Leonor Cipriano, her confession and subsequent silence in the killing of her daughter Joana.

[Carana]

Am I right in saying that the Judge did not believe the story that Joana had come home and found them "at it" ?

It was one of the points that was considered not proven.

[Carana]

And Joana's abductor remains at large, doesn't he, she or they.

The PJ never found that Hacksaw the abductor stole either.

The injustice.

They never found the saw that João allegedly butchered her with, either. Nor any forensic evidence that would have substantiated it.

[Wonderfulspam]

They never found the saw that João allegedly butchered her with, either. Nor any forensic evidence that would have substantiated it.

There wasn't even any circumstantial evidence in the case was there, & circumstantial evidence isn't even evidence , according to dave.

[Carana]

The main reason I don't think the killed Joana is because there is no credible reason that I can think of why - having confessed to murder, they should then  both refuse to say what they did with the body.   If they had already confessed to the major crime, then why not divulge what they did with the body.    It makes no sense for them not to.

IMO the reason they did not say - (even after the most horrendous  torture),  where the body was =  is because they simply didn't know - because Joana had been abducted.    What other reason could there be?

I can't, either. There are exceptions, as we all know, but there simply doesn't appear to be any evidence to support that either of them were either deliberately or involuntarily withholding where her remains could be found.

[Carana]

There wasn't even any circumstantial evidence in the case was there, & circumstantial evidence isn't even evidence , according to dave.

If I didn't know that you're being sarcastic, I'd almost agree with you. ;)

I don't have a problem with circumstantial evidence, provided it's thoroughly investigated, cross-referenced, irrelevant / innocent explanations ruled out, and supported by forensics.

In this case, even the little circumstantial evidence that was presented is beyond flimsy.

The shock-horror factor was the presentation of the "reconstitution" video on the last day of the 3-day trial, with no defence investigation into the circumstances leading up to that. I'm not sure what the defence could have done, though, if there was no way of proving whether or not he'd been threatened /beaten / otherwise coerced into doing it: police "interviews" weren't recorded.

The defence had simply assumed (wrongly) that it wouldn't be admissible and that the case would be thrown out. If they had realised (or realised in time) that it was going to be admissible, then they might have changed their minds about advising their clients not to testify in court.

[Carana]

Yes indeed Sadie, if you completely ignore the childs bloodied hand print on the wall & the missing hacksaw, then it's quite obvious not only that the Ciprianos are 100% innocent, but that Joana is a real live findable child.

I don't know where this "child's bloodied hand print on the wall" idea came from aside from mangled leaks to tabloids.

The PJ visited the house with a black torch. A black torch will show traces of any biological human fluid, including sweat. They (rightly) took swabs and found some traces of blood in that spot. There is no way of knowing whether a) it was an identifiable hand-print or a fluorescent area by a light switch worthy of checking, b) hers, c) specks of blood that could have been deposited at any time by anyone who lived there within that general fluorescent patch, the rest being potentially anyone's sweaty hand touching the area...

None of the blood traces found (anywhere in that home) were identified as belonging to her, as far as I'm aware.

[Wonderfulspam]

I don't know where this "child's bloodied hand print on the wall" idea came from aside from mangled leaks to tabloids.

The PJ visited the house with a black torch. A black torch will show traces of any biological human fluid, including sweat. They (rightly) took swabs and found some traces of blood in that spot. There is no way of knowing whether a) it was an identifiable hand-print or a fluorescent area by a light switch worthy of checking, b) hers, c) specks of blood that could have been deposited at any time by anyone who lived there within that general fluorescent patch, the rest being potentially anyone's sweaty hand touching the area...

None of the blood traces found (anywhere in that home) were identified as belonging to her, as far as I'm aware.

Just coincidence wasn't it, blood on the walls, Joana never being seen again.

She's alive & out there isn't she!

[Carana]

Just coincidence wasn't it, blood on the walls, Joana never being seen again.

She's alive & out there isn't she!

No one knows. She might be alive, or perhaps not.  It might be a total coincidence that this child disappeared so close to where Madeleine disappeared, or it might not be.

In the absence of any evidence of death in either case, as opposed to a plethora of - IMO - implausible and unsubstantiated theories leaked to the press and an inadequate defence in the Cipriano trial, a potential connection would seem to be a viable route to explore, even if only to eliminate it.

[Carana]

Just coincidence wasn't it, blood on the walls, Joana never being seen again.

She's alive & out there isn't she!

"Blood on the walls" - which walls? When was it deposited? Would a blood speck be incompatible with a nicked finger by any occupant at some point in time? Whose blood?

[Wonderfulspam]

They confessed, they were found guilty by however many Jurors it was, because it's bleedin obvious that the fair haired Joana isn't anything other than dead.

Funny how only it's only McCann supporters here who believe she's alive & was abducted, ain't it.

There's a reason for that.

[Carana]

There were only 4 jury members, btw, with no evidence of a bias selection test. There were lynch mobs in front of the court house during one hearing, thanks to media speculation, fuelled by PJ "leaks". There was no countering expertise offered and so they didn't have much to go on.

[Wonderfulspam]

There were only 4 jury members, btw, with no evidence of a bias selection test. There were lynch mobs in front of the court house during one hearing, thanks to media speculation, fuelled by PJ "leaks". There was no countering expertise offered and so they didn't have much to go on.

The court heard the evidence which 40 some odd witnesses gave, including a taped confession from her uncle that the pair of them had bashed err up & she hit her head on the wall & he chopped her into bits.

That evidence.

[Carana]

The court heard the evidence which 40 some odd witnesses gave, including a taped confession from her uncle that the pair of them had bashed err up & she hit her head on the wall & he chopped her into bits.

That evidence.

Ah, you must also mean the testimony of the majority of the 40-odd witness statements that were neutral or positive about her as a mum, but which certain bloggers never found time to translate? That evidence?

[Wonderfulspam]

That's your opinion, but it's still not clear what evidence, if any, you are basing your judgement on.

The court heard the evidence which 40 some odd witnesses gave, including a taped confession from her uncle that the pair of them had bashed err up & she hit her head on the wall & he chopped her into bits.

That evidence.

[Anna]

That's your opinion, but it's still not clear what evidence, if any, you are basing your judgement on.

Some like to give their opinions without having researched one little bit of the evidence..................Just they dunnit to everything on here, it seems.I cant understand that!