Clarke is only following his lawyers advice.
The best thing Clarke could have done, for himself and the families is to have answered all the questions to the best of his ability, and if this results in him being prosecuted by either the Crown or the families then so be it.
If he is prosecuted then it would be up to the lawyers to get him assessed by psychiatrists, to ensure that he is mentally fit enough to understand what is going on. At present I just think he has no clue about what is actually happening. I can't get rid of this nagging doubt that there is something mentally wrong with the guy.
Can psychiatric evidence be used at a FAI.
Surely his lawyer will have some sort of idea about his mental state.
I don't know why people are saying that they want the truth to come out. I think the truth has come out, it just hasn't come from Clarke's mouth.

I agree I don't think he has a clue about what his lawyers are telling him to do.. and don't think hes got the mental capacity to grasp all of this.. Ive thought for a long time that he has some mental learning issues.. IF his lawyer is so concerned about him not saying much today, he might have guided him better when Clarke went all out with the DVLA

I agree I don't think he has a clue about what his lawyers are telling him to do.. and don't think hes got the mental capacity to grasp all of this.. Ive thought for a long time that he has some mental learning issues.. IF his lawyer is so concerned about him not saying much today, he might have guided him better when Clarke went all out with the DVLA to get his licences back.... that is when the lawyer in my mind should have stepped in and stopped him.. what a foolish thing for this man to do and why I think he has issues.

----------------------------------

I'm reading a lot of anger towards him over this today. I think he's used up the last of any sympathy people had towards him. I also don't think there will be any justice for the families or even any explanation.

He's home now enjoying a nice cuppa, a biscuit and a piece

Could Clarke's lawyer have given him the wrong advice about not answering questions? I really don't know what to think. His lawyer is there for Clarke, not the families.
Now if it were me, I would have opted to answer any questions. Not just for the families sake but for my own sake. My own sorrow and misery would have been plain for all to see.
If Clarke had done this the families may well have found a morsel of peace in their hearts. Not now though.
Another point, perhaps his lawyer knew that Clarke would not come across well in the witness stand so advised him thus.

I don't really know why they bothered today, he had no intention of answering some important questions about his health but I think any lawyer would have advised a client not to say too much... seems a bit of a waste in court though ...

Wow, I've think you've finally got it!

He is only taking his lawyer[s advice, as most people do.

Like others have pointed out he's, no doubt, been advised not to say anything that may incriminate himself and I expect that will continue. He's legally entitled to do just that.

He'd be pretty stupid if he didn't.

I can understand why Mr Clarke didn't answer any of the questions, from a legal perspective of course.
Morally though it just seems all wrong, especially when the families are desperate to know what happened that day.
I suspect his hands are tied though, on the advice of his lawyers.

To be honest, I can't be doing with him now and don't care if he gets prosecuted. I was full of sympathy for him at the start but the whole thing about asking to get his licence back 4 months after the crash, when he knew this would be putting more lives in danger, just doesn't sit well with me.

I can't feel any anger towards him. Probably because I think he has some sort of mental condition and he is incapable of comprehending the seriousness of it all, incapable of empathizing with the families and how they feel and incapable of realizing just how angry he has made the general public.
I could be totally wrong of course.

Agreed, calamity. That was a really shocking thing to find out and I can't believe anyone who is "all there" would want their licence back so soon after killing six people, if ever.

The most troubling thing though is how everyone with any authoritiy whatsoever seems desperate to protect this man. Why?

I do wonder if whilst this hearing was ongoing that if there had not been so much uproar on the internet and newspaper comments etc calling for his prosecution that maybe he would have answered questions as he would have thought he was safe for prosecution. The Crown Office / Procurator Fiscal was under a lot of pressure from the public to overturn its prosecution decision and was commenting on it before the man even took the stand.

I could smell a rat quite early on, when no one including the relatives were being told a thing about this mans condition, then all of a sudden hes not to be prosecuted without the public and the families being told why.... I mentioned it on here but got a hail of bullets telling me that we don't need to know his name or anything about him, it was an accident.... well my gut feelings seem to be right, it was decided far too hastily to let him off without prosecution and hes without shame , dignity or empathy..and the senior lawyers who made the decision not to prosecute this man is beyond me........ok maybe I know nothing about the law.. but these families of the dead deserve a lot more than this tripe. To me the lawyers very early decision gave Clarke a sense of invincibility and why he again put in for his licenses...thinking that his life was back to normal whatever normal was or is to him...

''hail of bullets'....as in people having a different opinion to yours? Even when links were provided...

If you feel this is the type of thread to score points on then fill your boots as I don't.

I would think (at least for anyone with a modicum of adult life experience drawn from west Scotland) that it it's fairly obvious by now.

Back-covering on a grand scale.

looks that way but more for the council than him..

links about why this man wasnt to be prosucuted early on,..a decision that had many people baffled, and at a very early stage by overzealous senior lawyers, sorry I wast buying and never will, if they knew all the details that have come out now, did they think the public would accept this...OK its Scots law and the decision cant be reversed, I accept that but so glad something is being done now by the families..Im not into scoring points , Im into whats right and fair for the families.. they want answers and its the least they deserve.

I'm not sure what more needs to be said that isn't already known. He blacked out at the wheel and the bin wagon he was driving at the time ran people over. That's it. Tragic, but true. The simplest answers are usually the right ones.

I think as a relative it can never be that simple though.. The families were very sympathetic towards Clarke at the beginning but now I feel some might have changed their feelings quite a lot.. and no wonder. The man is a nightmare. The decision not to prosecute was taken very quickly and for this reason more want answers..

Family members were seen sobbing and some of the victims' relatives left the inquiry when Mr Clarke was led into the witness box at Glasgow Sheriff Court.
His appearance comes after a motion to adjourn the hearing was withdrawn by the family of one of the victims.
Mr Clarke's solicitor, Paul Reid, also requested an adjournment at the hearing today, saying the driver would find giving evidence 'traumatic'.
But Sheriff John Beckett said there was a 'very substantial public interest' in establishing what occurred and preventing a similar tragedy, and so refused the motion.
Mr Clarke was behind the wheel of the council truck on December 22 when it veered out of control and injured 15 people - with witnesses reporting that he lost consciousness while driving.
At the hearing today Solicitor General Lesley Thomson QC asked Mr Clarke: 'Do you know that six people died on December 22?'
Mr Clarke replied: 'I don't want to answer that question.'

and this from him even with his lawyers instruction could he not have done the right thing...The Solicitor General then said: 'Do you understand that by choosing not to answer you are putting yourself first?'
He said: 'I wouldn't agree with that.'
Mrs Thomson then put to him: 'Mr Clarke do you know that these family have been in court to hear answers.'
He replied: 'I would imagine they would want answers, yes.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3jQeM2sFu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

From yesterday in court...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3jQdbVHGG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

If it was my family members, I'd want to know why he was driving the lorry in the first place given what we now know about his medical history and why it was irreversibly decided before any inquiry that he wouldn't face prosecution. I would also want to know how someone can lie to the DVLA and also not face any kind of consequences.

This part is whats so bad about the whole thing...its Mr Clarke always no 1... the families of the dead are just there for a day out it seems and dont find this traumatic.

Mr Clarke's solicitor, Paul Reid, also requested an adjournment at the hearing today, saying the driver would find giving evidence 'traumatic'.

on reading that Mail report which says that the families left as Clarke entered the courts isnt the same as the BBC account that says they left the court when Clarke refused to answer questions ..