Kate McCann's unanswered questions.

[Robittybob1]

1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

Imo that question alone could have been the most simplest to answer.

Or the hardest to explain why she was she in there 10 mins.

Why did she do that when the window was allegidly wide open and Maddie was not there.

As every one insists its only a few metres away so what was she doing for 9 mins when she knew maddie had been abducted.

Who says she was in there 10 minutes?   I believe it was only Gerry from my research of the statements.  So why would he get it so wrong?  Why would it matter how long she took?  It was her check. His check took much longer.

[Mr Gray]

You are correct I did read G’s answer as Kate’s and for that I apologise. My point still stands. After being made an arguida Kate refused to answer any questions regarding her 10pm check and her subsequent activities. She also refused to answer any questions about her or her family’s life.

Virtually all the questions posted by G had not been answered in previous interviews by Kate. That is simply a fact.

Thanks for the response...everyone makes mistakes ..even me. The forum I feel has become quite toxic lately but with posts like that it would be a better palce

[Vertigo Swirl]

What makes the whole premise of this thread so very disingenuous is that it implies Kate was asked this list of questions before her arguido interview and declined to answer them then as well, however as we have no record of the questions asked we cannot say she didn’t give answers to questions which in all probability she was not asked before.  So, unless anyone can provide a cite of Kate refusing to co-operate with the investigation prior to her arguido interview, then this is clearly a false premise.  Also, we continue to have the falsehood on this thread that Kate never answered questions around the disappearance which is patently a lie but which the author of this thread (a moderator to boot) refuses to acknowledge or remove.  In short, the whole thread is simply another excuse to beat up Kate McCann, despite the fact she is not a suspect and both German and British police believe her daughter was ABDUCTED

[Mr Gray]

What makes the whole premise of this thread so very disingenuous is that it implies Kate was asked this list of questions before her arguido interview and declined to answer them then as well, however as we have no record of the questions asked we cannot say she didn’t give answers to questions which in all probability she was not asked before.  So, unless anyone can provide a cite of Kate refusing to co-operate with the investigation prior to her arguido interview, then this is clearly a false premise.  Also, we continue to have the falsehood on this thread that Kate never answered questions around the disappearance which is patently a lie but which the author of this thread (a moderator to boot) refuses to acknowledge or remove.  In short, the whole thread is simply another excuse to beat up Kate McCann, despite the fact she is not a suspect and both German and British police believe her daughter was ABDUCTED

The FACT is we don't know what questions Kate was asked pre arguido because there is no accurate record of the interviews

[kizzy]

The entire thing is questionable. If your child disappeared from a ground floor holiday apartment and the bedroom window was wide open I am willing to bet the first thing you would do is run out the front door to the carpark and search for her.

Not so with Kate McCann if she is to be believed. She ran off in the opposite direction leaving the other two babies alone and unprotected. She didn't even close the supposedly open window.

No wonder Paiva and Amaral weren't convinced.

Absolutly.

To me it seems that was a window of opportunity the golden ten minutes of the case.

Why would he window be used anyway could anyone make sense of that.

You have the front door opens from the inside] right next to Maddie's bed.

The window I believe was the backbone of the alleged abduction

If that window wasn't open then everything else would be false IMO.

No wonder kmc didn't want to answer the simple first question.

quote from G-Unit

The open shutters and window could have been opened from outside or inside, as the patio doors were unlocked. So why, instead of scouring the resort, was her father wasting time testing if the shutters could be opened from outside?

A really good point why was he concentrating more on the shutters than looking for Maddie.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If Kate not answering questions means she’s got something to hide, what does it mean when Gerry answers all his questions?  I think if you are a sceptic it still means he’s hiding something.  In other words it doesn’t really matter to sceptics whether she answered the questions or not as to them Kate would still be hiding something.  Am I right or am I right?

