Did the PJ do a reconstitution after Joana Cipriano disappeared?
I believe they did misty.
Thanks. I just wondered whether, if they had, it proved to be of use in that investigation.What did the police get them to "reconstitute" I wonder...?
What did the police get them to "reconstitute" I wonder...?
What did the police get them to "reconstitute" I wonder...?
From RTP October 2008 :
"Leonor and her brother confessed the crime to the PJ. João Cipriano even participated in a video reconstitution where he explained with the kitchen stool, how the girl was killed in a beating and where she hit her head against the wall. The images filmed by the PJ were shown in court against the protest of the defense attorneys."
So the only reconstitution was the alleged act of manslaughter itself and not the movements of the accused people on the night Joana disappeared?
You mean murder don't you misty ?
So the only reconstitution was the alleged act of manslaughter itself and not the movements of the accused people on the night Joana disappeared?
Ah, just a reconstitution of how he done it. Probably to avoid another beating. Did they do it On Site? In the Pig Pen? Or was it in a car sent for scrap? Or halfway up a mountain? They never did decide where.
Was he beaten then Eleanor ?
Quite possibly. Everyone else was. Why should he have been left out? Leandro Silva say he was. And I actually believe him. But Leandro didn't give in.
You make it sound like Portugal just ten years ago was the equivalent of the worst South American states in the 70s with their disappearring of thousands of people and torture, steady on
From RTP October 2008 :How very macabre. Do the PJ always get murderers to take part in video reconstitutions of their crimes? for what purpose I wonder?
"Leonor and her brother confessed the crime to the PJ. João Cipriano even participated in a video reconstitution where he explained with the kitchen stool, how the girl was killed in a beating and where she hit her head against the wall. The images filmed by the PJ were shown in court against the protest of the defense attorneys."
Quite possibly. Everyone else was. Why should he have been left out? Leandro Silva say he was. And I actually believe him. But Leandro didn't give in.
No. No cause of death could be proven.
Leandro Silva only said he was beaten after a large compensation cheque was wiggled in front of his nose by Correia.
Tell me Eleanor when does the case against the PJ officers who 'beat up' JC and LS come to court ?
I don't find that "common experience" that children normally get home safely is evidence that this particular child did.
There obviously ARE cases in which abused children have been the subject of investigations into false abduction scenarios. I'm aware of that. However, in this case, I can't see anything to support that this was the case.
There is simply no significant evidence to support what is alleged to have happened to this child.
On the other hand, there IS evidence that the media turned against the Ciprianos once the Faro boys arrived in Portimão.
Pwhat changed was the mccann involvement of Correia via Metardo3, and we know who employed them.
The national media frenzy against the Ciprianos was in 2004 / 2005. The police disciplinary sanction against Cristovão (and presumably the one concerning Amaral) also date back to 2005.
The T9 hadn't even set foot in the country by then.
Not sure what point you're trying to make Carana. Even if there was a media frenzy in 2004/2005, and evidence of this has yet to be posted, are you saying the judge's were swayed by that frenzy ?
The judges in the cipriano case were in a very difficult position. Several serving police officers had claimed that both the ciprianos had voluntarily confessed. A not guilty verdict would be calling a whole group of PJ officers liars...pervertors of course of justice...torturers...when they had little evidence at the time to make this call.
later all those accusations turned out to be true
it make you question the Portuguese justice system...even though it was proved at a later date that the pj officers involved were a bunch of lying torturers the conviction was allowed to stand
The judges in the cipriano case were in a very difficult position. Several serving police officers had claimed that both the ciprianos had voluntarily confessed. A not guilty verdict would be calling a whole group of PJ officers liars...pervertors of course of justice...torturers...when they had little evidence at the time to make this call.
later all those accusations turned out to be true
it make you question the Portuguese justice system...even though it was proved at a later date that the pj officers involved were a bunch of lying torturers the conviction was allowed to stand
That is the most alarming aspect of the whole Cipriano conviction, that and the fact that Leonor's sentence was actually prolonged slightly because she was (later) deemed not to have got her story entirely straight while being tortured to a point of near blindness with a bag over her head ...
That is the most alarming aspect of the whole Cipriano conviction, that and the fact that Leonor's sentence was actually prolonged slightly because she was (later) deemed not to have got her story entirely straight while being tortured to a point of near blindness with a bag over her head ...It's also odd that despite the fact that the judge found that she had been tortured no one faced prosecution for this offence and consequently no McCann sceptic will accept that she was tortured.
I don't find that "common experience" that children normally get home safely is evidence that this particular child did.
There obviously ARE cases in which abused children have been the subject of investigations into false abduction scenarios. I'm aware of that. However, in this case, I can't see anything to support that this was the case.
There is simply no significant evidence to support what is alleged to have happened to this child.
On the other hand, there IS evidence that the media turned against the Ciprianos once the Faro boys arrived in Portimão.
It's also odd that despite the fact that the judge found that she had been tortured no one faced prosecution for this offence and consequently no McCann sceptic will accept that she was tortured.
That is the most alarming aspect of the whole Cipriano conviction, that and the fact that Leonor's sentence was actually prolonged slightly because she was (later) deemed not to have got her story entirely straight while being tortured to a point of near blindness with a bag over her head ...
Conveniently you ignored the fact that the missing girls shoes were found at home as were the items she purchased from the shop shortly before disappearing. As if this wasn't enough, she was seen walking home by a female neighbour who saw her from her window vantage point.
Wrong...she got the longer sentence because she initially claimed to have killed her daughter whilst also declaring that her brother João was merely an accessory after the fact.Was this a claim made under torture?
Not sure what point you're trying to make Carana. Even if there was a media frenzy in 2004/2005, and evidence of this has yet to be posted, are you saying the judge's were swayed by that frenzy ?
Conveniently you ignored the fact that the missing girls shoes were found at home as were the items she purchased from the shop shortly before disappearing. As if this wasn't enough, she was seen walking home by a female neighbour who saw her from her window vantage point.
Was this a claim made under torture?
