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

[Carana]

Tell the truth, can't go wrong.

Tell that to John.

[John]

Tell the truth, can't go wrong.

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.

[Montclair]

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.

[Lyall]

Which ones in particular?

It's a long time since I looked at them so I can't answer that at the moment &%&£(+

[Jean-Pierre]

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?

[John]

AFAIK, there has been no confirmation that Carlos Pinto Abreu advised Kate not to answer the 48 questions. Only hearsay.

He was there with her Montclair, I think we would have heard by now if it was untrue.

[Carana]

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?

[John]

So you agree that using right to silence is a pretty good idea?  And that Kate was actually quite well advised?

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

[Jean-Pierre]

AFAIK, there has been no confirmation that Carlos Pinto Abreu advised Kate not to answer the 48 questions. Only hearsay.

Are you by any chance related to Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, Montclair?

[John]

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.

[Carana]

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

Have a good look at those questions, John. ;)

And read them alongside TdeA's "report"...

[Carana]

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

Are we back to the court of public opinion again?

[Montclair]

He was there with her Montclair, I think we would have heard by now if it was untrue.

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

[Lace]

 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.

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.

[Carana]

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"?