[Angelo222]

What makes the whole premise of this thread so very disingenuous is that it implies Kate was asked this list of questions before her arguido interview and declined to answer them then as well, however as we have no record of the questions asked we cannot say she didn’t give answers to questions which in all probability she was not asked before.  So, unless anyone can provide a cite of Kate refusing to co-operate with the investigation prior to her arguido interview, then this is clearly a false premise.  Also, we continue to have the falsehood on this thread that Kate never answered questions around the disappearance which is patently a lie but which the author of this thread (a moderator to boot) refuses to acknowledge or remove.  In short, the whole thread is simply another excuse to beat up Kate McCann, despite the fact she is not a suspect and both German and British police believe her daughter was ABDUCTED

That's hogwash, nobody has inferred that at all. The type of questioning changed the moment she became a suspect. Previously she would have been asked all sorts of questions as the mother of a missing child.

After being designated a formal suspect the questions would have changed significantly and be appropriate to that status and the rights it afforded her.  Those who think she was asked the same questions before and after being made an arguida don't have a basic understanding of what the designation means.

[Mr Gray]

That's hogwash, nobody has inferred that at all. The type of questioning changed the moment she became a suspect. Previously she would have been asked all sorts of questions as the mother of a missing child.

After being designated a formal suspect the questions would be appropriate to that status and the rights it afforded her.

i think you need to move on from 13 years ago...the mcCanns are not suspects...even John said yesterday he desnt see them culpable apart from neglect

[Angelo222]

i think you need to move on from 13 years ago...the mcCanns are not suspects...even John said yesterday he desnt see them culpable apart from neglect

The Portuguese Supreme Court stated that they hadn't been cleared which is good enough for me.

[Mr Gray]

The Portuguese Supreme Court stated that they hadn't been cleared which is good enough for me.

the SC never said that...you need to have  alook at what the SC actually said

[Vertigo Swirl]

That's hogwash, nobody has inferred that at all. The type of questioning changed the moment she became a suspect. Previously she would have been asked all sorts of questions as the mother of a missing child.

After being designated a formal suspect the questions would have changed significantly and be appropriate to that status and the rights it afforded her.  Those who think she was asked the same questions before and after being made an arguida don't have a basic understanding of what the designation means.

The opening post states
“imo Kate had never answered those questions in any of her previous police interviews”.

implying she was asked these questions before.  Your post is hogwash IMO.

[Vertigo Swirl]

In my opinion she answered no questions around the disappearance. Surely they were the most important?

^^^^still untrue, still on the thread.

[sadie]

Because they were incompetent?

And other reasons, but you will have to works those out for yourself.   I think most on our side of the discussion already have.

So many clues !!!

[sadie]

Absolutly.

To me it seems that was a window of opportunity the golden ten minutes of the case.

Why would he window be used anyway could anyone make sense of that.

You have the front door opens from the inside] right next to Maddie's bed.

The window I believe was the backbone of the alleged abduction

If that window wasn't open then everything else would be false IMO.

No wonder kmc didn't want to answer the simple first question.

quote from G-Unit

The open shutters and window could have been opened from outside or inside, as the patio doors were unlocked. So why, instead of scouring the resort, was her father wasting time testing if the shutters could be opened from outside?

A really good point why was he concentrating more on the shutters than looking for Maddie.

We all know that the window and shutters could be opened from the inside

Heri with his video showed that so long as the catch on the window was not locked, both the shutter and window could be opened from outside too.  Thank you Heri.

I have always said that it would be impossible for an intruder to get in via the window, but hands up, having heard about CB's dexterity and scaling up the outside of the building to enter via windows upstairs - and having seen his long slim legs and body, I am wondering if he (only he) could have entered via the window?

But even if he were responsible for the physical abduction of Madeleine, I don't think he did it for himself.   The big money payout he talked about, + other evidence /pointers that I have found, convinces me that he was commissioned to take Madeleine for someone else

But why no fibres and why no fingerprints on the window and its frame?  Have we been told porkies?   Is someone protecting him?

[John]

WARNING RE FORUM DISRUPTION:

It has been brought to my attention that some members are engaged in an activity which can only be viewed as a malicious disruption of the forum. This will not be allowed to continue!

Let me be very clear. If this conduct does not cease immediately I will delete the accounts of the offenders.