Do read up on this case Alf, she confessed before an examining magistrate BEFORE being remanded in custody ie before she was beaten.
That isn't true..... Could you supply a source for that claim
Do read up on this case Alf, she confessed before an examining magistrate BEFORE being remanded in custody ie before she was beaten.
Conveniently you ignored the fact that the missing girls shoes were found at home as were the items she purchased from the shop shortly before disappearing. As if this wasn't enough, she was seen walking home by a female neighbour who saw her from her window vantage point.
Yes it is true and that is why the magistrate remanded her in custody while releasing João on bail. You really need to get past the fact that Leonor confessed to having killed her daughter, later retracted it after Marcos Correia took over the case and then blamed her brother for the killing.
Maybe you also want to bury your head in the sand in respect of the life the girl had in the years prior to her murder?
Do read up on this case Alf, she confessed before an examining magistrate BEFORE being remanded in custody ie before she was beaten.So what is the evidence against her confession then?
How strange that she apparently calmly confessed to the major crime of murder to the nice policemen - but then for some inexplicable reason would not say where the body was - even after the most brutal torture.
There can only be one reason for that IMO - which is because she didn't know, because she didn't murder her daughter - and all the torturing in the world could not change that.
IMO It's nonsense to suggest that she would subject herself to such horrendous torture, once she had confessed to murder.
Do read up on this case Alf, she confessed before an examining magistrate BEFORE being remanded in custody ie before she was beaten.
You claim it's true but cannot supply a source. As far as I remember this has been discussed before and is NOT true
Can you supply a source or is this statement just a myth
Are these facts?
Or are these points made in Cristavio's (sp?) book?
This alleged initial confession (to a lesser charge) took place before the black and blue bashing session, yes. However, Leandro did state that she'd said she'd been beaten into it. In court he was asked if he'd noticed any bruising on her face or arms at that time, to which he replied that he hadn't.
I don't know if that was in his book or not as I've only read a summary of it in English. However, there was indeed a witness who stated that shoes of that colour had been found at home.
Yes it is true and that is why the magistrate remanded her in custody while releasing João on bail. You really need to get past the fact that Leonor confessed to having killed her daughter, later retracted it after Marcos Correia took over the case and then blamed her brother for the killing.
Maybe you also want to bury your head in the sand in respect of the life the girl had in the years prior to her murder?
The confession, the retraction and the attempts to incriminate her brother speak volumes as to the sort of woman we are dealing with when it comes to Leonor Cipriano. Her lies got her a further perjury conviction which says it all.
They both incriminated the other. To me, that smacks of potential police psychological manipulation.
I haven't found anything to suggest a history of physical abuse.
Joana's aunt was taken to the family home by the PJ and she identified the shoes which the poor girl normally wore out. If I recall correctly they were found under the settee and had specks of human blood on them.
...or they are both as guilty as each other. 8((()*/
Neglect and abandonment. It was only in the latter stages of her short life that things began to improve for Joana, when Leandro became involved as step father. Prior to that social services and the schools were involved in attempts to improve Joana's lot.
I wondered how Leonor Cipriano managed to endure such a beating...the answers obvious. The beating was to reveal where the body was...she didn't know so she couldn't tell them...she had no knowledge of where Joanna was...if she had she would have told the PJ...She is innocent
Absolute bull Dave. No matter which Leonor story one chooses to believe it was João who disposed of Joana's remains so not at all surprising that Leonor herself could not identify that location. As for innocent, that is definitely something she is not.
If you set aside the potentially dodgy "reconstruction", what evidence is there that even João was involved in whatever happened to this child?
I wondered how Leonor Cipriano managed to endure such a beating...the answers obvious. The beating was to reveal where the body was...she didn't know so she couldn't tell them...she had no knowledge of where Joanna was...if she had she would have told the PJ...She is innocent
I'm trying to find any indication that anything had been sent to the INML for DNA analysis. Genuine query.
The PJ forensic unit would have been able to distinguish human blood from animal blood or semen from saliva (although they got that wrong on a subsequent case)... but did anything get sent to the INML?
If you set aside the potentially dodgy "reconstruction", what evidence is there that even João was involved in whatever happened to this child?
A few things including both his and Leonor's statements but the most damning evidence of his involvement was his attempts to find the child's remains after he supposedly disposed of her.
Tell me Carana, what sane, innocent person takes police out to find a body if they are completely innocent of any involvement in her disappearance and don't even try the coercion card because frankly, it is tiresome.
Someone who is cunning and takes sadistic pleasure in taunting the PJ? But according to Leandro, João was fond of his niece and his IQ doesn't appear to have been high enough to outsmart them.Why does anyone own up to a crime they didn't commit? It's not that unheard of is it?
Someone who is guilty but was so drunk or high that they couldn't remember? No one noticed anything odd about him that night. The upstairs neighbour didn't hear any unusual noises...
Someone who is guilty, but expects a lower sentence through cooperating? I doubt that the PJ didn't try that one.
Or someone who is innocent, but terrified of the PJ (or the threat of being accidentally-on-purpose left to the mercy of fellow inmates). He wasn't the only person the PJ came to get to take them to wherever their latest idea was.
Why does anyone own up to a crime they didn't commit? It's not that unheard of is it?
I'm trying to find the date of this reconstruction. Reading the ruling, it doesn't specify, but would certainly appear to be after the PJ had first waved their black torch around.
My own attempt at an improvement on Googlish (feel free to correct):
Witness CC3, coordinator of the PJ criminal investigation, said they began investigating the case nine days after the disappearance of CC, as the case was classified as a crime of kidnapping / abduction. He took note of the statements made by the GNR and viewed television interviews and soon wondered about the posture / attitude (?) of the mother, who wore black and appeared to be lying, as she spoke of her daughter in the past tense. They began taking statements and decided to go and examine BB's house . When they arrived they saw that the interior of the house had been washed , and such washing contrasted with the lax state of cleanliness and tidiness of the rest of the house , but they were still able to find blood traces on the floor, the walls, on the bucket and mop and on the soles of some shoes that were in the living-room - the witness confirmed the record of the search and seizure of fls . 173 . When the test results were conclusive in the sense that these were traces of human blood and a mixture of human and animal blood , they arrested the defendants , AA having been arrested in Cacela . He also stated that with the help of defendant AA, they proceeded to the findings of fact as stated in pages 273 etc. , the content of which he confirmed as he was present at the diligence . He confirmed that the configuration of the house shown in the plan on p. 294 and the door which gives access to the street has a knob on the outside that allows immediate entry to the residence . He said that following this reconstitution, and following the indications of defendant AA, they searched extensively, but unsuccessfully for the child's body at a landfill land and elsewhere in Mexilhoeira Grande, a dump (lixeira?), in Poco Barreto , smashed-up cars in II [Leandro] 's stepfather's scrapyard and in Silves . He confirmed the [forensic] search, via the Projectina technique, of the traces in the living-room of defendant BB's home , which resulted in the records of the signs photographed in on pp. 896, etc.. The witness also confirmed the search and seizure recorded in the file on pp . 578-580 ( a freezer ) in which a trace of human blood was collected, pointing out that this trace of human blood was collected inside the drawer , to be precise, on the back panel of the freezer's second drawer.
A testemunha CC3 , coordenador de investigação criminal da P.J., declarou que começaram a investigar o caso passados 9 dias do desaparecimento da CC, sendo que o caso estava classificado como crime de sequestro/rapto. Tomou conhecimento das declarações prestadas na GNR e visionou as entrevistas televisivas, estranhando logo a postura da mãe, que vestia de preto e parecia estar a mentir, sendo que falava da filha no passado. Começaram a tomar declarações e decidiram ir examinar a casa da BB. Quando lá chegaram viram que o interior da habitação tinha sido lavado, sendo que tal lavagem contrastava com o desleixo de limpeza e arrumação do resto da casa, mas mesmo assim ainda encontraram vestígios hemáticos no chão, nas paredes, no balde e esfregona e na sola de umas sapatilhas que estavam na sala - a testemunha confirmou o auto de busca e apreensão de fls. 173. Quando o resultado dos exames foi conclusivo no sentido de que esses vestígios eram de sangue humano e mistura de sangue humano e animal, detiveram os arguidos, tendo o AA sido detido em Cacela. Declarou também que com o auxílio do arguido AA procederam à reconstituição dos factos como consta do auto de fls. 273 ss, cujo teor confirmou pois que esteve presente na diligência. 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. Disse ainda que na sequência desta reconstituição, e seguindo indicações do arguido AA, procuraram o corpo da menor num aterro de terra e noutros locais da Mexilhoeira Grande, numa lixeira, em Poço Barreto, nos carros acidentados existentes na sucata do padrasto do II e em Silves, locais onde procuraram exaustivamente mas sem êxito. Confirmou ainda a pesquisa pela técnica denominada Projectina de vestígios na sala da casa da arguida BB, de onde resultou o apuramento dos sinais fotografados nos autos a fls. 896 ss. A testemunha confirmou também o auto de busca e apreensão junto aos autos de fls. 578 a 580 (arca frigorífica) e que no interior da arca foi recolhido um vestígio hemático da espécie humana, realçando que este vestígio de sangue humano foi recolhido no interior da gaveta, concretamente no painel de trás da segunda gaveta da arca.
http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/bfaf1cea93ab75fb8025716200388d89?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,cipriano
Date of recon Carana.
This version, counted yesterday to DN by what he heard from the mouth of the stepfather of joana, eventually counteract the content of the reconstitution of the alleged crime, made last Saturday 25th by uncle of joana, John Cyprian, held in preventive detention.
Sorry, haven't replied to the above posts but will do so shortly, however, consider the following.
Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, realistically, there can only be a couple of possibilities in this case. Joana didn't run off with the groceries so we are left with foul play.
The original admission by Leonor was that she assaulted daughter Joana and she succumbed to a head injury. This is very possible and is supported by the attempt to wash the kitchen walls and the unidentified miniscule specks of human blood found thereon. Leonor further claimed that she asked her brother João to take the child's body out the back and hide it meantime in some wasteland. João for his part never denied this story and still doesn't as far as I am aware. Various other scenarios for disposal of her body were investigated including searches of a canal bank nearby, searches of various dumps including a scrapyard belonging to another member of the extended family. It was even suggested that the girls remains were put in a car which was sent off for crushing. Regardless of all these, not a single trace has ever been found of Joana.
Prior to her appeal against conviction, Leonor made a written declaration to the court in which she stated that she wanted to come clean and tell the truth at last. By doing so she admitted to having lied to police and committed perjury, she was subsequently prosecuted for having lied to the Court.
In this declaration, Leonor stated that the assault story was a fabrication by her and João, that the truth was that they had hatched a plan to sell Joana to some foreigners (Germans I believe) and that to this end João had taken the girl up into the hills and to an old ruin where the exchange was supposed to have taken place. According to Leonor, the deal somehow went wrong and Joana ended up dead. This according to Leonor was what João told her.
Could it be that the child trafficking story was true and that the deal was successfully achieved?
Is it possible that João told Leonor a lie about Joana's fate?
Is that why although João went along with the original story, he has NEVER been able to find remains?
Did João do the dirty on his own sister?
(http://cdn.cmjornal.xl.pt/2015-04/img_757x426$2015_04_10_01_30_30_445844.jpg)
João Cipriano escorted into Court. Inset: Missing youngster Joana Cipriano.
(http://cdn.cmjornal.xl.pt/2013-04/img_757x426$2013_04_02_15_21_00_242183.jpg)
Mother of the missing child, Leonor Cipriano arrives at Court.
Thanks Anna, do you have a link to the original?
- When did this "come clean" issue first arise?
Sorry for delay carana, I have visitors. Will this do?
29 sep 2004 CM wed
with the authorities provided that, at the time of reconstitution of crime (on Saturday), if his countenance fell to confess their participation in assaults on the child.
