The Cracked Mirror.

[AnneGuedes]

I have never lived in a "Germano-Romanic" jurisdiction, but the system you are describing is essentially the same, where the onus is the investigating authorities (whether police or enquiry judge) to produce the evidence leading to trial in court, not on the suspect to demonstrate innocence.

It's the suspect's interest to get rid of a pain in the neck, if he's innocent. There's no reason why he shouldn't answer, unless he/she wants to protect someone.
How can a person be forced to answer ? There's no way under human civil rights. If the charges are heavy the lawyer (an arguido has to have a lawyer) will likely advise answering is better.
I mentioned already here a case which isn't so rare. A man suspect of paedophilia and with charges enough to be condemned. Though the lawyer advises that confessing the guilt could reduce the sentence, the accused insists, because he prefers the remaining doubt that always exists when the accused doesn't confess than having his children hearing him confess the crime.
An arguido isn't "accused". He's accused only if the MP decides to proceed to court. And then he's presumed innocent up to eventually proven guilty.

[DCI]

An arguido isn't "accused". He's accused only if the MP decides to proceed to court. And then he's presumed innocent up to eventually proven guilty.

Did the MP proceed to court, in the McCann's case?

[Albertini]

You are wrong albertini
Stagg was cleared and paid compensation before Napper confessed. He did not have to prove his innocence, the evidence provided did not prove his guilt.

Nope, i'm not, you are.

See here for details:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7559026.stm

Compensation paid in August 2008, Napper charged November 2007.

[Jean-Pierre]

No i don't think he was guilty. His innocence was demonstrated by a third party confessing to the murder and that then "proved his innocence" and ruled him out as a suspect.

____________________

When the case reached the Old Bailey Justice Ognall ruled that the police had shown "excessive zeal" and had tried to incriminate a suspect by "deceptive conduct of the grossest kind". He excluded the entrapment evidence and the prosecution withdrew its case. Stagg was formally acquitted in September 1994.

In July 2006, the Scotland Yard team interviewed a convicted sex killer for two days at Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire.[24] The 40-year-old man diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic (and also as having Asperger syndrome)[25] had been held at the secure institution for more than ten years.[26]

Later reports revealed the man to be Robert Napper, the convicted killer of Samantha Bisset and her four-year-old daughter Jazmine, murdered in November 1993, 16 months after Nickell's murder.[27] On 28 November 2007, Napper was charged with Nickell's murder. He appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 4 December 2007,[28] where he was remanded until another hearing on 20 December 2007.[29] On 24 January 2008, Napper pleaded not guilty to Nickell's murder. He faced trial in November 2008.[30]

On 18 December 2008, at the Old Bailey, Napper pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Rachel Nickell on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Justice Griffiths Williams said that Napper would be held indefinitely at Broadmoor Hospital because he was "a very dangerous man". At the same time, Colin Stagg received a public apology from the police.

__________________

Albertini - It may help your credibility if you were able to substantiate your assertions with accurate, rather than made up, examples.  Although I can see that this may be tricky. 

Although your increasingly shrill cries of "As I have already told you" when challenged on matters of fact are becoming a trifle tiresome for those who do actually have day to day practical experience of the law. 

May I suggest "put up or shut up?"

[Albertini]

Albertini wrote:  Have you not read the last God knows how many pages?

I am afraid you may be under the illusion that if one repeates something enough times it becomes true.  It does not. 

China girl is quite correct - there is no onus on anyone to "prove their innocence" to the police.  Nor, incidentally Redblossom, is there any requirement to answer any police questions, to provide alibis or indeed anything.

I am under no illusion. I am correct and you have repeatedly tried to rebut my points using answers to a completely different issue (that is the presumption of innocence until guilty in a court as opposed to the nature of a suspect "ruling themselves out" of a police investigation by demonstrating ones innocence.)

As i have also repeatedly said, there is no onus for a suspect to provide information BUT they will still remain a suspect if they, through their right to remain silent, refuse to demonstrate their innocence to the investigation.

[AnneGuedes]

The McCanns can try to put "innocent" instead of toddler Madeleine's face on their T shirts, they'll convince nobody. Acts, not words, are needed. But they're not in jail, that's at least a good point. Asking more is day dreaming.

[Mr Gray]

Nope, i'm not, you are.

