Why is there so much support for Leonor Cipriano from McCann supporters?

[Brietta]

An interesting interview with the PJ officers' lawyer:

Interview

António Colaço, lawyer of four of the five arguidos: "This is a political process"

Correio da Manhã –  Do you consider that the process should have been allowed to reach the court?

António Colaço –  Obviously not. However since it did I expected it to have some juridical logic, which makes even more difficult the work of the Defense. I consider it to be a political process.

– Do you foresee any consequences in the work of the PJ ?

–  It's already happening. The PJ professional work without schedules [long hours] and without weekends. They are holding back in their work, for fear of the consequences of their action. It was installed a climate of fear.

– Those this case put any doubts the sentence given to Leonor Cipriano?

– If this blasphemy against the PJ inspectors is proved, Leonor Cipriano will have to be released. Actually, if the system was coherent, Leonor should have been released when there was a dispatch of  pronouncement [judgement]  revealing indicia of aggressions.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-leonor-cipriano-confessed.html

With thanks to Joana Morais for translation.

Wow!  Coming from the lawyer for the PJ that is pretty electrifying.

It also is in accord with what many posters have been saying about a conviction where torture is involved.

The court found that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured.
Instead of bringing her conviction into question as being unsafe and her release ... she received a further sentence.

Since first learning about this case that was one aspect with which I could never reconcile.

I don't care which side of the fence a person sits on ... that has to be considered quite bizarre. 

[faithlilly]

Me too.  But then I have become increasingly suspect of this man's motives.

Why is that Eleanor ?

[ferryman]

Wow!  Coming from the lawyer for the PJ that is pretty electrifying.

It also is in accord with what many posters have been saying about a conviction where torture is involved.

The court found that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured.
Instead of bringing her conviction into question as being unsafe and her release ... she received a further sentence.

Since first learning about this case that was one aspect with which I could never reconcile.

I don't care which side of the fence a person sits on ... that has to be considered quite bizarre.

And this question of when the torture was inflicted is, in my view, irrelevant.

The fact of (proven!) torture proves interviews conducted against a backdrop of intimidation and menaces.

The (comparative) advantage of threats as intimidation, rather than torture, is that threats leave no (physical) evidence ....

But threats can still be effective, in producing "confessions" ....

[Alice Purjorick]

All bizarre indeed.
The first part of the linked article says:

"Leonor Confessed the crime on the 13th of October and she alleges she was beaten a day later
Leonor Cipriano, the killer meanwhile condemned, confessed all of this facts to the PJ on the 13th of October 2004, in the presence of  her lawyer, who at the time was Célia Costa, who has also signed statements that were given to the Inspector Pereira Cristovão. Leonor's brother, João Cipriano,  had previously confessed the crimes a few days before,  on the 8 of October".

[Benice]

An interesting interview with the PJ officers' lawyer:

Interview

António Colaço, lawyer of four of the five arguidos: "This is a political process"

Correio da Manhã –  Do you consider that the process should have been allowed to reach the court?

António Colaço –  Obviously not. However since it did I expected it to have some juridical logic, which makes even more difficult the work of the Defense. I consider it to be a political process.

– Do you foresee any consequences in the work of the PJ ?

–  It's already happening. The PJ professional work without schedules [long hours] and without weekends. They are holding back in their work, for fear of the consequences of their action. It was installed a climate of fear.

– Those this case put any doubts the sentence given to Leonor Cipriano?

– If this blasphemy against the PJ inspectors is proved, Leonor Cipriano will have to be released. Actually, if the system was coherent, Leonor should have been released when there was a dispatch of  pronouncement [judgement]  revealing indicia of aggressions.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-leonor-cipriano-confessed.html

With thanks to Joana Morais for translation.

Extremely interesting.    I have often wondered why she was taken back to court - I originally thought it was in connection with the case's inclusion in Amnesty International - under the torture section.  Now I'm not so sure,

Carana - can you confirm that it was not the idea of any of the officers she had originally named as her torturers to bring this action for perjury against her?    ( IIRC one of those officers praised LC for her honesty when she did not pick him out in an identity parade.)     I remember reading about that and wondering who did bring the case against her -  but have been unable to find it. 

Pure speculation on my part at the moment but  if that is true then therefore it was other people in the Judicial hierarchy who decided to take her back to court  and IMO the following quote would be the reason why they needed to discredit her -  rather than admit that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
 
Quote
If this blasphemy against the PJ inspectors is proved, Leonor Cipriano will have to be released. Actually, if the system was coherent, Leonor should have been released when there was a dispatch of  pronouncement [judgement]  revealing indicia of aggressions.
Unquote

[ferryman]

All bizarre indeed.
The first part of the linked article says:

"Leonor Confessed the crime on the 13th of October and she alleges she was beaten a day later
Leonor Cipriano, the killer meanwhile condemned, confessed all of this facts to the PJ on the 13th of October 2004, in the presence of  her lawyer, who at the time was Célia Costa, who has also signed statements that were given to the Inspector Pereira Cristovão. Leonor's brother, João Cipriano,  had previously confessed the crimes a few days before,  on the 8 of October".

