Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => The Disappearance of Portuguese youngster Joana Cipriano (8) from the village of Figueira, near Portimćo, Algarve, on 12 September 2004. => Topic started by: Luz on October 31, 2013, 09:18:19 AM
Title: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on October 31, 2013, 09:18:19 AM
This has been amply discussed, and even though I don't want to disrupt the thread, I hope you understand - I trust you are intelligent enough for that.
If you prefer to believe a convicted child murderer, whose full confession to the PJ was produced in the 13th October in the presence of her lawyer, and weeks later accused she doesn't know how many or who they were, PJs to having tortured her to obtain a confession, on the 14th of October. Only after Aragćo Correia imposed himself to substitute her previous lawyer, by visiting her in Odemira prison, did some names rise. Those alleged aggressors were not even in the building at the time she (or Aragćo Correia) alleged she was beaten. That's the reason why they were acquitted. The only two persons that were convicted were the ones that were present inside the PJ, and even though a crime could not be proven they were condemned for not reporting it. In February 2013, it was proven that Leonor had lied about being tortured inside the PJ, and sentenced for having committed perjury.
Leonor Correia was indeed spanked, but inside the prison of Odemira - but as that was his first lawyer (Joćo Grade) thesis, Aragćo Correia went to the prison, and even writing the letter from Leonor, made her dismiss her lawyer and accept him instead, and changed it to the PJ, because his mission was to "get Amaral", as he confessed at the end of the first Court trial, to the journalists.
1396
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on October 31, 2013, 09:30:59 AM
This has been amply discussed, and even though I don't want to disrupt the thread, I hope you understand - I trust you are intelligent enough for that.
If you prefer to believe a convicted child murderer, whose full confession to the PJ was produced in the 13th October in the presence of her lawyer, and weeks later accused she doesn't know how many or who they were, PJs to having tortured her to obtain a confession. Only after Aragćo Correia imposed himself to substitute her previous lawyer, by visiting her in Odemira prison, did some names rise. Those alleged aggressors were not even in the building at the time she (or Aragćo Correia) alleged she was beaten. The reason why they were acquitted. The only two persons that were convicted were the ones that were present inside the PJ, and even though a crime could not be proven they were condemned for not reporting it. In February 2013, it was proven that Leonor had lied about being tortured inside the PJ, and sentenced for having committed perjury.
Leonor Correia was indeed spanked, but inside the prison of Odemira - but as that was his first lawyer (Joćo Grade) thesis, Aragćo Correia went to the prison, and even writing the letter from Leonor, made her dismiss her lawyer and accept him instead, and changed it to the PJ, because his mission was to "get Amaral", as he confessed at the end of the first Court trial, to the journalists.
Well all you have to do Luz is show us the official statements quashing Amaral's conviction - and also maybe explain why Amaral himself has made no such claim.
IIRC LC was found guilty of mis-identifying her torturers. The fact that torture took place, as established in a court of law, was never in question - only the correct identification of the torturers - which has still to be established.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on October 31, 2013, 09:44:28 AM
Well all you have to do Luz is show us the official statements quashing Amaral's conviction - and also maybe explain why Amaral himself has made no such claim.
IIRC LC was found guilty of mis-identifying her torturers. The fact that torture took place, as established in a court of law, was never in question - only the correct identification of the torturers - which has still to be established.
Inside the jail house. The medical experts identified that her bruises had been produced in different times and later than the date she alleged.
What does it have to do with the PJ?!
Sometimes I wonder if you people are lacking reasoning skills (no insult intended) or just on a mission like good old Aragćo.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on October 31, 2013, 09:46:06 AM
This has been amply discussed, and even though I don't want to disrupt the thread, I hope you understand - I trust you are intelligent enough for that.
If you prefer to believe a convicted child murderer, whose full confession to the PJ was produced in the 13th October in the presence of her lawyer, and weeks later accused she doesn't know how many or who they were, PJs to having tortured her to obtain a confession, on the 14th of October. Only after Aragćo Correia imposed himself to substitute her previous lawyer, by visiting her in Odemira prison, did some names rise. Those alleged aggressors were not even in the building at the time she (or Aragćo Correia) alleged she was beaten. That's the reason why they were acquitted. The only two persons that were convicted were the ones that were present inside the PJ, and even though a crime could not be proven they were condemned for not reporting it. In February 2013, it was proven that Leonor had lied about being tortured inside the PJ, and sentenced for having committed perjury.
Leonor Correia was indeed spanked, but inside the prison of Odemira - but as that was his first lawyer (Joćo Grade) thesis, Aragćo Correia went to the prison, and even writing the letter from Leonor, made her dismiss her lawyer and accept him instead, and changed it to the PJ, because his mission was to "get Amaral", as he confessed at the end of the first Court trial, to the journalists.
Leonor Cipriano was not beaten in prison, as was pointed out by The Governor, whose word I choose to believe against yours. Neither did she confess to murdering her daughter before she was beaten. Otherwise there would have been no need to beat her. A Portuguese Court did rule that she was beaten while in PJ Custody.
Or are you saying that she confessed and then The PJ beat her for a bit of fun?
Her Lawyer was certainly not present when she was beaten. And she was in PJ custody for more than 24 hours. Having a bit of a chat, were they? Your persistent denial of these facts just does not make sense.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on October 31, 2013, 09:51:25 AM
Leonor Cipriano was not beaten in prison, as was pointed out by The Governor, whose word I choose to believe against yours. Neither did she confess to murdering her daughter before she was beaten. Otherwise there would have been no need to beat her. A Portuguese Court did rule that she was beaten while in PJ Custody.
Or are you saying that she confessed and then The PJ beat her for a bit of fun?
Her Lawyer was certainly not present when she was beaten. And she was in PJ custody for more than 24 hours. Having a bit of a chat, were they? Your persistent denial of these facts just does not make sense.
Your defence of an incestuous monster does not make sense.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on October 31, 2013, 09:55:39 AM
Inside the jail house. The medical experts identified that her bruises had been produced in different times and later than the date she alleged.
What does it have to do with the PJ?!
Sometimes I wonder if you people are lacking reasoning skills (no insult intended) or just on a mission like good old Aragćo.
If Amaral has been exonerated and his conviction quashed - then there will be documentary evidence to prove that. I've never seen it. If Amaral no longer has a criminal conviction - why isn't he shouting it from the rooftops? Surely having his 'honour' restored is not something he of all people would want to keep quiet.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on October 31, 2013, 09:59:03 AM
Joana Cipriano was not 'almost certainly' taken from Figueira
She was murdered by her mother and uncle who are currently serving long prison sentences
You may believe that the convictions were unsafe, but you most certainly do not have evidence that proves, or even suggests, that the little girl was 'abducted'
Yet you persistantly present it as 'fact' ... why do you do that ?
For pretty much the same reasons you do.
Carolina is a fact.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on October 31, 2013, 04:37:57 PM
You give your source for so being so adamant its a fact....you claimed it you back it up....i have seen no source for this allegation apart from the bog roll Sun, if other UK papers reported it I missed it, PT papers contradicted the bog roll....best to find what is really what before spreading disinformation or misinformation, not sure of the exact difference....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: imustpointout on October 31, 2013, 05:01:35 PM
Is bog roll Sun better than the Mirror?
ponders
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on October 31, 2013, 05:12:01 PM
Joana Cipriano was not 'almost certainly' taken from Figueira
She was murdered by her mother and uncle who are currently serving long prison sentences
You may believe that the convictions were unsafe, but you most certainly do not have evidence that proves, or even suggests, that the little girl was 'abducted'
Yet you persistantly present it as 'fact' ... why do you do that ?
Have you forgotten the torture Icabod? 1) Leonor very very seriously tortured for two days and beaten black and blue.
2) Joao also reputedly tortured, but he gave in much more easily than Leonor. He couldn't stand the pain. He wrote her a letter of apology after they were both jailed.
3) The only so called witness was Leandro who was Leonors partner. Alledgedly Amaral beat him, so he agreed to be a witness for the prosecution. After the case, he rescinded his testimony telling the world that it was beaten out of him. Leandro also warned the Mccanns of what to expect.
4) The whole Court records are based upon beaten, tortured out, NON EVIDENCE, and the one judge was so upset about the case that he protested and IIRC refused to put his name on the Court documents
5) Have you forgotten the black Limousine cruising around the streets of Figueira? A limousine that people commented on? Of course Figueira is close to both the famous Penina golf Club (0.75 mile), the Alvor private aeroclub (1mile) and also not far from the ?private Lagos airstrip (5 miles) and the beautiful marina at lagos (6 miles). A lot of wealth around there.
6) And have you forgotten the little camper van that was there, in Figueira, for several days? That suddenly vanished when Joana vanished. I think it was described as green and brown at the time. That was found abandoned at PdL. just 7 miles away.
Jeez Icabod
I dont know how you can be so naive to carte blanche believe these Gawd awful PJ Officers after 1) all the torture, and 2) the fact that so many of them are now proven as being criminals or liars in court. 3) Cristavao who was on the Joana case is currently waiting to be tried on seven major charges. 4) Amaral has a conviction for perjury (lying) 5) several others have unsavoury illegal things against them 6) Cristavao made mega bucks out of writing a book about Joana, based on the story that he and Amaral concocted 7) One judge would have no part in the verdict 8) The cruising black limousine 9) the sleeper van which having been parked in Figueira for days suddenly disappeared to be found abandoned at nearby PdL
And, just why was it necessary to torture anyone, if the PJ had a case? Have you asked yourself that?
Are you so blind that you cannot see beyond the end of your nose? Almost without doubt, Joana was abducted.
Leonor, whilst only a peasant woman is an incredibly brave woman and from photographs, proved herself as a good mother
Such injustice !
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: imustpointout on October 31, 2013, 05:14:16 PM
off topic again
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on October 31, 2013, 05:17:53 PM
I realise I'm new to this site but I have read about the other cases too. Carolina does not appear to have been taken anywhere. She was always with her father when some bloke (known trouble maker) threatened to abduct her. By the way, she was 3, not 5.
Joana was not most certainly abducted. Two people are in jail for her murder. If your investigations prove otherwise then I would expect you to be fighting hard for their release. Are you? If so how often have you contacted the PJ and what have the PJ told you they are going to do about it. Just a summary will do thanks - I realise you cherish your research and don't wish to divulge it on here.
Much appriciated :)
The PJ know who tortured Leonor Cipriano. They are bringing a case against all five of them to relieve them of their pensions.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Jazzy on October 31, 2013, 05:35:47 PM
Why is it Sadie's job?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on October 31, 2013, 05:37:40 PM
I realise I'm new to this site but I have read about the other cases too. Carolina does not appear to have been taken anywhere. She was always with her father when some bloke (known trouble maker) threatened to abduct her. By the way, she was 3, not 5.
Thank you ! OM
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on October 31, 2013, 05:39:23 PM
With respect, that doesn't answer my question nor are you in a position to answer my question (since you are not sadie). If they are victims of a miscarriage of justice whats steps has sadie taken to help set them free?
sadie?
Some of us are trying, believe me. And so is Amnesty International.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Jazzy on October 31, 2013, 05:40:36 PM
Because she is the only person who know the answer since it is about her.
If I asked you a question "Jazzy - what are you having for tea" then you are the only person who can answer. Well, its the same with the question I asked sadie. She is the only person who can answer as she is the only person who has information about what I asked. Thats why I asked her directly for the answer.
Now - Jazzy, what are you having for tea ? 8)--))
Already had it mate.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on October 31, 2013, 05:50:57 PM
Amnesty international is not doing anything for lenora cipriano (sp).
it already has done . By featuring the progress her torture case against the PJ it gave her its support and made sure it couldn't be brushed under the carpet
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: icabodcrane on October 31, 2013, 05:59:13 PM
it already has done . By featuring the progress her torture case against the PJ it gave her its support and made sure it couldn't be brushed under the carpet
Are Amnesty International fighting to have Cipriano's conviction overturned ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on October 31, 2013, 06:06:55 PM
I'm not surprised you don't know about it if you can't even spell her name.
Why all the belittling and nastiness Elenor? Amnesty is not involve in the case. I won't attempt to spell her name again in case you belittle me further, you are aware of which case I mean though.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: icabodcrane on October 31, 2013, 06:30:26 PM
With respect, that doesn't answer my question nor are you in a position to answer my question (since you are not sadie). If they are victims of a miscarriage of justice whats steps has sadie taken to help set them free?
sadie?
Thank you for correcting me on my slip up on Carolinas age. You are quite correct, she was 3 as i have always written before.
Openinded there is only so much that any one person can do. I am already up to my limit with investigating who took these 7 missing children ... and as I get older (and stay on this forum longer) I cope less well. My energy levels and patience have dropped dramatically thanks to bullying.
You are not starting too are you? Cos this is NOT your first unnecessary attack.
I do try and keep everyone aware of the awful injustices surroundinng that case tho
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on October 31, 2013, 08:06:24 PM
Why all the belittling and nastiness Elenor? Amnesty is not involve in the case. I won't attempt to spell her name again in case you belittle me further, you are aware of which case I mean though.
Listen to who is talking ! Why did you make no effort to spell Eleanor?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on October 31, 2013, 08:26:29 PM
Listen to who is talking ! Why did you make no effort to spell Eleanor?
I find it remarkable that you accuse others of bullying behaviour! Do you not recognise that that is what you are doing? I haven't belittled anyone and I've bent over backwards to be nice to you in particular.
Yes, it was impolite to mis spell Eleanor and I apologise for that. Elenor is the more usual spelling in Wales, in fact my friends daughter is Elenor. It's just what I'm used to. I hadn't actually noticed until you pointed it out. Thank you for that. I will make an effort not to do it again.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on October 31, 2013, 08:27:48 PM
I was only asking politely (as I always have always been polite on this forum) if you could share a précis of you discussions with the PJ. If you do not wish to share your knowledge that is entirely up to you. Don't be suprised if people question you though. That is after all the point of a forum. But please don't confuse a polite request for an attack because that's the signs of paranoia, and I'm sure you're not a paranoid person.
Peace :)
PS, any chance of you sharing that information I requested?
Quite right. I am not paranoid.
You obviously have not been reading anything that I say. 8)-)))
Where did I say that I had discussions with the PJ ? I dont speak the Lingo to begin with.
I have already stated that i am not prepared to share any info that might be ex-judicy
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on October 31, 2013, 08:30:53 PM
I find it remarkable that you accuse others of bullying behaviour! Do you not recognise that that is what you are doing? I haven't belittled anyone and I've bent over backwards to be nice to you in particular.
Yes, it was impolite to mis spell Eleanor and I apologise for that. Elenor is the more usual spelling in Wales, in fact my friends daughter is Elenor. It's just what I'm used to. I hadn't actually noticed until you pointed it out. Thank you for that. I will make an effort not to do it again.
Thank you for that .
Apology graciously accepted. I apologise in return if at times I am a bit sharp.
That sharpness has only occurred since I have been relentlessly bullied .... mainly before your time
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on October 31, 2013, 08:31:49 PM
Why all the belittling and nastiness Elenor? Amnesty is not involve in the case. I won't attempt to spell her name again in case you belittle me further, you are aware of which case I mean though.
grammar dear grammar ....arnt the anti's always on about grammar 8-)(--)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on October 31, 2013, 08:34:50 PM
You suggested that you has evidence of someone's innocence. I just assumed that you would have let the PJ know. And don't worry, they will have somebody who speaks English or who can read English.
Open minded I have gone back 5 pages and I dont have a clue what you are talking about. I dont believe I have mentioned having any evidence of anybodies innocence. TBH, I would have avoided passing anything to Amaral, cos I have never trusted him. Seems my judgement was right cos he is a convicted perjurer (liar)
And by the way, I didn't ask for details of your evidence, just for a précis of your discussions. Had you have spoken to them then just a "they said they were looking into it" would have sufficed and would not have been ex-judicy. But thank you for confirming that you have not provided the PJ with any evidence. But please don't find it strange that I therefore doubt you have any evidence of their innocence.
I am sorry but I do not intend giving anyone on here a precis of any of my discussions with SY ... or anything that I have found that gets anywhere near the man I think is behind the abductions. No offence meant but I just aint doing that.
You haven't read what I have posted and your last sentence doesn't make sense becos of that. Sorry mate.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on October 31, 2013, 09:23:51 PM
You said that Joana Cipriano was almost certainly abducted. And therefore I assumed you believed Leonor and Joćo Cipriano must be innocent. I thought meant you had evidence of their innocence. I guess you don't then. That's fine.
Also I didn't ask of your discussions with SY, only with the PJ with regard to the Cipriano case. But as you have already stated, you have had no discussions whatsoever with the PJ. Again, that's fine. I just wanted clarification that you had no evidence of Leonor and Joćo Ciprianos innocence and neither had you had any communication with the PJ
My evidence is that the PJ had no case against them.
In order to try and produce evidence they had to resort to Torture. Brutal torture. It is NOT evidence when it is tortured out
NOT EVIDENCE at all.
Because the PJ had to resort to torture means that they did NOT HAVE A CASE. The Ciprianos are almost certainly innocent, which is what I said before
And I will shout it from the rooftops if you like.
The PJ did NOT have a case against the Ciprianos.
They had to manufacture "SO-CALLED EVIDENCE" BY TORTURE.
Therefore The Ciprianos are almost certainly innocent
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on October 31, 2013, 09:46:25 PM
You have to open your mind to logic, OP, then you stand a chance of understanding it.
No reason for the PJ to torture if they had a case against Leonor and Joao
Cos they DID NOT have a case they had to try and make some evidence. What better than a confession or two?
So they tortured them, until they gave them what they wanted. Everyone breaks under serious torture.
....... false claim re no evidence removed. .....
Do you condone torture OP ?
I thought someone has been done for Joanna's kidnapp so why are the mother and her brother still in prison ? Can they sue for wrong arrest ? I can't understand how the brother has to serve all them years
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 31, 2013, 09:52:28 PM
I would have avoided passing anything to Amaral, cos I have never trusted him. Seems my judgement was right cos he is a convicted perjurer (liar)
I am sorry but I do not intend giving anyone on here a precis of any of my discussions with SY ... or anything that I have found that gets anywhere near the man I think is behind the abductions. No offence meant but I just aint doing that.
You haven't read what I have posted and your last sentence doesn't make sense becos of that. Sorry mate.
Well if you've managed to discuss with SY your liar, criminal, perjurer Amaral obsession etc., why are you losing time and energy on this forum ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on October 31, 2013, 09:54:32 PM
Well if you've managed to discuss with SY your liar, criminal, perjurer Amaral obsession etc., why are you losing time and energy on this forum ?
It wasn't about Amaral. It was about what happened to Madeleine after PdL ... and who was behind it. LOL !
Come dancing recording calls ... sorry XX
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: icabodcrane on November 01, 2013, 12:47:01 AM
Is there a court transcript of Leonor Cipriano's trial ? ... where she was convicted by a jury of brutally murdering her eight year old daughter ?
To those who hysterically insist this woman is innocent ... how could you possibly know unless you are privy to the evidence that was produced in court, in it's entirity ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 01, 2013, 01:51:58 AM
Is there a court transcript of Leonor Cipriano's trial ? ... where she was convicted by a jury of brutally murdering her eight year old daughter ?
To those who hysterically insist this woman is innocent ... how could you possibly know unless you are privy to the evidence that was produced in court, in it's entirity ?
Of course I don't. The court accepted the evidence though. Until there is
Evidence of their innocence
(See I can shout too 8(>(() that a court accepts proves their innocence, then they are guilty according to the law. You have already confirmed you have no evidence of their innocence. So that's all I needed to know.
Stop saying such silly things OpenClosedmind. The envidence is in the situation below
The PJ had no evidence. If they had then they would NOT have had to torture Leonor, Joao and Leandro.
The whole court case was totally unsafe. The only so called evidence was what the PJ invented and put the words into the mouths of the people they tortured.
Wonder how you would feel if you were extremely tortured and words put into your mouth that you had to sign for to escape the torture? Then you were banged up in jail for was it 18 years for a crime that you didn't commit ?
Once again I assert that it is almost certain that Leonor and Joao did not murder Leonors daughter, Joana . From the evidence I have provided it seems they were stitched up in an unsafe case. The words of the PJ were taken as gospel.
I wonder how you would feel if it happened to you Openmind? Dont they matter? Cos they are only peasant types? Cos you prefer to believe rogue cops?
Sadly, your mind is closed Openmind. I wonder why? There has to be a reason >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: icabodcrane on November 01, 2013, 02:33:54 AM
Stop saying such silly things OpenClosedmind. The envidence is in the situation below
The PJ had no evidence. If they had then they would NOT have had to torture Leonor, Joao and Leandro.
The whole court case was totally unsafe. The only so called evidence was what the PJ invented and put the words into the mouths of the people they tortured.
Wonder how you would feel if you were extremely tortured and words put into your mouth that you had to sign for to escape the torture? Then you were banged up in jail for was it 18 years for a crime that you didn't commit ?
Once again I assert that it is almost certain that Leonor and Joao did not murder Leonors daughter, Joana . They were stitched up in an unsafe case. The words of the PJ were taken as gospel.
I wonder how you would feel if it happened to you Openmind? Dont they matter? Cos they are only peasant types? Cos you prefer to believe rogue cops?
Sadly, your mind is closed Openmind. I wonder why? There has to be a reason >@@(*&)
Is there a court transcript of Leonor Cipriano's trial ? ... have you read it ?
If you have not, then how can you possibly know what 'evidence' was put before the jury that found this woman guilty of the murder of her eiight year old child ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Serendipity on November 01, 2013, 03:41:53 AM
Is there a court transcript of Leonor Cipriano's trial ? ... where she was convicted by a jury of brutally murdering her eight year old daughter ?
To those who hysterically insist this woman is innocent ... how could you possibly know unless you are privy to the evidence that was produced in court, in it's entirity ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Aiofe on November 01, 2013, 06:02:11 AM
Ihave no idea what happened in this case. I do not know the evidence, or any details of the trial.
But it is worth considering the large number of people who languished in a similar position in the UK over the last fifty years, now proven to have been framed by the police for one reason or another.
It happens in every justice system.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 01, 2013, 06:25:47 AM
Well all you have to do Luz is show us the official statements quashing Amaral's conviction - and also maybe explain why Amaral himself has made no such claim.
IIRC LC was found guilty of mis-identifying her torturers. The fact that torture took place, as established in a court of law, was never in question - only the correct identification of the torturers - which has still to be established.
This is OLD NEWS.
It was in the papers in April I think.
She LIED. My friend lives in Portugal and told me ages ago the witch was condemned to further time, but should have been given life....
Old news, but still of current interest. She was tortures in the Portuguese Justice system; Amaral was convicted of perjury and is still a convicted felon.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 01, 2013, 06:30:36 AM
To be honest I thought the THREAD was to do with Maddy not Cipriano.
She was an evil witch who killed her daughter.
The funny thing about all this is Amaral was not even the lead detective lol.....
The pair were found guilty by a JURY. The brother confessed.
Can we please move on about this sad case. I child was brutally murdered possibly fed to the pigs.
Its obsfucation and dragged out constantly by pro mccanns to try and disgrace AMARAL WHO like i said wasnt even on the lead case.
ALSO Amaral did do something wrong he tried to protect the men who this women had accused.
HE HAS SERVED HIS SENTENCE can we move on........please. LOL...
Old news, but still of current interest. She was tortures in the Portuguese Justice system; Amaral was convicted of perjury and is still a convicted felon. [/quote
It is pointless in arguing with you, as you have your own agenda.
SHE LIED..........................
L.I.E.D.
Can we move on.
As to Amaral he wasnt on the Maddy case for a long time before it was closed, so are you saying EVERYTHING after is also corrupt...
Anyway I am not prepared to discuss this case because its CLOSED, done zilch gone. She got an extra SEVEN MONTHS for lying .....
LYING.
Enough all ready. Thank you.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Aiofe on November 01, 2013, 06:42:02 AM
Old news, but still of current interest. She was tortures in the Portuguese Justice system; Amaral was convicted of perjury and is still a convicted felon. [/quote
It is pointless in arguing with you, as you have your own agenda.
SHE LIED..........................
L.I.E.D.
Can we move on.
As to Amaral he wasnt on the Maddy case for a long time before it was closed, so are you saying EVERYTHING after is also corrupt...
Anyway I am not prepared to discuss this case because its CLOSED, done zilch gone. She got an extra SEVEN MONTHS for lying .....
LYING.
Enough all ready. Thank you.
Birmingham Six Case.
Framed. Beaten in custody. Had to fight an intransigent Justice system (since much reformed). Freed. Exonerated. Compensated.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 01, 2013, 09:45:48 AM
Framed. Beaten in custody. Had to fight an intransigent Justice system (since much reformed). Freed. Exonerated. Compensated.
I remember it well. Some of the actions of some of the PJ have reminded me of those times in the UK when a policeman's word was automatically taken as true. To know that whatever you claim will be believed is a very powerful position to be in - and can be so easily abused - which it was by a certain section of the UK police force. It was eventually recognised - and changes were made.
IMO some police officers (and certainly not all) in the PJ were still using their 'old' methods and thought - just like some of our policemen thought years ago that the very fact they were PJ Officer made them invincible. The fact that some police officers have been taken to court and found guilty of various crimes is a sign that things are changing for the better in Portugal.
IMO the Leonor Cipriano case is an example of the police being believed over 'the accused' at every step of the way - and if the Governor of the prison had not taken the stance she did, then what followed - which included Amaral and others criminal convictions, would never have happened.
IMO The PJ still have a long way to go. We have a way to go too and are not perfect by any means, but IMO we are much further ahead of the PJ in trying to do things properly. For example it's been a while since we automatically took a policeman's word over that of a member of the public. And the numerous 'Rough Justice' cases where innocent people, wrongly convicted, have been released from prison is also proof of that.
Has anyone in Portugal been found to be wrongly convicted of a major crime and subsequently released? Just curious.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 01, 2013, 09:52:34 AM
Why is her brother in prison if it wasn't him Why would she say she did it if she didn't
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 01, 2013, 10:00:30 AM
Thanks for the links Red, though part of me wishes I hadn't read them!
There was forensic evidence to back up the confession. Strange her body wasn't found though.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 01, 2013, 10:18:38 AM
Statewatch article: RefNo# 29207
Portugal: Report on torture suffered by Leonor Cipriano Statewatch News Online, May 2008 SOS Prisões and ACED produced a report that they sent to high-ranking Portuguese authorities with competencies in this field concerning the allegations of torture suffered in September 2004 by Leonor Cipriano at the hands of the judicial police in their offices in Faro. She is currently serving a 16-year and eight-month prison sentence in Odemira women's prison, after she was found guilty of killing her eight-year-old daughter Joana, who she reported as having disappeared. Cipriano maintains her innocence and told the author of the report, lawyer Marcos Aragćo Correia, who visited her in prison on 8 April 2008, that there was no evidence to prove the allegations, before describing how she was mistreated for two days in order to induce her to sign a confession of this horrendous crime, which she eventually did. Correia also met the director of Odemira prison, Ana Maria Calado, who confirmed suspicions about Cipriano's treatment, noting that she was "shocked about the conditions in which Cipriano entered the prison". ACED argues that it does not have the means to confirm what the situation in terms of the practice of torture by the police in Portugal may be, but calls on the state to comply with its international obligations.
Leonor Cipriano's account
After accepting to meet Correia, Cipriano denied having played any part in the death of her daughter Joana, who disappeared on the evening of 12 September 2004 after she went out to buy some groceries for her mother in a nearby shop in Figueira, near Portimćo, as she often did. Upon seeing that her daughter was taking longer than expected, she went to the shop and was told that Joana had been there, but had already left with a few groceries, after which the Guarda Nacional Republicana was called. On 25 September, Leonor Cipriano was placed in preventive detention in Odemira prison, and was taken by judicial police officers to their offices in Faro on the next day. She was upset by the allegations made against her (that she had killed Joana, cut her up and fed her remains to pigs), which she rejected. Meanwhile, and in the absence of any evidence, the five officers involved became aggressive, shouted and unsuccessfully tried to convince her to confess, after which the torture began. Two glass ashtrays were placed on the floor, and Leonor was forced to kneel on them, without being allowed to get up until she confessed. She showed Correia the scars on her knees, still visible four years later. She was then sat on a chair with a green plastic shopping bag over her head, and officers started striking her on the head with a cardboard tube, causing her haemorrhages resulting in blood descending to her eyes, and her hands were struck when she tried to take the bag off her head. She was told that she would not get out of there until she confessed, and was made to stand, sometimes with the bag on her head and sometimes without it, and punched and kicked on the side of her ribs, repeatedly.
The torture lasted for two days, after which she signed a confession, and she was then returned to prison, where her serious conditions led to her being taken to Odemira health centre. She was told by judicial police officers to tell the doctor that she had thrown herself down a flight of stairs in the Faro judicial police headquarters in a suicide attempt, threatening that if she spoke of any aggression, she would be interrogated again and would not survive. Cipriano said she did as they demanded in their presence, but told the prison officers and director of the prison what had happened once they left. The director ordered photographs to be taken of her, and for a legal-medical report to be drawn up as a result of her poor conditions. Leonor Cipriano's brother Joćo was also reportedly tortured and found guilty of the murder, although the prison to which he was taken did not run the same checks to determine whether he had been subjected to an aggression. After they were both found guilty, he wrote to his sister to apologise for the lies he had been forced to tell about her. When Leonor was invited to identify her aggressors by an investigating magistrate in Évora in 2006, she was only able to identify one official who was present and did nothing to prevent the abuses, possibly because she had had a bag over her head for long periods, or due to the time that had passed, or because not all her torturers were among the six officers placed before her.
The prison director
Correia then spoke to Odemira prison director Ana Maria Calado, who confirmed Leonor Cipriano's account, noting how shocked she was about her conditions, with black marks, haematomae and bruising in her face, mainly around her eyes, her head and ribs, mainly on her sides. She assured that the physical marks clearly indicated a violent aggression and not a fall down some stairs, something the legal-medical report also confirmed. She noted that Cipriano's conditions worsened a week after she was tortured, as the blood that had gathered at the height of her brows was so much that it ended up falling over her eyes, leaving her practically blind for almost a month, and the director regrets not having ordered photographs of this period to be taken. She also said that relations between Cipriano and the prison guards and other prisoners were good, and that she did not believe that she had attempted suicide.
Calado expressed her surprise for a number of facts: a) that the judicial police did not take Cipriano to a health centre in Faro to certify that she had fallen down some stairs; b) that the day of her interrogation was chosen during Calado's week of holidays, when she would never have allowed her to be picked up at 6 a.m. without a formal request by the judicial police; and c) that judicial police officers who arrived from Lisbon to investigate the allegations of torture proposed sharing the blame between the judicial police and prison, something she refused. Correia praised the director, describing her as "courageous" and as prizing "values" more highly than "corporate interests".
Conclusion
The report concludes that the testimony of Leonor Cipriano and of the prison director, as well as other available evidence, are convincing in terms of proving that a crime of torture was committed by officers of the Portuguese judicial police. It condemns the use of "medieval methods" to "extract confessions at all cost, even if they are false", as "inadmissible" and as harmful for Portugal's image as an EU member that defends human rights and has a modern legal order and, as such, argues that these practices must be punished in "exemplary" fashion, or the Portuguese citizenry will lose faith in the judicial system.
The report ends with a message from Leonor Cipriano, who was treated as a monster as a result of the horrible nature of the crime she was accused and found guilty of committing:
"I hope that my daughter Joana appears, not only to be with her again, but also to show the world that it was the gentlemen officers of the judicial police who tortured me and who are the real monsters".
Source: Relatório sobre Tortura de Leonor Cipriano, 8.4.2008, ACED - Associaēćo Contra a Exclusćo pelo Desenvolvimento, SOS Prisoes - report (pdf)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 01, 2013, 10:20:25 AM
Thanks for the links Red, though part of me wishes I hadn't read them!
There was forensic evidence to back up the confession. Strange her body wasn't found though.
Did you read the list of PJ claims the court did not accept. Including the motive of incest?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Moderator on November 01, 2013, 10:54:58 AM
Warning to members in respect of continued false claims that there is no evidence against the Ciprianos. Anyone knowingly posting FALSE material will have their posting permissions suspended.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 01, 2013, 11:29:56 AM
Thanks Red. Very interesting. Thats the first time I had read any specifics about the court case. Like Cariad I found the forensics especially informative. I seems to me that there is plenty of evidence of both their guilt. The brother of course confessing and implicating his sister (without torture). So it seems to me that while she may have been beaten (which is always wrong obviously) that is only a minor part of the case. Even with out her confession, there is still plenty evidence to prove her guilt in court.
If anyone has additional evidence which shows her innocence (and her brothers) however I'm happy to read it and re-evaluate my view
I followed this case way back when. The forensics were spot on. The brother confessed.
His sister was beaten there is no aruging against that but it was a stitch up, it would appear she was beaten by fellow prisoners, which is what happens in prison to CHILD MURDERERS and there is evidence to all of this.
This case with Cipriano sadly comes out all the time to simply defame Amaral.
Yes he did wrong he was punished and he has served his sentence.
He was never SACKED over it and went on to be the lead detective on other cases.
The women was found guilty by jury, and that should be the end of it.
I honestly cannot see how this case can possibly be any use to sleuthing who took Maddy or what happened to this child. It just detracts from the case at hand. IMHO of course.
The actual feeling about the childs remains was the child was fed to the pigs, sorry but it was in the newspapers at the time. HORRIBLE.
I just think dragging this case out all the time just devalues all the hard work done to put her and her brother into prison for killing daughter/neice, and does NOTHING to solve the case of Madeiline McCann.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 01:29:14 PM
Thanks Red. Very interesting. Thats the first time I had read any specifics about the court case. Like Cariad I found the forensics especially informative. I seems to me that there is plenty of evidence of both their guilt. The brother of course confessing and implicating his sister (without torture). So it seems to me that while she may have been beaten (which is always wrong obviously) that is only a minor part of the case. Even with out her confession, there is still plenty evidence to prove her guilt in court.
If anyone has additional evidence which shows her innocence (and her brothers) however I'm happy to read it and re-evaluate my view
Im interested in this case too. which part of the forensics did you find interesting because the part I read re the DNa said it was not possible to tell whose the blood was...was there any more forensics
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 01:30:10 PM
Perhaps a different sub-forum could be created on this forum to disassociate it from the McCann case?
I wish someone would bury it lol. Its over done a completed case not even current.
It just gets dragged up to make Amaral look a prat, and the PJs thugs. THATS it really. I dont care if i get slapped wrist for saying it but its a totally waste of energy and time lol...it does NOTHING to help find maddy.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 01, 2013, 03:57:19 PM
A poor peasant- type woman who was tortured into confessions. Seriously tortured so that she lost her sight for a month
How could you be so uncouth.
she's a convicted child murderer Sadie and doesn't deserve the support of anyone. She was not convicted on the sole basis of her confession, there was other incriminating evidence and she was found guilty in a court of law.
By all means have a bash at Amaral/PJ if that is what you want to do - but trying to defend this woman is irrelevant to the hunt for Madeleine and an insult to the memory of the child she killed.
N
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 01, 2013, 04:27:45 PM
I know it has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the suspects what so ever, but one of the things that really stuck out was that Joana had to walk to school on her own on her first day, got lost and was late!
In the grand scheme of what happened to her, it's really a very minor point, but I have to admit that it almost brought me to tears.
She was born the same year as my elder son. I remember taking him to school for his first day. I remember how nervous we both were and what an important step it was in his life. His Dad took the morning off and we both walked him. I dunno, as I said, it hardly scores high on the atrocities inflicted on her, but it just broke my heart.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 01, 2013, 05:08:09 PM
BB is Leonor Cipriano. CC is her daughter. AA is Joao Cipriano
9. 2. Facts considered NOT to be proved:
1- that the arguida BB, throughout her life, failed to provide her children with basic care, mistreating them;
2- that HH, arguida BBs son, was helped by neighbours;
3- that the arguida BB voted her daughter CC to disinterest and overloaded her with work, forcing her to carry out the domestic chores that she should perform but did not;
4- that the arguida BB abandoned CC, just like she had done with her other children;
5- that the second time when the arguida BB handed CC to her father, the minor was approximately aged 3;
6- that minor CC was a source of fighting between her mother, arguida BB, and the stepfather II, up to the point where she was threatened by them to be expelled from home;
7- that at around 8 p.m. on that 12th of September, when the two arguidos were alone, they decided to maintain sexual intercourse between them, being that BBs minor children were no impediment for that action, because they were asleep in a room, but CC could not watch such actions;
8- that when CC ledt the house, the arguidos started to copulate with each other, on the living room sofa, and that they were still having intercourse when the minor returned home;
9- that upon seeing what her mother and uncle were doing, minor CC said that she was going to tell her stepfather that they were doing dirty things, and tried to leave the house;
10- that the arguidos got up from the sofa, heading towards CC, attempting to prevent her from denouncing what she had witnessed to II;
11- that CC hit the walls corner with the left side of her head and that said wall was the one that is located near the main door;
12- that CC tried to flee from the house, then being pulled inside by arguido AA;
13- that CC left hand prints and facial imprints on the walls, either on the outside or on the inside, near the main door;
14- that the arguidos placed the minors body, wrapped up in a duvet cover, in the corner of one of the bedrooms in the house, in a spot that was not visible to anyone who might eventually enter it, for later to decide what destiny it would be given;
15- that arguida BB used detergent and bleach to wash the wall and the floor where blood spots from CC were;
16- that arguido AA had a beer with II and MM, at the "Pastelaria ...", in order to further delay their return home;
17- that the arguidos thought about placing the minors body in a sanitary cess-pit that was located near the house, for which arguido AA went to the location, yet verified that such would not be possible because said pits lid was partially cemented, which he informed arguida BB about;
18- that the knife with which the arguidos cut the minors body had a black handle;
19- that the arguidos placed CCs body on the living room floor, on a blanket;
20- that the arguidos knotted the opening of the bags that contained the torso and the legs;
21- that the arguidos effectively placed the three bags inside the tree compartments of the deep freezer;
22- that the arguidos changed the clothes that they were wearing and that arguida BB, once again that night, washed the blood that had remained on the floor;
23- that on the night of the 12th of September arguida BB invoked CCs disappearance to the persons that she met (with an exception for II, MM and NN whom she told about said disappearance);
24- that the bag which the arguidos were carrying late in the night of the 13th of September contained the instruments that had been used to cut the minor;
25- that meanwhile, ticks started to appear in the house, due to the aforementioned activity;
26- that already after her arrest, arguida BB did, several times, impute co-arguido AA with the full responsibility for the facts, also that she imputed MM with it as well, apart from having mentioned that the body was placed inside a car that was destined to be pressed in Spain, or on several locations that she indicated throughout time;
27- that arguido AA, during the first interrogation, indicated that CCs body is beneath a bridge that connects Figueira with Mexilhoeira, on the opposite side of the location that had initially been indicated, and that, afterwards, he indicated a brother of his as having transported the body;
28- that the arguidos acted merely with the purpose to preven the minor from denunciating what she had seen, to her stepfather;
29- that the minor CC depended upon arguido AA."
source: Supreme Court of Justice - ruling SJ200604200003635, 20.04.200
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 01, 2013, 05:31:24 PM
IMO the amount of facts thrown out by the court as NOT proved is huge and even includes the MOTIVE! How can you find someone guilty when you cannot establish a motive for the crime?
I'm gobsmacked that she was found guilty - and once the courts had established that LC had been tortured by Police officers, then surely at least a re-trial would have been in order.
Wasn't the DNA 'evidence' lost somewhere along the line?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 05:45:52 PM
Forensics aren't just DNA. The forensics showed that there was blood everywhere in the flat and those locations matched the locations identified by the defendant. Basically a spot of blood in the freezer means little, blood all over the crime scene means much more.
Its worth pointing out that forensics are not the sole evidence used to convict but they form but part of the whole case. Forensics matched with confession, witness statements, records of movements and profiling of the accused, amongst other things, are all used in court. Therefore DNA forensics is not always needed to convict.
So there was no match and a lot of the blood was animal blood so the forensics don't sound that impressive at all...must be more evidence obviously..just surprised that you said you were impressed with the forensics
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 05:54:57 PM
b) the arguido AA [Joćo Cipriano] has never held a regular job or residence, living inside a vehicle or at his siblings house, surviving on occasional jobs that he performed on diverse locations;
c) the arguido AA manifests despise for human life a result of a poor social adjustment and affective coldness and has anti-social/psychopathic tendencies with a difficulty to control his impulses, which leads him to be aggressive, trying to solve conflicts through said aggressiveness, feeling no remorse for the consequences of the actions that he thus performs, despising other peoples rights, wishes or feelings;
d) through a ruling that has been validated in court, and given on 10.11.1993, arguido AA was condemned to a 4-year prison sentence over the practice, on 2.10.1992, of a crime of attempted homicide, ( ). Said ruling includes that the arguido was convinced, by a third party that lived with one of the arguidos sisters (GG) to take the life of another person who had left him blind, in exchange for 20.000$00 and a motorbike ( );
e) the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] manifests socially deviant behaviour at the level of norms, values and responsibilities, emotional instability and difficulties in expressing frustration, while her socialisation was marked by immature, superficial and narcissistic interpersonal relationships, where characteristics of manipulation (to satisfy her own needs) and aggressiveness (of mainly sadistic tonality) are stand out, while in her personality the absence of empathy and the insensibility are salient, leading to the arguidas despise for other peoples rights, needs and sentiments, directing her aggressiveness towards them, with a weak capacity to feel remorse. She possesses a borderline personality with anti-social/psychopathic, narcissistic and schizoid traits;
f) the arguida BB, who has six children from five relationships, has been showing some lack of interest in her elder children, throughout her life;
g) concerning her eldest daughter, EE, who presently lives with her father and grandmother in Olhćo, she left her there at the age of 11 months, never cared for her again, and didnt ask about her, for 14 years;
h) her second child, FF, who lived with his paternal grandmother and presently lives with a paternal aunt, in Messines, was also left by her to the father, and she never cared for him again;
i) the fourth child, HH, who presently lives with his father in Porches, was left home alone by the arguido BB at the age of 7 months, buckled to his chair, which is how he was found by neighbours who perceived the situation;
j) at that time, arguida BB started living with II [Leandro Silva], a relationship that produced two children, [Name removed] and KK;
l) the third child that she bore was CC [Joana], who was born on 31.05.1996, a daughter of LL;
m) minor CC, in September 2004, was aged eight, being thin and measuring between 1,20 and 1,40 metres; (2)
n) minor CC was sometimes sad;
o) the arguida BB did not exercise any professional activity;
p) when the arguida was living with partner II, minor CC helped her mother with some home chores, as she sometimes helped to clean the house, took care of her younger siblings and went shopping;
q) before arguida BB moved in with her partner II, she wanted to stop having CC under her care, and left her, at the age of 5 months, with her father, LL with whom she had no relationship since the beginning of the pregnancy who ended up returning her 2 days later, and later, she once more handed her over to the father, who didnt want to keep her;
r) in September 2003, arguida BB left CC under the care of a couple of persons with alcoholism problems and with a bed-ridden child that had an infecto-contagious illness, in a house with no conditions whatsoever, for 2 or 3 weeks;
s) on the first day of school for minor CC at the Primary School in Figueira, in the school year of 2003/2004, arguida BB didnt walk the minor to school, and CC arrived with a neighbour, whom she asked for help because she couldnt find the way;
t) on another occasion, the same neighbour took the minor to hospital, at a moment when she was visibly ill with a strong cough;
u) in the early morning of the 12th of September 2004, arguido AA, after a row with his brother UU, went to the arguida BBs house, taking his clothes with him, and during the 12th he stayed in that house, which is located in the village of Figueira Mexilhoeira Grande, in the area of Portimćo;
v) in the late afternoon of the 12th, his sister, arguida BB, and her children, CC, [Name removed] and KK, returned home;
x) at around 8 p.m. on that 12th of September, arguida BB sent CC to buy a package of milk and two cans of food, at a shop called Pastelaria , in Figueira, at a distance of approximately 420 metres from the house;
z) the living room of the house where arguida BB lived, is located immediately after the main door and the door that offers access to the street has a handle on the outside that allows for direct entry into the residence;
aa) minor CC returned home from Pastelaria , where she had bought the aforementioned food products;
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the walls corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minors fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos activity;
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living rooms walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
ad) the arguidos ensured that CC was dead, verifying that she neither breathed nor reacted, and then, not wanting to be held responsible over their daughters and nieces death, decided to prevent said death from becoming known to others;
ae) therefore, they soon decided that they would have to ensure that the existence of any signs in the house of what they had just done could not be verified, that the minors body would never be found and that, preferably, everyone would be convinced that the minor had been taken by a third party;
af) therefore, arguida BB remained at home, washing the wall and the floor that had signs of blood from CC, as well as the spot where the minor remained slumped after death, using a mop and its bucket to do so;
ag) and, as they knew that arguida BBs partner II and his friend, MM, were about to arrive at home, and could discover what had happened there if they arrived before the traces were cleaned, at around 9.30 p.m. arguido AA left, headed towards Pastelaria , where he met II and MM, who were already there, and whom he told that minor CC had not returned home;
ah) when the three of them returned home, arguida BB had already cleaned the existing blood marks, and equally mentioned that minor CC hadnt returned home after doing the shopping;
ai) confronted with what the arguida was saying, II and MM decided to go out and look for the minor, while the arguidos remained at home;
aj) the arguidos then decided, conjointly, to cut the minors body in order to make it possible to store it in the deep freezer that existed in the living room;
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 CCs body, separating the head from the torso and cutting the legs at the knee area;
an) each one of those body parts was placed inside plastic bags the head in one, the torso and part of the legs in another and the two legs below the knee in a third one and after they knotted up the opening of the bag that contained the head, they tried, at least, to place said bags inside the deep freezers three compartments, leaving blood from the minor on several areas inside the deep freezers second drawer;
ao) the arguidos did not place the shoes that the minor was wearing, inside the bags, and all the pairs of shoes that the minor was using that summer, stayed inside the house;
ap) as the minor had already been dead for approximately two hours, not a lot of blood left the body;
aq) between 10.30 and 11 p.m., the arguida BB joined her partner II and MM, to whom she reiterated that CC was missing, and only at that point in time did she go to "Pastelaria ....." and asked the owner (NN) if CC had been there, then saying that she had disappeared;
ar) nevertheless, the arguida didnt inform the police authorities about anything, despite there being GNR officers on duty in Figueira, because a popular fair called Mussels Party was taking place, and it was the third person (NN) that did it by telephone, at around 0.44 a.m. on the 13th of September, when she heard that the arguida hadnt done so yet, and it was following said telephone call that the arguida ended up talking to GNR officers near the church in Figueira;
as) at that point in time the arguida said she hadnt phoned because she had no credit on her mobile phone;
at) later on, at around 2 a.m., the arguida bought cakes in a pastry shop in the same village;
au) on the morning of the 13th, the arguida BB went to the GNR Station, in Portimćo, accompanied by arguido AA, where she filed a complaint over the disappearance of CC;
av) and through the intervention of third parties, relatives of her partner II, the alleged disappearance truly started to be publicised, with the distribution of photographs of CC, because until then the arguidos had intended not to alert the authorities;
ax) at the end of the night of the 13th, the arguidos left the house together, carrying a bag;
az) the arguido AA remained at the arguida BBs house until the 14th, a time lapse during which the two arguidos, in a manner that was not possible to determine, transported CCs mortal remains to an unknown location, thus fulfilling the intention that they had proposed themselves to to prevent the finding of said mortal remains and those remains have not been found to this day, just as the cutting instruments, which the arguidos have hidden in an unknown location, havent been found;
aaa) the arguida BB gave interviews to the media, trying to make believe that the minor had in fact disappeared, a version that she maintained in front of many of the people who were interested in the minors destiny and questioned her about the matter;
aab) during those interviews about the case, arguida BB sometimes mentioned her daughter in the past tense and wore a black blouse;
aac) ticks, namely so-called little leads (ticks in their early adult phase) have receptors for chemical stimuli that are associated to temperature, which allow for them to detect the existence of blood-specific chemical compounds;
aad) on the 18th of September, arguida BB bought petrol and a steel scrub-cloth, with which she washed the house, thus seizing the opportunity to erase almost all vestiges of what had happened there, and only traces of human blood which had been contaminated by the products that were used, remained inside the house;
aae) through an indication from arguida BB, Polķcia Judiciįria agents went to the house of arguida BB eldest daughters paternal grandmother (EE), in Olhćo, searching for CC, and also investigated if an individual of Moroccan nationality had taken the minor;
aaf) when presented to a clinical psychologist, within an examination that was performed within the process scope, arguida BB mentioned the existence of neighbours of Brazilian nationality who might have taken CC with them, because they had two good cars and left the area on the same date on which the minor had disappeared;
aag) following indications from arguido AA, PJ agents searched for CCs body in a brown earth embankment that is located near the road that accesses Mexilhoeira, then on other locations nearby, further away in Poēo Barreto, in a wrecked car, in Silves, under the Arade River bridge;
aah) the arguidos managed to disturb the investigative activities and prevented the mortal remains of minor CC, whose life they took, from being located;
aai) the aforementioned activities were carried out by the arguidos under concerted efforts and intentions, in a deliberate, free and conscious manner, fully knowing that those behaviours are punished by law;
aaj) therefore as far as taking the life of CC, their direct relative (daughter and niece), is concerned, which they did by employing force, taking advantage of the fact that she couldnt defend herself (taking into account her age and physical built) and using force in the full knowledge that, considering the vital area in which her body was hit (the head) repeatedly and violently, prompting the minors head to hit the wall, they could take her life away from her, a consequence which they accepted, still not ceasing their activity;
aal) not seeing as an obstacle the circumstance that the minor depended on her mother and was a direct relative of both, and should be defended instead of victimised by them;
aam) in the same deliberate, free and conscious manner, and knowing that such behaviour is punishable, they carried out the above described action of cutting CCs body, demonstrating total insensibility, knowing full well that, in this manner, they offended the communitarian respect that is due to the dead, acting with the purpose of CCs body never being found again, hiding it in a location that is not appropriated for the effect, in order to try to avoid responsibility for her death;
aan) the arguida BB has no criminal record;
aao) the arguido AA, apart from the above mentioned condemnation under item e), was further condemned, in 1995, under a sentence that has been validated in court, for the practise of a qualified theft, to a penalty, accumulating with the penalty that was imputed over the crime of attempted murder, of 3 years and 8 months in prison; in 2001, over the practise of a crime of illegal driving of a vehicle, he was condemned, under a sentence that has been validated in court, to a penalty of 90 days of fine; and in 2003, over the practise of a crime of illegal driving of a vehicle, he was condemned, under a sentence that has been validated in court, to a penalty of 6 months and 15 days in prison, which was suspended in its execution, in exchange for the compliance with conditions, a suspension that was later revoked;
aap) in terms of schooling, the arguida BB completed 3rd grade, never exercised any profession and married at the age of 18;
aaq) in terms of schooling, the arguido AA completed 4th grade and has worked since he left school, but always exercising undifferentiated services and without any contract;
aas) the arguidos were born within a large family (the parents and 9 siblings), where the fathers alcoholic habits and the financial difficulties stood out.
From the same document. I was going to highlight all of the points I though of importance but theres are just so many. But it has been proven that CC was beaten and dies and her body disposed of.
The following was supposed to have been proved..but the following cant be true as the dna report said that it was impossible to say who the blood came from
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living rooms walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
So is someone telling lies
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 05:56:55 PM
The following was supposed to have been proved..but the following cant be true as the dna report said that it was impossible to say who the blood came from
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living rooms walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
So is someone telling lies
Amazing, so the scene is like some bloodbath, a child is missing, but the blood cant be hers,oh no, despite the pair of them describing how it was, ok Davel, on your head may it be.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 06:12:39 PM
I thought someone has been done for Joanna's kidnapp so why are the mother and her brother still in prison ? Can they sue for wrong arrest ? I can't understand how the brother has to serve all them years
Just seen this...
??
Who? Are you confusing this case with some other?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 06:18:27 PM
Amazing, so the scene is like some bloodbath, a child is missing, but the blood cant be hers,oh no, despite the pair of them describing how it was, ok Davel, on your head may it be.
the scene was not like a bloodbath at all...where did you dream that one up from
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 06:24:16 PM
the scene was not like a bloodbath at all...where did you dream that one up from
the place may not have been dripping in it but you get the picture!!!! So sorry for superlative language. Attempting to exonerate convicted child killers does rile me.....I suppose you think its time Baby Ps mother was let out of jail too,after five yrs, for her allowing her boyfriend to beat her baby black and blue and kill him....well alledgedly she has been.....
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the walls corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minors fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos activity;
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living rooms walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
ad) the arguidos ensured that CC was dead, verifying that she neither breathed nor reacted, and then, not wanting to be held responsible over their daughters and nieces death, decided to prevent said death from becoming known to others;
ae) therefore, they soon decided that they would have to ensure that the existence of any signs in the house of what they had just done could not be verified, that the minors body would never be found and that, preferably, everyone would be convinced that the minor had been taken by a third party;
af) therefore, arguida BB remained at home, washing the wall and the floor that had signs of blood from CC, as well as the spot where the minor remained slumped after death, using a mop and its bucket to do so;
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 06:25:13 PM
I didn't say I wasn't impressed with them. Perhaps you should try focusing on what I wrote rather than what you assume i wrote.
From what you have written, from what has been posted on this thread, from what I have read elsewhere and due to the fact she was brutally tortured by the PJ , I feel it is possible that her conviction is unsafe
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 06:26:42 PM
From what you have written, from what has been posted on this thread, from what I have read elsewhere and due to the fact she was brutally tortured by the PJ , I feel it is possible that her conviction is unsafe
Did the courts rule she was beaten BY the PJ? or just that she had been beaten?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 01, 2013, 06:27:13 PM
Last week someone posted a link about her case It said about someone being charged with her abduction
I did look tonight online but couldn't find anything When I was asking on her about it last week someone snapped at me and said Someone has been charged now move on blah blah .
So basically Joanna's case is still the same ???
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 06:30:16 PM
the place may not have been dripping in it but you get the picture!!!! So sorry for superlative language. Attempting to exonerate convicted child killers does rile me.....I suppose you think its time Baby Ps mother was let out of jail too,after five yrs, for her allowing her boyfriend to beat her baby black and blue and kill him....well alledgedly she has been.....
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the walls corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minors fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos activity;
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living rooms walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
ad) the arguidos ensured that CC was dead, verifying that she neither breathed nor reacted, and then, not wanting to be held responsible over their daughters and nieces death, decided to prevent said death from becoming known to others;
ae) therefore, they soon decided that they would have to ensure that the existence of any signs in the house of what they had just done could not be verified, that the minors body would never be found and that, preferably, everyone would be convinced that the minor had been taken by a third party;
af) therefore, arguida BB remained at home, washing the wall and the floor that had signs of blood from CC, as well as the spot where the minor remained slumped after death, using a mop and its bucket to do so;
You are starting to rant now...I like the truth..whats wrong with that. The place was not dripping with blood you obviously haven't read anything re the trial...as I have said ..how did they know the blood found was Joannas...there was no dna ID ..
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 06:31:02 PM
Last week someone posted a link about her case It said about someone being charged with her abduction
I did look tonight online but couldn't find anything When I was asking on her about it last week someone snapped at me and said Someone has been charged now move on blah blah .
So basically Joanna's case is still the same ???
I dont think anyone posted that anyone other than JC and her brother were charged and convicted, probably just crossed wires.....youre not thnking of JCs common law husband are you? I cant think off the top of my head if he was involved or not but he went to prison I think too, I may be wrong....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 01, 2013, 06:37:27 PM
I dont think anyone posted that anyone other than JC and her brother were charged and convicted, probably just crossed wires.....youre not thnking of JCs common law husband are you? I cant think off the top of my head if he was involved or not but he went to prison I think too, I may be wrong....
It probably was , That's why I keep asking why is she and her brother still in prison if they didn't do it . So the case is still the same apart from the latest news regarding the mother getting longer sentance
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 06:38:29 PM
You are starting to rant now...I like the truth..whats wrong with that. The place was not dripping with blood you obviously haven't read anything re the trial...as I have said ..how did they know the blood found was Joannas...there was no dna ID ..
thats what I said.....and please dont decree that I havent read anything....ta muchly
Whose blood was it then all over the floors walls light switch etc? Pub brawl fight taken home?
But then the pair of them told the police exactly what happened and where, and it matched the locations, ok Davel....keep dreaming...fact is she they are both convicted of murder...and your only reason to want them to be innocent is to attack Amaral to somehow whiten the mccanns reputation, by blackening his, doesnt work that way chum, never has, never will, lost mission
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 01, 2013, 06:42:26 PM
Did the courts rule she was beaten BY the PJ? or just that she had been beaten?
from Post NO 77 on this thread. quote The report concludes that the testimony of Leonor Cipriano and of the prison director, as well as other available evidence, are convincing in terms of proving that a crime of torture was committed by officers of the Portuguese judicial police. It condemns the use of "medieval methods" to "extract confessions at all cost, even if they are false", as "inadmissible" and as harmful for Portugal's image as an EU member that defends human rights and has a modern legal order and, as such, argues that these practices must be punished in "exemplary" fashion, or the Portuguese citizenry will lose faith in the judicial system.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 06:43:13 PM
It probably was , That's why I keep asking why is she and her brother still in prison if they didn't do it . So the case is still the same apart from the latest news regarding the mother getting longer sentance
They are still in prison because they are serving their sentences because the legal system believes they did do it....lets not forget all their appeals to date have failed.....justice systems do get it wrong sometimes...wheres the evidence they have presented that they are innocent though? Wheres any sightings of the little girl? Why did the uncle testify he put her body in a car and got it scrapoed and demolished? No need to reply.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 06:44:18 PM
thats what I said.....and please dont decree that I havent read anything....ta muchly
Whose blood was it then all over the floors walls light switch etc? Pub brawl fight taken home?
But then the pair of them told the police exactly what happened and where, and it matched the locations, ok Davel....keep dreaming...fact is she they are both convicted of murder...and your only reason to want them to be innocent is to attack Amaral to somehow whiten the mccanns reputation, by blackening his, doesnt work that way chum, never has, never will, lost mission
You are dreaming again..if thir was that amount of blood a simple dna test would have identified it..what happened..so both of them told the police...after the beating..is that all the evidence..it seems it is
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 06:46:31 PM
from Post NO 77 on this thread. quote The report concludes that the testimony of Leonor Cipriano and of the prison director, as well as other available evidence, are convincing in terms of proving that a crime of torture was committed by officers of the Portuguese judicial police. It condemns the use of "medieval methods" to "extract confessions at all cost, even if they are false", as "inadmissible" and as harmful for Portugal's image as an EU member that defends human rights and has a modern legal order and, as such, argues that these practices must be punished in "exemplary" fashion, or the Portuguese citizenry will lose faith in the judicial system.
Is that a court ruling?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 01, 2013, 06:47:02 PM
Wasn't there pigs blood in the freezer ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 06:47:26 PM
You are dreaming again..if thir was that amount of blood a simple dna test would have identified it..what happened..so both of them told the police...after the beating..is that all the evidence..it seems it is
I will leave you to dream as you are seriously boring me now.....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 06:47:51 PM
They are still in prison because they are serving their sentences because the legal system believes they did do it....lets not forget all their appeals to date have failed.....justice systems do get it wrong sometimes...wheres the evidence they have presented that they are innocent though? Wheres any sightings of the little girl? Why did the uncle testify he put her body in a car and got it scrapoed and demolished? No need to reply.
They were found guilty in a court of law...just like Barry George and the Birmingham 6
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 06:49:29 PM
Er NO.......Id stop reading [ censored word ] blogs if I were you..btw this tourits was so shocked and snapped Madeleine she didnt pass her photo on to anyone for a month, ok then, next...Thnk Im done here though..enough wasted time
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 01, 2013, 06:55:27 PM
She translated the court judgement, unless you can do a better job or get someone else to do it, and show she has mistranslated anything, especially on Purpose as you suggest, best stop the accusations and whining.......hey? Out of here..........
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 01, 2013, 07:01:55 PM
They are still in prison because they are serving their sentences because the legal system believes they did do it....lets not forget all their appeals to date have failed.....justice systems do get it wrong sometimes...wheres the evidence they have presented that they are innocent though? Wheres any sightings of the little girl? Why did the uncle testify he put her body in a car and got it scrapoed and demolished? No need to reply.
Do you think they would still be in prison in this country - once torture had been established? I don't.
People will say anything and agree to anything under torture - just to make it stop.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 01, 2013, 07:09:16 PM
She translated the court judgement, unless you can do a better job or get someone else to do it, and show she has mistranslated anything, especially on Purpose as you suggest, best stop the accusations and whining.......hey? Out of here..........
I personally don't trust miss morais site
She translated the court judgement, unless you can do a better job or get someone else to do it, and show she has mistranslated anything, especially on Purpose as you suggest, best stop the accusations and whining.......hey? Out of here..........
Did I suggest lol
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 07:21:21 PM
She translated the court judgement, unless you can do a better job or get someone else to do it, and show she has mistranslated anything, especially on Purpose as you suggest, best stop the accusations and whining.......hey? Out of here..........
Did I suggest lol
Whatever you thought you were doing you need to prove the translation of the court judgements is false before hurling aspersions...zzzzbut you cant do end of here...
Edit spello
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 01, 2013, 07:30:35 PM
Whatever you thought you were doing you need to prove the translation of the court judgements is false before hurling aspersions...zzzzbut you cant ao end of here
There you go again I've not mentioned her translation ,you have twice I said I don't trust her site
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 07:33:23 PM
There you go again I've not mentioned her translation ,you have twice I said I don't trust her site
no you said it twice....your saying so in relation to the specific topic under discussion here strongly suggests the Links/translations we are talking about are what you are alluding to......if not why post it here, start a new thread, i dont trust joana morais site and be done with it!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 07:35:25 PM
It is the most biased against the Mccanns site in cyberspace. I really hope links to it aren't going to be allowed here.
factual articles and information / translations are necessary for all whether you like the source or not........if you dont like her site YOU go translate and provide us with the info or provide a different one instead of bleating....your choice......where there is plain info imparted and no opinion YOU have NO argument.....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 01, 2013, 07:42:03 PM
It's very very very one sided ,people use her as gospel
Im being forced to be a parrot tonight for some reason, factual articles and translations and imparting of facts to every , often ungrateful, tom dick kazzy and harry is not one sided....its called impartial journalism.......the journalists own personal thoughts are often viewed inthe comments sextions but NOT in the articles, try and understand this basic concept.......bbl 8((()*/
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 07:52:08 PM
Im being forced to be a parrot tonight for some reason, factual articles and translations and imparting of facts to every , often ungrateful, tom dick kazzy and harry is not one sided....its called impartial journalism.......the journalists own personal thoughts are often viewed inthe comments sextions but NOT in the articles, try and understand this basic concept.......bbl 8((()*/
So if I started a thread about who saw Murat the night Madeleine went and posted statements that would be ok ? Or the news about Portugal being a haven for pedos .etc that would be ok No it's not is it
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 07:57:00 PM
Ooooops you keeping count? Sad really isn't it? Bullying if it mattered. Morais isn't an "anti" then?
remembering that you cant back up your arguments when i challenged you is hardly keeping count or bullying....just very memorable,from such a vehement poster as well, get over yourself!!! @)(++(*
BBL
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 01, 2013, 07:58:44 PM
remembering that you cant back up your arguments when i challenged you is hardly keeping count or bullying....just very memorable,from such a vehement poster as well, get over yourself!!! @)(++(*
BBL
oh and you nearly beat the speed posting record then
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Jazzy on November 01, 2013, 08:00:38 PM
remembering that you cant back up your arguments when i challenged you is hardly keeping count or bullying....just very memorable,from such a vehement poster as well, get over yourself!!! @)(++(*
BBL
I actually can't be bothered when you demand. You kept count, fourth time? It is indeed bullying.
Don't hurry back on my account.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 08:12:22 PM
Don't forget about the Guildford Four & the Maguire Seven !
British justice is open to challenge and admits mistakes... I am wondering if miscarriages of justice ever occur in Portugal...does anyone have any information
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: DCI on November 01, 2013, 08:20:09 PM
I wonder why Morais has never posted the court papers for 21/12/04?
DATA DA DILIGENCE 21/12/04 HORA: 14.30 horas MAGISTRADO DO MINISTERIO PUBLICO: DR ANRONIO VENTINHAS OFFICIAL DE JUSTICA: Antonio Francisco - Tecnico de Justica.
Perhaps she doesn't have them 8(>((
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 08:23:44 PM
There were no dna results from anywhere so how the court can claim it has been proved that the this is joannas blood was found is very questionable. it makes you then question all the other claims they say were proved. in fact as I have said there is no proof Joanna is dead. The evidence used to convict seems entirely to be the beaten out confessions... although I am happy to be corrected... as yet no one has
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 01, 2013, 08:29:05 PM
There were no dna results from anywhere so how the court can claim it has been proved that the this is joannas blood was found is very questionable. it makes you then question all the other claims they say were proved. in fact as I have said there is no proof Joanna is dead. The evidence used to convict seems entirely to be the beaten out confessions... although I am happy to be corrected... as yet no one has
I remember reading about pigs blood being in the fridge . Does anyone know where the 50.000 come from which was put in to someone's account
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 01, 2013, 08:43:24 PM
Miscarriages of justice happen in every jurisdiction davel, justice is rightly blind, unfortunately it can also be (sometimes) corrupted !
I'm sure they happen in Portugal but I wonder how many people get them overturned. We have lots of high profile cases in the UK I just wonder how many there are in Portugal..
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 01, 2013, 10:17:43 PM
I actually can't be bothered when you demand. You kept count, fourth time? It is indeed bullying.
Don't hurry back on my account.
As If I would LOL Stop accusing and crying wolf about bullying......is that the best argument you have???.for your own inadeqacies? You posted something as a FACT...indeed that was your exact word, i asked you...note...asked...not demanded...for your evidence FOR that FACT,,,, you couldnt supply it..andfurther got so indignant at being asked...and do notee its against forum rules to post things as fact without a back up link,,,,.....if thats what you call bullying then thats pretty poor and sad....,,perhaps you can now move yourself to the thread called abductions and show YOUR evidence that Carolina was a FACT, as you STATED, of any abduction, ta...for onlookers convo was on page 1 or so of this thread......post 13
Quiet in here, so off to watch some box nite luv...And if you come across the evidence for the fact of carolina do post it.... If not next time dont state anything as fact unless u can back it up as fact and also then dont spit dummy out for being asked and being incapable of doing so.....In other words you are going to post about things you dont have a clue about dont be so aggressive LOL...makes you look utterly stupid..not forgetting many of your posts are soooo bullying and emotionally blackmailing and pontificating against other members here, how disgraceful, but you cant see past your mirror reflection i suppose....
@)(++(*
Roll eyes
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Montclair on November 01, 2013, 10:53:47 PM
I'm sure they happen in Portugal but I wonder how many people get them overturned. We have lots of high profile cases in the UK I just wonder how many there are in Portugal..
I have been in Portugal for almost 37 years and I don't remember any cases of anyone unjustly convicted and jailed and then freed. But somebody else may know more than I do. Of course, they all say they are innocent, don't they? The problem in Portugal, is that there are so many safeguards for suspects that someone is more likely to get away with committing a crime than getting unjustly convicted.
BTW, the most anyone can be sent to prison is 25 years, even if you murder 20 people the maximum sentence is 25 years.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 01, 2013, 11:39:20 PM
Forensics aren't just DNA. The forensics showed that there was blood everywhere in the flat and those locations matched the locations identified by the defendant. Basically a spot of blood in the freezer means little, blood all over the crime scene means much more.
Its worth pointing out that forensics are not the sole evidence used to convict but they form but part of the whole case. Forensics matched with confession, witness statements, records of movements and profiling of the accused, amongst other things, are all used in court. Therefore DNA forensics is not always needed to convict.
What forensic evidence was there in this case?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 01, 2013, 11:42:07 PM
What proof was there that she'd even got back home that evening?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 02, 2013, 03:25:39 AM
No proof of anything, actually. A very, very unsafe conviction for both of the Ciprianos.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Jazzy on November 02, 2013, 09:49:46 AM
As If I would LOL Stop accusing and crying wolf about bullying......is that the best argument you have???.for your own inadeqacies? You posted something as a FACT...indeed that was your exact word, i asked you...note...asked...not demanded...for your evidence FOR that FACT,,,, you couldnt supply it..andfurther got so indignant at being asked...and do notee its against forum rules to post things as fact without a back up link,,,,.....if thats what you call bullying then thats pretty poor and sad....,,perhaps you can now move yourself to the thread called abductions and show YOUR evidence that Carolina was a FACT, as you STATED, of any abduction, ta...for onlookers convo was on page 1 or so of this thread......post 13
Quiet in here, so off to watch some box nite luv...And if you come across the evidence for the fact of carolina do post it.... If not next time dont state anything as fact unless u can back it up as fact and also then dont spit dummy out for being asked and being incapable of doing so.....In other words you are going to post about things you dont have a clue about dont be so aggressive LOL...makes you look utterly stupid..not forgetting many of your posts are soooo bullying and emotionally blackmailing and pontificating against other members here, how disgraceful, but you cant see past your mirror reflection i suppose....
@)(++(*
Roll eyes
Oh dear! Did I upset you?
What evidence would you like that darling of the "they did it" brigade, Morais is an "anti Mccann" blogger? Her entire works?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 02, 2013, 09:53:26 AM
Yet again, certain people support convicted murderers.
Very revealing. >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 02, 2013, 09:55:44 AM
Indeed, if the mccann supporters backing the Cipriano's are consistent, that is exactly what they should do.
What you don't understand Stephen is that this is justice Portuguese style. It seem that Cipriano was convicted on confessions extracted by torture or threat of torture..are you happy with that... The problem is that according to Montclair who has lived in Portugal for 37 years, he has never heard of any case being overturned ...not one . I certainly would like to see the case looked at again as I suspect on the evidence we have seen there has been a gross miscarriage of justice
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Montclair on November 02, 2013, 10:53:03 AM
What you don't understand Stephen is that this is justice Portuguese style. It seem that Cipriano was convicted on confessions extracted by torture or threat of torture..are you happy with that... The problem is that according to Montclair who has lived in Portugal for 37 years, he has never heard of any case being overturned ...not one . I certainly would like to see the case looked at again as I suspect on the evidence we have seen there has been a gross miscarriage of justice
Why do you insist on that lie that Leonor Cipriano was convicted on the confession? He brother confessed in court and described in court everything that they had done to the poor girl. Furthermore, Leonor's confession, made 2 days before the alleged torture, had not judicial value and was not taken into consideration by the judges because she did not confirm it in the court during the trial.
The case has been looked at through the various appeals made and the couple lost all of their appeals, although, in one appeal, Leonor had her sentenced reduced by a few years.
As for cases being overturned, I don't remember any but that doesn't mean that there weren't any.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Jazzy on November 02, 2013, 10:53:50 AM
Indeed, if the mccann supporters backing the Cipriano's are consistent, that is exactly what they should do.
Why would "Mccann supporters" back the Ciprianos? They had their day in court and were found to be guilty. Others were also found to be guilty of their torture after their day in court.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 02, 2013, 10:55:26 AM
Why do you insist on that lie that Leonor Cipriano was convicted on the confession? He brother confessed in court and described in court everything that they had done to the poor girl. Furthermore, Leonor's confession, made 2 days before the alleged torture, had not judicial value and was not taken into consideration by the judges because she did not confirm it in the court during the trial.
The case has been looked at through the various appeals made and the couple lost all of their appeals, although, in one appeal, Leonor had her sentenced reduced by a few years.
As for cases being overturned, I don't remember any but that doesn't mean that there weren't any.
You say her brother confessed everything in court...do you have proof of that..in fact do you have ANY evidence of that...a court transcript ..a newspaper article
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 02, 2013, 11:26:13 AM
Why do you insist on that lie that Leonor Cipriano was convicted on the confession? He brother confessed in court and described in court everything that they had done to the poor girl. Furthermore, Leonor's confession, made 2 days before the alleged torture, had not judicial value and was not taken into consideration by the judges because she did not confirm it in the court during the trial.
The case has been looked at through the various appeals made and the couple lost all of their appeals, although, in one appeal, Leonor had her sentenced reduced by a few years.
As for cases being overturned, I don't remember any but that doesn't mean that there weren't any.
This quote from the Algarve resident appears to show that it is you that is repeating lies...
The court heard a catalogue of horrifying details, including an earlier video taped confession from Joanas uncle in which he related the circumstances of his nieces murder. This video testimony is now the subject of an appeal from the defence team who claim it should be excluded because the couple exercised their right to remain silent during the trial
So Joao Cipriano did not confess in court as you have stated
We're samples ever saved? I'm sure DNA could be tested in the blood etc
Maybe you'll be happy to read the Supreme Court's decision after Leonor's last appeal (and don't be chocked, even though the language is much lighter than the one in the first sentence).
Maybe you'll be happy to read the Supreme Court's decision after Leonor's last appeal (and don't be chocked, even though the language is much lighter than the one in the first sentence).
doesn't matter what the court says.. What we SEEM to have established is that there is no evidence against the Ciprianos apart from that which was beaten out of them.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 02, 2013, 01:39:43 PM
From the document by the Supreme Court whose link we provided above, the translation of an extract with thanks to Joana Morais http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case.html (http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case.html) :
«9. 1. Facts considered to be proved:
a) the arguidos are siblings;
b) the arguido AA [Joćo Cipriano] has never held a regular job or residence, living inside a vehicle or at his siblings house, surviving on occasional jobs that he performed on diverse locations;
c) the arguido AA manifests despise for human life a result of a poor social adjustment and affective coldness and has anti-social/psychopathic tendencies with a difficulty to control his impulses, which leads him to be aggressive, trying to solve conflicts through said aggressiveness, feeling no remorse for the consequences of the actions that he thus performs, despising other peoples rights, wishes or feelings;
d) through a ruling that has been validated in court, and given on 10.11.1993, arguido AA was condemned to a 4-year prison sentence over the practice, on 2.10.1992, of a crime of attempted homicide, ( ). Said ruling includes that the arguido was convinced, by a third party that lived with one of the arguidos sisters (GG) to take the life of another person who had left him blind, in exchange for 20.000$00 and a motorbike ( );
e) the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] manifests socially deviant behaviour at the level of norms, values and responsibilities, emotional instability and difficulties in expressing frustration, while her socialisation was marked by immature, superficial and narcissistic interpersonal relationships, where characteristics of manipulation (to satisfy her own needs) and aggressiveness (of mainly sadistic tonality) are stand out, while in her personality the absence of empathy and the insensibility are salient, leading to the arguidas despise for other peoples rights, needs and sentiments, directing her aggressiveness towards them, with a weak capacity to feel remorse. She possesses a borderline personality with anti-social/psychopathic, narcissistic and schizoid traits;
f) the arguida BB, who has six children from five relationships, has been showing some lack of interest in her elder children, throughout her life;
g) concerning her eldest daughter, EE, who presently lives with her father and grandmother in Olhćo, she left her there at the age of 11 months, never cared for her again, and didnt ask about her, for 14 years;
h) her second child, FF, who lived with his paternal grandmother and presently lives with a paternal aunt, in Messines, was also left by her to the father, and she never cared for him again;
i) the fourth child, HH, who presently lives with his father in Porches, was left home alone by the arguido BB at the age of 7 months, buckled to his chair, which is how he was found by neighbours who perceived the situation;
j) at that time, arguida BB started living with II [Leandro Silva], a relationship that produced two children, [Name removed] and KK;
l) the third child that she bore was CC [Joana], who was born on 31.05.1996, a daughter of LL;
m) minor CC, in September 2004, was aged eight, being thin and measuring between 1,20 and 1,40 metres; (2)
n) minor CC was sometimes sad;
o) the arguida BB did not exercise any professional activity;
p) when the arguida was living with partner II, minor CC helped her mother with some home chores, as she sometimes helped to clean the house, took care of her younger siblings and went shopping;
q) before arguida BB moved in with her partner II, she wanted to stop having CC under her care, and left her, at the age of 5 months, with her father, LL with whom she had no relationship since the beginning of the pregnancy who ended up returning her 2 days later, and later, she once more handed her over to the father, who didnt want to keep her;
r) in September 2003, arguida BB left CC under the care of a couple of persons with alcoholism problems and with a bed-ridden child that had an infecto-contagious illness, in a house with no conditions whatsoever, for 2 or 3 weeks;
s) on the first day of school for minor CC at the Primary School in Figueira, in the school year of 2003/2004, arguida BB didnt walk the minor to school, and CC arrived with a neighbour, whom she asked for help because she couldnt find the way;
t) on another occasion, the same neighbour took the minor to hospital, at a moment when she was visibly ill with a strong cough;
u) in the early morning of the 12th of September 2004, arguido AA, after a row with his brother UU, went to the arguida BBs house, taking his clothes with him, and during the 12th he stayed in that house, which is located in the village of Figueira Mexilhoeira Grande, in the area of Portimćo;
v) in the late afternoon of the 12th, his sister, arguida BB, and her children, CC, [Name removed] and KK, returned home;
x) at around 8 p.m. on that 12th of September, arguida BB sent CC to buy a package of milk and two cans of food, at a shop called Pastelaria , in Figueira, at a distance of approximately 420 metres from the house;
z) the living room of the house where arguida BB lived, is located immediately after the main door and the door that offers access to the street has a handle on the outside that allows for direct entry into the residence;
aa) minor CC returned home from Pastelaria , where she had bought the aforementioned food products;
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the walls corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minors fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos activity;
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living rooms walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
ad) the arguidos ensured that CC was dead, verifying that she neither breathed nor reacted, and then, not wanting to be held responsible over their daughters and nieces death, decided to prevent said death from becoming known to others;
ae) therefore, they soon decided that they would have to ensure that the existence of any signs in the house of what they had just done could not be verified, that the minors body would never be found and that, preferably, everyone would be convinced that the minor had been taken by a third party;
af) therefore, arguida BB remained at home, washing the wall and the floor that had signs of blood from CC, as well as the spot where the minor remained slumped after death, using a mop and its bucket to do so;
ag) and, as they knew that arguida BBs partner II and his friend, MM, were about to arrive at home, and could discover what had happened there if they arrived before the traces were cleaned, at around 9.30 p.m. arguido AA left, headed towards Pastelaria , where he met II and MM, who were already there, and whom he told that minor CC had not returned home;
ah) when the three of them returned home, arguida BB had already cleaned the existing blood marks, and equally mentioned that minor CC hadnt returned home after doing the shopping;
ai) confronted with what the arguida was saying, II and MM decided to go out and look for the minor, while the arguidos remained at home;
aj) the arguidos then decided, conjointly, to cut the minors body in order to make it possible to store it in the deep freezer that existed in the living room;
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 CCs body, separating the head from the torso and cutting the legs at the knee area;
an) each one of those body parts was placed inside plastic bags the head in one, the torso and part of the legs in another and the two legs below the knee in a third one and after they knotted up the opening of the bag that contained the head, they tried, at least, to place said bags inside the deep freezers three compartments, leaving blood from the minor on several areas inside the deep freezers second drawer;
ao) the arguidos did not place the shoes that the minor was wearing, inside the bags, and all the pairs of shoes that the minor was using that summer, stayed inside the house;
ap) as the minor had already been dead for approximately two hours, not a lot of blood left the body;
aq) between 10.30 and 11 p.m., the arguida BB joined her partner II and MM, to whom she reiterated that CC was missing, and only at that point in time did she go to "Pastelaria ....." and asked the owner (NN) if CC had been there, then saying that she had disappeared;
ar) nevertheless, the arguida didnt inform the police authorities about anything, despite there being GNR officers on duty in Figueira, because a popular fair called Mussels Party was taking place, and it was the third person (NN) that did it by telephone, at around 0.44 a.m. on the 13th of September, when she heard that the arguida hadnt done so yet, and it was following said telephone call that the arguida ended up talking to GNR officers near the church in Figueira;
as) at that point in time the arguida said she hadnt phoned because she had no credit on her mobile phone;
at) later on, at around 2 a.m., the arguida bought cakes in a pastry shop in the same village;
au) on the morning of the 13th, the arguida BB went to the GNR Station, in Portimćo, accompanied by arguido AA, where she filed a complaint over the disappearance of CC;
av) and through the intervention of third parties, relatives of her partner II, the alleged disappearance truly started to be publicised, with the distribution of photographs of CC, because until then the arguidos had intended not to alert the authorities;
ax) at the end of the night of the 13th, the arguidos left the house together, carrying a bag;
az) the arguido AA remained at the arguida BBs house until the 14th, a time lapse during which the two arguidos, in a manner that was not possible to determine, transported CCs mortal remains to an unknown location, thus fulfilling the intention that they had proposed themselves to to prevent the finding of said mortal remains and those remains have not been found to this day, just as the cutting instruments, which the arguidos have hidden in an unknown location, havent been found;
aaa) the arguida BB gave interviews to the media, trying to make believe that the minor had in fact disappeared, a version that she maintained in front of many of the people who were interested in the minors destiny and questioned her about the matter;
aab) during those interviews about the case, arguida BB sometimes mentioned her daughter in the past tense and wore a black blouse;
aac) ticks, namely so-called little leads (ticks in their early adult phase) have receptors for chemical stimuli that are associated to temperature, which allow for them to detect the existence of blood-specific chemical compounds;
aad) on the 18th of September, arguida BB bought petrol and a steel scrub-cloth, with which she washed the house, thus seizing the opportunity to erase almost all vestiges of what had happened there, and only traces of human blood which had been contaminated by the products that were used, remained inside the house;
aae) through an indication from arguida BB, Polķcia Judiciįria agents went to the house of arguida BB eldest daughters paternal grandmother (EE), in Olhćo, searching for CC, and also investigated if an individual of Moroccan nationality had taken the minor;
aaf) when presented to a clinical psychologist, within an examination that was performed within the process scope, arguida BB mentioned the existence of neighbours of Brazilian nationality who might have taken CC with them, because they had two good cars and left the area on the same date on which the minor had disappeared;
aag) following indications from arguido AA, PJ agents searched for CCs body in a brown earth embankment that is located near the road that accesses Mexilhoeira, then on other locations nearby, further away in Poēo Barreto, in a wrecked car, in Silves, under the Arade River bridge;
aah) the arguidos managed to disturb the investigative activities and prevented the mortal remains of minor CC, whose life they took, from being located;
aai) the aforementioned activities were carried out by the arguidos under concerted efforts and intentions, in a deliberate, free and conscious manner, fully knowing that those behaviours are punished by law;
aaj) therefore as far as taking the life of CC, their direct relative (daughter and niece), is concerned, which they did by employing force, taking advantage of the fact that she couldnt defend herself (taking into account her age and physical built) and using force in the full knowledge that, considering the vital area in which her body was hit (the head) repeatedly and violently, prompting the minors head to hit the wall, they could take her life away from her, a consequence which they accepted, still not ceasing their activity;
aal) not seeing as an obstacle the circumstance that the minor depended on her mother and was a direct relative of both, and should be defended instead of victimised by them;
aam) in the same deliberate, free and conscious manner, and knowing that such behaviour is punishable, they carried out the above described action of cutting CCs body, demonstrating total insensibility, knowing full well that, in this manner, they offended the communitarian respect that is due to the dead, acting with the purpose of CCs body never being found again, hiding it in a location that is not appropriated for the effect, in order to try to avoid responsibility for her death;
aan) the arguida BB has no criminal record;
aao) the arguido AA, apart from the above mentioned condemnation under item e), was further condemned, in 1995, under a sentence that has been validated in court, for the practise of a qualified theft, to a penalty, accumulating with the penalty that was imputed over the crime of attempted murder, of 3 years and 8 months in prison; in 2001, over the practise of a crime of illegal driving of a vehicle, he was condemned, under a sentence that has been validated in court, to a penalty of 90 days of fine; and in 2003, over the practise of a crime of illegal driving of a vehicle, he was condemned, under a sentence that has been validated in court, to a penalty of 6 months and 15 days in prison, which was suspended in its execution, in exchange for the compliance with conditions, a suspension that was later revoked;
aap) in terms of schooling, the arguida BB completed 3rd grade, never exercised any profession and married at the age of 18;
aaq) in terms of schooling, the arguido AA completed 4th grade and has worked since he left school, but always exercising undifferentiated services and without any contract;
aas) the arguidos were born within a large family (the parents and 9 siblings), where the fathers alcoholic habits and the financial difficulties stood out.»
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 02, 2013, 01:41:00 PM
doesn't matter what the court says.. What we SEEM to have established is that there is no evidence against the Ciprianos apart from that which was beaten out of them.
According to the Court they were not beaten to confess, they gave it voluntarly in the presence of their lawyers. Otherwise it would not have been accepted in Court.
And who are you to establish anything?!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 02, 2013, 01:49:18 PM
Hi Luz, is there an English translation available anywhere, I neither speak nor read Portuguese, though I have visited Portugal many times.
Yes. Joana Morais has translated the whole document: http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case.html (http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case.html)
and she has a lot of information about all the Cipriano case: http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/search/label/Cipriano%20Case?max_results=100 (http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/search/label/Cipriano%20Case?max_results=100)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 02, 2013, 02:07:10 PM
According to the Court they were not beaten to confess, they gave it voluntarly in the presence of their lawyers. Otherwise it would not have been accepted in Court.
And who are you to establish anything?!!!!!!!!!!
Lets deal with this ridiculous statement first... if you can comment and state opinions re the MCcANNS , then I can do the same with the Ciprianos. Anyone would see that as sensible
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 02, 2013, 02:09:18 PM
According to the Court they were not beaten to confess, they gave it voluntarly in the presence of their lawyers. Otherwise it would not have been accepted in Court.
And who are you to establish anything?!!!!!!!!!!
You need to start telling the truth..the Portuguese court proved she was beaten by the pj
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 02, 2013, 02:12:41 PM
luz cannot run away from the fact that there appears to be no evidence apart from that obtained under torture.
In the morais transaltion it is sated that Joannas blood was found...wheres the evidence for this...no dna evidence
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 02, 2013, 02:18:34 PM
I still think that this case merits its own sub-forum. The slanging matches on the McCann threads don't help to elucidate what happened to this little girl, in my opinion.
I have no idea whether the right people are in prison or not. Perhaps they are. However, there is no proof that she ever even got back home ... She could also be a missing little girl waiting to be found, but no one seems to be questioning what happened to her. 8(8-))
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 02, 2013, 03:08:18 PM
Hi davel, are there any non partisan translations available anywhere that I can read ?
Not that I know of but....Luz who I would think knows the case in detail cannot refute the allegation that the only evidence was the confessions obtained under torture. Montclair claimed that these were confirmed in court by Joao , which according to a newspaper report is untrue. From what I can remember the account "proved " in court is simply what the PJ dreamed up and forced Joao to recite by beating him. Furthermore the blood supposedly found in the house that was supposed to be Joannas was not confirmed by dna
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: DCI on November 02, 2013, 04:35:11 PM
ACED REPORT SOS PRISONS
Ex.mos. Gentlemen President of the Republic; President of the Assembly; Chairman of Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Liberties and Guarantees of the AR; Attorney General's Office Minister of Justice; Ombudsman; General Inspectorate of Justice Services; President of the Human Rights Commission of the Bar
Lisbon, 04.08.2008 N. Ref No. 16/apd/08
Subject: Report on Torture Leonor Cipriano
As a jurist of ACED, Dr. Marcos Aragćo Correia asked if the allegations of torture of Leonor Cipriano by PJ. Concluded, as the public domain, the existence of various signs and witnesses of the brutality and irrationality of this research methods allowed police. We remember the defense of the accused against threatening public institutions made by colleagues of the organizations targeted for torture and the fact that agents involved in this case have been mobilized to work in cases of high sensitivity and national politics, without any kind of shame. In addition to what our lawyer said, it is also able to exist in Portugal the possibility of some public health facilities are capable of concealing or not reporting practices of torture against patients submitted to it, the organization's business involving agents State security with the aim of covering up torture, denounced the existence of torture - by the courage of a state agent, but not the existence of complaints in similar situations in other prisons, where eventually the business will have been successful . That changed in such treacherous business? The ACED has, it's good to see, ways to confirm or rule out what can be deduced that the Portuguese situation in the field of police torture. But the Portuguese state has signed and is the guardian of international commitments to which, we imagine, not to escape. So we send this report to the Portuguese authorities in the hope that the name of Portugal can no longer be tied to such shame. The ACED want on this occasion to reiterate the congratulations addressed to public prosecutors to the indictment, following a complaint of an unprecedented chain director, in this case a lady, now added the fact that no pressure is siding with the public - and others - that were targeted. Want to such positions may be in the future dominant in Portuguese criminal and judicial means, to encourage all those who saw fit to look into all clues of possible crimes in the report that uncertain then transcribed in full.
The Directorate
REPORT ON TORTURE BY PERPETADA of Leonor Cipriano Portuguese Judicial Police
Research firm: ACED - Association Against Exclusion for Development;
Following the known allegations of torture of Leonor Cipriano, committed by the Judicial Police in September 2004, currently serving a prison sentence of 16 years and eight months in Prison Odemira, the ACED - Association Against Exclusion for Development decided to investigate more detail their claims, especially when the situation became urgent to clarify the extent to which the Judicial Police pays off to medieval methods of criminal investigation, which would be contained only in the most recent girl Madeleine Beth McCann, the social position parents the same, strictly opposed to Leonor Cipriano. Thus, after collecting the generous permission of the authorized representative of Leonor Cipriano colleague, the Hon. Dr. Joćo Grade dos Santos, I traveled to the said prison, in Odemira, Alentejo, having arrived shortly after 9 o'clock in the morning of today (April 8, 2008).
No. 1 Leonor Cipriano was called, and agreed to talk to me in the room reserved for lawyers to do so. Remained so convinced and excited, which had no intervention in the death of her daughter Joanna, which knows the whereabouts since the day September 12, 2004, when it was last seen at about 20 hours. Residents in the village of Figueira in Mexilhoeira Grande, near Portimćo, that Joanna had asked to go to a grocery store named "Pastry Celia" Sita about 500 meters from the residence, grocery store owned by a Mrs. Alfélia in order to buy some food, as indeed it used to do it. After about 10 minutes and because Joan is not returned, went to the grocery store mentioned in order to ask the daughter, as she was actually answered by the owner Joan had been there but had left shortly after making a few purchases that have been requested by the mother. Even Eleanor tried to find the daughter nearby, but in vain, so called, to have your phone without charge, Mrs. Alfélia to call the GNR to seek help, which it did immediately, and the National Guard attended the local 21 o'clock the same day. Joana Cipriano was then eight years old, born May 31, 1996, and attended the 2nd grade.
No. 2 Leonor Cipriano account still has six children, including Joan. The oldest. Dina Maria, currently has 18 years, just below Marco Antonio, 12 years, Joan now has or would have 11 years, André Philip who is 8 years, Reuben has six, and Lara Sophia, who is 4 years old. Despite all the public defamation that Leonor was the victim, was often omitted, intentionally or not, the views of older children on the mother's behavior. Fruits of different relations, says Leonor like all the children in the same way, and even tells them to go about it. The current partner Eleanor, now torn apart by the force of grids that reigned on Leonor, was the father of two young children, but Joan was like his own daughter, the five living in the same house. From his name António Leandro David Silva, has always claimed that Leonor Cipriano was unable to harm any of her six children.
No. 3 Arrested on 25 September 2004, Leonor Cipriano was admitted to the Prison Odemira, reserved exclusively for female prisoners. On consecutive days immediately is taken by several inspectors of the Judicial Police to the premises of the same directory of Faro police. This is where the hell Leonor worsens. Tears flowed abundantly him in my presence. Accustomed to exercise almost exclusively in criminal law, I think I can say with great conviction that the tears were genuine. Leonor was crying by the association that the inspectors of the Judicial Police did the interrogation, between her and her daughter, as the direct cause of death and dismemberment in a row to give food to the pigs. Leonor refused these charges immediately. Without any evidence, including the material used for the alleged dismemberment, or bones left by pigs, or even their own pigs, inspectors, about five exalt himself, and screaming, treating it as "you", try persuade her to confess what they wanted. Leonor refusal. Then the torture itself begins. Inspectors from the Judicial Police put two glass ashtrays on the floor and forced Eleanor to kneel on them. Did not allow her to stand up to confess. Eleanor tells the pains of hours have remained in that state. He showed me the scars on his knees, after nearly four years are still visible, and probably will remain for the rest of your life. They are white lines on both knees to prove who was the victim of such abuse, or at least very similar. Realizing the futility of the procedure, the PJ inspectors sit in a chair and Leonor mess on his head a green plastic bag, supermarket. Screaming, trying to force a false confession, inspectors start to beat Leonor in the head with a hard cardboard tube, normally used to send documents by mail rolled. The tube, very hard, and handled with great force against the head of Leonor, bleeding caused him to come down to the eyes. If Eleanor tried to take the bag of the head, was immediately attacked in his hands. Inspectors screamed whenever she would only confess to living there. These beatings alternated with other forms of torture. From time to time raised Leonor, sometimes holding the bag, without the other bag. When standing, began to give strong punches and kicks to the sides of the back. This was repeated several times. The torture lasted two days. Eleanor says she was afraid to die there. So he signed without even reading what they wanted her to sign.
No. 4 In possession of false confession, Leonor inspectors return to prison. But finding that his health was too serious, they decide to go through the Health Center Odemira, so that the doctor will prescribe service (or disguise) something. However, interestingly, came from Faro, and Faro was who had the most complete health care. But wait for Odemira. Leonor warned before to tell the doctor and the prison who had thrown down the stairs in the directory of the PJ in Faro in order to attempt suicide. They threatened that if she spoke something of aggression, they would return to take her in for questioning and that's where she would not leave alive. Leonor confirms what the inspectors wanted to while in their presence, but they barely leave the prison, she tells the whole truth to the guards and the Director of the Prison Odemira. This, alarmed by the disastrous state of health of Leonor Cipriano, ordered to be photographed and sent back to the Health Centre Odemira, but this time it was made for a medical-legal expertise.
No. 5 After nearly two hours talking with Leonor Cipriano, soon had to follow the care request a meeting with the Director of Prison Odemira in order to confirm these data. I readily received by it, with whom I talked about this for almost 1 hour. From his name Ana Maria Calado, a degree in Sociology, and has attended four years of medical school. Is Director of the Prison Odemira 7 years ago. Confirmed to me that with courage Leonor Cipriano told me. Own a person that puts corporate interests above values, Dr. Ana Maria Calado, said to me that had been shocked by the state in which Eleanor had entered the prison. The bruises, bruises and contusions, were abundantly visible in the face, especially around the eyes, head, and back, especially to the sides. Assures me that using their knowledge of medicine, in fact confirmed by medical examinations made after the legal Leonor such physical marks clearly indicated violent attacks, and never by a simple fall down the stairs. Were numerous and quite pronounced, he said. During our meeting, surprised even several facts: the fact that the PJ, in addition to not having done Leonor go to a hospital in Faro, never sent a delegate to the prison health to try and prove that the marks would be imprisoned the alleged suicide attempt by the stairs, even stranger that the PJ have chosen the day of questioning exactly coinciding with his week's holiday, as if in work, the behavior would never have allowed the PJ to pick Leonor at 6 the morning and return it by midnight, with no formal request from a direction of PJ, which never existed, even more strange that, when opened an internal investigation by the PJ and in relation to torture of Joan, a team of two inspectors from Lisbon, in private meeting with her in prison, having tried to negotiate an allocation of fault between the PJ and the same prison in relation to aggressive Leonor. As a person of integrity, Dr. Ana Calado obviously refused pact on something that their establishment had no responsibility. He also said that the Director Mrs. health of Leonor Cipriano worsened one week after being tortured, as the accumulated blood around the eyebrows was so much that did the same sagging over the eyes of Leonor, causing stay practically blind for almost a month. Only now regret not having sent also take pictures of this period the health of Leonor. Dr. Ana Maria Calado said to me, that Leonor Cipriano "in terms of attitude and behavior is one of the best inmates who had for many years" and that minimally does not believe that she tried to commit suicide, because not only would have many opportunities to do so after the fateful interrogation but he never did, nor has any history prior to his arrest. Also reinforced the excellent relationship with Leonor guards and other inmates. With a touch of humor, he added that if the car exploded as I know who would have been. Anyway, we finished our meeting, coming to confirm the excellent references that had this Mrs. Director.
No. 6 For Joćo Cipriano, 38, 1 year older brother of Leonor, this also says he was tortured separately, according to him had reported the same, but the prison where his brother was gone did not deign to take the same steps probative of the attacks as he had done Odemira. John Cyprian wrote, after the award of both a letter to Eleanor asking your pardon, specifically for his sister to forgive him all the lies he was forced to say.
No. 7 Leonor Cipriano tried to identify, at the request of prosecutors, inspectors who tortured her. In its view, was transported to Evora in 2006 to try to recognize some of the torturers from six inspectors submitted to it. Unfortunately, given the lapse of time, that many times to be with a bag over her head when attacked, and the possibility of not being recognized at the site of all offenders, Leonor was only able to say with absolute certainty that Gonēalo Amaral , then coordinator of the DIC of Portimćo, was present during the interrogation, the torture of watching a perfectly complacent, because every time he had uncovered his eyes and he was beaten was there, walking from one side to another, without ever having tried prevent torture carried out by their subordinates.
CONCLUSION Given the high credibility of the testimony of Leonor Cipriano, now corroborated by John Cyprian, for always Leandro David Anthony Silva, and above all absolutely credible the testimony of Mrs. Director of Prison Odemira, Dr. Ana Maria Calado, also attested for medical examinations arranged by the same law, I am convinced that we are facing a case that sets up a crime of torture perpetrated by agents of the Portuguese Judicial Police on Leonor Cipriano. It is unacceptable that law enforcement officers continue to use medieval methods to extract confessions at all costs, even if false, reminiscent of an inquisitor maximum of 600 years ago who admitted that even if I had to confess that the Pope did was a witch . These behaviors of agents of national police agencies are highly detrimental to the image of Portugal, which sees itself as a modern rule of law, a member of the European Union and human rights defender, exemplary and should be repressed under penalty discredit further the confidence of Portuguese citizens in the judicial system. A law enforcement officer, to be charged with enforcing the law, the duty has increased in relation to an ordinary citizen, to set an example himself fulfilling the law that you want to meet others. It is because of a crime with a special legal and moral reprehensibility, the parameters of the democratic rule of law enshrined in the Constitution that Portugal, lest our country be re-rated, nationally and internationally, as a fascist country, as has been insinuated in some foreign media. We can only bring out the parallels in the case of the disappearance of Joana Cipriano with Madeleine McCann. Both disappeared a few kilometers away, and both cases were investigated by the same Criminal Investigation Department of the Judicial Police of Portimćo. In the first case, were not collected any valid evidence against Leonor Cipriano. In the second, and tell us as much as the successive and unpunished leaks coming from the PJ itself, and in accordance with the national press when he says "fountain of PJ" or "source close to the investigation," said the second case, the Madeleine , there is, despite the dust that we persistently try to shoot the eyes, any evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann, as indeed himself the Head of institution PJ implicitly admitted when he declared that the constitution as defendants of the latter was "hasty." However, the defendants are prohibited from talking about the case to the press, preventing them from exercising a legitimate right of defense to slander selected for disclosure by "sources close to the investigation." Read up on the subject very enlightening article authored by Fondation Princesse de Croy, with the rather plain title "Madeleine McCann probably eaten by Portuguese pigs" (in http://fondationprincessedecroy.over-blog.org/article-12736754.html) , revealing article on how Portugal is increasingly marred the level of its international image. It is therefore that the Portuguese government to eliminate once and for all the persistent human rights violations that continue unabated with impunity, especially among those who assert themselves as law enforcers and defenders of those rights at the state level. This should not only take the punishment of offenders, which in itself is already an indirect preventive dimension, but also a direct preventive action, making an active effort by eliminating and salutary constitution of the criminal police all the elements that are not carriers of a genuine technical training, discipline, especially legal and moral, both in its theoretical and practical components. I recommend this for the ACED, new complaint about the case to national authorities, as well as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. I conclude this report, disclosing message Leonor Cipriano, writing and signed by today's date, so enter your vehement and emotional request to this effect: "I want my daughter Joan appear so you can not just be with her again but also to show the world that the lords of the judicial police inspectors who tortured me is who are the real monsters." 04.08.2008. Leonor Cipriano . No. 34. Why blame a better free than one innocent in jail.
Portimćo, April 8, 2008
The Reporter,
Marcos Aragćo Correia, Lawyer (Lawyer Professional Card No. 427m), and Jurist of ACED - Association Against Exclusion for Development.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 02, 2013, 04:47:00 PM
Did amaral take his sarnies and walk for miles in the rain and storm to eat with Joanna's uncle? I'm sure I read this years ago .why didn't he take a taxi
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: lizzibif. on November 02, 2013, 05:11:51 PM
Did amaral take his sarnies and walk for miles in the rain and storm to eat with Joanna's uncle? I'm sure I read this years ago .why didn't he take a taxi
Wasn't it christmas day ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: DCI on November 02, 2013, 05:12:14 PM
Really ?? Thanks again for bringing it to the thread.
You are welcome!
Seems its all true about the torture, otherwise why want an internal investigation.
When opened an internal investigation by the PJ and in relation to torture of Joan, a team of two inspectors from Lisbon, in private meeting with her in prison, having tried to negotiate an allocation of fault between the PJ and the same prison in relation to aggressive Leonor. As a person of integrity, Dr. Ana Calado obviously refused pact on something that their establishment had no responsibility.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 02, 2013, 06:15:16 PM
Seems its all true about the torture, otherwise why want an internal investigation.
When opened an internal investigation by the PJ and in relation to torture of Joan, a team of two inspectors from Lisbon, in private meeting with her in prison, having tried to negotiate an allocation of fault between the PJ and the same prison in relation to aggressive Leonor. As a person of integrity, Dr. Ana Calado obviously refused pact on something that their establishment had no responsibility.
Whose Joan and when was she tortured? I thnk google translate is better than this psychic lawyers ramblings....deary me
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 02, 2013, 06:48:13 PM
Well, reading through the long text now, in no 2 it says Joan was one of Leonors six children, in no 6 Joao is referred to by correct name..so torture of Joan makes no sense........doesnt matter, wouldnt trust that lawyer as far as I could throw him.......
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: DCI on November 02, 2013, 06:49:44 PM
So what does the relation to the torture of Joan mean then??? was he on the wackybacky when writing it maybe
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 03, 2013, 03:23:31 PM
From another thread:
Carana
Executive Member ****** Posts: 2132 Newbie View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Has there been any other abductions on the Algarve? « Reply #33 on: Today at 11:51:38 AM »
Quote Modify Remove
Quote from: Montclair on November 02, 2013, 04:16:35 PM
Concerning the part of the article, which contains many falsehoods, about Michael Cook, it is incorrect when the author says that confessions are the most important part of evidence. During the dictatorship, they were but now, as I have already stated several times on this forum, only confessions made in front of the judge during the trial are considered valid. I don't believe that the man was taken to the court with soiled clothing, the judge would have noticed right away and his lawyer would have made a complaint. This man, IMO, is just another person who committed a crime and wants everyone to believe that he has been a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
According to this extract from Barra da Costa though, Leonor and Joćo Cipriano didn't confess during the trial.
A PJ fez um vķdeo, durante as investigaēões, para reconstituir o crime. Neste filme, Joćo descreveu o crime com detalhes brutais. O vķdeo foi exibido no śltimo dia de julgamento. Mas as palavras de Joćo nćo tinham qualquer valor, jį que ele e Leonor tinham optado por nćo prestar declaraēões em julgamento. http://www.asmeninasquevieramdasestrelas.com/juridica.html
I realise that the lawyer's site is controversial, but would Barra da Costa misrepresent the facts of the original trial?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 03, 2013, 03:27:01 PM
Executive Member ****** Posts: 2132 Newbie View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Has there been any other abductions on the Algarve? « Reply #33 on: Today at 11:51:38 AM »
Quote Modify Remove
Quote from: Montclair on November 02, 2013, 04:16:35 PM
Concerning the part of the article, which contains many falsehoods, about Michael Cook, it is incorrect when the author says that confessions are the most important part of evidence. During the dictatorship, they were but now, as I have already stated several times on this forum, only confessions made in front of the judge during the trial are considered valid. I don't believe that the man was taken to the court with soiled clothing, the judge would have noticed right away and his lawyer would have made a complaint. This man, IMO, is just another person who committed a crime and wants everyone to believe that he has been a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
According to this extract from Barra da Costa though, Leonor and Joćo Cipriano didn't confess during the trial.
A PJ fez um vķdeo, durante as investigaēões, para reconstituir o crime. Neste filme, Joćo descreveu o crime com detalhes brutais. O vķdeo foi exibido no śltimo dia de julgamento. Mas as palavras de Joćo nćo tinham qualquer valor, jį que ele e Leonor tinham optado por nćo prestar declaraēões em julgamento. http://www.asmeninasquevieramdasestrelas.com/juridica.html
I realise that the lawyer's site is controversial, but would Barra da Costa misrepresent the facts of the original trial?
It was also reported in the newspapers that neither confessed during the trial so Montclair is wrong. You need to take what some posters say with a pinch of salt as they are willing to say anything to prove their agenda
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 03, 2013, 05:44:11 PM
It was also reported in the newspapers that neither confessed during the trial so Montclair is wrong. You need to take what some posters say with a pinch of salt as they are willing to say anything to prove their agenda
What on earth happened to this child? I haven't found anything to prove that she even returned home that evening.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 03, 2013, 05:54:08 PM
What on earth happened to this child? I haven't found anything to prove that she even returned home that evening.
Like the shoes she was wearing were in the flat? Sorry but if she was genuinely missing why would they both change their statement a zillion times, why would the brother change his story from I killed her to his sister sold her? Etc If you find nothong wrong in this case you need to have a word with yourseldpf about many things....reread the whole supreme court judgement.....and tell me its all boll******
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 03, 2013, 06:01:42 PM
Like the shoes she was wearing were in the flat? Sorry but if she was genuinely missing why would they both change their statement a zillion times, why would the brother change his story from I killed her to his sister sold her? Etc If you find nothong wrong in this case you need to have a word with yourseldpf about many things....reread the whole supreme court judgement.....and tell me its all boll******
yesterday you claimed there was blood everywhere...why was not one drop of Joannas blood found
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 03, 2013, 06:06:54 PM
Like the shoes she was wearing were in the flat? Sorry but if she was genuinely missing why would they both change their statement a zillion times, why would the brother change his story from I killed her to his sister sold her? Etc If you find nothong wrong in this case you need to have a word with yourseldpf about many things....reread the whole supreme court judgement.....and tell me its all boll******
Why did they change their statements..because they were tortured...which has been proved ive read the court judgement and a lot of it is bol*******
Now...about the blood
yesterday you claimed there was blood everywhere...why was not one drop of Joannas blood found
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 03, 2013, 06:28:17 PM
Like the shoes she was wearing were in the flat? Sorry but if she was genuinely missing why would they both change their statement a zillion times, why would the brother change his story from I killed her to his sister sold her? Etc If you find nothong wrong in this case you need to have a word with yourseldpf about many things....reread the whole supreme court judgement.....and tell me its all boll******
I have and I find the whole case very strange.
Try to take this case on its own for two minutes. (Imagine that it had taken place somewhere else entirely.)
I still haven't found any proof that she actually got home that evening. Neither have I found any forensic testimony to the effect that something disastrous had happened to this child in that house.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 03, 2013, 06:35:19 PM
Why did they change their statements..because they were tortured...which has been proved ive read the court judgement and a lot of it is bol*******
Now...about the blood
yesterday you claimed there was blood everywhere...why was not one drop of Joannas blood found
Was the brother tortured in 2009 when he appealed his sentence? Giving a different story?Seems to me like the pair of them were trying to blame each other....for selling her.....why would they do that if she was abducted
As for the blood I didnt claim anything, I posted whatI read in the court judgement about blood being found on floors and walls....you mayhave a point in the sense that this happens for innocent reasons in many households.....my parquet floor was strewn with blood last month after i cut my foot on glass....but I didnt have a child mssing or tell the police where she had lost blood.....! Or how I disposed of her.....he had his confession videotaped didnt? Was he black and blue in it? As for your saying the whole judgement is boll**** well I dont thnk youre qualified to do that, do you? As hasbeen explained on this thread, dna is not the be all and end all of evidence required to convict someone......there are many strands in cases....eta that last bit is for you carana as well....and what proof would you want for her getting home that evening?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 03, 2013, 06:39:20 PM
Was the brother tortured in 2009 when he appealed his sentence? Giving a different story?Seems to me like the pair of them were trying to blame each other....for selling her.....why would they do that if she was abducted
As for the blood I didnt claim anything, I posted whatI read in the court judgement about blood being found on floors and walls....you mayhave a point in the sense that this happens for innocent reasons in many households.....my parquet floor was strewn with blood last month after i cut my foot on glass....but I didnt have a child mssing or tell the police where she had lost blood.....! Or how I disposed of her.....he had his confession videotaped didnt? Was he black and blue in it?
it seems he realised it was not worth being further tortured and gave in easy...the whole case sounds like a miscarriage of justice to me
why was no blood belonging to Joanna found
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 03, 2013, 06:47:15 PM
perhaps if you could answer the question it would make more sense. the court claimed lots of blood as you have stated...but none of it belonged to Joanna how can that make sense to anyone
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 03, 2013, 06:49:53 PM
I have and I find the whole case very strange. Try to take this case on its own for two minutes. (Imagine that it had taken place somewhere else entirely.)
I still haven't found any proof that she actually got home that evening. Neither have I found any forensic testimony to the effect that something disastrous had happened to this child in that house.
Totally agree Carana. Most strange of all IMO is the fact that even the motive for the crime which was presented to the court was not accepted by them. Surely a credible motive would be of paramount importance and an essential requirement for obtaining a guilty verdict in a murder trial. Particularly in view of the apparent lack of forensics.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 03, 2013, 07:09:15 PM
perhaps if you could answer the question it would make more sense. the court claimed lots of blood as you have stated...but none of it belonged to Joanna how can that make sense to anyone
No davel....YOUR post about torture made no sense.......read back....as for the blood.....how can you be in any position whatsoever to state as afact it wasnt her blood! Did they dna test it and found it to be someone elses?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 03, 2013, 07:13:51 PM
You replied to my post about the shoes by saying I see it all now....I wondered what you meant...whether you meant ah now youve read it all , ie the judgement relating to that small piece,and seen it or whether it was a sarky remark.....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 03, 2013, 07:42:01 PM
You replied to my post about the shoes by saying I see it all now....I wondered what you meant...whether you meant ah now youve read it all , ie the judgement relating to that small piece,and seen it or whether it was a sarky remark.....
I wasn't being sarky at all Red. I simply meant that your explanation had cleared the query up for me and thanked you for it.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 03, 2013, 07:43:08 PM
Eta should add my apologies for reading into your reaponse, nite nite now
No worries. Night night.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 05, 2013, 03:00:56 PM
Whilst I was searchng for somethng I came across this statement by Leonor Cipriano, never seen it before, so, anyone still want to maintain she is still alive/missing/abducted?
Whilst I was searchng for somethng I came across this statement by Leonor Cipriano, never seen it before, so, anyone still want to maintain she is still alive/missing/abducted?
So where did this letter come from? But the court proved Joanna died in the apt and was dismembered
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 05, 2013, 07:50:48 PM
Its a 2009 statement.......where did it come from? Court or other official records presumably.....I dont know the context, perhaps as part of one of her appeals.....
The pair of them have been proved to be liars and changed their statements drastically and not just once, so not alot of reconciling to be done.....or know the exact truth.....
My question was and the point is does anyone still maintain bearing this and the court reports and judgements in mind that Joana is alive and was abducted! It does not make sense, does it?
poor little mite....~~~~~~
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 05, 2013, 07:55:57 PM
Its a 2009 statement.......where did it come from? Court or other official records presumably.....I dont know the context, perhaps as part of one of her appeals.....
The pair of them have been proved to be liars and changed their statements drastically and not just once, so not alot of reconciling to be done.....or know the exact truth.....
My question was and the point is does anyone still maintain bearing this and the court reports and judgements in mind that Joana is alive and was abducted! It does not make sense, does it?
poor little mite....~~~~~~
I think there is every reason to believe this conviction is unsafe. The only evidence are the two confessions obtained by torture or the threat of torture
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 05, 2013, 08:00:06 PM
I think there is every reason to believe this conviction is unsafe. The only evidence are the two confessions obtained by torture or the threat of torture
So are you alledging this was an abduction but the two convicts had to confess to murder just like that? And for no reason? Do the PJ torture all parents of missing children? To extract a confession? Listen to what youre saying.......
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 05, 2013, 08:06:36 PM
So are you alledging this was an abduction but the two convicts had to confess to murder just like that? And for no reason? Do the PJ torture all parents of missing children? To extract a confession? Listen to what youre saying.......
What I'm saying is that in the case of Leonor torture by the pj was proved in court ..fact..that is totally unnacceptable
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: ferryman on November 05, 2013, 08:08:17 PM
What I'm saying is that in the case of Leonor torture by the pj was proved in court ..fact..that is totally unnacceptable
Look, I know that none of it proves that she's guilty of murder, but have you read what she did to her kids? At the very, very least she's a despicable human being, at worst she's a cold blooded murderer.
If you really believe she's innocent, you should be campaigning on her behalf.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 05, 2013, 08:47:49 PM
Look, I know that none of it proves that she's guilty of murder, but have you read what she did to her kids? At the very, very least she's a despicable human being, at worst she's a cold blooded murderer.
If you really believe she's innocent, you should be campaigning on her behalf.
You obviously haven't been reading the posts...campaigning on her behalf.....according to Montclair who has lived in Portugal for 37 years he has never known anyone to win an appeal..it doesn't happen in Portugal..what do you think of that..
As what she did to her children...that's the version from the pj
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 05, 2013, 08:50:06 PM
You obviously haven't been reading the posts...campaigning on her behalf.....according to Montclair who has lived in Portugal for 37 years he has never known anyone to win an appeal..it doesn't happen in Portugal..what do you think of that..
As what she did to her children...that's the version from the pj
Well most of her children weren't living with her and it was her neighbour who said she found Joana lost and alone on her first day of school. She had to take her and explain why she was late. Her first day at school davel!
If that doesn't break your heart, nothing will!
As for now case being over turned in 37 years, if you really believe taht it was a miscarrage of justice, you should still try!
Nelson Mandela didn't say "well, I've been on Robin Island for 26 years and haven't got anywhere, I may as well give in" did he?
You've got to fight for what you believe in now matter what the odds are!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 05, 2013, 09:03:50 PM
Well most of her children weren't living with her and it was her neighbour who said she found Joana lost and alone on her first day of school. She had to take her and explain why she was late. Her first day at school davel!
If that doesn't break your heart, nothing will!
As for now case being over turned in 37 years, if you really believe taht it was a miscarrage of justice, you should still try!
Nelson Mandela didn't say "well, I've been on Robin Island for 26 years and haven't got anywhere, I may as well give in" did he?
You've got to fight for what you believe in now matter what the odds are!
I found Kate and Gerry's appearance on crimewatch heartbreaking
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 05, 2013, 09:06:14 PM
The thing that stands out for me about this case is that Leonor didn't even bother to phone the police the moment she realised Joana was missing. I'm afraid her excuse about having no credit on her phone doesn't wash as 112 is free.
What has K&G being on Crimewatch to do with this thread Dave?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 05, 2013, 09:10:01 PM
I found Kate and Gerry's appearance on crimewatch heartbreaking
Yes, both heartbreaking, a mother who didnt take her kid to her first day of school and just left her to go alone and another one who was told her three yr old kid was crying the night before and asking where they were, but left her again alone the next night too, not bothered....but left the door open in case if she woke up she could go out in the dark and trapse around looking for her, thanks for bringing up the similarities.....
As for gerry and kates appearance(s) oh dear....what a gullible person you are.....no hope for you
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 05, 2013, 09:19:44 PM
Yes, both heartbreaking, a mother who didnt take her kid to her first day of school and just left her to go alone and another one who was told her three yr old kid was crying the night before and asking where they were, but left her again alone the next night too, not bothered....but left the door open in case if she woke up she could go out in the dark and trapse around looking for her, thanks for bringing up the similarities.....
As for gerry and kates appearance(s) oh dear....what a gullible person you are.....no hope for you
One of us is gullible... I think the anti McCanns as a whole are gullible...accepting things without looking at the evidence..without questioning the evidence
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 05, 2013, 09:23:56 PM
One of us is gullible... I think the anti McCanns as a whole are gullible...accepting things without looking at the evidence..without questioning the evidence
you are in no position whatsoever to decree and judge about a whole group of people, and their thoughts, ideas, reasons, suspicions, knowledge, informed decisions of, what they have looked at and what they have accepted or discarded, etc in a case....how utterly arrogant and presumptious of you.....funniest post of the day.......nite dear
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 05, 2013, 09:27:25 PM
you are in no position whatsoever to decree and judge about a whole group of people, and their thoughts, ideas, reasons, suspicions, knowledge, informed decisions of, what they have looked at and what they have accepted or discarded, etc in a case....how utterly arrogant and presumptious of you.....funniest post of the day.......nite dear
You do realise that you have just made this post...".what a gullible person you are.....no hope for you" but I am not allowed to answer.. I am entitled to my opinion even if you wish I wasnt
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 05, 2013, 09:32:00 PM
You do realise that you have just made this post...".what a gullible person you are.....no hope for you" but I am not allowed to answer.. I am entitled to my opinion even if you wish I wasnt
I called you gullible for a specific single thing....you called a whole geoup of people that in general....,, a ....slight....difference..... @)(++(*
Nite chum
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 05, 2013, 09:34:07 PM
I found Kate and Gerry's appearance on crimewatch heartbreaking
The two things are not mutually exclusive davel! You can be as heart broken as you like for two adults you don't know as still be moved by a five year old girls being lost and alone!
All your feeling are reserved for a couple of grown ups are they?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 05, 2013, 09:42:15 PM
The two things are not mutually exclusive davel! You can be as heart broken as you like for two adults you don't know as still be moved by a five year old girls being lost and alone!
All your feeling are reserved for a couple of grown ups are they?
Absolutely not..there is far more suffering in this world...a googol times more than either of these cases..a million murdered in Cambodia...a million murdered in Tibet.. I think its all the nastiness.. the bile.. that is directed towards the Mccanns...you have seen that facebook site..its almost unprecedented
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 05, 2013, 09:46:46 PM
Absolutely not..there is far more suffering in this world...a googol times more than either of these cases..a million murdered in Cambodia...a million murdered in Tibet.. I think its all the nastiness.. the bile.. that is directed towards the Mccanns...you have seen that facebook site..its almost unprecedented
And growing daily. I don't condone it davel.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 05, 2013, 10:08:22 PM
You have to admit Dave, even the presiding judge lost patience with Leonor and her blatant lies.
How could that be if LC didn't speak at her trial?
As for lying - you will say anything under torture - and agree with whatever is being suggested by others that you did. Hence IMO the places re where the body was supposed to have been but was not found. Because no matter how much you are tortured, if you didn't do it then how can you say where a body is? No amount of torture is going to change that fact So you just say anything or agree with what is being suggested to you. - and IMO that is what happened.
There was no evidence to show the body had been consumed by pigs - but what a convenient 'solution' to explain why a body was never found.
There appears to be no forensic evidence - and torture was proved to have been inflicted on LC by unidentified officers of the PJ. The only thing we know for sure is that Joanna Cipriano disappeared - which of course she would if she had been abducted.
How LC is still in prison I will never understand.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 05, 2013, 10:47:10 PM
You "will never understand" because only an innocent LC suits your agenda. You're spreading the myth of a miscarriage of justice concerning LC, though you don't understand her language, have never seen her nor talked to her nor wrote to her. LC concerns you only as an instrument to discredit the inspector who handled the case, not for the sake of Joana, but for the sake of another little girl's parents. Exactly like the medium lawyer Aragćo Correia. Shameful.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 05, 2013, 11:02:32 PM
You "will never understand" because only an innocent LC suits your agenda. You're spreading the myth of a miscarriage of justice concerning LC, though you don't understand her language, have never seen her nor talked to her nor wrote to her. LC concerns you only as an instrument to discredit the inspector who handled the case, not for the sake of Joana, but for the sake of another little girl's parents. Exactly like the medium lawyer Aragćo Correia. Shameful.
This is the vibe I'm getting too. Joana had a horrible life and a horrible death, yet she seems to have been forgotten.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Montclair on November 05, 2013, 11:05:30 PM
You obviously haven't been reading the posts...campaigning on her behalf.....according to Montclair who has lived in Portugal for 37 years he has never known anyone to win an appeal..it doesn't happen in Portugal..what do you think of that..
As what she did to her children...that's the version from the pj
I never said that no one has ever won an appeal. People win appeals all the time. Some have their sentences reduced, verdicts overturned but gross miscarriages of justice I don't remember any but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. But Leonor and Joćo Cipriano aren't victims, that's for sure. This is my last comment about those two, they have no more appeals, they have all been rejected.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 05, 2013, 11:13:23 PM
You "will never understand" because only an innocent LC suits your agenda. You're spreading the myth of a miscarriage of justice concerning LC, though you don't understand her language, have never seen her nor talked to her nor wrote to her. LC concerns you only as an instrument to discredit the inspector who handled the case, not for the sake of Joana, but for the sake of another little girl's parents. Exactly like the medium lawyer Aragćo Correia. Shameful.
Reported.
I do not spread myths. I post my opinion. I have every right to do that -just as you have every right to post your opinions about your perceived guilt of the McCanns without being repeatedly accused of creating and spreading myths. Creating myths is to create lies. I am not a liar.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 06, 2013, 10:10:18 AM
Benice, I've told you I'll never leave you spread a myth without denouncing it, I certainly never said I wouldn't leave you express your opinion. This is the last thing I'd wish to do.
For instance when you claim that the McCanns were right not to give importance to Madeleine's asking where they were when she cried, this is your opinion, not a myth.
When you insinuate that LC shouldn't be in jail as decided by the Portuguese Justice you spread the myth of a possible miscarriage of justice.
And please don't spread the myth that I consider the McCanns guilty, because I never said so.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 06, 2013, 11:28:32 AM
Benice, I've told you I'll never leave you spread a myth without denouncing it, I certainly never said I wouldn't leave you express your opinion. This is the last thing I'd wish to do.
For instance when you claim that the McCanns were right not to give importance to Madeleine's asking where they were when she cried, this is your opinion, not a myth.
When you insinuate that LC shouldn't be in jail as decided by the Portuguese Justice you spread the myth of a possible miscarriage of justice.
And please don't spread the myth that I consider the McCanns guilty, because I never said so.
Posting an opinion is not spreading myths. Spreading myths is dishonest. I am not dishonest. Your persistent personal attacks on me - and not on my posts is against the rules.
Quote from you to me:- You're spreading the myth of a miscarriage of justice concerning LC, though you don't understand her language, have never seen her nor talked to her nor wrote to her. Unquote
If it is prerequisite that posters can only comment on people they have met or talked to then this forum might as well be closed down now - as I doubt anyone here has met the McCanns or spoken to them.
If I think a miscarriage of justice may have occurred I am entitled to say so. Just as those people who do not accept (despite what SY have said) that the McCanns are innocent - are also entitled to express their opinions.
Your claim that you know WHY I post and that I am spreading lies as part of some kind of hidden agenda is outrageous and extremely offensive.
On another thread where you also personally attack me - John has requested that people leave out 'personal comments'. That also applied to YOU - as I presume you are not exempt from the rules.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2013, 11:32:56 AM
I never said that no one has ever won an appeal. People win appeals all the time. Some have their sentences reduced, verdicts overturned but gross miscarriages of justice I don't remember any but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. But Leonor and Joćo Cipriano aren't victims, that's for sure. This is my last comment about those two, they have no more appeals, they have all been rejected.
please make it your last comment because it was Luz who started this thread... I don't wish to keep commenting on it but if other posters raise the issue I will reply. I believe there may have been a miscarriage of justice in this case ..simple as that...no agenda. My only agenda is to find out the truth about what happened to madeleine and after looking at all the evidence with a critical eye...I don't think her parents are involved and on the balance of probabilities...which is how justice works ..I think she was abducted
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2013, 11:38:13 AM
Posting an opinion is not spreading myths. Spreading myths is dishonest. I am not dishonest. Your persistent personal attacks on me - and not on my posts is against the rules.
Quote from you to me:- You're spreading the myth of a miscarriage of justice concerning LC, though you don't understand her language, have never seen her nor talked to her nor wrote to her. Unquote
If it is prerequisite that posters can only comment on people they have met or talked to then this forum might as well be closed down now - as I doubt anyone here has met the McCanns or spoken to them.
If I think a miscarriage of justice may have occurred I am entitled to say so. Just as those people who do not accept (despite what SY have said) that the McCanns are innocent - are also entitled to express their opinions.
Your claim that you know WHY I post and that I am spreading lies as part of some kind of hidden agenda is outrageous and extremely offensive.
On another thread where you also personally attack me - John has requested that people leave out 'personal comments'. That also applied to YOU - as I presume you are not exempt from the rules.
Its rather silly to talk about spreading myths when what you and I have said is that there may have been a miscarriage of justice. if posters feel we are not allowed to have an opinion then I suggest it is them who have a problem AND an agenda.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: j.rob on November 06, 2013, 06:08:14 PM
Hmm - an interesting few hours reading the McCann files and the history behind the Amaral who was pulled from the case. Amaral was, of course, of the opinion that Madeleine died in the apartment and that the parents pretended there had been an abduction.
He was the lawyer who brought about a conviction in Portugal of the mother and uncle of a child, Joana, who was reported 'missing' by the mother. I do believe that the mother appeared in the media making appeals to the 'abductor' asking them not to harm the child.
The mother and uncle were eventually convicted of her murder, although I understand there are new twits (HA - typo!! should read TWISTS) in the story and that the mother is now claiming it was the uncle who carried out the murder (who is her brother - is this correct??) Whether it was one or both of them - they are both proven liars, with serious personality defects
Her defence lawyer was/is Correia. Again, this is my understanding from what I have read. Apparently Amaral thinks he should be sectioned and I have to say, from what I have read about him, I agree. He has also had some involvement in the McCann case in terms of searching for her - he believes in the abduction theory.
The Joana case reveals that the mother had been cruelly neglectful of the child and there is some evidence of sexual abuse. The mother changed her story endlessly and gave very unreliable evidence.
The mother provided evidence suggesting that Amaral had beated her up in order to make her confess to the killing of her daughter. This was widely reported in the UK press and elsewhere. The evidence was false. It was done to discredit Amaral. To my knowledge this fact has not been reported in the UK media. The mother lied about that - just like she had lied about the disappearance of her daughter. Amaral had, apparently, reported that her injuries were because she threw herself down the stairs. I presume because this is either what he believed or what she had told him. For this statement, which is wrong (apparently she was beaten up by inmates of the jail) he has been prosecuted and has received a suspended sentence. All sounds like a big stitch up.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: j.rob on November 06, 2013, 06:14:48 PM
Happy to be corrected on any facts that are inaccurate. You have to wade through a lot of files in order to reach some kind of summary of what has happened so far.
The timings are extremely interesting - it is my understanding that Amaral was made an arguido (on the basis of the false claim from the mother convicted of murdering Joana) on 4th May 2007. I think Gerry and Kate were quoted on their views on this - 'it speaks for itself' or something.
Has anyone informed them about them that Joana's mother made up a pack of lies about being beaten up by Amaral? I think it is quite important.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 06, 2013, 07:41:23 PM
My comments on the McCann's caring about Amaral were said in irony...
Benita?? Please clarify - are you denying that the mother of Joana, a murdered child, lied in her evidence that Amaral beat her up? That was the conclusion reached by a court of law.
Don't you think it is good that justice was found for an eight year old child who was brutally murdered?
Given that this thread relates to the murder of an innocent child and to the alleged disappearance of another child - whose parents claim they think may have been abducted by a paedophile, your facetious and childish smiley is just - extraordinary, really.
Leonor was terrified of being brutally tortured again. She said anything that she was told to say. Tortured people always do. Ultimately, they have to protect themselves.
Fascist States use torture. PT claims to be a Democracy, but as far as certain sections of the PJ and the Judiciary are concerned is clearly nothing of the sort.
After a change from Fascism to Democracy, it is almost always sections of the Police / Judiciary and the Military that hang on to the old ways. They fear losing their old power. They have developed a liking for being able to order people around. And some get a surge when torturing. They thrive on bullying and torture.
Joana is almost certianly still alive as is Madeleine
Tbh, your thinking is lacking j.rob
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 06, 2013, 07:44:34 PM
Leonor was terrified of being brutally tortured again. She said anything that she was told to say. Tortured people always do. Ultimately, they have to protect themselves.
Fascist States use torture. PT claims to be a Democracy, but as far as certain sections of the PJ and the Judiciary are concerned is clearly nothing of the sort.
After a change from Fascism to Democracy, it is almost always sections of the Police / Judiciary and the Military that hang on to the old ways. They fear losing their old power. They have developed a liking for being able to order people around. And some get a surge when torturing. They thrive on bullying and torture.
Joana is almost certianly still alive as is Madeleine
Tbh, your thinking is lacking j.rob
Joana is almost certianly still alive as is Madeleine
Yes and pigs have wings.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 06, 2013, 07:45:23 PM
Joana is almost certianly still alive as is Madeleine
----
Ridiculous at best.......oh no evidence too, not a jot......for you to profess she is most certainly alive...same with Madeleine Mccann.....
And why did leonora say her brother killed her then? if she was abducted Tut tut
Leonor was terrified of being brutally tortured again. She said anything that she was told to say. Tortured people always do. Ultimately, they have to protect themselves.
Fascist States use torture. PT claims to be a Democracy, but as far as certain sections of the PJ and the Judiciary are concerned is clearly nothing of the sort.
After a change from Fascism to Democracy, it is almost always sections of the Police / Judiciary and the Military that hang on to the old ways. They fear losing their old power. They have developed a liking for being able to order people around. And some get a surge when torturing. They thrive on bullying and torture.
Joana is almost certianly still alive as is Madeleine
Tbh, your thinking is lacking j.rob
Cipriano is a convicted liar.
You do not know she has told the truth.
Liars by their very nature aren't inclined to do that.
As to Joana, YES feel sorry for what happened to her.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 06, 2013, 07:55:43 PM
Liars by their very nature aren't inclined to do that.
As to Joana, YES feel sorry for what happened to her.
Certainly is...one or both killed joana, thats what the court found, all appeals went down the bog, not rocket science.......she most certainly is not alive or missing abducted
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2013, 08:00:33 PM
Liars by their very nature aren't inclined to do that.
As to Joana, YES feel sorry for what happened to her.
Leonor Cipriano may well have been the victim of a severe miscarriage of justice. It would seem the only evidence against her was extracted by the use or threat of torture
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 06, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Leonor Cipriano may well have been the victim of a severe miscarriage of justice. It would seem the only evidence against her was extracted by the use or threat of torture
Can you prove any of that ?
Are you accusing specific persons of torture or threat of that?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2013, 08:07:56 PM
..................but she was blindfolded. Does she have X-ray vision ?
and the woman is a liar and liar's don't have a habit of telling the truth.
So davel, put your money where your mouth is, name the 'torturers'.
do you know anything about the case . she was blindfolded so couldn't identify her attackers but the court accepted that torture had taken place. The PJ officers involved said she had fallen down the stairs and were proved in court to be liars
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2013, 08:23:04 PM
do you know anything about the case . she was blindfolded so couldn't identify her attackers but the court accepted that torture had taken place. The PJ officers involved said she had fallen down the stairs and were proved in court to be liars
Can you imaging if she was found to be telling the truth ? The police would have to open Joanna's case and it could cost millions .then how bad is it going to look ?
Portugal don't need any more bad publicity .
I think amaral is going to come out smelling of roses unless Madeleine is found
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: lizzibif. on November 06, 2013, 08:26:16 PM
Joana case is very strange indeed..she could very well be alive..I think child trafficking is involved in huge way too.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 06, 2013, 08:27:41 PM
you have no idea in in other words.......he didnt cover up torture as you alledge.......
May 2009
Gonēalo Amaral receives a one and a half year suspended sentence Jornal de Noticias
22 May 2009 16h41m
Translation by Nigel Moore
Gonēalo Amaral was sentenced to a year and a half in prison, suspended, for misrepresentation of evidence in the case of aggressions against Leonor Cipriano.
There are several different translations ..this is from the McCann Files...sounds like covering up to me
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 06, 2013, 08:27:47 PM
Can you imaging if she was found to be telling the truth ? The police would have to open Joanna's case and it could cost millions .then how bad is it going to look ?
Portugal don't need any more bad publicity .
I think amaral is going to come out smelling of roses unless Madeleine is found
So you are now accusing the pj of closing investigations and/or accusing innocents of crimes to save money...how sad is that
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 06, 2013, 08:29:42 PM
I do not think after all Portugal Has had to go through with the mccanns they need more shit . Nothing at all about closing a case
Yeh sorry if i got the wrong end of the stick with this post.......
Can you imaging if she was found to be telling the truth ? The police would have to open Joanna's case and it could cost millions .then how bad is it going to look ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 06, 2013, 08:35:08 PM
theres absolutely no evidence apart from that gained by torture or threat of torture to support that
you have to post your evidence of torture or threat of torture was used when leonor wrote that statement in 2009...off you go and produce it
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 06, 2013, 08:50:07 PM
In comments to The Portugal News this week the Ciprianos' lawyer, Joćo Grade, said he was confident that he would be able to clear his clients once their appeal was heard, as he believed their guilt had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
He also failed to rule out the possibility that Joana had been sold, especially after someone linked to the family made a 50,000 bank deposit in the days after her disappearance.
A letter written by Joćo from jail to Leonor, which was intercepted by the authorities, also made reference to the exchange of cash and that "a grown-up Joana would one day probably return to Portugal".
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id176.html
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 06, 2013, 08:54:36 PM
In comments to The Portugal News this week the Ciprianos' lawyer, Joćo Grade, said he was confident that he would be able to clear his clients once their appeal was heard, as he believed their guilt had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
He also failed to rule out the possibility that Joana had been sold, especially after someone linked to the family made a 50,000 bank deposit in the days after her disappearance.
A letter written by Joćo from jail to Leonor, which was intercepted by the authorities, also made reference to the exchange of cash and that "a grown-up Joana would one day probably return to Portugal".
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id176.html
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 06, 2013, 09:11:37 PM
In comments to The Portugal News this week the Ciprianos' lawyer, Joćo Grade, said he was confident that he would be able to clear his clients once their appeal was heard, as he believed their guilt had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
He also failed to rule out the possibility that Joana had been sold, especially after someone linked to the family made a 50,000 bank deposit in the days after her disappearance.
A letter written by Joćo from jail to Leonor, which was intercepted by the authorities, also made reference to the exchange of cash and that "a grown-up Joana would one day probably return to Portugal".
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id176.html
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 06, 2013, 11:59:35 PM
In comments to The Portugal News this week the Ciprianos' lawyer, Joćo Grade, said he was confident that he would be able to clear his clients once their appeal was heard, as he believed their guilt had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
He also failed to rule out the possibility that Joana had been sold, especially after someone linked to the family made a 50,000 bank deposit in the days after her disappearance.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id176.html
19 June 2007
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Kazcutt on November 07, 2013, 01:56:46 AM
The night of 12 September 2004 was a festival night in the Aldeia da Figueira. The traditional Sćo Miguel party was underway as shown in these amateur videos given to RTP, which show no signs of Joana. But in one scene you can see António Leandro, the girl's stepfather.
The Portimćo GNR continued with searches over the following days around the Aldeia da Figueira. Posters about the disappearance were put up. But there were no traces of Joana.
The mother began giving interviews to the media.
Leonor Cipriano, Joana's mother: "Everyone in the café says, 'This is a badly told story. A girl disappearing, suddenly... it was someone from outside who headed for Lisbon and took her in a car.'"
Four days later, the case of the missing 8 year old girl is transferred to the PJ in Portimćo. Another four days later, it is transferred to the PJ Directory in Faro. The inspectors had no idea they now had in their hands one of the most complex cases ever confronted.
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo, Director, PJ Faro: "In this investigation, we covered about 50,000 kilometres. 2100 official processes were created. We assigned approximately 40 inspectors and requested approximately 40 exams from the Scientific Police Laboratory and the Legal Medical Institute."
Leonor Cipriano continued to give interviews.
Leonor Cipriano: "I'm very sad. I think my daughter is really missing her mother. I just ask that anyone who knows about my daughter, that you don't hurt her. And that you can bring her to me."
Interviewer: "Where do you think your daughter could be right now?"
Leonor Cipriano: "There are only guesses. If she is alive, or not, if she's hurt. I don't know, there's no explanation for my daughter I don't know, I don't know."
Without any clues, the PJ inspectors did find discrepancies. The statements of Joana's mother, the uncle and the other family members do not coincide.
Gonēalo Amaral, Coordinating Inspector PJ (Jan 2007): "In the first statements given to the GNR, the first agency to arrive, it was a badly told story. There were various contradictions amongst certain people, witnesses, who were part of the family group where Joana lived. Based on these contradictions, there arose at a certain time the need for a new interrogation of these individuals, with all these witnesses, at the same time, at the police headquarters, such that they couldn't confer between themselves, and with the principal objective to understand whether the girl had, or had not, returned home. From there, it was proved that the girl had returned home. That is, it was a lie, there was a simulation of a disappearance. From there, it was necessary to determine what had happened."
Leonor is taken in by the PJ on the 21 September, eleven days after her daughter disappeared. The girl's uncle, Joćo Cipriano, remained free for one more day but was also arrested under suspicion of homicide.
In the next few days, Joćo took the PJ inspectors to dozens of different locations to point out Joana's body. But the body was not found in any of those places.
Gonēalo Amaral: "At that time, it became, as if it were a fact, to the police that she was playing with us She was sending a message, a message to perhaps say that the body was cut up or the body no longer existed. But, at the same time, all the diligences constituted evidence. This permitted us, as would come to happen in the trial, to speak about them, because they were diligences in which we participated and not witness statements of the arguidos. We aren't talking about declarations by arguidos, we are talking about giving witness to the diligences that we did and why we did these diligences and went to these places. On the other hand, it would not have happened, for him to indicate where to find the body or the rest of the body or pieces of the body and we then didn't go. We always had to go. And that's what happened."
The PJ's theory was that the body was fed to the pigs, a theory that was not proven in court. Shocked by this macabre story, hundreds of locals invaded the village searching for answers. The same answers for which the PJ were searching. Why was Joana killed? And where is her body?
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo: "In principal, this is a disappearance. And this crime is always, excuse me, this crime doesn't have a juridic framework but could have behind it a series of crimes, a kidnapping, an abduction, human trafficking, criminal associations, so that any of these crimes could be behind a disappearance. And the complexity begins right there."
Leonor and her brother confessed the crime to the PJ. Joćo 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.
Sara Rosado, Joćo Cipriano's lawyer: "I imagine that all the pressure surrounding this process, generated that, those declarations, as well as others in opposite and various directions, with other details, with other facts. As for the rest, the version that you find constituted in the video doesn't even adhere to the accusation. That is, the actual accusation didn't even follow this theory if you examine certain details. And, in fact, only the pressure that one of these was the enormous pressure on everyone, including the arguidos who were arrested and so "
RTP requested authorization from the Portimćo Court to emit in this report a short excerpt of the video but the judge in charge denied the request invoking the "image rights" of those who appear in the video.
Joćo Cipriano also directed a photographic reconstitution where, with the help of a mannequin, he explained how he cut Joana's body into three parts.
According to the accusations from the Public Ministry, the three body pieces were placed in black sacks in the small refrigerator during the first few hours. In the various exams done by technicians from the Scientific Police Lab at Joana's house, human blood was found in one of the drawers inside the refrigerator. But DNA tests did not prove that the blood was Joana's.
Gonēalo Amaral: "It is just one of the versions that was given, and we continue to find viable and credible because blood was found in a chink on one of the refrigerator drawers. A drop of blood in the drawer. Someone opens [the refrigerator] and lets some blood run. The blood ran into the drawer and was cleaned, so it only remained in the chinks, in the areas that are difficult to clean. The explanation was necessary given the circumstances in which the homicide occurred, as this was not a prepared or planned homicide, it was a homicide "in loco." It happened, in the way everyone knows, and they had to hide the body. It's viable and an alternative that they may have used and tried, during the first phase while thinking about what to do with the body, to hide the body in the refrigerator."
During the trial, it was also proven that the body pieces would only have fit in the refrigerator if that drawer in which they found human blood had been removed from the refrigerator.
Sara Rosado: "The doctor who attended the diligences and testified in court affirmed that, very tightly, [the body] would fit. But only by removing the drawer. There was blood found on the back of the alleged drawer, having removed the drawer, but the doctor said the arguidos were surprised with this. It was an idea that had never occurred to them. So I don't think anything like this happened."
Many more vestiges of blood were found in Joana's house. Using ultraviolet light, they found blood on the walls by the door: traces of facial and hand impressions from a child of the family, but which could not be proved to be Joana's. Also by the light switch, near the front door, there was found a bit of blood from Ruben, Joana's younger brother who also lived in the house.
Joćo Grade, Leonor Cipriano's second lawyer (former lawyer): "There was not blood in so many different areas... there were various exams done... just vestiges of human blood, which is normal. A housewife only has to cut herself peeling potatoes while watching a soap opera, only has to have a cut, to have blood, it just has to fall on the ground, it has to be cleaned as anyone of us would clean, and then with rigorous exams you could conclude that there were vestiges of blood. It doesn't say anything. In any of our houses, there could be blood like this."
On the floor of the house and on a mop handle, there were found a mixture of human and animal blood. These exams were also inconclusive.
Allegedly, the exams did not produce results because Leonor washed the house with gasoline because the house was infected with ticks. A doubtful motive for PJ who found the house filthy with dirty dishes in the sink. Except for some walls which were cleaned. As soon as the first suspicions arose, the house should have been isolated.
Gonēalo Amaral: "You can tell that the house had been cleaned, that area where the blood was found had been cleaned. It had been cleaned with petroleum purchased by Leonor on the day she left the Portimćo police station. There was an attempt, that you might say worked well, to inhibit any laboratory results. As many vestiges as possible were obtained, given the circumstances, and the conclusion is that it was human blood. According to the court, and I agree, something serious happened in that house, on that day. And the conclusion was that it was a homicide."
Another piece of evidence found at Joana's house by the PJ were the red shoes that Joana was supposed to be wearing the day she disappeared. The PJ believe that the mother and uncle forgot to hide the shoes, just as they did the purchases from the store. The posters put up by the family said that she was wearing red shoes.
Sara Rosado: "No one knows what the child was wearing, especially the shoes."
In February 2005, photographs were published of Leonor with significant bruising (Marinho Pinto Expresso Newspaper Article). The trial will begin soon of four inspectors charged with torture, and Gonēalo Amaral of the crime of false witness and failure to denounce [inappropriate police behaviour].
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo: "This is extremely difficult because, in 30 years of criminal investigation, I've never seen the confession of such a serious crime without the arguidos saying they were tortured, attacked or raped so that this, for us police officers, and I tell you, unfortunately, it has become the norm, natural. Therefore I don't give it a lot of credence."
Leonor and Joćo opted to remain silent throughout the entire trial. In November 2005 they were charged with qualified homicide and hiding a cadaver. Leonor was condemned to 20 years and 4 months in prison, and Joćo to 19 years and 2 months. The three jury members and four judges felt that the brother and sister did not intend to kill the child but gave, as proven, that the body was dismembered though they were not convinced it was kept in the refrigerator. Nor was it proven that the child was killed because she caught the mother and her brother having sex. The defense attorneys and the Public Ministry presented an appeal, reducing the penalty to 16 years and 8 month.
With a lot of doubts still to be clarified, Leonor's attorney presented another appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Joćo Grade: "It's more than frustrating that we do not know what happened. We have this other child who disappeared 10 years ago, when eight years old, and now has returned at eighteen years old. We don't know whether Joana is going to appear twenty years from now, or four years from now, alive or dead, I don't know."
RTP wanted to talk to Leonor and Joćo, currently serving their sentences in the Odimera and Carregeira prisons. Leonor sent a signed letter, where she agreed to give an interview. Two days after making a request to the Prison Director, that service sent us a newly signed letter when Leonor rescinded her agreement because of "lack of understanding".
Joćo Cipriano agreed to give his first interview, a written interview wherein he proclaimed his innocence. "I did nothing to my niece, Joana Guerreiro. I am innocent. I was threatened with knives to make that video that was shown in court. But it is all lies. The PJ came almost every day to the Olhćo prison where I was held to ask me where Joana was. And I, afraid of beatings, kept saying she was here or there, but it was a lie. My sister told me that Joana was fine. She told me that she had sold Joana to a foreign couple."
It remains to be known, what was Joana's destiny.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 07, 2013, 09:20:55 AM
How could any Appeal Court find this guilty verdict to be safe?
No motive established No relevant forensic evidence produced. No trace of a body ever found. Torture by the PJ at the police station established in court. A cover up of said torture by PJ officers proved in court. Sentences imposed on PJ officers, and subsequent 'appeals' thrown out.
Verdict re LC? - Guilty M'lud.
Totally bizarre imo.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 07, 2013, 09:47:12 AM
Those of you who believe that LC is innocent and that Joana is alive, what are you doing about it?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2013, 10:01:06 AM
The night of 12 September 2004 was a festival night in the Aldeia da Figueira. The traditional Sćo Miguel party was underway as shown in these amateur videos given to RTP, which show no signs of Joana. But in one scene you can see António Leandro, the girl's stepfather.
The Portimćo GNR continued with searches over the following days around the Aldeia da Figueira. Posters about the disappearance were put up. But there were no traces of Joana.
The mother began giving interviews to the media.
Leonor Cipriano, Joana's mother: "Everyone in the café says, 'This is a badly told story. A girl disappearing, suddenly... it was someone from outside who headed for Lisbon and took her in a car.'"
Four days later, the case of the missing 8 year old girl is transferred to the PJ in Portimćo. Another four days later, it is transferred to the PJ Directory in Faro. The inspectors had no idea they now had in their hands one of the most complex cases ever confronted.
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo, Director, PJ Faro: "In this investigation, we covered about 50,000 kilometres. 2100 official processes were created. We assigned approximately 40 inspectors and requested approximately 40 exams from the Scientific Police Laboratory and the Legal Medical Institute."
Leonor Cipriano continued to give interviews.
Leonor Cipriano: "I'm very sad. I think my daughter is really missing her mother. I just ask that anyone who knows about my daughter, that you don't hurt her. And that you can bring her to me."
Interviewer: "Where do you think your daughter could be right now?"
Leonor Cipriano: "There are only guesses. If she is alive, or not, if she's hurt. I don't know, there's no explanation for my daughter I don't know, I don't know."
Without any clues, the PJ inspectors did find discrepancies. The statements of Joana's mother, the uncle and the other family members do not coincide.
Gonēalo Amaral, Coordinating Inspector PJ (Jan 2007): "In the first statements given to the GNR, the first agency to arrive, it was a badly told story. There were various contradictions amongst certain people, witnesses, who were part of the family group where Joana lived. Based on these contradictions, there arose at a certain time the need for a new interrogation of these individuals, with all these witnesses, at the same time, at the police headquarters, such that they couldn't confer between themselves, and with the principal objective to understand whether the girl had, or had not, returned home. From there, it was proved that the girl had returned home. That is, it was a lie, there was a simulation of a disappearance. From there, it was necessary to determine what had happened."
Leonor is taken in by the PJ on the 21 September, eleven days after her daughter disappeared. The girl's uncle, Joćo Cipriano, remained free for one more day but was also arrested under suspicion of homicide.
In the next few days, Joćo took the PJ inspectors to dozens of different locations to point out Joana's body. But the body was not found in any of those places.
Gonēalo Amaral: "At that time, it became, as if it were a fact, to the police that she was playing with us She was sending a message, a message to perhaps say that the body was cut up or the body no longer existed. But, at the same time, all the diligences constituted evidence. This permitted us, as would come to happen in the trial, to speak about them, because they were diligences in which we participated and not witness statements of the arguidos. We aren't talking about declarations by arguidos, we are talking about giving witness to the diligences that we did and why we did these diligences and went to these places. On the other hand, it would not have happened, for him to indicate where to find the body or the rest of the body or pieces of the body and we then didn't go. We always had to go. And that's what happened."
The PJ's theory was that the body was fed to the pigs, a theory that was not proven in court. Shocked by this macabre story, hundreds of locals invaded the village searching for answers. The same answers for which the PJ were searching. Why was Joana killed? And where is her body?
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo: "In principal, this is a disappearance. And this crime is always, excuse me, this crime doesn't have a juridic framework but could have behind it a series of crimes, a kidnapping, an abduction, human trafficking, criminal associations, so that any of these crimes could be behind a disappearance. And the complexity begins right there."
Leonor and her brother confessed the crime to the PJ. Joćo 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.
Sara Rosado, Joćo Cipriano's lawyer: "I imagine that all the pressure surrounding this process, generated that, those declarations, as well as others in opposite and various directions, with other details, with other facts. As for the rest, the version that you find constituted in the video doesn't even adhere to the accusation. That is, the actual accusation didn't even follow this theory if you examine certain details. And, in fact, only the pressure that one of these was the enormous pressure on everyone, including the arguidos who were arrested and so "
RTP requested authorization from the Portimćo Court to emit in this report a short excerpt of the video but the judge in charge denied the request invoking the "image rights" of those who appear in the video.
Joćo Cipriano also directed a photographic reconstitution where, with the help of a mannequin, he explained how he cut Joana's body into three parts.
According to the accusations from the Public Ministry, the three body pieces were placed in black sacks in the small refrigerator during the first few hours. In the various exams done by technicians from the Scientific Police Lab at Joana's house, human blood was found in one of the drawers inside the refrigerator. But DNA tests did not prove that the blood was Joana's.
Gonēalo Amaral: "It is just one of the versions that was given, and we continue to find viable and credible because blood was found in a chink on one of the refrigerator drawers. A drop of blood in the drawer. Someone opens [the refrigerator] and lets some blood run. The blood ran into the drawer and was cleaned, so it only remained in the chinks, in the areas that are difficult to clean. The explanation was necessary given the circumstances in which the homicide occurred, as this was not a prepared or planned homicide, it was a homicide "in loco." It happened, in the way everyone knows, and they had to hide the body. It's viable and an alternative that they may have used and tried, during the first phase while thinking about what to do with the body, to hide the body in the refrigerator."
During the trial, it was also proven that the body pieces would only have fit in the refrigerator if that drawer in which they found human blood had been removed from the refrigerator.
Sara Rosado: "The doctor who attended the diligences and testified in court affirmed that, very tightly, [the body] would fit. But only by removing the drawer. There was blood found on the back of the alleged drawer, having removed the drawer, but the doctor said the arguidos were surprised with this. It was an idea that had never occurred to them. So I don't think anything like this happened."
Many more vestiges of blood were found in Joana's house. Using ultraviolet light, they found blood on the walls by the door: traces of facial and hand impressions from a child of the family, but which could not be proved to be Joana's. Also by the light switch, near the front door, there was found a bit of blood from Ruben, Joana's younger brother who also lived in the house.
Joćo Grade, Leonor Cipriano's second lawyer (former lawyer): "There was not blood in so many different areas... there were various exams done... just vestiges of human blood, which is normal. A housewife only has to cut herself peeling potatoes while watching a soap opera, only has to have a cut, to have blood, it just has to fall on the ground, it has to be cleaned as anyone of us would clean, and then with rigorous exams you could conclude that there were vestiges of blood. It doesn't say anything. In any of our houses, there could be blood like this."
On the floor of the house and on a mop handle, there were found a mixture of human and animal blood. These exams were also inconclusive.
Allegedly, the exams did not produce results because Leonor washed the house with gasoline because the house was infected with ticks. A doubtful motive for PJ who found the house filthy with dirty dishes in the sink. Except for some walls which were cleaned. As soon as the first suspicions arose, the house should have been isolated.
Gonēalo Amaral: "You can tell that the house had been cleaned, that area where the blood was found had been cleaned. It had been cleaned with petroleum purchased by Leonor on the day she left the Portimćo police station. There was an attempt, that you might say worked well, to inhibit any laboratory results. As many vestiges as possible were obtained, given the circumstances, and the conclusion is that it was human blood. According to the court, and I agree, something serious happened in that house, on that day. And the conclusion was that it was a homicide."
Another piece of evidence found at Joana's house by the PJ were the red shoes that Joana was supposed to be wearing the day she disappeared. The PJ believe that the mother and uncle forgot to hide the shoes, just as they did the purchases from the store. The posters put up by the family said that she was wearing red shoes.
Sara Rosado: "No one knows what the child was wearing, especially the shoes."
In February 2005, photographs were published of Leonor with significant bruising (Marinho Pinto Expresso Newspaper Article). The trial will begin soon of four inspectors charged with torture, and Gonēalo Amaral of the crime of false witness and failure to denounce [inappropriate police behaviour].
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo: "This is extremely difficult because, in 30 years of criminal investigation, I've never seen the confession of such a serious crime without the arguidos saying they were tortured, attacked or raped so that this, for us police officers, and I tell you, unfortunately, it has become the norm, natural. Therefore I don't give it a lot of credence."
Leonor and Joćo opted to remain silent throughout the entire trial. In November 2005 they were charged with qualified homicide and hiding a cadaver. Leonor was condemned to 20 years and 4 months in prison, and Joćo to 19 years and 2 months. The three jury members and four judges felt that the brother and sister did not intend to kill the child but gave, as proven, that the body was dismembered though they were not convinced it was kept in the refrigerator. Nor was it proven that the child was killed because she caught the mother and her brother having sex. The defense attorneys and the Public Ministry presented an appeal, reducing the penalty to 16 years and 8 month.
With a lot of doubts still to be clarified, Leonor's attorney presented another appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Joćo Grade: "It's more than frustrating that we do not know what happened. We have this other child who disappeared 10 years ago, when eight years old, and now has returned at eighteen years old. We don't know whether Joana is going to appear twenty years from now, or four years from now, alive or dead, I don't know."
RTP wanted to talk to Leonor and Joćo, currently serving their sentences in the Odimera and Carregeira prisons. Leonor sent a signed letter, where she agreed to give an interview. Two days after making a request to the Prison Director, that service sent us a newly signed letter when Leonor rescinded her agreement because of "lack of understanding".
Joćo Cipriano agreed to give his first interview, a written interview wherein he proclaimed his innocence. "I did nothing to my niece, Joana Guerreiro. I am innocent. I was threatened with knives to make that video that was shown in court. But it is all lies. The PJ came almost every day to the Olhćo prison where I was held to ask me where Joana was. And I, afraid of beatings, kept saying she was here or there, but it was a lie. My sister told me that Joana was fine. She told me that she had sold Joana to a foreign couple."
It remains to be known, what was Joana's destiny.
This is such a disgrace. How on earth those two were convicted is completely beyond me. But perhaps more to the point, all that rubbish about Fridges worked, despite no proof, so Amaral decided to try it on again. And then produced even more rubbish about thawed out ice that no one ever saw or obtained Forensics from.
There is something very seriously wrong with a Judicial System that allows men like Amaral to so influence cases that people can be convicted on nothing at all. And then allows him to coordinate another similar case. Fortunately he picked on the wrong people the second time around. And there weren't any pigs handy in PdL.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 07, 2013, 12:06:38 PM
This is such a disgrace. How on earth those two were convicted is completely beyond me. But perhaps more to the point, all that rubbish about Fridges worked, despite no proof, so Amaral decided to try it on again. And then produced even more rubbish about thawed out ice that no one ever saw or obtained Forensics from.
There is something very seriously wrong with a Judicial System that allows men like Amaral to so influence cases that people can be convicted on nothing at all. And then allows him to coordinate another similar case. Fortunately he picked on the wrong people the second time around. And there weren't any pigs handy in PdL.
But perhaps more to the point, all that rubbish about Fridges worked, despite no proof, so Amaral decided to try it on again. *And then produced even more rubbish about thawed out ice that no one ever saw or obtained Forensics from.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
*Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.
The book at stake in this process "Maddie the Truth of the Lie" which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonēalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2013, 12:27:23 PM
But perhaps more to the point, all that rubbish about Fridges worked, despite no proof, so Amaral decided to try it on again. *And then produced even more rubbish about thawed out ice that no one ever saw or obtained Forensics from.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
*Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.
The book at stake in this process "Maddie the Truth of the Lie" which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonēalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
This is for a Court to decide. Freedom of Opinion has it's limits, even in The Portuguese Constitution.
What personal and professional honour does Goncalo Ameral have left? He is a convicted Fraudster and a Convicted Liar. All of which happened before The McCanns ever went to Portugal. And don't imagine that The Judge doesn't know this.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 12:34:18 PM
This is for a Court to decide. Freedom of Opinion has it's limits, even in The Portuguese Constitution.
What personal and professional honour does Goncalo Ameral have left? He is a convicted Fraudster and a Convicted Liar. All of which happened before The McCanns ever went to Portugal. And don't imagine that The Judge doesn't know this.
This is for a Court to decide. Freedom of Opinion has it's limits, even in The Portuguese Constitution.
They already did. And this decision was not overturned by the supreme court.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
The Appellate Court Judges,
Francisco Bruto da Costa Catarina Arelo Manso António Valente
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 12:38:41 PM
This is for a Court to decide. Freedom of Opinion has it's limits, even in The Portuguese Constitution.
They already did. And this decision was not overturned by the supreme court.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
The Appellate Court Judges,
Francisco Bruto da Costa Catarina Arelo Manso António Valente
You seem to think the case is settled, from what I have read you are totally wrong. The judgement so far is an interim judgement and can be overturned by the court in the present libel case
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2013, 12:58:49 PM
The Court did not open the Right to Libel. That has still to be decided upon.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 07, 2013, 01:06:08 PM
You seem to think the case is settled, from what I have read you are totally wrong. The judgement so far is an interim judgement and can be overturned by the court in the present libel case
Do you think the freedom of expression laws will be re written for the McCanns?
Are they really that special?
The McCanns appealed to the supreme court & they did not overturn the previous courts decisions on, http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
right to a fair investigation
right to freedom and safety
right to image and a good name
Based on the witness statements of the current trial , Do you think the current judge will overturn 2 previous court rulings?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2013, 01:19:10 PM
How could any Appeal Court find this guilty verdict to be safe?
No motive established No relevant forensic evidence produced. No trace of a body ever found. Torture by the PJ at the police station established in court. A cover up of said torture by PJ officers proved in court. Sentences imposed on PJ officers, and subsequent 'appeals' thrown out.
Verdict re LC? - Guilty M'lud.
Totally bizarre imo.
No 'motive' was established ?
A child was beaten so savagely that she died of her injuries !
When an adult beats a child they are not 'motivated' by anything other than their own unspeakably sadistic nature
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 07, 2013, 04:09:30 PM
There is something very seriously wrong with a Judicial System that allows men like Amaral to so influence cases that people can be convicted on nothing at all.
You should read post 80
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 07, 2013, 04:17:10 PM
The 'motive' is usually considered to be of major importance in a court case where someone is accused of murder.
The court threw out the alleged motive.
Well we will have to disagree on the importance of 'motive' in this case ... or any other case involving children who have died as a result of physical abuse from an adult
When I see yet another sad case on the news, like Vicoria Climbie, or baby P, I do not sit and wonder what motivated the sadists who killed them
Do you Benice ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2013, 04:34:58 PM
Well we will have to disagree on the importance of 'motive' in this case ... or any other case involving children who have died as a result of physical abuse from an adult
When I see yet another sad case on the news, like Vicoria Climbie, or baby P, I do not sit and wonder what motivated the sadists who killed them
Do you Benice ?
No, but at least we look for some proof.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 07, 2013, 04:37:02 PM
So do you think any of the McCanns witnesses have proven that Amarals book,
Damaged the parents
Damaged the search
It certainly damaged The McCanns. It didn't affect me. But then I was just appalled by the fact that he had written it in the first place.
Witnesses are only witnesses, and Amaral's buddies haven't come across all that well. Just a bunch of pals, as established by The Judge. And half of them hadn't even read his s...ky book.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 07, 2013, 05:00:24 PM
Well we will have to disagree on the importance of 'motive' in this case ... or any other case involving children who have died as a result of physical abuse from an adult
When I see yet another sad case on the news, like Vicoria Climbie, or baby P, I do not sit and wonder what motivated the sadists who killed them
Do you Benice ?
Motive can be simply jealousy nothing more nothing less, or even feeling tied down wanting to only share a life with a partner and not have children who will take that persons affections etc. Its quite scary isnt it.
Motive can be simply jealousy nothing more nothing less, or even feeling tied down wanting to only share a life with a partner and not have children who will take that persons affections etc. Its quite scary isnt it.
It certainly damaged The McCanns. It didn't affect me. But then I was just appalled by the fact that he had written it in the first place.
Witnesses are only witnesses, and Amaral's buddies haven't come across all that well. Just a bunch of pals, as established by The Judge. And half of them hadn't even read his s...ky book.
It certainly damaged The McCanns.
Where is there proof of this?
Amaral's buddies haven't come across all that well. Just a bunch of pals, as established by The Judge.
Where is there proof the Judge established this?
And half of them hadn't even read his s...ky book.
And proof of this?
Moita Flores. The Judge Have you read the book? MF says he did.
Ricardo Paiva GP Have you read the GA book? RP says "yes" and adds he read various books by Gonēalo Amaral.
Manuel Catarino SO Have you read GA's book? MC says he did.
Tavares de Almeida The Judge asks the witness if he has read GA's book. TA says he only read the final part.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 07, 2013, 05:15:47 PM
It certainly damaged The McCanns. It didn't affect me. But then I was just appalled by the fact that he had written it in the first place.
Witnesses are only witnesses, and Amaral's buddies haven't come across all that well. Just a bunch of pals, as established by The Judge. And half of them hadn't even read his s...ky book.
We shall see who the s...ks are in this case, rest assured......
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 07, 2013, 05:32:25 PM
Well we will have to disagree on the importance of 'motive' in this case ... or any other case involving children who have died as a result of physical abuse from an adult
When I see yet another sad case on the news, like Vicoria Climbie, or baby P, I do not sit and wonder what motivated the sadists who killed them
Do you Benice ?
There is no comparison between prolonged sadistic abuse over many months/years - and a mother apparently murdering her daughter in a fit of anger because she was caught in an incestuous act. The court did not believe that happened - and no other motive was offered.
So with no motive and no forensic evidence to prove any of the claims made by the PJ and a 'confession' retracted on the grounds that she had been tortured - how on earth was this lady found guilty?
Furthermore since the torture of LC has been established in a Portuguese court of law and so nothing in her confession can be regarded as remotely credible let alone reliable - why is she still in prison?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 06:59:54 PM
There is no comparison between prolonged sadistic abuse over many months/years - and a mother apparently murdering her daughter in a fit of anger because she was caught in an incestuous act. The court did not believe that happened - and no other motive was offered.
So with no motive and no forensic evidence to prove any of the claims made by the PJ and a 'confession' retracted on the grounds that she had been tortured - how on earth was this lady found guilty?
Furthermore since the torture of LC has been established in a Portuguese court of law and so nothing in her confession can be regarded as remotely credible let alone reliable - why is she still in prison?
SHOW me a link where she is NOT GUILTY of this heinous crime.
Please I will be very interested.
I find it quite abhorrent almost sickening that anyone would keep pushing this case to make a point about a supposed corrupt COPPER on another case of a child abducted a BRITISH child.
It actually physically makes me feel sick to my stomach that people will keep pushing this case not for justice of the little girl who was murdered and cut up into pieces, but to just make a POINT about Mr Amaral.
IF Mr Amaral had not been involved in the Leonor Cipriano case you would not even be bothered with it?
People should be ashamed of themselves for using this case to sway others about another. 8()(((@#
Without actually googling it can you name the child who was murdered by her mother and uncle? Do you know her age, how and when she went missing?
Do you actually know ANYTHING about this case PRIOR to Mr Amaral saying he thought the McCanns were implicit in their daughters case...can you actually tell me when she died? What year was it?
Its disgraceful this case keeps being dragged up.
It serves no purpose and I am surprised it is allowed to stand as it has nothing to do with the Maddy case nothing at all....
Just so that others can see this is the little girl who's mother and uncle killed and cut up because allegedly she saw them having incestuous sex...either way THEY killed her were responsible for her demise and were found guilty.
ALL the officers who were accused of beating her were found not guilty....
Its appalling really that she complained of being beaten by the police but was quite happy to do the same to her own daughter which resulted in her death.
Extracts from Supreme Court of Justice - ruling on the Homicide and concealment of eight-year-old Joana Cipriano's body, 20.04.2006
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the walls corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minors fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos activity;
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living rooms walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
ad) the arguidos ensured that CC was dead, verifying that she neither breathed nor reacted, and then, not wanting to be held responsible over their daughters and nieces death, decided to prevent said death from becoming known to others;
ae) therefore, they soon decided that they would have to ensure that the existence of any signs in the house of what they had just done could not be verified, that the minors body would never be found and that, preferably, everyone would be convinced that the minor had been taken by a third party;
af) therefore, arguida BB remained at home, washing the wall and the floor that had signs of blood from CC, as well as the spot where the minor remained slumped after death, using a mop and its bucket to do so.
(...)
aah) the arguidos managed to disturb the investigative activities and prevented the mortal remains of minor CC, whose life they took, from being located;
aai) the aforementioned activities were carried out by the arguidos under concerted efforts and intentions, in a deliberate, free and conscious manner, fully knowing that those behaviours are punished by law;
aaj) therefore as far as taking the life of CC, their direct relative (daughter and niece), is concerned, which they did by employing force, taking advantage of the fact that she couldnt defend herself (taking into account her age and physical built) and using force in the full knowledge that, considering the vital area in which her body was hit (the head) repeatedly and violently, prompting the minors head to hit the wall, they could take her life away from her, a consequence which they accepted, still not ceasing their activity;
aal) not seeing as an obstacle the circumstance that the minor depended on her mother and was a direct relative of both, and should be defended instead of victimised by them;
aam) in the same deliberate, free and conscious manner, and knowing that such behaviour is punishable, they carried out the above described action of cutting CCs body, demonstrating total insensibility, knowing full well that, in this manner, they offended the communitarian respect that is due to the dead, acting with the purpose of CCs body never being found again, hiding it in a location that is not appropriated for the effect, in order to try to avoid responsibility for her death;
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 07:22:48 AM
SHOW me a link where she is NOT GUILTY of this heinous crime.
Please I will be very interested.
I find it quite abhorrent almost sickening that anyone would keep pushing this case to make a point about a supposed corrupt COPPER on another case of a child abducted a BRITISH child.
It actually physically makes me feel sick to my stomach that people will keep pushing this case not for justice of the little girl who was murdered and cut up into pieces, but to just make a POINT about Mr Amaral.
IF Mr Amaral had not been involved in the Leonor Cipriano case you would not even be bothered with it?
People should be ashamed of themselves for using this case to sway others about another. 8()(((@#
Without actually googling it can you name the child who was murdered by her mother and uncle? Do you know her age, how and when she went missing?
Do you actually know ANYTHING about this case PRIOR to Mr Amaral saying he thought the McCanns were implicit in their daughters case...can you actually tell me when she died? What year was it?
Its disgraceful this case keeps being dragged up.
It serves no purpose and I am surprised it is allowed to stand as it has nothing to do with the Maddy case nothing at all....
Just so that others can see this is the little girl who's mother and uncle killed and cut up because allegedly she saw them having incestuous sex...either way THEY killed her were responsible for her demise and were found guilty.
ALL the officers who were accused of beating her were found not guilty....
Its appalling really that she complained of being beaten by the police but was quite happy to do the same to her own daughter which resulted in her death.
Extracts from Supreme Court of Justice - ruling on the Homicide and concealment of eight-year-old Joana Cipriano's body, 20.04.2006
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the walls corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minors fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos activity;
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living rooms walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
ad) the arguidos ensured that CC was dead, verifying that she neither breathed nor reacted, and then, not wanting to be held responsible over their daughters and nieces death, decided to prevent said death from becoming known to others;
ae) therefore, they soon decided that they would have to ensure that the existence of any signs in the house of what they had just done could not be verified, that the minors body would never be found and that, preferably, everyone would be convinced that the minor had been taken by a third party;
af) therefore, arguida BB remained at home, washing the wall and the floor that had signs of blood from CC, as well as the spot where the minor remained slumped after death, using a mop and its bucket to do so.
(...)
aah) the arguidos managed to disturb the investigative activities and prevented the mortal remains of minor CC, whose life they took, from being located;
aai) the aforementioned activities were carried out by the arguidos under concerted efforts and intentions, in a deliberate, free and conscious manner, fully knowing that those behaviours are punished by law;
aaj) therefore as far as taking the life of CC, their direct relative (daughter and niece), is concerned, which they did by employing force, taking advantage of the fact that she couldnt defend herself (taking into account her age and physical built) and using force in the full knowledge that, considering the vital area in which her body was hit (the head) repeatedly and violently, prompting the minors head to hit the wall, they could take her life away from her, a consequence which they accepted, still not ceasing their activity;
aal) not seeing as an obstacle the circumstance that the minor depended on her mother and was a direct relative of both, and should be defended instead of victimised by them;
aam) in the same deliberate, free and conscious manner, and knowing that such behaviour is punishable, they carried out the above described action of cutting CCs body, demonstrating total insensibility, knowing full well that, in this manner, they offended the communitarian respect that is due to the dead, acting with the purpose of CCs body never being found again, hiding it in a location that is not appropriated for the effect, in order to try to avoid responsibility for her death;
I will say again..this case may well be a case of miscarriage of justice. could you tell me what evidence there is to convict.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 08, 2013, 07:53:41 AM
I have no idea..al I am saying is that the evidence looks poor. I don't understand why the pj did not test the fridge blood for dna...its as though they don't care about evidence
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 08, 2013, 09:11:17 AM
I have no idea..al I am saying is that the evidence looks poor. I don't understand why the pj did not test the fridge blood for dna...its as though they don't care about evidence
I did more reading on this case yesterday, and I'll do some more today. A lot of the links are in Portuguese and those which aren't are related to The Mccann case. If I learn anything of value, I'll share it here.
If you have any links which you think are informative can you post them or PM me please?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 08, 2013, 10:22:24 AM
I will say again..this case may well be a case of miscarriage of justice. could you tell me what evidence there is to convict.
Totally agree.
Apparently part of the prosecution evidence presented to the court as proof of guilt was that LC wore a black blouse at some time after her daughter disappeared!
Amongst the 29 'facts' which the court threw out I noticed that the Court did not believe that LC or her brother changed their clothes after they had done the deed - and went out that night wearing the same clothes. So - apparently neither of them got a speck of blood on their clothes whilst dismembering a body with a saw and a knife and then handling the body parts. I find that very hard to believe.
Quote from facts NOT proved:
22- that the arguidos changed the clothes that they were wearing and that arguida BB, once again that night, washed the blood that had remained on the floor. Unquote.
How anyone can believe that there is no chance that a Miscarriage of Justice occurred with this case - is beyond me.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: lizzibif. on November 08, 2013, 10:36:02 AM
Apparently part of the prosecution evidence presented to the court as proof of guilt was that LC wore a black blouse at some time after her daughter disappeared!
Amongst the 29 'facts' which the court threw out I noticed that the Court did not believe that LC or her brother changed their clothes after they had done the deed - and went out that night wearing the same clothes. So - apparently neither of them got a speck of blood on their clothes whilst dismembering a body with a saw and a knife and then handling the body parts. I find that very hard to believe.
Quote from facts NOT proved:
22- that the arguidos changed the clothes that they were wearing and that arguida BB, once again that night, washed the blood that had remained on the floor. Unquote.
How anyone can believe that there is no chance that a Miscarriage of Justice occurred with this case - is beyond me.
There's a cover up somewhere..why I don't know..maybe to save face at solving a missing child case..what made this case more noticable..is the fact amaral used the exact same theory in the madeleine case..thats why its being questioned by so many people..along with the lack of evidence..DNA blood etc.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 08, 2013, 10:47:19 AM
No matter what nonsense is posted in relation to this case nobody has ever explained why Leonor Cipriano didn't phone the police when it was clear that her 8-year-old daughter was missing?
The truth being of course that she and her brother needed the time in order to clean up the crime scene.
There's none so blind as those who will not see!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: lizzibif. on November 08, 2013, 11:01:36 AM
so tell me why this case has been reviewed so many times..there is obviously something not right.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 11:08:44 AM
No matter what nonsense is posted in relation to this case nobody has ever explained why Leonor Cipriano didn't phone the police when it was clear that her 8-year-old daughter was missing?
The truth being of course that she and her brother needed the time in order to clean up the crime scene.
There's none so blind as those who will not see!
no one has explained why the pj didn't dna test the blood in the fridge..it seems an obvious thing to do..perhaps they feared that a real piece of evidence might destroy their case
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 08, 2013, 11:15:34 AM
so tell me why this case has been reviewed so many times..there is obviously something not right.
Once it had been accepted by the courts that brutal torture of the defendant(s) had taken place - then the guilty verdict should have automatically been seen as unsafe IMO. Surely they could have ordered a re-trial if they still thought LC may be guilty. One can only speculate on why they didn't do that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: lizzibif. on November 08, 2013, 11:19:50 AM
Once it had been accepted by the courts that brutal torture of the defendant(s) had taken place - then the guilty verdict should have automatically been seen as unsafe IMO. Surely they could have ordered a re-trial if they still thought LC may be guilty. One can only speculate on why they didn't do that.
not enough evidence..hence her beatings.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 08, 2013, 12:09:32 PM
so tell me why this case has been reviewed so many times..there is obviously something not right.
It hasnt been reviewed so many times...
I dont know why people just dont get it. They confessed BEFORE she was even beaten in front of her SOLICITOR. She had no bruises, or black eyes.... CONFESSED so did the uncle. That is one of the reasons I believe they got a shorter sentence, after all 16 years is not long for cold blooded murder of a child.
The only reviews were because she LIED and it had to go back to court. In April she was found guilty of LYING and her sentence was increased for wasting court time....its there why is it people cant find these facts?
Jeez why are we even discussing this case on a Madeliene thread in the first place. IF people are so interested in getting justice for the mother and uncle and get them released from prison then why dont you ask Admin to start a new thread just for that.
I followed this case in 2004 BEFORE Maddy, the only link is Amaral....again.....
Start a petition for Leonor Cipriano...RELEASE Leonor Cipriano for injustice. This poor women and her brother have been in prison for a crime they never committed.
The child was just in the way and must have died by someone elses hands, perhaps the same person who took Maddy........
You can start a petition on the Internet and send it to PORTUGESE Justice system, I am sure you will get lots of signatures to support your case.
But please can we move on to the case in hand.
Little Madeliene McCann who is lost.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: lizzibif. on November 08, 2013, 12:10:49 PM
The truth of the matter is that if Amaral hadn't made such a cock up in The McCann Case..and attempted to use the same scenario..in an attempt to stitch up The McCanns..then we would probably never have heard of The Ciprianos or of the terrible things that were done to them..Or of Amaral's Fraud against his brother..or his sordid love affair and tax fraud.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 08, 2013, 12:23:35 PM
I dont know why people just dont get it. They confessed BEFORE she was even beaten in front of her SOLICITOR. She had no bruises, or black eyes.... CONFESSED so did the uncle. That is one of the reasons I believe they got a shorter sentence, after all 16 years is not long for cold blooded murder of a child.
The only reviews were because she LIED and it had to go back to court. In April she was found guilty of LYING and her sentence was increased for wasting court time....its there why is it people cant find these facts?
Jeez why are we even discussing this case on a Madeliene thread in the first place. IF people are so interested in getting justice for the mother and uncle and get them released from prison then why dont you ask Admin to start a new thread just for that.
I followed this case in 2004 BEFORE Maddy, the only link is Amaral....again.....
Start a petition for Leonor Cipriano...RELEASE Leonor Cipriano for injustice. This poor women and her brother have been in prison for a crime they never committed.
The child was just in the way and must have died by someone elses hands, perhaps the same person who took Maddy........
You can start a petition on the Internet and send it to PORTUGESE Justice system, I am sure you will get lots of signatures to support your case.
But please can we move on to the case in hand.
Little Madeliene McCann who is lost.
This thread is about the LC case. If you don't approve - then you have the choice to ignore it.
LC was found guilty of mis-identifying her torturers. The fact that she was tortured was not in dispute and was not part of that judgement. The court's findings were that there was no proof that it was those PJ officers LC named who tortured her. Therefore her torturers remain free.
IIRC the officers concerned dropped their own case for libel against LC some time ago. If that is true then I would be interested to know who it was who brought this latest case to court.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 08, 2013, 02:19:18 PM
This thread is about the LC case. If you don't approve - then you have the choice to ignore it.
LC was found guilty of mis-identifying her torturers. The fact that she was tortured was not in dispute and was not part of that judgement. The court's findings were that there was no proof that it was those PJ officers LC named who tortured her. Therefore her torturers remain free.
IIRC the officers concerned dropped their own case for libel against LC some time ago. If that is true then I would be interested to know who it was who brought this latest case to court.
I think i am in the twilight zone.
This section of UK JUSTICE FORUM was supposed to be about the disappearance of Madeliene Mccann. The Cipriano case has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE McCann case.
I give up anyway it is pointless in wasting energy over those who cannot see because they are so blinkered by the necessity to discredit Mr Amaral anyway they can....
Time to move on I think this is nothing to do with finding Madeliene it is just a WITCH hunt for Mr Amaral.....
Poor Madeliene with friends like she has on most of these forums she will never be found......because people are too interested in burying Amaral...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 08, 2013, 02:21:56 PM
This section of UK JUSTICE FORUM was supposed to be about the disappearance of Madeliene Mccann. The Cipriano case has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE McCann case.
I give up anyway it is pointless in wasting energy over those who cannot see because they are so blinkered by the necessity to discredit Mr Amaral anyway they can....
Time to move on I think this is nothing to do with finding Madeliene it is just a WITCH hunt for Mr Amaral.....
Poor Madeliene with friends like she has on most of these forums she will never be found......because people are too interested in burying Amaral...
Gonēalo Amaral
"From that couple, I already expect everything. Nonetheless, if in fact they are looking for their daughter, it is not in the Portuguese civil courts that they will find her"
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 02:28:10 PM
I dont know why people just dont get it. They confessed BEFORE she was even beaten in front of her SOLICITOR. She had no bruises, or black eyes.... CONFESSED so did the uncle. That is one of the reasons I believe they got a shorter sentence, after all 16 years is not long for cold blooded murder of a child.
The only reviews were because she LIED and it had to go back to court. In April she was found guilty of LYING and her sentence was increased for wasting court time....its there why is it people cant find these facts?
[i]Jeez why are we even discussing this case on a Madeliene thread in the first place. IF people are so interested in getting justice for the mother and uncle and get them released from prison then why dont you ask Admin to start a new thread just for that.[/i]
I followed this case in 2004 BEFORE Maddy, the only link is Amaral....again.....
Start a petition for Leonor Cipriano...RELEASE Leonor Cipriano for injustice. This poor women and her brother have been in prison for a crime they never committed.
The child was just in the way and must have died by someone elses hands, perhaps the same person who took Maddy........
You can start a petition on the Internet and send it to PORTUGESE Justice system, I am sure you will get lots of signatures to support your case.
But please can we move on to the case in hand.
Little Madeliene McCann who is lost.
if you read the opening thread it was started by Luz
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 08, 2013, 02:30:40 PM
This section of UK JUSTICE FORUM was supposed to be about the disappearance of Madeliene Mccann. The Cipriano case has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE McCann case.
I give up anyway it is pointless in wasting energy over those who cannot see because they are so blinkered by the necessity to discredit Mr Amaral anyway they can....
Time to move on I think this is nothing to do with finding Madeliene it is just a WITCH hunt for Mr Amaral.....
Poor Madeliene with friends like she has on most of these forums she will never be found......because people are too interested in burying Amaral...
It has everything to do with the Madeleine Mccann case
Joana, a little fair haired girl vanished just SEVEN miles away from PdL
There were three abductions or likely abductions in less than 3 years.
All the girls were young (8 or under) and all were fair haired/ blonde
Joana was one of the three likely abductees.
All the abductions happened in a small area no more than about 18 miles across.
No other abductions in the period in the whole of PT. PT is about 2/3 the area of England.
All three in well under 3 years
Oh and then there are the officers involved, Amaral et al.
Also the fridge used by both The Ciprianos and The Mccanns
... and the selacious sex. Leonor with her brother Joao .... and The Mccanns being "swingers"
Oh and the bag 1) to carry Joanas body parts away 2) Non existent blue tennis bag to carry Madeleine away
I am sure I have left loads out that others can add.
Of course there is interest in the Joana Cipriano case with it unsafe verdict becos of NO body and TORTURE used to force out "NON EVIDENCE".
Along with the fact that Amaral is a Court proven liar. His co-hort Cristavao is currently about to stand trial for 7 (seven) counts of gangster type criminal activity.
Jeez anyone who cares to open their eyes the slightest bit can see the likely connections + the fact that the Leonor and Joao Cipriano verdicts are completely unsafe
... removed provocative comment ...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 08, 2013, 03:18:20 PM
Apparently part of the prosecution evidence presented to the court as proof of guilt was that LC wore a black blouse at some time after her daughter disappeared!
Amongst the 29 'facts' which the court threw out I noticed that the Court did not believe that LC or her brother changed their clothes after they had done the deed - and went out that night wearing the same clothes. So - apparently neither of them got a speck of blood on their clothes whilst dismembering a body with a saw and a knife and then handling the body parts. I find that very hard to believe.
Quote from facts NOT proved:
22- that the arguidos changed the clothes that they were wearing and that arguida BB, once again that night, washed the blood that had remained on the floor. Unquote.
How anyone can believe that there is no chance that a Miscarriage of Justice occurred with this case - is beyond me.
