Breaking News on Sky

Odd that. I didn't realise that suspects had the opportunity of picking and choosing which questions they answered depending on whether they believed them to be relevant or not. What a lot of silly people there are banged up right now that could simply have refused to answer the questions and stated that they didn't think answering it would be relevant to the investigation.

C.Edwards wrote:Odd that. I didn't realise that suspects had the opportunity of picking and choosing which questions they answered depending on whether they believed them to be relevant or not. What a lot of silly people there are banged up right now that could simply have refused to answer the questions and stated that they didn't think answering it would be relevant to the investigation.

Eh??

I think you will find that all suspects have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions that they believe are designed to somehow incriminate them in some way.

You have completely missed the point however, and the point was that no matter how Kate McCann answered those 48 questions, it would not lead to new evidence.

Ringo wrote:no matter how Kate McCann answered those 48 questions, it would not lead to new evidence.

...and there you go again... just like you always do (don't deny it, I won't believe you). HOW do you know how Kate would answer? You do not know how she will answer, you just have an opinion. Your opinion does not make it fact. If Kate McCann cooperated and told the truth (or are you advocating she lies or keeps silent if she doesn't see the value in answering the question?) then answering those questions would be a great help, or the police wouldn't have asked them in the first place.

How could some of these questions incriminate you in some way? They are simple everyday questions which you could answer easily like "did you work everyday" and what was your medical speciality"


These 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?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER

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.'


Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

C.Edwards wrote:

Ringo wrote:no matter how Kate McCann answered those 48 questions, it would not lead to new evidence.

...and there you go again... just like you always do (don't deny it, I won't believe you). HOW do you know how Kate would answer? You do not know how she will answer, you just have an opinion. Your opinion does not make it fact. If Kate McCann cooperated and told the truth (or are you advocating she lies or keeps silent if she doesn't see the value in answering the question?) then answering those questions would be a great help, or the police wouldn't have asked them in the first place.

Just like I always do? Look, if you've got an issue with me, spit it out, I'm not going to debate with someone who prefaces every post addressed to me with snide remarks like that.

And again - you have missed the point.

If Kate answered every single one of those questions truthfully we would still have no new evidence. Even if she said "yes, I did once consider giving Madeleine up to a family member" how on earth is that going to provide new evidence about Madeleine's whereabouts? But clearly she did not give Madeleine away to a family member so the question is completely irrelevant!!

candyfloss wrote:How could some of these questions incriminate you in some way? They are simple everyday questions which you could answer easily like "did you work everyday" and what was your medical speciality"

Simple every day questions??

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?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER

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.'


Kate McCann was advised by her lawyer not to answer any questions because of the risk that she may unwittingly incriminate herself. If you think that her going back to answer any of these questions now is going to take the investigation forward you are very mistaken. Scotland Yard certainly don't look likely to be pursuing this line of enquiry (as is evidenced by the report that they are compiling a definitive photofit of the abductor).

You may want to ask yourself why not.

Ringo wrote:

candyfloss wrote:How could some of these questions incriminate you in some way? They are simple everyday questions which you could answer easily like "did you work everyday" and what was your medical speciality"

Simple every day questions??

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?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER

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.'


Kate McCann was advised by her lawyer not to answer any questions because of the risk that she may unwittingly incriminate herself. If you think that her going back to answer any of these questions now is going to take the investigation forward you are very mistaken. Scotland Yard certainly don't look likely to be pursuing this line of enquiry (as is evidenced by the report that they are compiling a definitive photofit of the abductor).

You may want to ask yourself why not.

How do you know what Scotland Yard are looking into Ringo? To do their job properly they will look at every aspect of this case, the interviews, the movements, the witnesses and the crime scene. The report you are talking about came from the News of the World, and nowhere is it verified by Scotland Yard. There is also another report in the Express, that the Tapas 9 will do a reconstruction, again not verified, so really no-one knows what Scotland Yard will do. Except that the Portuguese are denying all this anyway.

Fair point Candyfloss. We only have a newspaper report at this stage concerning Scotland Yard's intentions, I agree.

