used was "estranhar" which can apparently mean to wonder.
Re the time: whether he actually said around 10 minutes, or whether that's what the officer understood as sufficient time for him to wonder if everything was ok... who knows? And what's so important about whether she was gone "a few minutes" or "around 10"?
The UK police said they'd done a forensic timeline, so I expect that they're capable of working out how long she was there and what she did during that time.
Oh it is very important, in my theory it becomes important and it was important to him too as he mentions it in two statements. If he had given his reason that "he was concerned one of the kids had got up and exited the apartment, and Kate might be terrified as to where the child has gone", then I think there would be a good reason for concern. For every minute wasted on looking in the apartment is another minute where the child could get lost on the outside.
He said he looked under the beds, but isn't it physically impossible for a child to crawl under those beds.
-
What I'm trying to get across is that we are not being told the full story. I'm not saying or even implying Gerry did anything which resulted in Madeleine's abduction, but possible knowledge of the situation prior to that. I see him having knowledge of something he isn't telling us. That could be the reason he is anxious.
If she had no hope of getting outside why did they look in the immediate area? What were they thinking someone took her out and dumped her real close by?
As soon as Gerry realised that the shutter could be raised from outside ... that must have put an entirely new interpretation on the whole scenario.
With all due respect contrary to what you think about neither making statements nor implications impugning Gerry McCann ~ Kate McCann ~ their companions and even Mr Healey et al, in my opinion that is exactly what you are doing in effect.
In my opinion your first sentence above establishes the tone and I have seen you make imputations that not even the direst sites on the web have come up with to direct against the McCanns ... just as you have in the rest of your post.
Maybe a subliminal transference from some of the sources of your research into Madeleine's case is colouring your judgement of what you mean to say and what you are actually saying?
-
As soon as Gerry realised that the shutter could be raised from outside ... that must have put an entirely new interpretation on the whole scenario.
With all due respect contrary to what you think about neither making statements nor implications impugning Gerry McCann ~ Kate McCann ~ their companions and even Mr Healey et al, in my opinion that is exactly what you are doing in effect.
In my opinion your first sentence above establishes the tone and I have seen you make imputations that not even the direst sites on the web have come up with to direct against the McCanns ... just as you have in the rest of your post.
Maybe a subliminal transference from some of the sources of your research into Madeleine's case is colouring your judgement of what you mean to say and what you are actually saying?
Is that equivalent to saying you don't believe me? What I am saying is that at some point in time I believe Gerry got to know that Madeleine was seen by someone out of the building. Carpenters talk of hearing someone calling for Madeleine even on their way home and if the timing is right that is before Kate's alarm. So someone knew before Kate did IMO, and then they told Gerry IMO so Gerry was anxious to start the search for Madeleine IMO. I know that sounds bizarre but there are circumstances which would make that still a sensible option of waiting till Kate came back but she seemed to be taking an extraordinary amount of time in Gerry's perception.
-
This next bit seems like the the most stupid thing a doctor could decide:
"----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside. "
He has just gone and interfered with the most important and easiest part of the crime scene to preserve, the shutters. Surely he is not that thick.
How come it was not immediately call the police, that very instant? Fail again Gerry.
In my opinion the obvious assumption would have been that someone had opened the window and shutters from inside, because the obvious assumption would have been that the window had been locked. Why did Gerry not make these obvious assumptions? Why was he interested in whether the shutters could be raised from outside?
-
In my opinion the obvious assumption would have been that someone had opened the window and shutters from inside, because the obvious assumption would have been that the window had been locked. Why did Gerry not make these obvious assumptions? Why was he interested in whether the shutters could be raised from outside?
Were you there when Gerry arrived to discover his daughter was no longer in the room and the window open? If not then you have no idea what he thought or said out loud, but it is not an reasonable assumption when you think someone has stolen something from your house and the window is open to think that the thief entered by the open window.
-
Were you there when Gerry arrived to discover his daughter was no longer in the room and the window open? If not then you have no idea what he thought or said out loud, but it is not an reasonable assumption when you think someone has stolen something from your house and the window is open to think that the thief entered by the open window.
Therefore don't touch the shutters. Close the window and shut the curtains, but don't touch those blinds.
-
Were you there when Gerry arrived to discover his daughter was no longer in the room and the window open? If not then you have no idea what he thought or said out loud, but it is not an reasonable assumption when you think someone has stolen something from your house and the window is open to think that the thief entered by the open window.
Thought it was Kate who discovered this.
-
Thought it was Kate who discovered this.
Kate first then Gerry.
-
Kate first then Gerry.
Technically, the open window can only be discovered once - in this case by Kate.
-
Technically, the open window can only be discovered once - in this case by Kate.
Not really.
-
Not really.
Yes really, once something has been discovered, it can't be discovered again as it's existence is already known.