Black top on a TV program [0.40], so Leonor must have dunit, donchathink? Amaral and Co think this is part of the proof. She is in mourning.for the daughter she murderd.
Oh but she is wearing her red trousers with it. Her favourite long time outfit, but Amaral and co say that she dunit .... so she must have, donchathink?
Oh but the woman next to her is wearing a black top too [0.47]. Did she murder someone too?
Fancy, who ever would believe it, two women who must be mourning someone they killed .... and both on TV together.
Who ever would have believed it? :Rolls eyes: in despair at some peoples 'lack of logic' and need to find stupid unsound reasons to accuse Leonor based upon such nonsense.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 08, 2013, 04:42:41 PM
Thank you Cariad, not fair at all. Waste of time lol. What will be will be. It seems its the new thing to befriend mothers who commit Filicide....... ?>)()< 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 08, 2013, 04:44:14 PM
Thank you Cariad, not fair at all. Waste of time lol. What will be will be. It seems its the new thing to befriend mothers who commit Filicide....... ?>)()< 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
Oh crikey. And I really thought that she was fair haired
I really don't understand why some people can't accept that there wasn't a possible miscarriage of justice in this case.
What irrefutable, cross-referenced, evidence proves what happened in this case?
I think Stephen has described the situation quite well...posters are "devoted" to amaral and ignore all the evidence if it interferes with there devotion. To suggest a miscarriage of justice COULD be a possibility would be a serious insult to their "god". It just fits so well
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 05:30:32 PM
Did anyone celebrate Amaral Day this year...yes a day has been decreed Amaral day by some of his supporters on the net...that's devotion for you
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 08, 2013, 05:35:25 PM
Did anyone ever think that Leonor might well be guilty of nothing more that cleaning up and covering up for her self-confessed murderous brother? I find the suggestion that she killed Joana very difficult to contemplate.
Always remember that the brother had a history of violence and had already been sentenced for attempted murder of another individual. Has Leonor really been convicted of a joint enterprise killing?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 05:38:28 PM
Did anyone ever think that Leonor might well be guilty of nothing more that cleaning up and covering up for her self-confessed murderous brother? I find the suggestion that she killed Joana very difficult to contemplate.
but she confessed John and it was proved in court..are you suggesting there may have been a miscarriage of justice
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 08, 2013, 05:42:42 PM
If ever this Forum should be looking into Miscarriages of Justice, this case should be top of the list.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 08, 2013, 05:47:30 PM
but she confessed John and it was proved in court..are you suggesting there may have been a miscarriage of justice
The only thing the Court accepted as proved was this>
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the walls corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minors fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos activity;
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 05:51:24 PM
The only thing the Court accepted as proved was this>
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the walls corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minors fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos activity;
This is conjecture..remember no blood was found..the pj had the chance to prove joanns bled but for some reason the blood collected was not dna tested ...bizarre
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 08, 2013, 05:54:22 PM
Did anyone ever think that Leonor might well be guilty of nothing more that cleaning up and covering up for her self-confessed murderous brother? I find the suggestion that she killed Joana very difficult to contemplate.
Always remember that the brother had a history of violence and had already been sentenced for attempted murder of another individual. Has Leonor really been convicted of a joint enterprise killing?
I dont believe that Joana has been killed at all. I believe that she is still alive.
The judge didn't believe they had changed their clothes, yet no evidence of blood on either.
The whole case is a nonsence.
And the greatest Miscarriage of Jusice that I have ever heard of
Yet because their hero Amaral was head honcho, Amaral lovers on here will not accept the frailities of the case.
... removed disingenuous comment ...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 08, 2013, 06:05:35 PM
This is conjecture..remember no blood was found..the pj had the chance to prove joanns bled but for some reason the blood collected was not dna tested ...bizarre
Blood found and DNA linked to Joana...
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living room’s walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
an) each one of those body parts was placed inside plastic bags – the head in one, the torso and part of the legs in another and the two legs below the knee in a third one – and after they knotted up the opening of the bag that contained the head, they tried, at least, to place said bags inside the deep freezer’s three compartments, leaving blood from the minor on several areas inside the deep freezer’s second drawer;
aad) on the 18th of September, arguida BB bought petrol and a steel scrub-cloth, with which she washed the house, thus seizing the opportunity to erase almost all vestiges of what had happened there, and only traces of human blood which had been contaminated by the products that were used, remained inside the house;
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 08, 2013, 06:07:41 PM
Sadie, you provided two photo's of a dark haired child to prove your point that she was fair haired...
If you believe this child is alive, why aren't you campaigning to have her found?
To everyone, not just Sadie.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 06:08:16 PM
an) each one of those body parts was placed inside plastic bags the head in one, the torso and part of the legs in another and the two legs below the knee in a third one and after they knotted up the opening of the bag that contained the head, they tried, at least, to place said bags inside the deep freezers three compartments, leaving blood from the minor on several areas inside the deep freezers second drawer;
and..
aad) on the 18th of September, arguida BB bought petrol and a steel scrub-cloth, with which she washed the house, thus seizing the opportunity to erase almost all vestiges of what had happened there, and only traces of human blood which had been contaminated by the products that were used, remained inside the house;
There was no dna link John
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 06:09:38 PM
How else do you think a Court can make such a ruling?
The trial of Barry George decided that there was gun residue in one of his coat pockets becasue of the forensics. Because the chain of custody and contamination were problems, this evidence was found to be wrong and dismissed at his appeal.
Courts do make mistakes. Courts do over interpret evidence.
If I am to accept that theer was DNA analysis done and this confirmed that the blood was from thevictim, I would like to see that stated in so many words- not just "the blood was the minor's"
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 08, 2013, 06:20:15 PM
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living rooms walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
an) each one of those body parts was placed inside plastic bags the head in one, the torso and part of the legs in another and the two legs below the knee in a third one and after they knotted up the opening of the bag that contained the head, they tried, at least, to place said bags inside the deep freezers three compartments, leaving blood from the minor on several areas inside the deep freezers second drawer;
aad) on the 18th of September, arguida BB bought petrol and a steel scrub-cloth, with which she washed the house, thus seizing the opportunity to erase almost all vestiges of what had happened there, and only traces of human blood which had been contaminated by the products that were used, remained inside the house;
Have you found any DNA evidence related to the crime scene that is identified as being Joana's?
You may have also missed this section:
The matter that was considered to be proved in items aa), ab), ac), ad), ae), af), ag), ah) ai), aj) al), am), an), ap), aah), aai), aaj) and aam) was based on the deposition of witnesses AA3, CC3, CC4, DD, CC8, II, DD1 , MM and BB1, on the reconstitution files and on the search and apprehension files, as well as on the subsequent forensic exam, all interpreted under the light of the rules of experience.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 08, 2013, 06:50:29 PM
@ John
From what I've read on here, you're a former policeman, and a victim of a miscarriage of justice yourself. Don't you see the gaping holes in the so-called evidence?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 08, 2013, 06:54:05 PM
Ah, that must be it! Only this blonde child though. Must usually just look....blonde....
her hair was slightly fairer when younger, but when she went missing and or killed her hair was dark brown...obvious from all the latter photos....so not a blonde girl.....by any stretch
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 08, 2013, 07:10:25 PM
The defence has no option other than to accept what the Judge finds. It is not an adversarial system
What were the defence arguments in this case? What counter evidence was provided? How many defence witnesses were there? Who was living in that house when this body was supposed to have been chopped and stuffed into the fridge? What would have been required for a pro-bono defence attorney to point out that unidentified traces of blood of human and animal origin on, e.g., the broom handle, or even in the back of a fridge drawer did not actually provide evidence of a massacre as opposed to a nicked finger whilst doing housework at some point?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 08, 2013, 07:23:19 PM
From what I've read on here, you're a former policeman, and a victim of a miscarriage of justice yourself. Don't you see the gaping holes in the so-called evidence?
There isn't really any gaping holes, lots of circumstantial granted and room for doubt certainly. Do remember that Joćo Cipriano (Leonor's brother) admitted in the presence of his lawyer to killing Joana and he wasn't being 'tortured' on that occasion as Sadie would claim.
I believe his words were, "I didn't beat her, I just killed her!"
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 08, 2013, 07:30:33 PM
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.
(...)
Therefore, we cannot conclude with certainty that the body, or all parts of the minors body were placed inside the deep freezer, but that at least they tried to place it in there, results not only from the reconstitution act, but also from the fact that on the 16th of October 2004, human blood samples were collected from the back interior of the freezers second drawer (cfr. Page 585), which was again confirmed by the report of the examination that was performed by the LPC [Scientific Police Lab] (pages 1780 and following, with special attention to pages 1786 (item B) and 1792). It is further recalled that witness CC3 explained that the blood traces that were collected from the inside of the drawer were located precisely on the back panel of the freezers second drawer. Now if one should consider the possibility that the human blood that was found could have resulted from the handling of the deep freezer by someone who had a cut to his or her hand, the fact that the human blood was found inside the back part of the drawer sets that possibility aside and points towards the conclusion that a human body part was placed there, or an attempt was made.
Where does it say that her blood was found? Even if it had been, what forensic examinations had been conducted that could conclude that she had come to grief as opposed to even helping her mum to mop a floor or put away groceries in the fridge?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 08, 2013, 07:36:13 PM
the only links I have posted are these...4 for the supreme court ruling and the last one some statement from the mother in 2009 presumably linked with some kind of appeal
The blog these came from has a whole section, click on menu near the top, on the case where there are many more links to both news reports and other court affairs.....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 08, 2013, 08:04:38 PM
the only links I have posted are these...4 for the supreme court ruling and the last one some statement from the mother in 2009 presumably linked with some kind of appeal
The blog these came from has a whole section, click on menu near the top, on the case where there are many more links to both news reports and other court affairs.....
Yes, thanks Red. The easiest one to follow the Supreme Court ruling is this one:
the only links I have posted are these...4 for the supreme court ruling and the last one some statement from the mother in 2009 presumably linked with some kind of appeal
The blog these came from has a whole section, click on menu near the top, on the case where there are many more links to both news reports and other court affairs.....
Oh yes the famous she was sold for a better life routine.
Give me strength.
Amen to that....lol.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 09, 2013, 07:03:35 AM
Do you think that torture should be used in cases that are difficult to prove? Is Torture OK ?
You had better ask that Leonor Cipriano hun, she felt it was ok to bash her daughter on the head.....
Oh silly me no she didnt harm her child, she sold her for a few euros and her daughter is now living in a lovely home in fairy land, waiting for father christmas on the 25th December.
NOW strangely enough there was a little case of a blonde child found with gypsies......The gave a tale about her being given to them by a poor bulgarian women. They were called liars and child abductors.
SHOCK HORROR the real mother came forward and said that is my child and the DNA was proven.
Now let us go back to your little scenario. IF the family that the child went to live in La la land exists why then did they simply not come forward and say...LC sold us her child.....
Why did she sell her anyway? She looked fairly well kept, and her mother could afford to go out to bars and stuff.
I have decided to agree with you hun, she was tortured by big bad naughty fascist coppers and she simply should not be allowed to stay in prison another day longer.
Joana is happily living with a kind couple and will see xmas.
IF you start a petition up to free LC because of this injustice I will sign it for you.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 09, 2013, 08:50:07 AM
The only thing the Court accepted as proved was this>
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the walls corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minors fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos activity;
This was one of the points "interpreted under the light of the rules of experience."
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 08:52:39 AM
This was one of the points "interpreted under the light of the rules of experience."
Or what we might call mere supposition, guesswork and fiction.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 09, 2013, 09:02:34 AM
The night of 12 September 2004 was a festival night in the Aldeia da Figueira. The traditional Sćo Miguel party was underway as shown in these amateur videos given to RTP, which show no signs of Joana. But in one scene you can see António Leandro, the girl's stepfather.
The Portimćo GNR continued with searches over the following days around the Aldeia da Figueira. Posters about the disappearance were put up. But there were no traces of Joana.
The mother began giving interviews to the media.
Leonor Cipriano, Joana's mother: "Everyone in the café says, 'This is a badly told story. A girl disappearing, suddenly... it was someone from outside who headed for Lisbon and took her in a car.'"
Four days later, the case of the missing 8 year old girl is transferred to the PJ in Portimćo. Another four days later, it is transferred to the PJ Directory in Faro. The inspectors had no idea they now had in their hands one of the most complex cases ever confronted.
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo, Director, PJ Faro: "In this investigation, we covered about 50,000 kilometres. 2100 official processes were created. We assigned approximately 40 inspectors and requested approximately 40 exams from the Scientific Police Laboratory and the Legal Medical Institute."
Leonor Cipriano continued to give interviews.
Leonor Cipriano: "I'm very sad. I think my daughter is really missing her mother. I just ask that anyone who knows about my daughter, that you don't hurt her. And that you can bring her to me."
Interviewer: "Where do you think your daughter could be right now?"
Leonor Cipriano: "There are only guesses. If she is alive, or not, if she's hurt. I don't know, there's no explanation for my daughter I don't know, I don't know."
Without any clues, the PJ inspectors did find discrepancies. The statements of Joana's mother, the uncle and the other family members do not coincide.
Gonēalo Amaral, Coordinating Inspector PJ (Jan 2007): "In the first statements given to the GNR, the first agency to arrive, it was a badly told story. There were various contradictions amongst certain people, witnesses, who were part of the family group where Joana lived. Based on these contradictions, there arose at a certain time the need for a new interrogation of these individuals, with all these witnesses, at the same time, at the police headquarters, such that they couldn't confer between themselves, and with the principal objective to understand whether the girl had, or had not, returned home. From there, it was proved that the girl had returned home. That is, it was a lie, there was a simulation of a disappearance. From there, it was necessary to determine what had happened."
Leonor is taken in by the PJ on the 21 September, eleven days after her daughter disappeared. The girl's uncle, Joćo Cipriano, remained free for one more day but was also arrested under suspicion of homicide.
In the next few days, Joćo took the PJ inspectors to dozens of different locations to point out Joana's body. But the body was not found in any of those places.
Gonēalo Amaral: "At that time, it became, as if it were a fact, to the police that she was playing with us She was sending a message, a message to perhaps say that the body was cut up or the body no longer existed. But, at the same time, all the diligences constituted evidence. This permitted us, as would come to happen in the trial, to speak about them, because they were diligences in which we participated and not witness statements of the arguidos. We aren't talking about declarations by arguidos, we are talking about giving witness to the diligences that we did and why we did these diligences and went to these places. On the other hand, it would not have happened, for him to indicate where to find the body or the rest of the body or pieces of the body and we then didn't go. We always had to go. And that's what happened."
The PJ's theory was that the body was fed to the pigs, a theory that was not proven in court. Shocked by this macabre story, hundreds of locals invaded the village searching for answers. The same answers for which the PJ were searching. Why was Joana killed? And where is her body?
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo: "In principal, this is a disappearance. And this crime is always, excuse me, this crime doesn't have a juridic framework but could have behind it a series of crimes, a kidnapping, an abduction, human trafficking, criminal associations, so that any of these crimes could be behind a disappearance. And the complexity begins right there."
Leonor and her brother confessed the crime to the PJ. Joćo 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.
Sara Rosado, Joćo Cipriano's lawyer: "I imagine that all the pressure surrounding this process, generated that, those declarations, as well as others in opposite and various directions, with other details, with other facts. As for the rest, the version that you find constituted in the video doesn't even adhere to the accusation. That is, the actual accusation didn't even follow this theory if you examine certain details. And, in fact, only the pressure that one of these was the enormous pressure on everyone, including the arguidos who were arrested and so "
RTP requested authorization from the Portimćo Court to emit in this report a short excerpt of the video but the judge in charge denied the request invoking the "image rights" of those who appear in the video.
Joćo Cipriano also directed a photographic reconstitution where, with the help of a mannequin, he explained how he cut Joana's body into three parts.
According to the accusations from the Public Ministry, the three body pieces were placed in black sacks in the small refrigerator during the first few hours. In the various exams done by technicians from the Scientific Police Lab at Joana's house, human blood was found in one of the drawers inside the refrigerator. But DNA tests did not prove that the blood was Joana's.
Gonēalo Amaral: "It is just one of the versions that was given, and we continue to find viable and credible because blood was found in a chink on one of the refrigerator drawers. A drop of blood in the drawer. Someone opens [the refrigerator] and lets some blood run. The blood ran into the drawer and was cleaned, so it only remained in the chinks, in the areas that are difficult to clean. The explanation was necessary given the circumstances in which the homicide occurred, as this was not a prepared or planned homicide, it was a homicide "in loco." It happened, in the way everyone knows, and they had to hide the body. It's viable and an alternative that they may have used and tried, during the first phase while thinking about what to do with the body, to hide the body in the refrigerator."
During the trial, it was also proven that the body pieces would only have fit in the refrigerator if that drawer in which they found human blood had been removed from the refrigerator.
Sara Rosado: "The doctor who attended the diligences and testified in court affirmed that, very tightly, [the body] would fit. But only by removing the drawer. There was blood found on the back of the alleged drawer, having removed the drawer, but the doctor said the arguidos were surprised with this. It was an idea that had never occurred to them. So I don't think anything like this happened."
Many more vestiges of blood were found in Joana's house. Using ultraviolet light, they found blood on the walls by the door: traces of facial and hand impressions from a child of the family, but which could not be proved to be Joana's. Also by the light switch, near the front door, there was found a bit of blood from Ruben, Joana's younger brother who also lived in the house.
Joćo Grade, Leonor Cipriano's second lawyer (former lawyer): "There was not blood in so many different areas... there were various exams done... just vestiges of human blood, which is normal. A housewife only has to cut herself peeling potatoes while watching a soap opera, only has to have a cut, to have blood, it just has to fall on the ground, it has to be cleaned as anyone of us would clean, and then with rigorous exams you could conclude that there were vestiges of blood. It doesn't say anything. In any of our houses, there could be blood like this."
On the floor of the house and on a mop handle, there were found a mixture of human and animal blood. These exams were also inconclusive.
Allegedly, the exams did not produce results because Leonor washed the house with gasoline because the house was infected with ticks. A doubtful motive for PJ who found the house filthy with dirty dishes in the sink. Except for some walls which were cleaned. As soon as the first suspicions arose, the house should have been isolated.
Gonēalo Amaral: "You can tell that the house had been cleaned, that area where the blood was found had been cleaned. It had been cleaned with petroleum purchased by Leonor on the day she left the Portimćo police station. There was an attempt, that you might say worked well, to inhibit any laboratory results. As many vestiges as possible were obtained, given the circumstances, and the conclusion is that it was human blood. According to the court, and I agree, something serious happened in that house, on that day. And the conclusion was that it was a homicide."
Another piece of evidence found at Joana's house by the PJ were the red shoes that Joana was supposed to be wearing the day she disappeared. The PJ believe that the mother and uncle forgot to hide the shoes, just as they did the purchases from the store. The posters put up by the family said that she was wearing red shoes.
Sara Rosado: "No one knows what the child was wearing, especially the shoes."
In February 2005, photographs were published of Leonor with significant bruising (Marinho Pinto Expresso Newspaper Article). The trial will begin soon of four inspectors charged with torture, and Gonēalo Amaral of the crime of false witness and failure to denounce [inappropriate police behaviour].
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo: "This is extremely difficult because, in 30 years of criminal investigation, I've never seen the confession of such a serious crime without the arguidos saying they were tortured, attacked or raped so that this, for us police officers, and I tell you, unfortunately, it has become the norm, natural. Therefore I don't give it a lot of credence."
Leonor and Joćo opted to remain silent throughout the entire trial. In November 2005 they were charged with qualified homicide and hiding a cadaver. Leonor was condemned to 20 years and 4 months in prison, and Joćo to 19 years and 2 months. The three jury members and four judges felt that the brother and sister did not intend to kill the child but gave, as proven, that the body was dismembered though they were not convinced it was kept in the refrigerator. Nor was it proven that the child was killed because she caught the mother and her brother having s.e.x. The defense attorneys and the Public Ministry presented an appeal, reducing the penalty to 16 years and 8 month.
With a lot of doubts still to be clarified, Leonor's attorney presented another appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Joćo Grade: "It's more than frustrating that we do not know what happened. We have this other child who disappeared 10 years ago, when eight years old, and now has returned at eighteen years old. We don't know whether Joana is going to appear twenty years from now, or four years from now, alive or dead, I don't know."
RTP wanted to talk to Leonor and Joćo, currently serving their sentences in the Odimera and Carregeira prisons. Leonor sent a signed letter, where she agreed to give an interview. Two days after making a request to the Prison Director, that service sent us a newly signed letter when Leonor rescinded her agreement because of "lack of understanding".
Joćo Cipriano agreed to give his first interview, a written interview wherein he proclaimed his innocence. "I did nothing to my niece, Joana Guerreiro. I am innocent. I was threatened with knives to make that video that was shown in court. But it is all lies. The PJ came almost every day to the Olhćo prison where I was held to ask me where Joana was. And I, afraid of beatings, kept saying she was here or there, but it was a lie. My sister told me that Joana was fine. She told me that she had sold Joana to a foreign couple."
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 09, 2013, 09:18:48 AM
Quote 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. Unquote
Blood on the walls and the floor - but not a speck found on either of their clothes or on their shoes? Not even after all the time it would have taken to complete the grisly job of dismembering a body with knives and saws - and then handling the body parts - did they find it necessary to change their clothes. Not credible by any stretch of the imagination IMO.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 09, 2013, 09:25:49 AM
Or what we might call mere supposition, guesswork and fiction.
She was last seen walking from the shop towards home.
Witness AA3, at around 8.30/8.40 p.m., saw CC [Joana Cipriano] walking up the stairs near the market, into the direction of her home, with a bag, a sign that she was returning from shopping (and we know that she did the shopping, from the deposition of witness NN). This witness, who was smoking at the window, stayed at the window for some time and verified that there was no movement on location, nor did she see any cars, or heard any screams. This means that, according to the rules of experience, and given the fact that the route is short, what is normal is that the minor returned home.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 09, 2013, 09:43:35 AM
She was last seen walking from the shop towards home.
Witness AA3, at around 8.30/8.40 p.m., saw CC [Joana Cipriano] walking up the stairs near the market, into the direction of her home, with a bag, a sign that she was returning from shopping (and we know that she did the shopping, from the deposition of witness NN). This witness, who was smoking at the window, stayed at the window for some time and verified that there was no movement on location, nor did she see any cars, or heard any screams. This means that, according to the rules of experience, and given the fact that the route is short, what is normal is that the minor returned home.
Amazing what these PJ Experts know by instinct, isn't it. And then The Courts believe every word of it.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 09, 2013, 09:44:06 AM
The introductory part of the ruling wasn't translated.
her hair was slightly fairer when younger, but when she went missing and or killed her hair was dark brown...obvious from all the latter photos....so not a blonde girl.....by any stretch
Yes, some fair haired girls are fair in the summer because of the suns bleaching effect and darker in the winter. Joana was taken on Sept 12th IIRC. All that summer sun to have bleached her hair.
I have it straight from Leonors lawyer, Marcos Aragao Correira, that Joana is a blonde. He corrected me, when I said she was brown or dark haired.... cant remember which I said Of course to the generally Latin coloured PT peeps with their dark hair and flashing black eyes, their perception of blonde and ours maybe a tadge different. But undoubtedly Joana was very fair haired, maybe only in the summer months ... or maybe as Davel says photographs often show fair haired people as dark haired
I think Leonor dyes her hair black cos I have seen a photo of her with brown hair, or maybe it is the sun changing things again?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 09, 2013, 11:12:34 AM
IIRC Sadie posted photographs of LC's house - exterior and interior taken from before JC disappeared. They do not show a filthy house - in fact far from it. I can only assume those piccies were not presented in court.
Maybe if Sadie has time - she will re-post them.
Quote Allegedly, the exams did not produce results because Leonor washed the house with gasoline because the house was infected with ticks. A doubtful motive for PJ who found the house filthy with dirty dishes in the sink. Except for some walls which were cleaned. As soon as the first suspicions arose, the house should have been isolated. Unquote
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 09, 2013, 11:26:53 AM
IIRC Sadie posted photographs of LC's house - exterior and interior taken from before JC disappeared. They do not show a filthy house - in fact far from it. I can only assume those piccies were not presented in court.
Maybe if Sadie has time - she will re-post them.
Quote Allegedly, the exams did not produce results because Leonor washed the house with gasoline because the house was infected with ticks. A doubtful motive for PJ who found the house filthy with dirty dishes in the sink. Except for some walls which were cleaned. As soon as the first suspicions arose, the house should have been isolated. Unquote
No I haven't done that, but I will
Give me a mo.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 09, 2013, 11:48:49 AM
http://prphotos.com/i/SPX-013076/jpg
(http://prphotos.com/i/SPX-013076/jpg)
The outside. Small but well looked after
http://prphotos.com/i/SPX-013075/jpg
(http://prphotos.com/i/SPX-013075/jpg)
http://prphotos.com/i/SPX-013077/jpg]
(http://prphotos.com/i/SPX-013077/jpg)
Cipriano home. Kitchen / dining / sitting area .. neat and clean. Small but very decent.
Was it in Court records, Amarals spiel or somewhere else that all these defamatory things were said about Leonor ?
It depends what you are thinking of, Sadie.
There was a media frenzy about the case at the time.
There is also the Supreme Court ruling. The first part hasn't been translated, but the others have. The link below takes you to the final section, but clicking on the links enables you to read the translations of previous sections. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case_15.html
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Montclair on November 09, 2013, 07:18:39 PM
Who took these photos? It doesn't look as if they had been taken by the police during the investigation. They look more like real estate photos.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 09, 2013, 08:24:45 PM
This case seems to have created quite a media storm. Here's an article at random only 2 weeks after her disappearance and after the arrest of the mother and her brother.
What kind of preparation was given to the jury in this case?
MĆE CONFESSA MORTE DA FILHA POR ACIDENTE Vįrias horas de interrogatório culminaram na confissćo do crime. Primeiro Joćo Cipriano assumiu a participaēćo na ocultaēćo do cadįver da sobrinha, depois a mće de Joana admitiu a autoria do homicķdio, praticado contra a menor, na noite do 12 deste mźs, na casa onde residiam na Figueira. 26 Setembro 2004 Nŗ de votos (0) Comentįrios (15) Por:José Carlos Eusébio / Joćo Mendes / M.B.
Uma morte acidental, alegou a mulher perante a juķza de instruēćo do Tribunal de Portimćo, Ana Soares, que decretou a prisćo preventiva da mulher e mandou o homem em liberdade com a obrigaēćo de apresentar-se diariamente ąs autoridades.
As medidas de coacēćo só foram conhecidas cerca das 03h00 da madrugada de ontem, numa altura em que dezenas de populares revoltados ainda se encontravam concentrados ą porta do Tribunal (alguns mantiveram-se aķ durante todo o dia).
Segundo apurou o Correio da Manhć, o tio da menina assassinada, Joćo Cipriano, que foi o primeiro a ser ouvido pela juķza (esteve a ser interrogado desde meio da tarde até ąs 21h30), terį inicialmente admitido o crime, mas depois, quando as declaraēões foram passadas a escrito, o indivķduo acabou por apontar o dedo ą irmć, a mće de Joana.
Isso é com a minha irmć foi a expressćo usada vezes sem conta pelo indivķduo, quando confrontado com questões relacionadas com a forma como se dera o homicķdio da crianēa, remetendo para Leonor Cipriano todas as explicaēões do caso.
Joćo Cipriano terį apenas reconhecido que ajudou a irmć (a pedido desta) a desfazer-se do corpo de Joana, depois de a menina ter sido morta. Garantiu que o corpo foi colocado num terreno próximo de casa, mas salientou que nćo sabia ao certo onde, dado que estava escuro.
Entretanto, a mće de Joana, Leonor Cipriano, que foi ouvida entre as 21h30 e cerca da 00h00, veio a confessar o crime da morte da filha. A mulher justificou no entanto que se tratou de um acidente, dizendo que dera uma bofetada na crianēa e esta batera com a cabeēa numa parede, ficando inconsciente.
Leonor Cipriano referiu ter ficado desnorteada e em pānico perante a perspectiva de ter matado a filha, pelo que decidiu enrolar o corpo da menina num pano e metź-lo num saco de plįstico. Pediu entćo a ajuda do irmćo para se desfazer do corpo da própria filha, o que, segundo ela, veio a acontecer num sķtio nas imediaēões da casa. Tal como o tio, a mće de Joana também se terį desculpado com o escuro, bem como com o estado de pānico em que se encontraria, para nćo saber onde colocou o corpo da filha. Essa é, aliįs, a razćo dada pelos dois para o facto de as pistas fornecidas até agora ą PJ sobre o local onde colocaram o corpo se revelarem completamente falsas. Ultimamente, a mće de Joana estį a dar a ideia de se encontrar psicologicamente afectada com o caso, verificando-se que muitas vezes nćo diz coisa com coisa, segundo a expressćo usada por fonte próxima das investigaēões.
Após ter ouvido os dois suspeitos, a juķza de instruēćo criminal recolheu-se para decidir as medidas de coacēćo a aplicar, chamando ą sua presenēa a mće e o tio de Joana cerca da 01h30. Foi entćo comunicado a Leonor Cipriano que ficaria em situaēćo de prisćo preventiva e a Joćo Cipriano que sairia em liberdade, mediante termo de identidade e residźncia e apresentaēões diįrias ąs autoridades (GNR Silves).
Quer a mće de Joana quer o tio acabaram por sair do Tribunal de Portimćo, por volta das 03h00, em carros da PJ, através da garagem situada nas traseiras do edifķcio. Devido ą presenēa de dezenas de populares (embora a maior parte estivesse concentrada na porta de entrada), os veķculos da PJ abandonaram o local a alta velocidade, com a colaboraēćo do Corpo de Intervenēćo da PSP.
PORMENORES DETENĒĆO As detenēões de Leonor Cipriano e do irmćo, Joćo, foram feitas na quinta-feira passada pelos inspectores da Secēćo Regional de Combate ao Banditismo da PJ de Faro, que assumiram as investigaēões do caso no dia 21, oito dias após o desaparecimento.
VERSÕES Durante a produēćo do processo, encetado pela GNR e entregue posteriormente ao Departamento de Investigaēćo Criminal da PJ de Portimćo até passar para a Directoria de Faro, a mće da crianēa insistiu na versćo do rapto. Durante os interrogatórios revelou ter visto a filha pela śltima vez momentos antes dela sair para fazer compras num café da aldeia, cerca das 19h00 de dia 12.
DINHEIRO A intenēćo de extorquir uma pequena quantia de dinheiro que Joana possuķa terį provocado a discussćo que opōs a menor aos dois familiares. Mće e tio exigiram ą menina que lhes entregasse as suas parcas economias, feitas com dinheiro que familiares lhe davam, mas a crianēa resistiu. A PJ revelou no dia das detenēões que as agressões contra Joana tinham como intenēćo matį-la. Sangue encontrado na casa permitiram descobrir o crime.
DOR E REVOLTA POPULAR ĄS PORTAS DO TRIBUNAL Se pudessem faziam justiēa com as próprias mćos. Concentrados ą porta do tribunal de Portimćo, centenas de populares revoltados contra os irmćos Cipriano deixaram o coraēćo falar mais alto e ditaram ali mesmo uma sentenēa antecipada para o crime macabro praticado contra a menor.
Merecem a morte, foi o veredicto unānime. Ą hora em que Leonor e o irmćo confessavam ą juķza ter as mćos manchadas de sangue, jį todos sabiam que Joana nćo voltaria a percorrer as ruas da Figueira, mas na memória tinham ainda o sorriso incauto da menina que apareceu nos rectāngulos de papel espalhados pela aldeia, onde se escreveram apelos para a trazer de volta.
Legitimados pela dor que aquela mće malvada nunca revelou, mas vencidos pelo cansaēo da espera, os populares acabariam por calar os gritos de vinganēa, mas permaneceram vigilantes até ą hora em que as portas do tribunal se abriram de novo para deixar passar os assassinos.
Porque a madrugada jį dera tréguas ą revolta, as palavras nćo saķram para repetir os sentimentos de ódio atirados contra Leonor e Joćo durante a a tarde, mas as dezenas de homens e mulheres que resistiram junto ao edifķcio até ser conhecida a decisćo, olharam por cima do ombro enquanto regressavam a casa: tinham a sensaēćo de que havia um criminoso ą solta.
SEGURANĒA ESPECIAL NA CADEIA DE ODEMIRA Leonor Cipriano passou o resto da madrugada de ontem nos calabouēos da PJ de Faro e foi depois levada para o Estabelecimento Prisional de Odemira, a śnica cadeia feminina no Sul do Paķs, onde irį cumprir a prisćo preventiva. Serį alvo de medidas especiais de seguranēa, nćo devendo ser colocada em convķvio com as restantes reclusas. Tal situaēćo devesse ao facto de, nas cadeias femininas, tal como nas masculinas, existir um código de honra entre os detidos, segundo o qual suspeitos de crimes de natureza vįria sobre crianēas sćo mal aceites pelos outros reclusos.
Uma fonte da Direcēćo-Geral dos Serviēos Prisionais indicou ao CM que estćo a ser tomadas as medidas necessįrias e adequadas para uma situaēćo destas, escusando-se a dar pormenores.
A cadeia feminina de Odemira tem uma lotaēćo para 56 reclusas mas actualmente conta com 71, das quais 23 em regime de prisćo preventiva e 48 a cumprir pena efectiva. A sua taxa de ocupaēćo é de 126,8 por cento. O regime de seguranēa é misto e tem um corpo de guarda de 34 elementos. http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/noticia.aspx?channelid=00000009-0000-0000-0000-000000000009&contentid=00132134-3333-3333-3333-000000132134
Google MOTHER DAUGHTER CONFESSES DEATH BY ACCIDENT Several hours of interrogation led to the confession of the crime. First John Cipriano took participation in the concealment of the corpse of her niece, after the mother of Joan admitted responsibility for the murder, committed against a minor, on the night of 12th of this month, the house where they lived in Figueira. September 26, 2004 No. of votes (0) Comments (15) By: Jose Carlos Eusebio / John Mendes / MB
An accidental death, claimed the woman before the judge of instruction of the Court of Portimćo, Ana Soares, who ordered the arrest of the woman and told the man in freedom with the obligation to report daily to the authorities. The coercive measures were only known approximately 3:00 a.m. in the morning yesterday, at a time when dozens of popular revolt were still concentrated at the door of the Court (some remained there throughout the day). According to BBC News has learned, the murdered girl's uncle, Joćo Cipriano, who was the first to be heard by the judge (he was being interrogated since mid-afternoon until 21:30), will initially admitted the crime but later, when the statements were recorded in written form, the individual just by pointing his finger to his sister, the mother of Joan. "It is with my sister" - the phrase was used again and again by the individual, when confronted with issues related to how the murder had taken the child, referring to all the explanations Leonor Cipriano case. Joćo Cipriano has only acknowledged that he helped his sister (upon request) to get rid of the body of Joan, after the girl was dead. Ensured that the body was placed in a field close to home, but stressed that he was not sure where, because "it was dark." However, Joan's mother, Leonor Cipriano, who was heard between 21:30 and about 00:00, came to confess to the murder of their daughter's death. The woman however justified that it was an accident, saying he had given a slap on the child and this had struck his head on a wall, becoming unconscious. Leonor Cipriano said to have been bewildered and panicked at the prospect of killing his daughter, decided to wrap the girl's body in a cloth and put him in a plastic bag. He then asked the help of his brother to dispose of the body's own daughter, which she said came to pass at a site near the house. Like his uncle, the mother of Joan will also apologized to the dark, as well as the state of panic that would find, not knowing where to put her daughter's body. This is indeed the reason given by both to the fact that the clues provided so far to the PJ put on where the body may prove completely false. Lately, the mother of Joan is giving the idea of finding psychologically affected by the case and there is often "does not say anything to anything," according to the expression used by a source close to the investigation. After hearing the two suspects, Judge of Criminal retired to decide on enforcement measures to be applied to your presence by calling his mother and uncle of Joana about 1:30 a.m.. It was then communicated to Leonor Cipriano who would be in custody and Joćo Cipriano that would free by the end of identity and residence and daily presentations to the authorities (GNR Silves). Whether the mother of Joan's uncle wants to eventually leave the Court of Portimćo, around 3:00 a.m. in the PJ car through the garage located behind the building. Due to the presence of dozens of popular (although most were concentrated in the doorway), PJ vehicles left the scene at high speed, with the collaboration of the Body of Intervention PSP. DETAILS DETENTION The arrests of Leonor Cipriano and her brother, John, were made on Thursday last by the inspectors of the Regional Chamber to Combat Gangsterism PJ of Faro, who took over the investigation of the case in 21 days, eight days after the disappearance. VERSIONS During the production process, initiated by the GNR and later handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department of the PJ of Portimćo to go to the Directory of Faro, the child's mother insisted on the release of kidnapping. During interrogation revealed that he had seen her daughter last moments before her morning's shopping in a cafe in the village, about 19.00 for 12 days. MONEY The intent to extort a small amount of money that Joan had the discussion that has provoked the least opposed to the two families. Mother and uncle to the girl demanded that they surrender their meager savings, made with money that relatives gave them, but the child resisted. The PJ revealed on the day of the arrests that the attacks against Joan had intended to kill her. Blood found in the house led to discover the crime. PAIN AND DOORS TO POPULAR REVOLT OF THE COURT If you could have made the law into their own hands. Concentrates on the door of the court of Portimćo, hundreds of popular revolt against the brothers Cipriano left heart speak louder and dictated a sentence right there early for the crime "macabre" committed against the minor. "They deserve death," was the unanimous verdict. At the hour when Leonor and her brother confessed to the judge have their hands stained with blood, as everyone knew that Joan would never walk the streets of Figueira, but the memory still had the smile of careless girl who appeared in rectangles of paper scattered around the village , where he wrote pleas to bring back. Legitimated by the pain that "one bad mother" never revealed, but overcome by weariness of waiting, the popular eventually silence the cries of vengeance, but remain vigilant until the time that the doors of the court opened again to pass the " murderers. " Because the dawn has given respite to revolt, no words left to repeat the sentiments of hatred thrown against pa Leonor and Joćo during late, but the dozens of men and women who stood beside the building to be known to the decision, looked over shoulder while returning home, had the feeling that there was a criminal on the loose. SPECIAL SECURITY CHAIN OF ODEMIRA Leonor Cipriano spent the rest of the morning yesterday in the dungeons of the PJ in Faro and was then taken to the Prison Odemira, the only female chain in the South of the country where you will comply with the remand. Will be subject to special security measures should not be placed in contact with the other inmates. This situation should the fact that, in women's jails, as in men, there is a code of honor among those detained, according to which criminal suspects of various kinds of children are poorly accepted by the other inmates.
A source from the Directorate-General of the Prison Service told the CM that "being taken measures necessary and appropriate to a situation of" excuses to give details. The chain Odemira female has a capacity for 56 inmates but currently has 71, 23 of them under the custody and 48 serving sentences effectively. Its occupancy rate is 126.8 percent. The security system is mixed and has a body guard of 34 elements.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 09, 2013, 08:52:57 PM
Yes, some fair haired girls are fair in the summer because of the suns bleaching effect and darker in the winter. Joana was taken on Sept 12th IIRC. All that summer sun to have bleached her hair.
I have it straight from Leonors lawyer, Marcos Aragao Correira, that Joana is a blonde. He corrected me, when I said she was brown or dark haired.... cant remember which I said Of course to the generally Latin coloured PT peeps with their dark hair and flashing black eyes, their perception of blonde and ours maybe a tadge different. But undoubtedly Joana was very fair haired, maybe only in the summer months ... or maybe as Davel says photographs often show fair haired people as dark haired
I think Leonor dyes her hair black cos I have seen a photo of her with brown hair, or maybe it is the sun changing things again?
Sorry last pic of joana at 8 yrs old was dark haired...which doesnt help your theory that she was another fair haired blonde girl abducted by the same person etc etc.....as the other two, ie carolina santos which was never even an attempted abduction, just a threat by a madman troublemaker who argued with everyone in the area and madeleine mccann for which there is no evidence of one....never mind
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 09, 2013, 09:06:53 PM
This case seems to have created quite a media storm. Here's an article at random only 2 weeks after her disappearance and after the arrest of the mother and her brother.
What kind of preparation was given to the jury in this case?
MĆE CONFESSA MORTE DA FILHA POR ACIDENTE
/SNIP/-
Google MOTHER DAUGHTER CONFESSES DEATH BY ACCIDENT
/SNIP/'
SPECIAL SECURITY CHAIN OF ODEMIRA Leonor Cipriano spent the rest of the morning yesterday in the dungeons of the PJ in Faro and was then taken to the Prison Odemira, the only female chain in the South of the country where you will comply with the remand. Will be subject to special security measures should not be placed in contact with the other inmates. This situation should the fact that, in women's jails, as in men, there is a code of honor among those detained, according to which criminal suspects of various kinds of children are poorly accepted by the other inmates.
A source from the Directorate-General of the Prison Service told the CM that "being taken measures necessary and appropriate to a situation of" excuses to give details. The chain Odemira female has a capacity for 56 inmates but currently has 71, 23 of them under the custody and 48 serving sentences effectively. Its occupancy rate is 126.8 percent. The security system is mixed and has a body guard of 34 elements.
So Leonor was kept seperate from the other inmates at Odemira Prison, yet the PJ tried to persuade Dr Ana, prison Governor to say that she was beaten up by the inmates. 8)-))) >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 09, 2013, 09:11:06 PM
Sorry last pic of joana at 8 yrs old was dark haired...which doesnt help your theory that she was another fair haired blonde girl abducted by the same person etc etc.....as the other two, ie carolina santos which was never even an attempted abduction, just a threat by a madman troublemaker who argued with everyone in the area and madeleine mccann for which there is no evidence of one....never mind
Thank you RB . How can anyone hurt a child. Who is the man?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 09, 2013, 09:18:56 PM
Several hours of interrogation led to the confession of the crime. First John Cipriano took participation in the concealment of the corpse of her niece, after the mother of Joan admitted responsibility for the murder, committed against a minor, on the night of 12th of this month, the house where they lived in Figueira. September 26, 2004 No. of votes (0) Comments (15) By: Jose Carlos Eusebio / John Mendes / MB
An accidental death, claimed the woman before the judge of instruction of the Court of Portimćo, Ana Soares, who ordered the arrest of the woman and told the man in freedom with the obligation to report daily to the authorities. The coercive measures were only known approximately 3:00 a.m. in the morning yesterday, at a time when dozens of popular revolt were still concentrated at the door of the Court (some remained there throughout the day). According to BBC News has learned, the murdered girl's uncle, Joćo Cipriano, who was the first to be heard by the judge (he was being interrogated since mid-afternoon until 21:30), will initially admitted the crime but later, when the statements were recorded in written form, the individual just by pointing his finger to his sister, the mother of Joan. "It is with my sister" - the phrase was used again and again by the individual, when confronted with issues related to how the murder had taken the child, referring to all the explanations Leonor Cipriano case. Joćo Cipriano has only acknowledged that he helped his sister (upon request) to get rid of the body of Joan, after the girl was dead. Ensured that the body was placed in a field close to home, but stressed that he was not sure where, because "it was dark." However, Joan's mother, Leonor Cipriano, who was heard between 21:30 and about 00:00, came to confess to the murder of their daughter's death. The woman however justified that it was an accident, saying he had given a slap on the child and this had struck his head on a wall, becoming unconscious. Leonor Cipriano said to have been bewildered and panicked at the prospect of killing his daughter, decided to wrap the girl's body in a cloth and put him in a plastic bag. He then asked the help of his brother to dispose of the body's own daughter, which she said came to pass at a site near the house. Like his uncle, the mother of Joan will also apologized to the dark, as well as the state of panic that would find, not knowing where to put her daughter's body. This is indeed the reason given by both to the fact that the clues provided so far to the PJ put on where the body may prove completely false. Lately, the mother of Joan is giving the idea of finding psychologically affected by the case and there is often "does not say anything to anything," according to the expression used by a source close to the investigation. After hearing the two suspects, Judge of Criminal retired to decide on enforcement measures to be applied to your presence by calling his mother and uncle of Joana about 1:30 a.m.. It was then communicated to Leonor Cipriano who would be in custody and Joćo Cipriano that would free by the end of identity and residence and daily presentations to the authorities (GNR Silves). Whether the mother of Joan's uncle wants to eventually leave the Court of Portimćo, around 3:00 a.m. in the PJ car through the garage located behind the building. Due to the presence of dozens of popular (although most were concentrated in the doorway), PJ vehicles left the scene at high speed, with the collaboration of the Body of Intervention PSP. DETAILS DETENTION The arrests of Leonor Cipriano and her brother, John, were made on Thursday last by the inspectors of the Regional Chamber to Combat Gangsterism PJ of Faro, who took over the investigation of the case in 21 days, eight days after the disappearance. VERSIONS During the production process, initiated by the GNR and later handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department of the PJ of Portimćo to go to the Directory of Faro, the child's mother insisted on the release of kidnapping. During interrogation revealed that he had seen her daughter last moments before her morning's shopping in a cafe in the village, about 19.00 for 12 days. MONEY The intent to extort a small amount of money that Joan had the discussion that has provoked the least opposed to the two families. Mother and uncle to the girl demanded that they surrender their meager savings, made with money that relatives gave them, but the child resisted. The PJ revealed on the day of the arrests that the attacks against Joan had intended to kill her. Blood found in the house led to discover the crime. PAIN AND DOORS TO POPULAR REVOLT OF THE COURT If you could have made the law into their own hands. Concentrates on the door of the court of Portimćo, hundreds of popular revolt against the brothers Cipriano left heart speak louder and dictated a sentence right there early for the crime "macabre" committed against the minor. "They deserve death," was the unanimous verdict. At the hour when Leonor and her brother confessed to the judge have their hands stained with blood, as everyone knew that Joan would never walk the streets of Figueira, but the memory still had the smile of careless girl who appeared in rectangles of paper scattered around the village , where he wrote pleas to bring back. Legitimated by the pain that "one bad mother" never revealed, but overcome by weariness of waiting, the popular eventually silence the cries of vengeance, but remain vigilant until the time that the doors of the court opened again to pass the " murderers. " Because the dawn has given respite to revolt, no words left to repeat the sentiments of hatred thrown against pa Leonor and Joćo during late, but the dozens of men and women who stood beside the building to be known to the decision, looked over shoulder while returning home, had the feeling that there was a criminal on the loose.
All this stuff came after two days of torture to Leonor. Anyone will say anything they are told to after they have been broken by torture. Anything to keep the dreaded pain away. Tortured out evidence is NOT evidence at all
This is the grossest Miscarriage of Justice that I have ever heard about.
As lengthy brutal torture was used, especially against Leonor, nothing about this case can be believed.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 09, 2013, 09:22:57 PM
Thank you RB . How can anyone hurt a child. Who is the man?
they do unfortunately and more than not someone in the family or circle of friends is responsible for younger children, older ones are often runaways as much if not more so in fact
all psychologically damaged and or other reasons for such acts.....part of the tapestry of our sad bad corners of the world
Ps not sure not sure what man you are talking about, if its sadies suspect.. ask her
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 09, 2013, 10:07:07 PM
I dont deny that Joana looks med/dark haired in some pictures. Her hair must be of the type that bleaches in the sun of summer and darkens in the winter.
When I suggested to Marcos Aragao Correira, the man who was Leonors lawyer in the torture case, that Joana had med/dark hair, he was most adamant that she was fair haired. He knew the family and got it straight from the 'horses mouth'
As I said before, with the predominance of latin type people (dark hair and flashing black eyes) maybe their take on blond / fair haired is different from ours? And it is true that photographs sometimes make fair haired people look dark haired.
.... removed overweighted unrelated article ...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 10, 2013, 05:19:57 PM
her hair was slightly fairer when younger, but when she went missing and or killed her hair was dark brown...obvious from all the latter photos....so not a blonde girl.....by any stretch
The wrong exposure setting on a camera or a flash unit too close to the subject can make hair and skin appear lighter
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 05:22:01 PM
I once had a professional photograph of my children and my beautiful blonde daughter had black hair
Yes it works both ways if the exposure is wrong and then if they try to define the image /contrast during developing . When I had a professional photo taken 2 years old, it showed my hair black and it was red 8(8-))
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 10, 2013, 06:32:10 PM
The wrong exposure setting on a camera or a flash unit too close to the subject can make hair and skin appear lighter
Really is her hair colour relevant in the grand scheme of things. She was murdered and disposed of like so much garbage in my humble opinion.
Unless of course we prefer to believe she was sold by her mother and living in a nice house somewhere.
I cant really see the significance of the colour of her hair, only that it pushed the idea that several blonde girls were taken in the area, although this one was in 2004 and Maddy was in 2007.
Poor little lamb. What a life and a horrible way to die. GOD BLESS you little Joana you cant even be buried.xxx RIP.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 06:43:14 PM
Really is her hair colour relevant in the grand scheme of things. She was murdered and disposed of like so much garbage in my humble opinion.
Unless of course we prefer to believe she was sold by her mother and living in a nice house somewhere.
I cant really see the significance of the colour of her hair, only that it pushed the idea that several blonde girls were taken in the area, although this one was in 2004 and Maddy was in 2007.
Poor little lamb. What a life and a horrible way to die. GOD BLESS you little Joana you cant even be buried.xxx RIP.
seconded
Sadie was pushing some theory that some abductor was going around abducting little blonde girls....only theres no proof or evidence any of them were abducted....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 10, 2013, 07:06:45 PM
they do unfortunately and more than not someone in the family or circle of friends is responsible for younger children, older ones are often runaways as much if not more so in fact
all psychologically damaged and or other reasons for such acts.....part of the tapestry of our sad bad corners of the world
Ps not sure not sure what man you are talking about, if its sadies suspect.. ask her
Sorry RB I am still getting used to the set up on this forum . I thought that the photos came from you (wrong). I now know the man in the picci is her common law husband. thank for your reply. Ps, I get scared to answer on here in case I get a remark intended for the original poster and I have just done it to you...Sorry
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 07:14:36 PM
Oh dont worry anna no sorry required......and please do not be scared!!!......No one should make you feel scared to post your thoughts no one at all....no one has any right to even try...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 08:40:43 PM
Really is her hair colour relevant in the grand scheme of things. She was murdered and disposed of like so much garbage in my humble opinion.
Unless of course we prefer to believe she was sold by her mother and living in a nice house somewhere.
I cant really see the significance of the colour of her hair, only that it pushed the idea that several blonde girls were taken in the area, although this one was in 2004 and Maddy was in 2007.
Poor little lamb. What a life and a horrible way to die. GOD BLESS you little Joana you cant even be buried.xxx RIP.
as there is no proof she is dead its a good job she cant be buried
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 08:51:24 PM
as there is no proof she is dead its a good job she cant be buried
What a stupid post....no one has suggested she be buried alive....her family have said she is dead....on numerous occasions...accept it and stop tormenting her memory or wanting to be a director of waking the dead....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 09:03:23 PM
What a stupid post....no one has suggested she be buried alive....her family have said she is dead....on numerous occasions...accept it and stop tormenting her memory or wanting to be a director of waking the dead....
as per usual you didn't read the whole post..colombo posted it was a shame Joanna could not be buried...I pointed out that as there is no proof she is dead this is rather fortunate
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 09:10:24 PM
as per usual you didn't read the whole post..colombo posted it was a shame Joanna could not be buried...I pointed out that as there is no proof she is dead this is rather fortunate
I read everything,dont preach to me and others that I dont read,,,,.thanks sometimes there IS no body....in this case it was crushed and destroyed as testified by the uncle who killed her,fgs.....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 09:13:23 PM
I read everything,dont preach to me and others that I dont read,,,,.thanks sometimes there IS no body....in this case it was crushed and destroyed as testified by the uncle who killed her,fgs.....
so no actual proof just that obtained by torture or threat of torture..
or did he just walk into the police station and give them the whole story voluntarily..use your brains
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 09:15:35 PM
that's quite an interesting point..he had the right to silence...but decided ...no..they seem like a nice bunch..ill just tell them all I killed her ... doesn't make any sense..probably because it isn't true
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 09:24:16 PM
Hi davel, did Leonor and Jao have legal representation at their initial interviews ? I ask this as I have not read up too much on this case.
obviously there was no legal representation when Leonor was beaten by the pj...a fact proved in court...so that would show that the pj would interview without solicitors present
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 09:50:35 PM
obviously there was no legal representation when Leonor was beaten by the pj...a fact proved in court...so that would show that the pj would interview without solicitors present
Evidence???? that she didnt confess with her solicitor present ta and evidence it was the Pj who assaulted her after that..rather than anyone else or anything else happening
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 10, 2013, 10:33:37 PM
Evidence???? that she didnt confess with her solicitor present ta and evidence it was the Pj who assaulted her fter that..rather than anyone else or anything else happening
It was proven in Court that she was tortured whilst in PJ Custody, Red
How many times does it need repeating? Once someone has broken to torture they will be terrified of it happening again and will say anything that they are told to say.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 10, 2013, 10:35:26 PM
It was proven in Court that the PJ tortured her, Red
How many times does it need repeating? Once someone has broken to torture they will be terrified of it happening again and will say anything that they are told to say.
No.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 10:35:58 PM
It was proven in Court that the PJ tortured her, Red
How many times does it need repeating? Once someone has broken to torture they will be terrified of it happening again and will say anything that they are told to say.
It was proven she was beaten..but not who by... Show me the document that says it was by police.....and I will accede,check back tomorrow
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 10, 2013, 11:17:43 PM
Really is her hair colour relevant in the grand scheme of things. She was murdered and disposed of like so much garbage in my humble opinion.
Unless of course we prefer to believe she was sold by her mother and living in a nice house somewhere.
I cant really see the significance of the colour of her hair, only that it pushed the idea that several blonde girls were taken in the area, although this one was in 2004 and Maddy was in 2007.
Poor little lamb. What a life and a horrible way to die. GOD BLESS you little Joana you cant even be buried.xxx RIP.
Just stop it Colombostomy. Joana is almost certainly still alive.
She had a lovely life withn caring parents and much fun. What a happy face she has in most of her photos.
http://www.asmeninasquevieramdasestrelas.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/websiteJoana.3.jpg.w560h560.jpg (http://www.asmeninasquevieramdasestrelas.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/websiteJoana.3.jpg.w560h560.jpg) Joana looking very happy at her baby siblings (?sisters) first birthday with sister and Leandro and birthday cake.
Healthy looking food in the foreground .... and nice birthday cake.
They are not paupers or malnourished in any way. Nor lacking in love and attention. Happy kids, both nicely dressed with an attentive and proud daddy.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 10, 2013, 11:37:30 PM
Sadie, speculate as long as you like about that case. It's offensive to me, but it's a free country (ish).
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine McCann's case however.
Nothing.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 11:42:35 PM
i'd say its everything to do with it same cop same theories .....different family
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 10, 2013, 11:48:24 PM
Same cop same theories?
That's the best you can do to link the two cases?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 11:51:53 PM
no theres more ...but I really cant be bothered tonight zzzz ....so crack on ... 8**8:/:
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 10, 2013, 11:54:07 PM
When a child goes missing without explanation police in every country think the unthinkable. It's not just one cop in Portugal.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 11, 2013, 12:21:18 AM
You would think after confessing to Joana's murder - that would be game over - and they would then automatically say what they did with the body and what they did with the murder weapons. After all there would be no benefit or reason to hide that information once they'd confessed. Surely it would have been in their own best interests to co-operate fully. And yet no trace of a body or murder weapons has ever been found.
Common sense dictates that even though a confession can be extracted from an innocent person, there is no way an innocent person can say where the body or the murder weapons ended up if they didn't commit the crime in the first place.
'Fed to the pigs' was the PJ theory to get round that rather large problem IMO. As far as I know there has never been a credible explanation as to what happened to the murder weapons and why LC or her brother could not say what they did with them.
IMO the only credible reason is that they couldn't say where - because they didn't murder Joana.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: icabodcrane on November 11, 2013, 12:25:58 AM
Sadie
You look at a few snapshots and dictate that this murdered child had a 'caring family and a lovely life'
Let's look at that 'caring family' shall we ? ... and realisticly judge how 'lovely' that child's short life will have been
The mother dumped how many of her kids ? ( onto the various men who fathered them ) ... never to see them again
The uncle, who was put in prison for leaving a man blind ... have failed to murder him for money ?
This 'caring' family who, for some God forsaken reason, you defend, are s..m
That poor little girl, who you insist is, 'almost certainly' alive, lived a sad life at the mercy of sadists who eventually ended her short life in a savage way
By the way, you also insisted that the man Jane Tanner saw was 'almost certainly' the abductor too, didn't you .. over and over again
Your judgment is horribly skewed
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 11, 2013, 12:33:24 AM
I followed a link Carana provided and translated this on another thread. This is a critic of Gonēalo Amaral's lack of searching what should be searched.
comprova-se pois a brutalmente negligente (para nćo dizer pior) investigaēćo policial quando se sabe, como jį explanado no ponto 19 destes articulados, que o entćo responsįvel pelas investigaēões da Polķcia Judiciįria, Gonēalo de Sousa Amaral, nunca encetou diligźncias, apropriadas e em tempo śtil, de investigaēćo com vista a esclarecer o que verdadeiramente sucedeu ą menina Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro, tendo inclusivamente desprezado todas as pistas que também apontavam para que Joćo Manuel Domingos Cipriano tivesse, ele e apenas ele, assassinado a crianēa e deitado o seu corpo num dos contentores de lixo da aldeia da Figueira; possibilidade esta que o entćo Coordenador Gonēalo de Sousa Amaral sempre negligenciou sem qualquer razćo plausķvel conhecida, tendo apenas ordenado a verificaēćo do aterro sanitįrio de Porto Lagos duas semanas depois do desaparecimento da menina, quando era jį manifestamente impossķvel proceder a buscas nas milhares e milhares de toneladas de lixo entretanto acumuladas, misturadas, compactuadas e enterradas no subsolo (conforme folhas 267, 268 e 269 do 1ŗ Volume dos autos). which means Is proved here the very neglecting (not to say worse) police investigation when one knows, as explained in point 19 of this exposition, that the responsible for the PJ investigation, Gonēalo de Sousa Amaral, never launched diligences, appropriate and in time, in order to clarify what really happened to Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro, having also despised all the leads that pointed to Joćo Manuel Domingos Cipriano as the unique murderer of the child, who dropped her body in one of the bins in Figueira, a possibility that the coordinator Gonēalo de Sousa Amaral always neglected without any plausible reason, as he only ordered to check the landfill of Porto Lagos two weeks after the disappearance of the little girl, when it was obviously impossible to proceed to searches in the thousands of tons of garbage meanwhile accumulated, mixed up, compacted and buried in the ground.
Strange, very strange.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 12:43:46 AM
Sadie, speculate as long as you like about that case. It's offensive to me, but it's a free country (ish).
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine McCann's case however.
Nothing.
Yes it has on several levels
Level 1 1) Joana was one of three little girls almost certainly abducted in a locality of only about 18 miles. No other kids in the whole of PT vanishing like that.
2) All the children went missing in a period of under 3 years. One, Carolina Santos was rescued from the hands of the abductor
3) All three were very pretty little girls with fair / blonde hair, aged 8 or under.
Level 2
1) Unusual and salacial sexual patterns attributed to The Ciprianos and The Mccanns
2) THe PJ suggested that a fridge was used
3) The PJ suggested a bag was used to take away the body
4) The PJ tried to balme the mother
5) Disinformation damaging the reputations of both parties was put out.
6) The media was used to spread the disinformation and it became viral = propaganda
7) Smae Officers involved with Amaral leading
8) Both these Officers have either already got criminal records or they are about to be allegedly taken tru the Courts.
9) Money making books were written about both these cases
10) Both Amaral and Christavao were allegedly eased out/removed from their posts in the PJ
I am sure this list is incomplete, but I am tired, so it will have to do..
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 12:45:56 AM
You would think after confessing to Joana's murder - that would be game over - and they would then automatically say what they did with the body and what they did with the murder weapons. After all there would be no benefit or reason to hide that information once they'd confessed. Surely it would have been in their own best interests to co-operate fully. And yet no trace of a body or murder weapons has ever been found.
Common sense dictates that even though a confession can be extracted from an innocent person, there is no way an innocent person can say where the body or the murder weapons ended up if they didn't commit the crime in the first place.
'Fed to the pigs' was the PJ theory to get round that rather large problem IMO. As far as I know there has never been a credible explanation as to what happened to the murder weapons and why LC or her brother could not say what they did with them.
IMO the only credible reason is that they couldn't say where - because they didn't murder Joana.
8@??)(
Well reasoned and presented, Benice
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 11, 2013, 12:49:30 AM
Don't bother, Sadie ?{)(**
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 12:50:12 AM
You look at a few snapshots and dictate that this murdered child had a 'caring family and a lovely life'
Let's look at that 'caring family' shall we ? ... and realisticly judge how 'lovely' that child's short life will have been
The mother dumped how many of her kids ? ( onto the various men who fathered them ) ... never to see them again
The uncle, who was put in prison for leaving a man blind ... have failed to murder him for money ?
This 'caring' family who, for some God forsaken reason, you defend, are s..m
That poor little girl, who you insist is, 'almost certainly' alive, lived a sad life at the mercy of sadists who eventually ended her short life in a savage way
By the way, you also insisted that the man Jane Tanner saw was 'almost certainly' the abductor too, didn't you .. over and over again
Your judgment is horribly skewed
We will see, Icabod 8(0(*
Hopefully time will tell @)(++(* ?{)(**
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 01:28:42 AM
Joana at school. Beautifully presented and slim but not at all underweight imo.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 01:48:17 AM
Enough of the patronising sanctimonious twaddle for one night guys. I think quite a few have put a toe or two over the line of acceptable posting tonight.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 11, 2013, 07:39:07 AM
Your judgement on the Cipriano case is is tempered by your adoration of all things Mccann.
If it had not been Amaral involved in the case, this case would have not got a look in.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 07:43:19 AM
In March, the Court of Appeal of Evora confirmed an earlier ruling that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured while in police custody in 2004, but that it could not identify those responsible. Leonor Cipriano had yet to receive compensation from the state. Gonēalo de Sousa Amaral and António Fernandes Nuno Cardoso, senior officials in the judicial police, had been sentenced to 18 months and 27 months imprisonment respectively, for falsely claiming Leonor Cipriano had fallen down the stairs. However, both sentences were suspended on the grounds that the officers had no previous criminal convictions.
The above is from the amnesty int website
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 07:44:42 AM
What happened to Cipriano in her most recent court hearing ?
see my previous posts and you will keep going round in circles all day
I strongly believe Leonor was the victim of a miscarriage of justice...both of them confessed...when did you last hear of a confession being used as evidence in a uk court
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 11, 2013, 08:17:39 AM
see my previous posts and you will keep going round in circles all day
I strongly believe Leonor was the victim of a miscarriage of justice...both of them confessed...when did you last hear of a confession being used as evidence in a uk court
Can you provide proof she is innocent of the crime she is convicted of ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 08:19:36 AM
Your judgement on the Cipriano case is is tempered by your adoration of all things Mccann.
If it had not been Amaral involved in the case, this case would have not got a look in.
There is NO adoration .... just a wish for Justice.
And a hatred of bullying.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 08:53:12 AM
BUMPED. Thanks to Davel for finding this
In March, the Court of Appeal of Evora confirmed an earlier ruling that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured while in police custody in 2004, but that it could not identify those responsible. Leonor Cipriano had yet to receive compensation from the state. Gonēalo de Sousa Amaral and António Fernandes Nuno Cardoso, senior officials in the judicial police, had been sentenced to 18 months and 27 months imprisonment respectively, for falsely claiming Leonor Cipriano had fallen down the stairs. However, both sentences were suspended on the grounds that the officers had no previous criminal convictions.
The above is from the amnesty int website
Leonor Cipriano had yet to receive compensation from the state.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 11, 2013, 08:54:02 AM
she may well be the victim of corrupt police officers,,Montclair has said he has not known anyone win an appeal in 37 yrs
Once again, I will have to correct you. I have already written that people win appeals all the time. They see their sentences reduced or increased, sentences or rulings overturned, whatever. One example was the overturning of the book ban injuction. What I was referring to were cases of gross miscarriages of justice and I do not recall any that could compare to the ones that have occurred in the UK.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 08:58:50 AM
Once again, I will have to correct you. I have already written that people win appeals all the time. They see their sentences reduced or increased, sentences or rulings overturned, whatever. One example was the overturning of the book ban injuction. What I was referring to were cases of gross miscarriages of justice and I do not recall any that could compare to the ones that have occurred in the UK.
We have had some undoubtedly, but that does NOT make the injustices in the Leonor Cipriano case any less obvious and wrong
Do you believe in Torture, Montclair? Where there is a difficult to solve case, is it OK?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2013, 09:05:40 AM
We have had some undoubtedly, but that does NOT make the injustices in the Leonor Cipriano case any less obvious and wrong
Do you believe in Torture, Montclair? Where there is a difficult to solve case, is it OK?
IMO, Leonor was obviously beaten up by her fellow prisoners and the director at the prison, of course, wanted to cover it up because she failed to protect her. Marinho e Pinto came up with some digital photos of Leonor covered in bruises. These type of photos are normally not allowed as evidence because they can be altered easily but, since MP asked to be an "assistente" in the case, he could not be questioned about the source of these photographs. Very convenient! BTW, when is Marinho e Pinto going to testify at the libel trial?
Just because I believe that Leonor and Joćo Cipriano are guilty of murdering Joana doesn't mean that I approve of torture.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 11, 2013, 09:17:55 AM
Leonor Ciprianos actions the night that Joana disappeared says it all in my opinion. She never went out at all to look for her. Instead she stayed in the house and 'cleaned up'.
Neither Leonor or Joano contacted the police. Leonor made the pathetic excuse that she had no credit on her mobile phone. So what?? Emergency calls to 112 are free!!
What does apologist Sadie say about that??
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2013, 09:29:48 AM
Leonor Ciprino had other small children in the house. Was she supposed to leave them alone while she searched?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 11, 2013, 09:34:13 AM
the man was a violent psycho...supply the evidence
There you go...from the supreme court ruling.....
b) the arguido AA [Joćo Cipriano] has never held a regular job or residence, living inside a vehicle or at his siblings house, surviving on occasional jobs that he performed on diverse locations;
c) the arguido AA manifests despise for human life a result of a poor social adjustment and affective coldness and has anti-social/psychopathic tendencies with a difficulty to control his impulses, which leads him to be aggressive, trying to solve conflicts through said aggressiveness, feeling no remorse for the consequences of the actions that he thus performs, despising other peoples rights, wishes or feelings;
d) through a ruling that has been validated in court, and given on 10.11.1993, arguido AA was condemned to a 4-year prison sentence over the practice, on 2.10.1992, of a crime of attempted homicide) Saidruling includes that the arguido was convinced, by a third party that lived with one of the arguidos sisters (GG) to take the life of another person who had left him blind, in exchange for 20.000$00 and a motorbike ( );[/b]
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 11, 2013, 09:35:00 AM
b) the arguido AA [Joćo Cipriano] has never held a regular job or residence, living inside a vehicle or at his siblings house, surviving on occasional jobs that he performed on diverse locations;
c) the arguido AA manifests despise for human life a result of a poor social adjustment and affective coldness and has anti-social/psychopathic tendencies with a difficulty to control his impulses, which leads him to be aggressive, trying to solve conflicts through said aggressiveness, feeling no remorse for the consequences of the actions that he thus performs, despising other peoples rights, wishes or feelings;
d) through a ruling that has been validated in court, and given on 10.11.1993, arguido AA was condemned to a 4-year prison sentence over the practice, on 2.10.1992, of a crime of attempted homicide) Saidruling includes that the arguido was convinced, by a third party that lived with one of the arguidos sisters (GG) to take the life of another person who had left him blind, in exchange for 20.000$00 and a motorbike ( );[/b]
Joano Cipriano is the classic psychopath. He would be very capable of committing murder without the slightest pang of sympathy for his victim. He and Jeremy Bamber have much in common.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 11, 2013, 09:50:21 AM
You look at a few snapshots and dictate that this murdered child had a 'caring family and a lovely life'
Let's look at that 'caring family' shall we ? ... and realisticly judge how 'lovely' that child's short life will have been
The mother dumped how many of her kids ? ( onto the various men who fathered them ) ... never to see them again
The uncle, who was put in prison for leaving a man blind ... have failed to murder him for money ?
This 'caring' family who, for some God forsaken reason, you defend, are s..m
That poor little girl, who you insist is, 'almost certainly' alive, lived a sad life at the mercy of sadists who eventually ended her short life in a savage way
By the way, you also insisted that the man Jane Tanner saw was 'almost certainly' the abductor too, didn't you .. over and over again
Your judgment is horribly skewed
Sadie also claims that every sighting of a little girl whether it be Morocco, Brussels, Amsterdam or wherever is that of Madeleine McCann. She has effectively rubbished any credibility she ever had by doing so.
As for Tannerman, well that speaks for itself now that we know the truth.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 10:00:50 AM
IMO, Leonor was obviously beaten up by her fellow prisoners and the director at the prison, of course, wanted to cover it up because she failed to protect her. Marinho e Pinto came up with some digital photos of Leonor covered in bruises. These type of photos are normally not allowed as evidence because they can be altered easily but, since MP asked to be an "assistente" in the case, he could not be questioned about the source of these photographs. Very convenient! BTW, when is Marinho e Pinto going to testify at the libel trial?
Just because I believe that Leonor and Joćo Cipriano are guilty of murdering Joana doesn't mean that I approve of torture.
if that is true why did the pj say she fell down the stairs at the police station
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 11, 2013, 10:04:46 AM
IMO, Leonor was obviously beaten up by her fellow prisoners and the director at the prison, of course, wanted to cover it up because she failed to protect her. Marinho e Pinto came up with some digital photos of Leonor covered in bruises. These type of photos are normally not allowed as evidence because they can be altered easily but, since MP asked to be an "assistente" in the case, he could not be questioned about the source of these photographs. Very convenient! BTW, when is Marinho e Pinto going to testify at the libel trial?
Just because I believe that Leonor and Joćo Cipriano are guilty of murdering Joana doesn't mean that I approve of torture.
So you think the Prison Governor and Medical experts who examined LC were liars then?
In that case why hasn't anyone prosecuted the 'Governor' for perjury as it would appear it was mainly as a result of her testimony that torture was proved and two PJ officers were convicted of criminal actions?
If she lied surely she is ultimately responsible for wrong convictions - and yet as far as I know - no action has ever been taken against her. Has Amaral ever claimed or even hinted that he now has a criminal record because the Director of the Prison is corrupt and committed perjury to cover her own back? I doubt it.
IMO the truth is she refused to be part of certain members of the PJ's 'cover up' plan regarding LC's terrible injuries.
Good for her - she is a credit to her profession. Portugal should be proud of her - not trying to blacken her name in the way some are now attempting to do.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 11, 2013, 10:13:07 AM
Im not surprised that some of you keep defending Leonor Cipriano. After all between Leonor and Mrs. McCann there are more similarities than differences.
Madeleine was the babysitter for her twin siblings while her parents went out at night, and according to Kate, she was a little mother. Joana was also the only one that took care of her younger siblings, preparing food, cleaning the house and even had to beg money from the neighbours to buy food for the babies and cigarettes for her mother her case had been denounced to the Minors Protection Commission by neighbours and teachers, five months before she disappeared.
Like the McCann, Leonor also appealed to the Media, crying out that her daughter had been taken bad luck that her brother (and later herself) confessed to the murder describing every sinister detail of it, which was backed up by forensics.
Like in the McCann case, also with Cipriano, the PJ took too long to follow the homicide hypothesis, deluded by the abduction argument presented by the mother.
Like in the McCann case, also Leonor Cipriano changed her version of events numerous times: first she said it was abduction, then she confessed to have participated in the murder with her brother, later on she affirmed that it was her brother that had convinced her to sell the girl to a childless couple and the business had gone wrong, with Joćo Cipriano killing the child.
Like the McCann, Leonor was also advised to turn up against the PJ, by making up a fake torture accusation curiously enough by the man that had confessed on several interviews that he was out to get Amaral, paid by Metodo 3. The Trial that condemned 2 PJs was based on photoshoped photos that the President of the Bar, Marinho Pinto, had used in his chronicles in a newspaper. The testimony of the doctor that treated Leonor more than a week after she had been in the PJ headquarters was not accepted. Must add that an inmate's testimony that swore she had been beaten inside the prison was also not accepted by the Court.
The only difference between the McCann and the Cipriano is that Leonor is poor and the McCann managed to get money from donors to make them wealthy.
Leonor was a mother of 6 by 5 different fathers. She abandoned her older daughter, now 23 y.o., when she was 11 months old. Abandoned her next son (now19 y.o.) when he was 2 months old. The 4th was left with relatives as soon as she was born. The only children she kept were Joana and 2 younger children by her last partner. Joanas teacher said she was a sad kid and that on her first day in school she arrived late and alone. But her troubles had begun earlier. When Joana was 5 months old, and later when she was 3 y.o. she was sent to her father. In September 2003, her mother left her for 3 weeks with an alcoholic couple, in a miserable house where also lived a person with an infect-contagious disease. But Joana always went back to her mother to take care of her and of the babies.
According to the Public Ministry accusation, at the beginning of the night in September 2004, after having gone to a café to buy milk and tuna, the little girl surprised her mother and uncle in an incestuous sexual act, on the living room sofa, and menaced she was going to tell to her stepfather. Immediately Leonor and Joćo banged her head several times against a wall, until they killed her.
Afterwards, they slaughtered her body in order to better dispose of the cadaver. The several parts were put into plastic bags, which were for several days inside a freezer. After this the Public Ministry doesnt risk to point a place to where the body was taken (after confessing and accepting to cooperate with the PJ, the arguidos gave more than 20 false leads about the whereabouts of the body).
Face and palm prints were found on the walls, and on the door sill, where by the position of the palm prints it is admissible that it was an attempt of the child to escape while being beaten to death (even though Leonor had tried to clean the house with petrol).
When in 2010 her lawyer wanted to request her being paroled, her family refused to accept her back - Her younger childrens aunt even requested that the children had their names officially changed in order to exclude the Cipriano surname, since it was a looked at as a stigma.
Leonor did in fact fake a suicide attempt by jumping down the stairs in the PJ headquarters, but on the 13th of October (not the 14th when she alleged the torture occurred), when her lawyer was in the interrogation room and she was coming from the rest room where she had requested to go. Of course she was blocked by the officer that was accompanying her back into the room and the only injuries she suffered were bruised knees.
In February 2013, the Court of Faro tried Leonor and condemned her for having lied about her alleged torture. She was sentenced for another 7 months to add to her previous 16 years as a murderer.
I hope that the McCann remaining children never feel the way Leonors children feel.
Some sources: Revista Visćo nŗ657, 6 de Outubro 2005 http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1564608&seccao=Sul&page=1 http://expresso.sapo.pt/caso-joana-leonor-cipriano-admite-tese-da-venda=f492359 http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/leonor-cipriano-condenada-a-sete-meses-de-prisao-por-falsas-declaracoes-1589891
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 11, 2013, 10:21:48 AM
Let's face it the court accepted as proven that Leonor was beaten by the PJ before being returned to her prison cell. For you to deny this Luz makes you look just as silly as Sadie. Leonor was also probably set upon by fellow inmates such was the dreadful nature of her crime. As for the alleged falling down stairs we will never know the truth of this.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 11, 2013, 10:23:56 AM
Let's face it the court accepted as proven that Leonor was beaten by the PJ before being returned to her prison cell. She was also probably set upon by fellow inmates such was the dreadful nature if her crime.
The Court accepted she had been beaten, but by unknown.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2013, 10:24:17 AM
Wasn't the confession signed on the 12th of October?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 11, 2013, 10:27:15 AM
During the Court Trial, the lawyer, when he saw how loose his case was, even tried to allege the PJ had welcomed strangers inside their facilities to beat the woman....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2013, 10:38:22 AM
During the Court Trial, the lawyer, when he saw how loose his case was, even tried to allege the PJ had welcomed strangers inside their facilities to beat the woman....
Ah, those PJ Officers sent down from Lisbon so they wouldn't be recognized?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 11, 2013, 10:41:05 AM
The Court accepted she had been beaten, but by unknown.
That's what I read too. Life in jail for a child's murderer is worse than hell. Was the intervention of Metodo 3 investigated ? Why was their contract re-conducted in March 2008 after the hoax of Madeleine's return for Xmas ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 11, 2013, 10:51:25 AM
No, John, it's a tabloid reporting.. The 3 police officers accused of torture were exonerated and GA wasn't accused to falsify a document in order to cover that up. http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/caso-joana-goncalo-amaral-condenado-a-ano-e-meio-de-prisao-com-pena-suspensa-1382307.
The Court of Faro today condemned by false allegations to a year in prison with a suspended sentence the former PJ inspector Gonēalo Amaral , in these case relating to the alleged aggressions against Leonor Cipriano by PJ inspectors . However , the accused was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation (failure to report a crime).
The inspector António Cardoso was also convicted with suspended sentence, two years and three months in prison . The remaining defendants were acquitted because despite having been proved that Leonor Cipriano was assaulted on the premises of PJ, we could not identify the perpetrators . According to the chairman of the panel of judges , the case is " particularly serious in people who aim to fight crime."
The court also stated that the testimony in court of the girl's mother was contradictory, which did not help to establish the facts . Similarly it was not possible to prove that she fell from the stairs, as claimed by the defence. The prosecutor or the assistants can now turn, respectively, with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.
The process is related to the so-called " Joana case ", dating back to September 12, 2004 , the day the girl, aged eight, disappeared from the village of Figueira, Portimćo, Algarve.
A reading of the judgement was made this afternoon by Chairman of the judges. The charges of the Prosecutor against five inspectors and former inspectors Judicial emerged following the interrogation by the PJ in Faro in 2004 , when Leonor appeared with lesions on her face and body in Prison Beja, where she was on remand.
Three inspectors were accused of the crime of torture, one was accused of the crime of perjury and failure to report and a fifth was accused of the crime of document forgery. The trial began on 27 October 2008.
Joana's mother, Leonor Cipriano, and uncle, John Cipriano were sentenced by the Supreme Court to 16 years in prison each, for the crimes of murder and concealment of a body of the child. Four days ago, the lawyer for Leonor Cipriano, Aragćo Correia, requested the opening of a new investigation in the "Joana case " and the acquittal of the girl's mother, after John Cipriano confessed in writing that he tried to sell her.
Not so. She was beaten within the PJ premises. You might want to read this Portuguese article posted by Anne. Hint.. take note of the bold text.
So, tell me, who normally assaults suspects in a police station??
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 11, 2013, 11:03:34 AM
That's what I read too. Life in jail for a child's murderer is worse than hell.
Was the intervention of Metodo 3 investigated ? Why was their contract re-conducted in March 2008 after the hoax of Madeleine's return for Xmas ?
So do you think the Director of the Prison committed perjury Anne?
Quote from Statewatch article: RefNo# 29207
Portugal: Report on torture suffered by Leonor Cipriano SPECIAL SECURITY CHAIN OF ODEMIRA
The prison director
Correia then spoke to Odemira prison director Ana Maria Calado, who confirmed Leonor Cipriano's account, noting how shocked she was about her conditions, with black marks, haematomae and bruising in her face, mainly around her eyes, her head and ribs, mainly on her sides. She assured that the physical marks clearly indicated a violent aggression and not a fall down some stairs, something the legal-medical report also confirmed. She noted that Cipriano's conditions worsened a week after she was tortured, as the blood that had gathered at the height of her brows was so much that it ended up falling over her eyes, leaving her practically blind for almost a month, and the director regrets not having ordered photographs of this period to be taken.
She also said that relations between Cipriano and the prison guards and other prisoners were good, and that she did not believe that she had attempted suicide.
Calado expressed her surprise for a number of facts: a) that the judicial police did not take Cipriano to a health centre in Faro to certify that she had fallen down some stairs; b) that the day of her interrogation was chosen during Calado's week of holidays, when she would never have allowed her to be picked up at 6 a.m. without a formal request by the judicial police; and c) that judicial police officers who arrived from Lisbon to investigate the allegations of torture proposed sharing the blame between the judicial police and prison, something she refused. Correia praised the director, describing her as "courageous" and as prizing "values" more highly than "corporate interests".END QUOTE
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 11, 2013, 11:11:08 AM
There is lots of evidence that Joana was murdered and it is disingenuous for anyone to post the contrary. Another piece of evidence which clearly points to her having been disposed of is that her shoes were all there in the house. Does anyone really believe that Joana went out without her shoes?? You can't be that naive surely??
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 11, 2013, 11:38:46 AM
There is lots of evidence that Joana was murdered and it is disingenuous for anyone to post the contrary. Another piece of evidence which clearly points to her having been disposed of is that her shoes were all there in the house. Does anyone really believe that Joana went out without her shoes?? You can't be that naive surely??
Nothing to do with naievety imo Angelo. There is no forensic evidence that Joana was murdered by LC and the court threw out the motive for a murder to have taken place - given by the PJ. Those are the facts. No motive and no evidence.
IMO Apart from that - once torture had been established, the verdict should have been automatically declared 'Unsafe' as nothing which had been presented as evidence incriminating LC could be relied upon to be credible - including evidence put forward by the PJ about shoes.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 11, 2013, 12:07:50 PM
Nothing to do with naievety imo Angelo. There is no forensic evidence that Joana was murdered by LC and the court threw out the motive for a murder to have taken place - given by the PJ. Those are the facts. No motive and no evidence.
IMO Apart from that - once torture had been established, the verdict should have been automatically declared 'Unsafe' as nothing which had been presented as evidence incriminating LC could be relied upon to be credible - including evidence put forward by the PJ about shoes.
Well, three judges and three jurors disagree with you and they disagreed on all appeals too....you must know better?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2013, 12:17:01 PM
Leonor Ciprianos actions the night that Joana disappeared says it all in my opinion. She never went out at all to look for her. Instead she stayed in the house and 'cleaned up'.
Neither Leonor or Joano contacted the police. Leonor made the pathetic excuse that she had no credit on her mobile phone. So what?? Emergency calls to 112 are free!!
What does apologist Sadie say about that??
I really don't know what happened in this case.
Standing back from the unproven suppositions, what I think I understand from the timeline of that night:
Leonor, the 3 kids and Joćo were apparently home. Leandro had gone off to this village fźte.
- Joana was sent out on an errand at "around 20:00".
- Joana was last seen walking towards home between 20:30/40.
- 21:30 Joćo went to tell Leandro and friend that she hadn't come home. Leonor stays home with 2 other kids. Shortly after that all three men come home and note that Joana still hasn't come home. Leandro and friend go off to search. Joćo stays home with Leonor.
- Between 22:30-23:00, Leonor goes off to the shop to see if she'd actually been there. Joćo seems to have stayed at home.
- Bearing in mind the "village fźte" atmosphere, at around 0:40 (now 13 Sept), the shopkeeper phones GNR. Had Leonor gone off to search / find people she knew who she may have been with? People who may have seen her? Phoned friends/family? (Did anyone from forensics actually check phones?) Then, gone back to the shop to check again, at which point the shopkeeper offered to call?
- At some point, during the night, she apparently talked to the GNR around the church area. (Why is this "around" a certain time? Did the investigation check?
- Later that morning, she and Joćo went to make a formal statement at the GNR station in Portimćo.
If my understanding of that timeline is correct (and there is latitude as to the times noted/recorded, as there doesn't seem to be corroboration):
- Are the prosecution allegations:
-- feasible within that timeframe? Yes, they could be, but there was never any corroborating evidence.
-- plausible
---within that timeframe? I have a few problems with that: you send a child on an errand to a bar/shop that is only 420m from home and engage in incestuous sex (for which there is no concrete evidence) in the living-room? In a house to which Leandro and friend could have returned for x, y, or z reasons at any time?
---- If the neighour's approximate timing is more or less accurate, Joana came home, discovered this "bad thing" going on, got her head bashed to death against a wall, (without, presumably the other kids waking up - were they questioned?), the bloodbath cleaned up, her body temporarily hidden from view (presumably), then chopped up in the living-room with an attempt to stuff the dismembered parts in what may have been a fridge/combo* that anyone in the family could have accessed the following morning.
* What this "arca frigorifica"? It doesn't seem clear. Literally a refrigeration case. What does that mean? A fridge? A fridge/freezer combo? How big - they were quite poor. A separate deep freeze? The term for deep-freeze would seem to be "arca congeladora", which isn't the term that I've found in the Supreme Court judgement.
- If it's a deep-freeze, then ok, but few people would normally check the contents of a deep-freeze on a daily basis.
- If it actually means a fridge (even a small one with a freezer compartment), that could still be feasible if the occupants only opened the fridge part the next morning to get, e.g., milk for breakfast.
With such a massacre, wouldn't forensics have found evidence?
- The traces of (unidentified) blood found in a chink of a drawer of this "arca frigorķfica" don't seem to have been identified as belonging to anyone.
-- The body was supposed to have been wrapped in a duvet cover and stuffed in the corner of a bedroom at some point? When? Was this duvet cover analysed?
I haven't found any forensic evidence about the fate of this child in the Supreme Court judgement.
Perhaps one or both who are serving a long sentence are in fact guilty, in which case they deserve their terms, in my view. But what if they weren't? What hard evidence is there?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 12:41:23 PM
Standing back from the unproven suppositions, what I think I understand from the timeline of that night:
Leonor, the 3 kids and Joćo were apparently home. Leandro had gone off to this village fźte.
- Joana was sent out on an errand at "around 20:00".
- Joana was last seen walking towards home between 20:30/40.
- 21:30 Joćo went to tell Leandro and friend that she hadn't come home. Leonor stays home with 2 other kids. Shortly after that all three men come home and note that Joana still hasn't come home. Leandro and friend go off to search. Joćo stays home with Leonor.
- Between 22:30-23:00, Leonor goes off to the shop to see if she'd actually been there. Joćo seems to have stayed at home.
- Bearing in mind the "village fźte" atmosphere, at around 0:40 (now 13 Sept), the shopkeeper phones GNR. Had Leonor gone off to search / find people she knew who she may have been with? People who may have seen her? Phoned friends/family? (Did anyone from forensics actually check phones?) Then, gone back to the shop to check again, at which point the shopkeeper offered to call?
- At around 02:00, she apparently talked to the GNR around the church area. (Why is this "around" a certain time? Did the investigation check?
- Later that morning, she and Joćo went to make a formal statement at the GNR station in Portimćo.
If my understanding of that timeline is correct (and there is latitude as to the times noted/recorded, as there doesn't seem to be corroboration):
- Are the prosecution allegations:
-- feasible within that timeframe? Yes, they could be, but there was never any corroborating evidence.
-- plausible
---within that timeframe? I have a few problems with that: you send a child on an errand to a bar/shop that is only 420m from home and engage in incestuous sex (for which there is no concrete evidence) in the living-room? In a house to which Leandro and friend could have returned for x, y, or z reasons at any time?
---- If the neighour's approximate timing is more or less accurate, Joana came home, discovered this "bad thing" going on, got her head bashed to death against a wall, (without, presumably the other kids waking up - were they questioned?), the bloodbath cleaned up, her body temporarily hidden from view (presumably), then chopped up in the living-room with an attempt to stuff the dismembered parts in what may have been a fridge/combo* that anyone in the family could have accessed the following morning.
* What this "arca frigorifica"? It doesn't seem clear. Literally a refrigeration case. What does that mean? A fridge? A fridge/freezer combo? How big - they were quite poor. A separate deep freeze? The term for deep-freeze would seem to be "arca congeladora", which isn't the term that I've found in the Supreme Court judgement.
- If it's a deep-freeze, then ok, but few people would normally check the contents of a deep-freeze on a daily basis.
- If it actually means a fridge (even a small one with a freezer compartment), that could still be feasible if the occupants only opened the fridge part the next morning to get, e.g., milk for breakfast.
With such a massacre, wouldn't forensics have found evidence?
- The traces of (unidentified) blood found in a chink of a drawer of this "arca frigorķfica" don't seem to have been identified as belonging to anyone.
-- The body was supposed to have been wrapped in a duvet cover and stuffed in the corner of a bedroom at some point? When? Was this duvet cover analysed?
I haven't found any forensic evidence about the fate of this child in the Supreme Court judgement.
Perhaps one or both who are serving a long sentence are in fact guilty, in which case they deserve their terms, in my view. But what if they weren't? What hard evidence is there?
As far as I can see no hard evidence..just the confessions.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 12:47:07 PM
Leonor Ciprianos actions the night that Joana disappeared says it all in my opinion. She never went out at all to look for her. Instead she stayed in the house and 'cleaned up'.
Neither Leonor or Joano contacted the police. Leonor made the pathetic excuse that she had no credit on her mobile phone. So what?? Emergency calls to 112 are free!!
What does apologist Sadie say about that??
Leonor Cipriano had two other quite young children. After all you have said about Kate and Gerry, how do you square Leonor going out and leaving them?
Remember - the Mccann childrens apartment was within sight and hearing and only about 50 metres away. The children were soundly asleep before Kate and Gerry went for their meal 50 metres away, and they were checked visually every half hour.
One strandard for the Mccanns and another for Leonor, eh ?
So Angelo, do you think that Leonor should have gone out looking ... and leaving her little ones unattended?
As for mobiles in 2004 in rural PT. Come on pull the other one. I doubt she had one. Remember she wasn't working and had little money.
If there was a mobile, it is most likely that the man the house would have it. Leonor was not working, apart from keeping a nice clean home and feading and looking after her children in an examplorary manner according to photographs.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 11, 2013, 12:54:07 PM
I modified a sentence in my previous post that I felt wasn't totally accurate or badly worded.
I have loads of questions - whoever may be responsible for this little girl's disappearance.
Perhaps these two people were in fact responsible. Who knows? However, I have not seen any evidence, aside from shoehorning allegations, strangely taken as "fact", that could corroborate anything concrete.
How could people be convicted for such long sentences... on the basis of such flimsy evidence?
I really don't understand.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 12:56:27 PM
As far as I can see no hard evidence..just the confessions.
There undoubtedly is evidence Dave but you choose to ignore it for some reason?
They had every means to contact the police Sadie, in fact the police were stationed at the Fair just down the road so no excuses. In my opinion the Court was correct to find her guilty of collusion certainly given all the circumstances. I believe the brother did the dirty deed though since he was quite capable of it given his history of monstrous violence.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 12:58:18 PM
Standing back from the unproven suppositions, what I think I understand from the timeline of that night:
Leonor, the 3 kids and Joćo were apparently home. Leandro had gone off to this village fźte.
- Joana was sent out on an errand at "around 20:00".
- Joana was last seen walking towards home between 20:30/40.
- 21:30 Joćo went to tell Leandro and friend that she hadn't come home. Leonor stays home with 2 other kids. Shortly after that all three men come home and note that Joana still hasn't come home. Leandro and friend go off to search. Joćo stays home with Leonor.
- Between 22:30-23:00, Leonor goes off to the shop to see if she'd actually been there. Joćo seems to have stayed at home.
