If I were called into a police station at 11:30 at night I would want a lawyer with me. But that still doesn't answer my question - did she ask for a lawyer before the incriminating PL story, or not? TIA
It appears from her testimony that she asked for one after the first signed statement. AT this point, she was a suspect, and legally obligated to have one.
AK: So, before they asked me to make further declarations--I really can't tell
you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing--but
at one point I asked if I shouldn't have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I
didn't know, but I've seen things like this on television. When people do things
like this they have lawyer. They told me, at least one of them told me that
it would be worse for me because it would prove that I didn't want to
collaborate with the police. So they told me no.
There was an interesting conversation on one of the other forums recently where an Italian poster (whom I've mentioned before) stated that in Italy when you are witness you are not obligated to have a lawyer, but you are also not allowed to leave the interrogation at your own will. Only once you are a suspect are you allowed a lawyer. I think if you consider this notion it's easy to see the game police can play with someone who doesn't want to tell them what they want to hear.