Author Topic: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!  (Read 250721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #495 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??


Offline John

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #496 on: November 11, 2013, 01:02:08 PM »
Im not ignoring it ..where is it ... I haven't seen it

Stop being so obtuse Dave and open your eyes.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline sadie

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #497 on: November 11, 2013, 01:02:56 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.

Offline sadie

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #498 on: November 11, 2013, 01:04:12 PM »
Stop being so obtuse Dave and open your eyes.
That's not your usual srtandard of response John

Dave asked a civil question

Offline Mr Gray

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #499 on: November 11, 2013, 01:05:33 PM »
Stop being so obtuse Dave and open your eyes.

quite simply..can you tell me where I can see the evidence

Offline Eleanor

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #500 on: November 11, 2013, 01:06:54 PM »
Stop being so obtuse Dave and open your eyes.

Can you explain why one of The Judges refused to find Leonor Guilty?

Offline John

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #501 on: November 11, 2013, 01:07:50 PM »
That's not your usual srtandard of response John

Dave asked a civil question

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.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #502 on: November 11, 2013, 01:08:31 PM »
Can you explain why one of The Judges refused to find Leonor Guilty?

No idea.  That's why they have more than one Judge.  Not every judicial decision is unanimous.

Now lets look at the reverse of the coin.  What evidence is there that they are innocent?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2013, 01:11:00 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #503 on: November 11, 2013, 01:10:27 PM »
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

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.

Offline Eleanor

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #504 on: November 11, 2013, 01:12:24 PM »
No idea.  That's why they have more than one Judge.  Not every judicial decision is unanimous.

Two to One?  Hardly anywhere near unanimous.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #505 on: November 11, 2013, 01:13:31 PM »
No idea.  That's why they have more than one Judge.  Not every judicial decision is unanimous.

Now lets look at the reverse of the coin.  What evidence is there that they are innocent?

Guilty until proven innocent?

There was a jury in that case... How well prepared were they to go against the baying crowds?

Offline Angelo222

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #506 on: November 11, 2013, 01:13:34 PM »
What was she walking on Sadie?  Did she leave her shoes at home just for the hell of it??   @)(++(*

... removed mod comment ...
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 12:25:31 PM by John »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #507 on: November 11, 2013, 01:17:19 PM »
What was she walking on Sadie?  Did she leave her shoes at home just for the hell of it??   @)(++(*

.... removed mod comment ...

I find that a bit* flippant in the case of a missing child with no concrete evidence as to her fate.

* ETA: more than...
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 12:26:19 PM by John »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #508 on: November 11, 2013, 01:17:45 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

Offline Mr Gray

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #509 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