As per my post above.

Thugs (of the PJ) know how to apply psychological intimidation, as well as physical torture, to achieve a (for them) desired result ....

[Eleanor]

Why is that Eleanor ?

I find it hard to see how he served her well, although I might be short of facts.  It will probably still be some time before his application to The Court of Human Rights on her behalf comes to fruition.
My gut feelings are just that.

[Eleanor]

All bizarre indeed.
The first part of the linked article says:

"Leonor Confessed the crime on the 13th of October and she alleges she was beaten a day later
Leonor Cipriano, the killer meanwhile condemned, confessed all of this facts to the PJ on the 13th of October 2004, in the presence of  her lawyer, who at the time was Célia Costa, who has also signed statements that were given to the Inspector Pereira Cristovão. Leonor's brother, João Cipriano,  had previously confessed the crimes a few days before,  on the 8 of October".

A second hand report.  Still no sign of an actual confession.

[stephen25000]

A second hand report.  Still no sign of an actual confession.

You're happy to accept Amaral lied Eleanor.

Now do you accept Cipriano  lied as well ?

[Carana]

All bizarre indeed.
The first part of the linked article says:

"Leonor Confessed the crime on the 13th of October and she alleges she was beaten a day later
Leonor Cipriano, the killer meanwhile condemned, confessed all of this facts to the PJ on the 13th of October 2004, in the presence of  her lawyer, who at the time was Célia Costa, who has also signed statements that were given to the Inspector Pereira Cristovão. Leonor's brother, João Cipriano,  had previously confessed the crimes a few days before,  on the 8 of October".

A slight problem is that the earlier part of what was posted in that blog entry (which you have picked up on) was that it concerned a CdM article published before the trial had started.

All I have been able to find in the SC ruling was that Leonor was interviewed in the presence of a lawyer at some point on 13 October. There is no mention in the ruling that she had confessed at that time.

I don't mind having yet another read in case I missed it.

[Carana]

Extremely interesting.    I have often wondered why she was taken back to court - I originally thought it was in connection with the case's inclusion in Amnesty International - under the torture section.  Now I'm not so sure,

Carana - can you confirm that it was not the idea of any of the officers she had originally named as her torturers to bring this action for perjury against her?    ( IIRC one of those officers praised LC for her honesty when she did not pick him out in an identity parade.)     I remember reading about that and wondering who did bring the case against her -  but have been unable to find it. 

Pure speculation on my part at the moment but  if that is true then therefore it was other people in the Judicial hierarchy who decided to take her back to court  and IMO the following quote would be the reason why they needed to discredit her -  rather than admit that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
 
Quote
If this blasphemy against the PJ inspectors is proved, Leonor Cipriano will have to be released. Actually, if the system was coherent, Leonor should have been released when there was a dispatch of  pronouncement [judgement]  revealing indicia of aggressions.
Unquote

Re:

"Carana - can you confirm that it was not the idea of any of the officers she had originally named as her torturers to bring this action for perjury against her?    ( IIRC one of those officers praised LC for her honesty when she did not pick him out in an identity parade.)     I remember reading about that and wondering who did bring the case against her -  but have been unable to find it"

I'll come back to this when I find the links again.

[Benice]

Re:

"Carana - can you confirm that it was not the idea of any of the officers she had originally named as her torturers to bring this action for perjury against her?    ( IIRC one of those officers praised LC for her honesty when she did not pick him out in an identity parade.)     I remember reading about that and wondering who did bring the case against her -  but have been unable to find it"

I'll come back to this when I find the links again.

Thankyou Carana.

[Mr Gray]

All bizarre indeed.
The first part of the linked article says:

"Leonor Confessed the crime on the 13th of October and she alleges she was beaten a day later
Leonor Cipriano, the killer meanwhile condemned, confessed all of this facts to the PJ on the 13th of October 2004, in the presence of  her lawyer, who at the time was Célia Costa, who has also signed statements that were given to the Inspector Pereira Cristovão. Leonor's brother, João Cipriano,  had previously confessed the crimes a few days before,  on the 8 of October".

this statement is from the lawyer representing the PJ ...no independent verification...from what I can see this is the only source to the claim she confessed previously and was made simply to try and disprove the torture

[Carana]

Whilst trawling through the "Cipriano Board" I found this rather interesting post from Mr Moderator in November 2013. The original is in large font and red!

"Warning to members in respect of continued false claims that there is no evidence against the Ciprianos.  Anyone knowingly posting FALSE material will have their posting permissions suspended".

I'd forgotten that, but the discussion was getting heated and I'd suggested a separate sub-forum.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2853.msg98746#msg98746

[Mr Gray]

On man's view.

t doesn't take into account that Cipriano repeatedly lied, and changed her account of events on numerous times.

it was one man's view......
António Colaço, lawyer of four of the five arguidos:...perhaps you did not read the post