In this case, as Gerry was second on the scene he would only be able to confirm Kate's claim, not discover it for himself.
However, merely a pedantic point, so do carry on. 8)-)))
-
Thought it was Kate who discovered this.
Gerry would have had his own moment of discovery, when arriving at the scene, wouldn't he?
-
Therefore don't touch the shutters. Close the window and shut the curtains, but don't touch those blinds.
Yes of course. Gerry should immediately have declared the room a crime scene, ushered everyone out of the apartment and called 911 straight away. That's what any sane logical person would have done, fancy allowing himself a few moments of panicked irrationality on discovering his daughter missing.
-
Were you there when Gerry arrived to discover his daughter was no longer in the room and the window open? If not then you have no idea what he thought or said out loud, but it is not an reasonable assumption when you think someone has stolen something from your house and the window is open to think that the thief entered by the open window.
According to Gerry their medical training was to get help, which is why Kate ran to the Tapas and left the twins. His first priority seems to have been working out how it might have happened rather than immediately raising the alarm.
-
Gerry would have had his own moment of discovery, when arriving at the scene, wouldn't he?
Confirmation of Kates discovery.
-
According to Gerry their medical training was to get help, which is why Kate ran to the Tapas and left the twins. His first priority seems to have been working out how it might have happened rather than immediately raising the alarm.
Didn't Kate's screams of anguish raise the alarm?
-
Confirmation of Kates discovery.
Call it what you like, I think you know what I meant.
-
Didn't Kate's screams of anguish raise the alarm?
PJ statement 4th May.
Faced with this situation,she verified that the twins were in their respective beds, unlike Madeleine, who had disappeared. The cover was pulled back and the toys were on the pillow as usual. After searching the whole apartment thoroughly, the interviewee went back, scared and shocked, to the restaurant, to alert her husband and the others to the disappearance. The whole group then set about searching for Madeleine throughout the complex, looked in all the buildings, swimming pool, tennis courts etc....as well as in the apartment with the help of employees, who, at the same time, contacted the authorities.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
-
Oh it is very important, in my theory it becomes important and it was important to him too as he mentions it in two statements. If he had given his reason that "he was concerned one of the kids had got up and exited the apartment, and Kate might be terrified as to where the child has gone", then I think there would be a good reason for concern. For every minute wasted on looking in the apartment is another minute where the child could get lost on the outside.
He said he looked under the beds, but isn't it physically impossible for a child to crawl under those beds.
Rob
Why is it that you will NEVER EVER consider the fact that Madeleine might have been abducted ? And thinking back I don't believe you ever have
You came on here telling us that you were open minded and wanted to find the truth, but NEVER do you even consider the possibility of abduction by a third party.
Are you doing a SIL on us?
Are you a wolf in sheeps clothing, perchance? I am wondering if you have been listening to too much propaganda put out by people who gladly twist the truth. Maybe SIL did too?
-
Rob
Why is it that you will NEVER EVER consider the fact that Madeleine might have been abducted ? And thinking back I don't believe you ever have
You came on here telling us that you were open minded and wanted to find the truth, but NEVER do you even consider the possibility of abduction by a third party.
Are you doing a SIL on us?
Are you a wolf in sheeps clothing, perchance? I am wondering if you have been listening to too much propaganda put out by people who gladly twist the truth. Maybe SIL did too?
I accept an abduction, but one that originates after a woke and wandered situation. It is just a more complicated situation to start with.
-
Yes of course. Gerry should immediately have declared the room a crime scene, ushered everyone out of the apartment and called 911 straight away. That's what any sane logical person would have done, fancy allowing himself a few moments of panicked irrationality on discovering his daughter missing.
A doctor needed to be trained to have no panic. I can't imagine a doctor who panics in an emergency.
-
A doctor needed to be trained to have no panic. I can't imagine a doctor who panics in an emergency.
I tend to agree, though accept they might panic outside of their comfort zone.
None of that explains why all the males of the Tapas group simultaneously went to pieces and ran around like headless chickens
-
I tend to agree, though accept they might panic outside of their comfort zone.
None of that explains why all the males of the Tapas group simultaneously went to pieces and ran around like headless chickens
I don't think they did, to me they did a check around the apartment and along the places that Madeleine might have remembered.
-
I accept an abduction, but one that originates after a woke and wandered situation. It is just a more complicated situation to start with.
You can have your theories, but you should look at all the possibilities. You claimed that you would and you seemed to be to begin with, but never the possibility that Madeleine might have been abducted by an outside person/ group.
Why can you NOT ACCEPT the possibility that some stranger might have come in and abducted Madeleine?
What convinces you?
Some good reasons please.
-
I accept an abduction, but one that originates after a woke and wandered situation. It is just a more complicated situation to start with.
Seems the most logical explanation.
-
You can have your theories, but you should look at all the possibilities. You claimed that you would and you seemed to be to begin with, but never the possibility that Madeleine might have been abducted by an outside person/ group.
Why can you NOT ACCEPT the possibility that some stranger might have come in and abducted Madeleine?
What convinces you?
Some good reasons please.
The EVIDENCE Sadie. EVIDENCE
-
The EVIDENCE Sadie. EVIDENCE
Care to explain The EVIDENCE Angelo.
SY and Porto Special PJ group seem to have found some, which is strong enough to go on searching and investigating?
What is YOUR EVIDENCE ?
-
Care to explain The EVIDENCE Angelo.
SY and Porto Special PJ group seem to have found some, which is strong enough to go on searching and investigating?
What is YOUR EVIDENCE ?
It seems this time the Porto group are respecting judicial secrecy... We will know, all once the investigation finishes
-
A doctor needed to be trained to have no panic. I can't imagine a doctor who panics in an emergency.
Are doctors trained not to panic when their children inexplicably go missing from their beds?
-
Are doctors trained not to panic when their children inexplicably go missing from their beds?
Would that be similar to a patient leaving hospital without permission?
-
Would that be similar to a patient leaving hospital without permission?
No.
-
Are doctors trained not to panic when their children inexplicably go missing from their beds?
Would you be surprised if some doctors are psychopaths? AND can shut off emotion.
Kate did explain they had to 'put on a face' so as not to 'upset' the 'abductor' ...
The hysterics began when the police arrived, they fell like praying Arabs (the parents) was the terminology used...
sorry what was the question? ^*&&
-
Would you be surprised if some doctors are psychopaths? AND can shut off emotion.
Kate did explain they had to 'put on a face' so as not to 'upset' the 'abductor' ...
The hysterics began when the police arrived, they fell like praying Arabs (the parents) was the terminology used...
sorry what was the question? ^*&&
The question was - are doctors trained not to panic when their children inexplicably go missing from their beds?
-
The question was - are doctors trained not to panic when their children inexplicably go missing from their beds?
I can't find that specific document however, ALL Doctors are trained in child protection and leaving children alone at night to go out to wine and dine would certainly fall under a category.
Doctors training- So after being exposed to horrific child protection training about child abuse in all its forms. we should leave knowing NOT to leave children unattended. AND if a child is upset we should listen carefully to what they are saying and act upon it.
Mummy where were you when... No Action taken when Maddie 'mentioned' complained? to mummy and daddy about Sean crying.
-
Question 1 covers how Kate responded "01--- Asked, on May 03, 2007, at 22:00, when she entered the apartment what she saw and did, where he looked, and what she touched [handled], she did not respond."
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/48_Questions_07_09_07.htm)
-
Question 1 covers how Kate responded "01--- Asked, on May 03, 2007, at 22:00, when she entered the apartment what she saw and did, where he looked, and what she touched [handled], she did not respond."
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/48_Questions_07_09_07.htm)
A very unlikely incriminating question. Unless...
-
A very unlikely incriminating question. Unless...
Her Lawyer had advised her not to respond. She followed his advice, thank goodness.
-
You can have your theories, but you should look at all the possibilities. You claimed that you would and you seemed to be to begin with, but never the possibility that Madeleine might have been abducted by an outside person/ group.
Why can you NOT ACCEPT the possibility that some stranger might have come in and abducted Madeleine?
What convinces you?
Some good reasons please.
Why can you NOT ACCEPT the possibility that some stranger might have come in and abducted Madeleine?
Probably the same reason, you don't accept - that somebody may not have.
-
Her Lawyer had advised her not to respond. She followed his advice, thank goodness.
So why, pay for the most expensive lawyers, PR firms etcetc.
Just to be advised not to answer questions.
-
Why can you NOT ACCEPT the possibility that some stranger might have come in and abducted Madeleine?
Probably the same reason, you don't accept - that somebody didn't
Let's get back to the questions please. There is another thread dealing with the abduction issue.
Is there a question to Kate or Gerry that themed on abduction? Looking at Gerry first:
"When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this." If he didn't do it that just leaves abduction or accident or walking off. But how far could a kid go? Accidents can really be ruled out - e.g. falling into a roadworks trench or down an open manhole.
She wasn't inside as far as they know. "--- He remembers that after it was known that Madeleine had disappeared he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms at the same time that Kate told him she had looked everywhere"
If she got out that is either woke and wandered or taken out by someone. There aren't any other options i.e either she walked or was carried, (includes being dragged).
"When questioned, he states that from the first moment, after the first fruitless searches, he thought that Madeleine had been abducted and it was this information that he gave to everyone to whom he spoke. He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own or opened the blinds and window in the room."