- Bearing in mind the "village fźte" atmosphere, at around 0:40 (now 13 Sept), the shopkeeper phones GNR. Had Leonor gone off to search / find people she knew who she may have been with? People who may have seen her? Phoned friends/family? (Did anyone from forensics actually check phones?) Then, gone back to the shop to check again, at which point the shopkeeper offered to call?
- At some point, during the night, she apparently talked to the GNR around the church area. (Why is this "around" a certain time? Did the investigation check?
- Later that morning, she and Joćo went to make a formal statement at the GNR station in Portimćo.
If my understanding of that timeline is correct (and there is latitude as to the times noted/recorded, as there doesn't seem to be corroboration):
- Are the prosecution allegations:
-- feasible within that timeframe? Yes, they could be, but there was never any corroborating evidence.
-- plausible
---within that timeframe? I have a few problems with that: you send a child on an errand to a bar/shop that is only 420m from home and engage in incestuous sex (for which there is no concrete evidence) in the living-room? In a house to which Leandro and friend could have returned for x, y, or z reasons at any time?
---- If the neighour's approximate timing is more or less accurate, Joana came home, discovered this "bad thing" going on, got her head bashed to death against a wall, (without, presumably the other kids waking up - were they questioned?), the bloodbath cleaned up, her body temporarily hidden from view (presumably), then chopped up in the living-room with an attempt to stuff the dismembered parts in what may have been a fridge/combo* that anyone in the family could have accessed the following morning.
* What this "arca frigorifica"? It doesn't seem clear. Literally a refrigeration case. What does that mean? A fridge? A fridge/freezer combo? How big - they were quite poor. A separate deep freeze? The term for deep-freeze would seem to be "arca congeladora", which isn't the term that I've found in the Supreme Court judgement.
- If it's a deep-freeze, then ok, but few people would normally check the contents of a deep-freeze on a daily basis.
- If it actually means a fridge (even a small one with a freezer compartment), that could still be feasible if the occupants only opened the fridge part the next morning to get, e.g., milk for breakfast.
With such a massacre, wouldn't forensics have found evidence?
- The traces of (unidentified) blood found in a chink of a drawer of this "arca frigorķfica" don't seem to have been identified as belonging to anyone.
-- The body was supposed to have been wrapped in a duvet cover and stuffed in the corner of a bedroom at some point? When? Was this duvet cover analysed?
I haven't found any forensic evidence about the fate of this child in the Supreme Court judgement.
Perhaps one or both who are serving a long sentence are in fact guilty, in which case they deserve their terms, in my view. But what if they weren't? What hard evidence is there?
A brilliant analysis Carana. Well done!
The only thing that I would like to add is that it was reported that the last time she was seen was walking up the steps to the church, which is approximately half way home. Approx 200 metres to go, according to reports
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 11, 2013, 01:00:53 PM
I have no idea what happened to little Joana. Tragically, some kids are abused to death by those closest to them.
What is the hard evidence that this happened in this case??
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 01:02:08 PM
There undoubtedly is evidence Dave but you choose to ignore it for some reason?
They had every means to contact the police Sadie, in fact the police were stationed at the Fair just down the road so no excuses. In my opinion the Court was correct to find her guilty of collusion certainly given all the circumstances. I believe the brother did the dirty deed though.
I would be interested to read that info John. Please could you guide me to it, with werbsite address?
Thank you.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 01:04:12 PM
No he didn't, he is just being flippant. There is lots of evidence in the Cipriano case, agreed much of it is circumstantial but it is still evidence and for anyone to say there isn't is a nonsense.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 01:08:31 PM
The only thing that I would like to add is that it was reported that the last time she was seen was walking up the steps to the church, which is approximately half way home. Approx 200 metres to go, according to reports
Thank you, Sadie.
According to the SC judgement, the neighbour who went out onto the balcony saw her on her way home from the shop.
It may well have been half-way... but you are far better than I am at working out distances.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2013, 01:12:24 PM
No he didn't, he is just being flippant. There is lots of evidence in the Cipriano case, agreed much of it is circumstantial but it is still evidence and for anyone to say there isn't is a nonsense.
I think you misunderstand John.. I haven't seen any evidence apart from the confessions..you keep saying there's lots of evidence..well where is it
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 01:19:52 PM
Always remember that a now former member lectured some the other day on the difference between evidence and proof?
We didn't need a lecture ..most of us understand the difference...its quite obvious. Strange you bring this up because when I asked the former member for the evidence he became abusive
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 01:23:29 PM
We didn't need a lecture ..most of us understand the difference...its quite obvious. Strange you bring this up because when I asked the former member for the evidence he became abusive
I didn't see all the posts since the mods intervened.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 01:24:20 PM
What was she walking on Sadie? Did she leave her shoes at home just for the hell of it?? @)(++(*
ps I have censured you for promoting lies Sadie.
Always remember that a now former member lectured some the other day on the difference between evidence and proof?
Get real Dave, the blood stains, the delay in contacting police, the shoes still at home, the lies, the confessions, the ever changing story, the dozen or more claims by Leonor as to where the girls remains lay...
I could go on and on all day but I don't want to labour the point. Its simpler to look at evidence of innocence. Why would an innocent mother spout such nonsense?
A challenge for you all...where is this evidence of their INNOCENCE?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
Always remember that a now former member lectured some the other day on the difference between evidence and proof?
Get real Dave, the blood stains, the delay in contacting police, the shoes still at home, the lies, the confessions, the ever changing story, the dozen or more claims by Leonor as to where the girls remains lay...
I could go on and on all day but I don't want to labour the point. Its simpler to look at evidence of innocence.
Is there any? A challenge for you all...where is this evidence of INNOCENCE?
And how would a similar situation have worked out for you, depending on which country you were in at the time?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 01:26:58 PM
(http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/c023.gif) I have reports to publish and edit so will catch up later when you have listed all the evidence of their innocence.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 01:28:10 PM
Always remember that a now former member lectured some the other day on the difference between evidence and proof?
Get real Dave, the blood stains, the delay in contacting police, the shoes still at home, the lies, the confessions, the ever changing story, the dozen or more claims by Leonor as to where the girls remains lay...
I could go on and on all day but I don't want to labour the point. Its simpler to look at evidence of innocence. Why would an innocent mother spout such nonsense?
A challenge for you all...where is this evidence of their INNOCENCE?
Yes the blood stains that did not match Joannas DNA
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Matthew Wyse on November 11, 2013, 01:30:55 PM
Always remember that a now former member lectured some the other day on the difference between evidence and proof?
Get real Dave, the blood stains, the delay in contacting police, the shoes still at home, the lies, the confessions, the ever changing story, the dozen or more claims by Leonor as to where the girls remains lay...
I could go on and on all day but I don't want to labour the point. Its simpler to look at evidence of innocence. Why would an innocent mother spout such nonsense?
A challenge for you all...where is this evidence of their INNOCENCE?
This could have been you...
What evidence are you supporting?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Matthew Wyse on November 11, 2013, 01:34:47 PM
I must admit I cant think of any evidence which shows Leonor in any light except a bad one 8-)(--)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 01:37:34 PM
The Court didnt give her a very good write up...
9. 1. Facts considered to be proved:
e) the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] manifests socially deviant behaviour at the level of norms, values and responsibilities, emotional instability and difficulties in expressing frustration, while her socialisation was marked by immature, superficial and narcissistic interpersonal relationships, where characteristics of manipulation (to satisfy her own needs) and aggressiveness (of mainly sadistic tonality) are stand out, while in her personality the absence of empathy and the insensibility are salient, leading to the arguida’s despise for other people’s rights, needs and sentiments, directing her aggressiveness towards them, with a weak capacity to feel remorse. She possesses a borderline personality with anti-social/psychopathic, narcissistic and schizoid traits;
f) the arguida BB, who has six children from five relationships, has been showing some lack of interest in her elder children, throughout her life;
That last point would be funny if it wasn't so sad!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 01:41:27 PM
e) the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] manifests socially deviant behaviour at the level of norms, values and responsibilities, emotional instability and difficulties in expressing frustration, while her socialisation was marked by immature, superficial and narcissistic interpersonal relationships, where characteristics of manipulation (to satisfy her own needs) and aggressiveness (of mainly sadistic tonality) are stand out, while in her personality the absence of empathy and the insensibility are salient, leading to the arguidas despise for other peoples rights, needs and sentiments, directing her aggressiveness towards them, with a weak capacity to feel remorse. She possesses a borderline personality with anti-social/psychopathic, narcissistic and schizoid traits;
f) the arguida BB, who has six children from five relationships, has been showing some lack of interest in her elder children, throughout her life;
That last point would be funny if it wasn't so sad!
doesn't make her a murderer
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 01:44:24 PM
e) the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] manifests socially deviant behaviour at the level of norms, values and responsibilities, emotional instability and difficulties in expressing frustration, while her socialisation was marked by immature, superficial and narcissistic interpersonal relationships, where characteristics of manipulation (to satisfy her own needs) and aggressiveness (of mainly sadistic tonality) are stand out, while in her personality the absence of empathy and the insensibility are salient, leading to the arguidas despise for other peoples rights, needs and sentiments, directing her aggressiveness towards them, with a weak capacity to feel remorse. She possesses a borderline personality with anti-social/psychopathic, narcissistic and schizoid traits;
f) the arguida BB, who has six children from five relationships, has been showing some lack of interest in her elder children, throughout her life;
That last point would be funny if it wasn't so sad!
Who wrote that Report, if you please?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 11, 2013, 02:10:56 PM
I am still reading into this case and I wonder if someone can kindly point me to the evidence that the child saw her mother and uncle having incestuous activities?, Since the poor child disappeared on that day.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 11, 2013, 02:15:58 PM
I am still reading into this case and I wonder if someone can kindly point me to the evidence that the child saw her mother and uncle having incestuous activities?, Since the poor child disappeared on that day.
Whatever happened in this case, I have never seen anything to corroborate (in any forensic sense) that she even got back home that evening, let alone what was alleged to have happened to her.
ETA: Further thoughts....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 02:17:33 PM
It is an extract from the Supreme Court decision so it was written by the Judges.
English translation (http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case.html)
Original Portuguese Report (http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/bfaf1cea93ab75fb8025716200388d89?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,cipriano)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 02:23:38 PM
I am still reading into this case and I wonder if someone can kindly point me to the evidence that the child saw her mother and uncle having incestuous activities?, Since the poor child disappeared on that day.
It was unproven Anna.
Maybe Carana too believes she went out in her bare feet and left all her shoes at home.
Where is all this evidence of her innocence guys?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 11, 2013, 02:28:20 PM
The initial police force contacted was the GNR (between late on 12, early hours of 13 Sept 2004), and a formal report filed with the GNR on 13 Sept.
How would you have felt if it had been one of your own kids missing in a tiny (rural) village?
ETA: An 8-year-old, missing for a few hours in the midst of a village fźte?
I cant see any proof that she returned home, Did I miss it ? Also can not understand all the stuff about 5 father 6 children. Why should such responsibility fall on a mother? In the UK such mothers would be given financial aid, but I don't know about portugal
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2013, 03:04:22 PM
It is an extract from the Supreme Court decision so it was written by the Judges.
English translation (http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case.html)
Original Portuguese Report (http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/bfaf1cea93ab75fb8025716200388d89?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,cipriano)
The Judges will not have decided on her mental health as they are not qualified to do so.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 11, 2013, 03:11:10 PM
The initial police force contacted was the GNR (between late on 12, early hours of 13 Sept 2004), and a formal report filed with the GNR on 13 Sept.
How would you have felt if it had been one of your own kids missing in a tiny (rural) village?
ETA: An 8-year-old, missing for a few hours in the midst of a village fźte?
Incredibly the GNR officer who LC spoke to (near the church) told her to come to the police station the next morning if Joana had not turned up. So it seems that officer didn't see any need to take immediate action. In fact even when the report was filed on 13th - the PJ were still not notified at that time. An incredibly lax approach from the beginning IMO.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 11, 2013, 03:20:21 PM
I cant see any proof that she returned home, Did I miss it ? Also can not understand all the stuff about 5 fathers 6 children. Why should such responsibility fall on a mother? In the UK such mothers would be given financial aid, but I don't know about portugal
Sorry! Of course all her shoes were at home,,,,, Silly Me!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 03:20:40 PM
Incredibly the GNR officer who LC spoke to (near the church) told her to come to the police station the next morning if Joana had not turned up. So it seems that officer didn't see any need to take immediate action. In fact even when the report was filed on 13th - the PJ were still not notified at that time. An incredibly lax approach from the beginning IMO.
So many of the spurious accusations are explained if one bothers to look into the case.
I don't know about the shoes, but for years neither I or my children wore shoes, and I went shopping without shoe more often than not. I have only this last month started to wear shoes again because it is getting cold.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2013, 03:25:55 PM
Maybe Carana too believes she went out in her bare feet and left all her shoes at home.
Where is all this evidence of her innocence guys?
Very easy for PJ who seemingly make up a story about Joana finding her mother having sex with her own brother, to make up anotherr wee story about the shoes. Just to add aother level of proof that "they dunit"
Remember the two leading lights in this case, Ex Insp Goncalo Amaral and Ex Insp Paolo Cristavao either have a conviction against them for perjury (lying) or are allegedly currently being investigated on SEVEN charges of the fraud type. Remember both Inspecators also made mega bucks after writing books about these cases and a bit of selacious gossip helps sell them.
Where both of them relieved of their positions in the PJ ?
Are they the same PJ officers who say .........alternatively the Mother and Uncle cut up her body and fed it to the pigs? .... or alternatively took the body parts in a bag and dumped them in the hillsides ? .... or alternatively put her body in a car and sent it to be crushed in Spain ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 03:31:42 PM
I cant see any proof that she returned home, Did I miss it ? Also can not understand all the stuff about 5 father 6 children. Why should such responsibility fall on a mother? In the UK such mothers would be given financial aid, but I don't know about portugal
exactly anna
Welcome BTW 8((()*/
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 03:33:30 PM
So what did the people of Figueira think of all this?
With all that stuff against Leonor and Joao they must have hated them. Tough for a mother on top of losing her child
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 03:39:48 PM
Try explaining why Joćo Cipriano directed the police to look for her body in several different places if she had been abducted? He wasn't being tortured at that time?
Still waiting on this evidence which will prove them innocent.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2013, 03:43:02 PM
Try explaining why Joćo Cipriano directed the police to look for her body in several different places if she had been abducted? He wasn't being tortured at that time?
He was being threatened with torture.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Matthew Wyse on November 11, 2013, 03:44:23 PM
The very fact that he indicated several different places proves he had no intention of revealing the truth. Same applies to Leonor, if she was being honest about Joana's disappearance her story would have remained consistent. As it was she told so many lies even one of the Judges had to warn her about perjury. And as we all know she was prosecuted for that too and had her sentence increased.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 11, 2013, 03:57:57 PM
Incredibly the GNR officer who LC spoke to (near the church) told her to come to the police station the next morning if Joana had not turned up. So it seems that officer didn't see any need to take immediate action. In fact even when the report was filed on 13th - the PJ were still not notified at that time. An incredibly lax approach from the beginning IMO.
The police didn't seem to have any standard protocol (nor modern resources) at the time.
I can understand that... but it doesn't explain the "conclusions" in the absence of verifiable evidence.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 11, 2013, 03:59:53 PM
Try explaining why Joćo Cipriano directed the police to look for her body in several different places if she had been abducted? He wasn't being tortured at that time?
Still waiting on this evidence which will prove them innocent.
How can you prove you didn't do something when it's just a case of one person's word against another's
I could accuse my next door neighbour of lobbing a stone over the fence and hitting me on the head. If she was in her garden at the time, and there are stones in her garden, and no witnesses - then apart from saying it wasn't her - how can she prove she didn't do it?
This is surely why people are not required to prove innocence - and why innocence is presumed until guilt is proved.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 11, 2013, 04:03:08 PM
How can you prove you didn't do something when it's just a case of one person's word against another's
I could accuse my next door neighbour of lobbing a stone over the fence and hitting me on the head. If she was in her garden at the time, and there are stones in her garden, and no witnesses - then apart from saying it wasn't her - how can she prove she didn't do it?
This is surely why people are not required to prove innocence - and why innocence is presumed until guilt is proved.
This really should be obvious by now. No one is required to prove their innocence. This is just getting silly.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 11, 2013, 04:06:28 PM
The very fact that he indicated several different places proves he had no intention of revealing the truth. Same applies to Leonor, if she was being honest about Joana's disappearance her story would have remained consistent. As it was she told so many lies even one of the Judges had to warn her about perjury. And as we all know she was prosecuted for that too and had her sentence increased.
Why - once they had confessed would they have any reason to withhold where they had hidden the body - or the murder weapons? What could they possibly have to gain by doing that once they had confessed ? That makes no sense.
Which trial are you talking about when the Judge warns LC about perjury? She did not speak at her murder trial.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 11, 2013, 04:21:01 PM
Try explaining why Joćo Cipriano directed the police to look for her body in several different places if she had been abducted? He wasn't being tortured at that time?
Still waiting on this evidence which will prove them innocent.
As a victim of miscarriage yourself, I would have thought that you would be at least interested in other potential miscarriages of justice and would have been interested in establishing what any reliable evidence there may have been (in either direction).
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Aiofe on November 11, 2013, 04:55:31 PM
The very fact that he indicated several different places proves he had no intention of revealing the truth. Same applies to Leonor, if she was being honest about Joana's disappearance her story would have remained consistent. As it was she told so many lies even one of the Judges had to warn her about perjury. And as we all know she was prosecuted for that too and had her sentence increased.
John
I wish you would open your mind to what has happened.
A man and a woman have been clanged in jail on NO EVIDENCE except of the TORTURED OUT type. A llittl girl may well have been abducted. In fact without this tortured out stuff the indicators are there that she was abducted.
You seem to not even be prepared to consider what torture does to this case. That because of this torture and the fact that the officers in charge are a couple of R....., with one being a proven liar in the PT courts, the case is totally unsafe. TOTALLY and UTTERLY UNSAFE. Sorry to shout, but I am very upset by the injustices in this case.
Are you unconcerned about Joanas welfare, or the total Miscarriage of Justice against Leonor and Joao? Are you only concerned that Amarals nose must be kept clean?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 11, 2013, 05:41:06 PM
I wish you would open your mind to what has happened.
A man and a woman have been clanged in jail on NO EVIDENCE except of the TORTURED OUT type. A llittl girl may well have been abducted. In fact without this tortured out stuff the indicators are there that she was abducted.
You seem to not even be prepared to consider what torture does to this case. That because of this torture and the fact that the officers in charge are a couple of R....., with one being a proven liar in the PT courts, the case is totally unsafe. TOTALLY and UTTERLY UNSAFE. Sorry to shout, but I am very upset by the injustices in this case.
Are you unconcerned about Joanas welfare, or the total Miscarriage of Justice against Leonor and Joao? Are you only concerned that Amarals nose must be kept clean?
Joana was murdered.
If you can prove otherwise, do so.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 11, 2013, 06:13:26 PM
I believe she was murdered....but by whom I am still unsure and from the little I have read about the evidence and the mother with no criminal record I find it difficult to believe that she done it. Still very early days for me though
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 11, 2013, 08:51:57 PM
This has become such a pointless thread.......
No one has the police files on it or any court transcripts...so asking pointless questions about the minute details of the investigation is just that, pointless...... a supreme court decision and all it entailed.....is all we have....and what we have in that Nd in a few other places does NOT point to an innocent couple.....taking my leave....
Keep using the case to try and make the Mccanns seem white and Amaral black though.....after all, that is the whole point innit? 8((()*/
Just ask yourselves one question.....Leonor gave her confession to the police in the presence of her original lawyer...on a date BEFORE she alledges she wasbeat up by police for it...... you think he would as her lawyer would have reported her being beaten up beforehand? And why would the police beat a confession out when they already had it?
There is so much incriminatory evidence here its no wonder the verdict, was, not just once, but more times on appeal, no reasonable doubt...whether it was her brother or both of them...they were both involved...in the uk its called joint enterprise......
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 09:53:49 PM
You tell a good story Red.
Now this original Lawyer. Was he the one who was supposedly picked up by the PJ with drugs in his bag ... as he was going into the jail visiting?
Was he the one who was a close friend of Amarals ? Now wasn't he at Amatals 50th birthday bash?. You know the bash where Amaral anf his buddies came out to watch the firwork display and seeing Marcos Aragao Correira and his previous 'bit on the side' outside in their car, a group set about trying to pull Marcos out of his car
Was this the lawyer that supposedly was taking Amaral on to train him also as a Lawyer?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 09:56:10 PM
No one has the police files on it or any court transcripts...so asking pointless questions about the minute details of the investigation is just that, pointless...... a supreme court decision and all it entailed.....is all we have....and what we have in that Nd in a few other places does NOT point to an innocent couple.....taking my leave....
Keep using the case to try and make the Mccanns seem white and Amaral black though.....after all, that is the whole point innit? 8((()*/
Just ask yourselves one question.....Leonor gave her confession to the police in the presence of her original lawyer...on a date BEFORE she alledges she wasbeat up by police for it...... you think he would as her lawyer would have reported her being beaten up beforehand? And why would the police beat a confession out when they already had it? There is so much incriminatory evidence here its no wonder the verdict, was, not just once, but more times on appeal, no reasonable doubt...whether it was her brother or both of them...they were both involved...in the uk its called joint enterprise......
do you have any evidence to support this..you need to accept she was beaten by the pj
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 11, 2013, 10:40:28 PM
I have added a link that you have probably already seen. I was looking for some info on Leona's partner, because a recent description reminded me of him. Looks like he sold them out! (Ciprianos) http://www.algarveresident.com/10046-0/algarve/portugals-silent-child-victims
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 11, 2013, 10:50:41 PM
I feel sorry for this Leonor and her miserable brother, manipulated by a self claimed medium lawyer paid by fishy PIs to discredit an inspector in order to sanctify a British couple !
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 11, 2013, 10:59:08 PM
I feel sorry for this Leonor and her miserable brother, manipulated by a self claimed medium lawyer paid by fishy PIs to discredit an inspector in order to sanctify a British couple !
I agree to a point , Anne, If she had the money from a fund, she could have got out too, but I don't feel sorry for the brother
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 11, 2013, 11:29:30 PM
can we keep this thread on topic please ...and opposing pat stop the name calling and goading ..it makes you look silly and disruptive ...thank you ?>)()<
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 12, 2013, 12:08:52 AM
There is far too much evidence in the Cipriano case for it to be called a miscarriage of justice. Leonor and her brothers actions following the disappearance are not those of innocent people. Could it be that the brother had some sort of hold over Leonor and took advantage of that situation??
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: icabodcrane on November 12, 2013, 12:11:12 AM
I feel sorry for this Leonor and her miserable brother, manipulated by a self claimed medium lawyer paid by fishy PIs to discredit an inspector in order to sanctify a British couple !
I have to disagree Anne
Were this pair merely inadaquate, ( we have been told that the brother is below average intelligenec ) and were it a case of the children involved being neglected and ill treated as a consequence of that inadequecy, then I might, like you, feel an uneasy compassion for a malfuntioning pair who had been brought up by an abusive alchoholic father
But it was NOT merely 'inadaquecy' that these dreadful siblings were charged with ... they were charged ( and convicted ) of sadisically beating a child to death
I have no compassion for such monsters
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 12, 2013, 12:14:55 AM
It was said I believe by Leandro that the only difference between the Ciprianos and the McCanns was that the McCanns have money. I'm afraid intelligence is also a major factor.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: icabodcrane on November 12, 2013, 12:32:08 AM
It was said I believe by Leandro that the only difference between the Ciprianos and the McCanns was that the McCanns have money. I'm afraid intelligence is also a major factor.
Simple-minded people being brought up in an environment where violence and abuse is part of everyday life is a dangerous combination
The brother being put in prison for four years having accepted money to 'do a murder' is testiment to that
As is the mother of the murdered child having kids by a number of different men, and then just abandoning them, like a litter of kittens
The little girl, called 'Cinderella' by locals, didn't have much of a chance in life from the start .... but having that life cut so brutally short is a very sad thing indeed
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: icabodcrane on November 12, 2013, 12:48:35 AM
NO REAL EVIDENCE Icabod. Just tortured out stuff and the word/imagination of two discredited cops.
You weren't on the Jury sadie ... you have no idea what 'evidence' was presented in Court ... none of us do
What we DO know, however, is that whatever that evidence was, it was sufficient for this appalling couple to have been convicted of the sadistic murder of an eight year old child
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 12, 2013, 12:56:16 AM
Simple-minded people being brought up in an environment where violence and abuse is part of everyday life is a dangerous combination
The brother being put in prison for four years having accepted money to 'do a murder' is testiment to that
As is the mother of the murdered child having kids by a number of different men, and then just abandoning them, like a litter of kittens
The little girl, called 'Cinderella' by locals, didn't have much of a chance in life from the start .... but having that life cut so brutally short is a very sad thing indeed
Called Cinderella was she. Who said that?
Some declarations by neighbours and worthwhile members of the community, posted on here in an earlier thread.
--- Quote from: DCI on June 13, 2013, 08:52:17 PM ---Do you mean these neighbours.
Another witness heard earlier in the process, puts forward new facts through new document who wrote and signed the original of which is annexed to this pleading. These facts once again corroborate the statements above transcribed, and are completely independent of a person who does not have at present any relationship with the procedural subjects, but who at the time lived permanently with the Appellant and her daughter Joana, for when the girl disappeared already lived about 3 months with both in the same house (please note that this witness has also criminal involvement against various elements of the Judicial Police, even against Gonēalo Amaral, the torture of a victim who was also at the time). In fact, Carlos Alberto Pinto da Silva, currently residing at *********************, declares as follows (typos corrected):
"Declaration
I hereby Carlos Alberto Pinto da Silva, a resident of Pond Street Alfredo Keil, No. 12, 8400 Lagoa, I declare on my honor that I have lived with the missing girl Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro, in the same house with his mother Leonor and stepfather Leandro in Figueira , about 3 months and never saw his mother Leonor hitting any of the children, because when I wanted to apply a punishment was always some who never passed for assault. We also declare that the mother Leonor was a calm person and unable to become violent so be it. So believe in the declaration of innocence of Mother Leonor.
Pond June 5, 2009
Carlos Alberto Pinto da Silva. "
Another important witness corroborates: the last person that was guaranteed with Joan in public, then manager of Café Celia, where the girl was doing their last minute shopping before disappearing. Ophelia Maria Santos Glory Zeverino, residing in *****************Portimćo, knew well the child and his family, not only because these are their regular customers, but also to be nearby them and also for their younger daughter named Rachel, being a good friend of Joan, and both almost the same age and playing almost every day with one another. In the original document here attached hereto, Ophelia Santos stated the following:
"Declaration
I hereby Ophelia Maria Santos Glory Zeverino, residing in District Che Lot No. 14 Figueira - Portimćo, hereby declare that I who received the missing girl Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro Café "Celia" in the evening when she disappeared in September 12, 2004. He was also a neighbor of the girl, and declare that never saw the mother of Joana Maria Leonor Cipriano Sunday, beating his daughter. And I can also declare by also be true that the same girl Joana's mother always said well, even defending it in all circumstances.
Figueira June 2, 2009
Ophelia Maria Santos Zeverino Glory. "
We reached the largest adult friend of Joan. At the time owned the only supermarket Figueira ("Alisuper"), Nidia was Rochato the person outside the family of Joan helped more than this child, offering him food, clothes, toys, taking her to the doctor, etc.., etc.., in short, doing the job that it was for the state: to help the needy. But as the state does not socorria Joana nor his family, a kind heart and selfless moved and deleted so many difficulties with the struggling family. Perfectly cognizant of the child and their closest relatives, the Kings Rochato Nidia Maria, residing at Rua ******************Portimćo, puts forward new facts through new document he wrote and signed, which original is attached to this pleading, and where you can read:
"Declaration
I hereby Nidia Maria dos Reis Rochato carrier BI No. 8641202 issued on 18/05/2005 Lisbon Street resident on April 25 Lot # *******************Portimćo, hereby declare that the well-known missing girl Joana Isabel Cipriano Warrior, who I was very friendly, but also knew well his mother Leonor Cipriano Maria Domingos, so I can attest that the mother Leonor never knocked on her daughter Joan in my presence never heard that he had done so. I also declare that Joana Cipriano always well said the mother Leonor and always defended in all circumstances. Figueira 02-June-2009
Nidia Rochato ".
You have seen the photographs of a very happy, bright, well nourished little girl. One who is always neatly and cleanly dressed, who has her hair cut and washed regularly, who obviously loves her Mother and Leandro it seems. She dearly loves her siblings from other photos I have and lives in a simple, but clean looking, home
You have read the declararations above.
You must know the Court case was totallly unsafe.
Why dont you give over ? You are sounding unthinking, vindictive and very nasty
just whyare you so anxious to keep a couple of people who are probably innocent in jail ?
Why are you so keen to poopoo any chance that Joana is still alive ?
This vindictiveness and determination not to be fair. For that there has to be a reason
.... removed provocative question ...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 12, 2013, 12:56:54 AM
Were this pair merely inadaquate, ( we have been told that the brother is below average intelligenec ) and were it a case of the children involved being neglected and ill treated as a consequence of that inadequecy, then I might, like you, feel an uneasy compassion for a malfuntioning pair who had been brought up by an abusive alchoholic father
But it was NOT merely 'inadaquecy' that these dreadful siblings were charged with ... they were charged ( and convicted ) of sadisically beating a child to death
I have no compassion for such monsters
I'm certainly horrified, Icabodcrane, but I feel I have to try and understand. This is for you, only for you http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jul/11/searchers-implacable-texas/ (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jul/11/searchers-implacable-texas/)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 12, 2013, 01:07:38 AM
Simple-minded people being brought up in an environment where violence and abuse is part of everyday life is a dangerous combination
The brother being put in prison for four years having accepted money to 'do a murder' is testiment to that
As is the mother of the murdered child having kids by a number of different men, and then just abandoning them, like a litter of kittens
The little girl, called 'Cinderella' by locals, didn't have much of a chance in life from the start .... but having that life cut so brutally short is a very sad thing indeed
9. 2. Facts considered not to be proved (during the trial ) :
1- that the arguida BB, throughout her life, failed to provide her children with basic care, mistreating them;
2- that HH, arguida BBs son, was helped by neighbours;
3- that the arguida BB voted her daughter CC to disinterest and overloaded her with work, forcing her to carry out the domestic chores that she should perform but did not; -------------------------------------------------
What has LC's brother's criminal activities got to do with LC. She doesn't have a criminal record.
So she had children by different fathers - does that make her a potential murderer?
Do we know whether the fathers of her children were financially supporting them? How do single mothers survive in Portugal?
Judging by the photographs of her home and of Joana - she was doing a pretty good job of things compared to some mothers. Would you describe her home as 'filthy' - as the PJ did?
Easy to judge and condemn, when you don't know all the facts imo.
The Press demonised LC in the press, way before she got to court. So much for the Secrecy Laws.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: icabodcrane on November 12, 2013, 01:11:33 AM
I'm certainly horrified, Icabodcrane, but I feel I have to try and understand. This is for you, only for you http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jul/11/searchers-implacable-texas/ (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jul/11/searchers-implacable-texas/)
Ah ... one of my favourite films of all time
Now the theme song ... 'What makes a man to wonder' will be playing through my mind for ages ?{)(**
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 12, 2013, 01:17:16 AM
Leanors partner Leandro was also beaten up, reputedly by Amaral. He was beaten up to give a witness statement. At one time there was going to be a Court case about his having been beaten up, but seems that might have been dropped.
Just who would be brave enough to take a member of the PJ to Court? It needs superhuman guts it seems to me.
I feel so sad for the lovely people of Portugal that they should have been "sold" the story that they are now in a Democracy, and most believed it .... when clearly it is still a Police State.
Fascism rules
Yes Sadie, Thank you, I found it and he wanted compensation for his injuries...seems there was witness too . He must have settled out of court. I am learning fast! It's a long way down on here http://www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 12, 2013, 01:25:10 AM
You weren't on the Jury sadie ... you have no idea what 'evidence' was presented in Court ... none of us do
What we DO know, however, is that whatever that evidence was, it was sufficient for this appalling couple to have been convicted of the sadistic murder of an eight year old child
There were three Judges. We know that the one Judge was appalled by the rulings and protested about the injustices of the case. So Leonor and Joao were jailed on a two to one verdict, as Eleanor poiinted out. And all the weight of the PJ against them. Along with all the torture and NO REAL EVIDENCE, it was very very unsafe
Also, it seems that Leonors original lawyer, Joao Grade, was a friend of Amaral who was the head honcho on the case. Joao Grade, Leonors lawyer, was at Amarals 50th birthdy party and at one time was going to train him to becoming a lawyer, they said. >@@(*&)
That all seems a bit cozy to me ! I think that in British Law, the Courts would require a "Delaration of Interest" in a case where the lawyer for the defence is a close friend of the Prosecuting party.
I think I am using the wrong term above, but hope you understand my meaning.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Aiofe on November 12, 2013, 05:16:52 AM
You weren't on the Jury sadie ... you have no idea what 'evidence' was presented in Court ... none of us do
What we DO know, however, is that whatever that evidence was, it was sufficient for this appalling couple to have been convicted of the sadistic murder of an eight year old child
Same for any other eventually proved miscarriage of justice.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2013, 07:06:41 AM
What makes you think the Cipriano case was a miscarriage of justice ?
General scepticism over cases settled via confessions where coercion or torture are a possibility. Police are the same the world over- convictions are more important than justice.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2013, 07:38:47 AM
General scepticism over cases settled via confessions where coercion or torture are a possibility. Police are the same the world over- convictions are more important than justice.
What makes you sure in this case there has been a miscarriage of justice ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 07:42:45 AM
What makes you sure in this case there has been a miscarriage of justice ?
Try reading the posts again... I for one have always said that there MAY have been a misacarriage of justice. We woulodnt be so stupid as to make a definitive judgement
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2013, 07:45:14 AM
Try reading the posts again... I for one have always said that there MAY have been a misacarriage of justice. We woulodnt be so stupid as to make a definitive judgement
I have read the posts.
I wasn't asking you the question either, or didn't you note that ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Montclair on November 12, 2013, 09:27:50 AM
I find your comment about Portugal being a fascist police state disgusting and that of an ill informed and biaised person. You obviously know nothing, zilch, nada about our country and the best you can do is to remain quiet.
This accusation of Leandro was instigated by Marco Aragćo Correia in order to discredit Gonēalo Amaral and this complaint was made IIRC 5 years after the so-called event. This case was thrown out by the judge and Gonēalo Amaral cleared. BTW, Leandro never complained about the police and was very cooperative during the entire investigation.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2013, 09:34:03 AM
I find your comment about Portugal being a fascist police state disgusting and that of an ill informed and biaised person. You obviously know nothing, zilch, nada about our country and the best you can do is to remain quiet.
This accusation of Leandro was instigated by Marco Aragćo Correia in order to discredit Gonēalo Amaral and this complaint was made IIRC 5 years after the so-called event. This case was thrown out by the judge and Gonēalo Amaral cleared. BTW, Leandro never complained about the police and was very cooperative during the entire investigation.
Well said.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 12, 2013, 10:03:56 AM
I find your comment about Portugal being a fascist police state disgusting and that of an ill informed and biaised person. You obviously know nothing, zilch, nada about our country and the best you can do is to remain quiet.
This accusation of Leandro was instigated by Marco Aragćo Correia in order to discredit Gonēalo Amaral and this complaint was made IIRC 5 years after the so-called event. This case was thrown out by the judge and Gonēalo Amaral cleared. BTW, Leandro never complained about the police and was very cooperative during the entire investigation.
The Case was then reinstated, since when we have heard nothing. But there is nothing strange about that in Portugal where these things take years.
Leandro Silva did originally make a complaint to The PJ but was told that he had no complaint. Until it was taken up by a Lawyer. Not sure which Lawyer, but the one who got it reinstated.
Leandro Silva spent several days in hospital and several weeks off work after the attack by Goncalo Amaral, when two other PJ Officers held his arms behind his back.
I do expect to hear more of this eventually.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 10:28:55 AM
The Case was then reinstated, since when we have heard nothing. But there is nothing strange about that in Portugal where these things take years.
Leandro Silva did originally make a complaint to The PJ but was told that he had no complaint. Until it was taken up by a Lawyer. Not sure which Lawyer, but the one who got it reinstated.
Leandro Silva spent several days in hospital and several weeks off work after the attack by Goncalo Amaral, when two other PJ Officers held his arms behind his back.
I do expect to hear more of this eventually.
It seems some posters believe there is overwhelming evidence against the Ciprianos. This cant be true as one out of two judges thought she was innocent...hardly overwhelming
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Montclair on November 12, 2013, 10:45:52 AM
The Case was then reinstated, since when we have heard nothing. But there is nothing strange about that in Portugal where these things take years.
Leandro Silva did originally make a complaint to The PJ but was told that he had no complaint. Until it was taken up by a Lawyer. Not sure which Lawyer, but the one who got it reinstated.
Leandro Silva spent several days in hospital and several weeks off work after the attack by Goncalo Amaral, when two other PJ Officers held his arms behind his back.
I do expect to hear more of this eventually.
The case was not reinstated!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 12, 2013, 10:53:51 AM
It seems some posters believe there is overwhelming evidence against the Ciprianos. This cant be true as one out of two judges thought she was innocent...hardly overwhelming
One out of three Judges, actually, Davel. But still not good. And The Media Campaign beforehand was appalling.
Hopefully this case will go down in history as the last such example of the fascist state that was still lurking. Probably still is. But The World has got their eye on them now. And the old guard are being weeded out. Thanks to Madeleine. Poor little soul. And to Joana of course.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 12, 2013, 11:01:39 AM
It is not possible for Amaral to be cleared of the case against Leandro Silva without a Trial. So far no such Trial has been held, and Amaral is consequently still an Arguido.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 12, 2013, 11:33:37 AM
It is not possible for Amaral to be cleared of the case against Leandro Silva without a Trial. So far no such Trial has been held, and Amaral is consequently still an Arguido.
8@??)(
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 12, 2013, 12:40:55 PM
A temporary block has been put on certain members accounts for continued posting of false information in the Cipriano case. These will be reviewed in due course.
Comment.
A judge cannot determine a case unless he or she is presented with evidence. This evidence can be both direct or circumstantial. In the Cipriano case both types of evidence were presented to the Court. To state that there is NO evidence in this case is to claim a falsehood. Such falsehoods will never be permitted to stand on this forum.
Before we go any further let me say that it is clear that Leonor and others were assaulted by PJ officers in the course of the investigation. To claim that a specific officer actually perpetrated the assault however cannot be established and has never been established by any Court in Portugal.
Such conduct is to be condemned and rightly so but while it creates doubt as to the eventual outcome in the case, readers must be mindful of the bigger picture. The Court convicted Leanor Cipriano and her brother on the basis of all the facts and knowing full well that coercion of one sort or another had taken place. None of us are in a position to challenge that decision having not attended the trial or being in possession of trial transcripts. All we can possibly do is look at the history of the individuals concerned, the facts and the evidence as presented to us from other sources.
Wild claims of innocence or indeed guilt are unhelpful. We are here to debate the case, nothing more.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 12, 2013, 01:32:09 PM
A temporary block has been put on certain members accounts for continued posting of false information in the Cipriano case. These will be reviewed in due course.
Comment.
A judge cannot determine a case unless he or she is presented with evidence. This evidence can be both direct or circumstantial. In the Cipriano case both types of evidence were presented to the Court. To state that there is NO evidence in this case is to claim a falsehood. Such falsehoods will never be permitted to stand on this forum.
Before we go any further let me say that it is clear that Leonor and others were assaulted by PJ officers in the course of the investigation. To claim that a specific officer actually perpetrated the assault however cannot be established and has never been established by any Court in Portugal.
People seem to be polarised on this case due to the connection with certain officers involved in the Madeleine case. I have asked, more than once, if this case could be placed on a sub-forum on its own merits as a potential miscarriage of justice.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: faithlilly on November 12, 2013, 01:39:44 PM
People seem to be polarised on this case due to the connection with certain officers involved in the Madeleine case. I have asked, more than once, if this case could be placed on a sub-forum on its own merits as a potential miscarriage of justice.
Then due to Cipriano's proved perjury Amaral's conviction must also be seen as a potential miscarriage of justice.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 12, 2013, 01:41:04 PM
A temporary block has been put on certain members accounts for continued posting of false information in the Cipriano case. These will be reviewed in due course.
Comment.
A judge cannot determine a case unless he or she is presented with evidence. This evidence can be both direct or circumstantial. In the Cipriano case both types of evidence were presented to the Court. To state that there is NO evidence in this case is to claim a falsehood. Such falsehoods will never be permitted to stand on this forum.
Before we go any further let me say that it is clear that Leonor and others were assaulted by PJ officers in the course of the investigation. To claim that a specific officer actually perpetrated the assault however cannot be established and has never been established by any Court in Portugal.
Such conduct is to be condemned and rightly so but while it creates doubt as to the eventual outcome in the case, readers must be mindful of the bigger picture. The Court convicted Leanor Cipriano and her brother on the basis of all the facts and knowing full well that coercion of one sort or another had taken place. None of us are in a position to challenge that decision having not attended the trial or being in possession of trial transcripts. All we can possibly do is look at the history of the individuals concerned, the facts and the evidence as presented to us from other sources.
Wild claims of innocence or indeed guilt are unhelpful. We are here to debate the case, nothing more.
The Supreme Court presumably recapped the "evidence" presented in the earlier trials.
I'm non the wiser as to what happened to this child.
Certain "facts" were presented as proven... but if you examine subsequent parts of the SC ruling, much of it seems to be based on "common experience".
A child was seen going towards her home. Most children do, indeed, arrive home. Therefore, it is taken as a proven fact that she did.
Would the same logic apply to children kidnapped on their way to / or from a school?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 12, 2013, 01:43:55 PM
People seem to be polarised on this case due to the connection with certain officers involved in the Madeleine case. I have asked, more than once, if this case could be placed on a sub-forum on its own merits as a potential miscarriage of justice.
A reasonable suggestion Carana and one which has been considered on more than one occasion. It has also been stated that nobody would give two hoots about Leanor or Joana had it not been for Gonēalo Amarals involvement in the case. I find that particularly sad and raises the question as to how many other cases exist with similar elements.
In my opinion the links to the Madeleine case are too significant to justify the case being moved to another board but this is a matter for the members so I will open it up for discussion and add a poll. TY
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 12, 2013, 01:46:13 PM
People seem to be polarised on this case due to the connection with certain officers involved in the Madeleine case. I have asked, more than once, if this case could be placed on a sub-forum on its own merits as a potential miscarriage of justice.
Shouldn't you fly to Portimćo to investigate this case through the original documents before identifying it as a "potential miscarriage of justice" ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 12, 2013, 01:53:09 PM
A reasonable suggestion Carana and one which has been considered on more than one occasion. It has also been stated that nobody would give two hoots about Leanor or Joana had it not been for Gonēalo Amarals involvement in the case. I find that particularly sad and raises the question as to how many other cases exist with similar elements.
In my opinion the links to the Madeleine case are too significant to justify the case being moved to another board but this is a matter for the members so I will open it up for discussion and add a poll. TY
I only learned of this case due to googling the Madeleine case. As far as I'm concerned, there are connections, but what actually happened to this child?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 12, 2013, 02:18:34 PM
There are cases of this kind in France, Carana, fortunately very very few. Does it never happen in the UK ?
Every country has cases of abducted / murdered children, some of which are cover-ups by the family/ friends. There are other cases in which family/ friends are suspected and in which the person responsible is eventually found to be someone else.
My question is: what happened to Joana?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 12, 2013, 02:20:28 PM
A reasonable suggestion Carana and one which has been considered on more than one occasion. It has also been stated that nobody would give two hoots about Leanor or Joana had it not been for Gonēalo Amarals involvement in the case. I find that particularly sad and raises the question as to how many other cases exist with similar elements.
In my opinion the links to the Madeleine case are too significant to justify the case being moved to another board but this is a matter for the members so I will open it up for discussion and add a poll. TY
"It has been stated that no one would give two hoots." I would give two hoots, and I do. It just so happens that The Cipriano Case was drawn to my attention by The McCann Case and Amaral's involvement in that. At which point one had to wonder about the similarities of Fridges and unidentified blood and the disposal of bodies, neither of which have been found. And what would have happened to The McCanns if the world media hadn't been crawling all over the place.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 12, 2013, 02:32:56 PM
I haven't been able to read the original process... just the points recapped by the Supreme Court.
There is the rub. There's no DVD for this case, so you have to collect copies of the documents at the MP in Portimao. I don't see how you can progress reasonably in this case another way. Bypassing this step you're condemned to speculations that, according to what I read on this thread, are curiously all directed towards an abduction of Joana disguised in murder by criminal police officers. I don't think it's fair.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 12, 2013, 02:43:49 PM
A reasonable suggestion Carana and one which has been considered on more than one occasion. It has also been stated that nobody would give two hoots about Leanor or Joana had it not been for Gonēalo Amarals involvement in the case. I find that particularly sad and raises the question as to how many other cases exist with similar elements.
In my opinion the links to the Madeleine case are too significant to justify the case being moved to another board but this is a matter for the members so I will open it up for discussion and add a poll. TY
There is no proof that she died.
I'm trying to divorce the connections.
My interest in the Joana case is whether she was indeed killed by her mother/ brother. I haven't found any concrete evidence to support that.
In the absence of any proof, she might be still alive and held somewhere, or killed by someone who was not the focus of investigations.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 12, 2013, 02:45:09 PM
"It has been stated that no one would give two hoots." I would give two hoots, and I do. It just so happens that The Cipriano Case was drawn to my attention by The McCann Case and Amaral's involvement in that. At which point one had to wonder about the similarities of Fridges and unidentified blood and the disposal of bodies, neither of which have been found. And what would have happened to The McCanns if the world media hadn't been crawling all over the place.
I agree and I was an admirer of Amaral, but on doing some research into maddie, I found this thread in the McCann thread on here, so just had to see what had happened to this little girl. I am appalled at the results of my search
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 12, 2013, 02:50:27 PM
Not only, it betrays also a total lack of confidence in British diplomatic institutions.
Why do you thing The British Ambassadorial Staff were so quick to the scene of Madeleine's disappearance? I very much doubt they came for an after dinner chat. They knew all about The Cipriano Case and The Michael Cook Case, and they weren't taking any chances of that happening again.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2013, 03:10:06 PM
Why do you thing The British Ambassadorial Staff were so quick to the scene of Madeleine's disappearance? I very much doubt they came for an after dinner chat. They knew all about The Cipriano Case and The Michael Cook Case, and they weren't taking any chances of that happening again.
Is that pure supposition, or do you have proof as to that ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 12, 2013, 03:13:04 PM
Why do you thing The British Ambassadorial Staff were so quick to the scene of Madeleine's disappearance? I very much doubt they came for an after dinner chat. They knew all about The Cipriano Case and The Michael Cook Case, and they weren't taking any chances of that happening again.
8)-))) This is pure invention. That first day the police allowed the child's mother to have her husband in the room with her when being interviewed. This suggests the exact opposite of what you allege.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 12, 2013, 03:13:19 PM
You just proved why discussion of the two cases should be kept apart. That's xenophobia.
Didn't Amaral threaten Robert Murat? He did, according to Robert Murat. I would have been just as keen to make sure he wasn't wrongfully convicted. What is xenophobic about that?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 03:13:24 PM
Is that pure supposition, or do you have proof as to that ?
If it walks like a duck stephen
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 12, 2013, 03:17:09 PM
The McCann's are on record stating that their family telephoned the Foreign Office out of hours helpline to advise them what had occurred so the British authorities knew from very early on what the state of play was. Sorry a bit of topic.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 12, 2013, 03:18:17 PM
Didn't Amaral threaten Robert Murat? He did, according to Robert Murat. I would have been just as keen to make sure he wasn't wrongfully convicted. What is xenophobic about that?
You seem to think there has been no contact at all between British ex-pats/tourists and Portuguese police since the Michael Cook case (whatever happened there, I don't know).
When obviously there has been a great deal of contact, and no problems. Unless you can suggest otherwise. But trying to link events from many years ago, and ignoring everything else in between is a touch disingenuous.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 12, 2013, 03:18:41 PM
The McCann's are on record stating that their family telephoned the Foreign Office out of hours helpline to advise them what had occurred so the British authorities knew from very early on what the state of play was.
So they turned up tout de suite. Just in case.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 12, 2013, 03:19:25 PM
The McCann's are on record stating that their family telephoned the Foreign Office out of hours helpline to advise them what had occurred so the British authorities knew from very early on what the state of play was.
Yes, I think the suggestion that John Buck and/or others rushed to their aid so the PJ wouldnt torture them is bordering on the totally ridiculous
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 12, 2013, 03:20:29 PM
It was proved in court Stephen..and why did the pj say she had fallen down the stairs
Because they were trying to lie their way out of Torture, and explain the bruises. Although not sure how falling downstairs was going to explain the scars on her knees from kneeling on glass ashtrays.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Montclair on November 12, 2013, 04:30:18 PM
Because they were trying to lie their way out of Torture, and explain the bruises. Although not sure how falling downstairs was going to explain the scars on her knees from kneeling on glass ashtrays.
IIRC, the court did not state that it was the PJ who tortured Leonor but they were persons unknown. The strange thing is that the Ministério Pśblico has not to this day initiated any kind of investigation to find out who these "persons unknown" were.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 12, 2013, 04:32:19 PM
There is the rub. There's no DVD for this case, so you have to collect copies of the documents at the MP in Portimao. I don't see how you can progress reasonably in this case another way. Bypassing this step you're condemned to speculations that, according to what I read on this thread, are curiously all directed towards an abduction of Joana disguised in murder by criminal police officers. I don't think it's fair.
All I can follow is the Supreme Court (which presumably has had access to the court documents). I still haven't found anything that could prove that the child even got home that night.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 12, 2013, 04:34:53 PM
IIRC, the court did not state that it was the PJ who tortured Leonor but they were persons unknown. The strange thing is that the Ministério Pśblico has not to this day initiated any kind of investigation to find out who these "persons unknown" were.
So why did Amaral lie about her falling downstairs? Or are you saying that he didn't know what happened or who done it?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 04:35:16 PM
IIRC, the court did not state that it was the PJ who tortured Leonor but they were persons unknown. The strange thing is that the Ministério Pśblico has not to this day initiated any kind of investigation to find out who these "persons unknown" were.
yes they did...and heres another one by prison officers
The Court of Appeal in Lisbon ordered a retrial in the case of Albino Libānio, who was assaulted by prison officers in Lisbon Prison in 2003. The Court granted a request by Albino Libānio's lawyers for the Portuguese state to be named as a defendant. The decision was made on the grounds that, as his injuries occurred while he was in the care of the prison system, the state should be held liable even if it was impossible to prove which prison officers were responsible for the attack. The original trial had recognized the injuries suffered by Albino Libānio but acquitted all seven prison officers of assault because of lack of evidence proving their responsibility. A new trial date had not been set at the end of the year.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 04:40:24 PM
In March, the Court of Appeal of Evora confirmed an earlier ruling that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured while in police custody in 2004, but that it could not identify those responsible. Leonor Cipriano had yet to receive compensation from the state. Gonēalo de Sousa Amaral and António Fernandes Nuno Cardoso, senior officials in the judicial police, had been sentenced to 18 months and 27 months imprisonment respectively, for falsely claiming Leonor Cipriano had fallen down the stairs. However, both sentences were suspended on the grounds that the officers had no previous criminal convictions.
Tortured whilst in police custody
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 12, 2013, 04:41:32 PM
There is the rub. There's no DVD for this case, so you have to collect copies of the documents at the MP in Portimao. I don't see how you can progress reasonably in this case another way. Bypassing this step you're condemned to speculations that, according to what I read on this thread, are curiously all directed towards an abduction of Joana disguised in murder by criminal police officers. I don't think it's fair.
Can anybody obtain copies of these documents, Anne ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Montclair on November 12, 2013, 04:42:08 PM
yes they did...and heres another one by prison officers
The Court of Appeal in Lisbon ordered a retrial in the case of Albino Libānio, who was assaulted by prison officers in Lisbon Prison in 2003. The Court granted a request by Albino Libānio's lawyers for the Portuguese state to be named as a defendant. The decision was made on the grounds that, as his injuries occurred while he was in the care of the prison system, the state should be held liable even if it was impossible to prove which prison officers were responsible for the attack. The original trial had recognized the injuries suffered by Albino Libānio but acquitted all seven prison officers of assault because of lack of evidence proving their responsibility. A new trial date had not been set at the end of the year.
So, you are stating the MP has initiated an investigation into finding out who tortured Leonor? Where is this information? I would like to see the link.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 12, 2013, 05:11:28 PM
All I can follow is the Supreme Court (which presumably has had access to the court documents). I still haven't found anything that could prove that the child even got home that night.
She got home and took her shoes off.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 12, 2013, 05:23:21 PM
According to the summary in the Supreme Court document, the last person to see her was a lady who lived nearby having a ciggie on her balcony who apparently saw her walking in the direction of her home.
I have already posted the extract.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Admin on November 12, 2013, 07:10:54 PM
IIRC, the court did not state that it was the PJ who tortured Leonor but they were persons unknown. The strange thing is that the Ministério Pśblico has not to this day initiated any kind of investigation to find out who these "persons unknown" were.
Can we refer you to this article Montclair.
Translation
The Court of Faro today condemned by false allegations to a year in prison with a suspended sentence the former PJ inspector Gonēalo Amaral , in the case relating to the alleged aggressions against Leonor Cipriano by PJ inspectors . However , the accused was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation (failure to report a crime).
The inspector António Cardoso was also convicted with suspended sentence, two years and three months in prison. The remaining defendants were acquitted because , despite having been proved that Leonor Cipriano was assaulted on the premises of PJ, we could not identify the perpetrators. According to the chairman of the panel of judges , the case is " particularly serious in people who aim to fight crime."
The court also stated that the testimony in court of the girl's mother was contradictory, which did not help to establish the facts . Similarly it was not possible to prove that she fell from the stairs, as claimed by the defence. The prosecutor or the assistants can now turn, respectively, with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.
The process is related to the so-called " Joana case ", dating back to September 12, 2004 , the day the girl, aged eight, disappeared from the village of Figueira, Portimćo, Algarve.
A reading of the judgement was made this afternoon by Chairman of the judges. The charges of the Prosecutor against five inspectors and former inspectors Judicial emerged following the interrogation by the PJ in Faro in 2004 , when Leonor appeared with lesions on her face and body in Prison Beja, where she was on remand.
Three inspectors were accused of the crime of torture, one was accused of the crime of perjury and failure to report and a fifth was accused of the crime of document forgery. The trial began on 27 October 2008.
Joana's mother, Leonor Cipriano, and uncle, John Cipriano were sentenced by the Supreme Court to 16 years in prison each, for the crimes of murder and concealment of a body of the child. Four days ago, the lawyer for Leonor Cipriano, Aragćo Correia, requested the opening of a new investigation in the "Joana case " and the acquittal of the girl's mother, after John Cipriano confessed in writing that he tried to sell her.
8)-))) This is pure invention. That first day the police allowed the child's mother to have her husband in the room with her when being interviewed. This suggests the exact opposite of what you allege.
This is very revealing of the Portuguese mentality. Tell this to any police in Europe and they will laugh.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 12, 2013, 07:31:40 PM
In March, the Court of Appeal of Evora confirmed an earlier ruling that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured while in police custody in 2004, but that it could not identify those responsible. Leonor Cipriano had yet to receive compensation from the state. Gonēalo de Sousa Amaral and António Fernandes Nuno Cardoso, senior officials in the judicial police, had been sentenced to 18 months and 27 months imprisonment respectively, for falsely claiming Leonor Cipriano had fallen down the stairs. However, both sentences were suspended on the grounds that the officers had no previous criminal convictions.
Tortured whilst in police custody
------------------------------- Here's a reply to you davel. -------------------------------
"In March, the Court of Appeal of Evora confirmed an earlier ruling that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured while in police custody in 2004"
'Yes March 2012!
But now superseded in March 2013, by the fact that her testimony has been proved to be a complete falsehood.
So why do they not feel the need to come to the aid of officers prosecuted on a lie!
As to the conviction for perjury they know it can't be overturned due to the fact it was based on their statements not being forensically tested. They can not go back in time to do that, therefore despite the unfairness of it, the conviction will always stand. Unless sometime on the future, the Portuguese judiciary changes the way it views evidence. '
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 07:59:49 PM
------------------------------- Here's a reply to you davel. -------------------------------
"In March, the Court of Appeal of Evora confirmed an earlier ruling that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured while in police custody in 2004"
'Yes March 2012!
But now superseded in March 2013, by the fact that her testimony has been proved to be a complete falsehood.
So why do they not feel the need to come to the aid of officers prosecuted on a lie!
As to the conviction for perjury they know it can't be overturned due to the fact it was based on their statements not being forensically tested. They can not go back in time to do that, therefore despite the unfairness of it, the conviction will always stand. Unless sometime on the future, the Portuguese judiciary changes the way it views evidence. '
Do you really believe that because if you do you are showing a complete ignorance of the real facts
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 12, 2013, 08:08:19 PM
Do you really think that a police officer would assault a murderer in order to find where she buried the murdered one ? Haven't you read Barra da Costa's opinion in a link you sent saying a part hadn't been translated ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2013, 08:10:26 PM
Do you really think that a police officer would assault a murderer in order to find where she buried the murdered one ? Haven't you read Barra da Costa's opinion in a link you sent saying a part hadn't been translated ?
There are that many references to suspects being beaten it seems it is common place in Portugal
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 08:13:41 PM
------------------------------- Here's a reply to you davel. -------------------------------
"In March, the Court of Appeal of Evora confirmed an earlier ruling that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured while in police custody in 2004"
'Yes March 2012!
But now superseded in March 2013, by the fact that her testimony has been proved to be a complete falsehood.
So why do they not feel the need to come to the aid of officers prosecuted on a lie!
As to the conviction for perjury they know it can't be overturned due to the fact it was based on their statements not being forensically tested. They can not go back in time to do that, therefore despite the unfairness of it, the conviction will always stand. Unless sometime on the future, the Portuguese judiciary changes the way it views evidence. '
You posted that the 2012 judgement had been super ceded..I will ask the same question again. Do you really believe that...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2013, 08:15:10 PM
I'm not. I am saying they both have a conviction for lying
Err, chalk and bleeding cheese though.....a policeman signing off statements and a convicted murderess changing her story umpteen times, purleeese.....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 08:37:39 PM
Err, chalk and bleeding cheese though.....a policeman signing off statements and a convicted murderess changing her story umpteen times, purleeese.....
A policeman covering up torture
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2013, 08:37:50 PM
You dont know that and have no evidence to support that.....he signed off a report about her getting injuries after attempting to throw herself off the stairs.......thats all we know...he wasnt there...he trusted his officers... If yu know more do tell...everyone would like to know what happened, doesnt help if yu just make stuff up or dont back up any claims, ta
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 08:53:51 PM
i know you said it was, you dont need to repeat it, just show the proof....after all you want facts dont you, and not myths, show us them.....that the court judged amaral was guilt of covering up torture....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 09:16:23 PM
i know you said it was, you dont need to repeat it, just show the proof....after all you want facts dont you, and not myths, show us them.....that the courf judged amaral was guilt of covering up torture....
Its one of the basic facts...have a look back at the July..august posts...you will find it there...if not may or June...take your time
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 12, 2013, 09:20:58 PM
You made the allegation up to you to prove it....not pass the buck...bye now
Its not a matter of passing the buck...the judgement was in Portuguese...I've given my interpretation.. I've seen the judgement described as perjury...what's your interpretation
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 09:32:58 PM
What's happened to Stephen..has he gone to fix his keyboard. I think he was having problems with the caps lock key
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 12, 2013, 09:33:24 PM
You dont know that and have no evidence to support that.....he signed off a report about her getting injuries after attempting to throw herself off the stairs.......thats all we know...he wasnt there...he trusted his officers... If yu know more do tell...everyone would like to know what happened, doesnt help if yu just make stuff up or dont back up any claims, ta
I wonder which proof the MP had that Mrs Cipriano had been assaulted on the PJ premisses. The only thing that should be absolutely required would be to identify the people who assaulted her there. Who had something to gain with it ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 09:36:37 PM
I wonder which proof the MP had that Mrs Cipriano had been assaulted on the PJ premisses. The only thing that should be absolutely required would be to identify the people who assaulted her there. Who had something to gain with it ?
She couldn't identify them because they put a bag on her head
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 12, 2013, 09:37:26 PM
you haven't answered the question..the question is...do you really believe that the 2012 judgement re torture has been superseded or does it still stand
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 12, 2013, 10:05:42 PM
im off now Stephen...you once again refuse to answer a question..to be quite honest I don't know why I bother with you
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 12, 2013, 11:33:37 PM
Do you really think that a police officer would assault a murderer in order to find where she buried the murdered one ? Haven't you read Barra da Costa's opinion in a link you sent saying a part hadn't been translated ?
I have been reading Barra da Costa for hours and it is unbelievable what is there . Nothing that I would dare put on here, but if true and I don't say it is, it is very very bad. Anyone can look it up and read it for themselves
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 12, 2013, 11:46:37 PM
I wonder which proof the MP had that Mrs Cipriano had been assaulted on the PJ premisses. The only thing that should be absolutely required would be to identify the people who assaulted her there. Who had something to gain with it ?
Where else are you suggesting she was tortured Anne? Amaral had sent for the DCCB from Lisbon. That is the anti terrorist unit. the Anti -terrorist unit to interogate a woman to try and make her say she had murdered her daughter FGS !
IIRC they were sent for in the MIchael Cook case too ... and boy was he ever tortured.
And CPS Official Virgilino Borges. Look at the torture he endured. Were the DCCB there too?
Do you condone torture Anne?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 13, 2013, 12:26:26 AM
Indeed. And also the implements ie. saw and knives which it was alleged were used, but were never found.
Why would LC refuse to give that information once she had confessed to murdering her daughter. What would be the point of doing that? There is none. The confession meant it was 'game over' anyway - so what did she have to gain? It simply makes no sense to endure such terrible torture at that stage in the proceedings.
What does make sense IMO is that no matter how much she was tortured - if there was no murder and Joana had been abducted - then there was no way she could tell them where the body was or what happened to the saw and knife - because there was no body and there was no saw and knives.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 07:38:32 AM
The question was answered and you only have to read my my first post last evening to comprehend the meaning.
However, you weak excuses for not answering my question are par for the course as many other posters have noted on your part.
You evade or attempt to distract.
However, last night, things became quite clear.
You believe the words of L.Cipriano, a convicted MURDERER and LIAR.
Enough said.
I couldn't be bothered with you last night Stephen as once again you refused to answer the question I asked but wanted your question answered.. this morning I willla nnswer both of them.
You wright LIAR in capital letters...have you never told a lie... I have and so has everyone else..so we all lie so its abit childish to be so pedantic.
secondly...do I support a convicted murderer...you mean like Barry geeorge. If shes guilty then she deserves to rot in hell...but if she is innocent I support her.
a regards the 2012 judgement it was never superseded as you claim..you were and are wrong. It is still accepted by the courts that Leonor WAS tortured whilst in police custody.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 08:02:42 AM
I couldn't be bothered with you last night Stephen as once again you refused to answer the question I asked but wanted your question answered.. this morning I willla nnswer both of them.
You wright LIAR in capital letters...have you never told a lie... I have and so has everyone else..so we all lie so its abit childish to be so pedantic.
secondly...do I support a convicted murderer...you mean like Barry geeorge. If shes guilty then she deserves to rot in hell...but if she is innocent I support her.
a regards the 2012 judgement it was never superseded as you claim..you were and are wrong. It is still accepted by the courts that Leonor WAS tortured whilst in police custody.
As Cipriano's testimony was used in prosecuting members of the PJ . their conviction must remain in doubt, but time will tell on that. She is a repeated liar and murderer, and nothing you can say will get away from that.
Now remind me of what happened to George's conviction.
What physical proof has been offered Cipriano was tortured by members of the PJ ?
If it was conjecture, a conviction should never have been given.
Would you trust a repeated liar such as Cipriano ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 09:12:29 AM
Indeed. And also the implements ie. saw and knives which it was alleged were used, but were never found.
Why would LC refuse to give that information once she had confessed to murdering her daughter. What would be the point of doing that? There is none. The confession meant it was 'game over' anyway - so what did she have to gain? It simply makes no sense to endure such terrible torture at that stage in the proceedings.
What does make sense IMO is that no matter how much she was tortured - if there was no murder and Joana had been abducted - then there was no way she could tell them where the body was or what happened to the saw and knife - because there was no body and there was no saw and knives.
The child was dismembered/quartered with an ax, according to Joćo 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».
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 09:25:19 AM
What I find surprising is that the same people that insist on considering the rightfulness of the Trial that convicted Amaral are not happy about the Trial that convicted the evil Leonor and her brother.
Even after she was convicted for having lied about being tortured, those same people continue to insist that the only people that were convicted, not for torture, but for not reporting a torture that never occurred, are still guilty.
It's amazing how people are absolutely convinced that a murderer that was used by an opportunistic lawyer, like Aragćo, that now chose to go to Brazil to develop his spiritist tendencies, and a President of the Bar that was mad at the PJ and the Magistrates for having allowed that his beloved Socialist Party had been stained with several cases, from paedophilia to high international corruption when in Government, is more truthful than the witnesses that finally could be heard to prove that she was a liar.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 13, 2013, 09:28:05 AM
The child was dismembered/quartered with an ax, according to Joćo 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».
It wasn't Joao's sperm, and there was an explanation which was accepted. You forgot to mention that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 13, 2013, 09:35:22 AM
As Cipriano's testimony was used in prosecuting members of the PJ . their conviction must remain in doubt, but time will tell on that. She is a repeated liar and murderer, and nothing you can say will get away from that.
Now remind me of what happened to George's conviction.
What physical proof has been offered Cipriano was tortured by members of the PJ ?
If it was conjecture, a conviction should never have been given.
Would you trust a repeated liar such as Cipriano ?
I would trust Leonor Cipriano anytime over Amaral tbh.
However, having broken to torture, she is their puppet now .... unless she is extra-ordinarily strong
As for physical proof? What do you expect more than the copious proof given with witness statements and photographs? Do you expect the bruises to still be there? @)(++(* 8(>((
The witnesses included the very brave Dr Anna C**** prison Governor.
Why are you so keen to always promote Amaral, Stephen? He is a Court proven liar. He called the Rottweilers in., even IF he didn't take part in the torture itself
How about the rights of a simple PT couple Leonor Cipriano and her brother Joao? Are you unable to see the flaws in this case? Can you NOT see the injustices of running a case where extreme torture was used?
where are your basic human instincts?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 09:38:04 AM
I would trust Leonor Cipriano anytime over Amaral tbh.
However, having broken to torture, she is their puppet now .... unless she is extra-ordinarily strong
As for physical proof? What do you expect more than the copious proof given with witness statements and photographs? Do you expect the bruises to still be there? @)(++(* 8(>((
The witnesses included the very brave Dr Anna C**** prison Governor.
Why are you so keen to always promote Amaral, Stephen? He is a Court proven liar. He called the Rottweilers in., even if he didn't take part in the torture itself
How about the rights of a simple PT couple Leonor Cipriano and her brother Joao? Are you unable to see the flaws in this case? Can you NOT see the injustices of running a case where extreme torture was used?
where are your basic human instincts?
Here we go again.
For you.
All things mccann must be praised.
Amaral must be destroyed.
It's your same old story again sadie.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 09:40:21 AM
It wasn't Joao's sperm, and there was an explanation which was accepted. You forgot to mention that.
My point was his answer: «I DIDN'T HURT HER, I JUST KILLED HER»
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 09:48:23 AM
Hey, hey,.....hold on....
The only physical evidence accepted in the first trial over the alleged torture were the Photos published by Marinho Pinto in the Expresso Newspaper. It's commonly accepted that they were photo-shopped, now.
The fact that the only doctor that saw and treated Leonor for her bruises was not accepted in Trial tells all. The doctor certified that she exhibited bruises from assaults at various times and none was compatible with the time she told the court she had been attacked inside the PJ.
Why did the court refuse to hear Leonor's inmate that was going to testify that she had been assaulted inside the prison?!
Funnily enough, that same Prison Director, that allowed one inmate to be spanked inside her prison, was awarded a Medal by Marinho Pinto that same year.
And further more, that same Prison Director instructed (allegedly) the chief of the prison guards to alter the registration of the movements of Leonor, because the ones they had didn't fit the allegations of torture in the PJ.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 09:56:33 AM
I would trust Leonor Cipriano anytime over Amaral tbh.
However, having broken to torture, she is their puppet now .... unless she is extra-ordinarily strong
As for physical proof? What do you expect more than the copious proof given with witness statements and photographs? Do you expect the bruises to still be there? @)(++(* 8(>((
The witnesses included the very brave Dr Anna C**** prison Governor.
Why are you so keen to always promote Amaral, Stephen? He is a Court proven liar. He called the Rottweilers in., even IF he didn't take part in the torture itself
How about the rights of a simple PT couple Leonor Cipriano and her brother Joao? Are you unable to see the flaws in this case? Can you NOT see the injustices of running a case where extreme torture was used?
where are your basic human instincts?
Also sadie, who were the witnesses to the so called 'torture' ?
L. Cipriano ?
Who is of course a liar.
My sympathy is for Joana, and the awful fate which befell her.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 10:02:03 AM
I would trust Leonor Cipriano anytime over Amaral tbh.
However, having broken to torture, she is their puppet now .... unless she is extra-ordinarily strong
As for physical proof? What do you expect more than the copious proof given with witness statements and photographs? Do you expect the bruises to still be there? @)(++(* 8(>((
The witnesses included the very brave Dr Anna C**** prison Governor.
Why are you so keen to always promote Amaral, Stephen? He is a Court proven liar. He called the Rottweilers in., even IF he didn't take part in the torture itself
How about the rights of a simple PT couple Leonor Cipriano and her brother Joao? Are you unable to see the flaws in this case? Can you NOT see the injustices of running a case where extreme torture was used?
where are your basic human instincts?
This tells all about where your sympathies fall. You'll rather defend a murderer than a young innocent 8 year old that was made a slave and, lastly, was brutally killed.
I know personally Dra. Ana Calado, and for a question of professional courtesy I have not made comments about her - but I know what she did.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 13, 2013, 10:16:03 AM
The child was dismembered/quartered with an ax, according to Joćo 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».
Once torture had been established, nothing said or claimed or confessed by LC and her brother can be regarded as credible or believable evidence. They could have been simply agreeing with what was being suggested to them by the PJ to avoid further torture. So to keep quoting what they said is a waste of time imo.
Torture rendered the guilty verdict to be unsafe - and at the very least there should have been a re-trial. It really is as simple as that IMO. I do not understand how anyone can disagree with that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 13, 2013, 10:17:45 AM
I would trust Leonor Cipriano anytime over Amaral tbh.
However, having broken to torture, she is their puppet now .... unless she is extra-ordinarily strong
As for physical proof? What do you expect more than the copious proof given with witness statements and photographs? Do you expect the bruises to still be there? @)(++(* 8(>((
The witnesses included the very brave Dr Anna C**** prison Governor.
Why are you so keen to always promote Amaral, Stephen? He is a Court proven liar. He called the Rottweilers in., even IF he didn't take part in the torture itself
How about the rights of a simple PT couple Leonor Cipriano and her brother Joao? Are you unable to see the flaws in this case? Can you NOT see the injustices of running a case where extreme torture was used?
where are your basic human instincts?
I believe Leonor is innocent, She had no criminal record, was said to have never smacked her children and was condemned, simply because, she was of low intelligence, confused and afraid. I have read a lot but cannot find the link that I had of importance, but this is interesting (which you have probably all read) http://www.asmeninasquevieramdasestrelas.com/juridica.html
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2013, 10:24:12 AM
As Cipriano's testimony was used in prosecuting members of the PJ . their conviction must remain in doubt, but time will tell on that. She is a repeated liar and murderer, and nothing you can say will get away from that.
Now remind me of what happened to George's conviction.
What physical proof has been offered Cipriano was tortured by members of the PJ ?
If it was conjecture, a conviction should never have been given.
Would you trust a repeated liar such as Cipriano ?
so you are doing your usual backpeddaling...now the conviction hasn't been superseded as you said last night but must be in doubt. well the court doesn't agree with you but you are free to question the conviction. the fact is though that the court HASNT changed their minds about torture..it still accepts it took place. Physical evidence ...bruising
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 10:31:37 AM
so you are doing your usual backpeddaling...now the conviction hasn't been superseded as you said last night but must be in doubt. well the court doesn't agree with you but you are free to question the conviction. the fact is though that the court HASNT changed their minds about torture..it still accepts it took place. Physical evidence ...bruising
In what way is bruising proof of torture ?
Pray tell.
The woman is a convicted liar and murderer.
That factor is unchanged.
You are quite happy for members of the PJ to have a conviction over their heads, but not Cipriano.
Why is that ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 13, 2013, 10:42:11 AM
This tells all about where your sympathies fall. You'll rather defend a murderer than a young innocent 8 year old that was made a slave and, lastly, was brutally killed.
I know personally Dra. Ana Calado, and for a question of professional courtesy I have not made comments about her - but I know what she did.
Why not comment? Is that because if the PJ was telling the truth then the Prison Director and her medical expert were guilty of committing perjury and as a result of their lies innocent people ended up with suspended prison sentences and criminal records? Surely if that was true that would make her a massive criminal - why would you owe 'professional courtesy' to such a dishonest person.
Whichever way you look at it either one party is a liar and a disgrace to her profession or the other one is a liar and a disgrace to his profession. The courts decided it was not Dr. Ana Calado - no doubt because she provided indisputable proof of the veracity of her claims - backed up with credible evidence.
Has Amaral or anyone else threatened to sue her for libel which ultimately resulted in their false convictions? If not why not? What about his 'honour'.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 13, 2013, 11:08:04 AM
I have read a lot but cannot find the link that I had of importance, but this is interesting (which you have probably all read) http://www.asmeninasquevieramdasestrelas.com/juridica.html
The little girls who came from the stars and went back there. Kind of E.T. or child Jesus... The key to Leonor's innocence is with the medium and lawyer Aragao Correia. Who paid him? And what for ? Certainly not for drawing Mrs Cipriano out of jail as she's still there. Then what for ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
You are quite happy for members of the PJ to have a conviction over their heads, but not Cipriano.
Why is that ?
She may be a convicted liar and murderer but I believe that conviction may be unsafe...I don't feel the same about Amaral.all opinions..and that's all they are ....based on my interpretation of the available evidence
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 11:14:42 AM
She may be a convicted liar and murderer but I believe that conviction may be unsafe...I don't feel the same about Amaral.all opinions..and that's all they are ....based on my interpretation of the available evidence
Therein lies the nutshell.
Interpretation, and that applies for all of us.
The following comment is for you davel, from another poster...........
'He knows full well when it was suggested that the judgement made in march 2013, superseded events of 2012 that it was about the principle, that a conviction based on something that subsequently turns out to be false, is unsafe.'
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 13, 2013, 11:36:51 AM
This tells all about where your sympathies fall. You'll rather defend a murderer than a young innocent 8 year old that was made a slave and, lastly, was brutally killed.
I know personally Dra. Ana Calado, and for a question of professional courtesy I have not made comments about her - but I know what she did.
I so agree, it is refreshing to meet you and Stephen....
This is only about Amaral...nothing more ... nothing less.
IF Amaral was not involved in this investigation we would not even be discussing it, the fact is the child was killed in 2004, 3 years before the McCann child went missing.
I thought this was interesting...
Leonor's lawyer received money from the McCanns 24horas 30 October 2008
Aragćo Correia confirms that he was supported with money from Maddie's parents
by Luķs Maneta 30 October 2008 Translated.
The lawyer says that he defends Joana's mother for free and that the McCanns paid him to "investigate" Gonēalo Amaral
"Was Dr Gonēalo Amaral in charge"; "Was Dr Gonēalo Amaral present?"; "Did Dr Gonēalo Amaral hit you?". Gonēalo Amaral, Gonēalo Amaral, Gonēalo Amaral this seems to be the obsession of Leonor Cipriano's defence lawyer during the trial that opposes Joana's mother to five Judiciįria inspectors.
Three policemen stand accused of torture: Pereira Cristóvćo, Leonel Marques and Paulo Marques Bom. But Leonor's lawyer, Marcos Aragćo Correia, has pointed his guns at Gonēalo Amaral, who in this process stands accused of false testimony and omission of denunciation.
"This doesn't look like a trial in the Joana case but rather one in the Maddie case", says a source that is connected to the defence of the former coordinator of the PJ in Portimćo, who headed the investigations into the disappearance of both children and became a sort of "public enemy #1" for the McCann couple.
"A possible condemnation of Gonēalo Amaral in this process may make it easier for the English to prosecute the Portuguese state", the source says.
I believe Leonor is innocent, She had no criminal record, was said to have never smacked her children and was condemned, simply because, she was of low intelligence, confused and afraid. I have read a lot but cannot find the link that I had of importance, but this is interesting (which you have probably all read) http://www.asmeninasquevieramdasestrelas.com/juridica.html
leonor was not convicted for crimes, her brother was. But Leonor was registered as a serial child neglector.
But as you read that book you will probably believe that poor murderer Leonor, neglector of all her children, abuser of Joana, is a pure soul....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 11:51:02 AM
I so agree, it is refreshing to meet you and Stephen....
This is only about Amaral...nothing more ... nothing less.
IF Amaral was not involved in this investigation we would not even be discussing it, the fact is the child was killed in 2004, 3 years before the McCann child went missing.
I thought this was interesting...
Leonor's lawyer received money from the McCanns 24horas 30 October 2008
Aragćo Correia confirms that he was supported with money from Maddie's parents
by Luķs Maneta 30 October 2008 Translated.
The lawyer says that he defends Joana's mother for free and that the McCanns paid him to "investigate" Gonēalo Amaral
"Was Dr Gonēalo Amaral in charge"; "Was Dr Gonēalo Amaral present?"; "Did Dr Gonēalo Amaral hit you?". Gonēalo Amaral, Gonēalo Amaral, Gonēalo Amaral this seems to be the obsession of Leonor Cipriano's defence lawyer during the trial that opposes Joana's mother to five Judiciįria inspectors.
Three policemen stand accused of torture: Pereira Cristóvćo, Leonel Marques and Paulo Marques Bom. But Leonor's lawyer, Marcos Aragćo Correia, has pointed his guns at Gonēalo Amaral, who in this process stands accused of false testimony and omission of denunciation.
"This doesn't look like a trial in the Joana case but rather one in the Maddie case", says a source that is connected to the defence of the former coordinator of the PJ in Portimćo, who headed the investigations into the disappearance of both children and became a sort of "public enemy #1" for the McCann couple.
"A possible condemnation of Gonēalo Amaral in this process may make it easier for the English to prosecute the Portuguese state", the source says.
She may be a convicted liar and murderer but I believe that conviction may be unsafe...I don't feel the same about Amaral.all opinions..and that's all they are ....based on my interpretation of the available evidence
The convictions are unsafe Davel.
The so called evidence was TORTURED OUT of them.
Pause a moment and think.
Why was it necessary for Amaral to call in the DCCB, the anti terrorist group who seem to have been involved in torture before.
If he had a case against Leonor and Joao he didn't need the torture. He wsa home and dry without it.
But he didn't have any relevant true facts, just his minds wanderings .... so did he need to beef it up? It sure looks like it to me.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 11:55:50 AM
...and at the end of the process, the question was not to get a conviction for the alleged torturers, Mr. Psychic Aragćo just dismissed it saying: we did it, we got Amaral.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 11:59:30 AM
Why was it necessary for Amaral to call in the DCCB, the anti terrorist group who seem to have been involved in torture before.
If he had a case against Leonor and Joao he didn't need the torture. He wsa home and dry without it.
But he didn't have any relevant true facts, just his minds wanderings .... so did he need to beef it up? It sure looks like it to me.
I understand your ignorance over how the PJ works. It was not Amaral that requested anyone, all the orders were given by the National Director of the PJ.
You people have not understood yet that the PJ is a criminal investigation police that operates under strict orders by the Public Ministry - their latitude in terms of official decision is zero.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 12:00:55 PM
I so agree, it is refreshing to meet you and Stephen....
This is only about Amaral...nothing more ... nothing less.
IF Amaral was not involved in this investigation we would not even be discussing it, the fact is the child was killed in 2004, 3 years before the McCann child went missing.
I thought this was interesting...
Leonor's lawyer received money from the McCanns 24horas 30 October 2008
Aragćo Correia confirms that he was supported with money from Maddie's parents
by Luķs Maneta 30 October 2008 Translated.
The lawyer says that he defends Joana's mother for free and that the McCanns paid him to "investigate" Gonēalo Amaral
"Was Dr Gonēalo Amaral in charge"; "Was Dr Gonēalo Amaral present?"; "Did Dr Gonēalo Amaral hit you?". Gonēalo Amaral, Gonēalo Amaral, Gonēalo Amaral this seems to be the obsession of Leonor Cipriano's defence lawyer during the trial that opposes Joana's mother to five Judiciįria inspectors.
Three policemen stand accused of torture: Pereira Cristóvćo, Leonel Marques and Paulo Marques Bom. But Leonor's lawyer, Marcos Aragćo Correia, has pointed his guns at Gonēalo Amaral, who in this process stands accused of false testimony and omission of denunciation.
"This doesn't look like a trial in the Joana case but rather one in the Maddie case", says a source that is connected to the defence of the former coordinator of the PJ in Portimćo, who headed the investigations into the disappearance of both children and became a sort of "public enemy #1" for the McCann couple.
"A possible condemnation of Gonēalo Amaral in this process may make it easier for the English to prosecute the Portuguese state", the source says.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 12:07:42 PM
Your mind has been so poisoned by the McCann PR controlled Media against one single person that you lost the whole picture. Gonēalo Amaral was set aside from the case in early October 2007, why do you keep focusing on him?
Because he wrote a book that reflects the PJ FILES? Well, those files are available to anyone that wishes to read them.
Many others wrote books, namely the disgraced mother that was more worried to talk about her and her husband than about her child, so why can't the police that investigated the case write as well?!
Note: "disgraced" is the adjective preferred by the Media, and as an ignorant portuguese non sardine-muncher, I replicate it here.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 12:12:08 PM
Calling here the case of Joana Cipriano is not only reproachable, because it doesn't respect the poor child's ill fate but more so because it is done with a specific aim of using her to defame a certain man, which, if you forgot, is also a parent of a small child.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 13, 2013, 12:13:28 PM
Leonor's lawyer received money from the McCanns 24horas 30 October 2008
Aragćo Correia confirms that he was supported with money from Maddie's parents
by Luķs Maneta 30 October 2008 Translated.
The McCanns would never do that, they always act by proxy. But Metodo 3 might have. According to a statement by Mr Mitchell himself, end of November 2007, the monthly expenses paid by Madeleine's Fund to Metodo 3 (fees paid by Mr Kennedy) are about 50 thousands pounds.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2013, 12:20:14 PM
The following comment is for you davel, from another poster...........
'He knows full well when it was suggested that the judgement made in march 2013, superseded events of 2012 that it was about the principle, that a conviction based on something that subsequently turns out to be false, is unsafe.'
as I said the judgement in 2013 still accepted that Leonor had been tortured...it doesn't really matter if you don't understand.. what it does though is makes all your judgements valueless because they are based on untruths..Luz actually claimed once that there was a court judgement overturning the case..load of rubbish
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 13, 2013, 12:20:27 PM
What you dont know about me is that I have a very special spot in my heart forv Joana ... and also for Justice.
I want Joana back
I want her mother released from jail ... and Joao cos this case is not safe. Torture was used stephen. The so called info extracted under extreme pain and fear was used in a case that should never have happened.
Now why are Joano and leonor, Leandro and Joao so special to me?
We loved PT and the PT people. Every year we used to holiday in Alvor and I found this wonderful wild nature reserve that we visited most days. It was adjoining Figueira where the Ciprianos lived.
One day we arrived to find the place literally swarming with local folk; a whole village it seemed. A lovely old fashioned scene. Mothers, fathers and little children all picking berries, for jam, wine? They were obviously from the local village ... and it was a joy to see the little ones running around chasing butterflies and generally having a wonderful day.
I believe that the whole Cipriano family were there. I cant be sure but it seemed all the ordinary folk of the village we present. Lovely simple country folk, going about their lives trying to make the best of it.
That moving scene lives with me and I shall never forget it.
Having learned so much about Amaral and his devious ways, his lying and his bringing in the DCCB, of course I am going to go for him. It seems quite obvious that Amaral condones torture and disinformation.
As you have said, if it had not been for the Madeleine case, I would never have connected the case to the Joana case to begin with.
But that is completely irrelevant to my using info that I now have at my disposal. And using that to base my analyses on. Any objections Stephen?
Do you condone torture Stephen? A simple question. An answer please.
But now I believe I know what went on, If necessary I will shout it from the rooftops
Having seen the nonsense of the original case and its unjustices, of course I am going to go for him
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 12:22:56 PM
as I said the judgement in 2013 still accepted that Leonor had been tortured...it doesn't really matter if you don't understand.. what it does though is makes all your judgements valueless because they are based on untruths..Luz actually claimed once that there was a court judgement overturning the case..load of rubbish
It is you davel who doesn't comprehend.
You're so wrapped up in the Mccanns, you cannot see sense anymore.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: carlymichelle on November 13, 2013, 12:26:05 PM
Your mind has been so poisoned by the McCann PR controlled Media against one single person that you lost the whole picture. Gonēalo Amaral was set aside from the case in early October 2007, why do you keep focusing on him?
Because he wrote a book that reflects the PJ FILES? Well, those files are available to anyone that wishes to read them.
Many others wrote books, namely the disgraced mother that was more worried to talk about her and her husband than about her child, so why can't the police that investigated the case write as well?!
Note: "disgraced" is the adjective preferred by the Media, and as an ignorant portuguese non sardine-muncher, I replicate it here.
Your claim the McCanns control the media is ludicrous imo. They were persecuted and smeared by the media in both countries if you remember. If the McCanns had any control over the media they would be last people to want to see any changes made to that powerful position and would be vehemently opposed to the Leveson recommendations. The fact that they have taken the opposite stance should tell you something.
Either the translated version I have read of Amarals book is a catalogue of mistranslations or it is not true that his book faithfully reflects the PJ files. It does not - which is why he is being sued for libel.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 12:34:58 PM
What you dont know about me is that I have a very special spot in my heart forv Joana ... and also for Justice.
I want Joana back
I want her mother released from jail ... and Joao cos this case is not safe. Torture was used stephen. The so called info extracted under extreme pain and fear was used in a case that should never have happened.
Now why are Joano and leonor, Leandro and Joao so special to me?
We loved PT and the PT people. Every year we used to holiday in Alvor and I found this wonderful wild nature reserve that we visited most days. It was adjoining Figueira where the Ciprianos lived.
One day we arrived to find the place literally swarming with local folk; a whole village it seemed. A lovely old fashioned scene. Mothers, fathers and little children all picking berries, for jam, wine? They were obviously from the local village ... and it was a joy to see the little ones running around chasing butterflies and generally having a wonderful day.
I believe that the whole Cipriano family were there. I cant be sure but it seemed all the ordinary folk of the village we present. Lovely simple country folk, going about their lives trying to make the best of it.
That moving scene lives with me and I shall never forget it.
Having learned so much about Amaral and his devious ways, his lying and his bringing in the DCCB, of course I am going to go for him. It seems quite obvious that Amaral condones torture and disinformation.
As you have said, if it had not been for the Madeleine case, I would never have connected the case to the Joana case to begin with.
But that is completely irrelevant to my using info that I now have at my disposal. And using that to base my analyses on. Any objections Stephen?
Do you condone torture Stephen? A simple question. An answer please.
But now I believe I know what went on, If necessary I will shout it from the rooftops
Having seen the nonsense of the original case and its unjustices, of course I am going to go for him
The torture question you have asked me before.
Look up the answer.
As for the rest............................................ >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: carlymichelle on November 13, 2013, 12:36:24 PM
as I said the judgement in 2013 still accepted that Leonor had been tortured...it doesn't really matter if you don't understand.. what it does though is makes all your judgements valueless because they are based on untruths..Luz actually claimed once that there was a court judgement overturning the case..load of rubbish
She was not tortured, she was beaten.
Her inmates beat the hell out of her - can you imagine a few dozens of women separated from their children for years, the only persons they love in their lives, being close to a woman that killed her own little child?!!! She was brutally beaten inside the prison, and the Prison Director was a negligent that was awarded a prize by Marinho Pinto, for making a fake statement in Court.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: carlymichelle on November 13, 2013, 01:06:30 PM
Her inmates beat the hell out of her - can you imagine a few dozens of women separated from their children for years, the only persons they love in their lives, being close to a woman that killed her own little child?!!! She was brutally beaten inside the prison, and the Prison Director was a negligent that was awarded a prize by Marinho Pinto, for making a fake statement in Court.
its a universal jail oath that inmates hate child killers even if they hurt a child themselves theres zero tolerence
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 13, 2013, 01:07:23 PM
Her inmates beat the hell out of her - can you imagine a few dozens of women separated from their children for years, the only persons they love in their lives, being close to a woman that killed her own little child?!!! She was brutally beaten inside the prison, and the Prison Director was a negligent that was awarded a prize by Marinho Pinto, for making a fake statement in Court.
Wasn't she beaten inside of the police premisses then ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 13, 2013, 01:13:33 PM
Your claim the McCanns control the media is ludicrous imo. They were persecuted and smeared by the media in both countries if you remember. If the McCanns had any control over the media they would be last people to want to see any changes made to that powerful position and would be vehemently opposed to the Leveson recommendations. The fact that they have taken the opposite stance should tell you something.
Either the translated version I have read of Amarals book is a catalogue of mistranslations or it is not true that his book faithfully reflects the PJ files. It does not - which is why he is being sued for libel.
It seems to me that on this forum you can either........................... 1.Hate the McCanns and adore Amaral or 2.Adore the McCanns and Hate Amaral What have the McCanns got to do with the Joana caso (Leonor Cipriano' appeal) which this thread is about? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 01:14:59 PM
Wasn't she beaten inside of the police premisses then ?
Of course she wasn't. She had been there only with her lawyer when she confessed to the murder. All that happened there was a faked attempted suicide by jumping down the stairs - that if you know it, (I mean the stairs) makes a suicide impossible.
The day she made the confession - I think it was the 13th October - was the last day she was there, and that is why, later on, the chief of the prison guards appeared alleging the Director had asked him to falsify the registry of the inmates movements to the exterior.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2013, 01:16:25 PM
It seems to me that on this forum you can either........................... 1.Hate the McCanns and adore Amaral or 2.Adore the McCanns and Hate Amaral What have the McCanns got to do with the Joana caso (Leonor Cipriano' appeal) which this thread is about? >@@(*&)
It is a matter of either believing the McCanns or believing Amaral...no hate involved...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2013, 01:17:47 PM
Of course she wasn't. She had been there only with her lawyer when she confessed to the murder. All that happened there was a faked attempted suicide by jumping down the stairs - that if you know it, (I mean the stairs) makes a suicide impossible.
