Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Angelo222 on May 16, 2015, 10:49:14 AM
Title: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 16, 2015, 10:49:14 AM
There can only be one reason why the parent of a missing child won't answer the simplest of police questions.
258
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 16, 2015, 11:01:27 AM
I thought that after all this time you would be intelligent enough to have worked that all out on your lonesome?
But in any event I will tell you. The parents of a missing child (generalisation here) will refuse to cooperate with police when they have something to hide.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Lace on May 16, 2015, 11:33:05 AM
There can only be one reason why the parent of a missing child won't answer the simplest of police questions.
I believe most of them had been answered before Angelo, but it was her lawyer who guided Kate so it was the lawyers advice she took.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 02:41:08 PM
I cannot make it any clearer. It is a generalisation that someone with something to hide who is being confronted by police investigating a crime will attempt to deflect their responses as they make things up. "No comment" is the classic response which will invoke further interest by detectives. Crooked lawyers aside. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 17, 2015, 03:24:35 PM
I cannot make it any clearer. It is a generalisation that someone with something to hide who is being confronted by police investigating a crime will attempt to deflect their responses as they make things up. "No comment" is the classic response which will invoke further interest by detectives. Crooked lawyers aside. @)(++(*
Ok. So your comment was a GENERALISATION.
Thanks for that qualification. But what was that assumption based on?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 03:37:10 PM
Thanks for that qualification. But what that assumption based on?
It wasn't an assumption it is a known fact. Could I be so humble as to suggest you consult a good guide to criminology, as I'm sure it would explain it so much better.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 17, 2015, 03:39:42 PM
It wasn't an assumption it is a known fact. Could I be so humble as to suggest you consult a good guide to criminology, I'm sure it would explain it so much better.
...there is another reason why a suspect may reply no comment...that is if they feel the police are trying to fit them up...Colin Stagg answered no comment for this reason and was eventually cleared and paid compensation
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 17, 2015, 03:45:11 PM
It wasn't an assumption it is a known fact. Could I be so humble as to suggest you consult a good guide to criminology, as I'm sure it would explain it so much better.
Which one would you suggest?
And how would one provide any illumination on a particular case?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 04:03:21 PM
There will always be exceptions as the Stagg case so eloquently referred to by Dave portrays. As a generalization however suspects with something to hide do behave differently to suspects who are wholly innocent of any wrongdoing.
In the McCann case there were other issues going on in the background such as the lack of supervision of three young children left on their own for hours on end. No doubt the threat of some untold consequences in this alone was sufficient to colour their responses.
Try and stay on topic Dave.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 17, 2015, 04:07:15 PM
There will always be exceptions as the Stagg case so eloquently referred to by Dave portrays. As a generalization however suspects with something to hide do behave differently to suspects who are wholly innocent of any wrongdoing.
In the McCann case there were other issues going on in the background such as the lack of supervision of three young children left on their own for hours on end. No doubt the threat of some untold consequences in this alone was sufficient to colour their responses.
Try and stay on topic Dave.
..at least now you have conceded that an innocent person may reply no comment and it cannot be taken to indicate guilt
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 17, 2015, 04:17:36 PM
It wasn't an assumption it is a known fact. Could I be so humble as to suggest you consult a good guide to criminology, as I'm sure it would explain it so much better.
What is a known fact?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 17, 2015, 05:06:01 PM
I cannot make it any clearer. It is a generalisation that someone with something to hide who is being confronted by police investigating a crime will attempt to deflect their responses as they make things up. "No comment" is the classic response which will invoke further interest by detectives. Crooked lawyers aside. @)(++(*
You believe that there is only ONE reason why someone would choose not to answer police questions. Let's now apply this to the case in hand and forget about generalisations, shall we?
Why do you think Kate didn't answer the questions put to her by the police? You've already stated that there is only ONE reason, so what can one infer from this pronouncement of yours when applied to this case...?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 05:22:58 PM
You believe that there is only ONE reason why someone would choose not to answer police questions. Let's now apply this to the case in hand and forget about generalisations, shall we?
Why do you think Kate didn't answer the questions put to her by the police? You've already stated that there is only ONE reason, so what can one infer from this pronouncement of yours when applied to this case...?
According to Kates book she was following her lawyers advice. Question is, why did her lawyer feel the need to give that advice if she was not involved in anything untoward?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 17, 2015, 05:26:25 PM
According to Kates book she was following her lawyers advice. Question is, why did her lawyer feel the need to give that advice if she was not involved in anything untoward?
the answer is obvious but you won't accept it...why did Stagg refuse to answer questions
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 05:26:55 PM
..at least now you have conceded that an innocent person may reply no comment and it cannot be taken to indicate guilt
As far as Stagg is concerned, best ask him why he chose to go down that route. No wonder the investigators thought he was guilty. He certainly didn't do much to help himself in that situation.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 17, 2015, 05:38:28 PM
According to Kates book she was following her lawyers advice. Question is, why did her lawyer feel the need to give that advice if she was not involved in anything untoward?
Can you think of no reason at all?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 05:43:05 PM
According to Kates book she was following her lawyers advice. Question is, why did her lawyer feel the need to give that advice if she was not involved in anything untoward?
Was this suggestion before or after his briefing / doggie video show by the PJ?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 17, 2015, 05:46:06 PM
According to Kates book she was following her lawyers advice. Question is, why did her lawyer feel the need to give that advice if she was not involved in anything untoward?
They were made arguido\a to give them the legal right not to answer questions: which one of the forty eight questions on which Kate exercised that right, do you think may not already have been answered during the months before and in the previous very lengthy sessions when she was questioned as a witness: which of the forty eight questions would have cracked the case if answered on that particular occasion?
Hand on heart, Angelo, would you have been daft enough to ignore your lawyer's advice (as Gerry did) on your right to silence in a foreign jurisdiction under hostile questioning?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 06:26:01 PM
Thank you for splitting this subject off from the book thread admin. Maybe now we can debate the right to silence in a sensible manner.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 06:30:12 PM
They were made arguido\a to give them the legal right not to answer questions: which one of the forty eight questions on which Kate exercised that right, do you think may not already have been answered during the months before and in the previous very lengthy sessions when she was questioned as a witness: which of the forty eight questions would have cracked the case if answered on that particular occasion?
Hand on heart, Angelo, would you have been daft enough to ignore your lawyer's advice (as Gerry did) on your right to silence in a foreign jurisdiction under hostile questioning?
The point is she is a supposedly intelligent woman in her own right (holiday misjudgements aside) yet you expect me to believe she couldn't answer 48 easy questions in case one of them somehow implicated her?
Personally, I don't buy it.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 06:32:05 PM
The point is she is a supposedly intelligent woman in her own right (holiday misjudgements aside) yet you expect me to believe she couldn't answer 48 easy questions in case one of them somehow implicated her?
Personally, I don't buy it.
What's your explanation then?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 17, 2015, 06:39:18 PM
Gerry had the same advice yet had no difficulty in answering but then as Stephen points out, Gerry was questioned first. If the deal Kate talks about in her book was put to her before the 48 questions then that would distort her ability to answer.
I still say there is one one reason why suspects invoke their right to silence while being questioned under caution and that is fear.
Fear of the unknown. Fear of tripping themselves up. Fear of dropping a clanger. Fear of digging a bigger hole than they are already in.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 17, 2015, 06:44:54 PM
Gerry had the same advice yet had no difficulty in answering but then as Stephen points out, Gerry was questioned first. If the deal Kate talks about in her book was put to her before the 48 questions then that would distort her ability to answer.
Please explain what you mean by "distort her ability to answer"?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 06:49:33 PM
That's not quite how she describes it in her book.
Feel free to quote.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 17, 2015, 07:02:16 PM
Portugal is not the UK.
In the UK, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) has allowed a court to draw an adverse inference for exercising the right to remain silent. This is at odds with the International Convention on Human Rights.
No such adverse inference exists in Portugal, and the penal code is quite specific in the rights granted to Arguidos. Portugal is thus in the same position as the UK prior to 1994, and advice on remaining silence when the police are on a fishing expedition is standard advice, regardless of guilt or innocence.
The interview and the questions were in no way related to discovering the whereablouts of Madeleine - they were clearly aimed to pin something on the McCanns. As question 49 shows.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 17, 2015, 07:02:48 PM
In the UK, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) has allowed a court to draw an adverse inference for exercising the right to remain silent. This is at odds with the International Convention on Human Rights.
No such adverse inference exists in Portugal, and the penal code is quite specific in the rights granted to Arguidos. Portugal is thus in the same position as the UK prior to 1994, and advice on remaining silence when the police are on a fishing expedition is standard advice, regardless of guilt or innocence.
The interview and the questions were in no way related to discovering the whereablouts of Madeleine - they were clearly aimed to pin something on the McCanns. As question 49 shows.
Was gerry McCann asked the same questions ?
If he was and answered them, what did she have to fear ?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 07:09:56 PM
The interview and the questions were in no way related to discovering the whereablouts of Madeleine - they were clearly aimed to pin something on the McCanns. As question 49 shows.
Not so. The interview was aimed at getting to the truth.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 17, 2015, 07:14:02 PM
Gerry had the same advice yet had no difficulty in answering but then as Stephen points out, Gerry was questioned first. If the deal Kate talks about in her book was put to her before the 48 questions then that would distort her ability to answer.
I still say there is one one reason why suspects invoke their right to silence while being questioned under caution and that is fear.
Fear of the unknown. Fear of tripping themselves up. Fear of dropping a clanger. Fear of digging a bigger hole than they are already in.
Me? I would go for the first one on the list. Very far reaching is that one.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 17, 2015, 07:16:18 PM
Me? I would go for the first one on the list. Very far reaching is that one.
Numbers 1 and 2 have equal weighting IMO
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 17, 2015, 07:25:15 PM
I daresay I could spend a day looking this lot up, but could someone just fill me in re the following?
Who was Kate McCann's lawyer and who was Gerry's?
Is there anything other than Kate's book that says she was advised not to answer questions? (As opposed, for example, that she had the right not to answer questions, which is quite different.)
Is there anything concrete on the legal advice given to Gerry?
Sorry about my final request folks, but I've never had much interest in the 48 questions issue. How many questions in total were put to Kate and how many did she answer?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 17, 2015, 07:25:59 PM
You made the claim that Kate was terrified and confused - you back it up.
You only need to read the book.
At the apartment on 6 September 2007 after being told of the arguido interviews by their lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu...
Then came the best bit. Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.
Gerry was distraught now. He was on his knees, sobbing, his head hung low. ‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again. The realization that we were at the mercy of an incomprehensible criminal justice system had hit him hard. It was excruciating to see him like this. I love him so much and he is usually so strong. I was very conscious that my response was different. Maybe I should have been on my knees, too. Why wasn’t I crying? Was my behaviour making me look cold or guilty? Again, my only explanation is that it was beyond comprehension. I might as well have been a character in a soap opera. Any time now the director would cal ‘Cut!’ and this scene would be over. Even today, I struggle to believe it actually took place. There was a phrase Carlos must have used about twenty times: ‘This is the point of no return.’ I could feel myself shaking. He was a man with three daughters of his own.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 17, 2015, 08:34:19 PM
At the apartment after being told of the arguido interviews by their lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu...
Then came the best bit. Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.
Gerry was distraught now. He was on his knees, sobbing, his head hung low. ‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again. The realization that we were at the mercy of an incomprehensible criminal justice system had hit him hard. It was excruciating to see him like this. I love him so much and he is usually so strong. I was very conscious that my response was different. Maybe I should have been on my knees, too. Why wasn’t I crying? Was my behaviour making me look cold or guilty? Again, my only explanation is that it was beyond comprehension. I might as well have been a character in a soap opera. Any time now the director would cal ‘Cut!’ and this scene would be over. Even today, I struggle to believe it actually took place. There was a phrase Carlos must have used about twenty times: ‘This is the point of no return.’ I could feel myself shaking. He was a man with three daughters of his own.
How very disingenuous of you to omit these passages (bearing in mind we were discussing KATE'S frame of mind, not Gerry's): Directly following the first passage you quoted above Kate writes:
"Pardon? I really wasn't sure if I could possibly have heard him correctly. My incredulity turned to rage."
