Madeleine McCann

Disposable1

splinter65 wrote: »

So middle class people are all psychotic. It’s the preserve of the middle class. Or is it that middle class people that are psychotic get away with it?
A psychotic consultant cardiologist and his psychotic GP wife who live and work amongst us undiscovered.
Your theory is interesting.
And yes parents kill kids and try to cover it up but I’d be obliged if you could give me an example of such a famous case or any case where parents covered it up and got away with it.
For 12 years now and counting.

Buddy, you need to slow your roll a little bit. I've read down through your posts and you seem to be getting upset, and if that's the case perhaps this thread isn't for you.

Normally I wouldn't respond to something like this, but I will address your concerns. First, you don't need to be psychotic to kill, in fact very few psychopaths, which is what I presume you mean, kill. Dr. Robert O'Hare is the pre-eminent person in this field of study, he developed the psychopath test most often used for example. O'Hare shows in his book Snakes in Suits that a large proportion of psychopaths are high level corporate types. Actually, quite a high number of psychopaths become doctors too, and like you pointed out the McCanns are doctors. Statistically, the number of murders committed by psychotics and psychopaths as compared to those by "mentally well" people is insignificant.

Second, I absolutely did not say that middle class people are all psychotic. That is a flagrant misrepresentation of my post. Frankly, I don't know how you could have gotten that so wrong. I didn't use the word psychotic at all. My point is that different groups are treated differently by the law. There's differences between many groups, not just class, for example, there's stark differences in how the law treats men and women. Middle class people are treated far better by the law than lower class people. That's a well documented fact. And seeing as you are fond of asking for evidence to back up claims, well, in this case there's almost too much. There's an orgy of evidence to demonstrate this. There are entire schools of academia dedicated to this. But you could try The New Criminology by Jock Young et. al., which clearly shows the differences in treatment by the law based on class. Another one, by two Irish academics and focusing on Ireland, is Crime and Poverty in Ireland by Prof. Ivana Bacik and Dr. Michael O'Connell, which is a fantastic little book in my opinion and well worth reading if you're in to this sort of thing.

A psychotic consultant cardiologist and his psychotic GP wife who live and work amongst {sic} us undiscovered. This is such a ridiculous statement I don't even know where to begin. Do you have any idea how many doctors kill? There are world famous cases of murderous doctors, nurses too. There's even a term applied to them "angels of death". Dr. Harold Shipman could be the most prolific serial killer of all time, there's no way of knowing how many people he murdered. By the nature of their job, doctors are perfectly placed to both murder, and get away with murder. There's loads of examples that we know about, but more frightening, loads that we will never know about.

And yes parents kill kids and try to cover it up but I'd be obliged if you could give me an example of such a famous case or any case where parents covered it up and got away with it Well I'll oblige you then by saying we're on a thread about the McCanns where this is potentially the case. The other case I mentioned was JonBenet Ramsey. However, this question is an oxymoron. If parents successfully covered up the murder of their child, then how could I possibly know about it? It cannot be a successful cover up if I know about it, so, your question is a contradiction. A better question would have been to give examples of parents who kill their children and attempt to get away with it. And buddy, that would be a long list.

splinter65

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

redshoes15 wrote: »

Why did Kate McCann refuse to answer the following questions when they were put to her at interview? I really don’t see the sense in it.


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?

But you know the answer. You’ve been told over and over. None of these questions were constructed to aid in the search for Maddie. The questions were constructed to entrap Kate McCann. But you know that. The Portuguese were only persuing one line of enquiry. They only had one theory. That the McCanns killed their child and hid the body. The timeline of the incident didn’t fit their theory (it still doesn’t, none of you on this thread have even attempted even vaguely to explain how the McCanns disposed of their daughter, not that this stops you from spouting your rubbish) so they needed the McCanns to trip themselves up. Kate’s solicitor quite rightly advised her to say nothing.
Incidentally can you indicate which question that she didn’t answer could have possibly helped the search for Maddie?

limnam

splinter65 wrote: »

But you know the answer. You’ve been told over and over. None of these questions were constructed to aid in the search for Maddie. The questions were constructed to entrap Kate McCann. But you know that. The Portuguese were only persuing one line of enquiry. They only had one theory. That the McCanns killed their child and hid the body. The timeline of the incident didn’t fit their theory (it still doesn’t, none of you on this thread have even attempted even vaguely to explain how the McCanns disposed of their daughter, not that this stops you from spouting your rubbish) so they needed the McCanns to trip themselves up. Kate’s solicitor quite rightly advised her to say nothing.
Incidentally can you indicate which question that she didn’t answer could have possibly helped the search for Maddie?