The day she made the confession - I think it was the 13th October - was the last day she was there, and that is why, later on, the chief of the prison guards appeared alleging the Director had asked him to falsify the registry of the inmates movements to the exterior.
what this shows is that Luz has no credibility...the throwing down stairs story from the pj has been completely discredited
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2013, 01:20:46 PM
From the amnesty international website
On 22 May the Criminal Court of Faro issued its sentence in the case of the torture of Leonor Cipriano. The court recognized that she had been tortured in police custody in 2004, but acquitted all three police officers, claiming that it was impossible to identify exactly who had been responsible. A fourth officer was convicted of giving false testimony and another was convicted of falsifying documents. Leonor Ciprianos appeal was pending at the end of the year
Perhaps you all want to claim Amnesty International is telling LIES
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 13, 2013, 01:27:03 PM
Her inmates beat the hell out of her - can you imagine a few dozens of women separated from their children for years, the only persons they love in their lives, being close to a woman that killed her own little child?!!! She was brutally beaten inside the prison, and the Prison Director was a negligent that was awarded a prize by Marinho Pinto, for making a fake statement in Court.
So why hasn't Amaral protested about this? This woman has apparently ruined his 'honour' and because of her lies he now has a criminal record? And yet not a peep from him.
There was no need for the Prison director to make fake statements. She had all the proof, medical evidence and witnesses she needed to prove that LC was not beaten by inmates in her prison whilst under her jurisdiction.
Once again I notice that anyone who does not go along with Amaral's and the PJ's version of events has to be smeared. This time it's the Portuguese Prison Director. Shame on you Luz, you should be proud of her - for refusing to be part of covering up the torture of a defenceless woman.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 01:37:58 PM
Mrs the Prison Director had taken a LLX week-end, and she wasn't in the prison when Leonor was attacked. She was in a "mess": 1. First she had been away more time than she could have by law; 2. She had not taken care to put Leonor in a protected place where her inmates couldn't harm her 3. After arriving, and noticing that Leonor had been beaten she didn't act immediately, she only sent her to a doctor days after viewing the bruises and black spots 4.Under advise, she excluded the medical reports and surrendered a complain for torture over Leonor when questioned in Faro PJ; 5. Because when Leonor had been in the PJ she had been accompanied by her lawyer, the Director had to create another unscheduled visit (ordered the prison chief to alter the registry) and alleged that Leonor had been taken again to Faro for questioning (after she had given a confession) 6. She had a doctor that examined Leonor stating that she had bruises with different timings, so the supposed visit to Faro PJ didn't justify it 7. With the help of Marinho Pinto, Mrs. Director had an incredible article in a major portuguese newspaper, with photoshoped photos and the accusation that the PJ were monster torturers. 8.The flamboyant Aragćo, more accustomed to use his family's money than to get a life for himself, found an opportunity to make his name go into the newspapers.
Etc, etc,....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 13, 2013, 01:38:38 PM
It is a matter of either believing the McCanns or believing Amaral...no hate involved...
I believe what they both say, to a point and after that point I do not believe what either of them has said.....Too many lies and changes in evidence being thrown about too. Lies and changes in her evidence, apparently condemned Leonor! and I do believe she is innocent, If not, then why the appeals?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 01:41:50 PM
I believe what they both say, to a point and after that point I do not believe what either of them has said.....Too many lies and changes in evidence being thrown about too. Lies and changes in her evidence, apparently condemned Leonor! and I do believe she is innocent, If not, then why the appeals?
This is a thread about Leonor Cipriano.
Do you believe a murderess or do you believe everyone else that helped to convict her for her crime?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2013, 01:44:57 PM
All that happened there was a faked attempted suicide by jumping down the stairs - that if you know it, (I mean the stairs) makes a suicide impossible.
There are two "stairs" cases (one in the US, have you seen the impressive "staircase" ?, another in Switzerland) where accident fall was suspected to be criminal (and both supposed "pushers" condemned, then released).
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2013, 01:55:18 PM
She told that many different versions in Court there is no doubt she lied. Question is why?
Consider this for a moment. Why would an innocent woman lie in a case where her daughter had been abducted? Why not simply tell the truth?
ps I am still awaiting that crucial evidence of her innocence which so many believe exists...or is this yet another myth?
it is quite possible that she had told the truth initially and it got her a beating and a prison sentence...she then would try anything to get out of prison ..knowing that telling the truth was a waste of time
I don't think anyone believes there is proof of innocence...it is basically impossible to prove innocence
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2013, 01:56:44 PM
There are two "stairs" cases (one in the US, have you seen the impressive "staircase" ?, another in Switzerland) where accident fall was suspected to be criminal (and both supposed "pushers" condemned, then released).
According to the court the staircase story was a lie told by amaral, and his pj buddies
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 13, 2013, 02:16:12 PM
She told that many different versions in Court there is no doubt she lied. Question is why?
Consider this for a moment. Why would an innocent woman lie in a case where her daughter had been abducted? Why not simply tell the truth?
ps I am still awaiting that crucial evidence of her innocence which so many believe exists...or is this yet another myth?
John you keep saying she told lies and different versions in court but LC did not take the Stand - so did not speak at all during the trial. Why do you keep claiming that she did?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 13, 2013, 02:35:11 PM
The child was dismembered/quartered with an ax, according to Joćo 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 minors body couldnt 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 minors 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 minors 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?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 13, 2013, 02:44:58 PM
The ruling talks about an "arca frigorķfica". Isn't that a fridge? As opposed to an "arca congeladora", which would seem to be a freezer?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana 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 minors 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 frigorķfica" = 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 CCs 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?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 03:31:53 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 minors 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 frigorķfica" = 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 CCs 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
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana 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 Joćo Cipriano) and Nelson Cipriano, the defendants brother. Leonor Ciprianos defence had sought to avoid a jury trial, fearing that jurors would be unduly influenced by intense media coverage. Joćo Novais Pacheco, Leonors lawyer, said the defences 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.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom 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......
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana 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 frigorķfica".
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 13, 2013, 04:00:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom 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 frigorķfica".
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
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom 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.....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes 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 acusaēćo ou a defesa o requeiram, which is very rare.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes 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.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 13, 2013, 04:20:03 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......
I was shocked at how cavalier the body of Caylee Anthoney was dealt with there is no answering you.
I cant imagine taken a life never mind wondering what to do with the body...who knows how people think in these circumstances.
From the brother.
He said he cut his niece's body in small pieces, put her in a fridge box, then put her inside an old car that was taken to Spain to be crushed and burned. Probably took the tools with him which would explain why non were found.
I dont think it was in a fridge or freezer I think its translation again, i expect she was put in a cool box/fridge/box which would make sense to him taking her in the back of the car.
They found a little girl in a box simiilar in the states after Maddy went missing and no one knew who she was, they even did a DNA comparison for Maddys DNA because they thought the box could have travelled the ocean...........
I dont understand if the child fell and hit her head, why kill her her or finish her off, why not just take her to the hospital and say she fell...kids do dont they.......or was it to cover up something else sexual abuse perhaps....
Its the same with CA, why if she drowned accidently would you then stuff her in bags and throw in her a swamp? Why not just ring 911 i dont get it. Kids drown all the time in swimming pools....
Then to just toss her away like garbage....who would do that?
How can you answer it really. Non of us can unless we have actually done it....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 13, 2013, 04:28:47 PM
I was shocked at how cavalier the body of Caylee Anthoney was dealt with there is no answering you.
I cant imagine taken a life never mind wondering what to do with the body...who knows how people think in these circumstances.
From the brother.
He said he cut his niece's body in small pieces, put her in a fridge box, then put her inside an old car that was taken to Spain to be crushed and burned. Probably took the tools with him which would explain why non were found.
I dont think it was in a fridge or freezer I think its translation again, i expect she was put in a cool box/fridge/box which would make sense to him taking her in the back of the car.
They found a little girl in a box simiilar in the states after Maddy went missing and no one knew who she was, they even did a DNA comparison for Maddys DNA because they thought the box could have travelled the ocean...........
I dont understand if the child fell and hit her head, why kill her her or finish her off, why not just take her to the hospital and say she fell...kids do dont they.......or was it to cover up something else sexual abuse perhaps....
Its the same with CA, why if she drowned accidently would you then stuff her in bags and throw in her a swamp? Why not just ring 911 i dont get it. Kids drown all the time in swimming pools....
Then to just toss her away like garbage....who would do that?
How can you answer it really. Non of us can unless we have actually done it....
Please dont start me on the crazy criminal Anthony family case.....my only question was why the need to dismember if indeed they did, why not just disposal, easy enough....there was no need unless they were sick in the head.....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 13, 2013, 04:37:02 PM
Please dont start me on the crazy criminal Anthony family case.....my only question was why the need to dismember if indeed they did, why not just disposal, easy enough....there was no need unless they were sick in the head..... 8((()*/
Exactly.
I made a comparison to CA case because its the same really why dispose of a body like that when the child is allegedgly to have died in an accident, so for me both of them must be criminally insane and sick in the head.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 13, 2013, 04:41:40 PM
Actually you can compare the two, cipriano and the mother of Cayley. They both said they were victims of sexual abuse and that is why they behaved as they did etc....
There is more in common with LC and CA then McCanns case in my mind to be honest.
Whether any of it is true is a different matter both used the same defence and all of it was circumstancial but both admitted to a lesser charge of death by accident etc......
Leonora stated the child fell after she slapped her and hit her head. CA said the child drowned.
Like i said quite a few comparisons sadly both children died....
Sick old world isnt it.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 13, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
It's not particularly at all, but only when either the accusation or the defence request it". quando a acusaēćo ou a defesa o requeiram, which is very rare.
It might not be a frequent occurrence, but Luz had stated that there were no jury trials in Portugal. This does not appear to be correct.
NB: yet the possibility is in her country's Constitution.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 13, 2013, 04:56:51 PM
Actually you can compare the two, cipriano and the mother of Cayley. They both said they were victims of sexual abuse and that is why they behaved as they did etc....
There is more in common with LC and CA then McCanns case in my mind to be honest.
Whether any of it is true is a different matter both used the same defence and all of it was circumstancial but both admitted to a lesser charge of death by accident etc......
Leonora stated the child fell after she slapped her and hit her head. CA said the child drowned.
Like i said quite a few comparisons sadly both children died....
Sick old world isnt it.
oh yes... i didnt know LC had said that, but she has said so many different thngs...as for the caylee anthony case, Im really struggling go understand how the grandmother said caylee died in her home in the swimming pool....but her body was found decaying in the woods....why is she not being investigated if her daughter has been found innocent? Strange
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 13, 2013, 04:57:20 PM
I agree. So the former does not seem to be a stand-alone freezer. It may be a combo, though. If that were the case, how many combos would have had sufficient room to stuff bits of a dismembered child in the freezer compartment in a household with very limited financial resources?
The so-called blood traces in a chink of a drawer... were where? The SC ruling only refers to an "arca frigorķfica" and they were never identified as hers.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 13, 2013, 05:13:48 PM
As for the rest............................................ >@@(*&)
I have asked you repeatedly and you haven't answered yet. You have twisted and side stepped, but I want a direct nswer.
Do you condone torture Stephen
Please, Just Yes or no?
Simples
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 13, 2013, 05:14:28 PM
Thanks Anna...but most of that sounds like gobbledygook...cant make head or tail of alot of it...and judging by the source...wouldnt trust it anyway......I would like something from the YEAR he was questioned or talked, not five years later.........with the involvement of this shady character.....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 05:20:51 PM
I agree. So the former does not seem to be a stand-alone freezer. It may be a combo, though. If that were the case, how many combos would have had sufficient room to stuff bits of a dismembered child in the freezer compartment in a household with very limited financial resources?
The so-called blood traces in a chink of a drawer... were where? The SC ruling only refers to an "arco frigorķfico" and they were never identified as hers.
No idea......
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 13, 2013, 06:59:31 PM
I agree. So the former does not seem to be a stand-alone freezer. It may be a combo, though. If that were the case, how many combos would have had sufficient room to stuff bits of a dismembered child in the freezer compartment in a household with very limited financial resources?
The so-called blood traces in a chink of a drawer... were where? The SC ruling only refers to an "arco frigorķfico" and they were never identified as hers.
According to this article it was a refridgerated trunk............. http://www.algarveresident.com/10046-0/algarve/portugals-silent-child-victims
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 13, 2013, 07:03:52 PM
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: DCI on November 13, 2013, 08:44:36 PM
Police officer made arguido in the process of assaults against Leonor Cipriano, 04 May 2007
Expresso
An official of the PJ of Portimćo is the seventh police officer to be implicated in the process of alleged assaults on the mother of Joana.
18:00 Friday, May 4, 2007
Gonēalo Amaral, coordinator of the Judicial Police in Portimao has been made an arguido in the process investigating the alleged assaults on Leonor Cipriano, which occurred in October 2004. The woman complained of having been beaten by punches, kicks and with a cardboard tube during "informal inquiries" that ocurred without the presence of a defense counsel and without the knowledge of the Public Prosecutor who investigated the disappearance of the child, the eight-year-old daughter of Leonor.
Goncalo Amaral was then coordinator of the PJ in Faro and this is why he has been made an arguido. Six inspectors of the Central Directorate for Combating Gangsterism are also arguidos and have already been acknowledged. Four were not recognized by the complainant, who identified the other two but exonerated them of any assault. Leonor Cipriano was sentenced to 16 years in prison for the murder, co-authored with her brother, of Joana. The child's body was never found.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 13, 2013, 08:47:34 PM
Police officer made arguido in the process of assaults against Leonor Cipriano, 04 May 2007
Expresso
An official of the PJ of Portimćo is the seventh police officer to be implicated in the process of alleged assaults on the mother of Joana.
18:00 Friday, May 4, 2007
Gonēalo Amaral, coordinator of the Judicial Police in Portimao has been made an arguido in the process investigating the alleged assaults on Leonor Cipriano, which occurred in October 2004. The woman complained of having been beaten by punches, kicks and with a cardboard tube during "informal inquiries" that ocurred without the presence of a defense counsel and without the knowledge of the Public Prosecutor who investigated the disappearance of the child, the eight-year-old daughter of Leonor.
Goncalo Amaral was then coordinator of the PJ in Faro and this is why he has been made an arguido. Six inspectors of the Central Directorate for Combating Gangsterism are also arguidos and have already been acknowledged. Four were not recognized by the complainant, who identified the other two but exonerated them of any assault. Leonor Cipriano was sentenced to 16 years in prison for the murder, co-authored with her brother, of Joana. The child's body was never found.
Ah yes,
Leonor the Liar.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: DCI on November 13, 2013, 09:06:51 PM
and were there any changes to the determination of torture by the pj?...NO what you have quoted is a newspaper report
Joana Cipriano's mother was beaten ... of that there is little doubt
Since the injuries she suffered happened while she was in a police station there is every possibility that she suffered them at the hands of police officers
That is an awful image ... a woman being hit by men
Awful enough, I think, without the dramatic language constantly introduced ... as though being 'beaten' is not sufficiently gruesome
'Torture' is the word thrown up, time and again ( often in bold or coloured font ... to add emphasis )
Well, maybe it's just me, but 'torture' conjures up images of some God forsaken dungeon, with the rack, and thumbscrews, and ... well, you get the picture
It appears to me that the almost gleeful over-egging of this particular pudding is very much agenda driven
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 13, 2013, 11:14:04 PM
Joana Cipriano's mother was beaten ... of that there is little doubt
Since the injuries she suffered happened while she was in a police station there is every possibility that she suffered them at the hands of police officers
That is an awful image ... a woman being hit by men
Awful enough, I think, without the dramatic language constantly introduced ... as though being 'beaten' is not sufficiently gruesome
'Torture' is the word thrown up, time and again ( often in bold or coloured font ... to add emphasis )
Well, maybe it's just me, but 'torture' conjures up images of some God forsaken dungeon, with the rack, and thumbscrews, and ... well, you get the picture
It appears to me that the almost gleeful over-egging of this particular pudding is very much agenda driven
Theres also the possibility a few officers slapped her around but she got mJority of her injuries when sent back to prison...she had already confessed a day or two before the beatings......
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 12:14:38 AM
Actually you can compare the two, cipriano and the mother of Cayley. They both said they were victims of sexual abuse and that is why they behaved as they did etc....
There is more in common with LC and CA then McCanns case in my mind to be honest.
Whether any of it is true is a different matter both used the same defence and all of it was circumstancial but both admitted to a lesser charge of death by accident etc......
Leonora stated the child fell after she slapped her and hit her head. CA said the child drowned.
Like i said quite a few comparisons sadly both children died....
Sick old world isnt it.
Would you care to provide the proof for your statement that Leonor Cipriano was abused herself , please Do not quote words said after the torture please, cos they cannot be trusted as true. Do not quote words that Amaral has said, because they cannot be trusted as true either. Amaral is a court proven liar. Do not quote words from the Court Records either because they cannot be trusted. The words in that record were provided by tortured out people, who broke ..... or by a PJ Officer who sadly is proven as a liar with a criminal record. An officer who for whatever reason wanted the case "solved" with Leoner and Joaom as the fall guys.
He obviously had no case and that is why he brought the hard boys in . THe DCCB from Lisnbon , the anti terrorist group. He knew that he would get a "confession" after the severe beating administerd.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 12:21:31 AM
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 14, 2013, 01:00:59 AM
You need help for this obsession guys. Go and make a website and campaign for her if you're so sure of your facts. That might be useful, but it doesn't help her posting the same things day after day here.
And it's got nothing to do with what happened on May 3 2007 to Madeleine.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 14, 2013, 01:08:02 AM
You need help for this obsession guys. Go and make a website and campaign for her if you're so sure of your facts. That might be useful, but it doesn't help her posting the same things day after day here.
And it's got nothing to do with what happened on May 3 2007 to Madeleine.
Quite 8(0(*
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 01:08:52 AM
6 individual pictures of Leonors torture. Please slide te slider along to see them all.
They make a pretty picture, dont they?
And a gang of brutal men, seemingly from the DCCB inflicted this on a defenseless woman.
Why? Well the only reason I can think of is that Amaral and Cristavao didn't truly know who "dunit" and decided to fit the mother and uncle up. They hadn't got a case against Leonor and Joao .... but they knew both would "confess" to anything if the torture was brutal enough. Only my opinion, but why was torture needed if they had a evidence of any sort against the couple. Why call in the brutal boys?
So they got two "confessions" and plenty of so called "evidence", cos they called the big boys in from Lisbon. The DCCB, the anti terrorist mob.
They called the big boys in to take on a defenceless woman and man. To beat the Cr** out of them and force them to say whatever Amaral and Co wanted them to say. 8()(((@#
They even knocked Leandro about to force him to tell lies and be a "witness". He soon rescinded when he was able to and warned the Mccanns of the Police modus operandi and dangers to Kate especially.
That this case ever reached Court is the biggest unjustice that I have ever known.
As far as Justice is concerned this case should never have taken place.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 14, 2013, 01:09:28 AM
This thread is about the Leonor Cipriano case. So on topic.
But nobody's going to see it here. If you care about her case start a campaign, start a website. Do something about it, but just telling each other how awful it is all day here doesn't help her one little bit. Does it?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 14, 2013, 01:12:02 AM
You need help for this obsession guys. Go and make a website and campaign for her if you're so sure of your facts. That might be useful, but it doesn't help her posting the same things day after day here.
And it's got nothing to do with what happened on May 3 2007 to Madeleine.
err no one is forcing you to read ...go put your oar in somewhere else then ...if you don't like it 8(0(*
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 14, 2013, 01:16:55 AM
By doing all this posting of pictures and being upset exclusively here your concern isn't really about Leonor Cipriano is it. It's really about smearing the Portuguese police on a site where people come to read about the McCann case.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 14, 2013, 01:19:14 AM
But nobody's going to see it here. If you care about her case start a campaign, start a website. Do something about it, but just telling each other how awful it is all day here doesn't help her one little bit. Does it?
hold on a minute ...how about you do the same ...just telling each other the mccanns are guilty on here all day doesn't help madeleine one little bit ...does it!! 8(0(*
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 01:21:21 AM
You need help for this obsession guys. Go and make a website and campaign for her if you're so sure of your facts. That might be useful, but it doesn't help her posting the same things day after day here.
And it's got nothing to do with what happened on May 3 2007 to Madeleine.
Well seems you have buried you head so deeply in the sand that you cant see the likely relevance of three fair haired little girls vanishing from an area no more than about 18 miles across in a period of less than 3 years
Joana C, Carolina S and Madeleine M
... and not a single other child in the under 15 age group stranger abducted in the length and breadth of PT. PT is roughly 2/3rds the size of England
Luckily SY had sharper brains than yours, Lyall, and came back to me about these abdiuctions and the sightings.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 14, 2013, 01:24:41 AM
Well seems you have buried you head so deeply in the sand that you cant see the likely relevance of three fair haired little girls vanishing from an area no more than about 18 miles across in a period of less than 3 years
Joana C, Carolina S and Madeleine M
... and not a single other child in the under 15 age group stranger abducted in the length and breadth of PT. PT is roughly 2/3rds the size of England
Luckily SY had sharper brains than your, Lyall, and came back to me about these abdiuctions and the sightings.
I keep asking you why the UK press won't touch this theory of yours. You never answer.
Even the Express won't touch it. That should tell you something.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 14, 2013, 01:27:30 AM
We are commentating on here because some of us think it raises her profile. Not a bad thing in my opinion.
Build a website then, it would do that much, much more. Talk to Mark Williams-Thomas on twitter. Ask him if he still thinks the same now as he did in 2007. I doubt it. And apart from him I don't think anyone else has really ever touched it... apart from you guys.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: carlymichelle on November 14, 2013, 01:29:44 AM
Build a website then, it would do that much, much more. Talk to Mark Williams-Thomas on twitter. Ask him if he still thinks the same now as he did in 2007. I doubt it. And apart from him I don't think anyone else has really ever touched it... apart from you guys.
them going on and on about this diverts attention from the mcanns imo and thats what they want
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 14, 2013, 01:31:28 AM
the only people mad at us for speaking the truth .....are those who are living a lie .... keep speaking it ... 8((()*/
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 14, 2013, 01:33:49 AM
By doing all this posting of pictures and being upset exclusively here your concern isn't really about Leonor Cipriano is it. It's really about smearing the Portuguese police on a site where people come to read about the McCann case.
I am equally concerned for Madeleine and Joana ... and also for the other missing children of PT
In the 1990's and roughly every 2 years a child vanished.
- Jorge Sepulveda up in Porto - Claudia Silva e Sousa about 32 miles north of Porto in Vila Verde Braga - Rui Pedro Mendonca at Lousada , Porto - Rui Perreira at Vila Nova De Famalicao Braga, near Porto
All the above in a small group no more than about 32 miles across. And NO other abductions in the whole of PT except for
- Rene Hasse, about 280 miles south of the Northern abductionsm, and about 18 miles away from PdL on the western Atlantic Coast of the Algarve at Amoreiras Beach, Aljezur
Did this elite have a holiday home near PdL ?
About 5 years ago, according to a forum that I read a man was picked up [and IIRC charged] after these Porto region abductions, by the PJ in the North. He was the son of an Elite and was released with just a warning. At that stage the Northern abductions stopped. Previously there had been one approx every 18 months - 2 years
There was a gap of 5 years, with no abductions on mainland PT. About 5 years later, they started up again, this time in the South. Joana Cipriano appears to have been his next victim on mainland PT, in Sept 2004, followed by Carolina S and Madeleine M.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 01:56:57 AM
I keep asking you why the UK press won't touch this theory of yours. You never answer.
Even the Express won't touch it. That should tell you something.
I am not after publicity. In fact I would run away from it.
This is not a theory per se, Lyall, it is FACT
All these kids vanished (Caralina thankfully was rescued from the man who took her) and I would have thought that you might have found it in yourself to show concern rather than make snide remarks.
Where is your humanity?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 02:05:08 AM
One day you might start a thread to criticise someone who isn't Portuguese.
Omg. Steady now.
Lyall, I love PT and the PT peeps and have visted PT 8 -10 times, covering most of the Country. I would like to see more.
BUT I cannot condone miscarriages of Justice such as the Leonor Cipriano and Joao ones ... and lets not forget Joana in all this. She wasn't properly searched for becos like in the Madeleine case, decisions were made too soon.
If you can condone these Miscarriages, then you are showing how far back you are left in the Fascist regime. Time to wake up and smell whats been going on .... and it is not a nice smell .
Now I wish you goodnight
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 14, 2013, 07:35:47 AM
Joana Cipriano's mother was beaten ... of that there is little doubt
Since the injuries she suffered happened while she was in a police station there is every possibility that she suffered them at the hands of police officers
That is an awful image ... a woman being hit by men
Awful enough, I think, without the dramatic language constantly introduced ... as though being 'beaten' is not sufficiently gruesome
'Torture' is the word thrown up, time and again ( often in bold or coloured font ... to add emphasis )
Well, maybe it's just me, but 'torture' conjures up images of some God forsaken dungeon, with the rack, and thumbscrews, and ... well, you get the picture
It appears to me that the almost gleeful over-egging of this particular pudding is very much agenda driven
The word torture with regards to Leonor is from the Amnesty website..if you don't like its use or think its unfair contact Amnesty
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 14, 2013, 09:42:49 AM
I am equally concerned for Madeleine and Joana ... and also for the other missing children of PT
In the 1990's and roughly every 2 years a child vanished.
- Jorge Sepulveda up in Porto - Claudia Silva e Sousa about 32 miles north of Porto in Vila Verde Braga - Rui Pedro Mendoca at Lousada , Porto - Rui Perreira at Vila Nova De Famalicao Braga, near Porto
All the above in a small group no more than about 32c miles across. And NO other abductions inn the whole of PT except for
- Rene Hasse about 18 miles away from PdL on the western Atlantic Coast of the Algarve at Amoreiras Beach, Aljezur
Did this elite have a holiday home near PdL ?
According to a forum that I read about 5 years ago a man was picked up [and IIRC charged] by the PJ in the North. He was the son of an Elite and was released with just a warning.
There was a gap of 5 years, then after that with no abductions on mainland PT, about 5 years later, they started up again, This time in the South. Joana Cipriano appears to have been his next victim in Sept 2004, followed by Carolina S and Madeleine M
A scruffy drunk Moroccn street seller got into a fight with Carolinas father who owned a nearby cafe in late May 2007 and he threatened to take her.....doesnt sound like the son of an elite, does he?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 14, 2013, 10:13:34 AM
A scruffy drunk Moroccn street seller got into a fight with Carolinas father who owned a nearby cafe in late May 2007 and he threatened to take her.....doesnt sound like the son of an elite, does he?
Yes, after reading Sadie's recent posts regarding abducted children in the algarve, I did some Googling and all I could come up with RE Carolina was what you've just stated. An argument with someone who 'threatened' to kidnap her!
As for Joana, she was not fair haired, no matter how often sadie repeats it. She looked Mediterranean!
So these 3 fair haired abducted children then become one little girl who was never missing at all, one little dark haired child murdered by her mother and Madeleine Mccann.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 14, 2013, 10:14:40 AM
From an article on the trial: A key element of the prosecutions case rests on the fact that the couple dismembered the girls corpse. António Leandro, confronted with photographs of tools allegedly used by the couple, said he recognised a saw he had kept at home.
It doesn't seem that they ever found, let alone analysed, the alleged "murder" weapons...
Points not proven: 18- that the knife with which the arguidos cut the minors body had a black handle;
24- that the bag which the arguidos were carrying late in the night of the 13th of September contained the instruments that had been used to cut the minor;
What, aside from this "reconstruction", led them to believe she'd been dismembered? Because they'd found unidentified traces of blood in a fridge drawer? Anything else?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 11:22:14 AM
sadie, how many children have been abducted on the Algarve in the last 10 years ?
That would be interesting to find out Pat.
My self set criteria were ** under 15, pre-pubescent children who appeared to have been stranger abducted **
I am limited by my lack of the PT language and my poor computer skills. For all intents and purposes, I never used a computer until I was 70 ish and my lack of skills holds me back. I am very frustrated becos I am unable to safely post GE images. I could explain so much more with that facility.
It would be great if you, Pat, or anyone else could contribute any other PT abductions / missing children, not family /friends related (mainland or elsewhere), under the PT constitution. Madeira appears to have problems too.
In answer to your question, Pat, I only know of the three likely ones, since 2003
Joana C .... 12th Sept 2004 ..... Figueira (Mexilhoeira Grande, near Odiaxare, I think they are all the same municipality) Carolina S .... 5th Dec 2006 ..... Silves Madeleine M .... 3rd May 2007 .... Praia de Luz
Joanas is right in the centre of the missing girls and she is within about 8-9 miles from Silves and 7 miles from PdL.
Such a close cluster, in such a short period, of pretty fair haired little girls going missing. Too close, imo, for it to be a co-incidence
So sad.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 11:30:24 AM
A scruffy drunk Moroccn street seller got into a fight with Carolinas father who owned a nearby cafe in late May 2007 and he threatened to take her.....doesnt sound like the son of an elite, does he?
Some group is putting about disinformation designed to take the investigators eye off what really happened.
Child abduction and trafficking is a lucrative business, with many involved. They will go to any ends to obfuscate and put down Red Herrings, so that they are not caught. At SY when I last visted, the sargeants eyes rolled up in dismay at the deliberate disinformation they had been given, and had to keep unravelling
May I suggest that you read new member "Hedgehogs" posts. He suffered paedophilic abuse as a child in Germany. In his case it was largely about extortion of money ... and seemingly on a fairly small scale.
Corrupt governments may well use this method to blackmail top politicians, the world around. To exercise control over decision makers and change the Political direction to the benefit of the Country or person doing the blackmail.
I have no actual proof of this but there are / have been pointers
Interstingly to me, drugs were used to change his perception of what was going on and to actually change his body functions to suit the paedo
But in the early days before this Carolina topic became a "hot potato" there was no mention of "A scruffy drunk Moroccn street seller got into a fight with Carolinas father who owned a nearby cafe in late May 2007 and he threatened to take her" on the internet. I scoured the internet for information in 2008 /2009 and that has appeared only since internet discussion on the subject.
... edited out personal comments made towards another member ...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 12:19:42 PM
Yes, after reading Sadie's recent posts regarding abducted children in the algarve, I did some Googling and all I could come up with RE Carolina was what you've just stated. An argument with someone who 'threatened' to kidnap her!
As for Joana, she was not fair haired, no matter how often sadie repeats it. She looked Mediterranean!
So these 3 fair haired abducted children then become one little girl who was never missing at all, one little dark haired child murdered by her mother and Madeleine Mccann.
At a cafe with Leonor and Leandro. Looking happy enough and fair haired.
The photos prove your incorrect perceptions. Please make sure you get you facts right before posting and trying unsuccessfully to make me appear a liar
Lawyer Marcos Aragao Corriera personally told me that Joana was/ is blonde. He did this to correct me when I said she was brown / dark haired. I found he was correct. Fair haired we Brits would call it, but to a latin person living in a dark haired , flashing black eyes country, she might well be considerd blonde. As I mentioned before, maybe she is darker haired in the winter months, but with the suns rays becomes fair haired?
She was abducted/ went missing on Sept 12th so had had plenty of sun on her hair thru the summer and would probably have been quite fair haired at that time.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 14, 2013, 12:28:28 PM
At a cafe with Leonor and Leandro. Looking happy enough and fair haired.
The photos prove your incorrect perceptions. Please make sure you get you facts right before posting and trying unsuccessfully to make me appear a liar
Lawyer Marcos Aragao Corriera personally told me that Joana was/ is blonde. He did this to correct me when I said she was brown / dark haired. I found he was correct. Fair haired we Brits would call it, but to a latin person living in a dark haired , flashing black eyes country, she might well be considerd blonde. As I mentioned before, maybe she is darker haired in the winter months, but with the suns rays becomes fair haired?
She was abducted/ went missing on Sept 12th so had had plenty of sun on her hair thru the summer and would probably have been quite fair haired at that time.
Posting photo's of her as a mousy brown 4 year old doesn't change the fact that she was a dark haired 8 year old. My niece is mixed race. Her paternal line is afro Caribbean. In the summer she gets blondish highlights through her hair. She's still dark though.
If you had to submit a description of Joana to the police while reporting her missing, taken from the most recent photograph, would you describe her as fair haired?
I haven't accused you of lying. I don't think you're lying. I think tha you have somehow managed to convince yourself, despite the evidence of your own eyes, that Joana is fair haired, because it fits in with your 'theory'.
I personally find it very difficult to watch you take away the child's identity and transform her in to something she isn't.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Albertini on November 14, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
So here's what i don't understand about the alleged torture by the PJ of Cipriano.
Who would (and especially coppers) inflict such obvious bruisings and markings on someone?
PJ officers would know that for them to inflict such a beating and to leave such visible injuries would leave them wide open to prosecution personally and potentially render their case against Cipriano unsafe.
If you want to torture a confession out of someone you do it without leaving marks and bruisings which can come back and haunt you.
What you don't do is do it in such a way that all the world can see your handywork. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: LagosBen on November 14, 2013, 12:51:49 PM
So here's what i don't understand about the alleged torture by the PJ of Cipriano.
Who would (and especially coppers) inflict such obvious bruisings and markings on someone?
PJ officers would know that for them to inflict such a beating and to leave such visible injuries would leave them wide open to prosecution personally and potentially render their case against Cipriano unsafe.
If you want to torture a confession out of someone you do it without leaving marks and bruisings which can come back and haunt you.
What you don't do is do it in such a way that all the world can see your handywork. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Maybe (and I'm not accusing just saying), there was a culture of torture, turn a blind eye and all that. Who knows how it works 8-)(--)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 14, 2013, 12:55:33 PM
No wonder the EU doesn't like us 8(8-))
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 14, 2013, 01:10:48 PM
So here's what i don't understand about the alleged torture by the PJ of Cipriano.
Who would (and especially coppers) inflict such obvious bruisings and markings on someone?
PJ officers would know that for them to inflict such a beating and to leave such visible injuries would leave them wide open to prosecution personally and potentially render their case against Cipriano unsafe.
If you want to torture a confession out of someone you do it without leaving marks and bruisings which can come back and haunt you.
What you don't do is do it in such a way that all the world can see your handywork. That makes no sense whatsoever.
IMO You would if you had no idea the world was going to see your handywork and it had worked in the past. Policemen stick together (the world over) and generally don't grass on oneanother. But when they tortured LC - they had no idea that the Director of the Prison was going to put a spanner in their works by refusing to be part of the proposed cover up to 'share' the blame for LCs horrific injuries - by agreeing to say LC had made a suicide attempt at the police station and had also been beaten up by inmates in the prison.
IMO that brave Prison Director did Portugal a huge favour that day.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Albertini on November 14, 2013, 01:20:30 PM
IMO You would if you had no idea the world was going to see your handywork and it had worked in the past. Policemen stick together (the world over) and generally don't grass on oneanother. But when they tortured LC - they had no idea that the Director of the Prison was going to put a spanner in their works by refusing to be part of the proposed cover up to 'share' the blame for LCs horrific injuries - by agreeing to say LC had made a suicide attempt at the police station and had also been beaten up by inmates in the prison.
IMO that brave Prison Director did Portugal a huge favour that day.
Again it doesn't make sense. If you are going to beat someone black and blue you make sure you have everyone needed to cover it up on board before you do it.
You don't do it and then try and corrupt everyone after the event.
To suggest a defendant in a murder trial wouldn't expose the beating to the world is nonsensical as well. It would provide a defence to the allegations.
So there is no sense in the PJ doing it they way that has been alleged. There is however perfect logic as to why a defendant in a murder trail would allege it though, isn't there?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 14, 2013, 01:25:52 PM
.... deleted removed quote ...
The fact that Mrs Murat put up a table outside so that members of the public who were reluctant (scared?) to want to have direct contact with the PJ could still pass on any info they might have - says quite a lot too. imo.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 14, 2013, 01:32:32 PM
Again it doesn't make sense. If you are going to beat someone black and blue you make sure you have everyone needed to cover it up on board before you do it.
You don't do it and then try and corrupt everyone after the event.
To suggest a defendant in a murder trial wouldn't expose the beating to the world is nonsensical as well. It would provide a defence to the allegations.
So there is no sense in the PJ doing it they way that has been alleged. There is however perfect logic as to why a defendant in a murder trail would allege it though, isn't there?
Hmmm. Would it? As far as I'm aware there wasn't any video recording of people taken in for questioning (from beginning to end), so how could anything be proven one way or the other?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 14, 2013, 01:37:24 PM
So here's what i don't understand about the alleged torture by the PJ of Cipriano.
Who would (and especially coppers) inflict such obvious bruisings and markings on someone?
PJ officers would know that for them to inflict such a beating and to leave such visible injuries would leave them wide open to prosecution personally and potentially render their case against Cipriano unsafe.
If you want to torture a confession out of someone you do it without leaving marks and bruisings which can come back and haunt you.
What you don't do is do it in such a way that all the world can see your handywork. That makes no sense whatsoever.
they knew they could get away with it and they did. if you look at other cases they take years to come to court
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 14, 2013, 01:39:16 PM
IMO You would if you had no idea the world was going to see your handywork and it had worked in the past. Policemen stick together (the world over) and generally don't grass on oneanother. But when they tortured LC - they had no idea that the Director of the Prison was going to put a spanner in their works by refusing to be part of the proposed cover up to 'share' the blame for LCs horrific injuries - by agreeing to say LC had made a suicide attempt at the police station and had also been beaten up by inmates in the prison.
IMO that brave Prison Director did Portugal a huge favour that day.
Policemen stick together (the world over) and generally don't grass on oneanother.
Again it doesn't make sense. If you are going to beat someone black and blue you make sure you have everyone needed to cover it up on board before you do it.
You don't do it and then try and corrupt everyone after the event.
To suggest a defendant in a murder trial wouldn't expose the beating to the world is nonsensical as well. It would provide a defence to the allegations.
So there is no sense in the PJ doing it they way that has been alleged. There is however perfect logic as to why a defendant in a murder trail would allege it though, isn't there?
I can only speculate that in the past - everyone was on board - and they all covered one another's backs - against the claims of one person - and their word as trusted policemen was almost automatically taken as the true version of events - over that of any potential criminal imo.
I do not see the logic of a Prison Director deliberately lying and taking a course of action knowing that it would jeopardise the careers and lives of several police officers, especially in the certain knowledge that they were innocent. That makes no sense to me.
It was not a case of one person's word against another. The Director obviously had sufficient irrefutable evidence to prove that LC's injuries were not caused by the inmates of her prison - and which the PJ could not disprove.
As far as I know neither Amaral nor any other police officer has protested or accused her of perjuring herself or claimed that she was responsible for their 'wrongful' conviction.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Albertini on November 14, 2013, 02:08:49 PM
Hmmm. Would it? As far as I'm aware there wasn't any video recording of people taken in for questioning (from beginning to end), so how could anything be proven one way or the other?
Yes it would, there are other forms of torture which don't leave marks and which don't open the protagonists up to prosecution.
Cipriano had a lawyer representing her who would and did take photos.
To brazenly and so visibly expose themselves for potential prosecution makes no sense.
You cannot hide those bruises can you?
I do not accept that coppers in Portugal would be so stupid as to leave such obvious signs of torture for all the world to see.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Albertini on November 14, 2013, 02:10:54 PM
I can only speculate that in the past - everyone was on board - and they all covered one another's backs - against the claims of one person - and their word as trusted policemen was almost automatically taken as the true version of events - over that of any potential criminal imo.
I do not see the logic of a Prison Director deliberately lying and taking a course of action knowing that it would jeopardise the careers and lives of several police officers, especially in the certain knowledge that they were innocent. That makes no sense to me.
It was not a case of one person's word against another. The Director obviously had sufficient irrefutable evidence to prove that LC's injuries were not caused by the inmates of her prison - and which the PJ could not disprove.
As far as I know neither Amaral nor any other police officer has protested or accused her of perjuring herself or claimed that she was responsible for their 'wrongful' conviction.
But the prison director had a vested interest didn't he? He was trying to protect the reputation of his prison and deflect any guilt away from his own position as the director of that prison.
He had as much reason to lie as Cipriano as it could have been his neck on the line if it was proven it happened under his watch.
ETA What proof could he have that the beating didn't happen in his prison? He would be taking his own officers on their word (unless he somehow-impossibly and implausibly- had managed to get a confession out of the PJ officers).
Funny, isn't that what Amaral was convicted for? Taking the words of others at face value.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 14, 2013, 02:15:42 PM
Yes it would, there are other forms of torture which don't leave marks and which don't open the protagonists up to prosecution.
Cipriano had a lawyer representing her who would and did take photos.
To brazenly and so visibly expose themselves for potential prosecution makes no sense.
You cannot hide those bruises can you?
I do not accept that coppers in Portugal would be so stupid as to leave such obvious signs of torture for all the world to see.
Of course, but some posters here have a curious idea of what Portugal is, which is acceptable. The unacceptable is the insistance in sticking to that curious idea.
Obviously someone had interest in exhibiting Mrs Cipriano in that state and it's certainly not the PJ.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 14, 2013, 02:32:34 PM
Well seems you have buried you head so deeply in the sand that you cant see the likely relevance of three fair haired little girls vanishing from an area no more than about 18 miles across in a period of less than 3 years
Joana C, Carolina S and Madeleine M
Luckily SY had sharper brains than yours, Lyall, and came back to me about these abdiuctions and the sightings.
Well firstly Joana IF she did get snatched by a stranger was in 2004, 3 years BEFORE the McCann child.
May I please just interject here about Carolina Stantos....she never VANISHED.
From the Diario De Noticias of May 25, 2007.
A 30 years old man, from Morocco, threatened to kidnap the three year old daughter of a woman who rents a coffee-shop at Fonte de Luzeiros, between Silves and Sćo Bartolomes de Messines." and that the "kidnap threat was made, last Tuesday".
There was no actual attempt at kidnapping Carolina Santos, only a threat, and that it all happened after Madeleine was snatched, not four months beforehand.
The Diįrio de Notķcias goes on to say that the woman "filed a complaint with GNR from Silves the next day, and was contacted yesterday by investigators from Polķcia Judiciįria, to whom she told what happened."
The newspaper then said that after "Talking with local residents" they "found that the man in question is a street seller and a well known trouble maker and was drunk and got into an argument with a local cafe owner."
End of.
So as the saying goes move along there is nothing to see here lol...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 14, 2013, 02:37:55 PM
Of course, but some posters here have a curious idea of what Portugal is, which is acceptable. The unacceptable is the insistance in sticking to that curious idea.
Obviously someone had interest in exhibiting Mrs Cipriano in that state and it's certainly not the PJ.
People in prison in Britain and even the states if they go in as child killers etc usually go into solitary confinement for fear of them being harmed.
What what I have read about this so called beating first of there was no BRUISES the day LC confessed to her lawyer....etc....but there were when she was in prison.
It was mooted she was beaten by a prisoner. Good on her I say, she should have done a better job.
If i WAS in prison with this evil witch, I think I would have found it hard to contain myself.
To get a confession out of someone is easy using the right methods which would NOT SHOW UP...
Again this thread just keeps rolling along because of AMARAL the evil one lol.... 8(>((
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 14, 2013, 02:42:55 PM
oh yes... i didnt know LC had said that, but she has said so many different thngs...as for the caylee anthony case, Im really struggling go understand how the grandmother said caylee died in her home in the swimming pool....but her body was found decaying in the woods....why is she not being investigated if her daughter has been found innocent? Strange
I thought CA told her defence lawyer her father abused her from a child, and when CA found her daughter in the swimming pool he dealt with the body....eeeekkkkk. I dont believe it, YET although he denied all this in court he still allowed her to stay with them when she came out of prison.
I think the whole case was just stinky like the Cipriano case, so many lies and changes of statements...fair makes your head spin lol.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 14, 2013, 02:50:30 PM
But the prison director had a vested interest didn't he? He was trying to protect the reputation of his prison and deflect any guilt away from his own position as the director of that prison.
He had as much reason to lie as Cipriano as it could have been his neck on the line if it was proven it happened under his watch.
ETA What proof could he have that the beating didn't happen in his prison? He would be taking his own officers on their word (unless he somehow-impossibly and implausibly- had managed to get a confession out of the PJ officers).
Funny, isn't that what Amaral was convicted for? Taking the words of others at face value.
The judges in this case were obviously very satisfied with the Director's evidence as they concluded from it that LC had been tortured by members of the PJ whilst in their custody and did not believe she was beaten up by inmates.
I don't believe by any stretch of the imagination that the Court would have come to that decision lightly - as it does not reflect well on their own police force. That leads me to believe that the evidence must have been very compelling and the PJ had no defence against it.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 14, 2013, 02:51:00 PM
You need help for this obsession guys. Go and make a website and campaign for her if you're so sure of your facts. That might be useful, but it doesn't help her posting the same things day after day here.
And it's got nothing to do with what happened on May 3 2007 to Madeleine.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Well done Lyall I said the same. Start a petition why not FREE CIPRIANO she is INNOCENT of all charges.
Please go ahead all of you who want her freed, here is a link:
I am sure you will be bombarded by signatures 8(0(*
https://www.change.org/start-a-petition
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Lyall on November 14, 2013, 03:25:58 PM
8((()*/ Well said, Colombo.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 14, 2013, 03:54:22 PM
But the prison director had a vested interest didn't he? He was trying to protect the reputation of his prison and deflect any guilt away from his own position as the director of that prison.
He had as much reason to lie as Cipriano as it could have been his neck on the line if it was proven it happened under his watch.
ETA What proof could he have that the beating didn't happen in his prison? He would be taking his own officers on their word (unless he somehow-impossibly and implausibly- had managed to get a confession out of the PJ officers).
Funny, isn't that what Amaral was convicted for? Taking the words of others at face value.
A dollup of logic wouldn't come amiss here Albertini.
So the Prison Director allows? doesn't prevent a prisoner being torture?
And then calls in a Doctor and arranges for photographs to be taken which she releases to the world?
Come on, Albertini. get your thinking cap on. Had that torture taken place on her watch, those photographs would never have been allowed.
Let alone released to the authorities and promoted.
And why did Leonor say that the PJ had done the torture if the prison Governor, officers or inmates had. She would HATE all those people and want to see them punished.
How come that she says it was the PJ?
You seem quite intelligent Albertini. FGS get your brain in gear.
Had the torture happened in prison, those photos would never have been taken, nor released.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 06:40:09 PM
I can only speculate that in the past - everyone was on board - and they all covered one another's backs - against the claims of one person - and their word as trusted policemen was almost automatically taken as the true version of events - over that of any potential criminal imo.
I do not see the logic of a Prison Director deliberately lying and taking a course of action knowing that it would jeopardise the careers and lives of several police officers, especially in the certain knowledge that they were innocent. That makes no sense to me.
It was not a case of one person's word against another. The Director obviously had sufficient irrefutable evidence to prove that LC's injuries were not caused by the inmates of her prison - and which the PJ could not disprove.
As far as I know neither Amaral nor any other police officer has protested or accused her of perjuring herself or claimed that she was responsible for their 'wrongful' conviction.
The actual torturers DID get away with it. They made sure that Leonor could NOT identify them by putting a bag over her head. Amaral and another officer (was it Cardosa? Please correct me if I have the incorrect person) became criminals because they told lies about the torture. As far as we KNOW neither tortured Leonor or Joao but I expect we shall never know, for sure, whether they did or not
Dr Ana Dr Ana Caldero . Very brave prison Governor
Dr Ana was a very brave woman in refusing to be intimidated by the PJ ... and acting on behalf of Leonor, a prisoner. She was also very humane, going to the trouble of not only making sure that Leonor received medical help, but also in ensuring photgraphs were taken. It would have been far easier for her to go along with the PJ story that Leonor had thrown herself down the stairs.
I have a great deal of admiration of Dr Ana Caldero. A woman of truth and honour who progressed Democracy in contrast to certain officers in the Faro /Portimao PJ who were still stuck with the Fascist approach of torture and bully
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 14, 2013, 07:27:22 PM
A dollup of logic wouldn't come amiss here Albertini.
So the Prison Director allows? doesn't prevent a prisoner being torture?
And then calls in a Doctor and arranges for photographs to be taken which she releases to the world?
Come on, Albertini. get your thinking cap on. Had that torture taken place on her watch, those photographs would never have been allowed.
Let alone released to the authorities and promoted.
And why did Leonor say that the PJ had done the torture if the prison Governor, officers or inmates had. She would HATE all those people and want to see them punished.
How come that she says it was the PJ?
You seem quite intelligent Albertini. FGS get your brain in gear.
Had the torture happened in prison, those photos would never have been taken, nor released.
If she had a beating from fellow inmates and then informed on said prisoners, she'd just have earned herself another beating.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 14, 2013, 08:18:07 PM
The PJ confirmed that the injuries happened in the police station.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 14, 2013, 09:01:57 PM
The PJ confirmed that the injuries happened in the police station.
leanor had the bruises when she arrived at the prison ....the pj want to make their mind up when telling lies ...they said she threw herself down some stairs ..then they said she was beat up in prison ...so which one is it ? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 15, 2013, 12:13:15 AM
leanor had the bruises when she arrived at the prison ....the pj want to make their mind up when telling lies ...they said she threw herself down some stairs ..then they said she was beat up in prison ...so which one is it ? >@@(*&)
Oh and it was reported that the PJ wanted the prison authorities to take half the blame
Dr Ana Had her wits about her. She wasn't having any of that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 15, 2013, 01:14:12 AM
I have added a link that you have probably already seen. I was looking for some info on Leona's partner, because a recent description reminded me of him. Looks like he sold them out! (Ciprianos) http://www.algarveresident.com/10046-0/algarve/portugals-silent-child-victims
Anna, he was beaten up allegedly by Amaral and gave the evidence they wanted. His name is Leandro de Silva. A really nice guy, lovely with the kids by the look of photos and he reputedly was the one who let the Mccanns know what to expect from the PJ. He knew what had happened to Leonor and Joao. He was, and probably still is, a car mechanic. His skin looks dark because his Mum, also a really nice kind looking woman, is black
Leandro Silva. Leonors partner and step father to Joana.. Leandro and Leonor have two children together, both younger than Joana. One is called Ruben, I have forgotten the little girls name
I think Leonor and Leandro were 6 years together before Joana tragically disappeared.
SNIP/// And why did Leonor say that the PJ had done the torture if the prison Governor, officers or inmates had. She would HATE all those people and want to see them punished.
Anna, he was beaten up allegedly by Amaral and gave the evidence they wanted. His name is Leandro de Silva. A really nice guy, lovely with the kids by the look of photos and he reputedly was the one who let the Mccanns know what to expect from the PJ. He knew what had happened to Leonor and Joao. He was, and probably still is, a car mechanic. His skin looks dark because his Mum, also a really nice kind looking woman, is black
Leandro Silva. Leonors partner and step father to Joana.. Leandro and Leonor have two children together, both younger than Joana. One is called Ruben, I have forgotten the little girls name
I think Leonor and Leandro were 6 years together before Joana tragically disappeared.
Leandro has a kind face and seems to have a nice way with him
Thank you Sadie, He looks different without his facial hair. I did discover his beating which hospitalised him, after I posted about him selling them out. That was the evidence of the incest, disappearing knife and saw, I believe. I still believe she is innocent! I do not believe the brother is innocent and think she either didn't know or was protecting him no previous criminal record family say she was not violent and never hit the children The piccis are telling us they were clean and happy Why would she do it ? Motive? I think that nerves and fear caused her to get muddled at the appeal and how could she be certain of identity when she had a bag over her head? Plastic tube/cardboard tube ...ridiculous Sitting or kneeling ....Its unlikely that she was in the same position for 2 days She didn't inform the police for 2 days................I felt sure that when she went to the shop/café to inquire, that the shopkeeper phoned the police
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 15, 2013, 09:41:16 AM
I was answering your question of why, if she was beaten by inmates, she wouldn't tell.
Cariad
Thinking cap on.
If the torture injuries were caused by prison inmates, why would Dr Ana photograph them? Surely she would want to hide them, rather than publicize them?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 15, 2013, 10:01:29 AM
If the torture injuries were caused by prison inmates, why would Dr Ana photograph them? Surely she would want to hide them, rather than publicize them?
Simples.
By attaching the blame to another party, she would escape charges of incompetence in the running of the prison and failure to control the prisoners behavior.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 15, 2013, 10:05:22 AM
By attaching the blame to another party, she would escape charges of incompetence in the running of the prison and failure to control the prisoners behavior.
She wouldn't even take the photos. She would completely vanish the whole episode of bruises.
Think about it Stephen
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 15, 2013, 10:08:54 AM
By attaching the blame to another party, she would escape charges of incompetence in the running of the prison and failure to control the prisoners behavior.
Then why didn't she just go along with what the Pj said............That she fell down the stairs, instead of getting a doctor to confirm that the injuries could not have been a result of a fall
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 15, 2013, 10:10:11 AM
Then why didn't she just go along with what the Pj said............That she fell down the stairs, instead of getting a doctor to confirm that the injuries could not have been a result of a fall
Anna, it would tend to show that she is not in charge of events at the prison.
Incompetence tends to lead to dismissal in most jobs.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 15, 2013, 10:14:19 AM
bump!
the pj lied ....leanor had the bruises when she arrived at the prison ....the pj want to make their mind up when telling lies ...they said she threw herself down some stairs ..then they said she was beat up in prison ...so which one is it ? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 15, 2013, 10:16:15 AM
the pj lied ....leanor had the bruises when she arrived at the prison ....the pj want to make their mind up when telling lies ...they said she threw herself down some stairs ..then they said she was beat up in prison ...so which one is it ? >@@(*&)
Impossible since bruises take some time to develop and aren't immediately visible.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 15, 2013, 10:18:55 AM
Well, I have yet to see a bruise that takes 5 days to show itself . It not only depends on the severity of the blow, but also the thickness of the blood.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 15, 2013, 10:57:48 AM
So the evidence was flawed ? That is the question in this whole case
You do realize that applies to both sides ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 15, 2013, 11:33:35 AM
The actions of Leonor and her brother Joćo following the alleged abduction are suspicious by any stretch of the imagination. Why the delay in seeking police assistance? The mobile phone had no credit is the biggest load of bollocks for a start.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 15, 2013, 11:59:16 AM
The actions of Leonor and her brother Joćo following the alleged abduction are suspicious by any stretch of the imagination. Why the delay in seeking police assistance? The mobile phone had no credit is the biggest load of bollocks for a start.
Why do you find that so suspicious in the context of a disappearance in a small village? There was a village fźte in full swing. She was sent out at around 20:00 to go to buy a few food items.
Where did she go? It seems to have been variously described as a "pasteleria" and as Café Celia. It seems to be a small village in which there may be a basic food/immediate necessities section and a bar section in the same "shop/bar".
Where did she go and what did this outlet sell?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 15, 2013, 12:43:41 PM
If the torture injuries were caused by prison inmates, why would Dr Ana photograph them? Surely she would want to hide them, rather than publicize them?
Sadie, I was simply answering you regarding why, if LC had been beaten by prisoners she would not attribute blame to them.
That's it. I'm not claiming that that is in fact what happened, I'm just offering a reason why, if that had happened she would have reacted in that why.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 15, 2013, 12:44:41 PM
Were the tuna and milk found in the house?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 15, 2013, 01:14:51 PM
It is difficult to use google for this case as most of it is not easily searched through google it being reported in Portuguese
The only source I know that has a whole section dedicated to the case with English translations is
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/
From the home page, see the tabs at the top, click on Mccann case and you will get a drop down menu....then click on Cipriano case...there you will find a plethora of articles and documents....going back years,bit of a slog trawling but what else can you do?
Eta on the right hand column a bit down there is a search function also..that can narrow down some searching
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Albertini on November 15, 2013, 02:49:53 PM
A dollup of logic wouldn't come amiss here Albertini.
So the Prison Director allows? doesn't prevent a prisoner being torture?
And then calls in a Doctor and arranges for photographs to be taken which she releases to the world?
Come on, Albertini. get your thinking cap on. Had that torture taken place on her watch, those photographs would never have been allowed.
Let alone released to the authorities and promoted.
And why did Leonor say that the PJ had done the torture if the prison Governor, officers or inmates had. She would HATE all those people and want to see them punished.
How come that she says it was the PJ?
You seem quite intelligent Albertini. FGS get your brain in gear.
Had the torture happened in prison, those photos would never have been taken, nor released.
What a thoroughly patronising and condescending post Sadie. My thinking cap is on thank you very much.
May i propose you actually put your blind hatred of Amaral and the PJ in general to one side and look at this issue objectively.
I'm sure you won't as you clearly have your own pre-conceived bias against the PJ at the forefront of all your thinking.
So let's look at this scenario.
LC, in a very high profile Portuguese case claims she was beaten up in the police station. The PJ deny it and accusations are thrown around that she was actually beaten up in the prison.
The prison director thinks "hum... i could get the blame for this kind of abuse in the prison i run".
She asks her prison officers who can find no evidence it happened there, so she then decides she is able to kick it back to the PJ and allows the release of the photos and reports the issue to the wider world.
She has then forged an opinion in people's minds it's nothing to do with her or her governance of the prison, because as there is no evidence of a beating she can deny it happened there, even though we know prisoners do not "grass" to prison officers.
Her prison or more pertinently her management of the prison, is therefore not in question. Her neck is no longer potentially on the chopping block.
In relation as to why LC would blame the PJ, well may i suggest you put your thinking cap on, as the answer is glaringly obvious as is the benefit it would bring to LC by blaming the PJ.
By blaming the PJ for beating her up whilst confessing she makes the whole legal case against her, and subsequent conviction, potentially unsafe allowing her the possibility of getting off the murder/manslaughter charge.
That is not something that could happen if she had said she was beaten up in prison.
It was clearly in her interest to blame the PJ, irrespective of whether they actually committed the acts as a way of trying to get off the charge.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 15, 2013, 02:55:48 PM
Dont often do claps albertini 8@??)(
Some semblance of reality required here
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 15, 2013, 03:52:19 PM
What a thoroughly patronising and condescending post Sadie. My thinking cap is on thank you very much.
May i propose you actually put your blind hatred of Amaral and the PJ in general to one side and look at this issue objectively.
I'm sure you won't as you clearly have your own pre-conceived bias against the PJ at the forefront of all your thinking.
So let's look at this scenario.
LC, in a very high profile Portuguese case claims she was beaten up in the police station. The PJ deny it and accusations are thrown around that she was actually beaten up in the prison.
The prison director thinks "hum... i could get the blame for this kind of abuse in the prison i run".
She asks her prison officers who can find no evidence it happened there, so she then decides she is able to kick it back to the PJ and allows the release of the photos and reports the issue to the wider world.
She has then forged an opinion in people's minds it's nothing to do with her or her governance of the prison, because as there is no evidence of a beating she can deny it happened there, even though we know prisoners do not "grass" to prison officers.
Her prison or more pertinently her management of the prison, is therefore not in question. Her neck is no longer potentially on the chopping block.
In relation as to why LC would blame the PJ, well may i suggest you put your thinking cap on, as the answer is glaringly obvious as is the benefit it would bring to LC by blaming the PJ.
By blaming the PJ for beating her up whilst confessing she makes the whole legal case against her, and subsequent conviction, potentially unsafe allowing her the possibility of getting off the murder/manslaughter charge.
That is not something that could happen if she had said she was beaten up in prison.
It was clearly in her interest to blame the PJ, irrespective of whether they actually committed the acts as a way of trying to get off the charge.
Yes I agree with REDBLOSSOM, I appluade you what a sensible post. 8@??)(
What people ALSO forget to realise is that she CONFESSED BEFORE she was beaten anyway.
It makes more sense to me that she was beaten in prison why not she was potentially a CHILD MURDERER a lot of inmates hate them and will do them harm....
Anyway she lied, WE ALL KNOW SHE LIED, the court knows she lied, she is doing an extra 7 months for LYING and so it goes on and on lol.
Her conviction is not unsafe, she has already served enough time to get time out of prison for the weekends.
The point is too (sighs), Mr Amaral was not even in the room when she was allegedgly beaten by the police....and considering these men were very close to her face to cause such bruises she never recognised one of them lol....
I love this thread, it just proves my point that the child Madeliene McCann is of no consequence, neither is Joana, its all to do with making Mr Amaral out to be a CRIMINAL...thats it nothing less. Sad innit.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 15, 2013, 05:03:51 PM
What a thoroughly patronising and condescending post Sadie. My thinking cap is on thank you very much.
May i propose you actually put your blind hatred of Amaral and the PJ in general to one side and look at this issue objectively.
I'm sure you won't as you clearly have your own pre-conceived bias against the PJ at the forefront of all your thinking.
So let's look at this scenario.
LC, in a very high profile Portuguese case claims she was beaten up in the police station. The PJ deny it and accusations are thrown around that she was actually beaten up in the prison.
The prison director thinks "hum... i could get the blame for this kind of abuse in the prison i run".
She asks her prison officers who can find no evidence it happened there, so she then decides she is able to kick it back to the PJ and allows the release of the photos and reports the issue to the wider world.
She has then forged an opinion in people's minds it's nothing to do with her or her governance of the prison, because as there is no evidence of a beating she can deny it happened there, even though we know prisoners do not "grass" to prison officers.
Her prison or more pertinently her management of the prison, is therefore not in question. Her neck is no longer potentially on the chopping block.
In relation as to why LC would blame the PJ, well may i suggest you put your thinking cap on, as the answer is glaringly obvious as is the benefit it would bring to LC by blaming the PJ.
By blaming the PJ for beating her up whilst confessing she makes the whole legal case against her, and subsequent conviction, potentially unsafe allowing her the possibility of getting off the murder/manslaughter charge.
That is not something that could happen if she had said she was beaten up in prison.
It was clearly in her interest to blame the PJ, irrespective of whether they actually committed the acts as a way of trying to get off the charge.
the first fault with your argument is that the PJ accepted that the injuries happened in the police station...so your whole argument falls apart
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 15, 2013, 05:05:18 PM
Am yet to see any evidence which points to Leonor or Joao being innocent.
wrong!! ...A bruise will typically take twelve to twenty-four hours to show up after the injury has occurred ... However ... the severity of the injury will determine how quickly the bruise will appear.... 8(0(*
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 15, 2013, 06:00:34 PM
Leonor cipriano is only a well known liar as you put it, because Amaral and co have put out the disinformation
OR
She is terrified of more torture so she says what she has been told to say. Could it be that they have deliberately set her up to appear a liar, because of their influence. Keep telling her to say something different?
Find me evidence PRIOR to the torture in the Joana / Leonor cases that Leonor Cipriano was a liar.
You have read the declarations of prominent townspeople about her and Joana. All praising and NO mention of deviousness or lies.
I can find you plenty showing that Amaral is a liar ... and Manipulator extraordinaire
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 15, 2013, 06:20:02 PM
You have read the declarations of prominent townspeople about her and Joana. All praising and NO mention of deviousness or lies.
Who are these prominenttownspeople who praised Leonor....do youhave a link for their glowing declarations?
yes she was the epitomy of wholesome motherhood.....trying to ditch her kids asap whenever she had them, by whatever tom dick and harry, even Joana, never heard of the pill obviously.
get a grip! Wont you? Ppffft and knowing you you will probably say Amaral made up/wrote all that
@)(++(*
THIS is what the courts had to say, I thnk they probably knew more than you.....
e) the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] manifests socially deviant behaviour at the level of norms, values and responsibilities, emotional instability and difficulties in expressing frustration, while her socialisation was marked by immature, superficial and narcissistic interpersonal relationships, where characteristics of manipulation (to satisfy her own needs) and aggressiveness (of mainly sadistic tonality) are stand out, while in her personality the absence of empathy and the insensibility are salient, leading to the arguidas despise for other peoples rights, needs and sentiments, directing her aggressiveness towards them, with a weak capacity to feel remorse. She possesses a borderline personality with anti-social/psychopathic, narcissistic and schizoid traits;
f) the arguida BB, who has six children from five relationships, has been showing some lack of interest in her elder children, throughout her life;
g) concerning her eldest daughter, EE, who presently lives with her father and grandmother in Olhćo, she left her there at the age of 11 months, never cared for her again, and didnt ask about her, for 14 years;
h) her second child, FF, who lived with his paternal grandmother and presently lives with a paternal aunt, in Messines, was also left by her to the father, and she never cared for him again;
i) the fourth child, HH, who presently lives with his father in Porches, was left home alone by the arguido BB at the age of 7 months, buckled to his chair, which is how he was found by neighbours who perceived the situation;
j) at that time, arguida BB started living with II [Leandro Silva], a relationship that produced two children, [Name removed] and KK;
l) the third child that she bore was CC [Joana], who was born on 31.05.1996, a daughter of LL;
m) minor CC, in September 2004, was aged eight, being thin and measuring between 1,20 and 1,40 metres; (2)
n) minor CC was sometimes sad;
o) the arguida BB did not exercise any professional activity;
p) when the arguida was living with partner II, minor CC helped her mother with some home chores, as she sometimes helped to clean the house, took care of her younger siblings and went shopping;
q) before arguida BB moved in with her partner II, she wanted to stop having CC under her care, and left her, at the age of 5 months, with her father, LL with whom she had no relationship since the beginning of the pregnancy who ended up returning her 2 days later, and later, she once more handed her over to the father, who didnt want to keep her;
r) in September 2003, arguida BB left CC under the care of a couple of persons with alcoholism problems and with a bed-ridden child that had an infecto-contagious illness, in a house with no conditions whatsoever, for 2 or 3 weeks;
s) on the first day of school for minor CC at the Primary School in Figueira, in the school year of 2003/2004, arguida BB didnt walk the minor to school, and CC arrived with a neighbour, whom she asked for help because she couldnt find the way;
t) on another occasion, the same neighbour took the minor to hospital, at a moment when she was visibly ill with a strong cough;
Who are these prominenttownspeople who praised Leonor....do youhave a link for their glowing declarations?
yes she was the epitomy of wholesome motherhood.....trying to ditch her kids asap whenever she had them, by whatever tom dick and harry, even Joana, never heard of the pill obviously.
get a grip! Wont you? Ppffft and knowing you you will probably say Amaral made up/wrote all that
@)(++(*
THIS is what the courts had to say, I thnk they probably knew more than you.....
e) the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] manifests socially deviant behaviour at the level of norms, values and responsibilities, emotional instability and difficulties in expressing frustration, while her socialisation was marked by immature, superficial and narcissistic interpersonal relationships, where characteristics of manipulation (to satisfy her own needs) and aggressiveness (of mainly sadistic tonality) are stand out, while in her personality the absence of empathy and the insensibility are salient, leading to the arguidas despise for other peoples rights, needs and sentiments, directing her aggressiveness towards them, with a weak capacity to feel remorse. She possesses a borderline personality with anti-social/psychopathic, narcissistic and schizoid traits;
f) the arguida BB, who has six children from five relationships, has been showing some lack of interest in her elder children, throughout her life;
g) concerning her eldest daughter, EE, who presently lives with her father and grandmother in Olhćo, she left her there at the age of 11 months, never cared for her again, and didnt ask about her, for 14 years;
h) her second child, FF, who lived with his paternal grandmother and presently lives with a paternal aunt, in Messines, was also left by her to the father, and she never cared for him again;
i) the fourth child, HH, who presently lives with his father in Porches, was left home alone by the arguido BB at the age of 7 months, buckled to his chair, which is how he was found by neighbours who perceived the situation;
j) at that time, arguida BB started living with II [Leandro Silva], a relationship that produced two children, [Name removed] and KK;
l) the third child that she bore was CC [Joana], who was born on 31.05.1996, a daughter of LL;
m) minor CC, in September 2004, was aged eight, being thin and measuring between 1,20 and 1,40 metres; (2)
n) minor CC was sometimes sad;
o) the arguida BB did not exercise any professional activity;
p) when the arguida was living with partner II, minor CC helped her mother with some home chores, as she sometimes helped to clean the house, took care of her younger siblings and went shopping;
q) before arguida BB moved in with her partner II, she wanted to stop having CC under her care, and left her, at the age of 5 months, with her father, LL with whom she had no relationship since the beginning of the pregnancy who ended up returning her 2 days later, and later, she once more handed her over to the father, who didnt want to keep her;
r) in September 2003, arguida BB left CC under the care of a couple of persons with alcoholism problems and with a bed-ridden child that had an infecto-contagious illness, in a house with no conditions whatsoever, for 2 or 3 weeks;
s) on the first day of school for minor CC at the Primary School in Figueira, in the school year of 2003/2004, arguida BB didnt walk the minor to school, and CC arrived with a neighbour, whom she asked for help because she couldnt find the way;
t) on another occasion, the same neighbour took the minor to hospital, at a moment when she was visibly ill with a strong cough;
Leonor cipriano is only a well known liar as you put it, because Amaral and co have put out the disinformation
OR
She is terrified of more torture so she says what she has been told to say. Could it be that they have deliberately set her up to appear a liar, because of their influence. Keep telling her to say something different?
Find me evidence PRIOR to the torture in the Joana / Leonor cases that Leonor Cipriano was a liar.
You have read the declarations of prominent townspeople about her and Joana. All praising and NO mention of deviousness or lies.
I can find you plenty showing that Amaral is a liar ... and Manipulator extraordinaire
Try reading prior posts before you make these claims.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 16, 2013, 12:02:23 AM
The Trial of Five PJ Officers.
In the court, Leonor Cipriano sometimes ‘remembered’ and sometimes ‘forgot’. Mostly, she simply fabricated stories or told outright lies, as she has done for years
For example, she said that she had seen who had assaulted her, but later she denied this.
During the investigation into Joana Cipriano’s disappearance, Ms Cipriano said that she had been tortured and assaulted ‘more than once’, but now, during the trial, she stated it that it happened only once. Furthermore, she said she knew the time of the beating - around 8.00pm - because she had looked at the clock in the room where she had been beaten. However, during the trial, she was asked to describe the room and did so without referring to any clock.
There were several major contradictions from Leonor, but one of her sentences has stuck in everyone’s memory. “I don’t remember having made any confession”, she told the court on one occasion.
It is understood that no confession is admissible in court in Portugal unless the defendant repeats it in open court. It is understood that Leonor Cipriano did repeat her confession in her trial for murder in 2005, this making it admissible. So what made her change her mind, over two years later?
Leonor Cipriano originally said she had been beaten up by several PJ inspectors, but when asked to pick them out of a line-up, she could not. She then changed her story to say that the PJ inspectors ‘must have arranged for a person or persons unknown to come into the police station and beat her’.
She then changed her mind again to say she was sure she was beaten by the PJ - but she claims she cannotnow identify them because a bag was placed over her head during the beating. She first of all said it was a blue plastic bag, but soon afterwards she changed this to saying it was ‘green or blue’.
Leonor Cipriano had never previously said that Gonēalo Amaral had personally laid a hand on her - until the court hearing in Faro. Indeed, he had ‘only’ been charged with the Portuguese equivalent of ‘criminal malfeasance’ for the alleged actions of men under his command. Yet, in the Faro court, Leonor Cipriano now changed her story once again and said, yes, Amaral had personally hit her after all. However, there was no evidence given to the court that Gonēalo Amaral was even present when she was being questioned.
In her original statement, Leonor Cipriano said she knew the time the assaults on her took place because there was a clock on the wall in the room in the police station, and that it was approximately from 6.00pm to 8.00pm. Yet three of the named PJ inspectors accused of torturing her were not even in the building at that time; they did not sign into the police station until 8.00 pm on the day in question.
Leonor Cipriano at one point said that she was forced to kneel on broken glass. But there appears to be no record of damage to her knees or legs that would be consistent with such a serious incident.
A major question mark from Leonor Cipriano’s evidence was to explain how anyone, suffering the kind injuries that Leonor Cipriano now claimed she has suffered (namely being beaten about the body, head and face for two hours), did not suffer additional injuries such as cracked ribs or bruises all over her body, cracked, broken, or knocked-out teeth, a split lip, broken or bloody nose, or bruises below the level of her cheekbones?
According to press reports, when asked by the Prison Governor at Odemira Prison to explain her injuries, Leonor Cipriano did not implicate anyone in the police. We must ask then under what circumstances the Prison Director asked her Chief Prison Officer to change the account Ms Cipriano originally provided.
When she was asked in court to give the names of the people she was accusing, Leonor Cipriano had to pull a piece of paper out of her purse to do so. One would think that four years after she claimed to have been tortured, she would have had the time to learn the names of those who she says assaulted her. It begs the question of who wrote that list. Did someone else write it out for her?
A summary of Leonor Cipriano’s 15 lies in Court
Here’s a convenient summary of at least 15 of the lies Leonor Cipriano told in court:
(1) She said that she had seen who had assaulted her, but later she denied this.
(2) During the investigation into her allegation, she said that she had beenassaulted ‘more than once’, but now, during the trial, she stated it that it happened only once.
(3) She said she knew the time of the beating - around 8.00pm - but during the hearing described the room she was supposedly beaten and did so without referring to any clock.
(4) Despite having made a full confession in front of her lawyer and again in her trial for murder in 2005, she told the Faro Court: “I don’t remember having confessed”.
(5) Leonor Cipriano originally said she had been beaten by PJ inspectors, but when asked to pick them out of a line-up, she could not. She then changed her story to say that the PJ inspectors ‘must have arranged for another person or persons unknown to come into the police station and beat her’.
(6) She then changed her mind once again again to say she was beaten by the PJ – claiming she cannot identify them because a bag was placed over her head during the beating.
(7) Ms Cipriano had never previously alleged that Gonēalo Amaral had personally laid a hand on her until the Court hearing in Faro. Yet, in the Faro court, Leonor Cipriano changed her story once again and now said that Gonēalo Amaral personally hit her during the beating.
(8) The photographer who took pictures of Leonor Cipriano’s injuries said he had taken the photographs immediately after the injuries had occurred and that he was there ‘during the afternoon and with daylight’. Yet Ms Cipriano had claimed that the photographs had been taken ‘at night, in a room without light’.
(9) She said that at one point during the beating she was forced to kneel on broken glass. But there was no record of damage to her knees or legs that would be consistent with such a serious incident.
(10) When originally asked by the Prison Governor at Odemira Prison to explain her injuries, Leonor Cipriano did not implicate anyone in the police.
(11) When Ms Cipriano was asked in Court to give the names of the people she was accusing, Leonor Cipriano had to pull a piece of paper out of her purse.
(12) It was clear from the evidence that the beating of Leonor Cipriano took place during the 48 hours after she confessed to murdering her daughter. This is consistent with the reliable reports circulating that Leonor Cipriano was assaulted by fellow prisoners only after they got to learn that she had confessing to her appalling crime.
(13) She denied that she ever had a female lawyer. However, she did have a female lawyer present when she made her original confession.
(14) She said that there was a blue plastic bag over her head, but soon afterwards she changed this to saying it was ‘green or blue’.
(15) She denied that she was visited in prison by her lawyer, Mr Aragćo Correia, on 30 October 2008, during the trial. In this respect, she was contradicted by Mr Aragćo Correia himself.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 16, 2013, 02:13:10 AM
I have to completely disagree with you John.
For example, is the following actually a big fat lie?
Quote (14) She said that there was a blue plastic bag over her head, but soon afterwards she changed this to saying it was green or blue. UNQUOTE
LC is by all accounts a poorly educated woman, and not the sharpest tool in the box. Any lawyer would run rings round her in a court environment. She wouldn't stand a chance IMO.
It's completely disingenous IMO to expect anyone to be able to have a clear recollection of what happened during hours of torture when her mind would be mainly on her pain and how to stop it. Maybe the blood running into her eyes caused her to mis-identify her attackers?
IIRC the policemen who she originally named - dropped their own libel case against her after she failed to identify them in an Identity Parade, and actually praised her honesty in saying she could not identify them.
If that is true, then I am wondering who it was who brought the case against her where she was convicted of perjury.
IMO it was more to do with Portugal's entry in a Amnesty Internationals Torture section than anything else.. However that is purely my personal opinion and if anyone can throw any more light on this to make me change my mind - I will happily retract that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 16, 2013, 08:47:38 AM
Quote from list of contradictions etc.:-
It is understood that no confession is admissible in court in Portugal unless the defendant repeats it in open court. It is understood that Leonor Cipriano did repeat her confession in her trial for murder in 2005, this making it admissible. So what made her change her mind, over two years later? Unquote
How can this be true when it's on record that LC did not take the stand at the murder trial?
The murder trial was in 2005, the perjury trial this year - that's 8yrs ago not 2yrs.?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Cariad on November 16, 2013, 09:06:31 AM
It is difficult to use google for this case as most of it is not easily searched through google it being reported in Portuguese
The only source I know that has a whole section dedicated to the case with English translations is
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/
From the home page, see the tabs at the top, click on Mccann case and you will get a drop down menu....then click on Cipriano case...there you will find a plethora of articles and documents....going back years,bit of a slog trawling but what else can you do?
Eta on the right hand column a bit down there is a search function also..that can narrow down some searching
Thank you Red, I'll have a read now x
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Albertini on November 16, 2013, 09:48:52 AM
the first fault with your argument is that the PJ accepted that the injuries happened in the police station...so your whole argument falls apart
Please can you provide a reference for that statement.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 16, 2013, 09:52:13 AM
@ John, you said: It is understood that no confession is admissible in court in Portugal unless the defendant repeats it in open court. It is understood that Leonor Cipriano did repeat her confession in her trial for murder in 2005, this making it admissible. So what made her change her mind, over two years later?
She didn't take the stand during the murder trial.
Leonor and Joćo opted to remain silent throughout the entire trial. In November 2005 they were charged with qualified homicide and hiding a cadaver. Leonor was condemned to 20 years and 4 months in prison, and Joćo to 19 years and 2 months. The three jury members and four judges felt that the brother and sister did not intend to kill the child but gave, as proven, that the body was dismembered though they were not convinced it was kept in the refrigerator. Nor was it proven that the child was killed because she caught the mother and her brother having s.e.x. The defense attorneys and the Public Ministry presented an appeal, reducing the penalty to 16 years and 8 month.
With a lot of doubts still to be clarified, Leonor's attorney presented another appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Source: RTP Media http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-without-trace-of-joana.html
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 16, 2013, 10:07:25 AM
Why is there this campaign of what is basically lies to discredit Leonor
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 16, 2013, 12:33:49 PM
Thanks for that Carana, so there were four judges as I thought, so three out of four were convinced beyond reasonable doubt, not two out of three.....that makes some difference...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 16, 2013, 01:07:19 PM
Thanks for that Carana, so there were four judges as I thought, so three out of four were convinced beyond reasonable doubt, not two out of three.....that makes some difference...
It's confusing as we seem to be discussing several trials.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 16, 2013, 01:24:03 PM
Thanks for that Carana, so there were four judges as I thought, so three out of four were convinced beyond reasonable doubt, not two out of three.....that makes some difference...
i'm trying to double-check on that, but something doesn't seem quite correct.
Wasn't it 3 judges and 4 jury members?
ETA:
A total of 45 witnesses, mostly relatives and villagers, testified in court between Wednesday and Friday of last week. Four jurors (one man and three women) and three judges will decide the verdict. The opinions of the jurors a 20-year-old student, a physiotherapist, a library employee and a waitress will carry the same weight as the judges.
i'm trying to double-check on that, but something doesn't seem quite correct.
Wasn't it 3 judges and 4 jury members?
ETA:
A total of 45 witnesses, mostly relatives and villagers, testified in court between Wednesday and Friday of last week. Four jurors (one man and three women) and three judges will decide the verdict. The opinions of the jurors a 20-year-old student, a physiotherapist, a library employee and a waitress will carry the same weight as the judges.
The completion of the Trial should not allow influences in the formation of the conviction of the Panelists, in this particular case, Panel of Judges and Jurors, four in number, and the reproduction of that brought an Appeal may have interfered with the conviction of the Jurors, who do not know what types of evidence, direct or indirect, are valid for the assessment of the cause http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/bfaf1cea93ab75fb8025716200388d89?OpenDocument If you need to translate this open http://www.freetranslation.com/ and copy the above link into it HOMICĶDIO OCULTAĒĆO OF CADĮVER PROFANAĒĆO OF CADĮVER JURYĀ DOCUMENTATION OF PROOF VĶCIOS RATIONALE NATURAL RECONSTITUTION DOLO POSSIBLE AS FAR AS THE PENALTY SJ200604200003635 04 /20/2006 MAJORITY WITH 1 DEC VOT AND 1 VOT MATURING on 7/16/2006
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 16, 2013, 04:17:46 PM
It's confusing as we seem to be discussing several trials.
Yes, this is where the confusion is arising.
Granted that both Leonor and brother Joćo refused to testify at their original trial but the former did testify at the trial of the five Polķcia Judiciįria officers whom she effectively condemned for beating her.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 16, 2013, 05:06:57 PM
The completion of the Trial should not allow influences in the formation of the conviction of the Panelists, in this particular case, Panel of Judges and Jurors, four in number, and the reproduction of that brought an Appeal may have interfered with the conviction of the Jurors, who do not know what types of evidence, direct or indirect, are valid for the assessment of the cause http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/bfaf1cea93ab75fb8025716200388d89?OpenDocument If you need to translate this open http://www.freetranslation.com/ and copy the above link into it HOMICĶDIO OCULTAĒĆO OF CADĮVER PROFANAĒĆO OF CADĮVER JURYĀ DOCUMENTATION OF PROOF VĶCIOS RATIONALE NATURAL RECONSTITUTION DOLO POSSIBLE AS FAR AS THE PENALTY SJ200604200003635 04 /20/2006 MAJORITY WITH 1 DEC VOT AND 1 VOT MATURING on 7/16/2006
What does this mean?
Carana, I took it from the text you posted..4 judges and 3 jurors...having noseyed around a few forums and blogs, the majority do say 3 judges and 4 jurors, though not all, I guess nothng short of an official source could clear it up.....though it seems the 3/4 is more likely as the 4 have been described
eta its going to be difficult for posters to get a handle on much until theres some kind of reference section here for people to refer to, there are dribs and drabs all over the net....some conflicting...Joana Morais is the only site Ive come across with lots of news articles and some court docs.....I will have a think about this and then make some suggestions....
Cant link to the JM site section at the moment as the site is playng up
Eta again! Missing Madeleine forum has a hefty section on the case too with many news articles
Granted that both Leonor and brother Joćo refused to testify at their original trial but the former did testify at the trial of the five Polķcia Judiciįria officers whom she effectively condemned for beating her.
So the following from the list of 'Contradictions and lies' is completely false. IMO that must cast doubt on the accuracy of the rest of the list. Do you have a source for that list please John?
Quote It is understood that no confession is admissible in court in Portugal unless the defendant repeats it in open court. It is understood that Leonor Cipriano did repeat her confession in her trial for murder in 2005, this making it admissible. So what made her change her mind, over two years later? Unquote.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 16, 2013, 05:50:03 PM
i'm trying to double-check on that, but something doesn't seem quite correct.
Wasn't it 3 judges and 4 jury members?
ETA:
A total of 45 witnesses, mostly relatives and villagers, testified in court between Wednesday and Friday of last week. Four jurors (one man and three women) and three judges will decide the verdict. The opinions of the jurors a 20-year-old student, a physiotherapist, a library employee and a waitress will carry the same weight as the judges.
Good grief - that's a huge amount of witnesses in only three days! Do you happen to know Carana - (or anyone else) , whether they did actually 'physically' testify in court or whether written testamonies were allowed by the court?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 16, 2013, 06:11:09 PM
Good grief - that's a huge amount of witnesses in only three days! Do you happen to know Carana - (or anyone else) , whether they did actually 'physically' testify in court or whether written testamonies were allowed by the court?
According to the official site (as link) They refused to have the confession read that was given at the time of the alleged beating, I believe
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 16, 2013, 06:13:14 PM
Good grief - that's a huge amount of witnesses in only three days! Do you happen to know Carana - (or anyone else) , whether they did actually 'physically' testify in court or whether written testamonies were allowed by the court?
No idea. Every report seems to differ.
I can't imagine that 45 witnesses actually appeared in court in a trial that lasted 20 hours or so.
I can find some people who were apparently witnesses for the prosecution (some arguidos themselves, others being from those present at the "reconstruction"), but none for the defence, unless anyone can correct me on that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 16, 2013, 06:30:58 PM
According to the official site (as link) They refused to have the confession read that was given at the time of the alleged beating, I believe
I think we are at cross purposes anna - I was referring to the 45 witnesses.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 16, 2013, 07:34:39 PM
As there are so many stories going around I have decided to compile a list of facts relating to all court appearances. Here for starters is some information you might like to see on the original trial.
The Trial of Leonor and Joćo Cipriano.
- Joana disappeared on the night of 12 September 2004.
- The trial was heard by three judges chaired by Judge Alda Casimiro and included four jurors (three women and one man) chosen from the electoral roll in Portimćo.
- Leonor and her brother, Joćo Cipriano, uncle of the eight-year-old girl, were accused of murder, desecration of a corpse and concealment.
- Prosecuting attorney, José Pinheiro, originally asked for a sentence of 24 years for both defendants.
- Investigations conducted by the Judicial Police of Faro coordinated by Gonēalo Amaral did not reach any clear proof against Leonor and Joćo Cipriano - just a theory, a story that the prosecutor José Pinheiro struggled to defend in court.
- The trial heard testimony from 45 witnesses: neighbours, relatives, PJ inspectors involved in the investigation, forensic experts.
- Neighbours and acquaintances of Leonor and brother Joćo were called by the prosecution to assess the personality of the accused.
- But arguidos refused to testify and remained silent throughout the trial.
- The trial heard that marks of blood were found both inside and outside the house by someone of Joana's height. These traces of blood could not be forensically attributed to the girl - because they were contaminated by oil and bleach which the prosecution alleged had been used to clean the house after the crime.
- Trace of blood both animal and human were found in the family freezer. The prosecution claimed that the defendants hid the body there before disposing of it.
- Joana's stepfather, Leandro Silva, confirmed to the court that a saw normally kept at the Cipriano home had disappeared after the crime.
- On the last day of the trial the voice of Joćo Cipriano was heard in court by virtue of a video recording made by the Judicial Police during investigations. In brutal detail he confessed to killing Joana and of disposing of her body. The defence objected claiming that Joćo's words had no value since the defendants chose not to testify at trial. The judge overruled the objection.
- At the conclusion of the evidence the prosecutor appealed to the pair, "If you have any little humanity left, tell us where the body is?"
- Leonor and Joćo Cipriano were convicted at Portimćo Court on 11 November 2005 following a 20-hour trial spread over three days.
- Leonor was sentenced to 20 yrs and 4 months while Joćo was sentenced to 19 yrs and 2 months.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 17, 2013, 05:26:12 PM
As there are so many stories going around I have decided to compile a list of facts relating to all court appearances. Here for starters is some information you might like to see on the original trial.
The Trial of Leonor and Joćo Cipriano.
- Joana disappeared on the night of 12 September 2004.
- The trial was heard by three judges chaired by Judge Alda Casimiro and included four jurors (three women and one man) chosen from the electoral roll in Portimćo.
- Leonor and her brother, Joćo Cipriano, uncle of the eight-year-old girl, were accused of murder, desecration of a corpse and concealment.
- Prosecuting attorney, José Pinheiro, originally asked for a sentence of 24 years for both defendants.
- Investigations conducted by the Judicial Police of Faro coordinated by Gonēalo Amaral did not reach any clear proof against Leonor and Joćo Cipriano - just a theory, a story that the prosecutor José Pinheiro struggled to defend in court.
- The trial heard testimony from 45 witnesses: neighbours, relatives, PJ inspectors involved in the investigation, forensic experts.
- Neighbours and acquaintances of Leonor and brother Joćo were called by the prosecution to assess the personality of the accused.
- But arguidos refused to testify and remained silent throughout the trial.
- The trial heard that marks of blood were found both inside and outside the house by someone of Joana's height. These traces of blood could not be forensically attributed to the girl - because they were contaminated by oil and bleach which the prosecution alleged had been used to clean the house after the crime.
- Trace of blood both animal and human were found in the family freezer. The prosecution claimed that the defendants hid the body there before disposing of it.
- Joana's stepfather, Leandro Silva, confirmed to the court that a saw normally kept at the Cipriano home had disappeared after the crime.
- On the last day of the trial the voice of Joćo Cipriano was heard in court by virtue of a video recording made by the Judicial Police during investigations. In brutal detail he confessed to killing Joana and of disposing of her body. The defence objected claiming that Joćo's words had no value since the defendants chose not to testify at trial. The judge overruled the objection.
- At the conclusion of the evidence the prosecutor appealed to the pair, "If you have any little humanity left, tell us where the body is?"
- Leonor and Joćo Cipriano were convicted at Portimćo Court on 11 November 2005 following a 20-hour trial spread over three days.
- Leonor was sentenced to 20 yrs and 4 months while Joćo was sentenced to 19 yrs and 2 months.
John, some bits seem to be correct, others aren't. I'll try to work through it.
In the meantime, this doesn't seem to be a neutral way of phrasing the situation:
- But arguidos refused to testify and remained silent throughout the trial.
Why not just say that the defendants didn't take the stand during the trial?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 17, 2013, 06:39:13 PM
John, some bits seem to be correct, others aren't. I'll try to work through it. In the meantime, this doesn't seem to be a neutral way of phrasing the situation:
- But arguidos refused to testify and remained silent throughout the trial.
Why not just say that the defendants didn't take the stand during the trial?
So what was the trial ruling in 2006? I get more and more confused with this case, maybe I should give up, but I believe that Leonor is innocent of murder, but guilty of trying to sell her daughter to adoptive parents as her brother had told her. She deserves a punishment . But not this harsh! Was she a bit backward or simple I wonder
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 17, 2013, 08:09:41 PM
As there are so many stories going around I have decided to compile a list of facts relating to all court appearances. Here for starters is some information you might like to see on the original trial.
The Trial of Leonor and Joćo Cipriano.
- Joana disappeared on the night of 12 September 2004.
- The trial was heard by three judges chaired by Judge Alda Casimiro and included four jurors (three women and one man) chosen from the electoral roll in Portimćo.
- Leonor and her brother, Joćo Cipriano, uncle of the eight-year-old girl, were accused of murder, desecration of a corpse and concealment.
- Prosecuting attorney, José Pinheiro, originally asked for a sentence of 24 years for both defendants.
- Investigations conducted by the Judicial Police of Faro coordinated by Gonēalo Amaral did not reach any clear proof against Leonor and Joćo Cipriano - just a theory, a story that the prosecutor José Pinheiro struggled to defend in court.
- The trial heard testimony from 45 witnesses: neighbours, relatives, PJ inspectors involved in the investigation, forensic experts.
- Neighbours and acquaintances of Leonor and brother Joćo were called by the prosecution to assess the personality of the accused.
- But arguidos refused to testify and remained silent throughout the trial.
- The trial heard that marks of blood were found both inside and outside the house by someone of Joana's height. These traces of blood could not be forensically attributed to the girl - because they were contaminated by oil and bleach which the prosecution alleged had been used to clean the house after the crime.
- Trace of blood both animal and human were found in the family freezer. The prosecution claimed that the defendants hid the body there before disposing of it.