Then, after the second paragraph you quoted you left out this sentence:
"I love him so very much and he (Gerry) is usually so strong. I was very conscious that my response was different. Maybe I should have been on my knees too. Why wasn't I crying?"
Then a couple of paragraphs later (in case we were in any doubt):
"My anger and ferocious maternal instinct began to permeate Gerry's despair".
So - anger, not confusion and terror was the overriding reaction from Kate on hearing about the deal.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ferryman on May 17, 2015, 08:35:43 PM
At the apartment on 6 September 2007 after being told of the arguido interviews by their lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu...
Then came the best bit. Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.
Gerry was distraught now. He was on his knees, sobbing, his head hung low. ‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again. The realization that we were at the mercy of an incomprehensible criminal justice system had hit him hard. It was excruciating to see him like this. I love him so much and he is usually so strong. I was very conscious that my response was different. Maybe I should have been on my knees, too. Why wasn’t I crying? Was my behaviour making me look cold or guilty? Again, my only explanation is that it was beyond comprehension. I might as well have been a character in a soap opera. Any time now the director would cal ‘Cut!’ and this scene would be over. Even today, I struggle to believe it actually took place. There was a phrase Carlos must have used about twenty times: ‘This is the point of no return.’ I could feel myself shaking. He was a man with three daughters of his own.
Certain factors at play then resolved themselves later in the light of day.
Their reaction at the time was certainly understandable.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 17, 2015, 08:40:19 PM
I daresay I could spend a day looking this lot up, but could someone just fill me in re the following?
Who was Kate McCann's lawyer and who was Gerry's?
Is there anything other than Kate's book that says she was advised not to answer questions? (As opposed, for example, that she had the right not to answer questions, which is quite different.)
Is there anything concrete on the legal advice given to Gerry?
Sorry about my final request folks, but I've never had much interest in the 48 questions issue. How many questions in total were put to Kate and how many did she answer?
kate had answered every question put to her for about 19 hours...to say kate did not co operate is a lie
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 08:42:19 PM
On 5 September 2007, Kate McCann was being interviewed by the PJ but was losing all confidence in lawyer Carlos...
Although Carlos’s stance bothered me, I tried to take his guidance on board.
and then later in the villa on the morning of 6 September.
Heaven help us. My confidence in Carlos was evaporating almost as quickly as my faith in Portuguese justice. I couldn’t tell if he believed us, which, given that his job was to defend us, was a major worry, to put it mildly. Even if he did, I was no longer sure he had the backbone to stand up for us. It was one thing to make us aware of the PJ’s proposal, and perhaps Carlos was duty bound to do that; it was quite another, however, to suggest we accept it. I was horrified, and told him so in no uncertain terms.
Clearly Carlos was beginning to doubt their story too!!
Little wonder therefore he told them not to answer any questions on the day of the Arguido interviews.
As I walked out of the interview room at 3.15pm, Gerry was on his way to Portimão for his interrogation. I wasn’t allowed to see him but I had been able to speak to him on the phone. Carlos told me it looked as if we could be up in court on Monday.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 17, 2015, 08:49:20 PM
So Kate's decision to remain silent could be because she was guilty or because she felt the PJ were trying to incriminate her...it's a matter of opinion
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ferryman on May 17, 2015, 08:50:13 PM
On 5 September 2007, Kate McCann was being interviewed by the PJ but was losing all confidence in lawyer Carlos...
Although Carlos’s stance bothered me, I tried to take his guidance on board.
and then later in the villa on the morning of 6 September.
Heaven help us. My confidence in Carlos was evaporating almost as quickly as my faith in Portuguese justice. I couldn’t tell if he believed us, which, given that his job was to defend us, was a major worry, to put it mildly. Even if he did, I was no longer sure he had the backbone to stand up for us. It was one thing to make us aware of the PJ’s proposal, and perhaps Carlos was duty bound to do that; it was quite another, however, to suggest we accept it. I was horrified, and told him so in no uncertain terms.
Clearly Carlos was beginning to doubt their story too!!
Little wonder therefore he told them not to answer any questions on the day of the Arguido interviews.
Factors at play at that time clarified afterwards.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 08:53:50 PM
So Kate's decision to remain silent could be because she was guilty or because she felt the PJ were trying to incriminate her...it's a matter of opinion
No Dave, it was because her lawyer thought her guilty considering all the evidence the PJ had against them. To quote Kate again from her book...
"If you were Portuguese,’ Carlos said with an air of resignation, ‘this would be enough to put you in prison."
So there you have it, one Law for the Portuguese and another for HM citizens.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ferryman on May 17, 2015, 08:57:12 PM
No Dave, it was because her lawyer thought her guilty considering all the evidence the PJ had against them. To quote Kate again from her book...
"If you were Portuguese,’ Carlos said with an air of resignation, ‘this would be enough to put you in prison."
One vital point Carlos didn't, at that point, understand (along with far too many others) was that no inferences of an incriminating nature could be drawn from the reactions of the dogs.
When that point was made clear, by Harrison and (in fairness!) Grime, the whole thing took on a very different hue ...
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 08:59:20 PM
One vital point Carlos didn't, at that point, understand (along with far too many others) was that no inferences of an incriminating nature could be drawn from the reactions of the dogs.
When that point was made clear, by Harrison and (in fairness!) Grime, the whole thing took on a very different hue ...
Oh dear, not them pesky dogs again!! @)(++(*
Back at the vila, Carlos informed me, as Ferreira had indicated, that he needed to speak to Gerry and me in private. We sat down in the sitting room with Carlos, and Sofia, Eileen and Trisha left us to it. Carlos stil looked very concerned. There was a great deal we needed to discuss, he told us. He reiterated that the situation was not good. The PJ had a lot of ‘evidence’ against us, and I was certain to be made an arguida in the morning. First he cited video footage the police had shot of the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs in apartment 5A and also around our hire car. I would be shown this on my return to the police station.
Next came the matter of a crumpled page the police said they had discovered in my borrowed Bible. It seemed this was felt to be highly significant because the passage on that page, in I Samuel 12, dealt with the death of a child. I knew nothing about any pages being crumpled, let alone in which part of the Bible. The fact that I had asked to see a priest on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance was also seen as evidence of guilt.
A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously. This was absolute nonsense, but ‘evidence’ of this kind came down to one person’s word against another.
Followed by the aforementioned...
If you were Portuguese,’ Carlos said with an air of resignation, ‘this would be enough to put you in prison.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 17, 2015, 09:01:15 PM
Read the book Dave, its all there, always assuming you believe Kate's version of events. Carlos was preparing them for the worst, Kate admits they expected to be arrested.
Recognizing the need to switch into crisis management mode, we calmed each other down. Gerry and I made it very clear to Trisha and Eileen that if we didn’t return from the police station the next day, they should take the children out of the country as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 17, 2015, 09:54:12 PM
No Dave, it was because her lawyer thought her guilty considering all the evidence the PJ had against them. To quote Kate again from her book...
"If you were Portuguese,’ Carlos said with an air of resignation, ‘this would be enough to put you in prison."
So there you have it, one Law for the Portuguese and another for HM citizens.
All what evidence?
The PJ's claim to Carlos that samples from the apartment and the car had revealed Madeleine's blood?
The crumpled page the police had discovered in her friends bible which they appeared to think was her bible?
The fact that she had asked for a priest? Apparently people in Portugal don't talk to priests in times of need as we do in this country, only when they want forgiveness.
A witness claimed to have seen them both carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously? The fact that this was untrue, and it would have been a case of one person's word against another - apparently didn't matter. ---------------------
The above is the 'evidence Carlos was referring to when he said it was enough to put them in prison!
All I can say is if that's what they consider to be 'evidence' sufficient to put someone in prison in Portugal - then I'm gobsmacked.
I'm surprised that list of 'evidence' didn't include Amarals belief that saying... 'we've let someone down'.. is another way for UK doctors to say someone has died - IIRC.
Not only did they have an arguido suspected of being implicated in torture as lead investigator - as well as the language barrier to contend with - and being subjected to a vicious campaign via the press - they also had the differences in our cultures actually being used as evidence against them.
Unbelievable ignorance and incompetence IMO. No wonder the McCanns despaired at that moment.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 17, 2015, 10:24:58 PM
This is a good example as to why it is a very good idea to remain silent.
The PJ made a number of false claims, presumably in a very clumsy attempt to elicit a confession. Or enter into a form of plea bargain as noted above.
However, silence means that they have to either put up or shut up - if they do not actually have the evidence claimed then what can they do?
Angelo - in your assertion that silence = guilt you are being either naïve or disingenuous.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 17, 2015, 10:28:10 PM
No Dave, it was because her lawyer thought her guilty considering all the evidence the PJ had against them. To quote Kate again from her book...
"If you were Portuguese,’ Carlos said with an air of resignation, ‘this would be enough to put you in prison."
So there you have it, one Law for the Portuguese and another for HM citizens.
So are you suggesting that Portugal is a police state, Angelo? Where a person can be put in prison on the uncorroborated word of a policeman? Extraordinary insult to the Portuguese.
This is something that happened back in the Salazar days.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 17, 2015, 10:52:11 PM
Maybe your version has a wonky translation? @)(++(*
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 17, 2015, 11:25:51 PM
Kate and Gerry being NHS doctors would have had extensive training in looking for signs of child abuse, and the stats regarding that- is prevalent in families. I am not just talking physical and sexual but also mental abuse. They would know that the family are the first to be investigated, so lets not come across as being silly about dem bad ole Portuguese police.
If they were innocent they would have had nothing to fear, yes feel uncomfortable about their reputations and what people were saying about them, but they would have had nothing to fear as far as being charged and imprisoned was concerned.
Their version of accounts did seem to match and are quite easy to pull apart with scrutiny, they were arrogant to think they would not be called to question.
The last question 48... Well that says it all really.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 18, 2015, 08:42:52 AM
Kate and Gerry being NHS doctors would have had extensive training in looking for signs of child abuse, and the stats regarding that- is prevalent in families. I am not just talking physical and sexual but also mental abuse. They would know that the family are the first to be investigated, so lets not come across as being silly about dem bad ole Portuguese police.
If they were innocent they would have had nothing to fear, yes feel uncomfortable about their reputations and what people were saying about them, but they would have had nothing to fear as far as being charged and imprisoned was concerned.
Their version of accounts did seem to match and are quite easy to pull apart with scrutiny, they were arrogant to think they would not be called to question.
The last question 48... Well that says it all really.
Nicely put MTI. Kate didn't fully trust her lawyer Carlos as she herself admits that he was unconvinced by their plight. The lawyers secretary Sofia even had to reassure Kate that it would be alright and to stick with Carlos.
Kate wasn't to know then that her every response would later be reported in its entirety in the PJ files.
The right to silence is a right which should not be invoked lightly. Forthright answering of all police questions is always the best course in such circumstances.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 18, 2015, 09:34:42 AM
Nicely put MTI. Kate didn't fully trust her lawyer Carlos as she herself admits that he was unconvinced by their plight. The lawyers secretary Sofia even had to reassure Kate that it would be alright and to stick with Carlos.
Kate wasn't to know then that her every response would later be reported in its entirety in the PJ files.
The right to silence is a right which should not be invoked lightly. Forthright answering of all police questions is always the best course in such circumstances.
How many police interviews have you been involved in Angelo?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Benice on May 18, 2015, 09:39:21 AM
Nicely put MTI. Kate didn't fully trust her lawyer Carlos as she herself admits that he was unconvinced by their plight. The lawyers secretary Sofia even had to reassure Kate that it would be alright and to stick with Carlos.
Kate wasn't to know then that her every response would later be reported in its entirety in the PJ files.
The right to silence is a right which should not be invoked lightly. Forthright answering of all police questions is always the best course in such circumstances.
So if you knew attempts to frame you for a crime you didn't commit were being made by the police - would you do everything in your power to help them to fit you up? Why would any sane person want to do that?
It's not as if we are talking about decent professional policemen here as both Amaral and his No.2 Tavares turned out to be 'bent cops' who were quite happy to abuse their positions to get a result. So who knows what would have happened to Kate if she had answered the questions.
