Leicestershire The Most Incredible Statement Made By A Police Force Ever!/Himself

http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2011/10/leicestershire-most-incredible.html

Leicestershire The Most Incredible Statement Made By A Police Force Ever!
Have they learnt nothing from the resignation of John Yates, that casting the blind eye and ignoring the evidence, or obvious, is only going to end in tears?

How on earth can a County Police Force come out with such a statement as this, is so totally and utterly beyond me.

Leicestershire Constabulary: A number of law enforcement agencies, including Leicestershire Constabulary, have a link to the 'Find Madeleine' website. Whilst we encourage anyone with information about Madeleine's whereabouts to contact the Portuguese police or their local police, we recognise the fact that some people may not feel comfortable in doing so. This link provides them with an alternative means of passing information.


The web site that you suggest that the public might want to pass information to, is the one hosted by the two persons that were made Arguido, persons of interest, uncleared suspects, the last persons to see Madeleine McCann alive and statistically most likely to be involved the disappearance of the child. And yet Leicester police think it's quite acceptable for them to say: ''Don't phone us, phone the suspects!''

This transcends 'stuff you couldn't make up' to such a degree that I'm lost for words to describe it.

But it's not as though the circumstances surrounding the girl's disappearance are cut and dry; far from it, they are about as dodgy as they could be. And one doesn't have to be Sherlock Holmes, or even a cop for that matter, to know that these two should be sat in separate interview rooms giving answers to questions.

And the same applies to the Tapas lot. A three year old girl, Leicestershire resident and British subject I remind you, disappears of the face of the earth whilst in the care of her parents and surrounded by seven other adults, and nobody is curious enough to want to find out what happened to her?

And it is that lack of curiosity that speaks volumes, isn't it?



FOI Request

1/ Do the Leicestershire police agree with the McCann website that a man seen by a Mrs. G. Cooper probably abducted Madeleine?

2/ Is there any information that any particular man was "Madeleines probable abductor?"

3/ If so, why has this information never been released to the public?

4/ If not, how can they be helping the search for Madeleine by referring the public to a dishonest website that makes that claim?

5/ Are the Leicestershire police going to continue to aid a deception or are they either going to remove the website link or insist the McCanns remove the false statement?

Response – No information provided except for the following statement

A number of law enforcement agencies, including Leicestershire Constabulary, have a link to the 'Find Madeleine' website. Whilst we encourage anyone with information about Madeleine's whereabouts to contact the Portuguese police or their local police, we recognise the fact that some people may not feel comfortable in doing so. This link provides them with an alternative means of passing information.

We are unable to provide the information that you request concerning the number of complaints regarding the website link.

What must be borne in mind is that at the heart of this tragic case is an innocent little girl who went missing in May 2007. Our focus has, and will always be, to do everything we can to assist our Portuguese colleagues who lead the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. I would hope that you will support us in this.


And the last paragraph! it is beneath contempt.


This is just a tiny part of Freedom Of Information requests, the majority being denied, directed at Leicestershire Constabulary. More here whatdotheyknow.com

This is not the first time that I have said a few words on the subject. Let me re-up a comment of mine from a previous post. And I remind you it is from the comments section.

Evenin' all.

Yes the manuals, courtesy of whom I wonder, a corrupt CEOP or the corrupt Leicester plod? Takes your pick.

As you say, apart from not wanting to be in the same room as the wee shite, I don't think I would trust myself to be so.

Regarding your two choices of thought, it has to be the former because quite frankly he's had enough fuckin' rope to rig the Cuttty Sark and still have enough left over for a bondage session.

We must never even think of considering that the wee man and the position he finds himself in today is by one of chance.

The position he finds himself in is due to one thing only, corruption. I don't know how high up it starts, nor do I know at what level it finishes, but what I do know is Leicester plod is smack bang in the middle of it.

I get tired of drawing the same conclusion, LP are either so fucking stupid that they can't see what's going on, or they're so fucking bent they don't want to see what's going on.

It's why, unless some private enterprise nails them with irrefutable evidence, that I think they will get away with it.

Can you imagine what the LP and this case would look like to an outside police force? stroll on! they'd take one look at Leicester plod and say, are you so fucking stupid that you can't see what's going on, or are you so fucking bent you don't want to see what's going on.

