Kate McCann: The 48 questions she REFUSED to answer

To this day, a notional 17 years after the event, this simple statement is being used to presume guilt - technically this is not so!

Kate McCann was taken in for questioning as a witness by the Portuguese Judiciary on 5th September 2007, 11 hours duration. In a press release the McCann's spokesperson Justine McGuinness confirmed Kate McCann the following day, 6th September 2007, was to be declared a formal suspect (arguida) by the Portuguese police.

Arguida status will allow the police to put certain questions giving the suspect legal right to remain silent. Kate McCann was exercising the right to remain silent on the advice of her lawyer.

It could be argued if innocent Kate McCann had nothing to hide, so had no reason to remain silent but that is not how the system works.

Pointing out this issue does not signify support for Gerry or Kate McCann, it is how the law works - always good to keep on the right side of the law! It's so important to maintain focus and not be diverted by speculative tittle-tattle, age old tactic to steer attention away from facts into the realms of fantasy, for whatever reason.

Some of the things I've seen over the years across social media about the case in general and people involved are an utter disgrace, I can't even repeat the more unsavoury commentary.  Even to this day!

Okay so I acknowledge Gerry and Kate McCann and one or more of their friends are deeply embroiled in the mystery but without knowing for sure (or as near as possible) the full facts of the case, how can anyone not directly involved in the crime or the investigation, purport to think they know everything or anything?  Why make atrocious speculative accusations against someone or something you know nothing about?  Don't people realise the irreparable damage they do.

Maybe the McCann's were partly instrumental in creating the support network that rapidly formed and surrounded them from early days, here again we don't know the full facts, only what we read and see in the press and media.  They were put before the cameras over and over again but I strongly suspect that was due to the appearance of the governments media monitoring unit director, Clarence Mitchell - PR can be more detrimental to a persons image than a face full of milkshake (unless of course one feeds the other).  Problem with PR pundits is they see themselves as invincible, higher up the scale of humanity than any of the mere mortals they represent.  Perish the thought!

From documented witness statements it would appear panic during the night of 3rd/4th May 2007 was largely responsible for the following days press and media storm - and of course public reaction.  Since that night the public have been bombarded with conflicting stories and commentary which has achieved nothing but total confusion - thankfully the Portuguese protocol at the time allows us to look deeper into the case by way of the PJ files released into the public domain.  That shouldn't however give carte-blanch for spreading wild unfounded theory and speculative nonsense just for the sake of it, nor because you think you know better than the force appointed to investigate.

Never forget, at the centre of this whole affair is a little three year old child who almost certainly lost her life on that fateful night of 3rd May 2007.

Disregarding horrendous hints spread abroad about the case, just suppose Madeleine died as the result of a tragic accident - what would you do in a similar situation?  No doubt you like to think you would be totally honest, admit perhaps you were for a moment negligent or inadvertently put your child at risk (most parents can hold their hands up to taking their eye off the ball for second) but it's not until faced with a situation that you can know how you would react.  The rest of your life flashes before your eyes, you make split second decisions that can never be reversed, only perhaps regretted for the remainder of life.

There are more people who will be directly and indirectly affected by this particular tragedy than the parents, through no fault of their own.  It is for the law and the law alone to investigate and make decisions, it's not a free for all.  You may not like it, you may think the law inept thus not fit for purpose but that's the system in which we live - don't make it more difficult for the appointed law enforcers by interfering with something you know little or nothing about.

Maybe there is a latent detective in us all, that could be seen as a good thing especially when appertaining to our own lives or even general discussion about a case published by the press and media.  There is no harm in that providing the interested party sticks to known facts and well reasoned possibilities without resorting to accusations, slander and outright abuse.  There is no need for it, just imagine how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot!

Fact remains, as far as the tragic disappearance of Madeleine McCann is concerned, we (as members of the public) don't know enough about the mystery to make judgments or forceful commentary.  Public interference in a case such as this seriously damages any official investigation, it clouds the judgment of others by instilling false information thus creating a 'trial by media' scenario.