Due to these declarations, the man returned to be arrested, having appeared then in the reconstitution of murder (the house where they will be given the crime) its proponent officious, Sara Rosado. After a conversation with the lawyer John Cyprian have opted for silence.
The CM has succeeded yesterday contact the advocate of the alleged co-author of the murder of the young girl, which however also mentioned the secret of Justice not to make any statements. The same argument outside, incidentally, used the day before by John sheffield Pacheco, defender officiously of mother of joananna.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/atualidade/mae-de-joana-recebe-assistencia-no-hospital-de-faro
Hi Anna. Thanks, but the date of this recon still isn't clear to me. The link is dead, but the title refers to her being taken to Faro hospital (which never happened, but never mind). She WAS taken the the Odemira infirmary, but that was in October.
Thanks John, but that trial was years after the Supreme Court ruling on the murder case. And what I'm questioning is the logic of the SC ruling (on here and on the other thread).
A lot of the articles have been deleted for some reason.
Leonor did go the hospital in sept before the time in October and a reconstruct of questioning neighbours in figueira did happen in early October. However the butchering video was in September and Leonor also went to hospital around that time whilst being interrogated. It was dismissed as monthly ailment.
29 sep 2004 CM wed
The mother of joana, Leonor Cipriano, will have already been assisted twice District Hospital of Faro (HDF), provided that, on Saturday 24.25, it was decreed to preventive detention, second found the CM from hospital sources.
The woman, accused of killing her own daughter and is now awaiting trial in Prison of Odemira, presented complaints of stomach pains. The clinical director of HDF and the Prison Services only confirm, however, a trip to the hospital.
According to hospital sources, Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano, 33 years of age, was conducted to the HDF in monday 27th and again yesterday. The woman would submit complaints of "strong pain in the belly" and have been subject to medical examinations to determine the reason of sorrows. On the day of yesterday, Leonor Cipriano have remained under observation at least up to the middle of the afternoon.
For its part, the clinical director of HDF, Larguito Clear, confirms the movement of Leonor Cipriano to hospital on Monday 27th sep, but belies his comeback in day yesterday. According to this responsibility, the mother of joana was assisted on Monday night: "She gave entry by 20h25 and left shortly after".
As part of the Prison Service, the information transmitted to the CM was similar to the clinical director of HDF, i.e. the mother of joana was only conducted at the hospital on Monday, after having said that she felt bad. After being assisted, the woman returned to the prison of Odemira, where she is to be accompanied by a doctor.
Leonor Cipriano is under detention since last Saturday, by determination of the judge of the criminal Court of instruction Portimao Ana Soares.
The woman is awaiting trial in Prison of Odemira - the only female prison existing in the South of the Country -, under special security measures, being avoided in particular the contact with the other female inmates. The care taken by Prison Services result from the fact that in prisons who practice crimes against children are accustomed be poorly received by other inmates.
UNCLE CHOOSES THE MUTE
The uncle of joana, John Cyprian, will have passed to adopt a cautious stance and nothing cooperative with the authorities provided that, at the time of reconstitution of crime (on Saturday), if his countenance fell to confess their participation in assaults on the child.
Due to these declarations, the man returned to be arrested, having appeared then in the reconstitution of murder (the house where they will be given the crime) its proponent officious, Sara Rosado. After a conversation with the lawyer John Cyprian have opted for silence.
The CM has succeeded yesterday contact the advocate of the alleged co-author of the murder of the young girl, which however also mentioned the secret of Justice not to make any statements. The same argument outside, incidentally, used the day before by John sheffield Pacheco, defender officiously of mother of joananna.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/atualidade/mae-de-joana-recebe-assistencia-no-hospital-de-faro
I thought you wanted to know what Leonor was now claiming since you appear to believe her innocent of something?
That's interesting, Anna. Was she taken to Faro hospital in September before the slippery PJ stairs in October, then?
That's interesting, Anna. Was she taken to Faro hospital in September before the slippery PJ stairs in October, then?
Link as promised, Carana. ... re Leonor hospital
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2977.msg123753#msg123753
The links to the articles with the date as "25th sept have all been banished. I will look elsewhere though.
I was originally replying to one of your posts.
I'm not taking much notice of the new (unsubstantiated) "confessions" in the torture trial. I accept that she was tortured while in PJ custody and that she couldn't identify who the officers were. So did the the court and the PJ disciplinary unit way before the trial.
Beyond that, I have doubts... Correia admitted that he'd tricked João into signing a confession note with some strange story that nasty people were going to murder him if he didn't. Or something.
I don't know whether Leonor's confession was spontaneous or whether someone advised her to invent a story in the hope of reducing her sentence to roughly the term she'd already served. As her lawyer, Correia should have known that the court wouldn't accept these new "confessions" anyway, and should have advised her against it, so I've no idea what he was playing at.
I notice you are undecided still as to Leonor's guilt Carana, surely she couldn't possibly be innocent given her various claims and statements?
(https://crimedigoeu.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/joana.jpg)
Shortly after Joana's disappearance Leonor Cipriano pictured with one of her
younger children holds up a poster of the missing girl for the benefit of the Press.
When I first heard of the case, I assumed that it was one of these awful child abuse sagas. It wasn't until I started reading more about PJ heavy-handed interrogation techniques that I began to wonder.
The translated parts of the Supreme Court ruling are all the negative bits, but then I stumbled across the original. There were numerous neutral to positive statements, which I hadn't seen before. No one had ever heard her even raise her voice at the child, let alone whack her.
Then, when I had a look at the summary of the forensics and the associated witness statements, I was gobsmacked. There just just nothing indicative of anything more than what would be found in any household.
It's not just that there is room for reasonable doubt, I find it to be the other way around: the possibility that the alleged events actually happened as described isn't even really plausible.
So you think Leonor's brother, who previously served a sentence for attempted murder, incapable of hurting the girl? Could it be that Leonor covered for him in the beginning knowing that should he be convicted of assault again that they might lock him up and throw away the key?
