Cover Photo, No automatic alt text available.
Make a donation click here. Your support will help us remove ads and upload local images, etc.
Title: Kate's 48 Questions
Madeleine McCann   Statement Comments by Topic
Hop to: 
Views:2580     
New Topic New Poll
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 1    
AuthorComment
TinLizzy
 Author    



Rank:Diamond Member

Score: 1787
Posts: 1787
From: Canada
Registered: 11/06/2008
Time spent: 58945 hours

(Date Posted:01/10/2011 10:39 AM)
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo



MCMINUTE: Why didn't Kate McCann answer these 48 QUESTIONS?

I have resized all the screenshot images for easy viewing here

Comparison -  Gerry's questioning

 

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post544.html#p544
Volume IV, pages 2569 - 2578

Arguido questioning of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.
Location: CID Portimão

Of British nationality, the arguido cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate.

The arguido’s legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present.

He now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist him are explained to him, and he is subject to TIR [“termo de identidade e residência”, the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence].

He fully confirms the contents of the statements that he has previously given to this Police, on two occasions, and has nothing further to add.

After being made aware of the facts that befall him, he says that he wishes to make a statement.

When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this.

When asked if on the night of May 1, 2007 he went to have dinner at the Tapas with Kate, he says yes. As usual they would come and check on the children every half hour, usually alternating. They arrived at the Tapas around 20:30, and then went to the apartment every half hour, until they arrived back, at around 23:00, plus or minus 10 minutes. Occasionally one of the others in the group made the check, he does not remember if this happened on the 1st. It is not true that Madeleine had been crying that night for an hour and 15 minutes, because she was not alone all that time.

When questioned, he said that on the day they arrived, April 28, they removed two cots that were in their room, and placed them in Madeleine’s room. He is unable to confirm, but it could be possible, that there were 3 cribs, and they asked for one to be removed.

It is not true that on a certain day they placed one crib in their room, leaving the other in Madeleine’s room.

He does not know what days were scheduled for cleaning the apartment.

He now states that he also pushed the two single beds in his room together, which had been separated by a night table. He did that to transform the two beds into a double bed.

Regarding the windows, he says they were normally closed, he does not know if they were locked, with the shutters also closed. Regarding Madeleine’s window he says that he made sure the shutters worked so as to darken the room for the children.

On the day of arrival, he does not know if the shutters in Madeleine’s room were open, and if they were, he closed them. He did not open them again, and does not know if somebody else did. When confronted with a testimony that states having seen the shutters to that window open after their arrival, he says that it was not him who opened them.

When asked about the window behind one of the sofas in the living room, he says that yes, he remembers the window but does not remember if the shutters were also closed.

Regarding this sofa, he remembers it was drawn against the window. He is not sure, but thinks that this sofa was probably a bit further away from the window, and he vaguely remembers pushing it back a bit, because his children threw objects behind it, namely playing cards. When asked, he does not know if any of the children was behind the sofa or passed behind this sofa.

When asked, he says that on one night, he cannot say which, Madeleine slept in his room and in his bed. He thinks it might have been shortly after their arrival at the apartment. Madeleine came to his room saying that Amelie was crying and she couldn’t sleep. He thinks that he didn’t hear the crying before, and was alerted to this by Madeleine. He does not know if it was him or his wife that comforted Amelie. That night Madeleine slept in his bed.

Concerning his wife, he says that on the Wednesday she slept in the children’s room in the bed next to the window. He doesn’t know why, but thinks it could have been because of his snoring. Also on that day, after dinner, he returned to the apartment sooner than Kate.

Regarding the episode where he spoke to David on the 3rd of May, he says that he was playing tennis at 18:30 when David appeared near the tennis court and asked him through the net if he was going to continue playing. The deponent said he didn’t know because Kate might be needing help to look after the three children, even more so because they intended to bring them to the recreation area after their showers. He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later. Concerning his previous statement, where he states that David returned half an hour later, at around 19:00, he says that he returned to the tennis court after half an hour, as this time frame refers to the second time he returned to the tennis court, after dressing up for the game.

When questioned, he says that Madeleine usually sleeps well at night. During the first months of her life she had some difficulties sleeping, due to feeding problems. After moving to their house in Rothley in April 2006, twice a week Madeleine woke up, left her bed and went into their room; this sometimes happened between 23:00 – 24:00 for no apparent reason, maybe because she was used to sleeping with (*** blank ****).

