A temporary block has been put on certain members accounts for continued posting of false information in the Cipriano case. These will be reviewed in due course.
Comment.
A judge cannot determine a case unless he or she is presented with evidence. This evidence can be both direct or circumstantial. In the Cipriano case both types of evidence were presented to the Court. To state that there is NO evidence in this case is to claim a falsehood. Such falsehoods will never be permitted to stand on this forum.
Before we go any further let me say that it is clear that Leonor and others were assaulted by PJ officers in the course of the investigation. To claim that a specific officer actually perpetrated the assault however cannot be established and has never been established by any Court in Portugal.
Such conduct is to be condemned and rightly so but while it creates doubt as to the eventual outcome in the case, readers must be mindful of the bigger picture. The Court convicted Leanor Cipriano and her brother on the basis of all the facts and knowing full well that coercion of one sort or another had taken place. None of us are in a position to challenge that decision having not attended the trial or being in possession of trial transcripts. All we can possibly do is look at the history of the individuals concerned, the facts and the evidence as presented to us from other sources.
Wild claims of innocence or indeed guilt are unhelpful. We are here to debate the case, nothing more.
The Supreme Court presumably recapped the "evidence" presented in the earlier trials.
I'm non the wiser as to what happened to this child.
Certain "facts" were presented as proven... but if you examine subsequent parts of the SC ruling, much of it seems to be based on "common experience".
A child was seen going towards her home. Most children do, indeed, arrive home. Therefore, it is taken as a proven fact that she did.
Would the same logic apply to children kidnapped on their way to / or from a school?
