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

[mercury]

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

Maybe you could set an example of this having the grace when you are wrong....most people seem to be able to manage it

[mercury]

There were easily enough glaringly evident holes to be picked had the initial defence been adequate. When a court accepts without question that wearing a dark top and red trousers in a TV appeal is a sign of guilt; /snip/ what can one say?

Really? Wow! Who exactly accepted this?

As I've already mentioned, the case already went to the Supreme Court. That's it - the end of the road.

So what on earth is everyone discussing about re an impossible appeal?

Which reminds me, how you getting on Davel with your communications with Marcos Correia vis a vis Leonors plight and what can be done about it?

[Carana]

Really? Wow! Who exactly accepted this?


So what on earth is everyone discussing about re an impossible appeal?

Which reminds me, how you getting on Davel with your communications with Marcos Correia vis a vis Leonors plight and what can be done about it?

When Amaral took over from the Portimão PJ, and watched her interviews on TV he found it strange that strange that she wore black, appeared to be lying and spoke about Joana in the past tense.

A testemunha CC3 , coordenador de investigação criminal da P.J., declarou que começaram a investigar o caso passados 9 dias do desaparecimento da CC, sendo que o caso estava classificado como crime de sequestro/rapto. Tomou conhecimento das declarações prestadas na GNR e visionou as entrevistas televisivas, estranhando logo a postura da mãe, que vestia de preto e parecia estar a mentir, sendo que falava da filha no passado.


Proven facts:
aab) during those interviews about the case, arguida BB sometimes mentioned her daughter in the past tense and wore a black blouse;

There is a clear implication, IMO, that these details somehow indicated that she knew her child was dead and was therefore lying. In reality, and in context, they were insignificant.

- In one clip outside the house, shortly after the disappearance, she wore a dark green tank top. In an interview with her at home, she was wearing a turquoise floral top. In an interview in a TV studio, which I can't find at the moment and I'm therefore going on memory, she was indeed wearing what may have been a black top (unless it was the dark green one again). There is a well-known photo of her (and the rest of the family) in a black or dark green top and red trousers taken before Joana disappeared.

- I believe it was Barra da Costa, in his book, who pointed out that she answered in the past tense when questions were put to her in the past tense.


PS: I'm not an Aragão fan, FYI.


ETA: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2990.msg255673#msg255673

[mercury]

Thanks for that. It seems to me a matter of meticulous scribing/recording procedure rather than proof the court "believed" her attire was "sign of guilt"...if the prosecution brought this in, a bit weak really. The answering in the past tense : I have read this can be viewed with suspicion by police/profilers/psychologists sometimes when speaking of a person one knows is gone, so is not that unusual here imo

[Carana]

Thanks for that. It seems to me a matter of meticulous scribing/recording procedure rather than proof the court "believed" her attire was "sign of guilt"...if the prosecution brought this in, a bit weak really. The answering in the past tense : I have read this can be viewed with suspicion by police/profilers/psychologists sometimes when speaking of a person one knows is gone, so is not that unusual here imo

There's a lot of cod psychology out there, but I don't see what corroborates or refutes that alleged "red flag" in terms of expert evidence at the trial.

I only used those detalls as an example... the trial was riddled with uncorroborated / unchallenged statements taken as fact.


I found this interesting on detecting liars:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150906-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-spot-a-liar

[Alice Purjorick]

3.5 Introducing New Evidence
In general, you cannot introduce new or additional evidence at your appeal. You must rely on the evidence that you submitted in the previous proceedings. However, you may introduce new evidence with leave (permission) from the division hearing the appeal (usually three judges). Rule 31 provides details about how to bring an application to court to decide this issue. The application is normally heard by the division at the start of your appeal hearing.

Bearing in mind the case we are talking about I found this simultaneously apposite and droll:

"Mrs Marshall's new evidence failed the "apparently credible" test, as, according to Lord Denning, "a confessed liar cannot usually be accepted as being credible",[1] and there was no satisfactory evidence that Mrs Marshall had been coerced by her husband to lie at the first-instance trial, and no other good reason for her doing so. Hodson and Parker L[Name removed] agreed with Lord Denning on this issue..."

