Margaret Fleming

[RH33]

I lived in the highlands Until 2000! 

[RH33]

Just watching it now. Think she’s probably deep in the Clyde. 

Cairney probably didn’t help himself taking the stand. But there wasn’t much solid evidence presented.

Sad that a soul can be off the radar for 18 years and no one noticed. 

[invergowrie arab]

3 hours ago, RH33 said:

To add to this my uncle live there and said he was surprised anyone lived in it as it was as good as delerict.

Invergowrie isn't that bad.

[Busta Nut]

1 hour ago, RH33 said:

Just watching it now. Think she’s probably deep in the Clyde. 

 

is that "the Clyde" ?

[Honest_Man#1]

9 hours ago, Dee Man said:

A false confession is completely different from an innocent person telling a true version of events. 

The same applies to an interrogator manipulating you into saying something that didn't happen. 

Yes, but what it does show is that your “only guilty people say no comment” and “if you’re innocent and only tell the truth you can’t incriminate yourself” viewpoint isn’t correct, as there’s plenty of examples of innocent people having done exactly that.

[The OP]

Dee Man’s legal advice is atrocious. Tbf it’s a long time since I studied law and I don’t know if it’s still true that you can’t draw an adverse inference from a “no comment” interview but talking will get you in far more trouble 99% of the time, even when innocent (unless you have a cast iron alibi or something).

[Jacksgranda]

2 hours ago, RH33 said:

Just watching it now. Think she’s probably deep in the Clyde. 

Cairney probably didn’t help himself taking the stand. But there wasn’t much solid evidence presented.

Sad that a soul can be off the radar for 18 years and no one noticed. 

That's the bit that baffles me - social workers, teachers/tutors, relatives (no matter how distant) nobody made enquiries, visited, demanded to see her?

Were social workers not involved? 

[Shotgun]

Here in the freedom loving Yooessuvay, the Prosecution and Defense take turns interviewing potential jurors and compete to select the candidates they believe will be the most favourable to their cause. It's also comparatively easy to get out of jury service, which tells you all you need to know about the calibre of the people who end up serving.

I used to work with a conservative lad who was very proud when he learned that prosecutors tend to choose jurors they perceive to be right-wing. He truly couldn't see this wasn't a compliment but rather, a testament to their inability to be impartial and open to weighing the evidence. He declared that should he ever be called, he would make it his personal mission to find the accused "guilty" and stop the liberals from allowing a criminal to go free. I quote "The police wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty."

[Dee Man]

4 hours ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

Yes, but what it does show is that your “only guilty people say no comment” and “if you’re innocent and only tell the truth you can’t incriminate yourself” viewpoint isn’t correct, as there’s plenty of examples of innocent people having done exactly that.

Can you give me any examples of innocent people being convicted based on them telling the truth on what they've said in their interviews? I'd say most innocent people being sent to jail were going down anyway based on false evidence and their interview statements being disbelieved rather than incriminating themselves. 

4 hours ago, The OP said:

Dee Man’s legal advice is atrocious. Tbf it’s a long time since I studied law and I don’t know if it’s still true that you can’t draw an adverse inference from a “no comment” interview but talking will get you in far more trouble 99% of the time, even when innocent (unless you have a cast iron alibi or something).

Firstly, it's not legal advice, m8, it's a guy off the internet's opinion. 

Do you have any examples of anyone innocent of a crime going down the "no comment" route or any examples of an innocent person's talking getting them convicted? 

Do you have a link to something backing up your "99% of the time" statistic that an innocent party talking would get them in trouble? If that was genuinely the case then 100% of lawyers would advise their clients to say no comment 100% of the time. Why do you think that's not the case?

Obviously it depends on the circumstances of the case but "99% of the time" a juror will suspect someone repeatedly saying "no comment" has something to hide. Whether it's legal or not to use that in your decision making process is irrelevant - you'd instinctively be suspicious and that's going to sway your decision. 

Being a legal expert yourself, if you were in an interview room with an innocent client on a murder charge and he was asked, "Did you murder the victim?", how would you advise your client to respond?

I take it you passed your law exams and are now employed in the legal game?

[Guest JTS98]

On 12/01/2020 at 04:03, Dee Man said:

This is all true but what is also true is that the only people who ever reply "no comment" are guilty parties. If you are innocent and tell the truth then it is literally impossible to incriminate yourself. 