That's hilarious.


Ignore anything against the McCanns and then assume the whole Portuguese investigation team was trying entrap them....


Wow.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

redshoes15 wrote: »

If the police, in the middle of an investigation into my daughters disappearance, wanted to ask me any questions I had previously answered I would absolutely answer them fully and with gusto regardless of any legal advice.

Good for you, and more power to you.
Kate McCann decided to listen to legal professionals on the matter, seeing as she’s the one who’s daughter disappeared and was actually in the situation.
Her refusal to answer didn’t hinder any investigation, seeing as she had already answered the questions, several times over.

redshoes15

splinter65 wrote: »

But you know the answer. You’ve been told over and over. None of these questions were constructed to aid in the search for Maddie. The questions were constructed to entrap Kate McCann. But you know that. The Portuguese were only persuing one line of enquiry. They only had one theory. That the McCanns killed their child and hid the body. The timeline of the incident didn’t fit their theory (it still doesn’t, none of you on this thread have even attempted even vaguely to explain how the McCanns disposed of their daughter, not that this stops you from spouting your rubbish) so they needed the McCanns to trip themselves up. Kate’s solicitor quite rightly advised her to say nothing.
Incidentally can you indicate which question that she didn’t answer could have possibly helped the search for Maddie?

Possibly any between 1-49 at a guess. If the investigation team think they are appropriate, you answer them not stonewall them to protect yourself from investigation (rightly or wrongly).

I’m done communicating with you, as I’ve said previously, the tone of your posts are really off putting.

splinter65

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Disposable1 wrote: »

Buddy, you need to slow your roll a little bit. I've read down through your posts and you seem to be getting upset, and if that's the case perhaps this thread isn't for you.

Normally I wouldn't respond to something like this, but I will address your concerns. First, you don't need to be psychotic to kill, in fact very few psychopaths, which is what I presume you mean, kill. Dr. Robert O'Hare is the pre-eminent person in this field of study, he developed the psychopath test most often used for example. O'Hare shows in his book Snakes in Suits that a large proportion of psychopaths are high level corporate types. Actually, quite a high number of psychopaths become doctors too, and like you pointed out the McCanns are doctors. Statistically, the number of murders committed by psychotics and psychopaths as compared to those by "mentally well" people is insignificant.

Second, I absolutely did not say that middle class people are all psychotic. That is a flagrant misrepresentation of my post. Frankly, I don't know how you could have gotten that so wrong. I didn't use the word psychotic at all. My point is that different groups are treated differently by the law. There's differences between many groups, not just class, for example, there's stark differences in how the law treats men and women. Middle class people are treated far better by the law than lower class people. That's a well documented fact. And seeing as you are fond of asking for evidence to back up claims, well, in this case there's almost too much. There's an orgy of evidence to demonstrate this. There are entire schools of academia dedicated to this. But you could try The New Criminology by Jock Young et. al., which clearly shows the differences in treatment by the law based on class. Another one, by two Irish academics and focusing on Ireland, is Crime and Poverty in Ireland by Prof. Ivana Bacik and Dr. Michael O'Connell, which is a fantastic little book in my opinion and well worth reading if you're in to this sort of thing.

A psychotic consultant cardiologist and his psychotic GP wife who live and work amongst {sic} us undiscovered. This is such a ridiculous statement I don't even know where to begin. Do you have any idea how many doctors kill? There are world famous cases of murderous doctors, nurses too. There's even a term applied to them "angels of death". Dr. Harold Shipman could be the most prolific serial killer of all time, there's no way of knowing how many people he murdered. By the nature of their job, doctors are perfectly placed to both murder, and get away with murder. There's loads of examples that we know about, but more frightening, loads that we will never know about.

And yes parents kill kids and try to cover it up but I'd be obliged if you could give me an example of such a famous case or any case where parents covered it up and got away with it Well I'll oblige you then by saying we're on a thread about the McCanns where this is potentially the case. The other case I mentioned was JonBenet Ramsey. However, this question is an oxymoron. If parents successfully covered up the murder of their child, then how could I possibly know about it? It cannot be a successful cover up if I know about it, so, your question is a contradiction. A better question would have been to give examples of parents who kill their children and attempt to get away with it. And buddy, that would be a long list.

Do the American cops know that you’ve solved the JonBenet Ramsey case?
Who else have the McCanns murdered?
You are comparing them with some very prolific serial killers so when should we expect the next suspicious death, it’s been 12 years now...

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

redshoes15 wrote: »

Possibly any between 1-49 at a guess. If the investigation team think they are appropriate, you answer them not stonewall them to protect yourself from investigation (rightly or wrongly).