When asked about a chart highlighting the characteristics of the children, at the house in Rothley, he says that he does in fact have such an object, where several stars show the nights when Madeleine did not get up, as she was rewarded this way.

When questioned if it was therefore safe to leave Madeleine in the apartment, given the fact that she woke and got up at night, he says that this rarely happened, and then only after her parents were in bed.

When questioned about whether the couple’s and the children’s life was peaceful, namely regarding the work that three children can give a couple, as well as the stress this can cause, he replies that in fact since the birth of the twins their life has been very busy, and that especially during the twins’ first year life was difficult. He states that since the twins were born, he and Kate have gone out in the evening only once, leaving the children with relatives. He adds that in spite of this he never saw Kate depressed as a result of too much work. He denies that Kate changed her work habits for reasons related to depressions. He asserts that his wife never suggested to him that at some time she had the intention of handing Madeleine into the care of a family member.

When questioned, he says that he works at the Emergency Room of the hospital where he works every 15 days, however he is not usually called out at night, and if this happens then it is once for 4 days’ prevention. Kate’s specialty is general medicine, but she only works two days a week. After the birth of the twins, Kate did not work for a year, on maternity leave, and currently works part-time as mentioned above.

When questioned, he states that none of his children takes any kind of medication regularly in England.

When they travelled on holiday to Portugal they brought several medicines, namely Calpol, Nurofen, for fevers and pains, both for adults and children, Losec for gastric problems that he occasionally suffers from, and an anti-histamine called Terfenadine, for hay fever. He did not give any of these medicines or any others to the children while on holiday in Portugal.

When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch. He remembers that once inside the apartment he was surprised that the door to the children’s room was slightly more open than how he had left it when he and Kate left for dinner. However, it could have been Madeleine who had opened the door after waking and getting up, eventually to go to her parents’ room. On this occasion, the three children were lying in their beds asleep, he is sure of this. Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, completely uncovered, i.e. lying on top of the covers, with the soft toy and blanket, both pink, next to her head; he does not know if they were in the position that can be seen in the photograph attached to the files

The second person to go and check on the children should have been Kate, but Matt offered to go as he was going to check on his own daughter. When Matt returned to the restaurant the arguido asked him if all was well; Matt replied that all was quiet. The arguido is not absolutely sure, but he is under the impression that he asked Matt if he entered their apartment, to which Matt replied yes.

The third check was made by Kate at around 22:00. He does not know how long it was before Kate returned, but he does remember that shortly before she returned he was thinking of going to see what was going on, as it seemed a long time and he thought that one of children might have woken up.

He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet. He was wearing tennis shoes, blue jeans and a light brown polar top. He does not remember what Kate was wearing that night. The arguido did not take a camera and does not remember if Kate did. He does not remember if anybody in the group took any photograph that night.

He remembers that after it was known that Madeleine had disappeared he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms at the same time that Kate told him she had looked everywhere already.

He remembers that at one time the lady who lived in the apartment above theirs, went onto her balcony and asked what was going on. He does not remember specifically who replied to this lady, but he remembers that somebody spoke to her, and he admits it could have been himself.

When questioned, he states that from the first moment, after the first fruitless searches, he thought that Madeleine had been abducted and it was this information that he gave to everyone to whom he spoke. He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own or opened the bedroom shutters and window.

When questioned, he says that on that night he made several phone calls, namely to two sisters, a couple of Kate’s uncles, his brother, or certainly sent him a message, father PAUL SEDDON who baptized Madeleine and married the deponent. When questioned, he says he did not get in touch with any media and does not know if anyone did. In the morning his family did contact the press. The deponent spoke of contacting the press, however he never did so.

When questioned he says that it was not him who requested a priest, but rather Kate, to seek spiritual help.

Regarding the disclosure of Madeleine’s photograph, he says that he gave the authorities a photograph from a digital camera, and he thinks it was Russell who printed it at the main 24-hour resort reception. He made the delivery of this, or those, pictures on A4 paper to this Police, but he is absolutely certain that he never delivered any of these photographs to the GNR.

Around 19:00 this interview was interrupted for a rest period, to be recommenced at around 19:40.

When questioned if the twins woke up during the searches in the apartment, he replied negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke, as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, but he can find no reason for it happening. Yet, at that moment he thought that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later. When questioned, he says he never gave his children anything to help them sleep, nor did Kate. When asked why he did not ask the twins what happened to their sister, he says that when the events took place they still did not speak fluently, which they now do, and that such is part of normal development. At that point and at this point he did not ask them because he thought that they would not have the correct perception of what had happened, in addition to thinking that they would have been sleeping.