Very wrong, my friend.

Think I've posted about this before, but the wife of one of my best mates used to be a defence lawyer and has a list as long as her arm of cases she's worked on where people have been convicted or nearly convicted on the basis of something seemingly inconsequential that they've said to the police. Confirming that you know someone, confirming you've been to a certain place, telling them you can't remember something. All bad moves and all irrefutable evidence once you've said them to a copper. And you might unwittingly say something false through bad memory or simply being mistaken. Then you're in real shit. Anything you say can be used against you.

I can't remember the ins and outs of all the cases she's talked about, but one that stuck with me was a guy who got done for an armed robbery that his mates had committed because he told the police where he'd been that night and what time he'd been there and they used that information to tie him to the crime because they could easily show that he was mates with these people, he'd seen them that day and he could easily have travelled to the crime scene at the appropriate time based on what he'd told them. A 'no comment' and he wouldn't even have been charged in all likelihood. All his mates pleaded not guilty so he just had to sit there and go down with the rest of them.

ETA: Another guy got convicted of death by dangerous driving because he told the police he couldn't remember whether or not he had seen a roadworks sign before driving round a bend. The question was re-framed as 'you don't remember seeing the sign?'. He said no. 'So, you didn't slow down at the sign'. He obviously said no, assuming there had been a sign and he'd missed it. He went to jail. There had been no sign, as was later confirmed by an employee of the company involved. Too late. Jail. He had basically confessed to not slowing down at a sign that didn't exist and killing someone as a result. In court the company claimed there had been a sign. 'No comment' and there would have been a lot more doubt about whether there had been a sign or not. But he had inadvertently been tricked into saying there had been.

Her advice is as in the video linked above. If asked anything by a copper in the street ask if you're under arrest and say no comment, and if in a recorded interview say 'no comment'.

The police are utter p***ks. They have shown this many times over the years and yet people continue to assume they wouldn't fit one of us up. They know the questions to ask, they know the tone of voice to use. They know how to direct you to talk yourself into trouble with absolutely no idea what you're doing.

Edited January 13, 2020 by JTS98

[AsimButtHitsASix]

I wonder if Cairney had just said "she done a runner 15 year ago but we decided to keep claiming the benefits" they would have been done with benefit fraud but got away with the murder. A lot more believable that gangmasters, gypsies and clandestine trips to Tottenham Court Road

[The OP]

10 hours ago, Dee Man said:

Can you give me any examples of innocent people being convicted based on them telling the truth on what they've said in their interviews? I'd say most innocent people being sent to jail were going down anyway based on false evidence and their interview statements being disbelieved rather than incriminating themselves. 

Firstly, it's not legal advice, m8, it's a guy off the internet's opinion. 

Do you have any examples of anyone innocent of a crime going down the "no comment" route or any examples of an innocent person's talking getting them convicted? 

Do you have a link to something backing up your "99% of the time" statistic that an innocent party talking would get them in trouble? If that was genuinely the case then 100% of lawyers would advise their clients to say no comment 100% of the time. Why do you think that's not the case?

Obviously it depends on the circumstances of the case but "99% of the time" a juror will suspect someone repeatedly saying "no comment" has something to hide. Whether it's legal or not to use that in your decision making process is irrelevant - you'd instinctively be suspicious and that's going to sway your decision. 

Being a legal expert yourself, if you were in an interview room with an innocent client on a murder charge and he was asked, "Did you murder the victim?", how would you advise your client to respond?

I take it you passed your law exams and are now employed in the legal game?

I posted a lecture from an American lawyer which I think explains the position very well, however (to explain further) in Scotland you cannot draw an adverse inference from silence in a police interview. You can in England so if we are having this discussion across jurisdictions there will be some confusion.  In Scotland, jurors (or a sheriff) would not be allowed to consider whether a "no comment" interview indicated guilt or innocence. You have a fundamental right to silence and therefore silence cannot be treated as self-incrimination. I haven't seen the programme but I would presume that the jurors were not actually shown the interview footage which was publicised after conviction. 

