Author Topic: In what circumstances can the "No comment" response be considered suspicious?  (Read 21822 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

In certain circumstances police will always consider the "No comment" response to be suspicious.  As an example of this I refer to the Channel 5 crime documentary "Countdown to murder" The Soap Star Killer.  This documentary features a reconstruction of the events that led to the horrific murder of former EastEnders actress Gemma McCluskie in 2012 and the subsequent search for her body.

Gemma McCluskie's brother Tony lived with her and was the last person to see her alive.  Police were not satisfied with the answers he gave when initially questioned so he became an official suspect.

From the documentary timestamp 36.21

Narrator Caroline Catz:  McCluskie was interviewed under caution but the only reply he gave was "No comment"

Former DCI John Nicholson:  It was his right as it is everybody's right if they are arrrested for a criminal offence to make a no comment interview but given on the face of it his sister had been abducted, murdered, dismembered, the normal person I would suggest would want to do everything they can to try and identify who was responsible but Tony chose not to do that.


https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x230mdc

185
« Last Edit: June 17, 2018, 05:19:02 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline slartibartfast

In certain circumstances police will always consider the "No comment" response to be suspicious.  As an example of this I refer to the Channel 5 crime documentary "Countdown to murder" The Soap Star Killer.  This documentary features a reconstruction of the events that led to the horrific murder of former EastEnders actress Gemma McCluskie in 2012 and the subsequent search for her body.

Gemma McCluskie's brother Tony lived with her and was the last person to see her alive.  Police were not satisfied with the answers he gave when initially questioned so he became an official suspect.

From the documentary timestamp 36.21

Narrator Caroline Catz:  McCluskie was interviewed under caution but the only reply he gave was "No comment"

Former DCI John Nicholson:  It was his right as it is everybody's right if they are arrrested for a criminal offence to make a no comment interview but given on the face of it his sister had been abducted, murdered, dismembered, the normal person I would suggest would want to do everything they can to try and identify who was responsible but Tony chose not to do that.


https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x230mdc

Demonstrates a probably typical police view.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline kizzy




I would suggest would want to do everything they can to try and identify who was responsible but Tony chose not to do that.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 02:38:33 PM by John »

Offline John

The general attitude by those who support the "No comment" response even when someone is totally innocent of any crime appears to be because of incrimination.  The question is though, if a suspect is totally innocent, how can they possibly incriminate themself?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John




I would suggest would want to do everything they can to try and identify who was responsible but Tony chose not to do that.


Same as kmccann.

In the case of KM the police interrogator did make it crystal clear at the end of the arguida interview session that a refusal to answer questions would be unhelpful to the investigation.


Q.  Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A.  'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'


I'm still puzzled at this response?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 11:38:26 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline slartibartfast

The general attitude by those who support the "No comment" response even when someone is totally innocent of any crime appears to be because of incrimination.  The question is though, if a suspect is totally innocent, how can they possibly incriminate themself?

Agreed, tell the truth, the whole truth even if it doesn’t paint you in the best possible light. People do silly things and make mistakes, trying to cover it up only makes people suspicious.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline kizzy

The no comment is odd - if you have nothing to hide



https://www.thinkforensic.co.uk/no-comment/

No Comment!

How many times have you watched a police interrogation on the TV and heard the words ‘No comment’? It’s usually when the suspect is ‘bang to rights’, after evidence has been unearthed that’s practically indisputable. When they’re cornered.

Anyone in this situation may think that, by saying nothing, they’re avoiding further incrimination. But answering ‘no comment’ may actually make their situation worse.

In TV world, suspects happily chat away to officers about what they’ve been up to before the scene cuts to a harrassed lawyer, climbing the steps two at a time, as they rush to the police station. And the first thing they’re seen to do is speak to their client alone, to give advice and counsel. Cue the scene of the next interview, and whatever the interrogating officer says, the answer is continually ‘no comment’.