When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they remained inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way. While the guests and resort workers were searching, he went to the main reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After returning from the reception he went back into the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom.

When asked if he has life insurance, he says that he does, and so does Kate. The children do not have any life insurance, nor are their parents, Gerry and Kate, the beneficiaries of any insurance regarding the children.

When asked about the contents of the wardrobe in his room that can be seen in the photographs, he says that on top there is a suitcase and below a pile of dirty clothes that he cannot make out. This wardrobe was opened to look for Madeleine.

When asked if in fact they went to the apartment every half hour, he says it is true, and that this was never forged to justify absences during dinner.

When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, he says that it has to do with the fact that they were not present when Madeleine was abducted. It was Kate who first used this expression.

During this interview several films of a forensic nature showing sniffer dogs were shown to him, where they can be seen signalling human cadaver odour and also human traces of blood, and only of a human nature, as well as the comments made by the expert in charge of the procedure.

After viewing the films and after the signalling of cadaver odour in their room next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa against the window in the living room, he says that he has no comments, neither has he any explanation for this fact.

The dog that detects human blood signalled human blood behind the sofa mentioned above, as well, he says that he cannot explain this fact.

Regarding the signalling of cadaver odour in the vehicle that was rented in late May, license plate 49-DA-27, he says he cannot explain more than what he already has.

Regarding the signalling of human blood in the boot of the same vehicle, he says that he has no explanation for this fact.

When confronted with the fact that Madeleine’s DNA was collected from behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, and analyzed by a British laboratory, situations that had already been described before, he says that he cannot explain.

When asked if on any occasion Madeleine was injured, he says that he has no comments.

When questioned, he said that he is the usual driver of the car. In addition to the deponent, the car was also driven by his wife Kate, his sister in law Sandy, and a cousin of Kate’s by the name of Michael.

When asked if he has anything to add, he said that he has not seen any proof that his daughter Madeleine is dead, and therefore he will continue to search for her in the hope she is alive. He knows nothing more than what has been said.

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

During this interview the arguido was informed of his duty to respect the secrecy of justice, as well as the consequences of not complying with it, stipulated in current law.

At around 22:50 the present interview was ended.

He said nothing further.

Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter.



http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post506


 
Volume X, pages 2557-2561

Arguido questioning of Kate Marie Healy, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.
Location: CID Portimão

Of British nationality, the arguida cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate.

The arguida’s legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present.

She now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist her are explained to her, and she is subject to TIR [“termo de identidade e residência”, the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence].

She is informed of the facts that befall her, and said that she does not wish to make a statement.

1) When asked, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when she entered the apartment, what she saw and what she did, where she searched, what she handled, she did not reply.

2) If she looked inside the couple’s bedroom’s wardrobe, she said she would not reply.

3) When shown two photographs of her bedroom’s wardrobe, and requested to describe its contents, she did not reply.

4) When asked for the reason why the curtain behind the sofa under the side window, whose photograph was shown to her, is ruffled, she did not reply.

5) She did not reply to the question if someone passed behind that sofa.

6) When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply.

7) When asked why she said right away that Madeleine was abducted, she did not reply.

8) Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, even because the supposed abductor might still be inside the apartment, she did not reply.

9) Why she did not ask the twins right away what had happened to their sister, or why she did not asked them later on, she did not reply.

10) When questioned about having raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly she said, which words she used, she did not reply.

11) When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply.

12) When asked whether she had a mobile phone with her at that moment, she did not reply.

13) When asked why she went to alert her friends instead of shouting from the balcony, she did not reply.

14) When asked who contacted the authorities, she did not reply.

15) When asked who participated in the searches, she did not reply.

16) When asked if anyone outside of the group learned bout Madeleine’s disappearance during the following moments, she did not reply.

17) When asked if any neighbour had offered to help after the alarm about the disappearance, she did not reply.

18) When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, she did not reply.

19) When asked if Jane mentioned to her that she’d seen a man with a child, that night, she did not reply.

20) When asked how the authorities were contacted and which police force was alerted, she did not reply.

21) When asked, during the searches and already with the police present, in what locations Madeleine was searched for, how and in what manner, she did not reply.

22) When asked why the twins did not wake up during that search, or when they were taken to the upper floor, she did not reply.

23) When asked whom she phoned after the facts, she did not reply.

24) When asked if she phoned “Sky News”, she did not reply.

25) When asked about the danger of phoning the media, alerting them about the abduction, which could have an effect on the abductor, she did not reply.

26) Questioned if they requested the presence of a priest, she did not reply.

27) When asked about the manner in which Madeleine’s face was divulged, if through photographs or other media, she did not reply.

28) When asked if it is true that during the search she remained sat on her bed inside her bedroom without moving, she did not reply.

29) When asked about her behaviour that night, she did not reply. And questioned about whether or not she was able to sleep, she did not reply.

30) When asked if before the trip to Portugal she made a comment about a bad presentiment or presages, she did not reply.

31) When asked about Madeleine’s behaviour, she did not reply. When asked if she suffered of any illness or took some medication, she did not reply.

32) When asked about Madeleine’s relationship with her siblings, friends and school mates, she did not reply.

33) When asked about her professional life, and at how many and which hospitals she had worked, she did not reply.

34) Being a doctor, and questioned about her speciality, she did not reply.

35) When asked about whether she worked shifts, at the emergency room or in other services, she did not reply.

36) If she worked every day, she did not reply.
37) When asked if at a given moment she quit working and why, she did not reply.

38) When asked if it is true that her twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, that they are restless and that it upsets her, she did not reply.

39) When asked whether or not it is true that sometimes she felt desperate over her children’s behaviour and that it upset her very much, she did not reply.

40) When asked whether or not it is true that in England she considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative, she did not reply.

41) When asked if at home (in England) she gave her children medication and what kind of medication, she did not reply.

42) During this session, several dog inspection movies of forensic character were shown to her, where the dogs can be seen marking human cadaver odour and human blood traces, and only of human type, and the comments of the expert that headed the diligence can be heard.

43) After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

44) Also marked, now by the human blood detection dog behind the aforementioned sofa, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

45) With cadaver odour being signalled in the vehicle that they rented approximately one month after the disappearance, license plate 59-DA-27, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

46) When confronted with the result of the collection of Madeleine’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British lab, behind the sofa and in the vehicle’s boot, situations that were explained above, she said that she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.

47) When asked if she had any responsibility or intervention in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, she did not reply.

 
48) When questioned if she wants to add anything, she replied negatively.


When asked if she is aware of the fact that by not replying to the questions asked, she places the investigation, which seeks to find out what happened to her daughter, at risk, she replied yes, if that is what the investigation thinks.



The illustrious defence lawyer is offered the word, he says he has nothing to argue or to request.

At around 2.30 p.m., this questioning is finished.

She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter.



Volume X, pages 2557-2561

Arguido questioning of Kate Marie Healy, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.
Location: CID Portimão

Of British nationality, the arguida cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate.

The arguida’s legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present.

She now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist her are explained to her, and she is subject to TIR [“termo de identidade e residência”, the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence].

She is informed of the facts that befall her, and said that she does not wish to make a statement.

When asked, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when she entered the apartment, what she saw and what she did, where she searched, what she handled, she did not reply.

If she looked inside the couple’s bedroom’s wardrobe, she said she would not reply.

When shown two photographs of her bedroom’s wardrobe, and requested to describe its contents, she did not reply.

When asked for the reason why the curtain behind the sofa under the side window, whose photograph was shown to her, is ruffled, she did not reply.

She did not reply to the question if someone passed behind that sofa.

When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply.

When asked why she said right away that Madeleine was abducted, she did not reply.

Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, even because the supposed abductor might still be inside the apartment, she did not reply.

Why she did not ask the twins right away what had happened to their sister, or why she did not asked them later on, she did not reply.

When questioned about having raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly she said, which words she used, she did not reply.

When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply.

When asked whether she had a mobile phone with her at that moment, she did not reply.

When asked why she went to alert her friends instead of shouting from the balcony, she did not reply.

When asked who contacted the authorities, she did not reply.

When asked who participated in the searches, she did not reply.

When asked if anyone outside of the group learned bout Madeleine’s disappearance during the following moments, she did not reply.

When asked if any neighbour had offered to help after the alarm about the disappearance, she did not reply.

When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, she did not reply.

When asked if Jane mentioned to her that she’d seen a man with a child, that night, she did not reply.

