[jmstein7]

Wrong. To repeat:

Of course... even if he is innocent, he MUST not say anything, legally, until he knows first IF there will be any charges, and then WHAT the charges are.

There is a neat little trick in the law where evidence admitted to prove one thing can then be used to prove something else -- even if, originally, the evidence would not be allowed for that purpose. Does that make any sense to you? Even if he is innocent, he must not say anything, because his words can be taken and then used (twisted) to prove an unrelated point.

To avoid a legal mess, he must not say anything relevent to the case -- if there is in fact a case -- until he knows exactly what it is "he is dealing with".

Trust me... I'm a top notch law student at a top notch school :) Not to toot my own horn or anything :) (hey, I work really hard -- I've earned it)

[Joe Hadenuf]

Of course... even if he is innocent, he MUST not say anything, legally, until he knows first IF there will be any charges, and then WHAT the charges are.

LOL!

[Belial]

There is a neat little trick in the law where evidence admitted to prove one thing can then be used to prove something else -- even if, originally, the evidence would not be allowed for that purpose. Does that make any sense to you?

No, this doesn't make a lot of sense. Why don't you illustrate your point with a real world example of an innocent man getting in trouble for denying false charges?