Within the first few sentences of this ruling, the lie is put to how the ruling is being portrayed. The defendant DID NOT remain silent. He answered questions. In the process of answering questions, he suddenly stopped. The point at which he stopped was highlighted.
I need to read the ruling further to make a complete judgment (don't have time right now). I just wanted to point out that mere silence was not used against the defendant. So it ain't as simple as some would have us think.