A bit of refreshing of the evidence. This was printed just before the trial
Oct 12 2005
In its majority, the laboratory tests carried out by the Police Scientific, in Lisbon, on the "case Joana" eventually prove inconclusive. It is mainly due to the evidence found in the garments inside the child's bedroom that reside the suspicion about the scenario of sexual abuse that the girl of eight years would have been the victim. One of the pieces of clothing was confirmed the presence of traces of blood and sperm.
A report of 2 February describes that in underwear of Joana were detected "traces of human blood, whose origin was not possible to determine, but suspected to be coming from their own Joana".
Also "in manta, in the sample of particular described on the pair of underpants, in shirt, T-shirt and the ark reefer", were found "traces of human blood", refers, on one of the pages, one of the Forensic reports.
On the other hand, were detected "lightweight traces of blood" in "switch mirror and at the foot of the sofa" of the house where lived the child with the mother, stepfather and two brothers also minors. In the mattress of the bed and the bedspread of Joana "discovered traces of semen and not detected traces of blood", describes the same document.
However, the woman who lives cohabit with another uncle of Joana , Nelson Cyprian, assumed the Judicial Police that "when he went to the house of Leonor and stayed in bed of Joana , kept one or two sexual relations with his companion and without condom". Such a situation could help to clarify how it is that, on some occasions, was not stopped sperm on the bed of Joana.
one of police enquiries, on 13 January, Leonor Cipriano confirmed having washed the floor "with a mop handle, using water and dishwashing liquid". But this "operation was made on the day on which Joana disappeared, i.e. "before her disappearance", said the mother.
Despite the lengthy investigations of PJ and laboratory examinations in pig farms and surrounding areas in the village of Figueira - where the inspectors suspect that Leonor Cipriano and his brother launched body parts of the girl -, nothing relevant was detected or found.
The Judicial Police maintains, however, the conviction that the pigs have devoured 'parts of the neck" of the corpse.
Article22 Nov 2005
The Court of Portimao condemned yesterday the mother and uncle of Joana, respectively, to 20 years and four months and 19 years and two months in prison, by the practice of the crimes of murder qualified and concealment of the body. Outside was the desecration of the corpse, which was contained in the indictment. The lawyers of the two defendants will appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice, in Lisbon.
"I expected the acquittal of my constituent. It was not evidence of the crimes of which he was accused. AND it is not known what happened to the girl," said to the DN the advocate Sara Rosada, supporter of Joao Cyprian. He and his sister Leonor were fearless and serene during the reading of the sentence. But she was "shaken", although without the express, acknowledged to journalists her lawyer Joao Grade, which was already "waiting" of condemnation of his client.
On the fact that this trial has been borne by a court of jury, with a waiter of 48 years, a student of 20, a librarian of 27 and a physical therapist of 22 years, Joao Grade preferred not make comments.
"The court of jury is going to pay all the beans, because there are always four to seven people to judge the case. AND the sins are never anyone? ", we observed a practicing barrister, for whom "expert evidence it is worth" and "the free conviction" of collective "is not free as well. Must be founded any thing. A technician of law is limited to certain rules". Grade has admitted, still, that there was a "failure" of the research, because "arrived just far away. It would be for the police investigate, discover".
The judge Alda Casimir, who has read the judgment, acknowledged that
"there is no direct evidence of the facts, in particular by someone having seen committing the crime" and "not even there is direct evidence of Court convinced of the guilt of Leonor and Johnby José Manuel de Oliveira22 November 2005Comment on
"our criminal procedural law does not establish special requirements on the assessment of the circumstantial evidence, by which the foundation of its credibility depends on the conviction of the magistrate, who, while being personal, it must always be motivated and can be verified objectively should be worked out, there is nothing preventing that, properly valued, by itself and in conjunction of several indications and in accordance with the rules of the experience, allow substantiate The condemnation", explained.
In fact, adds the document, Article 127 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes that, "except where the law provides otherwise, the evidence is assessed according to the rules of the experience and the free conviction of the competent entity". It is called "the principle of free evaluation of evidence".
The substance given as proof was based on the testimony of nine witnesses, including inspectors of the Judicial Police, family and a friend of Leonor Cipriano, mother of Joana, AWOL since september 12, 2004, in the village of Figueira, county of Portimao.
In addition, the court took into account "the acts of reconstitution and search and seizure, as well as the expert evidence subsequent, everything interpreted in the light of rules of experience".
In the reconstitution of crime, Joao Cyprian, uncle of the young girl, "exemplifies the plateaus that gave the Joana , the place where this beat with the head, new location where hit with the head as a result of the assault of the mother, showed that the smallest bled from the nose and mouth, tempora, exemplified the fall of smaller, as noted that the minor was actually dead and as the co-defendant Leonor proceeded to cleaning of blood marks, with the aid of a bucket and a mop".
On the other hand, "the acts listed in the self of replenishment are compatible with the traces blood collected in the room," highlights the judgment, pointing out they have been "collected traces on the floor, next to the port of entry - exterior and interior -, next to the electric switch inside to the right of the entry door, near the entrance to the left side of the sofa, a Pair of shoes from Carlos Pinto (who lived in that house), which was among the sofas, a mop (rod) and respective bucket".
Terrible
Such traces, "second tests carried out, are of human blood and animal and, although it would be insufficient to ascertain to whom belongs through the DNA, are revealing that in that room happened something terrible".
Those Who used the mop "had by his time the dirty hands of blood. Thus, the traces collected in the room will reinforce the reliability of the reconstitution", adds the judgment. For the court, which gave particular attention to acts of reconstitution, which include photographs, "there is no doubt that the defendants proceeded to cut the body of the lesser", because it was the uncle of Joana the draw "by his own hand instruments used rendering" and demonstrated "how you used the sierra and knife, as the two defendants if between-helped in cuts, the time that it took, as each repetition were bagged the body parts and how they tried to put in the cabinet".
As For the video recording of one of enactments made by Joao Cipriano in the house where he lived Joana (and which led lawyers to appeal not to consider a valid proof), the judgment mentions that "the court did not need to serve it".
The matters considered not proven refers to the alleged fact of Leonor Cipriano maltreat their children. "No witness said anything where if you could infer that fact and no further evidence was presented in this direction," says the text. Also it has not been demonstrated "what is the time of durability of these prints Palms and face, that may not be of Joana , and thus, when in doubt, we opted to not consider such traces as a result of the aggression described in autos".
Although the court "has not been able to ascertain the reason which led to the crime of murder, the fact that "remain in ignorance" on this matter "in nothing falls as the essential subject that is placed in discussion".Article===========================================================
The family members were Leandro and his sister, also the neighbour who was the supermarket owner(a friend of Joana, but certainly not of Leonor) .
IMO The above persons statements contributed to the downfall of Leonor and Joao.
Leandro’s sister gave a different version in 2006 to the one given in 2005, according to the press coverage of the trial.
Leandro gave a statement saying that he had the tools which disappeared after that night, but in press reports that he has given since, he admitted that he did not have any such tools at the time. So what the hell was all that about!
Leonor’s and Leandro’s family do not believe she killed Joana. Leonor’s ex husband does not believe that she could have killed Joana. The people of Figueira still talk of abduction and sale of Joana.
The car reported by inhabitants of the village, to have been circulating the village on the day of the disappearance and some Germans seen around the same time, was investigated, but never found.
There was no motive, body, witnesses, tools or evidence found for the crime of murder.
They were advised to Silence at the trial, so the PJ used a slide show that had been taken at their home with Joao confessing in a reconstruction of the crime…..Why would he agree to do such a thing? Leandro said he looked drunk.