You appear to think she should have put her trust in these policemen who she knew were trying to frame her. Why on earth would you think that? It makes no sense imo.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 18, 2015, 09:42:54 AM
So if you knew attempts to frame you for a crime you didn't commit were being made by the police - would you do everything in your power to help them to fit you up? Why would any sane person want to do that?
It's not as if we are talking about decent professional policemen here as both Amaral and his No.2 Tavares turned out to be 'bent cops' who were quite happy to abuse their positions to get a result. So who knows what would have happened to Kate if she had answered the questions.
You appear to think she should have put her trust in these policemen who she knew were trying to frame her. Why on earth would you think that? It makes no sense imo.
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?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 18, 2015, 09:58:02 AM
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?
Is this true about Carlos? If so, I am deeply shocked.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 18, 2015, 10:01:31 AM
You don't have to jump off a cliff to know that to do so would be fatal.
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 18, 2015, 10:05:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 18, 2015, 10:07:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 18, 2015, 10:56:28 AM
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
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 18, 2015, 11:27:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Benice on May 18, 2015, 12:00:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 18, 2015, 12:40:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 18, 2015, 12:52:57 PM
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
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 18, 2015, 12:57:34 PM
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
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 18, 2015, 02:05:39 PM
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
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 18, 2015, 02:28:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 18, 2015, 02:50:58 PM
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.
I'm not entirely sure about No. 3. If I were trying to defend a client (and I'm not a lawyer, but just trying to imagine), I might find it useful to know what evidence there was in order to better advise my client.
The problem was that he didn't seem to understand that whatevever the PJ told him meant zilch. Depending on his experience of such cases, the dogs woofing could have appeared as quite impressive, and even if he had been able to read the flawed PT translation of the forensic report (and it's not certain that he or either of the arguidos were able to read it either), it's not clear whether he would have understood it.
He may well be a decent lawyer but got duped by the PJ's so-called "evidence".
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 18, 2015, 03:09:13 PM
I'm not entirely sure about No. 3. If I were trying to defend a client (and I'm not a lawyer, but just trying to imagine), I might find it useful to know what evidence there was in order to better advise my client.
The problem was that he didn't seem to understand that whatevever the PJ told him meant zilch. Depending on his experience of such cases, the dogs woofing could have appeared as quite impressive, and even if he had been able to read the flawed PT translation of the forensic report (and it's not certain that he or either of the arguidos were able to read it either), it's not clear whether he would have understood it.
He may well be a decent lawyer but got duped by the PJ's so-called "evidence".
I am sorry to disagree with you there Carana -
Whatever the circumstances Kate has absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to lose - from a "confession". The police are in no position to actually make plea bargains, because any sentencing is up to the court. But obtaining a confession on the promise of a reduced sentence is obviously attractive - the confession will stand but the other bits will be forgotten - a case of her word against the police and the prosecutor.
A good lawyer would know that. Carlos was at best naïve and inexperienced if he believed them and went along with the fiction.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 18, 2015, 03:27:19 PM
Whatever the circumstances Kate has absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to lose - from a "confession". The police are in no position to actually make plea bargains, because any sentencing is up to the court. But obtaining a confession on the promise of a reduced sentence is obviously attractive - the confession will stand but the other bits will be forgotten - a case of her word against the police and the prosecutor.
A good lawyer would know that. Carlos was at best naïve and inexperienced if he believed them and went along with the fiction.
I don't think that we really disagree. Perhaps well-intentioned but naïve and inexperienced in that type of case may have been better phrasing.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: misty on May 18, 2015, 03:31:35 PM
I am reminded of the following:- A driver is pulled over by a policeman. The policeman approaches the drivers door. "Is there a problem, Officer?" The policeman says, "Sir, you were speeding. Can I see your license please?" The driver responds, "I'd give it to you but I don't have one." "You don't have one?" The man responds, "I lost it four times for drink driving." The policeman is shocked. "I see. Can I see your vehicle registration papers please?" "I'm sorry, I can't do that." The policeman says, "Why not?" "I stole this car." The officer says, "Stole it?" The man says, "Yes, and I killed the owner." At this point the officer is getting irate. "You what?" "She's in the boot if you want to see." The Officer looks at the man and slowly backs away to his car and calls for back up. Within minutes, five police cars show up, surrounding the car. A senior officer slowly approaches the car, clasping his half-drawn gun. The senior officer says, "Sir, could you step out of your vehicle please!" The man steps out of his vehicle. "Is there a problem, sir?" "One of my officers told me that you have stolen this car and murdered the owner." "Murdered the owner?" The officer responds, "Yes, could you please open the boot of your car please?" The man opens the boot, revealing nothing but an empty boot. The officer says, "Is this your car sir?" The man says, "Yes" and hands over the registration papers. The officer, understandably, is quite stunned. "One of my officers claims that you do not have a driving licence." The man digs in his pocket revealing a wallet and hands it to the officer. The officer opens the wallet and examines the licence. He looks quite puzzled. "Thank you, sir. One of my officers told me you didn't have a licence, stole this car, and murdered the owner." The man replies, "I bet you the lying b****** told you I was speeding, too!"
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 18, 2015, 03:36:09 PM
I am reminded of the following:- A driver is pulled over by a policeman. The policeman approaches the drivers door. "Is there a problem, Officer?" The policeman says, "Sir, you were speeding. Can I see your license please?" The driver responds, "I'd give it to you but I don't have one." "You don't have one?" The man responds, "I lost it four times for drink driving." The policeman is shocked. "I see. Can I see your vehicle registration papers please?" "I'm sorry, I can't do that." The policeman says, "Why not?" "I stole this car." The officer says, "Stole it?" The man says, "Yes, and I killed the owner." At this point the officer is getting irate. "You what?" "She's in the boot if you want to see." The Officer looks at the man and slowly backs away to his car and calls for back up. Within minutes, five police cars show up, surrounding the car. A senior officer slowly approaches the car, clasping his half-drawn gun. The senior officer says, "Sir, could you step out of your vehicle please!" The man steps out of his vehicle. "Is there a problem, sir?" "One of my officers told me that you have stolen this car and murdered the owner." "Murdered the owner?" The officer responds, "Yes, could you please open the boot of your car please?" The man opens the boot, revealing nothing but an empty boot. The officer says, "Is this your car sir?" The man says, "Yes" and hands over the registration papers. The officer, understandably, is quite stunned. "One of my officers claims that you do not have a driving licence." The man digs in his pocket revealing a wallet and hands it to the officer. The officer opens the wallet and examines the licence. He looks quite puzzled. "Thank you, sir. One of my officers told me you didn't have a licence, stole this car, and murdered the owner." The man replies, "I bet you the lying b****** told you I was speeding, too!"
@)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 18, 2015, 03:38:35 PM
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 wonder if Kates inaccurate statement was ever put right?
Accompanied by Carlos, Sofia and the interpreter – who turned out to be a lady in her sixties or thereabouts, originally from Mozambique – I finally went in for my interview at 2.55pm. There were three PJ officers in the room. João Carlos and Ricardo Paiva were joined by Paulo Ferreira , a man I’d never met before. João Carlos asked most of the questions, all of which I answered in as much detail as I could. He started with the Tuesday night of our holiday week, moving on to the Wednesday and then the terrible Thursday. At one point early on, something was read out from my initial statement, given on 4 May. It wasn’t quite accurate and I explained to the officer that the original meaning seemed to have been lost slightly in translation. To my astonishment, the interpreter became quite angry and suddenly interrupted, ‘What are you saying? That we interpreters can’t do our job? The interpreter will only have translated what you told her!’ I was staggered. Quite apart from the fact that in this instance she was wrong – this definitely wasn’t what I’d said – surely an interpreter is there to interpret, not to interfere in the process? My trust in her took a dive.
At 5pm, we had a fifteen- minute break, which I spent standing in the corridor outside the interrogation room. Carlos came over and told me not to be so definite in some of my answers. He was referring, apparently, to a couple of claims by witnesses put to me by the questioning officer: allegations that they had seen Gerry or me doing this or that. As these claims were untrue, I had said so. I couldn’t understand why, as long as I was certain a statement was wrong, I shouldn’t refute it. Although Carlos’s stance bothered me, I tried to take his guidance on board. But it did rather undermine my confidence.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 18, 2015, 05:12:04 PM
I am reminded of the following:- A driver is pulled over by a policeman. The policeman approaches the drivers door. "Is there a problem, Officer?" The policeman says, "Sir, you were speeding. Can I see your license please?" The driver responds, "I'd give it to you but I don't have one." "You don't have one?" The man responds, "I lost it four times for drink driving." The policeman is shocked. "I see. Can I see your vehicle registration papers please?" "I'm sorry, I can't do that." The policeman says, "Why not?" "I stole this car." The officer says, "Stole it?" The man says, "Yes, and I killed the owner." At this point the officer is getting irate. "You what?" "She's in the boot if you want to see." The Officer looks at the man and slowly backs away to his car and calls for back up. Within minutes, five police cars show up, surrounding the car. A senior officer slowly approaches the car, clasping his half-drawn gun. The senior officer says, "Sir, could you step out of your vehicle please!" The man steps out of his vehicle. "Is there a problem, sir?" "One of my officers told me that you have stolen this car and murdered the owner." "Murdered the owner?" The officer responds, "Yes, could you please open the boot of your car please?" The man opens the boot, revealing nothing but an empty boot. The officer says, "Is this your car sir?" The man says, "Yes" and hands over the registration papers. The officer, understandably, is quite stunned. "One of my officers claims that you do not have a driving licence." The man digs in his pocket revealing a wallet and hands it to the officer. The officer opens the wallet and examines the licence. He looks quite puzzled. "Thank you, sir. One of my officers told me you didn't have a licence, stole this car, and murdered the owner." The man replies, "I bet you the lying b****** told you I was speeding, too!"
Bravo !!! @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 18, 2015, 08:36:17 PM
Susan Healy: They won't be refusing to answer any questions!
On the whole Gerry and I have managed to dig deep and remain focused, although the temptation to shout the truth from the rooftops has always been there. There have been many times when I have struggled to keep myself together and to understand how such injustices have been allowed to go unchallenged over and over again. I have had to keep saying to myself: I know the truth, we know the truth and God knows the truth. And one day, the truth will out. (Madeleine)
ALL talk yet no action of truth when it mattered to the police but Kate still had to answer one question. Oh dear!
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
Kate. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'
They should've showed Sandra their hidden efits and she may have burst out laughing instead of smirking at their incompetence!
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 08:48:01 AM
Whatever the circumstances Kate has absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to lose - from a "confession". The police are in no position to actually make plea bargains, because any sentencing is up to the court. But obtaining a confession on the promise of a reduced sentence is obviously attractive - the confession will stand but the other bits will be forgotten - a case of her word against the police and the prosecutor.
A good lawyer would know that. Carlos was at best naïve and inexperienced if he believed them and went along with the fiction.
A judge will sentence after consultation with both prosecuting and defence counsel in chambers. If the police offer a deal that will be reflected in said sentence.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 09:03:38 AM
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
A lawyer will only advise a client not to answer police questions when there is can overwhelming reason to do so. It is not the default approach you appear to think it is.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Benice on May 19, 2015, 09:27:55 AM
A lawyer will only advise a client not to answer police questions when there is can overwhelming reason to do so. It is not the default approach you appear to think it is.
IMO the knowledge that the Lead Investigator was already an arguido, suspected of being involved in the torture of the mother of a missing child in his last case - is a pretty overwhelming reason for a lawyer to take steps to ensure that wouldn't happen in this latest mother's case. Best to be safe than sorry.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 09:28:15 AM
A judge will sentence after consultation with both prosecuting and defence counsel in chambers. If the police offer a deal that will be reflected in said sentence.
Sentencing? Or do you mean charging? From what I can gather of what appears likely to have happened in the beginning to Leonor was that after lengthy interrogation (although it can't be confirmed, Leandro says that she'd told him she had been beaten, but in court he was only asked if there was any sign of bruising on her face or arms, which wasn't the case, and therefore coercion was dismissed), she "confessed" to a lower charge. It's not at all clear that a pro bono lawyer would have been with her during her entire interrogation - and that would seem unlikely as there are references to "no FORMAL interrogations took place on (x) day.
