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

[stephen25000]

                                                                   

Never stopped you brietta.

[Mr Gray]

So getting back on topic...the reason there is so much support for the Ciprianos is that based on teh evidence mccann supporters  believe they may be innocent

[Jean-Pierre]

So getting back on topic...the reason there is so much support for the Ciprianos is that based on teh evidence mccann supporters  believe they may be innocent

I think the operative word is MAY.

As far as I am concerned the very fact that police brutality / torture / call it what you will / has been proven means that the original verdict must be unsafe and at the very least a retrial is called for.

I am also very disappointed by the lack of outrage in certain quarters of this forum, and the apparent acceptance of torture by police to extract a confession as "well it happens" (and some even seemingly condoning it as "well, she got what she deserved". 

Those who think that way should think very hard about why they are members of an "injustice" forum in the first place.

Police brutality and torture of a suspect can NEVER be justified.  And it may get a conviction but it does not solve the crime. 

Sorry all - rant over.     

[Alfred R Jones]

You've hit the nail on the head J-P, the attitude of some on here, particularly amongst the moderators of a Miscarriage of Justice forum, beggars belief.

[stephen25000]

This support for a pair of convicted murderers, where exactly is that ?

[Jean-Pierre]

This support for a pair of convicted murderers, where exactly is that ?

I will try to keep it really simple for you Stephen.  Lets start with a few baby steps.

____________

If torture was used by the police to extract a confession

And if the confession was used to obtain a conviction

Then they are, in law convicted murderers. 

Now - does that mean in your opinion, that everything is right and proper, move on...?

Yes or no?



 

[stephen25000]

I will try to keep it really simple for you Stephen.  Lets start with a few baby steps.

____________

If torture was used by the police to extract a confession

And if the confession was used to obtain a conviction

Then they are, in law convicted murderers. 

Now - does that mean in your opinion, that everything is right and proper, move on...?

Yes or no?

I'll make it simple for you too.

Has it been proved beyond doubt the pair were both 'tortured'  and did this 'torture' occur after the initial confession ?

I presume you understand that.

Bearing in mind of course, they blame each other for Joan's death.

By the way, does Joana get a look in, in your concerns over the case, or this that too much to ask for ?

[Jean-Pierre]

I'll make it simple for you too.

Has it been proved beyond doubt the pair were both 'tortured'  and did this 'torture' occur after the initial confession ?

I presume you understand that.

Bearing in mind of course, they blame each other for Joan's death.

By the way, does Joana get a look in, in your concerns over the case, or this that too much to ask for ?

It was taken as proved by the court that Leonora was tortured.   http://www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html


"It was taken as proven that Leonor Cipriano was beaten by elements of the Judicial police who could not be identified, and she didn't fall on the stairs, as was suggested. However, the court failed to ascertain the perpetrators of the aggressions."

Does the fact that the PJ use torture as part of their professional lives ring any alarm bells with you?

And of course Joan's fate is of the primary concern.  I do not see how baning up the wrong person / people will help.  Maybe you can?

 

 

[Carana]

I think the operative word is MAY.

As far as I am concerned the very fact that police brutality / torture / call it what you will / has been proven means that the original verdict must be unsafe and at the very least a retrial is called for.

I am also very disappointed by the lack of outrage in certain quarters of this forum, and the apparent acceptance of torture by police to extract a confession as "well it happens" (and some even seemingly condoning it as "well, she got what she deserved". 

Those who think that way should think very hard about why they are members of an "injustice" forum in the first place.

Police brutality and torture of a suspect can NEVER be justified.  And it may get a conviction but it does not solve the crime. 

Sorry all - rant over.   

Trying to think this through.

I'm not sure that PT goes in for retrials, but let's pretend that it's possible...

- The defence didn't want either Leonor or João to take the stand to keep the "confessions" out of the evidence. In a retrial, assuming everything could be taken back to zero, and if both were to take the stand to explain as clearly as possible what happened that night, would the "confessions" then be admissible as evidence? Or could they be judged inadmissible? If they were judged admissible with the opportunity to explain the conditions under which they were obtained, there is no proof of the conditions of Leonor's first one (if ever she did sign on the dotted line) and there is no proof of the conditions concerning João.

