The 48 questions that remained unanswered

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.

411 Responses to “The 48 questions that remained unanswered”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] Show All

  1. 401
    Cheis Says:

    Hi Gi

    Looks like my post before yours of 9th December has gone missing.

    The McCann mafia?

  2. 402
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi,

    I think the moderation team don’t like the word M.f..

    In other words the truth.

    I ask a favour if you have my missing post please can you submit it? You will meed to take out the word M…

    btw where is all your evidence? All I see is just points in one direction.


    Site Admin: Not sure what you mean about the moderation team not liking the word M.f. Nothing is censored in here unless it’s spam or a truly idiotic comment. Occasionally the spam filter may deem a good comment to be spam but as we get hundreds of spam messages daily it’s not practical to check for the odd message that may not get through. Retry if you feel the comment hasn’t been posted :)

  3. 403
    G1 Says:

    “‘ no break in, no break out no new DNA. Has to be a keyholder’.”

    Chris – I just have no idea why you bother re-quoting the article I made, when you’re either not willing or just totally unable to consider the points I made and what they mean.

    The link you re-quoted (I don’t know why):

    1. That article shows that, as well as another time reported some time before May 2007, someone stole keys to The Ocean Club apparment.

    2. As I’ve said, the two prominent members of your Tapas 9 group admit they believe they left both doors unlocked.

    Yet you, again, somehow – somehow (I don’t quite know how, myself) respond to these points with – I’ll quote you again for I’m utterly bewildered by your “logic” processes:

    “‘ no break in, no break out no new DNA. Has to be a keyholder’.”

    I don’t even think you’ve been reading anything published about this case one bit. If you had you would see that there is much unidentified DNA from the appartment.

    Chris, it seems your two theories – 1. no-one could have broken in and 2. no unidentified DNA are pieces of nonsense just imagined in your mind.

    There are scores of newspaper articles reporting these little details. What’s going on at Chris land? :o

    I’ve no doubt some people could find other ways of trying to further your theory that the child died because of neglect and the parents covered it up. But, somehow, you choose to use the exact parts refuted by the most published accounts in the press, recently.

    And you seem to base everything on, either that doctors “Do……” and the McCanns don’t, or that the McCanns “Do…..” but other doctors don’t. I can’t work out a single bit of sense either way I try to see what it means.

    And what is this:

    “I think the moderation team don’t like the word M.f..”?

    You OK?

  4. 404
    G1 Says:

    POST 395, Chris, you seem to think there is good reason to quote Pat Brown:

    “2) I absolutely believe Maddie disappeared on May 3rd and not anytime earlier; the crime scene and what appears to be a cover-up hardly represents any kind of intelligent staging one might expect if there were more time to consider a better plan.”

    then POST 399 and you seem to have discarded that theory which was good enough to be published and read, and which I read thinking this was what you believed now, seriously considering it. But it’s all gone a few posts later, again, back to:

    “Questions when Maddy was last seen alive and suggests Tuesday not Thursday. Problem is the Tapas 9 have a secrecy pact (I’ll find a link) so you won’t find out from them – why?”

    I’m not sure that it matters to you which angle you take about your theories. Does it? Again, I’m wondering if you just seem to have feelings, which to me doesn’t seem to be enough for adults making serious theories. OK, if you think there is something worth talking about in the very sad situation where this high profile couple have lost their daughter can seem very suspicious somehow (many have thought so) – but you’re not really giving me any reasons why.

    Surely you’d agree, if you thought about it, it’s good, solid reasons that will stand up that would only make sense?

    So, if I come now from the perspective that anyone who was not there does not know what happened to Madeleine McCann, I would need solid reasons to believe that the little girl died in the appartment and the parents covered this up. You’re not offering any of those, as far as I can see, and you seem not to care about solid reasons.

  5. 405
    Chris Says:

    Not as reported in the British Press – I prefer this version:-

    Posted on 23 January 2015.

    Kate and Gerry McCann seemed to suffer a setback this week in suing former detective Gonçalo Amaral over his controversial book about the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.

    In Lisbon’s Palace of Justice, Judge Maria Emília Melo e Castro handed lawyers in the civil action a written statement evaluating as proven or not a list of 37 points on which she intends to base her verdict. Neither the McCanns nor Amaral were present.

