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

[Carana]

The PJ simply didn't know what they were talking about when it came to DNA.  And they knew it.

They were either bluffing or totally incompetent. Perhaps both.

Unfortunately, Carlos appeared to have been initially impressed by it. His alternative advice was to simply say "no comment".

[Eleanor]

there was an overwhelming reason...the pj thought kate was guilty

Actually, they wanted her to be guilty.  Much more dangerous.

[Mr Gray]

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

[John]

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.

[Jean-Pierre]

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.

[Carana]

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? ;)

[John]

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.

[John]

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? ;)

More a case of lightening not striking twice...

[John]

I'll ask a third time because it's been abducted again.

What proof is there that Kate didn't kill Maddie?

Thanks in advance.

There is no proof just as there is no proof she was abducted, wandered off, fell down a hole or anything else for that matter.

The mystery is complete.

[ferryman]

More a case of lightening not striking twice...

That, apparently, happened with the fridge, didn't it?

First time in the cipriano case; second time in the Madeleine investigation.

I seem to recall Amaral was on the brink of finding the fridge just as he was pulled off the investigation.

[Wonderfulspam]

You could just be honest & say 'There isn't any'...

[Carana]

More a case of lightening not striking twice...

Of course, John. ;)

[Brietta]

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.

[Benice]

There is no proof just as there is no proof she was abducted, wandered off, fell down a hole or anything else for that matter.

The mystery is complete.

So no different from the Ben Needham case then.

[Wonderfulspam]

So no different from the Ben Needham case then.

Except no one was seen carrying him away......


[ edited ]