They are refuting the prior point -- that if the accused had been silent (when asked questions in the transcript) it would have looked like they were guilty. So

They are refuting the prior point -- that if the accused had been silent (when asked questions in the transcript) it would have looked like they were guilty. So this point is -- in U.S. it wouldn't, because they wouldn't even be discussing the transcript. (IANAL and have no idea of the accuracy, just clarifying the argument).