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

[Carana]

From the same article:

Editors at newspaper websites realised back in May that McCann stories quickly shot to the top of their "most read" rankings. The best summary of the McCanns' current situation came from a Portuguese commentator, Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/17/mondaymediasection13

[ferryman]

From the same article:

Editors at newspaper websites realised back in May that McCann stories quickly shot to the top of their "most read" rankings. The best summary of the McCanns' current situation came from a Portuguese commentator, Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/17/mondaymediasection13

...That article bears close scrutiny

[Brietta]

Yes and no.  Yes it was good advice as a failsafe but no since it looks bad to the outside observer.

There are 'outside observers' who have been voicing the opinion that everything the McCanns say or do (Kate in particular) looks bad ... so it really wouldn't have mattered how many questions Kate answered or did not.

[Carana]

...That article bears close scrutiny

Like this, perhaps?

Some Portuguese commentators are aware that their press, like some of their British counterparts, have gone too far. "The crowd now wants the parents to be the murderers because they are British (and, therefore, not Portuguese) and so that the worst of the British press has to surrender to the worst of the Portuguese press and admit that the latter were right," commented Mario Negreiros in Portugal's Jornal de Negocios.

[Brietta]

Why would the lawyer tell the public that. He has remained very quiet about this case from the day she was questioned.

Perhaps ... unlike Mr Amaral ... he takes his professional obligation to silence seriously and is highly unlikely to reveal anything in relation to his client.

[Brietta]

From the same article:

Editors at newspaper websites realised back in May that McCann stories quickly shot to the top of their "most read" rankings. The best summary of the McCanns' current situation came from a Portuguese commentator, Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/17/mondaymediasection13

Since finding out that the law change which came into force within days would have meant that there had to be evidence to justify a person being made an arguido\a I have been of the opinion that is exactly why it was done.

I remember the shock I felt at the time.

Having jumped the gun on the status of Madeleine McCann's parents it was imperative to justify doing so ... I believe  whatever response Kate had made to the questions, she would have been charged ... the focus was always on her and two thirds of the eight year vilification has been directed at her although Jerry gets his share.

[Brietta]

...That article bears close scrutiny

What was obvious to an intelligent observer in 2007 remains obscured to so many in 2015 ... that they are mainly British or from the English speaking world makes it particularly sad.

[John]

There are 'outside observers' who have been voicing the opinion that everything the McCanns say or do (Kate in particular) looks bad ... so it really wouldn't have mattered how many questions Kate answered or did not.

There is another point worth considering and please correct me if I have this wrong. 

Kate was questioned on three occasions but it was only on the last occasion (the arguido interview) that she refused to answer the majority of the questions put to her.  As an arguido and a suspect rather than a witness that was her right.

Do you consider her refusal to answer the questions consistent with those rights?

[Jean-Pierre]

There is another point worth considering and please correct me if I have this wrong. 

Kate was questioned on three occasions but it was only on the last occasion (the arguido interview) that she refused to answer the majority of the questions put to her.  As an arguido and a suspect rather than a witness that was her right.

Do you consider her refusal to answer the questions consistent with those rights?

Under Portuguese law, and as a witness, Kate could not refuse to answer any questions put to her by the PJ. 

[ferryman]

Like this, perhaps?

Some Portuguese commentators are aware that their press, like some of their British counterparts, have gone too far. "The crowd now wants the parents to be the murderers because they are British (and, therefore, not Portuguese) and so that the worst of the British press has to surrender to the worst of the Portuguese press and admit that the latter were right," commented Mario Negreiros in Portugal's Jornal de Negocios.

Also the sequence of events in the article

'Plea-bargains' can only occur after charges have been brought, and are a trade-off where by more serious charges are dropped in return for a promise from the defendant that s/he will agree to plead "guilty" to less serious charges, for which comparatively lenient sentences will be imposed.

As we know, the McCanns were never charged and (in any event) I don't think plea-bargains are possible under the Portuguese system.