That’s just the small screen’s interpretation of the interview process. Real life, says Richard Atkinson, chair of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, couldn’t be more different. ‘Solicitors don’t advise their clients to give ‘no comment’ responses as a matter of course. You have to assess all the factors at the police station, when deciding whether to advise a client to answer questions, to put in a prepared statement, or to give a no comment interview.’

We could all probably recite the disclaimer police officers give when arresting someone; for instance, does this sound familar? ‘You do not have to say anything if you do not wish to do so, but anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.’

In 1994 this wording was subtly changed. The caution is now: ‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.’

Offline Brietta

In the case of KM the police interrogator did make it crystal clear at the end of the arguida interview session that a refusal to answer questions would be unhelpful to the investigation.


Q.  Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A.  'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'


I'm still puzzled at this response?

I'm not at all puzzled, John.
They had made her an arguido to interrogate her regarding "the death and concealment of her daughter's body".
At this stage the investigation was directed against her ... not looking for Madeleine.

IMO she did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th".  Gerry was a mug to have disregarded the lawyer's advice to remain silent and answered everything ... on the other hand, I get the impression it was not Gerry they had in their sights.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 02:40:54 PM by John »
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline kizzy

I'm not at all puzzled, John.
They had made her an arguido to interrogate her regarding "the death and concealment of her daughter's body".
At this stage the investigation was directed against her ... not looking for Madeleine.

She did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th".  In my opinion Gerry was a mug to have disregarded the lawyer's advice to remain silent and answered everything ... on the other hand, I get the impression it was not Gerry they had in their sights.


She did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th"



How do you know her lawyer advised her to do this - or is it iyo

Offline jassi

I'm not at all puzzled, John.
They had made her an arguido to interrogate her regarding "the death and concealment of her daughter's body".
At this stage the investigation was directed against her ... not looking for Madeleine.

She did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th".  In my opinion Gerry was a mug to have disregarded the lawyer's advice to remain silent and answered everything ... on the other hand, I get the impression it was not Gerry they had in their sights.

Have you anything to support that statement?
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Brietta

47   Confronted with the result of the sample of Madeleine's DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, found behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, as previously described, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm?lsf

Kate had been questioned for at least eleven hours the day before.  I suggest she had already answered question 47 at that time.
As to the value of the question ... I suggest a visit to the PJ files detailing the forensic results might prove informative.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline kizzy

47   Confronted with the result of the sample of Madeleine's DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, found behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, as previously described, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm?lsf

Kate had been questioned for at least eleven hours the day before.  I suggest she had already answered question 47 at that time.
As to the value of the question ... I suggest a visit to the PJ files detailing the forensic results might prove informative.


Mrs McCann used her right to remain silent and only answered one question.


So she chose to remain silent - not on advice from her lawyer.

Offline Brietta


Mrs McCann used her right to remain silent and only answered one question.


So she chose to remain silent - not on advice from her lawyer.


So her lawyer was in attendance with her at the arguida interrogation why?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline ShiningInLuz

47   Confronted with the result of the sample of Madeleine's DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, found behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, as previously described, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm?lsf

Kate had been questioned for at least eleven hours the day before.  I suggest she had already answered question 47 at that time.
As to the value of the question ... I suggest a visit to the PJ files detailing the forensic results might prove informative.
Given that - there is no record of this in the Files - and - to ask this required Kate was made an arguida - then I see nothing to support your suggestion - quite the opposite.
What's up, old man?

Offline ShiningInLuz

I'm not at all puzzled, John.
They had made her an arguido to interrogate her regarding "the death and concealment of her daughter's body".
At this stage the investigation was directed against her ... not looking for Madeleine.

She did exactly the right thing in listening to her lawyers advice "to plead the 5th".  In my opinion Gerry was a mug to have disregarded the lawyer's advice to remain silent and answered everything ... on the other hand, I get the impression it was not Gerry they had in their sights.
Is there anything to support the assertion that Gerry was advised to remain silent by his lawyer?
What's up, old man?