I’m done communicating with you, as I’ve said previously, the tone of your posts are really off putting.

She answered them.
Several times over.
I’m sure the voluntary interviews were recorded so if there was any crucial information needed urgently from those questions, they could have looked over them.
They were not questioning Kate with the intention of finding Madelein when she was questioned as an arguido. They had other motives.

redshoes15

SusieBlue wrote: »

Good for you, and more power to you.
Kate McCann decided to listen to legal professionals on the matter, seeing as she’s the one who’s daughter disappeared and was actually in the situation.
Her refusal to answer didn’t hinder any investigation, seeing as she had already answered the questions, several times over.

I’m not looking for your praise whether sarcastic or genuine. She may not have hindered but she certainly didn’t help. Like I said, I’d answer one question a thousand times if the investigation team thought it was relevant. I certainly wouldn’t be on a plane on a one way ticket after refusing almost 50 questions. That’s where they lost the public and firmly pointed fingers at themselves (rightly or wrongly)

limnam

SusieBlue wrote: »

They had other motives.

What were they?


Lock up innocent parents ?


Odd police force...

Spanish Eyes

I really hope mods don't think I am backseat moderating or anything. I am not.

But if things get heated (and seems to me that there are some who do want the thread closed stat), maybe close things down for a day for review or something to let the heat go out of it for a while. Then rinse and repeat!

It is a fascinating mystery isn't it.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

redshoes15 wrote: »

I’m not looking for your praise whether sarcastic or genuine. She may not have hindered but she certainly didn’t help. Like I said, I’d answer one question a thousand times if the investigation team thought it was relevant. I certainly wouldn’t be on a plane on a one way ticket after refusing almost 50 questions. That’s where they lost the public and firmly pointed fingers at themselves (rightly or wrongly)

She had already answered all the questions. Please explain how answering them again would have helped when the Portuguese police already had ALL the answers to ALL the questions on file?
She was legally advised not to answer.
Anyone who ignores legal advice in such a situation is an idiot.
It’s not like she couldn’t be arsed cause she was off getting her nails done drinking margaritas or something.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

What were they?


Lock up innocent parents ?


Odd police force...

I don’t know, but it certainly couldn’t have been out of interest in finding the child seeing as Kate had already answered all the questions.

Disposable1

splinter65 wrote: »

Do the American cops know that you’ve solved the JonBenet Ramsey case?
Who else have the McCanns murdered?
You are comparing them with some very prolific serial killers so when should we expect the next suspicious death, it’s been 12 years now...

Buddy, my post wasn't about the McCanns at all, it was about you and your behaviour. This is the second time you have completely misunderstood, or misrepresented what I have said. And I feel like you're doing it in a patronising way. Regardless, I'm in a position where somebody is either misunderstanding my meaning or misrepresenting my meaning, in either case, why would I continue to engage with them? It's pointless.

fin12

Accident happened, parents hid body

retro:electro wrote: »

Toxicology tests on the twins showed they were never given any sedatives at any stage.
That's the dodgiest thing about this theory, the idea that Kate having worked in anaesthesiology means she probably not only drugged her kids, but used some unspecified-but-scary, surgical grade anaesthetic drug to do it. And furthermore, that she screwed it up and killed one of them, which would not only make her a killer but a complete idiot.

I don’t think a fatal sedative was administered , more than likely wasn’t strong enough and Madeline got out of bed and fell, fatally injuring herself, but if tested on discovering Madeline the sedative would be present in her blood.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

i have to agree about the questions. the point of asking repeatidly is to catch you out. let something slip or say something you didnt mean to .

if your story is true you shouldnt be caught out on anything.

but the other side is why wouldnt you as=nswer and let them get on with looking for maddie.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

fin12 wrote: »

I don’t think a fatal sedative was administered , more than likely wasn’t strong enough and Madeline got out of bed and fell, fatally injuring herself, but if tested on discovering Madeline the sedative would be present in her blood.

i dont fully buy into the seditive theory but if i was i would theorise that the night before they didnt give enough and maddie woke up and cried out for the parent so the next night thye uped it a bit and it was too much

redshoes15

SusieBlue wrote: »

She had already answered all the questions. Please explain how answering them again would have helped when the Portuguese police already had ALL the answers to ALL the questions on file?
She was legally advised not to answer.
Anyone who ignores legal advice in such a situation is an idiot.
It’s not like she couldn’t be arsed cause she was off getting her nails done drinking margaritas or something.

How would answering them hinder the investigation? I’d question any legal representative who requested I didn’t answer. Nothing to hide? Answer the questions.