However, in Portugal (as in all countries!) there are set prison sentences for specific crimes, and the sentence for finding and concealing a body is (apparently) a couple of years; while the sentence for murder is 25 years.

So it was quite possible for the PJ to offer the McCanns a trade-off of Kate getting a couple of years and Gerry getting off scot-free if Kate pleaded guilty to "finding and concealing a body"; OR the couple facing murder charges.

From the files, we know Mark Harrison was handed a brief to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered and worked to it.

"Plea-bargain" came from Trish Cameron's slightly loose layman's use of the term in describing what befell Kate and Gerry during their initial pre-arguido and arguido interviews on the night they were made arguidos.

So while "plea-bargain" may not be quite right, there is no doubt the McCanns were offered the deal, just as described by Kate in her book.

[Brietta]

There is another point worth considering and please correct me if I have this wrong. 

Kate was questioned on three occasions but it was only on the last occasion (the arguido interview) that she refused to answer the majority of the questions put to her.  As an arguido and a suspect rather than a witness that was her right.

Do you consider her refusal to answer the questions consistent with those rights?

I see what you are saying, John, and it would have been preferable if they had been made arguido\a  right at the beginning of the process as the legality of it could have been better understood.

As it stands, the way it was done in the light of the suspicions and misinformation constantly being leaked to the press smacks to me that it was done to be as prejudicial to them as possible; it was done to manipulate public opinion ... and eight years down the line that is still working in some quarters.

Don't tell me that the PJ suspicions arose as a logical result of the questions they had already answered over hours of questioning.  Prejudicial mumbo jumbo did that ~ body language, the request for a priest, the bible, Kate's alleged dream with the clincher of misunderstanding of the rules of evidence apropos the dogs and the FSS results.

They were caught in a cleft stick if they really believed all that ... they had to make her an arguida to be able to charge her.  She probably did not know that but I am sure her lawyer did.  So Gerry made the wrong decision there (but I don't think he was their target) and I am certain she made the right one. 

[ShiningInLuz]

I am puzzled that people seem to be suggesting that a child rescue alert is a bad idea, that is has never been used etc etc.

But way off topic.

To get back on topic - I suggest the answer to the question posed in the OP is that invoking the right to silence is significantly less risky than answering police questions.

I have struggled with this thread from the start.

Less risky to whom?  Less risky to Kate?  If the objective was Kate trying to protect Kate then possibly, but only possibly, the answer is yes.  I say possibly because she was sitting with a competent lawyer, not in there defenceless with a bunch of policemen.

(Today's Portuguese news is about a fairly senior officer beating a father at the recent Benfica match, supposedly because dad spat at him and had taken kids plus granddad to a match that was likely to turn violent.  Check the BBC news site.)

Kate had been made the lowest level of arguido possible.  This gave her a lot of rights, including the right to refuse to answer questions, but perhaps more importantly, the right to see what evidence had been taken into consideration to make her an arguido.  She was finally going to get the inside story on the case.

What did she achieve by exercising her right to silence?

She handed ammunition to the anti-McCanns, to be used in the hearts and mind battle, at the very time the McCanns were running a hearts and mind campaign.

On the 'no stone unturned' front, she did not do a lot to progress the search for Madeleine.  Murat and Gerry did more by answering the questions.

When the twins get to the age of independent, critical thought, this is another instance that is likely to trouble them.  Why did Kate leave them behind, window and patio door open, if she genuinely thought there was an abductor?  Why did she not answer the questions, if she wanted to advance the search for Madeleine?

For the avoidance of doubt, I am neither pro-McCann nor anti-McCann, so please do not interpret this post along these lines.

If I had wished to progress the search for Madeleine, I would have done what Gerry did and answer the questions.

[ferryman]

Kate had been made the lowest level of arguido possible.

I thought the arguido status was a uniform one?

I stand to be corrected.

[Eleanor]

has anyone seen the questions that Gerry was asked?

[ferryman]

http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm