Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

by Me 11.10.11 19:42

Lemain wrote:
tigger wrote:Have you actually read the 48 questions? It would help the discussion.

Yes, of course I've read the questions. The right to silence is enshrined in law. It might seem odd, unhelpful, and even incriminatory, but that is the law. In the USA the courts are not permitted to construe a refusal to answer as any kind of indication of guilt -- they call it the 5th Amendment. In the UK, courts can take the refusal into account as a factor, but they cannot convict on that alone. I don't know what the law says in Portugal but she did walk free after the meeting, so presumably she was not obliged by law to answer.

We could extend the discussion into the rights and wrongs of the law -- no doubt all first year law undergrads have a field day discussing it -- but at the end of the day the law is the law.

If her lawyers advised her not to answer then she probably took their advice. You and others seem to think this is something incriminating but I assure you that it is normal legal practice. When our policeman friend logs on later, I think from the USA?, I'm sure he'll explain how they do it over there....it is a bit different in the UK but that's explained quite well in the wiki.

If her lawyers said 'don't answer any questions other than x,y,z' then that's all she should do.

I'm not sure if it is deliberate but really, discussion with you is proving impossible becuase you refuse to engage in conversation and respond to points people make in reply to your own posts.

Please can you answer the question i set two or three posts ago then we can move things forward.

by Lemain 11.10.11 19:48

Me wrote:Please can you answer the question i set two or three posts ago then we can move things forward.

Well, post your question -- there have been several posts in quick succession and you say 'two or three'.

by Me 11.10.11 20:06

Lemain wrote:
Me wrote:Please can you answer the question i set two or three posts ago then we can move things forward.

Well, post your question -- there have been several posts in quick succession and you say 'two or three'.

Me wrote:You see this is why i regard your posts as obtuse. You can only incriminate yourself if the evidence you give implicates you to the crime. If that evidence does implicate, and it is truthful, then clearly you are guilty of the crime in question, agree?

Let me ask you a specific question and i would appreciate a direct answer:

If someone is innocent and gives truthful answers to questions posed how can the truth from an innocent party incriminate them to a crime?

It is my contention that it is impossible to do so, by definition. I would appreciate you explaining why you think an innocent party, telling the truth can incriminate themselves becuase i cannot follow your logic.

I would also ask you to provide examples of any other crimes where innocent relatives refused to answer questions put forward by the Police. I can't think of any.

by **tigger** 11.10.11 20:11

Lemain wrote:
tigger wrote:Have you actually read the 48 questions? It would help the discussion.

Yes, of course I've read the questions. The right to silence is enshrined in law. It might seem odd, unhelpful, and even incriminatory, but that is the law. In the USA the courts are not permitted to construe a refusal to answer as any kind of indication of guilt -- they call it the 5th Amendment. In the UK, courts can take the refusal into account as a factor, but they cannot convict on that alone. I don't know what the law says in Portugal but she did walk free after the meeting, so presumably she was not obliged by law to answer.

snipped.

I do not consider that an answer, obviously the nature of the questions is a point here. More to the point is that answering them would have moved the search for her daughter forward. The one question she did answer was regarding this point. Seems she didn't care.

The law on the fifth as it pertains to the US is of no interest here, neither do I find reading Wikipedia helpful.
I gave a clear example of the type of question that cannot be answered without incriminating oneself, but that answer was limited to yes or no.
Your wikipedia argument is rather specious since it only includes positive or negative and not narrative answers. In short, the yes/no/silence option. That is not the case here.
Kate could have answered all those questions any way she liked.

by Invinoveritas 11.10.11 20:14

Quote from Lemain: There is no point in 'discussing' this -- it is fact. See [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Right or wrong, that's how the law has been for centuries and all over the world..

next quote from Lemain:I don't know what the law says in Portugal

Make up your mind and try not to be global in your next answer

by truthsoup 11.10.11 20:16

Tigger - it does not matter one jot the nature of the questions. The law of the Uk and Portugal states that an arguido has the right to remain silent under the watchful eye and direction of their lawyer. Kate had already answered all the questions as a witness because she had not the entitlement of silence. She also asked the Officers to charge her with something as she was not willing to confess to something she had not done. She was perfectly prepared to go to Court to defend herself.

by Guest 11.10.11 20:31

truthsoup wrote:Tigger - it does not matter one jot the nature of the questions. The law of the Uk and Portugal states that an arguido has the right to remain silent under the watchful eye and direction of their lawyer. Kate had already answered all the questions as a witness because she had not the entitlement of silence. She also asked the Officers to charge her with something as she was not willing to confess to something she had not done. She was perfectly prepared to go to Court to defend herself.

Where are the answers , can they be seen anywhere?

by truthsoup 11.10.11 20:41

The reasoning behind the right to remain silent is because the answers given as a witness cannot be used in evidence or recorded as such in a criminal trial, or any trial for that matter. But there are several references to the 48 questions which she had already answered as a witness, then declined to answer as an arguida.

After she was taken in for questioning on 7 September, Kate McCann was asked 48 questions by the Portuguese police.
This is correct. It should be noted however, that Kate McCann spent a full day answering questions at the police station on 6th September, when she was interviewed as a witness. Under Portuguese law, witnesses do not have the right to remain silent.

by Miraflores 11.10.11 20:42

She also asked the Officers to charge her with something as she was not
willing to confess to something she had not done. She was perfectly
prepared to go to Court to defend herself.

Where do you get this information from truthsoup? It's not something that I have heard before.

I certainly have no problem with someone not being willing to confess to something that they have not done. However, many of the questions the police asked Kate were purely factual e.g. where had she worked? I can't see any reason for not answering - the information about where a doctor worked would be a matter of public record. As for court appearances - the McCanns seem more interested in taking others to court than defending their own reputation. I am just judging here on their behaviour over the last four years, and the news that they will be taking Amaral to court again next February.

by **tigger** 11.10.11 20:46

truthsoup wrote:Tigger - it does not matter one jot the nature of the questions. The law of the Uk and Portugal states that an arguido has the right to remain silent under the watchful eye and direction of their lawyer. Kate had already answered all the questions as a witness because she had not the entitlement of silence. She also asked the Officers to charge her with something as she was not willing to confess to something she had not done. She was perfectly prepared to go to Court to defend herself.

I was answering Lemains post where he simply gives three possible answers: yes, no and silence.
I simply pointed out two things: that answering these questions could have helped the search for Maddie and that the answers need neither have been negative, affirmative or silence. There was the choice of a narrative answer, partial, dont' know and can't remember etc.

I do think US law is not applicable here so it's pointless to discuss it.
Your point that Kate had already answered the questions as a witness, I'm not sure whether she'd answered all of those 48? As a witness the questions would be limited to the event and the statement would have been the one of the 4th of May or soon after?
If she had answered all the questions as a witness and refused to do so under the status of arguido, then it is implied that the witness statement was unreliable and giving the same answers could implicate her in court.
I doubt that all the 48 questions were the same questions she answered as a witness.

by Guest 11.10.11 21:01

tigger wrote:
truthsoup wrote:Tigger - it does not matter one jot the nature of the questions. The law of the Uk and Portugal states that an arguido has the right to remain silent under the watchful eye and direction of their lawyer. Kate had already answered all the questions as a witness because she had not the entitlement of silence. She also asked the Officers to charge her with something as she was not willing to confess to something she had not done. She was perfectly prepared to go to Court to defend herself.

I was answering Lemains post where he simply gives three possible answers: yes, no and silence.
I simply pointed out two things: that answering these questions could have helped the search for Maddie and that the answers need neither have been negative, affirmative or silence. There was the choice of a narrative answer, partial, dont' know and can't remember etc.

I do think US law is not applicable here so it's pointless to discuss it.
Your point that Kate had already answered the questions as a witness, I'm not sure whether she'd answered all of those 48? As a witness the questions would be limited to the event and the statement would have been the one of the 4th of May or soon after?
If she had answered all the questions as a witness and refused to do so under the status of arguido, then it is implied that the witness statement was unreliable and giving the same answers could implicate her in court.
I doubt that all the 48 questions were the same questions she answered as a witness.

Tigger - you're right,. Looking at the two statements made - 6 and 7 Sept. On 6 Sept the statement covers the timeline from 1 May through and up to 10pm on 3 May. The statement started at 3pm and with various comfort and food breaks, ended at 11pm. At the point that statement ends is at 10pm 3 May when Kate entered the apartment. The 48 questions aren't asked in this statement.

The statement 7 Sept starts at 11am and it is from here that Kate doesn't answer questions put to her... and the questions start around what happened after she entered the apartment at 10pm.

So the statements in the pj files do not show that she had already answered these questions.

by truthsoup 11.10.11 21:08

stewie

pj questioning as an arguida on 7th September refers directly back to 6th September questioning as a witness, those questions cannot be recorded.

Question 46……………she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.(ie. as a witness)

Question 45……………she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.(ie. as a witness)

Question 44 ……… she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.(ie. as a witness)

Question 43………….she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.(ie. as a witness)

by Lemain 11.10.11 21:14

Me wrote:If someone is innocent and gives truthful answers to questions posed how can the truth from an innocent party incriminate them to a crime?

