Wandering Off Topic

[Mr Gray]

Kate McCann was interrogated for eleven hours on 6th September.

On the 7th she was constituted arguida to ensure she didn't incriminate herself by answering important questions they must have forgotten to ask on the 6th such as ... had she looked inside a wardrobe and showing her photographs was asked to describe what was in it?

She was asked what happened when she raised the alarm at the tapas ... and did she have her mobile phone with her?

Did she contact Sky News and did she ask for a priest?

As has already been said ... just the softening up process ... before the nitty gritty of the 'forensic evidence' was introduced as follows:
43   (Various films had been shown to her of the inspection by forensic dogs, where one can see their signalling indications of the scent of a human corpse and traces of human blood as well as the comments by the expert overseeing the exercise.)
Having seen the film and after the scent of a corpse was signalled in her bedroom near the wardrobe, and behind the sofa by the window in the sitting room, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.
Her response to the next four questions was exactly that ... "she could not explain anything more than she already had."

It has already been said the McCanns waited for a fortnight for this interrogation. They didn't have to in my opinion as they were still free agents.  Did they delay their journey home as a result of thinking the police were still looking for Madeleine? 

Obviously the 48 questions had all been asked at the eleven hour marathon Kate had endured the day before.  Therefore the intention in bringing them in and asking them again on the following day could only have been to enable Kate to be charged.  But the frail, vulnerable woman didn't half put a spoke in their wheel and instead of letting them absolve themselves of their incompetence really put the spotlight on it.  In my opinion.

As Angelo pointed out yesterday  if Kate, had answerred those 48 questions there would have been more, asked.... I feel the questions were simply to grind her down

[Brietta]

As Angelo pointed out yesterday  if Kate, had answerred those 48 questions there would have been more, asked.... I feel the questions were simply to grind her down

The changes to the penal code also included the imposition of a maximum time for interrogations of I think three hours?  Prior to that there was no limit.
How long was Leonor Cipriano questioned for?  Who knows?  But we do know that Kate was subjected to eleven hours of it and I've seen thirteen mentioned ~ that might have been inclusive of comfort breaks?

[Carana]

As Angelo pointed out yesterday  if Kate, had answerred those 48 questions there would have been more, asked.... I feel the questions were simply to grind her down

I have no idea if more would have been asked, but I can well imagine how anything she did say in answer to certain questions could have been distorted and taken out of context.

A frequent argument that I keep seeing is that several questions appear straightforward. But the catch is that when you answer those, it throws suspicion on the ones that remain unanswered.

When it first came out that she'd refused to answer the arguido questions, I didn't understand why not, either. However, the penny dropped for me quite some time ago, and I think the lawyer eventually advised her correctly.

[ShiningInLuz]

So it isn't a fact that the Criminal Code was changed?  Have we been misinformed?

Yes, and the misinformation continues. The law changed AFTER the date on which the McCanns had announced they were to leave Portugal, and after the date they chose to leave Portugal.

Not even Kate claims pending legal changes influenced the outcome.

[G-Unit]

So it isn't a fact that the Criminal Code was changed?  Have we been misinformed?

The Criminal Code was changed, but I can find no evidence that Carlos Pinto de Abreu was correct when he said;

"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.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

[Carana]

The changes to the penal code also included the imposition of a maximum time for interrogations of I think three hours?  Prior to that there was no limit.
How long was Leonor Cipriano questioned for?  Who knows?  But we do know that Kate was subjected to eleven hours of it and I've seen thirteen mentioned ~ that might have been inclusive of comfort breaks?

Offhand, I don't recall anything about interrogation session times. I could check, but not sure I'd have time today.

NB There are two codes related to offences: one is the penal code (which sets out various crimes and penalties) and the other is the penal procedure code (which stipulates what is permissible or not, and rights, throughout the criminal process). The PPC is the one that keeps changing within the blink of an eyelid. 

[ShiningInLuz]

But there was no incriminating evidence in that report so why would that have been the trigger for making them arguidos?

As no one has claimed the FSS report was the trigger, I can't see the point of your question.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The Criminal Code was changed, but I can find no evidence that Carlos Pinto de Abreu was correct when he said;

"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.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

Murat was made an arguido on zero evidence.

[Carana]

The Criminal Code was changed, but I can find no evidence that Carlos Pinto de Abreu was correct when he said;

"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.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

It was the penal (criminal) procedure code that changed then.

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.


Not the same code.

[Carana]

I posted the changes years ago on here, and more than once, but it would take hours to see if I can find them again. Sigh...

[barrier]

No, perhaps not. Without the world's media watching, she and Gerry might have slipped down those stairs straight into sharing cells with a few other people I can think of.

Fed to pigs, cremated in someone's coffin... possibilities are endless to explain away the disappearance of kids. I expect any Stephen King novel could provide inspiration.

Its a possibility Muriel Mckay was fed to pigs,so there is possibilty's it happens.

Mrs McKay's body was never discovered, but it was suspected she was fed to pigs on a Hertfordshire farm owned by the brothers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17464298

[Carana]

Yes, and the misinformation continues. The law changed AFTER the date on which the McCanns had announced they were to leave Portugal, and after the date they chose to leave Portugal.

Not even Kate claims pending legal changes influenced the outcome.

1. With help from the Winkworth Estate Agency in Lagos, it was established that the residence occupied by the McCann couple in Rua da Flores, lot 27 - Vivenda Vista do Mar, P da L was effectively occupied by them on 02-07-2007, whilst the contract shows that the hire period began on 1st July, according to the copy of the contract we were given.

- The McCanns' departure took place on 09-09-2007 and the keys to the house were returned the following day (10-09-2007) to the Winkworth office in Lagos by an English woman named Susan who was the wife of the Anglican vicar who celebrated mass in the P da L church.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm

According to the rental agreement, the rental was from 1 July to 31 August.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P11/11_VOLUME_XIa_Page_2953.jpg

From memory (if someone could find the section in Kate's book), they stayed on there or elsewhere pending further upcoming police interviews. From Susan Hubbard's statement, my impression is that they got an extension on their rental in the villa.

[Mr Gray]

As no one has claimed the FSS report was the trigger, I can't see the point of your question.

Read the archiving summarry.... All the evidence used to make them arguidis was not confirmed... It specifically  mentions the residues collected and sent to the FSS

[slartibartfast]

Read the archiving summarry.... All the evidence used to make them arguidis was not confirmed... It specifically  mentions the residues collected and sent to the FSS

It is immaterial, the PJ had suspicions and there were enough contradictions in statements for PJ to want to ask incriminating questions which required them being made arguidos.

[Mr Gray]

It is immaterial, the PJ had suspicions and there were enough contradictions in statements for PJ to want to ask incriminating questions which required them being made arguidos.

The whole discussion  is immaterial.  ......as nothing came from the questions.... And the PJ have clearly stated there is no evidence against the McCanns