When asked how the authorities were contacted and which police force was alerted, she did not reply.

When asked, during the searches and already with the police present, in what locations Madeleine was searched for, how and in what manner, she did not reply.

When asked why the twins did not wake up during that search, or when they were taken to the upper floor, she did not reply.

When asked whom she phoned after the facts, she did not reply.

When asked if she phoned “Sky News”, she did not reply.

When asked about the danger of phoning the media, alerting them about the abduction, which could have an effect on the abductor, she did not reply.

Questioned if they requested the presence of a priest, she did not reply.

When asked about the manner in which Madeleine’s face was divulged, if through photographs or other media, she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that during the search she remained sat on her bed inside her bedroom without moving, she did not reply.

When asked about her behaviour that night, she did not reply. And questioned about whether or not she was able to sleep, she did not reply.

When asked if before the trip to Portugal she made a comment about a bad presentiment or presages, she did not reply.

When asked about Madeleine’s behaviour, she did not reply. When asked if she suffered of any illness or took some medication, she did not reply.

When asked about Madeleine’s relationship with her siblings, friends and school mates, she did not reply.

When asked about her professional life, and at how many and which hospitals she had worked, she did not reply.

Being a doctor, and questioned about her speciality, she did not reply.

When asked about whether she worked shifts, at the emergency room or in other services, she did not reply.

If she worked every day, she did not reply.

When asked if at a given moment she quit working and why, she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that her twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, that they are restless and that it upsets her, she did not reply.

When asked whether or not it is true that sometimes she felt desperate over her children’s behaviour and that it upset her very much, she did not reply.

When asked whether or not it is true that in England she considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative, she did not reply.

When asked if at home (in England) she gave her children medication and what kind of medication, she did not reply.

During this session, several dog inspection movies of forensic character were shown to her, where the dogs can be seen marking human cadaver odour and human blood traces, and only of human type, and the comments of the expert that headed the diligence can be heard.

After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

Also marked, now by the human blood detection dog behind the aforementioned sofa, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

With cadaver odour being signalled in the vehicle that they rented approximately one month after the disappearance, license plate 59-DA-27, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

When confronted with the result of the collection of Madeleine’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British lab, behind the sofa and in the vehicle’s boot, situations that were explained above, she said that she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.

When asked if she had any responsibility or intervention in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, she did not reply.

When asked if she is aware of the fact that by not replying to the questions asked, she places the investigation, which seeks to find out what happened to her daughter, at risk, she replied yes, if that is what the investigation thinks.

When questioned if she wants to add anything, she replied negatively.

The illustrious defence lawyer is offered the word, he says he has nothing to argue or to request.

At around 2.30 p.m., this questioning is finished.

She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter.
 


 
Volume X, pages 2557-2561

Arguido questioning of Kate Marie Healy, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.
Location: CID Portimão

Of British nationality, the arguida cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate.

The arguida’s legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present.

She now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist her are explained to her, and she is subject to TIR [“termo de identidade e residência”, the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence].

She is informed of the facts that befall her, and said that she does not wish to make a statement.

1) When asked, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when she entered the apartment, what she saw and what she did, where she searched, what she handled, she did not reply.

2) If she looked inside the couple’s bedroom’s wardrobe, she said she would not reply.

3) When shown two photographs of her bedroom’s wardrobe, and requested to describe its contents, she did not reply.

4) When asked for the reason why the curtain behind the sofa under the side window, whose photograph was shown to her, is ruffled, she did not reply.

5) She did not reply to the question if someone passed behind that sofa.

6) When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply.

7) When asked why she said right away that Madeleine was abducted, she did not reply.

8) Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, even because the supposed abductor might still be inside the apartment, she did not reply.

9) Why she did not ask the twins right away what had happened to their sister, or why she did not asked them later on, she did not reply.

10) When questioned about having raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly she said, which words she used, she did not reply.

11) When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply.

12) When asked whether she had a mobile phone with her at that moment, she did not reply.

13) When asked why she went to alert her friends instead of shouting from the balcony, she did not reply.

14) When asked who contacted the authorities, she did not reply.

15) When asked who participated in the searches, she did not reply.

16) When asked if anyone outside of the group learned bout Madeleine’s disappearance during the following moments, she did not reply.

17) When asked if any neighbour had offered to help after the alarm about the disappearance, she did not reply.

18) When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, she did not reply.

