Have we learned anything new from the Cipriano case?

[John]

3 cases, 3 young girls, 3 girls allegedly killed by blows to their heads against a wall, 3 dwellings cleaned with bleach,
3 dwellings with alleged blood spatters in several places, 3 alleged attempted cover-ups of death.......yes, it certainly had a profound affect on his judgement - IMO it set a precedent.

Three cases?  The only cases which I can see any similarity are that of Mariana and Joana, the former having occurred in 1999 in the Azores and the latter having occurred on the Algarve in 2004. Both were established as murder cases.

In the Mariana case investigators were presented with a body while in Joana's case no body was ever found.  As far as Madeleine's disappearance is concerned Amaral may have drawn on his knowledge of the two other cases but at no time does he imply murder.

[Benice]

I suppose the video admission by Joao Cipriano that he fed Joana's remains to the pigs doesn't count as evidence in your world Sadie thus rendering your support of a woman who admitted to killing her child by battering her head off the kitchen wall pretty pathetic.

Do you honestly think that Joao Cipriano voluntarily took part in a police video to enhance his street cred?

Once the courts had established that torture had taken place, then nothing that was done or said by those 'accused' could be regarded as credible evidence.     That's just plain common sense.

How anyone can convince themselves that convictions in a case where there is no body, loads of blood, but no DNA evidence, no forensic evidence and especially no motive - (as the court threw out the motive the PJ would have them believe) are actually 'safe' convictions is a mystery to me.

At the very least there should have been a re-trial.

AIMHO

[sadie]

I suppose the video admission by Joao Cipriano that he fed Joana's remains to the pigs doesn't count as evidence in your world Sadie thus rendering your support of a woman who admitted to killing her child by battering her head off the kitchen wall pretty pathetic.

Do you honestly think that Joao Cipriano voluntarily took part in a police video to enhance his street cred?

I, personally can take no notice of that John.

Joao was a "drughead", and one of limited intelligence.   Get him craving for his next dose and make promises.    With the inducement of the drug craved and promises, he would be simplicity itself to persuade to make that (laughably ridiculous!) video.

The same with his "admission" that he fed Joanas pieces to the pigs.





It is {previously wiped by moderators] on record that Joao wrote to his sister apologising to her for "dropping her in it".  I cannot find this at the moment, but enough readers and members will have seen it that it is a known


As I say, John, I simply cannot believe that rediculous video for the reasons given

[Angelo222]

Once the courts had established that torture had taken place, then nothing that was done or said by those 'accused' could be regarded as credible evidence.     That's just plain common sense.

How anyone can convince themselves that convictions in a case where there is no body, loads of blood, but no DNA evidence, no forensic evidence and especially no motive - (as the court threw out the motive the PJ would have them believe) are actually 'safe' convictions is a mystery to me.

At the very least there should have been a re-trial.

AIMHO

The police had every reason to put pressure on the Ciprianos and I for one don't blame them for trying by whatever means they had available to them to save the child.  At the time it was thought that Joana was being held somewhere and that her life was in peril.  I applaud the Portuguese police for doing what they did despite the terrible consequences for their senior officers which followed.

What the Ciprianos did to their kin was inhuman, I am truly surprised at Sadie.

[sadie]

Oh, gawd, what have I said?  I thought that everything I posted was hard hitting but OK


Another warning

"You have received a warning for posting content which may constitute defamation or libel"


I really dont think I have.

It feels like I am being denied the right to say things as they are.  Admin, Please Explain my so called sin.  TY

[sadie]

Amaral was the coordinator of the investigation. He didn't make all the decisions, that was done by Encarnacao, Neves and the prosecutors. Some seem to think that discrediting Amaral discredits the first investigation.

That's the kind of faulty logic that led the media to believe that discrediting Corbyn would ensure a Tory landslide in the last election.

It seems to me that Encarnacao Guilhermo, being, we are told dead, is a very useful "Fall guy"

[Angelo222]

Oh, gawd, what have I said?  I thought that everything I posted was hard hitting but OK


Another warning

"You have received a warning for posting content which may constitute defamation or libel"


I really dont think I have.