The fact Kate refused to answer those questions says enough about the potential impact answers could have.

lj wrote:The fact Kate refused to answer those questions says enough about the potential impact answers could have.

Ah no, you see that's where "Ringo" and his buddies are saying you're wrong, LJ. Apparently it's perfectly reasonable to not answer questions if:

a) your lawyer advises you not to as you're being set up
b) you feel the answers may incriminate yourself (how you can incriminate yourself if you're innocent is beyond me)
c) you don't feel the question is particulary helpful or relevant

"Today Carlos had advised me not to answer any of the questions put to me. He explained that it was my right as an arguida and it was the safest option: any responses I gave might unintentionally implicate me in some way. He knew the system better than I ever would, so it struck me as prudent to accept his guidance. Since I was unable to comprehend how anything I'd said already could have led me to this point, I wasn't going to attempt to get through to the police again now...


...It's actually quite difficult not to answer when someone asks you a question. The natural reaction is to reply, out of politeness, if nothing else. And of course the urge to say what I thought about some of their vile and ridiculous insinuations was hard to suppress. On the other hand, I was very weary and at least repeating "No comment" didn't involve engaging my brain"...

from "Madeleine" by Kate McCann.

Now can you understand why she didn't answer the questions?

C.Edwards wrote:

lj wrote:The fact Kate refused to answer those questions says enough about the potential impact answers could have.

Ah no, you see that's where "Ringo" and his buddies are saying you're wrong, LJ. Apparently it's perfectly reasonable to not answer questions if:

a) your lawyer advises you not to as you're being set up
b) you feel the answers may incriminate yourself (how you can incriminate yourself if you're innocent is beyond me)
c) you don't feel the question is particulary helpful or relevant

"C. Edwards", if you were being wrongly accused of a crime or set up by the police and your lawyer strongly advised you not to give answers to their questions, would you ignore his / her advice?

So why in the book does he advise her to take this alleged plea deal, and tells her the evidence doesn't look good. That is one reason why lawyers tell their clients not to answer questions. He says something about she should take it and GM would be able to go back to work etc. Why on earth would a lawyer advise his client to do that. He would have seen the evidence, which of course none of us have.

candyfloss wrote:So why in the book does he advise her to take this alleged plea deal, and tells her the evidence doesn't look good. That is one reason why lawyers tell their clients not to answer questions. He says something about she should take it and GM would be able to go back to work etc. Why on earth would a lawyer advise his client to do that. He would have seen the evidence, which of course none of us have.

He obviously believed that the police when they made out they had more evidence than they actually did. The McCanns and their lawyers were led to believe that there was forensic evidence that Madeleine had died in Apartment 5A and that her bodily fluid was in the hire car at that point, right? But that turned out to be completely false.

Ringo wrote:

He obviously believed that the police when they made out they had more evidence than they actually did. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The McCanns and their lawyers were led to believe that there was forensic evidence that Madeleine had died in Apartment 5A and that her bodily fluid was in the hire car at that point, right? WRONG
But that turned out to be completely false. WRONG AGAIN

No Lawyer in this world would believe any evidence on hearsay, they would always ask to see the hard copy evidence to scrutinise it for themselves. So you are talking utter rubbish again, as always.

Evidence pertaining to bodily fluids was found in their hire car with a 15/19 match to Madeleine McCann.

Stella wrote:

Ringo wrote:

He obviously believed that the police when they made out they had more evidence than they actually did. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The McCanns and their lawyers were led to believe that there was forensic evidence that Madeleine had died in Apartment 5A and that her bodily fluid was in the hire car at that point, right? WRONG
But that turned out to be completely false. WRONG AGAIN

No Lawyer in this world would believe any evidence on hearsay, they would always ask to see the hard copy evidence to scrutinise it for themselves. So you are talking utter rubbish again, as always.

Evidence pertaining to bodily fluids was found in their hire car with a 15/19 match to Madeleine McCann.

What evidence was he shown then, and why was it not used to secure a conviction?