    Amaral supporters said afterwards that the statement made them feel cautiously optimistic.

    The McCanns are seeking €1.2 million in damages for the severe distress they say has been caused to them by the book, A Verdade da Mentira (‘The Truth of the Lie’), and a subsequent documentary.
    The judge ruled that while statements in the book may have psychologically affected the McCanns, the anguish suffered by the couple over their missing daughter preceded the book’s publication rather than being a consequence of it.

    She pointed out that the book was very largely based on facts in police files. While Amaral put forward the theory that the McCanns had hidden Madeleine’s body and fabricated a story about her abduction, he did not say they had killed their daughter, the judge said.

    In personal statements to the court last July, both Kate and Gerry McCann spoke not only of the great harm they believed had been caused to their family by allegations in the book, but that the allegations had hampered the search for Madeleine.

    The judge said Wednesday it had not been proved that the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance because of the book’s contents.

    Amaral insisted last year that the lawfulness of his book was “indisputable” because of a decision of the Appellate Court in Lisbon that overturned an earlier ruling banning it.

    The McCanns now have time to seek and present authorization from the British High Court to formally represent their daughter in this case. Madeleine was made a ward of court at the instigation of her parents in April 2008. This could have a bearing on the amount of any compensation eventually awarded.

    This long-running case in Lisbon has been suspended several times over the past five years, including in January 2013 when the court allowed the two sides to try to reach a private settlement. No agreement was reached.

    No date has been set for a verdict but it is thought to be more than two months away. Even when it comes, the verdict will probably not be the end of the matter. An appeal is likely.
    Also, Amaral has let it be known that he is considering instigating a counter defamation lawsuit against the McCanns to seek compensation for the enormous damages on different levels he claims they have caused him.

  6. 406
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Chris, Let’s hope that for once, the McCanns aren’t allowed to run the show, fingers crossed!!

  7. 407
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris. I got an notification to my email that you’d made a recent comment in this thread.
    However, on looking, I see it’s not come up (yet at least).

    As the site administrator said before, there is a automatic spam comment finder.
    Try posting again.

    It may be because you gave the full names of some common drugs which can be sold over the internet. That can be a big spam alert, with so many people trying to sell pills through the web. So maybe have a try to adjust the comment (maybe a couple of times) in a way in which the site accepts it? Leave it for a day or two each time, to see if the comment pops up.

    You ask about my evidence from comment 195.
    Yes, OK, what I’ve been doing is establishing that you haven’t really been giving any evidence, though I don’t claim really to have been giving any clear evidence either. It was first of all my aim to show that you weren’t establishing any evidence, to show that we were both on the same footing and, prima facie, neither of us would have any evidence to make solid claims in either direction. But you don’t seem to agree with that, while you haven’t given any evidence which tells anyone why.

    My main gripe was that you were ignoring the common sense arguments I’d brought up which suggested that your claims that it seemed no-one could have broken into the appartment were nonsense. I’d brought up that it is known that keys to most or all of the flats were stolen twice from the Ocean Clubs, once even in the week before Madeleine went missing. I’d mentioned that the McCanns thought they’d left the doors unlocked, apparently. But you were still ignoring that, and coincidentally trying to suggest that the lack of evidence of break in was some kind of evidence, nonetheless.

    It doesn’t make sense to me.

    Thanks for the foreign article on Amaral. It is interesting.

    I think this is going to come down to intention, from Amaral. I’m guessing the judge may be going to say that
    the McCanns were emotionally affected by their daughter’s loss,
    But Amaral’s statements came from his police work and so could not be intended to have caused further harm to the McCanns.
    If Amaral had deliberately set out to bring the McCanns into disrepute itself, then that would be libel. But as he was a policeman, and what he said came from a police investigation, there could be no intention to defame the McCanns. Therefore, what he has said would just be a normal part of everything connected with the disappearance of the McCann’s daughter which has harmed them.

    It’s an approach I didn’t quite expect – but it seems understandable. Still I’m only guessing.

    This bit is a little concerning, though. I’m only trying to rationalise / understand it, above, and the transaltion we got in English may not be good:

    – “The judge ruled that while statements in the book may have psychologically affected the — McCanns, the anguish suffered by the couple over their missing daughter preceded the book’s – publication rather than being a consequence of it.”

