BRBM
Silence alone is never proof of guilt (as it should be). However, in certain circumstances, it does raise even more questions. On the flip side, spilling one’s guts is not proof of innocence, as OP illustrates.
OP felt 100% confident enough to voluntarily present a statement at his bail hearing - he was the only eye witness.
Carl doesn’t have that luxury as the accident was crawling with other parties and witnesses.
While defendants are certainly entitled to silence, I would think most innocent people would want to give their statement - what could possibly be the down side to a genuinely innocent person telling the truth up front?
Carl saw what happened at his brother’s trial. OP had to furiously backtrack, tailor and contradict himself after State’s witnesses nailed him to the wall. Carl wants to find out first what the other driver and witnesses said before he tells his “story”.
Alone, invoking one’s right to silence and not providing a statement wouldn’t necessarily be a big deal.
However, together with the ordinarily very vocal “Christian” Carl’s total media silence regarding the other (badly injured) driver, it paints a less than believable picture of his alleged innocence. His strategy is likely this: the less said the better. As they say, knowledge is power - and Carl wants every scrap he can get before he opens his mouth.
The fact remains Carl may genuinely and honestly believe he is not responsible for the accident BUT :
a) Carl may be incorrect due to his own bias (what he observed and remembered)
b) Carl may be correct and witnesses could still contradict him due to their own bias (what they observed and remembered)
… therefore, coming forward and volunteering an honest statement to investigators is pointless… it's a loose loose situation from Carl's point of view.
It's not like talking to a traffic cop who may or may not give a ticket depending on the explanations given and his mood.
"Everything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law"… what is the harm in remaining silent, waiting to see IF the State decides to charge you with a crime, waiting for discovery of the State's evidence against you, waiting for the advice of an attorney and making your statement under oath in front of a Judge ?
Yes... guilty persons may proceed in this manner to perjure themselves at Trial in the hopes of raising reasonable doubt to avoid a guilty verdict.
BUT… innocent individuals are also charged by the State…
Investigators are NOT questioning you to assist you… they want you to assist them by incriminating yourself… Police "protect and serve" society not individuals... and the best way to protect/serve society might be to prosecute you even if you genuinely know you are innocent.
Investigators :
- have access to all of the evidence
- consult with the State's attorney and various experts
- have a theory of what happened and a guilty person in mind (which may happen to be you)
- conduct the interview
- are authorized to lie and deceive you with false or incomplete information
- decide which question to ask and which not to ask
- are witnesses to the interview (2 of them for only 1 of you)
- write down themselves the content (Q&A) of the interview
- write a report of the interview
- are deemed de facto honest, credible and reliable witnesses
- etc...
Basically investigators have ALL the power and you have NONE… how is that fair ??
Plus, not all investigators are honest… and even honest ones can make mistakes… why would you trust a police officer to be honest and to not make any mistakes when it's your arse that is on the line ?
… even IF police officer is honest and doesn't make any mistakes, he may still build a case against you, have State charge you and testify against you in Court !!!
BiB… as per your question… there is absolutely NO upside whatsoever for genuinely innocent* person telling the truth up front to Police officers…
*How does one determine "genuine innocence" ?… If I personally believe I'm innocent ?… I could be correct and still be charged, convicted and sentenced … or I could be incorrect and never charged.
On a final note… not volunteering a statement to Police does NOT equate with a dishonest or guilty mind… just as pleading guilty and serving a sentence does NOT equate with contrition or amends
As for the kind of person Carl is… IMO he falls into the same category as OP : a very sorry excuse for a human being… individuals for which society would greatly benefit without.
As for religion… best to steer clear of this topic as my views are radical and may be offensive to some.
