Author Topic: In what circumstances can the "No comment" response be considered suspicious?  (Read 21815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eleanor

I suspect it would have had a very different outcome had Kate not refused to answer the 48 questions.

I don't suppose we could have your actual opinion on this, could we?

This is Deflection at its finest.

Offline slartibartfast

I suspect it would have had a very different outcome had Kate not refused to answer the 48 questions.

IMO any attempt at reputation management has had a significant effect on the longevity of the interest in the case.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Mr Gray

I suspect it would have had a very different outcome had Kate not refused to answer the 48 questions.

 doubt it made any diference whatsoever...would you like to tell us why you think it would

Offline slartibartfast

I don't suppose we could have your actual opinion on this, could we?

This is Deflection at its finest.

How is a comment on failure to answer questions deflection from “no comment” being suspicious?
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Robittybob1

very tricky to answer.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline John

doubt it made any diference whatsoever...would you like to tell us why you think it would

Someone posted previously that the PJ were intent upon taking advantage of the situation.  Kate was undoubtedly experiencing enormous pressure and in those circumstances all sorts of things tend to get revealed.  Her lawyer knew that the situation had the potential to end badly thus his advice to not answer any questions.
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 Angelo222

Someone posted previously that the PJ were intent upon taking advantage of the situation.  Kate was undoubtedly experiencing enormous pressure and in those circumstances all sorts of things tend to get revealed.  Her lawyer knew that the situation had the potential to end badly thus his advice to not answer any questions.

So her lawyer must have thought she would incriminate herself?
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline slartibartfast

So her lawyer must have thought she would incriminate herself?

A logical conclusion.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

So her lawyer must have thought she would incriminate herself?
Innocent people can incriminate themselves, as I have already shown on this thread.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Angelo222

Innocent people can incriminate themselves, as I have already shown on this thread.

...but so can guilty people and those with a guilty conscience.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline slartibartfast

Innocent people can incriminate themselves, as I have already shown on this thread.

No you haven’t IMO. You have quoted a law firm whose main thrust was you should talk to a lawyer and an academic article mainly concerned with getting legal representation. No real world examples.

One interesting quote...

Quote
The second way people unintentionally incriminate themselves–and I see this a lot in domestic violence cases–is deleting emails, text messages, and voicemails.



“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Alice Purjorick

So her lawyer must have thought she would incriminate herself?

There would appear to be protection of both witnesses and arguidos against self-incrimination. Only evidence produced or examined during a trial may be used to secure a conviction or acquittal. See CCP Article 355
The issue may have been to prevent the authorities from finding "entry points" to unpick the stories thus uncovering more lines of questioning. A bit like a badger uncurling a hedgehog.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Carana


Offline Mr Gray

No you haven’t IMO. You have quoted a law firm whose main thrust was you should talk to a lawyer and an academic article mainly concerned with getting legal representation. No real world examples.

One interesting quote...

Are you really trying to suggest an innocent person cannot incriminate themselves... That is ridiculous imo

Offline Vertigo Swirl

No you haven’t IMO. You have quoted a law firm whose main thrust was you should talk to a lawyer and an academic article mainly concerned with getting legal representation. No real world examples.

One interesting quote...
LOL.  Are you trying to tell me that there has never been a miscarriage of justice resulting in an innocent person going to prison owing to something they said to the police?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".