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

[Mr Gray]

Yes but it is incorrect.

"new evidence - not grounds enough for an appeal"

who says so

[Mr Gray]

The same way any appeal is decided:

"Grounds for a criminal appeal must be based in law and not facts"
"Appealing a judgment on legal grounds means that the error in the judgment resulted from a problem with the law related to the case".

This only applies when appealing a judgement on legal grounds.........appeals are allowed if new evidence comes to light

[slartibartfast]

Almost every appeal I have heard in the Uk is based on new evidence

There has to be something unsafe (legally) about a conviction before any new evidence could be considered.

[Mr Gray]

There has to be something unsafe (legally) about a conviction before any new evidence could be considered.

cite...I think that would depend on the new evidence

[Mr Gray]

It is blatantly obvious that if compelling new evidence came to light an appeal would be alllowed...surely no one can dispute that

[ferryman]

There has to be something unsafe (legally) about a conviction before any new evidence could be considered.

There is something drastically awry when a (proven) beating while in police custody is not regarded as sufficient to render a conviction unsafe ....

[Mr Gray]

There is something drastically awry when a (proven) beating while in police custody is not regarded as sufficient to render a conviction unsafe ....

particularly when there is no other evidence...apart from confessions extracted by torture or the threat of torture

[Carana]

Yes but it is incorrect.

"new evidence - not grounds enough for an appeal"

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

In a civil case, an appeal is virtually automatic in PT, assuming that the basic conditions have been met. However, it seems to be limited to a reappreciation of points of fact or law that were deemed not or insufficiently taken into consideration at the lower level.

In a criminal case, the right to appeal appears to be the same, but I'd have to check, again, whether an appeal in a criminal case follows the same logic.

To double-check, yet again, as it is most definitely on here somewhere, my recollection is that the Supreme Court examines points of law (on the reasoning that by that stage, disputes of fact should have already been resolved).

I still haven't found whether the concept of a retrial actually exists or not in PT.

What I find confusing in this case is that the torture trial was separate. The result of the torture trial was that it was accepted that she had been tortured. That wasn't sufficient to throw the case out of court, however. There were still the facts of "common experience" such as children normally arrive home, therefore Joana did and all the other "facts" of a similar nature.

As she didn't take the stand, any confessions made by her due to torture were deemed inadmissible in court and were therefore almost irrelevant.

The fact that she eas alleged to have already confessed according to the media, and that judicial secrecy had been blatantly flouted in the media prior to the trial involving a jury - whose appreciation counted as much as those of the judges, wasn't even raised as an issue.

What resulted in her conviction was the "reconstruction" made by João in which he apparently involved her (or was made to say so). The fact that she didn't even take part in that reconstruction wasn't even questioned.

My understanding is that, if - for example - Joana had turned up alive (or her remains found), there would have been a new investigation.

In the meantime, whatever the legal imbroglio, there is nothing of substance that I can find as to what actually did happen to her.

[Alice Purjorick]

It is blatantly obvious that if compelling new evidence came to light an appeal would be alllowed...surely no one can dispute that

It is entirely in the hands of the appellate court whether any new evidence may be submitted to support an appeal as the evidence has to satisfy laid down criteria. New evidence on its own will not automatically allow an appeal to be made.

[Alice Purjorick]

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

In a civil case, an appeal is virtually automatic in PT, assuming that the basic conditions have been met. However, it seems to be limited to a reappreciation of points of fact or law that were deemed not or insufficiently taken into consideration at the lower level.

In a criminal case, the right to appeal appears to be the same, but I'd have to check, again, whether an appeal in a criminal case follows the same logic.

To double-check, yet again, as it is most definitely on here somewhere, my recollection is that the Supreme Court examines points of law (on the reasoning that by that stage, disputes of fact should have already been resolved).

I still haven't found whether the concept of a retrial actually exists or not in PT.

What I find confusing in this case is that the torture trial was separate. The result of the torture trial was that it was accepted that she had been tortured. That wasn't sufficient to throw the case out of court, however. There were still the facts of "common experience" such as children normally arrive home, therefore Joana did and all the other "facts" of a similar nature.

As she didn't take the stand, any confessions made by her due to torture were deemed inadmissible in court and were therefore almost irrelevant.

The fact that she eas alleged to have already confessed according to the media, and that judicial secrecy had been blatantly flouted in the media prior to the trial involving a jury - whose appreciation counted as much as those of the judges, wasn't even raised as an issue.

What resulted in her conviction was the "reconstruction" made by João in which he apparently involved her (or was made to say so). The fact that she didn't even take part in that reconstruction wasn't even questioned.

My understanding is that, if - for example - Joana had turned up alive (or her remains found), there would have been a new investigation.

In the meantime, whatever the legal imbroglio, there is nothing of substance that I can find as to what actually did happen to her.

Criminal cases generally.

[Mr Gray]

It is entirely in the hands of the appellate court whether any new evidence may be submitted to support an appeal as the evidence has to satisfy laid down criteria. New evidence on its own will not automatically allow an appeal to be made.

as I have already said...it depends on the evidence...if the evidence is strong it will be enough to cause the case to be re opened...have the grace to admit when you ..and slarti...are wrong

[Alice Purjorick]

as I have already said...it depends on the evidence...if the evidence is strong it will be enough to cause the case to be re opened...have the grace to admit when you ..and slarti...are wrong

But you are wrong. It's that simple.

[Mr Gray]

There has to be something unsafe (legally) about a conviction before any new evidence could be considered.

no cite ...and obviously your statement is wrong

[Mr Gray]

But you are wrong. It's that simple.

no...new evidence ...on its own...CAN be enough to reopen and overturn  a case...you have as much admitted it

[Mr Gray]

But you are wrong. It's that simple.

try this one...there are many more...
Suzanne Holdsworth served three years of a life sentence after she was convicted in 2005 of murdering Kyle Fisher, a neighbour's two-year-old son, by repeatedly banging his head against a wooden bannister at her home in Hartlepool. She was found not guilty in 2008 by the Court of Appeal after new medical evidence suggested Kyle may have died from an epileptic seizure.[59]