"Fresh agony for the McCanns"

pennylane wrote:


Give me a lie detector test, ask me any questions you wish, here's my bank and credit card statements, and my phone records, and my daughters health records, I've had them all faxed over immediately via my ace connections in the UK, is there any other information I've missed that you require? ..... oh and where are the twins test results I begged you for? 

It's too simplistic and too much to expect I guess! 

 

pennylane wrote:They make it up as they go along, and due to their expensive sabre rattling are rarely challenged.  But on the few occasions they have been asked a direct and relevant question, it's always proven disastrous for them.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Realist wrote:

plebgate wrote:

 but I really do believe that Rocky A. will not give up until he feels he has some long awaited answers.

--- or, until he's sold enough books!

True colours coming out...

Realist wrote:

whodunit wrote:
 It is 'natural and irresistible' for us and for the police to infer guilt from her refusal to answer the questions.

It isn't natural at all and it shouldn't be irresistible, au contraire, it is every person's right not to incriminate them self, that is the premise upon which the laws of evidence are based.
...
From a juror's point of view, it is a defendant's prerogative to exercise their legal right to remain silent and shouldn't even come into the equation when deciding upon guilt or innocence.

Bishop Brennan wrote:


Actually guilt can be inferred from silence, in the UK at least.  A quick look at Section 34 and 35, The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 clearly states:

I'm glad that you added ' in the UK at least; Bishop, because the UK is probably the only state in the so called civilised world which allows such prejudicial and draconian inferences to be drawn. With the advent of the 2003 Criminal Justice Bill which allows amongst other issues, the admittance of a defendant's previous convictions to be admitted as evidence, it is all but a physical impossibility for a defendant to receive a fair trial in the UK. Hence the conviction rate of circa 85%.

At this moment in time, the prosecution can't indict a person merely because they have chosen to opt to stand on their legal right to remain silent, but with the erosion of civil liberties by the day, its anyone's guess how long this will last. In fact, at the recent trial of Stuart Hall, his counsel  in summing up to the jury, remarked that one could easily be excused for opining that Stuart Hall was on trial for exercising his legal right to decline answering police questioning. 

Never the less, adopting one's legal right to remain silent during police interrogation in the UK is still the lesser of the evils and one can always maintain that it was upon the advice of legal representation, after all, what is the point of employing legal advice, merely to disregard it. One could also of course adopt the stance under interrogation by merely replying to every question that one doesn't understand the caution as it appears to be ambiguous in that on on one hand it appears to be stating that it is one's legal right to remain silent whilst at the same time stating that it can be held against one. How can a legal right be used against one.

Kate McCann would undoubtably have been acting upon legal advice when refusing to answer police questioning whilst under the status of arguido. There are many other indicators pointing to the McCanns  guilt, but it is patently unfair to include in them her refusal to answer questions whilst under the equivalent of caution.


So yes, everyone has right to remain silent. But jurors can draw an inference from it.  In the case of KM - her refusal to answer questions and refusing to do a reconstruction as an arguido would count against her if it ever came down to trial.

I'm not familiar with Portuguese law, Bishop, but I'd be very surprised if refusing to participate in a reconstruction process would incur an inference of guilt being drawn at any subsequent trial, the same would apply to a defendant refusing to answer questions as a suspect. Even in the Peoples' Republik of Britain, I doubt whether a judge could invite a jury to draw an inference from the fact that a defendant refused to participate in a reconstruction process. The latter surely would have to be a matter of mutual co-operation and consent. 

At the end of the day, why would any sane minded person wish to co-operate with the police in obtaining a conviction against them. In the immortal words of Clarence Mitchell 'It is the authorities who have to prove their guilt, not Kate and Gerry to prove their innocence,' (These may not have been his exact words, but they have the exact same meaning)

lj wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Realist wrote:

plebgate wrote:

 but I really do believe that Rocky A. will not give up until he feels he has some long awaited answers.

--- or, until he's sold enough books!

True colours coming out...

Yep

Realist wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:


Actually guilt can be inferred from silence, in the UK at least.  A quick look at Section 34 and 35, The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 clearly states:

I'm glad that you added ' in the UK at least; Bishop, because the UK is probably the only state in the so called civilised world which allows such prejudicial and draconian inferences to be drawn. With the advent of the 2003 Criminal Justice Bill which allows amongst other issues, the admittance of a defendant's previous convictions to be admitted as evidence, it is all but a physical impossibility for a defendant to receive a fair trial in the UK. Hence the conviction rate of circa 85%.

At this moment in time, the prosecution can't indict a person merely because they have chosen to opt to stand on their legal right to remain silent, but with the erosion of civil liberties by the day, its anyone's guess how long this will last. In fact, at the recent trial of Stuart Hall, his counsel  in summing up to the jury, remarked that one could easily be excused for opining that Stuart Hall was on trial for exercising his legal right to decline answering police questioning. 

