In what circumstances can the "No comment" response be considered suspicious?

[Brietta]

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.

I'm sorry, is it your contention these were not the questions asked and the answers given at the arguida interrogation?

[kizzy]

So her lawyer was in attendance with her at the arguida interrogation why?

Why.


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


So your post was only in your opinion and not - what she was told to do by her lawyer.

She was the one who decided not to answer the questions. 

[ShiningInLuz]

I'm sorry, is it your contention these were not the questions asked and the answers given at the arguida interrogation?

You ran the interview the day before with the asking of Q47.

Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?

[Brietta]

You ran the interview the day before with the asking of Q47.

Are you contending that Kate was asked this question twice in her arguida interview, but the first Q&A was not documented?

No ... that is not what I was contending.

[ShiningInLuz]

No ... that is not what I was contending.

So what were you contending?

[Brietta]

So what were you contending?

I have answered your question ... I'm not accepting supplementaries.  I am far more concerned with adhering to the thread title rather than indulging in ping pong with you ... considering we are only on page two of which the deflection into personal attack seems to have been fast tracked.

As John has already noted Saturday is early this week.

[John]

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.

It is nothing new for police to focus in on the parents of a missing child when their disappearance is suspicious, to be honest I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.  All Kate McCann had to do was answer their questions, establish that she was a credible witness then move on to whatever was next.  All she managed to do as far as the police were concerned was to look guilty, attract even more police attention and give the press a field day.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562418/Kate-McCann-to-become-Madeleine-suspect.html

[kizzy]

Ithink another reason why no comment can be suspicious.


Should anyone use ‘no comment’ (or opt for silence) when being formally questioned, the gravitas and intensity of the situation would be taken into account by a jury. However, suspects should also expect a grilling in court, regarding their reluctance to answer when they had the chance. Remembering crucial evidence many months later – as opposed to when everything is fresh in their minds – is likely to arouse suspicion, not douse it.

If you’re innocent, and have proof of this, there’s really no reason to give ‘no comment’ when interviewed; it’s common sense. But if you’re not innocent, or you have little evidence to prove you are, it seems uttering ‘no comment’ won’t necessarily save your skin. Ultimately, it just delays the inevitable…

[Erngath]

Ithink another reason why no comment can be suspicious.


Should anyone use ‘no comment’ (or opt for silence) when being formally questioned, the gravitas and intensity of the situation would be taken into account by a jury. However, suspects should also expect a grilling in court, regarding their reluctance to answer when they had the chance. Remembering crucial evidence many months later – as opposed to when everything is fresh in their minds – is likely to arouse suspicion, not douse it.

If you’re innocent, and have proof of this, there’s really no reason to give ‘no comment’ when interviewed; it’s common sense. But if you’re not innocent, or you have little evidence to prove you are, it seems uttering ‘no comment’ won’t necessarily save your skin. Ultimately, it just delays the inevitable…

What is the inevitable in this case?

[John]

What is the inevitable in this case?

That those 48 questions might be answered yet?

[Erngath]

That those 48 questions might be answered yet?

You really don't know if they have been answered previously.
If they have been,  and I think they will have been, we may never know the answers.
I'm not sure your response was the one that Kizzys post was implying.

[John]

Why.


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


So your post was only in your opinion and not - what she was told to do by her lawyer.

She was the one who decided not to answer the questions.

Kate reveals in her book that she didn't answer on her lawyers advice after he had discussions with the PJ.  There is no corroboration of this however.  IMO she did the wrong thing, she should have cooperated fully with the police as is normal for parents of any missing infant.

[ShiningInLuz]

I have answered your question ... I'm not accepting supplementaries.  I am far more concerned with adhering to the thread title rather than indulging in ping pong with you ... considering we are only on page two of which the deflection into personal attack seems to have been fast tracked.

As John has already noted Saturday is early this week.

Recently you have made a number of responses which, IMO, boil down to you deciding that you are not responding.

You very definitely have not answered my question.

The 'supplementaries' were an honest attempt to clarify your position.  Without your clarification, I can only assume that you have nothing to back your assertion.

I find your ping-pong comment distasteful.

There was no personal attack in my queries.  Why you chose to raise personal attacks is beyond me.

Perhaps if you think your comment was off-topic, you should not have thrown it in to the mix.  Otherwise, it is up for discussion.

[kizzy]

Kate reveals in her book that she didn't answer on her lawyers advice after he had discussions with the PJ.  There is no corroboration of this however.  IMO she did the wrong thing, she should have cooperated fully with the police as is normal for parents of any missing infant.

IMO she is going to say that in her book as she needs a reason to have not answered the questions.

She should have answered the questions no two ways about it.- she had done enough damage as it was.

IMO It makes you wonder by not answering them - what  she could have said to incriminate herself

obviously something was bothering her imo

[kizzy]

You really don't know if they have been answered previously.
If they have been,  and I think they will have been, we may never know the answers.
I'm not sure your response was the one that Kizzys post was implying.

Exactly what was i implying E