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

[slartibartfast]

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.

Mainly the supporters.

[jassi]

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

In my experience of interviewing, answers often lead to additional questions.
I wouldn't attempt to suggest what those answers might have been.
However, giving no answers clearly indicates a lack of cooperation.

[Jean-Pierre]

Mainly the supporters.

Ok I will ask again.  What purpose would it serve to engage with a police interview where the evidence is at best misunderstood.

And how should Kate, or anyone facing a hostile police interview, have reacted.  Especially as her lawyer recomnended that she invoked Her right to silence?

[Brietta]

Ok I will ask again.  What purpose would it serve to engage with a police interview where the evidence is at best misunderstood.

And how should Kate, or anyone facing a hostile police interview, have reacted.  Especially as her lawyer recomnended that she invoked Her right to silence?

People have the right to silence and the right to exercise it if they so choose ... but it must be remembered that we are discussing Kate McCann's rights and it seems there are those who are of the opinion that Kate McCann enjoys no rights whatsoever ... be that to silence or the presumption of innocence.

Does Mr Amaral have the right to appeal the judgement made against him ... of course he has.
Does Mr Amaral have the right to proceed to appeal if allowed ... of course he does.
Does anyone have the right to criticise Mr Amaral for exercising his legal rights ... no they do not.

Did Dr McCann have the right to silence ... of course she did.
Did Dr McCann have the right to exercise her rights ... of course she did.
Does anyone have the right to criticise Dr McCann for exercising her legal rights ... no they do not.

Perhaps it is years past the time that it was realised that the constant criticism of everything and anything McCann displays nothing more or less than an unconscionable irrationality. 

[Jean-Pierre]

In my experience of interviewing, answers often lead to additional questions.
I wouldn't attempt to suggest what those answers might have been.
However, giving no answers clearly indicates a lack of cooperation.

Could you explain what cooperation with a police interviewer in these circumstances would have achieved? 

[jassi]

Could you explain what cooperation with a police interviewer in these circumstances would have achieved?

I have no idea, as I wasn't there.
 However, if ever faced with such a situation, I would answer questions to the best of my ability.

[Alice Purjorick]

I have no idea, as I wasn't there.
 However, if ever faced with such a situation, I would answer questions to the best of my ability.

But if you were convinced the cops were going to stitch you up.......(why? in the case of KM).
In the case of supporters loads of after the event "evidence" can be brought to play indicating that a stitch up was in progress (paranoia and conspiracy theory).
Back to square one in the real world what would be adequate reasons for not cooperating?
Given you had not been watching a rerun of Jack Regan on the box.

[Brietta]

I have no idea, as I wasn't there.
 However, if ever faced with such a situation, I would answer questions to the best of my ability.

Have to take your word for it that you would cheerfully submit to answering hostile questions in a hostile environment the aim of which was not to solve a case but to build a case against you.

Personally I think this would be an idiotic situation ... but everyone to their own.

Does it not occur to you that Kate McCann had endured many hours of questioning immediately beforehand when questions relating to Madeleine's case should have been asked? 

She was absolutely correct not to answer questions designed to incriminate her ... pity prejudice does not allow you to recognise that.

[jassi]

Have to take your word for it that you would cheerfully submit to answering hostile questions in a hostile environment the aim of which was not to solve a case but to build a case against you.

Personally I think this would be an idiotic situation ... but everyone to their own.

Does it not occur to you that Kate McCann had endured many hours of questioning immediately beforehand when questions relating to Madeleine's case should have been asked? 

She was absolutely correct not to answer questions designed to incriminate her ... pity prejudice does not allow you to recognise that.

As usual, you read your own interpretations into things.  I was saying how I would react, not how anyone else should.
No doubt you will be able to demonstrate where I have criticised  Kate for her failure to answer the questions put to her.

[Montclair]

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?

You do realise that the Polícia Judiciária is under the authority of the judicial system, this means that a judge leads the investigation. The PJ would not be able to ask the above questions without the judge being involved and giving his authorisation. This means that you are also calling the judge a liar.

[Eleanor]

You do realise that the Polícia Judiciária is under the authority of the judicial system, this means that a judge leads the investigation. The PJ would not be able to ask the above questions without the judge being involved and giving his authorisation. This means that you are also calling the judge a liar.

According to that logic The Judge was lying.  Unless he just took the word of The PJ to accurate.

Which was it?

[Montclair]

According to that logic The Judge was lying.  Unless he just took the word of The PJ to accurate.

Which was it?

No judge would ever lie because investigation files are always made public and open to scrutiny. In a serious and sensitive case such as this one, the judge in no way would just take the word of the PJ with regard to the DNA results. He would have looked at them and agreed to the questioning because the preliminary results indicated Maddie's DNA. The judge and Ministério Público receive all of the paper work and make the important decisions, such as those regarding the questioning of the arguidos in this case. So according to that logic, the PJ was not lying when they asked those questions.

[Jean-Pierre]

No judge would ever lie because investigation files are always made public and open to scrutiny. In a serious and sensitive case such as this one, the judge in no way would just take the word of the PJ with regard to the DNA results. He would have looked at them and agreed to the questioning because the preliminary results indicated Maddie's DNA. The judge and Ministério Público receive all of the paper work and make the important decisions, such as those regarding the questioning of the arguidos in this case. So according to that logic, the PJ was not lying when they asked those questions.

Well Montclair, perhaps the kindest way of putting it is that either the Judge misread the FSS information or did not actually understand.  So someone was at fault.

Perhaps you could kindly have a look at the following questions.  They are quite specific - it would be interesting to see how they conform to the actual forensic results?


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?

[Brietta]

As usual, you read your own interpretations into things.  I was saying how I would react, not how anyone else should.
No doubt you will be able to demonstrate where I have criticised  Kate for her failure to answer the questions put to her.

If I were conducting an investigation into the case of a missing child I would do my level best not to make a pigs ear out of it.
Now if you wan't to take that as an interpretation of my opinion that Mr Amaral did just that in Madeleine McCann's case ... be my guest.
                                                       
                                                                           &%+((£

I had no idea you were not participating in the discussion we have been having on the 48 questions Dr Kate McCann exercised her legal right not to answer ... therefore I considered it a safe assumption that you were making an obliquely pejorative reference to her.

That you were referring, completely out of the blue, only to what an upstanding upright and co-operative suspect you would be ... probably even waiving your right to a lawyer as you obviously wouldn't need one ... never crossed my mind.

[Brietta]

Well Montclair, perhaps the kindest way of putting it is that either the Judge misread the FSS information or did not actually understand.  So someone was at fault.

Perhaps you could kindly have a look at the following questions.  They are quite specific - it would be interesting to see how they conform to the actual forensic results?


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?

Apart from anything else ... the questions themselves prove that Dr McCann had already answered these questions ... so the object of asking them again when she had been made an arguida was to incriminate her.

The inaccuracy and misunderstanding (and that is being kind) of the FSS results is mind boggling.