Video: Uncle reveals how Joana Cipriano was murdered and later fed to the pigs.

[Carana]

Google really doesn't like legal texts... lol

Bit by bit:
aad) on 18:09, BB defendant acquired oil and a steel scrubber, with which washed the house, taking advantage to erase nearly all the evidence than there had been, leaving only human blood traces inside the house, contaminated the products used;

aad) no dia 18.09, a arguida BB adquiriu petróleo e um esfregão de aço, com o que lavou a casa, aproveitando assim para apagar quase todos os indícios do que ali havia ocorrido, restando apenas vestígios de sangue humano no interior da casa, contaminados pelos produtos utilizados;

That's one of the so-called facts accepted by the court.


Ok...

But someone has to explain to me why the court ignored the fact that it was Leandro's mother who'd told Leonor to buy creosote to kill bugs, but who couldn't find any and came back with some petroleum-based similar product (paraffin oil?) instead, whereupon Leandro's mother used the product on the door and "pillar" (pillar? Flagstone?) with a steel brush?

I'll find the date of the purchase receipt. It's in the files somewhere.

The AA 5 witness, the mother of II stated that WC was in his house from 5th to Sunday, September 12, going to Figueira with his mother for 18 h. That day at night (it was already in bed) II called him to ask if there was a DC, and the witness answered that the CC had gone with his mother to the II reported that the CC had disappeared. yet the witness said that the defendant had the BB house always clean and was well of the house. One day, after there have gone SIC, he noticed that there were ticks at the door and a pillar and told her to go buy BB creolina to kill them. BB bought oil, saying there was no creosote, and was the very witness who proceeded to cleaning the exterior of the house, with the mop.

A testemunha AA5, mãe de II, declarou que a CC esteve em sua casa desde 5ª feira a domingo, dia 12 de Setembro, indo para a Figueira com a mãe pelas 18 h. Nesse dia à noite (já estava deitada) o II telefonou-lhe a perguntar se estava lá a CC, tendo a testemunha respondido que a CC tinha ido com a mãe, ao que o II a informou que a CC tinha desaparecido. Disse ainda a testemunha que a arguida BB tinha a casa sempre limpa e tratava bem da casa. Num dia, depois de lá ter ido a SIC, reparou que havia carraças à porta de casa e num pilar e disse à BB para ela ir comprar creolina para as matar. A BB comprou petróleo, dizendo que não havia creolina, e foi a própria testemunha que procedeu à limpeza, no exterior da casa, com a esfregona.

[Carana]

The next bit. CC4 is presumably Tavares de Almeida. To start with, he wasn't a forensic expert. I've never found anything about a proper forensic team in the house.

A forensic team would have been able to see if there had been an attempt to wipe away evidence, as opposed to everyday cleaning activities.

He found a contrast with piles of dirty laundry - well, yes, there was a missing child and the mother had been taken in for the first round of interrogation. The allegation of 2 weeks' worth of dirty laundry / dishes seems somewhat dubious with x people living in a small home, plus all the people popping round.


"The CC4 witness, chief inspector of the PJ, confirmed the auto search and seizure of pgs. 173 in the house of BB defendant when found blood residues on the floor, the walls, the bucket and mop and on the sole of a shoes that were in the room. He noted that the remains were very small and it was apparent that the interior of the house had been washed, and not only the floor, noting also the marks of passing the mop on the walls and doors. She indicated that washing the floor and walls contrasted with the rest of the house, which was "filthy" with dirty clothes everywhere and crockery unwashed "15 days""

A testemunha CC4 , inspector-chefe da PJ, confirmou o auto de busca e apreensão de fls. 173 na casa da arguida BB, quando foram encontrados vestígios hemáticos no chão, nas paredes, no balde e esfregona e na sola de umas sapatilhas que estavam na sala. Referiu que os vestígios eram muito pequenos e que era visível que o interior da habitação tinha sido lavado, e não só o chão, notando-se ainda as marcas da passagem da esfregona nas paredes e nas portas. Referiu ainda que esta lavagem do chão e paredes contrastava com o resto da casa, que estava "imunda", com roupa suja por todo o lado e louça por lavar "de 15 dias". A testemunha esteve presente na reconstituição dos factos, como consta de fls. 273 ss, cujo teor confirmou e referiu que na sequência desta reconstituição, seguindo indicações do arguido AA, procuraram o corpo num aterro de terra e noutros locais da Mexilhoeira Grande, numa lixeira, em Poço Barreto, num carro acidentado existente na sucata do padrasto do II, em Silves, etc., locais onde procuraram exaustivamente mas sem êxito. Confirmou que a configuração da casa é a que consta da planta de fls. 294 e que a porta que dá acesso à rua tem um manípulo do lado exterior que permite a entrada imediata na residência. Confirmou que a arguida tinha na sua posse, quando chegou à cadeia de Odemira, o recibo da compra de 1 litro de petróleo e de um esfregão de arame, de que se tentou desfazer, e que foi entregue à PJ pela Directora do EP - confirmou que o recibo é o de fls. 876. Ainda referiu que seguiu a pista de um cidadão marroquino que podia ter levado a CC, segundo indicações da arguida BB, mas veio a apurar que na altura do desaparecimento da CC esse indivíduo estava em França.