    Of course, the McCanns are suing for psychological harm from the statements in the book, not psychological harm suffered from before then.

    It’s a strange comment, and ambiguous. It can seem that the judge is not even bothering to assess the McCanns’ legal case.

    But on the other hand, it may show that the situation is more complex than you may think at first. It may not be so possible to break down the psychological harm into from the book alone – it may be legally thought of as part of everything which can normally occur from the disappearance of Madeleine. Because Amaral (perhaps) is not found to have established a new intention to defame, as he only published his legitimate police work. Defaming must have a context of illegitimate and intentional putting people into social disrepute. I suppose it may be claimed Amaral did not have that.

    It’s a strange issue – one on which I’m sure various judges (even in the same country) would be likely to decide in complete opposite ways.

  8. 408
    G1 Says:

    Just to add my own opinion.

    I would feel that – if the judge were to conclude- that Amaral’s book is a legitimate operation just because he had been a policeman and that was his work – well, I’d feel that this would be wrong.

    I wouldn’t feel it would be right in the normal run of things for the policeman to write that book, at least within, say 5 or 7 years of the girl’s disappearance. Because it could hurt the family, and it could hamper the search for the missing child. So, I would say that, this man using official state files in the public realm with his own agenda which was not the state’s legal opinion, could well be defamatory in the harm it has caused.

    However, in the Amaral case, I feel there is an exception because of that he was abruptly and perhaps suspiciously taken off the case, and therefore this exception arises which gives him the right to write about it.

    If Amaral were still a policeman and wrote that book within, say 5 to 7 years, but the Portuguese police still took no legal action against the McCanns – I’d say that would indeed be defamation. However, because Amaral was sacked and there was interference from high positions and potential suspicious circumstances, that means that the potential harm from the book is an exception to defamation. It would be allowed. People in these circumstances ought to be allowed to speak out, because the alternative can be a really, really terrible Kafkaesque or “1984” world. It’s a really special exception which always needs to be heeded.

    To sum up – I’d say the book would indeed be defamatory (which I gues is not what the judge is going to say), but for the exception of the suspicious circumstances which means that Amaral should be allowed to make his claims, and defamation is excepted as it is not his real intention to defame. His intention is to get out information from his police work which he believes has been supressed.

  9. 409
    Chris Says:

    Hi Liz

    Lovely to hear from you. I trust you are very well.

    I have no sides on this but just want justice for Maddie and I don’t think the parents behave anything like we do – we have two great kids (adults).

    Hi GI

    Nice to hear from you. I think my post was removed because of a certain 5 letter word beginning with M and ending with a. I was hoping you had a copy of it as I forgot to do that and is now too had to repeat.

    Take your points on Goncalo but he was only trying to do his job.

    So at this point in time I think the McCanns are hiding a big secret form all the evidence out there. They have 48 questions to answer and a judges 37 conclusions to come.

    WE shall soon see

  10. 410
    G1 Says:

    “Take your points on Goncalo but he was only trying to do his job.”

    Yes, that’s exactly why I’m saying that in this situation there should be an exception to what I’d feel, otherwise, should be defamation.

    Amaral was trying to do his job,
    was sacked,
    it seems there was the unusual intervention of people who wouldn’t or shouldn’t normally be involved,

    therefore this kind of situation where someone ought to be able to speak out should be an exception.

  11. 411
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Chris, I am very well thank-you. I ‘m almost certain that the McCanns and their friends were involved in some way, in Madeleine’s disappearance. Gerry, response to a reporter’s question – how did you feel when you realised Madeleine had gone – It felt like finding out you were overdrawn on your student loan!! And, the statement which runs along the lines of… FORTUNATELY?? So many people were saying this and that, that no-one knew what was true and what wasn’t!!! Surely that statement would only be uttered by someone who was glad that the waters were being muddied because he considered it to their advantage, there is no other explanation for that remark. Add to that the old chestnut about the brilliant marketing ploy. And, all the discrepancies, lies and strange behaviour…… Enough said for me.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] Show All

Leave a Reply


You can add images to your comment by clicking here.

Log in | Designed by Gabfire themes