KATE AND GERRY INNOCENT?

Sorry if this has already been discussed but I have not seen it discussed.  I am just a bit unsure what the judge meant by the word innocent in her questioning.  I didn't think the McCanns had been found innocent regarding Madeleine's disappearance, or does it mean innocent in connection with something else?  

The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking Emma Loach questions

MC - How did the book hamper the investigation?
EL - says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her. If people thought the parents were involved, they wouldn’t help.

MC - But when the book was published the McCanns were no longer arguidos.
EL - says the public, according to the US, is very important to find missing children.

MC - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The
people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.

MC - People don't know?
EL - hesitates, she says the majority don't.

MC - Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?
EL - answers yes.

MC - Why?
EL - says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.

MC - The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
EL - says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.

MC - In which way is it different?
EL - doesn't answer, she is obviously upset. The judge says she may leave. Previous witness Mrs Susan Hubbard gets up immediately and follows Emma Loach out of the court room.

............................................

Sorry, but I am puzzled about what the judge means.

IMHO, the judge isn't stating that the McCanns are innocent. I believe that she is implying that if they are innocent then that would suppress any feelings of shame which could be caused by the book.

My reading of that was it was a rewrite of the classic, 'if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.'

Interesting though their perception of people that suspect them. 
In actuality The people who suspect them that know about Goncalo's book are the more wider read of the people that suspect the mccanns.

In general people suspect the mccanns because case history has shown their story is highly improbable and their behaviour has been inconsistent. This is not something that is unclear, the lies and deception just attempt to make it such.


It is clear that Emma Roach has not read the actual conclusions of the file.

That's how I read it too, in the sense that 'But if they are innocent as they say, what does it matter'? But I would have to be there and hear it in Portuguese.

I felt that the judge was using the term 'innocent' to mean 'no longer arguidos' as this was the point she had been making in an earlier question.

GP – Do you know if the book was published in the UK?

EL says she saw it in bookshops.


Why is she lying?

They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.

I find that very telling. Up to that point the McCanns were behaving like celebs, arranging press conferences and doing their European travel. Suddenly, things were out of their control and they were seen being taken in by the police. Their image of themselves they wanted to present was shattered. Ms Loach has also told the judge that the book wasn't the most significant cause of the McCanns' hurt feelings.

I am pleased the Judge is probing the Witnesses and both Mrs Hubbard and now Emma Loach have not done much to fight the McCanns corner.

That word arguido is obviously familiar to the Judge and everyone thinks it means suspect , but I remember the McCanns Lawyer Abreu (why wasn't he acting for the McCanns again?) saying arguido meant you not being obliged to answer a question .  Kate had been in the Police Station for almost 11 hours ....I think I would have refused to answer banal questions by that time.!!!

With hindsight the Police should have charged the McCanns with neglect when Madeleine had been missing for 3 months.

Panda wrote:I am pleased the Judge is probing the Witnesses and both Mrs Hubbard and now Emma Loach have not done much to fight the McCanns corner.

That word arguido is obviously familiar to the Judge and everyone thinks it means suspect , but I remember the McCanns Lawyer Abreu (why wasn't he acting for the McCanns again?) saying arguido meant you not being obliged to answer a question .  Kate had been in the Police Station for almost 11 hours ....I think I would have refused to answer banal questions by that time.!!!

With hindsight the Police should have charged the McCanns with neglect when Madeleine had been missing for 3 months.

Perhaps if she'd cooperated wth the police and answered the questions put to her she wouldn't have been in the police station for almost 11 hours?

T4two wrote:

Panda wrote:I am pleased the Judge is probing the Witnesses and both Mrs Hubbard and now Emma Loach have not done much to fight the McCanns corner.

That word arguido is obviously familiar to the Judge and everyone thinks it means suspect , but I remember the McCanns Lawyer Abreu (why wasn't he acting for the McCanns again?) saying arguido meant you not being obliged to answer a question .  Kate had been in the Police Station for almost 11 hours ....I think I would have refused to answer banal questions by that time.!!!

With hindsight the Police should have charged the McCanns with neglect when Madeleine had been missing for 3 months.

Perhaps if she'd cooperated wth the police and answered the questions put to her she wouldn't have been in the police station for almost 11 hours?

