Author Topic: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!  (Read 250788 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1170 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


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


and list the people all the letters belong to

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

http://duartelevyen.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/leonor-cipriano’s-lawyer-abandoned-complaint-at-european-court/

« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 10:27:30 PM by Redblossom »

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1171 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 instalações da Polícia Judiciária, a pedido daquela Polícia, mas numa altura em que se encontravam só os dois, a testemunha perguntou à BB o que tinha acontecido e ela então contou-lhe que "tinha dado uma chapada na CC e que o irmão acabou de a matar", tudo "porque ela os tinha visto a ter relações" e também contou que "tinham posto o corpo numa casa velha e que tinha sido o AA a levá-la às costas". Posteriormente, quando a testemunha foi visitar a arguida BB à cadeia de Odemira, ela negou o que tinha dito e referiu-lhe que só tinha afirmado aquelas coisas porque a Polícia Judiciária 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 não.

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 João ended up killing her, because they been having sex and said they put the body in an old house and that it was João 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.

http://www.algarvepress.net/conteudo.php?menu=-1&cat=Regional&scat=Reportagem&id=136

An extract:
L.S. – Acho que os homens da Judiciária de Portimão não 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 lá chegámos. Primeiro era porrada, depois é que faziam as perguntas. Acho que se a PJ de Portimão tivesse continuado com a investigação, se calhar tinham sacado alguma coisa de algum lado.

(...)
A.P. – Qual foi o momento mais difícil?
L.S. – Devem ter sido os castigos que levei na Judiciária, onde me chamaram tudo e mais alguma coisa. E fui agredido sempre que lá me levaram. Mas com as porradas aguento bem. Cá 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 não pode responder. Até evitei ir a certos cafés. Mas hoje, já entro em todos. Já não ouço nada. Agora, toda a gente me cumprimenta e fala bem tanto na Figueira, como na Mexilhoeira-Grande, onde vivo. Mas mesmo quando vou a Portimão ou outros sítios, não sinto qualquer problema.

Googlegibberish:


L. S. - I think men Judiciary Portimão 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 Portimão 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 Portimão 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 João to have sold her, but still thinks she was abducted.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1172 on: November 23, 2013, 12:57:13 PM »
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


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


and list the people all the letters belong to

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

http://duartelevyen.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/leonor-cipriano’s-lawyer-abandoned-complaint-at-european-court/

I'm working on that... it's quite complicated (family relationships) and what may be a mistake in the SC.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1173 on: November 23, 2013, 01:11:09 PM »
http://www.dn.pt/especiais/interior.aspx?content_id=1006701&especial=Caso Joana&seccao=SOCIEDADE&page=2

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?

http://www.algarvepress.net/conteudo.php?menu=-1&cat=Regional&scat=Reportagem&id=136

Offline John

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1174 on: November 23, 2013, 01:37:29 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2013, 01:41:47 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 #1175 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.

Offline Anna

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1176 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
“You should not honour men more than truth.”
― Plato

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1177 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.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1178 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.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1179 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?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 02:17:52 PM by Carana »

Offline Anna

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1180 on: November 25, 2013, 04:08:50 PM »
Is there a different convention concerning the order of family names in Portugal as opposed to Spain?

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.
“You should not honour men more than truth.”
― Plato

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1181 on: November 25, 2013, 10:19:03 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 Cartão de Cidadão ********, Mãe de Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano e de João Manuel Domingos Cipriano, *

Joana's full name is apparently Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro.

Offline Angelo222

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1182 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 João 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.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 02:22:40 PM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Online Eleanor

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1183 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.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1184 on: February 10, 2014, 02:41:01 PM »