There was no evidence of any crime having been committed by any of the arguidos, remember that from the AG's statement?

You can write 'wrong' in big letters and in a rainbow of colours all over my posts but it does not alter the fact that there was no evidence. None. Nada. Zilch.

Ringo wrote:"Today Carlos had advised me not to answer any of the questions put to me. He explained that it was my right as an arguida and it was the safest option: any responses I gave might unintentionally implicate me in some way . He knew the system better than I ever would, so it struck me as prudent to accept his guidance. Since I was unable to comprehend how anything I'd said already could have led me to this point, I wasn't going to attempt to get through to the police again now...


...It's actually quite difficult not to answer when someone asks you a question. The natural reaction is to reply, out of politeness, if nothing else. And of course the urge to say what I thought about some of their vile and ridiculous insinuations was hard to suppress. On the other hand, I was very weary and at least repeating "No comment" didn't involve engaging my brain"...

from "Madeleine" by Kate McCann.

Now can you understand why she didn't answer the questions?

Don't you worry: I understood it right from the moment it happened. I did not need Kate (or you) to explain the obvious to me. But for your understanding I highlighted it above, because you seem to think that whatever answers Kate possibly could give wouldn't get her in trouble. Her lawyer did think otherwise.

How does PeterMac say it again? The innocent demand the right to speak, the guilty demand to be silent.

lj wrote:

Ringo wrote:"Today Carlos had advised me not to answer any of the questions put to me. He explained that it was my right as an arguida and it was the safest option: any responses I gave might unintentionally implicate me in some way . He knew the system better than I ever would, so it struck me as prudent to accept his guidance. Since I was unable to comprehend how anything I'd said already could have led me to this point, I wasn't going to attempt to get through to the police again now...


...It's actually quite difficult not to answer when someone asks you a question. The natural reaction is to reply, out of politeness, if nothing else. And of course the urge to say what I thought about some of their vile and ridiculous insinuations was hard to suppress. On the other hand, I was very weary and at least repeating "No comment" didn't involve engaging my brain"...

from "Madeleine" by Kate McCann.

Now can you understand why she didn't answer the questions?

Don't you worry: I understood it right from the moment it happened. I did not need Kate (or you) to explain the obvious to me. But for your understanding I highlighted it above, because you seem to think that whatever answers Kate possibly could give wouldn't get her in trouble. Her lawyer did think otherwise.

How does PeterMac say it again? The innocent demand the right to speak, the guilty demand to be silent.

So, someone else who would ignore their lawyer's advice when being apparently set up by the police, eh?

To be honest with you I think Kate was probably given duff advice by her lawyer (who may actually have been led to believe that his client was guilty, from the misleading information he was given by the police prior to the interrogation), however the only thing she is guilty of is listening to her lawyer and doing as he suggested. That's hardly a crime is it? If I was being wrongly accused in a foreign country and in a foreign language I would probably have done the same thing.

Set up by the police, now there is a hefty accusation that you can't make true.

I doubt Kate would listen to an advice she does not like.

however the only thing she is guilty of

Your blind believe in this woman who is a clear narcissistic sociopath is almost amusing and certainly not uncommon for people dealing with sociopaths. You'll wisen up one day.

lj wrote:Set up by the police, now there is a hefty accusation that you can't make true.

I doubt Kate would listen to an advice she does not like.

however the only thing she is guilty of

Your blind believe in this woman who is a clear narcissistic sociopath is almost amusing and certainly not uncommon for people dealing with sociopaths. You'll wisen up one day.

You've met and interviewed Kate McCann at length in order to make this diagnosis, I take it?

Here, did you use this when making your diagnosis?

How to Identify Sociopathic Behavior

• 1
  
  Notice if the person exhibits a lack of conscience. Signs of sociopathic behavior are usually present in childhood so take note if you witness this person torturing or killing [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], showing no emotions when something bad happens to someone else, or not showing any guilt or remorse for any of their actions.
  
  

Are there any accounts that you know of from people who knew Kate as a child about her killing or torturing animals? Or not showing any guilt or remorse for her actions?

