Kate McCann “How Do You Prove Innocence?”

Gerry McCann “It Was Like Dining In Your Backgarden”

The 48 questions that remained unanswered

Posted by on Aug 3rd, 2008 and filed under Correio da Manhã, Featured Stories. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Source: Correio da Manhã, 03.08.2008, paper edition. Translation by Astro

Investigation – What the PJ inspectors wanted to know

When she became an arguida, Kate stopped talking to the inspectors

September 7, 2007. Kate McCann entered the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão in the morning and the questioning extended into the evening. She was heard as a witness, but the tension in the air was evident. For the first time, people were concentrated at the PJ building’s door and murmured words of mistrust regarding the couple.

On that day, CM had reported that the dogs had detected cadaver odour on Maddie’s mother’s clothes. A piece of evidence that the authorities intended to use as a trump, during a questioning that only changed course on the next day, after the PJ failed to see their doubts clarified.

Kate began by replying all the questions, but when she was made an arguida, she stopped talking. She went silent, in the company of her lawyer, and accepted all the insinuations in a provocative manner. Less than 48 hours later, Kate and Gerry travel to England with the twins, leaving the investigation into the disappearance of their daughter, who meanwhile had become four, behind.

They later guaranteed that they would return if necessary – which they never did, although they were never formally requested to return – and they are no longer arguidos for the suspected involvement in concealing the child’s body. Today, CM reveals the 48 questions that Kate did not want to answer during the interrogation and which reflect the investigators’ doubts. More than a year after Maddie disappeared, many of these questions remain unanswered.

Jeers for the McCann couple

The day that Kate and Gerry went to the PJ’s offices in Portimão marked a turnaround in the relationship between the local people and the couple: the curious bystanders that spent the day on the street jeered at Maddie’s mother and father, mainly criticizing the “absence of visible suffering” from Kate. The foreign press also attended in great numbers.

The Judiciária’s 48 questions that Kate did not answer

  1. On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when you entered the apartment, what did you see, what did you do, where did you search, what did you handle?
  2. Did you search in the couple’s bedroom’s closet? (said she would not reply)
  3. (Two photographs of her bedroom’s closet are exhibited) Can you describe its contents?
  4. Why are the curtains in front of the side window, behind the sofa (photograph is exhibited) ruffled? Did someone pass behind that sofa?
  5. How long did the search that you made in the apartment after detecting the disappearance of your daughter Madeleine take?
  6. Why did you say straight away that Madeleine had been abducted?
  7. Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins alone at home while you went to the Tapas to raise the alarm? Even because the supposed abductor could still be inside 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 at a later point in time?
  9. When you raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly did you say and what were the words?
  10. What happened after you raised the alarm at the Tapas?
  11. Why did you do to warn your friends instead of calling out from the balcony?
  12. Who contacted the authorities?
  13. Who participated in the searches?
  14. Did anyone outside of the group learn about Maddie’s disappearance during the following minutes?
  15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
  16. What does the expression “we let her down” mean?
  17. Did Jane mention to you that she had see a man with a child that night?
  18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was called?
  19. During the searches, and already with the police present, in what locations was Maddie searched for, how and in what manner?
  20. Why didn’t the twins wake up during that search, or when they went to the upper floor?
  21. Who did you call after the facts?
  22. Did you call SKY News?
  23. Did you know about the danger of calling the media, because that could influence the abductor?
  24. Did you request the presence of a priest?
  25. How was Madeleine’s face publicized, with a photograph, or other media?
  26. Is it true that during the search you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
  27. How did you behave that evening?
  28. Did you manage to sleep?
  29. Before the trip to Portugal, did you comment on a bad feeling or a bad premonition?
  30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour?
  31. Did Maddie suffer of any disease or did she take any kind of medication?
  32. What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings?
  33. What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings, her friends and her colleagues at school?
  34. Concerning your professional life, in how many and in which hospitals have you worked?
  35. What is your medical specialty?
  36. Did you work by shifts, in emergency rooms or in other departments?
  37. Did you work on a daily basis?
  38. Did you stop working at a certain point in time? Why?
  39. Do your twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, are they unruly and does that upset you?
  40. Is it true that at certain times you were desperate over your children’s attitude and that left you were upset?
  41. Is it true that in England you considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative?
  42. In England, did you give your children medication? What type of medication?
  43. Within the process, you were shown films of cynotechnical inspection of forensic character, where the dogs can be seen marking indications of human cadaver odour and equally human blood traces, and only of human origin, as well as all the comments that were made by the responsible expert. After the visualization, and after cadaver odour was signaled in your bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, you said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said?
  44. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood behind the sofa by the detection dog
  45. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of cadaver odour in the boot of the vehicle that you rented a month after the disappearance?
  46. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood in the boot of the vehicle?
  47. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, upon being confronted with the result of the collection of Maddie’s DNA, which was analysed by a British lab, behind the sofa and inside the vehicle’s boot?
  48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in the disappearance of your daughter?

The question that she answered

Are you aware of the fact that by not answering these questions you may compromise the investigation, which is trying to find out what happened to your daughter? She said “yes, if the investigation thinks so.”

Process becomes public tomorrow

From tomorrow onwards, the entire investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine will be made available to the arguidos, to the witnesses, to the lawyers and also to the journalists, because it is a case of manifest public interest.

The process, which was archived on the 21st of July, will also be available to the general public, a situation that will allow for an authentic scrutiny of the work that was developed by the Polícia Judiciária. This decision, which came as a surprise due to the fact that the case involves a child, was only announced at this point in time, after the Portuguese lawyers for the McCann family, Carlos Pinto de Abreu and Rogério Alves, requested the Portimão Court for priority in the access to the process.

Last Wednesday, the Court had requested the interested parties that had already asked for the consultation of the process to leave a CD at the secretary’s office, given the fact that the process will be supplied in a digital format.

The archiving of the investigation into the little girl’s disappearance, which happened on the 3rd of May 2007, in the Algarve, precipitated the lifting of the judicial secrecy, which had been extended precisely until the month of August.

358 Responses to “The 48 questions that remained unanswered”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] Show All

  1. 351
    Chris Says:

    I like the conclusions :-

    “Amaral and his many supporters completely reject the notion that Madeleine was abducted – and, indeed, there is no hard evidence to support the theory.

    In using the term ‘abduction’ or ‘kidnapping’ of Madeleine McCann, the mainstream media rarely qualify this assertion with words such as ‘alleged,’ ‘possible’ or ‘suspected.’

    Nor were such words used when Redwood said last week: “The Metropolitan Police Service continues to offer a reward of up to £20,000 for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3rd, 2007.”

    Twenty thousand pounds! It’s a far cry from the £2.5 million reward offered within days of Madeleine’s disappearance, and a drop in the ocean compared to the millions Kate and Gerry have since received in donations, on top of the amount the Met has spent so far in its fruitless search.”

    Clearly the MET are not looking in the right place………….

  2. 352
    Chris Says:

    Gi

    Like to pick up on one point you raised:-

    ” Hi Chris. I’d just like to ask you about another theory I’d been thinking of, if you can set aside thoughts of an accident for a moment. I know you’ve had some reckoning that Madeleine wasn’t there on the 3rd May, or at least evening of that date.”

    Exactly, who says she was alive on the evening of the 3rd May? If she was not then their was ample time to plan and dispose of the body. It would also explain the strange/stupid remark ‘she has been abducted’.

  3. 353
    G1 Says:

    You’ve been quiet about the shadow analysis shared of the last photo. To me this looks like real, hard evidence of something. (However there will always be the potential angle for it to be said that the photo was adapted and planted on the McCanns. Was this the one in the camera that had made it back to the UK and Gerry had to go fish out, supposedly, when he says his credit card was stolen?)

  4. 354
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    Not really looked at this

    Gi
    “You’ve been quiet about the shadow analysis shared of the last photo. To me this looks like real, hard evidence of something.”

    I’ve not really seen the significance of this except it looks like it has been ‘brushed’. My question would be where was the arm/hand? In an improper place? If not why brush it out?

  5. 355
    G1 Says:

    There’s too much for me to say about that at the moment. I mean I wouldn’t know where to start, but also feel silly because the photo suddenly seems to make the whole situation like something from an involved thriller. How can you edit such important evidence to remove a shadow of a body part? And why on earth would it be done?

    The missing arm / elbow shadow in the purported last photo os SO important, hugely important. (Indeed it is also containing whole conspiracy theory possibilities in itself, which I wouldn’t normally pay attention to. But that I have to here. I can’t just throw them away as silly or pointless because there will be no answer to be found, however much my normal instinct is to. Because the blatancy of such important evidence having been doctored or fabricated in a photo editing program won’t allow anything that could seriously relate to it to be easily dismissed.)

  6. 356
    G1 Says:

    Oh, Chris, so you think the missing arm or elbow shadow was because it had to be removed for some offending reason, but the situation was real and photographed otherwise.

    I was coming from the point of view of the large number of people, some photo specialists (while also other photo specialists disagreed), saying the last photo is a cut and paste kind of job.

    So, I’d read that for years, it was suggested by so many people. But, though I always though the photo was really strange looking, I had to conclude it could easily be genuine because I couldn’t pin down anything. Until I saw the simple photo shadow analysis I linked to above.

    My simple assumption was, if the shadow should be there – HAS to be there – in a normal photo, but is missing, the photo has been concocted somehow. Other fake shadows would be likely to be added then, “drawn”, for the alleged time of day there. But one was just omitted. Because of the missing shadow, you can suggest – all of the persons in the photo were pasted in to that pool background, or one or some of them.

    A missing shadow can suggest so much when the photo seems to be the real evidence of something. The photo has been taken as evidence that the young girl was alive, present, normal or happy and hadn’t suffered evident bodily harm on the afternoon of the 3rd, hours before the reported missing time.

  7. 357
    G1 Says:

    Chris, so you thought the missing arm or elbow shadow was because it had to be removed for some offending reason, but the situation was real and photographed otherwise.

    I was coming from the point of view of the large number of people, some photo specialists (while also other photo specialists disagreed), saying the last photo is a cut and paste kind of job.

    So, I’d read that for years, it was suggested by so many people. But, though I always though the photo was really strange looking, I had to conclude it could easily be genuine because I couldn’t pin down anything. Until I saw the simple photo shadow analysis I linked to above.

    My simple assumption was, if the shadow should be there – MUST be there – in a normal photo, but is missing, the photo has been concocted somehow. Other fake shadows would be likely to be added then, “drawn”, for the alleged time of day there. But one was just omitted. Because of the missing shadow, you can suggest – all of the persons in the photo were pasted in to that pool background, or one or some of them.

    A missing shadow can suggest so much when the photo seems to be the real evidence of something. The photo has been taken as evidence that the young girl was alive, present, normal or happy and hadn’t suffered evident bodily harm on the afternoon of the 3rd, hours before the reported missing time.

  8. 358
    G1 Says:

    Sorry for repeated commenting. The first didn’t seem to be published for a while.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] Show All

Leave a Reply

*

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.

Switch to our mobile site