Felix.

Bol**x

So your daughter is missing and you want to help the police in anyway you can. And the advice of your legal team is "Tell em nowt". Yeah make the police really suspicious of you and lead them on a wild goose chase by not answering any of the questions. And then they will let you go and nothing more will be said.

So the police will say "Oh, you have gone no reply to all the questions asked - you are obviously innocent and we will go out and look for Maddie" - get real.

If Maddie was abducted, there are no reasons at all why she couldn't answer any of those questions. She has gone no reply as she has something to hide. And if she is hiding something about the disappearance of her daughter then in my book its suspicious. I'm not saying its proof of guilt, but very suspicious.

Felix.

Another thing about suspicions. If the police in England go to a report of a missing child and, when asked, the mother refuses to answer any questions put to her about her daughter’s disappearance. Would you expect the police to:

A – become suspicious and investigate further
B – Walk away, stating that there is no proof of anything untoward

Dieseldog

Does it not have some bearing when the interview took place?

If it was immediately after Maddie had been reported missing then I'd tend to think the mothers silence a lot more suspicious than if it took place a few weeks later, amidst the general press furore, and perhaps a thought within the McCann group that the police were now just looking for a result rather than the truth?

ritchie21

My understanding is that both of the McCanns gave a full account of their movements that night when they reported their daughter missing and in the subsequent weeks that followed, until they were made suspects. Who knows how many times previously they had answered those questions, but in a different context? I just get the impression that the police had already decided that they were guilty and in those circumstances, I don't know (genuinely) whether I would answer questions or not.

And as for people saying that their reactions aren't what they should have been, well nobody really knows how nobody would react unless they have been in that situation and even then, it will not necessarily be the same as another. I sincerely hope that no person who posts on SN can ever post an opinion based upon personal circumstances, either now or in the future.

PeteBrant

Look, I don't know the reasons behind her silence, neither do you. What I am doing is not jumping to conclusions based on very little information. Neither should you be.

PeteBrant

I said my guess was purely speculative. I.e. I have no idea whether it is accurate or not. Neither do you.

How in the name of blue **** do you know there was no credible reason to keep quiet?


This is what is driving me potty, we have people coming to conclusions based on absolutely nothing. And one of you is a Police Officer!"

Felix.

Well...... speaking from experience. In the police we are called to dozens of missing from homes involving young children.

The families tend to be the same. Very concerned, the whole street is aware and out searching within minutes, all questions asked are answered, the parents are frantic and only have the missing child on their mind and are asking anything that moves for help.

In this case, it seems that the McCann’s have simply returned to the Tapas bar, not told many people, told sky news when they could, didn't even ask the other children in the same room if they saw anything.......... bizarre.

The McCann’s have probably been asked similar questions to these at the initial call, and have answered them. To me, it seems that following the police investigation, the answers they gave at the initial call are not correct as to what happened - hence why they were asked again and hence why she decided this time to go 'no reply'. She couldn't stick to what she said before as she knows that the police know it’s untrue, to change her answers now would be really suspicious, so she decided (and on advice of her solicitor) to go ‘no reply’.

scooby L

Please don't go Potty on us Pete...we're just discussing this..

we're not the jury...but if we were... we'd be addressing the same concerns...wouldn't we?

as Felix says... it's highly suspicious when someone chooses not to help the police....especially when it's their kid that's effected... and their reasoning must be very strong to hamper the investigation..which lets face it..had lost all it's momentum and needed new input... I find that wierd that's all....

ritchie21

Are you talking from personal knowledge of the case here or simply from the perspective of how YOU as a British police officer would approach the investigation? (that's not a criticism just a genuine enquiry)

Everybody here is offering opinions without any real knowledge of the case, what it was like to be in that situation or what actually happened! As a serving police officer, you should know full well that the way things seem on paper often don't reflect accurately what happened in person!

I'm sorry if that seems like a criticism of you personally, it certainly isn't!

Look back at the situation with young Shannon when she went 'missing'. Did the family react in the right 'way' then for everybody? Worried, concerned, searching the streets, yet they SEEM (I know nothing other than what I have read and so will not comment further) to have been 'in on it'.

