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

[Carana]

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".

[Jean-Pierre]

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.

[Carana]

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.

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.

[misty]

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!"

[Carana]

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!"

 

[Eleanor]

 

Me too.   

[DCI]

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.

[John]

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 !!! 

[pathfinder73]

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!

[John]

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.

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.

[John]

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.

[Benice]

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.

[Carana]

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...

[Carana]

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.

[Jean-Pierre]

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?