Wandering Off Topic

[John]

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

As I understand it, it was her lawyer who advised she didn't answer any questions as an arguida.  A lawyer would only make such a recommendation if he suspected his client was in trouble?

[John]

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

Any suspect who invokes the right to silence has obviously serious concerns for one reason or another.  In real life, the innocent mother of the missing child will cooperate fully with the investigation charged with finding him or her.

[Brietta]

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

What makes you think that "it is obviouse that at the time she knew that maddie could not be helped" ?

Do you think that is why the family have devoted a huge portion of their lives to finding Madeleine over the intervening years since?

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

This is an example of the misinformation I was talking about.

If you have any evidence that the PJ knew of the date and content of these changes, it is time to provide it.

Unless Kate's book is wrong, Carlos Pinto de Abreu didn't see it coming and didn't forewarn the McCanns. And it was his job to know of such changes.

Otherwise your argument is speculation, pure and simple.

[ShiningInLuz]

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

Kate's book suggests otherwise.

[Mr Gray]

Kate's book suggests otherwise.

What... In your opion.. Does kates book suggest... I think you are mistaken

[Mr Gray]

Any suspect who invokes the right to silence has obviously serious concerns for one reason or another.  In real life, the innocent mother of the missing child will cooperate fully with the investigation charged with finding him or her.

Serious concerns that she might be a victim of miscarriage  of justice... IMO... Simple as that
...and not if she has concerns with the motive and competence of the police force... Imo

[Mr Gray]

The fact is that sometimes an innocent person takes the right to silence

[slartibartfast]

The fact is that sometimes an innocent person takes the right to silence

Is that innocent or found not guilty....?

[Mr Gray]

Is that innocent or found not guilty....?

Innocent... Are you not aware

[kizzy]

What makes you think that "it is obviouse that at the time she knew that maddie could not be helped" ?

Do you think that is why the family have devoted a huge portion of their lives to finding Madeleine over the intervening years since?

That was my opinion. - my opinion also B is - what have they actually done to find maddie.

[Carana]

This is an example of the misinformation I was talking about.

If you have any evidence that the PJ knew of the date and content of these changes, it is time to provide it.

Unless Kate's book is wrong, Carlos Pinto de Abreu didn't see it coming and didn't forewarn the McCanns. And it was his job to know of such changes.

Otherwise your argument is speculation, pure and simple.

I wasn't aware of the sweeping reform to come at the time, but then I had no particular reason to be interested. The concept of reform appears to have been approved by the PT parliament in 2005.

How much the local PJ may have known about it and when isn't clear. If they seriously weren't aware of imminent changes in the law that directly affected their own work... then, who should have informed and prepared them for such changes.

Not the case in PT, but luckily the changes didn't encompass the death penalty...

3.1 O Código Penal de 2007 e a preocupação com os novos riscos
Em  2005,  o  XVII  Governo  Constitucional  Português  previu 
–  pela   Resolução   do   
Conselho de Ministros n° 138/2005 –
 um vasto programa de reformas na esfera da justiça penal propondo uma nova revisão dos Códigos Penal e Processual Penal, como também, “o enquadramento da definição e da execução da política criminal, a lei quadro da reforma do sistema  prisional  e  respectivos  diplomas  complementares  e  o  regime  das  bases  de  dados 
para fins de investigação criminal”.

[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?

Mark Rowley April 2017,note has not is.

Q: The theory of a sex predator responsible for Maddie’s disappearance is something the Portuguese police have focussed on. How big a part of your investigation has that been, because there were a series of sex attack on sleeping, mainly British children in nearby resorts. So how important has that
been to your investigation?
 
MR: That has been one key line of enquiry. The reality is in any urban area, you cast your net wide and you find a whole range of offences and sex offenders who live nearby and those coincidences need to be sifted out; what is a coincidence and what could be linked to the investigation we are currently dealing with and just like we do in London we have been doing in Portugal so offences which could be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out and that’s the work we have been doing.
 

[carlymichelle]

That was my opinion. - my opinion also B is - what have they actually done to find maddie.

nothing imho

[Vertigo Swirl]

Any suspect who invokes the right to silence has obviously serious concerns for one reason or another.  In real life, the innocent mother of the missing child will cooperate fully with the investigation charged with finding him or her.

Unless she suspects that the police are out to pin the crime on her, in which case she might refuse to play into their hands.