true Robin at last we agree, but if the man had an ounce of decency he would come clean now and get it over with, these people deserve more than what Clarke and his lawyer ar giving out or not giving out... sad .

There's the possibility of a private prosecution looming, of course he can incriminate himself. Even if he did nothing wrong his answers would be warped and twisted to suggest guilt in some way, it's what happens at prosecutions. He's absolutely right to keep his mouth shut, from a legal standpoint if not a moral one.

He has started answering questions about the day of the crash.

That may be true but on this occasion he could very well be telling the truth ie he doesn't remember.

You aren't going to get answers with a threat of a private prosecution hanging over his head. The family (families?) who want to pursue a private prosecution should have been properly briefed by their solicitors that 'no comment' answers at the FAI was the likely outcome.

"Mr Clarke said he ate a piece and a biscuit during the morning break"

What's a piece - Scottish for sandwich or something?

but the families of the victims might have let the private prosecution go if theyd have had the right answers..

Yes, sandwiches.

thats right francie its a sandwich.. but no one would say a piece in court.. not that I would think..

Ah thanks...never heard of the term before now.

I heard few days or a week ago, that the families were 50/50 over 'retributions'

Mr Clarke said he went pack to the depot for lunch. He had a Pot Noodle and a packet of crisps. He felt "ok, brand new".

Not sure of pecentages but some dont want the private prosecution ,you might be right..Not sure either if its retribution, more they need answers.. answers that they didnt get from the very start it seems.

I think you missed my meaning entirely...

You could always clarify, I seem to have misread it the exact same way.

Court adjourned.

I wonder if he packed them in a Sunblest bag and the children called him Bogey.

Why do you think he is choosing not to answer questions then?

Is it...

A: Because he has been advised to avoid answering any questions that may incriminate him in a pending private prosecution?
B: Because he has been advised to avoid answering any questions that may incriminate him in a pending private prosecution?
C: Because he has been advised to avoid answering any questions that may incriminate him in a pending private prosecution?

The fact that Harry Clarke has refused to answer questions shows him as a repulsive individual who doesn't seem to feel any compassion for the people he killed or their families.

Why are the Glawgow authorities so invested in protecting this one driver? A bizarre and disturbing case.

Strange he could possibly say anything to incriminate himself when our top legal experts have said there's absolutely no possibility that anything criminal happened!

Did they though?

I think it is being suggested that he might be a member of a "secret" society renowned for its support of each other. Another clue - they don't encourage women to join.

He lost it for me when he put in to have his two licences back after only four months since the accident... there is something amiss with this man.

You could incriminate yourself at something as innocuous as The Village Vegetable Growing Committee's investigation into sabotaged prize marrows.

It simply means leaving yourself open to admitting liability, fault or guilt. It doesn't have to mean "criminal"

Yes. They say they have all the facts. They say nothing criminal happened because he was unconscious and therefore not in control of his actions. If that's the case then how can he possibly "incriminate" himself by answering simple questions is what I'm wondering.