- If their confessions are taken out of the equation, there is still the issue of João's "reconstruction", which was key evidence. He said that he only agreed to it as a result of being threatened with knives - but there's no proof. If the "reconstruction" is taken out of the equation... there's not much left.

- Two independent psychiatric assessments could be done (which may or may not come to the same conclusion as Sargento).

- An independent forensic scientist could evaluate the forensics (not of the "we experts, policemen" variety), which wouldn't be difficult to demolish as meaningless.

If that could be done, 90% of the current "common experience" "proven facts" wouldn't exist.

The case would collapse.

That could pave the way for a fresh investigation... but sadly probably too late for Joana.

[stephen25000]

It was taken as proved by the court that Leonora was tortured.   http://www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html


"It was taken as proven that Leonor Cipriano was beaten by elements of the Judicial police who could not be identified, and she didn't fall on the stairs, as was suggested. However, the court failed to ascertain the perpetrators of the aggressions."

Does the fact that the PJ use torture as part of their professional lives ring any alarm bells with you?

And of course Joan's fate is of the primary concern.  I do not see how baning up the wrong person / people will help.  Maybe you can?

 

 

You avoided my questions.

When did the first confessions take place ?

Was her brother 'tortured' ?

So the PJ are still using 'torture' as part of their professional lives ?

Can you cite more recent examples of that, as you implying it is still a regular occurrence ?

[Carana]

I'm hoping that the Met and PJ investigating Madeleine's disappearance may shed some light on Joana's disappearance...

[stephen25000]

I'm hoping that the Met and PJ investigating Madeleine's disappearance may shed some light on Joana's disappearance...

What ???

[Carana]

What ???

Sorry, Stephen, did I startle you? :)

Seriously, I would have thought that the Met / PJ would have reviewed the evidence (or rather the lack of it) in Joana's case as part of eliminating a possible connection. There are also the sexual assaults to investigate in their own right.

There may, of course, be no connection between any of them, just as there might be between some of them. Without checking, there's no way of eliminating the possibility.

Barring the possibility of a retrial, which I doubt will ever happen, the Joana case can only be reopened if new "credible, pertinent and relevant" evidence comes to light.

It may be far too late to get phone records of people in Figueira that night, for example, particularly in the absence of an open investigation, but if it were technically possible and obtained as part of the Madeleine investigation, and if red flags were to appear, then it would offer a lead to check out.

[stephen25000]

Sorry, Stephen, did I startle you? :)

Seriously, I would have thought that the Met / PJ would have reviewed the evidence (or rather the lack of it) in Joana's case as part of eliminating a possible connection. There are also the sexual assaults to investigate in their own right.

There may, of course, be no connection between any of them, just as there might be between some of them. Without checking, there's no way of eliminating the possibility.

Barring the possibility of a retrial, which I doubt will ever happen, the Joana case can only be reopened if new "credible, pertinent and relevant" evidence comes to light.

It may be far too late to get phone records of people in Figueira that night, for example, particularly in the absence of an open investigation, but if it were technically possible and obtained as part of the Madeleine investigation, and if red flags were to appear, then it would offer a lead to check out.

You really are going off at a tangent.

Why should SY be checking a case 13 years previously to the mccann one, and which bore no resemblance to it whatsoever and simply not under their remit ?

[Carana]

You really are going off at a tangent.

Why should SY be checking a case 13 years previously to the mccann one, and which bore no resemblance to it whatsoever and simply not under their remit ?

I disagree.

I didn't say that re-investigating the Joana case would be under anyone's official remit.

There's no obvious connection to the Ylenia case, either, but the Met appears to have been in contact with the Swiss police. From memory, the PJ did actually check if there could be a connection with the MariLuz case. In those tragic cases, the children's remains were eventually found.

The sad fact is that there are still two young girls missing (one officially, the other not), whereabouts and fate unknown. They both disappeared within the space of a couple of years not far from each other.

There may be no connection at all, but the possibility of one surely has to be examined, even if only for elimination purposes.