See here for details:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7559026.stm

Compensation paid in August 2008, Napper charged November 2007.

you need to read the whole article

Colin Stagg, 44, who was cleared of the killing in 1994, said: "What pleases me even more than the money is that this is effectively a public apology."
Cleared in 1994

[Albertini]

____________________

When the case reached the Old Bailey Justice Ognall ruled that the police had shown "excessive zeal" and had tried to incriminate a suspect by "deceptive conduct of the grossest kind". He excluded the entrapment evidence and the prosecution withdrew its case. Stagg was formally acquitted in September 1994.

In July 2006, the Scotland Yard team interviewed a convicted sex killer for two days at Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire.[24] The 40-year-old man diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic (and also as having Asperger syndrome)[25] had been held at the secure institution for more than ten years.[26]

Later reports revealed the man to be Robert Napper, the convicted killer of Samantha Bisset and her four-year-old daughter Jazmine, murdered in November 1993, 16 months after Nickell's murder.[27] On 28 November 2007, Napper was charged with Nickell's murder. He appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 4 December 2007,[28] where he was remanded until another hearing on 20 December 2007.[29] On 24 January 2008, Napper pleaded not guilty to Nickell's murder. He faced trial in November 2008.[30]

On 18 December 2008, at the Old Bailey, Napper pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Rachel Nickell on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Justice Griffiths Williams said that Napper would be held indefinitely at Broadmoor Hospital because he was "a very dangerous man". At the same time, Colin Stagg received a public apology from the police.

__________________

Albertini - It may help your credibility if you were able to substantiate your assertions with accurate, rather than made up, examples.  Although I can see that this may be tricky. 

Although your increasingly shrill cries of "As I have already told you" when challenged on matters of fact are becoming a trifle tiresome for those who do actually have day to day practical experience of the law. 

May I suggest "put up or shut up?"

Oh dear, i have no idea how you believe the actions of the police in attempting to find charges against Stagg change the core principle that a suspect remains a suspect until their innocence is proved.

The police's actions in attempting to find evidence against Stagg are immaterial to the fact that Stagg was a suspect until such time (and indeed after he was acquited) as his innocence was proven by Napper's confession.

Your quotation of the police's actions, bears no relevance to the issue at hand.

I am still quite sure you do not understand what is being said, which is why i am frequently having to repeat myself.

Your refusal to address the core issue and indeed refusal to try and tally the lack of evidence and non demonstration of innocence from the AG's report, is what is really getting tiresome here.

[Albertini]

you need to read the whole article

Colin Stagg, 44, who was cleared of the killing in 1994, said: "What pleases me even more than the money is that this is effectively a public apology."
Cleared in 1994

You need to understand the article.

He was acquitted in Court 1994 BUT STILL remained a suspect in the police investigation, hence the Police shelvng the case. He was the only suspect they had at that time.

[Albertini]

In an attempt to cut to the heart of the matter, A couple of brief questions for, in particular, Ann, Redblossom and Albertini.  But of course all repsponses welcome

A person is arrested by the police, and taken to an interview room

(a) Is he obliged to answer whatever questions are put to him?

(b) does he have to give truthful answers

(c) What are the legal consquences to not answering their questions.

How would the answers differ under UK and Portuguese law?

Thanks

(a) Is he obliged to answer whatever questions are put to him? - No, but a suspects refusal to answer questions will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation.

(b) does he have to give truthful answers - No but a refusal to give truthful answers will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation

(c) What are the legal consquences to not answering their questions. - None but a suspects refusal to answer questions will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation.

[Albertini]

____________________

When the case reached the Old Bailey Justice Ognall ruled that the police had shown "excessive zeal" and had tried to incriminate a suspect by "deceptive conduct of the grossest kind". He excluded the entrapment evidence and the prosecution withdrew its case. Stagg was formally acquitted in September 1994.