There must be hundreds of possible ways. For example: "Have you ever met Mr A?" where Mr A is a known villain. You answer truthfully 'yes'. What you'd like to say (but the questioner might not allow you to) is that the only time you met Mr A was when he served you with an ice cream from his ice cream van. I've kept the example simple and improbable to make the point but in reality there might be stigma or connotations attached to a simple 'yes' or 'no' that the interviewee is not allowed to elaborate on.

It is my contention that it is impossible to do so, by definition. I would appreciate you explaining why you think an innocent party, telling the truth can incriminate themselves becuase i cannot follow your logic.

QED

I would also ask you to provide examples of any other crimes where innocent relatives refused to answer questions put forward by the Police. I can't think of any.

I haven't got the foggiest. I don't attend court hearings. But silence is a fundamental right and an everyday thing in law. Quite commonly, I believe, in the UK one has a lawyer present who advises question by question whether the client should answer or not.

by Guest 11.10.11 21:15

truthsoup wrote:stewie

pj questioning as an arguida on 7th September refers directly back to 6th September questioning as a witness, those questions cannot be recorded.

Question 46……………she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.(ie. as a witness)

Question 45……………she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.(ie. as a witness)

Question 44 ……… she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.(ie. as a witness)

Question 43………….she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.(ie. as a witness)

so 4 out of 48 questions were covered the day before... the other 44 weren't..

by truthsoup 11.10.11 21:20

No, all 44 questions were directly referred to but were not recorded. That was the purpose of arguido status. The pj could record everything. Anything quoted as a witness would not be admissible.

by Me 11.10.11 22:51

truthsoup wrote:Tigger - it does not matter one jot the nature of the questions. The law of the Uk and Portugal states that an arguido has the right to remain silent under the watchful eye and direction of their lawyer. Kate had already answered all the questions as a witness because she had not the entitlement of silence. She also asked the Officers to charge her with something as she was not willing to confess to something she had not done. She was perfectly prepared to go to Court to defend herself.

Not you as well? Once more your true agenda illuminates through in your post, that’s fine but i think we’d all appreciate it if you’d nail your true colours to the mast so we know who we’re dealing with.

We all know that an Arguido has the right of silence. That is not nor has ever been the issue we’ve been discussing.

The issue is why an innocent would choose the right of silence over full and frank disclosure, when such discovery would help the PJ eliminate her from their enquiries and allow them to look at other areas in order to find her missing daughter.

If you are innocent you do not need to use the right of silence, and how could answering the questions honestly, incriminate her if she was innocent?

If she had answered the questions before why could she not answer them again? Why was it such an issue to answer them again?

Can you tell me where and when in her witness statements (in statements given prior to the date of the Arguido statement) she answered all the 48 questions?

If you like let’s limit it to say the following 16:

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?
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?
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?
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?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

Why should she ask the officers to charge her with something? Why not simply answer the questions and allow the officers to get on with the investigation following the uncovered evidence? Why was she worried about being charged, if she was truly innocent?

No one was asking her to confess, the PJ were asking her to answer questions thrown up as a result of disparities between information she and others within her group had given and the physical evidence discovered? Why should this be considered unusual in an investigation? Why would you think the PJ was remiss in attempting to pin down these discrepancies given the statistics regarding family / friend involvement in missing child cases? Surely any police force worth its salt would follow the evidence and statistical probability as a starting point and work outwards from there? That was denied to the PJ by her refusal to co-operate both with these questions and the subsequent pleas to help with a reconstruction.

If she was perfectly prepared to go to court why did she flee back to the UK (and with her husband consider fleeing to Spain / Gibraltar) , despite stating she would stay in Portugal until her daughter was found and why did she assemble a legal team whose speciality was in high profile extradition cases?

Why would she need to put together a team with those skills if she was indeed prepared to go to court?

by Guest 11.10.11 22:58

Me,

We'll never know as Truthsoup has left the building...

by Lemain 11.10.11 23:18

Me wrote:
The issue is why an innocent would choose the right of silence over full and frank disclosure, when such discovery would help the PJ eliminate her from their enquiries and allow them to look at other areas in order to find her missing daughter.

The innocent would probably do what their legal advisors tell them to do. I don't suppose we know for certain whether there was any advice given or if so, what it was, as that would presumably be privileged information between lawyer and client, but it seems very probable. If not probable, at least plausible and I doubt whether we will ever know for certain.

by **tigger** 12.10.11 7:27

Invinoveritas wrote:Quote from Lemain: There is no point in 'discussing' this -- it is fact. See [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Right or wrong, that's how the law has been for centuries and all over the world..

next quote from Lemain:I don't know what the law says in Portugal

Make up your mind and try not to be global in your next answer

tigger wrote:
Have you actually read the 48 questions? It would help the discussion.