Never the less, adopting one's legal right to remain silent during police interrogation in the UK is still the lesser of the evils and one can always maintain that it was upon the advice of legal representation, after all, what is the point of employing legal advice, merely to disregard it. One could also of course adopt the stance under interrogation by merely replying to every question that one doesn't understand the caution as it appears to be ambiguous in that on on one hand it appears to be stating that it is one's legal right to remain silent whilst at the same time stating that it can be held against one. How can a legal right be used against one.

Kate McCann would undoubtably have been acting upon legal advice when refusing to answer police questioning whilst under the status of arguido. There are many other indicators pointing to the McCanns  guilt, but it is patently unfair to include in them her refusal to answer questions whilst under the equivalent of caution.


So yes, everyone has right to remain silent. But jurors can draw an inference from it.  In the case of KM - her refusal to answer questions and refusing to do a reconstruction as an arguido would count against her if it ever came down to trial.

I'm not familiar with Portuguese law, Bishop, but I'd be very surprised if refusing to participate in a reconstruction process would incur an inference of guilt being drawn at any subsequent trial, the same would apply to a defendant refusing to answer questions as a suspect. Even in the Peoples' Republik of Britain, I doubt whether a judge could invite a jury to draw an inference from the fact that a defendant refused to participate in a reconstruction process. The latter surely would have to be a matter of mutual co-operation and consent. 

At the end of the day, why would any sane minded person wish to co-operate with the police in obtaining a conviction against them. In the immortal words of Clarence Mitchell 'It is the authorities who have to prove their guilt, not Kate and Gerry to prove their innocence,' (These may not have been his exact words, but they have the exact same meaning)

Realist wrote:

lj wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Realist wrote:

plebgate wrote:

 but I really do believe that Rocky A. will not give up until he feels he has some long awaited answers.

--- or, until he's sold enough books!

True colours coming out...

Yep

As stated in my riposte to Get' em, just because I don't agree with a person's motives or hypothesis of the case, doesn't mean I am a McCann sympathiser. Too many people can't see the woods for the trees and all these wild and highly speculative theories have only served to benefit the McCanns by both muddying the waters and allowing the aforementioned et cie to dismiss them as being the rantings of cranks.

Judex wrote:

At the end of the day, any sane minded person must begin to wonder exactly where Realist is 'coming from' .... and what his/her aim on here really is.... ?

I don't have any agenda or ulterior motive,  I am merely pointing out the true facts of the matter. If you were able to actually understand what I am writing, you would perhaps be able to understand why the authorities have failed to bring an indictment against the McCanns.

Realist wrote:

Judex wrote:

At the end of the day, any sane minded person must begin to wonder exactly where Realist is 'coming from' .... and what his/her aim on here really is.... ?

I don't have any agenda or ulterior motive,  I am merely pointing out the true facts of the matter. If you were able to actually understand what I am writing, you would perhaps be able to understand why the authorities have failed to bring an indictment against the McCanns.

Realist wrote:

Judex wrote:

At the end of the day, any sane minded person must begin to wonder exactly where Realist is 'coming from' .... and what his/her aim on here really is.... ?

I don't have any agenda or ulterior motive,  I am merely pointing out the true facts of the matter. If you were able to actually understand what I am writing, you would perhaps be able to understand why the authorities have failed to bring an indictment against the McCanns.

Judex wrote:

There can therefore be no sound basis for any further communication between us.

Realist wrote:Fortunately, Verdi, there are no circumstances where a person can be forced to answer questions, unless of course, you are referring to interrogation by torture, where even there, depending on one's durability, one still cannot be forced to answer questions.

I've always been perplexed as to why defendants feel the need to answer incriminating questions whilst being interrogated, after all, its rarely, if ever to their advantage to do so. One could be faced with the best interrogator on the face of the planet, but he/she would be rendered as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike, if met with a mute response.

Whatever one may think of Dr. Shipman, one has to accord him a degree of credit for the way he handled his interrogators, because not only did he ignore them, he turned his chair around and refused to even acknowledge them. 

plebgate wrote:

Realist wrote:Fortunately, Verdi, there are no circumstances where a person can be forced to answer questions, unless of course, you are referring to interrogation by torture, where even there, depending on one's durability, one still cannot be forced to answer questions.

I've always been perplexed as to why defendants feel the need to answer incriminating questions whilst being interrogated, after all, its rarely, if ever to their advantage to do so. One could be faced with the best interrogator on the face of the planet, but he/she would be rendered as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike, if met with a mute response.

Whatever one may think of Dr. Shipman, one has to accord him a degree of credit for the way he handled his interrogators, because not only did he ignore them, he turned his chair around and refused to even acknowledge them. 

I've always been perplexed as to why a mother would not answer questions if it meant those very questions might help find an "abducted" daughter.

I do not accord Shipman with a degree of credit at all, you may but I certainly don't and I do believe that some of your posts are wind ups.

Ignoring the questions didn't get Shipman anywhere now did they?

Mr. was an arguido if I remember correctly but he answered questions did he not?

plebgate wrote:

I've always been perplexed as to why a mother would not answer questions if it meant those very questions might help find an "abducted" daughter.

plebgate wrote:
I've always been perplexed as to why a mother would not answer questions if it meant those very questions might help find an "abducted" daughter.
...
Mr. was an arguido if I remember correctly but he answered questions did he not?

