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

[Carana]

Question.

What would have been the issue if the Ciprianos had taken the stand in the a quo trial?

João Grade (acting on behalf of Leonor) and whoever was defending João Cipriano wanted to keep the "confessions" out of court as inadmissible.

Ok, but testifying should, in theory, have given them the opportunity to explain the circumstances.

There was certainly evidence that Leonor had been bashed about whilst in PJ custody (although I'm not sure that anyone ever bothered to find out about João).

[ferryman]

Question.

What would have been the issue if the Ciprianos had taken the stand in the a quo trial?

João Grade (acting on behalf of Leonor) and whoever was defending João Cipriano wanted to keep the "confessions" out of court as inadmissible.

Ok, but testifying should, in theory, have given them the opportunity to explain the circumstances.

There was certainly evidence that Leonor had been bashed about whilst in PJ custody (although I'm not sure that anyone ever bothered to find out about João).

I think the state of law in Portugal is it (then) stood (it has doubtless changed since) was that nothing said to police in police custody (under torture or otherwise) could be used against the defendant in court unless repeated in court, and hence the Ciprianos were advised to remain silent in court.

[Carana]

I think the state of law in Portugal is it (then) stood (it has doubtless changed since) was that nothing said to police in police custody (under torture or otherwise) could be used against the defendant in court unless repeated in court, and hence the Ciprianos were advised to remain silent in court.

But remaining silent doesn't raise the elephant in the room, either...

[ferryman]

But remaining silent doesn't raise the elephant in the room, either...

The torture, you mean?

True ...

[stephen25000]

The torture, you mean?

True ...

Why are you silent about the lies Cipriano told in commuting perjury in court ?

[Mr Gray]

I think the state of law in Portugal is it (then) stood (it has doubtless changed since) was that nothing said to police in police custody (under torture or otherwise) could be used against the defendant in court unless repeated in court, and hence the Ciprianos were advised to remain silent in court.

from what I understand it is just the confessions that are not admissible...the evidence against the ciprianos was very poor and not enough to convict...unfortunately for the ciprianos the court allowed the reconstruction/confession  video as admissible...despite objection from the defence....this sealed it for them

[ferryman]

Do you believe that anything anyone says under circumstances of torture should be a basis of conviction in court?

[Carana]

Why wasn't the torture issue raised in the instruction phase (if one took place) prior to the actual murder trial?

Is there a specific legal reason why it couldn't have been raised at that point?

[stephen25000]

Do you believe that anything anyone says under circumstances of torture should be a basis of conviction in court?

This has been gone through numerous times already.

The first confessions occurred before the 'torture'.

The brother, as far as I know, was not tortured.

Can you cite that he was ?

Personally, I think it very likely that fellow prisoners beat her up, whilst the PJ present,looked the other way. I will have to find the links to the case, I believe one of those is on the Morais cite, where prisoners families claimed fellow prisoners beat her up, though the statements were not used in court.

It is a fact that L. Cipriano committed perjury in court.

Angelo, the other day provided a back drop of proven points in court as regards her and her brother.

I do not approve of torture (I have said that repeatedly), but I am not naive enough to believe it won't happen again.

Again playing devil's advocate, as I did the other day, what would you do if you had a terrorist subject or say a kidnapper, who refused to divulge information, and no other means worked, to get them to divulge the plan, or in a kidnapper's case the whereabouts of the victim, and subsequently deaths occurred, what would you say to the victim's families ?

[ferryman]

This has been gone through numerous times already.

The first confessions occurred before the 'torture'.

The brother, as far as I know, was not tortured.

Can you cite that he was ?

Personally, I think it very likely that fellow prisoners beat her up, whilst the PJ present,looked the other way. I will have to find the links to the case, I believe one of those is on the Morais cite, where prisoners families claimed fellow prisoners beat her up, though the statements were not used in court.

It is a fact that L. Cipriano committed perjury in court.

Angelo, the other day provided a back drop of proven points in court as regards her and her brother.

I do not approve of torture (I have said that repeatedly), but I am not naive enough to believe it won't happen again.

Again playing devil's advocate, as I did the other day, what would you do if you had a terrorist subject or say a kidnapper, who refused to divulge information, and no other means worked, to get them to divulge the plan, or in a kidnapper's case the whereabouts of the victim, and subsequently deaths occurred, what would you say to the victim's families ?

Leonor Cipriano was held to "proven to have lied under torture" and her sentence was increased accordingly.

That was a Portuguese court ruling.

The fact of torture was taken as proven by a court ruling.

And yet Leonor's sentence was extended because she (is deemed to have) lied under torture.

Do you not agree that the only safe, sane and proper course would have been (upon establishment of the fact of torture) to quash the conviction and (at the very least!) order a re-trial?

[stephen25000]

Leonor Cipriano was held to "proven to have lied under torture" and her sentence was increased accordingly.

That was a Portuguese court ruling.

The fact of torture was taken as proven by a court ruling.

And yet Leonor's sentence was extended because she (is deemed to have) lied under torture.

Do you not agree that the only safe, sane and proper course would have been (upon establishment of the fact of torture) to quash the conviction and (at the very least!) order a re-trial?

'Deemed to have lied under torture'  ?

Where do you get that from ?

I also notice, you didn't respond to the point about confessing before the 'torture'.

Her and her brother blame each other  for Joana's death.

and of course, you did not respond to my devil's advocate question.

Also, there is NO DOUBT in my mind, that you are pursuing this matter solely because of Amaral.

[Carana]

This has been gone through numerous times already.

The first confessions occurred before the 'torture'.

The brother, as far as I know, was not tortured.

Can you cite that he was ?

Personally, I think it very likely that fellow prisoners beat her up, whilst the PJ present,looked the other way. I will have to find the links to the case, I believe one of those is on the Morais cite, where prisoners families claimed fellow prisoners beat her up, though the statements were not used in court.

It is a fact that L. Cipriano committed perjury in court.

Angelo, the other day provided a back drop of proven points in court as regards her and her brother.

I do not approve of torture (I have said that repeatedly), but I am not naive enough to believe it won't happen again.

Again playing devil's advocate, as I did the other day, what would you do if you had a terrorist subject or say a kidnapper, who refused to divulge information, and no other means worked, to get them to divulge the plan, or in a kidnapper's case the whereabouts of the victim, and subsequently deaths occurred, what would you say to the victim's families ?

She was in PJ custody at the police station at the time. How could she have been beaten up by fellow inmates, unless the PJ had also brought them to the PJ station for tea and biscuits?

[ferryman]

'Deemed to have lied under torture'  ?

Where do you get that from ?

I also notice, you didn't respond to the point about confessing before the 'torture'.

Her and her brother blame each other  for Joana's death.

and of course, you did not respond to my devil's advocate question.

Also, there is NO DOUBT in my mind, that you are pursuing this matter solely because of Amaral.

Where do I get it from?

The court ruling.

Officers of the PJ were found proved by a Portuguese court of torturing Lenonor Cipriano, but the perpetrators could not be identified.

Torture was proved, but officers responsible for the torture could not be identified.

[stephen25000]

She was in PJ custody at the police station at the time. How could she have been beaten up by fellow inmates, unless the PJ had also brought them to the PJ station for tea and biscuits?

I said Carana, the PJ 'looked the other way'.

I am sure that is not unique to Portugal.

[stephen25000]

Where do I get it from?

The court ruling.

Officers of the PJ were found proved by a Portuguese court of torturing Lenonor Cipriano, but the perpetrators could not be identified.

Torture was proved, but officers responsible for the torture could not be identified.

You are still ignoring my questions.

I did you the courtesy of replying to yours, not how about you to all of mine ?

Also, if the officers were not identified, how would the court know if it was the prisoners doing the beating up ?