19) When asked if Jane mentioned to her that she’d seen a man with a child, that night, she did not reply.

20) When asked how the authorities were contacted and which police force was alerted, she did not reply.

21) When asked, during the searches and already with the police present, in what locations Madeleine was searched for, how and in what manner, she did not reply.

22) When asked why the twins did not wake up during that search, or when they were taken to the upper floor, she did not reply.

23) When asked whom she phoned after the facts, she did not reply.

24) When asked if she phoned “Sky News”, she did not reply.

25) When asked about the danger of phoning the media, alerting them about the abduction, which could have an effect on the abductor, she did not reply.

26) Questioned if they requested the presence of a priest, she did not reply.

27) When asked about the manner in which Madeleine’s face was divulged, if through photographs or other media, she did not reply.

28) When asked if it is true that during the search she remained sat on her bed inside her bedroom without moving, she did not reply.

29) When asked about her behaviour that night, she did not reply. And questioned about whether or not she was able to sleep, she did not reply.

30) When asked if before the trip to Portugal she made a comment about a bad presentiment or presages, she did not reply.

31) When asked about Madeleine’s behaviour, she did not reply. When asked if she suffered of any illness or took some medication, she did not reply.

32) When asked about Madeleine’s relationship with her siblings, friends and school mates, she did not reply.

33) When asked about her professional life, and at how many and which hospitals she had worked, she did not reply.

34) Being a doctor, and questioned about her speciality, she did not reply.

35) When asked about whether she worked shifts, at the emergency room or in other services, she did not reply.

36) If she worked every day, she did not reply.
37) When asked if at a given moment she quit working and why, she did not reply.

38) When asked if it is true that her twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, that they are restless and that it upsets her, she did not reply.

39) When asked whether or not it is true that sometimes she felt desperate over her children’s behaviour and that it upset her very much, she did not reply.

40) When asked whether or not it is true that in England she considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative, she did not reply.

41) When asked if at home (in England) she gave her children medication and what kind of medication, she did not reply.

42) During this session, several dog inspection movies of forensic character were shown to her, where the dogs can be seen marking human cadaver odour and human blood traces, and only of human type, and the comments of the expert that headed the diligence can be heard.

43) After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

44) Also marked, now by the human blood detection dog behind the aforementioned sofa, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

45) With cadaver odour being signalled in the vehicle that they rented approximately one month after the disappearance, license plate 59-DA-27, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

46) When confronted with the result of the collection of Madeleine’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British lab, behind the sofa and in the vehicle’s boot, situations that were explained above, she said that she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.

47) When asked if she had any responsibility or intervention in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, she did not reply.

 
48) When questioned if she wants to add anything, she replied negatively.


When asked if she is aware of the fact that by not replying to the questions asked, she places the investigation, which seeks to find out what happened to her daughter, at risk, she replied yes, if that is what the investigation thinks.



The illustrious defence lawyer is offered the word, he says he has nothing to argue or to request.

At around 2.30 p.m., this questioning is finished.

She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter.



Volume X, pages 2557-2561

Arguido questioning of Kate Marie Healy, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.
Location: CID Portimão

Of British nationality, the arguida cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate.

The arguida’s legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present.

She now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist her are explained to her, and she is subject to TIR [“termo de identidade e residência”, the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence].

She is informed of the facts that befall her, and said that she does not wish to make a statement.

When asked, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when she entered the apartment, what she saw and what she did, where she searched, what she handled,
she did not reply.

If she looked inside the couple’s bedroom’s wardrobe, she said
she would not reply.

When shown two photographs of her bedroom’s wardrobe, and requested to describe its contents, she did not reply.

When asked for the reason why the curtain behind the sofa under the side window, whose photograph was shown to her, is ruffled,
she did not reply.

She did not reply to the question if someone passed behind that sofa.

When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply.

When asked why she said right away that Madeleine was abducted,
she did not reply.

Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, even because the supposed abductor might still be inside the apartment, she did not reply.

Why she did not ask the twins right away what had happened to their sister, or why she did not asked them later on, she did not reply.

When questioned about having raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly she said, which words she used,
she did not reply.

When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply.

When asked whether she had a mobile phone with her at that moment, she did not reply.

When asked why she went to alert her friends instead of shouting from the balcony, she did not reply.

When asked who contacted the authorities, she did not reply.

When asked who participated in the searches, she did not reply.