[Carana]

Trying to find the original Portuguese of this. It might be easier than this auto-translate gibberish.


"On the other hand, acts contained in the auto replenishment are compatible with RBC traces collected in the room (note that the reconstitution takes place in the room), as is clear from search and seizure carried out in self 22.9.2004 (cfr. pgs. 173 and 233 ff), which states that traces were collected on the floor near the front door, outwardly and inwardly along the inner electrical switch to the right of the entrance door at the entrance of the left side of the couch, a pair MM tennis Silva that was between the sofas, in a mop (stalk) and respective bucket. These traces, as made skills are of human blood and human blood and animal (cfr. Pgs. 235), and although they are insufficient to determine who owns via DNA (pgs. 1780 ff), are revealing that this room it happened something terrible,something that gave rise to that there was human blood on the floor and the walls, which were cleaned with a mop and bucket, and the blood that was in the mop was in the stem, revealing that those who used the mop had in turn dirty hands of blood. Thus, traces collected in the room reinforce the reliability of reconstitution."

ETA found it.
Por outro lado, os actos que constam do auto de reconstituição são compatíveis com os vestígios hemáticos recolhidos na sala (repare-se que a reconstituição tem lugar na sala), como resulta do auto de busca e apreensão efectuado em 22.9.2004 (cfr. fls. 173 e 233 ss), onde consta que foram recolhidos vestígios no chão, junto à porta de entrada, exterior e interiormente, junto ao interruptor eléctrico interior à direita da porta de entrada, junto à entrada do lado esquerdo do sofá, num par de ténis de MM Silva que se encontrava entre os sofás, numa esfregona (haste) e respectivo balde. Estes vestígios, segundo perícias efectuadas, são de sangue humano e de sangue humano e animal (cfr. fls. 235), e embora fossem insuficientes para averiguar a quem pertencem através do ADN (fls. 1780 ss), são reveladores de que naquela sala aconteceu algo terrível, algo que deu origem a que houvesse sangue humano no chão e nas paredes, que foram limpos com uma esfregona e balde, sendo que o sangue que estava na esfregona se encontrava na haste, revelador que quem utilizou a esfregona tinha por sua vez as mãos sujas de sangue. Assim, os vestígios recolhidos na sala vêm reforçar a fiabilidade da reconstituição.


Yes, we know that. There were tiny traces of animal and human blood found on the floor, a trace of human blood on the mop handle, and a trace of human blood in the drawer of the fridge or freezer. When isn't known. Who the blood (which could have been a nicked finger) belonged to isn't known.

How on earth could these undated specks (which a black torch would probably reveal in my own home) be consistent with a macabre head-on-wall scenario, chopping up a human body and stuffing the bits in a fridge, taking them out again, in the time frame, without anyone else noticing?

[Angelo222]

The notion that an innocent John Cipriano would participate in a reconstruction video as to how he killed his niece and cut up her remains is frankly too ridiculous for words.   

[Carana]

The notion that an innocent John Cipriano would participate in a reconstruction video as to how he killed his niece and cut up her remains is frankly too ridiculous for words.   

If you can find a fully accountable record of how he'd been treated that's available for public perusal, I might end up agreeing with you.

As it stands, there is simply no solid evidence that I've been able to find that supports that scenario, whether he's in effect guilty of causing her disappearance in one way or another or not.

If that scenario can't be backed up, then I find that it puts into question just how "spontaneous" that reconstruction actually was.

[Angelo222]

If you can find a fully accountable record of how he'd been treated that's available for public perusal, I might end up agreeing with you.