Once the confession is obtained, it is presumably repeated in front of a defence lawyer, a statement signed on the dotted line, then you appear before a judge to confirm it. Once you've signed on that dotted line, you've had it.
The next issue was the judge sent the PJ off to find the body, which, several alleged beatings of various people later, turned into a circus.
After much waving of a black torch (which will make even a sweaty palmprint - fluoresce), and a few unidentified and undated specks of blood), they wheel in João (behaving strangely according to Leandro) for the infamous reconstruction.
The charges get increased to murder...
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 09:31:15 AM
A lawyer will only advise a client not to answer police questions when there is can overwhelming reason to do so. It is not the default approach you appear to think it is.
It's not clear at all in the Cipriano case at which point during the interrogation sessions (prior to the slippery stairs incident) Leonor was formally made arguido and a lawyer wheeled in.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 19, 2015, 09:35:15 AM
A lawyer will only advise a client not to answer police questions when there is can overwhelming reason to do so. It is not the default approach you appear to think it is.
May I ask, John, is this view based on personal experience of police interviews, or is it theory?
Do you also understand the difference between English procedure, and that in Portugal?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 19, 2015, 09:41:19 AM
A lawyer will only advise a client not to answer police questions when there is can overwhelming reason to do so. It is not the default approach you appear to think it is.
If it depends on the circumstances ... I consider that in the circumstances, Kate McCann made the correct decision.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 19, 2015, 09:50:25 AM
If it hadn't been for the publicity and high profile of the case I suspect that Kate wouldn't have been allowed to have a lawyer present initially. Everything about it must have been incredibly frightening when you don't even know if what you say is being interpreted correctly. Add to that the knowledge of previous abuse of witnesses, keeping your mouth shut was the only option.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 19, 2015, 09:54:15 AM
A judge will sentence after consultation with both prosecuting and defence counsel in chambers. If the police offer a deal that will be reflected in said sentence.
Really?
(1) Trials in Portugal are bench or jury trials. This means that sentencing will be agreed by three judges.
(2) Plea bargains are not recognised in Portugal. Carlos would have known this. So KM would have been in the hands of the court as regards sentencing.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 19, 2015, 09:58:59 AM
Interesting point; so he must have taken leave of his senses for a few minutes?
My dear Alice - do you mind if I take that point seriously for a moment? Terribly boring I know but...
My view is that Carlos was somewhat out of his depth, and inexperienced in such matters. Although the criminal process in Portugal is rather more collaborative than the UK system, the police and prosecutor are still interested in getting convictions and not above a bit of fishing.
The PJ also "bent" procedure - they do not have to reveal everything they know to the arguido or representative but they are not allowed to lie. Which the clearly did judging from questions 43 to 47.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 10:13:33 AM
Interesting point; so he must have taken leave of his senses for a few minutes?
I've no idea what type of cases he was previously involved in.
The superwoof clips could have seemed quite impressive (the translated transcription of Grime's commentary contained a major error) and simply waving a "damning" forensic report in the air (which he may not have understood even if he'd been able to read it without the vital bit missing in the translation) could have genuinely made him think that there really was strong evidence.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 10:18:24 AM
My dear Alice - do you mind if I take that point seriously for a moment? Terribly boring I know but...
My view is that Carlos was somewhat out of his depth, and inexperienced in such matters. Although the criminal process in Portugal is rather more collaborative than the UK system, the police and prosecutor are still interested in getting convictions and not above a bit of fishing.
The PJ also "bent" procedure - they do not have to reveal everything they know to the arguido or representative but they are not allowed to lie. Which the clearly did judging from questions 43 to 47.
There are also what I find to be leading questions, some of which weren't far off the "when did you stop beating your mother"-type ones. I'll find an example for you, as I'd be interested in your opinion.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Montclair on May 19, 2015, 10:19:07 AM
My dear Alice - do you mind if I take that point seriously for a moment? Terribly boring I know but...
My view is that Carlos was somewhat out of his depth, and inexperienced in such matters. Although the criminal process in Portugal is rather more collaborative than the UK system, the police and prosecutor are still interested in getting convictions and not above a bit of fishing.
The PJ also "bent" procedure - they do not have to reveal everything they know to the arguido or representative but they are not allowed to lie. Which the clearly did judging from questions 43 to 47.
The PJ did not lie! Those questions were drawn up not just by the police investigators. They were prepared under the authority of the Ministério Público, who was also in possession of the preliminary reports from the forensic lab, which confirmed Madeleine's DNA in the car boot.
Dr. Carlos Pinto Abreu was not out of his depth, he is a very experienced lawyer. The matter is that he saw the evidence gathered in the case, the evidence that somehow was changed or let us say manipulated in the end, in order to get the McCanns off the hook.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ferryman on May 19, 2015, 10:20:33 AM
The PJ did not lie! Those questions were drawn up not just by the police investigators. They were prepared under the authority of the Ministério Público, who was also in possession of the preliminary reports from the forensic lab, which confirmed Madeleine's DNA in the car boot.
Preliminary report?
What preliminary report?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 10:26:59 AM
The PJ did not lie! Those questions were drawn up not just by the police investigators. They were prepared under the authority of the Ministério Público, who was also in possession of the preliminary reports from the forensic lab, which confirmed Madeleine's DNA in the car boot.
Dr. Carlos Pinto Abreu was not out of his depth, he is a very experienced lawyer. The matter is that he saw the evidence gathered in the case, the evidence that somehow was changed or let us say manipulated in the end, in order to get the McCanns off the hook.
Do you mean Lowe's email in which he tried to explain the basics of biology (XX x XY) and the fact that 37 alleles in total belonging to between 3 and 5 people were found?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 10:34:55 AM
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you DO say will be typed up, scrunched up and rammed down your throat.
- Anonymous.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 19, 2015, 10:35:19 AM
Do you mean Lowe's email in which he tried to explain the basics of biology (XX x XY) and the fact that 37 alleles in total belonging to between 3 and 5 people were found?
The PJ simply didn't know what they were talking about when it came to DNA. And they knew it.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 19, 2015, 10:37:06 AM
A lawyer will only advise a client not to answer police questions when there is can overwhelming reason to do so. It is not the default approach you appear to think it is.
there was an overwhelming reason...the pj thought kate was guilty
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ferryman on May 19, 2015, 10:41:19 AM
The PJ did not lie! Those questions were drawn up not just by the police investigators. They were prepared under the authority of the Ministério Público, who was also in possession of the preliminary reports from the forensic lab, which confirmed Madeleine's DNA in the car boot.
Dr. Carlos Pinto Abreu was not out of his depth, he is a very experienced lawyer. The matter is that he saw the evidence gathered in the case, the evidence that somehow was changed or let us say manipulated in the end, in order to get the McCanns off the hook.
this is the sort of rubbish amaral has promoted and people have believed
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 10:44:01 AM
IMO the knowledge that the Lead Investigator was already an arguido, suspected of being involved in the torture of the mother of a missing child in his last case - is a pretty overwhelming reason for a lawyer to take steps to ensure that wouldn't happen in this latest mother's case. Best to be safe than sorry.
I don't think there was much chance of that happening a second time for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 19, 2015, 10:49:26 AM
The PJ did not lie! Those questions were drawn up not just by the police investigators. They were prepared under the authority of the Ministério Público, who was also in possession of the preliminary reports from the forensic lab, which confirmed Madeleine's DNA in the car boot.
Dr. Carlos Pinto Abreu was not out of his depth, he is a very experienced lawyer. The matter is that he saw the evidence gathered in the case, the evidence that somehow was changed or let us say manipulated in the end, in order to get the McCanns off the hook.
So your position is that the PJ and the Ministério Público had sufficient evidence to charge the McCanns in a very serious case, and were manipulated into dropping it in order to let a couple of doctors off the hook?
Seriously? Is the Judiciary in Portugal independent?
Come on Montclair, you can do better than that.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 10:53:05 AM
I don't think there was much chance of that happening a second time for obvious reasons.
Ooooh, John. You couldn't possibly be admitting that a previous case may not have been as watertight as you have assumed it to be... could you? ;)
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 10:55:31 AM
No matter which way you cut it, a Portuguese criminal lawyer saw fit to counsel the McCanns not to answer police questions during their arguido interviews for reasons best known to him.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 10:56:18 AM
No matter which way you cut it, a Portuguese criminal lawyer saw fit to counsel the McCanns not to answer police questions during their arguido interviews for reasons best known to him.
In the circumstances ... it was the absolutely the correct advice.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Benice on May 19, 2015, 11:04:01 AM
In the circumstances ... it was the absolutely the correct advice.
I really don't understand why people from certain quarters appear blind to context.
As someone once said: "context is meaning".
I find that to be true.
Someone may light a candle to illuminate a cosy dinner for two, just as a candle can also be lit in a place of worship in memory of a departed loved one.
The candle may be of the same type... it's the context that gives the candle meaning.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 11:20:57 AM
In the circumstances ... it was the absolutely the correct advice.
I don't agree Brietta, refusing to answer police questions whilst a suspect is never a good idea if you are an innocent. Gerry saw this for himself and duly answered his questions contrary to advice.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 11:22:08 AM
I don't agree Brietta, refusing to answer police questions whilst a suspect is never a good idea if you are an innocent. Gerry saw this for himself and duly answered his questions contrary to advice.
At one time I would have agreed with that, John, nowadays I would exercise my right to a "no comment" and take my chance in an open court where people could hear exactly what I was saying.
Possibly less of an issue now that interviews are routinely audio recorded and some on video ... the interviews which took place in Portugal enjoyed neither, and as we have seen on this thread having a hostile interpreter who felt free to interject was a warning signal.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 19, 2015, 11:47:32 AM
I don't agree Brietta, refusing to answer police questions whilst a suspect is never a good idea if you are an innocent. Gerry saw this for himself and duly answered his questions contrary to advice.
Do you base this on personal or professional experience John?
And why do you think it is never a good idea to refuse to answer police questions?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Admin on May 19, 2015, 11:51:44 AM
Posters are again warned that off topic comments will be removed. Further breaches of this rule on this or any other thread will attract sanctions.
Admin
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 11:55:09 AM
At one time I would have agreed with that, John, nowadays I would exercise my right to a "no comment" and take my chance in an open court where people could hear exactly what I was saying.
Possibly less of an issue now that interviews are routinely audio recorded and some on video ... the interviews which took place in Portugal enjoyed neither, and as we have seen on this thread having a hostile interpreter who felt free to interject was a warning signal.
In some ways I would agree but every case is different.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 12:01:57 PM
Do you base this on personal or professional experience John?
And why do you think it is never a good idea to refuse to answer police questions?
Depends wholly on the circumstance of course but generally to a detective who is interviewing someone under caution, a refusal to answer some very basic questions will be taken as a hostile response and a sign that not all is as it should be.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 19, 2015, 12:07:50 PM
so Kate answers the 48 questions.....none of which were particularly pertinent... the pj get her back the next day and continue questioning in the hope kate breaks down..she doesn't...so they carry on the next day... at what point does kate refuse to answer any more questions....
there are two reasons not to answer questions....one you are guilty,two you are innocent....some posters are so biased they refuse to consider both options
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 19, 2015, 12:33:34 PM
Depends wholly on the circumstance of course but generally to a detective who is interviewing someone under caution, a refusal to answer some very basic questions will be taken as a hostile response and a sign that not all is as it should be.
And here is the nub of the problem.
This is not a nice friendly chat between mates - this is an interview as a part of a criminal investigation. It is already hostile. The detective already thinks not all is as should be.
In the UK, the interview will be under caution, in Portugal under Arguido status. Both of these give a right to silence. The standard advice is to use it.
As George Bruch made clear in the video I provided a link to put it - "imagine you are at a fairground - there is an ex professional boxer in a ring. His promoter is offering £1000 cash if you can survive a 3 minute round - this is what you are getting into in a police interview and thinking you can win".