But that, judging by what has come to pass so far, ain't going to happen.

Drive on McCanns, no matter that you've fucked your daughter into a hole somewhere, taken the piss out of everything and everybody, Leicester fucking plod will continue to ignore what must be apparent to five year old, just as they will continue to sit on their fat corrupt fucking arses and carry on in the manner that which they have become accustomed, the one they have so clearly demonstrated, past and present.


From this post: Uncleared Suspect in Simulating a Crime and Hiding a Cadaver to be Guest Speaker at CEOP Conference on Child Abduction link

Something else from a previous post.

Footnote: It's not an impossible scenario to imagine, although a lot less likely, (and even less likely knowing the parents) although a lot less likely because of the age of the child involved, but I have taken other people's kids on on foreign holidays. And anybody who has ever had kids of their own will know why, Daaaad, Muuum, I'm bored.

But had for instance the McCanns taken one of our Matty's sprogs, or our Stu's kids abroad, and one of them was "abducted." I can't help but ask myself, would 'because Gerry McCann says the kid was abducted' be good enough for any of these parents and upholders of the law?

Answers on a postcard please.

Leicester Police actually had a Notice in their Station giving the FindMadeleine phone number and website address.

Stuart Prior of Leics Police even let Gerry have a look at some of the statements so he could prepare a powerpoint to pass to the PJ.

"Date: 16th January 2008
From: Stuart Prior

To: Ricardo Paiva

Subject: Forward sketch

Annexes: BK ? MM present at (sic) Jan 08, Gail Cooper (2) doc, Paul Gordon (3) doc, Trudy dawkin (2) doc, tanner description 2 doc,
Summary of second statement Tanner doc.
Ricardo,

Please get back to me as soon as possible with your instructions.

The power point attached was completed by the McCanns but the statements were all taken by UK police.

The Jane Tanner description was taken from the press and also from the summary of her statement.

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

Then take a look at the actual powerpoint (biased towards Mccanns version of 3rd May or what!

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

What on earth were Leicestershire Police thinking of?

I wrote to Stuart Prior in August 2008 asking the following:-

1. Why did you e-mail Rachel Mapilly in reply to hers asking whether you thought the recon would be usesful saying " I don"t think any usefull
purpose would be served".?

2. Why was Brian Kennedy allowed to meet with Metodo 3 Detectives and the PJ in PDL to discuss progress made .?

3. Why did you allow a poster of Findmadeleine in the front desk urging anyone with information to contact the website direct.?

4. Why were you so familiar with Gerry McCann that he called you "Stu" in an email, you knew the McCanns were not supposed to have a
secondary investigation under Portugese Law and your first duty was to help the PJ not the McCanns.


Needless to say, I did not receive a reply.

From JH

"littlepixie wrote:
I posted this on another thread but as it concerns Mr Prior I'll post it here as well.

I found an old letter today that was
sent to me by Stuart Prior of Leicestershire Police. I had asked him why
his Police website was linking to a suspects website where the suspect
was telling the public to send information to themselves (the suspects) rather than to his Police Force.

You know what his answer was?

"Some people don't feel comfortable talking to the Police"

I hope that comes back to haunt him!"

So do I!!

We all know and agree that something is not quite right within Leicester Police - that normal law enforcement doesn't exist once over their threshold!

It must and can only be that for some reason the McCanns are " untouchable" - they must rank higher than Dr. Kelly though as even he couldn't cause the breakdown of law enforcement.

But what is it?

gillyspot wrote:From JH

"littlepixie wrote:
I posted this on another thread but as it concerns Mr Prior I'll post it here as well.

I found an old letter today that was
sent to me by Stuart Prior of Leicestershire Police. I had asked him why
his Police website was linking to a suspects website where the suspect
was telling the public to send information to themselves (the suspects) rather than to his Police Force.

You know what his answer was?

"Some people don't feel comfortable talking to the Police"

I hope that comes back to haunt him!"

So do I!!

I am completely dumbfounded by that! Gobsmacked.

"Some people don't feel comfortable talking to the Police"

Well that's very true - criminals dont like talking to the police - is that why Kate refused to answer the PJ's questions??

Neither her or Gerry looked happy talking to the PJ - if they are innocent then why???