The police are under no obligation to tell you what information they have when they arrest you and start questioning you. You are therefore at a disadvantaged position when you start answering questions about your movements or actions on a specific date which may not be entirely correct. The longer you talk, the more inconsistencies you will naturally make. People also have a tendency to make concessions to a questioner to either seem reasonable or to try and get out of the interview. Similarly, people will often provide false information despite being innocent if they think it will get them home more quickly. All of these would be used against you in court. 

I am a lawyer however I do not practice criminal law. I studied criminal law in 2012, the law of evidence in 2015 and criminal procedure in 2017.  I have friends who do practice criminal law and they tell me that their advice is almost always "just no comment everything". When you are arrested, the police are not your friends and they are not on a hunt for the truth. They generally wish to lead you to incriminate yourself. One of the best ways to incriminate yourself is to start talking over a number of hours to a skilled interrogator without the full facts in front of you.  This doesn't necessarily mean you will be wrongfully convicted but it sure as f**k helps. 

Finally, as an anecdote, I went to school with someone who confessed to killing someone during a fight between groups outside a party. He later discovered that the fatal stab wound was to the chest, when he had struck the victim on the head with the knife he had grabbed from the kitchen.  He didn't have access to a lawyer (this was pre Cadder) and he said to the police 'I killed the boy, it was me, I take full responsibility' etc. One of his co-accused no commented. He has been fighting for release ever since and the person who stabbed the victim in the chest is walking free. This is not a situation where you can have sympathy for the wrongfully convicted person given their behaviour but he is doing someone else's time because he talked to the police. 

[AsimButtHitsASix]

24 minutes ago, The OP said:

I posted a lecture from an American lawyer which I think explains the position very well, however (to explain further) in Scotland you cannot draw an adverse inference from silence in a police interview. You can in England so if we are having this discussion across jurisdictions there will be some confusion.  In Scotland, jurors (or a sheriff) would not be allowed to consider whether a "no comment" interview indicated guilt or innocence.

Isn't there a difference between a juror "not being allowed" to consider silence and the juror thinking "he's at it. otherwise he would have said he didn't do it"

[The OP]

16 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

Isn't there a difference between a juror "not being allowed" to consider silence and the juror thinking "he's at it. otherwise he would have said he didn't do it"

Of course jurors can let any particular fact which should not factor into their decision guide them however the advocate depute cannot draw an adverse inference from the failure to comment and would be very restricted in the amount of evidence they could lead regarding the police interview, the judge would guide them not to let the failure to comment factor into their decision making and there are 15 of them, most of whom will take the instructions they are given seriously. If a juror makes it clear that he is ignoring the judge's instructions in their decision-making I'd imagine they could be charged with contempt of court. 

I suspect lots of people in Scotland watch British TV programmes and assume "It may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" applies here. It does not. 

I would say that (although again, not having watched it yet) Eddie Cairney appears to have done the right thing in declining to comment when arrested. It was all of his subsequent comments in court (and to the media) which damned him. 

[The Moonster]

I think this guy proves that you should never talk to police:

[welshbairn]

Just now, The Moonster said:

I think this guy proves that you should never talk to police:

 

Thought @Ad Lib was doing well for himself these days?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

In all fairness, for all Cairney is clearly a scumbag, if you are being interviewed by police for anything, whether it be murder or nicking a can of 7up from Tesco your lawyer will, unless there are exceptional reasons to do otherwise almost always advise you to answer 'No Comment' in a police station interview. 
Anyone who has been lifted for even the most minor misdemeanor knows that is how you should respond in a recorded interview unless specifically advised otherwise by you lawyer, the whole purpose of that interview from a police perspective is to hope you will trip yourself up and/or say something without thinking that will incriminate yourself, the clue is in the beginning when you are told..
"You do not have to say anything but anything you do say can be used against you in evidence in court"
No comment is the way you have to go through these types of interviews so you don't inadvertently talk yourself into a serious fucking stretch.

Not strictly true, ive seen quite a few examples of people being interviewed and providing an account. This brings up potential alibis etc and in at least three cases im aware of resulted in the person not being charged because it allowed the police to gather suitable evidence to eliminate people who would otherwise have had the stress and cost of a court appearance further down the line.
Its only really in the interests of a guilty person to give a no comment interview because if you’re innocent you’ve nothing to hide. That said i know that most lawyers tell people to no comment.

