Re: KATE AND GERRY INNOCENT?

**AnnaEsse** Tue 17 Sep - 13:24

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.

Panda, if your child was missing, wouldn't you do your best to just answer every question? Time spent answering and giving information could make a difference and wouldn't you just want to answer everything and let the police get on with their job? You never know what little bit of information may be the key to the disappearance.

**Panda** Tue 17 Sep - 13:41

AnnaEsse wrote:
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.
Panda, if your child was missing, wouldn't you do your best to just answer every question? Time spent answering and giving information could make a difference and wouldn't you just want to answer everything and let the police get on with their job? You never know what little bit of information may be the key to the disappearance.

There is a thread about the questions Annaesse and i have just replied on there , take a look. KATE AND GERRY INNOCENT? - Page 2 25346

**dazedandconfused** Tue 17 Sep - 13:46

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.

So would I and any other parent desperate for their child to be found

comperedna Tue 17 Sep - 13:47

Absolutely, Annaesse. However her lawyer probably advised her not to, and as an arguido she didn't have to. Such a rule is put there as a decent one to prevent the bullying of 'suspects' (I do know arguido means person of interest or something similar) by policemen. We have to remember Portugal has these basically healthy rules because of the experince of the Salazar era. I have read it many times on the net that 'if only KM had been left as a witness, she would have been obliged to answer those qustions.' I guess the police were pretty confident they had the case almost wrapped up. Then the time even for a neglect case passed... and so we have... the current situation.

**Panda** Tue 17 Sep - 14:02

Like all of you, I would have been out searching until I dropped , but if she was there for hours she must have been anxious , tired, and let's face it bored .so had the questionning been less,this was the second day remember, and more intelligent Kate might have been more co-operative and in the process helped the Police.

saloongirl Tue 17 Sep - 14:10

Panda wrote:

Like all of you, I would have been out searching until I dropped , but if she was there for hours she must have been anxious , tired, and let's face it bored .so had the questionning been less,this was the second day remember, and more intelligent Kate might have been more co-operative and in the process helped the Police.

You sound like you think it was the fault of the "bungling police" as to why she didn't answer the questions

**Panda** Tue 17 Sep - 14:23

saloongirl wrote:
Panda wrote:

Like all of you, I would have been out searching until I dropped , but if she was there for hours she must have been anxious , tired, and let's face it bored .so had the questionning been less,this was the second day remember, and more intelligent Kate might have been more co-operative and in the process helped the Police.
You sound like you think it was the fault of the "bungling police" as to why she didn't answer the questions

Hi saloongirl, it's amazing seeing all the "old Members" surfacing because we might at last be witnessing endgame. KATE AND GERRY INNOCENT? - Page 2 294124

KATE AND GERRY INNOCENT? - Page 2 294124

IMH opinion, yes I do think the Police were not experienced enough probably , like the Leicester Police unused to being involved in a case like this.

Guest Tue 17 Sep - 14:29

I feel sure that Kate couldn't believe that she wasn't being treated with the respect and deference that she thought she was entitled to, hence her refusal to co-operate.

Wouldn't we all like to know why that particular question about passing custody of Madeleine to a family member was asked? It can't have been plucked out of thin air.

Note that when she answered the last question about not helping the investigation, she said "if that's what you think" which clearly means that she didn't agree that she was being obstructive.

Anyone whose child had disappeared, in whatever circumstances, and was genuinely innocent of any involvement, would be happy to answer anything that might help.

**LJC** Tue 17 Sep - 14:34

As stated on the other thread on this topic, Kate had been advised PRIOR not to answer any questions. It would not have made one jot of difference how long she was there for, what questions they asked her, she was advised not to answer by her lawyer for legal reasons. They could have asked her if she had ever travelled to the moon, she would not have answered.

Wintabells Tue 17 Sep - 15:09

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I feel sure that Kate couldn't believe that she wasn't being treated with the respect and deference that she thought she was entitled to, hence her refusal to co-operate.

Wouldn't we all like to know why that particular question about passing custody of Madeleine to a family member was asked? It can't have been plucked out of thin air.

Note that when she answered the last question about not helping the investigation, she said "if that's what you think" which clearly means that she didn't agree that she was being obstructive.

Anyone whose child had disappeared, in whatever circumstances, and was genuinely innocent of any involvement, would be happy to answer anything that might help.

Agreeing with most of your post, NBY, but I still can't work out what KMcC meant when she said, 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks' to the question, 'Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?'.

What is the 'that' that the investigation thinks?

NBY's interpretation of KMcC's answer would be 'the investigation which seeks to discover what happened to Madeleine thinks that by not answering questions, I am jeopardising it... and I am aware that this is what the investigation thinks, and I don't agree with its thinking'.

And yet, her answer begins with 'yes', (i.e. I agree and I am aware) in other words not refuting that she was being obstructive.

I think by the time she was asked these questions, KMcC knew that the investigation thought that she was the key to uncovering what had happened to Madeleine (she said so in her bewk, I believe) and that the focus of the investigation was now on HER, not on finding her daughter, so this, apparently is why she was angry and unwilling to co-operate. The investigation thinks I'm guilty, so I don't care if I jeopardise it'

Wintabells Tue 17 Sep - 15:11

Plus, as LJC says, she wasn't obliged to answer any questions, and advised not to, what with being an arguida and all.

interested Tue 17 Sep - 15:11

Since the topic asks about the 'innocence' of the McCanns there is an article posted today at allvoices, by Chelsea Hoffman, entitled, "Madeleine McCann's parents seem afraid of something". I mention this knowing some are not impressed with her articles but as an American writer she does stubbornly persevere and personally I give her credit for that.

