Author Topic: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!  (Read 250784 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #900 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 Gonçalo 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 Gonçalo 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 Gonçalo 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 Gonçalo 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 Aragão Correia, on 30 October 2008, during the trial. In this respect, she was contradicted by Mr Aragão Correia himself.


« Last Edit: November 16, 2013, 05:49:51 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 Benice

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #901 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.



 



                 



The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline Benice

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #902 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.?
 





« Last Edit: November 16, 2013, 04:10:14 PM by John »
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #903 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

Offline Albertini

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #904 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.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #905 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 João 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 João 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

Offline Mr Gray

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #906 on: November 16, 2013, 10:07:25 AM »
Why is  there this campaign of what is basically lies to discredit Leonor

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #907 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...


Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #908 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.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #909 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.

http://www.algarveresident.com/10046-3535/algarve/portugals-silent-child-victims

Which is correct?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2013, 02:04:44 PM by Carana »

Offline Anna

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #910 on: November 16, 2013, 02:38:44 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.

http://www.algarveresident.com/10046-3535/algarve/portugals-silent-child-victims

Which is correct?

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
HOMICÍDIO
OCULTAÇÃO OF CADÁVER
PROFANAÇÃO OF CADÁVER
JURYÂ
DOCUMENTATION OF PROOF
VÍCIOS
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
« Last Edit: November 16, 2013, 02:43:37 PM by anna »
“You should not honour men more than truth.”
― Plato

Offline John

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #911 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 João refused to testify at their original trial but the former did testify at the trial of the five Polícia Judiciária officers whom she effectively condemned for beating her.
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.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #912 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
HOMICÍDIO
OCULTAÇÃO OF CADÁVER
PROFANAÇÃO OF CADÁVER
JURYÂ
DOCUMENTATION OF PROOF
VÍCIOS
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

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/f11-joana-cipriano
« Last Edit: November 16, 2013, 06:14:15 PM by Redblossom »

Offline Benice

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #913 on: November 16, 2013, 05:36:01 PM »
Yes, this is where the confusion is arising.

Granted that both Leonor and brother João refused to testify at their original trial but the former did testify at the trial of the five Polícia Judiciária 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.



The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline Benice

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #914 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.

http://www.algarveresident.com/10046-3535/algarve/portugals-silent-child-victims


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? 

The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal