They are almost always arrested regardless

Sure

Good attorneys see cases where their clients, usually important clients used to sweet talking, have tried to talk their way out, and have in fact talked their way in.

Therefore, their position is "shut up".

Now, if I had mr Gruler esq to represent me, and a legal team of experts behind him, that sounds like good advice.

But if all I can afford is some grade D public defender, then I am pretty much at the mercy of the police investigation.

The grade D public defenders rarely give speeches.

I see this time and time again, that evidence is lost because police did not look in the right direction. Sometimes because they are incompetent. Sometimes because they jump to conclusions and some times because the suspected failed to cooperate.

Ok well you have sufficiently confused me to the point that I can no longer take a position

So you have no forensic investigation of the wife. Noone bothered to process her.

Maybe his blood was under her nails?

(that's my way of conceding)

That would have been what I needed to say to the court that in combination of scratches on his cheek it is more probable a result of her attack than something he did in his cell, as the prosecutor claims.

I am not giving legal advice. I am just communicating that to me, dabbling sometimes in forensics, it seems more complicated.

yea i can't attempt to give a counterpoint when i'm not sure what you're saying

I am saying, by not cooperating with police you are doing a good job at blocking them from investigating you. Which you want.

But you might also be doing a good job at blocking them from investigating someone else. Which you dont want.

Brancas book has a list of things

In a world where you have good representation, and a functional legal system, that may not be problem, as your council will eat the prosecutor for breakfast.

In a less optimal world, the answer is less crisp.

IIRC so does ayoob's book (he mentions the list in the video)

But yes obviously not having a good lawyer can just complicate everything

And not pointing out evidence can also complicate things regardless

actual case:

she says: "he hit me!"

But verbal diarrhea is a thing

he knows he didnt.

she says to the cops: "I took photos. I will send them."

dumb cop says: "great!"

It is impossible for me to measure the rates of verbal diarrhea versus this sort of situation

he says: "I will not speak until I have representation"

court says 9 months later: "the only evidence we have are these photos"

Ok well

I challenge you then to

Find a short catchy sentence

Which encapsulates what you just said

I did.

"If you represent yourself, your client is an idiot"

lol

But that doesn't really get the message across

It doesn't stop verbal diarrhea without also ensuring evidence is collected