Then the police take the blame ....

it is indeed simple, it is a right every official made suspect has, and it comes with the instruction that when made use of personal rights it cannot be uphold against you.

suspects are not heard under an oath or promise too, it comes from a very old piece of law of never to be expected to take part in any way or manner in your own conviction.

by that it is not only the right to stay silent, but when talking to tell lies, only talking often leads to snippets of information the police will use to solve a case. the so called criminal knowledge is very nice.

under the same principle of law a confession is not taken for granted,again, the prosecution side still have to do the work to prove you guilty on facts and circumstances, if a suspect makes an confession and give in it information only the offender can know, that is usually pretty easy. but done by the words i confess is not making working a case easier.

lawyers that have to work a case liked it with good reasons to keep their clients silent. and it often works best to follow the advice you are paying for.

there is a bit of a myth about this statement, some people see fun in it to tell that it did not matter, because kate had already answered the same questions the day before. and that is a bit complicated from points of law. indeed kate was asked to come in to answer questions on spetermber 6, 2007, but do not forget she was at that time only a witness.

and you cannot ask a question in the same way and manner as you can from a witness as you can from a suspect.
the witness has by law, also in portugal the simple task to only tell the truth. but if a police officer know a question in his direct from could be resulting in an answer that could be used against that person, when made a suspect, there is a duty of care to not ask the question in that way, or if you cannot do that first make the person a suspect.

witnesses do not have to be brought under an oath or promise, because the law already solved that.

this is also a very common procedure, and one all officers understand to handle with care, because they simply will find out that the answer would not be usable in any court later on. usually you need and for that want een answer to bring a case further.

the law and there is a translation of the portuguese penal code available on the website of the pj, to use the rights in it, the portuguese original law texts will go over the translation, but i never found anything they would work this bit different or would allowed to work it different from the dutch law system, i am very used too.

so there was never an earlier hearing of kate mccann in the position of a witness that used exact the same questions, this is such a well known bit of how to work the law, even our cleaners would know of it. not an exceptional idea, our dutch law simply seen the need to know the law of the country, if you are dutch or put your toe over our borders, not realistic, but it is for real.

there is a translation of kate her witness statement made at september 6, 2007;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm

the term arguido is not correctly stated.

this is the true arguida statement as she became on september 7, 2007, as noted in the header of the statement;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm

i think even one of the mccann sisters started the misconception in the same questions on both days. still i see it still around, it only shows you can better not take your legal advice of an teacher, or a nurse, i am long forgotten which of the two said it.
and it would not help anything.

telling lies as a witness is a crime in most legal systems, but most have simply not enough courts and personal to get after them, so even if it against the law to state anything that is not true or fully true as a witness, it is rare to see it given a follow up by making all the porky tellers suspects.

the same answer can be used very differently if it was from a witness than when from a suspect.

being made a suspect is not the same as being guilty of a crime, of being the offender, only that there is the beginning of information that made it possible you are one. in public the term suspect is for many years equal to you have done it. legally that is not what it means or stands for. arguido or the female arguido is basically identical to the true legal meaning of suspect, only the portuguese have kept it much more and better in its original uses.

most arrests start with just the police charges of; you are under suspicion of having part in '' the named crime''.
the rules say technically a suspect has to speak the truth too, only it cannot be expected if an answer would incriminate that suspect, and lies are just handled as an excuse for not wanting to risk that. so it is much more a rule of the paperwork, than practical. all the person has too do is saying the truth could incriminate me, and that would be a valid legal excuse, most times it is easier to restrict oneself to silence.

it is not strange or incriminating to follow the advice of your legal counsel.

also it is not common to see the questions asked in a witness statement. also because it is usually a different technique of hearing, that is used to let a witness tell their own story. suspect can be asked much more direct questions, that also can point the finger at them, that cannot be done at a witness.

gerry did answer the questions asked during his arguido/suspect hearing;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

both knew they have landed in a point in time, their answered would not be used to look for a missing daughter, so this had never the goal of looking for a child that could still be saved alive. so all focus was on their own freedom and each others.
most parents of a child that ends up missing never reach this moment of becoming suspects in that case.
and in september the answers of kate would not have the goal to find her daughter anymore at the side of the investigation.
and she could talk as a witnesses 24/7 before they had been made suspects, if something she remembered be of assistance of helping to find her daughter. there was no need any longer when she was made a suspect. that changed into covering her own freedom.