I agree that there is no record of violence by Leonor, just a history of abandonment and neglect of her children.
So you think Leonor's brother, who previously served a sentence for attempted murder, incapable of hurting the girl? Could it be that Leonor covered for him in the beginning knowing that should he be convicted of assault again that they might lock him up and throw away the key?
I agree that there is no record of violence by Leonor, just a history of abandonment and neglect of her children.
I'm not sure about neglect, but, yes, she'd left her other children with relatives of the fathers' families. Don't forget, however, that she'd had only three years of schooling and no means of supporting herself and various children. There doesn't appear to have been any investigation as to whether there had been domestic violence in those households or not... so there's no way of knowing why she left.
Her life became more settled when she met Leandro and they appear to have been happy together.
Naquela unidade de saúde as hemorragias e dores abdominais provocadas por “alegadas lesões internas” resultantes das ditas agressões policiais de que disse ter sido vítima, foram desmascaradas pelos exames médicos:as manchas de sangue detectadas na cadeira onde se sentara nessa tarde, eram simplesmente vestígios do fluxo menstrual.
Erm... this is CdaM after all. She was taken to hospital complaining of alleged internal lesions due to police conduct, but medical examinations showed that the seat she'd been on simply showed traces of menstrual flow.
Really? Do interrogation chairs normally get taken to hospital for medical analysis?
Note to self: The dates need to be worked out. She was taken to Faro on the Monday (supposedly), but when was the interrogation that led to this initial supposed confession? It's feasible that the pain got progressively worse and was taken a day or two later. Or are the dates wrong in the article?
Where is there any mention of the medical report on that in the ruling?
Then, when I had a look at the summary of the forensics and the associated witness statements, I was gobsmacked. There is just nothing indicative of anything more than what would be found in any household.
I agree with most of what you posted Anna, I wonder if Joana was sent out to a shop on the other side of the village to get her out of the way for a while but she came back too quick?
Both João and Leonor were involved in the girls demise for one reason or another. They were both in the house when the girl returned home, each blamed the other at different junctures.
João has already been out a couple of times on escorted home leave and Leonor will be doing the same in the near future. I am confident we haven't heard the last of it from Leonor, maybe the truth will out yet.
If she'd gone elsewhere, why would Celia have corroborated that she'd been there, unless she'd also been sent elsewhere for something else. What other shop would have been open? Did the PJ investigate? If so, there doesn't appear to be anything about this other errand in the SC ruling.
What like blood everywhere and semen in kids nickers? Sure
She only shopped in Célia's cafe/patisserie to my knowledge which is in the other side of the village from the family home.
That's my understanding as well. Was any nearer shop open? If not, I don't see the potential issue.
I agree with most of what you posted Anna, I wonder if Joana was sent out to a shop on the other side of the village to get her out of the way for a while but she came back too quick?
Both João and Leonor were involved in the girls demise for one reason or another. They were both in the house when the girl returned home, each blamed the other at different junctures.
João has already been out a couple of times on escorted home leave and Leonor will be doing the same in the near future. I am confident we haven't heard the last of it from Leonor, maybe the truth will out yet.
For the moment, I'm going with Helena Machado's research that the reconstruction took place on 7 October. She's a well-known sociologist and I have no reason to believe that she wouldn't have checked the facts, even if it was a detail.
I hope the truth will come out eventually, John.
That depends on whether Leonor is capable of coping, strong enough to fight and has learned to look after herself better, whilst she was in prison....She is probably too scared to open her mouth though.
She should have had a fund to fight the allegations directed at her (with no hard evidence) which resulted in her being imprisoned and being separated from her babies.
It was a fair day, all the shops were open.
Why did she not report her daughter missing until the following morning ?
That is not normal behaviour.
I would love to interview her some day and get to the bottom of this mystery, there are just so many unanswered questions.
Why did she not report her daughter missing until the following morning ?
That is not normal behaviour.
Why did she not report her daughter missing until the following morning ?
That is not normal behaviour.
Especially when they would have passed officers from the GNR on fair duty anyway when supposedly out searching. The 'no credit on the mobile phone' story just doesn't hold water either, had her daughter really have gone missing she only had to ask someone to phone the police for her. Also, if Joana had really gone missing why weren't the immediate neighbours alerted to join the search? Convenient too that Leonor took Leandro out searching and left João in the house with the babies.
That's fair enough Carana. So you believe that his video confession on that date was not acted upon until the confession on 25th in front of the magistrate?
She would tell you the same as she told Marcos. IMO
............................that her brother followed Joana after she went out and he returned about 30 minutes later. Joana never returned.
Knowing that his sister was rather backward/slow and forgiving/gentle, I think he might have told her what happened, as in Leonor's 2009 confession and she was initially protecting him.......until he stabbed her in the back that is.
However where in such a short time, could he lose a body?
As in McCann case, there was a lot of building going on and ditches to be filled in the area.
Joao worked in Figueira in construction at times, not that I am saying that he put her in a ditch prepared for filling, just one of my many thoughts on the case.
Was she sold and he didn't want to part with any of the money?
He accused Leandros parents of being involved in the money
He also accused his brother of being involved
and of course he accused, Leonor
In the end it all boils down to evidence and there was nothing with which to safely convict them. Their trial consisted of Propaganda causing a trial by media before it even got to court. The final straw was that video made by Joao and shown in court despite their right to remain silent during the trial.
Despite my initial assumptions, and having thought of all kinds of possibilities, I now don't think that either of them have a clue what happened to her.
Even if one of them had sold her, why "confess" to this macabre body chopping scenario? There is simply no forensic or other credible evidence that this gory story happened. There is no evidence that either of them attempted to sell her, either.
Under pressure, I can however see that each had become suspicious of the other... but it doesn't appear to more than that.
She simply vanished.
There is a witness statement from a GNR officer gathering information from her and the men searching for her that night at a bit after midnight near the church. She was told to make a formal report later that morning at the Portimão station, which she did.