Bishop Brennan wrote:

plebgate wrote:
I've always been perplexed as to why a mother would not answer questions if it meant those very questions might help find an "abducted" daughter.
...
Mr. was an arguido if I remember correctly but he answered questions did he not?

Game Theory tells us why.  The classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" which gave the McCanns 4 options:  

1. If they both refuse to answer -> they both appear guilty
2. If GM answers, but KM refuses -> only 1 appears guilty
3. If KM answers, but GM refuses -> only 1 appears guilty
4. If both answer (but the stories don't match) -> they both ARE guilty

So, when separated (the essence of the Prisoner's dilemma), game theory predicts which option they will take.  In this case it had to be option 2 or 3.  And given that GM was far more in control of the story than KM, then option 2 was the inevitable and correct choice.

Of course, an entirely innocent couple would apply the same Game Theory, and would both elect option 4 - because they would know for a certainty that their stories match.  The fact that the McCanns chose option 2 allows us to correctly infer that they are guilty of something that night.

Bishop Brennan wrote:


Game Theory tells us why.  The classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" which gave the McCanns 4 options:  

1. If they both refuse to answer -> they both appear guilty
2. If GM answers, but KM refuses -> only 1 appears guilty
3. If KM answers, but GM refuses -> only 1 appears guilty
4. If both answer (but the stories don't match) -> they both ARE guilty

So, when separated (the essence of the Prisoner's dilemma), game theory predicts which option they will take.  In this case it had to be option 2 or 3.  And given that GM was far more in control of the story than KM, then option 2 was the inevitable and correct choice.

Of course, an entirely innocent couple would apply the same Game Theory, and would both elect option 4 - because they would know for a certainty that their stories match.  The fact that the McCanns chose option 2 allows us to correctly infer that they are guilty of something that night.

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Of course, an entirely innocent couple would apply the same Game Theory, and would both elect option 4 - because they would know for a certainty that their stories match.  The fact that the McCanns chose option 2 allows us to correctly infer that they are guilty of something that night.

Realist wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Of course, an entirely innocent couple would apply the same Game Theory, and would both elect option 4 - because they would know for a certainty that their stories match.  The fact that the McCanns chose option 2 allows us to correctly infer that they are guilty of something that night.

By the same hypothesis, Bishop, surely any guilty couple would decide to adopt the same policy of refusing to answer any questions. If they are indeed guilty, the only way their stories would tally is if they both said nothing, thereby leaving plenty of time to prepare their accounts when it came to trial.

Realist wrote:

plebgate wrote:

I've always been perplexed as to why a mother would not answer questions if it meant those very questions might help find an "abducted" daughter.

 But, according to most on this forum, myself included, there never was an abduction. If Kate McCann were of the same mind, it would be a natural conclusion to assume that answering questions, other than those approved by her defence team a la media interviews, would not help find an 'abducted daughter.' Answering questions could only lead to further incrimination.

Which ever way one perceives this, it does not detract from the fact that aspersions should not be derived from a person's refusal to answer police questioning whilst under caution/being of arguido status, particularly in the vein that is highly likely to have been a case of advisement from her legal representative. As previously stated, there are more than enough legitimate reason that point to the McCann's guilt in this matter to discount the necessity to hold a refusal to answer questions under legal advisement to be held against Kate McCann.

The right to silence has always been instilled in any legal system, it cannot be ignored  because one simply doesn't like a person, or finds a crime they may have committed to be abhorrent. To go down this road would mean that today, a law only applying to paedophiles, tomorrow it applying to dog walker's whose canine may have fouled the highway. This is called piecemeal erosion of civil liberties.  A classic example being the UK gov. initially stating that the withdrawal of the right to silence would only apply to terrorists in N Ireland, but, as Bishop, so poignantly stated, it was introduced into law in 1994 to include  everyone on the mainland, regardless of the nature of the offence.

aquila wrote:

Realist wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Of course, an entirely innocent couple would apply the same Game Theory, and would both elect option 4 - because they would know for a certainty that their stories match.  The fact that the McCanns chose option 2 allows us to correctly infer that they are guilty of something that night.

By the same hypothesis, Bishop, surely any guilty couple would decide to adopt the same policy of refusing to answer any questions. If they are indeed guilty, the only way their stories would tally is if they both said nothing, thereby leaving plenty of time to prepare their accounts when it came to trial.

One simply cannot compile an effective defence without first knowing all the evidence against one, which can only be achieved after receiving what are commonly known as the deps(depositions) Even then, the prosecution can add further evidence right up to the trial and occasionally beyond.

Hey Realist, some of us here recognise a debate disguised as purporting to be intellectual when actually it's just someone pretending to know the law and playing devil's advocate. Why didn't  GM accuse Paxman of playing devil's advocate and called him Jenemy instead of Jeremy whilst smirking at him and shifting in his chair!

I think you are going to have to declare any professional knowledge you have of the legal system to allow you to continue with your diatribe - we used to have a poster here called diatribe who had much the same outlook as yourself. It's a patronising old world for some innit.