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

[Angelo222]

there was no neglect

I cannot think of another word to describe leaving three babies alone in an unlocked ground floor apartment in a foreign land.  Although on second thoughts STUPID could be better?

[stephen25000]

And so do I.

Would you say that if one of your relatives was killed by a terrorist, and that death could have been avoided ?

[stephen25000]

Fair enough, Stephen. 

Now - the real crux of the thread - are you comfortable that Leonor Cipriano' s conviction is safe, given that it has been established in court that she was tortured by the PJ?   

 

Not if she confessed before she was 'tortured'.

Then of course her brother, he wasn't tortured, was he  ?

and he confessed .

[Mr Gray]

I cannot think of another word to describe leaving three babies alone in an unlocked ground floor apartment in a foreign land.  Although on second thoughts STUPID could be better?

the word stephen used was neglect....the portuguese said no neglect

[slartibartfast]

Can we refrain from accusing other posters of holding opinions without basis. These accusations could place the forum under threat of libel action.

[Eleanor]

Would you say that if one of your relatives was killed by a terrorist, and that death could have been avoided ?

Not that simple, is it, Stephen.  As well you know.  People under torture will say anything.  And they often don't have the information anyway.

I will never condone Torture whoever it might save.  I will not be reduced to such barbarity.

[Mr Gray]

Can we refrain from accusing other posters of holding opinions without basis. These accusations could place the forum under threat of libel action.

are you referring to stephen accusing all mccann supporters of supporting cipriano purely because we support the mccanns

[slartibartfast]

are you referring to stephen accusing all mccann supporters of supporting cipriano purely because we support the mccanns

I don't think that would stand up as libel.

[Mr Gray]

I don't think that would stand up as libel.

never the less ...it is insulting..goading...untrue but allowed

[Jean-Pierre]

Can we refrain from accusing other posters of holding opinions without basis. These accusations could place the forum under threat of libel action.

I think you will need to be more specific - who are you saying has been "transgressing" the forum rules then?

[Alice Purjorick]

the word stephen used was neglect....the portuguese said no neglect

Did they?

[ferryman]

I cannot see what is so difficult about an outright condemnation of police torture - you always like to hedge - as in the example below:

Never justified, yet you know it goes on, within the parameters of 'rendition' and in many countries around the world.

And then

I wonder whether you would say the same if a close friend of yours or a relative, could have been saved, or hundreds of peoples lives, say by rendition of a terrorist who under examination/torture revealed the details of a major terrorist operation before it was carried out.

I think we will have to agree to differ on this Stephen.

Still worse than police torture is a court ruling that someone is deemed to have 'lied' during interrogation under police torture, and to have had a sentence increased because they were deemed to have 'lied'.

In such circumstances, the only safe, sane and proper course would have been to quash the conviction; at the very least, to have allowed a re-trial.

Don't suppose this post will see light of day, though ....

[Eleanor]

Did they?

Yep.

[Eleanor]

Still worse than police torture is a court ruling that someone is deemed to have 'lied' during interrogation under police torture, and to have had a sentence increased because they were deemed to have 'lied'.

In such circumstances, the only safe, sane and proper course would have been to quash the conviction; at the very least, to have allowed a re-trial.

Don't suppose this post will see light of day, though ....

I don't see why not.  It sounds reasonable to me.

[ferryman]

Yes, the prosecutors were sceptical of claims about the frequency of checks, but they ruled out 'neglect' as a (possible) basis of charges.