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

[mercury]

I think you have been watching too much TV legal drama. 

It is standard advice for a lawyer attending a client police interview to advise client not to answer police questions.  Especially the sort of questions being asked by the PJ.

No it isnt, dont talk bull

[Jean-Pierre]

BS

  Be very careful then if you find yourself on the wrong end of a police "fishing expedition".

Arguido status grants silence as a right for a very good reason.

What do you think of questions 43 to 47? 

[Jean-Pierre]

No it isnt, dont talk bull

In Kate McCanns case, the questions and the interview had everything to do with getting a confession, and nothing whatever to do with finding Madeleine. 

Perhaps you can explain why Carlos' advice for Kate to make use of the right to silence was so wrong?

[mercury]

In Kate McCanns case, the questions and the interview had everything to do with getting a confession, and nothing whatever to do with finding Madeleine. 

Perhaps you can explain why Carlos' advice for Kate to make use of the right to silence was so wrong?

perhaps first you can explain why the questions were geared to a confession and secondly even if they were why if she answered them all truthfully she will have been put in a worse position??

[Mr Gray]

perhaps first you can explain why the questions were geared to a confession and secondly even if they were why if she answered them all truthfully she will have been put in a worse position??

john gave a very good reply to this question

[Jean-Pierre]

perhaps first you can explain why the questions were geared to a confession and secondly even if they were why if she answered them all truthfully she will have been put in a worse position??

OK

Here are some of the questions.

How could KM have answered them without getting tied up in knots - given that the PJ had deliberately broken the rules.

Before you say it, yes, I am looking at this from a legal rather than a PR perspective.

_____________

43- In the case files you were forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44- When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45- When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46- When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47- When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

[misty]

According to Kates book she was following her lawyers advice.  Question is, why did her lawyer feel the need to give that advice if she was not involved in anything untoward?

 The lawyer could see from the unsubstantiated evidence presented that the police were trying to stitch Kate up.

[slartibartfast]

OK

Here are some of the questions.

How could KM have answered them without getting tied up in knots - given that the PJ had deliberately broken the rules.

Before you say it, yes, I am looking at this from a legal rather than a PR perspective.

_____________

43- In the case files you were forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44- When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45- When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46- When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47- When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

How about yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

[Jean-Pierre]

How about yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Any answer other than "no comment" would involve KM being involved in a conversation about the "evidence" presented by the PJ, which was at best misunderstood and at worst deliberate lies. This is one of the reasons why the police are not allowed to claim invented evidence as a fact.     

[Alfred R Jones]

How about yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

And those answers would have helped move the investigation forward how exactly?

[slartibartfast]

And those answers would have helped move the investigation forward how exactly?

More than no comment.

[jassi]

And those answers would have helped move the investigation forward how exactly?

As we don't know what the answers might have been, how could we possibly know how they might have helped the investigation ?

[Jean-Pierre]

More than no comment.

To consider this particular case, How would KM engaging in an argument over "evidence" the PJ didn't actually have have helped?

Once a police interview is being conducted under caution, remaining silent is the best course, whether guilty or innocent.

(a) it avoids the possibility of inadventently incriminating oneself in this or other areas
(b) it puts the onus on the police to put up or shut up
(c) It reveals whether they have some hard evidence, in which case you have a problem anyway, or they are on a fishing expedition, in which case you don't and they will not be able to take the case against you any further.

In short, in using ones right to silence you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Now that I have set out my opinion, Perhaps you could clarify how engaging in a hostile police interview can help, and your reasons behind that point of view? 

 

[Alfred R Jones]

As we don't know what the answers might have been, how could we possibly know how they might have helped the investigation ?

Slarti suggested answers and I asked how those answers might have helped. Any ideas?

[Jean-Pierre]

Slarti suggested answers and I asked how those answers might have helped. Any ideas?

I think some here are long on derision and short on any answer to sensible questions. 

Apparently one must always cooperate with the police, even when they are clearly attempting a stich up.  I get the impression some get their legal expertise from watching police drama on TV and CSI.