Wandering Off Topic

[Mr Gray]

No doubt you will quote the relevant part.

I have done it many times and have quoted a summary from memory earlier today ...when I'm at my pc will provide the link

[John]

I agree those, were the warm up questions  and if Kate had, answered them there, would have been another 48..
She was absolutely  right to answer none

You have inadvertently  admitted the questions were of no importance

Angelo is correct, in a formal police interview situation a detective will ask a series of simple questions initially which should be easily answered. If the suspect hesitates or refuses to answer these innocuous questions then the police have the right to consider the witness hostile. At that point there is no point in proceeding to the more inquisitorial questions.

If the police have incriminating evidence at that point the suspect might be arrested and charged.  If not they will normally be released while the search for such evidence continues.

I cannot understand your comment to the effect that she was right to answer none.  She was morally obliged to answer the police questions to the best of her ability, this was her daughter who had disappeared. The police were right in asking her finally, "Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?", to which Kate responded, "Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks".

So my question is this.  Why would the mother of a missing child refuse to cooperate in an investigation which has the sole purpose of finding that child?

[Carana]

Angelo is correct, in a formal police interview situation a detective will ask a series of simple questions initially which should be easily answered. If the suspect hesitates or refuses to answer these innocuous questions then the police have the right to consider the witness hostile. At that point there is no point in proceeding to the more inquisitorial questions.

If the police have incriminating evidence at that point the suspect might be arrested and charged.  If not they will normally be released while the search for such evidence continues.

In which country? Kate was interviewed the day before the arguido interview and answered all questions as a witness, i.e. prior to being constituted as an arguida.

[Alice Purjorick]

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

Or for non-believers of conspiracy theories merely an attempt by the investigating authorities to find the truth ?

[barrier]

Who's speculating? Surely it would be a legitimate  lead for the police to investigate whether 2 child disappearances and 12 sexual agressions (or potential ones) occurred in a relatively cliose proximity over a period of a few years could have a common connection?

Or do you think that such potential leads should be swept under the carpet and not investigated at all? If so, why?

When I,m on my pc next I'll post a link regarding that from Row!ey.

[Brietta]

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.

Hmmm ... so they just said, "Right, that's that guys ... got them out of our hair!  What for our next wheeze?  Oh I know!  How about we change the law???

How long does it take for a country to enact major changes to the law?  The change to the law concerning arguidos didn't happen overnight, it would have been a long time coming and to think it didn't figure in PG calculations is in my opinion as naive as it is disingenuous.

The PJ would in my opinion have been well aware that suspicion alone would no longer be grounds to make a person arguido and that law was about to come into force.

So what is it?  Didn't the PJ know or care about the impending change to the law?  Were they so incompetent that they didn't know that the 'evidence' they had was fatally flawed and if they were going to use it it had to be done under the old regime; in the knowledge that even if the McCanns had remained in Portugal they had to have firm evidence against them to impose arguido status.

The PJ had obviously decided the McCanns were to be arguidos whatever their reasons ... the change in the law would not have allowed that.
In my opinion the date of the McCann leaving took second place to the date of the law changing.  Only hurried things up a bit.

[Mr Gray]

Angelo is correct, in a formal police interview situation a detective will ask a series of simple questions initially which should be easily answered. If the suspect hesitates or refuses to answer these innocuous questions then the police have the right to consider the witness hostile. At that point there is no point in proceeding to the more inquisitorial questions.

If the police have incriminating evidence at that point the suspect might be arrested and charged.  If not they will normally be released while the search for such evidence continues.

I cannot understand your comment to the effect that she was right to answer none.  She was morally obliged to answer the police questions to the best of her ability, this was her daughter who had disappeared. The police were right in asking her finally, "Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?", to which Kate responded, "Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks".

So my question is this.  Why would the mother of a missing child refuse to cooperate in an investigation which has the sole purpose of finding that child?

I feel she was right to answer none because as Angelo alluded to it would simply have invited more questions.  The PJ could the grind Kate down until she may have made an innocent inadvertant error... Such an error may have given the PJ grounds to arrest her... And quite possibly  refuse bail

That's, why I think she was  given the advice not to answer

[John]

In which country? Kate was interviewed the day before the arguido interview and answered all questions as a witness, i.e. prior to being constituted as an arguida.

Yes, I understand she was questioned with Gerry by her side so why the change when questioned on her own?  Is Kate McCann unable to answer questions in her own right?

[Mr Gray]

Or for non-believers of conspiracy theories merely an attempt by the investigating authorities to find the truth ?

They were unlikely.. IMO... To find the truth when they are on record placing far to much reliance on the alerts... Again... All the evidence the PJ thought they had was not confirmed or consolidated... According to the archiving report

[Brietta]

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

Agreed, with the caveat that it was an extremely successful smear. 

[Mr Gray]

Yes, I understand she was questioned with Gerry by her side so why the change when questioned on her own?  Is Kate McCann unable to answer questions in her own right?

Again I can see exactly  why an innocent person would be advidlsed not to answer questions in that situation

[John]

I feel she was right to answer none because as Angelo alluded to it would simply have invited more questions.  The PJ could the grind Kate down until she may have made an innocent inadvertant error... Such an error may have given the PJ grounds to arrest her... And quite possibly  refuse bail

That's, why I think she was  given the advice not to answer

Is that another way of saying she might have incriminated herself?

[Carana]

Yes, I understand she was questioned with Gerry by her side so why the change when questioned on her own?  Is Kate McCann unable to answer questions in her own right?

She was interviewed on 4 May, with Gerry allowed to sit behind her on that occasion (which was actually kind of the PJ).

I have seen nothing to suggest that he was present for her pre-arguido interivew of 6 September. Quite the contrary, unless you have other information.

[Mr Gray]

Is that another way of saying she might have incriminated herself?

Absolutely.... An innocent person can incriminate themselves
Do you think the right to silence is to protect the innocent or the guilty

[kizzy]

Angelo is correct, in a formal police interview situation a detective will ask a series of simple questions initially which should be easily answered. If the suspect hesitates or refuses to answer these innocuous questions then the police have the right to consider the witness hostile. At that point there is no point in proceeding to the more inquisitorial questions.

If the police have incriminating evidence at that point the suspect might be arrested and charged.  If not they will normally be released while the search for such evidence continues.

I cannot understand your comment to the effect that she was right to answer none.  She was morally obliged to answer the police questions to the best of her ability, this was her daughter who had disappeared. The police were right in asking her finally, "Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?", to which Kate responded, "Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks".

So my question is this.  Why would the mother of a missing child refuse to cooperate in an investigation which has the sole purpose of finding that child?

The only reason i can think of is not to incriminate herself  - it is obviouse imo that at the time she knew that maddie could not be helped.

Otherwise like you say you would do everything to help find your child regardless of the consequences - and if telling the truth have nothing to fear.

After all at the time to many lawyers..... PR  etc etc involved to fear any miscarriage of justice imo