**Claudia79** Tue 17 Sep - 15:38

comperedna wrote:Absolutely, Annaesse. However her lawyer probably advised her not to, and as an arguido she didn't have to. Such a rule is put there as a decent one to prevent the bullying of 'suspects' (I do know arguido means person of interest or something similar) by policemen. We have to remember Portugal has these basically healthy rules because of the experince of the Salazar era. I have read it many times on the net that 'if only KM had been left as a witness, she would have been obliged to answer those qustions.' I guess the police were pretty confident they had the case almost wrapped up. Then the time even for a neglect case passed... and so we have... the current situation.

The problem is the Police couldn't ask 'pertinent' questions with Kate as a witness because her lawyer would immediately ask for the arguido status so she wouldn't need to answer them: a catch 22 situation.

**Panda** Tue 17 Sep - 15:39

Wintabells wrote:Plus, as LJC says, she wasn't obliged to answer any questions, and advised not to, what with being an arguida and all.

Hi Wintabells, the reason Kate had her Lawyer with her was not just because he spoke English (there was also a Translator present) was to stop her from incriminating herself , but she wasn't made an arguido until the end of the second day . Kate had 3 sessions in all, the 4th,6th and 7th. We do tend to think that if someone won't answer questions it is because they are guilty . The Portugese could have charged the Mccanns with negligence which carries a 1 year Prison sentence but the Prosecutor wanted the Neglect causing harm (since Madeleine has still not been found) which carries a 10 year Prison Sentence.......too late now, but the PJ does not think there is any new evidence to re-open the case anyway.

**Claudia79** Tue 17 Sep - 15:41

First of all, arguidos and witnesses do not get to choose the questions the Police ask them. Secondly, Kate was not going to answer any questions put to her. It was the only way she could guarantee there weren't any discrepancies.

**Claudia79** Tue 17 Sep - 15:45

The McCanns would never be convincted for neglect. Some years ago a father forgot his baby was in the back seat of the car and left him there for several hours. The child died and there was a case started for neglect but it was later dismissed because the judicial authorities thought the death of the child was punishment enough. I think the father had to pay a sum to charity.

**Annabel** Tue 17 Sep - 17:27

interested wrote:Since the topic asks about the 'innocence' of the McCanns there is an article posted today at allvoices, by Chelsea Hoffman, entitled, "Madeleine McCann's parents seem afraid of something". I mention this knowing some are not impressed with her articles but as an American writer she does stubbornly persevere and personally I give her credit for that.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15558783-madeleine-mccanns-parents-seem-afraid-of-something

Lillyofthevalley Tue 17 Sep - 19:00

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?

If found out she is lying. What will this mean, does she go to JAIL for lying....it's a shame nobody is capable of reporting this to the judge sadly, that there is no way the book is available here, due to the bullying tactics of team McCann

**LJC** Tue 17 Sep - 23:11

Lillyofthevalley wrote:
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?
If found out she is lying. What will this mean, does she go to JAIL for lying....it's a shame nobody is capable of reporting this to the judge sadly, that there is no way the book is available here, due to the bullying tactics of team McCann

I don't know anything about books at all, so correct me here because I am probably miles out, but can it be with books like it is with CD's, that pirate copies exist? I think Panda may know the answer.

**kitti** Wed 18 Sep - 7:52

They were NOT sold on the open Market in the UK.

Whether they were 'pirated'.....that's not the question though is it.

The question was....

Do you know if the book was published in the UK....NO it wasnt otherwise we all would off bought it....it wasn't even published in his mother tongue.

EL....She saw it in bookshops.....Can she tell us WHAT bookshops because know one would touch it with a barge pole....

It's all rubbish and why would she lie about this on oath.

Now...if she had said...I dint know if it was in bookshops but it was on the Internet.....but she didn't..

**T4two** Wed 18 Sep - 9:10

Panda wrote:
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.!!

Why not reread my last post yesterday - there's a link to the questions.... KATE AND GERRY INNOCENT? - Page 2 303636

**kitti** Wed 18 Sep - 9:51

Murat asked to be made arquido, didn't he.

So the pj were not allowed to ask the 48 questions until she was made a 'suspect'

Could she off refused to be made a 'suspect'?

**Panda** Wed 18 Sep - 9:55

T4two wrote:
Panda wrote:
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.!!
Why not reread my last post yesterday - there's a link to the questions....

Morning T4two, yes, I did use your link and posted a new thread yesterday "the 48 questions " highlighting those I thought would have irritated me after hours of questioning. Anyway ,posters seemed to take it the wrong way so I gave up.

**Panda** Wed 18 Sep - 9:59

kitti wrote:Murat asked to be made arquido, didn't he.

So the pj were not allowed to ask the 48 questions until she was made a 'suspect'

Could she off refused to be made a 'suspect'?

Morning kitti, Kate was made an arguido on the advice of her Lawyer because she refused to answer some of the questions. It didn't make her a suspect , but the implication is there. Her Lawyer was with her and advised her, I suppose it is similar to our "you have the right to remain silent"

Guest Wed 18 Sep - 10:03

I'm reminded of guilty as sin people like Roy Whiting (murderer of Sarah Payne) and Steve Wright (the Suffolk Strangler) who said "no comment" to absolutely everything put to them.

If I was innocent, that's certainly not how I'd behave.

Sponsored content