NoStone wrote:"Some people don't feel comfortable talking to the Police"

Well that's very true - criminals dont like talking to the police - is that why Kate refused to answer the PJ's questions??

Neither her or Gerry looked happy talking to the PJ - if they are innocent then why???

Morning NoStone,

At the risk of being hung drawn and quartered on this forum , I do understand why Kate refused. First of all she had been at the Police
Station for 11 hours, second of all, the questions for the most part are inane, and everything had to be translated, so I would have felt the same

"Some people don't feel comfortable talking to the Police"

Then surely the answer is to make it more comfortable for people to talk to the Police? Not direct them to the prime suspects' website instead?

Panda wrote:

NoStone wrote:"Some people don't feel comfortable talking to the Police"

Well that's very true - criminals dont like talking to the police - is that why Kate refused to answer the PJ's questions??

Neither her or Gerry looked happy talking to the PJ - if they are innocent then why???

Morning NoStone,

At the risk of being hung drawn and quartered on this forum , I do understand why Kate refused. First of all she had been at the Police
Station for 11 hours, second of all, the questions for the most part are inane, and everything had to be translated, so I would have felt the same

Morning Panda! How about quartered, drawn and then hung? The point is that if Kate, Gerry and friends had told the truth - remember truth has only one version - then she would not have found herself in a police station for 11 hours and if I thought it would help bring my daughter back - I would do all I could to help the inquiry - including answering the most mundane of questions!

NoStone wrote:

Panda wrote:

NoStone wrote:"Some people don't feel comfortable talking to the Police"

Well that's very true - criminals dont like talking to the police - is that why Kate refused to answer the PJ's questions??

Neither her or Gerry looked happy talking to the PJ - if they are innocent then why???

Morning NoStone,

At the risk of being hung drawn and quartered on this forum , I do understand why Kate refused. First of all she had been at the Police
Station for 11 hours, second of all, the questions for the most part are inane, and everything had to be translated, so I would have felt the same

Morning Panda! How about quartered, drawn and then hung? The point is that if Kate, Gerry and friends had told the truth - remember truth has only one version - then she would not have found herself in a police station for 11 hours and if I thought it would help bring my daughter back - I would do all I could to help the inquiry - including answering the most mundane of questions!

Morning NoStone,

Yes, I agree, had the McCanns looked after their children properly Madeleine would never have been "abducted", all I am saying is, what were the
Police doing for the other 10 hrs that they had to ask these questions last? At the least the McCanns could have been charged with neglect which
carried a 1 year prison sentence. Had the Police asked those questions earlier, Kate might have been more co-operative and slipped up. The McCanns made a big show about being suspects but their claim that the Shutters were jemmied was soon proved untrue so the Police had every right to question them about their statements etc , these are the discrepancies I would have raised.

Panda wrote:

NoStone wrote:

Panda wrote:

NoStone wrote:"Some people don't feel comfortable talking to the Police"

Well that's very true - criminals dont like talking to the police - is that why Kate refused to answer the PJ's questions??

Neither her or Gerry looked happy talking to the PJ - if they are innocent then why???

Morning NoStone,

At the risk of being hung drawn and quartered on this forum , I do understand why Kate refused. First of all she had been at the Police
Station for 11 hours, second of all, the questions for the most part are inane, and everything had to be translated, so I would have felt the same

Morning Panda! How about quartered, drawn and then hung? The point is that if Kate, Gerry and friends had told the truth - remember truth has only one version - then she would not have found herself in a police station for 11 hours and if I thought it would help bring my daughter back - I would do all I could to help the inquiry - including answering the most mundane of questions!

Morning NoStone,

Yes, I agree, had the McCanns looked after their children properly Madeleine would never have been "abducted", all I am saying is, what were the
Police doing for the other 10 hrs that they had to ask these questions last? At the least the McCanns could have been charged with neglect which
carried a 1 year prison sentence. Had the Police asked those questions earlier, Kate might have been more co-operative and slipped up. The McCanns made a big show about being suspects but their claim that the Shutters were jemmied was soon proved untrue so the Police had every right to question them about their statements etc , these are the discrepancies I would have raised.

I se where your coming from Panda, how much do we know about what happened in those 11 hours other than Kate's version of events??