• 2
  
  See if there is a pattern of irresponsible or poor behavior including doing poorly in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Other behaviors to look for are recklessness, impulsivity, and participation in illegal activities.
  
  

Did Kate do poorly at school or at work? Any convictions for taking part in illegal activites? Any predisposition for habitually taking part in dangerous or reckless behviour?

• 3
  
  Pay attention to the person's personal relationships. Many sociopathic people have an inability to love or have lasting personal relationships. This can be due to the fact that they are very manipulative.
  
  

Has Kate been unable to form any lasting relationships?

• 4
  
  Recognize patterns of pathological lying. Sociopaths will continue to lie about things even if they are caught doing them. They can also be very charming and get others who are blind to their behaviors to side with them.
  
  

Any actual evidence of Kate lying? Let's see it. Let's see where she has continued to lie even after having been caught out.

• 5
  
  Notice if they have an inflated sense of self-importance or narcissism. Sociopaths behave like they're the only people that matter and have complete disregard for everyone else. Although they have the ability to charm people, they take advantage of them at the same time.
  
  

Please give some examples of Kate's inflated sense of self-importance or narcissism and complete disregard for everyone else.

• 
  

  
  
  • 6
    
    See if they exhibit a need for stimulation by engaging in risky or dangerous behaviors. These behaviors can be sexual or just thrill seeking. Sociopaths tend to get bored easily which is why they seldom complete tasks and seek out forms of excitement.
    
    

  
  
  

  
  Any evidence that Kate is unable to complete tasks, or takes part in thrill-seeking activities?
  
  Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
  
  Please also let us know what qualifications you have for making this judgement - degree in psychology or psychiatry perhaps?
  

Strange isn't it? There is nothing out there to suggest Kate or Gerry have had a 'dodgy' past. Yet here we are questioning them around the possibility of them covering up the death of their first born all because they didn't want to apparently loose their jobs. And futher, the McCanns have campaigned for a transparent review of the case so it convinces the world that they had nothing to do with her death....well, unless the new detectives discover something! I hope they thought about this long and hard because if it were me....i would just shut up and keep a low profile. But then I'm not as clever as them! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

WOW was Wikipedia too difficult for you?

Let's say this: the fact you say you have to interview someone to come to the cloncusion he or she is a sociopath shows you don't know what you're talking about.

candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

They complain our theories are too outlandish while pushing the poor Kate was framed fairy tale.

set up by the police,oh pleassssse. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] oh ringo what a stupid thing to say.

candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

They could have if they were involved in her disappearance......................

RBxHN wrote:

candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

They could have if they were involved in her disappearance......................

Now you've lost the plot!

candyfloss wrote:

RBxHN wrote:

candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

They could have if they were involved in her disappearance......................

Now you've lost the plot!

Hi Candyfloss

Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that they (or someone they know) was involved in her kidnap? After all, it would certainly explain a lot of things which we all find hard to fathom, like for instance, the lack of DNA, the dogs, the fingerprints, the brazen way the abductor took the child, the info about the mccanns movements. It all fits!

RBxHN wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

RBxHN wrote:

candyfloss wrote:How could the PJ set them up? They didn't have any DNA of Madeleine's, GM had to go to Rothley to get a pillow. There was no evidence of DNA in the apartment, apart from blood spots. How could they have planted it in the hire car. They said bodily fluids were found, where would they get them from?? And it is what the FSS tested. Why on earth would the police, who themselves must be parents of small kids etc, as was Goncalo, want to set up an innocent family that had lost a child? It is a ridiculous notion.

They could have if they were involved in her disappearance......................

Now you've lost the plot!

Hi Candyfloss

Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that they (or someone they know) was involved in her kidnap? After all, it would certainly explain a lot of things which we all find hard to fathom, like for instance, the lack of DNA, the dogs, the fingerprints, the brazen way the abductor took the child, the info about the mccanns movements. It all fits!

Seriously RHxBN , you are taking the p*** now. Go and lie down in a darkened room for a while.