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

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sadie

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #885 on: November 15, 2013, 01:14:51 PM »
Were the tuna and milk found in the house?
No idea, cariad

But you cant believe the testimony of liars.

Liars who, it seems, were prepared to set the Terrorist Police, DCCB, onto  an innocent couple.  To torture them.

Why torture them? 

Because the police had NO CASE it seems.  They needed evidence, even if phoney evidence



Think about it Cariad.  Why torture them if the PJ had the evidence they needed? 

They didn't,  FULL STOP !

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #886 on: November 15, 2013, 01:23:02 PM »
No idea, cariad

But you cant believe the testimony of liars.

Liars who, it seems, were prepared to set the Terrorist Police, DCCB, onto  an innocent couple.  To torture them.

Why torture them? 

Because the police had NO CASE it seems.  They needed evidence, even if phoney evidence



Think about it Cariad.  Why torture them if the PJ had the evidence they needed? 

They didn't,  FULL STOP !

However, you believe L. Cipriano.

A well known liar.   >@@(*&)

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #887 on: November 15, 2013, 01:34:18 PM »
Its a stupid post Stephen... I just reply...and you believe amaral.. a proven liar


I replied to a stupid post davel, don't you get the irony ?  8((()*/

P.S. Perhaps you need treatment for your obsession with Amaral.

Now for the inevitable reply.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #888 on: November 15, 2013, 01:36:53 PM »

I replied to a stupid post davel, don't you get the irony ?  8((()*/

P.S. Perhaps you need treatment for your obsession with Amaral.

Now for the inevitable reply.

the only thing I am interested in is the truth

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #889 on: November 15, 2013, 02:49:10 PM »
Were the tuna and milk found in the house?

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
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 02:53:42 PM by Redblossom »

Offline Albertini

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #890 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.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #891 on: November 15, 2013, 02:55:48 PM »
Dont often do claps albertini
 8@??)(

Some semblance  of reality required here


Offline colombosstogey

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #892 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.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 03:54:03 PM by colombosstogey »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #893 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

Benita

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #894 on: November 15, 2013, 05:05:18 PM »
Deep impact bruises can take 5 days to develop.

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(*

Offline sadie

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #895 on: November 15, 2013, 06:00:34 PM »
However, you believe L. Cipriano.

A well known liar.   >@@(*&)
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

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #896 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 prominent townspeople 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 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;

g) concerning her eldest daughter, EE, who presently lives with her father and grandmother in Olhão, she left her there at the age of 11 months, never cared for her again, and didn’t 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 didn’t 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 didn’t walk the minor to school, and CC arrived with a neighbour, whom she asked for help because she couldn’t 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;

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case.html

« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 06:30:46 PM by Redblossom »

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #897 on: November 15, 2013, 06:41:16 PM »
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

Never as simple as that ........in these cases.....

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #898 on: November 15, 2013, 07:07:20 PM »
Who are these prominent townspeople 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 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;

g) concerning her eldest daughter, EE, who presently lives with her father and grandmother in Olhão, she left her there at the age of 11 months, never cared for her again, and didn’t 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 didn’t 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 didn’t walk the minor to school, and CC arrived with a neighbour, whom she asked for help because she couldn’t 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;

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case.html

Well said.

 8((()*/ 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #899 on: November 15, 2013, 07:42:30 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

Try reading prior posts before you make these claims.