Exactly, NoStone. Once the Police realised that the Shutters couldn"t have been jemmied and Kate"s was the only print on the Window, it was enough to
re-interview the pair of them and question their Statements since they had the OC Staff andd Tapas 7 to compare with.

Panda wrote:

NoStone wrote:"Some people don't feel comfortable talking to the Police"

Well that's very true - criminals dont like talking to the police - is that why Kate refused to answer the PJ's questions??

Neither her or Gerry looked happy talking to the PJ - if they are innocent then why???

Morning NoStone,

At the risk of being hung drawn and quartered on this forum , I do understand why Kate refused. First of all she had been at the Police
Station for 11 hours, second of all, the questions for the most part are inane, and everything had to be translated, so I would have felt the same

Sorry Panda i diagree wholeheartedly. There is no justifiable reason for an innocent parent not to answer any and all questions, irrespective of how long they were in the station, relating to their missing child and the police investigation.

I also disagree about how inane the questions were, i thought they were highly relevant to the way the police were thinking at the time. That being said if they were inane, they'd be fairly easy to answer (well, if you're innocent) and surely you'd be more than happy to answer any and all questions so the police could rule you out of their enquiries.

Most intelligent people understand that in cases of child disappearance immediate family and friends are far more likely to have been involved than a stranger, therefore it is natural to say to the Police "ask me what you have to, to clear me so you can concentrate on finding my missing child".

There is no legitimate reason (other than to hide something) not to answer those questions.

Hi Me, well we are all entitled to our opinions, it would be worth showing the 48 questions here for you to judge . I did point out to Nostone that when
Kate was interviewed the Police knew the shutters had not beeb jemmied and the Tapas 9 timelines did not agree, for me, these should have been questioned and why was Kate there such a long time? Enough to try my patience.for sure,

Panda wrote:Hi Me, well we are all entitled to our opinions, it would be worth showing the 48 questions here for you to judge . I did point out to Nostone that when
Kate was interviewed the Police knew the shutters had not beeb jemmied and the Tapas 9 timelines did not agree, for me, these should have been questioned and why was Kate there such a long time? Enough to try my patience.for sure,

I agree we are entitled to our opinions. Let's begin by looking at the questions:

Here are the questions:

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?

2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)

3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?

5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?

6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?

7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.

8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?

9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?

10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?

11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?

12. Who contacted the authorities?

13. Who took place in the searches?

14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?

15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?

16. What does 'we let her down' mean?

17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?

18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?

19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?

20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?

21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?

22. Did you call Sky News?

23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?

24. Did you ask for a priest?

25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?

26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?

27. What was your behaviour that night?

28. Did you manage to sleep?

29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?

30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?

31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?

32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?

33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?

34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?

35. What is your medical specialty?

36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?

37. Did you work every day?

38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?

39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?

40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?

41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?

42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?

43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

In the interests of fairness she did answer one question; here it is;

Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'

Clearly these questions were aimed at uncovering further information as a result of the inconsistencies and evidence found. The fact she chose not to answer should speak volumes. The right to silence is enshrined in law but can you tell me of any previous missing persons case where an innocent parent has refused to answer questions which would help the police eliminate them from their enquiries and allow them to focus on other avenues?

What would the motive be for an innocent party not to answer these questions if they had nothing to hide?

How can someone innocent entrap or incriminate themselves by answering questions honestly and telling the truth? It's a contradiction in terms.

The right to silence is usually used by those wishing not to incriminate themselves at interview. Given the fact their child was missing, and taking her proclomations of innocence at face value it was inexcusable for a parent not to answer these questions.

I have not yet heard anything approaching a valid reason why she refused to answer these questions which would outweigh the benefits of answering truthfully and being ruled out as a suspect, allowing the police to concentrate on other areas to investigate.

Not one, simply because there isn't one.

Thanks Me, I have read the questions and bearing in mind this interview was in September and the McCanns had already made statements within a couple
of days, I would have considered only these questions worth answering:- 4/5/6/7/16/17/19/21/22/24/29/30/31/34/34/37/38/39/40/41/43.....21 in total.

The major questions were not even asked........why did you not feel the need to search yourself for your Daughter when there were Friends around to
look after the Twins, why did the Twins not wake when there was so much noise and movement around them, did you sedate them? Why did you claim the shutters were jemmied when this was clearly not the case?

