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

[Carana]

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.

[John]

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.

[Carana]

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

Honesty? There is no significant evidence that she died in that apartment or anywhere else, let alone how, nor who was responsible.

The absence of evidence may be as informative as the presence of any.

If you don't agree with that, what absolute proof do YOU have that rules yourself out?

[Brietta]

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.

[Jean-Pierre]

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?

[Admin]

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

[John]

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.

[John]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Jean-Pierre]

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. 

[Lyall]

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.

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

Tell the truth, can't go wrong.

[Carana]

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?

[Jean-Pierre]

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?

[Lyall]

To the court of public opinion do you mean?

The McCanns were running a reputation management campaign literally from the very moment their Easyjet plane hit the runway in England.