Re: @Rampant Spaniel: Rights
While logically, a refusal to answer a question would imply guilt
No, that's precisely what it does not do. A refusal to answer may well lead the questioner and other observers to infer guilt, but it definitely does not imply guilt, and it especially does not do so "logically". The last would only be true if all refusers were a priori guity (or equivalently, if there did not exist a refuser who was not guilty), which is 1) conveniently disproven by the historical record (there having been any number of prisoners of conscience who refused to respond to questions on philosophical grounds, for example), and 2) would be impossible to prove even if there were no evidence to the contrary (since it would be proving a negative).
Let me be proleptic: someone will complain that Turtle was using "imply" and "logically" here informally. That's irrelevant. We're talking about the law and logic, domains where informal reasoning leads to error; and in this specific case, the adverb "logically", used informally, means precisely the opposite of its literal meaning (much like the annoying use of "literally" to mean "figuratively") - that is, the quoted sentence means, in effect, "While a common-sense interpretation of a refusal to answer might be an implication of guilt". And as is usually the case, "common sense" here would be common, but hardly sensible.
Thus under any interpretation the quoted construction is at least infelicitous and misleading, if not outright wrong.
Moreover, there are still some folks about - I count myself among them - who are capable of a modicum of critical thought, and do not regard pleading the Fifth as an admission of guilt. Even when I'm not sitting on a jury. I do not adopt that attitude because the law requires it of me; I adopt it because I can conceive of other alternative explanations.