The detective is a pro - you are a frightened amateur. Even if innocent you may find yourself in serious trouble, especially with an investigating team wanting a conviction.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Lyall on May 19, 2015, 12:40:31 PM
This is not a nice friendly chat between mates - this is an interview as a part of a criminal investigation. It is already hostile. The detective already thinks not all is as should be.
In the UK, the interview will be under caution, in Portugal under Arguido status. Both of these give a right to silence. The standard advice is to use it.
As George Bruch made clear in the video I provided a link to put it - "imagine you are at a fairground - there is an ex professional boxer in a ring. His promoter is offering £1000 cash if you can survive a 3 minute round - this is what you are getting into in a police interview and thinking you can win".
The detective is a pro - you are a frightened amateur. Even if innocent you may find yourself in serious trouble, especially with an investigating team wanting a conviction.
It's not the refusal to answer in September 2007 that's the problem (even though, according to davel, "none of [the questions] were particularly pertinent"). Of course she had the right not to answer them while in the police station. The problem is they weren't answered after the McCanns were safely back home either. And still haven't been.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 19, 2015, 12:42:52 PM
This is not a nice friendly chat between mates - this is an interview as a part of a criminal investigation. It is already hostile. The detective already thinks not all is as should be.
In the UK, the interview will be under caution, in Portugal under Arguido status. Both of these give a right to silence. The standard advice is to use it.
As George Bruch made clear in the video I provided a link to put it - "imagine you are at a fairground - there is an ex professional boxer in a ring. His promoter is offering £1000 cash if you can survive a 3 minute round - this is what you are getting into in a police interview and thinking you can win".
The detective is a pro - you are a frightened amateur. Even if innocent you may find yourself in serious trouble, especially with an investigating team wanting a conviction.
Tell the truth, can't go wrong.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 12:45:51 PM
It's not the refusal to answer in September 2007 that's the problem (even though, according to davel, "none of [the questions] were particularly pertinent"). Of course she had the right not to answer them while in the police station. The problem is they weren't answered after the McCanns were safely back home either. And still haven't been.
To the court of public opinion do you mean?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 19, 2015, 12:46:50 PM
It's not the refusal to answer in September 2007 that's the problem (even though, according to davel, "none of [the questions] were particularly pertinent"). Of course she had the right not to answer them while in the police station. The problem is they weren't answered after the McCanns were safely back home either. And still haven't been.
Which ones in particular?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Lyall on May 19, 2015, 12:49:46 PM
You would think that to be the case but in many situations the interrogators will be going into the interview having already made up their mind to proceed against you (my experience). In those circumstances the best advice would be to say nothing as anything you do say will later be twisted out of all recognition.
An arguido has the right to a lawyer for a very good reason. Carlos was basically between a stone and a hard place, he probably had a suspicion that the PJ were bluffing so invoking the right to silence was a no brainer.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Montclair on May 19, 2015, 01:02:12 PM
No matter which way you cut it, a Portuguese criminal lawyer saw fit to counsel the McCanns not to answer police questions during their arguido interviews for reasons best known to him.
AFAIK, there has been no confirmation that Carlos Pinto Abreu advised Kate not to answer the 48 questions. Only hearsay.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Lyall on May 19, 2015, 01:02:51 PM
You would think that to be the case but in many situations the interrogators will be going into the interview having already made up their mind to proceed against you (my experience). In those circumstances the best advice would be to say nothing as anything you do say will later be twisted out of all recognition.
An arguido has the right to a lawyer for a very good reason.
So you agree that using right to silence is a pretty good idea? And that Kate was actually quite well advised?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 01:04:35 PM
You would think that to be the case but in many situations the interrogators will be going into the interview having already made up their mind to proceed against you (my experience). In those circumstances the best advice would be to say nothing as anything you do say will later be twisted out of all recognition.
An arguido has the right to a lawyer for a very good reason. Carlos was basically between a stone and a hard place. He probably has a suspicion that the PJ were bluffing so invoking the right to silence was a no brained.
So... do you agree that - in the circumstances - the fact that Kate followed his advice (or independently chose not to answer them) was a sensible decision?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 01:06:21 PM
So... do you agree that - in the circumstances - the fact that Kate followed his advice (or independently chose not to answer them) was a sensible decision?
Maybe at the time it was but just look at how much controversy it has caused.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 01:09:25 PM
The PJ's claim to Carlos that samples from the apartment and the car had revealed Madeleine's blood?
The crumpled page the police had discovered in her friends bible which they appeared to think was her bible?
The fact that she had asked for a priest? Apparently people in Portugal don't talk to priests in times of need as we do in this country, only when they want forgiveness.
A witness claimed to have seen them both carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously? The fact that this was untrue, and it would have been a case of one person's word against another - apparently didn't matter. ---------------------
The above is the 'evidence Carlos was referring to when he said it was enough to put them in prison!
All I can say is if that's what they consider to be 'evidence' sufficient to put someone in prison in Portugal - then I'm gobsmacked.
I'm surprised that list of 'evidence' didn't include Amarals belief that saying... 'we've let someone down'.. is another way for UK doctors to say someone has died - IIRC.
Not only did they have an arguido suspected of being implicated in torture as lead investigator - as well as the language barrier to contend with - and being subjected to a vicious campaign via the press - they also had the differences in our cultures actually being used as evidence against them.
Unbelievable ignorance and incompetence IMO. No wonder the McCanns despaired at that moment.
Yes, Benice you can really understand why they despaired can't you, and why Kate's lawyer advised Kate not to answer the questions. Things were being twisted to mean other things.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 01:24:43 PM
Why would the lawyer tell the public that. He has remained very quiet about this case from the day she was questioned.
That might be something connected to professional rules of confidentiality? On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/17/mondaymediasection13
Course not... who could possibly think such a thing? ;)
So what exactly was the "misunderstanding"?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 01:48:00 PM
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."
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."
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 19, 2015, 02:00:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 19, 2015, 02:03:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 19, 2015, 02:13:50 PM
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."
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 19, 2015, 02:19:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 02:46:28 PM
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?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 19, 2015, 03:43:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ferryman on May 19, 2015, 03:44:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 19, 2015, 04:14:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 19, 2015, 07:01:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ferryman on May 19, 2015, 07:07:20 PM
Kate had been made the lowest level of arguido possible.
I thought the arguido status was a uniform one?
I stand to be corrected.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 19, 2015, 07:09:11 PM
has anyone seen the questions that Gerry was asked?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ferryman on May 19, 2015, 07:17:14 PM
Kate had been made the lowest level of arguido possible.
I thought the arguido status was a uniform one?
I stand to be corrected.
From Kate's arguido statement -
"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]."
Please don't ask me what other coercion measures are applicable. I haven't a clue.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 19, 2015, 07:55:06 PM
"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]."
Please don't ask me what other coercion measures are applicable. I haven't a clue.
Thank you for that.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 19, 2015, 08:06:01 PM
"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]."
Please don't ask me what other coercion measures are applicable. I haven't a clue.
So basically all that was legally required of her was for Kate to give her name and address and nothing else??
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ferryman on May 19, 2015, 08:16:47 PM
"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]."
Please don't ask me what other coercion measures are applicable. I haven't a clue.
House arrest or being held on remand.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 19, 2015, 08:47:59 PM
By Amaral's reckoning, it was Kate who found Madeleine's body.
And by the "deal", Gerry would have got off scot free while Kate would have got a couple of years.
If Kate had accepted the deal, what do you think Kate would have done when they asked her what she had done with the body?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 19, 2015, 09:16:35 PM
john has accepted it was the right thing to do at the time but says it may make people doubt kate in the long run...
it doesn't make a scrap of difference in the long run......other factors are far more important. Those who say "the dog's don't lie" think her silence is suspicious....those of us who understand the dog's evidence say she was right to refuse to answer...simple
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 19, 2015, 09:30:32 PM
so what difference would it have made if kate had answered those questions..if you think about it..absolutely none
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ferryman on May 19, 2015, 09:32:42 PM
What does Amaral have to say about Kate's cross-questioning and refusal to answer in his very excellent and truthful book?
Nothing I can see. These are the last words in the book.
If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.
If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present.
http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/chapter-18/
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 20, 2015, 06:35:20 AM
Nothing I can see. These are the last words in the book.
If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.
If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present.
http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/chapter-18/
unfortunately for Maddie...amaral didn't have aclue what he was talking about and has now been totally discredited
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 20, 2015, 08:06:26 AM
Nothing I can see. These are the last words in the book.
If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.
If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present.
http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/chapter-18/
What an odd passage. Amaral obviously believes in a great big British cover-up otherwise why would he say his English colleagues blanched at the prospect of an investigation into the fund?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 22, 2015, 09:03:51 AM
unfortunately for Maddie...amaral didn't have aclue what he was talking about and has now been totally discredited
Do you think if you keep repeating that, everybody will believe you ?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: G-Unit on May 22, 2015, 10:16:47 AM
I think in this case that invoking the right to silence did carry a risk; the risk that people would think that Kate had something to hide. That silence has continued. The only interviewer who has asked uncomfortable questions in this case is Sandra Felgueiras, and none of hers were answered either. I can understand that they were allowing her an interview for reasons of their own, but delflecting her questions makes them seem evasive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWyjVmxWzDY
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 22, 2015, 12:02:00 PM
I think in this case that invoking the right to silence did carry a risk; the risk that people would think that Kate had something to hide. That silence has continued. The only interviewer who has asked uncomfortable questions in this case is Sandra Felgueiras, and none of hers were answered either. I can understand that they were allowing her an interview for reasons of their own, but delflecting her questions makes them seem evasive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWyjVmxWzDY
there was no risk...the only people who criticise kate for not answering the 48 stupid questions are those who believe all the lies and myths and those who have already decided they are guilty....I've heard no one else criticise her
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: mercury on May 22, 2015, 08:37:47 PM
there was no risk...the only people who criticise kate for not answering the 48 stupid questions are those who believe all the lies and myths and those who have already decided they are guilty....I've heard no one else criticise her
I doubt the police who formulated the questions were believers of lies and myths..fact remains that a mother of a missing chuld refused to answer questions. A "no comment" response is typical of criminals trying to hide, she was badly advised as answering any question truthfully wouldnt have put her in a worse position, in other words it backfired
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on May 22, 2015, 08:42:22 PM
In terms of 'no comment' types on TV recently. Interestingly, the Stockport nurse Victorino Chua, 48 - murdered three. The sexual attacker, Paul Fenney, on the BBC series Detectives.
It is one's constitutional right in the UK as well as Portugal. But the truth is, we all know why most people in the box keep schtum.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 22, 2015, 08:48:51 PM
I doubt the police who formulated the questions were believers of lies and myths..fact remains that a mother of a missing chuld refused to answer questions. A "no comment" response is typical of criminals trying to hide, she was badly advised as answering any question truthfully wouldnt have put her in a worse position, in other words it backfired
oh yes they were...in what way has it backfired...I think it was sensible...the pj had to stop answering questions and let her go...otherwise they would have just carried on...remember she had already answered 19 hours of questions
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 22, 2015, 08:49:38 PM
In terms of 'no comment' types on TV recently. Interestingly, the Stockport nurse Victorino Chua, 48 - murdered three. The sexual attacker, Paul Fenney, on the BBC series Detectives.
It is one's constitutional right in the UK as well as Portugal. But the truth is, we all know why most people in the box keep schtum.
and Colin Stagg who was totally innocent
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: mercury on May 22, 2015, 09:00:59 PM
oh yes they were...in what way has it backfired...I think it was sensible...the pj had to stop answering questions and let her go...otherwise they would have just carried on...remember she had already answered 19 hours of questions
Oh yes they were? Care to explain?
The PJ had to stop answering questions? Who was asking the PJ questions?
The backfiring is all about the legacy Kate Mccann has left...she didnt answer police questions....only criminals refuse to do so, ergo why I said badly advised if she was innocent
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 22, 2015, 09:39:42 PM
The PJ had to stop answering questions? Who was asking the PJ questions?
The backfiring is all about the legacy Kate Mccann has left...she didnt answer police questions....only criminals refuse to do so, ergo why I said badly advised if she was innocent
colin stagg was innocent and refused to answer any questions...your simplistic view that only the guilty say no comment is wrong....fact
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: mercury on May 22, 2015, 09:46:56 PM
The PJ had to stop answering questions? Who was asking the PJ questions?
