Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?

[Angelo222]

Do  take it from your response that your knowledge of the subject is purely theoretical?

The Portuguese police were clearly on a very inept fishing expedition, and had sod all to do with fining Madeleine.  As they were lying about the evidence they claimed to have, so "no comment" was the most appropriate response.  Having made certain claims they were then in a position of having to follow through - which they clearly could not.

Kate's lawyer was in my opinion a bit naïve in accepting the PJ "evidence" at face value.

Just a tad naive.

[Eleanor]

According to Kates book its what happened.

No wonder Kate was suspicious.  That could have been mistaken for collusion.

[Angelo222]

No wonder Kate was suspicious.  That could have been mistaken for collusion.

There she was with a lawyer in whom her confidence was waning by the minute. Had secretary Sofia not reassured her it might have been oh so different.

[Jean-Pierre]

No wonder Kate was suspicious.  That could have been mistaken for collusion.

I had somehow missed that.  And I am shocked.  Totally unprofessional and extremely stupid. 

[Eleanor]

I had somehow missed that.  And I am shocked.  Totally unprofessional and extremely stupid.

I missed it as well.  And then he comes back and says she could be in prison for what evidence The PJ had?  So he must have believed them.

Yer, "Stupid" does describe it, in more ways than one.

[Jean-Pierre]

I missed it as well.  And then he comes back and says she could be in prison for what evidence The PJ had?  So he must have believed them.

Yer, "Stupid" does describe it, in more ways than one.

I am just trying to get my head round that, and failing.  It is wrong on so many levels.

[Brietta]

I missed it as well.  And then he comes back and says she could be in prison for what evidence The PJ had?  So he must have believed them.

Yer, "Stupid" does describe it, in more ways than one.

The miracle is that despite the exhaustion of the lengthy questioning as a witness; despite the trauma of knowing that the authorities were devoting all their resources at establishing their guilt and no longer looking for Madeleine;  despite having "evidence" that her daughter was dead freeze framed periodically while Ricardo Paiva was in her face demanding answers ... this woman got the strength from somewhere to stand firm.

Only a mother's love and the realisation that she was the only only hope Madeleine McCann had of ever being looked for can have kept her going. That has certainly proved to be true ... without the tireless efforts of her parents to keep Madeleine's name in the public consciousness and their never ending struggle to have her case re-opened ... Madeleine would still be a sad footnote in the history of missing and abducted children.

If she had not had the strength of character to maintain her right to silence giving the PJ only their misinterpreted 'evidence' to present to the Prosecutors and nothing from her which could be twisted to fit ... I do not think the PJ and SY would be looking for Madeleine McCann now.

[Carana]

Is this true about Carlos?  If so, I am deeply shocked.

Yes it is, according to Kate's account.

The PJ had presumably made him watch the dog videos and possibly waved the "DNA" evidence. At that point, he may well have believed that they had substantial evidence and -  somewhat naively but possibly with the best of intentions - suggested she confess to a lesser crime. The carrot was a short sentence, Gerry and the twins could go home, etc. It may seem incredible that anyone could falsely confess to a crime, but the psychological pressure of the fear of being charged with murder, plus wanting to get the twins safely back home could make "confessing" to a lesser charge seem the lesser of two evils.

It was pure bluff and he fell for it.

I find it somewhat naive because the next issue would be "Where's the body?". And then, of course, as it would have been extremely unlikely that Kate could have hidden the body and not told Gerry about it - bang. Her "confession" would be used to implicate Gerry who would most certainly not have gone home with the twins.

On the one hand, trying to get a confession is what the police do... and slippery stairs weren't an option in this case. The option they went for was to get her lawyer on board to "advise" her.

In those circumstances, I don't find it surprising that she was wary of being stitched up. My understanding is that she was fuming that her lawyer appeared to have been taken in by whatever he'd been told or made to watch during that 2-hour recess, and was fuming at the realisation that the PJ's conviction of their involvement meant that they had stopped looking for Madeleine. As she refused to "confess" to a crime she hadn't committed, her lawyer advised her to remain silent.

In addition, many of the questions were leading and there was no guarantee that if she had answered them, that they wouldn't have been distorted if ever there was a trial.

Here is what I find to be an interesting talk on the subject (from a US perspective).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[Brietta]

Yes it is, according to Kate's account.

The PJ had presumably made him watch the dog videos and possibly waved the "DNA" evidence. At that point, he may well have believed that they had substantial evidence and -  somewhat naively but possibly with the best of intentions - suggested she confess to a lesser crime. The carrot was a short sentence, Gerry and the twins could go home, etc. It may seem incredible that anyone could falsely confess to a crime, but the psychological pressure of the fear of being charged with murder, plus wanting to get the twins safely back home could make "confessing" to a lesser charge seem the lesser of two evils.

It was pure bluff and he fell for it.

I find it somewhat naive because the next issue would be "Where's the body?". And then, of course, as it would have been extremely unlikely that Kate could have hidden the body and not told Gerry about it - bang. Her "confession" would be used to implicate Gerry who would most certainly not have gone home with the twins.

