Bennett Bullshit

Inferences from 'no comment' interviews

New post  Tony Bennett Today at 1:34 pm
It's been suggested that the landlord may have given the police a 'no comment' interview when interviewed under caution.

He did of course earlier give a voluntary statement to the police on which he was reluctant to elaborate to the press.

If he did, given all the circumstances, offer 'no comment' to questions, this would in many people's eyes be tantamount to an admission of guilt or direct involvement.

For what possible reason in such circumstances would Jefferies refuse to answer all questions about Joanna's disappearance?

Were it not for the oppressive U.K. libel laws, I might have suggested that similar considerations might also apply to the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann point blank refused to answer when taken in for questioning on 7 September 2007 about Madeleine's disappearance. The questions they asked are on this video:

Why would a distraught mother, still frantic to find her missing daughter, not answer every question the police put to her?


ETA: The police have the right, even if Jefferies is never charged with an offence, to take his fingerprints and DNA. The DNA can be taken in one of two ways: swab of the mouth, or pulling a minimum of 10 hairs from the head by the root.

No comments: