Sonia Poulton's documentary

dogs don't lie wrote:

pennylane wrote:I am against doorstepping, however, Kate McCann has never explained why she did not answer the 48 questions at such a crucial time, immediately following her child's alleged abduction.

Well said pennylane, totally agree.

regarding the 48 questions, I have never thought this to be an indicator of guilt. If I were an innocent person who was outraged at having been arrested and interrogated in that way, I would be very inclined to put up the shutters too. So for me it says nothing (but other things are more interesting)

[quote="Hellsbells"]

dogs don't lie wrote:

pennylane wrote:I am against doorstepping, however, Kate McCann has never explained why she did not answer the 48 questions at such a crucial time, immediately following her child's alleged abduction.

Well said pennylane, totally agree.

   
regarding the 48 questions, I have never thought this to be an indicator of guilt. If I were an innocent person who was outraged at having been arrested and interrogated in that way, I would be very inclined to put up the shutters too. So for me it says nothing (but other things are more interesting)[/quote

An innocent person would be eager to get themselves eliminated I think. The sooner the police eliminate those closest to the child, the sooner they can concentrate on finding her. In not answering the questions, Kate was holding up the investigation, something an innocent person would never do if they knew their child's life were at stake.

The Portuguese police had to shelve the case because Kate, well all of them, refused to co-operate. When they did so, it was because they were not looking for anyone else. If there was an abductor on the loose, the case would have remained open. Whatever way you look at it, Kate scuppered the investigation by not answering the questions.

Cristobell wrote: [...] Whatever way you look at it, Kate scuppered the investigation by not answering the questions.  

***
Quite right, Cristobel. As Kate herself confirmed in the only question she replied to.

Her words were "if that's what the investigation thinks" which I take to mean that she personally did not consider that she was hindering it.

I'm always reminded of those guilty as sin people who reply "no comment" to every question asked. They are within their rights to do so but what genuinely innocent person would?

I might agree if this had all been in the first few days, but the 48 questions episode was on sept 7, 4 months after Maddie went missing, and K had just been given arguida status. The actions of the PJ suggested guilt. Making no comment on that, but surely in those circumstances an innocent person would be just as likely to refuse to answer as a guilty one

In my view, a parent who knows they've done nothing wrong and is desperate to have their child found as quickly as possible does not refuse to answer a string of fairly mundane questions about the circumstances surrounding her child's disappearance when asked by the police. It would simply not have been possible for Kate to incriminate herself if she had not committed any crime. This is a woman who - at that time - was barely capable of opening her mouth without uttering the phrase 'no stone unturned', so you'd think answering some police questions would represent the tiniest pebble.

So true. I have always believed that the reason Kate was instructed not to answer those questions was because it would be known that her husband would be asked the same ( or similar) ones. He answered them afaik so she didn't in case she contradicted anything he had said. The tiniest slip could have blown their cover so the less said the better. She would be the more obvious one to slip up therefore she stayed silent.

As a mother, I would have answered every question the police put to me and bombarded them with more information than they could ever need, even things that showed me in a bad light, on the slightest possibility that it could help.

I'd also accept being presumed guilty and locked in prison if that is what it would take for the police to continue searching for my child.

I put my child over my own neck. Always have and always will.

Popcorn wrote:In my view, a parent who knows they've done nothing wrong and is desperate to have their child found as quickly as possible does not refuse to answer a string of fairly mundane questions about the circumstances surrounding her child's disappearance when asked by the police. It would simply not have been possible for Kate to incriminate herself if she had not committed any crime. This is a woman who - at that time - was barely capable of opening her mouth without uttering the phrase 'no stone unturned', so you'd think answering some police questions would represent the tiniest pebble.

Totally agree.

Poe wrote:As a mother, I would have answered every question the police put to me and bombarded them with more information than they could ever need, even things that showed me in a bad light, on the slightest possibility that it could help.

I'd also accept being presumed guilty and locked in prison if that is what it would take for the police to continue searching for my child.

I put my child over my own neck. Always have and always will.

Well said!

but I presume none of you have ever been put in a position where you are effectively an official suspect in your daughter's disappearance and one mistaken response might be interpreted as guilt? Had I been innocent in a similar situation I would have been so furious I would have stayed schtum. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of funny things in this case but for me the 48 questions business isn't necessarily one of them

Hellsbells wrote:but I presume none of you have ever been put in a position where you are effectively an official suspect in your daughter's disappearance and one mistaken response might be interpreted as guilt? Had I been innocent in a similar situation I would have been so furious I would have stayed schtum. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of funny things in this case but for me the 48 questions business isn't necessarily one of them

But Gerry, who was also an official suspect, answered the questions we are led to believe, so innocent or guilty, there is a disparity there.
Why ok for one but not the other?

As Kates sister in law told everyone that she expected Kate to be charged with the accidental death of Madeleine, then I strongly suspect Kate thought she would too. Hence no comment on everything.

If she was innocent then she would of answered any questions and more. Regardless of what a solicitor advised.