In July 2006, the Scotland Yard team interviewed a convicted sex killer for two days at Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire.[24] The 40-year-old man diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic (and also as having Asperger syndrome)[25] had been held at the secure institution for more than ten years.[26]

Later reports revealed the man to be Robert Napper, the convicted killer of Samantha Bisset and her four-year-old daughter Jazmine, murdered in November 1993, 16 months after Nickell's murder.[27] On 28 November 2007, Napper was charged with Nickell's murder. He appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 4 December 2007,[28] where he was remanded until another hearing on 20 December 2007.[29] On 24 January 2008, Napper pleaded not guilty to Nickell's murder. He faced trial in November 2008.[30]

On 18 December 2008, at the Old Bailey, Napper pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Rachel Nickell on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Justice Griffiths Williams said that Napper would be held indefinitely at Broadmoor Hospital because he was "a very dangerous man". At the same time, Colin Stagg received a public apology from the police.

__________________

Albertini - It may help your credibility if you were able to substantiate your assertions with accurate, rather than made up, examples.  Although I can see that this may be tricky. 

Although your increasingly shrill cries of "As I have already told you" when challenged on matters of fact are becoming a trifle tiresome for those who do actually have day to day practical experience of the law. 

May I suggest "put up or shut up?"

Oh and in terms of "put up or shut up" i have given you:

1) The reason why the AG report said there was no evidence against the parents BUT that they had failed to demonstrate their innocence.

2) The Stephen Lawrence case as an example of my point.

3) The Rachel Nickell case as a further example of my arguments.


What exactly have you contributed to this thread to prove your point apart from some pompous old guff?

[Albertini]

I have never lived in a "Germano-Romanic" jurisdiction, but the system you are describing is essentially the same, where the onus is the investigating authorities (whether police or enquiry judge) to produce the evidence leading to trial in court, not on the suspect to demonstrate innocence.

No you appear still not to be "getting it".

No one denies the police have to produce the evidence, but we aren't talking about that are we? We are talking about suspects "ruling themselves out" of the Police's investigation before it goes to a court.

I will ask you again how do you believe police rule out suspects in an investigation?

[Mr Gray]

You need to understand the article.

He was acquitted in 1994 BUT STILL remained a suspect, hence the Police shelvng the case. He was the only suspect they had at that time.

So the fact he went to court and was acquitted did not show that he had " demonstrated his innocence". Yet you think the McCanns can "demonstrate their innocence by answering question". Your argument has no logic.

[Albertini]

So the fact he went to court and was acquitted did not show that he had " demonstrated his innocence". Yet you think the McCanns can "demonstrate their innocence by answering question". Your argument has no logic.

It has pefect logic if you are able or want to see it.

Stagg was acquitted on the basis of the evidence presented to the court. Because the police had not gathered enough evidence to secure a conviction DID NOT MEAN that the Police thought he was no longer a suspect, but, put as simply as i can, that their evidence wasn't strong enough to turn their suspicions into a conviction.

A court case reviews the evidence presented. A police investigation focuses on suspects and ruling them out by the demonstration of innocence by either direct or indirect means.

I have not said the McCann's can "demonstrate their innocence by answering question". I have said that investigations use a multitude of means, often together, to rule someone out. One is obviously answering questions.

For example, and it's a really simple example, Kate Mccann's mother was not a suspect. Had she been questioned the Police would have said:

"Where were you on the 3rd May 2007".

She would have answered:

"In the UK".

Having verified that the police would have been able to rule out her mother because she had proven her innocence to the investigation by not being in Portugal on the night of the disappearance.

[Mr Gray]

It has pefect logic if you are able or want to see it.

Stagg was acquitted on the basis of the evidence presented to the court. Because the police had not gathered enough evidence to secure a conviction DID NOT MEAN that the Police thought he was no longer a suspect, but, put as simply as i can, that their evidence wasn't strong enough to turn their suspicions into a conviction.

A court case reviews the evidence presented. A police investigation focuses on suspects and ruling them out by the demonstration of innocence by either direct or indirect means.

I have not said the McCann's can "demonstrate their innocence by answering question". I have said that investigations use a multitude of means, often together, to rule someone out. One is obviously answering questions.

For example, and it's a really simple example, Kate Mccann's mother was not a suspect. Had she been questioned the Police would have said:

"Where were you on the 3rd May 2007".

She would have answered:

"In the UK".

Having verified that the police would have been able to rule out her mother because she had proven her innocence to the investigation by not being in Portugal on the night of the disappearance.

So would you agree that Stagg was unable to prove his innocence, despite being put on trial for the murder. What more could he have done. it was impossible for him to prove his innocence.