Why you shouldn't *always* remain silent (with the police)

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 10, 2022, 11:24 pm

Thank you for weighing in, Bel.

I step back here and just say "you're right".

Take my notes more as argumetns about persuasion, than actual legal advice.

So with that in mind:

Quote from Bel on August 10, 2022, 7:36 pm

- giving even the most innocent statement creates a record that can, and will, be used against the person during the trial (imagine that the best legal defense rests on a specific fact or situation or sequence, and that just one of the answers given here is incompatible with that: this simple fact destroys that legal defense in advance, or at the very least is sufficient to cast doubt on it);

Fair enough, but what if what he says perfectly squares and lands credibility to the (most effective) approach the defense might take?

This is the main thing I struggle to understand with the line "absolutely never talk to the police", it may be far more likely that one says the wrong things. But can't one also happen to say something that helps the defense team?

In principle, it seems logical.

And I also say this because I remember one comment from a criminal defense lawyer saying about a few lines within an interrogation: "I'd use that in court".

In this specific case, when he denies having any issue with the murdered person, he seemed extremely convincing.
In a system where it's normal people who judge you, then coming across as convincing is a big bonus (see Johnny Depp denying having sent any message and people believing him, but nobody believing a word of Amber Heard).

Quote from Bel on August 10, 2022, 7:36 pm

- just saying he does not want to respond, and does not want to tell on others, frames him as person with a specific background and mentality;

Absolutely, absolutely.

But consider, this is not the type of guy who could, or should even try to pass for "good citizen".

In this case of a murder investigation, it would have been great for him to come across as a criminal, even a hardened criminal, but just not guilty of (this) murder.
Far more convincing than trying to pass for a good citizen.

Quote from Bel on August 10, 2022, 7:36 pm

- in most legal systems, what the suspect says can only be used against him, not in his favor. This is because most legal and trial systems have rules based on the premise that, while everybody is capable of saying false things that benefit themselves, no one will say a thing against their own interests unless it is true;

- in other words, even if the suspect only shares information helping him (an impossible feat by the way), at best it is going to be (mostly) irrelevant to the trial;

- the prosecution could isolate the most tenuous admissions from a suspect, and present them as indications of guilt;

- just affirming by mistake something that is irrelevant, but later turns out to be false, is sufficient to cast serious doubt on the credibility of a person;

- just affirming the truth on something unrelated to the case can be a problem, if a witness later (even by mistaken recollection) contradicts that truth!

It’s significant that the commentator in the video says, near the end: “he should really not have answered any questions and gotten a lawyer, but he did a good job”.

OK, got it, now that answers my previous question and nagging doubt, thank you Bel!

If that is the case, then "close-cosed" to go for an easy pun.

If the system automatically caps your upsides to zero and you only have downsides, then by all means it makes sense that "never, ever" talk is the most logically effective approach.