- Joana's stepfather, Leandro Silva, confirmed to the court that a saw normally kept at the Cipriano home had disappeared after the crime.
- On the last day of the trial the voice of Joćo Cipriano was heard in court by virtue of a video recording made by the Judicial Police during investigations. In brutal detail he confessed to killing Joana and of disposing of her body. The defence objected claiming that Joćo's words had no value since the defendants chose not to testify at trial. The judge overruled the objection.
- At the conclusion of the evidence the prosecutor appealed to the pair, "If you have any little humanity left, tell us where the body is?"
- Leonor and Joćo Cipriano were convicted at Portimćo Court on 11 November 2005 following a 20-hour trial spread over three days.
- Leonor was sentenced to 20 yrs and 4 months while Joćo was sentenced to 19 yrs and 2 months.
This is the most important fact
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 17, 2013, 09:43:17 PM
According to Joana Morias
Transcript/Translation of Leonor Cipriano's words:
Leonor Cipriano: It's very sad. My son misses his sister [Joana] very much, and
Q: Do you have any idea of where your daughter might be at the moment? LC: I can imagine anything... I don't know if she's alive or if she isn't... if she is well... I don't know, I don't have an explanation for my daugher having... I don't know, I don't know.
Poor woman. She doesn't look a monster on this, does she? Gentle with, I presume, her daughter Laura.
At the time Joana vanished, Leonor had two younger children Laura and Ruben. One was about three y.o. and the other about one y.o. give, or take, a few months
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 17, 2013, 09:48:42 PM
Transcript/Translation of Leonor Cipriano's words:
Leonor Cipriano: It's very sad. My son misses his sister [Joana] very much, and
Q: Do you have any idea of where your daughter might be at the moment? LC: I can imagine anything... I don't know if she's alive or if she isn't... if she is well... I don't know, I don't have an explanation for my daugher having... I don't know, I don't know.
Poor woman. She doesn't look a monster on this, does she? Gentle with, I presume, her daughter Laura.
At the time Joana vanished, Leonor had two younger children Laura and Ruben. One was about three y.o. and the other about one y.o. give, or take, a few months
earlier on a poster called Montclair said that in his 37 years living in Portugal he has never heard of a successful appeal...what a disgrace
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 17, 2013, 09:57:36 PM
Transcript/Translation of Leonor Cipriano's words:
Leonor Cipriano: It's very sad. My son misses his sister [Joana] very much, and
Q: Do you have any idea of where your daughter might be at the moment? LC: I can imagine anything... I don't know if she's alive or if she isn't... if she is well... I don't know, I don't have an explanation for my daugher having... I don't know, I don't know.
Poor woman. She doesn't look a monster on this, does she? Gentle with, I presume, her daughter Laura.
At the time Joana vanished, Leonor had two younger children Laura and Ruben. One was about three y.o. and the other about one y.o. give, or take, a few months
What do monsters look like sadie ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 17, 2013, 10:05:16 PM
poor woman...victim of a corrupt and disgraced policeman...Portugal should hang its head in shame..in most countries men beating up a women is reviled
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 17, 2013, 10:09:48 PM
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/eldest-sister-didnt-know-that-joana.html Leonor under age, working in the fields became pregnant to Vitor Pereira, a steel worker. This, her first child , a daughter, aged now about 23 is called Dina. I think that Leonor was only about 13 or 14 when she was impregnated. If I am incorrect please correct me.
Vitor married Leonor. They are still officially married.
When Dina was about 11 months, Leonor still only extremely young, left with Dina. After a while the Husband and Mother -in- Law went to get Leonor and Joana back
Quote
But she tells that one day, she left the house carrying the little girl who was then 11 months old, and left behind a piece of paper that read I went to pick up the identity card at my mothers place.
Due to the fact that Leonor wouldnt return, and upon request from Vitor, Maria do Carmo went to fetch her in Alcantarilha. She managed to retrieve her granddaughter but not Leonor, who simply said to her If she goes with you, shell be fine.
How sad. Poor Leonor with a man that she quite obviously didn't like, and only a youngish teenager, being torn apart like that. She took Dina with her and obviously wanted her because of this.
For some reason that we do not know, Leonor did not want to return to Vitor ... poor kid
Mother -in-Law says she was a giood mother.
From Leonor, Maria do Carmo holds memories that include having been a good mother while she lived here.
The thing that I notice is that despite all the feelings they must have had against Leonor, the Mother-in Law Maria do Carmo, still says
Quote
From Leonor, Maria do Carmo holds memories that include having been a good mother while she lived here.
After that, she only saw her again once, one month later.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 17, 2013, 10:11:43 PM
Transcript/Translation of Leonor Cipriano's words:
Leonor Cipriano: It's very sad. My son misses his sister [Joana] very much, and
Q: Do you have any idea of where your daughter might be at the moment? LC: I can imagine anything... I don't know if she's alive or if she isn't... if she is well... I don't know, I don't have an explanation for my daugher having... I don't know, I don't know.
Poor woman. She doesn't look a monster on this, does she? Gentle with, I presume, her daughter Laura.
At the time Joana vanished, Leonor had two younger children Laura and Ruben. One was about three y.o. and the other about one y.o. give, or take, a few months
The statements from people who knew her said she was not capable of violence, never smacked her children and Joane always spoke well of her mother. As for doing all the housework Joane played most days with the daughter of the café owner. Her mother believed leonors innocence, but condemned her violent drug addict son
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 17, 2013, 10:12:47 PM
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/eldest-sister-didnt-know-that-joana.html Leonor under age, working in the fields became pregnant to Vitor Pereira, a steel worker. This, her first child , a daughter, aged now about 23 is called Dina. I think that Leonor was only about 13 or 14 when she was impregnated. If I am incorrect please correct me.
Vitor married Leonor. They are still officially married.
When Dina was about 11 months, Leonor still only extremely young, left with Dina. After a while the Husband and Mother -in- Law went to get Leonor and Joana back
How sad. Poor Leonor with a man that she quite obviously didn't like, and only a youngish teenager, being torn apart like that. She took Dina with her and obviously wanted her because of this.
For some reason that we do not know, Leonor did not want to return to Vitor ... poor kid
Mother -in-Law says she was a giood mother.
From Leonor, Maria do Carmo holds memories that include having been a good mother while she lived here.
The thing that I notice is that despite all the feelings they must have had against Leonor, the Mother-in Law Maria do Carmo, still says
After that, she only saw her again once, one month later.
I read somewhere that she got married at 18......Yes the court case
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 17, 2013, 10:25:41 PM
When did leonor start working as a prostitute? Do you know? Apparently her own mother forced her into it..... do you know WHy this excellent mother farmed most of her kids out to their dads? Like kittens.....months after she had them? and never kept in touch...... lovely mum.......exemplary
Who says she was a prostitute? Amaral ? The man who is a proven liar?
Bet she didn't get drunk in charge of her children, like Amaral and some others do/did.
We know that she was underage when Vitor impregnated her. Her first child was in a married situation, but it didn't work. Vitor and his Mum came to take Dina away and rear her, which makes a lot of sense, cos Leonor neither had the maturity, or the money to do it. From what I have read, seems that seperated, or unmarried women, dont get anything from the State as happens here in the UK. Probably in Ireland too, Red?
You cant raise a child on no money ... so better that the Father and his Mum did it.
The last two children, Laura and Ruben, were the fruit of a stable 6 year relationship.
Joana was not from a one night stand. She the fruit of a proper relationship, altho it didn't last. Altho her Mum couldn't really afford to look after her, Joana grew up for the first eight years of her life with Leonor and later Leandro. From photos she clearlly loved them both, and they loved her. Such a vibrant happy little girl doesn't come about without loads of love and attention from her Mum and Dad.
That leaves two other children who I haven't researched ... Yet ! But Leonor was pretty young when she had them ... and we dont know the circumastances, as to why the paternal family took them
What you are forgetting Red, is that each child was either
1) given away by Leonor; maybe she couldn't afford them; no state help
OR,
2) The paternal part of the relationship took the child from her
We just dont know whether it was
i) a flippant give away, ii) a sensible arrangement cos Leonor had no money , or iii) an enforcement type arrangement by the fathers family .. or maybe even the State/ church?
Three times it has come thru to me That Leonor was a really good mother. 1) From her Mother-in-law, with her first born Dina.. and 2) from her partner Leandro with his two kids and also Joana. 3) Her mother also commented on her love for Joana as did others in the community.
So comments about how good she was for 4 of the kids. We dont know enough yet about the other two
The photographs prove it all. Must post some more, but not tonight. Am tired
G'night Red.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2013, 07:34:35 AM
Who says she was a prostitute? Amaral ? The man who is a proven liar?
Bet she didn't get drunk in charge of her children, like Amaral and some others do/did.
We know that she was underage when Vitor impregnated her. Her first child was in a married situation, but it didn't work. Vitor and his Mum came to take Dina away and rear her, which makes a lot of sense, cos Leonor neither had the maturity, or the money to do it. From what I have read, seems that seperated, or unmarried women, dont get anything from the State as happens here in the UK. Probably in Ireland too, Red?
You cant raise a child on no money ... so better that the Father and his Mum did it.
The last two children, Laura and Ruben, were the fruit of a stable 6 year relationship.
Joana was not from a one night stand. She the fruit of a proper relationship, altho it didn't last. Altho her Mum couldn't really afford to look after her, Joana grew up for the first eight years of her life with Leonor and later Leandro. From photos she clearlly loved them both, and they loved her. Such a vibrant happy little girl doesn't come about without loads of love and attention from her Mum and Dad.
That leaves two other children who I haven't researched ... Yet ! But Leonor was pretty young when she had them ... and we dont know the circumastances, as to why the paternal family took them
What you are forgetting Red, is that each child was either
1) given away by Leonor; maybe she couldn't afford them; no state help
OR,
2) The paternal part of the relationship took the child from her
We just dont know whether it was
i) a flippant give away, ii) a sensible arrangement cos Leonor had no money , or iii) an enforcement type arrangement by the fathers family .. or maybe even the State/ church?
Three times it has come thru to me That Leonor was a really good mother. 1) From her Mother-in-law, with her first born Dina.. and 2) from her partner Leandro with his two kids and also Joana. 3) Her mother also commented on her love for Joana as did others in the community.
So comments about how good she was for 4 of the kids. We dont know enough yet about the other two
The photographs prove it all. Must post some more, but not tonight. Am tired
G'night Red.
'Photographs prove it all'
What arrant nonsense.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 18, 2013, 08:31:32 AM
Sadie's posts are at least researched and contain information pertaining to the case. Your posts on the other hand add nothing to the debate and IMO are a clear attempt to disrupt and deflect.
You can always prove me wrong by actually joining in with the debate instead of disrupting the thread with sneering one line comments and goading, unsubstantiated accusations about other posters.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2013, 08:43:02 AM
Sadie's posts are at least researched and contain information pertaining to the case. Your posts on the other hand add nothing to the debate and IMO are a clear attempt to disrupt and deflect.
You can always prove me wrong by actually joining in with the debate instead of disrupting the thread with sneering one line comments and goading, unsubstantiated accusations about other posters.
I see, so if other posters such as sadie sneer at me, it's OK ?
From sadie, in reference to what monsters look like, 'Can you send a photo, please Stephen? 8(0(* '
As to sadie's research that has been shown to be in error on repeated occasions, or haven't you noticed ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 18, 2013, 12:04:14 PM
I see, so if other posters such as sadie sneer at me, it's OK ?
From sadie, in reference to what monsters look like, 'Can you send a photo, please Stephen? 8(0(* '
As to sadie's research that has been shown to be in error on repeated occasions, or haven't you noticed ?
Isnt this the same person who thinks little Joana Cipriano is living in la la land with a nice family somewhere, and how dare we even say her mother had anything to do with her disappearance, I mean how dare you.
There is no way her mother harmed her, Amaral is a monster, a lier, a creep you cant trust a word he says.
Leonor Cipriano is a SAINT a wonderful mother who would never have harmed here beautiful Joana, no way.
She might have SOLD her but would never have killed her. No not at all.
8-)(--) ?>)()< 8(0(* 8(>((
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2013, 12:30:23 PM
Isnt this the same person who thinks little Joana Cipriano is living in la la land with a nice family somewhere, and how dare we even say her mother had anything to do with her disappearance, I mean how dare you.
There is no way her mother harmed her, Amaral is a monster, a lier, a creep you cant trust a word he says.
Leonor Cipriano is a SAINT a wonderful mother who would never have harmed here beautiful Joana, no way.
She might have SOLD her but would never have killed her. No not at all.
8-)(--) ?>)()< 8(0(* 8(>((
I know.
How dare I doubt Saint Cipriano. 8(>((
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 18, 2013, 12:42:31 PM
May I ask what evidence there is that Leonor was a prostitute? And even if she had been, what evidence is there that she had been one in the time period surrounding Joana's disappearance?
if police officers even found the colour of her clothing suspicious on TV appealing for her daughter, wouldn't they have investigated into a potential prostitution connection?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 18, 2013, 01:26:22 PM
May I ask what evidence there is that Leonor was a prostitute? And even if she had been, what evidence is there that she had been one in the time period surrounding Joana's disappearance?
if police officers even found the colour of her clothing suspicious on TV appealing for her daughter, wouldn't they have investigated into a potential prostitution connection?
Ahh yes - Apparently wearing a black blouse with red trousers is a clear indication to the PJ's finest - that you have probably murdered your daughter, cut up her body and fed it to the pigs. The mind boggles.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 18, 2013, 02:06:25 PM
It takes two to produce a child and in this case the mother was left with the children and no way to support them.................What does that make the fathers, who abandoned/rejected them like unwanted puppies. The responsibility for them were theirs also............So does that mean they are potential murderers ? The children in her care were well cared for...............No evidence to the contrary and if there was, does It make a murderer? She had 6 children to 5 fathers...........................Do we see in the UK as not unusual. and does it make a murderer? She was much lower in intelligence than normal............................Does this make a murderer? She was accused of incest which was unproved.............but would this have made her a murderer if it was proved? She married young as did I but I am not a murderer........So this does not make a murderer? The child helped in the house......................Do not all 8 year olds have their own job responsibilities?
Show me some evidence that she committed a murder. The only evidence is that they thought the brother could not have dealt with the body on his own(that he chopped up allegedly) and a neighbour saw the child going towards home. Also the shoes which they must have got wrong otherwise she/they wouldn't have admitted they were all there if they were trying to conceal a murder
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 18, 2013, 02:23:51 PM
It takes two to produce a child and in this case the mother was left with the children and no way to support them.................What does that make the fathers, who abandoned/rejected them like unwanted puppies. The responsibility for them were theirs also............So does that mean they are potential murderers ? The children in her care were well cared for...............No evidence to the contrary and if there was, does It make a murderer? She had 6 children to 5 fathers...........................Do we see in the UK as not unusual. and does it make a murderer? She was much lower in intelligence than normal............................Does this make a murderer? She was accused of incest which was unproved.............but would this have made her a murderer if it was proved? She married young as did I but I am not a murderer........So this does not make a murderer? The child helped in the house......................Do not all 8 year olds have their own job responsibilities?
Show me some evidence that she committed a murder. The only evidence is that they thought the brother could not have dealt with the body on his own(that he chopped up allegedly) and a neighbour saw the child going towards home. Also the shoes which they must have got wrong otherwise she/they wouldn't have admitted they were all there if they were trying to conceal a murder
SHE never MURDERED anyone.
Joana Cipriano decided to beat herself to death being bored one day and as this made the room untidy, her uncle decided to take her body away and dispose of it.
Her mother being a very clean and tidy person and of saintly virtue scrubbed the blood off the floors and walls with bleach.
Naughty PJ with no evidence whatsoever, apart from a confession or two that the child had been killed by their hands arrested them and took them to the big prison.
Evidence was collected and a jury was sworn in and the jury found them guilty.
Now they live in the prison crying because they never did harm that child.
Trying to get out of prison the saintly Cipriano after being a bit knocked about by fellow prisoners decided AFTER talking to her lawyer and confessing several days previously that she would accuse the naughty portugese police of torture although silly women she should have gone to SPECSAVERS, as when a line up was organised she couldnt recognise any of the men who so brutally tortured her.
Sadly it didnt work oh dear not good for her then, and because it was proven she had lied and made mischief she had another 7 months added onto her sentence in May of this year.
So there she sits in her prison cell a lonely women a saintly women, a women who never harmed her child.
The INJUSTICE of it astounds me. We should start a petition to free her.
Sadly its all too late for little Joana whos little body was probably either fed to the pigs cos they were hungry, or crushed in the back of a car and made into scrap metal.
The above scenario is pure imagination of course, but is what we are led to believe happened.
The child has had no justice non whatsover. She died a horrible death and thrown away like garbage.
Where are her rights even in death....
She isnt coming home soon that little girl.
She is with god and the angels.
And the people who were responsible for her being there are serving their sentences....Amen.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 18, 2013, 02:27:17 PM
According the lady in the café/shop:
A testemunha NN, proprietįria da "Pastelaria ...", declarou que no dia 12 de Setembro a CC apareceu na pastelaria, pelas 8h 20m / 8 h 30m, a comprar um pacote de leite e duas latas de atum. A CC pagou com uma nota de 10 , recebeu o troco e foi embora.
Her statement wasn't translated. The shop lady's timing could be wrong, but if it's reasonably accurate, then there wasn't necessarily a large time gap between when she went off on the errand and should have come back home.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 18, 2013, 02:33:45 PM
Joana Cipriano decided to beat herself to death being bored one day and as this made the room untidy, her uncle decided to take her body away and dispose of it.
Her mother being a very clean and tidy person and of saintly virtue scrubbed the blood off the floors and walls with bleach.
Naughty PJ with no evidence whatsoever, apart from a confession or two that the child had been killed by their hands arrested them and took them to the big prison.
Evidence was collected and a jury was sworn in and the jury found them guilty.
Now they live in the prison crying because they never did harm that child.
Trying to get out of prison the saintly Cipriano after being a bit knocked about by fellow prisoners decided AFTER talking to her lawyer and confessing several days previously that she would accuse the naughty portugese police of torture although silly women she should have gone to SPECSAVERS, as when a line up was organised she couldnt recognise any of the men who so brutally tortured her.
Sadly it didnt work oh dear not good for her then, and because it was proven she had lied and made mischief she had another 7 months added onto her sentence in May of this year.
So there she sits in her prison cell a lonely women a saintly women, a women who never harmed her child.
The INJUSTICE of it astounds me. We should start a petition to free her.
Sadly its all too late for little Joana whos little body was probably either fed to the pigs cos they were hungry, or crushed in the back of a car and made into scrap metal.
The above scenario is pure imagination of course, but is what we are led to believe happened.
The child has had no justice non whatsover. She died a horrible death and thrown away like garbage.
Where are her rights even in death....
She isnt coming home soon that little girl.
She is with god and the angels.
And the people who were responsible for her being there are serving their sentences....Amen.
You might be right, but I doubt that children who have been rescued would agree that they should be assumed to be dead without proof.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 18, 2013, 02:42:54 PM
From the Internet.
With the help of Paulo Reis from 'Gazeta Digital', let us have a look at a few relevant facts about the Leonor Cipriano case, and Amaral's role in solving it. Here's his article from September 2007, reproduced in full:
QUOTE
The truth about Leonor Cipriano (mother of "another missing girl" ) "beaten" and "tortured" by Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral
Theres a 'killer' on the road, and his name is "Amaral Lector". This is what most readers of British Media should think, after what was published by tabloids like Daily Express and Daily Mail, about Portuguese CID Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral, the man in charge of the investigation of Madeleine disappearance.
That 'killer', Gonēalo Amaral, has tortured a poor mother of 'another missing girl', (a girl that vanished like Madeleine McCann, right?) as Daily Express wrote. Several emails and comments posted at my page reflected the conclusion their authors arrived, after being so accurately and precisely informed by British journalist about what happened to Joana, an eight years old girl, daughter of Leonor Cipriano, the poor mother tortured by 'Amaral Lector'.
What most British journalists forget to mention - never allow truth or reality to kill a good story, of course - was a couple of 'small' details that, if mentioned, would transform those good headlines into nothing. So, lets take a look at some facts about that 'another missing girl':
1 Joana Cipriano vanished from a small place 6 milers aeway from the outskirts of Portimćo. Last time somebody saw her, she was on her way to a local groceries shop;
2 - Her mother, Leonor Cipriano, only reported to Police her daughter has disappeared two days after;
3 After a long and difficult investigation, headed by Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral, Leonor Cipriano and her brother were accused of murdering the eight years old child;
4 The body of Joana Cipriano was never found, but samples of her blood were found in her mother refrigerator;
5 Her mother justified those samples of blood admitting she had beaten Joana, for some reason, she was hurt and she blooded from her nose;
6 Leonor Cipriano and her brother, who had a incestuous relationship, were sentenced to 16 years in jail, for the murder of her daughter and neice;
7 Before the trial, Leonor Cipriano accused five CID officers of beating her, trying to extract a confession. She named the five CID officers, and included Chief-Inspector Gonēalo ('Amaral Lector', according to British tabloids);
8 The Public Prosecutors Office opened a criminal investigation and ordered a police line-up, with the CID officers named and accused by Leonor Cipriano of beating her;
9 The line-up took place with Leonor Cipriano behind a two-way mirror and she couldnt recognize any of the aggressors;
10 The Public Prosecutors Office magistrate that was in charge of the criminal investigation decided to accuse the five CID officers, but didnt mentiond, in the accusation sent to the Court, that Leonor Cipriano couldnt identify any of the aggressors, in the police line-up;
11 Leonor Cipriano never confessed the murder of her own daughter. Her brother, in a letter written from jail, accused Leonor Cipriano of selling her daughter;
12 Police is convinced (and the jurors at the trial found enough evidence to pass a verdict of guilty) that Leonor Cipriano and her brother were found, by Joana, having sexual relations, when she came home, back from the groceries shop. As Leonor Cipriano had a lover, at the time, they were afraid she would tell him what she saw;
13 So, they beat her, in order to frighten her and keep her mouth shut up;
14 Perhaps accidentally, they beat her so violently that they killed her. So, they decided to get rid of he body and cut it in pieces, keeping some of them in the freezer, while they gave the other pieces to be eaten by pigs (this is what police believes is the strongest possibility, because there was no other trace of Joana Cipriano, apart from the blood samples in her mother's freezer);
15 The body of Joana Cipriano was never found.
And so, here we have a terrible story of a dysfunctional family, a child murdered and a very difficult police investigation. The only thing in my humble opinion - that has some similarity with Madeleine McCann disappearance is the fact that the person in charge of Madeleines case is the same that successfully headed Joana Cipriano investigation: CID Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral.
And success, in Joanas case, is clear: the murderers were found, accused, went to court, they were sentenced, they appealed the sentence and the Portuguese Supreme Court reduced them to 16 years of jail to both of them the mother, Leonor Cipriano and her brother, for the murder of her daughter and neice, eight year old Joana Cipriano.
If many 'consumers' of the British media have another idea, thats because most British journalists covering Madeleine McCann abduction strongly believe that truth never should be allowed to 'kill' a good story. Even if it means destroying the reputation of an experienced CID Chief-Inspector.
"And whats the problem?" I imagine my British colleagues asking themselves this question, with a pint of Guinness in the hand, enjoying the sunshine at Praia da Luz. "The guy isnt even British, hes just a Portuguese..."
INQUOTE
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 18, 2013, 02:46:48 PM
Sadly its all too late for little Joana whos little body was probably either fed to the pigs cos they were hungry, or crushed in the back of a car and made into scrap metal.
Where did you find these allegations?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 18, 2013, 02:48:01 PM
You might be right, but I doubt that children who have been rescued would agree that they should be assumed to be dead without proof.
She sadly isnt coming home. Her mother changed her statement several times.
It reminds me years ago on another forum sparring with Kaz and Co over this case. Things dont change.
Leonor confesses
Post pm on Fri 16 Jan 2009, 8:52 pm
01 April 2008 22:36
Leonor Cipriano changes her statement and says that her daughter was killed by the uncle Leonor Cipriano changed her testimony concerning the disappearance of her daughter, in Portimćo on the 12th of September 2004. In a witness statement that she signed at the prison of Odemira yesterday, Leonor Cipriano accuses her brother, Joćo Manuel Domingos Cipriano, of being the author of the childs death.
Beforehand, they intended to simulate an abduction and to send the child to Spain, in exchange for money. This process did not work according to plan and ended up being transformed into a homicide that was carried out by the childs uncle.
The Public Ministry accuses the childs mother and uncle of being the authors of Joanas death and of entertaining an incestuous relationship and that Joanas body, which remains missing, was dismembered.
Leonor Ciprianos lawyer will make a statement this afternoon, after the testimony, which is eight pages long, is delivered at the Court of Faro.
This revelation is made on the day of the trial of alleged aggressions against Leonor Cipriano by Polķcia Judiciįria inspectors.
Joanas mother, Leonor Cipriano, and her uncle, Joćo Cipriano, have been condemned by the Supreme Court of Justice to 16 years in prison each, over the crimes of homicide and concealment of the childs cadaver.
source: Lusa, 16.01.2009
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 18, 2013, 02:51:18 PM
Thats enough for today, as I get sick to my stomach reading pro posts about this women and how badly she was treated.
There is a lot more for another day. I kept all my links and stuff years ago when it happened.
Ciao for now.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 18, 2013, 02:51:39 PM
With the help of Paulo Reis from 'Gazeta Digital', let us have a look at a few relevant facts about the Leonor Cipriano case, and Amaral's role in solving it. Here's his article from September 2007, reproduced in full:
QUOTE
The truth about Leonor Cipriano (mother of "another missing girl" ) "beaten" and "tortured" by Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral
Theres a 'killer' on the road, and his name is "Amaral Lector". This is what most readers of British Media should think, after what was published by tabloids like Daily Express and Daily Mail, about Portuguese CID Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral, the man in charge of the investigation of Madeleine disappearance.
That 'killer', Gonēalo Amaral, has tortured a poor mother of 'another missing girl', (a girl that vanished like Madeleine McCann, right?) as Daily Express wrote. Several emails and comments posted at my page reflected the conclusion their authors arrived, after being so accurately and precisely informed by British journalist about what happened to Joana, an eight years old girl, daughter of Leonor Cipriano, the poor mother tortured by 'Amaral Lector'.
What most British journalists forget to mention - never allow truth or reality to kill a good story, of course - was a couple of 'small' details that, if mentioned, would transform those good headlines into nothing. So, lets take a look at some facts about that 'another missing girl':
1 Joana Cipriano vanished from a small place 6 milers aeway from the outskirts of Portimćo. Last time somebody saw her, she was on her way to a local groceries shop;
2 - Her mother, Leonor Cipriano, only reported to Police her daughter has disappeared two days after;
3 After a long and difficult investigation, headed by Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral, Leonor Cipriano and her brother were accused of murdering the eight years old child;
4 The body of Joana Cipriano was never found, but samples of her blood were found in her mother refrigerator;
5 Her mother justified those samples of blood admitting she had beaten Joana, for some reason, she was hurt and she blooded from her nose;
6 Leonor Cipriano and her brother, who had a incestuous relationship, were sentenced to 16 years in jail, for the murder of her daughter and neice;
7 Before the trial, Leonor Cipriano accused five CID officers of beating her, trying to extract a confession. She named the five CID officers, and included Chief-Inspector Gonēalo ('Amaral Lector', according to British tabloids);
8 The Public Prosecutors Office opened a criminal investigation and ordered a police line-up, with the CID officers named and accused by Leonor Cipriano of beating her;
9 The line-up took place with Leonor Cipriano behind a two-way mirror and she couldnt recognize any of the aggressors;
10 The Public Prosecutors Office magistrate that was in charge of the criminal investigation decided to accuse the five CID officers, but didnt mentiond, in the accusation sent to the Court, that Leonor Cipriano couldnt identify any of the aggressors, in the police line-up;
11 Leonor Cipriano never confessed the murder of her own daughter. Her brother, in a letter written from jail, accused Leonor Cipriano of selling her daughter;
12 Police is convinced (and the jurors at the trial found enough evidence to pass a verdict of guilty) that Leonor Cipriano and her brother were found, by Joana, having sexual relations, when she came home, back from the groceries shop. As Leonor Cipriano had a lover, at the time, they were afraid she would tell him what she saw;
13 So, they beat her, in order to frighten her and keep her mouth shut up;
14 Perhaps accidentally, they beat her so violently that they killed her. So, they decided to get rid of he body and cut it in pieces, keeping some of them in the freezer, while they gave the other pieces to be eaten by pigs (this is what police believes is the strongest possibility, because there was no other trace of Joana Cipriano, apart from the blood samples in her mother's freezer);
15 The body of Joana Cipriano was never found.
And so, here we have a terrible story of a dysfunctional family, a child murdered and a very difficult police investigation. The only thing in my humble opinion - that has some similarity with Madeleine McCann disappearance is the fact that the person in charge of Madeleines case is the same that successfully headed Joana Cipriano investigation: CID Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral.
And success, in Joanas case, is clear: the murderers were found, accused, went to court, they were sentenced, they appealed the sentence and the Portuguese Supreme Court reduced them to 16 years of jail to both of them the mother, Leonor Cipriano and her brother, for the murder of her daughter and neice, eight year old Joana Cipriano.
If many 'consumers' of the British media have another idea, thats because most British journalists covering Madeleine McCann abduction strongly believe that truth never should be allowed to 'kill' a good story. Even if it means destroying the reputation of an experienced CID Chief-Inspector.
"And whats the problem?" I imagine my British colleagues asking themselves this question, with a pint of Guinness in the hand, enjoying the sunshine at Praia da Luz. "The guy isnt even British, hes just a Portuguese..."
INQUOTE
Some of that doesn't appear to be accurate. John had stated the same a week or to ago and has since deleted it.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 18, 2013, 02:57:43 PM
Thats enough for today, as I get sick to my stomach reading pro posts about this women and how badly she was treated.
There is a lot more for another day. I kept all my links and stuff years ago when it happened.
Ciao for now.
I'm perfectly aware that some families claim abduction to cover up abuse. And they make me feel ill as well.
In this case, I can't find anything coherent in terms of the prosecution's arguments that would substantiate that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 18, 2013, 03:28:44 PM
A lot of the important facts which are being posted simply are not true. What seems to have happened to me is that Amarel decided who was guilty ...made up his thesis and then set about building a case based on little or no evidence..strangely this is exactly what he tried to do in the McCannn case. Leonor as tortured by the pj..proved... I believe both Joao and Leandro were also beaten and threatened. Leandro was told what to say with threat that he would be accused and sent to jail if he did not comply..Leandros testimony was vital to the prosecution as the rest of the evidence was basically non existent...no dna blood match despite the pj claiming the blood was Joannas
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 18, 2013, 03:34:33 PM
It is indeed possible that they have been rightfully condemned for having battered her to death, chopped up her body and fed it to pigs or whatever. I find that doubtful in the absence of any probative evidence whatsoever.
There are no doubt victims of abuse whose abusers have escaped conviction. There are no doubt also people who have been convicted who were not the perps.
My question is: what happened to this child?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 18, 2013, 03:45:11 PM
With the help of Paulo Reis from 'Gazeta Digital', let us have a look at a few relevant facts about the Leonor Cipriano case, and Amaral's role in solving it. Here's his article from September 2007, reproduced in full:
QUOTE
The truth about Leonor Cipriano (mother of "another missing girl" ) "beaten" and "tortured" by Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral
Theres a 'killer' on the road, and his name is "Amaral Lector". This is what most readers of British Media should think, after what was published by tabloids like Daily Express and Daily Mail, about Portuguese CID Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral, the man in charge of the investigation of Madeleine disappearance.
That 'killer', Gonēalo Amaral, has tortured a poor mother of 'another missing girl', (a girl that vanished like Madeleine McCann, right?) as Daily Express wrote. Several emails and comments posted at my page reflected the conclusion their authors arrived, after being so accurately and precisely informed by British journalist about what happened to Joana, an eight years old girl, daughter of Leonor Cipriano, the poor mother tortured by 'Amaral Lector'.
What most British journalists forget to mention - never allow truth or reality to kill a good story, of course - was a couple of 'small' details that, if mentioned, would transform those good headlines into nothing. So, lets take a look at some facts about that 'another missing girl':
1 Joana Cipriano vanished from a small place 6 milers aeway from the outskirts of Portimćo. Last time somebody saw her, she was on her way to a local groceries shop;
2 - Her mother, Leonor Cipriano, only reported to Police her daughter has disappeared two days after;
3 After a long and difficult investigation, headed by Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral, Leonor Cipriano and her brother were accused of murdering the eight years old child;
4 The body of Joana Cipriano was never found, but samples of her blood were found in her mother refrigerator;
5 Her mother justified those samples of blood admitting she had beaten Joana, for some reason, she was hurt and she blooded from her nose;
6 Leonor Cipriano and her brother, who had a incestuous relationship, were sentenced to 16 years in jail, for the murder of her daughter and neice;
7 Before the trial, Leonor Cipriano accused five CID officers of beating her, trying to extract a confession. She named the five CID officers, and included Chief-Inspector Gonēalo ('Amaral Lector', according to British tabloids);
8 The Public Prosecutors Office opened a criminal investigation and ordered a police line-up, with the CID officers named and accused by Leonor Cipriano of beating her;
9 The line-up took place with Leonor Cipriano behind a two-way mirror and she couldnt recognize any of the aggressors;
10 The Public Prosecutors Office magistrate that was in charge of the criminal investigation decided to accuse the five CID officers, but didnt mentiond, in the accusation sent to the Court, that Leonor Cipriano couldnt identify any of the aggressors, in the police line-up;
11 Leonor Cipriano never confessed the murder of her own daughter. Her brother, in a letter written from jail, accused Leonor Cipriano of selling her daughter;
12 Police is convinced (and the jurors at the trial found enough evidence to pass a verdict of guilty) that Leonor Cipriano and her brother were found, by Joana, having sexual relations, when she came home, back from the groceries shop. As Leonor Cipriano had a lover, at the time, they were afraid she would tell him what she saw;
13 So, they beat her, in order to frighten her and keep her mouth shut up;
14 Perhaps accidentally, they beat her so violently that they killed her. So, they decided to get rid of he body and cut it in pieces, keeping some of them in the freezer, while they gave the other pieces to be eaten by pigs (this is what police believes is the strongest possibility, because there was no other trace of Joana Cipriano, apart from the blood samples in her mother's freezer);
15 The body of Joana Cipriano was never found.
And so, here we have a terrible story of a dysfunctional family, a child murdered and a very difficult police investigation. The only thing in my humble opinion - that has some similarity with Madeleine McCann disappearance is the fact that the person in charge of Madeleines case is the same that successfully headed Joana Cipriano investigation: CID Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral.
And success, in Joanas case, is clear: the murderers were found, accused, went to court, they were sentenced, they appealed the sentence and the Portuguese Supreme Court reduced them to 16 years of jail to both of them the mother, Leonor Cipriano and her brother, for the murder of her daughter and neice, eight year old Joana Cipriano.
If many 'consumers' of the British media have another idea, thats because most British journalists covering Madeleine McCann abduction strongly believe that truth never should be allowed to 'kill' a good story. Even if it means destroying the reputation of an experienced CID Chief-Inspector.
"And whats the problem?" I imagine my British colleagues asking themselves this question, with a pint of Guinness in the hand, enjoying the sunshine at Praia da Luz. "The guy isnt even British, hes just a Portuguese..."
INQUOTE
I wonder what side he is on http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/happy-birthday-mr-goncalo-amaral.html
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 18, 2013, 03:52:10 PM
It is indeed possible that they have been rightfully condemned for having battered her to death, chopped up her body and fed it to pigs or whatever. I find that doubtful in the absence of any probative evidence whatsoever.
There are no doubt victims of abuse whose abusers have escaped conviction. There are no doubt also people who have been convicted who were not the perps.
My question is: what happened to this child?
Spot on Carana 8((()*/
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 18, 2013, 03:54:50 PM
No idea, but some "facts" don't appear to be true.
Including the first one: 1 Joana Cipriano vanished from a small place 6 milers aeway from the outskirts of Portimćo. Last time somebody saw her, she was on her way to a local groceries shop;
Nope, she'd been to the shop and was on her way home the last time she was seen.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 18, 2013, 04:08:54 PM
No idea, but some "facts" don't appear to be true.
Including the first one: 1 Joana Cipriano vanished from a small place 6 milers aeway from the outskirts of Portimćo. Last time somebody saw her, she was on her way to a local groceries shop;
Nope, she'd been to the shop and was on her way home the last time she was seen.
Yes Carana it was a neighbour by the window having a cigarette, but did not see her arrive at her door I believe . Like you, I am just trying to make sense of the case and ignore remarks that have nothing to do with the evidence, such as Hearsay, blogs and press The witness AA3, reported that on 12 September, by 8h 30m / 8h 40m, was at the window of his house, smoking, when he saw Joane, with a bag in hand, go up the stairs in the proximity of the market, toward the house. The witness said that in that place there was no movement, nor saw cars, nor heard any cry, although he stayed at the window for some time longer. SAID that stemmed the "Feast of Cockles", but occurred far from that location and by reason there was nobody there.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 18, 2013, 04:27:35 PM
Yes Carana it was a neighbour on his balcony having a cigarette, but he did not see her arrive at her door I believe . Like you, I am just trying to make sense of the case and ignore remarks that have nothing to do with the evidence, such as Hearsay, blogs and press
One of the most bizarre assertions in the SC document is that it was accepted as proven that she'd got home based on "the rules of common experience".
What on earth does that mean? Someone was on a balcony having a ciggie, saw her walking towards home and that is therefore proof that she did indeed get home... ??
What about kids abducted on their way home from a school bus?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 18, 2013, 06:12:36 PM
"crimes of homicide and concealment of the childs cadaver."
This seems to be a fairly popular crime on The Algarve. And it doesn't seem to matter what nationality you are.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 06:30:36 PM
"crimes of homicide and concealment of the childs cadaver."
This seems to be a fairly popular crime on The Algarve. And it doesn't seem to matter what nationality you are.
Only know of one, this case, hardly popular is it now?
ETa unless youcan furnish the board with a list of all the other many cases, where homicide and concealment of a body was the conclusion in any other chld/adult missing cases.......
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 06:46:33 PM
One of the most bizarre assertions in the SC document is that it was accepted as proven that she'd got home based on "the rules of common experience".
Surely that was not the only reason given that they thought that! That doesnt even make sense......I expect youre being selective and taking thngs out of context....here
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 18, 2013, 07:05:29 PM
Only know of one, this case, hardly popular is it now?
ETa unless youcan furnish the board with a list of all the other many cases, where homicide and concealment of a body was the conclusion in any other chld/adult missing cases.......
have you forgotten about the McCann case...almost an identical scenario....accidental killing...no body...body hidden in fridge..parents involved ..little or no evidence..
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 07:14:10 PM
have you forgotten about the McCann case...almost an identical scenario....accidental killing...no body...body hidden in fridge..parents involved ..little or no evidence..
no mention of homicide in the mccann case....not even accidental killing...no statement that a body was stored in a fridge......look forward to all the cases......that make it a popular thing in Portugal....
Mccann case has no similarity with Cipriano one however much you wish it to have.....but youcarry on making tenuous connections
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 18, 2013, 07:22:20 PM
no mention of homicide in the mccann case....not even accidental killing...no statement that a body was stored in a fridge......look forward to all the cases......that make it a popular thing in Portugal....
Mccann case has no similarity with Cipriano one however much you wish it to have.....but youcarry on making tenuous connections
Good God. Are you blind or deaf or what? No, don't bother to tell me.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 07:26:04 PM
Good God. Are you blind or deaf or what? No, don't bother to tell me.
You do wind yourself up so easily Eleanor.....take it easy, have some chamomile.....and then present the lots of cases in PT, you know, because its so popular as you stated, where the family of missing kids or adults have been accused of homocide.....only seen one ....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 18, 2013, 07:26:46 PM
no mention of homicide in the mccann case....not even accidental killing...no statement that a body was stored in a fridge......look forward to all the cases......that make it a popular thing in Portugal....
Mccann case has no similarity with Cipriano one however much you wish it to have.....but youcarry on making tenuous connections
As we know Red, the only real reason to discuss this case is to hammer Amaral, the focus of some of the mccann supporters hatred.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 07:32:47 PM
As we know Red, the only real reason to discuss this case is to hammer Amaral, the focus of some of the mccann supporters hatred.
Last bastion of desperation seems to me.....for some......what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket, is they tend to all get smashed.......awwww
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 18, 2013, 07:54:46 PM
Just keep on posting on The Cipriano Forum. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That's what it's all about, Folks.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 07:57:06 PM
Just keep on posting on The Cipriano Forum. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That's what it's all about, Folks.
I soooo wholeheartedly agree 8((()*/
Now, that list......of cases whch proves the Pj routinely accuse charge or convict family of homicide in missing cases, something which is very popular in your words in Portugal.....im the patient sort so catch you bit later with your evidence....otherwise retract your blanket made up statement....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 18, 2013, 08:06:29 PM
Now, that list......of cases whch proves the Pj routinely accuse charge or convict family of homicide in missing cases, something which is very popular in your words in Portugal.....im the patient sort so catch you bit later with your evidence....otherwise retract your blanket made up statement....
I didn't say "Very Popular." Read my post. Don't misquote me. This seems to be a failing of yours.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 08:14:12 PM
Just keep on posting on The Cipriano Forum. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That's what it's all about, Folks.
Right now I am not concentrating on McCanns, Portugal, or any other such alleged crime and I am only interested in Amaral- if his name is connected within the statements and evidence of this one case (Leonor Cipriano) So is this thread, not for those of us interested in the same?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 18, 2013, 08:23:10 PM
Right now I am not concentrating on McCanns, Portugal, or any other such alleged crime and I am only interested in Amaral- if his name is connected within the statements and evidence of this one case (Leonor Cipriano) So is this thread, not for those of us interested in the same?
It isn't possible to leave him out since he is up to his neck in both cases. But I am mainly concerned with what I see as a miscarriage of justice.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 08:43:03 PM
It isn't possible to leave him out since he is up to his neck in both cases. But I am mainly concerned with what I see as a miscarriage of justice.
And that just couldnt ever possibly be because he and his team were right , could it?
I mean one set were convicted of murder, all appeals quashed, the other lot were never cleared......hardly a damning inditement on the police work.......by the final authorities
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 18, 2013, 08:47:34 PM
And that just couldnt ever possibly be because he and his team were right , could it?
I mean one set were convicted of murder, all appeals quashed, the other lot were never cleared......hardly a damning inditement on the police work.......by the final authorities
according to Montclair who has lived in Portugal for 37 years, he has never heard of a successful appeal..so no surprise the appeal was unsuccesful
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 18, 2013, 08:51:02 PM
no mention of homicide in the mccann case....not even accidental killing...no statement that a body was stored in a fridge......look forward to all the cases......that make it a popular thing in Portugal....
Mccann case has no similarity with Cipriano one however much you wish it to have.....but youcarry on making tenuous connections
I have heard both accidental homicide and the fridge mentioned re the McCannns on this forum
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 08:52:14 PM
It isn't possible to leave him out since he is up to his neck in both cases. But I am mainly concerned with what I see as a miscarriage of justice.
Yes as I am also interested in any possible miscarriage of justice, but I think each case should be judged independently, since Amaral, apart from his book, is no longer attached to the investigation into the McCann case
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 08:53:21 PM
you can deny it as much as you want..everyone knows its true
you should try reading the files with a more discerning eye...the mccanns were never accused of homicide...... let alone accidental....that was related to a potential abductor......the only thing the investigative team came up with vis a vis the mccanns was an accident whilst they were absent........tavares sept 07 report iirc
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 18, 2013, 09:07:36 PM
With the help of Paulo Reis from 'Gazeta Digital', let us have a look at a few relevant facts about the Leonor Cipriano case, and Amaral's role in solving it. Here's his article from September 2007, reproduced in full:
QUOTE
The truth about Leonor Cipriano (mother of "another missing girl" ) "beaten" and "tortured" by Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral
Theres a 'killer' on the road, and his name is "Amaral Lector". This is what most readers of British Media should think, after what was published by tabloids like Daily Express and Daily Mail, about Portuguese CID Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral, the man in charge of the investigation of Madeleine disappearance.
That 'killer', Gonēalo Amaral, has tortured a poor mother of 'another missing girl', (a girl that vanished like Madeleine McCann, right?) as Daily Express wrote. Several emails and comments posted at my page reflected the conclusion their authors arrived, after being so accurately and precisely informed by British journalist about what happened to Joana, an eight years old girl, daughter of Leonor Cipriano, the poor mother tortured by 'Amaral Lector'.
What most British journalists forget to mention - never allow truth or reality to kill a good story, of course - was a couple of 'small' details that, if mentioned, would transform those good headlines into nothing. So, lets take a look at some facts about that 'another missing girl':
1 Joana Cipriano vanished from a small place 6 milers aeway from the outskirts of Portimćo. Last time somebody saw her, she was on her way to a local groceries shop;
2 - Her mother, Leonor Cipriano, only reported to Police her daughter has disappeared two days after;
3 After a long and difficult investigation, headed by Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral, Leonor Cipriano and her brother were accused of murdering the eight years old child;
4 The body of Joana Cipriano was never found, but samples of her blood were found in her mother refrigerator;
5 Her mother justified those samples of blood admitting she had beaten Joana, for some reason, she was hurt and she blooded from her nose;
6 Leonor Cipriano and her brother, who had a incestuous relationship, were sentenced to 16 years in jail, for the murder of her daughter and neice;
7 Before the trial, Leonor Cipriano accused five CID officers of beating her, trying to extract a confession. She named the five CID officers, and included Chief-Inspector Gonēalo ('Amaral Lector', according to British tabloids);
8 The Public Prosecutors Office opened a criminal investigation and ordered a police line-up, with the CID officers named and accused by Leonor Cipriano of beating her;
9 The line-up took place with Leonor Cipriano behind a two-way mirror and she couldnt recognize any of the aggressors;
10 The Public Prosecutors Office magistrate that was in charge of the criminal investigation decided to accuse the five CID officers, but didnt mentiond, in the accusation sent to the Court, that Leonor Cipriano couldnt identify any of the aggressors, in the police line-up;
11 Leonor Cipriano never confessed the murder of her own daughter. Her brother, in a letter written from jail, accused Leonor Cipriano of selling her daughter;
12 Police is convinced (and the jurors at the trial found enough evidence to pass a verdict of guilty) that Leonor Cipriano and her brother were found, by Joana, having sexual relations, when she came home, back from the groceries shop. As Leonor Cipriano had a lover, at the time, they were afraid she would tell him what she saw;
13 So, they beat her, in order to frighten her and keep her mouth shut up;
14 Perhaps accidentally, they beat her so violently that they killed her. So, they decided to get rid of he body and cut it in pieces, keeping some of them in the freezer, while they gave the other pieces to be eaten by pigs (this is what police believes is the strongest possibility, because there was no other trace of Joana Cipriano, apart from the blood samples in her mother's freezer);
15 The body of Joana Cipriano was never found.
And so, here we have a terrible story of a dysfunctional family, a child murdered and a very difficult police investigation. The only thing in my humble opinion - that has some similarity with Madeleine McCann disappearance is the fact that the person in charge of Madeleines case is the same that successfully headed Joana Cipriano investigation: CID Chief-Inspector Gonēalo Amaral.
And success, in Joanas case, is clear: the murderers were found, accused, went to court, they were sentenced, they appealed the sentence and the Portuguese Supreme Court reduced them to 16 years of jail to both of them the mother, Leonor Cipriano and her brother, for the murder of her daughter and neice, eight year old Joana Cipriano.
If many 'consumers' of the British media have another idea, thats because most British journalists covering Madeleine McCann abduction strongly believe that truth never should be allowed to 'kill' a good story. Even if it means destroying the reputation of an experienced CID Chief-Inspector.
"And whats the problem?" I imagine my British colleagues asking themselves this question, with a pint of Guinness in the hand, enjoying the sunshine at Praia da Luz. "The guy isnt even British, hes just a Portuguese..."
INQUOTE
Good grief - no wonder people think LC is guilty if they actually believe that litany of lies and disinformation.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 09:08:35 PM
So has everyone else, except for RedBlossom. And Occulation of a Corpse.
Yes hiding a body but not as you asserted earlier of homicide and hiding a body, something you said was fairly popular in Portugal but have failed to come up with the goods for your assertion......
No good prancing around stating untruths that you cant back up, now is it?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 18, 2013, 09:10:49 PM
Yes hiding a body but not as you asserted earlier of homicide and hiding a body, something you said was fairly popular in Portugal but have failed to come up with the goods for your assertion......
No good prancing around stating untruths that you cant back up, now is it?
Put your own house in order before you critisise others.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 18, 2013, 09:12:43 PM
Yes hiding a body but not as you asserted earlier of homicide and hiding a body, something you said was fairly popular in Portugal but have failed to come up with the goods for your assertion......
No good prancing around stating untruths that you cant back up, now is it?
it was sarcasm..expressed at amaral who came to the same conclusions in two cases...from CDM
Correio da Manhć - What do you think happened to the body?
Gonēalo Amaral Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.
How can you state that?
Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunks right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but its the only way to explain what happened there.
Hide your head in the sand ..it makes no difference
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 09:17:04 PM
it was sarcasm..expressed at amaral who came to the same conclusions in two cases...from CDM
Correio da Manhć - What do you think happened to the body?
Gonēalo Amaral Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.
How can you state that?
Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunks right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but its the only way to explain what happened there.
Hide your head in the sand ..it makes no difference
Indeed he was speculating.....never stated anything as fact....and nothing NEAR finding blood in several places in a freezer in the alledged missing girls home......and something the ciprianos confessed to
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 18, 2013, 09:19:48 PM
Indeed he was speculating.....never stated anything as fact....and nothing NEAR finding blood in several places in a freezer in the alledged missing girls home......and something the ciprianos confessed to
blood that didn't belong to Joanna..and confessions beaten out of people
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 18, 2013, 09:21:54 PM
I see, so if other posters such as sadie sneer at me, it's OK ?
From sadie, in reference to what monsters look like, 'Can you send a photo, please Stephen? 8(0(* '
As to sadie's research that has been shown to be in error on repeated occasions, or haven't you noticed ?
If I make an error, then I am happy to correct it Stephen. You dont attempt any research so you cant realise the problems. You dont even attempt to try and make a sensible sceanario to back up your often disgusting assertions.
In an earlier post I said that Leonor was married at about 14 IIRC. Seems that I did my calcs incorrectly, altho I haven't gone back to check them.
I understood that the age of consent was only 14 in PT.
If I make an error, then I am happy to correct it Stephen. You dont attempt any research so you cant realise the problems. You dont even attempt to try and make a sensible sceanario to back up your often disgusting assertions.
In an earlier post I said that Leonor was married at about 14 IIRC. Seems that I did my calcs incorrectly, altho I haven't gone back to check them.
I understood that the age of consent was only 14 in PT.
In Joana Morais article it states that she was underage IIRC when Leonors first born, Dina, was conceived
Therefore 13, or under? Nine months pregnancy, then 11 months with her partner /hubby. That surely makes her only 14 -15 when she married.
Dont know what to think if it was said that she was 18 in the Court case.
Stephen joined the debate yesterday with an post that simply stated that I was deluded. Just a post to insult..nothing more..he then starts to cry when he gets insuls back
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 18, 2013, 09:42:55 PM
You have not responded to my post 1009, why not? It trashes your argument, ah ive answered my own question, tara for now
There is no point in answering your questions because they don't make sense, and are simply designed to wind people up.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 18, 2013, 09:43:27 PM
9. 2. Data as Facts not proved: 1- That the accused BB, in the course of her life, has not been able to provide their children with basic care, holding them back;
2- That the HH, son of the suspect BB, has been rescued by neighbours;
3- That the accused BB put to her daughter CC to disinterest and would be working, forcing her to carry out the tasks that were homemade should play but that was negligible;
4- That the accused BB had abandoned the CC, as it had already done to the other sons.
5- That the second time in which the suspect BB gave the CC to the father, she was about 3 years of age;
6- That CC was the source of discussion between her mother, the defendant BB, and the stepfather II, reaching to the point of being threatened to be put outside the house;
7- What about the 20 h that day 12 September, when the two defendants if they were alone, they have decided to keep the same sexual relations among themselves, being that the minor children of the BB did not constitute impediment to such an act, because that if they were to sleep in a room, already the CC could not watch such acts;
8- That when the CC went out of the house, the defendants have begun to maintain relations among themselves of copulation, in sofa of baggage and that even if they could find to maintain sexual relations when CC returned home;
9- What to see what the mother and uncle were doing, as soon as the smallest CC has said that he would tell the stepfather that they were "doing things wrong", tried to get out of the house;
10- That the defendants have raised the sofa, directing it toward CC, aiming to prevent her from denouncing the II which she had witnessed;
11- That the side of the head with which the CC it foundered on the corner of the wall has been the left and that the wall in question was located near the port of entry;
12- That the CC has tried to flee from home, being then pulled into by the defendant AA;
13- That the CC has leaving prints Palms and face on the walls, either on the outer side, either inside, along the port of entry into the house;
14- That the defendants have placed the body of CCr, wrapped up in a duvet, in a corner of one of the rooms of the house, in a place that was not visible to anyone who might come, in order to then decide the fate that would become her;
15- That the accused BB has used washing detergent and bleach in the wall and the floor where there were signs of blood of CC;
16- That the defendant AA has time to have a beer with the II and the MM, in "Pastries ... ", to delay the return of the same home;
17- That the defendants, have thought of putting the body Cc inside of a pit located near the house, by which the defendant AA if he went to the site, would have found that this would not be possible for the cover of the said pit being partially cemented, who informed the suspect BB;
18- What to do with the tools that the defendants cut the body CC had black handle;
19- That the defendants had placed the body of the CC on the floor of the room, on top of a sheet;
20- That the defendants have given a node in opening of bags that contained the torso and legs;
21- That the defendants have actually placed the three sacks in three bays of the ark refrigeration;
22- That the defendants had changed clothes and had dressed and the suspect BB, one more time that night, has washed the blood that had been on the ground.
23- That on the evening of September 12 the suspect BB invokes the 'disappearance' of CC before the people that was (exception made to II, MM and NN who spoke at that 'disappearance' );
24- That the bag that the defendants took at the end of the night of September 13 had contained the instruments used in cutting the body ;
25- WHICH, however, have begun to emerge ticks in the house, given the activity mentioned;
26- Who, already after prey, the suspect BB has, on several occasions, attributed to the co-accused AA full responsibility by the facts, as well as has also attributed to MM, in addition to having mentioned have been the body placed in the car intended to be pressed in Spain, or in multiple locations that was indicated;
27- That the defendant AA, in 1 interrogation, has indicated to be the body of the CC beneath a bridge, which connects to the Mexilhoeira Da Figueira, the opposite side that had initially indicated, and that, then, was indicated as her brother having transported the body;
28- That the defendants had acted only with the view that CC does not reveal the stepfather what she had seen;
29- That the CC it depended on the defendant AA.
10. Motivation of the conviction the court of jury The fixing of proven facts and not tested it was based on a whole of the evidence produced at trial hearing and in accordance with the free conviction that the court was formed about the same (always bearing in mind the rules of experience), given to expert evidence, oral and documentary that was produced and assessing-if, on this, the reason of science and the exemption of each one of the testimonies provided.
7.1.2002 ...
The defendants chose not to provide statements.
None of the witnesses surveyed said they had seen the punishable acts, although some have reported important facts for the conviction of the Court.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 18, 2013, 09:45:17 PM
blood that didn't belong to Joanna..and confessions beaten out of people
Also no motive found, no forensic evidence found, no cutting tools found, no body found and the poor woman was tried and found guilty in the press - way before the case even got to court.
Plus two PJ officers found guilty of crimes relating to the proven torture of LC in this case, and yet no-one is supposed to even hint that a miscarriage of justice might just have occurred? Unbelievable!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 18, 2013, 09:47:17 PM
There is no point in answering your questions because they don't make sense, and are simply designed to wind people up.
My questions made perfect sense......what also makes sense is your refusal/inability to answer them......because you cant.....not my problem...100 % yours entirely......self manufactured by posting eejit posts asserting x y z when you just could not back any of them up.....and when asked to spat dummy out and said you dont make sense etc.....i will leave readers to decide.....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 18, 2013, 10:14:06 PM
If I make an error, then I am happy to correct it Stephen. You dont attempt any research so you cant realise the problems. You dont even attempt to try and make a sensible sceanario to back up your often disgusting assertions.
In an earlier post I said that Leonor was married at about 14 IIRC. Seems that I did my calcs incorrectly, altho I haven't gone back to check them.
I understood that the age of consent was only 14 in PT.
In Joana Morais article it states that she was underage IIRC when Leonors first born, Dina, was conceived
Therefore 13, or under? Nine months pregnancy, then 11 months with her partner /hubby. That surely makes her only 14 -15 when she married.
Dont know what to think if it was said that she was 18 in the Court case.
Legal Preparations for Marriage. The minimum age to get married in Portugal is 16. However written consent of both parents is required for those aged under 18.
court Aap) such as educational qualifications, the suspect BB has the 3RD class, never had any profession and married at 18 years old
Some blogs are unreliable
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 18, 2013, 11:37:15 PM
The child has had no justice non whatsover. She died a horrible death and thrown away like garbage.
Where are her rights even in death....
She isnt coming home soon that little girl.
She is with god and the angels.
And the people who were responsible for her being there are serving their sentences....Amen.
Baby Joana
Notice the width and shape of her forehead Notice her temple bumps Notice the width of her forehead relative to her cheek bones Notice the downward slope of her eyebrows Notice the downward slope of her Eyes(only slight) Notice the Angles and proportions of her eyes to her nose Notice the gap between her eyes Notice her nose. shape and length. Notice the angle of the tip of her nose
Now look at the little girl in orange in this Zinat photo. Joana?
Look at her legs. The outer muscle is developed in a usual manner; the inner muscle is less well developed than usual, but they are still nice legs Look at her ankles. They have a low instep and the feet fit in a slightly unusual way Look at the feet themselves. Wide and rather like in the Joana school photograph Look at her general physique, tall, slim and straight. Good posture
And that just couldnt ever possibly be because he and his team were right , could it?
I mean one set were convicted of murder, all appeals quashed, the other lot were never cleared......hardly a damning inditement on the police work.......by the final authorities
I so agreed Red.
What never ceases to amaze me is Amaral has 3 DECADES of dealing with cases like this....30 YEARS....
So he has worked diligently for 30 years and made one mistake in Cipriano case regarding some documents.
THIRTY YEARS.
The pro McCanns and pro Cipriano are working together.
Sadly they are making a mockery of the Cipriano case, a child DIED the perbs are in prison doing time.
It serves no purpose to keep dragging this case up.
Its just a witch hunt for AMARAL, kill amaral, beat Amaral, he is rubbish blah blah blah blah.
IF he was such a CARP detective he would not even have been on the case in the first place.
A MOCKERY of the child......the poor child who died......god rest her little soul.
Its a CLOSED case not a COLD CASE.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 19, 2013, 07:59:45 AM
What never ceases to amaze me is Amaral has 3 DECADES of dealing with cases like this....30 YEARS....
So he has worked diligently for 30 years and made one mistake in Cipriano case regarding some documents.
THIRTY YEARS.
The pro McCanns and pro Cipriano are working together.
Sadly they are making a mockery of the Cipriano case, a child DIED the perbs are in prison doing time.
It serves no purpose to keep dragging this case up.
Its just a witch hunt for AMARAL, kill amaral, beat Amaral, he is rubbish blah blah blah blah.
IF he was such a CARP detective he would not even have been on the case in the first place.
A MOCKERY of the child......the poor child who died......god rest her little soul.
Its a CLOSED case not a COLD CASE.
Amaral is a discredited cop and a convicted criminal. he got away with his appalling behaviour for 30 years and was finally sacked from the Maddie case. Leonor is innocent in my opinion ...convicted by trumped up evidence from tortured suspects
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 19, 2013, 08:11:38 AM
Amaral is a discredited cop and a convicted criminal. he got away with his appalling behaviour for 30 years and was finally sacked from the Maddie case. Leonor is innocent in my opinion ...convicted by trumped up evidence from tortured suspects
if it wasn't Amaral, it would be somebody else.
Just another target for some Mccann supporters.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 19, 2013, 08:21:42 AM
What never ceases to amaze me is Amaral has 3 DECADES of dealing with cases like this....30 YEARS....
So he has worked diligently for 30 years and made one mistake in Cipriano case regarding some documents.
THIRTY YEARS.
The pro McCanns and pro Cipriano are working together.
Sadly they are making a mockery of the Cipriano case, a child DIED the perbs are in prison doing time.
It serves no purpose to keep dragging this case up.
Its just a witch hunt for AMARAL, kill amaral, beat Amaral, he is rubbish blah blah blah blah.
IF he was such a CARP detective he would not even have been on the case in the first place.
A MOCKERY of the child......the poor child who died......god rest her little soul.
Its a CLOSED case not a COLD CASE.
So apart from the Cipriano case and the McCann case - which other missing child cases has Amaral been in charge of?
What never ceases to amaze me is how a PJ officer who was made an Arguido over his criminal activities in his previous missing child case was ever put in charge of the McCann case in the first place.
What amazes me even more is the fact that knowing that both the Lead investigator and his 2nd in command turned out to be convicted criminals - because they both abused their positions as police officers to pervert the course of justice in previous cases - there are actually people who are quite willing to turn a blind eye to that and actually defend them.
What an insult to all the decent hardworking PJ officers in Portugal who carry out their duties with honesty and integrity.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 19, 2013, 09:11:37 AM
So apart from the Cipriano case and the McCann case - which other missing child cases has Amaral been in charge of?
What never ceases to amaze me is how a PJ officer who was made an Arguido over his criminal activities in his previous missing child case was ever put in charge of the McCann case in the first place.
What amazes me even more is the fact that knowing that both the Lead investigator and his 2nd in command turned out to be convicted criminals - because they both abused their positions as police officers to pervert the course of justice in previous cases - there are actually people who are quite willing to turn a blind eye to that and actually defend them.
What an insult to all the decent hardworking PJ officers in Portugal who carry out their duties with honesty and integrity.
Previous CASES ?
Precise details required.
How do you know the Cipriano verdict was wrong ?
Explain.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 19, 2013, 09:32:42 AM
The previous cases for which Amaral and TdA were found guilty of criminal activity of course. One for Perjury the other for Torturing a witness. Are you actually claiming you don't know about those cases?
I dont know whether the verdict was wrong - but what I do know is that on the evidence which is in the public domain about this case - it is becoming more and more obvious that a gross miscarriage of justice may well have taken place.
As someone who is so fond of bringing up the Barry George case, I'm surprised that you apparently have such a closed mind to the possibility that another person could be in prison for a crime they didn't commit.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 19, 2013, 09:42:39 AM
The previous cases for which Amaral and TdA were found guilty of criminal activity of course. One for Perjury the other for Torturing a witness. Are you actually claiming you don't know about those cases?
I dont know whether the verdict was wrong - but what I do know is that on the evidence which is in the public domain about this case - it is becoming more and more obvious that a gross miscarriage of justice may well have taken place.
As someone who is so fond of bringing up the Barry George case, I'm surprised that you apparently have such a closed mind to the possibility that another person could be in prison for a crime they didn't commit.
The George case failed on the forensics, but you know that, and we know certain members of the current SY investigation were involved in that failure.
As to Amarals conviction for perjury in covering up fellow officers, well there are problems there if the testimony of Cipriano is flawed due to her lies.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 19, 2013, 10:11:42 AM
The George case failed on the forensics, but you know that, and we know certain members of the current SY investigation were involved in that failure.
As to Amarals conviction for perjury in covering up fellow officers, well there are problems there if the testimony of Cipriano is flawed due to her lies.
There was no forensic evidence found which could prove guilt in the Cipriano case.
The case in which LC was found guilty of mis-identifying her torturers is completely unrelated to Amaral's conviction for Perjury, and also completely unrelated to TdA's conviction for torture.
The fact that LC had been tortured was not being questioned by the court. It was her claim of who the perpetrators were which was the issue under examination by the court.
The Court's earlier findings that LC had been the victim of torture by officers of the PJ whilst in their custody was - and remains - a legally proven fact and was not in dispute. Only her torturers identity remains unproven as a result of that second case against LC.
Amaral's criminal conviction for 'perjury' was also not in dispute and remains a legally proven fact - doubly confirmed when the Courts threw out his Appeal.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 19, 2013, 10:25:13 AM
There was no forensic evidence found which could prove guilt in the Cipriano case.
The case in which LC was found guilty of mis-identifying her torturers is completely unrelated to Amaral's conviction for Perjury, and also completely unrelated to TdA's conviction for torture.
The fact that LC had been tortured was not being questioned by the court. It was her claim of who the perpetrators were which was the issue under examination by the court.
The Court's earlier findings that LC had been the victim of torture by officers of the PJ whilst in their custody was - and remains - a legally proven fact and was not in dispute. Only her torturers identity remains unproven as a result of that second case against LC.
Amaral's criminal conviction for 'perjury' was also not in dispute and remains a legally proven fact - doubly confirmed when the Courts threw out his Appeal.
So there is no proof as to who allegedly 'tortured' Cipriano.
She of course carrying a conviction for a heinous crime.
The perjury charge was based I believe on him covering up for his fellow officers over Cipriano,and if there was no proof the officers 'tortured' cipriano................................
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 19, 2013, 10:54:22 AM
There was proof that Leonor Cipriano was tortured, just no proof of who tortured her. But since she couldn't identify who her torturers were, due to having a bag over her head, I fail to see how she can have been guilty of defaming them, if she didn't know who they were. The PJ Officers in question did not bring the case against her, so who did? Who actually named them?
Of course, The PJ have a very good idea of who they were.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 19, 2013, 10:58:04 AM
So there is no proof as to who allegedly 'tortured' Cipriano.
She of course carrying a conviction for a heinous crime.
The perjury charge was based I believe on him covering up for his fellow officers over Cipriano,and if there was no proof the officers 'tortured' cipriano................................
Torture is not 'alleged'' it is a fact established in court. But because LC could not prove who the officers were who tortured her - the men who she had claimed were the perpetrators could not be found guilty.
Whether she had been tortured or not was not in question during her 2nd court case. That is an established fact and not altered by her 2nd conviction. The present situation is that the perpetrators are still at large.
Amarals conviction was for a report he wrote and signed himself. The courts found that his report was not a true account of what had happened to LC and he (along with another PJ officer )were therefore found guilty of lying.
Once torture had been legally established then IMO the guilty verdict immediately became unsafe.
LC should have been released and if necessary a retrial ordered. imo.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 19, 2013, 11:00:12 AM
There was proof that Leonor Cipriano was tortured, just no proof of who tortured her. But since she couldn't identify who her torturers were, due to having a bag over her head, I fail to see how she can have been guilty of defaming them, if she didn't know who they were. The PJ Officers in question did not bring the case against her, so who did? Who actually named them?
Of course, The PJ have a very good idea of who they were.
Now where does torture begin, and being beaten up by fellow prisoners end ?
and prisoners attacking other prisoners for similar crimes is hardly unique to Portugal.
Now if Amaral's conviction for perjury is based upon covering up for fellow officiers, when there is no proof these fellow officers tortured Cipriano, it does not make legal sense.
You need evidence for that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 11:20:56 AM
Torture is not 'alleged'' it is a fact established in court. But because LC could not prove who the officers were who tortured her - the men who she had claimed were the perpetrators could not be found guilty.
Whether she had been tortured or not was not in question during her 2nd court case. That is an established fact and not altered by her 2nd conviction. The present situation is that the perpetrators are still at large.
Amarals conviction was for a report he wrote and signed himself. The courts found that his report was not a true account of what had happened to LC and he (along with another PJ officer )were therefore found guilty of lying.
Once torture had been legally established then IMO the guilty verdict immediately became unsafe.
LC should have been released and if necessary a retrial ordered. imo.
An excellent representation of the facts as always Benice. The problem is that we are discussing a case in Portugal and not London. The police in Portugal, Spain and Italy to name but three European countries don't play by the same rules as one might expect to experience in Old Blighty.
As far as Amaral and that other PJ officer is concerned they lied to the court in relation to how Leonor got her injuries in the police station. They both rightly received sentences for their conduct.
A retrial would have been ordered if the only evidence against the Ciprianos had been their confession under duress. Both Leonor and Joćo refused to give evidence at their trial apparently on advice from their respective lawyers. These are not the actions of innocent people. It is very clear that had they taken the stand they would have implicated themselves in the murder. Neither of them were credible witnesses as they are both compulsive liars.
The conduct of Leonor when she testified at the Amaral perjury trial evidences this fact. She received a further conviction for perjury for her efforts on that occasion.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 19, 2013, 11:29:29 AM
There was proof that Leonor Cipriano was tortured, just no proof of who tortured her. But since she couldn't identify who her torturers were, due to having a bag over her head, I fail to see how she can have been guilty of defaming them, if she didn't know who they were. The PJ Officers in question did not bring the case against her, so who did? Who actually named them?Of course, The PJ have a very good idea of who they were.
IIRC the named PJ officers dropped their own case for libel against LC - after she failed to pick them out in an identity parade. Apparently they praised her honesty at the time.
If that is the case, I too would like to know whose decision it was to bring this 2nd case against LC. My own personal opinion is that it was related to the entry in Amnesty International regarding the use of torture in Portugual and may have been politically motivated. But who knows? The more I see of how the wheels of 'justice' grind in some cases in PT - the more bewildering it becomes.
For instance if a police officer is found guilty of breaking the law, it would seem they get treated more leniently when it comes to sentencing. IMO the opposite should apply. Policemen who use and abuse their positions of power to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be protecting and defending are the lowest of the low IMO.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 19, 2013, 11:31:47 AM
Now where does torture begin, and being beaten up by fellow prisoners end ?
and prisoners attacking other prisoners for similar crimes is hardly unique to Portugal.
Now if Amaral's conviction for perjury is based upon covering up for fellow officiers, when there is no proof these fellow officers tortured Cipriano, it does not make legal sense.
You need evidence for that.
She was not beaten by fellow prisoners because she was kept isolated, due to the nature of her supposed crime. She was taken to the police station in the early hours of the morning, and returned to the prison many hours later, covered in bruises. The Court ruled that she was beaten while in police custody. She was unable to identify her torturers because she had a bag placed over her head. A very sensible precaution if they didn't want to be identified, don't you think.
If a mugger with a balaclava over his face attacked you then you wouldn't be able to identify him. The time, the place and the state that you would be in would be evidence of the fact that you were mugged. Unless you weren't actually there. She was there, and that is proven. The quantity and position of many of the bruises could not be attributed to falling downstairs. This is what the court ruled. I am surprised that you can't see how illogical and ridiculously flawed your argument is.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 19, 2013, 11:37:41 AM
Now where does torture begin, and being beaten up by fellow prisoners end ?
and prisoners attacking other prisoners for similar crimes is hardly unique to Portugal.
Now if Amaral's conviction for perjury is based upon covering up for fellow officiers, when there is no proof these fellow officers tortured Cipriano, it does not make legal sense.
You need evidence for that. [/quote
She was not beaten by fellow prisoners because she was kept isolated, due to the nature of her supposed crime. She was taken to the police station in the early hours of the morning, and returned to the prison many hours later, covered in bruises. The Court ruled that she was beaten while in police custody. She was unable to identify her torturers because she had a bag placed over her head. A very sensible precaution if they didn't want to be identified, don't you think.
If a mugger with a balaclava over his face attacked you then you wouldn't be able to identify him. The time, the place and the state that you would be in would be evidence of the fact that you were mugged. Unless you weren't actually there. She was there, and that is proven. The quantity and position of many of the bruises could not be attributed to falling downstairs. This is what the court ruled. I am surprised that you can't see how illogical and ridiculously flawed your argument is.
Is there proof she was kept isolated ?
Can you prove she was not beaten up by fellow prisoners ?
Now would you care to tell me in the UK, is there any history of where prisoners have been beaten up, criminal or otherwise, by fellow offenders or other parties ?
Is there independent analysis of the injuries which were forensically tested for their cause ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 19, 2013, 11:41:29 AM
IIRC the named PJ officers dropped their own case for libel against LC - after she failed to pick them out in an identity parade. Apparently they praised her honesty at the time.
If that is the case, I too would like to know whose decision it was to bring this 2nd case against LC. My own personal opinion is that it was related to the entry in Amnesty International regarding the use of torture in Portugual and may have been politically motivated. But who knows? The more I see of how the wheels of 'justice' grind in some cases in PT - the more bewildering it becomes.
For instance if a police officer is found guilty of breaking the law, it would seem they get treated more leniently when it comes to sentencing. IMO the opposite should apply. Policemen who use and abuse their positions of power to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be protecting and defending are the lowest of the low IMO.
This is going to cost Portugal a packet in Compensation. So I think that this was a legal move in an attempt to decrease that compensation. It isn't going to work. The European Courts aren't stupid. She was tortured in police custody.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 11:43:17 AM
Why are we arguing over known truths?
1. Leonor was tortured by PJ officers in their police station in order to get a confession.
2. Several police officers were involved but the victim was unable to identify them. No officers have ever been prosecuted for this assault.
3. PJ Coordinator Dr Gonēalo Amaral and another officer lied about the event thus securing convictions and suspended prison sentences for themselves.
Now let's stop Andy Pandying around this and move on to what hasn't been established.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 19, 2013, 11:58:45 AM
1. Leonor was tortured by PJ officers in their police station in order to get a confession.
2. PJ Coordinator Dr Gonēalo Amaral and another officer lied about the event thus securing convictions and suspended prison sentences for themselves.
Now let's stop Andy Pandying around this and move on to what hasn't been established.
This would be good. I would love to know who brought the case of defamation against Leonor Cipriano when she doesn't appear ever to have named them because she didn't know who they were.
I would also like to know why she got a further seven months in prison for committing perjury against three men that she never named while Amaral and his oppo got suspended sentences for the same crime in the same case.
PS. It is on record that she could not and did not identify these men in a line up. What sort of Justice is this?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: colombosstogey on November 19, 2013, 12:07:28 PM
Amaral is a discredited cop and a convicted criminal. he got away with his appalling behaviour for 30 years and was finally sacked from the Maddie case. Leonor is innocent in my opinion ...convicted by trumped up evidence from tortured suspects
I REST MY CASE ROFLMAO....you are so predictable really......
It really isnt worth discussing this with you we all have our own thoughts on Cipriano. Mine have nothing to do with Amaral.
I actually followed this case BEFORE the McCanns child was involved...
Anyway I cant be bothered anymore to discuss this case as its going NO WHERE, after all the appeals the women is still in prison.
Lets hope she stays there to rot in hell.
Amen and goodbye on this thread, as I have better things to do then discuss this with anyone who just wants to push AMARAL all the time.
8-)(--) enjoy yourselves and lets hope you get her out of prison hey...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 19, 2013, 12:18:17 PM
This would be good. I would love to know who brought the case of defamation against Leonor Cipriano when she doesn't appear ever to have named them because she didn't know who they were.
I would also like to know why she got a further seven months in prison for committing perjury against three men that she never named while Amaral and his oppo got suspended sentences for the same crime in the same case.
PS. It is on record that she could not and did not identify these men in a line up. What sort of Justice is this?
And additionally, I would like to know why this case was held behind closed doors ?
Something that is usually reserved for cases of National security only
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 19, 2013, 12:26:46 PM
And additionally, I would like to know why this case was held behind closed doors ?
Something that is usually reserved for cases of National security only
The National Pocket, more like. Trying to reduce the compensation that Portugal will have to pay to both of The Ciprianos. But the sentence is on record, and court papers can be obtained by The European Courts.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 19, 2013, 12:38:55 PM
An excellent representation of the facts as always Benice. The problem is that we are discussing a case in Portugal and not London. The police in Portugal, Spain and Italy to name but three European countries don't play by the same rules as one might expect to experience in Old Blighty.
As far as Amaral and that other PJ officer is concerned they lied to the court in relation to how Leonor got her injuries in the police station. They both rightly received sentences for their conduct.
A retrial would have been ordered if the only evidence against the Ciprianos had been their confession under duress. Both Leonor and Joćo refused to give evidence at their trial apparently on advice from their respective lawyers. These are not the actions of innocent people. It is very clear that had they taken the stand they would have implicated themselves in the murder. Neither of them were credible witnesses as they are both compulsive liars.
The conduct of Leonor when she testified at the Amaral perjury trial evidences this fact. She received a further conviction for perjury for her efforts on that occasion.
I would disagree that it was proved that they were compulsive liars. People will say anything and agree to any suggestion being put to them by others if they are being tortured at the time, and IMO that is a credible explanation as to why different answers and different scenarios were given or agreed to during interrogation using torture.
I also don't agree that the legal advice given to them NOT to testify in court is a sign of guilt. Why would their own lawyers encourage their own clients to do something which would jeopardise their chances of obtaining justice. That makes no sense to me.
We can only speculate as to why that advice was given. It could be that
(a) LCs lawyer was aware that with no forensic evidence, no motive, no trace of body parts, no cutting tools and no proof that Joana had made it back to her home that night - there was no need for her to testify.
and/or
(b) He did not consider that the poorly educated and apparently non too bright LC would stand a chance against a highly trained, intelligent sophisticated prosecution lawyer - who would run rings round her - in an environment which was his 'second' home, but totally alien to her.
As I say - pure speculation - just as it is pure speculation on my part that the judges/jury were possibly influenced to give a Guilty verdict by the hatred of the general public - which had been whipped up to lynch mob proportions - particularly against LC by a vicious pre-trial press campaign against her and which was so evident from the abuse being sceamed at her from the public gallery.
The fact that the secrecy laws were broken by the PJ in order to promote and aid and abet that smear campaign no doubt would be denied by the PJ - but then they would say that wouldn't they.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 12:54:21 PM
This would be good. I would love to know who brought the case of defamation against Leonor Cipriano when she doesn't appear ever to have named them because she didn't know who they were.
I would also like to know why she got a further seven months in prison for committing perjury against three men that she never named while Amaral and his oppo got suspended sentences for the same crime in the same case.
PS. It is on record that she could not and did not identify these men in a line up. What sort of Justice is this?
I believe your answer to this is that she lied to a judge even after being warned about perjury. In my opinion she was lucky to have got away with 7 months extra.
Amaral got 18 months in mitigating circumstances and since his record was previously unblemished he received a suspended sentence.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 19, 2013, 01:03:21 PM
I believe your answer to this is that she lied to a judge even after being warned about perjury. In my opinion she was lucky to have got away with 7 months extra.
Amaral got 18 months in mitigating circumstances and since his record was previously unblemished he received a suspended sentence.
You have proof that she lied to a Judge after being warned? I would love to see that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 01:04:35 PM
I would disagree that it was proved that they were compulsive liars. People will say anything Andy a freeway to any suggestion being put to them by others if they are being tortured at the time, and IMO that is a credible explanation as to why different answers and different scenarios were given or agreed to during interrogation using torture.
I also don't agree that the legal advice given to them NOT to testify in court is a sign of guilt. Why would their own lawyers encourage their own clients to do something which would jeopardise their chances of obtaining justice. That makes no sense to me.
We can only speculate as to why that advice was given. It could be that
(a) LCs lawyer was aware that with no forensic evidence, no motive, no trace of body parts, no cutting tools and no proof that Joana had made it back to her home that night - there was no need for her to testify.
and/or
(b) He did not consider that the poorly educated and apparently non too bright LC would stand a chance against a highly trained, intelligent sophisticated prosecution lawyer - who would run rings round her - in an environment which was his 'second' home, but totally alien to her.
As I say - pure speculation - just as it is pure speculation on my part that the judges/jury were possibly influenced to give a Guilty verdict by the hatred of the general public - which had been whipped up to lynch mob proportions - particularly against LC by a vicious pre-trial press campaign against her and which was so evident from the abuse being screamed at her from the public gallery.
The fact that the secrecy laws were broken by the PJ in order to promote and aid and abet that smear campaign no doubt would be denied by the PJ - but then they would say that wouldn't they.
You can say what you like Be nice, she wasn't being tortured in court. Leanor changed her story so many times at the Amaral trial that even the judge was frustrated with her. She us a liar Be nice so let's not split hairs on this issue.
Her lawyers knew that she would crack in the witness box thus they made the only decision they could and told her to keep quiet.
And stop twisting the evidence. She was seen going home, her shoes were still in the house as was the shopping she bought so get a grip!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 01:09:33 PM
I would disagree that it was proved that they were compulsive liars. People will say anything and agree to any suggestion being put to them by others if they are being tortured at the time, and IMO that is a credible explanation as to why different answers and different scenarios were given or agreed to during interrogation using torture.
I also don't agree that the legal advice given to them NOT to testify in court is a sign of guilt. Why would their own lawyers encourage their own clients to do something which would jeopardise their chances of obtaining justice. That makes no sense to me.
We can only speculate as to why that advice was given. It could be that
(a) LCs lawyer was aware that with no forensic evidence, no motive, no trace of body parts, no cutting tools and no proof that Joana had made it back to her home that night - there was no need for her to testify.
and/or
(b) He did not consider that the poorly educated and apparently non too bright LC would stand a chance against a highly trained, intelligent sophisticated prosecution lawyer - who would run rings round her - in an environment which was his 'second' home, but totally alien to her.
As I say - pure speculation - just as it is pure speculation on my part that the judges/jury were possibly influenced to give a Guilty verdict by the hatred of the general public - which had been whipped up to lynch mob proportions - particularly against LC by a vicious pre-trial press campaign against her and which was so evident from the abuse being sceamed at her from the public gallery.
The fact that the secrecy laws were broken by the PJ in order to promote and aid and abet that smear campaign no doubt would be denied by the PJ - but then they would say that wouldn't they.
My thoughts are along the same lines as yours.
I'd add that I'm not very clear as to how much time the various pro-bono defence lawyers had to devote to this case.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 01:54:23 PM
I'd add that I'm not very clear as to how much time the various pro-bono defence lawyers had to devote to this case.
Actually it was a complete cock-up as two other lawyers turned up on day-1 of the trial claiming to represent Leonor. Apparently they had been engaged at short notice by some third party.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 01:57:48 PM
You can say what you like Be nice, she wasn't being tortured in court. Leanor changed her story so many times at the Amaral trial that even the judge was frustrated with her. She us a liar Be nice so let's not split hairs on this issue.
Her lawyers knew that she would crack in the witness box thus they made the only decision they could and told her to keep quiet.
And stop telling lies about the evidence. She was seen going home, her shoes were still in the house as was the shopping she bought so get a grip!
She was seen walking home, according to one witness. No problem with that. It's still not clear how it was established that all her shoes were home (Leandro's statement doesn't seem to mention that)... and even less when it was supposed it have been established when the shopping was found or who found it.
Could you find where you'd read that?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 01:58:22 PM
She was seen walking home, according to one witness. No problem with that. It's still not clear how it was established that all her shoes were home (Leandro's statement doesn't seem to mention that)... and even less when it was supposed it have been established when the shopping was found or who found it.
Could you find where you'd read that?
I have read around and as far as I can see the last sighting of Joana was as she went up the steps at the Church. That is 200 metres from home.
John, I asked you before, but you must have missed it.
In a previous post you said that Leonor only lived just up the road from the Sports Centre where the Cockle fair was being held. That there were GNR there
I asked for Joanas home address and I would be grateful if you could find it.
I am preparing a map showing relative places and need that obviously. Thanks in anticipation
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 19, 2013, 02:26:38 PM
You can say what you like Be nice, she wasn't being tortured in court. Leanor changed her story so many times at the Amaral trial that even the judge was frustrated with her. She us a liar Be nice so let's not split hairs on this issue.
Her lawyers knew that she would crack in the witness box thus they made the only decision they could and told her to keep quiet.
And stop telling lies about the evidence. She was seen going home, her shoes were still in the house as was the shopping she bought so get a grip!
Sarah Payne was also witnessed 'going home' but she didn't get there did she. There are no witnesses who saw Joanna arriving home on the night she disappeared - she was only seen heading off in that direction.
Unless a receipt was found at her home then how could it be established that the groceries found were those purchased? And when were these items discovered and by whom - the GNR or the Pj?
If Joana's body and clothing she wore that night were completely disposed of and vanished without a trace - then why keep her shoes in the house if they are the same shoes you are going to claim she was wearing when she disappeared? That makes no sense.
Kindly do not call me a liar - I do not lie and if I am proved to be mistaken about anthing I have no problem in accepting that and making a retraction.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 02:29:04 PM
This one quote level sometimes make it difficult to follow anything.
@ John This was your comment to Benice.
She was seen going home, her shoes were still in the house as was the shopping she bought so get a grip!
Question: when, if ever, was that house sealed as a crime scene?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 19, 2013, 02:33:46 PM
She was seen walking home, according to one witness. No problem with that. It's still not clear how it was established that all her shoes were home (Leandro doesn't seem to mention that)... and even less when it was supposed it have been established when the shopping was found or who found it.
Could you find where you'd read that?
There is nothing in the court case to suggest that the food purchased was in the house and theres nothing to say that Leona or Leandro told them about shoes
The case where she was found to be lying was a case brought by her lawyer I believe regarding the torture committed by certain officers and because she lied( said the bag on her head was blue or green, instead of blue and she was sitting some of the time and not kneeling all of the time also she didn't recognise the aggressors many years later)= Liar they condemned, so Perjury. I think I got that right as I have so many files now that it is a puzzle and I need to get them categorised
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 02:57:10 PM
I have removed the comment I directed to Benice and amended the later posts. I will not however allow false information to be posted by anyone.
Carana, you made the point about the crime scene being unprotected and rightly so. Going from memory it was about 4 days before the GNR called in the detectives at the PJ.
The point I made earlier was that Leandro and Joana's aunt were asked to identify which shoes belonging to Joana were missing. None were.
Leandro also gave evidence about the dried milk and the two tins of tuna. In his opinion the shopping was brought home.
Leandro also gave evidence that tools normally kept in the Cipriano home were missing including specifically, a hacksaw.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 03:08:15 PM
There is nothing in the court case to suggest that the food purchased was in the house and theres nothing to say that Leona or Leandro told them about shoes
That is untrue Anna. Leandro did give evidence so please explain your reply.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 19, 2013, 03:14:47 PM
That is untrue Anna. Leandro did give evidence so please explain your reply.
This trial rests on the testimony of Leonor, Joao and Leandro. I think all three were beaten by Amaral. without their testimonies the very weak case becomes non existent... Leandro said was he was told to say ,,otherwise he would have been arrested and jailed as well..IMO
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 19, 2013, 03:17:40 PM
I REST MY CASE ROFLMAO....you are so predictable really......
It really isnt worth discussing this with you we all have our own thoughts on Cipriano. Mine have nothing to do with Amaral.
I actually followed this case BEFORE the McCanns child was involved...
Anyway I cant be bothered anymore to discuss this case as its going NO WHERE, after all the appeals the women is still in prison.
Lets hope she stays there to rot in hell.
Amen and goodbye on this thread, as I have better things to do then discuss this with anyone who just wants to push AMARAL all the time.
8-)(--) enjoy yourselves and lets hope you get her out of prison hey...
If you are going to post a half page diatribe in support of amaral on this thread..as you did...you just might expect someone to post a reply disagreeing with you
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 03:21:02 PM
I have removed the comment I directed to Benice and amended the later posts. I will not however allow false information to be posted by anyone.
Carana, you made the point about the crime scene being unprotected and rightly so. Going from memory it was about 4 days before the GNR called in the detectives at the PJ.
The point I made earlier was that Leandro and Joana's aunt were asked to identify which shoes belonging to Joana were missing. None were.
Leandro also gave evidence about the dried milk and the two tins of tuna. In his opinion the shopping was brought home.
Leandro also gave evidence that tools normally kept in the Cipriano home were missing including specifically, a hacksaw.
Could you help me to find those points in Leandro's court testimony?
A testemunha II, companheiro da arguida BB, afirmou que ą data dos factos vivia com a arguida BB e com a CC. Declarou que o arguido AA tinha chegado a casa deles na madrugada do dia 12 de Setembro (domingo). A CC estava desde 5Ŗ feira anterior na casa da mće da testemunha. A arguida BB no domingo foi também ą casa da mće da testemunha, a uma festa de anos, tendo regressado com a CC ą Figueira por volta das 18h. Disse também a testemunha que foi ą "Pastelaria Célia" com o MM por volta das 21h e que a dada altura apareceu ali o arguido AA a dizer que a CC tinha ido ą pastelaria ąs 8h e ainda nćo tinha aparecido. Eles foram para casa (nćo achou nada de estranho na casa) e a testemunha pediu ą BB para ir procurar a CC nos vizinhos (mas nćo sabe se ela foi efectivamente) enquanto ele foi ą festa do berbigćo ver se a CC por lį estaria e o MM foi dar uma volta por ali a ver se via a menor. O arguido AA ficou em casa a tomar conta dos filhos da testemunha. A testemunha ficou algum tempo na festa do berbigćo mas havia muita confusćo e veio embora; voltou depois ą festa com a BB e o MM ą procura da CC e quando estavam a regressar a casa apareceu a D. Ofélia, a saber da CC e a perguntar se jį tinham chamado a GNR. Disseram-lhe que nćo e ela telefonou. No dia seguinte a testemunha disse ą BB para ir ą GNR. Declarou ainda a testemunha que numa altura em que se encontrou com a arguida BB nas instalaēões da Polķcia Judiciįria, a pedido daquela Polķcia, mas numa altura em que se encontravam só os dois, a testemunha perguntou ą BB o que tinha acontecido e ela entćo contou-lhe que "tinha dado uma chapada na CC e que o irmćo acabou de a matar", tudo "porque ela os tinha visto a ter relaēões" e também contou que "tinham posto o corpo numa casa velha e que tinha sido o AA a levį-la ąs costas". Posteriormente, quando a testemunha foi visitar a arguida BB ą cadeia de Odemira, ela negou o que tinha dito e referiu-lhe que só tinha afirmado aquelas coisas porque a Polķcia Judiciįria lhe tinha batido. Questionado sobre se no dia em que a BB lhe tinha confessado ter agredido CC, a mesma apresentava marcas de ter sido batida, nomeadamente se tinha a cara ou os olhos inchados ou vermelhos, a testemunha disse que nćo. Ą testemunha foi também perguntado se tinha na sua casa algum serrote, ao que respondeu que sim, que tinha um serrote pequeno de dentes finos, e que quando a Polķcia Judiciįria lhe perguntou pelo serrote foi procurį-lo e verificou que tinha desaparecido.
The only point that I can find is that when the PJ asked him if he had a saw at home, he'd said that he did but that it had disappeared. There's no indication of when he noticed that it had gone prior to being asked to find it.
Nothing about shoes or shopping being found at home as far as I can see.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 19, 2013, 03:28:14 PM
Cipriano Case: Without a Trace of Joana - Updated Video 27 OCTOBER 2008 | POSTED BY JOANA MORAIS LEAVE A COMMENT Broadcast by RTP1 on the 15/10/2008
The case shocked the country in the late summer of 2004.
Little girl Joana Guerreiro, aged 8, had disappeared from the village of Figueira, near Portimćo. Her mother Leonor Cipriano gave the media many interviews where she lamented her daughter's disappearance.
Only a few days after the Polķcia Judiciįria started the investigations, Leonor and her brother Joćo Cipriano were arrested for homicide. But the story would unravel with even more macabre details. The uncle confessed that he cut the girl into three pieces but never revealed where the body was hidden. As a matter of fact, until today Joana's body hasn't been found, which leads the defense lawyers to still entertain doubts about the child's real destiny.
In this report, Joćo Cipriano, who remained silent throughout the entire trial, broke his silence and gave RTP a written interview. The Polķcia Judiciįria inspectors who took care of the case also speak out for the first time about one of the most complex investigations that the police force ever faced.
Sem Rasto de Joana - Without a Trace of Joana is a report by journalist Jorge Almeida, with image by Pedro Silveira Ramos, image editing by Paulo Nunes and audio post production by Luķs Mateus.
Sem Rasto de Joana - Without a Trace of Joana Video JoanaMorais.Blip.Tv
Transcript and Translation by Debk
No Trace of Joana
The last time that Joana was seen was as she returned to her house after going to the store for her mother. She had gone to purchase some milk and two cans of tuna. What happened after that has never been explained.
At first, Joana was reported as missing.
Fernando Ferreira, GNR police officer, Portimćo: "We received notice via rįdio and went to the Aldeia da Figueira attending Joana's mother and her boyfriend, Leandro. The objective was to try to obtain the maximum amount of information which could help identify the girl: name, age, height and what she was wearing at the time she disappeared. From there, having this information, we searched the village."
The night of 12 September 2004 was a festival night in the Aldeia da Figueira. The traditional Sćo Miguel party was underway as shown in these amateur videos given to RTP, which show no signs of Joana. But in one scene you can see António Leandro, the girl's stepfather.
The Portimćo GNR continued with searches over the following days around the Aldeia da Figueira. Posters about the disappearance were put up. But there were no traces of Joana.
The mother began giving interviews to the media.
Leonor Cipriano, Joana's mother: "Everyone in the café says, 'This is a badly told story. A girl disappearing, suddenly... it was someone from outside who headed for Lisbon and took her in a car.'"
Four days later, the case of the missing 8 year old girl is transferred to the PJ in Portimćo. Another four days later, it is transferred to the PJ Directory in Faro. The inspectors had no idea they now had in their hands one of the most complex cases ever confronted.
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo, Director, PJ Faro: "In this investigation, we covered about 50,000 kilometers. 2100 official processes were created. We assigned approximately 40 inspectors and requested approximately 40 exams from the Scientific Police Laboratory and the Legal Medical Institute."
Leonor Cipriano continued to give interviews.
Leonor Cipriano: "I'm very sad. I think my daughter is really missing her mother. I just ask that anyone who knows about my daughter, that you don't hurt her. And that you can bring her to me."
Interviewer: "Where do you think your daughter could be right now?"
LC: "There are only guesses. If she is alive, or not, if she's hurt. I don't know, there's no explanation for my daughter I don't know, I don't know."
Without any clues, the PJ inspectors did find discrepancies. The statements of Joana's mother, the uncle and the other family members do not coincide.
Gonēalo Amaral, Coordinating Inspector PJ (Jan 2007): "In the first statements given to the GNR, the first agency to arrive, it was a badly told story. There were various contradictions amongst certain people, witnesses, who were part of the family group where Joana lived. Based on these contradictions, there arose at a certain time the need for a new interrogation of these individuals, with all these witnesses, at the same time, at the police headquarters, such that they couldn't confer between themselves, and with the principal objective to understand whether the girl had, or had not, returned home. From there, it was proved that the girl had returned home. That is, it was a lie, there was a simulation of a disappearance. From there, it was necessary to determine what had happened."
Leonor is taken in by the PJ on the 21 September, eleven days after her daughter disappeared. The girl's uncle, Joćo Cipriano, remained free for one more day but was also arrested under suspicion of homicide.
In the next few days, Joćo took the PJ inspectors to dozens of different locations to point out Joana's body. But the body was not found in any of those places.
Gonēalo Amaral: "At that time, it became, as if it were a fact, to the police that she was playing with us She was sending a message, a message to perhaps say that the body was cut up or the body no longer existed. But, at the same time, all the diligences constituted evidence. This permitted us, as would come to happen in the trial, to speak about them, because they were diligences in which we participated and not witness statements of the arguidos. We aren't talking about declarations by arguidos, we are talking about giving witness to the diligences that we did and why we did these diligences and went to these places. On the other hand, it would not have happened, for him to indicate where to find the body or the rest of the body or pieces of the body and we then didn't go. We always had to go. And that's what happened."
The PJ's theory was that the body was fed to the pigs, a theory that was not proven in court. Shocked by this macabre story, hundreds of locals invaded the village searching for answers. The same answers for which the PJ were searching. Why was Joana killed? And where is her body?
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo: "In principal, this is a disappearance. And this crime is always, excuse me, this crime doesn't have a juridic framework but could have behind it a series of crimes, a kidnapping, an abduction, human trafficking, criminal associations, so that any of these crimes could be behind a disappearance. And the complexity begins right there."
Leonor and her brother confessed the crime to the PJ. Joćo 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.
Sara Rosado, Joćo Cipriano's lawyer: "I imagine that all the pressure surrounding this process, generated that, those declarations, as well as others in opposite and various directions, with other details, with other facts. As for the rest, the version that you find constituted in the video doesn't even adhere to the accusation. That is, the actual accusation didn't even follow this theory if you examine certain details. And, in fact, only the pressure that one of these was the enormous pressure on everyone, including the arguidos who were arrested and so "
RTP requested authorization from the Portimćo Court to emit in this report a short excerpt of the video but the judge in charge denied the request invoking the "image rights" of those who appear in the video.
Joćo Cipriano also directed a photographic reconstitution where, with the help of a mannequin, he explained how he cut Joana's body into three parts.
According to the accusations from the Public Ministry, the three body pieces were placed in black sacks in the small refrigerator during the first few hours. In the various exams done by technicians from the Scientific Police Lab at Joana's house, human blood was found in one of the drawers inside the refrigerator. But DNA tests did not prove that the blood was Joana's.
Gonēalo Amaral: "It is just one of the versions that was given, and we continue to find viable and credible because blood was found in a chink on one of the refrigerator drawers. A drop of blood in the drawer. Someone opens [the refrigerator] and lets some blood run. The blood ran into the drawer and was cleaned, so it only remained in the chinks, in the areas that are difficult to clean. The explanation was necessary given the circumstances in which the homicide occurred, as this was not a prepared or planned homicide, it was a homicide "in loco." It happened, in the way everyone knows, and they had to hide the body. It's viable and an alternative that they may have used and tried, during the first phase while thinking about what to do with the body, to hide the body in the refrigerator."
During the trial, it was also proven that the body pieces would only have fit in the refrigerator if that drawer in which they found human blood had been removed from the refrigerator.
Sara Rosado: "The doctor who attended the diligences and testified in court affirmed that, very tightly, [the body] would fit. But only by removing the drawer. There was blood found on the back of the alleged drawer, having removed the drawer, but the doctor said the arguidos were surprised with this. It was an idea that had never occurred to them. So I don't think anything like this happened."
Many more vestiges of blood were found in Joana's house. Using ultraviolet light, they found blood on the walls by the door: traces of facial and hand impressions from a child of the family, but which could not be proved to be Joana's. Also by the light switch, near the front door, there was found a bit of blood from Ruben, Joana's younger brother who also lived in the house.
Joćo Grade, Leonor Cipriano's second lawyer (former lawyer): "There was not blood in so many different areas... there were various exams done... just vestiges of human blood, which is normal. A housewife only has to cut herself peeling potatoes while watching a soap opera, only has to have a cut, to have blood, it just has to fall on the ground, it has to be cleaned as anyone of us would clean, and then with rigorous exams you could conclude that there were vestiges of blood. It doesn't say anything. In any of our houses, there could be blood like this."
On the floor of the house and on a mop handle, there were found a mixture of human and animal blood. These exams were also inconclusive.
Allegedly, the exams did not produce results because Leonor washed the house with gasoline because the house was infected with ticks. A doubtful motive for PJ who found the house filthy with dirty dishes in the sink. Except for some walls which were cleaned. As soon as the first suspicions arose, the house should have been isolated.
Gonēalo Amaral: "You can tell that the house had been cleaned, that area where the blood was found had been cleaned. It had been cleaned with petroleum purchased by Leonor on the day she left the Portimćo police station. There was an attempt, that you might say worked well, to inhibit any laboratory results. As many vestiges as possible were obtained, given the circumstances, and the conclusion is that it was human blood. According to the court, and I agree, something serious happened in that house, on that day. And the conclusion was that it was a homicide."
Another piece of evidence found at Joana's house by the PJ were the red shoes that Joana was supposed to be wearing the day she disappeared. The PJ believe that the mother and uncle forgot to hide the shoes, just as they did the purchases from the store. The posters put up by the family said that she was wearing red shoes.
Sara Rosado: "No one knows what the child was wearing, especially the shoes."
In February 2005, photographs were published of Leonor with significant bruising (Marinho Pinto Expresso Newspaper Article). The trial will begin soon of four inspectors charged with torture, and Gonēalo Amaral of the crime of false witness and failure to denounce [inappropriate police behaviour].
Guilhermino da Encarnaēćo: "This is extremely difficult because, in 30 years of criminal investigation, I've never seen the confession of such a serious crime without the arguidos saying they were tortured, attacked or raped so that this, for us police officers, and I tell you, unfortunately, it has become the norm, natural. Therefore I don't give it a lot of credence."
Leonor and Joćo opted to remain silent throughout the entire trial. In November 2005 they were charged with qualified homicide and hiding a cadaver. Leonor was condemned to 20 years and 4 months in prison, and Joćo to 19 years and 2 months. The three jury members and four judges felt that the brother and sister did not intend to kill the child but gave, as proven, that the body was dismembered though they were not convinced it was kept in the refrigerator. Nor was it proven that the child was killed because she caught the mother and her brother having sex. The defense attorneys and the Public Ministry presented an appeal, reducing the penalty to 16 years and 8 month,
With a lot of doubts still to be clarified, Leonor's attorney presented another appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Joćo Grade:"It's more than frustrating that we do not know what happened. We have this other child who disappeared 10 years ago, when eight years old, and now has returned at eighteen years old. We don't know whether Joana is going to appear twenty years from now, or four years from now, alive or dead, I don't know."
RTP wanted to talk to Leonor and Joćo, currently serving their sentences in the Odimera and Carregeira prisons. Leonor sent a signed letter, where she agreed to give an interview. Two days after making a request to the Prison Director, that service sent us a newly signed letter when Leonor rescinded her agreement because of "lack of understanding".
Joćo Cipriano agreed to give his first interview, a written interview wherein he proclaimed his innocence. "I did nothing to my niece, Joana Guerreiro. I am innocent. I was threatened with knives to make that video that was shown in court. But it is all lies. The PJ came almost every day to the Olhćo prison where I was held to ask me where Joana was. And I, afraid of beatings, kept saying she was here or there, but it was a lie. My sister told me that Joana was fine. She told me that she had sold Joana to a foreign couple."
It remains to be known, what was Joana's destiny.
RTP 2007
Video no longer on J Morais blip tv account Cached article linked....anyone else unable to access Joana Morais' blog? >>>
joana-morais.blogspot.com
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 04:07:41 PM
@ Red
Thanks. But the shoes/shopping story is in an article.
GA doesn't mention these points in his court testimony in the murder trial.
A testemunha CC3 , coordenador de investigaēćo criminal da P.J., declarou que comeēaram 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 declaraēões prestadas na GNR e visionou as entrevistas televisivas, estranhando logo a postura da mće, que vestia de preto e parecia estar a mentir, sendo que falava da filha no passado. Comeēaram a tomar declaraēões e decidiram ir examinar a casa da BB. Quando lį chegaram viram que o interior da habitaēćo tinha sido lavado, sendo que tal lavagem contrastava com o desleixo de limpeza e arrumaēćo do resto da casa, mas mesmo assim ainda encontraram vestķgios hemįticos no chćo, nas paredes, no balde e esfregona e na sola de umas sapatilhas que estavam na sala - a testemunha confirmou o auto de busca e apreensćo de fls. 173. Quando o resultado dos exames foi conclusivo no sentido de que esses vestķgios 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 auxķlio do arguido AA procederam ą reconstituiēćo dos factos como consta do auto de fls. 273 ss, cujo teor confirmou pois que esteve presente na diligźncia. Confirmou que a configuraēćo da casa é a que consta da planta de fls. 294 e que a porta que dį acesso ą rua tem um manķpulo do lado exterior que permite a entrada imediata na residźncia. Disse ainda que na sequźncia desta reconstituiēćo, e seguindo indicaēões do arguido AA, procuraram o corpo da menor num aterro de terra e noutros locais da Mexilhoeira Grande, numa lixeira, em Poēo Barreto, nos carros acidentados existentes na sucata do padrasto do II e em Silves, locais onde procuraram exaustivamente mas sem źxito. Confirmou ainda a pesquisa pela técnica denominada Projectina de vestķgios 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 apreensćo junto aos autos de fls. 578 a 580 (arca frigorķfica) e que no interior da arca foi recolhido um vestķgio hemįtico da espécie humana, realēando que este vestķgio de sangue humano foi recolhido no interior da gaveta, concretamente no painel de trįs da segunda gaveta da arca.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 19, 2013, 04:15:28 PM
That's the trouble with Trial by Media. There are so many made up stories that in the end you don't know what is true and what isn't.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 19, 2013, 04:20:25 PM
Thanks. But the shoes/shopping story is in an article.
GA doesn't mention these points in his court testimony in the murder trial.
A testemunha CC3 , coordenador de investigaēćo criminal da P.J., declarou que comeēaram 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 declaraēões prestadas na GNR e visionou as entrevistas televisivas, estranhando logo a postura da mće, que vestia de preto e parecia estar a mentir, sendo que falava da filha no passado. Comeēaram a tomar declaraēões e decidiram ir examinar a casa da BB. Quando lį chegaram viram que o interior da habitaēćo tinha sido lavado, sendo que tal lavagem contrastava com o desleixo de limpeza e arrumaēćo do resto da casa, mas mesmo assim ainda encontraram vestķgios hemįticos no chćo, nas paredes, no balde e esfregona e na sola de umas sapatilhas que estavam na sala - a testemunha confirmou o auto de busca e apreensćo de fls. 173. Quando o resultado dos exames foi conclusivo no sentido de que esses vestķgios 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 auxķlio do arguido AA procederam ą reconstituiēćo dos factos como consta do auto de fls. 273 ss, cujo teor confirmou pois que esteve presente na diligźncia. Confirmou que a configuraēćo da casa é a que consta da planta de fls. 294 e que a porta que dį acesso ą rua tem um manķpulo do lado exterior que permite a entrada imediata na residźncia. Disse ainda que na sequźncia desta reconstituiēćo, e seguindo indicaēões do arguido AA, procuraram o corpo da menor num aterro de terra e noutros locais da Mexilhoeira Grande, numa lixeira, em Poēo Barreto, nos carros acidentados existentes na sucata do padrasto do II e em Silves, locais onde procuraram exaustivamente mas sem źxito. Confirmou ainda a pesquisa pela técnica denominada Projectina de vestķgios 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 apreensćo junto aos autos de fls. 578 a 580 (arca frigorķfica) e que no interior da arca foi recolhido um vestķgio hemįtico da espécie humana, realēando que este vestķgio de sangue humano foi recolhido no interior da gaveta, concretamente no painel de trįs da segunda gaveta da arca.
pass.....the post I put up was a verbatim transcript and indepndently translated from an RTP documentary......its not available to check the context.....perhaps it was established early on the child had returned home, along with the shopping, so was not an issue....bigger issues being on the table! Her wearing red shoes was put on the posters Leonor held up, so...again....never mind..catch you later
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 19, 2013, 08:05:09 PM
pass.....the post I put up was a verbatim transcript and indepndently translated from an RTP documentary......its not available to check the context.....perhaps it was established early on the child had returned home, along with the shopping, so was not an issue....bigger issues being on the table! Her wearing red shoes was put on the posters Leonor held up, so...again....never mind..catch you later
Yep they were on the posters, but seems they were not in the court records, is that correct Carana? So just a media myth again? No shoes to convict on, then.
What about the food? I thought that I had read that Joana Went to Celias Pastilaria, 420 metres away to fetch a cake for Leandro ... but it seems it was just ordinary food shopping?
On her return she was seen going up the steps to the lovely new modern church, in the centre of Figueira. It was dark and it was reported that she had 200 metres to go to her home.
Plenty of opportunity to have abducted her, if someone wanted to .... either in the area around the church, or on the last 200 metres home.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 08:32:24 PM
I've just found a reference to the shoes issue.
BB1 (one of Leadro's sisters). Na 2Ŗ feira de manhć (dia 13), por volta das 14h, a testemunha foi ver a BB. Em casa estavam também o AA e o II. Nessa altura a BB referiu-lhe como é que a CC estava vestida e calēada quando desapareceu. Mais tarde, a testemunha deparou com os sapatos que a BB tinha dito que a CC tinha calēados e confrontou a BB com isso, tendo ela respondido que entćo a CC devia ter trocado de sapatos e que tinha levado as chinelas. Porém, posteriormente, a testemunha encontrou uma das chinelas debaixo do sofį da sala e a outra chinela no quarto. Procurou o calēado da CC e encontrou em casa todos os sapatos, sandįlias e chinelas que ela usava nesse Verćo.
This is what I think it says (paraphrasing). Leandro's sister went to see Leonor at the house at around 2pm. Leandro and Joćo were also there. Leonor said what clothes and shoes Joana had been wearing. Later, the sister found the shoes in the house and asked Leonor about it, who said she must have changed shoes and gone out in "chinelas" (slippers/flipflops?). Later, the sister found one of the flipflops under the sofa and the other in the room (not sure which room). She searched for all her footwear and found all the shoes, sandals and slipper/flipflops that she had worn that summer in the house.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 08:50:23 PM
Yep they were on the posters, but seems they were not in the court records, is that correct Carana? So just a media myth again? No shoes to convict on, then.
What about the food? I thought that I had read that Joana Went to Celias Pastilaria, 420 metres away to fetch a cake for Leandro ... but it seems it was just ordinary food shopping?
On her return she was seen going up the steps to the lovely new modern church, in the centre of Figueira. It was dark and it was reported that she had 200 metres to go to her home.
Plenty of opportunity to have abducted her, if someone wanted to .... either in the area around the church, or on the last 200 metres home.
The café/shop owner said she'd been in the shop to buy a carton of milk and two tins of tuna at around 8.20-8.30 A testemunha NN, proprietįria da "Pastelaria ...", declarou que no dia 12 de Setembro a CC apareceu na pastelaria, pelas 8h 20m / 8 h 30m, a comprar um pacote de leite e duas latas de atum.
And the lady having a ciggie out her window saw her at around 8.30-840, with a bag in her hand, climbing the steps near the market heading towards home.
A testemunha AA3, relatou que no dia 12 de Setembro, pelas 8h 30m / 8h 40m, estava a janela de sua casa, a fumar, quando viu a CC, com um saco na mćo, a subir as escadas na proximidade do mercado, em direcēćo a casa.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 19, 2013, 08:58:56 PM
BB1 (one of Leadro's sisters). Na 2Ŗ feira de manhć (dia 13), por volta das 14h, a testemunha foi ver a BB. Em casa estavam também o AA e o II. Nessa altura a BB referiu-lhe como é que a CC estava vestida e calēada quando desapareceu. Mais tarde, a testemunha deparou com os sapatos que a BB tinha dito que a CC tinha calēados e confrontou a BB com isso, tendo ela respondido que entćo a CC devia ter trocado de sapatos e que tinha levado as chinelas. Porém, posteriormente, a testemunha encontrou uma das chinelas debaixo do sofį da sala e a outra chinela no quarto. Procurou o calēado da CC e encontrou em casa todos os sapatos, sandįlias e chinelas que ela usava nesse Verćo.
This is what I think it says (paraphrasing). Leandro's sister went to see Leonor at the house at around 2pm. Leandro and Joćo were also there. Leonor said what clothes and shoes Joana had been wearing. Later, the sister found the shoes in the house and asked Leonor about it, who said she must have changed shoes and gone out in "chinelas" (slippers/flipflops?). Later, the sister found one of the flipflops under the sofa and the other in the room (not sure which room). She searched for all her footwear and found all the shoes, sandals and slipper/flipflops that she had worn that summer in the house.
Is there an actual signed statement by Leandros sister? Cos if it is a third party report I have no faith in it. To many discrepancies and untruths in this case.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 19, 2013, 09:08:18 PM
Is there an actual signed statement by Leandros sister? Cos if it is a third party report I have no faith in it. To many discrepancies and untruths in this case.
I find it too contrived that Leandros sister would be interested in what shoes Joanna was wearing and would search the house to confirm this...its all manufactured evidence
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 09:10:17 PM
Is there an actual signed statement by Leandros sister? Cos if it is a third party report I have no faith in it. To many discrepancies and untruths in this case.
What I'm quoting is from the Supreme Court document. It's not clear whether these are summaries of written statements, or whether they actually took the stand.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 19, 2013, 09:18:00 PM
Is there an actual signed statement by Leandros sister? Cos if it is a third party report I have no faith in it. To many discrepancies and untruths in this case.
having just translated the start it looks like a third party report
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 09:18:24 PM
I find it too contrived that Leandros sister would be interested in what shoes Joanna was wearing and would search the house to confirm this...its all manufactured evidence
I find it a bit odd as well. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in Leandro's statement, so there doesn't seem to be any corroboration. The sister's statement doesn't say what colour these shoes were, so I'm not sure where that detail is supposed to have come from.
Several statements say that Joana had been to stay at Leandro's mother's house for a few days (and there was a birthday party on the Sunday). Joana and Leonor got home at around 18:00. Joana might well have been wearing shoes for the party and changed later.
From Leandro's statement: A CC estava desde 5Ŗ feira anterior na casa da mće da testemunha. A arguida BB no domingo foi também ą casa da mće da testemunha, a uma festa de anos, tendo regressado com a CC ą Figueira por volta das 18h.
ETA: Correction - she had stayed at Leandro's mother's house, it didn't say "parents'".
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 09:24:33 PM
having just translated the start it looks like a third party report
None of the witness statements are verbatim. I find it hard to work out if some were statements made to the PJ which were simply read out in court. Was there time for forty-five or so witnesses to actually take the stand in a trial that only lasted three days?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 19, 2013, 09:25:37 PM
I find it a bit odd as well. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in Leandro's statement, so there doesn't seem to be any corroboration. The sister's statement doesn't say what colour these shoes were, so I'm not sure where that detail is supposed to have come from.
Several statements say that Joana had been to stay at Leandro's parents' house for a few days (and there was a birthday party on the Sunday). Joana and Leonor got home at around 18:00. Joana might well have been wearing shoes for the party and changed later.
From Leandro's statement: A CC estava desde 5Ŗ feira anterior na casa da mće da testemunha. A arguida BB no domingo foi também ą casa da mće da testemunha, a uma festa de anos, tendo regressado com a CC ą Figueira por volta das 18h.
Or... more threats of violence. If it happened to 3 who had a lot to lose , It could happen to anyone
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 19, 2013, 09:29:47 PM
just ask yourself what are the chances of Leonor being convicted in the uk on the available evidence
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 09:31:47 PM
Could you help me to find those points in Leandro's court testimony?
A testemunha II, companheiro da arguida BB, afirmou que ą data dos factos vivia com a arguida BB e com a CC. Declarou que o arguido AA tinha chegado a casa deles na madrugada do dia 12 de Setembro (domingo). A CC estava desde 5Ŗ feira anterior na casa da mće da testemunha. A arguida BB no domingo foi também ą casa da mće da testemunha, a uma festa de anos, tendo regressado com a CC ą Figueira por volta das 18h. Disse também a testemunha que foi ą "Pastelaria Célia" com o MM por volta das 21h e que a dada altura apareceu ali o arguido AA a dizer que a CC tinha ido ą pastelaria ąs 8h e ainda nćo tinha aparecido. Eles foram para casa (nćo achou nada de estranho na casa) e a testemunha pediu ą BB para ir procurar a CC nos vizinhos (mas nćo sabe se ela foi efectivamente) enquanto ele foi ą festa do berbigćo ver se a CC por lį estaria e o MM foi dar uma volta por ali a ver se via a menor. O arguido AA ficou em casa a tomar conta dos filhos da testemunha. A testemunha ficou algum tempo na festa do berbigćo mas havia muita confusćo e veio embora; voltou depois ą festa com a BB e o MM ą procura da CC e quando estavam a regressar a casa apareceu a D. Ofélia, a saber da CC e a perguntar se jį tinham chamado a GNR. Disseram-lhe que nćo e ela telefonou. No dia seguinte a testemunha disse ą BB para ir ą GNR. Declarou ainda a testemunha que numa altura em que se encontrou com a arguida BB nas instalaēões da Polķcia Judiciįria, a pedido daquela Polķcia, mas numa altura em que se encontravam só os dois, a testemunha perguntou ą BB o que tinha acontecido e ela entćo contou-lhe que "tinha dado uma chapada na CC e que o irmćo acabou de a matar", tudo "porque ela os tinha visto a ter relaēões" e também contou que "tinham posto o corpo numa casa velha e que tinha sido o AA a levį-la ąs costas". Posteriormente, quando a testemunha foi visitar a arguida BB ą cadeia de Odemira, ela negou o que tinha dito e referiu-lhe que só tinha afirmado aquelas coisas porque a Polķcia Judiciįria lhe tinha batido. Questionado sobre se no dia em que a BB lhe tinha confessado ter agredido CC, a mesma apresentava marcas de ter sido batida, nomeadamente se tinha a cara ou os olhos inchados ou vermelhos, a testemunha disse que nćo. Ą testemunha foi também perguntado se tinha na sua casa algum serrote, ao que respondeu que sim, que tinha um serrote pequeno de dentes finos, e que quando a Polķcia Judiciįria lhe perguntou pelo serrote foi procurį-lo e verificou que tinha desaparecido.
The only point that I can find is that when the PJ asked him if he had a saw at home, he'd said that he did but that it had disappeared. There's no indication of when he noticed that it had gone prior to being asked to find it.
Nothing about shoes or shopping being found at home as far as I can see.
Why are you referring to appeal court documents Carana when you should be referring to the daily reports from the actual trial?
You have to go back to the trial as I have done if you ever going to understand this case. Being able to translate Portuguese is a prerequisite of course.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 19, 2013, 09:34:38 PM
BB1 (one of Leadro's sisters). Na 2Ŗ feira de manhć (dia 13), por volta das 14h, a testemunha foi ver a BB. Em casa estavam também o AA e o II. Nessa altura a BB referiu-lhe como é que a CC estava vestida e calēada quando desapareceu. Mais tarde, a testemunha deparou com os sapatos que a BB tinha dito que a CC tinha calēados e confrontou a BB com isso, tendo ela respondido que entćo a CC devia ter trocado de sapatos e que tinha levado as chinelas. Porém, posteriormente, a testemunha encontrou uma das chinelas debaixo do sofį da sala e a outra chinela no quarto. Procurou o calēado da CC e encontrou em casa todos os sapatos, sandįlias e chinelas que ela usava nesse Verćo.
This is what I think it says (paraphrasing). Leandro's sister went to see Leonor at the house at around 2pm. Leandro and Joćo were also there. Leonor said what clothes and shoes Joana had been wearing. Later, the sister found the shoes in the house and asked Leonor about it, who said she must have changed shoes and gone out in "chinelas" (slippers/flipflops?). Later, the sister found one of the flipflops under the sofa and the other in the room (not sure which room). She searched for all her footwear and found all the shoes, sandals and slipper/flipflops that she had worn that summer in the house.
Right and did not Leona scrub the floor and walls? and of course she would miss the shoes or fipflops she was wearing when they allegedly killed her- Rubbish!.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 19, 2013, 09:43:25 PM
Why are you referring to appeal court documents Carana when you should be referring to the daily reports from the actual trial?
You have to go back to the trial as I have done if you ever going to understand this case. Being able to translate Portuguese is a prerequisite of course.
20 apr 2006 was the last day of the trial was it not ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 09:48:13 PM
Why are you referring to appeal court documents Carana when you should be referring to the daily reports from the actual trial?
You have to go back to the trial as I have done if you ever going to understand this case. Being able to translate Portuguese is a prerequisite of course.
Do you mean press reports? I'm happy to look at reliable and balanced reports from the actual trial as well.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 09:51:45 PM
Do you mean press reports? I'm happy to look at reliable and balanced reports from the actual trial as well.
Well there aren't any other reports are there. These reports are invaluable and give an insight into what really went on each and every day from the moment of the disappearance to the final appeal.
How do you think I know about the three lawyers fighting over Leonor on the first day of the trial or how I know that it was the lawyers who told them both not to testify?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 19, 2013, 09:54:30 PM
Certainly not, the trial ran from 12th - 14 Oct 2005. For heavens sake...if you can't even get this right!!!
I asked you a question which didn't deserve your rude remark
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 19, 2013, 10:04:05 PM
This is the problem with this case, from the perspective of the English speaker there appears to be little evidence but this is false. There is an abundance of material and when I get an opportunity I tend to compile it in all.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 10:10:01 PM
Not the actual murder trial. The Supreme Court ruling was 20/04/2006.
I really got to laugh when new posters come on here spouting pish when they don't even know the basics. dum dee dum @)(++(*
Suggest you do some homework Anna.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 10:31:18 PM
Why are some of you being so rude to Anna? The date she'd asked about wasn't the initial murder trial, but it was the date of the end of the appeals process.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 19, 2013, 10:33:28 PM
This is the problem with this case, from the perspective of the English speaker there appears to be little evidence but this is false. There is an abundance and when I get an opportunity I tend to compile it.
But the so called evidence cant be trusted, John. It is useless.
It comes from a man who is a criminal. A man who has twice been found guilty as a perjurer in Court, which confirms he is a liar .... and .... It comes from 3 tortured people who will say what they are told to say, because they are frightened of more pain
In fact they were advised not to speak in Court. There could be two or three reasons for that.
Their solicitor, Joao Grade was "found" with drugs on him visiting a jail wasn't he ?. He never got prosecuted as far as we are aware and he was at Amarals birthday bash when some of Amarals group attacked Marcos Aragao Correira in his car and tried to pull him thru the window.
So one has to wonder if the "dont speak in Court" thingy is to make sure that the accused dont expose some rum goings on before hand. Leonor was very quick to change Lawyers after the case. It also seems that "they" are trying to keep her in jail as long as possible. Has she "got some beans to spill " ? Some beans that they dont want spilled?
Other witnesses too could have been threatened/beaten, as Leandro was
I want to make it clear that these are not accusations but there are strange things about this case that keep nagging at me, and this drug thing of Leonors Lawyer at a prison !!, followed by a close friendship between the Prosecution and the Defense worries me. It seems too cozy.
As far as I am aware, neither Amaral or Grade manhandled Marcos.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 19, 2013, 10:42:37 PM
just ask yourself what are the chances of Leonor being convicted in the uk on the available evidence
Would it have even have gone to trial?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 19, 2013, 10:53:50 PM
john ....you say here .....http://johnlamberton.webs.com/ ......you suffered a miscarriage of justice ....yet your not willing to open your mind to the joana case ....that surprises me when you yourself say you were wrongly convicted ...?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2013, 07:47:40 AM
I don't think it would have gone to trial. it will be interesting to see what John has got...I notice he says material not evidence..everything we have seen so far lkooks extremely suspect. if there was decent evidnce, dna etc it wouldn't need digging out. Accidentally killing a child is one thing...but then to cut her body in to pieces is another. Who could do that? Wouldn't it make a terrible mess that would leave some residue. Wouldn't it be far easier just to take the body and dispose of it somewhere.
it looks to me as though the pj wrote a script and then forced the accused to support it through torture
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 20, 2013, 08:18:08 AM
I don't think it would have gone to trial. it will be interesting to see what John has got...I notice he says material not evidence..everything we have seen so far lkooks extremely suspect. if there was decent evidnce, dna etc it wouldn't need digging out. Accidentally killing a child is one thing...but then to cut her body in to pieces is another. Who could do that? Wouldn't it make a terrible mess that would leave some residue. Wouldn't it be far easier just to take the body and dispose of it somewhere.
it looks to me as though the pj wrote a script and then forced the accused to support it through torture
She wasn't being tortured when she lied her arse off during the Amaral trial.
Leonor Cipriano is a social pariah, a misfit and nothing you choose to post will change that. Her own family have disowned her, her eldest daughter now a grown up wants nothing to do with her. Even the two youngest children have had their names changed in order to protect them from the Cipriano curse.
She is due out on early release but nobody will keep her. Are you going to tell me you know better than her own family??
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 20, 2013, 08:29:19 AM
Why are some of you being so rude to Anna? The date she'd asked about wasn't the initial murder trial, but it was the date of the end of the appeals process.
A newbie comes on here claiming ignorance and then starts spouting rubbish as fact and you want us to take her seriously?? @)(++(*
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 20, 2013, 08:30:17 AM
She wasn't being tortured when she lied her arse off during the Amaral trial.
Leonor Cipriano is a social pariah, a misfit and nothing you choose to post will change that. Her own family have disowned her, her eldest daughter now a grown up wants nothing to do with her. Even the two youngest children have had their names changed in order to protect them from the Cipriano curse.
She is due out on early release but nobody will keep her. Are you going to tell me you know better than her own family??
what I am going to say is do you have any evidence of what you have said..or is it just more gossip like the rubbish that was used to convict her..glad to hear she will soon be out on release..are you sure of that
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 20, 2013, 08:32:58 AM
Why are some of you being so rude to Anna? The date she'd asked about wasn't the initial murder trial, but it was the date of the end of the appeals process.
She posted 'trial'. Are we to infer that every time she posts trial she means appeal?? Do get a grip Carana.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 20, 2013, 11:48:31 AM
I really got to laugh when new posters come on here spouting pish when they don't even know the basics. dum dee dum @)(++(*
Suggest you do some homework Anna.
Yes, I am a newbie who started fresh on here just a very short time ago, knowing very little about this case, but I am learning fast with the help of other posters and their knowledge and I have a lot of time on my hands to research the case. It is soooo reassuring to know that the Moderators are being of assistance and adhering to the forum rules too 8)--))
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 20, 2013, 07:55:47 PM
There is nothing in the court case to suggest that the food purchased was in the house and theres nothing to say that Leona or Leandro told them about shoes
A moderator has asked me to look at this post since it breaches one of our most important rules.
Please acquaint yourself with the case Anna since what you posted is untruthful. Both Leonor's partner and Joana's aunt were questioned at length about these issues and gave evidence at the original trial.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 20, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
Yes, I am a newbie who started fresh on here just a very short time ago, knowing very little about this case, but I am learning fast with the help of other posters and their knowledge and I have a lot of time on my hands to research the case. It is soooo reassuring to know that the Moderators are being of assistance and adhering to the forum rules too 8)--))
The moderator was right to challenge you. That said however I do agree it might have been done somewhat differently.
A moderator has asked me to look at this post since it breaches one of our most important rules.
Please acquaint yourself with the case Anna since what you posted is untruthful. Both Leonor's partner and Joana's aunt were questioned at length about these issues and gave evidence at the original trial.
John...do you know if they actually gave evidence in person at the trial?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 20, 2013, 08:17:35 PM
John...do you know if they actually gave evidence in person at the trial?
Does it matter to you? You will only say oh they feared torture so whatever they said was put in their mouths! So its all false manufactured etc etc blah blah
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 20, 2013, 11:21:45 PM
John...do you know if they actually gave evidence in person at the trial?
For the tenth time.. No. Both Leonor and Joćo sat silent throughout the murder trial on the advice of their lawyers. The only time one of them was heard was when the judge allowed the video of the Joćo confession recorded by the PJ to be played.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 20, 2013, 11:28:23 PM
For the tenth time.. No. Both Leonor and Joćo sat silent throughout the murder trial on the advice of their lawyers. The only time one of them was heard was when the judge allowed the video of the Joćo confession recorded by the PJ to be played.
after it was beaten out of them both ... ?8)@)-)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 08:06:07 AM
For the tenth time.. No. Both Leonor and Joćo sat silent throughout the murder trial on the advice of their lawyers. The only time one of them was heard was when the judge allowed the video of the Joćo confession recorded by the PJ to be played.
I am well aware that Leonor nor Joao gave evidence I was referring to your post re leonaras partner and joannas aunt. did they give live evidence in court or was a transcript read out
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 21, 2013, 08:41:22 AM
I find it too contrived that Leandros sister would be interested in what shoes Joanna was wearing and would search the house to confirm this...its all manufactured evidence
Agreed. I also find it strange that Leandro's sister would know how many pairs of shoes Joanna had in the first place - let alone be able to categorically state there were none missing from the house. Surely you would have to live with a person to know that?
And if Leandro's sister found the red shoes in the house on the same night that Joana disappeared - and LC actually commented on them at that time - then why would she later claim in posters that those were the shoes Joana was wearing at the time she disappeared? That makes no sense whatsoever. imo.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 21, 2013, 09:19:04 AM
What are you talking about?? She didn't give evidence to the court.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on November 21, 2013, 09:23:15 AM
Posts being wiped again. Mine was up for all of 30 seconds. It was a valid post, with no reason for it to be taken down. I am finding this wiping of posts not only very unfair but also BULLYING
LEVEL playing field please Angelo!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 21, 2013, 09:25:29 AM
Agreed. I also find it strange that Leandro's sister would know how many pairs of shoes Joanna had in the first place - let alone be able to categorically state there were none missing from the house. Surely you would have to live with a person to know that?
And if Leandro's sister found the red shoes in the house on the same night that Joana disappeared - and LC actually commented on them at that time - then why would she later claim in posters that those were the shoes Joana was wearing at the time she disappeared? That makes no sense whatsoever. imo.
Nobody said anyone found red shoes in the house on the night she disappeared. What you have totally failed to understand is that Joana wasn't even considered as having been abducted for nearly 4 days. Only after this period of time did the GNR call in the PJ detectives when they realised that all was not as it seemed. Only then did Leonor claim she had been abducted.
PS Stop posting off topic Sadie.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benita on November 21, 2013, 09:26:51 AM
For the tenth time.. No. Both Leonor and Joćo sat silent throughout the murder trial on the advice of their lawyers. The only time one of them was heard was when the judge allowed the video of the Joćo confession recorded by the PJ to be played.
Joao is her brother. He is not a she and Leonor was not heard.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 21, 2013, 11:29:19 AM
A moderator has asked me to look at this post since it breaches one of our most important rules.
Please acquaint yourself with the case Anna since what you posted is untruthful. Both Leonor's partner and Joana's aunt were questioned at length about these issues and gave evidence at the original trial.
I've looked through all the witness statements in the original SC document, and I can't find any mention of the shopping being found at home. It doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the prosecution points unless I've missed it.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 21, 2013, 12:10:32 PM
I can't imagine my sister knowing how many pairs of shoes my children had, and I certainly didn't know how many pairs her children had.
And as for the shopping, why was not more made of this? This could have been proven by the shop keeper who doesn't even appear to have been asked what Joana bought that night. Unless it didn't suit. As it is, I always have at least two tins of Tuna, and always bought from the same shop with the same price labels. This is what appears to have happened. This Tuna was bought at some other time and was jumped on by The PJ.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 21, 2013, 12:20:04 PM
Nobody said anyone found red shoes in the house on the night she disappeared. What you have totally failed to understand is that Joana wasn't even considered as having been abducted for nearly 4 days. Only after this period of time did the GNR call in the PJ detectives when they realised that all was not as it seemed. Only then did Leonor claim she had been abducted.
PS Stop posting off topic Sadie.
It doesn't seem that anyone assumed she'd been abducted in the beginning. There had been a village fźte, she might have met up with people she knew or had an accident. How could Leonor have filed a report to the GNR for abduction the morning after? All she could do was to file a missing person report. As everyone keeps saying, there are relatively few abductions in Portugal. The GNR wouldn't have considered it to be an abduction until reasonable possibilities had been ruled out and the GNR doesn't even deal with such crimes.
According to an interview with Leandro two years later, the GNR officers were helpful, as was the original Portimćo PJ team. Then the case got referred to the Faro PJ... Unfortunately, I haven't found a reasonable translation of it and googlespeak isn't very helpful, either.
I can't imagine my sister knowing how many pairs of shoes my children had, and I certainly didn't know how many pairs her children had.
And as for the shopping, why was not more made of this? This could have been proven by the shop keeper who doesn't even appear to have been asked what Joana bought that night. Unless it didn't suit. As it is, I always have at least two tins of Tuna, and always bought from the same shop with the same price labels. This is what appears to have happened. This Tuna was bought at some other time and was jumped on by The PJ.
I haven't found anything in the SC document that claims that her shopping was found at home that night. I can't even see it as a point in the prosecution case.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 21, 2013, 12:33:49 PM
I haven't found anything in the SC document that claims that her shopping was found at home that night. I can't even see it as a point in the prosecution case.
I suppose it could be a Media Myth. We know all about those.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on November 21, 2013, 01:29:57 PM
Nobody said anyone found red shoes in the house on the night she disappeared. What you have totally failed to understand is that Joana wasn't even considered as having been abducted for nearly 4 days. Only after this period of time did the GNR call in the PJ detectives when they realised that all was not as it seemed. Only then did Leonor claim she had been abducted.
I was referring to the statement on this thread - from Carana.
BB1 (one of Leadro's sisters). Na 2Ŗ feira de manhć (dia 13), por volta das 14h, a testemunha foi ver a BB. Em casa estavam também o AA e o II. Nessa altura a BB referiu-lhe como é que a CC estava vestida e calēada quando desapareceu. Mais tarde, a testemunha deparou com os sapatos que a BB tinha dito que a CC tinha calēados e confrontou a BB com isso, tendo ela respondido que entćo a CC devia ter trocado de sapatos e que tinha levado as chinelas. Porém, posteriormente, a testemunha encontrou uma das chinelas debaixo do sofį da sala e a outra chinela no quarto. Procurou o calēado da CC e encontrou em casa todos os sapatos, sandįlias e chinelas que ela usava nesse Verćo.
This is what I think it says (paraphrasing). Leandro's sister went to see Leonor at the house at around 2pm. Leandro and Joćo were also there. Leonor said what clothes and shoes Joana had been wearing. Later, the sister found the shoes in the house and asked Leonor about it, who said she must have changed shoes and gone out in "chinelas" (slippers/flipflops?). Later, the sister found one of the flipflops under the sofa and the other in the room (not sure which room). She searched for all her footwear and found all the shoes, sandals and slipper/flipflops that she had worn that summer in the house. UNQUOTE
I'm well aware that it was while before the GNR called in the PJ. That doesn't change the fact that - as instructed by the GNR - LC formally reported her daughter missing the morning after she disappeared.
When she had not been located elsewhere (dead or alive) and did not return - then of course LC would think she had been abducted. That is surely what any normal parent would think - and dread - in those same circumstances.
IMO It was only the GNR who took their time in coming to that same possible conclusion - not LC.
Is there any evidence that LC claimed anything different to 'abduction' during those first 4 days?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 21, 2013, 01:41:37 PM
I was referring to the statement on this thread - from Carana.
BB1 (one of Leadro's sisters). Na 2Ŗ feira de manhć (dia 13), por volta das 14h, a testemunha foi ver a BB. Em casa estavam também o AA e o II. Nessa altura a BB referiu-lhe como é que a CC estava vestida e calēada quando desapareceu. Mais tarde, a testemunha deparou com os sapatos que a BB tinha dito que a CC tinha calēados e confrontou a BB com isso, tendo ela respondido que entćo a CC devia ter trocado de sapatos e que tinha levado as chinelas. Porém, posteriormente, a testemunha encontrou uma das chinelas debaixo do sofį da sala e a outra chinela no quarto. Procurou o calēado da CC e encontrou em casa todos os sapatos, sandįlias e chinelas que ela usava nesse Verćo.
This is what I think it says (paraphrasing). Leandro's sister went to see Leonor at the house at around 2pm. Leandro and Joćo were also there. Leonor said what clothes and shoes Joana had been wearing. Later, the sister found the shoes in the house and asked Leonor about it, who said she must have changed shoes and gone out in "chinelas" (slippers/flipflops?). Later, the sister found one of the flipflops under the sofa and the other in the room (not sure which room). She searched for all her footwear and found all the shoes, sandals and slipper/flipflops that she had worn that summer in the house. UNQUOTE
I'm well aware that it was while before the GNR called in the PJ. That doesn't change the fact that - as instructed by the GNR - LC formally reported her daughter missing the morning after she disappeared.
When she had not been located elsewhere (dead or alive) and did not return - then of course LC would think she had been abducted. That is surely what any normal parent would think - and dread - in those same circumstances.
IMO It was only the GNR who took their time in coming to that same possible conclusion - not LC.
Is there any evidence that LC claimed anything different to 'abduction' during those first 4 days?
Various statements give me the impression that she was more perplexed than panicked that night. Searches in the village and calls to family members might have given a lead, but there was none. It seems to be later that morning that she was getting really worried and had been crying.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 21, 2013, 02:45:02 PM
Does anyone else not think it just a little bit strange that the step aunt was checking on shoes even then yet Leonor didn't appear to be perplexed??
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 21, 2013, 03:33:50 PM
Does anyone else not think it just a little bit strange that the step aunt was checking on shoes even then yet Leonor didn't appear to be perplexed??
I find it a bit strange that the aunt knew anything much about Joana's shoes, let alone was checking on them. She can't have been in a position to know exactly how many shoes Joana had.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 21, 2013, 05:14:48 PM
I find it a bit strange that the aunt knew anything much about Joana's shoes, let alone was checking on them. She can't have been in a position to know exactly how many shoes Joana had.
I find that rather odd as well. The child had been at a birthday party that day, so it's possible that she'd changed footwear once home. There doesn't seem to be any further information about this, aside from that one person's statement.
The only other thing I've found from the SC doc is what I've posted below (paraphrasing based on what I can decipher) AA9 She's the girlfriend/common-law wife of one of Leandro's half-brothers. On the morning of 13 Sept, BB1 (sister- in-law?) phoned to say that Joana had disappeared and she went to Leonor's home that afternoon, where she found her in a right state and had said that she'd had to pay 2 to go to the GNR station to report the disappearance. On 14 Sept., this lady volunteered to make up a poster on a computer with Joana's photo and made photocopies to pin up (which various people seemed to have done in the area).
A testemunha AA9, companheira de um meio-irmćo do II, contou que na 2Ŗ feira de manhć (dia 13) a cunhada BB1 lhe telefonou a dizer que a CC tinha desaparecido, pelo que nessa tarde foi a casa da BB. Referiu que a BB tinha estado a chorar e que estava em baixo, nervosa, mas contou-lhe que tinha tido que gastar 2 para vir a Portimćo participar o desaparecimento na GNR. A testemunha contou também que, por sua iniciativa, logo na 3Ŗ feira, fez um panfleto no computador com a fotografia da CC a falar no desaparecimento, o qual fotocopiou, sendo que com o companheiro e a cunhada BB1 andaram a espalhar os panfletos por vįrios locais de Portimćo e Lagos.
ETA: John found a reference to the shoes:
9. 1. Facts considered to be proved:
ao) the arguidos did not place the shoes that the minor was wearing, inside the bags, and all the pairs of shoes that the minor was using that summer, stayed inside the house;
ao) os arguidos nćo colocaram os sapatos que a menor tinha calēados nos sacos, tendo ficado em casa todos os pares de sapatos que a menor utilizava naquele Verćo;
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 06:39:56 PM
This is the problem with this case, from the perspective of the English speaker there appears to be little evidence but this is false. There is an abundance of material and when I get an opportunity I tend to compile it in all.
Well said, that is why many of us are really quite hand tied in many aspects.....
Not sure if this is any use, its all in Portuguese....a 5 page online especial report from Diario da Noticias...not the equivalent of Portugals daily star!....at the bottom of the page there are links to many articles, dated,and going back to sept 2004
Does anyone else not think it just a little bit strange that the step aunt was checking on shoes even then yet Leonor didn't appear to be perplexed??
The aunt when visiting the next afternoon asked or was told what joana was wearing that day,including red shoes, which is normal, Ive not read anywhere she went looking for her shoes, just that she found them.....and when she did Leonor said to her she must have changed them before going out again....ie into the orangle flip flops....again no one said she went looking for these, just that she found them under some furniture...when a child goes missing its not strange that relatives will look around the house for clues....sorry angelo, not a reply to your post directly, just a point Im making about this issue and couldnt be bothered to scroll back to the original question on it.....for some posters to suggest all this was manufactured by the PJ borders on stupidity IMO.....i suppose the aunt now was tortured too......
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 21, 2013, 08:15:40 PM
Well said, that is why many of us are really quite hand tied in many aspects.....
Not sure if this is any use, its all in Portuguese....a 5 page online especial report from Diario da Noticias...not the equivalent of Portugals daily star!....at the bottom of the page there are links to many articles, dated,and going back to sept 2004
Well done, Red. I've bookmarked that and will have a look. The Supreme Court document is interesting as well, particularly the witness statements and the legal reasoning, but only bits of it have been translated, unfortunately.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 21, 2013, 08:29:50 PM
Well done, Red. I've bookmarked that and will have a look. The Supreme Court document is interesting as well, particularly the witness statements and the legal reasoning, but only bits of it have been translated, unfortunately.
Youre welcome....Im sure there are other reputable papers with information, will have a stab at them tomorrow
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 09:06:14 PM
The aunt when visiting the next afternoon asked or was told what joana was wearing that day,including red shoes, which is normal, Ive not read anywhere she went looking for her shoes, just that she found them.....and when she did Leonor said to her she must have changed them before going out again....ie into the orangle flip flops....again no one said she went looking for these, just that she found them under some furniture...when a child goes missing its not strange that relatives will look around the house for clues....sorry angelo, not a reply to your post directly, just a point Im making about this issue and couldnt be bothered to scroll back to the original question on it.....for some posters to suggest all this was manufactured by the PJ borders on stupidity IMO.....i suppose the aunt now was tortured too......
So where does this information come from...does it have a reliable source...in my education I was taught always to question...its a sign of intelligence not stupidity
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 21, 2013, 09:58:01 PM
So where does this information come from...does it have a reliable source...in my education I was taught always to question...its a sign of intelligence not stupidity
Amaral obviously told em all what to say from day one to end day or else...duh thats what youve been preachng on here so why ask such a silly question when you know the answer......... @)(++(*
Night dear 8((()*/
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 10:08:49 PM
Amaral obviously told em all what to say from day one to end day or else...duh thats what youve been preachng on here so why ask such a silly question when you know the answer......... @)(++(*
Night dear 8((()*/
you see no one wants to answer that sort of question...lots of claims of thing said...but no sources..I'm happy for you to correct me but you cant
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 21, 2013, 10:45:39 PM
you see no one wants to answer that sort of question...lots of claims of thing said...but no sources..I'm happy for you to correct me but you cant
the point is even if sources are given you will poo poo them and insist amaral must have tortured the info out...in other words you will never accept any evidence whatsoever in ths case so yu may as well just go and plant hostas for the winter and stick your fngers in your ears as you are just not interested @)(++(*
Too funny what a clown
That is why you and certain others are dead to the debate....for you there IS no debate....Amaral is responsible for fitting up innocent people and you wont hear a word against this.....admit it
Bye now
though Im sure you will come out with some knee jerk rubbish or other....I will let someone else more patient take the relay batton hahaha
Edited as is my prerogative...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 10:52:22 PM
the point is even if sources are given you will poo poo them and insist amaral must have tortured the info out... @)(++(*
Too funny what a clown
That is why you and certain others are dead to the debate....for you there IS no debate....Amaral is reaponsible for fitting up innocent people and you wont hear a word against this.....admit it
Bye now
So you have the sources but don't want to tell..what a load of rubbish...there are no sources...I thought it was against forum rules to post "crap" that you cannot substantiate
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 21, 2013, 11:05:27 PM
So you have the sources but don't want to tell..what a load of rubbish...there are no sources...I thought it was against forum rules to post "crap" that you cannot substantiate
never said that,but others do.... keep posting ignorant rubbish its what you are good at.....and pls dont state there are no sources when you are in no position whatsoever to say so unless you have read every single thing on this case.....in both languages which Im 100 per cent you have NOT.... if it makes you feel big or clever carry on it just makes you look like a total dumbass....
8-)(--)
now Im going to watch something even more boring than you. The politicians in question time...see ya xxx
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 11:13:02 PM
never said that,but others do.... keep posting ignorant rubbish its what you are good at.....and pls dont state there are no sources when you are in no position whatsoever to say so unless you have read every single thing on this case...... if it makes you feel big or clever carry on it just makes you look like a total dumbass....
8-)(--)
now Im going to watch something even more boring than you. The politicians in question time...see ya xxx
I will state there are NO SOURCES...feel free to contradict me not with useless words ...but with your sources..it is obvious to anyone you have none... This thread has been running for some time...lots of empty claims but nothing with sources...looking more and more like a miscarriage of justice
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 22, 2013, 12:32:43 AM
Is the Supreme Court official ruling document not sufficient source for you Dave?
"II. FUNDAMENTATION
9. Matter of fact according to the appealed court
9. 1. Facts considered to be proved:
ao) the arguidos did not place the shoes that the minor was wearing, inside the bags, and all the pairs of shoes that the minor was using that summer, stayed inside the house;
ao) os arguidos nćo colocaram os sapatos que a menor tinha calēados nos sacos, tendo ficado em casa todos os pares de sapatos que a menor utilizava naquele Verćo;
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on November 22, 2013, 01:42:00 AM
Even before she was committed to prison, Leonor Cipriano spoke, admitted, confessed to accidentally killing her daughter. No silence on that occasion!
Extract from the Correio da Manhć on 26 September 2004.
Mother Confesses to death of Daughter by Accident.
Several hours of questioning culminating in the confession of the crime. First Joćo Cipriano took participation in the concealment of the corpse of her niece after her mother Joan admitted responsibility for the murder committed against a minor, on the night of the 12th of this month, in the house where they lived in Figueira.
An accidental death , the woman claimed before the judge of instruction of the Court of Portimćo , Ana Soares , who ordered the arrest of the woman and told the man at liberty with the obligation to report daily to authorities. The coercive measures were only known from about 3:00 a.m. early yesterday morning , at a time when dozens of popular revolt were still concentrated at the door of the Court (some remained there throughout the day ) . According found the Morning Post , the uncle of the murdered girl , Joćo Cipriano , who was the first to be heard by the judge (he was being interrogated since mid-afternoon until 21:30 ) , will initially admitted crime , but later , when statements were passed in writing , the individual eventually point the finger to his sister , the mother of Joan . "It is with my sister " - was the expression used countless times by the individual when faced with issues related to the way they had the murder of the child , referring to all the explanations Leonor Cipriano case . Joćo Cipriano have just recognized that helped Sister ( request ) to rid the body of Joan , after the girl was killed . Ensured that the body was placed in a land close to home, but stressed that he was not sure where , because " it was dark " . However , Joana's mother , Leonor Cipriano , who was heard between 21:30 and about 00:00 , came to confess to the murder of her daughter . The woman however justified that it was an accident , saying that she had given a slap to the child who had hit her head on a wall, falling unconscious. Leonor Cipriano said to have been bewildered and panicked at the prospect of killing her daughter , so decided to wrap the girl's body in a cloth and put her in a plastic bag . She then asked the help of her brother to dispose of the body of her own daughter , which she said came to pass at a site in the vicinity of the house . Like her uncle , the mother of Joan also have apologized to the dark, as well as the state of panic that would meet , not knowing where to put her daughter's body . This is , incidentally , the reason given by both to the fact that the clues provided so far to PJ about where laid the body prove completely false . Lately , Joana's mother is taking the idea of finding psychologically affected with the case , verifying that often " says nothing to something," according to the expression used by a source close to the investigation . After hearing the two suspects , Judge of Criminal gathered to decide on enforcement measures to apply , calling to his presence the mother and uncle of Joana around 1:30 a.m. . It was then reported that Leonor Cipriano would be in custody and Joćo Cipriano who would freely through the term of identity and residence and daily presentations authorities ( GNR Silves ).
Even before she was committed to prison, Leonor Cipriano spoke, admitted, confessed to accidentally killing her daughter. No silence on that occasion!
Extract from the Correio da Manhć on 26 September 2004.
Mother Confesses to death of Daughter by Accident.
Several hours of questioning culminating in the confession of the crime. First Joćo Cipriano took participation in the concealment of the corpse of her niece after her mother Joan admitted responsibility for the murder committed against a minor, on the night of the 12th of this month, in the house where they lived in Figueira.
An accidental death , the woman claimed before the judge of instruction of the Court of Portimćo , Ana Soares , who ordered the arrest of the woman and told the man at liberty with the obligation to report daily to authorities. The coercive measures were only known from about 3:00 a.m. early yesterday morning , at a time when dozens of popular revolt were still concentrated at the door of the Court (some remained there throughout the day ) . According found the Morning Post , the uncle of the murdered girl , Joćo Cipriano , who was the first to be heard by the judge (he was being interrogated since mid-afternoon until 21:30 ) , will initially admitted crime , but later , when statements were passed in writing , the individual eventually point the finger to his sister , the mother of Joan . "It is with my sister " - was the expression used countless times by the individual when faced with issues related to the way they had the murder of the child , referring to all the explanations Leonor Cipriano case . Joćo Cipriano have just recognized that helped Sister ( request ) to rid the body of Joan , after the girl was killed . Ensured that the body was placed in a land close to home, but stressed that he was not sure where , because " it was dark " . However , Joana's mother , Leonor Cipriano , who was heard between 21:30 and about 00:00 , came to confess to the murder of her daughter . The woman however justified that it was an accident , saying that she had given a slap to the child who had hit her head on a wall, falling unconscious. Leonor Cipriano said to have been bewildered and panicked at the prospect of killing her daughter , so decided to wrap the girl's body in a cloth and put her in a plastic bag . She then asked the help of her brother to dispose of the body of her own daughter , which she said came to pass at a site in the vicinity of the house . Like her uncle , the mother of Joan also have apologized to the dark, as well as the state of panic that would meet , not knowing where to put her daughter's body . This is , incidentally , the reason given by both to the fact that the clues provided so far to PJ about where laid the body prove completely false . Lately , Joana's mother is taking the idea of finding psychologically affected with the case , verifying that often " says nothing to something," according to the expression used by a source close to the investigation . After hearing the two suspects , Judge of Criminal gathered to decide on enforcement measures to apply , calling to his presence the mother and uncle of Joana around 1:30 a.m. . It was then reported that Leonor Cipriano would be in custody and Joćo Cipriano who would freely through the term of identity and residence and daily presentations authorities ( GNR Silves ).
Is the Supreme Court official ruling document not sufficient source for you Dave?
"II. FUNDAMENTATION
9. Matter of fact according to the appealed court
9. 1. Facts considered to be proved:
ao) the arguidos did not place the shoes that the minor was wearing, inside the bags, and all the pairs of shoes that the minor was using that summer, stayed inside the house;
ao) os arguidos nćo colocaram os sapatos que a menor tinha calēados nos sacos, tendo ficado em casa todos os pares de sapatos que a menor utilizava naquele Verćo;
You haven't posted the whole document which includes in facts considered to be proved
aj) the arguidos then decided, conjointly, to cut the minors body in order to make it possible to store it in the deep freezer that existed in the living room;
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;
yet in her so called confession that you have posted she says she wrapped the child in a blanket. You seem to want to accept the courts ruling as a matter of fact when it isn't..I am more convinced than ever that this is a total miscarriage of justice with a dirty tricks campaign to smear the ciprianos
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on November 22, 2013, 07:45:04 AM
You haven't posted the whole document which includes in facts considered to be proved
aj) the arguidos then decided, conjointly, to cut the minors body in order to make it possible to store it in the deep freezer that existed in the living room;
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;
yet in her so called confession that you have posted she says she wrapped the child in a blanket. You seem to want to accept the courts ruling as a matter of fact when it isn't..I am more convinced than ever that this is a total miscarriage of justice with a dirty tricks campaign to smear the ciprianos
How do you explain why they failed to contact the police that Joana was missing til the following day ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 22, 2013, 07:52:26 AM
30 Minutes to cut up a body with a domestic knife and a domestic hand saw? I don't think so.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2013, 08:08:57 AM
What a load of rubbish John...who is she supposed to have confessed to?
Are you being purposely antagonistic towards the facts in this case Dave? She confessed to the investigative magistrate before being indicted and remanded. Surely even you can't be that thick??
Try reading it again.
However , Joana's mother , Leonor Cipriano , who was heard between 21:30 and about 00:00 , came to confess to the murder of her daughter . The woman however justified that it was an accident , saying that she had given a slap to the child who had hit her head on a wall, falling unconscious. Leonor Cipriano said to have been bewildered and panicked at the prospect of killing her daughter , so decided to wrap the girl's body in a cloth and put her in a plastic bag . She then asked the help of her brother to dispose of the body of her own daughter , which she said came to pass at a site in the vicinity of the house.
She was HEARD Dave!!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 22, 2013, 09:49:49 AM
You haven't posted the whole document which includes in facts considered to be proved
aj) the arguidos then decided, conjointly, to cut the minors body in order to make it possible to store it in the deep freezer that existed in the living room;
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;
yet in her so called confession that you have posted she says she wrapped the child in a blanket. You seem to want to accept the courts ruling as a matter of fact when it isn't..I am more convinced than ever that this is a total miscarriage of justice with a dirty tricks campaign to smear the ciprianos
You are totally deluded!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 22, 2013, 09:53:26 AM
Even before she was committed to prison, Leonor Cipriano spoke, admitted, confessed to accidentally killing her daughter. No silence on that occasion!
Extract from the Correio da Manhć on 26 September 2004.
Mother Confesses to death of Daughter by Accident.
***
So where does that leave a confession being beaten out of her on 14 October? ....
Edited to add
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 22, 2013, 09:55:42 AM
And you are a very rude man who denies other people of the right to be as rude as you are. This is Fascism.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 22, 2013, 10:02:52 AM
Joana had her head bashed against a wall for 10 lousy Euros which she wanted for the fair!!
Joana picked up her shopping which consisted of a packet of milk and two tins of tuna and was observed on her way hone by a neighbour who was watching from a window.
Her shoes were all found in the family home as was the shopping she had earlier purchased.
The mother confessed to causing her death by hitting her head off the house wall. She then persuaded her brother to hide the body. The mother later attempted to exonerate the brother of any blame in the death.
There isn't a single piece of evidence in this case which supports anything other than an accidental homicide.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 22, 2013, 10:04:34 AM
Is the Supreme Court official ruling document not sufficient source for you Dave?
"II. FUNDAMENTATION
9. Matter of fact according to the appealed court
9. 1. Facts considered to be proved:
ao) the arguidos did not place the shoes that the minor was wearing, inside the bags, and all the pairs of shoes that the minor was using that summer, stayed inside the house;
ao) os arguidos nćo colocaram os sapatos que a menor tinha calēados nos sacos, tendo ficado em casa todos os pares de sapatos que a menor utilizava naquele Verćo;
Thanks for finding that, John, I'd missed that detail, and I've amended my earlier post.
I still have a few questions on that, though.
From what I can decipher of Leandro's sister's statement (BB1), it says she went to the house on the Monday afternoon and Leandro, Leonor and Joćo were at home. Leonor described what she was wearing (clothes and shoes). Then it says that she later came across the shoes and confronted Leonor with it, who said that she must have changed and worn her flipflops (if that's what the "chinelas" were), then later found one flipflop under the sofa, and the other in a room (bedroom?). Then still later went to search for her footwear and found all of them at home.
How much later is later? If the sister had found the shoes she was supposed to have been wearing when she disappeared when she visited that day, then it would seem unlikely that Leonor would have said the same thing to AA9 (the common-law wife /girlfriend of one of Leandro's half-brothers) who then took care of making the posters.
- If she's guilty, it would seem incredibly silly not to have disposed of the shoes with various people living in and visiting the house, while she was going around publicising what she was wearing.
- If she's innocent, the shoes were found some time later and Leonor hadn't realised in the early days that she must have changed shoes and worn her flipflops (and said so). However, according to the sister's statement, she also had sandals, in which case she might have gone out in those as opposed to the flipflops.
Either way, it's not clear to me how Leandro's sister would know how many shoes she had and I can't find any confirmation in Leandro's statement.
Who, in the inquisitorial system, would be responsible for attempting to clarify such points? The judges or the defence lawyer? As the lawyers had apparently advised Leonor not to testify, she was - by the same token - unable to offer her own version of events. On the other hand, wouldn't someone have been able to ask the sister to clarify?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 22, 2013, 10:24:39 AM
Thanks for finding that, John, I'd missed that detail, and I've amended my earlier post.
I still have a few questions on that, though.
From what I can decipher of Leandro's sister's statement (BB1), it says she went to the house on the Monday afternoon and Leandro, Leonor and Joćo were at home. Leonor described what she was wearing (clothes and shoes). Then it says that she later came across the shoes and confronted Leonor with it, who said that she must have changed and worn her flipflops (if that's what the "chinelas" were), then later found one flipflop under the sofa, and the other in a room (bedroom?). Then still later went to search for her footwear and found all of them at home.
How much later is later? If the sister had found the shoes she was supposed to have been wearing when she disappeared when she visited that day, then it would seem unlikely that Leonor would have said the same thing to AA9 (the common-law wife /girlfriend of one of Leandro's half-brothers) who then took care of making the posters.
- If she's guilty, it would seem incredibly silly not to have disposed of the shoes with various people living in and visiting the house, while she was going around publicising what she was wearing.
- If she's innocent, the shoes were found some time later and Leonor hadn't realised in the early days that she must have changed shoes and worn her flipflops (and said so). However, according to the sister's statement, she also had sandals, in which case she might have gone out in those as opposed to the flipflops.
Either way, it's not clear to me how Leandro's sister would know how many shoes she had and I can't find any confirmation in Leandro's statement.
Who, in the inquisitorial system, would be responsible for attempting to clarify such points? The judges or the defence lawyer? As the lawyers had apparently advised Leonor not to testify, she was - by the same token - unable to offer her own version of events. On the other hand, wouldn't someone have been able to ask the sister to clarify?
Where is it stated that it was the sis in law who confirmed all the shoes owned and that they were in the house? leonor must have done this at least in any first instance and somewhere some wires are being crossed....BBL
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 22, 2013, 10:29:48 AM
The shoe issue (ao) isn't one of the "common experience" ones. It seems to have been accepted on the basis of that one witness statement, which - in my opinion - should have been clarified. Neither have I found any corroboration.
The matter that was considered to be proved in items aa), ab), ac), ad), ae), af), ag), ah) ai), aj) al), am), an), ap), aah), aai), aaj) and aam) was based on the deposition of witnesses AA3, CC3, CC4, DD, CC8, II, DD1 , MM and BB1, on the reconstitution files and on the search and apprehension files, as well as on the subsequent forensic exam, all interpreted under the light of the rules of experience.
A matéria dada como provada nas alķneas aa), ab), ac), ad), ae), af), ag), ah) ai), aj) al), am), an), ap), aah), aai), aaj) e aam) teve por base o depoimento das testemunhas AA3, CC3, CC4, DD, CC8, II, DD1 , MM e BB1, os autos de reconstituiēćo e os autos de busca e apreensćo, bem como a prova pericial subsequente, tudo interpretado ą luz das regras da experiźncia.
OT, but something seems a bit odd. Who is "DD1"?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 22, 2013, 10:44:30 AM
Even before she was committed to prison, Leonor Cipriano spoke, admitted, confessed to accidentally killing her daughter. No silence on that occasion!
Extract from the Correio da Manhć on 26 September 2004.
Mother Confesses to death of Daughter by Accident.
Several hours of questioning culminating in the confession of the crime. First Joćo Cipriano took participation in the concealment of the corpse of her niece after her mother Joan admitted responsibility for the murder committed against a minor, on the night of the 12th of this month, in the house where they lived in Figueira.
An accidental death , the woman claimed before the judge of instruction of the Court of Portimćo , Ana Soares , who ordered the arrest of the woman and told the man at liberty with the obligation to report daily to authorities. The coercive measures were only known from about 3:00 a.m. early yesterday morning , at a time when dozens of popular revolt were still concentrated at the door of the Court (some remained there throughout the day ) . According found the Morning Post , the uncle of the murdered girl , Joćo Cipriano , who was the first to be heard by the judge (he was being interrogated since mid-afternoon until 21:30 ) , will initially admitted crime , but later , when statements were passed in writing , the individual eventually point the finger to his sister , the mother of Joan . "It is with my sister " - was the expression used countless times by the individual when faced with issues related to the way they had the murder of the child , referring to all the explanations Leonor Cipriano case . Joćo Cipriano have just recognized that helped Sister ( request ) to rid the body of Joan , after the girl was killed . Ensured that the body was placed in a land close to home, but stressed that he was not sure where , because " it was dark " . However , Joana's mother , Leonor Cipriano , who was heard between 21:30 and about 00:00 , came to confess to the murder of her daughter . The woman however justified that it was an accident , saying that she had given a slap to the child who had hit her head on a wall, falling unconscious. Leonor Cipriano said to have been bewildered and panicked at the prospect of killing her daughter , so decided to wrap the girl's body in a cloth and put her in a plastic bag . She then asked the help of her brother to dispose of the body of her own daughter , which she said came to pass at a site in the vicinity of the house . Like her uncle , the mother of Joan also have apologized to the dark, as well as the state of panic that would meet , not knowing where to put her daughter's body . This is , incidentally , the reason given by both to the fact that the clues provided so far to PJ about where laid the body prove completely false . Lately , Joana's mother is taking the idea of finding psychologically affected with the case , verifying that often " says nothing to something," according to the expression used by a source close to the investigation . After hearing the two suspects , Judge of Criminal gathered to decide on enforcement measures to apply , calling to his presence the mother and uncle of Joana around 1:30 a.m. . It was then reported that Leonor Cipriano would be in custody and Joćo Cipriano who would freely through the term of identity and residence and daily presentations authorities ( GNR Silves ).
She apparently confessed to literally "the crime of the death of her daughter".
Entretanto, a mće de Joana, Leonor Cipriano, que foi ouvida entre as 21h30 e cerca da 00h00, veio a confessar o crime da morte da filha. A mulher justificou no entanto que se tratou de um acidente, dizendo que dera uma bofetada na crianēa e esta batera com a cabeēa numa parede, ficando inconsciente.
However, if this detail is correct,
Leonor is taken in by the PJ on the 21 September, eleven days after her daughter disappeared. The girl's uncle, Joćo Cipriano, remained free for one more day but was also arrested under suspicion of homicide.
She'd been in police custody since the 21 September, and only appeared before a judge on 24 September.
There doesn't appear to have been any noticeable evidence of beating at that stage, but what interrogation techniques were used? An interesting article on that subject:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 22, 2013, 11:02:52 AM
Joana picked up her shopping which consisted of a packet of milk and two tins of tuna and was observed on her way hone by a neighbour who was watching from a window.
Yes, that seems to be accurate, but it is not evidence that she actually got home.
There isn't a single piece of evidence in this case which supports anything other than an accidental homicide.
I have always said that if they are guilty of what is alleged to have happened, then they are where they should be - serving their sentences. However, I can't find any hard evidence that what is alleged to have happened actually did occur.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 22, 2013, 11:04:08 AM
Not quite, she was allowed home each night until her arrest on 25 September. A policeman was posted at her house to ensure she didn't abscond.
She was not beaten up when she was first interrogated and appeared in court and offered a free confession on the evening of 25 September.
The beating which she later received by the PJ has nothing to do with her original confession.
I didn't say she was beaten in those interrogation days in September. That seems to have happened later. I am questioning the methods used in September.
In the meantime, from what I've found, they were arrested on 21 Sept.
Dia 21 - A mće, Leonor, e o tio Joćo Cipriano, sćo detidos. http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/atirada-aos-porcos
As detenēões de Leonor Cipriano e do irmćo, Joćo, foram feitas na quinta-feira passada pelos inspectores da Secēćo Regional de Combate ao Banditismo da PJ de Faro, que assumiram as investigaēões do caso no dia 21, oito dias após o desaparecimento.
I've lost the link to this for the moment. I'll add it, when I find it again.
From the other link, Joćo was then released until the next day (22 Sept).
According to this, (p. 4), the decision to take her into pre-trial detention was made on 24 Sept. No dia 24 de Setembro de 2004, no inquérito 330/04.2JAPTM da comarca de Portimćo, foi determinada a prisćo preventiva de Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano, indiciada por crimes de ofensa į integridade fķsica qualificada agravada pelo resultado artigos 143o, 145o, no 1, alķnea a) e 146o do Código Penal - e de ocultaēćo de cadįver artigo 254o, no1 do Código Penal; http://iscte.pt/~apad/ACED_juristas/maddietrab_ficheiros/Acordao%20Leonor%20Cipriano%20contra%20Goncalo%20e%20outros.%2022Maio2009.pdf
Where did you find that she'd been allowed home every day? Perhaps she was, but I haven't seen that. Was Joćo also released every day as well?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on November 22, 2013, 11:43:39 AM
Oh, so The PJ beat her up for fun, did they? It must have been a quiet night.
It was an attempt to get the full story from her Eleanor. Hitting her with a roll of cardboard and a phone book wasn't exactly heavy duty torture was it??
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 22, 2013, 12:08:38 PM
In the Supreme Court doc, the "stepfather" is called MM. A testemunha MM, padrasto do II... he would seem to be the "stepfather" to whom Joćo had confessed at the PJ HQ.
But then, the same document refers to the stepfather as DD1: 11. 3. 5. Depoimento indirecto Duas testemunhas - o companheiro da recorrente, II, e o padrasto deste, DD1 but I can't find a witness statement from any DD1.
Have a look at this thread... I find it very confusing. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2989.0
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2013, 12:31:22 PM
Are you being purposely antagonistic towards the facts in this case Dave? She confessed to the investigative magistrate before being indicted and remanded. Surely even you can't be that thick??
Try reading it again.
However , Joana's mother , Leonor Cipriano , who was heard between 21:30 and about 00:00 , came to confess to the murder of her daughter . The woman however justified that it was an accident , saying that she had given a slap to the child who had hit her head on a wall, falling unconscious. Leonor Cipriano said to have been bewildered and panicked at the prospect of killing her daughter , so decided to wrap the girl's body in a cloth and put her in a plastic bag . She then asked the help of her brother to dispose of the body of her own daughter , which she said came to pass at a site in the vicinity of the house.
She was HEARD Dave!!
We wil start with the investigative magistrate...what is your source for Leonors confession
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on November 22, 2013, 12:31:41 PM
It was an attempt to get the full story from her Eleanor. Hitting her with a roll of cardboard and a phone book wasn't exactly heavy duty torture was it??
Oh, I see. You agree with that, do you? Even though she had apparently already confessed. Let's get the gory details, like. Don't make me laugh. Covered in bruises to the point where she was nearly blind. What fun that must have been. But I knew that eventually one of you would come out and say that this was acceptable in the name of Justice.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 22, 2013, 12:36:09 PM
DD1 is referred to as Leandro's stepfather (with no witness statement that I can find), yet so is MM, who is also referred to as a half-brother (in press reports) and a "friend" in the SC doc.
How old was MM at the time?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2013, 12:56:11 PM
It was an attempt to get the full story from her Eleanor. Hitting her with a roll of cardboard and a phone book wasn't exactly heavy duty torture was it??
well amnesty international think it was and for you to suggest it wasn't is ridiculous
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2013, 12:59:29 PM
It was an attempt to get the full story from her Eleanor. Hitting her with a roll of cardboard and a phone book wasn't exactly heavy duty torture was it??
This forum is The UK Justice Forum and I don't think there is any place for someone who supports torture. You need to be on a fascist forum not a justice forum
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 22, 2013, 01:39:52 PM
There are several Portuguese posters on this forum who could help to clarify any misunderstandings due to language.
Could they help, if any read here?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 22, 2013, 02:57:06 PM
quite an interesting post by Diario de Noticias- (daily news) Leandro speaking...................................................... 07.05.2005 "A journalist, when interviewing me, suggested that I would have helped to cut up the body, with material that I not even have"
Well Then. where did the saw and knife come from?
I am going through the news from the time of the disappearance looking for a particular statement by Leandro which I have still not found
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Redblossom on November 22, 2013, 08:36:49 PM
DD1 is referred to as Leandro's stepfather (with no witness statement that I can find), yet so is MM, who is also referred to as a half-brother (in press reports) and a "friend" in the SC doc.
How old was MM at the time?
I think it might be being read wrong
II is Leandro, the stepfather to Joana MM is Carlos, the friend/half brother even, of Leandro who lived with him and Leonor in the Cipriano family home...
I have never heard of Leandros stepfather referred to in this case, let alone being the person AA (Joao) confessed to about incest....it was Leandro he said that to apparently but dont quote me
In what context was DD1 referred to..and as Leandros stepfather?
I agree with you it would be nice if a portuguese reader ciuld go through
AA Joao Cipriano BB Leonor Cipriano CC Joana Cipriano
And so on
The case is 10 years old.....not a sausage has come out anywhere from anyone at any time suggesting abduction.....even her lawyer the famous marcos has apparently dropped his earlier attempts in the appeal to the european court...what does that say
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 23, 2013, 12:54:36 PM
I'm now wondering if she was beaten earlier...
My understanding of Portuguese is fairly basic, I'm afraid, so I can't attempt a word-perfect translation. I'm just trying to get the gist of it. If there's anything important of substance that I've misunderstood, let me know and I'll correct it.
Here's why:
From Leandro's statement (SC):
Declarou ainda a testemunha que numa altura em que se encontrou com a arguida BB nas instalaēões da Polķcia Judiciįria, a pedido daquela Polķcia, mas numa altura em que se encontravam só os dois, a testemunha perguntou ą BB o que tinha acontecido e ela entćo contou-lhe que "tinha dado uma chapada na CC e que o irmćo acabou de a matar", tudo "porque ela os tinha visto a ter relaēões" e também contou que "tinham posto o corpo numa casa velha e que tinha sido o AA a levį-la ąs costas". Posteriormente, quando a testemunha foi visitar a arguida BB ą cadeia de Odemira, ela negou o que tinha dito e referiu-lhe que só tinha afirmado aquelas coisas porque a Polķcia Judiciįria lhe tinha batido. Questionado sobre se no dia em que a BB lhe tinha confessado ter agredido CC, a mesma apresentava marcas de ter sido batida, nomeadamente se tinha a cara ou os olhos inchados ou vermelhos, a testemunha disse que nćo.
Googlegibberish: The witness also stated that at a time when he met the defendant BB premises of the Judicial Police, the Police claim that, but at a time when they were only two, the witness asked BB what had happened and she then told him that he had "given a slap on the CC and the brother just to kill" all "because she had seen them having s.e.x" and also told that "they had put the body in an old house and had been to AA take her back. "Later, when the witness was visiting the defendant to the Beja BB chain, she denied what he had said and mentioned to him that he had only said those things because the judiciary police had beaten him. Asked if the day that BB had confessed to assaulting her CC, it showed signs of having been beaten, especially if he had to face or swollen or red eyes, the witness said no.
For what it's worth, my understanding is that the PJ asked Leandro to go to the PJ station to talk to Leonor. When they were apparently alone (hmmm), she'd said that she'd whacked [agredida] Joana and Joćo ended up killing her, because they been having sex and said they put the body in an old house and that it was Joćo who (something, not sure what that bit means, took her there?). On a later date, when he went to visit her at Odemira prison, she denied what she'd said and said that she only said those things because they'd beaten her. Asked whether Leonor showed signs of having been beaten, in particular whether her face or eyes were puffed up or red on the day Leonor had confessed to having whacked Joana, he said no.
What's not clear to me is when he was told to see her at the PJ (whether it was back in September, or October). If it was back in September, at the time of the "confession", there's the possibility that she confessed as a result of perfectly legitimate police questioning techniques or she could well have been beaten, but not around the face at that time.
So, I don't know...
But then, there is an in-depth interview with Leandro to mark the 2nd anniversary of Joana's disappearance Caso Joana - 12.09.06 Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a reasonable translation of it.
An extract: L.S. Acho que os homens da Judiciįria de Portimćo nćo eram agressivos. Sabiam conversar connosco e tentavam, pelo menos, descobrir alguma coisa. Enquanto isso, os de Faro logo no primeiro dia que nos vieram buscar, foi logo para nos bater quando lį chegįmos. Primeiro era porrada, depois é que faziam as perguntas. Acho que se a PJ de Portimćo tivesse continuado com a investigaēćo, se calhar tinham sacado alguma coisa de algum lado.
(...) A.P. Qual foi o momento mais difķcil? L.S. Devem ter sido os castigos que levei na Judiciįria, onde me chamaram tudo e mais alguma coisa. E fui agredido sempre que lį me levaram. Mas com as porradas aguento bem. Cį fora, o pior foi a gente passar na rua e ouvir as pessoas a insultar-nos. Cada um diz aquilo que quer e a gente nćo pode responder. Até evitei ir a certos cafés. Mas hoje, jį entro em todos. Jį nćo ouēo nada. Agora, toda a gente me cumprimenta e fala bem tanto na Figueira, como na Mexilhoeira-Grande, onde vivo. Mas mesmo quando vou a Portimćo ou outros sķtios, nćo sinto qualquer problema.
Googlegibberish:
L. S. - I think men Judiciary Portimćo were not aggressive . Knew and tried to talk with us at least learn something . Meanwhile, the Faro on the first day they came for us, was soon to hit us when we got there . First it was beating then is that the questions were . I think the PJ of Portimćo had continued to research, maybe had drawn something from somewhere.
( ... ) P.W - What was the most difficult moment ?
L. S. - It must have been the punishment they took in Judicial , where they called me everything and anything . And I was always beaten that led me there . But with the punches and take it . L. S. -Outside, the worst was we pass on the street and hear people insult us . Each one says what you want and we can not answer . Even avoided going to certain cafes . But today , as I enter in all . Have not heard anything. Now , everyone greets me and speaks well both in Figueira , as Mexilhoeira - Grande , where I live . But even when I go to Portimao or elsewhere , do not feel any problem.
My own attempt at making sense of this:
Leandro didn't think that the Portimćo PJ team was aggressive. Trying to work out the gist is that they were questioning people normally and trying to figure out what had happened. He felt that if that team had carried on investigating, the case might have got somewhere. My impression is that he was quite positive about that team.
Then, he says that the Faro team was quite different. The PJ shouted abuse (including to himself) and "we" (whoever that refers to) were punched/beaten first, then questioned afterwards. He says he was whacked (?) [agredido] every time he was taken to the station.
This interview was in 2006, after she'd received a reduced sentence.
In that same interview, my understanding is that he wouldn't have put it past Joćo to have sold her, but still thinks she was abducted.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 23, 2013, 12:57:13 PM
II is Leandro, the stepfather to Joana MM is Carlos, the friend/half brother even, of Leandro who lived with him and Leonor in the Cipriano family home...
I have never heard of Leandros stepfather referred to in this case, let alone being the person AA (Joao) confessed to about incest....it was Leandro he said that to apparently but dont quote me
In what context was DD1 referred to..and as Leandros stepfather?
I agree with you it would be nice if a portuguese reader ciuld go through
AA Joao Cipriano BB Leonor Cipriano CC Joana Cipriano
And so on
The case is 10 years old.....not a sausage has come out anywhere from anyone at any time suggesting abduction.....even her lawyer the famous marcos has apparently dropped his earlier attempts in the appeal to the european court...what does that say
quite an interesting post by Diario de Noticias- (daily news) Leandro speaking...................................................... 07.05.2005 "A journalist, when interviewing me, suggested that I would have helped to cut up the body, with material that I not even have"
Well Then. where did the saw and knife come from?
I am going through the news from the time of the disappearance looking for a particular statement by Leandro which I have still not found
I'm not sure what you're looking for, but is this interview of any help?
I'm working on that... it's quite complicated (family relationships) and what may be a mistake in the SC.
It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that there is a mistake, possibly even a mistake in the translation. Remember that on the McCann Files site Leandro is referred to as MM and not II.
There is also some confusion over the names Antonio Leandro and Leandro Silva.
In Latin countries Brits don't realise that the last name is usually the mother's surname. The penultimate name being the fathers.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 23, 2013, 01:44:40 PM
It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that there is a mistake, possibly even a mistake in the translation. Remember that on the McCann Files site Leandro is referred to as MM and not II.
There is also some confusion over the names Antonio Leandro and Leandro Silva.
In Latin countries Brits don't realise that the last name is usually the mother's surname. The penultimate name being the fathers.
I thought that I'd explained my questions on the MM thread?
I'm not basing that on a translation. I was basing it on the PT original.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 25, 2013, 09:39:41 AM
I thought that I'd explained my questions on the MM thread?
I'm not basing that on a translation. I was basing it on the PT original.
Hi Carana, Is this what you mean? The witness MM, stepfather of II, said that CC had stayed at the home of .............Same on original, but there has to be an explanation ??? It sure looks like a mistake though I missed that one,,,Well spotted. Antonio Leandro David Silva's stepfather is I believe DD1
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 25, 2013, 12:30:24 PM
Hi Carana, Is this what you mean? The witness MM, stepfather of II, said that CC had stayed at the home of .............Same on original, but there has to be an explanation ??? It sure looks like a mistake though I missed that one,,,Well spotted. Antonio Leandro David Silva's stepfather is I believe DD1
I still haven't found a witness statement by a "DD1".
Is it possible that two people had similar names and that someone in charge of redacting to protect privacy simply did a find/replace based on a partially similar name?
That would seem to be the most logical explanation for me so far...
However, if that's the case, it would change "who is who" and "who did what" in this case.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 25, 2013, 01:00:18 PM
Her official name seems to have been:
Joana Cipriano, de nome completo Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro.
Her mother's name seems to have been the penultimate and the father's name was the last.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on November 25, 2013, 02:15:34 PM
It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that there is a mistake, possibly even a mistake in the translation. Remember that on the McCann Files site Leandro is referred to as MM and not II.
There is also some confusion over the names Antonio Leandro and Leandro Silva.
In Latin countries Brits don't realise that the last name is usually the mother's surname. The penultimate name being the fathers.
Is there a different convention concerning the order of family names in Portugal as opposed to Spain?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on November 25, 2013, 04:08:50 PM
Hi Carana Try doing a search on the page its there The witness DD1 (stepfather of II) stated that the defendant AA
Leonas mother is Florinda Sundays.
Thanks... there's no statement that I can find from "DD1". There is possibly a mistake and that one of the people referred to as MM should have been DD1.
I think I've worked out who most of the people are (some with real names, others with just relationships).
Eu abaixo assinado Florinda Domingos, portadora do Cartćo de Cidadćo ********, Mće de Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano e de Joćo Manuel Domingos Cipriano, *
Joana's full name is apparently Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on February 10, 2014, 02:20:00 PM
I happen to agree with you on the bit that I underlined... i.e., "it's the lawyers and judiciary who should be sharing the criticism".
In theory, a magistrate / investigating judge should have played an active role in directing the police work in the Joana case. However, possibly due to overload, did this actually happen in practice? In the Joana case, it seems to have been more of a rubber-stamping exercise, following a "confession" in dubious circumstances. Then, the obvious question back down to the police was... right, she's confessed, now find the body.
How much time did the lawyers actually spend on analysing this case? What means did they have for expert opinions to counter the assertions made by the PJ?
How easy would it have been for jury members (a relatively rare occurrence) to divorce themselves from all the tabloid "leaks" prior to the case? And who leaked them? How could they have objectively have assessed evidence in the absence of an effective defence? The recorded "reconstruction" presented on the last day of the 3-day trial, must have been quite shocking, but in line with the tabloid "leaks".
It didn't seem to occur to anyone to question the validity of the so-called forensic evidence, nor the conditions under which Leonor and others were interrogated, leading to the initial "confession", let alone how Joćo eventually signed on the dotted line that the reconstruction was "voluntary".
It's a no-brainer Carana. A police force which is undermanned and underfunded isn't going to use valuable resources on some ulterior scenarios or to put it another way, a wild goose chase, when the protagonists admit to being involved.
Once the Ciprianos admitted culpability it was a case of fitting the rest of the pieces into the jigsaw.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on February 10, 2014, 02:38:43 PM
It's a no-brainer Carana. A police force which is undermanned and underfunded isn't going to use valuable resources on some ulterior scenarios or to put it another way, a wild goose chase, when the protagonists admit to being involved.
Once the Ciprianos admitted culpability it was a case of fitting the rest of the pieces into the jigsaw.
With a sledge hammer.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on February 10, 2014, 02:41:01 PM
It's a no-brainer Carana. A police force which is undermanned and underfunded isn't going to use valuable resources on some ulterior scenarios or to put it another way, a wild goose chase, when the protagonists admit to being involved.
Once the Ciprianos admitted culpability it was a case of fitting the rest of the pieces into the jigsaw.
you mean once the confession was beaten out of Leonor no more policework was necessary...as we have realised on the correct thread there was no real evidence against either of them
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on February 10, 2014, 05:17:54 PM
you mean once the confession was beaten out of Leonor no more policework was necessary...as we have realised on the correct thread there was no real evidence against either of them
On the last day of the trial the voice of Joćo Cipriano was heard in court by virtue of a video recording made by the Judicial Police during investigations. In brutal detail he confessed to killing Joana and of disposing of her body. The defence objected claiming that Joćo's words had no value since the defendants chose not to testify at trial. The judge overruled the objection.
So they both confessed to the same thing. Don't you think that is just a tad coincidental especially since they had no way of contacting each other to concoct a story?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on February 10, 2014, 06:40:13 PM
perhaps it was the pj who supplied the story..we don't know under what circumstances the confession was made...there was no real evidence aginst either of them...it was claimed she was killed and dismembered in the house yet NONE of the blood found matched Joanna...the whole conviction looks ridiculously unsafe...not only to me but also others..portuguese ...who saw all the evidence
....or of course she is guilty and made a confession, then changed her 'mind'.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on February 10, 2014, 06:44:17 PM
perhaps it was the pj who supplied the story..we don't know under what circumstances the confession was made...there was no real evidence aginst either of them...it was claimed she was killed and dismembered in the house yet NONE of the blood found matched Joanna...the whole conviction looks ridiculously unsafe...not only to me but also others..portuguese ...who saw all the evidence
Thought you said there was no evidence...do make you mind up Dave. @)(++(*
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on February 10, 2014, 06:46:24 PM
On the last day of the trial the voice of Joćo Cipriano was heard in court by virtue of a video recording made by the Judicial Police during investigations. In brutal detail he confessed to killing Joana and of disposing of her body. The defence objected claiming that Joćo's words had no value since the defendants chose not to testify at trial. The judge overruled the objection.
So they both confessed to the same thing. Don't you think that is just a tad coincidental especially since they had no way of contacting each other to concoct a story?
They didn't need to contact each other. The interrogating officers could have done the honours, unless you believe that the police have never used any form of bluff. Anywhere. At any time.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on February 11, 2014, 12:11:12 AM
I am too tired at present to give the answer this deserves, but the fact that the Court judged 1) on TORTURED OUT statements,
2) that they took the word of two PJ officers, the one of whom is allegedly about to stand trial on SEVEN very dirty deeds and the other is a convicted liar says oceans. In fairness the Courts were not aware of this at the time.