[Alert Mongoose]

6 hours ago, The OP said:

was to the chest, when he had struck the victim on the head with the knife he had grabbed from the kitchen.

Ah, that’s alright then...

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

It really isn't, a relative of mine (and no it wasn't me!!) was caught in possession of cannabis and cocaine when the stop and search thing was introduced for teenagers a few years ago, he told me afterwards how simple questions like "Do you regularly smoke it" "Do you often take it with friends" etc were answered honestly and they used his innocuous answers to charge him with supply from an original possession charge, the first time he had been lifted and after speaking with his lawyer and myself when I spoke to him a few days later he immediately realised the dangers of answering anything the police ask you with anything other than 'No Comment' This nonsense the police and others say about your chance to tell your side, tell the truth if you're innocent nothing to hide etc is utter balls, from a police perspective the station interviews are for the purpose of trying to extract something that may incriminate you and give them ammunition to charge you with said offence, however major or minor and irrelevant of whether you may be guilty or not.

Once Police have a suspect in custody they want them charged and, when a lack of evidence is available the recorded interview is their chance to extract that, even from a potentially innocent person inadvertently saying something they can twist to help prove or insinuate guilt.

 

Nah im sorry but again you’re not as good at the legal stuff as you may believe you are. sec 4 of the misuse of drugs act involves either an admission with corroboration or at least two separate pieces of evidence that someone has supplied a drug to a person, is concerned in the supply ie there would be a significant quantity or other things to suggest the person is involved in drugs supply. For your family member to be charged with that they must have had a sufficiency of evidence. People dont tend to be interviewed for a simple possession amount of drugs and indeed most people aren’t arrested and taken back to a police station for simple 5(2) mda possession charges. I get that you may not agree with the charge but the law is pretty clear on that. It sounds like his lawyer has agreed a plea deal with the PF to take a lesser charge which is quite common in smaller scale supply cases involving ‘social supply’ or smaller quantities of drugs.

 

[invergowrie arab]

10 hours ago, The OP said:

I posted a lecture from an American lawyer which I think explains the position very well, however (to explain further) in Scotland you cannot draw an adverse inference from silence in a police interview. You can in England so if we are having this discussion across jurisdictions there will be some confusion.  In Scotland, jurors (or a sheriff) would not be allowed to consider whether a "no comment" interview indicated guilt or innocence. You have a fundamental right to silence and therefore silence cannot be treated as self-incrimination. I haven't seen the programme but I would presume that the jurors were not actually shown the interview footage which was publicised after conviction. 

The police are under no obligation to tell you what information they have when they arrest you and start questioning you. You are therefore at a disadvantaged position when you start answering questions about your movements or actions on a specific date which may not be entirely correct. The longer you talk, the more inconsistencies you will naturally make. People also have a tendency to make concessions to a questioner to either seem reasonable or to try and get out of the interview. Similarly, people will often provide false information despite being innocent if they think it will get them home more quickly. All of these would be used against you in court. 

I am a lawyer however I do not practice criminal law. I studied criminal law in 2012, the law of evidence in 2015 and criminal procedure in 2017.  I have friends who do practice criminal law and they tell me that their advice is almost always "just no comment everything". When you are arrested, the police are not your friends and they are not on a hunt for the truth. They generally wish to lead you to incriminate yourself. One of the best ways to incriminate yourself is to start talking over a number of hours to a skilled interrogator without the full facts in front of you.  This doesn't necessarily mean you will be wrongfully convicted but it sure as f**k helps. 

Finally, as an anecdote, I went to school with someone who confessed to killing someone during a fight between groups outside a party. He later discovered that the fatal stab wound was to the chest, when he had struck the victim on the head with the knife he had grabbed from the kitchen.  He didn't have access to a lawyer (this was pre Cadder) and he said to the police 'I killed the boy, it was me, I take full responsibility' etc. One of his co-accused no commented. He has been fighting for release ever since and the person who stabbed the victim in the chest is walking free. This is not a situation where you can have sympathy for the wrongfully convicted person given their behaviour but he is doing someone else's time because he talked to the police. 

It's a long time since I did my criminal law lectures but I'm pretty sure not having struck the fatal blow is no defence to murder when a pair of you are going at someone with knives.