Author Topic: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!  (Read 248037 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #750 on: November 13, 2013, 02:35:11 PM »
The child was dismembered/quartered with an ax, according to João Cipriano.

If she was abducted why did he describe the way he dismembered her and assembled the pieces in plastic bags in order to put them in a deep freezer?

The most revealing was his answer when asked about the sperm that was found in a child's underpanties in the house, he responded: «I didn't hurt her, I just killed her».

These traces, according to forensics exams, are of human blood and of human and animal blood (cfr. page 235), and although insufficient to establish whom they belong to through the DNA (pages 1780 and following), they reveal that something terrible happened in that living room, something that originated the existence of human blood on the floor and on the walls, which was cleaned with a mop and a bucket; the blood that was on the mop was located on the handle, revealing that the person who used the mop had in turn his or her hands dirty with blood. Therefore, the traces that were collected in the living room reinforce the reliability of the reconstitution.

Next, the two arguidos decided that the minor’s body couldn’t be found. Thus they chose to quarter it, as results from the reconstitution file from pages 2100 onwards. They had the opportunity to do this (while arguida BB cleaned the traces that existed in the living room, arguido AA went to the café where he met witnesses II and MM [Leandro Silva], who confirm that they were at the café with arguido AA and report that afterwards they went to search for CC – thus the two arguidos had the opportunity to stay alone at home and to proceed with the quartering). And there are no doubts that the arguidos undertook the cutting of the minor’s body.

In effect, arguido AA drew the instruments that were used for the quartering by his own hand (page 1885) – a fact that was confirmed by witness DD – and took part in the reconstitution, demonstrating how he used the saw and the knife, how the two arguidos helped each other, how they proceeded with the cuts, the time that they took, how they bagged the minor’s body parts and how they tried to place them inside the deep freezer. This reconstitution, which is legal and valid because it was done voluntarily by the arguido, was watched by witnesses DD (PJ inspector) and CC8 (pathologist), who also confirmed the manner in which the arguido proceeded with the reconstitution; witness DD further confirmed that the deep freezer that was used in the reconstitution was apprehended at the residence of arguida BB on the 15th of October 2004 (cfr. Pages 578 to 580 and photographs on page 1712 and following).



What ax(e)? The reconstruction supposedly involved a knife and a saw? They should have been full of DNA, surely... Were the "instruments" ever presented in court? Were they ever found? Where is the DNA evidence?

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #751 on: November 13, 2013, 02:44:58 PM »
The ruling talks about an "arca frigorífica". Isn't that a fridge? As opposed to an "arca congeladora", which would seem to be a freezer?

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #752 on: November 13, 2013, 03:14:59 PM »
I have no idea under what conditions this reconstruction was made...

According to the SC summary:

aj) the arguidos then decided, conjointly, to cut the minor’s body in order to make it possible to store it in the deep freezer * that existed in the living room;

* I have asked if an "arca frigorífica" = a deep freeze or a fridge.

al) to pursue that purpose, the arguidos provided themselves with a knife and a metal-cutting saw that were available inside the house, instruments that were apt to obtain the results that they intended, within approximately 30 minutes;

am) with said instruments, helping each other, the arguidos cut CC’s body, separating the head from the torso and cutting the legs at the knee area;

What is this reconstruction that was posted online? Is it what was presented to the jurors? If so, how does it relate to what is alleged to have happened?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtIBzhWPf9Y

The video above shows an artist's impression of him sawing the tummy of a dead child.

If this "artist's" reconstruction reflects what was shown to the court, then there are substantial divergences. How would that not leave massive traces of DNA to clear up within a tiny timeframe? It doesn't correspond to what was accepted by the court.

If it's not what was represented in court, then what was it based on? Why was it posted?





Offline Luz

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #753 on: November 13, 2013, 03:31:53 PM »
I am sorry, I translated badly my words.

It was a saw, not an ax....


Offline Anna

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #754 on: November 13, 2013, 03:35:08 PM »
I have no idea under what conditions this reconstruction was made...

According to the SC summary:

aj) the arguidos then decided, conjointly, to cut the minor’s body in order to make it possible to store it in the deep freezer * that existed in the living room;

* I have asked if an "arca frigorífica" = a deep freeze or a fridge.

al) to pursue that purpose, the arguidos provided themselves with a knife and a metal-cutting saw that were available inside the house, instruments that were apt to obtain the results that they intended, within approximately 30 minutes;

am) with said instruments, helping each other, the arguidos cut CC’s body, separating the head from the torso and cutting the legs at the knee area;

What is this reconstruction that was posted online? Is it what was presented to the jurors? If so, how does it relate to what is alleged to have happened?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtIBzhWPf9Y

The video above shows an artist's impression of him sawing the tummy of a dead child.

If this "artist's" reconstruction reflects what was shown to the court, then there are substantial divergences. How would that not leave massive traces of DNA to clear up within a tiny timeframe? It doesn't correspond to what was accepted by the court.

If it's not what was represented in court, then what was it based on? Why was it posted?


Where were the other children, when all this alleged beating, then chopping and sawing was going on, which must have been noisy and very very messy ? Also noticed that they kept pigs, which have similar blood to humans . Pigs bodies are used to train Cadaver scenting dogs
“You should not honour men more than truth.”
― Plato

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #755 on: November 13, 2013, 03:35:40 PM »
@ Luz

Why did you say that there were no jury trials in Portugal? The possibility is even in your Constitution, Article 207.