As far as I know, it was the last few questions Kate objected to, I can't remember the questions, one of the sleuths will find them I'm sure,  but they were quite silly questions and Kate said "if you say so" and after 11 hrs of this I would have reacted in the same way. I know she and the PR woman were caught using their mobiles but I still think 11 hrs is very excessive, surely 3 hrs would have been ample time to question anyone in one session.

so she wasn't being questioned for a full 11 hours. she had time with her PR, what was her PR doing there as well as her Lawyer. So if she had the opportunity to use her mobile she wasn't subjected to intense investigation. Questioning involves asking so called banal questions. she was in the police station for 11 hours, not long really is it to try and help with the search for her daughter, especially as she wasn't looking herself. there were 48 questions she didn't answer, not the last few, and im sure the Portuguese has their reasons for asking the questions whether they were banal or not. I really don't think K was in any position to object to questions banal or otherwise when it was the Portuguese who were looking for her child. You've read the PJ files Panda do you think the statements and answers to questions any of them gave were clear and concise.

Panda wrote:

T4two wrote:

Panda wrote:I am pleased the Judge is probing the Witnesses and both Mrs Hubbard and now Emma Loach have not done much to fight the McCanns corner.

That word arguido is obviously familiar to the Judge and everyone thinks it means suspect , but I remember the McCanns Lawyer Abreu (why wasn't he acting for the McCanns again?) saying arguido meant you not being obliged to answer a question .  Kate had been in the Police Station for almost 11 hours ....I think I would have refused to answer banal questions by that time.!!!

With hindsight the Police should have charged the McCanns with neglect when Madeleine had been missing for 3 months.

Perhaps if she'd cooperated wth the police and answered the questions put to her she wouldn't have been in the police station for almost 11 hours?

As far as I know, it was the last few questions Kate objected to, I can't remember the questions, one of the sleuths will find them I'm sure,    but they were  quite silly questions and Kate said "if you say so" and after 11 hrs of this I would have reacted in  the same way. I know she and the PR woman were caught using their mobiles but I still think 11 hrs is very excessive, surely 3 hrs would have been ample time to question anyone in one session.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html

I love the last question - the only one she did answer and it's the answer which is best described as banal - not the question.

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.'

T4two wrote:

Panda wrote:

T4two wrote:

Panda wrote:I am pleased the Judge is probing the Witnesses and both Mrs Hubbard and now Emma Loach have not done much to fight the McCanns corner.

That word arguido is obviously familiar to the Judge and everyone thinks it means suspect , but I remember the McCanns Lawyer Abreu (why wasn't he acting for the McCanns again?) saying arguido meant you not being obliged to answer a question .  Kate had been in the Police Station for almost 11 hours ....I think I would have refused to answer banal questions by that time.!!!

With hindsight the Police should have charged the McCanns with neglect when Madeleine had been missing for 3 months.

Perhaps if she'd cooperated wth the police and answered the questions put to her she wouldn't have been in the police station for almost 11 hours?

As far as I know, it was the last few questions Kate objected to, I can't remember the questions, one of the sleuths will find them I'm sure,    but they were  quite silly questions and Kate said "if you say so" and after 11 hrs of this I would have reacted in  the same way. I know she and the PR woman were caught using their mobiles but I still think 11 hrs is very excessive, surely 3 hrs would have been ample time to question anyone in one session.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html

I love the last question - the only one she did answer and it's the answer which is best described as banal - not the question.

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.'

I remember that one T4two, it's a typical sarcastic response by someone who is tired and p***ed off with the PJ for asking such stupid questions.

I'm sure when the full interview is copied and pasted here posters can judge for themselves, maybe it deserves a seperate thread so this one can get back on course. I'll see if I can find it.

tanszi wrote:so she wasn't being questioned for a full 11 hours.  she had time with her PR, what was her PR doing there as well as her Lawyer.  So if she had the opportunity to use her mobile she wasn't subjected to intense investigation.  Questioning involves asking so called banal questions.  she was in the police station for 11 hours,  not long really is it to try and help with the search for her daughter, especially as she wasn't looking herself.  there were 48 questions she didn't answer, not the last few, and im sure the Portuguese has their reasons for asking the questions whether they were banal or not.  I really don't think K was in any position to object to questions banal or otherwise when it was the Portuguese who were looking for her child.  You've read the PJ files Panda do you think the statements and answers to questions any of them gave were clear and concise.