[Carana]

Thanks for that. It seems to me a matter of meticulous scribing/recording procedure rather than proof the court "believed" her attire was "sign of guilt"...if the prosecution brought this in, a bit weak really. The answering in the past tense : I have read this can be viewed with suspicion by police/profilers/psychologists sometimes when speaking of a person one knows is gone, so is not that unusual here imo

Was this challenged in court?

[Carana]

3.5 Introducing New Evidence
In general, you cannot introduce new or additional evidence at your appeal. You must rely on the evidence that you submitted in the previous proceedings. However, you may introduce new evidence with leave (permission) from the division hearing the appeal (usually three judges). Rule 31 provides details about how to bring an application to court to decide this issue. The application is normally heard by the division at the start of your appeal hearing.

Bearing in mind the case we are talking about I found this simultaneously apposite and droll:

"Mrs Marshall's new evidence failed the "apparently credible" test, as, according to Lord Denning, "a confessed liar cannot usually be accepted as being credible",[1] and there was no satisfactory evidence that Mrs Marshall had been coerced by her husband to lie at the first-instance trial, and no other good reason for her doing so. Hodson and Parker L[Name removed] agreed with Lord Denning on this issue..."

She didn't take the stand at the a quo trial.

My issues, for the moment, are related to what appears to be the blithe acceptance of any testimony and the cumulative effect that they had.

[Mr Gray]

3.5 Introducing New Evidence
In general, you cannot introduce new or additional evidence at your appeal. You must rely on the evidence that you submitted in the previous proceedings. However, you may introduce new evidence with leave (permission) from the division hearing the appeal (usually three judges). Rule 31 provides details about how to bring an application to court to decide this issue. The application is normally heard by the division at the start of your appeal hearing.

Bearing in mind the case we are talking about I found this simultaneously apposite and droll:

"Mrs Marshall's new evidence failed the "apparently credible" test, as, according to Lord Denning, "a confessed liar cannot usually be accepted as being credible",[1] and there was no satisfactory evidence that Mrs Marshall had been coerced by her husband to lie at the first-instance trial, and no other good reason for her doing so. Hodson and Parker L[Name removed] agreed with Lord Denning on this issue..."

there are lots of cases where appeals were decided on new evidence...that is a fact

[Carana]

Thanks for that. It seems to me a matter of meticulous scribing/recording procedure rather than proof the court "believed" her attire was "sign of guilt"...if the prosecution brought this in, a bit weak really. The answering in the past tense : I have read this can be viewed with suspicion by police/profilers/psychologists sometimes when speaking of a person one knows is gone, so is not that unusual here imo

There is still the issue that a jury was assessing the evidence along with the judges. I haven't the faintest idea whether there was some from of screening in place (or what form it may have taken) to eliminate those who'd followed the pre-trial, largely pro-PJ, media coverage.

This appears to be an issue all over the world with the advent of 24/7 news coverage.

[slartibartfast]

there are lots of cases where appeals were decided on new evidence...that is a fact

But not the trigger for the appeal.

[Mr Gray]

But not the trigger for the appeal.

then what apart from new evidence triggered the appeals...are you really trying to suggest that if dramatic new evidence comes to light that clearly throws doubt on the verdict...then an appeal cannot be made...that would be absurd and cannot be true

[Mr Gray]

But not the trigger for the appeal.

cite...again...on what basis are you making this statement

[slartibartfast]

then what apart from new evidence triggered the appeals...are you really trying to suggest that if dramatic new evidence comes to light that clearly throws doubt on the verdict...then an appeal cannot be made...that would be absurd and cannot be true

So that would a legal challenge to the existing case, I.e. The existing case has flaws, unsafe.

[Mr Gray]

So that would a legal challenge to the existing case, I.e. The existing case has flaws, unsafe.

so the new evidence would be the trigger