When asked if anyone outside of the group learned bout Madeleine’s disappearance during the following moments, she did not reply.

When asked if any neighbour had offered to help after the alarm about the disappearance,
she did not reply.

When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, she did not reply.

When asked if Jane mentioned to her that she’d seen a man with a child, that night,
she did not reply.

When asked how the authorities were contacted and which police force was alerted, she did not reply.

When asked, during the searches and already with the police present, in what locations Madeleine was searched for, how and in what manner, she did not reply.

When asked why the twins did not wake up during that search, or when they were taken to the upper floor, she did not reply.

When asked whom she phoned after the facts,
she did not reply.

When asked if she phoned “Sky News”, she did not reply.

When asked about the danger of phoning the media, alerting them about the abduction, which could have an effect on the abductor, she did not reply.

Questioned if they requested the presence of a priest, she did not reply.

When asked about the manner in which Madeleine’s face was divulged, if through photographs or other media, she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that during the search she remained sat on her bed inside her bedroom without moving,
she did not reply.

When asked about her behaviour that night, she did not reply. And questioned about whether or not she was able to sleep, she did not reply.

When asked if before the trip to Portugal she made a comment about a bad presentiment or presages, she did not reply.

When asked about Madeleine’s behaviour, she did not reply. When asked if she suffered of any illness or took some medication, she did not reply.

When asked about Madeleine’s relationship with her siblings, friends and school mates,
she did not reply.

When asked about her professional life, and at how many and which hospitals she had worked, she did not reply.

Being a doctor, and questioned about her speciality,
she did not reply.

When asked about whether she worked shifts, at the emergency room or in other services, she did not reply.

If she worked every day, she did not reply.

When asked if at a given moment she quit working and why,
she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that her twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, that they are restless and that it upsets her, she did not reply.

When asked whether or not it is true that sometimes she felt desperate over her children’s behaviour and that it upset her very much, she did not reply.

When asked whether or not it is true that in England she considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative,
she did not reply.

When asked if at home (in England) she gave her children medication and what kind of medication
, she did not reply.

During this session, several dog inspection movies of forensic character were shown to her, where the dogs can be seen marking human cadaver odour and human blood traces, and only of human type, and the comments of the expert that headed the diligence can be heard.

After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

Also marked, now by the human blood detection dog behind the aforementioned sofa, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

With cadaver odour being signalled in the vehicle that they rented approximately one month after the disappearance, license plate 59-DA-27, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

When confronted with the result of the collection of Madeleine’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British lab, behind the sofa and in the vehicle’s boot, situations that were explained above, she said that she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.

When asked if she had any responsibility or intervention in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, she did not reply.

When asked if she is aware of the fact that by not replying to the questions asked, she places the investigation, which seeks to find out what happened to her daughter, at risk, she replied yes, if that is what the investigation thinks.

When questioned if she wants to add anything, she replied negatively.

The illustrious defence lawyer is offered the word, he says he has nothing to argue or to request.

At around 2.30 p.m., this questioning is finished.

She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter.
 


 
Volume X, pages 2557-2561

Arguido questioning of Kate Marie Healy, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.
Location: CID Portimão

Of British nationality, the arguida cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate.

The arguida’s legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present.

She now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist her are explained to her, and she is subject to TIR [“termo de identidade e residência”, the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence].

She is informed of the facts that befall her, and said that she does not wish to make a statement.

1) When asked, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when she entered the apartment, what she saw and what she did, where she searched, what she handled,
she did not reply.

2) If she looked inside the couple’s bedroom’s wardrobe, she said
she would not reply.

3) When shown two photographs of her bedroom’s wardrobe, and requested to describe its contents, she did not reply.

4) When asked for the reason why the curtain behind the sofa under the side window, whose photograph was shown to her, is ruffled,
she did not reply.

5) She did not reply to the question if someone passed behind that sofa.

6) When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply.

7) When asked why she said right away that Madeleine was abducted,
she did not reply.

8) Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, even because the supposed abductor might still be inside the apartment, she did not reply.

9) Why she did not ask the twins right away what had happened to their sister, or why she did not asked them later on, she did not reply.

10) When questioned about having raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly she said, which words she used,
she did not reply.

11) When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply.

12) When asked whether she had a mobile phone with her at that moment, she did not reply.

13) When asked why she went to alert her friends instead of shouting from the balcony, she did not reply.

14) When asked who contacted the authorities, she did not reply.