No I don't tanzi, but when someone finds the questionnaire I think yoou will find that like the Leicester Police questions "which Airport did you fly from", insults the intelligence of the person being questioned so they become unco-operative. There would obviously have been breaks between questions when maybe Kate spoke to Gerry , had her PR with her for lunch.

Panda I believe that what you refer to as "banal" questions are standard procedure in any investigation, not so much for the answers given, but for noting the body language when the answers are given. I'm quite sure Kate was 'p......d' off being there so long, and I don't know about you, but if it were my child missing I would have answered every question asked of me, even if it took all day and night.

mara thon wrote:I don't know about you, but if it were my child missing I would have answered every question asked of me, even if it took all day and night.

Exactly what I was going to say. I would acknowledge the fact that the police were just trying to get to the bottom of what happened to my child and would be grateful about it. I would have co-operated in every way possible instead of acting in such an an arrogant and disinterested manner.

If I remember rightly , there was a time when Kate McCann was interviewed with her spokesperson (forgot her name)and they were both texting and joking at the time....the spokesperson told the world that...

Panda, are you making excuses for Ms.Healy?

kitti wrote:If I remember rightly , there was a time when Kate McCann was interviewed with her spokesperson (forgot her name)and they were both texting and joking at the time....the spokesperson told the world that...

kitti, I think that was during the intervals. I couldn't find the 48 questions but will post the individual days of Kate's interviews ,interesting reading.!!!

the slave wrote:Panda, are you making excuses for Ms.Healy?

I wish I could find the interview and the 48 questions then maybe posters will understand why Kate lost her cool, that is all I am saying.

mara thon wrote:Panda I believe that what you refer to as "banal" questions are standard procedure in any investigation, not so much for the answers given, but for noting the body language when the answers are given.     I'm quite sure Kate was 'p......d' off being there so long, and I don't know about you, but if it were my child missing I would have answered every question asked of me, even if it took all day and night.

I understand what you are saying mara_thon but Kate was interviewed 3 days in succession .the 4th , 6th and 7th of September. It was the 6th when she was declared aguido , but I couldn't find the 48 questions, I was looking in the mccannfiles. Some other very interesting info there though.!!

Carolina wrote:IMHO, the judge isn't stating that the McCanns are innocent. I believe that she is implying that if they are innocent then that would suppress any feelings of shame which could be caused by the book.

Thank you Carolina. It is confusing because the Judge does not use the word 'if' but she does use the word 'fact'. Perhaps this is how it came out on translation, so would be interesting to know what she said in Portuguese.

Panda wrote:

the slave wrote:Panda, are you making excuses for Ms.Healy?

I wish I could find the interview and the 48 questions then maybe posters will understand why Kate lost her cool, that is all I am saying.

She lost her cool because she was made an arguido, simple as that. She was no longer seen as the poor suffering victim and the mother of a missing child but she was now considered a possible suspect. Since both Kate and Gerry were to be questioned separately, it was decided that Gerry would answer all of his questions while Kate would remain silent so that there would be no discrepencies or contradictions for the police to notice. BTW, all of the questions were pertinent, otherwise, the police would not have asked them.

kitti wrote:

GP – Do you know if the book was published in the UK?

EL says she saw it in bookshops.


Why is she lying?

Things like this annoy me.  Is there a chance that Snr.Amarals lawyer will be able to challenge Loach's assertion this week?  (I don't know how Portuguese courts work of course)

That's a blatant lie and should be put right.  Surely the judge should have overruled that answer and pointed out the book has not been printed in English so she can't have seen it in the UK?  Are there any Portuguese bookshops here, if so why would Loach be in one?

I'm only guessing here, but if the judge had intervened, Loach might have chirped right back in and apologised profusely, saying it was a mistake and that she now remembers she'd seen the books in Spain/Italy/wherever.

As it stands now, her obvious untruth is there on the official court record, and when the defence lawyers do their summing up they will be able to draw attention to it, highlighting her unreliability as a witness.