Here we go:
A testemunha AA6, militar da GNR, declarou que nessa noite decorria o festival do berbigão na Figueira e que após a chamada da D. NN encontrou-se com a arguida BB, o II e outro indivíduo, junto à igreja, tendo a mãe contado que a CC tinha desaparecido, referindo que a tinha mandado ao café e que a última vez que a menor tinha sido vista tinha sido ali, também junto à igreja. A testemunha disse-lhe que no dia seguinte teria que ir ao Posto em Portimão formalizar a queixa. Declarou ainda a testemunha que a mãe não aparentava muita preocupação para um caso destes.
A testemunha AA7, militar da GNR, referiu que no dia 13 de Setembro de 2004, no Posto da GNR de Portimão, entre as 10h 30m / 11h, recebeu a queixa do desaparecimento da CC. Foi a mãe que fez a queixa, acompanhada do arguido AA. A arguida BB aparentava tristeza, mas não chorou. A testemunha recebeu as fotografias que a mãe levava e perguntou-lhe se havia motivos para a CC fugir de casa ou se tinha algumas desconfianças, a tudo tendo a arguida BB respondido que não.
That café was their regular shop for groceries I believe and Joana liked to go there, because the owners daughter was her friend.
Witnesses said that the streets were empty because everyone was at the cockle fair. The only traffic that seems to have been noticed was a large black car that was cruising around the area on that day. Also the tow truck and a red car that Leandro was dealing with for his parents.
If my daughter had gone missing, I would not be waiting for the following morning.
How old was she by the way ?
I don't know Anna. I suspect that the video confession was well after the initial "confessions", i.e., on or around 7 October - that seems to be the only reliable reference for the moment.
Leandro doesn't mention a date (but if he was the only one to have a key, it was presumably after Leonor had been held on remand). The SC ruling doesn't appear to mention a date, either.
She met with the police that night, but they told her to go make a formal report the next morning.
Did she search for her daughter that night ?
Did she search for her daughter that night ?
Yes.
Yes she did, Stephen. All night.
When, and for how long ?
A cite would be, rather than hearsay.
Here you go, the Supreme Court ruling if that's good enough.
http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/bfaf1cea93ab75fb8025716200388d89?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,cipriano
The translation is little short of gibberish.
Is there any independent verification she searched through the night for her daughter ?
Do you mean aside from witness testimonies in a court of law? What would you be looking for?
She didn't go out immediately as she had the toddlers at home, but sent her brother out when she didn't get back home. The brother alerted the other two men (her partner and the other guy who iived with them). They checked back home that she hadn't returned and went back out to search. When they still hadn't found her, she went out. Witnesses: the bar / shop lady, various other people, the police that night...
In the middle of the night ?
and her brother is hardly a reliable witness, is he.
How do we know that she, her brother and this other man told the truth ?
I've posted a summary on the other recent thread on here.
Are you saying that the cafe / shop lady was lying? That the GNR cop was lying?
There's no cctv evidence, Stephen, so all there is to go on is witness statements.
Aside, seemingly, from amateur footage of the festival that showed Leandro (her partner) away from home during the supposed fateful home event time.
Were they with her when she searched ?
Were they with her when she searched ?
The shop lady was and then another brother of Leonor met up with Leonor, Leandro and leandro's friend. The GNR officer was met sometime after midnight and Leonor spoke to him about her missing daughter.
There is only media reports and statements to go on, Stephen.
If you are interested I will see what I can find, but there is an awful lot of information already on here. Try doing a couple of searches.
15 sep 2004 cm
"She is a young girl quiet, docile and very understanding" ,she stressed to the CM Ofélia Zepherin, owner of the coffee shop where the child was fetching the milk and the cans of tuna, before disappearing (two people say she was seen next to the church) on the way back to the house, pointing out that "in the village everyone is worried about it and with fear of what might have happened to her, even because you never noted a case like this". Ofélia Zepherin helped, in fact, the family trying to find the child, on the night in which she gave the disappearance, retracing the surroundings, including searching for to finds her among the people that were at the party that was happening in the village. As the searches had no results, on the same night was called the GNR. Other inhabitants pointed out, however, the desire for everything to be clarified, so that the quiet is back to the village.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/crianca-desaparecida
In the end it comes down to what the judges believed or didn't believe.
A while ago I found a link stating that relatives of the prisoners claimed that some of the prisoners attacked/tortured Cipriano, yet if I recall correctly, that was not used in court.
I will have a look for that tomorrow.
Meanwhile time to relax.
Have a good evening.
Her friend from the café went to help and after all relatives etc had been checked, she phoned the police.
Leonor did report it to a GNR officer whilst they were out searching. He told her to go to the office the following day.
Can someone help with the logic of this?
On the other hand, the actions that are part of the reconstitution act are compatible with the blood traces that were collected in the living room (it should be noted that the reconstitution takes place in the living room), as a result of the search and apprehension act that was carried out on the 22th of September 2004 (cfr. pages 173 and 233 and following), which mentions that traces were collected on the floor, near the entrance door, inside and outside, near the interior electrical switch on the right hand side of the entrance door, near the entrance on the left hand side of the sofa, on a pair of trainers belonging to MM [Leandro] Silva that were located between the sofas, on a mop (handle) and its bucket.
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.
(courtesy Joana / Astro for translation).
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.
source: Supreme Court ruling.
Yet, according to the only reliable source that I've found, João's "reconstruction" didn't take place until 7 October.
7 October 04 - reconstruction
A 7 de Outubro de 2004, a Polícia Judiciária
leva o tio da criança a fazer uma reconstituição do crime, onde este, sendo filmado, explica detalhadamente
como a criança morreu e o seu cadáver foi cortado.
http://www.aps.pt/vicongresso/pdfs/700.pdf
Unless the author, a well-known Portuguese sociologist, somehow made a mistake in the date of this "reconstruction", it happened weeks after the PJ flashed a black torch around as a forensic inspection, with presumably a toolkit to test for blood, as that took place on 22 September.