Clearly, Kate should not have been in the Police Station for 11 hrs and this is why she lost her cool. Also, why were not Kate and Gerry interviewed
simultaneously in different Rooms? Gerry went the following day armed with the info Kate gave him.

Panda wrote:Thanks Me, I have read the questions and bearing in mind this interview was in September and the McCanns had already made statements within a couple
of days, I would have considered only these questions worth answering:- 4/5/6/7/16/17/19/21/22/24/29/30/31/34/34/37/38/39/40/41/43.....21 in total.

The major questions were not even asked........why did you not feel the need to search yourself for your Daughter when there were Friends around to
look after the Twins, why did the Twins not wake when there was so much noise and movement around them, did you sedate them? Why did you claim the shutters were jemmied when this was clearly not the case?

Clearly, Kate should not have been in the Police Station for 11 hrs and this is why she lost her cool. Also, why were not Kate and Gerry interviewed
simultaneously in different Rooms? Gerry went the following day armed with the info Kate gave him.

But you miss the point completely. It's nothing to do with what you or the interviewee deems relevant. The police have asked these questions for a reason and by not answering them she is, as she was asked, hindering the investigation into HER missing daughter.

That is the base fact here. It doesn't matter how long she was in the station for or how, 4 years later some of these questions may seem irrelevant now ( i contedn that they are all still relevant).

Equally unimportant is the procedureal matter such as how and when they were interviewed. All Irrelevant to the significant point at hand which is what i'm trying to get through to you.

If you are innocent and if you truly want to assist the police in finding your missing child, then you sit there however long it takes and answer every question, however irrelevant it may seem, in order to do everything within your power to eliminate yourself from suspicion and to help the police move the investigation forward.

I know of no other case where innocent relatives acted in the marrer Kate did or cited irrelevannce of questions or tiredness! You don't do that when your child is missing and you are innocent.

Sorry Me, you and I have differing views and there is no point in discussing this further, I have my opinion and you have yours and you have completely discounted any other view except your own.

Panda wrote:Sorry Me, you and I have differing views and there is no point in discussing this further, I have my opinion and you have yours and you have completely discounted any other view except your own.

Fair enough if that's what you want to do, i'd have liked to discuss the points with you but if you won't enter into debate and answer the issues i have raised then that is your choice.

It's not that i have discounted any other view. I haven't at all. What I have done is consider the reasons for her not answering and come to a conclusion that, in the scheme of things at the time, her reasons, which coincide with your own, simply aren't an acceptable defence given the situation she found herself in.

If through your own reasoning you can provide sufficently compelling reasons why a mother whose child has disappeared refused to assist the police investigation, then i am open to being convinced. I doubt that you can do that (and that's probably the reason why you won't debate it with me) as i have tried to process her reasoning in my own mind and i can't find any valid reason for her refusal to co-operate that would outweigh the benefits of discounting her from suspicion and assisting the police in moving the investigation into HER missing child forward.

The reasons you have so far provided (time in station and irrelevance of questions) aren't compelling enough reasons in mine, and i'd siggest most people's minds, in the event of your child going missing to refuse to assist the investigators.

Suspects, witnesses, persons of interest to the Police (whatever you wanna call it and whatever the role they play in the case of a missing child) are not supposed to approve the questions posed to them. They are supposed to answer them truthfully and as clearly as possible to clear themselves (if that's the case) and to allow the Police to rule them out and pursuit other alternatives. Not answering questions is obviously a right. But that silence is interpreted by the Police, no doubts about it. As for the 11 hours, I think it must be clarified that there were several breaks during that time and that the 11 hours do not represent at all the duration of the questioning. These 11 hours include the process of translation back and forth, the reading of the statements, etc, to ensure that the people interviewed don't take their words back later and use the 'I didn't say that' excuse. let's never forget that Kate had all sorts of excuses. On the one hand she accuses the Police of taking too long to interview her but when the Police were in a hurry to drive her to what could lead to the identification of her daughter, she accused the Police of driving too fast, Difficult to satisfy, it seems.