The backfiring is all about the legacy Kate Mccann has left...she didnt answer police questions....only criminals refuse to do so, ergo why I said badly advised if she was innocent
I think you have been watching too much TV legal drama.
It is standard advice for a lawyer attending a client police interview to advise client not to answer police questions. Especially the sort of questions being asked by the PJ.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 22, 2015, 10:25:57 PM
I think you have been watching too much TV legal drama.
It is standard advice for a lawyer attending a client police interview to advise client not to answer police questions. Especially the sort of questions being asked by the PJ.
BS
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: mercury on May 22, 2015, 10:32:53 PM
I think you have been watching too much TV legal drama.
It is standard advice for a lawyer attending a client police interview to advise client not to answer police questions. Especially the sort of questions being asked by the PJ.
No it isnt, dont talk bull
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 22, 2015, 10:33:47 PM
In Kate McCanns case, the questions and the interview had everything to do with getting a confession, and nothing whatever to do with finding Madeleine.
Perhaps you can explain why Carlos' advice for Kate to make use of the right to silence was so wrong?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: mercury on May 22, 2015, 10:39:42 PM
In Kate McCanns case, the questions and the interview had everything to do with getting a confession, and nothing whatever to do with finding Madeleine.
Perhaps you can explain why Carlos' advice for Kate to make use of the right to silence was so wrong?
perhaps first you can explain why the questions were geared to a confession and secondly even if they were why if she answered them all truthfully she will have been put in a worse position??
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 22, 2015, 10:41:25 PM
perhaps first you can explain why the questions were geared to a confession and secondly even if they were why if she answered them all truthfully she will have been put in a worse position??
john gave a very good reply to this question
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 22, 2015, 10:56:36 PM
perhaps first you can explain why the questions were geared to a confession and secondly even if they were why if she answered them all truthfully she will have been put in a worse position??
OK
Here are some of the questions.
How could KM have answered them without getting tied up in knots - given that the PJ had deliberately broken the rules.
Before you say it, yes, I am looking at this from a legal rather than a PR perspective.
_____________
43- In the case files you were forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44- When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45- When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46- When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47- When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: misty on May 22, 2015, 11:06:26 PM
According to Kates book she was following her lawyers advice. Question is, why did her lawyer feel the need to give that advice if she was not involved in anything untoward?
The lawyer could see from the unsubstantiated evidence presented that the police were trying to stitch Kate up.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 23, 2015, 06:53:53 AM
How could KM have answered them without getting tied up in knots - given that the PJ had deliberately broken the rules.
Before you say it, yes, I am looking at this from a legal rather than a PR perspective.
_____________
43- In the case files you were forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44- When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45- When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46- When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47- When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
How about yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 23, 2015, 08:29:20 AM
Any answer other than "no comment" would involve KM being involved in a conversation about the "evidence" presented by the PJ, which was at best misunderstood and at worst deliberate lies. This is one of the reasons why the police are not allowed to claim invented evidence as a fact.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 23, 2015, 08:30:01 AM
To consider this particular case, How would KM engaging in an argument over "evidence" the PJ didn't actually have have helped?
Once a police interview is being conducted under caution, remaining silent is the best course, whether guilty or innocent.
(a) it avoids the possibility of inadventently incriminating oneself in this or other areas (b) it puts the onus on the police to put up or shut up (c) It reveals whether they have some hard evidence, in which case you have a problem anyway, or they are on a fishing expedition, in which case you don't and they will not be able to take the case against you any further.
In short, in using ones right to silence you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Now that I have set out my opinion, Perhaps you could clarify how engaging in a hostile police interview can help, and your reasons behind that point of view?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 23, 2015, 01:42:42 PM
Slarti suggested answers and I asked how those answers might have helped. Any ideas?
I think some here are long on derision and short on any answer to sensible questions.
Apparently one must always cooperate with the police, even when they are clearly attempting a stich up. I get the impression some get their legal expertise from watching police drama on TV and CSI.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 23, 2015, 02:28:41 PM
I think some here are long on derision and short on any answer to sensible questions.
Apparently one must always cooperate with the police, even when they are clearly attempting a stich up. I get the impression some get their legal expertise from watching police drama on TV and CSI.
Mainly the supporters.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: jassi on May 23, 2015, 02:31:15 PM
Slarti suggested answers and I asked how those answers might have helped. Any ideas?
In my experience of interviewing, answers often lead to additional questions. I wouldn't attempt to suggest what those answers might have been. However, giving no answers clearly indicates a lack of cooperation.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 23, 2015, 02:48:06 PM
Ok I will ask again. What purpose would it serve to engage with a police interview where the evidence is at best misunderstood.
And how should Kate, or anyone facing a hostile police interview, have reacted. Especially as her lawyer recomnended that she invoked Her right to silence?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 23, 2015, 03:28:47 PM
Ok I will ask again. What purpose would it serve to engage with a police interview where the evidence is at best misunderstood.
And how should Kate, or anyone facing a hostile police interview, have reacted. Especially as her lawyer recomnended that she invoked Her right to silence?
People have the right to silence and the right to exercise it if they so choose ... but it must be remembered that we are discussing Kate McCann's rights and it seems there are those who are of the opinion that Kate McCann enjoys no rights whatsoever ... be that to silence or the presumption of innocence.
Does Mr Amaral have the right to appeal the judgement made against him ... of course he has. Does Mr Amaral have the right to proceed to appeal if allowed ... of course he does. Does anyone have the right to criticise Mr Amaral for exercising his legal rights ... no they do not.
Did Dr McCann have the right to silence ... of course she did. Did Dr McCann have the right to exercise her rights ... of course she did. Does anyone have the right to criticise Dr McCann for exercising her legal rights ... no they do not.
Perhaps it is years past the time that it was realised that the constant criticism of everything and anything McCann displays nothing more or less than an unconscionable irrationality.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 23, 2015, 03:41:06 PM
In my experience of interviewing, answers often lead to additional questions. I wouldn't attempt to suggest what those answers might have been. However, giving no answers clearly indicates a lack of cooperation.
Could you explain what cooperation with a police interviewer in these circumstances would have achieved?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: jassi on May 23, 2015, 03:50:41 PM
I have no idea, as I wasn't there. However, if ever faced with such a situation, I would answer questions to the best of my ability.
But if you were convinced the cops were going to stitch you up.......(why? in the case of KM). In the case of supporters loads of after the event "evidence" can be brought to play indicating that a stitch up was in progress (paranoia and conspiracy theory). Back to square one in the real world what would be adequate reasons for not cooperating? Given you had not been watching a rerun of Jack Regan on the box.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 23, 2015, 04:09:49 PM
I have no idea, as I wasn't there. However, if ever faced with such a situation, I would answer questions to the best of my ability.
Have to take your word for it that you would cheerfully submit to answering hostile questions in a hostile environment the aim of which was not to solve a case but to build a case against you.
Personally I think this would be an idiotic situation ... but everyone to their own.
Does it not occur to you that Kate McCann had endured many hours of questioning immediately beforehand when questions relating to Madeleine's case should have been asked?
She was absolutely correct not to answer questions designed to incriminate her ... pity prejudice does not allow you to recognise that.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: jassi on May 23, 2015, 04:16:58 PM
Have to take your word for it that you would cheerfully submit to answering hostile questions in a hostile environment the aim of which was not to solve a case but to build a case against you.
Personally I think this would be an idiotic situation ... but everyone to their own.
Does it not occur to you that Kate McCann had endured many hours of questioning immediately beforehand when questions relating to Madeleine's case should have been asked?
She was absolutely correct not to answer questions designed to incriminate her ... pity prejudice does not allow you to recognise that.
As usual, you read your own interpretations into things. I was saying how I would react, not how anyone else should. No doubt you will be able to demonstrate where I have criticised Kate for her failure to answer the questions put to her.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Montclair on May 23, 2015, 04:18:53 PM
How could KM have answered them without getting tied up in knots - given that the PJ had deliberately broken the rules.
Before you say it, yes, I am looking at this from a legal rather than a PR perspective.
_____________
43- In the case files you were forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44- When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45- When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46- When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47- When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
You do realise that the Polícia Judiciária is under the authority of the judicial system, this means that a judge leads the investigation. The PJ would not be able to ask the above questions without the judge being involved and giving his authorisation. This means that you are also calling the judge a liar.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 23, 2015, 04:23:52 PM
You do realise that the Polícia Judiciária is under the authority of the judicial system, this means that a judge leads the investigation. The PJ would not be able to ask the above questions without the judge being involved and giving his authorisation. This means that you are also calling the judge a liar.
According to that logic The Judge was lying. Unless he just took the word of The PJ to accurate.
Which was it?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Montclair on May 23, 2015, 04:37:51 PM
According to that logic The Judge was lying. Unless he just took the word of The PJ to accurate.
Which was it?
No judge would ever lie because investigation files are always made public and open to scrutiny. In a serious and sensitive case such as this one, the judge in no way would just take the word of the PJ with regard to the DNA results. He would have looked at them and agreed to the questioning because the preliminary results indicated Maddie's DNA. The judge and Ministério Público receive all of the paper work and make the important decisions, such as those regarding the questioning of the arguidos in this case. So according to that logic, the PJ was not lying when they asked those questions.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 23, 2015, 04:46:18 PM
No judge would ever lie because investigation files are always made public and open to scrutiny. In a serious and sensitive case such as this one, the judge in no way would just take the word of the PJ with regard to the DNA results. He would have looked at them and agreed to the questioning because the preliminary results indicated Maddie's DNA. The judge and Ministério Público receive all of the paper work and make the important decisions, such as those regarding the questioning of the arguidos in this case. So according to that logic, the PJ was not lying when they asked those questions.
Well Montclair, perhaps the kindest way of putting it is that either the Judge misread the FSS information or did not actually understand. So someone was at fault.
Perhaps you could kindly have a look at the following questions. They are quite specific - it would be interesting to see how they conform to the actual forensic results?
45- When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46- When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47- When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 23, 2015, 04:57:14 PM
As usual, you read your own interpretations into things. I was saying how I would react, not how anyone else should. No doubt you will be able to demonstrate where I have criticised Kate for her failure to answer the questions put to her.
If I were conducting an investigation into the case of a missing child I would do my level best not to make a pigs ear out of it. Now if you wan't to take that as an interpretation of my opinion that Mr Amaral did just that in Madeleine McCann's case ... be my guest.
&%+((£
I had no idea you were not participating in the discussion we have been having on the 48 questions Dr Kate McCann exercised her legal right not to answer ... therefore I considered it a safe assumption that you were making an obliquely pejorative reference to her.
That you were referring, completely out of the blue, only to what an upstanding upright and co-operative suspect you would be ... probably even waiving your right to a lawyer as you obviously wouldn't need one ... never crossed my mind.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 23, 2015, 05:03:23 PM
Well Montclair, perhaps the kindest way of putting it is that either the Judge misread the FSS information or did not actually understand. So someone was at fault.
Perhaps you could kindly have a look at the following questions. They are quite specific - it would be interesting to see how they conform to the actual forensic results?
45- When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46- When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47- When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
Apart from anything else ... the questions themselves prove that Dr McCann had already answered these questions ... so the object of asking them again when she had been made an arguida was to incriminate her.
The inaccuracy and misunderstanding (and that is being kind) of the FSS results is mind boggling.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 23, 2015, 05:29:42 PM
No judge would ever lie because investigation files are always made public and open to scrutiny. In a serious and sensitive case such as this one, the judge in no way would just take the word of the PJ with regard to the DNA results. He would have looked at them and agreed to the questioning because the preliminary results indicated Maddie's DNA. The judge and Ministério Público receive all of the paper work and make the important decisions, such as those regarding the questioning of the arguidos in this case. So according to that logic, the PJ was not lying when they asked those questions.
Are you telling us that every single question put to Kate would have been pre-authorised by a judge, including all the ones we are told would have followed on from Kate's answers if she had given any? &%+((£
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Montclair on May 23, 2015, 05:30:32 PM
Well Montclair, perhaps the kindest way of putting it is that either the Judge misread the FSS information or did not actually understand. So someone was at fault.
Perhaps you could kindly have a look at the following questions. They are quite specific - it would be interesting to see how they conform to the actual forensic results?
45- When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46- When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47- When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
So you are saying that all of those people (PJ, judges, Ministério Público, forensic specialists in Portugal, etc.) who had access to the first DNA results were stupid and unable to understand a DNA report and data?
The simplest and most logical explanation is that the preliminary results showed a match to Madeleine McCann and that the final report was a manipulation of the data with 37 alleles instead of the original 19 so that there would be doubt. Even that report never said that it was not Madeleine's DNA.
Alfred R.Jones: Of course, those questions would have to be approved and authorised by the judge leading the investigation.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 23, 2015, 05:36:32 PM
So you are saying that all of those people (PJ, judges, Ministério Público, forensic specialists in Portugal, etc.) who had access to the first DNA results were stupid and unable to understand a DNA report and data?
The simplest and most logical explanation is that the preliminary results showed a match to Madeleine McCann and that the final report was a manipulation of the data with 37 alleles instead of the original 19 so that there would be doubt. Even that report never said that it was not Madeleine's DNA.
Alfred R.Jones: Of course, those questions would have to be approved and authorised by the judge leading the investigation.
So in Portugal the police have no authority to pose any questions to arguidos without each question being pre-vetted and OK'ed by a judge...?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Montclair on May 23, 2015, 05:38:56 PM
So, suppose Kate had answered a question and said something to the effect of "I hid something near a statue", then unless the judge had pre-agreed that the police may ask the question "what did you hide and which statue did you hide it near?", they would have had to wait to get a judge to OK them asking that question?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Montclair on May 23, 2015, 05:57:19 PM
So, suppose Kate had answered a question and said something to the effect of "I hid something near a statue", then unless the judge had pre-agreed that the police may ask the question "what did you hide and which statue did you hide it near?", they would have had to wait to get a judge to OK them asking that question?
Unfortunately, that is the way it is. No matter what Kate answered the police could not ask any other questions, only the ones decided beforehand. The same procedure is used in trials here.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 23, 2015, 05:58:44 PM
Unfortunately, that is the way it is. No matter what Kate answered the police could not ask any other questions, only the ones decided beforehand. The same procedure is used in trials here.
What about the questions before she was made an Arguida?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 23, 2015, 06:00:03 PM
Unfortunately, that is the way it is. No matter what Kate answered the police could not ask any other questions, only the ones decided beforehand. The same procedure is used in trials here.
So, basically anyone saying that there were more than 48 questions that would have followed on from Kate's prospective replies is talking crap, yes?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 23, 2015, 06:02:27 PM
You do realise that the Polícia Judiciária is under the authority of the judicial system, this means that a judge leads the investigation. The PJ would not be able to ask the above questions without the judge being involved and giving his authorisation. This means that you are also calling the judge a liar.
Not sure about that. In the investigation phase, although hierarchically subordinate, the MP appears to leave the PJ to get on with the job, unless there's something specific that has to be approved (e.g. search warrants).
Artigo 58.º (Constituição de arguido) 1 - Sem prejuízo do disposto no artigo anterior, é obrigatória a constituição de arguido logo que: a) Correndo inquérito contra pessoa determinada, esta prestar declarações perante qualquer autoridade judiciária ou órgão de polícia criminal; b) Tenha de ser aplicada a qualquer pessoa uma medida de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial; c) Um suspeito for detido, nos termos e para os efeitos previstos nos artigos 254.º a 261.º; ou d) For levantado auto de notícia que dê uma pessoa como agente de um crime e aquele lhe for comunicado. 2 - A constituição de arguido operase através da comunicação, oral ou por escrito, feita ao visado por uma autoridade judiciária ou um órgão de polícia criminal, de que a partir desse momento aquele deve considerarse arguido num processo penal e da indicação e, se necessário, explicação dos direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.º que por essa razão passam a caberlhe. 3 - A constituição de arguido implica a entrega, sempre que possível no próprio acto, de documento de que constem a identificação do processo e do defensor, se este tiver sido nomeado, e os direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.º. 4 - A omissão ou violação das formalidades previstas nos números anteriores implica que as declarações prestadas pela pessoa visada não podem ser utilizadas como prova contra ela.
Artigo 144.º (Outros interrogatórios) 1 - Os subsequentes interrogatórios de arguido preso e os interrogatórios de arguido em liberdade são feitos no inquérito pelo Ministério Público e na instrução e em julgamento pelo respectivo juiz, obedecendo, em tudo quanto for aplicável, às disposições deste capítulo. 2 - No inquérito, os interrogatórios referidos no número anterior podem ser feitos por órgão de polícia criminal no qual o Ministério Público tenha delegado a sua realização.
Artigo 270.º (Actos que podem ser delegados pelo Ministério Público nos órgãos de polícia criminal) 1 - O Ministério Público pode conferir a órgãos de polícia criminal o encargo de procederem a quaisquer diligências e investigações relativas ao inquérito. 2 - Exceptuamse do disposto no número anterior, além dos actos que são da competência exclusiva do juiz de instrução, nos termos dos artigos 268.º e 269.º, os actos seguintes: a) Receber depoimentos ajuramentados, nos termos do artigo 138.º, n.º 3, segunda parte; b) Ordenar a efectivação de perícia, nos termos do artigo 154.º; c) Assistir a exame susceptível de ofender o pudor da pessoa, nos termos do artigo 172.º, n.º 2, segunda parte; d) Ordenar ou autorizar revistas e buscas, nos termos e limites do artigo 174.º, n.ºs 3 e 4; e) Quaisquer outros actos que a lei expressamente determinar que sejam presididos ou praticados pelo Ministério Público. 3 - O Ministério Público pode, porém, delegar em autoridades de polícia criminal a faculdade de ordenar a efectivação da perícia relativamente a determinados tipos de crime, em caso de urgência ou de perigo na demora, nomeadamente quando a perícia deva ser realizada conjuntamente com o exame de vestígios. Exceptuam-se a perícia que envolva a realização de autópsia médico-legal, bem como a prestação de esclarecimentos complementares e a realização de nova perícia nos termos do artigo 158.º. 4 - A delegação a que se refere o n.º 1 pode ser efectuada por despacho de natureza genérica que indique os tipos de crime ou os limites das penas aplicáveis aos crimes em investigação.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 23, 2015, 06:10:58 PM
The role doesn't appear to be that of an instruction judge (in the sense of actively directing the investigation)... more rubber-stamping when and if needed.
What active role did the MP actually play up until the investigation phase was drawing to a close?
From memory, off the top of my head:
- approved disseminating Madeleiene's details - reminded the PJ to get the translators to sign their legal forms - approved / refused search warrants / phone tapping
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Montclair on May 23, 2015, 06:20:02 PM
Not sure about that. In the investigation phase, although hierarchically subordinate, the MP appears to leave the PJ to get on with the job, unless there's something specific that has to be approved (e.g. search warrants).
Artigo 58.º (Constituição de arguido) 1 - Sem prejuízo do disposto no artigo anterior, é obrigatória a constituição de arguido logo que: a) Correndo inquérito contra pessoa determinada, esta prestar declarações perante qualquer autoridade judiciária ou órgão de polícia criminal; b) Tenha de ser aplicada a qualquer pessoa uma medida de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial; c) Um suspeito for detido, nos termos e para os efeitos previstos nos artigos 254.º a 261.º; ou d) For levantado auto de notícia que dê uma pessoa como agente de um crime e aquele lhe for comunicado. 2 - A constituição de arguido operase através da comunicação, oral ou por escrito, feita ao visado por uma autoridade judiciária ou um órgão de polícia criminal, de que a partir desse momento aquele deve considerarse arguido num processo penal e da indicação e, se necessário, explicação dos direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.º que por essa razão passam a caberlhe. 3 - A constituição de arguido implica a entrega, sempre que possível no próprio acto, de documento de que constem a identificação do processo e do defensor, se este tiver sido nomeado, e os direitos e deveres processuais referidos no artigo 61.º. 4 - A omissão ou violação das formalidades previstas nos números anteriores implica que as declarações prestadas pela pessoa visada não podem ser utilizadas como prova contra ela.
Artigo 144.º (Outros interrogatórios) 1 - Os subsequentes interrogatórios de arguido preso e os interrogatórios de arguido em liberdade são feitos no inquérito pelo Ministério Público e na instrução e em julgamento pelo respectivo juiz, obedecendo, em tudo quanto for aplicável, às disposições deste capítulo. 2 - No inquérito, os interrogatórios referidos no número anterior podem ser feitos por órgão de polícia criminal no qual o Ministério Público tenha delegado a sua realização.
Artigo 270.º (Actos que podem ser delegados pelo Ministério Público nos órgãos de polícia criminal) 1 - O Ministério Público pode conferir a órgãos de polícia criminal o encargo de procederem a quaisquer diligências e investigações relativas ao inquérito. 2 - Exceptuamse do disposto no número anterior, além dos actos que são da competência exclusiva do juiz de instrução, nos termos dos artigos 268.º e 269.º, os actos seguintes: a) Receber depoimentos ajuramentados, nos termos do artigo 138.º, n.º 3, segunda parte; b) Ordenar a efectivação de perícia, nos termos do artigo 154.º; c) Assistir a exame susceptível de ofender o pudor da pessoa, nos termos do artigo 172.º, n.º 2, segunda parte; d) Ordenar ou autorizar revistas e buscas, nos termos e limites do artigo 174.º, n.ºs 3 e 4; e) Quaisquer outros actos que a lei expressamente determinar que sejam presididos ou praticados pelo Ministério Público. 3 - O Ministério Público pode, porém, delegar em autoridades de polícia criminal a faculdade de ordenar a efectivação da perícia relativamente a determinados tipos de crime, em caso de urgência ou de perigo na demora, nomeadamente quando a perícia deva ser realizada conjuntamente com o exame de vestígios. Exceptuam-se a perícia que envolva a realização de autópsia médico-legal, bem como a prestação de esclarecimentos complementares e a realização de nova perícia nos termos do artigo 158.º. 4 - A delegação a que se refere o n.º 1 pode ser efectuada por despacho de natureza genérica que indique os tipos de crime ou os limites das penas aplicáveis aos crimes em investigação.
You skipped point 1 of article 144, where it says that the subsequent interrogations of the remanded or freed arguidos are done in the investigation phase by the Ministério Público and in the "instrução" and trial phase by the judge, in accordance, as much as can be applied, with the dispositions of this chapter.
This case was surely under the authority of the MP. The MP can delegate the interrogation to the PJ but they remain the authority responsible for the investigation. Furthermore, there is no way that this sensitive and difficult case would not have been closely followed by the judicial authorities and the MP, in order to assure that everything was in accordance with the law.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 23, 2015, 06:32:53 PM
You skipped point 1 of article 144, where it says that the subsequent interrogations of the remanded or freed arguidos are done in the investigation phase by the Ministério Público and in the "instrução" and trial phase by the judge, in accordance, as much as can be applied, with the dispositions of this chapter.
This case was surely under the authority of the MP. The MP can delegate the interrogation to the PJ but they remain the authority responsible for the investigation. Furthermore, there is no way that this sensitive and difficult case would not have been closely followed by the judicial authorities and the MP, in order to assure that everything was in accordance with the law.
In accordance with the law... yes, which is what I tried to point out: they were primarily ensuring that the legal formalities were adhered to. I don't see how that would extend to the content or quantity of questions the PJ had decided to ask.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 23, 2015, 06:38:44 PM
What about the questions before she was made an Arguida?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: DCI on May 23, 2015, 06:41:03 PM
In accordance with the law... yes, which is what I tried to point out: they were primarily ensuring that the legal formalities were adhered to. I don't see how that would extend to the content or quantity of questions the PJ had decided to ask.
So they sanctioned Gerry being told lies, about Madeliene's DNA, they knew was false, from Lowes email on 3rd September. Telling them
In an email dated September 3 2007 John Lowe, from the major incidents team at the Birmingham-based Forensic Science Service (FSS), said it was impossible to conclude whether the material definitely came from Madeliene.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 23, 2015, 06:52:02 PM
You skipped point 1 of article 144, where it says that the subsequent interrogations of the remanded or freed arguidos are done in the investigation phase by the Ministério Público and in the "instrução" and trial phase by the judge, in accordance, as much as can be applied, with the dispositions of this chapter.
This case was surely under the authority of the MP. The MP can delegate the interrogation to the PJ but they remain the authority responsible for the investigation. Furthermore, there is no way that this sensitive and difficult case would not have been closely followed by the judicial authorities and the MP, in order to assure that everything was in accordance with the law.
So going back to your first response, you are claiming the PJ had correctly understood the forensic evidence but that that evidence was "changed" as a result of interference? Really? Perhaps a rather simpler explanation is that the forensic evidence was misunderstood by a rather overenthusiastic coordinator? Unless you can produce a copy of the preliminary report?
On this post - So the PJ are in a position to pursue further questions without reference to the MP.
A question for you - would, in your opinion, the McCanns have been interviewed under arguido status following the changes to the CPP which took effect on 15th September 2007, and required actual evidence in order to impose the arguido regime?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: mercury on May 23, 2015, 07:39:47 PM
How could KM have answered them without getting tied up in knots - given that the PJ had deliberately broken the rules.
Before you say it, yes, I am looking at this from a legal rather than a PR perspective.
_____________
43- In the case files you were forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44- When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45- When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46- When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47- When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
I don't see how answering those simple questions or any others will have made her "tied up in knots". And what was so difficult to answer when asked what did she see when entering the kids bedroom? one of the earlier questions IIRC.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 23, 2015, 08:29:29 PM
I don't see how answering those simple questions or any others will have made her "tied up in knots". And what was so difficult to answer when asked what did she see when entering the kids bedroom? one of the earlier questions IIRC.
If you start answering some questions and then choose to say "no comment" to others.... what would you find more more "interesting"?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 23, 2015, 08:43:45 PM
--- Asked about her professional life, and in how many hospitals and in which she had worked, she did not respond. Being a doctor, and asked about her speciality, she did not respond. Asked about if she worked in shifts, in emergencies [the emergency section of a hospital] or other services she did not respond. If she worked every day, she did not respond. Asked if at a particular time she stopped working and why, she did not respond.
What possible relevance could that have? They presumably knew that she was a GP, unless the PJ were trying to make her say that she had specialised as an anaesthetist at some point.
Aha! Calpol!
--- Asked whether or not it is true that the twins have difficulty sleeping, that they are restless and that that causes her uneasiness, she did not respond.
--- Asked whether or not it is true that at certain times she felt desperate [driven to despair; angered; exasperated] by the attitude of the children and that that left her much disquiet [unease], she did not respond.
There was apparently some reference in her diary about the twins crying in the car with the paps hanging around and another about them crying when out to get them new shoes. This was, of course, after Madeleine had disappeared, with all the exhaustion and underlying worry.
What should she have said? No? They'd have concluded Aha - but we have the diary to show that you moaned that the twins were crying. Yes? Aha... so you DID feel that the children were too much for you.
--- Asked whether or not it is true that in England she was thinking to deliver MADELEINE into the custody [guardianship] of a family member, she did not respond.
I've no idea where they got this idea from... unless the PJ got totally confused over the application for the WOC status.
--- Asked if at home (England) she gave medication to the children and what kind of medication, she did not respond.
What parent has never given children any medication whatsoever? What were they expecting her to say? Calpol? Aha!
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 23, 2015, 08:46:33 PM
Others were pointless. If they'd done their homework, they'd have known that she hadn't rung Sky news.
What was the point of asking her which police force was called? How would she have known that there were several police forces and why would it matter anyway?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 24, 2015, 04:25:41 PM
"I guarantee there was no bluff in those interviews, not at all. And when all the documents are made public, people will see I am telling the truth..."
"I guarantee there was no bluff in those interviews, not at all. And when all the documents are made public, people will see I am telling the truth..."
Perhaps the kindest thing that can be said is that he "misunderstood" the FSS reports.
So...
Quote
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
Plus dog alert equals?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 24, 2015, 08:23:46 PM
>From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk >Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01 >To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk >Subject: Op Task - In Confidence
Stuart
Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.
A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.
Why?...
Well, lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.
What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.
The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?
When was the DNA deposited? How was the DNA deposited? What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from? Was a crime committed?
These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance
kind regards John
John Lowe Forensic Scientist Major Incidents Team Priory House
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 24, 2015, 08:27:21 PM
>From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk >Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01 >To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk >Subject: Op Task - In Confidence
Stuart
Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.
A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.
Why?...
Well, lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.
What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Bimiingham, myself included. lt's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine or is it a chance match.
The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?
When was the DNA deposited? How was the DNA deposited? What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from? Was a crime committed?
These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance
kind regards John
John Lowe Forensic Scientist Major Incidents Team Priory House
Why quote stuff not associated with swab 3a
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 24, 2015, 08:58:31 PM
Because I prefer to look at reports in their complete form rather than a selected excerpt. I am sure you will agree it gives a more complete view.
Not when you are looking at a forensic report, each individual part stands on its own.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on May 24, 2015, 10:39:27 PM
Watch this from 1.30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOkpiJ6DEco -- Susan Healy: "they WON'T be refusing to answer any questions."
It's quite interesting that Kate was:
(a) informing her mum that she was going to answer any questions and then broke that word.
OR
(b) had agreed with her mum that the 'line' was going to be that they were answering all questions, when they knew they would not be doing so.
OR
(c) unaware that her mum was sounding off back in the UK about Kate answering all questions, when she knew herself that she was never intending to do so.
My gut feeling is the PJ know which of the above is true through telecommunication intercepts.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on May 24, 2015, 11:18:38 PM
Even poor old Philomena seemed a bit out of the loop on this when asked about the 'silence':
"PM: Well, Dermot, you're saying that they didn't answer 40 questions. That's certainly not coming from Kate and Gerry and I'd imagine if they refused, which I doubt, to answer questions they were either fatuous or spurious and contemptible. Therefore they probably felt that those questions were not at all justified or possibly that they had already answered them and as fully as they possibly could, therefore there was nothing else they could say to further that. "
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 24, 2015, 11:27:29 PM
No one cares about about the 48 questions apart from the deluded who still believe the McCanns are somehow criminally involved in Maddie's disappearance.....
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on May 24, 2015, 11:38:05 PM
Kate's mum and Gerry's sister both believed she would/did answer the questions put.
PM: "But that's not what Kate and Gerry want to do." PM: "That's certainly not coming from Kate and Gerry and I'd imagine if they refused, which I doubt, to answer questions they were either fatuous or spurious and contemptible."
Fatuous question: Question 1, On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
Answer: No comment.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: sadie on May 24, 2015, 11:44:25 PM
Kate's mum and Gerry's sister both believed she would/did answer the questions put.
PM: "But that's not what Kate and Gerry want to do." PM: "That's certainly not coming from Kate and Gerry and I'd imagine if they refused, which I doubt, to answer questions they were either fatuous or spurious and contemptible."
Fatuous question: Question 1, On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
Answer: No comment.
No Comment 8(0(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on May 24, 2015, 11:46:09 PM
Is it funny to you Sadie that the primary witness in the case would not help the police establish the immediate timeline in a potential abduction inquiry?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Eleanor on May 24, 2015, 11:53:01 PM
Is it funny to you Sadie that the primary witness in the case would not help the police establish the immediately timeline in a potential abduction inquiry?
What was immediate about this? It was nearly four months later.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on May 24, 2015, 11:54:32 PM
The immediate timeline after Kate entered the apartment.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: misty on May 25, 2015, 12:10:25 AM
The immediate timeline after Kate entered the apartment.
Why was that question not addressed to everyone who accessed the apartment before the CSI officers arrived? Why was that question not addressed to RM who was witnessed crossing the crime scene tape & entering the apartment the following day?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 02:02:46 AM
Why was that question not addressed to everyone who accessed the apartment before the CSI officers arrived? Why was that question not addressed to RM who was witnessed crossing the crime scene tape & entering the apartment the following day?
Dont be so pathetic, your personal obsession with robert murat is pathological
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Brietta on May 25, 2015, 09:17:16 AM
Kate's mum and Gerry's sister both believed she would/did answer the questions put.
PM: "But that's not what Kate and Gerry want to do." PM: "That's certainly not coming from Kate and Gerry and I'd imagine if they refused, which I doubt, to answer questions they were either fatuous or spurious and contemptible."
Fatuous question: Question 1, On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
Answer: No comment.
Hmmm ... so no-one thought to ask this question at the interviews on May 4th? Bit sloppy that, don't you think?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Carana on May 25, 2015, 12:26:44 PM
Unfortunately, that is the way it is. No matter what Kate answered the police could not ask any other questions, only the ones decided beforehand. The same procedure is used in trials here.
Again, could you substantiate that from the CPP?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: ferryman on May 25, 2015, 12:34:50 PM
Kate's mum and Gerry's sister both believed she would/did answer the questions put.
PM: "But that's not what Kate and Gerry want to do." PM: "That's certainly not coming from Kate and Gerry and I'd imagine if they refused, which I doubt, to answer questions they were either fatuous or spurious and contemptible."
Fatuous question: Question 1, On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
Answer: No comment.
They no doubt didn't fully understand how the PJ would play it ...
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 25, 2015, 12:38:41 PM
so when kate was asked that by not answering the question she would be harming the search for Maddie......that question had been OKd by a judge...I don't think so
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 25, 2015, 12:49:17 PM
Dont be so pathetic, your personal obsession with robert murat is pathological
Why was it only relevant to the inquiry to establish what Kate, but no other witness bar the GNR officers, had touched or observed within the apartment in the hours that followed?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Why was it only relevant to the inquiry to establish what Kate, but no other witness bar the GNR officers, had touched or observed within the apartment in the hours that followed?
Was Murat ever in the kids bedroom in 5A?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: sadie on May 25, 2015, 05:37:38 PM
Why are you so touchy about Robert Murat mercury ?
misty happens to know that he crossed the tapes so why shouldn't she mention it?
Ive not seen any evidence he ever entered 5A, but feel free to supply it.
The point is Murat's prints were not found in 5A, so the point was moot. And no, I am not touchy about HIM per se. Only about certain people trying to implicate him without supplying much reason or evidence.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: sadie on May 25, 2015, 06:22:45 PM
Ive not seen any evidence he ever entered 5A, but feel free to supply it.
The point is Murat's prints were not found in 5A, so the point was moot. And no, I am not touchy about HIM per se. Only about certain people trying to implicate him without supplying much reason or evidence.
If misty posted it, then it is true. Our side have no reason to tell untruths cos the facts prove what we say.
See mistys post Reply #276 on: Today at 12:10:25 AM
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 25, 2015, 06:26:25 PM
Was he ever asked the question? Were the nannies asked what they touched? Or Fiona? Would you like a link to the reports of the people who saw him crossing the crime scene tape or is that a waste of time?
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Montclair on May 25, 2015, 07:02:00 PM
Was he ever asked the question? Were the nannies asked what they touched? Or Fiona? Would you like a link to the reports of the people who saw him crossing the crime scene tape or is that a waste of time?
If he was never in flat 5A then why ask him any questions about if he touched anything? I wouldn't mind a link which proves he was in there. I just have never come across this before. (Could be my mistake).
I realise we have gone totally off topic.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 09:02:52 PM
If misty posted it, then it is true. Our side have no reason to tell untruths cos the facts prove what we say.
See mistys post Reply #276 on: Today at 12:10:25 AM
At the risk of getting scolded for being knowingly off topic, err, forgive me if I don't take anyone's word as gospel, "just because" they are on the "right side"
@)(++(*
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 25, 2015, 09:07:40 PM
At the risk of getting scolded for being knowingly off topic, err, forgive me if I don't take anyone's word as gospel, "just because" they are on the "right side"
@)(++(*
Going right off topic the "right side" of what one wonders? Answers on a post card.
Title: Re: Does invoking the right to silence carry with it significant risk?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 10:06:14 PM