On face value, Therefore, the traces that were collected in the living room reinforce the reliability of the reconstitution. reads as if the reconstruction took place first and THEN the forensic people went to check if it was feasible... and their subsequent forensic analysis to check whether this "spontaneous" attempt to establish the truth gave credence to this "confession" via reconstruction.
My problem is that, unless there's a mistake in the timeline, the PJ flashed a torch around, and did tests in situ to establish presence of blood, PRIOR to this "reconstruction"...
Did Leonor agree to take part in a cover up and the reconstitution in order to protect João believing that if she admitted to having accidentally killed the child that she would get a reduced sentence whereas if he admitted assault with his record that he would get a much heavier sentence?
Thanks.
My issue at the moment is that the so-called confessions may have been made to coincide with the scenario imagined on the basis of having already waved the black torch around and discovering that there were at least a few traces of human blood. I find that to be somewhat akin to getting Amanda Knox to "remember" Lumumba after interminable hours of interrogation and what basicly amounts to brainwashing.
On the other hand, from the other perspective, my view would be completely different if someone really did confess to where a body had been hidden, for example in an unkown location that the police had never thought to search, but then went and discovered a body exactly where the suspect had said it was, with details that had never been revealed to the suspect or leaked to the public.
Joana's stepfather Leandro Silva certainly believes that João Cipriano was capable of just about anything, he states as much in his interview with the Algarve Press. (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3030.msg223358#msg223358)
Certainly, the last statement given by Leonor in 2009 claims that it was her brother João who took the girl away.
Reading between the lines there appears to be several possibilities and each one involves Leonor, João or both of them. It also appears, according to Leandro, that Joana had been at risk from sexual exploitation and had in fact been examined in hospital in respect of this allegation. The finding of sperm in Joana's underwear after her disappearance is forensic evidence which again supports these allegations. Just what the hell was that little girl exposed to?
Leandro also states that Joana was becoming increasingly aggressive towards her mother and was apt to swear at her. Was Joana beginning to realise that what was being done to her was not normal? Did she threaten to expose her abuser and was murdered to keep her quiet?
Did Leonor agree to take part in a cover up and the reconstitution in order to protect João believing that if she admitted to having accidentally killed the child that she would get a reduced sentence whereas if he admitted assault with his record that he would get a much heavier sentence?
Joana's stepfather Leandro Silva certainly believes that João Cipriano was capable of just about anything, he states as much in his interview with the Algarve Press. (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3030.msg223358#msg223358)
Certainly, the last statement given by Leonor in 2009 claims that it was her brother João who took the girl away.
Reading between the lines there appears to be several possibilities and each one involves Leonor, João or both of them. It also appears, according to Leandro, that Joana had been at risk from sexual exploitation and had in fact been examined in hospital in respect of this allegation. The finding of sperm in Joana's underwear after her disappearance is forensic evidence which again supports these allegations. Just what the hell was that little girl exposed to?
Leandro also states that Joana was becoming increasingly aggressive towards her mother and was apt to swear at her. Was Joana beginning to realise that what was being done to her was not normal? Did she threaten to expose her abuser and was murdered to keep her quiet?
Did Leonor agree to take part in a cover up and the reconstitution in order to protect João believing that if she admitted to having accidentally killed the child that she would get a reduced sentence whereas if he admitted assault with his record that he would get a much heavier sentence?
My thoughts too, Carana.
Make the crime fit the scene.
Although I do believe that Joao was capable of committing a crime to feed his habit, I am not too sure that he was involved. However on saying that, I am more inclined to believe the story that was told by Leonor.....That he followed Joanna out and returned a short time later. The rest may be what she thought had occurred, rather than what actually did.
She was so vulnerable and was accustomed to doing whatever was asked of her, by the sound of it.
I also think that she was afraid of Joao.
She was gentle and very immature, whilst he was violent and didn't care who he accused as long as it was for his benefit. (His own mother thought him capable of killing Joana)
He accused his brother and Leandro's family of being involved. He also accused his brother in another crime that he had committed.
Why was Leonor the main suspect, when she had no criminal record? I really think that women are blamed more easily in Portugal.......Weaker sex? Easier to manipulate?
On the potential sexual abuse issue... no idea. It all seems to be a bit of a shambles, with very little that seems verifiable.
- According to some accounts, MM had unprotected sex with his girlfriend on either Joana's bed, or one nearby. Did the forensics do a DNA test to verify?
- Then, there's a story about semen found on her knickers, which was never identified, but could have been contamination due to general laundry being stuffed in the same basket.
- And, there's this somewhat odd justification... that it would have cost €10,000 for a test, which was too much and was therefore never done.
A DNA test doesn't cost €10k, surely?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3050.msg114919#msg114919
I have no idea whether any test for semen ever turned up positive on her knickers or not... nor whether this was ever more than rumour, or whether it was another mistaken test for other fluids. So far, it seems to be one of those nebulous aspects that were never quite clarified.
if a child's knickers had been found in isolation with only her DNA and semen of a male, that would indeed be suspicious. In this case, however, a child's knickers in a laundry basket with that of several adults could reveal semen (or any body fluid mistakenly assumed to be such) in a mix that would be impossible to isolate.
I think it is more than likely that she was afraid of him. He was a complete opposite to her in his personality.
If he was involved, he would have demanded in a threatening manner, in the same way that he warned Leandro, the day after the disappearance...........The same day that he done a runner.
No idea. He may indeed have been a black sheep, but possibly also someone with a learning disability which made him the scapegoat when he found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The family had no problem pointing the finger at him as a possible culprit... but then they were nearly all arguidos as well. He was the vagrant, whereas the others had their own nuclear families to protect. He was known to have used drugs, allegedly, and he had a conviction for violence, although I've never found what the evidence was in that case.
I don't think so, Anna.
He may have been one of those pain-in-the-ass relatives who turn up on your doorstep.
If Leonor had thought that he was going to be violent in any way, why would she have left him at home to babysit the younger kids while she went off to join the others to ask if anyone had seen Joana?