Claudia79 wrote:Suspects, witnesses, persons of interest to the Police (whatever you wanna call it and whatever the role they play in the case of a missing child) are not supposed to approve the questions posed to them. They are supposed to answer them truthfully and as clearly as possible to clear themselves (if that's the case) and to allow the Police to rule them out and pursuit other alternatives. Not answering questions is obviously a right. But that silence is interpreted by the Police, no doubts about it. As for the 11 hours, I think it must be clarified that there were several breaks during that time and that the 11 hours do not represent at all the duration of the questioning. These 11 hours include the process of translation back and forth, the reading of the statements, etc, to ensure that the people interviewed don't take their words back later and use the 'I didn't say that' excuse. let's never forget that Kate had all sorts of excuses. On the one hand she accuses the Police of taking too long to interview her but when the Police were in a hurry to drive her to what could lead to the identification of her daughter, she accused the Police of driving too fast, Difficult to satisfy, it seems.

Hi Claudia, I tend to think the Police were overwhelmed by the McCanns, world wide publicity, etc, but the main questions , like the shutters etc were never asked and a lot of those questions were superfluous, IMO of course.

Panda wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Suspects, witnesses, persons of interest to the Police (whatever you wanna call it and whatever the role they play in the case of a missing child) are not supposed to approve the questions posed to them. They are supposed to answer them truthfully and as clearly as possible to clear themselves (if that's the case) and to allow the Police to rule them out and pursuit other alternatives. Not answering questions is obviously a right. But that silence is interpreted by the Police, no doubts about it. As for the 11 hours, I think it must be clarified that there were several breaks during that time and that the 11 hours do not represent at all the duration of the questioning. These 11 hours include the process of translation back and forth, the reading of the statements, etc, to ensure that the people interviewed don't take their words back later and use the 'I didn't say that' excuse. let's never forget that Kate had all sorts of excuses. On the one hand she accuses the Police of taking too long to interview her but when the Police were in a hurry to drive her to what could lead to the identification of her daughter, she accused the Police of driving too fast, Difficult to satisfy, it seems.

Hi Claudia, I tend to think the Police were overwhelmed by the McCanns, world wide publicity, etc, but the main questions , like the shutters etc were never asked and a lot of those questions were superfluous, IMO of course.

We can't say if the questions were superfluous or not because we don't know (and probably never will) why they were asked. They should have been answered. Simple as that. Even if only to say something like 'what? that is ridiculous, outrageous and I never dreamed of giving up custody of my beloved child to anyone', for instance. As for the shutters, the McCanns have never officially said they had been tempered with. Other people said it for them and I have no doubt that it came from them. But it was never on record and that, in terms of Police work, makes all the difference. And that's all I'm saying as I probably should hut up now.

Claudia79 wrote:

Panda wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Suspects, witnesses, persons of interest to the Police (whatever you wanna call it and whatever the role they play in the case of a missing child) are not supposed to approve the questions posed to them. They are supposed to answer them truthfully and as clearly as possible to clear themselves (if that's the case) and to allow the Police to rule them out and pursuit other alternatives. Not answering questions is obviously a right. But that silence is interpreted by the Police, no doubts about it. As for the 11 hours, I think it must be clarified that there were several breaks during that time and that the 11 hours do not represent at all the duration of the questioning. These 11 hours include the process of translation back and forth, the reading of the statements, etc, to ensure that the people interviewed don't take their words back later and use the 'I didn't say that' excuse. let's never forget that Kate had all sorts of excuses. On the one hand she accuses the Police of taking too long to interview her but when the Police were in a hurry to drive her to what could lead to the identification of her daughter, she accused the Police of driving too fast, Difficult to satisfy, it seems.

Hi Claudia, I tend to think the Police were overwhelmed by the McCanns, world wide publicity, etc, but the main questions , like the shutters etc were never asked and a lot of those questions were superfluous, IMO of course.

We can't say if the questions were superfluous or not because we don't know (and probably never will) why they were asked. They should have been answered. Simple as that. Even if only to say something like 'what? that is ridiculous, outrageous and I never dreamed of giving up custody of my beloved child to anyone', for instance. As for the shutters, the McCanns have never officially said they had been tempered with. Other people said it for them and I have no doubt that it came from them. But it was never on record and that, in terms of Police work, makes all the difference. And that's all I'm saying as I probably should hut up now.

We both should.....goodnight.