What was the point of the arguido questions asked of Kate and Gerry McCann?

[Carana]

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.

[Miss Taken Identity]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[slartibartfast]

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?

[Robittybob1]

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?

[Brietta]

So you are taking Kate’s word over Amaral’s?

Which one is it who has the criminal conviction for perjury? 

[Brietta]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.?

[faithlilly]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Brietta]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Carana]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.