It would have been more sensible to send him off again and stay at home herself. Or not have let him into the house in the first place.
Maybe he refused to go out searching. Leandro asked her to go and search with them..............
Between the devil and the deep blue sea?
Sensible doesn't come into it......................Does it?
I don't think so, Anna.
He may have been one of those pain-in-the-ass relatives who turn up on your doorstep.
If Leonor had thought that he was going to be violent in any way, why would she have left him at home to babysit the younger kids while she went off to join the others to ask if anyone had seen Joana?
It would have been more sensible to send him off again and stay at home herself. Or not have let him into the house in the first place.
2009 appeal
The mother of the Applicant and of John (Florinda Sundays), after faced with the last and true confessions of both, expressly states (on 1 June of this year) that in them entirely believe, given know very well their children and know that Leonor was unable to beat in children, and that John was, on the contrary, a person very violent that even has already threatened her to death, and it was still the same son a consumer of narcotic substances heavy that "was able Do everything to get money for drugs"; ends by stressing its firm certainty with perfect knowledge of question (regarding the personality of both these sons) which is just the Joao Manuel Domingos Cyprian his son "the only responsible" by the disappearance of his granddaughter Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro;
http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/67e9f860c06af1d9802576a9004e4a2c?OpenDocument
LOL the wonders of googlish.
Hmm. I don't think that Leonor was involved in the fate of this child, but I'm sceptical about that new testimony.
Original, if it helps, Carana. From the link in my last post
"Declaração
Eu abaixo assinado [Name removed], portadora do Cartão de Cidadão 0000000, Mãe de AA e de CC , venho por este modo declarar que conheço muito bem ambos estes meus filhos, e que juro que a minha filha AA nunca batia na minha neta BB. Também juro por minha honra que esta minha neta sempre disse o melhor da mãe e que gostava muito de viver com ela. Também juro que conhecendo o meu filho CC como conheço, sei que ele era capaz de fazer tudo para conseguir dinheiro para a droga, pois há muito tempo antes da BB desaparecer que ele não trabalhava e que era consumidor duma droga considerada pesada, não sabendo exactamente se era cocaína ou heroína, mas sendo de certeza uma destas. O CC tornava-se muito violento quando não conseguia a droga e era capaz mesmo de me ameaçar de morte.
Acredito portanto na confissão da AA e do CC, ambos os meus filhos, quando confessaram que a BB minha neta, filha da minha filha AA, foi tentada vender pelo CC. Acredito finalmente que a confissão do CC meu filho, de 18 de Maio deste ano, é verdadeira e é ele o CC o único responsável pelo desaparecimento da minha neta AA de 8 anos. Portanto suplico que seja feita justiça e que a minha filha AA seja libertada e o meu filho CC pague por o que fez à menina.
Montes Grandes Silves
1 de Junho de 2009
Thanks, Anna. So that's the mother of Leonor and João... googlish was getting confusing.
I'm still sceptical about it, though.
A mother's belief in the innocence or guilt of one child over another would simply not count as new "evidence" in a reappraisal of a trial, AFAIK.
It might have counted as a character witness statement in the original trial, if had been submitted at the time, but hardly as hard proof to reopen an investigation or to release a prisoner with a life sentence for having served a sentence for a lesser crime.
Who was responsible for this "brainwave"?
The result for Leonor in the end was an extension on her sentence.
A totally different question, or several:
How big was this house?
How many bedrooms were there?
Where did this MM sleep?
Was he with Leandro the entire time that evening?
Did anyone ask or check?
@ Anna
IMO, if there had been solid evidence against one or the other or both, then fine. This little girl deserves justice, whoever was actually responsible.
However, in terms of the "evidence" presented, I'm shocked that the case went to trial in the first place. One or both MAY indeed be guilty, but there was virtually no more established evidence against them than if the PJ had plucked people off the street. Yet they are serving life sentences...
I believe most of the answers are in the 2006 trial, Carana.
I believe it was two bedrooms and a bathroom
A living/dining area with kitchen
I don’t think it could be a one bedroom if guests used Joana’s bed at times and it doesn’t look big enough for three bedrooms. There was no upper floor. See photos at the bottom/
Now I look at these photos again, I wonder where was the door to the back of the house? Or was that the only door which went straight into the living room as described by PJ.
Which would mean that their house was built behind another with a front door.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe MM normally slept on the settee unless Joana or others wanted to watch late TV. God knows where Joao was suppose to sleep.
MM seemed to around Leandro most of the time, but they did split up to search.
Anna had a good post somewhere on the timeline between when she is supposed to have got back home and the gory rest of it.
I can't find it for the moment...
Its not this one of mine is it?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2853.msg222125#msg222125
Its not this one of mine is it?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2853.msg222125#msg222125
Especially when they would have passed officers from the GNR on fair duty anyway when supposedly out searching. The 'no credit on the mobile phone' story just doesn't hold water either, had her daughter really have gone missing she only had to ask someone to phone the police for her. Also, if Joana had really gone missing why weren't the immediate neighbours alerted to join the search? Convenient too that Leonor took Leandro out searching and left João in the house with the babies.
Joao and Leonor's mother was not called to testify in the original trial. Neither was a statement taken.
2009 appeal was judged and refused in april 2009. It was requested by Marcos C. It was denied because of his method used to get a statement of guilt from Joao.
It was the torture trial that she got an extra penalty for.
They said she was lying because she got the colour of the carrier bag wrong and the material of the tube they were hitting her with. Since torture had already been accepted as having occurred. She should have been acquitted IMO
In that timeline, you missed out that they were supposed to have been having wild sex at the time ;)
Conveniently you ignored the fact that the missing girls shoes were found at home as were the items she purchased from the shop shortly before disappearing. As if this wasn't enough, she was seen walking home by a female neighbour who saw her from her window vantage point.
Yes.
I went through the judgement of the murder trial, which is one of the most bizarre that I've ever read. Joana Morais & co translated half of it, but never got round to the rest, which is neutral to positive about Leonor.