Charmeleon

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don’t know, but it certainly couldn’t have been out of interest in finding the child seeing as Kate had already answered all the questions.

As far as I know a lot of the questions arose from the seizure of her diary and statements made by other witnesses. They hadn’t been questioned on much of this before. The investigation would grind to a halt unless these leads and inconsistencies are cleared up. They were warned the investigation would cease unless they both co-operated fully. It eventually did get shelved when they refused to take part in a reconstruction.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

How did the sedative theory even grow legs? There is literally no evidence of it at all, whatsoever. Is it because they’re doctors people think they’re carrying around a magic bag full of sedatives ready to dose their children at any stage?

gozunda

Something Else

SusieBlue wrote: »

She had already answered all the questions. Please explain how answering them again would have helped when the Portuguese police already had ALL the answers to ALL the questions on file?
She was legally advised not to answer.
Anyone who ignores legal advice in such a situation is an idiot.
It’s not like she couldn’t be arsed cause she was off getting her nails done drinking margaritas or something.

So you are saying the Portugese police were asking questions just for laughs then? Odd assumption tbh. Why would any police investigation do so if they did not have reasonsble cause?

Plus do you have the definitive link to the full list of actual questions asked by the police previously which cover each one of the above additional questions listed.

Imo any reasonable parent would do all they could to help police in their investigations of a missing child.

Strange that the parents refused to do so and fled the country ...

Steve F

retro:electro wrote: »

How did the sedative theory even grow legs? There is literally no evidence of it at all, whatsoever. Is it because they’re doctors people think they’re carrying around a magic bag full of sedatives ready to dose their children at any stage?

How did the abduction theory grow legs?There's no evidence there either.It's just more clouding of the whole event

gozunda

Something Else

Steve F wrote: »

How did the abduction theory grow legs?There's no evidence there either.It's just more clouding of the whole event

In the absence of any definitive outcome - all which remain are theories ...

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Steve F wrote: »

How did the abduction theory grow legs?There's no evidence there either.It's just more clouding of the whole event

I wonder is their anything in their magic bag to cure internet sleuths of their paranoia

Steve F

gozunda wrote: »

In tte absence of any definitive outcome - all which remain are theories ...

True

fin12

Accident happened, parents hid body

Disposable1 wrote: »

Buddy, my post wasn't about the McCanns at all, it was about you and your behaviour. This is the second time you have completely misunderstood, or misrepresented what I have said. And I feel like you're doing it in a patronising way. Regardless, I'm in a position where somebody is either misunderstanding my meaning or misrepresenting my meaning, in either case, why would I continue to engage with them? It's pointless.

It’s a common accurance with that poster.

limnam

retro:electro wrote: »

I wonder is their anything in their magic bag to cure internet sleuths of their paranoia

Are you referring to the people who think the whole Portuguese police force and many independent external professionals were out to setup the McCanns?

Steve F

retro:electro wrote: »

I wonder is their anything in their magic bag to cure internet sleuths of their paranoia

Ultimately unless there is a major breakthrough then we will go around in circles forever

Charmeleon

retro:electro wrote: »

How did the sedative theory even grow legs? There is literally no evidence of it at all, whatsoever. Is it because they’re doctors people think they’re carrying around a magic bag full of sedatives ready to dose their children at any stage?

Gerry McCann suggested the twins might have been drugged in a TV documentary, since they never woke in all the commotion and after being moved to another apartment. Either his mother or Kate’s mother wondered the same thing while talking to a reporter. I think that was the first mention of sedatives being used on the children.

Charmeleon

SusieBlue wrote: »

She had already answered all the questions. Please explain how answering them again would have helped when the Portuguese police already had ALL the answers to ALL the questions on file?
She was legally advised not to answer.
Anyone who ignores legal advice in such a situation is an idiot.
It’s not like she couldn’t be arsed cause she was off getting her nails done drinking margaritas or something.

As far as I know witnesses aren’t entitled to legal representation during questioning and I don’t think any solicitors were there, only a relative. She was still a witness at the time the questions were asked. They only made her a suspect after a second, shorter interview had finished.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

Are you referring to the people who think the whole Portuguese police force and many independent external professionals were out to setup the McCanns?

I’m referring to people here who hypothesise and speculate about a drugging/murder/cover up without any actual proof or any kind of semblance of rationality in their posts. Finger pointing and accusations are a free for all, evidence be damned.

Most of this speculation and waffle tends to fall by the wayside when you try and get the conspiracy people to tell you what they think the timeline of events could have been, and particularly the complicated hijinks that would have had to have ensued if Madeleine's body was to be hidden from police searches, with everyone who could have been involved under almost constant scrutiny by the world’s media.