It feels like I am being denied the right to say things as they are.  Admin, Please Explain my so called sin.  TY

I agree with the mod who sanctioned you, blatant untruths will not be tolerated here. 

[sadie]

I agree with the mod who sanctioned you, blatant untruths will not be tolerated here.

Blatent untruths?  That is a serious accusation.

Tell me the blatent untruths please Angelo.  No need to repeat what I said exactly, but the persons name/s and a bit more of a clue please.


For months now, i have felt that my harder hitting posts have been censored by you guys.

Repeatedly.

[sadie]

The police had every reason to put pressure on the Ciprianos and I for one don't blame them for trying by whatever means they had available to them to save the child.  At the time it was thought that Joana was being held somewhere and that her life was in peril.  I applaud the Portuguese police for doing what they did despite the terrible consequences for their senior officers which followed.

What the Ciprianos did to their kin was inhuman, I am truly surprised at Sadie.

Oh, you once told me that you didn't believe in torture.  I was so suprised, I kept a copy of it.

I am surprised that you chose to believe the word of someone who is a proven as being at peace with telling untruths if it suits him ... and that you think that so called evidence extracted from a seriously tortured woman is acceptable.


 



Only in my opinion of course

[Eleanor]

I simply do not understand how anyone can accept The Cipriano Convictions as "Safe".  Judicial Secrecy was entirely ignored, and these two were tried by Public Opinion long before it came to Court.

[Angelo222]

Oh, you once told me that you didn't believe in torture.  I was so suprised, I kept a copy of it.

I am surprised that you chose to believe the word of someone who is a proven as being at peace with telling untruths if it suits him ... and that you think that so called evidence extracted from a seriously tortured woman is acceptable.


 



Only in my opinion of course

Yet more false facts Sadie?   Let me remind you because you appears to be attempting to rewrite history. Leonor Cipriano freely admitted to her guilt long before the torture.  She took the blame for the killing then tried to shift that blame to her brother John and then recanted. You do recall she got an extended sentence for lying to the judge?

[Angelo222]

I simply do not understand how anyone can accept The Cipriano Convictions as "Safe".  Judicial Secrecy was entirely ignored, and these two were tried by Public Opinion long before it came to Court.

Be that as it may, the locals knew very well what the Ciprianos were capable of.  That poor little mite never had a chance with such a mother and uncle.

[sadie]

The police had every reason to put pressure on the Ciprianos and I for one don't blame them for trying by whatever means they had available to them to save the child.  At the time it was thought that Joana was being held somewhere and that her life was in peril.  I applaud the Portuguese police for doing what they did despite the terrible consequences for their senior officers which followed.

What the Ciprianos did to their kin was inhuman, I am truly surprised at Sadie.

"What the Ciprianos did to their kin was inhuman"

you are believing the words of two Court proven bent coppers :  Amaral and Cristavao .... and the results of a so called TORTURED OUT confessiion, which is totally unsafe.   

Also you are showing no concern for the fact that Leandro withdrew his witness statement having allegedly been beaten by Amaral, personally, to produce it.

I suppose, in your eyes that was OK too ?

[carlymichelle]

Be that as it may, the locals knew very well what the Ciprianos were capable of.  That poor little mite never had a chance with such a mother and uncle.

exactly   

[Angelo222]

"What the Ciprianos did to their kin was inhuman"

you are believing the words of two Court proven bent coppers :  Amaral and Cristavao .... and the results of a so called TORTURED OUT confessiion, which is totally unsafe.   

Also you are showing no concern for the fact that Leandro withdrew his witness statement having allegedly been beaten by Amaral, personally, to produce it.

I suppose, in your eyes that was OK too ?

John Cipriano wasn't forced to confess and the recording of it was played to the jury when he refused to speak at trial.  Leandro is irrelevant to the trial as he wasn't there when the killing took place.  In any event he has withdrawn any support he ever had for Leonor and her family have disowned her. The father of the child also supported the verdict.

Do try and get the timeline right Sadie, Leonor admitted killing the girl BEFORE she was committed to prison ie BEFORE the torture.