On the one hand, trying to get a confession is what the police do... and slippery stairs weren't an option in this case. The option they went for was to get her lawyer on board to "advise" her.

In those circumstances, I don't find it surprising that she was wary of being stitched up. My understanding is that she was fuming that her lawyer appeared to have been taken in by whatever he'd been told or made to watch during that 2-hour recess, and was fuming at the realisation that the PJ's conviction of their involvement meant that they had stopped looking for Madeleine. As she refused to "confess" to a crime she hadn't committed, her lawyer advised her to remain silent.

In addition, many of the questions were leading and there was no guarantee that if she had answered them, that they wouldn't have been distorted if ever there was a trial.

Here is what I find to be an interesting talk on the subject (from a US perspective).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Thanks for that link, Carana;  I watched it some time ago and lost it.  After watching it first time around I immediately saw the importance of the right to silence and having a lawyer present at interview particularly for the innocent ~ up until then I had been of the opinion it was an indicator of guilt. 

[Benice]

Amaral had an exemplary record as a law enforcer up until his involvement with the McCanns.  As for bent cop, I don't believe the crime of altering a police duty proforma somehow reaches the dizzy heights of corruption you infer.

And yes, they should both have cooperated fully and encouraged their pals to do the same.

I blame their lawyer for putting the fear of God in them.  Carlos was involved in a prolonged discussion with the PJ lasting over two hours while Kate sweated it out in the interview room.  That was out of order imo.  It was Carlos who later put the deal to Kate about confessing...wtf was he on?

So you think that being able to hide your previous wrongdoing and abuse of your position as a policeman gives you the right to claim an exemplary record - on the grounds that your crimes hadn't yet been found out.   There's no answer to that.

As someone who apparently condones torture, I'm not surprised that a policeman attempting to cover up the torture of a defenceless woman, is no big deal to you.

[John]

Yes it is, according to Kate's account.

The PJ had presumably made him watch the dog videos and possibly waved the "DNA" evidence. At that point, he may well have believed that they had substantial evidence and -  somewhat naively but possibly with the best of intentions - suggested she confess to a lesser crime. The carrot was a short sentence, Gerry and the twins could go home, etc. It may seem incredible that anyone could falsely confess to a crime, but the psychological pressure of the fear of being charged with murder, plus wanting to get the twins safely back home could make "confessing" to a lesser charge seem the lesser of two evils.

It was pure bluff and he fell for it.

I find it somewhat naive because the next issue would be "Where's the body?". And then, of course, as it would have been extremely unlikely that Kate could have hidden the body and not told Gerry about it - bang. Her "confession" would be used to implicate Gerry who would most certainly not have gone home with the twins.

On the one hand, trying to get a confession is what the police do... and slippery stairs weren't an option in this case. The option they went for was to get her lawyer on board to "advise" her.

In those circumstances, I don't find it surprising that she was wary of being stitched up. My understanding is that she was fuming that her lawyer appeared to have been taken in by whatever he'd been told or made to watch during that 2-hour recess, and was fuming at the realisation that the PJ's conviction of their involvement meant that they had stopped looking for Madeleine. As she refused to "confess" to a crime she hadn't committed, her lawyer advised her to remain silent.

In addition, many of the questions were leading and there was no guarantee that if she had answered them, that they wouldn't have been distorted if ever there was a trial.

Here is what I find to be an interesting talk on the subject (from a US perspective).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

I don't buy it, Carlos was a seasoned lawyer and knew all the tricks.  My own view based on Kate's account in her book is that Carlos had been persuaded of their culpability so all he was trying to do was to protect their interests before a trial.

[Mr Gray]

I don't buy it, Carlos was a seasoned lawyer and knew all the tricks.  My own view based on Kate's account in her book is that Carlos had been persuaded of their culpability so all he was trying to do was to protect their interests before a trial.

after a post like that you certainly don't deserve a proper justice system......policemen have to obey the law like anyone else.....she is almost certainly innocent with no evidence against her

[Jean-Pierre]

I don't buy it, Carlos was a seasoned lawyer and knew all the tricks.  My own view based on Kate's account in her book is that Carlos had been persuaded of their culpability so all he was trying to do was to protect their interests before a trial.

Rubbish.  ANY lawyer should advise their client not to answer police questions.   Carlos was seemingly incredibly naïve.

Suggest you watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[Carana]

On interrogations:


“There is a major difference between preparation for elicitation and for brainwashing .  Prisoners exploited through elicitation must retain sufficient clarity of thought to be able to give coherent, factual accounts. In brainwashing , on the other hand, the first thing attacked is clarity of thought.”

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html

[Jean-Pierre]

So three things that have emerged in this very useful thread:

Leading lights in this forum seem to be of the opinion that:

(1) Anyone using their right to silence must be guilty

(2) Its OK for the police to use torture

(3) Its OK for the police to provide a private briefing to the lawyer of an Arguido.

Interesting.