Thomyokk

It looked like the parents were already mourning the loss of their child when the story broke.

A tragedy, but it seemed like she had died already.

limnam

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m referring to people here who hypothesise and speculate about a drugging/murder/cover up without any actual proof or any kind of semblance of rationality in their posts. Finger pointing and accusations are a free for all, evidence be damned.

Most of this speculation and waffle tends to fall by the wayside when you try and get the conspiracy people to tell you what they think the timeline of events could have been, and particularly the complicated hijinks that would have had to have ensued if Madeleine's body was to be hidden from police searches, with everyone who could have been involved under almost constant scrutiny by the world’s media.

Ok so if they hypotheise about an abduction with the same lack of evidence that's ok


And think that the Portuguese police were out for entrapment etc


Balanced viewpoint.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Evidence of an abduction= missing kid

Evidence of a murder/foul play=

limnam

retro:electro wrote: »

Evidence of an abduction= missing kid

Evidence of a murder=

We have a "missing kid"


There's no evidence she was abducted.....


You appreciate the difference......right?

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

We have a "missing kid"


There's no evidence she was abducted.....


You appreciate the difference......right?

Your posts are genuinely giving me a pain in my face at this stage.

shamrock55

Something Else

What was the story about the police dogs getting a scent of a body from the boot of their rented car

Charmeleon

retro:electro wrote: »

Evidence of an abduction= missing kid

Evidence of a murder/foul play=

So, if you are serious, every child that has disappeared has been abducted unless proved otherwise? Not a very safe world for children if the default is to suspect unknown strangers and ignore people closer to the child.

limnam

retro:electro wrote: »

Your posts are genuinely giving me a pain in my face at this stage.

Thats understandable.


That goes back to my earlier points regarding the documentary

the_pen_turner

Something Else

is there any list of actual 100% proven facts.
all we know is that the mccanns were at the resturant at the time they claimed maddie was abducted
they reported maddie abducted at x time.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Timeline of events, anyone?

Disposable1

fin12 wrote: »

It’s a common accurance with that poster.

Thanks for saying that buddy. I genuinely don’t think the poster is doing it out of badness though, I think they’re too passionate so aren’t taking the time to read properly and then think

MonkieSocks

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Kate McCann was questioned as a witness for 8 hours on 6th September, 2007.

As a witness, she had no right to refuse to answer any questions.


Kate McCann was questioned as a Arguido on 7th September, 2007.

On the advice of her lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, Kate McCann refused to answer all questions once she was made arguido.

Spanish Eyes

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Kate McCann was questioned as a witness for 8 hours on 6th September, 2007.

As a witness, she had no right to refuse to answer any questions.


Kate McCann was questioned as a Arguido on 7th September, 2007.

On the advice of her lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, Kate McCann refused to answer all questions once she was made arguido.

And then the Mcs castigated the Portuguese Police for their incompetence. Right. And that played right into the hands of the tabloid readers back home.

limnam

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Kate McCann was questioned as a witness for 8 hours on 6th September, 2007.

As a witness, she had no right to refuse to answer any questions.


Kate McCann was questioned as a Arguido on 7th September, 2007.

On the advice of her lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, Kate McCann refused to answer all questions once she was made arguido.

Do you have a link to what questions were asked as a witness and the answers?


Was that released as part of the files?

dubrov

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Kate McCann was questioned as a witness for 8 hours on 6th September, 2007.

As a witness, she had no right to refuse to answer any questions.


Kate McCann was questioned as a Arguido on 7th September, 2007.

On the advice of her lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, Kate McCann refused to answer all questions once she was made arguido.

You are wasting your time.
People will pick and choose evidence to suit their narrative.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Charmeleon wrote: »

So, if you are serious, every child that has disappeared has been abducted unless proved otherwise? Not a very safe world for children if the default is to suspect unknown strangers and ignore people closer to the child.

But they weren’t ignored? They were made suspects and then subsequently cleared because of a lack of evidence

limnam

dubrov wrote: »

You are wasting your time.
People will pick and choose evidence to suit their narrative.

What does that "evidence" prove?

MonkieSocks

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

Do you have a link to what questions were asked as a witness and the answers?


Was that released as part of the files?

Here is the link



Arguido

dubrov

limnam wrote: »

What does that "evidence" prove?

There isn't really evidence of anything.
The parents deserve the benefit of the doubt unless evidence proves otherwise

limnam

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Here is the link



Arguido

Thats the set she didn't answer?


I'm referring to what was asked as a witnessed that she was asked and answered or did i miss something on the link