Imo.

but let's just remind ourselves of some of the questions. These aren't the queries of a police force trying to track down an abductor. They are loaded questions along the lines of "is it true that you beat your wife?" On the basis of the answers to several of these, any police force could attempt to build a case of guilt. Imo, in a similar situation, if you are innocent, it's best to decline the opportunity to respond

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?

chirpyinsect wrote:
But Gerry, who was also an official suspect, answered the questions we are led to believe, so innocent or guilty, there is a disparity there.
Why ok for one but not the other?

Because if you are working to a script which you only agreed on 24 hours before, if one speaks and one remains silent - that becomes the official version.
If both speak they are likely to contradict each other.
In this case they have of course contradicted not only each other but themselves, over and over again.
Remember that G sat behind K and squeezed her shoulder in one of the interviews, a very effective form of communication, just as they do when sitting together on a sofa, and holding hands,
When K is on her own, as in the ludicrous interview at home with the whooshing curtains and demonstration of the door, or when she does that ludicrous squealing "Yeeah you're right, it was a very small window of opportunity"   she revelas far too much.  Gerry's face when she does it when they are together is a picture !

" />


ludicrous  Trade mark by Clarence Mitchell

I have to say those questions above would be the most easiest yes or no answers for an innocent parent.
IMO

dogs don't lie wrote:I have to say those questions above would be the most easiest yes or no answers for an innocent parent.
IMO

***
You took the words right out of my mouth, DDL.
Apart from the question about handing over custody maybe ...

and most parents would presumably say yes to (eg) this one so what was the point of asking it if it wasn't an attempt to incriminate?

40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour

to me, yes it's true that a guilty person might refuse to answer the 48 questions, but it's possible that if an innocent person were to be asked the same questions they might take offence and clam up. Therefore I don't draw any conclusions. It appears I am in a minority of 1 so I'm going to shut up myself now!

Hellsbells wrote:but I presume none of you have ever been put in a position where you are effectively an official suspect in your daughter's disappearance and one mistaken response might be interpreted as guilt? Had I been innocent in a similar situation I would have been so furious I would have stayed schtum. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of funny things in this case but for me the 48 questions business isn't necessarily one of them

Would you really refuse to answer questions and possibly put your daughter's life at risk simply because you are furious that the police would consider you, the most important person in your child's life, a suspect?

ok one more reply to answer Poe then I'm standing down ... if I thought they were trying to frame me in order to wrap the investigation up and therefore stop searching for her (thus giving myself even less hope of finding her), yes of course I would.
we are all different I suppose but that makes absolute sense to me.

Hellsbells wrote:and most parents would presumably say yes to (eg) this one so what was the point of asking it if it wasn't an attempt to incriminate?

40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour

to me, yes it's true that a guilty person might refuse to answer the 48 questions, but it's possible that if an innocent person were to be asked the same questions they might take offence and clam up. Therefore I don't draw any colnclusions. It appears I am in a minority of 1 so I'm going to shut up myself now!

You may not be the only person who thinks this way HB but you are the only person I have heard defend her not answering who otherwise concurs that many things don't ring true about the parents' version of events.
It is an interesting slant but most people( who believe they are guilty of something) cannot get past that she left all 48 questions unanswered. 
When someone is a suspect in a case one would presume the police don't pussyfoot around asking completely innocent questions. It is their job to move the investigation along and if that should involve leaning towards pushing for answers then surely that is the right thing to do.
Personally, I don't think they were robust enough in their questioning but maybe that's just me. The particular questions were not plucked out of thin air. Something was known to the PJ for them to pose those questions in the first place.
I also understand that being an arguida, as she was, meant she could lie, unlike as a witness, ( sorry if I picked that up wrong) so why not just answer to suit herself instead of not answering at all?

From wikipedia:

If a person becomes an arguido, they automatically gain certain rights that a witness or suspect would not have.[7] An arguidohas the right to be accompanied by a lawyer when questioned.[5] The investigating police may ask the arguido more direct accusatory questions (the answers to which would not be admissible in court if possibly self-incriminatory and asked of a non-arguido) but the arguido must be presented with whatever evidence is held against them,[7] and unlike a witness has theright to remain silent,[8] not to answer any question that may incriminate the person, and does not face legal action for lying.[9]

Hellsbells wrote:and most parents would presumably say yes to (eg) this one so what was the point of asking it if it wasn't an attempt to incriminate?

40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour

The incriminating answer to that question is no.

IMO she had decided right at the outset that she would not answer any questions because if you look at the first wave of questions they do not appear to be, in the slightest, out to incriminate her :-

These are the first 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?

How could any of the above questions make her feel as if the police were out to incriminate her - they are not questions calculated to prove guilt.

Great observation, mimi. This would appear to confirm that it was by prior planning that GM would answer and KM stay silent.

Gerry McCann did answer the questions. By not answering hers, Kate McCann could not contradict anything Gerry had said. It was her right as arguido. Kate McCann used it.