Lemain answers:
Yes, of course I've read the questions. The right to silence is enshrined in law. unquote We are not discussing the right to silence, we are discussing why she didn't answer any of the questions and chose to stay silent.

The above quotes illustrate what passes for answers here. Please look up 'non sequitur', it might be in Wikipedia.

Are you also still of the opinion that the child's body was thrown into the Guardiano river, possibly chopped in small pieces or in a cats' cradle made out of chains so that the smaller fish could easily feed of the corpse.

You never answered my last post on that topic. However much I dislike the McCanns I cannot see them doing anything so barbaric.

If you look at Lemain's posts since s/he joined, a very large proportion of them put forward the McCanns' point of view on one issue or another e.g. "Of course Dr Kate McCann had every right under human rights law not to answer a single question - why should she for heaven's sake? - she has the right to silence!" - ADMIN

by Me 12.10.11 8:18

Lemain wrote:
Me wrote:
The issue is why an innocent would choose the right of silence over full and frank disclosure, when such discovery would help the PJ eliminate her from their enquiries and allow them to look at other areas in order to find her missing daughter.

The innocent would probably do what their legal advisors tell them to do. I don't suppose we know for certain whether there was any advice given or if so, what it was, as that would presumably be privileged information between lawyer and client, but it seems very probable. If not probable, at least plausible and I doubt whether we will ever know for certain.

No they wouldn't.

by Lemain 12.10.11 8:40

tigger wrote:

Lemain answers:
Yes, of course I've read the questions. The right to silence is enshrined in law. unquote We are not discussing the right to silence, we are discussing why she didn't answer any of the questions and chose to stay silent.

I don't know which poster actually posted the bit above, in red, but surely we have covered that? In case you missed my reply, I said that by that time the family had legal advisors and it is practically inconceivable that they didn't act on any legal advice from their lawyers. So "why she didn't answer any of the questions and chose to stay silent." is almost certainly because her lawyers advised her not to. As I have also said, the right to silence is enshrined in law and should not be taken as a sign of guilt. I hope that fully answers the bit in red, above?

Are you also still of the opinion that the child's body was thrown into the Guardiano river, possibly chopped in small pieces or in a cats' cradle made out of chains so that the smaller fish could easily feed of the corpse.

If they had to dispose of the body, then from my knowledge of the area, a corpse thrown into the Guardiano river would be very safe. Adding to what I said on this matter earlier, I would think it very likely that disposal in the river would be undetectable as soon as the corpse gets into the river -- the risk would have been getting the body from PdL and down to the river. I don't think it's right to say it's my opinion that this happened but if presented with the challenge of disposal, then that is a very viable possibility and would explain why the family went to Huelva. I spent a week or so in Huelva and around Ayamonte house-hunting just before this disappearance, so I know the area.

You never answered my last post on that topic. However much I dislike the McCanns I cannot see them doing anything so barbaric.

My apologies if I didn't reply to your post. I probably missed it. If there is still an outstanding question, would you post it again, here and mention that this was the post you were upset about? As for being 'barbaric' I don't think it's anywhere near as barbaric for a medical doctor as it is for a layman. All Drs have mortuary and pathology experience during training plus some VERY gory sights in A&E (all Drs have to spend time in A&E). When you think about it, it isn't so barbaric to cut up a dead body -- is it any more barbaric than cremation or leaving the body to rot and be consumed by underground life in a traditional grave?

by Lemain 12.10.11 8:48

Me wrote:No they wouldn't.

I think we'll just have to differ on that. Neither of us has access to the private discussions between the family and their lawyers so we are speculating. In my view, the lawyers would have told them to say nothing and you think they didn't. Fine, let's move on.

by Me 12.10.11 8:51

Lemain wrote:
Me wrote:No they wouldn't.

I think we'll just have to differ on that. Neither of us has access to the private discussions between the family and their lawyers so we are speculating. In my view, the lawyers would have told them to say nothing and you think they didn't. Fine, let's move on.

Nope, not going to move on until you start addressing some of the issues i, and other posters, have brought up in response to your posts. That's how conversation and debate works.

Next question:

Why would lawyers tell them to say nothing, if the McCann's were innocent? What would be the justification for silence if they were innocent?

by Guest 12.10.11 9:30

Having just caught up overnight on this thread, I can see that with Lemain, we seem to be going round and round in circles. Lemain is now taking a short holiday and will no doubt be back with us tomorrow, after he has reconsidered his membership.

by Lady-Heather 12.10.11 9:50

Something that struck me was that in Portugal, as a 'witness', you are obliged to cooperate fully with the police, and can be prosecuted for lying. As it's clear to me (from reading the conflicting statements from the Tapas 9), someone (or everyone!) is lying about a number of things.

First post but long-time reader :)