As it stands, there is simply no solid evidence that I've been able to find that supports that scenario, whether he's in effect guilty of causing her disappearance in one way or another or not.

If that scenario can't be backed up, then I find that it puts into question just how "spontaneous" that reconstruction actually was.

Why on earth would John Cipriano fake it if he was totally innocent?   There just is no logic in your suggestion even for a halfwit like him.  He knew what the consequences would be for him if he was found guilty after already serving a sentence for attempted murder. He was a hardened criminal, being knocked about by coppers was second nature to him, he expected it imo.

[Carana]

Why on earth would John Cipriano fake it if he was totally innocent?   There just is no logic in your suggestion even for a halfwit like him.  He knew what the consequences would be for him if he was found guilty after already serving a sentence for attempted murder. He was a hardened criminal, being knocked about by coppers was second nature to him, he expected it imo.

He's not someone who'd I'd have welcomed with open arms as a prospective son-in-law.

Could he have been guilty of some cirme involving this child? Possibly, yes.

Does that supposedly spontaneous reconstuction make any sense? Not that I can find.

Is there any other evidence that actually makes any sense in that case? Not any than I can fiind.

[John]

He's not someone who'd I'd have welcomed with open arms as a prospective son-in-law.

Could he have been guilty of some cirme involving this child? Possibly, yes.

Does that supposedly spontaneous reconstuction make any sense? Not that I can find.

Is there any other evidence that actually makes any sense in that case? Not any than I can fiind.

There was more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict the Ciprianos but the brother was the main perpetrator by all accounts, why Leonor went along with him may never be known.

[Carana]

There was more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict the Ciprianos but the brother was the main perpetrator by all accounts, why Leonor went along with him may never be known.

I had presumed so as well, until I waded through the judgments...

[John]

The bit that stands out for me is why did João Cipriano confess and VOLUNTARILY take part so confidently in a video reconstruction of what he did if he was TOTALLY INNOCENT of any involvement in the death and disappearance of his niece. 

I have yet to hear any valid argument because the old torture nugget just doesn't hold up to scrutiny this time.

[Carana]

The bit that stands out for me is why did João Cipriano confess and VOLUNTARILY take part so confidently in a video reconstruction of what he did if he was TOTALLY INNOCENT of any involvement in the death and disappearance of his niece. 

I have yet to hear any valid argument because the old torture nugget just doesn't hold up to scrutiny this time.

How would anyone know whether it was voluntary or whether he'd been fed a script to re-enact in exchange for some bluff "advantage", whatever that might have been?

Leonor was beaten up; Leandro stated that he'd been roughed up and that others had been as well... why would they have offered coffee and biscuits to João?  I've no idea whether he was or not, but I just can't imagine why others were but not him.

Nothing to do with the PJ, but Aragão managed to bluff a different "confession" out of him by saying that word was out that others were out to murder him in prison.

Whether he did kill her or not, that scenario simply doesn't make sense to me.

Leonor Cipriano’s lawyer confesses to lying to obtain a confession
by astro 9 years ago
by Maria Augusta Casaca

Lawyer Aragão Correia, who defends Leonor Cipriano, Joana’s mother, told TSF this Tuesday that he lied to obtain a written confession from João Cipriano, who revealed that he tried to sell the child.

Aragão Correia had already requested the opening of a new inquiry after Leonor Cipriano confessed to him that she handed over her daughter to her brother, for him to sell her.

Now, the lawyer revealed that he visited João Cipriano in prison and that the latter confessed that he tried to sell the little girl. But in order to force a confession, in writing, Aragão Correia admitted to bluffing.

The lawyer confessed that he told João Cipriano that the persons who wanted to buy Joana “gave an order to murder him in prison”. “He was very fearful, which confirms that Leonor was telling the truth”, he added.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/leonor-ciprianos-lawyer-confesses-to.html

[Angelo222]

We already know that this was a child trafficking case gone wrong.

[misty]

We already know that this was a child trafficking case gone wrong.

If it went wrong, why was the merchandise got rid of rather than the facilitator being taken out?

[Carana]

If it went wrong, why was the merchandise got rid of rather than the facilitator being taken out?

The other question is how would that scenario fit with taking her home, chopping her up there and attempting to stuff her remains in the fridge?

[John]

If it went wrong, why was the merchandise got rid of rather than the facilitator being taken out?

Without doubt the child died because she would not cooperate with her abductor and trafficker. Joana was beyond the age whereby she could be removed from her family and placed with another family and not realise what was happening to her.