3) There were NO FORENSICS at all ... moderated as false ...
4) The Courts allowed a video of a man who "confessed" to be played, when the man had pled innocence. This man could have been deprived of his drugs then re-offered them if he did as told .... or tortured as the others, Leonor and Leandro were, to obtain it. In any case I thought that such admissions were NOT allowed in PT Courts. What happened here then?
5) Their lawyer persuaded them to remain silent. How could they defend themselves?
It turned out that their Lawyer had been found carrying drugs into a prison, but mysteriously appears to have been let off charges ... ermm >@@(*&) ... and also that their lawyer was a personal friend of Amaral, the inspector, who was the drugs Inspector for the area and who, with Cristavao, formed the bizarre Prosecution theory put to Court.
Lawyer to lead Inspectors relationship is a bit too cozy for my liking.
6) The courts did not accept certain aspects of Amaral and Cristovaos theory, yet conveniently forgot that.
7) The court refused evidence from, we are told, more people who were supportive or non commital of The Ciprianos than people that were against them. Why was that?
8) There was no body, nor forensically checked blood, nor any evidence of what happened to Joana
9) Cristavao made mega bucks from the case and trial by writing a book about it. Did he also get the heave ho?
10) Propaganda via leaks destroyed any chance of a fair trial.
That will do for now. I am sure there is plenty more that the analysts on this forum could add.
The fact that the judge ignored all the above and more, yet found both Leonor and Joao guilty says more about the PT Justice system than even you do, Luz
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on February 11, 2014, 01:42:26 AM
They didn't need to contact each other. The interrogating officers could have done the honours, unless you believe that the police have never used any form of bluff. Anywhere. At any time.
Their stories have too much in common to have been made up as some suggest. As you know Joćo wrote to Leonor afterwards seeking her forgiveness for implicating her. Obviously he had a conscience after all especially when he wasn't in a drug fuelled stupour.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on February 11, 2014, 01:55:02 AM
I am too tired at present to give the answer this deserves, but the fact that the Court judged 1) on TORTURED OUT statements,
2) that they took the word of two PJ officers, the one of whom is allegedly about to stand trial on SEVEN very dirty deeds and the other is a convicted liar says oceans. In fairness the Courts were not aware of this at the time.
3) There were NO FORENSICS at all ....moderated as false ...
4) The Courts allowed a video of a man who "confessed" to be played, when the man had pled innocence. This man could have been deprived of his drugs then re-offered them if he did as told .... or tortured as the others, Leonor and Leandro were, to obtain it. In any case I thought that such admissions were NOT allowed in PT Courts. What happened here then?
5) Their lawyer persuaded them to remain silent. How could they defend themselves?
It turned out that their Lawyer had been found carrying drugs into a prison, but mysteriously appears to have been let off charges ... ermm >@@(*&) ... and also that their lawyer was a personal friend of Amaral, the inspector, who was the drugs Inspector for the area and who, with Cristavao, formed the bizarre Prosecution theory put to Court.
Lawyer to lead Inspectors relationship is a bit too cozy for my liking.
6) The courts did not accept certian aspects of Amaral and Cristovaos theory, yet conveniently forgot that.
7) The court refused evidence from, we are told, more people who were supportive or non commital of The Ciprianos than people that were against them. Why was that?
8) There was no body, nor forensically checked blood, nor any evidence of what happened to Joana
9) Cristavao made mega bucks from the case and trial by writing a book about it. Did he also get the heave ho?
10) Propaganda via leaks destroyed any chance of a fair trial.
That will do for now. I am sure there is plenty more that the analysts on this forum could add.
The fact that the judge ignored all the above and more, yet found both Leonor and Joao guilty says more about the PT Justice system than even you do, Luz
Good post Sadie - your following point in particular seems to go against the Portuguese rules in court cases. LC and her brother opted to say nothing during the trial. By playing that tape that 'constitutional right' was completely ignored IMO.
Quote 4) The Courts allowed a video of a man who "confessed" to be played, when the man had pled innocence. This man could have been deprived of his drugs then re-offered them if he did as told .... or tortured as the others, Leonor and Leandro were, to obtain it. In any case I thought that such admissions were NOT allowed in PT Courts. What happened here then? Unquote
... the prosecution sought and received permission to play the tape recorded confession to the court ...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on February 11, 2014, 07:56:43 AM
we don't know if Leonor is guilty or innocent...we do know that she has been found guilty by a court but how safe this conviction is we don't know....we do know that the idea that the FSS mixed dna with that of its technicians is a myth based on the fact that some people misunderstood the statement they made
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on February 11, 2014, 08:27:05 AM
we don't know if Leonor is guilty or innocent...we do know that she has been found guilty by a court but how safe this conviction is we don't know....we do know that the idea that the FSS mixed dna with that of its technicians is a myth based on the fact that some people misunderstood the statement they made
She is a convicted murderer and that doesn't look like changing.
Meanwhile, by stating what you did, how do we know any convicted murderer is guilty ???
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on February 11, 2014, 10:33:38 AM
I don't know Carana and I am not going to discuss her/his skills. I said and reinforce, Carana is totally ignorant about the functioning of the Portuguese Legal System and doesn't know anything about the Cipriano case apart from what can be read in the net. Commenting on Cipriano is a way to attack Amaral and not a honest attempt to understand a case that in Portugal was resolved (not well, because people expected the murderers to have been convicted to 25 years) within what our law previews.
If you had read back just one page, I agreed with Lyall that in such cases the criticism shouldn't all be laid at the door of the police, but that lawyers and the judiciary also bear responsibility. My comment was actually defending the Portuguese who may be victims of miscarriages of justice.
Yes, of course, my understanding of the Cipriano case comes from what I've found on the Internet. I find the penal and penal process codes and the Supreme Court judgement more informative than the sensationalist press that largely relies on leaks and can hardly bite the hand that feeds them.
Which reminds me, while I'm at it, an official police press relations unit might be helpful. As one Portuguese tabloid journalist said (and I'm having to paraphrase as I don't have the quote to hand), judicial secrecy is like traffic lights, everyone knows they exist, but no one takes any notice. Without informal sources, or however he phrased it, there would be no crime journalism in Portugal. I presume he meant prior to court reporting, by which time it's too late for balanced reporting in the tabloids. Leaks or prejudicial information appears in the press in most countries, but an official press relations unit might offer a greater chance of more balanced reporting in the quality press.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on February 11, 2014, 11:43:52 AM
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on February 11, 2014, 01:59:10 PM
Trying to help the mods... Again, I'll answer over here.
Here we go... I've put your contributions in bold.
The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (3) from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugual on 3 May 2007. / Re: Was Gonēalo Amaral fair game given the content of his book? « on: February 10, 2014, 10:57:03 PM » Quote from: Carana on February 10, 2014, 01:39:42 PM
I happen to agree with you on the bit that I underlined... i.e., "it's the lawyers and judiciary who should be sharing the criticism".
In theory, a magistrate / investigating judge should have played an active role in directing the police work in the Joana case. However, possibly due to overload, did this actually happen in practice? In the Joana case, it seems to have been more of a rubber-stamping exercise, following a "confession" in dubious circumstances. Then, the obvious question back down to the police was... right, she's confessed, now find the body.
How much time did the lawyers actually spend on analysing this case? What means did they have for expert opinions to counter the assertions made by the PJ?
How easy would it have been for jury members (a relatively rare occurrence) to divorce themselves from all the tabloid "leaks" prior to the case? And who leaked them? How could they have objectively have assessed evidence in the absence of an effective defence? The recorded "reconstruction" presented on the last day of the 3-day trial, must have been quite shocking, but in line with the tabloid "leaks".
It didn't seem to occur to anyone to question the validity of the so-called forensic evidence, nor the conditions under which Leonor and others were interrogated, leading to the initial "confession", let alone how Joćo eventually signed on the dotted line that the reconstruction was "voluntary".
I'm afraid you are going too far on your appreciation about criminal cases in a country whose laws or justice system you do not know and, especially, about a case you totally have no information about.
Everything you say is totally ... moderated .... and it clearly displays a motivation behind it that has nothing to do with case itself but with attacking the PJ.
You have every reason to understand your own legal system far better than I could ever do, particularly in view of the language barrier.
A question, though... Why did you say, in October, that jury trials don't exist in Portugal?
Offline Carana
Executive Member ****** Posts: 2932 Newbie View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN! « Reply #767 on: November 13, 2013, 03:35:40 PM »
Quote Modify
@ 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 Joćo Cipriano) and Nelson Cipriano, the defendants brother. Leonor Ciprianos defence had sought to avoid a jury trial, fearing that jurors would be unduly influenced by intense media coverage. Joćo Novais Pacheco, Leonors lawyer, said the defences 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.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on February 11, 2014, 03:50:56 PM
It was Luz who told me that one of the Judges vote Leonor Cipriano Not Guilty.
I understand that one judge didn't agree with the murder charge and the 20 year sentence associated with it. It wasn't the fact that he thought her not guilty but felt her culpability was less than that on the indictment. He felt a much lesser sentence was in order, less than 10 years. In the end though Leonor had her sentenced reduced by the Supreme Court after the failed appeal. Her perjury conviction saw 7 months added some years later.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on February 11, 2014, 10:51:50 PM
I am too tired at present to give the answer this deserves, but the fact that the Court judged 1) on TORTURED OUT statements,
2) that they took the word of two PJ officers, the one of whom is allegedly about to stand trial on SEVEN very dirty deeds and the other is a convicted liar says oceans. In fairness the Courts were not aware of this at the time.
3) There were NO FORENSICS at all ... moderated as false ...
4) The Courts allowed a video of a man who "confessed" to be played, when the man had pled innocence. This man could have been deprived of his drugs then re-offered them if he did as told .... or tortured as the others, Leonor and Leandro were, to obtain it. In any case I thought that such admissions were NOT allowed in PT Courts. What happened here then?
5) Their lawyer persuaded them to remain silent. How could they defend themselves?
It turned out that their Lawyer had been found carrying drugs into a prison, but mysteriously appears to have been let off charges ... ermm >@@(*&) ... and also that their lawyer was a personal friend of Amaral, the inspector, who was the drugs Inspector for the area and who, with Cristavao, formed the bizarre Prosecution theory put to Court.
Lawyer to lead Inspectors relationship is a bit too cozy for my liking.
6) The courts did not accept certain aspects of Amaral and Cristovaos theory, yet conveniently forgot that.
7) The court refused evidence from, we are told, more people who were supportive or non commital of The Ciprianos than people that were against them. Why was that?
8) There was no body, nor forensically checked blood, nor any evidence of what happened to Joana
9) Cristavao made mega bucks from the case and trial by writing a book about it. Did he also get the heave ho?
10) Propaganda via leaks destroyed any chance of a fair trial.
That will do for now. I am sure there is plenty more that the analysts on this forum could add.
The fact that the judge ignored all the above and more, yet found both Leonor and Joao guilty says more about the PT Justice system than even you do, Luz
What forensics were there John? I know of none
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on February 11, 2014, 10:56:55 PM
Good post Sadie - your following point in particular seems to go against the Portuguese rules in court cases. LC and her brother opted to say nothing during the trial. By playing that tape that 'constitutional right' was completely ignored IMO.
Quote 4) The Courts allowed a video of a man who "confessed" to be played, when the man had pled innocence. This man could have been deprived of his drugs then re-offered them if he did as told .... or tortured as the others, Leonor and Leandro were, to obtain it. In any case I thought that such admissions were NOT allowed in PT Courts. What happened here then? Unquote
... the prosecution sought and received permission to play the tape recorded confession to the court ...
So they broke the rules in this case. Why? Why was that acceptable in this particular case, but not in others?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on February 11, 2014, 11:07:52 PM
She is a convicted murderer and that doesn't look like changing.
Meanwhile, by stating what you did, how do we know any convicted murderer is guilty ???
All the rules for fair play and Jusice were broken in this case Stephen
To name just three: 1) Tortured out so called "evidence" is NOT evidence at all 2) Joaos video was allowed against him, when admissions were NOT permitted in Court and he had pled NOT GUILTY 3) Disgusting propaganda was published by media all over PT before the trial, propaganda that painted Leonor and Joao in an unbelievably bad light. A fair trial was virtually impossible after this.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on February 11, 2014, 11:49:21 PM
All the rules for fair play and Jusice were broken in this case Stephen
To name just three: 1) Tortured out so called "evidence" is NOT evidence at all 2) Joaos video was allowed against him, when admissions were NOT permitted in Court and he had pled NOT GUILTY 3) Disgusting propaganda was published by media all over PT before the trial, propaganda that painted Leonor and Joao in an unbelievably bad light. A fair trial was virtually impossible after this.
Joćo Cipriano was quite happy to take the PJ on at least twelve wild goose chases looking for Joana's remains. Most of the media referred to him paying a game with the police, not the actions of a bereaved uncle but you go on believing the lying s..mbag.
His confession video was ALLOWED BY THE JUDGES as was THEIR RIGHT. But again you think you know more than the learned Portuguese judges.
They are both guilty as hell. As the senior judge stated, one of them couldn't have done the deed alone, they were both in on it.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on February 12, 2014, 06:29:43 AM
Joćo Cipriano was quite happy to take the PJ on at least twelve wild goose chases looking for Joana's remains. Most of the media referred to him paying a game with the police, not the actions of a bereaved uncle but you go on believing the lying s..mbag.
Joao is painted as of low intellect and a drug addict. Threaten him, or induce him with the offer of a drugs fix and he would be only too pleased to oblige. We have no way of knowing if either of these things happened, but some funny things have happened with drugs in this case. 1) The lawyer in the Leonor case, whose name I cant remember, wasn't he found carrying drugs supposedly into prison? ..... yet as far as we know, he was never charged.
2) Was it one of the Metodo 3 group that was also charged with carrying drugs? That accusation undermined their veracity. Was the charge genuine? ... or were they stopped looking ?
His confession video was ALLOWED BY THE JUDGES as was THEIR RIGHT. But again you think you know more than the learned Portuguese judges.
I am questioning them breaking the rules in THIS case John. One rule for everyone else and another for the Ciprianos? Jeez, seems you support that along with tortured out so called evidence? And the tales of a criminal cop, who is a Court proven liar
They are both guilty as hell. As the senior judge stated, one of them couldn't have done the deed alone, they were both in on it.
Your opinion, based on very little, if anything ... except for the fancy tale thought up by Amaral and Cristavao !
... moderated abuse ...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on February 12, 2014, 06:47:28 AM
Jaoa took them on a wild goose chase because he was afraid of being beaten again. I would have thought that this was obvious. Presuming that he had killed Joana, why would he not have told them where the body was?
So was it a trashed car? Was it the pig pen. Or was she buried on a hillside?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 12, 2014, 07:14:59 AM
Jaoa took them on a wild goose chase because he was afraid of being beaten again. I would have thought that this was obvious. Presuming that he had killed Joana, why would he not have told them where the body was?
So was it a trashed car? Was it the pig pen. Or was she buried on a hillside?
Pig pen, hillside, who knows?
Either way the kid is dead & she can't RIP all the time she is used as a pawn by team mccann.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on February 12, 2014, 07:27:17 AM
I don't think I have a solid alibi, but no I wasn't.
No one has set eyes on the girl since her mother confessed to killing her.
It's pretty bleedin obvious she is dead, sadly.
She might well be dead, but there are occasionally children who've been found alive who no one was actively looking for any more.
I don't find it surprising that no sightings or potentially suspicious behaviour by strangers (or even extended family or acquaintances) was reported as no one was actually keeping an eye out for her after the PJ's theory of family whatdunit hit the tabloids (less than two weeks after her disappearance, just when the Faro boys moved in).
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on February 13, 2014, 12:57:30 PM
She might well be dead, but there are occasionally children who've been found alive who no one was actively looking for any more.
I don't find it surprising that no sightings or potentially suspicious behaviour by strangers (or even extended family or acquaintances) was reported as no one was actually keeping an eye out for her after the PJ's theory of family whatdunit hit the tabloids (less than two weeks after her disappearance, just when the Faro boys moved in).
Ah, another similarity. Don\t look for Joana, she is dead. Don't look for Madeleine, she is dead. Part of the strategy no doubt.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 13, 2014, 01:09:26 PM
She might well be dead, but there are occasionally children who've been found alive who no one was actively looking for any more.
I don't find it surprising that no sightings or potentially suspicious behaviour by strangers (or even extended family or acquaintances) was reported as no one was actually keeping an eye out for her after the PJ's theory of family whatdunit hit the tabloids (less than two weeks after her disappearance, just when the Faro boys moved in).
I don't find it suprising there are no sightings as the kid is dead & her body concealed.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 13, 2014, 01:09:47 PM
I don't find it surprising that no sightings or potentially suspicious behaviour by strangers (or even extended family or acquaintances) was reported as no one was actually keeping an eye out for her after the PJ's theory of family whatdunit hit the tabloids (less than two weeks after her disappearance, just when the Faro boys moved in).
Judging by the scornful and dismissive language you are using I take it you believe these convictions are totally unsafe and that the judges and jury convicted someone on just a theory!?? And also quashed further appeals?
As for sightings you are not to know, let alone assert as fact, if and when anyone was looking out and that they did stop at any early stage or wouldn't at any time have reported any sighting. It's just your opinion.
Incredible.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on February 13, 2014, 07:20:16 PM
I can't recall a three-year-old ever disappearing and being found alive after a number of years but I could be wrong. Could you enlighten me please?
I have already mentioned a few cases of young children who were recovered (or who found their way home) quite some time after they disappeared. Some will obviously be parental abductions, but not all.
Here's one moving story, for example: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/PAGE-ONE-Tara-Burke-s-Triumph-Over-Terror-15-2799170.php
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on February 13, 2014, 07:30:25 PM
I can't recall a three-year-old ever disappearing and being found alive after a number of years but I could be wrong. Could you enlighten me please?
Joana was 8 years old at the time, not 3.
Two of the young Dutroux victims were found alive. Although they were 14 and 12 (plus two other older victims) at the time, two other little girls (around 8 years old) might not have suffered a horrible death if the police had been on the ball.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutroux
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on February 14, 2014, 01:40:47 PM
I believe the point that some are making is that seldom in modern times has an under 10-year-old child been abducted by a stranger and been found alive after several years. It certainly appears that survivability for any youngster abdcted below this age is nil or almost nil.
I fear that if Joana or even Madeleine are ever found alive they will be in a statistical category all on their own.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on February 16, 2014, 10:10:42 AM
I believe the point that some are making is that seldom in modern times has an under 10-year-old child been abducted by a stranger and been found alive after several years. It certainly appears that survivability for any youngster abdcted below this age is nil or almost nil.
I fear that if Joana or even Madeleine are ever found alive they will be in a statistical category all on their own.
Two of the little girls abducted by Dutroux were 8, and could have been found alive if the police had investigated where the sound of children shouting out came from. They might have even have stayed alive longer if Dutroux hadn't been sent to prison for something else and his wife had fed them.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on February 16, 2014, 08:53:47 PM
I believe the point that some are making is that seldom in modern times has an under 10-year-old child been abducted by a stranger and been found alive after several years. It certainly appears that survivability for any youngster abdcted below this age is nil or almost nil.
I fear that if Joana or even Madeleine are ever found alive they will be in a statistical category all on their own.
Only if you only include some parts of the world that we live in IMO. IIRC Thousands and thousands of children are abducted every year in Asia - especially in China. Just because we never hear a word about them doesn't make them any less important and I'm certain they would make a huge difference to any statistics.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on February 16, 2014, 09:03:07 PM
Only if you only include some parts of the world that we live in IMO. IIRC Thousands and thousands of children are abducted every year in Asia - especially in China. Just because we never hear a word about them doesn't make them any less important and I'm certain they would make a huge difference to any statistics.
Granted, child abduction is rife in third world countries. You have to compare like with like. Comparing the alleged abductions of Joana Cipriano or Madeleine McCann with the tribal abduction of some little girl in deepest Africa, South America or Asia is not going to achieve anything.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on February 17, 2014, 01:15:39 PM
Granted, child abduction is rife in third world countries. You have to compare like with like. Comparing the alleged abductions of Joana Cipriano or Madeleine McCann with the tribal abduction of some little girl in deepest Africa, South America or Asia is not going to achieve anything.
MariLuz was abducted in a small village in Spain after going out to buy sweets and her body turned up weeks later. The perp turned out to be a local who had a previous history of abuse (on his own children) and who moved very soon after her disappearance. He'd slipped through the net as he should have been in prison for previous offences at the time. I've already posted the links to this tragic case.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on February 18, 2014, 02:51:23 AM
MariLuz was abducted in a small village in Spain after going out to buy sweets and her body turned up weeks later. The perp turned out to be a local who had a previous history of abuse (on his own children) and who moved very soon after her disappearance. He'd slipped through the net as he should have been in prison for previous offences at the time. I've already posted the links to this tragic case.
Thanks Carana. Child abduction really is a despicable crime.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on April 12, 2014, 08:52:57 PM
We still don't know the details of what went on or who was involved. The PJ officers who were accused were acquitted. Amaral and another officer were prosecuted and convicted of other more minor offences. Nobody has been convicted of torturing Leonor Cipriano. Leonor Cipriano was found guilty of lying about the torture and received a further sentence for perjury.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on April 12, 2014, 08:56:03 PM
We still don't know the details of what went on or who was involved. The PJ officers who were accused were acquitted. Amaral and another officer were prosecuted and convicted of other more minor offences. Nobody has been convicted of torturing Leonor Cipriano. Leonor Cipriano was found guilty of lying about the torture and received a further sentence for perjury.
According to the courts...torture took place whilst cipriano was in the pj building but it was not possible to say who was responsible because ..as you have said...she had a bag over her head...it is untrue to say that torture by the pj did not take palce
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on April 12, 2014, 08:59:37 PM
In March, the Court of Appeal of Evora confirmed an earlier ruling that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured while in police custody in 2004, but that it could not identify those responsible. Leonor Cipriano had yet to receive compensation from the state. Gonēalo de Sousa Amaral and António Fernandes Nuno Cardoso, senior officials in the judicial police, had been sentenced to 18 months and 27 months imprisonment respectively, for falsely claiming Leonor Cipriano had fallen down the stairs. However, both sentences were suspended on the grounds that the officers had no previous criminal convictions.
this is from the amnesty site 2012 amarals conviction has never been overturned
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on April 15, 2014, 06:41:20 PM
I don't know what happened in this case.
What disturbs me is:
- that the change in the media attitude to reporting started when a certain coordinator took over, particularly in the PT tabloids;
- that, despite the inquisitorial system, there was a jury with unknown instructions or vetting;
- how could the individuals in that jury - in the face of the constant drip of the most horrific media accusations almost from the outset - feel that they would be safe at home if any one of them had not agreed with the guilty verdict?
- more importantly, perhaps, the total lack of forensic evidence and the lack of anything which might seem serious in that regard.
And...
- the fact that the vast majority of witness statements weren't translated (aside from the ones on behalf of the accusation).
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on April 15, 2014, 10:21:15 PM
The jury were right to convict them, the only bit that is still unknown by us is who was the instigator and who did what? In her last effort to clear the way for her parole Leonor put the blame firmly at brother Joćo's door. It would be interesting to know what he has to say about that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on April 16, 2014, 11:58:17 PM
The jury were right to convict them, the only bit that is still unknown by us is who was the instigator and who did what? In her last effort to clear the way for her parole Leonor put the blame firmly at brother Joćo's door. It would be interesting to know what he has to say about that.
The jury where right to convict them?
On what basis John?
Use only non toirtured out stuff, forensic evidence and any other actual facts, please John
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on April 17, 2014, 12:28:00 AM
The jury were right to convict them, the only bit that is still unknown by us is who was the instigator and who did what? In her last effort to clear the way for her parole Leonor put the blame firmly at brother Joćo's door. It would be interesting to know what he has to say about that.
Joao confession 2009 appeal "Statement I undersigned CC, prisoner no. 282 470 000 the Prison at Carregueira, I confess that I have tried to sell my niece BB. To be true I sign this confession.
Sintra 18, may 2009 CC".
IMO. He waited until Leonor's confession had been accepted and then he denied signing it (as he always did...he chickened out at the last minute and left his sister to take the blame) and it was thrown out of court. This Appeal was meant to have their sentence reduced!
The appeal is easily found on the internet.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on April 17, 2014, 02:40:21 AM
Joao confession 2009 appeal "Statement I undersigned CC, prisoner no. 282 470 000 the Prison at Carregueira, I confess that I have tried to sell my niece BB. To be true I sign this confession.
Sintra 18, may 2009 CC".
IMO. He waited until Leonor's confession had been accepted and then he denied signing it (as he always did...he chickened out at the last minute and left his sister to take the blame) and it was thrown out of court. This Appeal was meant to have their sentence reduced!
The appeal is easily found on the internet.
I have some sympathy with that Anna. Joćo got a shorter sentence in the end but I think he was the instigator of it all. Hopefully it will all be revealed some day what happened to that poor wee lass.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Fern on May 17, 2014, 06:01:41 PM
The jury were right to convict them, the only bit that is still unknown by us is who was the instigator and who did what? In her last effort to clear the way for her parole Leonor put the blame firmly at brother Joćo's door. It would be interesting to know what he has to say about that.
I fully agree with you John, both as guilty as each other.
My understanding is that any 'beating' Leonor may have received was initiated AFTER her vile confession rather than to obtain a confession.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on May 17, 2014, 08:52:17 PM
I fully agree with you John, both as guilty as each other.
My understanding is that any 'beating' Leonor may have received was initiated AFTER her vile confession rather than to obtain a confession.
At first, I'd assumed that they were probably guilty, based on translated articles which seemed to substantiate it, what appeared to be a translation of the ruling in the case, and the sad fact that sometimes families do cry abduction when the reality is different. However, in this case... Hmm.
A first point is that a physical beating is not the only means of extracting a confession or a "reconstruction". Some may be valid, others not. Only the "reconstruction" was allowed to be shown to the court, but there is no evidence as to what conditions led up to that.
There was someone who used to post here who has sadly left. In his absence, here is what I find to be useful background reading:
Confessions of a forensic psychologist Why do people admit to crimes they never committed? Bob Woffinden meets Gisli Gudjonsson, whose pioneering studies changed the face of law
Bob Woffinden The Guardian, Tuesday 17 December 2002 02.17 GMT http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/17/law.ukcrime
There was no evidence of any substance that could indicate whether the child had ever got home that evening, let alone had suffered the alleged fate. There was no forensic evidence whatsoever to substantiate the theory.
I find it curious how the tone of the coverage changed the day that a coordinator-who-must-not-be-named took charge of the case and within days the "culprits" were banged up. I also find it curious that many of the neutral-to-positive witness statements in the trial summary were never translated. Odd, that.
By the time the case came to court, the country had been convinced of the horrific PJ theory and were baying for blood.
Yes, there have been varying versions over time, but these were people who'd only had 3-4 years of education and would have been dependent on the advice of a never-ending sequence of pro-bono lawyers.
IMO, this case should never have even gone to court, but it did.
In the meantime, there is still a missing little girl whose fate remains unknown.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on May 18, 2014, 04:58:11 AM
Oh come on Carana, you can do better than that? They were both in it up to their necks, had they been innocent victims of an abduction they wouldn't have come out with the sob stories they did nor would they have resorted to recriminations and blaming each other. As I stated before, the only part still unresolved is who was the instigator of this foul deed?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: misty on May 19, 2014, 01:44:19 AM
I have only limited information about the case against Leonor & Joao. Can anyone tell me, was the priest who was covering for Fr. Domingos Costa while he was away in Germany ever questioned? I read that Joana was last seen by the church. There was a suggestion she had been sold to a German couple, so I find the coincidence of Fr. Costa being away in Germany that very week quite intriguing.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on May 22, 2014, 02:30:44 PM
Oh come on Carana, you can do better than that? They were both in it up to their necks, had they been innocent victims of an abduction they wouldn't have come out with the sob stories they did nor would they have resorted to recriminations and blaming each other. As I stated before, the only part still unresolved is who was the instigator of this foul deed?
I disagree. I have no idea whether one or the other or both are actually guilty or not as there is no credible, concrete evidence to support it.
And note that this 25% only concerns exoneration due to DNA evidence... of which there was none (in any direction), and probably never will be.
False Confessions
In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.
These cases show that confessions are not always prompted by internal knowledge or actual guilt, but are sometimes motivated by external influences.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on May 22, 2014, 02:42:49 PM
As a dad, how fair would you find it if your child had gone missing and an incompetent police force had decided that you and the mother (or relatives / friends) were necessarily guilty with no proof whatsoever?
Would your kids be ok with that?
Oh, and you were barely literate, didn't know what a police investigation is supposed to do, and had no resources to appoint a competent legal team.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on May 23, 2014, 02:06:04 PM
Why do innocent people confess? A variety of factors can contribute to a false confession during a police interrogation. Many cases have included a combination of several of these causes. They include:
duress coercion intoxication diminished capacity mental impairment ignorance of the law fear of violence the actual infliction of harm the threat of a harsh sentence Misunderstanding the situation
Some false confessions can be explained by the mental state of the confessor.
Confessions obtained from juveniles are often unreliable children can be easy to manipulate and are not always fully aware of their situation. Children and adults both are often convinced that that they can go home as soon as they admit guilt.
People with mental disabilities have often falsely confessed because they are tempted to accommodate and agree with authority figures. Further, many law enforcement interrogators are not given any special training on questioning suspects with mental disabilities. An impaired mental state due to mental illness, drugs or alcohol may also elicit false admissions of guilt.
Mentally capable adults also give false confessions due to a variety of factors like the length of interrogation, exhaustion or a belief that they can be released after confessing and prove their innocence later.
Regardless of the age, capacity or state of the confessor, what they often have in common is a decision at some point during the interrogation process that confessing will be more beneficial to them than continuing to maintain their innocence.
From threats to torture Sometimes law enforcement use harsh interrogation tactics with uncooperative suspects. But some police officers, convinced of a suspects guilt, occasionally use tactics so persuasive that an innocent person feels compelled to confess. Some suspects have confessed to avoid physical harm or discomfort. Others are told they will be convicted with or without a confession, and that their sentence will be more lenient if they confess. Some are told a confession is the only way to avoid the death penalty.
Recording of interrogations The Innocence Project has recommended specific changes in the practice of suspect interrogations in the U.S., including the mandatory electronic recording of interrogations, which has been shown to decrease the number of false confessions and increase the reliability of confessions as evidence. Read more about recommended policy reforms to prevent false confessions.
In the cold light of day and years after the event they both admit to their guilt yet you choose to disbelieve them.
People do silly things in the heat of the moment but when the dust settles the truth usually emerges. Neither of them claim to be innocent so why do you? Is it because Amaral got it right once so could very well be right a second time?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on May 27, 2014, 01:05:59 PM
In the cold light of day and years after the event they both admit to their guilt yet you choose to disbelieve them.
People do silly things in the heat of the moment but when the dust settles the truth usually emerges. Neither of them claim to be innocent so why do you? Is it because Amaral got it right once so could very well be right a second time?
I take each case on its own merits. I was one of the people who voted for this case to have a separate sub-forum for precisely that reason. I would have no problem whatsoever with stating that he might have been right in one case and not in another if I believed that to be so.
False confessions do happen for all sorts of reasons and it wasn't until I started attempting to read through the Supreme Court judgement that I realised that there was simply no concrete evidence of what may have happened to little Joana.
Ironically, it seems that those who are convinced that he was right in the McCann case (even though I have yet to see anyone come up with a coherent explanation of how his theory could work in practice), insist that he was right in the Cipriano one for some reason, despite the total lack of evidence.
There is a missing child whose fate remains unknown and two people who may be in jail for a crime they hadn't committed. If they hadn't, then someone is still at large who may have struck again.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on May 27, 2014, 02:57:37 PM
I take each case on its own merits. I was one of the people who voted for this case to have a separate sub-forum for precisely that reason. I would have no problem whatsoever with stating that he might have been right in one case and not in another if I believed that to be so.
False confessions do happen for all sorts of reasons and it wasn't until I started attempting to read through the Supreme Court judgement that I realised that there was simply no concrete evidence of what may have happened to little Joana.
Ironically, it seems that those who are convinced that he was right in the McCann case (even though I have yet to see anyone come up with a coherent explanation of how his theory could work in practice), insist that he was right in the Cipriano one for some reason, despite the total lack of evidence.
There is a missing child whose fate remains unknown and two people who may be in jail for a crime they hadn't committed. If they hadn't, then someone is still at large who may have struck again.
The Cipriano's are not pleading innocence. Their lawyers are not spearheading a miscarriage of justice campaign. Ever asked yourself why?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on May 27, 2014, 04:41:47 PM
I have only limited information about the case against Leonor & Joao. Can anyone tell me, was the priest who was covering for Fr. Domingos Costa while he was away in Germany ever questioned? I read that Joana was last seen by the church. There was a suggestion she had been sold to a German couple, so I find the coincidence of Fr. Costa being away in Germany that very week quite intriguing.
What I would like to know is, who was the priest at that church and did that preist teach Joana at the little adjoining school ? Particularly if Joana took the back way around the church, there were spots completely out of sight from any homes. Also the little road at the back of the Church and school was ill lit and as it led no-where at that time, there was no traffic.... neither pedestrianised nor motorised.
A perfect spot for an abduction within town.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Moderator on June 23, 2014, 10:16:37 AM
Funchal, Madeira. Sunday 22nd June 2014.
Little Daniel was sold for €50k
Yet another faked abduction case in Portugal has been highlighted with the arrest of Daniel Vieira's mother. She was arrested on the allegation that she tried to sell the child for 50,000 Euros.
Little Daniel, who had been missing in Calheta, Madeira, would be sold for 50 thousand euro to a wealthy family. The police investigation is continuing but Lydia Freitas, the mother, now owned up by confessing the attempted sale, but does not reveal to whom.
Video (http://cmtv.sapo.pt/detalhe.aspx?channelID=34F5E1B7-BABF-4C08-83FC-20AF9E097CDA&contentID=5797BD77-34A9-42C8-B068-85B062015930)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on June 27, 2014, 01:02:34 PM
Yet another faked abduction case in Portugal has been highlighted with the arrest of Daniel Vieira's mother. She was arrested on the allegation that she tried to sell the child for 50,000 Euros.
Little Daniel, who had been missing in Calheta, Madeira, would be sold for 50 thousand euro to a wealthy family. The police investigation is continuing but Lydia Freitas, the mother, now owned up by confessing the attempted sale, but does not reveal to whom.
Video (http://cmtv.sapo.pt/detalhe.aspx?channelID=34F5E1B7-BABF-4C08-83FC-20AF9E097CDA&contentID=5797BD77-34A9-42C8-B068-85B062015930)
The account by CMTV / CdaM seems to change by the day...
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on June 27, 2014, 11:30:45 PM
Yet another faked abduction case in Portugal has been highlighted with the arrest of Daniel Vieira's mother. She was arrested on the allegation that she tried to sell the child for 50,000 Euros.
Little Daniel, who had been missing in Calheta, Madeira, would be sold for 50 thousand euro to a wealthy family. The police investigation is continuing but Lydia Freitas, the mother, now owned up by confessing the attempted sale, but does not reveal to whom.
Video (http://cmtv.sapo.pt/detalhe.aspx?channelID=34F5E1B7-BABF-4C08-83FC-20AF9E097CDA&contentID=5797BD77-34A9-42C8-B068-85B062015930)
I find it so unlikely that a woman who has been very much in the public eye because her son went missing just a few months ago, would even consider so soon afterwards selling him .... that I am sorry, but I, for one, do NOT believe it. Not at all.
I hope that she didn't fall down the stairs as Leonor Cipriano did. NOT.
Now which of the Portimao Madeleine Mccann detectives went to Madeira and testified by electronic means from there for Amaral in his trial?
Ah, was it the PJ inspector who reputedly sent nude photos of himself via the internet to a woman? The guy who pretended to befriend the Mccanns, but then stabbed them in the back?
Now what was his name?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on February 22, 2015, 08:54:02 PM
The Ciprianos admitted their guilt early on.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on February 22, 2015, 09:53:46 PM
A good beating loosens the tongue...I find it astonishing that you don't question the confession of Leonor in light of her injuries
Probably because Leonor's confession to involvement came before she was incarcerated. 8(0(*
First story was that Leonor hit the child's head off a wall causing death. Joćo then admitted to disposing of the body out back initially. Joćo backed up this story but couldn't find any remains.
Second story Joćo told was that he buried the little girl near the river. Later still it morphed into feeding her to the pigs.
Third story by Leonor was a belated attempt to influence her sentence by claiming she would at last reveal the truth. She claimed that Joana died when an attempted child trafficking deal concocted by Joćo went wrong. She claimed Joćo told her that he put remains in car before sending it off to a crusher. In each case, no remains of the little girl were ever found.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 07:02:36 AM
Probably because Leonor's confession to involvement came before she was incarcerated. 8(0(*
First story was that Leonor hit the child's head off a wall causing death. Joćo then admitted to disposing of the body out back initially. Joćo backed up this story but couldn't find any remains.
Second story Joćo told was that he buried the little girl near the river. Later still it morphed into feeding her to the pigs.
Third story by Leonor was a belated attempt to influence her sentence by claiming she would at last reveal the truth. She claimed that Joana died when an attempted child trafficking deal concocted by Joćo went wrong. She claimed Joćo told her that he put remains in car before sending it off to a crusher. In each case, no remains of the little girl were ever found.
IMO the 'claims' of what happened to the child were put to her and her brother by the PJ. Once a confession had been obtained, why would LC refuse to say where the body was? That makes no sense. The obvious reason is because she didn't know - and all the torturing in the world could not make any difference to that.
Unfortunately for Amaral and the PJ - the Prison authorities would not play ball, and refused to help them to cover up the torture by agreeing to say her injuries happened at the prison.
IMO the trial was a farce and as public opinion had been whipped up to lynch mob level via the press by the time it came to court - it would have been a brave jury member who found her 'not guilty.'
How anyone can support ANY conviction where a court has deemed torture took place during interrogation and that attempts were made by the Police to cover it up is beyond my comprehension.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on February 23, 2015, 07:52:02 AM
Probably because Leonor's confession to involvement came before she was incarcerated. 8(0(*
First story was that Leonor hit the child's head off a wall causing death. Joćo then admitted to disposing of the body out back initially. Joćo backed up this story but couldn't find any remains.
Second story Joćo told was that he buried the little girl near the river. Later still it morphed into feeding her to the pigs.
Third story by Leonor was a belated attempt to influence her sentence by claiming she would at last reveal the truth. She claimed that Joana died when an attempted child trafficking deal concocted by Joćo went wrong. She claimed Joćo told her that he put remains in car before sending it off to a crusher. In each case, no remains of the little girl were ever found.
we don't know any of the above was said.....all made up by the PJ
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on February 23, 2015, 10:25:19 AM
we don't know any of the above was said.....all made up by the PJ
Denial.. denial.. denial... and then some! ....says it all really. @)(++(*
For the record, it was all said and recorded both in witness statements, court hearings and in other documents provided to the appeal court in order to achieve early release. For you to blatantly ignore these facts just goes to show how desperate you are to blacken the Portuguese authorities.
Why are you so obsessed with lies Dave?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on February 23, 2015, 10:41:56 AM
Denial.. denial.. denial... and then some! ....says it all really. @)(++(*
For the record, it was all said and recorded both in witness statements, court hearings and in other documents provided to the appeal court in order to achieve early release. For you to blatantly ignore these facts just goes to show how desperate you are to blacken the Portuguese authorities.
Why are you so obsessed with lies Dave?
As this case was mentioned in Amnesty International under the torture section, I think they did a pretty good job of blackening their own name.
Once the use of torture had been established - there should at the very least have been a re-trial - as all existing witness statements etc automatically became suspect IMO.
Anyway - this topic has it's own place elsewhere - so this is my last post on the subject on this thread.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on February 23, 2015, 10:47:08 AM
IMO the 'claims' of what happened to the child were put to her and her brother by the PJ. Once a confession had been obtained, why would LC refuse to say where the body was? That makes no sense. The obvious reason is because she didn't know - and all the torturing in the world could not make any difference to that.
Unfortunately for Amaral and the PJ - the Prison authorities would not play ball, and refused to help them to cover up the torture by agreeing to say her injuries happened at the prison.
IMO the trial was a farce and as public opinion had been whipped up to lynch mob level via the press by the time it came to court - it would have been a brave jury member who found her 'not guilty.'
How anyone can support ANY conviction where a court has deemed torture took place during interrogation and that attempts were made by the Police to cover it up is beyond my comprehension.
It makes perfect sense as Leonor Cipriano presented her latest affidavit to the appeal court claiming repentance and stating that she had nothing left to hide and that this final statement was the whole truth (a document which Dave thinks doesn't exist). If you care to look on the other thread you will find that it was her brother John Cipriano who took the child away. Leonor obviously doesn't know to this day what really happened to her but in any event was complicit in a cover up.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Angelo222 on February 23, 2015, 10:49:45 AM
As this case was mentioned in Amnesty International under the torture section, I think they did a pretty good job of blackening their own name.
Once the use of torture had been established - there should at the very least have been a re-trial - as all existing witness statements etc automatically became suspect IMO.
Anyway - this topic has it's own place elsewhere - so this is my last post on the subject on this thread.
If it was your child who had disappeared what lengths would you go to find her? Leonor Cipriano deserves no sympathy whatsoever. There was no need for a retrial since they both confessed to the magstrate from the outset and Leonor has since done so again in her affidavit. Case concluded.
As for being off topic, I don't agree. There are those who obsess over the Cipriano case for entirely the wrong reasons.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 10:53:29 AM
Now how long was it before she raised the alarm over her daughter's disappearance ?
She didn't bother, she made the woeful excuse that her mobile had no credit but conveniently forgot to walk a short distance to tell the GNR officers at the nearby fair. It was the owner of the shop who contacted the GNR when she became aware of Joana's disappearance. Leonor still had time to fill her face with cakes though before turning up at the GNR office the next morning.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Brietta on February 23, 2015, 11:28:54 AM
They endorse the murder of little girls through their support of the Ciprianos.
That's the kind of people they are.
I think "the kind of people they are" support the rule of law ... abhor the torture of prisoners ... and support the principle enshrined in "Innocent till proven guilty."
I think "they" prefer convictions for crime to be supported by evidence presented in a court of law.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: DCI on February 23, 2015, 11:37:01 AM
She didn't bother, she made the woeful excuse that her mobile had no credit but conveniently forgot to walk a short distance to tell the GNR officers at the nearby fair. It was the owner of the shop who contacted the GNR when she became aware of Joana's disappearance. Leonor still had time to fill her face with cakes though before turning up at the GNR office the next morning.
From old thread
Celia helps search and phones police approx 12.30/40 Leonora informs GNR near the church. who tells her to report it tomorrow
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 11:39:16 AM
I think "the kind of people they are" support the rule of law ... abhor the torture of prisoners ... and support the principle enshrined in "Innocent till proven guilty."
I think "they" prefer convictions for crime to be supported by evidence presented in a court of law.
I'll post it again, because AnnaLor is here and she doesn't like what I have to say.
The Ciprianos were convicted, using evidence that was presented in a court of law.
If you want to support child murderers,well, good luck with that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: DCI on February 23, 2015, 11:47:58 AM
Investigations conducted by the Judicial Police of Faro coordinated by Gonēalo Amaral did not reach any clear proof against Leonor and Joćo Cipriano - just a theory, a story that the prosecutor José Pinheiro struggled to defend in court.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: faithlilly on February 23, 2015, 11:51:43 AM
I think "the kind of people they are" support the rule of law ... abhor the torture of prisoners ... and support the principle enshrined in "Innocent till proven guilty."
I think "they" prefer convictions for crime to be supported by evidence presented in a court of law.
'Inherently good people' isn't that how Kate describes you ? The message being that anyone with a modicum of reasoning ability who doesn't buy into the whole abduction charade is ' inherently bad'. Nice little propoganda trick but hardly subtle.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: faithlilly on February 23, 2015, 11:54:37 AM
Investigations conducted by the Judicial Police of Faro coordinated by Gonēalo Amaral did not reach any clear proof against Leonor and Joćo Cipriano - just a theory, a story that the prosecutor José Pinheiro struggled to defend in court.
If the words are not your own would you mind posting a link to your quote ?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 12:06:18 PM
Investigations conducted by the Judicial Police of Faro coordinated by Gonēalo Amaral did not reach any clear proof against Leonor and Joćo Cipriano - just a theory, a story that the prosecutor José Pinheiro struggled to defend in court.
Who better to make an informed decision on the innocence or otherwise of the Ciprianos?
A jury, which were shown all the evidence and reached a majority verdict of their guilt,
Or, some anonoymous rampant McCann enthusiasts, who only ever heard about the case because of Kate?
I'm sticking with The jury.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: DCI on February 23, 2015, 12:07:54 PM
The prosecutor's case was certainly proved to the jury.
Not all the jury! Or judges, not sure.
Did you know, Leonor didn't sign her confession?
Inspectors Paulo Pereira Cristovao and Marques Bom signed the document saying it was the result of an informal chat that took place with Leonor Cipriano.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: faithlilly on February 23, 2015, 01:45:37 PM
Inspectors Paulo Pereira Cristovao and Marques Bom signed the document saying it was the result of an informal chat that took place with Leonor Cipriano.
As a confession is worthless unless repeated in court I don't actually see your point.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: slartibartfast on February 23, 2015, 01:55:09 PM
Joana- most of the evidence is not available. I would like to know which priest was standing in for Fr. Domingos Costa during the week Joana disappeared. I do think the convictions are unsafe.
So without evidence you think the convictions are unsafe?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: misty on February 23, 2015, 02:07:21 PM
So without evidence you think the convictions are unsafe?
The forensics were destroyed. The saw was never found. The "confessions" were many & varied. Beatings took place. Yes, I'd say the convictions were unsafe. But then, I'm not Portuguese.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on February 23, 2015, 06:09:09 PM
The forensics were destroyed. The saw was never found. The "confessions" were many & varied. Beatings took place. Yes, I'd say the convictions were unsafe. But then, I'm not Portuguese.
Plenty of forensic samples...
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.
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.
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.
There's a thread on the forensic evidence... or rather the lack of it.
There is nothing in the report that appears to anything more than a nicked finger and a mop-up of meat juice in the kitchen /living area.
The forensics didn't even turn up until 2 weeks later... meanwhile, the entire family, minus Joana, continued to live there.
Nicked fingers & mopped up meat juice, great work Sherlock.
I'm sticking with the obvious.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on February 23, 2015, 07:47:47 PM
PROOF Alda Casimiro concluded PROOF Alda Casimiro concluded "there is no direct evidence of the facts (...) not even the murder." The judge admitted that the decision to order the defendants relied on facts "legally relevant." COURT "
Leonor and Joćo used disproportionate force in relation to an eight year old only stopping [hitting] when killed, although it bleed through the nose , mouth and temple, "read on the judgment of conviction. http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/defesa-e-acusacao-recorrem-da-
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on February 23, 2015, 07:52:03 PM
PROOF Alda Casimiro concluded PROOF Alda Casimiro concluded "there is no direct evidence of the facts (...) not even the murder." The judge admitted that the decision to order the defendants relied on facts "legally relevant." COURT "
Leonor and Joćo used disproportionate force in relation to an eight year old only stopping [hitting] when killed, although it bleed through the nose , mouth and temple, "read on the judgment of conviction. http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/defesa-e-acusacao-recorrem-da-
Someone made that up. There was never any proof of any such thing.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on February 23, 2015, 08:01:19 PM
Nicked fingers & mopped up meat juice, great work Sherlock.
I'm sticking with the obvious.
So am I.
There is nothing remotely suspicious in the account of the forensics results concerning blood. Rather odd, considering the blood bath that was supposed to have occurred.
The only mystery concerns the so-called semen trace on a pair of her knickers.
However:
a) it's not clear whether it actually was a trace of semen or not (the so-called semen stain in 5A turned out to be a baby's saliva once a proper test was done in a lab);
b) whatever the trace was, her knickers were apparently in a basket of general laundry. If it was semen, there is no way of knowing whether its presence was due to someone having abused her, or whether it was due to contamination as a result of being in the basket along with other people's clothes.
c) the identity of the donor of this so-called semen (or whatever it actually was) was never determined.
d) strangely, sexual abuse wasn't even part of the PJ's hypothesis.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 08:02:13 PM
There is nothing remotely suspicious in the account of the forensics results concerning blood. Rather odd, considering the blood bath that was supposed to have occurred.
The only mystery concerns the so-called semen trace on a pair of her knickers.
However:
a) it's not clear whether it actually was a trace of semen or not (the so-called semen stain in 5A turned out to be a baby's saliva once a proper test was done in a lab);
b) whatever the trace was, her knickers were apparently in a basket of general laundry. If it was semen, there is no way of knowing whether its presence was due to someone having abused her, or whether it was due to contamination as a result of being in the basket along with other people's clothes.
c) the identity of the donor of this so-called semen (or whatever it actually was) was never determined.
d) strangely, sexual abuse wasn't even part of the PJ's hypothesis.
Her uncle made a taped confession to the police, which was shown in court, in which he described how he, & his sister, had laid into that poor defenceless 8 year old child.
Course, he was only pulling their legs weren't he.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id176.html
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on February 23, 2015, 08:03:02 PM
Someone made that up. There was never any proof of any such thing.
Sorry///What are you referring too, Eleanor? There was no evidence of proof of anything let alone that they murdered Joanna, but the confession, whether given freely or not, was accidental killing. We know how much media manipulation there was and even this link is not as it was originally. The reconstitution by Joao on video, was accepted as a confession against both of them, even although they opted for silence(as is allowed in Portugal)
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on February 23, 2015, 08:11:56 PM
Sorry///What are you referring too, Eleanor? There was no evidence of proof of anything let alone that they murdered Joanna, but the confession, whether given freely or not, was accidental killing. We know how much media manipulation there was and even this link is not as it was originally. The reconstitution by Joao on video, was accepted as a confession against both of them, even although they opted for silence(as is allowed in Portugal)
About hitting Joana and her bleeding through the nose, mouth and temple.
But then The PJ made up the bit about Joana catching her Mother and Uncle having sex.
In fact The PJ made up the whole damn thing.
Whoops. PS. In My Opinion.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 08:19:27 PM
About hitting Joana and her bleeding through the nose, mouth and temple.
But then The PJ made up the bit about Joana catching her Mother and Uncle having sex.
In fact The PJ made up the whole damn thing.
Whoops. PS. In My Opinion.
I agree, The marks found on the walls and floor by use of ultra-violet lights, could have been any body fluid and there was plenty of blood from these creepy crawly things they killed. Now where in this time line do you kill someone and all the macabre bit? According to the court it was after Joao went to the café to detain Leandro ????????
Copied from a old post of mine Timeline Times Left home around 8 h pm ??? Arrived at Celia around 8h 20pm / 8h 30pm After shopping left Celia around 8h.30Pm / 8h.35pm Last time Seen, in proximity to market going to stairs that led to her home 8h.30PM / 8h 40pm Earliest possible to get home 8.35pm to 8.40 (I think these are the same witnesses who saw her approaching market So must be near market/steps and opp side of road)
Leandro and pal in Celias at around 9 .00PM according to Celia Joa leaves the house 9.10/9.15 Joao arrives at Celias at about 9. 20PM according to celia lady They all go home immediately 9. 25pm according to Leandro
Leona and Joao go to Celia around 10. 30PM according to celia leaving at approx 11.pm to go home and according to Celias John goes home to sit with babies
Leandro and mate go to search approx 10.00 pm Leonora joins them 11 pm ish Celia goes to their home to see if joana is back 12mn Leonor, Leandro and pal are just returning 12 mn and decide to go search some more with Celia at 12.30 ish Leonor and Joaos brother, is around as well At Celia, church where Leonor saw GNR, cockle feast and their home I believe Leonor and johns brother sees them all around 11.30 Celia helps search and phones police approx 12.30/40 Leonora informs GNR near the church. who tells her to report it tomorrow
============================================== If Joana got home earliest 8.35 the evil deed would be done 9.15 latest, this includes getting cleaned and changed before Joao left for celias 9.15 latest. Or Joana got home 8.40/5 and still would be 9.15 latest unless Carloss times were correct and Celias and witnesses were wrong of course as there was a 30 min difference
30 to 35 mins to argue with the child, kill her, decide what to do, and argue with each other, conceal the body, clean the walls and floors and get washed and changed , not to mention laundry and clothing concealment. Nah ! Even an extra 30 mins wouldnt convince me And when the men got back from Celia at 9.25/35 , Leandro and Carlos noticed nothing different about the house clean wise, which would have, freshly washed floors, surely?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8.35/8.40 to 8.40/8.45 trying to pull the child back and argue 8.40/8.45 to 8.50/8.55 hitting the child until she fell lifeless 8.50/8.55 to 9.00/9.05 Argue with each other and decide what to do 9.00/9.05 to 9.10/9.15 Conceal Body 9.10/9.15 to 9.15/9.20 Washed and changed These are the shortest times that I believe possible Now Joao has to leave at 9.15 the latest, to be at celia for 9.20 Leonor is left to wash, change, clean the walls, the floors and conceal bloody laundry before the men return at 9.30 ?????????????
When was all the really macabre stuff suppose to happen ??????????????????
OK I have checked back.....................According to 2006 appeal it was when Joao went back to the house at 9.30 ish,after waylaying Leandro and Carlos who then supposedly had gone searching ???????
but I believe (according to statements) that they all went home first and then they went with Leonor, searching for Joana This cant be right !!!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on February 23, 2015, 08:23:07 PM
Her uncle made a taped confession to the police, which was shown in court, in which he described how he, & his sister, had laid into that poor defenceless 8 year old child.
Course, he was only pulling their legs weren't he.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id176.html
It was a taped "reconstruction", involving a demonstration of how one would chop up a body, using a doll. The chopped up doll didn't even fit properly in the small fridge / freezer where it was supposed to have been stuffed.
They lived in a small house, with several children and adults... and no one noticed that there was a chopped up body in it when they opened it to get their breakfast?
Leandro had no idea when his saw disappeared and he said that all the kitchen knives were small ones.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: misty on February 23, 2015, 08:23:58 PM
It's a wonder he didn't challenge it in court really, given that he's the innocent uncle of a missing child.
He couldn't as the lawyers had advised both not to take the stand, assuming that the case would be thrown out due to a total lack of credible evidence. Where the lawyers screwed up was they seemingly hadn't realised that the "reconstruction" was admissible evidence - presented on the last day of this rather short trial.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on February 23, 2015, 08:27:19 PM
It was a taped "reconstruction", involving a demonstration of how one would chop up a body, using a doll. The chopped up doll didn't even fit properly in the small fridge / freezer where it was supposed to have been stuffed.
They lived in a small house, with several children and adults... and no one noticed that there was a chopped up body in it when they opened it to get their breakfast?
Leandro had no idea when his saw disappeared and he said that all the kitchen knives were small ones.
Leandro Apparently said that in court, but has since, said in press articles that he had never owned a saw.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on February 23, 2015, 08:28:09 PM
When are they supposed to have cut up the body and put it in the fridge. Or did Leonor do that while Jaoa was out looking for Leandro?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on February 23, 2015, 08:28:26 PM
Leandro Apparently said that in court, but has since, said in press articles that he had never owned a saw.
Hmmm. That's not my recollection. I think he did have one at some point, but simply had no idea when it disappeared. We'd need to check the original versions of articles on that point.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on February 23, 2015, 08:32:42 PM
When are they supposed to have cut up the body and put it in the fridge. Or did Leonor do that while Jaoa was out looking for Leandro?
Apparently she was too squeamish to joint a chicken, according to Leandro. No the court believe it was done at 9.30??????? I believe. Did they even check the statements?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 08:33:24 PM
It was a taped "reconstruction", involving a demonstration of how one would chop up a body, using a doll. The chopped up doll didn't even fit properly in the small fridge / freezer where it was supposed to have been stuffed.
They lived in a small house, with several children and adults... and no one noticed that there was a chopped up body in it when they opened it to get their breakfast?
Leandro had no idea when his saw disappeared and he said that all the kitchen knives were small ones.
Are you suggesting Joao didn't confess?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on February 23, 2015, 08:36:02 PM
Apparently she was too squeamish to joint a chicken, according to Leandro. No the court believe it was done at 9.30??????? I believe. Did they even check the statements?
And there was me thinking they fed it to the pigs or stuffed it in a car or buried up a mountain. But The PJ certainly covered all angles. So take your pick, Folks
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on February 23, 2015, 08:40:33 PM
Spam, how would you cut up a turkey? Here's a doll.
Thanks for that demonstration.
Course, in the taped confession, Joćo Cipriano said he and his sister hit the turkey, which then banged it's head against a wall before collapsing, unconscious, onto the floor.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 08:51:03 PM
What comes first is, why confess ,if you're the innocent uncle/mother of an abducted child?
It's because they dunnit, it's that simple.
Fear of being beaten up by The PJ. They did have a long standing record for such behaviour. And they probably did beat him up anyway. But just not his face.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 09:01:02 PM
Fear of being beaten up by The PJ. They did have a long standing record for such behaviour. And they probably did beat him up anyway. But just not his face.
Has Joao ever complained that he was tortured, or that he confessed in fear of torture?
Is there any mention of that anywhere, other than from your imagination?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on February 23, 2015, 09:04:28 PM
What comes first is, why confess ,if you're the innocent uncle/mother of an abducted child?
It's because they dunnit, it's that simple.
On the day of the reconstitution(confession) Leandro had to get the keys to the house for the Pj. He hung around and followed the PJ and Joao to the pub apparently. He also said to the press in an interview in 2006, that Joao appeared drugged or drunk when he entered the house after leaving the pub, with some officers.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on February 23, 2015, 09:09:00 PM
Has Joao ever complained that he was tortured, or that he confessed in fear of torture?
Is there any mention of that anywhere, other than from your imagination?
Someone in The PJ put Leandro Silva in hospital for three days, and he wasn't even charged. So I might be forgiven for thinking someone scared Jaoa witless.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 09:27:06 PM
Someone in The PJ put Leandro Silva in hospital for three days, and he wasn't even charged. So I might be forgiven for thinking someone scared Jaoa witless.
Allegedly.
From what I can find, there is only Leandro's word for that, & he didn't report it for about 4 years.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on February 23, 2015, 09:31:06 PM
Well I heard that he tried to report it but The PJ wouldn't listen. What a surprise.
You're taking the word of a guy who refused to provide a semen sample.
Good luck with that.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on February 23, 2015, 09:41:59 PM
The judicial system is very slow in Portugal....How long before the PJ were tried for torture??? We don't know how long it was before Leandro's case came up and it was decided not to proceed, by the court.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on February 23, 2015, 09:44:40 PM
You're taking the word of a guy who refused to provide a semen sample.
Good luck with that.
Why would they need a semen sample? They didn't even know if it was semen. And DNA is the same no matter what body fluid it comes from. So don't be silly.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 09:50:24 PM
Who is in a better position to make an informed decision on the innocence or otherwise of the Ciprianos...
The jury, which were privy to all the evidence presented in court and reached a majority verdict of their guilt.
Or, forumites with nothing but press reports, which you're lot insist are bent, to go on?
I'm going mostly with the appeal legal ruling and Leandro's long interview (two years after the child's disappearance and before anyone had ever heard of Madeleine).
The only interest that I find in the press reports is how biased they were.
The legal ruling is fascinating (from what I have been able to decipher of it, which isn't 100%)... and it gives an insight into the system worked (at least back then), but I don't think that it can be equated that easily with how one may expect a judicial system in a different country to work.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 10:06:18 PM
That's nothing but a biased assumption, given that you only have press reports to go on.
I believe that the court proceeding as reported by the Media ,has to be correct.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Anna on February 23, 2015, 10:16:07 PM
I have written all about this case and if there was a private section that was locked until I finished, so that you could read from start to finish and then decide. I might consider posting it. Interested?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 10:16:21 PM
I have written all about this case and if there was a private section that was locked until I finished, so that you could read from start to finish and then decide. I might consider posting it. Interested?
Yes.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on February 23, 2015, 10:30:53 PM
Is this the same one Carana. below. I believe it was only the statements that had been updated that were shown, but I have Leandro's don't know about the others until I check out all those letters to see who they are.
Yes, that's the same one that I'd attempted to wade through.
Some of it was translated, but a large number of witness statements weren't: the neutral-to-positive ones.
ETA: Correction - the missing translations seem to be from the 2009 ruling.
No doubt there were some glowing character references of the man who left another blind & the woman who couldn't be bothered to walk her daughter to school.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on March 02, 2015, 12:34:38 PM
No doubt there were some glowing character references of the man who left another blind & the woman who couldn't be bothered to walk her daughter to school.
I'd agree that Joćo doesn't come across as everyone's dream son-in-law, but I haven't found any trace of the legal ruling in the assault case which landed him in jail, so I don't know what evidence his conviction was based on. Several members of the family said that he took drugs (but Leandro said that he believed he smoked hash / pot, not anything injectable). He had very little education and found it hard to find work, but his employer (past or contemporaneous?) said that he worked well and didn't have any problems with him.
Leandro stated that Joćo was fond of his niece, but that he wouldn't have put it past him to have attempted to sell her, but didn't believe that he would have harmed her.
Regarding Leonor and the school issue, the only account of that (to double-check) is a written statement from the supermarket lady. Leandro and the rest of his family found that she paid unusual attention to Joana and wondered whether she could have taken her. That may, of course, simply be wishful thinking as it would seem to be the only potential "princess" scenario.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on May 18, 2015, 12:35:06 PM
Only a policeman knows what goes on in the real world, the belief that such things never occur in the UK is false I'm afraid.
To put the Leonor Cipriano torture into perspective, it was more of a mild beating with a cardboard roll than a torture. You have to understand the circumstances to fully comprehend why several detectives put themselves in that position.
A youngster was missing and a mother and uncle were admitting to foul play but refusing to say where she was located or at least were giving false indications.
Do you not think that in those circumstances something needed to be done quickly in order to have any chance of finding her dead or alive? It was a case of do something and do it quickly.
Was a child's life not worth a few bruises?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 18, 2015, 12:47:54 PM
Only a policeman knows what goes on in the real world, the belief that such things never occur in the UK is false I'm afraid.
To put the Leonor Cipriano torture into perspective, it was more of a mild beating with a cardboard roll than a torture. You have to understand the circumstances to fully comprehend why several detectives put themselves in that position.
A youngster was missing and a mother and uncle were admitting to foul play but refusing to say where she was located or at least were giving false indications.
Do you not think that in those circumstances something needed to be done quickly in order to have any chance of finding her dead or alive? It was a case of do something and do it quickly.
Was a child's life not worth a few bruises?
Interesting point of view John. Where do you draw the line?
Only a policeman knows what goes on in the real world, the belief that such things never occur in the UK is false I'm afraid.
To put the Leonor Cipriano torture into perspective, it was more of a mild beating with a cardboard roll than a torture. You have to understand the circumstances to fully comprehend why several detectives put themselves in that position.
A youngster was missing and a mother and uncle were admitting to foul play but refusing to say where she was located or at least were giving false indications.
Do you not think that in those circumstances something needed to be done quickly in order to have any chance of finding her dead or alive? It was a case of do something and do it quickly.
Was a child's life not worth a few bruises?
if that's the way the police think..as you have confirmed...is it surprising that the mccanns fled Portugal....
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on May 18, 2015, 01:05:37 PM
Only a policeman knows what goes on in the real world, the belief that such things never occur in the UK is false I'm afraid.
To put the Leonor Cipriano torture into perspective, it was more of a mild beating with a cardboard roll than a torture. You have to understand the circumstances to fully comprehend why several detectives put themselves in that position.
A youngster was missing and a mother and uncle were admitting to foul play but refusing to say where she was located or at least were giving false indications.
Do you not think that in those circumstances something needed to be done quickly in order to have any chance of finding her dead or alive? It was a case of do something and do it quickly.
Was a child's life not worth a few bruises?
What makes you think that they were looking for a living child? The GNR had searched for her; the initial PJ team in Portimćo had been trying to follow up potential leads. Then big boots from Faro came in and wafted a black torch around and decided the child had been murdered for some inexplicable reason. If that had happened there was no child to potentially save.
I find that there's a difference between really wanting to get to the truth of the matter and simply wanting to get a conviction, irrespective of whether the person is the real perpetrator or not.
I do take the more general point of tense time-sensitive situations that the police must face from time to time - hostages, a bomb about to blow up, etc., but then a modern police force would have a massive crisis team checking out and cross-checking every bit of information and specialist officers trained in getting information out of suspects in dynamic situations.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on May 18, 2015, 01:12:03 PM
What makes you think that they were looking for a living child? The GNR had searched for her; the initial PJ team in Portimćo had been trying to follow up potential leads. Then big boots from Faro came in and wafted a black torch around and decided the child had been murdered for some inexplicable reason. If that had happened there was no child to potentially save.
I find that there's a difference between really wanting to get to the truth of the matter and simply wanting to get a conviction, irrespective of whether the person is the real perpetrator or not.
I do take the more general point of tense time-sensitive situations that the police must face from time to time - hostages, a bomb about to blow up, etc., but then a modern police force would have a massive crisis team checking out and cross-checking every bit of information and specialist officers trained in getting information out of suspects in dynamic situations.
They were looking for a child Carana. Surely even a dead child deserves a decent burial?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 18, 2015, 01:13:39 PM
What makes you think that they were looking for a living child? The GNR had searched for her; the initial PJ team in Portimćo had been trying to follow up potential leads. Then big boots from Faro came in and wafted a black torch around and decided the child had been murdered for some inexplicable reason. If that had happened there was no child to potentially save.
I find that there's a difference between really wanting to get to the truth of the matter and simply wanting to get a conviction, irrespective of whether the person is the real perpetrator or not.
I do take the more general point of tense time-sensitive situations that the police must face from time to time - hostages, a bomb about to blow up, etc., but then a modern police force would have a massive crisis team checking out and cross-checking every bit of information and specialist officers trained in getting information out of suspects in dynamic situations.
Why is torture a bad idea? Because the main motivation of a person under torture is to make it stop. They will therefore say anything, agree to anything, confess to anything, to make it end. Even if innocent. They are also mentally vulnerable and thus open to suggestion.
So as a technique for obtaining information it is very badly flawed. And is far more likely to lead a police investigation down the wrong path than it is to help.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on May 18, 2015, 01:14:53 PM
Leandro seems to have thought so (he and others apparently were "mishandled"). Joćo may not have been a particularly likeable character: a previous conviction - however safe that may have been remains undetermined - and he smoked dope, but no one seems to have really defended him beyond the mere minimum and has been left to rot in jail. His pro bono lawyer had assumed that the case would be thrown out and argued that he simply didn't have the intelligence to cover up such a crime.
Perhaps he is some kind of psychopath, but perhaps not. There's no case-related evidence aside from this surreal "reconstruction" that he somehow ended up taking part in. I've no idea what kind of pressure there may have been - the prospect of being kept away from other prisoners as opposed to being beaten to a pulp in jail by the PJ or other inmates might have been a motivation.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on May 18, 2015, 01:46:58 PM
Leandro seems to have thought so (he and others apparently were "mishandled"). Joćo may not have been a particularly likeable character: a previous conviction - however safe that may have been remains undetermined - and he smoked dope, but no one seems to have really defended him beyond the mere minimum and has been left to rot in jail. His pro bono lawyer had assumed that the case would be thrown out and argued that he simply didn't have the intelligence to cover up such a crime.
Perhaps he is some kind of psychopath, but perhaps not. There's no case-related evidence aside from this surreal "reconstruction" that he somehow ended up taking part in. I've no idea what kind of pressure there may have been - the prospect of being kept away from other prisoners as opposed to being beaten to a pulp in jail by the PJ or other inmates might have been a motivation.
And the thought of being visited by Amaral in jail.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 18, 2015, 01:48:12 PM
That is the $60 million question Jean-Pierre. In a fast moving situation things often happen which might not have happened otherwise.
It is emphatically NOT a "$60 million question" John.
For many reasons beating up a suspect, or use of torture to elicit a "confession" is always wrong. And simply cannot be condoned. I am surprised and revolted that you should think its fine.
Especially given the name of this forum.
I think a withdrawal of your comments or an explanation of your reasoning is in order.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on May 18, 2015, 02:00:37 PM
They were looking for a child Carana. Surely even a dead child deserves a decent burial?
Of course, but what you were saying earlier was that there was some sense of urgency about potentially finding a living child. That doesn't appear to have been the case.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 18, 2015, 02:22:08 PM
I have a feeling that comes under human rights and denial of a "proper burial" is an offence. It certainly is in USA.
I think they had worse things than that to worry about. And if I was being beaten senseless and made to kneel on glass ashtrays, I would have told them what I had done with the body. If I knew.
But I suppose they can always charge them with that offence once they have served their sentence.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on May 18, 2015, 02:37:13 PM
Why is torture a bad idea? Because the main motivation of a person under torture is to make it stop. They will therefore say anything, agree to anything, confess to anything, to make it end. Even if innocent. They are also mentally vulnerable and thus open to suggestion.
So as a technique for obtaining information it is very badly flawed. And is far more likely to lead a police investigation down the wrong path than it is to help.
In the meantime, the real perp could be laughing his head off. Justice?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Benice on May 18, 2015, 02:52:02 PM
Only a policeman knows what goes on in the real world, the belief that such things never occur in the UK is false I'm afraid.
To put the Leonor Cipriano torture into perspective, it was more of a mild beating with a cardboard roll than a torture. You have to understand the circumstances to fully comprehend why several detectives put themselves in that position.
A youngster was missing and a mother and uncle were admitting to foul play but refusing to say where she was located or at least were giving false indications.
Do you not think that in those circumstances something needed to be done quickly in order to have any chance of finding her dead or alive? It was a case of do something and do it quickly.
Was a child's life not worth a few bruises?
I can only presume you haven't seen the photographs of Leanor's horrific injuries. Why would the Prison Governor lie about the extent of those injuries? Or send her to hospital - for a couple of bruises.
Amaral came unstuck when the prisoner governor would not agree to collude with the PJ and lie and say Leonora was beaten up by other prisoners.
And not for the first time I ask you why - after apparently admitting to killing her daughter (so it was game over anyway) - Leonor would not tell them where the body was - even after the most horrendous torture. That makes no sense.
There is only one credible reason why she couldn't tell them IMO and that was because she didn't know - because she had not killed her - and no amount of beatings could change that.
The whole Cipriano affair could not be more shameful IMO.
I'm astonished that you of all people have apparently managed to convince yourself that any kind of torture of one defenceless woman by a large group of aggressive bullying men can be justified. After hours of prolonged torture people will say anything to make it stop. Surely you must know that John?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on May 18, 2015, 05:07:52 PM
I can only presume you haven't seen the photographs of Leanor's horrific injuries. Why would the Prison Governor lie about the extent of those injuries? Or send her to hospital - for a couple of bruises.
Amaral came unstuck when the prisoner governor would not agree to collude with the PJ and lie and say Leonora was beaten up by other prisoners.
And not for the first time I ask you why - after apparently admitting to killing her daughter (so it was game over anyway) - Leonor would not tell them where the body was - even after the most horrendous torture. That makes no sense.
There is only one credible reason why she couldn't tell them IMO and that was because she didn't know - because she had not killed her - and no amount of beatings could change that.
The whole Cipriano affair could not be more shameful IMO.
I'm astonished that you of all people have apparently managed to convince yourself that any kind of torture of one defenceless woman by a large group of aggressive bullying men can be justified. After hours of prolonged torture people will say anything to make it stop. Surely you must know that John?
You don't understand what pressures are brought upon police in these situations. Was it better the missing girl just lay in a ditch somewhere, never to be found?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 18, 2015, 05:21:55 PM
You don't understand what pressures are brought upon police in these situations. Was it better the missing girl just lay in a ditch somewhere, never to be found?
Despite the torture she never was found was she?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Eleanor on May 18, 2015, 05:49:58 PM
That is how it seems to me, Sadie. It makes no sense to suffer torture just for the sake of hiding a body. Which I don't believe they did.
Nor do I. The way Amaral described such a graffic account, of how many pieces, and how the girls body was cut up, and put in black bags, gives me the creeps. If that's correct, how does he know, and where is it?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on May 18, 2015, 06:36:07 PM
That is how it seems to me, Sadie. It makes no sense to suffer torture just for the sake of hiding a body. Which I don't believe they did.
Trouble is they confessed before the 'torture'.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: ferryman on May 18, 2015, 07:04:04 PM
I think the question of whether she was beaten before after the 'confession' is largely irrelevant.
That she was beaten at all proves (to my satisfaction) that the interrogation was carried out in a hostile atmosphere of intimidation and menace, which can have the "advantage" (to the interrogators) of leaving no physical marks, yet producing the "desired" result.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Mr Gray on May 18, 2015, 08:25:32 PM
The ruling in the case of alleged attacks on Leonor Cipriano was read this afternoon in the Court of Faro.
It was taken as proven that Leonor Cipriano was beaten by elements of the Judicial police who could not be identified, and she didn't fall on the stairs, as was suggested. However, the court failed to ascertain the perpetrators of the aggressions.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on May 18, 2015, 08:29:46 PM
The ruling in the case of alleged attacks on Leonor Cipriano was read this afternoon in the Court of Faro.
It was taken as proven that Leonor Cipriano was beaten by elements of the Judicial police who could not be identified, and she didn't fall on the stairs, as was suggested. However, the court failed to ascertain the perpetrators of the aggressions.
Right, but an important detail omitted.
Leonor was unable to identify the assailants, as she had a bag over her head as she was tied to a chair.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: stephen25000 on May 18, 2015, 08:31:36 PM
The ruling in the case of alleged attacks on Leonor Cipriano was read this afternoon in the Court of Faro.
It was taken as proven that Leonor Cipriano was beaten by elements of the Judicial police who could not be identified, and she didn't fall on the stairs, as was suggested. However, the court failed to ascertain the perpetrators of the aggressions.
i.e. elements of the police ?
That would be thrown out of court in this country.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 08:24:16 AM
It is emphatically NOT a "$60 million question" John.
For many reasons beating up a suspect, or use of torture to elicit a "confession" is always wrong. And simply cannot be condoned. I am surprised and revolted that you should think its fine.
Especially given the name of this forum.
I think a withdrawal of your comments or an explanation of your reasoning is in order.
I never said it was fine but it happens all the same. Suspects fall down and walk into walls and doors all the time and anyone who thinks otherwise is rather naive.
As I already stated, in a fast moving pressurised situation, shit happens!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on May 19, 2015, 08:32:51 AM
Lets be clear about the facts in this case. Leonor Cipriano freely confessed to the murder of her daughter long before she was beaten whilst on remand.
She told the PJ that she had accidentally killed the girl when she hit her head while being slapped. She added that her brother Joćo who was in the house at the time took the girl outside and hid her.
This was repeated to the magistrate at her arraignment and that us why she was remanded in custody whilst Joćo got bail.
Her later uncoerced confession claiming that it was Joćo who took the girl away to sell her and that she had been killed when it all went wrong is another matter.
These are not the actions of an innocent mother!
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: ferryman on May 19, 2015, 10:16:16 AM
Lets be clear about the facts in this case. Leonor Cipriano freely confessed to the murder of her daughter long before she was beaten whilst on remand.
She told the PJ that she had accidentally killed the girl when she hit her head while being slapped. She added that her brother Joćo who was in the house at the time took the girl outside and hid her.
This was repeated to the magistrate at her arraignment and that us why she was remanded in custody whilst Joćo got bail.
Her later uncoerced confession claiming that it was Joćo who took the girl away to sell her and that she had been killed when it all went wrong is another matter.
These are not the actions of an innocent mother!
Freely confessed?
Scarcely.
Coercion pervaded the whole of the interview, and need not be physical.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 19, 2015, 10:22:11 AM
Coercion pervaded the whole of the interview, and need not be physical.
She had the opportunity to recant her confessions in front of the trial judge but was told by her lawyer not to testify in case it incriminated her further.
Her last confession where she decided to come clean and tell the truth thus implicating her brother Joćo was scribed by her lawyer, the police had no involvement in it.
Do you believe her this time or is she a consummate liar?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on May 22, 2015, 10:33:16 AM
She had the opportunity to recant her confessions in front of the trial judge but was told by her lawyer not to testify in case it incriminated her further.
Her last confession where she decided to come clean and tell the truth thus implicating her brother Joćo was scribed by her lawyer, the police had no involvement in it.
Do you believe her this time or is she a consummate liar?
I doubt that she has a clue what happened to Joana. I'm not convinced that Joćo does, either.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2015, 10:21:26 PM
Lets be clear about the facts in this case. Leonor Cipriano freely confessed to the murder of her daughter long before she was beaten whilst on remand.
She told the PJ that she had accidentally killed the girl when she hit her head while being slapped. She added that her brother Joćo who was in the house at the time took the girl outside and hid her.
This was repeated to the magistrate at her arraignment and that us why she was remanded in custody whilst Joćo got bail.
Her later uncoerced confession claiming that it was Joćo who took the girl away to sell her and that she had been killed when it all went wrong is another matter.
These are not the actions of an innocent mother!
Lets be clear about the facts in this case. Leonor Cipriano freely confessed to the murder of her daughter long before she was beaten whilst on remand.
So she had already freely confessed. Why did they need to torture her?
Come on, John. Pull the other one.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2015, 10:56:15 PM
Joao Grade Lawyer To Leonor Cipriano & The Goncalo Amaral Connection Dr Joao Grade dos Santos Former Lawyer To Leonor Cipriano
Leonor Cipriano was convicted with her brother Joao Cipriano, of murdering Leonor's daughter and then disposing her body in the most macabre, spine chilling of ways. Leonor's lawyer was Dr Joao Grade dos Santos. Dr Grade received no financial recompense for representing Leonor and her brother, although legal aid was granted in their case. In Portugal if you are granted legal aid and need a lawyer to be paid out of that grant, the court actually appoints a lawyer, the defendant cannot choose a lawyer of their choice. Dr Marcos Aragao Correia, Leonor's present lawyer, also receives no financial recompense, he is expected to represent Leonor Cipriano for nothing. Leonor cannot pay him, she is very poor and has no money.
Leonor Cipriano Arriving At Court For Last Year's Trial So weak, she Had to Be Helped Along By Two Prison Guards ~~~~~~~~~~~~
With so many miscarriages of justices occurring in Portugal, with the same story of people not being adequately represented, this is probably the reason why!
Dr Grade seemed to be doing a reasonable job of representing Leonor and then all of a sudden that changed, here we will attempt to understand the reasons why that suddenly changed.
In 2005, Leonor Cipriano, along with her brother, Joao, were found guilty of murdering eight-year old Joana Cipriano after she was reported missing in September 2004.
They were found guilty by a court of three judges and four jurors, they received prison sentences of 20 and 19 years respectively, since their sentences have been reduced on appeal to 16 years each.
In April 2008 Joao Grade was arrested as he prepared to visit two prisoners in Beja prison, after drugs were detected in two bags he maintains he was carrying in for the two inmates. Amphetamines equivalent to approximately 45 doses street value and also a quantity of ecstasy tablets. On March 26th 2008, one month before Joao Grade was found to be carrying drugs in his possession, Goncalo Amaral along with four of his lower ranking colleagues PJ inspectors Paulo Pereira Cristovao, Leonel Marques, Paulo Marques Bom and Antonio Cardoso, were committed to jury trial by Joaquim da Cruz, an investigating judge. In May 2009, Goncalo Amaral was found guilty of falso testimunho (perjury) and given an 18 month suspended prison sentence.
Strangely in a country where they beat you up for traffic violations, Dr Grade made a plea to the court that he did not know the drugs were in his possession and the court accepted his plea, what a pity they did not extend the same kind of understanding towards Leonor Cipriano, where on no evidence at all, and nowhere near proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that woman was convicted of the most heinous of crimes.
Where is the justice?
Cont next post
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2015, 11:00:48 PM
Cont:
Where is the justice?
Where was her "lawyer" Dr Joao Grade?
Why did he not bring to the court's attention the many inconsistencies in the "alleged confession" obtained under torture, aided and abetted by disgraced former detective Goncalo Amaral?
Dr Grade, also said he was confident that he would be able to clear his clients once their appeal was heard, as he believed their guilt had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since the guilty verdict was announced, a number of Portugal's leading lawyers and judges have spoken out against the decision. One judge at Leonor's trial insisted on going on record as stating that he thinks Leonor Cipriano is innocent.
After a complaint to the DA was made by the Director of the Prison of Odemira, Dr Ana Maria Calado. Then soon after, Dr Marinho Pinto, who was at the time a journalist and now President of the Bar, made a front page report about Leonors torture in the newspaper "Expresso", which forced the investigation to go deeper.
With all of this to go on and the indictment of Amaral Dr Grade still could not piece together a robust defense for his client, Leonor Cipriano, it was almost as if he was trying to defend Leonor with his hands tied behind his back.
It was alleged by Dr Ana maria Calado, that having been questioned for 48 hours, Leonor confessed only as the result of a serious and vicious assault.
Leonor Cipriano's Injuries After She Had been viciously and Brutally Beaten During her Torture in Police Custody. The Torture Has Since Been Proved In court
This is the woman that Dr Joao grade was supposed to be representing in court.
Is this the same Dr Joao Grade dos Santos, that now holds Goncalo Amaral, an officer he helped to convict in high esteem? So high, that he has now become the disgraced former PJ coordinators advocate and plans to train the convicted criminal to be a lawyer? Is this the same Dr Joao Grade dos Santos, that has now pledged to testify in favour of Goncalo Amaral at his forthcoming trial, where he will stand trial once again accused of torture, this time the torture of Leandro Silva, Leonor Cipriano's partner? Is this the same Dr Joao Grade dos Santos, who attended the 50th birthday party of Goncalo Amaral and who dined with another member of the five former PJ inspectors he helped send for trial, Pierre Paulo Cristovoa? The simple answer to those questions is yes!
How can Dr Grade in all honesty testify in favour of Amaral at his trial where he stands accused of torturing another member of the family, he represented and helped to convict by getting them indicted?
How did Dr Joao Grade dos Santos manage to get off of the charge of drug smuggling in a country where they arrest you, take you into a room for questioning and then beat you to within an inch of your life, for even minor misdemeanors?
Strange business this lawyer thing, very strange!
Could it be that Dr Joao Grade dos Santos is in fear of his life and that of the safety of his family?
Until 1974 Portugal was a dictatorship, this was the climate in which the PJ was created and their methods were notoriously brutal. In a country where brutal treatment of suspects was routine. The mother of one expatriate British woman had been arrested in the late 1980's on suspicion of a petty crime and she was savagely beaten while in custody, she was found to have extensive and deep bruising all over her body. Of course, the police said they hadn't done anything, and they were never called to account.
Leonor Cipriano dispensed the services of Dr Grade and employed the services of Dr Marcos Aragao Correia. Dr Correia has subsequently ran a successful trial in getting Goncalo Amaral convicted and having Goncalo Amaral charged with the torture of Leonor's partner, Leandro Silva.
Against this backdrop in Portugal, perhaps we should not be too surprised that the Lawyer that just successfully had five ex Portuguese detectives accused and charged with various serious crimes, ranging with torture and perjury, in the March of 2008, was himself "apparently" caught in possession of drugs as he "apparently" tried to smuggle them into a prison, just one month later in April 2008. Coincidence? Even the birthday party of Goncalo Amaral could not pass without incident! Leonor's present lawyer and the former "friend" of Amaral and her husband, were aggressed in the street as they stood watching Amaral's firework party! (This is the party that Dr Joao Grade dos Santos also attended as a guest of Amaral's) Dr Aragao Correia was pulled through his open car window and threatened, while the husband of Amaral's former "friend" was punched repeatedly in the face by people that came from the party, allegedly sent by Goncalo Amaral. The police were called and the incident reported and the three who were attacked, were given incident report numbers, also the Portimao attorney general was informed.
Yet Dr Grade is to testify in favour of Goncalo Amaral?
Strange? You bet!
[With thanks to Rosiepops.]
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on June 24, 2015, 08:21:33 AM
I very much doubt that Leonor or Joćo ever freely confessed.
- She was interrogated at length prior to that initial "confession". Exhaustion and the potential bluff tactic of getting her to confess to a lesser crime as opposed to murder, with the carrot that Leandro would be free to look after the remaining children, could be all that was needed.
- Leandro stated in court (during the murder trial) that she had told him she had been beaten and that she hadn't harmed her daughter.
- Joćo said he'd been frequently beaten and threatened with knives.
- Leandro also stated that he himself and his brother / friend and others had been beaten as well. It's not as if such tactics were unheard of: Virgolino Borges eventually won his case against Tavares de Almeida.
- No forensic evidence supports the prosecution's scenario.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on June 24, 2015, 08:28:45 AM
A long, but IMO interesting, paper on false confessions (a snippet below):
Interrogation Process Errors and Investigator Bias
While police investigators estimate about 5% of the confessions they elicit are actually false confessions, scholars reviewing field studies estimate a false confession rate ranging from 42% to 76%. There is, of course, no way to reliably estimate the actual rate of false confessions, but it is thought higher than commonly believed (Davis & Leo, 2012).
There are three errors that are most prone to lead to a false confession (Adams, 2011).
Misclassification error: The investigator enters the room believing the suspect is guilty (sometimes due to evidence or a hunch).
Coercion error: The interrogator accuses the suspect of committing the crime and makes implied or direct threats to convince the suspect it is better to confess now to quickly end the stress of the interrogation (necessarily without regard to the long-term consequences of confession).
Supplying key details: The interrogator knowingly or unknowingly provides the suspect with key non-public details of the crime which the suspect then incorporates into a false confession.
What researchers refer to as investigator bias is a key factor in false confessions. If the detainee is examined with an intent to simply gain information, they are less likely to confess, either truly or falsely. But if the investigator approaches the interrogation believing the detainee is guilty, the ensuing interrogation is more pressure-filled and coercive. This results in the innocent detainee (who is likely to waive their rights) being at increased risk for false confession due to the pressure of the interrogation process.
The police probably put him between a rock and a hard place, like, You are going to be convicted anyways. If you go to trial, even though you didnt do it, you will be convicted. If you are convicted, you will get twenty years. If you tell us you did it, then we can get you eight years. So it is more like, Well, I would rather leave for eight years than twenty.Mock juror
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on July 13, 2015, 02:10:17 PM
I hadn't noticed this bit before...
Hmmmmm.
So... trying to get the gist of it. Leonor's lawyer was arguing that it was illegal to include uncorroborated evidence via Joćo's reconstruction to sentence her for "homicide" and that therefore she should be acquitted. The judges ruled that that didn't apply to crimes of profaning the dead and hiding the corpse, and that it couldn't have happened without her active involvement at the time.
What? That makes no sense whatsoever (unless I've totally misunderstood this).
I haven't found anything concrete that Joćo was involved in either her alleged death or gruesome dismemberment.
However, setting that aside, at one point that evening, Leonor and others had gone back out to try to find her, leaving Joćo to babysit the toddlers. In theory, what would have stopped him from chopping up her remains during that time (i.e., while she was away from the house)?
A valoraēćo das reconstituiēões sem corroboraēćo quanto ą arguida BB, como aconteceu, é ilegal e inconstitucional e devia ter conduzido ą sua absolviēćo pelo crime de homicķdio. Jį nćo assim quanto ao crime de profanaēćo e ocultaēćo de cadįver, pois nćo podia ter sido executado pelo arguido AA sem a colaboraēćo activa da arguida, com ele presente no local e hora do crime.
Pure Googlish: The valuation of reconstructions without corroboration as to defendant BB, as it did, is illegal and unconstitutional and should have led to his acquittal for the murder of crime. No longer do so as the crime of desecration and concealment of a corpse, for she could not have been performed by AA defendant without the active cooperation of the defendant, with him present at the place and time of the crime.
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: John on July 13, 2015, 09:36:54 PM
Does it not strike you as odd that neither Leonor or Joćo saw fit to alert the GNR to the disappearance and ultimately it was left to the lady who owner the pastry shop?
Title: Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
Post by: Carana on July 14, 2015, 12:29:45 PM
Does it not strike you as odd that neither Leonor or Joćo saw fit to alert the GNR to the disappearance and ultimately it was left to the lady who owner the pastry shop?
It was actually the lady from the bar / mini market called "Pasteleria Celia" that called, not the person where they went much later to get some "bolos".
Yes, I find that a bit odd, but then I've tried to place it in context.
By all accounts, Leonor appears to have been quite placid / reserved in temperament. Even so, a missing child is cause for alarm and no one seems to have found her in a state of panic that evening. By the next morning, several people noted that she'd been crying... although a few others found her more composed than they would have expected.
The context, though, appears to have been that Joana had been to a family birthday party that day and there was a fair on in her home village that evening. I find it plausible that she initially thought that she'd simply been attracted to the festivities or had been invited by friends or relatives for one of those candyfloss things and lost track of time. I've seen clips of the festival on YouTube and it looks quite fun.
It was only when she'd been gone for nearly an hour, instead of an expected 20 minutes or so, that she sent Joćo out to find her as they may well have been waiting for the tuna to make dinner.
Joćo went off to the bar/ shop where she'd been sent on her errand and bumped into Leandro and MM having a beer. It doesn't seem as if they rushed back home upon learning that she hadn't turned up. No one seemed particularly alarmed at that point and they may well have finished their beers before going back home to see if she'd returned in the meantime.
Leandro and MM went off looking for her, while Leonor stayed home with the kids, presumably also with Joćo.
When the men came back and said they hadn't found her anywhere around the festival area, she then took off with them again to ask around herself, apparently leaving Joćo to babysit the toddlers.
They boys hadn't thought to ask the Celia lady whether she'd actually been to get the tuna and milk or not, so she asked. She carried on asking various people if they'd seen her, but nope. They may have checked various routes in case she'd had an accident, but there was still no sign of her.
That evening, she seemed more perplexed than anything else. Could a relative have taken her home for the night for some reason and forgotten to phone her, or perhaps tried, but her phone was dead? The idea that she could have been taken against her will didn't seem to have occurred to her at that point.
The family members then went home for a bit, and were still there when Celia lady then popped over when she closed her bar / shop and thought the GNR ought to be called. As Leonor's phone was dead, the bar lady did so. At which point they went out again to talk to the GNR, who told her to make a formal report to the GNR station in Portimćo in the mornng. it's not clear if the GNR undertook any searches or not that night.
Once they had a working phone between them, they called Leandro's parents to see if they'd taken her back home with them - so that was still considered a possibility that night.
ETA: A detail, she, and possibly others had gone to a bolo (cake) shop at around 2 am, and asked if anyone had seen her. This would obviously be after talking to the GNR.
There had been an exciting festival, various relatives would have been out and about, no apparent sign of an accident... Although there appears to have been growing concern over the course of the evening, the idea of a stranger abduction didn't seem to have occurred to any of them, nor to the GNR apparently. The GNR officer said she appeared sad, but wasn't crying.
By the next morning, various people noted that she'd been crying. Was that because she knew her child was dead or because innocent explanations for her absence hadn't materialised?