Luz

Sr. Member
****
Posts: 866
Don't question me. It'll only make you look stupid
View Profile
Personal Message (Offline)
User is on moderator watch listw..ched

Re: Scientific Approach
« Reply #130 on: October 07, 2013, 01:51:40 PM »

Quote

Quote from: C.Edwards on October 07, 2013, 01:45:44 PM

You spend so much time scattering around irrelevancies and ducking and diving from questions that it's quite conceivable you can dive into your post history and find anything that supports whatever avenue of inconsequence you happen to currently be pootling along. You were clearly trying to make the point that Amaral was a convicted fraudster at the outset of the Madeleine investigation. This is a complete misrepresentation or shall we say, "davel-ism"?


A very US way of acting. When you have no defense create lies to denigrate the ones that have reached the truth.
In Portugal it doesn't work that way, we have no jury trials. When you are put before a judge or a set of 3 judges you are alone, and it doesn't matter how much dirty work your friends have done for you. You are naked before the Justice.

Yet...


Assistant Prosecutor, José Carlos Pinheiro, has arranged for several key prosecution witnesses to be summoned to court. These include António Leandro (stepfather of Joana), his mother Lurdes David, half-brother Carlos Alberto, Anabela Cipriano and Anatólio Duarte (sister and brother-in-law of Leonor and João Cipriano) and Nelson Cipriano, the defendants’ brother. Leonor Cipriano’s defence had sought to avoid a jury trial, fearing that jurors would be unduly influenced by intense media coverage. João Novais Pacheco, Leonor’s lawyer, said the defence’s objective had been to keep the indictment to one of ‘death by aggravated assault’, punishable by a sentence of between one and five years. This would have precluded a jury trial because juries only preside over cases where ultimate jail terms are equal to or greater than eight years.
http://www.algarveresident.com/8346-0/algarve/joana-accused-could-face-25-years


Portuguese Constitution
Article 207
(Juries, public participation and experts)
1. In such cases and with such composition as the law may lay down, and particularly
when either the prosecution or the defence so request, a jury may participate in the trial of serious crimes, save those involving terrorism or highly organised crime.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #756 on: November 13, 2013, 03:36:14 PM »
Must say I do not understand any need to chop a body up and sticking it in their freezer their own flesh and blood.....  instead of just disposing of it somewhere....not as if they didnt have time....
Not as if they were evil psycho serial killers......

« Last Edit: November 13, 2013, 03:47:35 PM by Redblossom »

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #757 on: November 13, 2013, 03:56:42 PM »
Must say I do not understand any need to chop a body up and sticking it in their freezer their own flesh and blood.....  instead of just disposing of it somewhere....not as if they didnt have time....
Not as if they were evil psycho serial killers......

One of my earlier questions concerns whether the translation is adequate about this fridge/freezer issue.

If it was indeed a deep freeezer, then it's unlikely that other members of the household would have opened it the next day. If it's just a fridge, anyone would have opened it in the normal course of everyday life.

So which is it? All I've found is that it is referred to as an "arca frigorífica".

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #758 on: November 13, 2013, 04:00:12 PM »
I am sorry, I translated badly my words.

It was a saw, not an ax....



Wouldn't this have been full of DNA? Was this saw ever found and analysed? What about the knife? If they were, what were the results of forensic analysis?

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #759 on: November 13, 2013, 04:06:10 PM »
One of my earlier questions concerns whether the translation is adequate about this fridge/freezer issue.

If it was indeed a deep freeezer, then it's unlikely that other members of the household would have opened it the next day. If it's just a fridge, anyone would have opened it in the normal course of everyday life.

So which is it? All I've found is that it is referred to as an "arca frigorífica".

Sounds like a deep freezer to me......my question was why they would do this in the first place......then so many people do this for various reasons you would be shocked...but in the whole context of the case I dont get it

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #760 on: November 13, 2013, 04:06:56 PM »
Does anyone who followed the case know what Leonors common law husband made of all of this? Leandro  Silva I believe was his name.....
« Last Edit: November 13, 2013, 04:08:49 PM by Redblossom »

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #761 on: November 13, 2013, 04:08:52 PM »

Portuguese Constitution
Article 207
(Juries, public participation and experts)
1. In such cases and with such composition as the law may lay down, and particularly
when either the prosecution or the defence so request, a jury may participate in the trial of serious crimes, save those involving terrorism or highly organised crime.
It's not particularly at all, but only when either the accusation or the defence request it".
quando a acusação ou a defesa o requeiram, which is very rare.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #762 on: November 13, 2013, 04:12:50 PM »
Sounds like a deep freezer to me......my question was why they would do this in the first place......then so many people do this for various reasons you would be shocked...but in the whole context of the case I dont get it
A freezer, not a fridge, yes, chest type.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #763 on: November 13, 2013, 04:20:03 PM »
A freezer, not a fridge, yes, chest type.

thats what I understand too, arca means chest, trunk.....

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #764 on: November 13, 2013, 04:24:19 PM »
A freezer, not a fridge, yes, chest type.

What would be the usual distinction between "arca frigorífica" and "arca congeladora"?

"Arca frigorífica" is what is mentioned in the SC ruling.