The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!

[Angelo222]

You haven't posted the whole document which includes in facts considered to be proved

aj) the arguidos then decided, conjointly, to cut the minor’s 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!

[Redblossom]

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 Manhã 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

[Eleanor]

You are totally deluded!

And you are a very rude man who denies other people of the right to be as rude as you are.  This is Fascism.

[Angelo222]

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.

[Angelo222]

And you are a very rude man who denies other people of the right to be as rude as you are.  This is Fascism.

 

[Angelo222]

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 Manhã 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

In the toilet!!

[Redblossom]

In the toilet!!

Oooer Angelo, youre gonna ruffle some feathers, lol, Im gonna take cover...good question though.....laters



>>>>>

[Carana]

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 não colocaram os sapatos que a menor tinha calçados nos sacos, tendo ficado em casa todos os pares de sapatos que a menor utilizava naquele Verão;

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

http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/bfaf1cea93ab75fb8025716200388d89?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,cipriano

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 João 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?

[Redblossom]

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 João 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

[Carana]

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 alíneas 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 reconstituição e os autos de busca e apreensão, bem como a prova pericial subsequente, tudo interpretado à luz das regras da experiência.

OT, but something seems a bit odd. Who is "DD1"?

[Carana]

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 Manhã on 26 September 2004.



Mother Confesses to death of Daughter by Accident.

Several hours of questioning culminating in the confession of the crime. First João 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 Portimão , 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 , João 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 .
João 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 João Cipriano who would freely through the term of identity and residence and daily presentations authorities ( GNR Silves ).

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/atualidade/mae-confessa-morte-da-filha-por-acidente

Thanks, John. I'm aware of that article.

She apparently confessed to literally "the crime of the death of her daughter".

Entretanto, a mãe 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 criança e esta batera com a cabeça 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, João Cipriano, remained free for one more day but was also arrested under suspicion of homicide.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-without-trace-of-joana.html

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

[Carana]

Joana had her head bashed against a wall for 10 lousy Euros which she wanted for the fair!!

   

I thought the prosecution was relying on the dubious incestuous sex discovery?

   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.

Her shoes were all found in the family home as was the shopping she had earlier purchased.

Shoes: according to one statement which isn't clear.
Food: I haven't found anything to that effect so far.

The mother confessed to causing her death by hitting her head off the house wall. She then persuaded her brother to hide the body. 

After 3 days in police custody...

The mother later attempted to exonerate the brother of any blame in the death.

She did??

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.

[Angelo222]

Who is "DD1"?

A PJ Inspector.

www.joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case_5147.html

[Angelo222]

After 3 days in police custody...

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.

[Carana]

PJ Inspector

There's a PJ inspector, who is referred to as "DD"
A testemunha DD, inspector da P.J.

I can't work out who DD1 is supposed to be...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2989.0