"he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own" doesn't actually mean that she couldn't do it, but that she had not done it. In other words the signs weren't there i.e. an open gate or an open door indicating someone had gone out through there.
-
Let's get back to the questions please. There is another thread dealing with the abduction issue.
Is there a question to Kate or Gerry that themed on abduction? Looking at Gerry first:
"When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this." If he didn't do it that just leaves abduction or accident or walking off. But how far could a kid go? Accidents can really be ruled out - e.g. falling into a roadworks trench or down an open manhole.
She wasn't inside as far as they know. "--- He remembers that after it was known that Madeleine had disappeared he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms at the same time that Kate told him she had looked everywhere"
If she got out that is either woke and wandered or taken out by someone. There aren't any other options i.e either she walked or was carried, (includes being dragged).
"When questioned, he states that from the first moment, after the first fruitless searches, he thought that Madeleine had been abducted and it was this information that he gave to everyone to whom he spoke. He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own or opened the blinds and window in the room."
"he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own" doesn't actually mean that she couldn't do it, but that she had not done it. In other words the signs weren't there i.e. an open gate or an open door indicating someone had gone out through there.
Going out by herself should have been a probability - but for some reason they knew maddie hadn't.
So didn't they have a few hours sleep - then put the bucket in the foyer.
-
Going out by herself should have been a probability - but for some reason they knew maddie hadn't.
So didn't they have a few hours sleep - then put the bucket in the foyer.
Is there a question to Kate or Gerry that themed on abduction? Looking at Kate next:
"06 --- Asked why she said from the outset that MADELEINE was kidnapped [abducted], she did not respond."
Maybe it was right Kate was right and hit the nail on the head even though I think the open window raised shutters gave Kate the wrong impression. Madeleine was missing, it seems reasonable to think "abduction" given the signs.
"07 --- On the assumption that Madeleine had been kidnapped [abducted], why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to give [raise] the alarm, yet [while] the supposed kidnapper [abductor] could still be in the apartment, she did not respond."
Gosh she had spent time looking around the apartment, the kidnapper was definitely no longer in the apartment. What were the PJ thinking?
-
Going out by herself should have been a probability - but for some reason they knew maddie hadn't.
So didn't they have a few hours sleep - then put the bucket in the foyer.
I wouldn't say "knew" but the would "thought".
-
Let's get back to the questions please. There is another thread dealing with the abduction issue.
Is there a question to Kate or Gerry that themed on abduction? Looking at Gerry first:
"When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this." If he didn't do it that just leaves abduction or accident or walking off. But how far could a kid go? Accidents can really be ruled out - e.g. falling into a roadworks trench or down an open manhole.
She wasn't inside as far as they know. "--- He remembers that after it was known that Madeleine had disappeared he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms at the same time that Kate told him she had looked everywhere"
If she got out that is either woke and wandered or taken out by someone. There aren't any other options i.e either she walked or was carried, (includes being dragged).
"When questioned, he states that from the first moment, after the first fruitless searches, he thought that Madeleine had been abducted and it was this information that he gave to everyone to whom he spoke. He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own or opened the blinds and window in the room."
"he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own" doesn't actually mean that she couldn't do it, but that she had not done it. In other words the signs weren't there i.e. an open gate or an open door indicating someone had gone out through there.
I think the beds were too low for anyone to get underneath them.
-
Is there a question to Kate or Gerry that themed on abduction? Looking at Kate next:
"06 --- Asked why she said from the outset that MADELEINE was kidnapped [abducted], she did not respond."
Maybe it was right Kate was right and hit the nail on the head even though I think the open window raised shutters gave Kate the wrong impression. Madeleine was missing, it seems reasonable to think "abduction" given the signs.
"07 --- On the assumption that Madeleine had been kidnapped [abducted], why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to give [raise] the alarm, yet [while] the supposed kidnapper [abductor] could still be in the apartment, she did not respond."
Gosh she had spent time looking around the apartment, the kidnapper was definitely no longer in the apartment. What were the PJ thinking?
How would the PJ know - she didn't answer the questions.
Did she look round about the shutter area - maddie could have fell out the window.
-
How would the PJ know - she didn't answer the questions.
Did she look round about the shutter area - maddie could have fell out the window.
Amy Tierney and Kate look out the window.
-
I think the beds were too low for anyone to get underneath them.
Well I suppose someone could still hide a body under the beds.
-
Amy Tierney and Kate look out the window.
So kmccann didn't - when she searched apartment, thought that would be the obvious thing with window open.
Any one could have been stood out side of it.
-
So kmccann didn't - when she searched apartment, thought that would be the obvious thing with window open.
Any one could have been stood out side of it.
Somewhere Kate does say she looked out the window, I recall her saying it in an interview. The words were "I looked out the window but I didn't know what I expected to find".