The point I'm making is that no one knows what happened, that night or on the weeks that followed and there is never a right way of reacting to a situation like this.

scooby L

and just put way better by Felix

Felix.

[QUOTE=PeteBrant;8052523]

My conclusions are that she is hiding something - nothing more. These are simple straightforward questions that she should be able to answer and the answers should be the same if we ask her at the time of Middies’ disappearance, in ten weeks time and in ten years time.

She has come to the police for help and when asked questions, she has suddenly gone quiet.

PeteBrant

We don't know the reasons she didn't answer the questions. I cannot see how you draw any conclusions without this fairly vital piece of information.

scooby L

We can because she didn't answer the questions.

OK... lets look at this from your angle... what possible reason could she have for not answering these questions.

(and that save time one's a dead duck)

Better still

Felix can change this thread into a poll... with the same title... and only YES or NO as answers.

PeteBrant

Sorry, how does this enable you to draw conclusions?


The only conclusion you can draw from the fact that she didn't answer questions is, for sine reason, she didn't answer questions, beyond that is pure speculation.
-She was under threat from the CIA not to.
-She didn't want to
-Her tongue had swollen to the size of an elephants ********.
-Her legal team told her not to
-She had lost her voice due to drinking a mixture of TCP, vodka and platypus semen
-She was guilty and couldn't think of any answers
-She couldn't beleive she was beign treated as a suspect.
-Her father had threatened to open 28 cans of anchovies in her pants if she answered any questions.


We have no idea. Speculation is pointless.

The Zohan

What he said, whilst i hate to admit it Pete is correct.

PeteBrant

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

scooby L

The McCan's behaviour has brought all this on.... and you can keep giving them excuses for not following the "normal" path of a couple after loosing their daughter... but sooner or later you have to ask why.

I accept you will not be turned Pete... and you must accept I am equally restitute in my opinion...

The Zohan

Shut up you tart!

It is my birthday and i must be feeling all warm and fluffy towards you leftie right-on shirtlifter types

It will not last!

PeteBrant

Happy Birthday mate

PeteBrant

What is the "normal" path for a couple losing thier daughter? Who teaches it to you?

I would expect nothing less

scooby L

PeteBrant

scooby L

Sorry..my statement:

With a family like the McCan's it would not surprise me, must be some interbreeding there...

was totally speculative and I withdraw it....

Suresh

If one of my boys were missing (and I had nothing to do with it ) then I would do absolutely anything to get him back safely. That she declined to answer some relevant questions speaks volumes to me about her involvement in the disappearance.

Should be charged with neglect/abandonment for starters.

wheelwright

How does anyone know the girl was alive that evening and put to bed??

She may of been murdered earlier then disposed of, then we hear the dinner/abduction story to cover tracks??

cster

I like your way of thinking.

On another aspect - the fact that these questions were asked four months after the fact would indicate two things to me.
1 That whether you answered them or not, they would not help find the "abductee".
2 The police are trying to build a case against you, and let's face it - innocent or not, who wants to be up in court charged with murdering your own daughter?

Felix.

They are not trying to 'build a case' or 'find an abductee'. The purpose of the interview is to find the truth about what happened that night. There are obviously discrepancies between what she said at the start and what the investigation and other witnesses have said.

Her silence compounds that and ensures the police are not getting the truth of what happened. This can only infuriate the investigation into Madeline’s disappearance.

TelBoy

Paedophile ring in Belgium? Sightings in Amsterdam?

Devildog

But unlikely to happen again for some time

Pete,

She either stayed quiet becauuse she was told to (by her legal team or a.n other) or because she chose not to herself.

There are two main reasons a lawyer will tell you to keep quiet.

1) You are guilty and will implicate yourself further

2) You are innocent of the primary "crime" but lied before for some reason and cannot therefore corroberate what you said.

If you are innocent and have given a true and accurate account of yourself, there is everything to be gained by answering as many questions as you can, under the advice of your extremely expensive and therefore unquestionably highly experienced legal team.

Simply refusing to answer everything, for whatever reason, will of course arouse suspicion.