15) When asked who participated in the searches, she did not reply.

16) When asked if anyone outside of the group learned bout Madeleine’s disappearance during the following moments, she did not reply.

17) When asked if any neighbour had offered to help after the alarm about the disappearance,
she did not reply.

18) When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, she did not reply.

19) When asked if Jane mentioned to her that she’d seen a man with a child, that night,
she did not reply.

20) When asked how the authorities were contacted and which police force was alerted, she did not reply.

21) When asked, during the searches and already with the police present, in what locations Madeleine was searched for, how and in what manner, she did not reply.

22) When asked why the twins did not wake up during that search, or when they were taken to the upper floor, she did not reply.

23) When asked whom she phoned after the facts,
she did not reply.

24) When asked if she phoned “Sky News”, she did not reply.

25) When asked about the danger of phoning the media, alerting them about the abduction, which could have an effect on the abductor, she did not reply.

26) Questioned if they requested the presence of a priest, she did not reply.

27) When asked about the manner in which Madeleine’s face was divulged, if through photographs or other media, she did not reply.

28) When asked if it is true that during the search she remained sat on her bed inside her bedroom without moving,
she did not reply.

29) When asked about her behaviour that night, she did not reply. And questioned about whether or not she was able to sleep, she did not reply.

30) When asked if before the trip to Portugal she made a comment about a bad presentiment or presages, she did not reply.

31) When asked about Madeleine’s behaviour, she did not reply. When asked if she suffered of any illness or took some medication, she did not reply.

32) When asked about Madeleine’s relationship with her siblings, friends and school mates,
she did not reply.

33) When asked about her professional life, and at how many and which hospitals she had worked, she did not reply.

34) Being a doctor, and questioned about her speciality,
she did not reply.

35) When asked about whether she worked shifts, at the emergency room or in other services, she did not reply.

36) If she worked every day, she did not reply.
37) When asked if at a given moment she quit working and why,
she did not reply.

38) When asked if it is true that her twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, that they are restless and that it upsets her, she did not reply.

39) When asked whether or not it is true that sometimes she felt desperate over her children’s behaviour and that it upset her very much, she did not reply.

40) When asked whether or not it is true that in England she considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative,
she did not reply.

41) When asked if at home (in England) she gave her children medication and what kind of medication
, she did not reply.

42) During this session, several dog inspection movies of forensic character were shown to her, where the dogs can be seen marking human cadaver odour and human blood traces, and only of human type, and the comments of the expert that headed the diligence can be heard.

43) After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

44) Also marked, now by the human blood detection dog behind the aforementioned sofa, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

45) With cadaver odour being signalled in the vehicle that they rented approximately one month after the disappearance, license plate 59-DA-27, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

46) When confronted with the result of the collection of Madeleine’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British lab, behind the sofa and in the vehicle’s boot, situations that were explained above, she said that she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.

47) When asked if she had any responsibility or intervention in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, she did not reply.

 
48) When questioned if she wants to add anything, she replied negatively.


When asked if she is aware of the fact that by not replying to the questions asked, she places the investigation, which seeks to find out what happened to her daughter, at risk, she replied yes, if that is what the investigation thinks.



The illustrious defence lawyer is offered the word, he says he has nothing to argue or to request.

At around 2.30 p.m., this questioning is finished.

She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter.

(Message edited by TinLizzyOn08/02/2012 1:30 AM)
usertype:1
TinLizzy
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 1# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:1787
Posts:1787
From: Canada
Registered:11/06/2008
Time spent: 58945 hours

RE:Kate's 48 Questions
(Date Posted:01/10/2011 11:33 AM)







usertype:1 tt= 0
TinLizzy
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 2# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:1787
Posts:1787
From: Canada
Registered:11/06/2008
Time spent: 58945 hours

RE:Kate's 48 Questions
(Date Posted:08/01/2012 7:13 AM)

When asked if she is aware of the fact that by
 NOT REPLYING to the questions asked,
she places the investigation,
which seeks to find out what happened to
HER DAUGHTER, AT RISK, she replied YES,
if that is what the investigation thinks.

usertype:1 tt= 0
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 1    
New Topic New Poll
Sign Up | Create | About Us | SiteMap | Features | Forums | Show Off | Faq | Help
Copyright © 2000-2017 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.

Get cheapest China Wholesale,  China Wholesale Supplier,  to be a retailer is easy now.
LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY
LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY