Is support for Leonor Cipriano based on a desire for Justice or it related to the officers involved in the case?
Is support for Leonor Cipriano based on a desire for Justice or it related to the officers involved in the case?
Both.
The officers involved in the case are a disgrace.
And the case against Leonor Cipriano is dubious (at most charitable).
Is support for Leonor Cipriano based on a desire for Justice or it related to the officers involved in the case?
But why McCann supporters in particular?
If not for Amaral, they would never have bothered.
But why McCann supporters in particular?
It is based on a potential injustice..simple as that
Indeed, without him, they would, no doubt, never even have heard about it.
So why doesn't the discussion stay on the Cipriano board?
I assume that all these people so concerned about an apparent injustice are actively raising money for an appeal.
Precisely Jassi.
They would not give a damn, apart from the involvement of Amaral in the case.
There was a young girl called Joana who went missing. Is anyone still looking for her?
why
She has been declared murderers.
So who exactly would be looking for her ?
Because its such an appalling injustice, apparently. Talk is cheap, of course, action not so cheap.
There was no forensic evidence to prove that a murder took place. The pair were more innocent than Barry George.
Not in the eyes of the Portuguese judiciary. But you know better than them, of course.
There was no forensic evidence to prove that a murder took place. The pair were more innocent than Barry George.
Look over the case again.
They remain murderers.
are you saying the conviction is 100% safe and judges never get things wrong...rather naieve
There was no forensic evidence to prove that a murder took place. The pair were more innocent than Barry George.
Why should I bother? I'm not subject to Portuguese law.
and why should I bother to organise an appeal
None the less they were convicted of murder by their country's legal system.
There's at least one case of murder in this country where there was no forensic evidence to prove the murder took place but someone was found guilty of murder at The Old Bailey.
You seem concerned about the case, so I thought you might want to put your money where your mouth is.
You seem concerned about the case, so I thought you might want to put your money where your mouth is.
there is no evidence ...forensic or otherwise to show Joanna is dead
You seem concerned about the case, so I thought you might want to put your money where your mouth is.
Take it up with the Portugugese judicial system.
Perhaps they would welcome your insight into the case.
You do realise that according to Montclair...there has never been a successful appeal in Portugal
Odds would seem to be stacked Amaral in the libel case, then ...
simple question for you...is a conviction absolute proof of guilt...answer...no.
in this case there seems to ab a good case for a miscarriage...she might be guilty...she may not...we don't really know...
I'm very concerned about the chinese occupation of Tibet...what do you think I should do about it
Why ask me a question then answer it yourself ?
The yardstick in most legal systems is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
"This is the standard of evidence used in criminal trials to overcome the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, evidence need not prove that the defendant is absolutely guilty or guilty beyond any question, but rather that there are no other logical explanations resulting from the case facts that anyone other than the defendant could have committed the crime".
Dr Ted Yeshion.
http://www.theforensicteacher.com/Evidence.html
Most of us already know that...OJ Simpson was found not guilty at the criminal level of proof but guilty at the civil level...balance of probabilities....
that's why when posters on here talk about there being proof of something...they should define the level of proof they expect.....
so the bottom line is that because cipriano was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt...we still do not really know if she is actually guilty
I don't think much of Ted'd definition by the way
Happy New Year to one & all. I wish you good health, happiness & may your troubles be few,
Cheers!
Misty x
Answer to OP (original poster): Because it's a strategy of discrediiting the SIO by any means possible.
Not just the SIO, anyone and anything that goes against the narrative in the slightestThe saddest example ever of the attempts to discredit Mr Amaral and his PJ colleagues is imo an old article by d (flower) which resorts to writing imagery of swatting off flies - how pathetically desperate is that?
Im sure theres a name/term/phrase for this kind of thing, and so far its backfired spectacularly imo
Did the PJ ever find the car which was driven to Spain, containing a 2nd freezer which housed Joana's bodyparts?I never heard of that theory Merc.
I never heard of that theory Merc.
The saddest example ever of the attempts to discredit Mr Amaral and his PJ colleagues is imo an old article by d (flower) which resorts to writing imagery of swatting off flies - how pathetically desperate is that?
Thanks Misty. But moving back to the main case we are any discussing, is thare any any plausible published claim that a fridge (or freezer) was transported out of a building?
There is a thread of discussion about Leonor & Joao's trial. Quite how you separate fact from fiction in the case is anybody's guess - but it appears to have convinced a small jury.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2977.195
There are, of course, many who still believe GM removed a fridge from 5a & disposed of it. Amaral's team seem to have been very fond of using items whichcould not be proven to exist as evidence of an arguido's guilt.
Quantify "many" who believe GM removed his apartment fridge....
Did Amaral ever say thats what he believed happened? No....afaiaw
As for the ciprianos ,they found blood in the fridge..that actually existed......in their home
When you add 1 and 2 should make 3 not five
happy new year lets hope its a good one, gnite
Well if an MIwhatever media-manip type tells me that an SIO swats off flies, that is IMO pathetically desperate words, so what is the motivation behind writing that, and who instructed it to be written, and why is it so important to discredit this skilled and honest SIO?
Basically none of those supporters would have had any interest at all in the Cipriano case if they had not acquired the desire to discredit at any cost the SIO in the main case we are discussing.
Is there any other case in the whole world where an intense campaign has been operated, including a gov employee, to desperately attempt to discredit an SIO of a missing person case?
You cannot make such claims without providing evidence to back it up. There are other cases happening around the world that I am interested in..re miscarriages of justice. I would say that any unbiased person who saw the pictures of cipriano and understood how she was convicted solely on a confession beaten out of her would be interested.
As for amaral...he was sacked...and his own actions discredited himself. The description of him on many sceptic sites as an honourable man is laughable. Everything the uk press has printed about him is true...if it wasn't it would be very easy for him to sue
Incorrect.
That is why a UK paper had to print an apology to him for a false accusation.
As to the tabloids, the less said the better.
so what did the apology say....most sceptics don't understand what the express said....
Here we go again.
Claiming people don't understand.
A false claim, but par for the course.
Here we go again.
Claiming people don't understand.
A false claim, but par for the course.
You have claimed the express printed an apology...cite please....I have only seen a correction...no apology...so it seems you definitely don't understand
Fascinating.
Read it in the Portugal Resident.
'Amaral had not lied in Court'.
The express conceded
I suggest you get your facts right.
Here we go again.
Claiming people don't understand.
A false claim, but par for the course.
i have PROVED you dont understand...I am correct again...the express did not print an apology...
Incorrect.Cite for an apology
Why do you persist in pointless arguments ?
The facts of the apology can be seen by any guest or poster on this forum for themselves, as it is stated in the Algarve Resident.
Incorrect.
Why do you persist in pointless arguments ?
The facts of the apology can be seen by any guest or poster on this forum for themselves, as it is stated in the Algarve Resident.
You cannot make such claims without providing evidence to back it up. There are other cases happening around the world that I am interested in..re miscarriages of justice. I would say that any unbiased person who saw the pictures of cipriano and understood how she was convicted solely on a confession beaten out of her would be interested.
As for amaral...he was sacked...and his own actions discredited himself. The description of him on many sceptic sites as an honourable man is laughable. Everything the uk press has printed about him is true...if it wasn't it would be very easy for him to sue
Apparently not according to the Express;
“On the 29th April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said “Maddy detective did lie about death cover-up claim”. We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the Portuguese court that Mr Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr Amaral had breached the McCann’s right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them”. - See more at: http://portugalresident.com/uk-daily-express-publishes-written-apology-over-headline-calling-maddie-cop-a-liar#sthash.73uNX8hR.dpuf
http://portugalresident.com/uk-daily-express-publishes-written-apology-over-headline-calling-maddie-cop-a-liar
UK Daily Express publishes written apology over headline calling Maddie cop a liar - See more at:
http://portugalresident.com/uk-daily-express-publishes-written-apology-over-headline-calling-maddie-cop-a-liar#sthash.TmzwYTaV.dpuf
“On the 29th April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said “Maddy detective did lie about death cover-up claim”. We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the Portuguese court that Mr Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr Amaral had breached the McCann’s right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them”. - See more at: http://portugalresident.com/uk-daily-express-publishes-written-apology-over-headline-calling-maddie-cop-a-liar#sthash.DMYQ36o1.dpuf
Most of us already know that...OJ Simpson was found not guilty at the criminal level of proof but guilty at the civil level...balance of probabilities....
that's why when posters on here talk about there being proof of something...they should define the level of proof they expect.....
so the bottom line is that because cipriano was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt...we still do not really know if she is actually guilty
I don't think much of Ted'd definition by the way
Man you catch on fast. You can take the word Cipriano out of the sentence as it applies to all convicted criminals.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the requirement but this may result in some miscarriages. That if you remember your history was one of the main planks in the campaign for the abolition of capital punishment. Like, under "beyond reasonable doubt" it's possible to stretch the neck of the wrong person by which time it's too late.
As for you not thinking much of Ted's definition perhaps you will tell us how you think it should read.
apology
əˈpɒlədʒi/Submit
noun
1.
a regretful acknowledgement of an offence or failure.
"we owe you an apology"
synonyms: expression of regret, one's regrets; amende honorable; informalapols; informalbeg-pardon
"I owe you an apology"
the express did not use the word apology and did not express regret so did not imply an apology.......it is untrue to say the express apologised ...as I have PROVED
The Express lied in saying originally Amaral had lied in court.
The quote from the apology stands.
Your trouble is, that you will say anything to try and denigrate Amaral.
The Express lied in saying originally Amaral had lied in court.
The quote from the apology stands.
Your trouble is, that you will say anything to try and denigrate Amaral.
where does the express say amaral did not lie in court
where does the express apologise
neither happened and i'm sure everyone can see how totally wrong you are
Actually, ANYONE can see how the Express originally lied about Amaral.
They can also read the APOLOGY.
As to the Express and the other tabloids since the trial, they have never questioned the mccanns versions of events, including the 'abduction', for which there is no evidence that can't be explained by other scenarios.
The Express lied in saying originally Amaral had lied in court.
The quote from the apology stands.
Your trouble is, that you will say anything to try and denigrate Amaral.
The Express said that there was no determination by the court that Amaral lied.
Completely irrelevant to what Amaral may (or may not) have said in court ....
it certainly does apply to all convicted criminal...and I catch on very fast. So as individuals we look at the evidence and make our own minds up....doesn't mean much because it's the court that decides. Capital punishment was abolished because the authorities realised people like cipriano could in fact be innocent
To look at all the evidence you will need to have all transcripts of the court proceedings and then some.
As I requested earlier if you have such, which you must have to make some of the comments you do, then post the evidence on here for all of us to see. Meantime I am content with the ruling of the court wrt Leonor Cipriano, her beating, her lack of honesty, her involvement with the murder of her daughter, the conviction of Sr Amaral for perjury and the lack of successful prosecutions of police officers accused of the beatings.
The fact that someone could be innocent does not mean they are.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" .
we did have a link to the court transcripts some time ago...they were discussed at lenghth..perhaps someone still has it...as for the evidence...we know that there was no forensic evidence to support the case...none of the blood discovered matched joanna...there was absolutely no evidence to support the police case that she was dismembered and fed to the pigs.
The only evidence was the confessions...beaten out of her....she may be guilty...but from what we know there is no real evidence to prove it....even beyond reasonable doubt....the lack of evidence is astonishing
we did have a link to the court transcripts some time ago...they were discussed at lenghth..perhaps someone still has it...as for the evidence...we know that there was no forensic evidence to support the case...none of the blood discovered matched joanna...there was absolutely no evidence to support the police case that she was dismembered and fed to the pigs.
The only evidence was the confessions...beaten out of her....she may be guilty...but from what we know there is no real evidence to prove it....even beyond reasonable doubt....the lack of evidence is astonishing
You don't seem to have answered my question.
Why do you suppose the court found her guilty of murder and later increased her sentence ?
The mother freely admitted the girl was deceased, first by her hand and later by the hand of her brother.
Not the actions of an innocent woman!
You don't seem to have answered my question.
Why do you suppose the court found her guilty of murder and later increased her sentence ?
The mother freely admitted the girl was deceased, first by her hand and later by the hand of her brother.
Not the actions of an innocent woman!
she did not freely admit anything....please stick to the facts
Can you cite the date of her court appearance before a magstrate before the trial where she admitted her crime and the date of her assault...did the first come after the second? Do you actually know?
I have asked John several times for a cite to confirm what he claims was a confession before the torture
As far as I am aware it has never been supplied
she did not freely admit anything....please stick to the facts
But seemngly you do know the facts:
Then share
Angelo claimed she freely admitted
I asked for a cite
So far he hasn't given one
Let's have his first as I asked first
its not Angelos claim...its in the public domain....read the cipriano board
I've read it...where are the details of the so called first confession......where is the independent evidence it ever happened
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-leonor-cipriano-confessed.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Joana_Cipriano
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id176.html
read more carefully, its there....
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-leonor-cipriano-confessed.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Joana_Cipriano
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id176.html
then provide a link....it is not there
read more carefully, its there....
this is your first link...
Cipriano Case: Leonor Cipriano Confessed the Murder of the daughter Joana
23 OCTOBER 2008 | POSTED BY JOANA MORAIS LEAVE A COMMENT
Process - Inspectors of the PJ accused of Torture
Leonor Cipriano Confessed the murder of the daughter Joana on the 13th of October and alleges being beaten a day after
there is NO SOURCE named for this article...it appears to come from the lawyer representing the pj...claiming she confessed before torture...hardly independent verification.....he was trying to prove there was no torture
cite....as per forum rules
You do not know that it isn't true.
You only tag on to the Cipriano case because of Amaral, as do McCann supporters.
You would probably never have known of him otherwise.
It is McCann supporter dogma to attack Amaral.
Very visible on here and others forums.
Nope, do own donkey work to find facts (not "claims"j
so no one can supply a cite to confirm the so called initial confession...then it does NOT constitute fact
I'm asking for a cite ...no one can provide one...more than a little strange
text in red is an ad hominem attack..please desist
It is not an attack.
It is an observable FACT.
False assumption
100% true...verifiable fact and evidenced in thousands of posts
@)(++(*
at the moment we have no confrmation of this so called initial confession...if you wish to believe in things without evidence...it is up yo you...my beliefs are based on evidence
posts do not constitute evidence ...there are far more posts on other forums that the world is flat
What evidence ?
CITE.
Cite.
which beliefs are you asking about...remember the title of the thread
I am well aware of the title of the thread.
I think you will agree it is fair that as I have asked for a cite...and not received one yet...we should wait for my cite to be given first
100% true...verifiable fact and evidenced in thousands of posts
@)(++(*
at the moment we have no confrmation of this so called initial confession...if you wish to believe in things without evidence...it is up yo you...my beliefs are based on evidence
posts do not constitute evidence ...there are far more posts on other forums that the world is flat
Not my fault youve missed the evidence....
Torture and other ill-treatment
There were continued allegations of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials. In February, the UN Committee against Torture expressed its concern about reports of torture and other ill-treatment in prisons and the excessive use of force, including the use of firearms, by law enforcement officials. It also expressed concern at the acquisition of Taser weapons by law enforcement agencies, stating that the pain such weapons inflict constituted a form of torture.
In October, the trial began of four police officers charged with torturing Leonor Cipriano in 2004 to obtain a confession that she had killed her daughter. Medical reports and photographs of Leonor Cipriano recorded extensive injuries after two days in police custody in Faro. Police officials said that she fell down a flight of stairs in the police station; however the Institute of Forensic Medicine stated that her injuries were not consistent with such an incident and were more in keeping with an assault. Leonor Cipriano said that she was punched, kicked, had a plastic bag placed over head, and was forced to kneel on glass ashtrays during interrogations. The trial was ongoing at the end of the year.
http://www.refworld.org/docid/4a1fadc928.html
That is what amnesty international has to say
Nothng to do with the facts of the discussion here and now.
Nothng to do with the facts of the discussion here and now.
it confirms Amnesty's position that the torture was to extract a confession
the title of the thread...
Why is there so much support for Leonor Cipriano from McCann supporters?...because she may well be a victim of a miscarriage of justice...totally on topic
Nothng to do with your abject failure to read and comprehend the facts on the relevant boards
No, just a MURDERER.
the title of the thread...
Why is there so much support for Leonor Cipriano from McCann supporters?...because she may well be a victim of a miscarriage of justice...totally on topic
i'm not sure she is...in fact we do not know she is...ask alice
No, just a murderer.
She confessed before she changed her story..
and let's not forget Correia.
there is no independent source for a confession before torture...angelo and you have failed to provide links
No, just a murderer.
She confessed before she changed her story..
and let's not forget Correia.
failing to provide links only means, as i said before, unless you have a short term memory problem, that you should do your own donkey work
failing to provide links only means, as i said before, unless you have a short term memory problem, that you should do your own donkey work
confessed after being beaten to a pulp
CITE.
amnesty international above ....
That is not absolute proof.
That is an opinion.
That is not absolute proof.
That is an opinion.
torture by the PJ has been proved
torture by the PJ has been proved
So where is the forensic proof it was.
CITE please.
As has murder of a child, you cant cherry pick to suit
there is no absolute proof cipriano is guilty...just the opinion of 2 out of 3 judges
proved in court...overwhelming evidence ...i am not going all through this again
I'm not cherry picking...read my posts
proved in court...overwhelming evidence ...i am not going all through this again
You are very selective in which judges you believe.
Namely if they concur with your beliefs they are right, if they don't , they are wrong.
Not really.
It was the verdict of a judge.
Another judge could have ruled differently.
As we know, Cipriano lied.
Her testimony is therefore subject to scrutiny.
in reply to you both...the evidence against the PJ was overwhelming.....their claim that cipriano fell down the stairs was an obvious lie...the evidence against cipriano was non existent
it was the pj's own testimonies that convicted them
Cipriano is a liar.
Proved in court, and from her varying testimony and changing accounts of events.
She deserves her sentence.
the pj lied...their obvious lies was their downfall
The case revovledaround Cipriano.
She LIED.
in reply to you both...the evidence against the PJ was overwhelming.....their claim that cipriano fell down the stairs was an obvious lie...the evidence against cipriano was non existent
the pj were found guilty of lying
the pj were found guilty of lyingNo they were not
have you gone off tangent? The discussion was about whether she was assaulted by unknown people before or after her confession to a magistrate weeks before any trial, any progress in reading the boards before blubbering away ad infinitum?
No they were not
and you will explain how view that excuses ciprianos numerous lies...check back later to see how that logic works LOL!!!!
No they were not
and you will explain how view that excuses ciprianos numerous lies...check back later to see how that logic works LOL!!!!
Cipriano is a liar.
Proved in court, and from her varying testimony and changing accounts of events.
She deserves her sentence.
I have answered several of your questions on a forum where very few answer questions
Before I answer anymore let's see if angelo answers mine...
And I have one for you
What makes you think she is guilty
In the interest of fairness perhaps you could answer just this on e question for me
Then we can move on
By that logic Stephen you must accept that amaral was guilty of covering up and also of libelling the mccanns. Proved in court.
In Cipriano's case, it was murder.
In the mccanns case, CRIME UNKNOWN.
Amaral wrote a book and made a video accused the McCann of committing a crime. You will have to explain to me why the "CRIME UNKNOWN" is at all relevant in the bringing of an action for libel?
are police officers not allowed a opinion even if is not what parents or supporters want to hear? they get paid to have a opinion and mcann supporters and the mcanns themselves liabel GA worse then anything said against the mcanns
She was found guilty by a court in a system which relies on "beyond reasonable doubt". The court acknowledged she had been tortured so any testimony obtained by those illegal means was presumably held inadmissible by the court.
There has been no appeal against the verdict or sentence which has been upheld by a higher court.
When there is a successful appeal against the verdict of the court I will may change my mind.
She was found guilty by a court in a system which relies on "beyond reasonable doubt". The court acknowledged she had been tortured so any testimony obtained by those illegal means was presumably held inadmissible by the court.
There has been no appeal against the verdict or sentence which has been upheld by a higher court.
When there is a successful appeal against the verdict of the court I will may change my mind.
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/leonor-cipriano-sentenced-for-lying.html
' Following the delivery of the verdict, Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, said: "Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted". '
Tell me as to why Cipriano was given 7 extra months for lying about the 'torture' ?
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/leonor-cipriano-sentenced-for-lying.html
' Following the delivery of the verdict, Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, said: "Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted". '
Tell me as to why Cipriano was given 7 extra months for lying about the 'torture' ?
do you have a cite for this
On the link.
If I recall correctly from an account I read some time ago, she made her first confession on the 13/10/2004, whilst the 'attack/torture' took place after this date.
not independent....a very sceptic site which does not give a source...
On the link.
If I recall correctly from an account I read some time ago, she made her first confession on the 13/10/2004, whilst the 'attack/torture' took place after this date.
That is a matter of opinion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offline John
Senior Editor
Veteran Member
****
Posts: 9062
Global Moderator
View Profile Justice 4 John Lamberton Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Método 3, Marcos Aragão Correia and the campaign to discredit Gonçalo Amaral.
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2014, 08:33:29 PM »
Quote
To summarise, Leonor Cipriano's lawyer João Grade was approached by Método 3 who make reference to the similarities between the cases of Joana and Madeleine. When Grade realises that Método 3's real interest is not Leonor but Gonçalo Amaral he refuses to collaborate with them. Next thing he knows he has been effectively sacked by Leonor and Funchal-based lawyer Marcos Correia has taken over the case on a pro bono basis after being engaged by Método 3. So effectively we have a chain from the McCanns to Leonor Cipriano and the common denominator is Gonçalo Amaral whom it just so happens wrote a book about Madeleine McCann and is being sued by her parents.
After the trial of several PJ officers which saw Gonçalo Amaral found guilty of failing to report, Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, said: "Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted".
« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 08:36:58 PM by John »
this is a forum post.......hardly evidence to support anything
Take it up with John.
I presume you noted the speech marks ?
From the court report, she was formally interviewed (with her lawyer) on 13 Oct. The PJ took her back to the prison at about 6:15 am on the 14 and picked her up again to take her back to the station, but not for "formal" interviews. Again they took her back at around 6 am on 15 Oct, but to the infirmary, where injuries to her face and eyes were noted, but the doctor didn't examine the rest of her body that day, apparently.
so this is from the court reports.....this puts the beating to the 14th of october at the latest
There has never been any sensible breakdown of what officially happened. It is all opinions and second and third hand accounts. Plus a large number of distortions.
Then that immediately begs the question of why you believe she was beaten to confess instead of simply confessing, in front of her lawyer, the day before the alleged beating ?
I don't need to take it up with anyone...John has made it clear he is not sure about exactly what happened
Where did he say that ?
Her first confession is on the 12 th October according to reports. The injuries were sustained afterwards.
Now as a general question, and one certain people are avoiding, it is abundantly clear Cipriano changed her testimony several times.
That makes her a LIAR and anything she says has to be judged within that context.
Then that immediately begs the question of why you believe she was beaten to confess instead of simply confessing, in front of her lawyer, the day before the alleged beating ?
Where did he say that ?
Her first confession is on the 12 th October according to reports. The injuries were sustained afterwards.
In so far as I have seen, she didn't. More to the point, after the beating, why did she withdraw her confession to her Lawyer if he was present when she made it?
Perhaps certain members would benefit from reading this again.
From CdM :
"Leonor has no credibility
The jurors and the collective of judges at the Court of Faro considered that Leonor Cipriano's deposition had "no credibility". According to judge Henrique Pavão, "she changed her version several times" and "lightly" accused persons of aggressing her, based on a list of names that she carried into the court room. "She lied about the identification of the aggressors and she lied about other crucial aspects," the judge mentioned.
Concerning the photographs that were taken of Leonor, which were included in the process, the collective considered that they are "of weak quality" and that therefore, "it was not possible to conclude safely about what really happened".
But you have agreed that what you believe is based on second hand information so how can you know for sure what happened ?
But you have agreed that what you believe is based on second hand information so how can you know for sure what happened ?
I can't. That's the point.
So your bias colours your opinion, not facts. Am I correct.
So your bias colours your opinion, not facts. Am I correct.
No, you aren't. My "Bias" is based on common sense. And the whole thing is decidedly iffy.
If any suspect leaves a Police Station looking like she did, it would suggest to any normal person that the conviction was unsafe.
But we don't know how she left the police station, do we ? The provenance of the photographs were questioned in court, an employee of the prison Cipriano was taken to testified that they were asked to change reports as to Cipriano's wellbeing when entering the prison. Another prisoner testified that Cipriano was beaten up by other inmates. There are no photographs of the knee injuries resulting from Cipriano kneeling on glass ashtrays as alleged. Cipriano accused certain officers and when her testimony proved false claimed she had a bag over her head with tortured so couldn't identify anyone. That is just a small sample of the contradictions contained within her, many, statements.
So how in heaven's name could 'common sense' lead you to believe Cipriano was telling the truth ?
But we don't know how she left the police station, do we ? The provenance of the photographs were questioned in court, an employee of the prison Cipriano was taken to testified that they were asked to change reports as to Cipriano's wellbeing when entering the prison. Another prisoner testified that Cipriano was beaten up by other inmates. There are no photographs of the knee injuries resulting from Cipriano kneeling on glass ashtrays as alleged. Cipriano accused certain officers and when her testimony proved false claimed she had a bag over her head with tortured so couldn't identify anyone. That is just a small sample of the contradictions contained within her, many, statements.
So how in heaven's name could 'common sense' lead you to believe Cipriano was telling the truth ?
Amaral was convicted of Perjury.
Indeed.
In her torture trial the judge stated that she had lied. She had her sentence extended because she lied. Yet you concur with a verdict based to a great extent on the testimony of this woman. Can you truly say Amaral's conviction is safe based on the above ?
Indeed.
In her torture trial the judge stated that she had lied. She had her sentence extended because she lied. Yet you concur with a verdict based to a great extent on the testimony of this woman. Can you truly say Amaral's conviction is safe based on the above ?
Everything re this quoted by you and others on this is second hand. What we do know for cerrtain...first hand is taht she was tortured by the PJ...and from the trial...there was no real evidence against her...those are facts
Amaral was convicted of Perjury.
Cipriano , sentence extended because of perjury.
Have you forgotten ?
Amaral was convicted of Perjury.
According to montclair there has never been a successful appeal against such a crime in portugal. I find your view very narrow minded and naieve...but I'm sure you don't think much of mine.
For someone who is interested in miscarriages of justice `you seem to have no interest in a possible case.
As regards the confessions....the prosecution were allowed to play a video of Jaoa's confession to the court ...which evidently should not be allowed...against the wishes of the defence. The obviously did not show a video of Leonora's confession
Cipriano , sentence extended because of perjury.
Have you forgotten ?
Perjury is defined universally as the giving of a false statement whilst under oath ie in a court. To be convicted of perjury requires charges to be brought after the trial which was what happened in Leonor Cipriano's case. Amaral never faced perjury charges so was never convicted of perjury. His conviction related solely to the altering of police records.
Cipriano , sentence extended because of perjury.
Have you forgotten ?
people blame Amaral for everything but if the children had not been left unsupervised or whatever did happen on that hoilday maddie would be alive and well now imo
Yes, by trial some time after the main trial.
McCann supporters' only interest in Cipriano is because of Amaral's involvement in both cases. He got the Cipriano case right and it is only a matter of time before we know about the other one.
McCann supporters' only interest in Cipriano is because of Amaral's involvement in both cases. He got the Cipriano case right and it is only a matter of time before we know about the other one.
That is precisely the point, no matter how much they might try to deny it.
The evidence against Amaral was signed by his own hand.
Green bit: maybe so but how many such crimes have been committed in Portugal since the mid seventies? It still does not prevent the lodging of an appeal does it?
Red bit: Why?
Blue bit: Who is leading the charge on this apart from a few McCann supporters on fora such as this?
Maroon bit: If there were a breach of process and legal procedures that would be grounds for appeal.
So forgetting what Montclair says which may be right or wrong we don't know. If there are so many grounds for appeal why has one not been lodged?
posting opinion as fact again.......
The 'evidence' is only incriminating IF the torture actually happened and IF Amaral knew at the time that it had happened.
Is any of this of any present or future significance to the "search for Madeleine" ?
McCann supporters' only interest in Cipriano is because of Amaral's involvement in both cases. He got the Cipriano case right and it is only a matter of time before we know about the other one.
The Court seemed to think so. Even The Appeal Court seemed to think so.
The Court seemed to think so. Even The Appeal Court seemed to think so.
Unless you think upon it as a money spinner &%+((£
The cipriano case is a severe embarrassment to amaral supporters who try to portray him as an honorable man...they just wish it would go away...
Cipriano is an exposed liar in court, having committed perjury in regard to the 'torturing'.
so is amaral...you keep scoring own goals
Answer me this Eleanor. Would you consider a verdict safe if the main witness to a criminal act had themselves had 7 months added to their sentence for lying about that very act ? Be truthful.
The cipriano case is a severe embarrassment to amaral supporters who try to portray him as an honorable man...they just wish it would go away...
It is not an own goal.
Your continuing attacks on Amaral through the Cipriano case do mark you.
However, it makes her testimony flawed.
Tell me dave, how many people have never told a lie ?
Must be embarrassing to the McCann supporters having to defend a convicted child killer for their own ends.
The question in all of this is what involvement did Amaral have other than as an observer?
Must be embarrassing to the McCann supporters having to defend a convicted child killer for their own ends.
It has and was dismissed.
That closes that out then ?{)(**
Closed what out?
Your criminal is worse than my criminal nyerrr 8(>((
except that one criminal was leading the hunt for maddie
except that one criminal was leading the hunt for maddie
Perjury ?
Then we have to consider that Cipriano was lying in her testimony.
Without which Amaral would have been in the clear.
I also read somewhere that she may have accused Amaral of torture as well, until she was caught out and had to recant that.
The Pj lied in their testimony...now why would the police tell outright lies in court ...they claimed cipriano fell down the stairs...I wonder what other lies they told
Cipriano lied in court.
She committed perjury.
That makes her testimony unreliable to put it mildly.
Since Leonor Cipriano appears to have had a bag over her head for most of the time of the torture, I would be amazed if she did know who actually tortured her.
But since the nuances of that particular Trial escape us all, I really don't understand how she could have been convicted.
I am always truthful in so far as it is possible to be in this sort of situation. But please let us remember that Two Judges found her to be Guilty, and one Judge found her to be Innocent. So hardly an absolute.
So you agree that he knew what was going on while she was being tortured. Indeed, how can he not have known?
How do you feel about defending a Convicted Perjurer?
The Pj lied in their testimony...now why would the police tell outright lies in court ...they claimed cipriano fell down the stairs...I wonder what other lies they told
No, you aren't. My "Bias" is based on common sense. And the whole thing is decidedly iffy.
If any suspect leaves a Police Station looking like she did, it would suggest to any normal person that the conviction was unsafe.
She threw herself down the stairs so ended up with bruising to her torso as well as the bruising to her head.
Gonçalo Amaral was sentenced to a year and a half in prison, suspended, for misrepresentation of evidence in the case of aggressions against Leonor Cipriano.
The ruling, read this afternoon, also ordered the acquittal of Gonçalo Amaral on the crime of omission of denunciation.
All defendants who were accused of the crime of torture - Paulo Pereira Cristóvão, Leonel Marques and Paulo Marques Bom - were acquitted.
The inspector António Cardoso, accused of the crime of forgery of a document, was sentenced to two years and three months, also a suspended penalty.
The ruling in the case of alleged attacks on Leonor Cipriano was read this afternoon in the Court of Faro.
It was taken as proven that Leonor Cipriano was beaten by elements of the Judicial police who could not be identified, and she didn't fall on the stairs, as was suggested. However, the court failed to ascertain the perpetrators of the aggressions.
The judges pointed out the importance of Teresa Magalhães' deposition, from the Institute of Forensic medicine, who clarified the origin of Leonor Cipriano's lesions. On the negative side, they highlighted the lack of credibility of the victim's testimony due to the constant change of versions that prevented them ascertaining who was responsible for the aggressions.
The case dates back to 2004
The process of alleged aggressions against Leonor Cipriano by inspectors of the PJ is related to the "Joana case, which dates back to September 12, 2004, the day when the eight-year-old girl disappeared from the village of Figueira, Portimão, in Algarve.
The accusations of the prosecutor against five ex-inspectors and inspectors of the Judicial police emerged following interrogation of the PJ in Faro in 2004, when Leonor had appeared with lesions on her face and body in Odemira prison, where she was in custody.
Eight months after the date the trial commenced - on 27 October 2008 - it would be known, on the 14th session of the trial, if the five ex-inspectors and inspectors of the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) were to be acquitted or convicted by a court of jury.
Joana's mother, Leonor Cipriano, and uncle, João Cipriano (siblings) were sentenced by the Supreme Court to 16 years in prison each, for crimes of murder and concealment of the child's corpse.
For four days, the lawyer for Leonor Cipriano, Aragão Correia, requested the opening of a new investigation in the "Joana case" and the acquittal of the girl's mother, after João Cipriano confessed in writing that he had tried to sell her.
err wrong... the third judge found her not guilty of the charge against her, she was never found INNOCENT my dear. She was in it up to her neck, a sad excuse for a mother and a human being for sure!
He knew but a child's life was at stake...remember!!
Ah, I see, so Not Guilty isn't actually Innocent. So what is Innocent?
Mr Amaral was neither tried nor convicted of perjury Eleanor. Please get it right!
That's Davel's forte.
Okay. He was convicted of falsifying evidence. And you can cut the insults as well.
Ah, I see, so Not Guilty isn't actually Innocent. So what is Innocent?
Add me to that list.
Documents rather than evidence.
But I thought he thought that the child was already dead. Didn't you say that she had confessed to murder before she was beaten?
So what stake was there?
She threw herself down the stairs so ended up with bruising to her torso as well as the bruising to her head.
No he is particular about Innocent vs Not Guilty.
Okay. He was convicted of falsifying evidence. And you can cut the insults as well.
According to Leonor yes but as her brother failed to find a body there was every possibility she was still alive somewhere. The police were right to pressurise them if there was any hope at all of finding the child still alive or do you disagree Eleanor?
So no person who was ever tried and found Not Guilty is ever Innocent.
What a good job that The McCanns have never been tried. And never will be.
But Leonor Cipriano will be released before much longer and stands to gain a large amount of Compensation because a Portuguese Court ruled that she was beaten by The PJ.
Leonor Cipriano was found guilty of murder and later found guilty of having committed perjury. Mr Amaral was found guilty of falsifying police documents, he was not found guilty of perjury.
She won't receive a cent as she is a convicted murderer.
According to Leonor yes but as her brother failed to find a body there was every possibility she was still alive somewhere. The police were right to pressurise them if there was any hope at all of finding the child still alive or do you disagree Eleanor?
So you claim cipriano freely admitted to murder but took a savage beating and would not reveal where the body was. The beating took place over 4 weeks after the disappearance and you think joanna had been hidden all this time...and you think this is a reasonable explanation
Leonor Cipriano was found guilty of murder and later found guilty of having committed perjury. Mr Amaral was found guilty of falsifying police documents, he was not found guilty of perjury.
She won't receive a cent as she is a convicted murderer.
So no person who was ever tried and found Not Guilty is ever Innocent.
What a good job that The McCanns have never been tried. And never will be.
But Leonor Cipriano will be released before much longer and stands to gain a large amount of Compensation because a Portuguese Court ruled that she was beaten by The PJ.
Whom have I insulted?
convicted murderers are entitled to compensation ...
Innuendo, Sweetie.
Isn't she still hidden 12 years later?
convicted murderers are entitled to compensation ...
So no person who was ever tried and found Not Guilty is ever Innocent.
What a good job that The McCanns have never been tried. And never will be.
But Leonor Cipriano will be released before much longer and stands to gain a large amount of Compensation because a Portuguese Court ruled that she was beaten by The PJ.
falsifying police documents is a serious offence...hence the suspended sentence
Some are and some are not.
Guilty and innocent are absolute terms. In court "beyond reasonable doubt" is the datum.
Why you suppose the sentence was suspended if the offence were that serious?
Cite please as per Portuguese Law?
It's Guilty or Not Guilty, tried suspects are never declared innocent.
no previous
others please note...cipriano is guilty...but not necessarily....guilty...she could be innocent
cite that she isn't as you made the post first...certainly in the UK she would be entitled..
others please note...cipriano is guilty...but not necessarily....guilty...she could be innocent
"You leave this Court without a stain on your character." Perhaps I imagined that one.
Can you honestly see a child killer being given compensation from the public purse? @)(++(*
As after 10 years no successful appeal has been mounted the "could be innocent" is doubtful.
I am surprised that if it were such a travesty of justice no leading brief has been mounting a charge to make a name for himself by having the sentence quashed.
One surprising thing is what turns up under "Cipriano" in search engines. Apart from the Wikipedia entry everything else is pretty much quotes from sites linked one way or another to the McCann case...... &%+((£
She's definitely guilty of a conspiracy along with her thug brother. As she is a convicted liar one must view her initial confession with suspicion.
Presactly.
So the idea of a serially bent copper starts to look a bit thin if up to the time of his being charged and tried (2004-2009) he had been of previous good character as they say.
As after 10 years no successful appeal has been mounted the "could be innocent" is doubtful.
I am surprised that if it were such a travesty of justice no leading brief has been mounting a charge to make a name for himself by having the sentence quashed.
One surprising thing is what turns up under "Cipriano" in search engines. Apart from the Wikipedia entry everything else is pretty much quotes from sites linked one way or another to the McCann case...... &%+((£
who says he had been of previous good character...
Leonor Cipriano cannot appeal since she admitted knowing what happened to her daughter yet lied through her teeth from day one.
or it may be she has not been granted leave to appeal
convicted murderers are entitled to compensation ...
The Court of Human Rights. They'll sort it. Torture isn't allowed for any reason.
He has no prior criminal convictions unless you think you know different. Civil cases don't count.
The Court of Human Rights. They'll sort it. Torture isn't allowed for any reason.
Nah...they will never intervene as long as she is a convicted murderess.
According to Amnesty torture appears rife throughout the portuguese police and I think John has confirmed this.
So had amaral been involved in the beating of prisoners on other occasions.. I think there have been accusations
Tell that to the Western governments using rendition.
Suspects get ruffed up by every police force or hadn't you realised?
jurisdiction
Since Leonor Cipriano appears to have had a bag over her head for most of the time of the torture, I would be amazed if she did know who actually tortured her.
But since the nuances of that particular Trial escape us all, I really don't understand how she could have been convicted.
I am always truthful in so far as it is possible to be in this sort of situation. But please let us remember that Two Judges found her to be Guilty, and one Judge found her to be Innocent. So hardly an absolute.
???
Western governments have been torturing prisoners and supporting other governments who behead people just like Isil.
I seem to remember the judge who dissented only did so because he didn't believe, as the other judges did that it was 'immediate homicide', but did that Cipriano killed her daughter. I will provide a cite if needed.
As to the bag over her head, that appeared later after it was established that Cipriano was unable to identify any of her attackers. Besides if she lied, as the judges believed, how can we believe her in anything ?
I seem to remember the judge who dissented only did so because he didn't believe, as the other judges did that it was 'immediate homicide', but did that Cipriano killed her daughter. I will provide a cite if needed.
As to the bag over her head, that appeared later after it was established that Cipriano was unable to identify any of her attackers. Besides if she lied, as the judges believed, how can we believe her in anything ?
I seem to remember the judge who dissented only did so because he didn't believe, as the other judges did that it was 'immediate homicide', but did that Cipriano killed her daughter. I will provide a cite if needed.
As to the bag over her head, that appeared later after it was established that Cipriano was unable to identify any of her attackers. Besides if she lied, as the judges believed, how can we believe her in anything ?
Excellent post Faith. 8((()*/ Off out til later bye bye
what relevance has that to this thread...so western governments are no better than isis....please think before you post
Topic please. Let's not stray too far or Ellie will bring out the paper hood and the cardboard baton.
could you also provide a cite re the later claim of the bag over the head
Absolute relevance.
Governments all over the world use torture.
So dave, you tell us how will torturING be stopped ?
Google it.
Her reference to the bag over her head is the claim made by Cipriano.
I'm not interested in getting into an off topic debate that will be removed
I'm not interested in getting into an off topic debate that will be removed
so no one provides cites anymore...just post any old rubbish
You have been on about torture all day.
So it is relevant and hardly unique to what has happened in Portugal in the past
Very wise. Take note, Stephen.
I always take note and analyse. 8)-)))
The Court of Human Rights. They'll sort it. Torture isn't allowed for any reason.
The Court of Human Rights ? And what do you think the chances are that Correia is still representing her, now Metodo3 are not paying him ?
Correia is back in Madeira and according to my sources has no plans to leave it any time soon.
I have my own views on govt torture re terrorist....having seen what terrorists bombs do to people when I was in casualty...but this is not the time or place
Correia is back in Madeira and according to my sources has no plans to leave it any time soon.
Thank you John. So no representation from that direction. Perhaps supporters can band together, as sceptics did for Amaral, and raise the cash needed for Cipriano to take her case to the CoHR ? Poor woman, tortured beyond endurance, surely it's the least they can do.......surely ?
Thank you John. So no representation from that direction. Perhaps supporters can band together, as sceptics did for Amaral, and raise the cash needed for Cipriano to take her case to the CoHR ? Poor woman, tortured beyond endurance, surely it's the least they can do.......surely ?
I have seen the Spanish police beating members of the public, does that count?
Thank you John. So no representation from that direction. Perhaps supporters can band together, as sceptics did for Amaral, and raise the cash needed for Cipriano to take her case to the CoHR ? Poor woman, tortured beyond endurance, surely it's the least they can do.......surely ?
The complaint has already been lodged at The Court of Human Rights. Who represents her is not relevant.
If john has an email address I will email Correia and look at the possibility...
drmarcosaragaocorreia-427m@adv.oa.pt
I look forward to it Dave.
The complaint has already been lodged at The Court of Human Rights. Who represents her is not relevant.
Of course it does. Any I believe that dispite the ECHR accepting the complaint Marcos Aragão Correia didn’t follow up on the process and didn’t send any argumentation or details concerning the complaint, within the required deadlines.
You are basing your opinion on the UK system.......Montclair was quite clear on the success rates of appeals..an absolute waste of time it would seem
I will not ask for a Cite for that. You simply don't know what is required or what was provided. And Amnesty International will not leave her high and dry.
The Court of Human Rights. They'll sort it. Torture isn't allowed for any reason.
I am basing my opinion on the right to appeal.
It is however good to see you using Montclair's opinions as the basis for your argument.
Now what would Amnesty do with the inconsistencies and downright lies of her versions of events ?
The Court of Human Rights cannot overturn the verdict of the Portuguese court.
drmarcosaragaocorreia-427m@adv.oa.pt
I look forward to it Dave.
ps you could also write to Leonor and ask her directly.
You could write to her here in Portuguese.
Leonor Cipriano
Estabelecimento Prisional de Odemira
Segurança e Justiça > Estabelecimento Prisional
Rua Regeal do Roduto
7630-128 Odemira
PORTUGAL
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/CiprinanoMOS1509_468x642.jpg)
after what Leonor has been through...if she is innocent... she will be in a terrible state... I will email Correia....
Correia is the initial contact...thanks for the info
What about her daughter dave ?
What did she 'go through' ?
I have no idea...and neither do you
What's to overturn? A Portuguese Court ruled that she had been beaten in custody. Nothing to overturn.
Good luck but I believe he is more into writing these days.
The verdict stands dave.
She was murdered.
Do you have absolute proof she is dead
So where would she be if she was alive ?
There has been no trace of her since her disappearance, and you know that.
The Portuguese court ruled she was guilty of murder. The ECHR cannot overrule that.
It is doubtful it will be heard by the ECHR until all Portuguese legal processes have been exhausted by the complainant.
I will not ask for a Cite for that. You simply don't know what is required or what was provided. And Amnesty International will not leave her high and dry.
Perhaps you can point me to the campaigning Amnesty International has carried out on Cipriano's behalf ?
Am I correct in my recollection that Amnesty International dropped Cipriano's case from their website some time ago after it was established that she lied about her torture ?
so you don't have absolute proof she is dead
You did not answer the question.
Has she been declared dead dave ?
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. This isn't about The Verdict. It's about The Torture. The Torture happened before The Verdict. Torture is against EU Law whether the victim of that Torture is Guilty or not.
that's because you didn't answer mine
Correia is the initial contact...thanks for the info
Perhaps you can point me to the campaigning Amnesty International has carried out on Cipriano's behalf ?
Am I correct in my recollection that Amnesty International dropped Cipriano's case from their website some time ago after it was established that she lied about her torture ?
Telling.
Yup, groundhog day
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2690.0
@)(++(*
i know its been discussed before...that's how I know it isn't true
Then you should have posted evidence if you have it and not peoples time and bandwidth wasting.....
you mean I should do your donkey work...that isn't what you said last night
Havent been on all day and never asked anyone for anythng....you though....been sitting on "proof" alledgedly for your argument whilst in "debate" lol and asking questions...bit sneaky
@)(++(*
Well on Amnesty, there is no mention of her since 2004.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/europe/portugal
do you need to correct your post
Well on Amnesty, there is no mention of her since 2004.2004
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/europe/portugal
doesn't make any sense
It does as you kept your "so called evidence" to yourself, sneaky, whereas I told you where to go find it..get over it, amnesty stopped after years, of promoting her case once she was convicted of perjury......
no doubt there will be a simple and innocent explanation for that!
your post is incorrect...amnesty posted the case from when the court case started to when it was concuded...and nothing was ever removed as claimed by faith...2009 to 2012...
your post is incorrect...amnesty posted the case from when the court case started to when it was concuded...and nothing was ever removed as claimed by faith...2009 to 2012...
Faithlilly posted she recalled that amnesty dropped hef after her conviction for perjury (not because the case ended!!) spot on, amnesty dont just drop cases when trials are over do they? so you are wrong
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2690.msg90940#msg90940
Do keep the board updated on your fund raising/support for cipriano...maybe start a sticky thread so we can all keep abreast
Faithlilly posted she recalled that amnesty dropped her after her conviction for perjury (not because the case ended!!) spot on, amnesty dont just drop cases when trials are over do they? so you are wrong
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2690.msg90940#msg90940
Well try the links from Serendipity.............
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2690.0
amnesty do stop reporting when the case is concluded...that's what happens...nothing was removed from their site
your post is incorrect...amnesty posted the case from when the court case started to when it was concuded...and nothing was ever removed as claimed by faith...2009 to 2012...
They did in 2013 and the above doesnt match your previous post
Unless you meant to add ghey "continued to do so".....
they did what in 2013
the case was reported from when the court case started to when the case...and the apppeals were finshed...as they do so in every other case...nothing was removed...no one was dropped..... there was no further news to report
Is support for Leonor Cipriano based on a desire for Justice or it related to the officers involved in the case?
I presume you can back up that statement with facts.
Remove case after conviction and further sentencd for ciprianos lies..proven by serendipitys posts in the link i gave ...
this is getting tedious, enjoy your evening with it
you mean like I proved the express did not apologise
You didn't prove anything.
THERE IS NOTHING ON Amnesty now bar that one statement.
So are you supporting the brother ?
My interest in the Cipriano case is that there is a missing child. There is no probative evidence that she even got home that night, let alone any that can ascertain what happened to her. For the court to state that under the "rules of common experience" children do normally arrive home safely and that therefore it can be taken as fact that she did as well is something I find totally bizarre.
Like many other people, I hadn't heard of the Cipriano case prior to Madleine's disappearance. There was evidently the connection with the officers involved, but also the fact that she had disappeared not far from PdL, albeit a few years earlier.
It was only years later, when I was able to skim through the Supreme Court ruling, that I realised what a shambles the investigation and the trial were.
I don't place the blame entirely on Amaral as it shouldn't have gone to court in the first place, based on such flimsy "evidence". The prosecution service should have followed the investigation more closely and told him to go back to square one, which seemingly didn't happen.
The Ciprianos are simple rural folk caught up not only in the tragedy of Joana's disappearance, but were subject to interrogations in more than dubious conditions and relied on their various lawyers.
The drip feed of leaks prior to the trial led to a public outcry similar to the one over Baby P in the UK, except that in the Cipriano case, there was no substantiating forensic evidence. In fact, there was no probative evidence of anything. The entire trial lasted only a few days with 40+ witnesses to be heard (most of which were neutral to positive, but weren't translated).
The shock-horror factor was the video of João's "reconstruction" presented on the last day. Whether this was actually done out of his own free will (as opposed to under duress) couldn't be verified. Whether it was or it wasn't, the "reconstruction" wasn't corroborated by forensic evidence.
A total mess.
My interest in the Cipriano case is that there is a missing child. There is no probative evidence that she even got home that night, let alone any that can ascertain what happened to her. For the court to state that under the "rules of common experience" children do normally arrive home safely and that therefore it can be taken as fact that she did as well is something I find totally bizarre.
Like many other people, I hadn't heard of the Cipriano case prior to Madleine's disappearance. There was evidently the connection with the officers involved, but also the fact that she had disappeared not far from PdL, albeit a few years earlier.
It was only years later, when I was able to skim through the Supreme Court ruling, that I realised what a shambles the investigation and the trial were.
I don't place the blame entirely on Amaral as it shouldn't have gone to court in the first place, based on such flimsy "evidence". The prosecution service should have followed the investigation more closely and told him to go back to square one, which seemingly didn't happen.
The Ciprianos are simple rural folk caught up not only in the tragedy of Joana's disappearance, but were subject to interrogations in more than dubious conditions and relied on their various lawyers.
The drip feed of leaks prior to the trial led to a public outcry similar to the one over Baby P in the UK, except that in the Cipriano case, there was no substantiating forensic evidence. In fact, there was no probative evidence of anything. The entire trial lasted only a few days with 40+ witnesses to be heard (most of which were neutral to positive, but weren't translated).
The shock-horror factor was the video of João's "reconstruction" presented on the last day. Whether this was actually done out of his own free will (as opposed to under duress) couldn't be verified. Whether it was or it wasn't, the "reconstruction" wasn't corroborated by forensic evidence.
A total mess.
because the case has been finalised.... If Correia will discuss the case with me I will take it from there
My interest in the Cipriano case is that there is a missing child. There is no probative evidence that she even got home that night, let alone any that can ascertain what happened to her. For the court to state that under the "rules of common experience" children do normally arrive home safely and that therefore it can be taken as fact that she did as well is something I find totally bizarre.
Like many other people, I hadn't heard of the Cipriano case prior to Madleine's disappearance. There was evidently the connection with the officers involved, but also the fact that she had disappeared not far from PdL, albeit a few years earlier.
It was only years later, when I was able to skim through the Supreme Court ruling, that I realised what a shambles the investigation and the trial were.
I don't place the blame entirely on Amaral as it shouldn't have gone to court in the first place, based on such flimsy "evidence". The prosecution service should have followed the investigation more closely and told him to go back to square one, which seemingly didn't happen.
The Ciprianos are simple rural folk caught up not only in the tragedy of Joana's disappearance, but were subject to interrogations in more than dubious conditions and relied on their various lawyers.
The drip feed of leaks prior to the trial led to a public outcry similar to the one over Baby P in the UK, except that in the Cipriano case, there was no substantiating forensic evidence. In fact, there was no probative evidence of anything. The entire trial lasted only a few days with 40+ witnesses to be heard (most of which were neutral to positive, but weren't translated).
The shock-horror factor was the video of João's "reconstruction" presented on the last day. Whether this was actually done out of his own free will (as opposed to under duress) couldn't be verified. Whether it was or it wasn't, the "reconstruction" wasn't corroborated by forensic evidence.
A total mess.
Now he is the so called psychic who said Madeleine's body was in a lake, if I recall correctly.
The same man paid by Metado3 and who paid them.
Mmmmmmm &%+((£
amaral tried to sue him...and amaral lost miserably in that case as well
and ?
Correia is in tbe same league as Acorah.
Enough said.
There was a young girl called Joana who went missing. Is anyone still looking for her?
because the case has been finalised.... If Correia will discuss the case with me I will take it from there
A different perspective is that Amaral fans somehow need to maintain that the Ciprianos are guilty, irrespective of the lack of evidence, in order to support him.
In fact, the thread that I'd started (and to which I'd contributed) on what Amaral got right in the Madeleine case must be one of the shortest on here.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6692.0
Perhaps because it was a team which investigated Madeleine's disappearance, not one man. I for one don't know what his position entailed, so any mistakes could or could not be down to him.
He was the coordinator in the Cipriano case (same position as in the Madeleine one).
He missed the opportunity to write the book on the Cipriano case ... perhaps why his manuscript was so hot off the press when Madeleine's case was archived.
Unless he wrote and had it printed within three days??
He missed the opportunity to write the book on the Cipriano case ... perhaps why his manuscript was so hot off the press when Madeleine's case was archived.
Unless he wrote and had it printed within three days??
Cristovão got his wrist slapped by the PJ (120 days suspension). He resigned / retired /was invited to pursue other career opportunities shortly thereafter and published his "memoir" of the Cipriano case, which - judging by the summary of it posted in English - appears riddled with inaccuracies... but it rated quite well in PT book sales at the time. He then became a pundit on the PT circuit on the Madeleine case (which he wasn't involved in) and then became involved in the Sporting football club and is currently facing some heavy-duty charges.
Amaral also appears to have had his wrist slapped, albeit to a lesser degree, but it's not clear which case was in question.
Polícia Judiciária
Aviso (extrato) n.o 11666/2013
Nos termos e para os efeitos do disposto no n.o 3 do artigo 25 do Regulamento Disciplinar da Polícia Judiciária publicado no Decreto-Lei n.o 196/94 de 21 de julho, na impossibilidade, confirmada, de proceder à notificação pessoal, por ausência, em parte incerta, notifica-se o Coordenador de Investigação Criminal, na situação de aposentado, Licenciado Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral, que por despacho da Ministra da Justiça, de 26 de agosto de 2013, foi concedido provimento parcial do recurso hierárquico por si interposto do ato recorrido consubstanciado no despacho do Diretor Nacional Adjunto, de 30 de junho de 2010, tendo a pena disciplinar de multa no montante de 500,00 € sido mantida e a suspensão na sua execução sido reduzida de dois para o período mínimo de um ano, começando esta a produzir efeitos decorridos 15 dias após a publicação deste aviso no Diário da República.
6 de setembro de 2013. — Pela Diretora da Unidade, João Prata Augusto.
207241913
http://legislacaoportuguesa.com/aviso-extrato-n-o-116662013-d-r-n-o-180-parte-c-serie-ii-de-2013-09-18/
(The link may no longer work.)
I think there is support for Leonor because (most!) people understand that when torture is proven by police officers of a suspect, by police officers, while the convicted person is in police custody, the probity of any conviction is (necessarily) in question.
The point of when the beating occurred is irrelevant; proof that it happened is enough (to render the conviction unsafe).
That the term (of an unsafe conviction) should have been increased stretches credulity far beyond breaking-point.
Whilst I wouldn't put English police (per se!) above torture, still, recorded interviews makes that much more difficult, and I don't believe that the English judicial system would (ever) have convicted someone under circumstances of those of Leonor's conviction.
I think there is support for Leonor because (most!) people understand that when torture is proven by police officers of a suspect, by police officers, while the convicted person is in police custody, the probity of any conviction is (necessarily) in question.
The point of when the beating occurred is irrelevant; proof that it happened is enough (to render the conviction unsafe).
That the term (of an unsafe conviction) should have been increased stretches credulity far beyond breaking-point.
Whilst I wouldn't put English police (per se!) above torture, still, recorded interviews makes that much more difficult, and I don't believe that the English judicial system would (ever) have convicted someone under circumstances of those of Leonor's conviction.
The Brits have been found guilty of fabricating evidence and beating and the defendants were sentenced.
have you ever known anyone to appear in court in the state Leonora was in
How is that relevant?
Is your criterion "if you can't see it it don't exist"?
I would suggest British law enforcement guys are smart enough to beat and bruise people where it does not show.
Like the SPG as was for example. Not to mention the West Midlands Serious Crime mob as was.
how many years ago are you talking about...many of those cases overturned
the PJ did not care where the bruises were and who saw them ...they felt they were above the law and they were right...free to beat who ever they wish...that's the disgusting part...they never even tried to hide it
Your first sentence is irrelevant to the argument.
There are two issues. The beatings which I am on record as saying are repugnant and the crimes if any committed by those who have been beaten. In the case of Leonor Cipriano she was convicted, remains in jail and thus far there has been no appeal. The question asked by an appeal court in the UK would be:
"was the conviction safe" and not "was the accused guilty".
How the criminal appeal process works in Portugal seems to be an unknown on here.
What we KNOW ...is apart from the confession there was no evidence against her
Your first sentence is irrelevant to the argument.
There are two issues. The beatings which I am on record as saying are repugnant and the crimes if any committed by those who have been beaten. In the case of Leonor Cipriano she was convicted, remains in jail and thus far there has been no appeal. The question asked by an appeal court in the UK would be:
"was the conviction safe" and not "was the accused guilty".
How the criminal appeal process works in Portugal seems to be an unknown on here.
So what?
You must then have had all the documentation translated or at least had access to it and you have gone through it all. So post it all on here so we can all see it, otherwise one must assume you are guessing and passing your guess off as fact.
Also she was convicted and sentenced and no appeal has been lodged.
I for one am at a loss to understand why a Portuguese court which has found torture proved ... then handed an extended sentence to the victim of the torture.
The court, consisting of three judges and four jurors, found Leonor and João Cipriano guilty of murder, handing them prison terms of 20 years 4 months and 19 years 2 months respectively. These sentences have since been reduced on appeal to terms of 16 years 8 months each. Leonor was later given an additional 7 months in prison after being convicted of perjury, this sentence will run consecutively with the original sentence.
the perjury charge related to the fact she could not recognise those who tortured her and was a bizarre decision...totally bizarre and had nothing to do with the original trial.
One out of the three judges did not find her guilty.
The most damning part is that there is NO evidence apart from the confession extracted under torture
Wrong again.
So what?
So what? she was found guilty of murder and sentenced.
Being beaten by bent cops, repugnant though it is, does not necessarily = not guilty.
The yardstick is "was the conviction unsafe"? as no one on here seems to have the full SP on the court proceedings and evidence available all opinions will be a bit "poke and hope".
I am content to accept the verdict of the court until an appeal is upheld and the verdict quashed.
As I've already mentioned, the case already went to the Supreme Court. That's it - the end of the road.
The full SC ruling is online, : http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/bfaf1cea93ab75fb8025716200388d89?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,cipriano
So what? she was found guilty of murder and sentenced.
Being beaten by bent cops, repugnant though it is, does not necessarily = not guilty.
The yardstick is "was the conviction unsafe"? as no one on here seems to have the full SP on the court proceedings and evidence available all opinions will be a bit "poke and hope".
I am content to accept the verdict of the court until an appeal is upheld and the verdict quashed.
So it went the full trip.
There is a choice now. The Portuguese legal system had it right or the Portuguese legal system is so defective at all levels it was hopelessly wrong.
In the absence of anyone providing a translated version of the entire proceedings together with legal knowledge which conclusively proves it is wrong I would incline to a default position that the courts had it right not the internet punters.
The interesting bit for me remains is that every time I enter Cipriano into a search engine pretty well everything that comes up apart from Wiki is linked to a "Madeleine McCann Site" of one flavour or another. Which to me would suggest it is more important in the McCann enclave than it is in the rest of the world. One would have to ask why?
So what? she was found guilty of murder and sentenced.You may be content with potential miscarriages of justice, not everyone is. It's odd you post on this forum, considering it was set up to look at cases of miscarriages of justice when they clearly don't interest you at all.
Being beaten by bent cops, repugnant though it is, does not necessarily = not guilty.
The yardstick is "was the conviction unsafe"? as no one on here seems to have the full SP on the court proceedings and evidence available all opinions will be a bit "poke and hope".
I am content to accept the verdict of the court until an appeal is upheld and the verdict quashed.
So it went the full trip.
There is a choice now. The Portuguese legal system had it right or the Portuguese legal system is so defective at all levels it was hopelessly wrong.
In the absence of anyone providing a translated version of the entire proceedings together with legal knowledge which conclusively proves it is wrong I would incline to a default position that the courts had it right not the internet punters.
The interesting bit for me remains is that every time I enter Cipriano into a search engine pretty well everything that comes up apart from Wiki is linked to a "Madeleine McCann Site" of one flavour or another. Which to me would suggest it is more important in the McCann enclave than it is in the rest of the world. One would have to ask why?
So it went the full trip.
There is a choice now. The Portuguese legal system had it right or the Portuguese legal system is so defective at all levels it was hopelessly wrong.
In the absence of anyone providing a translated version of the entire proceedings together with legal knowledge which conclusively proves it is wrong I would incline to a default position that the courts had it right not the internet punters.
The interesting bit for me remains is that every time I enter Cipriano into a search engine pretty well everything that comes up apart from Wiki is linked to a "Madeleine McCann Site" of one flavour or another. Which to me would suggest it is more important in the McCann enclave than it is in the rest of the world. One would have to ask why?
Their hatred of Amaral.
So it went the full trip.Perhaps because in the UK we're only aware of the case because of the McCann case? How about you try this search and see what comes up... "Caso de Joana Cipriano" https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=caso+da+joana+cipriano
There is a choice now. The Portuguese legal system had it right or the Portuguese legal system is so defective at all levels it was hopelessly wrong.
In the absence of anyone providing a translated version of the entire proceedings together with legal knowledge which conclusively proves it is wrong I would incline to a default position that the courts had it right not the internet punters.
The interesting bit for me remains is that every time I enter Cipriano into a search engine pretty well everything that comes up apart from Wiki is linked to a "Madeleine McCann Site" of one flavour or another. Which to me would suggest it is more important in the McCann enclave than it is in the rest of the world. One would have to ask why?
ahhh but they have to hate GA he is their scapegoat always has been always will be they could never blame the precious mcanns
You may be content with potential miscarriages of justice, not everyone is. It's odd you post on this forum, considering it was set up to look at cases of miscarriages of justice when they clearly don't interest you at all.
That is not what I said old stick so do not try to pass it off that I did.
That is not what I said old stick so do not try to pass it off that I did.You are content with the verdict in the Cipriano case, yes? A potential miscarriage of justice, no?
You are content with the verdict in the Cipriano case, yes? A potential miscarriage of justice, no?
That is not what I said old stick so do not try to pass it off that I did.
You are content with the verdict in the Cipriano case, yes? A potential miscarriage of justice, no?
you say you are interested in miscarriages of justice...how do you decide that a case MAY be a miscariage of justice..
you posted
In the absence of anyone providing a translated version of the entire proceedings together with legal knowledge which conclusively proves it is wrong I would incline to a default position that the courts had it right not the internet punters.
so you wouldn't even consider even the possibility of any case being a miscarriage without the above
and what makes you think she and her brother aren't guilty ?
I suppose if you have evidence of a miscarriage of justice, you can always launch an appeal - otherwise you must accept the verdict as it stands.Thanks for telling me what I must and mustn't do - I wasn't aware you'd been made the boss of me.
where have I ever said they are not guilty. It would help if you could read and understand the posts I make
Out comes that cliche once more, about not understanding your posts, when I certainly do.
You do everything you can to cast doubt on that verdict against the Cipriano's, merely because of Amaral, and not any altruistic motive.
and what makes you think she and her brother aren't guilty ?
you say you are interested in miscarriages of justice...how do you decide that a case MAY be a miscariage of justice..
you posted
In the absence of anyone providing a translated version of the entire proceedings together with legal knowledge which conclusively proves it is wrong I would incline to a default position that the courts had it right not the internet punters.
so you wouldn't even consider even the possibility of any case being a miscarriage without the above
just to re inforce...stephen is confused.. I have never said they are not guilty
How is it to be determined there is a potential miscarriage of justice without a review of the entire proceedings by a suitably qualified lawyer ? Sure some layperson can come up with a suspicion but that will have to be tested by a legal system which in turn will require a KE (kosher expert) rather than a Googler.
How is it to be determined there is a potential miscarriage of justice without a review of the entire proceedings by a suitably qualified lawyer ? Sure some layperson can come up with a suspicion but that will have to be tested by a legal system which in turn will require a KE (kosher expert) rather than a Googler.How is it to be determined that the McCanns are guilty of a cover up without the full judicial process? That being the case why aren't you challenging every poster on here you "doubts" the McCanns on a daily basis....hmm?
I am not confused in the slightest.
Get over it.
How is it to be determined that the McCanns are guilty of a cover up without the full judicial process? That being the case why aren't you challenging every poster on here you "doubts" the McCanns on a daily basis....hmm?
then why are you asking me this...
and what makes you think she and her brother aren't guilty ?
when I have never said that...totally confused
You are wasting your time.
Try to understand that, if of course you can.
i am wasting my time trying to get any sense out of you...very true
my point stands and you have not answered it...there would only be such a review if it had been decided there MAY have been a miscarriage....how would you decide whether this review was necessary
The same way any appeal is decided:
"Grounds for a criminal appeal must be based in law and not facts "
"Appealing a judgment on legal grounds means that the error in the judgment resulted from a problem with the law related to the case".
that looks to be total rubbish....grounds for an appeal can be new evidence...that's facts
You are content with the verdict in the Cipriano case, yes? A potential miscarriage of justice, no?1 Yes
Well, that doesn't look likely in the Cipriano case, with the mother being a convicted liar and murderer.
that looks to be total rubbish....grounds for an appeal can be new evidence...that's facts
It may look to be total rubbish to you but that is hardly a definitive statement is it?
as Barry George was...remember...as were the birmingham six..remember...and many more...who were convicted murderers
1 YesFrom everything I have read about this case there seems plenty of grounds for suspecting a miscarriage of justice, starting with, but not limited to, the proven use of torture on one of the defendants. You either don't have an opinion on whether or not there may have been a miscarriage of justice or simply don't care, that's your prerogative but don't lecture me for holding an opinion about it.
2 Is it? a miscarriage of justice is based on law not fact.
So which bit of Portuguese law do you believe is material and caused an error in the verdict ?
If you believe there has been a miscarriage of justice you must know why you believe it ?
I suppose if you have evidence of a miscarriage of justice, you can always launch an appeal - otherwise you must accept the verdict as it stands.
The same way any appeal is decided:
"Grounds for a criminal appeal must be based in law and not facts"
"Appealing a judgment on legal grounds means that the error in the judgment resulted from a problem with the law related to the case".
I don't know where your quote is from but new evidence is grounds for appeal and anything that suggests it isn't is rubbish...is that definitive enough for you
Yes but it is incorrect.
"new evidence - not grounds enough for an appeal"
Yes but it is incorrect.
"new evidence - not grounds enough for an appeal"
The same way any appeal is decided:
"Grounds for a criminal appeal must be based in law and not facts"
"Appealing a judgment on legal grounds means that the error in the judgment resulted from a problem with the law related to the case".
Almost every appeal I have heard in the Uk is based on new evidence
There has to be something unsafe (legally) about a conviction before any new evidence could be considered.
There has to be something unsafe (legally) about a conviction before any new evidence could be considered.
There is something drastically awry when a (proven) beating while in police custody is not regarded as sufficient to render a conviction unsafe ....
Yes but it is incorrect.
"new evidence - not grounds enough for an appeal"
It is blatantly obvious that if compelling new evidence came to light an appeal would be alllowed...surely no one can dispute that
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
In a civil case, an appeal is virtually automatic in PT, assuming that the basic conditions have been met. However, it seems to be limited to a reappreciation of points of fact or law that were deemed not or insufficiently taken into consideration at the lower level.
In a criminal case, the right to appeal appears to be the same, but I'd have to check, again, whether an appeal in a criminal case follows the same logic.
To double-check, yet again, as it is most definitely on here somewhere, my recollection is that the Supreme Court examines points of law (on the reasoning that by that stage, disputes of fact should have already been resolved).
I still haven't found whether the concept of a retrial actually exists or not in PT.
What I find confusing in this case is that the torture trial was separate. The result of the torture trial was that it was accepted that she had been tortured. That wasn't sufficient to throw the case out of court, however. There were still the facts of "common experience" such as children normally arrive home, therefore Joana did and all the other "facts" of a similar nature.
As she didn't take the stand, any confessions made by her due to torture were deemed inadmissible in court and were therefore almost irrelevant.
The fact that she eas alleged to have already confessed according to the media, and that judicial secrecy had been blatantly flouted in the media prior to the trial involving a jury - whose appreciation counted as much as those of the judges, wasn't even raised as an issue.
What resulted in her conviction was the "reconstruction" made by João in which he apparently involved her (or was made to say so). The fact that she didn't even take part in that reconstruction wasn't even questioned.
My understanding is that, if - for example - Joana had turned up alive (or her remains found), there would have been a new investigation.
In the meantime, whatever the legal imbroglio, there is nothing of substance that I can find as to what actually did happen to her.
It is entirely in the hands of the appellate court whether any new evidence may be submitted to support an appeal as the evidence has to satisfy laid down criteria. New evidence on its own will not automatically allow an appeal to be made.
as I have already said...it depends on the evidence...if the evidence is strong it will be enough to cause the case to be re opened...have the grace to admit when you ..and slarti...are wrong
There has to be something unsafe (legally) about a conviction before any new evidence could be considered.
But you are wrong. It's that simple.
But you are wrong. It's that simple.
as I have already said...it depends on the evidence...if the evidence is strong it will be enough to cause the case to be re opened...have the grace to admit when you ..and slarti...are wrong
There were easily enough glaringly evident holes to be picked had the initial defence been adequate. When a court accepts without question that wearing a dark top and red trousers in a TV appeal is a sign of guilt; /snip/ what can one say?
As I've already mentioned, the case already went to the Supreme Court. That's it - the end of the road.
Really? Wow! Who exactly accepted this?
So what on earth is everyone discussing about re an impossible appeal?
Which reminds me, how you getting on Davel with your communications with Marcos Correia vis a vis Leonors plight and what can be done about it?
Thanks for that. It seems to me a matter of meticulous scribing/recording procedure rather than proof the court "believed" her attire was "sign of guilt"...if the prosecution brought this in, a bit weak really. The answering in the past tense : I have read this can be viewed with suspicion by police/profilers/psychologists sometimes when speaking of a person one knows is gone, so is not that unusual here imo
Thanks for that. It seems to me a matter of meticulous scribing/recording procedure rather than proof the court "believed" her attire was "sign of guilt"...if the prosecution brought this in, a bit weak really. The answering in the past tense : I have read this can be viewed with suspicion by police/profilers/psychologists sometimes when speaking of a person one knows is gone, so is not that unusual here imo
3.5 Introducing New Evidence
In general, you cannot introduce new or additional evidence at your appeal. You must rely on the evidence that you submitted in the previous proceedings. However, you may introduce new evidence with leave (permission) from the division hearing the appeal (usually three judges). Rule 31 provides details about how to bring an application to court to decide this issue. The application is normally heard by the division at the start of your appeal hearing.
Bearing in mind the case we are talking about I found this simultaneously apposite and droll:
"Mrs Marshall's new evidence failed the "apparently credible" test, as, according to Lord Denning, "a confessed liar cannot usually be accepted as being credible",[1] and there was no satisfactory evidence that Mrs Marshall had been coerced by her husband to lie at the first-instance trial, and no other good reason for her doing so. Hodson and Parker L[Name removed] agreed with Lord Denning on this issue..."
3.5 Introducing New Evidence
In general, you cannot introduce new or additional evidence at your appeal. You must rely on the evidence that you submitted in the previous proceedings. However, you may introduce new evidence with leave (permission) from the division hearing the appeal (usually three judges). Rule 31 provides details about how to bring an application to court to decide this issue. The application is normally heard by the division at the start of your appeal hearing.
Bearing in mind the case we are talking about I found this simultaneously apposite and droll:
"Mrs Marshall's new evidence failed the "apparently credible" test, as, according to Lord Denning, "a confessed liar cannot usually be accepted as being credible",[1] and there was no satisfactory evidence that Mrs Marshall had been coerced by her husband to lie at the first-instance trial, and no other good reason for her doing so. Hodson and Parker L[Name removed] agreed with Lord Denning on this issue..."
Thanks for that. It seems to me a matter of meticulous scribing/recording procedure rather than proof the court "believed" her attire was "sign of guilt"...if the prosecution brought this in, a bit weak really. The answering in the past tense : I have read this can be viewed with suspicion by police/profilers/psychologists sometimes when speaking of a person one knows is gone, so is not that unusual here imo
there are lots of cases where appeals were decided on new evidence...that is a fact
But not the trigger for the appeal.
But not the trigger for the appeal.
then what apart from new evidence triggered the appeals...are you really trying to suggest that if dramatic new evidence comes to light that clearly throws doubt on the verdict...then an appeal cannot be made...that would be absurd and cannot be true
So that would a legal challenge to the existing case, I.e. The existing case has flaws, unsafe.
so the new evidence would be the trigger
Let's look at an example...
Man A has been found guilty of Murder, with CCTV evidence, DNA traces at the scene and the murder weapon in his possession. Man B comes forward an confesses to the crime. Is an appeal allowed?
Let's look at an example...try this one
Man A has been found guilty of Murder, with CCTV evidence, DNA traces at the scene and the murder weapon in his possession. Man B comes forward an confesses to the crime. Is an appeal allowed?
There's a lot of cod psychology out there, but I don't see what corroborates or refutes that alleged "red flag" in terms of expert evidence at the trial.
I only used those detalls as an example... the trial was riddled with uncorroborated / unchallenged statements taken as fact.
I found this interesting on detecting liars:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150906-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-spot-a-liar
Was this challenged in court?
There is still the issue that a jury was assessing the evidence along with the judges. I haven't the faintest idea whether there was some from of screening in place (or what form it may have taken) to eliminate those who'd followed the pre-trial, largely pro-PJ, media coverage.
This appears to be an issue all over the world with the advent of 24/7 news coverage.
The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Pill said "The question for [the Court of Appeal’s] consideration is whether the conviction is safe and not whether the accused is guilty".
I kicked off with:
"Grounds for a criminal appeal must be based in law and not facts. In other words, an appeal allows a defendant to attack the judgment of the trial court on legal, not factual grounds".
It would seem to be pretty much the same in many countries.
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/criminal-law/grounds-for-criminal-appeal.htm
Why Mccann supporters support the convicted mother and uncle - lets be honest, its not rocket science really.
Again, I can't answer for others.
Despite the torture aspect, I had assumed that they may well have been guilty until I started wading through the SC ruling to see what the evidence actually was. And that's when I realised just how flimsy the entire case was.
One could ask the question the other way around: why do so many of the sceptic community insist that they are necessarily guilty without thoroughly examining what the evidence actually was?
One reason might be that they are not particularly interested in the case and are content to accept the verdict of the court.
what that is saying is that the court cannot re judge the facts as presented at the trial....it is a fact that appeals can be made on new evidence......
so if Joanna turned up ....would the fact that she is not actually dead have any relevance
Let's look at an example...
Man A has been found guilty of Murder, with CCTV evidence, DNA traces at the scene and the murder weapon in his possession. Man B comes forward an confesses to the crime. Is an appeal allowed?
Again, I can't answer for others.
Despite the torture aspect, I had assumed that they may well have been guilty until I started wading through the SC ruling to see what the evidence actually was. And that's when I realised just how flimsy the entire case was.
One could ask the question the other way around: why do so many of the sceptic community insist that they are necessarily guilty without thoroughly examining what the evidence actually was?
try this one...there are many more...
Suzanne Holdsworth served three years of a life sentence after she was convicted in 2005 of murdering Kyle Fisher, a neighbour's two-year-old son, by repeatedly banging his head against a wooden bannister at her home in Hartlepool. She was found not guilty in 2008 by the Court of Appeal after new medical evidence suggested Kyle may have died from an epileptic seizure.[59]
My understanding is that
- If she turned up alive, then they could hardly stay in prison for her murder.
- If her remains were ever found, I assume that the investigation would have to be reopened.
However, it's possible (IMO) that any new evidence, per se, may not be sufficient to exonerate them. If it were to be conclusively proven that she had not been chopped up, then there's a problem with the "reconstruction"...
My introduction to the Cipriano case was as a result of a septic (sic) on a Yahoo comment thread who attacked me with my 'support for child murderers' ... absolute nonsense since I had never heard of Joana ...
The description I was given was of a blood saturated scene with drag marks across the floor with the child's little bloody hand prints on the door jamb with one of her nails embedded in it such was her struggle to survive.
I thought "Wow!".
When I looked for information on the case, amongst the little I was able to locate, I discovered that the septic advice I had been given was so far from the truth that it ranks as being delusional if believed.
I decided at that point that there were people out there so stupid they were mouthing off on propaganda about which they knew nothing and cared even less whether it was accurate or not.
Which merely adds yet another layer to the parallels between the Cipriano and McCann cases which shrink the seven miles between them to a hairsbreadth.
Presumably the Portuguese worked on a similar principle to the British as I posted on 7/01/2016.
"Det Ch Insp Howard Groves, who led the Met investigation, said he had "no nagging doubts" that Mr Banfield was dead, but admitted missing body murders were extremely difficult to prove.
He said: "You have to satisfy the jury that someone is dead and therefore not going to walk into a police station and say, 'I believe my wife and daughter have been convicted of my murder, but here I am alive and well'."
Presumably the Portuguese worked on a similar principle to the British as I posted on 7/01/2016.
"Det Ch Insp Howard Groves, who led the Met investigation, said he had "no nagging doubts" that Mr Banfield was dead, but admitted missing body murders were extremely difficult to prove.
He said: "You have to satisfy the jury that someone is dead and therefore not going to walk into a police station and say, 'I believe my wife and daughter have been convicted of my murder, but here I am alive and well'."
Despite the laudable legal principles, that doesn't appear to be how it worked in practice.
In this system, counter evidence had to be provided to balance the assertions made... for whatever reason, little was.
There was no countering expert testimony to testify that a speck of unidentifable blood on the handle of a broomstick or on the back of a freezer drawer did not a massacre make.
The PT system is inquisitorial, not adversarial.
Perhaps someone with a greater understanding of how this works in practice in a 3-day murder trial could explain...
Nonetheless the same principle will apply. The judges and jury ,if any, will need to be satisfied the person will not turn up in the fullness of time. The same principle will apply to determining that whether in an adversarial system or inquisitorial system. The details of how that is established in the UK has already been posted.
Without the full transcripts we are both shooting blind. My view being I am OK with it until someone proves there has been a miscarriage of justice, ie the court did not follow correct procedure. My default position would be the court had it right because I have no basis for an informed opinion on what the Portuguese court procedure is.
Your last sentence I agree with.
Again, I can't answer for others.
Despite the torture aspect, I had assumed that they may well have been guilty until I started wading through the SC ruling to see what the evidence actually was. And that's when I realised just how flimsy the entire case was.
One could ask the question the other way around: why do so many of the sceptic community insist that they are necessarily guilty without thoroughly examining what the evidence actually was?
I dont thnk anyone has stated they are definitely guilty but
because from the off their behaviour and statements are flimsy vis a vis innocence...constantly changed...innocent people do not change their statements from one extreme to the other
examining the evidence was the judges and the jury's job...they found a verdict....you are at liberty to think they were all brainwashed or corrupt or incompetent or stupid
Dont forgetet years later the mother was found guilty of perjury and further sentenced....shes not exactly mother bleedin theresa is she? She lied about her torture. Well, she can write a book about the truth when shes released and we can all read it.
Now thats rather a silly thng to say, that she was sentenced to more time because she couldnt see through her bag
She was sentenced for lying about what happened when she was beaten! Ie she changed her account more than once...pattern set when she lied about events in general
is there any evidence the PJ beat her? If so pls provide so i can read so i can put to bed the anecdotal testimonies That her inmates beat her and the pj took the fall for the Prison governor who was culpable?
Now thats rather a silly thng to say, that she was sentenced to more time because she couldnt see through her bag
She was sentenced for lying about what happened when she was beaten! Ie she changed her account more than once...pattern set when she lied about events in general
is there any evidence the PJ beat her? If so pls provide so i can read so i can put to bed the anecdotal testimonies That her inmates beat her
Now thats rather a silly thng to say, that she was sentenced to more time because she couldnt see through her bag
She was sentenced for lying about what happened when she was beaten! Ie she changed her account more than once...pattern set when she lied about events in general
is there any evidence the PJ beat her? If so pls provide so i can read so i can put to bed the anecdotal testimonies That her inmates beat her and the pj took the fall for the Prison governor who was culpable?
Lies, beatings, secret trials: the dark side of police handling Madeleine case
By DAVID ROSE
Last updated at 18:57 16 September 2007
**Snip
But Amaral's official silence is not the only difference between him and his counterparts in Britain.
In the UK, it is unlikely he would be leading the McCann inquiry at all.
Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry may never be charged with anything, despite their present status as arguidos, or official suspects, and by the end of last week, apparently well-placed sources were admitting that any case against them is circumstantial and weak
Amaral, however, is in a similar position. He, too, is an arguido, facing possible trial on a serious criminal charge arising from a murder case brought to court in 2004, the last occasion a little girl vanished in the Algarve.
The Mail on Sunday can today reveal new details of this case, the subject of a draconian judicial order that has stopped most sources who know about the case from talking to the Portuguese Press.
According to the order, documents about the case have been restricted to a handful of officials, while the next stage of the process – a hearing at which Amaral and four fellow officers may be asked formal questions – will be conducted in secret.
It is believed that this is set for next month.
Three of Amaral's senior PJ colleagues have been made suspects for the torture of the missing girl's mother, Leonor Cipriano, who has been convicted of killing her daughter Joana, aged eight, and jailed for 16 years.
As for Amaral, the claim against him is "omisado de denuncia" – that he tried to hide the evidence of the alleged torture or, in other words, attempted a cover-up. He is said to deny it strenuously.
In internet blogs and newspaper columns, Amaral's supporters have claimed that the Cipriano case is built on lies – a vicious smear against a decent detective trying to do his job.
It has, they say, "no connection" to the Madeleine McCann inquiry.
Experienced lawyers in Portimao, the town 12 miles from Praia da Luz where Amaral is PJ chief, disagree.
The case against the detectives began as a complaint lodged by Cipriano's lawyer, they pointed out, but has now been adopted by the public prosecutor.
"In order to bring formal charges, the public prosecutor has to believe there is a strong case," said Oliveira Trindad, who has practised law in the area for more than ten years.
"That means that after assessing all the evidence, he thinks that if the case goes to trial, a conviction is more likely than not."
That decision is likely to be made well before the McCann case is closed.
There are, to be sure, many differences between Leonor Cipriano and Kate McCann.
But there are also similarities, starting with the fact that although the bodies of their daughters have not been found, Amaral and his PJ colleagues have long been convinced that both girls are dead.
No one would suggest that in the course of the marathon interrogations that preceded their departure from Portugal last weekend, Kate or Gerry McCann were the victims of physical violence.
But at times it seemed they were also being subjected to torment, albeit of a different, psychological kind.
It, too, say Portimao's criminal defence lawyers, may have been inspired by PJ officers desperate to achieve the end they sought with Cipriano – a confession.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482007/Lies-beatings-secret-trials-dark-police-handling-Madeleine-case.html#ixzz3wywYSgzE
Goncalo Amaral was found guilty as charged ... a decision later upheld on appeal.(http://mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/joanacipriano101.jpg)
In the interim no trace of Joana Cipriano's body has ever been found and no-one looked for a living child once Goncalo Amaral had decided she was dead.
I recommend you read Carana's posts to inform yourself of the Cipriano case, she has carried out a good amount of research and uncovered a lot of information on a subject on which there doesn't seem to be a lot of accurate information.
You didnt answer my post just copied and pasted another borng artcle..or two...par for the course...its best if you speak for yourself
You asked for cites.
I have provided them.
Please do not complain when you get what you have asked for, it is terribly bad mannered.
If as we are led to believe a confession, under Portuguese law, is only valid when made in court the PJ really were incompetent knocking seven bells out of Leonor Cipriano for what would have been a worthless piece of paper.
She was found guilty of murder by a panel of three judges and three members of the public; not as the result of being beaten abhorrent though it is.
If Leonor didn't exhibit any sign of injury whilst in custody, why did the PJ file a report saying she had thrown herself down the stairs in the presence of officers?
It was proved in court that Leonor Cipriano was a torture victim and Goncalo Amaral was convicted of a cover up.
It was proved in court that Leonor Cipriano was a torture victim and Goncalo Amaral was convicted of a cover up.
Cover up something when he wasn't there. Interesting. Good old Amaral tortured her from afar @)(++(*
Cover up something when he wasn't there. Interesting. Good old Amaral tortured her from afar @)(++(*
And cipriano was convicted of murder...interesting you accept the portuguese courts in one case and not the other...
The fact is that Leonor Cipriano was convicted of murder.
The fact is that Goncalo Amaral was convicted of covering up her torture while in police custody on his watch.
Don't make presumptions on my behalf.
The fact is that Leonor Cipriano was convicted of murder.
The fact is that Goncalo Amaral was convicted of covering up her torture while in police custody on his watch.
Don't make presumptions on my behalf.
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/may/02portugal-report.htm
*snipped*
When Leonor was invited to identify her aggressors by an investigating magistrate in Évora in 2006, she was only able to identify one official who was present and did nothing to prevent the abuses, possibly because she had had a bag over her head for long periods, or due to the time that had passed, or because not all her torturers were among the six officers placed before her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inquisitorial+System
In the inquisitorial system, the presiding judge is not a passive recipient of information. Rather, the presiding judge is primarily responsible for supervising the gathering of the evidence necessary to resolve the case. He or she actively steers the search for evidence and questions the witnesses, including the respondent or defendant. Attorneys play a more passive role, suggesting routes of inquiry for the presiding judge and following the judge's questioning with questioning of their own. Attorney questioning is often brief because the judge tries to ask all relevant questions.
The goal of both the adversarial system and the inquisitorial system is to find the truth. But the adversarial system seeks the truth by pitting the parties against each other in the hope that competition will reveal it, whereas the inquisitorial system seeks the truth by questioning those most familiar with the events in dispute. *The adversarial system places a premium on the individual rights of the accused, whereas the inquisitorial system places the rights of the accused secondary to the search for truth.*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Leonor couldn't provide her truth therefore she was considered a liar. Except, of course, when it came to her confession, which was deemed to be her only true account of the matter.
You really are desperate aren't you using murderers word as the truth. I feel some would give her a crack after the evil bitch confessed to what she did but it couldn't have been Amaral because he was there @)(++(*
She blamed her brother and her brother blamed her and they both lied umpteen tmes, give us a break
And lets not forget all ths crapola is to def,ext frim the mccann case..well it wont work
It's already too late for Joao & Leonor as they have served their sentences, irrespective of their innocence or guilt.
However, it could easily have been the McCanns, had they not had such high level support.
It's already too late for Joao & Leonor as they have served their sentences, irrespective of their innocence or guilt.
However, it could easily have been the McCanns, had they not had such high level support.
It is fascinating to observe how mccann supporters believe the Portuguese Justice System got it right with Amaral, but wrong with the Cipriano's.
Who said she exhibited no signsnof injury...my query is about who actually beat her..can you debunk the story of her Inmates doing it and the prison governor covering it up?
The sequence of events is:
13 Oct - PJ picked Leonor up from Odemira prison at around 8.30 am and took her to Faro PJ station, where she was questioned by Cristóvão in the presence of her lawyer Dra. Célia Carocinho Costa.
8. No dia 13 de Outubro de 2004,no âmbito da referida investigação, a assistente Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano foi recolhida por agentes da polícia judiciária no Estabelecimento Prisional de Odemira cerca das 8,30 horas, conduzida ás instalações da Polícia Judiciária de Faro onde, nomeadamente,
Processo no 1503/04.3TAFAR 5
foi interrogada, na presença da sua defensora Dra. Célia Carocinho Costa, pelo ora arguido Paulo António Pereira Cristóvão;
14 Oct - PJ took her back to Odemira Prison at around 6.15 am.
9. A assistente Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano foi conduzida pela Polícia
Judiciária e entregue no Estabelecimento Prisional de Odemira cerca das 6,15
horas da manhã do dia 14;
14 Oct - PJ picked her up again at around 8.05 am and took her back to Faro again.
10. Nesse mesmo dia 14 de Outubro de 2004, cerca das 8.05 horas, a assistente
Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano foi de novo recolhida por agentes da Polícia Judiciária no Estabelecimento Prisional de Odemira e conduzida ás instalações da Polícia Judiciária de Faro;
14 Oct - Cristovão submits his notes (chopping up body, etc). p. 8
14 / early am 15 Oct - No (formal) interrogation that day.
17.Não foi efectuado nenhum interrogatório (formal) á Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano nesse dia;
15 Oct (a Friday) - Cardoso & Pedro Marques took Leonor from Faro station to Odemira prison's health centre at around 4 am, arriving at around 6 am, where certain injuries were noted. She went back to prison at around 7 am.
18. Cerca das 6.00 horas da manhã do dia 15, o arguido António Fernando Nunes Cardoso e outro agente da Polícia Judiciária cuja identidade não foi possível apurar, que conduziam a Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano ao Estabelecimento Prisional de Odemira, apresentaram-na no Centro de Saúde
Processo no 1503/04.3TAFAR 8
de Odemira onde, consultada pelo médico de serviço, este constatou que ela “apresentava edema traumático e hematomas já organizados e atingindo toda a área facial-frontal e temporal direita, edema palpebral grande, que lhe ocasiona o fecho total á direita”;
19. Não lhe foi feito então qualquer exame a outras partes do seu corpo;
20.Cerca das 7.00 horas dessa manhã, a Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano foi
entregue no Estabelecimento Prisional de Odemira;
21. Em consequência dos actos violentos descritos supra em 12, foi infligido á Leonor Cipriano sofrimento físico, tendo resultado ainda desses actos edema traumático e hematomas atingindo toda a área facial-frontal e temporal direita, edema palpebral grande, que lhe ocasionou o fecho total do olho direito, extensas equimoses na face anterior do tórax, nos hipocôndrios, na face lateral do terço inferior de ambos os hemitórax, no flanco direito, na região lombo- sagrada e na face lateral do braço direito. Estas lesões curaram em 21 dias, sem sequelas;
15 Oct - Cardoso writes up his report of the "attempted suicide".
22. No dia 15 de Outubro de 2004 o arguido António Fernando Nunes Cardoso elaborou e subscreveu uma “informação de serviço”, dirigida ao “Sr. Director Nacional Adjunto”,
http://home.iscte-iul.pt/~apad/ACED_juristas/maddietrab_ficheiros/Acordao%20Leonor%20Cipriano%20contra%20Goncalo%20e%20outros.%2022Maio2009.pdf
'Célia Carocinho Costa'
Cipriano committed perjury in court as you know.
She stated that she had no representation at first interview with the police, when in fact she had a female lawyer present. Is the name above, that lawyer Carana ?
'Célia Carocinho Costa'
Cipriano committed perjury in court as you know.
She stated that she had no representation at first interview with the police, when in fact she had a female lawyer present. Is the name above, that lawyer Carana ?
I don't know which first interview you are referring to.
The initial interviews with the Faro PJ were from 21 - 23/4 September (she was charged on 24 Sept.)
The "stair" saga was in October.
I am aware of that Carana.
However, one of the lies she told in committing perjury, was that she was not represented by a lawyer at her first interview with the police, whne she did have a female lawyer with her.
Are you advocating violence against women and condoning torture into the bargain?
I am aware of that Carana.
However, one of the lies she told in committing perjury, was that she was not represented by a lawyer at her first interview with the police, whne she did have a female lawyer with her.
Tut tut your getting more desperate. Amaral didn't torture her and that's a fact!
"You should also know that every year, on the 12th of September, my husband has a mass celebrated in memory of Joana Isabel Cipriani Guerreiro. He says that nobody will ever remember the poor little girl again."
http://news.sky.com/story/634179/sarky-note-to-madeleines-mum
Tut tut your getting more desperate. Amaral didn't torture her and that's a fact!
"You should also know that every year, on the 12th of September, my husband has a mass celebrated in memory of Joana Isabel Cipriani Guerreiro. He says that nobody will ever remember the poor little girl again."
http://news.sky.com/story/634179/sarky-note-to-madeleines-mum
Tut tut your getting more desperate. Amaral didn't torture her and that's a fact!
"You should also know that every year, on the 12th of September, my husband has a mass celebrated in memory of Joana Isabel Cipriani Guerreiro. He says that nobody will ever remember the poor little girl again."
http://news.sky.com/story/634179/sarky-note-to-madeleines-mum
It was proved in court that Leonor Cipriano was a torture victim and Goncalo Amaral was convicted of a cover up.
I have never denied that.
So? only a confession made in court would have been admissible so what is your point other than beating and torture are abhorrent ? which has now been done to death, if you will forgive my being droll.
might have been done to death but some on here are still denying it
So?
Returning to the OP why do so many McCann supporters give so much support to a convicted child killer and perjurer? Forget all the cut and paste trollocks and opinion, as it sits at present she is a convicted murderess a proven liar with her case and appeal having gone the full trip so why all the support?
Tut tut your getting more desperate. Amaral didn't torture her and that's a fact!
"You should also know that every year, on the 12th of September, my husband has a mass celebrated in memory of Joana Isabel Cipriani Guerreiro. He says that nobody will ever remember the poor little girl again."
http://news.sky.com/story/634179/sarky-note-to-madeleines-mum
Good grief is she trying to portray him as a good Catholic. I thought Catholics were expected to stay married to their first wife? IIRC he's 'had' three wives - but only two of them were his own. His girlfriend who he committed adultery with being someone else's wife.
He was wrong to say that nobody will ever remember the poor little girl again - as here we are still discussing the case years and years later.
So?
Returning to the OP why do so many McCann supporters give so much support to a convicted child killer and perjurer? Forget all the cut and paste trollocks and opinion, as it sits at present she is a convicted murderess a proven liar with her case and appeal having gone the full trip so why all the support?
"Whoever took Joana took Madeleine too, the distance is too small. And the police ignored everything we told them, they just wanted to solve the case quickly.''
Pure speculation.
More like pure rubbish @)(++(*
Because we believe in Justice...because we believe she may be innocent...because we do not like policemen abusing their position...because we do not believe in torture.....because we believe she was convicted on no real evidence....because we believe there may have been a miscarriage of justice
More like pure rubbish @)(++(*
"Whoever took Joana took Madeleine too, the distance is too small. And the police ignored everything we told them, they just wanted to solve the case quickly.''
Pure speculation.
"Whoever took Joana took Madeleine too, the distance is too small. And the police ignored everything we told them, they just wanted to solve the case quickly.''
Pure speculation.
Funny that 'the doubters' pick and choose the quotes which suit to run with. Mark William Thomas seems to have been fine when he spoke about 'woke and wandered' among the theories for the disappearance of a child.
He even has a dedicated thread on this theory on the forum.
**Snip
Criminologist and child protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas believes there are far too many similarities between the two cases for it not to be a strong line of police inquiry.
He says that because of the huge doubts over the Cipriano convictions, whoever abducted Joana is more than likely to be behind Madeleine's disappearance.
Like Madeleine's case, the police investigation got off to a bad start, with officers failing to seal off the house where she was last seen.
http://news.sky.com/story/603144/disturbing-similarities-with-madeleine
The difficulties inherent in the same co-ordinator whose actions in the Cipriano case had resulted in him being made an arguido the day after Madeleine's disappearance was surely a recipe for disaster.
On what basis?
I have no liking for police brutality and believe in justice for all, even the ones we don't like. Which seems to be anathema to some around here.
So in the absence of the transcripts of the proceedings on what basis do you hold your opinion about Cipriano vis a vis a miscarriage of justice?
Ah, snip time again.
When will you accept that no evidence has been found to show an abduction took place.
The only known facts are:
Madeleine disappeared from the apartment; and the mccanns were the last known people to have seen her alive.
Among the similarities of the conduct of the investigation into Joana's disappearance and Madeleine's disappearance is the shameful vitriolic press campaign mounted in the main against the mothers of both children.
Similar mumbo jumbo techniques of investigation were employed; for example the black top worn by Joana's mother was interpreted as a harbinger of Joana's death; the 'interpretation' of an alleged dream was promulgated as indicative of Madeleine's mother's knowledge of her death.
The difference is that Leonor Cipriano is an ill educated Portuguese woman, investigated by her own country's police and tried and convicted by her own country's legal system.
Dr Kate McCann is a well educated British woman who was protected by her British nationality and the eyes of the world from the Portuguese legal system which had dispatched Leonor Cipriano to what would have been oblivion had Madeleine McCann not vanished a short drive away from the place Joana Cipriano vanished from.
Another similarity is that neither child has been found.
One perhaps because no-one has been looking for her. The other because the golden hours after she vanished were squandered and the resources of the investigation squandered in the attempt to replicate the Cipriano 'coup'. IMO
Ah, snip time again.
When will you accept that no evidence has been found to show an abduction took place.
The only known facts are:
Madeleine disappeared from the apartment; and the mccanns were the last known people to have seen her alive.
Once again you make no attempt whatsoever to challenge the post or give any reasons why you disagree with it.
Instead you post Off Topic in an effort to deflect and derail the thread imo.
Q. Why is there so much support for Leonor Cipriano from McCann supporters?
A. Because promoting the notion of an abduction in the Cipriano case keeps alive the notion of an abduction in Maddie's
Q. Why is there so much support for Leonor Cipriano from McCann supporters?
A. Because promoting the notion of an abduction in the Cipriano case keeps alive the notion of an abduction in Maddie's
Joana Cipriano was killed by her own family after years of neglect. Sadie tried for ages to show she was a loved child who wanted for nothing but this was a lie. Poor little Joana was passed from pillar to post like a stray puppy. She lived in a tent for a while in a strangers garden and had to walk miles to school every day. Neighbours did their best to help her. Countless complaints were made to social services about her. Teachers were so concerned about her they went to see her at home. It was only when Leandro Silva came to get involved with her mother that things began to settle down for a while but the unsettling influence of her criminal thug uncle John was always there in the background. The poor little mite hadn't a hope in hell of a normal life.
Maddie's case has nothing in common with Joana's.
Q. Why is there so much support for Leonor Cipriano from McCann supporters?
A. Because promoting the notion of an abduction in the Cipriano case keeps alive the notion of an abduction in Maddie's
Joana Cipriano was killed by her own family after years of neglect. Sadie tried for ages to show she was a loved child who wanted for nothing but this was a lie. Poor little Joana was passed from pillar to post like a stray puppy. She lived in a tent for a while in a strangers garden and had to walk miles to school every day. Neighbours did their best to help her. Countless complaints were made to social services about her. Teachers were so concerned about her they went to see her at home. It was only when Leandro Silva came to get involved with her mother that things began to settle down for a while but the unsettling influence of her criminal thug uncle John was always there in the background. The poor little mite hadn't a hope in hell of a normal life.
Maddie's case has nothing in common with Joana's.
It is a bit of a two way street with Joana Cipriano's family voicing their support for Madeleine McCann's family in that they seem to be of the opinion the same police negligence is applicable to both Joana's and Madeleine's case.
'Disturbing Similarities' With Madeleine
By Alex Watts
The family of a girl who vanished just seven miles from the Portuguese resort where Madeleine McCann disappeared are convinced the cases are connected.
**Snip
"Whoever took Joana took Madeleine too, the distance is too small. And the police ignored everything we told them, they just wanted to solve the case quickly.
"They didn't look at any of the things we told them about."
They said the most crucial bit of evidence was a white and brown camper van, parked near Joana's home in the days before she was abducted.
The vehicle, with German number plates, disappeared around the time she vanished.
They added: "There was a man living in there, but he hardly left the van. A week later the van was found abandoned in farmland in Praia da Luz. We told the police to investigate it, but they didn't listen to us."
http://news.sky.com/story/603144/disturbing-similarities-with-madeleine
Erm.... Angelo. Are you sure you're talking about the right child?
Erm.... Angelo. Are you sure you're talking about the right child?
There might not be any connection at all, but the fact that two young girls vanished 10km away from each other is certainly a lead that I hope has been investigated.
Sadly, I doubt that the Cipriano investigation ever got as far as collecting, let alone examining, phone activity.
If the subject-matter weren't so serious, that response would reduce me to fits of laughter.
Let's just say the question is fair ....
And I suspect much of the background in the post Carana responds to comes from a disgraced ex-Portuguese cop (for once, not Amaral) ...
i'm not claiming otherwise...if this is true then it would be very important...but is it true....and as you cannot provide a cite....it brings the truth of these statements into question
Absolutely Carana, the neighbours, social services, the teachers and Leandro didn't lie!!
I'd agree that Leonor appears to have had a complicated life before she settled down with Leandro (at least according to some family members of her previous partners, and that various children were brought up by them. So far, ok.
But where on earth did you get that she was "passed from pillar to post like a stray puppy"? Or the "she lived in a tent for a while in a strangers garden"?
I'd agree that Leonor appears to have had a complicated life before she settled down with Leandro (at least according to some family members of her previous partners, and that various children were brought up by them). So far, ok.
But where on earth did you get that she was "passed from pillar to post like a stray puppy"? Or the "she lived in a tent for a while in a strangers garden"?
She was passed around like pass the parcel while her mother was off sleeping with other men. Neighbours had to rear the girl at times as Leonor disappeared on her drunken binges for weeks on end. Joana's father is on record saying he was shocked at what the little girl had gone through, Leonor moved so much he had lost touch with them but had he known he would have taken the girl.
Leonor was a crap mother, end off!!
She was passed around like pass the parcel while her mother was off sleeping with other men. Neighbours had to rear the girl at times, do keep up. Leonor was a crap mother, end off!!
Please provide links to newspaper quotes Carana.
I moved my reply.
Do you prefer CdM cites or the Supreme Court witness testimonies, which is what I was basing my reply on?
Leonor Cipriano may have been Ai We De and Mother Theresa all rolled into one but she was still found guilty of murder and sentenced to prison. Furthermore no one has really banged the drum effectually since she was sentenced with respect to there having been a gross miscarriage of justice.
Thank you Carana, either or both are always helpful.
I am at a bit of a loss on why we must post only on a Cipriano thread which is difficult to find. Two posts have been posted there today but there is no indication of that in the current discussion threads.
I think if it is acceptable to start off a new thread such as this comparing Cipriano and McCann ... it is unfair to disallow discussion and debate using the little evidence available to us regarding Cipriano.
We have numerous threads on the dogs which are now becoming a little 'threadbare' ... but some items have been informative and instructive despite there being much sameness and the inevitable repetition.
The same has happened (dissemination of information) on this thread with Carana's excellent research turning up things I had never seen before for example ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6930.msg299586#msg299586
I think it is informative posts such as this which are the mainstay of the forum.
The post you refer to has little bearing on the question asked in this thread. If anyone really wants to discuss the Cipriano case in detail then there is a board in which to do so. Recent limited interest in the case however leads me to the conclusion that it is only becomes of interest to McCann supporters when it suits their agenda.
Might there be a chicken and egg situation here?
Apparently Cipriano can only be discussed on the dedicated Cipriano thread. Which as I have pointed out does not appear among the current discussion threads even when a fresh contribution is added, as was done yesterday.
This is not applicable to the dogs.
The point I made in my post is that it is rather Queen of Hearts to post in a thread with Cipriano in the title and not be allowed to post anything meaningful about Cipriano.
The post you refer to has little bearing on the question asked in this thread. If anyone really wants to discuss the Cipriano case in detail then there is a board in which to do so. Recent limited interest in the case however leads me to the conclusion that it is only becomes of interest to McCann supporters when it suits their agenda.
As Angelo said, you want this case discussed in conjunction with the mccann one, for blatantly obvious reasons.
You could confirm with John, if you wish to, that I was one of those who voted in favour of a separate sub-forum for the Joana case.
The reason was precisely to separate the two cases.
You could confirm with John, if you wish to, that I was one of those who voted in favour of a separate sub-forum for the Joana case.
The reason was precisely to separate the two cases.
Carana, I wan't referring to you, it was Brietta.
I know you have done through research, even though we don't agree on many issues.
Carana, I wan't referring to you, it was Brietta.
I know you have done through research, even though we don't agree on many issues.
That was before my time on the forum, Carana.
A child murderer died yesterday and the detective who says he spent nearly twenty years of his thirty year service working on Black's murders is convinced of his involvement in many others.
The fact that there were so many similarities between Madeleine and Joana's disappearances join the two cases until proper investigation of both eliminates the possibility.
There has been no window of opportunity or the jurisdiction to do that in the open investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
There is no investigation into Joana's case as it appears to have been 'solved'.
Might there be a chicken and egg situation here?
Apparently Cipriano can only be discussed on the dedicated Cipriano thread. Which as I have pointed out does not appear among the current discussion threads even when a fresh contribution is added, as was done yesterday.
This is not applicable to the dogs.
The point I made in my post is that it is rather Queen of Hearts to post in a thread with Cipriano in the title and not be allowed to post anything meaningful about Cipriano.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with the theme of this thread.
Yet again you have jumped in with both feet and are in absolute error.
Last I heard she had been ostracised by her immediate family because of her involvement so it willl be interesting to see where she ends up after she is paroled.
ps Did Davel ever get a reply to his e-mail to Marcos Correia?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6930.msg297551#msg297551
That was before my time on the forum, Carana.
A child murderer died yesterday and the detective who says he spent nearly twenty years of his thirty year service working on Black's murders is convinced of his involvement in many others.
The fact that there were so many similarities between Madeleine and Joana's disappearances join the two cases until proper investigation of both eliminates the possibility.
There has been no window of opportunity or the jurisdiction to do that in the open investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
There is no investigation into Joana's case as it appears to have been 'solved'.
I hope that the renewed Madeleine investigation has enabled a re-evaluation of the verifiable "evidence" in the Cipriano case... of which there appears to be precious little.
When a suspect freely admits to involvement in her daughters disappearance evidence takes a back seat.
Confession - look no further - case closed. Isn't that the way of it?
Confession - look no further - case closed. Isn't that the way of it?
Why should evidence take a back seat, John?
That is exactly what happens when a suspect pleads guilty.
That is exactly what happens when a suspect pleads guilty.
But she didn't, did she.
There is a considerable body of evidence to show that false confessions do occur, for a variety of reasons, and are one of the leading contributors to miscarriages of justice.
The following study from Cornell is of course in the context of US law, but many aspects are equally relevant to European situation
http://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/FalseConfessions.html
I agree, false confessions do occur but not usually from two family members who are signing from the same hymn sheet.
That is exactly what happens when a suspect pleads guilty.
To answer that question one has to understand the timeline in the Cipriano case.
1. Both Leonor and João admitted involvement when represented by their first lawyer. She effectively to accidental killing of her daughter and he to assisting in the removal and concealment of a cadaver. On this basis they both appeared before an examining magistrate, she was remanded in custody, he was released on bail in order to assist police find Joana's body.
2. João failed to find the body despite taking police on several goose chases. Anyone would think he was playing for time but that is another story.
3. Given the admissions by both Leonor and João, police were not looking for anyone else, a full investigation was deemed unnecessary.
4. Enter our lawyer friend Marcos Aragão Correia into the equation. He turns up at court for the trial claiming to represent Leonor Cipriano even though she already had a lawyer. She pleads not guilty to murder and refuses to testify. João has also changed his plea and refuses to testify.
5. The police are left with no option but to go ahead and carry out a full murder investigation, the result of which we all now know.
Confession - look no further - case closed. Isn't that the way of it?
I have looked long and hard for confirmation that she confessed with a lawyer present. The only source is on the morais site with the source being the lawyer who was representing the pj officers re the torture allegations....hardly independent .
in order to settle this do you have a cite that confirms cipriano confessed in the presence of her lawyer before she was tortured
depends where the torture fits in the timeline
So you are not in the least bit concerned by the torture aspects of this case, John?
The presence of a lawyer is not a prerequisite to confession before a Portuguese magistrate.
Concerned yes, surprised no.
And yet you appear to be arguing that her conviction is perfectly sound.
And citing the fact that she and her brother both confessed in similar fact.
The very fact that torture was proven in court (even in the actual perpetrators could not be identified) would make me very cautious of being too certain of anything relating to this case.
That is exactly what happens when a suspect pleads guilty.
To answer that question one has to understand the timeline in the Cipriano case.
1. Both Leonor and João admitted involvement when represented by their first lawyer. She effectively to accidental killing of her daughter and he to assisting in the removal and concealment of a cadaver. On this basis they both appeared before an examining magistrate, she was remanded in custody, he was released on bail in order to assist police find Joana's body.
2. João failed to find the body despite taking police on several goose chases. Anyone would think he was playing for time but that is another story.
3. Given the admissions by both Leonor and João, police were not looking for anyone else, a full investigation was deemed unnecessary.
4. Enter our lawyer friend Marcos Aragão Correia into the equation. He turns up at court for the trial claiming to represent Leonor Cipriano even though she already had a lawyer. She pleads not guilty to murder and refuses to testify. João has also changed his plea and refuses to testify.
5. The police are left with no option but to go ahead and carry out a full murder investigation, the result of which we all now know.
And yet you appear to be arguing that her conviction is perfectly sound.
And citing the fact that she and her brother both confessed in similar fact.
The very fact that torture was proven in court (even in the actual perpetrators could not be identified) would make me very cautious of being too certain of anything relating to this case.
Are you presuming she is not guilty ?
I am.
Are you presuming she is not guilty ?
Good grief!
Torture has been proven in a Portuguese court of law.
The question of whether the torture came after or before the "confession" is irrelevant.
The fact of (proven) torture (by police) indicates, clearly, that the whole interview process was conducted under circumstances of duress, which ought to have been grounds, in its own right, for outright acquittal.
Instead, Leonor had her sentence increased because she is deemed not to have got her facts entirely straight while tied, terrified, to a chair, and beaten to a point of near blindness.
To say that this was not the finest hour of Portuguese "justice" would be an understatement ....
and what if you are wrong ?
What makes you think the witnesses who gave statements of how she was treated ?
Torture was mentioned in the summing up and was explained as suffering aggression whilst in custody. As you appear to be discounting the prior confession you seem to be suggesting that any criminal who can goad the police into giving them a slap should be automatically acquitted.
Are you presuming she is not guilty ?
not if there is evidence to convict them but certainly if there is no evidence...as it appears in this case
And yet you appear to be arguing that her conviction is perfectly sound.
And citing the fact that she and her brother both confessed in similar fact.
The very fact that torture was proven in court (even in the actual perpetrators could not be identified) would make me very cautious of being too certain of anything relating to this case.
The Judge obviously thought there was enough evidence.
The Judge obviously thought there was enough evidence.
The presence of a lawyer is not a prerequisite to confession before a Portuguese magistrate.
and what if you are wrong ?
What makes you think the witnesses who gave statements of how she was treated ?
What about The Judge who thought Leonor was innocent?
in every miscarriage of justice case the accused is found guilty
AS I have posted before...2 out of three judges is 66.6% guilty...that's not far from 50/50...and how sure were the other judges......how close was leonora to being acquitted
What about The Judge who thought Leonor was innocent?
Cite?
AS I have posted before...2 out of three judges is 66.6% guilty...that's not far from 50/50...and how sure were the other judges......how close was leonora to being acquitted
And yet you appear to be arguing that her conviction is perfectly sound.
And citing the fact that she and her brother both confessed in similar fact.
The very fact that torture was proven in court (even in the actual perpetrators could not be identified) would make me very cautious of being too certain of anything relating to this case.
0SOS Prisões and ACED produced a report that they sent to high-ranking Portuguese authorities with competencies in this field concerning the allegations of torture suffered in September 2004 by Leonor Cipriano at the hands of the judicial police in their offices in Faro. She is currently serving a 16-year and eight-month prison sentence in Odemira women's prison, after she was found guilty of killing her eight-year-old daughter Joana, who she reported as having disappeared. Cipriano maintains her innocence and told the author of the report, lawyer Marcos Aragão Correia, who visited her in prison on 8 April 2008, that there was no evidence to prove the allegations, before describing how she was mistreated for two days in order to induce her to sign a confession of this horrendous crime, which she eventually did. Correia also met the director of Odemira prison, Ana Maria Calado, who confirmed suspicions about Cipriano's treatment, noting that she was "shocked about the conditions in which Cipriano entered the prison". ACED argues that it does not have the means to confirm what the situation in terms of the practice of torture by the police in Portugal may be, but calls on the state to comply with its international obligations.
Leonor Cipriano's account
After accepting to meet Correia, Cipriano denied having played any part in the death of her daughter Joana, who disappeared on the evening of 12 September 2004 after she went out to buy some groceries for her mother in a nearby shop in Figueira, near Portimão, as she often did. Upon seeing that her daughter was taking longer than expected, she went to the shop and was told that Joana had been there, but had already left with a few groceries, after which the Guarda Nacional Republicana was called. On 25 September, Leonor Cipriano was placed in preventive detention in Odemira prison, and was taken by judicial police officers to their offices in Faro on the next day. She was upset by the allegations made against her (that she had killed Joana, cut her up and fed her remains to pigs), which she rejected. Meanwhile, and in the absence of any evidence, the five officers involved became aggressive, shouted and unsuccessfully tried to convince her to confess, after which the torture began. Two glass ashtrays were placed on the floor, and Leonor was forced to kneel on them, without being allowed to get up until she confessed. She showed Correia the scars on her knees, still visible four years later. She was then sat on a chair with a green plastic shopping bag over her head, and officers started striking her on the head with a cardboard tube, causing her haemorrhages resulting in blood descending to her eyes, and her hands were struck when she tried to take the bag off her head. She was told that she would not get out of there until she confessed, and was made to stand, sometimes with the bag on her head and sometimes without it, and punched and kicked on the side of her ribs, repeatedly.
The torture lasted for two days, after which she signed a confession, and she was then returned to prison, where her serious conditions led to her being taken to Odemira health centre. She was told by judicial police officers to tell the doctor that she had thrown herself down a flight of stairs in the Faro judicial police headquarters in a suicide attempt, threatening that if she spoke of any aggression, she would be interrogated again and would not survive. Cipriano said she did as they demanded in their presence, but told the prison officers and director of the prison what had happened once they left. The director ordered photographs to be taken of her, and for a legal-medical report to be drawn up as a result of her poor conditions. Leonor Cipriano's brother João was also reportedly tortured and found guilty of the murder, although the prison to which he was taken did not run the same checks to determine whether he had been subjected to an aggression. After they were both found guilty, he wrote to his sister to apologise for the lies he had been forced to tell about her. When Leonor was invited to identify her aggressors by an investigating magistrate in Évora in 2006, she was only able to identify one official who was present and did nothing to prevent the abuses, possibly because she had had a bag over her head for long periods, or due to the time that had passed, or because not all her torturers were among the six officers placed before her.
The prison director
Correia then spoke to Odemira prison director Ana Maria Calado, who confirmed Leonor Cipriano's account, noting how shocked she was about her conditions, with black marks, haematomae and bruising in her face, mainly around her eyes, her head and ribs, mainly on her sides. She assured that the physical marks clearly indicated a violent aggression and not a fall down some stairs, something the legal-medical report also confirmed. She noted that Cipriano's conditions worsened a week after she was tortured, as the blood that had gathered at the height of her brows was so much that it ended up falling over her eyes, leaving her practically blind for almost a month, and the director regrets not having ordered photographs of this period to be taken. She also said that relations between Cipriano and the prison guards and other prisoners were good, and that she did not believe that she had attempted suicide.
Calado expressed her surprise for a number of facts: a) that the judicial police did not take Cipriano to a health centre in Faro to certify that she had fallen down some stairs; b) that the day of her interrogation was chosen during Calado's week of holidays, when she would never have allowed her to be picked up at 6 a.m. without a formal request by the judicial police; and c) that judicial police officers who arrived from Lisbon to investigate the allegations of torture proposed sharing the blame between the judicial police and prison, something she refused. Correia praised the director, describing her as "courageous" and as prizing "values" more highly than "corporate interests".
Conclusion
The report concludes that the testimony of Leonor Cipriano and of the prison director, as well as other available evidence, are convincing in terms of proving that a crime of torture was committed by officers of the Portuguese judicial police. It condemns the use of "medieval methods" to "extract confessions at all cost, even if they are false", as "inadmissible" and as harmful for Portugal's image as an EU member that defends human rights and has a modern legal order and, as such, argues that these practices must be punished in "exemplary" fashion, or thePortuguese citizenry will lose faith in the judicial system.
The report ends with a message from Leonor Cipriano, who was treated as a monster as a result of the horrible nature of the crime she was accused and found guilty of committing:
"I hope that my daughter Joana appears, not only to be with her again, but also to show the world that it was the gentlemen officers of the judicial police who tortured me and who are the real monsters".
Source:
Relatório sobre Tortura de Leonor Cipriano, 8.4.2008, ACED - Associação Contra a Exclusão pelo Desenvolvimento, SOS Prisoes - report (pdf)
I thought the judicial panel was 3 judges and 3 members of the public all of whom carried equal weight?
The percentage is immaterial anyway in a case of majority. Either more did or more didn't.
My late aunt had a wonderful phrase which encapsulates the involvement of Leonor in her daughters disappearance, "she was in amongst the craws". For non Scots this is the equivalent of joint enterprise.
My own personal opinion is that Leonor did not kill Joana but covered for her brother, indeed, in her last written statement she claimed to at last speak the truth and blamed him. It could be that they knew perfectly well that if João went down for another serious crime that he would go to jail for a very long time. I believe they concocted a first story that she had been abducted and then when that failed they concocted another story claiming Leonor had accidentally killed the girl. I think the truth is in there somewhere and that both of them are guilty.
the point I was making was how close was cipriano to being acquitted...we don't know
Not close at all. The majority said guilty and that's all that counts.
A miss is a miss whether it's ten thou or ten miles.
the point I was making was how close was cipriano to being acquitted...we don't know
João had a criminal record.
However, no one in the family appeared to be particularly fond of him, so why would anyone cover up for him?
I think the third judge wasn't convinced she was a murderer and I have some sympathy with that even though she confessed. I believe her brother had much influence over her and probably still has.
the point I was making was how close was cipriano to being acquitted...we don't know
A million to one chance happens 9 times out of 10.... 8(0(*
Are we talking manslaughter or murder....didnt the court claim cipriano hit joanna and she banged her head
you don't know how close it was....
No, that was Leonor's own story but that was also the basis of the charge against her.
I never said I did know (I think).
The point is it does not matter as the majority rules. Your comment about "nearly being 50/50" or whatever is cobblers. If there are only three voters the result can be 100% in favour; 100% against; 67/33; 33/67.(rounded)
Not close at all. The majority said guilty and that's all that counts.
A miss is a miss whether it's ten thou or ten miles.
what was the courts account of what actually happened...what was proved
what was the courts account of what actually happened...what was proved
It might matter to you if it were your neck on the line...
That said, I still find some of the reasoning in the SC ruling to be bewildering. I'll try to find time to post some of it on a Cipriano thread in a day or two.
Noteworthy are:
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living room's walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
ad) the arguidos ensured that CC was dead, verifying that she neither breathed nor reacted, and then, not wanting to be held responsible over their daughter's and niece's death, decided to prevent said death from becoming known to others;
ae) therefore, they soon decided that they would have to ensure that the existence of any signs in the house of what they had just done could not be verified, that the minor's body would never be found and that, preferably, everyone would be convinced that the minor had been taken by a third party;
af) therefore, arguida BB remained at home, washing the wall and the floor that had signs of blood from CC, as well as the spot where the minor remained slumped after death, using a mop and its bucket to do so;
ag) and, as they knew that arguida BB's partner – II – and his friend, MM, were about to arrive at home, and could discover what had happened there if they arrived before the traces were cleaned, at around 9.30 p.m. arguido AA left, headed towards "Pastelaria...", where he met II and MM, who were already there, and whom he told that minor CC had not returned home;
ah) when the three of them returned home, arguida BB had already cleaned the existing blood marks, and equally mentioned that minor CC hadn't returned home after doing the shopping;
ai) confronted with what the arguida was saying, II and MM decided to go out and look for the minor, while the arguidos remained at home;
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;
am) with said instruments, helping each other, the arguidos cut CC's body, separating the head from the torso and cutting the legs at the knee area;
an) each one of those body parts was placed inside plastic bags – the head in one, the torso and part of the legs in another and the two legs below the knee in a third one – and after they knotted up the opening of the bag that contained the head, they tried, at least, to place said bags inside the deep freezer's three compartments, leaving blood from the minor on several areas inside the deep freezer's second drawer;
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;
It was never proven that Joana returned home from the village shop.
It was never proven that Joana returned home from the village shop.
Ah, John. Is Admin going to slap our wrists over this, do you think?
Have you worked out which of the so-called "proven facts" were judged so on the basis of the "rules of common experience"?
I have... but where should I post my compilation?
What I find really strange is that after alledgedly freely confessing to the major crime of murder - LC should then refuse - even after being brutally tortured - to say what they did with the body! That makes no sense to me - as there was nothing to gain by refusing to give up that info - once she had admitted murder.
The only logical reason for why neither of them would say where the body was IMO - was because they hadn't murdered her and so it was simply not humanly possible for them to answer that question - and no amount of torture would make any difference to that state of affairs. IMO the places that were mentioned were suggested to them by the PJ and probably agreed to - just to stop the torture.
Well it was proved that all her shoes were at home. Maybe she went out barefeet?
Well it was proved that all her shoes were at home. Maybe she went out barefeet?
Dave asked what had been proven according to the Court papers, I obliged with the Supreme Court findings.
Dave asked what had been proven according to the Court papers, I obliged with the Supreme Court findings.
I don't think Jaoa or Leonor actually admitted to anything in Court. And since we only have some supposed confessions of which we have never seen any sight, then heaven knows what The Court thought had happened.
But I do know that Incest was Unproven. And so was the blood in the fridge.
Incest was given as the motive. It's incredible to think that with the motive itself thrown out of court and no credible forensic evidence - there was still a guilty verdict.
Although IIRC the smear campaign against LC via the press was so successful that a baying mob arrived at the court. It would have been a brave juror IMO who would have given a 'Not guilty' verdict in the face of such massive public outrage. So much for the Secrecy laws.
(from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary)
Guilhermino da Encarnação: "This is extremely difficult because, in 30 years of criminal investigation, I've never seen the confession of such a serious crime without the arguidos saying they were tortured, attacked or raped so that this, for us police officers, and I tell you, unfortunately, it has become the norm, natural. Therefore I don't give it a lot of credence."
does this statement not confirm that the confession was a result of the beating
Incest was given as the motive. It's incredible to think that with the motive itself thrown out of court and no credible forensic evidence - there was still a guilty verdict.
Although IIRC the smear campaign against LC via the press was so successful that a baying mob arrived at the court. It would have been a brave juror IMO who would have given a 'Not guilty' verdict in the face of such massive public outrage. So much for the Secrecy laws.
(from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary)
so the court accepted as proved that the blood was Joanna's even though there was no DNA match...bizarre
The general idea of accepting something as fact under the rules of "common experience" is that you don't need to present an astrophysicist to testify that under normal conditions of natural light that midnight is likely to darker than midday.
Fine.
By extension, it can extend to other details that can be assumed to be true without the need for expert testimony.
However.... one may question just how elastic this degree of latitude should be.
would that explain the list of proven facts in the libel trial
Incest was given as the motive. It's incredible to think that with the motive itself thrown out of court and no credible forensic evidence - there was still a guilty verdict.
Although IIRC the smear campaign against LC via the press was so successful that a baying mob arrived at the court. It would have been a brave juror IMO who would have given a 'Not guilty' verdict in the face of such massive public outrage. So much for the Secrecy laws.
(from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary)
This thread really emphasises all roo well, how mccann supporters support the verdict against Amaral, but not against a convicted murderer and perjured.
Fascinating.
I find that it points out why it shouldn't be assumed that a miscarriage of justice can be dismissed in the Cipriano case.
I most certainly haven't laid all the blame at Amaral's door.
As far as I can see, the case should not have been accepted for trial in the first place, whatever his "evidence", and a murder trial lasting only 20 hours with such flimsy evidence appears to be more than dodgy. But Amaral isn't responsible for all of that.
Well it was proved that all her shoes were at home, if I recall correctly it was an aunt who went through the house checking. Maybe she went out barefeet?
I doubt it.
What he seems to be saying is the opposite: anyone who confesses then backtracks.
As there is no CCTV of time in custody, there is no way of determining what transpired during interrogations.
Well, the bruising was either imposed by make-up artists or, inflicted by torture ....
That an also be replied to Amaral's conviction.
How do you prove that?
How do you prove that there was not one pair of shoes, not at home, that she was wearing when she went missing?
I think that the reference to a comment made by the former head of Faro was in general terms.
Until every moment that a person is in custody is recorded audiovisually, anyone can claim anything.
A recommendation was issued fairly recently (a few years ago) to make an audio recording of formal interviews of arguidos. A step forward, if that's put into practice, but what about the "non-formal" ones?
It took me ages to work out how not recording police interviews protects suspects.
The answer is that (unlike under the adversarial system) statements made to police in interview cannot be used as evidence in court if matters proceed to trial.
But the Leonor conviction illustrates the other side of the coin ....
Laws have changed since those days regarding what's admissible or not, but it would take me a while to find exactly what has changed. To be honest, I'm not sure that I can be bothered as even if I did, it would be lost in the general shouting anyway.
This thread really emphasises all roo well, how mccann supporters support the verdict against Amaral, but not against a convicted murderer and perjured.
Fascinating.
Stephen, some of us actually believe that The Cipriano's Convictions were unsafe. How can we not? And of course it has something to do with The McCanns when there are so many parallels of what Amaral seems to think might have happened in both cases. Just how many dodgy fridges or freezers are there?
You wish to make connections for very obvious reasons.
However, in reality it is all hyperbole without any evidence to back it up.
You wish to make connections for very obvious reasons.
However, in reality it is all hyperbole without any evidence to back it up.
You wish to make connections for very obvious reasons.
However, in reality it is all hyperbole without any evidence to back it up.
No Stephen, I do not. So don't even think about it.
When it comes down to it Eleanor, it's all about opinions and how we all interpret 'evidence'.
What evidence is there to support the prosecution's allegation that Joana died in that house that evening, at the hand of her mother and uncle, and that they dismembered her body and disposed of it?
I can't find any.
That is a matter of opinion.
You don't need to find a body to obtain a conviction for murder.
When it comes down to it Eleanor, it's all about opinions and how we all interpret 'evidence'.
Of course it is, Stephen. But I give the benefit of the doubt, while you do not. However, is this not what it is all about?
There is no evidence on which to decide, either for or against The McCanns or The Ciprianos.
And has it not occurred to you that their parenting skills or lack of does not make them child killers?
According to your beliefs, I was probably the worst parent ever. I once dumped them all in some wood and left them to get on with it, although I did go back each evening to light the fire, before abandoning them yet again to the dark night.
All I really want you to do is to realise that no one is perfect. Most of us who dearly love our children just do the best that we can.
That is a matter of opinion.
You don't need to find a body to obtain a conviction for murder.
Putting words into my mouth ?
Did I say the McCanns are child killers ?
Of course I didn't, and you know that.
Would you have bothered about the Cipriano's but for the mccann case ?
That of course applies to both sides.
As regards the Cipriano's, there are witness statements as regards Joanna, and the confessions of the Cipriano's before Correia got involved in the case, and we know why he did that.
As I have staged before the mccann case is unlikely to be solved bar a confession, and the investigations are at a dead end.
As murder involves a degree of premeditation..... Ciprianos is not a murderer.... Convicted of otherwise
Intent is more important than premeditation.
Did they intend to kill her
I thought the court ruled she hit her head
Involuntary manslaughter is in contrast to voluntary manslaughter and occurs where a person kills, but does so without the intent to kill or cause GBH. Apart from the absence of the requisite intent, all other elements of the offence are the same as for murder.
This is from a blog that shall remain nameless but if you enter "Leonor Cipriano" into your search engine it will pop up.
"We first became aware of the dreadful account of the Cipriano family not long after Madeleine was abducted"
Maybe they still had cleft stick runners and village readers in that area?
It seems Leandro Silva made sure the Drs McCann were made aware of Joana's case ... it was bound to be an added concern.
Kate McCann 'being framed by Portuguese police'
Last updated at 11:17 08 August 2007
Kate McCann is being set up by Portuguese police to take the blame over Madeleine, it was claimed today.
The husband of a woman serving 16 years in another missing child case in the Algarve said: "I am worried Kate will be framed for a crime she did not commit, the way it happened to my wife."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-473964/Kate-McCann-framed-Portuguese-police.html#ixzz3xEX4Xq6S
Being framed ?
I presume you can prove that ?
At least, in the Cipriano investigation, the fridge that was the subject of the enquiry was identified ...
Amaral was, apparently, on the brink of finding the fridge in the Madeleine enquiry at the point he was removed.
He probably still is ....
You may not have noticed but I didn't actually say it.
As is my annoying wont ... I merely copied and pasted a newspaper report of the time ...
However had I been in the same situation as Madeleine's parents ... it would definitely have made me sit up and take notice.
I don't see the relevance to my post.
I would feel a lot more convinced with "supporters" (generic not specific) being sincere in their outrage at the Cipriano case had they been actively protesting and setting up fora and so on in 2004/2005. But for a "group" to openly admit they had never had of it until after MM disappeared leaves one thinking why the sudden interest at that point. They have certainly achieved Felicity Arkwright wrt Leonor Cipriano's "plight" despite the noise.
I know what you did Brietta and why you did it.
To give the impression from a newspaper headline, about the mccanns being 'framed'.
Unlike cuddle cat, it doesn't wash.
The answer is very simple.
Those who care about Joana (and were also tortured into "confessing" to her murder) were less proficient at publicising the plight of both themselves and their daughter than the McCanns.
They knew enough to start websites.
I am still at a loss to understand why Amnesty International seem to have given the "possible" miscarriage of justice such a wide berth considering AI started in the early 1960s on the back of human rights violations in Portugal and they covered the torture of Leonor Cipriano.
What would you expect them to do.....
It seems Leandro Silva made sure the Drs McCann were made aware of Joana's case ... it was bound to be an added concern.
Kate McCann 'being framed by Portuguese police'
Last updated at 11:17 08 August 2007
Kate McCann is being set up by Portuguese police to take the blame over Madeleine, it was claimed today.
The husband of a woman serving 16 years in another missing child case in the Algarve said: "I am worried Kate will be framed for a crime she did not commit, the way it happened to my wife."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-473964/Kate-McCann-framed-Portuguese-police.html#ixzz3xEX4Xq6S
I posted that a couple of days ago or so. You must have missed it. Abbreviated slightly it was:
Amnesty International say:
"Amnesty International has never been able to take up all the cases that come to our attention. We take up cases which are for example particularly grave, which are emblematic of a problem we are trying to address, where success in one case will have resonance for many others and where we think we can make a difference".
They seem to have given the Cipriano case a wide berth vis a vis getting in there and making the dust fly.
she was featured on the website...as were others and treated just the same as others so I don't see how that is giving her a wide berth
she was featured on the website...as were others and treated just the same as others so I don't see how that is giving her a wide berth
That was years ago, its all been swept under the carpet now since she was convicted of perjury.
Who would listen to anything a pimp says? Other than the Daily Fail that is and a reporter who didn't even dare put his name to the article.
I know that. They have dealt with the torture aspect but not a dicky bird about miscarriage of justice. Given they say:
"Amnesty International has never been able to take up all the cases that come to our attention. We take up cases which are for example particularly grave, which are emblematic of a problem we are trying to address, where success in one case will have resonance for many others and where we think we can make a difference".
They presumably did not think the case fitted into the categories in bold font.
did they feature Barry George
That is irrelevant.
Amnesty International have done nothing with regard to a miscarriage of justice in the Cipriano case nor has anyone else come to that. All the noise is coming from McCann supporters but even they seem to be doing little to advance the case of miscarriage of justice other than be noisy on sites like this. It is hardly an effectual approach to achieving a reversal is it?
Who would listen to anything a pimp says? Other than the Daily Fail that is and a reporter who didn't even dare put his name to the article.
I don't see the relevance to my post.
I would feel a lot more convinced with "supporters" (generic not specific) being sincere in their outrage at the Cipriano case had they been actively protesting and setting up fora and so on in 2004/2005. But for a "group" to openly admit they had never heard of it until after MM disappeared leaves one thinking why the sudden interest at that point?. They have certainly achieved Felicity Arkwright wrt Leonor Cipriano's "plight" despite the noise.
and all the noise coming from the sceptics has done nothing to advance a case against the mccanns...I don't see any point in your post...this is a discussion forum.....
Missing children's cases were generally only covered by domestic media up until relatively recently.
Most of the Portuguese appeared to be convinced that they were guilty back then, thanks to the negative pre-trial coverage, and how would people who don't understand Portuguese have even heard of the case?
The only reason I heard about the case was because pro-Amaral bloggers were translating the negative coverage for those following the McCann case.
So one of the worlds worst cases of defendant torture, fitting up and miscarriages of justice went quite unremarked in the international press until two to three years later when Madeleine McCann disappeared.
Pull the other bell its got legs on it.
So one of the worlds worst cases of defendant torture, fitting up and miscarriages of justice went quite unremarked in the international press until two to three years later when Madeleine McCann disappeared.
Pull the other bell its got legs on it.
Did you notice any international coverage of the Cipriano case back in 2004 /5? I certainly hadn't, but then I wasn't often anywhere that had broadband and relied mainly on local TV and newspapers for news.
So one of the worlds worst cases of defendant torture, fitting up and miscarriages of justice went quite unremarked in the international press until two to three years later when Madeleine McCann disappeared.
Pull the other bell its got legs on it.
You have answered your own question now...who said it was one of the worlds worst cases......no one on here apart from you....
this is the sort of case amnesty gets involved in......
A pardon granted by El Salvador’s Parliamentary Assembly to a young woman imprisoned after suffering a miscarriage is a triumph of justice and gives hope to the other 15 women languishing in jail on similar charges, said Amnesty International.
In 2007 “Guadalupe” received a 30 year jail sentence after authorities wrongly suspected she had terminated her pregnancy. She was only 18 years old.
El Salvador has one of the most draconian abortion laws in the world, criminalizing abortion on all grounds, even when a woman or girls’ life or health is in danger and in cases of rape. Women and girls suspected of having illegal abortions are also often cruelly and deliberately charged with homicide, as in Guadalupe’s case.
I learned of the Cipriano case at the end of 2013.
I was introduced to it by a sceptic on a Yahoo comment thread.
Therefore first hand confirmation that the negative aspects of the case were being promoted by pro-Amarals, as you said earlier. They obviously do not realise that the case does not bear close scrutiny.
The only visible promotion of this case I have observed has been from mccann backers, desperate to connect the Cipriano and Mccann cases.
Even though they know that Cipriano repeatedly lied and her accounts of events have led to her being convicted of perjury, resulting in an extension of her sentence, they cling on to her desperately.
There is no similarity between the cases, unless they wish to taint the mccanns with the same characteristics as Cipriano.
The only visible promotion of this case I have observed has been from mccann backers, desperate to connect the Cipriano and Mccann cases.
Even though they know that Cipriano repeatedly lied and her accounts of events have led to her being convicted of perjury, resulting in an extension of her sentence, they cling on to her desperately.
There is no similarity between the cases, unless they wish to taint the mccanns with the same characteristics as Cipriano.
The only visible promotion of this case I have observed has been from mccann backers, desperate to connect the Cipriano and Mccann cases.
Even though they know that Cipriano repeatedly lied and her accounts of events have led to her being convicted of perjury, resulting in an extension of her sentence, they cling on to her desperately.
There is no similarity between the cases, unless they wish to taint the mccanns with the same characteristics as Cipriano.
So you don't think the fact that Amaral was made an Arguido on 4th May in relation to his previous missing child case should have aroused any interest at all in that situation by people following the McCann case? Seriously?
And yet you have often brought up the Barry George case in relation to Andy Redwood. Can you explain the difference please which IYO makes that OK for you to do?
Do you agree that Cipriano lied in court and committed perjury ?
Do you agree as the courts found, that she kept changing her version of events ?
Are you saying Amaral committed criminal acts during his time as coordinator of the mccann case ?
Do you agree he was just one man with the view as to parental involvement, but he was not alone in that ?
What has any of that got to do with my question to you re Andy Redwood? Please explain why you see nothing wrong in bringing up the Barry George case in relation to Andy Redwood - but object to posters bringing up the Cipriano case in relation to Amaral.
It was classical Newtonian mechanics.
For every action there is a reaction.
The very need for mccann supporters to bring up the Cipriano case, illicited a reaction, to show that SY are far from full proof.
Didn't you comprehend that at the time ?
Now how about addressing the 4 questions in my last post. If you can.
the cipriano case is totally relevant to the mccanns case...one link being the convicted criminal...amaral
rather a silly statement...there is no similarity between the two..
I think we can all see why the sceptics want to hush up the cipriano case...why they voted to moveit toanother board...it is important as it explains the mccanns relationship with the PJ ...shows the PJ in a bad light anfd justifies why the MCCanns stopped co operating with them
I think we can all see why the sceptics want to hush up the cipriano case...why they voted to moveit toanother board...it is important as it explains the mccanns relationship with the PJ ...shows the PJ in a bad light anfd justifies why the MCCanns stopped co operating with them
It seems a lot of people forget...
"You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law."
It seems a lot of people forget...
"You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law."
I know Portuguese law has changed a lot in recent times.
But as I understood it at the beginning (when Madeleine first disappeared) statements made to police could not be used as evidence in court.
Which was where the idea of the arguido status protecting suspects came from.
Is that no longer true?
Or have I misunderstood?
I know Portuguese law has changed a lot in recent times.
But as I understood it at the beginning (when Madeleine first disappeared) statements made to police could not be used as evidence in court.
Which was where the idea of the arguido status protecting suspects came from.
Is that no longer true?
Or have I misunderstood?
.?
Fairly straightforward.
If you are called as a witness, you must answer questions and if you lie you can be sanctioned. This is a foundation of the inquisitorial system and helps to judge and authorites to investigate a case.
BUT
The police or other authorities are not allowed to ask you any questions which are leading or could incriminate you. If the police want to do that, then they have to make you an arguido and this means you have the right to refuse to answer and you can have a lawyer present.
So its a case of checks and balances. With an overlay of protection stemming from the excesses of the "ancien regime"
So now you understand what happens when YOU take quotes out of context......there is absolutely no contradiction between the two statements
Maybe you need to make yourself clearer.
Can witness statements be used against a witness in court....in the Uk a suspect has to be cautioned first
Dave - you need to think that through logically.
I have and I have reached a conclusion...just wanted to see if yours was the same...if the pj cannot ask questions that would incriminate then the information cannot be used....is your view the same
Portuguese legal procedure changes every time you blink. AFAIK, the version valid back then was the 2000 one.
so none of the mccanns witness statements could be used in evidence against them
As the procedural codes keep changing, I'd have to check back on that.
So you don't think the fact that Amaral was made an Arguido on 4th May in relation to his previous missing child case should have aroused any interest at all in that situation by people following the McCann case? Seriously?
And yet you have often brought up the Barry George case in relation to Andy Redwood. Can you explain the difference please which IYO makes that OK for you to do?
Sounds reasonable. In the UK you would have to be read your rights (become arguido) before your evidence could be used against you.
Barry Georges conviction was quashed as it was so obviously unsafe even to the blnd and deaf
He was convicted on questionable evidence and just one solitary piece
The ciprianos have lost all their appeals
There was more than enough evidence to convict in the judges and jurors eyes
Hardly the same situation
Chalk and cheese
What part Redwood played in that I dont know
Amaral being made arguido... Was years after the event, you have to ask why
It certainly might have raised interest but thats about it
You keep talking about fitting up of the Mccanns, just how would this ever have happened...it wouldnt, so the whole idea is moot / null and void IMO
The police only acted in questioning as many police forces do ...ask questions based on what they know and what they suspect,and how the whole interpretation goes down, they would be crap police if they didnt....
You also would be remiss into not researching the role payed by a certain psychic lawyer
Barry Georges conviction was quashed as it was so obviously unsafe even to the blnd and deaf
He was convicted on questionable evidence and just one solitary piece
The ciprianos have lost all their appeals
There was more than enough evidence to convict in the judges and jurors eyes
Hardly the same situation
Chalk and cheese
What part Redwood played in that I dont know
Amaral being made arguido... Was years after the event, you have to ask why
It certainly might have raised interest but thats about it
You keep talking about fitting up of the Mccanns, just how would this ever have happened...it wouldnt, so the whole idea is moot / null and void IMO
The police only acted in questioning as many police forces do ...ask questions based on what they know and what they suspect,and how the whole interpretation goes down, they would be crap police if they didnt....
You also would be remiss into not researching the role payed by a certain psychic lawyer
there was no evidence apart from the questionable confessions...according to montclair no one wins an appeal in portugal.....there must be a possibility of a miscarriage of justice...even to the blind and deaf. There have been a lot posted here with no cites to support it
Barry George had quite a history of criminal behaviour....it has not been established he was innocent...he may well be.....
The PJ were right to treat the McCanns as suspects...but...they did not understand either the dogs or the dna...they tried to build a case against the McCanns based on false evidence...that is afact
Fitting up of the mccanns ?
A mere cliche, rolled out time and time again.
The PJ were directed by UK police to investigate the mccanns, as would have happened in any police investigation.
No evidence could be found of abduction, and as it stands right now, `the current investigations are empty handed.
As to the Cipriano's, merely a stick to beat Amaral with, and let's not forget the woman is a perjurer, yet certain people believe everything she says.
The PJ were directed by UK police to investigate the mccanns, as would have happened in any police investigation.
That is a half-truth, trotted out time and time again ...
A competent investigation would have established the innocence of the McCanns without ever getting to the (Portuguese) arguido stage.
It does seem as if the profiler Rainbow said the McCanns should be investigated.
But only on the basis that they were closest to Madeleine.
Nothing else ...
Once again ferryman.
The crime has not been established.
There is insufficient evidence to charge anyone.
It has not been determined if a crime took place, i.e. If Madeleine walked out of the apartment.
The mccanns and associates accounts of events were inconsistent and changed.
Absolutely no independent verification the window was open before kate mccann returned to the apartment.
Can you care to remind us of how many times kate mccann did check on her children ?
Once again ferryman.
The crime has not been established.
There is insufficient evidence to charge anyone.
It has not been determined if a crime took place, i.e. If Madeleine walked out of the apartment.
The mccanns and associates accounts of events were inconsistent and changed.
Absolutely no independent verification the window was open before kate mccann returned to the apartment.
Can you care to remind us of how many times kate mccann did check on her children ?
There is abundant evidence of the innocence of the McCanns, one of the (important) things that matters.
The prosecutors said so in their archiving dispatch, and unless anything has come to light since to change the picture (not in the public domain) the position (in that respect) is the same.
And what Davel said ...
An abundance of evidence they are innocent ?
They haven't been charged ferryman.
Crime, if any , remains UNKNOWN.
You need to try harder, rather than just type mccann supporter mantra.
An abundance of evidence they are innocent ?
They haven't been charged ferryman.
Crime, if any , remains UNKNOWN.
You need to try harder, rather than just type mccann supporter mantra.
You need to learn how to assess evidence properly ....8@??)( 8@??)(
You need to learn how to assess evidence properly ....
I have no problems assessing evidence.
Your posts merely reflect your total backing for the mccanns, and nothing else.
The ONLY CLEAR FACTS remain.
Madeleine 'disappeared' from the apartment.
The mccanns remain the last known people to see her alive.
No trace of Madeleine has been found since that date, despite extensive investigation, including of paedophile rings.
'Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.'
and SY chasing abduction have found ZIP.
Fitting up of the mccanns ?
A mere cliche, rolled out time and time again.
The PJ were directed by UK police to investigate the mccanns, as would have happened in any police investigation.
No evidence could be found of abduction, and as it stands right now, `the current investigations are empty handed.
As to the Cipriano's, merely a stick to beat Amaral with, and let's not forget the woman is a perjurer, yet certain people believe everything she says.
P.S. It remains a fact that nmccann supporters always conveniently overlook, that the PJ were investigating parental involvement.
NO MATTER who led the investigation team, the mccanns would have been investigated. The lack of evidence for abduction, which as I said remains the case, would inevitably point to the parents.
amaral is also a perjurer...and he was the lead invesigator........he and the PJ misunderstood the evidence...
as an arguido he shouldn't even have been allowed near the investigation
There is abundant evidence of the innocence of the McCanns, one of the (important) things that matters.
The prosecutors said so in their archiving dispatch, and unless anything has come to light since to change the picture (not in the public domain) the position (in that respect) is the same.
And what Davel said ...
Cipriano is a perjurer.
Why should anyone believe her ?
and let's not forget Corriea's 'influence' in this case.
Absence of evidence of guilty does not equal evidence of innocence. Evidence of guilt of someone else is.
still think there could be a miscarriage of justice...the perjury was a very strange decision...guilty because she couldn't recognise who beat her...read up on it
Guilty because she said she did while having a bag on her head.
I'm not cross Eleanor.
Not even close.
torture was proven...that much we know...with overwhelming evidence....perjury was the result of not being able to identify her attackers...what disgrace the PJ were
Nope.
Guilty because she said she did while having a bag on her head.
Nope.
and Cipriano is a convicted perjurer.
ENOUGH SAID.
and Cipriano is a convicted perjurer.
ENOUGH SAID.
and Cipriano is a convicted perjurer.
ENOUGH SAID.
Picking up on one point:
"Amaral being made arguido... Was years after the event, you have to ask why"
The PT legal system may sometimes appear to work in mysterious ways, but surely not to the point of making the coordinator of an investigation an arguido over one case overnight due to the fact that a different child had gone missing a few hours earlier... yet kept him on the case.
It might keep the [ censored word ]s happy, but I doubt that it was more than a coincidence.
As an example: A police disciplinary investigation was conducted into Cristovão in 2005 over the Cipriano case, which resulted in 120 days suspension... which he appealed and the yoyo went on, but it wasn't until 2012 that an official notice was published rejecting his appeal.
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/paulo-pereira-cristovao/ministra-nega-recurso-a-pereira-cristovao-de-pena-aplicada-pela-pj
The Portuguese system was simply slow. The numerous changes that have taken place are attempts to speed it up.
i find it hard to understand why mcann supporters believe a convicted murderer and also believe a abductor took maddie its like they wnated her to be abducted by the way they say in every breath she was abducted and excuse the mcanns terrible parenting just imo
They have a good reason Carlymichelle.
If there was no abductor, what is left ?
They have a good reason Carlymichelle.
If there was no abductor, what is left ?
The investigation into the allegation of covering up the torture of Leonor Cipriano may not have come to fruition for "many years after the event" but as you have succinctly explained that was because of the slowness of the justice system and nothing else.
Any notion that there may have been a connection between Mr Amaral's arguido status declared on the 4th May and his subsequent trial finding him guilty of perjury has any connection to Madeleine McCann's case is risible.
Being made an arguido in any case involving accusation of torture of a prisoner should perhaps have occasioned his removal from active duty until the case was resolved.
The fact the case being brought against him was of covering for officers under his command who stood accused of the torture of a missing child's mother should have been enough to have had him replaced as co-ordinator of Madeleine's case.
we know the answer to that......
An interesting interview with the PJ officers' lawyer:
Interview
António Colaço, lawyer of four of the five arguidos: "This is a political process"
Correio da Manhã – Do you consider that the process should have been allowed to reach the court?
António Colaço – Obviously not. However since it did I expected it to have some juridical logic, which makes even more difficult the work of the Defense. I consider it to be a political process.
– Do you foresee any consequences in the work of the PJ ?
– It's already happening. The PJ professional work without schedules [long hours] and without weekends. They are holding back in their work, for fear of the consequences of their action. It was installed a climate of fear.
– Those this case put any doubts the sentence given to Leonor Cipriano?
– If this blasphemy against the PJ inspectors is proved, Leonor Cipriano will have to be released. Actually, if the system was coherent, Leonor should have been released when there was a dispatch of pronouncement [judgement] revealing indicia of aggressions.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-leonor-cipriano-confessed.html
With thanks to Joana Morais for translation.
Absolutely spot on. And from the horse's mouth.
Absolutely spot on. And from the horse's mouth.
On man's view.
t doesn't take into account that Cipriano repeatedly lied, and changed her account of events on numerous times.
Absolutely spot on. And from the horse's mouth.
What on earth possessed Aragão to introduce new "confessions" into this saga is beyond me...
An interesting interview with the PJ officers' lawyer:
Interview
António Colaço, lawyer of four of the five arguidos: "This is a political process"
Correio da Manhã – Do you consider that the process should have been allowed to reach the court?
António Colaço – Obviously not. However since it did I expected it to have some juridical logic, which makes even more difficult the work of the Defense. I consider it to be a political process.
– Do you foresee any consequences in the work of the PJ ?
– It's already happening. The PJ professional work without schedules [long hours] and without weekends. They are holding back in their work, for fear of the consequences of their action. It was installed a climate of fear.
– Those this case put any doubts the sentence given to Leonor Cipriano?
– If this blasphemy against the PJ inspectors is proved, Leonor Cipriano will have to be released. Actually, if the system was coherent, Leonor should have been released when there was a dispatch of pronouncement [judgement] revealing indicia of aggressions.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-leonor-cipriano-confessed.html
With thanks to Joana Morais for translation.
Me too. But then I have become increasingly suspect of this man's motives.
Wow! Coming from the lawyer for the PJ that is pretty electrifying.
It also is in accord with what many posters have been saying about a conviction where torture is involved.
The court found that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured.
Instead of bringing her conviction into question as being unsafe and her release ... she received a further sentence.
Since first learning about this case that was one aspect with which I could never reconcile.
I don't care which side of the fence a person sits on ... that has to be considered quite bizarre.
An interesting interview with the PJ officers' lawyer:
Interview
António Colaço, lawyer of four of the five arguidos: "This is a political process"
Correio da Manhã – Do you consider that the process should have been allowed to reach the court?
António Colaço – Obviously not. However since it did I expected it to have some juridical logic, which makes even more difficult the work of the Defense. I consider it to be a political process.
– Do you foresee any consequences in the work of the PJ ?
– It's already happening. The PJ professional work without schedules [long hours] and without weekends. They are holding back in their work, for fear of the consequences of their action. It was installed a climate of fear.
– Those this case put any doubts the sentence given to Leonor Cipriano?
– If this blasphemy against the PJ inspectors is proved, Leonor Cipriano will have to be released. Actually, if the system was coherent, Leonor should have been released when there was a dispatch of pronouncement [judgement] revealing indicia of aggressions.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-leonor-cipriano-confessed.html
With thanks to Joana Morais for translation.
All bizarre indeed.
The first part of the linked article says:
"Leonor Confessed the crime on the 13th of October and she alleges she was beaten a day later
Leonor Cipriano, the killer meanwhile condemned, confessed all of this facts to the PJ on the 13th of October 2004, in the presence of her lawyer, who at the time was Célia Costa, who has also signed statements that were given to the Inspector Pereira Cristovão. Leonor's brother, João Cipriano, had previously confessed the crimes a few days before, on the 8 of October".
Why is that Eleanor ?
All bizarre indeed.
The first part of the linked article says:
"Leonor Confessed the crime on the 13th of October and she alleges she was beaten a day later
Leonor Cipriano, the killer meanwhile condemned, confessed all of this facts to the PJ on the 13th of October 2004, in the presence of her lawyer, who at the time was Célia Costa, who has also signed statements that were given to the Inspector Pereira Cristovão. Leonor's brother, João Cipriano, had previously confessed the crimes a few days before, on the 8 of October".
A second hand report. Still no sign of an actual confession.
All bizarre indeed.
The first part of the linked article says:
"Leonor Confessed the crime on the 13th of October and she alleges she was beaten a day later
Leonor Cipriano, the killer meanwhile condemned, confessed all of this facts to the PJ on the 13th of October 2004, in the presence of her lawyer, who at the time was Célia Costa, who has also signed statements that were given to the Inspector Pereira Cristovão. Leonor's brother, João Cipriano, had previously confessed the crimes a few days before, on the 8 of October".
Extremely interesting. I have often wondered why she was taken back to court - I originally thought it was in connection with the case's inclusion in Amnesty International - under the torture section. Now I'm not so sure,
Carana - can you confirm that it was not the idea of any of the officers she had originally named as her torturers to bring this action for perjury against her? ( IIRC one of those officers praised LC for her honesty when she did not pick him out in an identity parade.) I remember reading about that and wondering who did bring the case against her - but have been unable to find it.
Pure speculation on my part at the moment but if that is true then therefore it was other people in the Judicial hierarchy who decided to take her back to court and IMO the following quote would be the reason why they needed to discredit her - rather than admit that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
Quote
If this blasphemy against the PJ inspectors is proved, Leonor Cipriano will have to be released. Actually, if the system was coherent, Leonor should have been released when there was a dispatch of pronouncement [judgement] revealing indicia of aggressions.
Unquote
Re:
"Carana - can you confirm that it was not the idea of any of the officers she had originally named as her torturers to bring this action for perjury against her? ( IIRC one of those officers praised LC for her honesty when she did not pick him out in an identity parade.) I remember reading about that and wondering who did bring the case against her - but have been unable to find it"
I'll come back to this when I find the links again.
All bizarre indeed.
The first part of the linked article says:
"Leonor Confessed the crime on the 13th of October and she alleges she was beaten a day later
Leonor Cipriano, the killer meanwhile condemned, confessed all of this facts to the PJ on the 13th of October 2004, in the presence of her lawyer, who at the time was Célia Costa, who has also signed statements that were given to the Inspector Pereira Cristovão. Leonor's brother, João Cipriano, had previously confessed the crimes a few days before, on the 8 of October".
Whilst trawling through the "Cipriano Board" I found this rather interesting post from Mr Moderator in November 2013. The original is in large font and red!
"Warning to members in respect of continued false claims that there is no evidence against the Ciprianos. Anyone knowingly posting FALSE material will have their posting permissions suspended".
On man's view.
t doesn't take into account that Cipriano repeatedly lied, and changed her account of events on numerous times.
this statement is from the lawyer representing the PJ ...no independent verification...from what I can see this is the only source to the claim she confessed previously and was made simply to try and disprove the torture
Whilst trawling through the "Cipriano Board" I found this rather interesting post from Mr Moderator in November 2013. The original is in large font and red!
"Warning to members in respect of continued false claims that there is no evidence against the Ciprianos. Anyone knowingly posting FALSE material will have their posting permissions suspended".
You're happy to accept Amaral lied Eleanor.
Now do you accept Cipriano lied as well ?
Amaral obviously did lie. He was convicted of such.
I don't know about Leonor Cipriano. The Court Case was ghastly.
A second hand report. Still no sign of an actual confession.
No, she lied.
She changed her 'story' several times.
so is there any evidence against the ciprianos...it would seem not...this was posted 2 yeas ago and still no one has been able to come up with any..
Do you seriously think that under all circumstances, always, whenever anyone says anything at variance with the facts, they are lying?
You probably do ....
Come again?
I can.
And I can also spot propaganda when I read it ...
One could say that about the whole article that was linked.
Come again?
"Warning to members in respect of continued false claims that there is no evidence against the Ciprianos. Anyone knowingly posting FALSE material will have their posting permissions suspended".
Can't you read ?
No, she lied.
She changed her 'story' several times.
You are an expert in Portuguese Law, are you?
Do you have to be to determine when two stories differ ?
Probably.
Don't be obtuse Eleanor.
Take your own advice.
I asked you a straightforward question. Do you have to ability to discuss things like an adult ?
You are an expert in Portuguese Law, are you?
Do you, might be more to the point.
But please stop this now.
Haven't you read the judgement of the court, and through the several changes in Cipriano's versions of events leading to the perjury conviction, and extended sentence ?
Yes, I have. And I don't believe a word of it. Presuming that I understand it.
Why ?
Yet you are more than happy with Amaral's conviction, aren't you ?
That is called cherry picking.
There is a difference you know. But maybe you can't see it.
That's easy, because it goes against the grain of what you want to believe to be true, rather than the actuality of the trial results.
The woman and her brother remain convicted killers, and she is a convicted perjurer.
well G A ....was a detective .....and according to some ...he didn't do his job...he has stayed focus on maddie the victim in all this through no fault of her own
now what about them two .....they never did there job ....as either parents ....or doctors....they are the ones that are a disgrace .......because they knew what they were doing was wrong...and have focused more on there reputation ....and what it has done to them
However deluded they are, even the most rabid McCann supporter must acknowledge that being left unattended in an unlocked apartment subjected the mccs children to the risk of harm.
Under new legislation David Cameron proposes to introduce as a result of the safeguarding issues raised by the Rotherham child exploitation case and others, anyone in a position of responsibility, such as a teacher, social worker or police officer, who becomes aware of a child placed at risk the way Madeleine was and yet fails to report this to the authorities, faces a jail term of up to five years.
So what does this have to do with the McCanns?
Well, had this legislation been in place at the time, a certain social worker who has been vilified for making contact with the police would have been compelled to do so as a professional responsibility, or risk a prison sentence. This would probably also apply to the childcare workers.
Just to add that medical staff were already expected to report care concerns to Social Services, so Kate McCann, as a GP, would have been expected to report to the authorities any children on her register that she knew were being left alone in the way that the McCann children were.
I don't think there were any three year olds involved in the Rotherham Scandal.
dont quite get what you mean babe...............my point was
the mccs ..did everything wrong.....as parents ....as doctors
Don't try to use the Rotherham Scandal as another stick with which to beat The McCanns, Sweet Cheeks.
no ...babes ...i don't use sticks ...just opinions OK.......
i think the sticks are used for G A poor man ....he lost everything ....all he was doing was his job ....that he should have been left to do..
no ...babes ...i don't use sticks ...just opinions OK.......
i think the sticks are used for G A poor man ....he lost everything ....all he was doing was his job ....that he should have been left to do..
It was no part of Amaral's job to cover for fellow thugs of the PJ who beat the cr*p out of a poor, defenceless and vulnerable Portuguese woman ....
If only he had been any good at it.
that's only your opinion of it all
I'm more interested in all the cover ups of what happened to a little girl called maddie ...
with too much government involvement and not enough policing ...
i believe GA was removed for that reason
no ...babes ...i don't use sticks ...just opinions OK.......
i think the sticks are used for G A poor man ....he lost everything ....all he was doing was his job ....that he should have been left to do..
Was writing a book and making a documentary a part of his job?
No evidence against the Ciprianos.
It's plain and straightforward.
well G A ....was a detective .....and according to some ...he didn't do his job...he has stayed focus on maddie the victim in all this through no fault of her own
now what about them two .....they never did there job ....as either parents ....or doctors....they are the ones that are a disgrace .......because they knew what they were doing was wrong...and have focused more on there reputation ....and what it has done to them
However deluded they are, even the most rabid McCann supporter must acknowledge that being left unattended in an unlocked apartment subjected the mccs children to the risk of harm.
Under new legislation David Cameron proposes to introduce as a result of the safeguarding issues raised by the Rotherham child exploitation case and others, anyone in a position of responsibility, such as a teacher, social worker or police officer, who becomes aware of a child placed at risk the way Madeleine was and yet fails to report this to the authorities, faces a jail term of up to five years.
So what does this have to do with the McCanns?
Well, had this legislation been in place at the time, a certain social worker who has been vilified for making contact with the police would have been compelled to do so as a professional responsibility, or risk a prison sentence. This would probably also apply to the childcare workers.
Just to add that medical staff were already expected to report care concerns to Social Services, so Kate McCann, as a GP, would have been expected to report to the authorities any children on her register that she knew were being left alone in the way that the McCann children were.
How many more times. The McCanns did no different to hundreds of thousands of other parents who have left their children asleep and gone to dinner WHILST ON HOLIDAY - knowing they would be regularly checked. This has been an accepted method of childcare for years and years for families WHILST ON HOLIDAY - and one which is offered as a SERVICE to parents by hoteliers, tour operators etc. for people WHILST ON HOLIDAY.
If they did wrong then so has every other parent who has done the same - some of whom are still doing the same. AFAIK no-one has ever been arrested for signing up to the Listening Service and going to dinner WHILST ON HOLIDAY AFAIK no-one has been arrested for leaving their children asleep and taking a baby alarm with them to go to dinner or to a bar - or wherever - WHILST ON HOLIDAY.
The only difference between the McCanns and those other parents is that their child disappeared. I've no doubt that many of those other parents who did the same at that time - went home breathing a huge sigh of relief and thinking '''There for the grace of God....... I'm also sure that after seeing what happened to Madeleine many of them would never contemplate doing that again. Unfortunately many have not - and so it still carries on. Which is why I think it should be banned.
Talking as if the McCanns are the only parents on the planet to have mirrored the Listening service - and that it is some terrible crime which is unique only to them - for which they deserve to be persecuted and hounded for the rest of their lives- is totally inexplicable to me. It could have happened to any number of the thousands of other children whose parents did the same IMO.
And please don't tell me that no other parents who have left their children asleep have ever left a window open or unlocked - or a door unlocked or a key under the mat when they went off for their evening meal.
Oh fgs......how ott is that post ...and off topic
ooops @)(++(*
No doubt you read all the court records and were present at all hearings interviews etc?
Well I would expect nothing less for you to be able to speak with such authority.
Maybe you should hire yourself out at a grand a day or so as a world leading authority on the subject ?.
Or may be a general purpose jack of all trades who knows nothing about everything as opposed to an expert who knows everything about nothing..... 8(0(*
no ...babes ...i don't use sticks ...just opinions OK.......
i think the sticks are used for G A poor man ....he lost everything ....all he was doing was his job ....that he should have been left to do..
i don't know why yopu continue to post such conkers...we don't need to see all the court transcripts...although we have seen some. we know enough about Barry george to know the evidence against him and we know enough about the cipriano case to know there was no evidence against them.....
IIRC he was removed for breaking the Secrecy Laws by slagging off the UK police to a reporter. Which part of that flagrant abuse of his own country's laws qualifies him as ''just doing his job'' IYO ?
.
i don't know why yopu continue to post such conkers...we don't need to see all the court transcripts...although we have seen some. we know enough about Barry george to know the evidence against him and we know enough about the cipriano case to know there was no evidence against them.....
In which capacity are you responding:
A general purpose jack of all trades who knows nothing about everything or an expert who knows everything about nothing ?
Come off it. "We don't need to see the court transcripts", that makes it belief.
Come off it. "We don't need to see the court transcripts", that makes it belief.my post was.......we don't need to see all the court transcripts...although we have seen some.
neither...as an extremely educated ..intelligent person...who can read newspapers...search the net...translate portuguese articles... in what capacity are you questioning my reasoning
my post was.......we don't need to see all the court transcripts...although we have seen some.
that makes my opinion one based on evidence and your snipped quote dishonest
so is this an opinion based on belief or an opinion based on evidence....I have read ALL THE AVILABLE evidence...much of it from the morais site
So there is evidence which is unavailable?
How many more times ? Amaral spoke to a journalist OFF THE RECORD ! What policeman has not spoken to a journalist OFF THE RECORD ? Other policemen are just lucky that their conversations stayed OFF THE RECORD. If every policeman who had spoken OFF THE RECORD to a journalist was to lose his job who would we have manning the streets ? I'm sure every police officer who has spoken to a journalist OFF THE RECORD has breathed a sigh of relief that it was not his OFF THE RECORD conversation that was printed all over the daily tabloids. How much longer must this poor man suffer for an OFF THE RECORD comment ?
8(0(*
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/04/leonor-cipriano-condemned-to-seven-more.html
More to come.
http://www.dn.pt/dossiers/sociedade/caso-joana/noticias/interior/tribunal-de-juri-absolve-inspectores-acusados-de-tortura-1241252.html
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/04/leonor-cipriano-condemned-to-seven-more.html
More to come.
http://www.dn.pt/dossiers/sociedade/caso-joana/noticias/interior/tribunal-de-juri-absolve-inspectores-acusados-de-tortura-1241252.html
There are numerous other links to Cipriano's case.
However, one thing is very apparent.
She is a liar, not just once, but on repeated occasions.
....and pertinently, how much influence did Correia have on her, and the 'testimony' she gave ?
There is no doubt the Cipriano woman is an abject liar.
Any testimony she gave has to be examined in reference to the lies she told , and any effects it had on other people.
my reading of the situation is that leonora told the truth...she was not responsible for Joannas death...and where did the truth get her...a life sentence...she saw The PJ profit from telling lies...what an utter disgrace they were ...thta why in later years she would make up any story to be released from a sentence for a crime she did not commit
She may not have got every last detail right. I suspect most of us wouldn't, beaten to a point of near blindness with a bag over our head, but to the best of her ability in terrifying circumstances, she was truthful as she could be ....
She kept changing her story and to.d several blatant lies.
Stop making excuses ferryman.
You are only defending her, merely because it suits your agenda.
I (actually) hope you are never in Leonor's position ....
I (actually) hope you are never in Leonor's position ....
LOL - I'm surprised at you Faith as Amaral himself gives breaking Judicial secrecy as the reason for his departure. He knew he was for the high jump for whining to the Press - so it seems he disagreed with your attempt to water down the seriousness of what he had done. He calls it a blunder. In view of the vile campaign against the McCanns in the PT press using leaks from the PJ - I call it Karma.
Allegedly there is a 200 page charge document in the Cipriano case.
Has anyone a translated copy of it?
Tell the truth and you can't go wrong.
Be honest Benice any police coordinator who suspected the McCanns would have had his reputation massacred by you supporters in the way Amaral has no matter how squeaky clean It's entirely unfortunate that he has given you so much ammunition.
i find it hard that anyone actually believes that simply by telling the truth you cannot go wrong....have you not heard of a miscarriage of justice...perhaps you haven't
What reputation would that be Faith ? I'm truly amazed that you can't see that Amaral needs no help from me or anyone else to 'massacre his reputation' - he did that all by himself. No-one forced him to abuse his position as a policeman and lie to cover up the torture of a defenceless woman who was in his care at the time - that was all his own work. Policemen are supposed to protect us from criminals not become criminals themselves.
Corrupt cops like Amaral and his chums who abuse the power entrusted in them are the lowest of the low IMO.
Be honest Benice any police coordinator who suspected the McCanns would have had his reputation massacred by you supporters in the way Amaral has no matter how squeaky clean It's entirely unfortunate that he has given you so much ammunition.Apart from that
Apart from that
You'd be hard pressed to name many that the Mccanns but particularly KM though in her book and elsewhere, werent scathing of, belittled, scoffed at, criticised, blamed, vaguely incriminated, and so on.
8@??)( kate mcann blames anyone but herself
What reputation would that be Faith ? I'm truly amazed that you can't see that Amaral needs no help from me or anyone else to 'massacre his reputation' - he did that all by himself. No-one forced him to abuse his position as a policeman and lie to cover up the torture of a defenceless woman who was in his care at the time - that was all his own work. Policemen are supposed to protect us from criminals not become criminals themselves.
Corrupt cops like Amaral and his chums who abuse the power entrusted in them are the lowest of the low IMO.
To top it all it was the ingratitude....no one was out looking for Madelene, we were all alone, just us...or words to that effect.....not even a mention of the scores of staff and volunteers searching through the night..ah well
I think you missed the point. "Any coordinator" look at the F***** T****** comment.
In this country they wouldn't have been left alone would they? There would have been a Police Officer left to stay with them, they felt alone, it must have been horrible.
They acknowledged all the volunteers searching through the night, they thanked them for their support.
I have read widely into the background of this case...there is a lot of information on this forum and the morais blog...
Apart from the confessions...which I feel are suspect....I can find no real evidence against the ciprianos.
I am happy to be corrected....but despite repeated requests no one has been able
Is support for Leonor Cipriano based on a desire for Justice or it related to the officers involved in the case?
The thing which establishes guilt for me over and above the known facts was Leonor's last written statement to the appeal court. This is real evidence and not imaginary or made up evidence, it certainly wasn't drafted under duress. Her lawyer Marcos Correia went to great pains to explain that this was a plea from the heart, one final attempt to set the record straight.
In this statement Leonor blames her brother Joáo for the killing after an alleged attempt at child trafficking went wrong. Leonor claims that her only involvement was in a conspiracy with her brother to cover up the crime and effectively defeat the end off justiice.
By her own hand therefore she admits her guilt.
A 200 page charge document?
I must admit that was my reaction but that's what it says here.
The interesting point about this link is that on the wiki entry for Joana Cipriano it is the only cite that predates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/view/805-48
is there any evidence to support any of these allegations......it seems there is not
I don't know.
As you say you have read extensively on the subject perhaps you will be kind enough to tell us the content of the charge sheet. Or better yet provide a link to it.
I get the impression you are trying to deflect from my questioning of the evidence..
The conversation you trunked into was between me and Carana about a 200 page charge sheet. The word evidence was not used except by you. Your post would seem to have been the deflection old stick.
Now was there a 200 page charge as per the link posted or not ?
I read the link you posted and 99% of it concerned the allegations made...that's what I commented on...i think that is perfectly reasonable
The McCanns aren't convicted child murderers so quite acceptable I'd say.So as the McCanns are not suspects either is it unacceptable to say that there is evidence of wrong-doing by them?
So as the McCanns are not suspects either is it unacceptable to say that there is evidence of wrong-doing by them?
No.Why not?
Is it your opinion or is it an established fact?If there is actual forensic evidence in this case such as that listed by the PhD student in his or her article, then what is it? Let's have the list. It seems we are not allowed to say it's an established fact that there is no evidence in the Cipriano case - are you trying to get Davel banned?
How has it been established by you there is no evidence?
Could a moderator explain why it is acceptable to say there is evidence against cipriano ...but when I said there wasn't any real evidence i was effectively banned...this is the Justice forum after all.
i have now provided evidence to back my claim...perhaps stephen would have the courtesy to do the same...
Is it your opinion or is it an established fact?
How has it been established by you there is no evidence?
If there is actual forensic evidence in this case such as that listed by the PhD student in his or her article, then what is it? Let's have the list. It seems we are not allowed to say it's an established fact that there is no evidence in the Cipriano case - are you trying to get Davel banned?
An abject failure, both by the Portuguese judiciary and members of this board to understand that proven torture renders a whole judicial process null and void is the falsehood.
Let's be clear davel since I know you like to split hairs. You posted that there was "no evidence against the Ciprianos" which I pointed out last night was untrue and extremely insulting of the Portuguese justice system. I will agree however that had they not admitted involvement in Joana's disappearance then that evidence could have been seen as incapable of sustaining a conviction.
Everyone accepts they were tortured, everyone accepts they confessed. In Law the former might very well negate the latter but that doesn't render murderers innocent in the real world.
I must admit that was my reaction but that's what it says here.
The interesting point about this link is that on the wiki entry for Joana Cipriano it is the only cite that predates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/view/805-48
red.....you need to read the post again
My post supports the lack of evidence...this is a totally independent Portuguese source...no one on here...including the portuguese posters have been able to post any real evidence apart from the confessions.....so where is it...does it exist
The thing which establishes guilt for me over and above the known facts was Leonor's last written statement to the appeal court. This is real evidence and not imaginary or made up evidence, it certainly wasn't drafted under duress. Her lawyer Marcos Correia went to great pains to explain that this was a plea from the heart, one final attempt to set the record straight.
In this statement Leonor blames her brother Joáo for the killing after an alleged attempt at child trafficking went wrong. Leonor claims that her only involvement was in a conspiracy with her brother to cover up the crime and effectively defeat the ends of justice.
By her own hand therefore she admits her guilt.
Everyone accepts they were tortured, everyone accepts they confessed. In Law the former might very well negate the latter but that doesn't render murderers innocent in the real world.If the convictions were overturned and the two were re-tried, then presumably they would be tried in the spirit of innocent unti proven guilty, would they not?
What you are effectively suggesting is that the convictions should be overturned on the basis that they were tortured. That is a legal matter and does not change the facts as known to us which clearly indicate they are both culpable.
The evidence established by the court has been provided to you on several occasions. This evidence was substantial enough to persuade two judges that they committed or were involved in a conspiracy to murder, a third judge believed Leonor was implicated but not guilty of murder. Regardless of their crime, neither are innocent.
If the convictions were overturned and the two were re-tried, then presumably they would be tried in the spirit of innocent unti proven guilty, would they not?
If the convictions were overturned and the two were re-tried, then presumably they would be tried in the spirit of innocent unti proven guilty, would they not?
If the convictions were overturned and the two were re-tried, then presumably they would be tried in the spirit of innocent unti proven guilty, would they not?
Does anyone know at what stage Paulo Cristovao, who was the recipient of the signed confession from Leonor, was drafted in from Lisbon to aid the Faro PJ?
The evidence established by the court has been provided to you on several occasions. This evidence was substantial enough to persuade two judges that they committed or were involved in a conspiracy to murder, a third judge believed Leonor was implicated but not guilty of murder. Regardless of their crime, neither are innocent.
But they haven't been overturned and as they've run out of appeals it looks like they never will.Irrelevant to my point. In any case, are you telling me that if compelling new evidence turned up that exonerated them that they would still have to sit out their sentences?
Yes.Which therefore makes a nonsense of the contention that: "(their convictions having being overturned) is a legal matter and does not change the facts as known to us which clearly indicate they are both culpable".
Whilst trawling through the "Cipriano Board" I found this rather interesting post from Mr Moderator in November 2013. The original is in large font and red!
"Warning to members in respect of continued false claims that there is no evidence against the Ciprianos. Anyone knowingly posting FALSE material will have their posting permissions suspended".
Does anyone know at what stage Paulo Cristovao, who was the recipient of the signed confession from Leonor, was drafted in from Lisbon to aid the Faro PJ?
Which therefore makes a nonsense of the contention that: "(their convictions having being overturned) is a legal matter and does not change the facts as known to us which clearly indicate they are both culpable".
Leonor Cipriano has almost completed her sentence yet instead of pleading innocence and wanting to recover her daughters remains she insists on blaming her brother for the girls death. She is therefore either telling the truth, a compulsive liar or off her trolley. I'm afraid her actions are not in any way indicative with her being an innocent woman.
In the first session of the trial, Joana's stepfather, António Leandro, admitted that João Cipriano confessed that he and Leonor would answer for the crime of murder, desecration and hiding the corpse of little Joana. "He told me that the girl had seen them having sex and that they had killed the girl". However, Leandro received a totally different version from Leonor when he visited her in prison. Leonor told him that the corpse of Joana was in an old house, where she had been "taken to the back", but he found nothing.
The woman is a menace, she just can't help herself, no wonder the Court later found her again guilty, of perjury this time. Maybe she was tortured into lying in court too?
Irrelevant to my point. In any case, are you telling me that if compelling new evidence turned up that exonerated them that they would still have to sit out their sentences?
Neither are anywhere near completing their sentences.
One of the conditions for parole is to acknowledge remorse for your crime.
What are the options?
- You refuse, because you see no wrong in what you did (e.g., people distanced from reality).
- You find a compromise to get the hell out of prison (innocent or not).
- You refuse because you are innocent and prefer to wait it out.
Any others?
They have both passed the buck. Whether that was spontaneous or under some form of outside influence remains to be seen.
Neither are anywhere near completing their sentences.
One of the conditions for parole is to acknowledge remorse for your crime.
What are the options?
- You refuse, because you see no wrong in what you did (e.g., people distanced from reality).
- You find a compromise to get the hell out of prison (innocent or not).
- You refuse because you are innocent and prefer to wait it out.
Any others?
John Cipriano has already been out on escorted day release so Leonor will follow suit later this year. This will see them eventually released into the community on licence.
You missed out the bit where he stated in court that she'd only said that because she'd been beaten. The only question asked of him in court was whether he'd noticed any signs of beating to her eyes or her arms, to which he replied no.
She was taken to Faro hospital for alleged internal pains in the stomach area. Any beating on the stomach would not appear visible on the face or arms, obviously.
Would the Faro PJ have taken her to hospital for menstrual cramps? Seriously?
But no new evidence, compelling or otherwise, has turned up.
Has Cipriano ever made any attempt, through relatives, to find her daughter ?
If the photographs presented in court show her face at that time he would not have been able to miss the bruises.
The relatives believe the girl dead which is not an unreasonable belief given the trail of lies perpetrated by both Leonor and John Cipriano.
Which ones?
There are numerous court statements that were neutral-to-postive about Leonor which weren't translated. I have a list of them, if ever you're interested.
I think one of the similarities with Madeleine's case is the focus on prosecution which led to the prevailing belief of law enforcement that as Joana was dead and that as Madeleine was dead all that was required to solve the cases was a confession of some sort.
Confessions were forthcoming in Joana's case.
Having confessed to the heinous crime one wonders what prevented the confessed perpetrators from producing proof positive in the form of Joana's mortal remains and grant her a Christian burial? Who knows, such a revelation could have been worth a month or two off each sentence.
No confession was forthcoming in Madeleine's case, and there the similarity ends.
Without any proof that she is dead ... Madeleine has the right to be presumed to be alive and has the right to be looked for, as at present.
No-one is looking for Joana.
That was eleven years ago.
Thanks. I can see where you're coming from, but this article is dated 14-05-2005 (i.e., pre-trial) and has no byline.
The 20-hour (!) trial started on 12 October.
- How on earth can a charge sheet go on for 200 pages?
- How did this get "leaked" even if that is accurate?
- Why no byline?
NO ONE has found any trace of either Madeleine or Joana, since either of them 'disappeared'.
New rules?New to me - I don't read the Cipriano board - is this rule included in the Forum Rules section?
You will have to expand on that? Whose contention?Perhaps you should read back - it was a direct quote from Admin, I believe, only two or three pages back.
Has Cipriano ever made any attempt, through relatives, to find her daughter ?Maybe. Who knows? Do you?
You are asking questions I cannot answer and could only speculate on.
The cite is number 2 on the Wikipedia entry about Joana Cipriano given in reference to the alleged horrific way she died.
I only posted the link because it refers to a 200 page charge report. Which I guess is a narrative of what the AG's office thought had happened followed by a list of all the charges.
I would love to see it. It must be some document.
I find it supremely ironic that questioning authority / the establishment / the status quo etc is seen to be an admirable prerequisite of the online "non-sheeple" ever-questioning"sceptic", yet when one questions the authority and received wisdom of the Cipriano verdict and the PT Judicial system one is often reproached and reviled by the self-same "only asking questions" brigade.
That applies to the mccann supporters as well.
Amaral verdict GOOD.
Cipriano verdict BAD.
Or some verdicts are more equal than others.
A pastiche of Orwell you might say.
Leonor Cipriano has almost completed her sentence yet instead of pleading innocence and wanting to recover her daughters remains she insists on blaming her brother for the girls death. She is therefore either telling the truth, a compulsive liar or off her trolley. I'm afraid her actions are not in any way indicative with her being an innocent woman.
@ Alice
What it could mean is the file sent to the prosecution.
I'd be interested as well, but I doubt very, very much that the entire story of non "formal" interviews would appear on record.
The forensic results of the alleged crime scene were summarised in the trial record... and there's absolutely nothing noted of any relevance. I find the lack of evidence to be cringeworthy.
Personally I have no firm opinion either way on whether or not Leonor Cipriano and her brother killed Joana. I do however think that their inquisition, trial and conviction were extremely unprofessionally handled and that there is potentially a miscarriage of justice. I do not support Leonor but I do support the idea of a reinvestigation into the case, not that there is a hope in hell of this ever happening IMO.
Personally I have no firm opinion either way on whether or not Leonor Cipriano and her brother killed Joana. I do however think that their inquisition, trial and conviction were extremely unprofessionally handled and that there is potentially a miscarriage of justice. I do not support Leonor but I do support the idea of a reinvestigation into the case, not that there is a hope in hell of this ever happening IMO.
I support Leonor .....
even with all the evidence that her mum killed her?? and is in jail you are gullable in both cases
even with all the evidence that her mum killed her?? and is in jail you are gullable in both cases
what evidence...cite...I would love to see it
I support Leonor .....
So you support someone, who has repeatedly lied and been convicted of perjury and murder.
Nice.
Photographs of tools used to dismember Joana's body were produced in court.
That is, photographs of the tools.
Not the tools themselves ....
Let's be clear davel since I know you like to split hairs. You posted that there was "no evidence against the Ciprianos" which I pointed out last night was untrue and extremely insulting of the Portuguese justice system. I will agree however that had they not admitted involvement in Joana's disappearance then that evidence could have been seen as incapable of sustaining a conviction.
too bad for the little girl isnt it
So you support someone, who has repeatedly lied and been convicted of perjury and murder.
Nice.
NO ONE has found any trace of either Madeleine or Joana, since either of them 'disappeared'.
Too bad for those who care about justice for Joana, that a confession under torture seems to be about the only evidence.
Out comes the cliche.
'justice for Joana'
What does that mean exactly from your perspective ?
Cipriano GOOD.
Amaral BAD, perhaps ?
Out comes the cliche.
'justice for Joana'
What does that mean exactly from your perspective ?
Cipriano GOOD.
Amaral BAD, perhaps ?
Read my post properly Benice and try to understand it.
NO ONE has found any trace of either Madeleine or Joana, since either of them 'disappeared'.
On point 2, emphatically!
On point 1, unless a proper trial decrees otherwise, yes!
even with all the evidence that her mum killed her?? and is in jail you are gullable in both cases
No one has found a trace of Ben Needham since he disappeared (without the speech marks).
But that truth just doesn't seem to have penetrated your brain ...
Oh, the insults start again.
Then again, given your nature hardly surprising.
So no trace of Ben Needham, how long have you known that for ?
Who repeats the mantra: no evidence of abduction?
I'm sure it's not me ....
Are you trying to goad ?
It's not going to work.
Are you trying to goad ?
It's not going to work.
i will never understand how these people support a convicted child murderer and a couple who adandoned their kids yet think we are the enemy because we question the mcanns sometimes i think they are all wind up trolls no one could be that nieve and dumb could they? its like they are not allowed to think for themselves? yet they crusify GA for doing his job?
I hold neither Kerry Needham responsible for Ben's disappearance nor the McCanns responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.
I hold neither Kerry Needham responsible for Ben's disappearance nor the McCanns responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.
The cases bear no comparison at all.
the confession was not admissable...so you confirm that the evidence against Joanna could be seen as incapable of sustaining a conviction...by your admission the evidence must therefore have been poor
The confession was accepted by the court even though Correia's lawyer Marcos Correia objected to it which was his right. The judges undoubtedly heard the tape recording prior to it being played to the court and decided on balance that it was given freely and without coercion. Those are the facts, we are stuck with them, no amount of maybes and if only's can change that situation.
Bottom line is both Leonor and John Cipriano confessed at different stages of the proceedings to this dreadful crime for which they were ultimately found guilty on the evidence.
The confession was accepted by the court even though Correia's lawyer Marcos Correia objected to it which was his right. The judges undoubtedly heard the tape recording prior to it being played to the court and decided on balance that it was given freely and without coercion. Those are the facts, we are stuck with them, no amount of maybes and if only's can change that situation.
Bottom line is both Leonor and John Cipriano confessed at different stages of the proceedings to this dreadful crime for which they were ultimately found guilty on the evidence.
leonora's confession was not accepted or heard by the court..as I understand it was not admissible...Jaoa's should not have been allowed either...but the prosecution claimed it was reconstruction so the court allowed it..
confessions are only accepted if they are made in court... Leonora's confession was beaten out of her as far as I can see...so is meaningless
Then take it up with the Portuguese, I'm sure they will be all ears.
The confession was accepted by the court even though Correia's lawyer Marcos Correia objected to it which was his right. The judges undoubtedly heard the tape recording prior to it being played to the court and decided on balance that it was given freely and without coercion. Those are the facts, we are stuck with them, no amount of maybes and if only's can change that situation.
Bottom line is both Leonor and John Cipriano confessed at different stages of the proceedings to this dreadful crime for which they were ultimately found guilty on the evidence. If they were innocent as some claim they had every opportunity to give evidence to the court but they refused. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
Torture and the the threat of torture are inextricably linked.
The fact that photographs of tools allegedly used to dismember Joana's body were produced as 'evidence', in its own right, says much about the quality of justice that convicted the pair.
If, indeed, Joana's body had been mutilated in the home, the home would have been, literally, teeming with her DNA. We know Portugal has a perfectly competent forensic laboratory.
Why was no effort made to ascertain Joana's blood, and DNA, if that's what happened?
The confession was accepted by the court even though Correia's lawyer Marcos Correia objected to it which was his right. The judges undoubtedly heard the tape recording prior to it being played to the court and decided on balance that it was given freely and without coercion. Those are the facts, we are stuck with them, no amount of maybes and if only's can change that situation.
Bottom line is both Leonor and John Cipriano confessed at different stages of the proceedings to this dreadful crime for which they were ultimately found guilty on the evidence. If they were innocent as some claim they had every opportunity to give evidence to the court but they refused. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
The only pieces of the Cipriano case which are as yet undetermined are what part Leonor and John Cipriano actually played in the girl's demise. Originally Leonor claimed that she had hit the girl striking her head off a wall in the house causing death, she also claimed that she asked her brother to hide the body. Next John Cipriano claimed that they both had done it and that he hid the body. Despite being released on bail he failed to locate the girls remains. He took police to several sites which would appear that he was playing for time all along and had no intention of finding any body.
The story then morphs into a child abduction and trafficking case. It was claimed that this had gone wrong and that John Cipriano had panicked and killed the girl. Certainly much later and before her appeal, Leonor Cipriano signed a written deposition blaming her brother for the abduction and killing.
So who is telling the truth?
I'd be interested in reading more about that. Do you have a link?
It surely don't sound like the comments of two innocent folk now do it ?.
The only pieces of the Cipriano case which are as yet undetermined are what part Leonor and John Cipriano actually played in the girl's demise. Originally Leonor claimed that she had hit the girl striking her head off a wall in the house causing death, she also claimed that she asked her brother to hide the body. Next John Cipriano claimed that they both had done it and that he hid the body. Despite being released on bail he failed to locate the girls remains. He took police to several sites which would appear that he was playing for time all along and had no intention of finding any body.
The story then morphs into a child abduction and trafficking case. It was claimed that this had gone wrong and that John Cipriano had panicked and killed the girl. Certainly much later and before her appeal, Leonor Cipriano signed a written deposition blaming her brother for the abduction and killing.
So who is telling the truth?
On the last day of the trial the voice of João Cipriano was heard in court by virtue of a video recording made by the Judicial Police during investigations. In brutal detail he confessed to killing Joana and of disposing of her body. The defence objected claiming that João's words had no value since the defendants chose not to testify at trial. The judge overruled the objection.
Nope and let's face. It if Amaral had not been. Involved in this case McCann supporters wouldn't care less
The only pieces of the Cipriano case which are as yet undetermined are what part Leonor and John Cipriano actually played in the girl's demise. Originally Leonor claimed that she had hit the girl striking her head off a wall in the house causing death, she also claimed that she asked her brother to hide the body. Next John Cipriano claimed that they both had done it and that he hid the body. Despite being released on bail he failed to locate the girls remains. He took police to several sites which would appear that he was playing for time all along and had no intention of finding any body.
The story then morphs into a child abduction and trafficking case. It was claimed that this had gone wrong and that John Cipriano had panicked and killed the girl. Certainly much later and before her appeal, Leonor Cipriano signed a written deposition blaming her brother for the abduction and killing.
So who is telling the truth?
2009. Leonor Cipriano blames brother John for the murder of her daughter.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3343.msg127258#msg127258
2009. Leonor Cipriano blames brother John for the murder of her daughter.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3343.msg127258#msg127258
But during the trial, Leonor changed version, denying the accusation.
My understanding is that during the trial, Leonor and Joao both exercised right of silence ....
The clear understanding is that Ms. Cipriano kept changing her story of what happened as did her dear brother.
No. I don't believe so.
But during the trial, Leonor changed version, denying the accusation.
My understanding is that during the trial, Leonor and Joao both exercised right of silence ....
The confession was accepted by the court even though Correia's lawyer Marcos Correia objected to it which was his right. The judges undoubtedly heard the tape recording prior to it being played to the court and decided on balance that it was given freely and without coercion. Those are the facts, we are stuck with them, no amount of maybes and if only's can change that situation.
Bottom line is both Leonor and John Cipriano confessed at different stages of the proceedings to this dreadful crime for which they were ultimately found guilty on the evidence. If they were innocent as some claim they had every opportunity to give evidence to the court but they refused. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
The clear understanding is that Ms. Cipriano kept changing her story of what happened as did her dear brother.
i will never understand how these people support a convicted child murderer and a couple who adandoned their kids yet think we are the enemy because we question the mcanns sometimes i think they are all wind up trolls no one could be that nieve and dumb could they? its like they are not allowed to think for themselves? yet they crusify GA for doing his job?
"these people" who "question the mccanns" have been doing so into their ninth year ... how "nieve and dumb" they must be to have disregarded the answers and still be asking exactly the same questions after all that time.
The thing is if GA had actually done his job with a measure of competence ... we probably wouldn't be here discussing the similarities of one missing child's case with another's.
Here we go again, attacking Amaral...
Well by the same token Brietta, if the McCann's had taken care of their children.......
Ahh, so you mean the video of the so-called "reconstruction", then?
The defence did object (Marcos Aragão wasn't even on the scene at that point, AFAIK, so I'm not sure where that idea came from), on the grounds that it constituted a "confession" and shouldn't have been admissible as the defendants didn't take the stand. The court ruled that it was a different form of evidence and was therefore admissible.
What no one seems to have questioned is the circumstances leading up to this "reconstruction". João has stated that he was threatened with being stabbed and was frequently beaten. That may or may not be true. He may, after all, have been offered coffee and cupcakes by the same PJ.
Without CCTV evidence of "interviews", it's one person's word against the venerable PJ.
On the other side, there was no evidence that he'd had to be taken to hospital due to an excess of "coffee and cupcakes", but then neither can I find any evidence that the defence ever tried to found out.
our recent discussions on the right to appeal raise some interesting points for those who can follow this.
At the original trial both were advised not to give evidence...on the grounds i believe... taht the evidence against them was so weak that they could not be convicted. The prosecution threw them completely by introducing the reconstruction and they are found guilty.......now the appeal...neither of them can complain that the confessions were beaten out of them because it is not new evidence and was not claimed at the original trial...they therefore have absolutely no grounds for appeal
"these people" who "question the mccanns" have been doing so into their ninth year ... how "nieve and dumb" they must be to have disregarded the answers and still be asking exactly the same questions after all that time.
The thing is if GA had actually done his job with a measure of competence ... we probably wouldn't be here discussing the similarities of one missing child's case with another's.
But he did, they were both convicted of murder and given 16 year sentences.
I intend to move the bulk of the posts on this thread to the Cipriano board, if any member has an objection please pm me.
"these people" who "question the mccanns" have been doing so into their ninth year ... how "nieve and dumb" they must be to have disregarded the answers and still be asking exactly the same questions after all that time.
The thing is if GA had actually done his job with a measure of competence ... we probably wouldn't be here discussing the similarities of one missing child's case with another's.
One does not need much space or many words to cover the similarities.What would you calculate the odds at of two completely unconnected missing girls cases, in which both girls vanish without trace, in such a small and under-populated area, so close to each other in space and time?
Female child disappears without trace.
Same land mass but approximately 10km apart in distance and three years in time.
Same investigating officer.
Both mothers claimed abduction.
No incontrovertible evidence of abduction in either case.
What would you calculate the odds at of two completely unconnected missing girls cases, in which both girls vanish without trace, in such a small and under-populated area, so close to each other in space and time?
What would you calculate the odds at of two completely unconnected missing girls cases, in which both girls vanish without trace, in such a small and under-populated area, so close to each other in space and time?
Dunno. But as a court has ruled one was murdered by her mother and uncle who were in gaol at the time the other disappeared ..... &%+((£Perhaps you can point to the post in which I said the two disappearance MUST be connected? I have already said I have no hard and fast opinion either way about the Ciprianos guilt or otherwise.
Why do you think they must be connected anyway ? Do you have no conception of random?
Funny you should say that ... so unusual for you.
davel admin have already warned you about calling the police liars you got moderated twice do you want to be again?
our recent discussions on the right to appeal raise some interesting points for those who can follow this.
At the original trial both were advised not to give evidence...on the grounds i believe... taht the evidence against them was so weak that they could not be convicted. The prosecution threw them completely by introducing the reconstruction and they are found guilty.......now the appeal...neither of them can complain that the confessions were beaten out of them because it is not new evidence and was not claimed at the original trial...they therefore have absolutely no grounds for appeal
I never said there was no evidence in the case
No, you said there was no evidence of murder.
No, you said there was no evidence of murder.
thereis no evidence of murder apart from the confessions...that is a fact
Perhaps you can point to the post in which I said the two disappearance MUST be connected? I have already said I have no hard and fast opinion either way about the Ciprianos guilt or otherwise.
Whether or not the two disappearances are connected I am of the opinion that Joanna's disappearance had a big influence on the direction the McCann case took. In my opinion, the very last thing Amaral would have wanted is another child abduction on his manor so soon after the last one had been (somewhat controversially) put to bed by him and his team. Far better to pursue the parents again, than give serious consideration to the possibility that another young girl had been abducted so close to the location of the previous disappeared child.
You didn't categorically state it but there was an implication from which maybe I erroneously inferred.
You may well be right but where is the evidence to support your view about Sr Amaral?
Are Investigating Magistrates not the "team leaders" rather than PJ Inspectors anyway?
What's this "another girl abducted" business?. The courts ruled Joana was killed by her mother and uncle and no verdict has been brought in wrt MM mainly because there has been no court case and no crime has been identified thus far. There is plenty of speculation mind.
A good time to recap on what The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Pill said in Britain's longest running miscarriage of justice case, as it is a miscarriage of justice against the Cipriano's that is suggested.
"The question for [the Court of Appeal’s] consideration is whether the conviction is safe and not whether the accused is guilty".
I am referring to the video confession which Mr Correia attempted to suppress. Correia took over from Leonor's first lawyer John Grade just as the trial began.
Ahhh. I thought you were referring to the 2006 SC ruling, but now realise that you were referring to the 2009 attempt by Correia.
Yes, he did attempt to get the video suppressed... although I have no idea why he thought that it would be accepted as the 2006 SC ruling had already determined that it was admissible.
I have no idea either why he thought that unsubstantiated new "confessions", which he also introduced, would be taken seriously, particularly when he openly admitted to tricking João into scribbling his with some story of a potential threat to his life if he refused.
Most odd.
Because the appeal-court judges are not privy to the jury's deliberations ....
You didn't categorically state it but there was an implication from which maybe I erroneously inferred.Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough. Madeleine's disappearance so soon after and so close to the disappearance of Joana, both children seemingly vanished without trace, had the potential to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction of the Ciprianos, hence why in my opinion (all opinions are equally valid, remember?) Amaral and his team would have preferred not to dwell on the possibility that a child abductor was operating in the locale, preferring instead to stitch up the parents.
You may well be right but where is the evidence to support your view about Sr Amaral?
Are Investigating Magistrates not the "team leaders" rather than PJ Inspectors anyway?
What's this "another girl abducted" business?. The courts ruled Joana was killed by her mother and uncle and no verdict has been brought in wrt MM mainly because there has been no court case and no crime has been identified thus far. There is plenty of speculation mind.
A good time to recap on what The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Pill said in Britain's longest running miscarriage of justice case, as it is a miscarriage of justice against the Cipriano's that is suggested.
"The question for [the Court of Appeal’s] consideration is whether the conviction is safe and not whether the accused is guilty".
And all the while being paid by Metodo3.
As you say Carana most odd.
This is off topic so will be removed later. As I understand it davel has been moderated because he continued to post that there was no evidence of murder in the case. This is a gross misrepresentation of the prosecution case against Leonor and João Cipriano. We are not aware of everything which transpired between the suspects and the Portuguese police so there will be facts which we will never know. However,the evidence which has been documented includes the following:
1. A neighbour saw Joana heading home with her purchases. The appeal court accepted that the child returned home.
2. Traces of human blood located at child head height were found on the corner of a wall in the house. Traces were also found on the living room walls and on the floor. Several attempts had been made to remove this blood using chemicals which destroyed efforts to extract DNA from it.
3. Leandro Silva testified that his hacksaw which remained in the house had disappeared.
4. Joana's shoes were all accounted for in the house.
5. The following night both Leonor and João were seen leaving the house carrying a heavy bag.
6. Six days after Joana's disappearance Leonor purchased petrol and steel scrub-cloth in an attempt to remove the last vestiges of blood from the house.
7. Following directions from João Cipriano, PJ officers searched several locations for Joana's remains.
I have no idea whether Metodo3 did actually pay him, nor - if so - what exactly for.
M3 and Correia do appear to have had contact, which I find reasonable in view of his claim that he somehow "knew" or "felt" or whatever, where Madeleine's body may have been dumped.
M3 may also have asked him to help find out more from anyone who may have had suspicions or snippets about Joana's disappearance in the event of a potential connection between the two missing children.
This is off topic so will be removed later. As I understand it davel has been moderated because he continued to post that there was no evidence of murder in the case. This is a gross misrepresentation of the prosecution case against Leonor and João Cipriano.
We are not aware of everything which transpired between the suspects and the Portuguese police so there will be facts which we will never know. There have also been confessions by both Leonor and João, some freely but others under coercion.
However, the evidence which has been documented includes the following:
1. A neighbour saw Joana heading home with her purchases. The appeal court accepted that the child returned home.
2. Traces of human blood located at child head height were found on the corner of a wall in the house. Traces were also found on the living room walls and on the floor. Several attempts had been made to remove this blood using chemicals which destroyed efforts to extract DNA from it.
3. Leandro Silva testified that his hacksaw which remained in the house had disappeared.
4. Joana's shoes were all accounted for in the house.
5. The following night both Leonor and João were seen leaving the house carrying a heavy bag.
6. Six days after Joana's disappearance Leonor purchased petrol and steel scrub-cloth in an attempt to remove the last vestiges of blood from the house.
7. Following directions from João Cipriano, PJ officers searched several locations for Joana's remains.
I accept that this evidence is circumstantial but it is evidence all the same. Let's therefore have no more nonsense claiming that there is no evidence in the case.
As a reminder for some readers, you do not need to find a body to obtain a conviction for murder.
As a reminder for some readers, you do not need to find a body to obtain a conviction for murder.
OK lets consider there has indeed been a miscarriage of justice which is based on the conviction is not safe not whether the appellants are guilty or not guilty.
Your move; where do you go from there with that information ?
Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough. Madeleine's disappearance so soon after and so close to the disappearance of Joana, both children seemingly vanished without trace, had the potential to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction of the Ciprianos, hence why in my opinion (all opinions are equally valid, remember?) Amaral and his team would have preferred not to dwell on the possibility that a child abductor was operating in the locale, preferring instead to stitch up the parents.
This is off topic so will be removed later. As I understand it davel has been moderated because he continued to post that there was no evidence of murder in the case. This is a gross misrepresentation of the prosecution case against Leonor and João Cipriano.
We are not aware of everything which transpired between the suspects and the Portuguese police so there will be facts which we will never know. There have also been confessions by both Leonor and João, some freely but others under coercion.
However, the evidence which has been documented includes the following:
1. A neighbour saw Joana heading home with her purchases. The appeal court accepted that the child returned home.
2. Traces of human blood located at child head height were found on the corner of a wall in the house. Traces were also found on the living room walls and on the floor. Several attempts had been made to remove this blood using chemicals which destroyed efforts to extract DNA from it.
3. Leandro Silva testified that his hacksaw which remained in the house had disappeared.
4. Joana's shoes were all accounted for in the house.
5. The following night both Leonor and João were seen leaving the house carrying a heavy bag.
6. Six days after Joana's disappearance Leonor purchased petrol and steel scrub-cloth in an attempt to remove the last vestiges of blood from the house.
7. Following directions from João Cipriano, PJ officers searched several locations for Joana's remains.
I accept that this evidence is circumstantial but it is evidence all the same. Let's therefore have no more nonsense claiming that there is no evidence in the case.
As a reminder to other posters, proven torture of a suspect is a pretty bad idea. And may lead open minded posters to suspicions of a miscarriage of justice.
If the evidence against Cipriano was so strong, then why was torture necessary and why did the court rely so heavily on the "confession"?
But:Do you understand the meaning of "in my opinion"? Clearly not. What does "Where are the legal grounds in two children disappeared" even mean FGS?! Two children have disappeared, are you disputing this? Did Amaral stitch up the parents? Yes, in my opinion he did. Where is the evidence that both children were abducted? Where is the evidence both children were done away with by their parents? In my opinion (remember all opinions are equally valid) there may be a link between the two cases, an opinion shared by MWT I believe. You may not like my opinion but I think I'm still allowed to post it on here - or maybe not the way things have been going recently...
"Grounds for a criminal appeal must be based in law and not facts. In other words, an appeal allows a defendant to attack the judgment of the trial court on legal, not factual grounds".
So where are the legal grounds in "two children disappeared" ?
Did Sr Amaral stitch up the parents?
Where is the evidence that both children were abducted?
One vanished without trace the other was murdered by her mother and uncle with no trace of the body being found, according to the court.
But:
"Grounds for a criminal appeal must be based in law and not facts. In other words, an appeal allows a defendant to attack the judgment of the trial court on legal, not factual grounds".
So where are the legal grounds in "two children disappeared" ?
Did Sr Amaral stitch up the parents?
Where is the evidence that both children were abducted?
One vanished without trace the other was murdered by her mother and uncle with no trace of the body being found, according to the court.
As a reminder to other posters, proven torture of a suspect is a pretty bad idea. And may lead open minded posters to suspicions of a miscarriage of justice.
If the evidence against Cipriano was so strong, then why was torture necessary and why did the court rely so heavily on the "confession"?
There is difference between being beaten up in disgust and being beaten up to gain a confession. The court accepted that she had been beaten but not as far as I can work out why.
There is difference between being beaten up in disgust and being beaten up to gain a confession. The court accepted that she had been beaten but not as far as I can work out why.
There is difference between being beaten up in disgust and being beaten up to gain a confession. The court accepted that she had been beaten but not as far as I can work out why.
No there isn't.
I am astounded that in the 21st century posters condone the beating and torture of prisoners who are detained in custody.
There is difference between being beaten up in disgust and being beaten up to gain a confession. The court accepted that she had been beaten but not as far as I can work out why.What's the difference then?
Who is condoning it?
Who is condoning it?You sounded a bit like a PJ apologist in your last post, was that not your intention?
Who is condoning it?
Do you understand the meaning of "in my opinion"? Clearly not. What does "Where are the legal grounds in two children disappeared" even mean FGS?! Two children have disappeared, are you disputing this? Did Amaral stitch up the parents? Yes, in my opinion he did. Where is the evidence that both children were abducted? Where is the evidence both children were done away with by their parents? In my opinion (remember all opinions are equally valid) there may be a link between the two cases, an opinion shared by MWT I believe. You may not like my opinion but I think I'm still allowed to post it on here - or maybe not the way things have been going recently...
What's the difference then?
Why do you become so tetchy when your opinion is questioned? I thought questioning opinion was all part of debate ?Rubbish. It's your demand for cites to back up my opinion that makes me tetchy because it's a ludicrous request. Kindly desist.
Maybe you would like to censor all debate such that only certain opinions are allowed to prevail?
Being beaten to gain a confession create a situation which may not otherwise have happened. Being beaten as punishment does not change the status quo as there is nothing the person being beaten can do to stop it.
It is always wrong, but not the same.
You like asking questions Brietta, here's one for you.
In your view is torture/beating of prisoners ever justified ?
For example, to save lives, e.g. from a terrorist threat, or to save the life of a kidnap victim ?
and don't even try to say it never has happened in other countries, including the UK.
No it isn't ever justified.
And it does not require much intelligence to work out why.
Being beaten to gain a confession create a situation which may not otherwise have happened. Being beaten as punishment does not change the status quo as there is nothing the person being beaten can do to stop it.Torture of a suspect whatever the actual reason renders subsequent events open to question, first and foremost because we don't know whether a confession was gained under duress, surely you can see that, can't you?
It is always wrong, but not the same.
Torture of a suspect whatever the actual reason renders subsequent events open to question, first and foremost because we don't know whether a confession was gained under duress, surely you can see that, can't you?
Torture of a suspect whatever the actual reason renders subsequent events open to question, first and foremost because we don't know whether a confession was gained under duress, surely you can see that, can't you?
There is difference between being beaten up in disgust and being beaten up to gain a confession. The court accepted that she had been beaten but not as far as I can work out why.
I can see that when we have a confession well before any beating, it would be perverse to discount it.Do we? And that is verified by what facts exactly?
As you say that all of this will be removed, there's not much point in answering.
if I may go so far as your first point: a single witness stating the he/she saw the child walking towards home is not evidence that she actually did arrive home.
If that were to be the case, every abducted child walking home from school could be assumed to have also arrived home.
In a 20-hour murder trial, with 45 witnesses and a shock-horror video to watch and digest, there would seem to be little time to examine the so-called evidence in any detail.
Right, but with one (I think!) vital addition: subsequent and previous (to the torture) events.
It is perfectly fair to infer that interrogators capable of inflicting torture are also capable of other forms of interview "technique" (for want of a better word) capable of extracting statements (from suspects) in conformance with what the interrogators want to hear, but not necessarily reflecting truth ....
On its own very true but the fact that all her shoes were accounted for and a story begins to emerge. Try looking at the bigger picture Carana.
On its own very true but the fact that all her shoes were accounted for and a story begins to emerge. Try looking at the bigger picture Carana.
so john...she came home and discovered L&J having incestuous sex...she was attacked beaten and killed...at what point do you think leonor took off Joannas shoes and placed them where they could be found
Careful you don't get told off by Admin, John. ;)
I have. The sole witness in question didn't live in the house.... how could she reliably have stated what shoes Joana had? Why weren't Leandro, the other chap or even the older other child asked?
ETA: Neither the bar-lady nor the fag-on-balcony witness noticed what shoes she was wearing, either.
No it isn't ever justified.
And it does not require much intelligence to work out why.
On its own very true but the fact that all her shoes were accounted for and a story begins to emerge. Try looking at the bigger picture Carana.
A child seen going home, her shoes are all accounted for, her mother and uncle both delay in reporting her missing even though the police were at a fair in the village and very easy to contact, several traces of human blood found on the walls and on the floor unaccounted for yet attempts had been made to remove them, a mother who admits to having hit her childs head against a wall and a brother who says they both did it and that he scattered the remains, a boyfriend who testifies his hacksaw is missing and witnesses who saw both suspects carrying a heavy bag way from the house shortly after the disappearance?
Don't you think this just a tad suspicious or do coincidences usually occur in murder cases?
But probably more intelligence than some folk appear to have ....
Never justified, yet you know it goes on, within the parameters of 'rendition'.
I wonder whether you would say the same if a close friend of yours or a relative, could have been saved, or hundreds of peoples lives, say by rendition of a terrorist who under examination/torture revealed the details of a major terrorist operation before it was carried out.
Now just for a change let's have a look at any evidence which supports her innocence.
Any takers?
Whatever one's views on extreme measures in extreme circumstances of imminent mass massacre, this wasn't one of them.
In a number of such recent cases, intelligence and covert suveillance have been able to pre-empt or minimise attacks. Not all of them, sadly.
From what I have read, torture - on the whole - doesn't seem to be conducive to eliciting truth, as opposed to getting any response, however erroneous, in order to get the torture to stop. How is that effective, if it leads to wild-goose chases?
Now just for a change let's have a look at any evidence which supports her innocence.
Any takers?
I agree with you on the whole
However, do you really think torture will be stopped ?
Now just for a change let's have a look at any evidence which supports her innocence.
Any takers?
Given that the prosecution seems to be based on circumstantial evidence and a "confession", and police torture was proven by the subsequent court, I would feel very uneasy about pronouncing either way. She may be guilty, she may be innocent.
But it not for Cipriano to provide proof of her innocence, as you well know.
I am intrigued by the number of posters on a forum marching under the banner of "UK Justice" forum who have such difficulty with the general concept 0f "presumption of innocence".
And who seem to be so relaxed about torture by the police.
This must be one of the first times that we almost agree... *Faints*
But seriously, modern technology and methods seem far more effective, at least from what I've read of hostage raids, for example.
This was a case of a single missing child, who may - or may not - have come to harm via her mother and uncle.
I know that you will never agree, but I find it possible that they really had no idea what happened to her and the available evidence that I've been able to find doesn't substantiate that she'd ever got home, let alone had been killed there.
[Snip]
Both the aunt and Leandro identified her shoes.
I don't think Joao (sp) was tortured and he confessed?
i think he was...but gave in very quickly
Any basis for that?
I've looked through the 2006 SC ruling again and I can't find where Leandro mentioned her shoes. Have I missed it?
be warned about what..that is avery insulting and rude post....reported.....my stance has been based on evidence
Whether one agrees with Carana's conclusions or not, at least she provides backing for her contentions. Please do not try and equate her work with your stance that has seen you sanctioned on numerous occasions. Be warned.
No, your stance is not based on evidence because you denied the evidence which saw her convicted.
You state the teacher thought Leonor wouldn't hit the child so does that mean she never would given sufficient provocation?
i'm fairly sure I have read it somewhere...are you suggesting he just admitted the crime totally voluntarily...we know the pj have form for extracting information via torture
No, your stance is not based on evidence because you denied the evidence which saw her convicted.
You state the teacher thought Leonor wouldn't hit the child so does that mean she never would given sufficient provocation?
I think you will struggle to convince anyone of her innocence given her own evidence.
Did you miss the interview with Gonçalo when he confirmed her red shoes, the ones she was supposed to have been wearing when she disappeared (according to her mother) were found IN THE HOUSE?
Did you miss the interview with Gonçalo when he confirmed her red shoes, the ones she was supposed to have been wearing when she disappeared (according to her mother) were found IN THE HOUSE?As Goncalo has form when it comes to misrepresenting the truth in his celeb interviews (and elsewhere) do you really think he is the best source for this (or any) kind of information?
I'm intrigued.
Does even one supporter on here believe the Cipriano's are responsible for the death of Joana ?
so Carana says that the available evidence does not substantiate that Joanna was killed at home....looks like she agrees with me
I'm intrigued.
Does even one mccann supporter on here believe the Cipriano's are responsible for the death of Joana ?
I am aware of a couple of people who believe that the McCanns are innocent who are on the fence over the Cipriano case. I have no idea whether they post on here or not.
I come to my own conclusions based on what I can find that appears to be reasonably reliable.
@John
This is not a direct quote, but part of the transcription of the programme:
Another piece of evidence found at Joana's house by the PJ were the red shoes that Joana was supposed to be wearing the day she disappeared. The PJ believe that the mother and uncle forgot to hide the shoes, just as they did the purchases from the store. The posters put up by the family said that she was wearing red shoes.
Sara Rosado: "No one knows what the child was wearing, especially the shoes."
Where has Leandro confirmed that all her shoes were found in the house?
As Goncalo has form when it comes to misrepresenting the truth in his celeb interviews (and elsewhere) do you really think he is the best source for this (or any) kind of information?
what do you mean by apparently...is there any ..evidence....to support your claim
The blood that was cleaned on the wall and floor. Have you figured out who's it is yet? A murderer would get rid of the weapon and body. Do you think they purposely leave evidence for police to find? I personally think murderers try to cover up their crime by cleaning and getting rid of evidence. Can't think why I could think that - ok I'm lying @)(++(*
He was the coordinating detective and as such had access to substantially more information than is in the public domain. Love him or loathe him, as a serving police officer Goncalo Amaral would not have been so stupid as to go on national TV and claim something without being absolutely sure of his facts as doing so could have undermined the prosecutions case.
When was he on TV prior to a trial in which he was directly involved? Just curious...
There was a young girl called Joana who went missing. Is anyone still looking for her?
It was in January 2007, some time after the trial but before the appeal.
Really? Are you sure? That would have been while he was still a serving officer...
The allegation is that she was fed to pigs. Even though that was was considered not proven (not even in the long list of bizarre "facts" based on "common experience"), it appears to have been accepted as fact in the lore of factoidism.
Didn't I just say that!!
did you see my post admin?/ of course have no say but yeah i dont like all the police bashing on these forums they havea job to do and they do it and get a hate campain for doing it
Oh how the plot thickened.
Lawyer Aragão Correia, who defends Leonor Cipriano, Joana’s mother, told TSF this Tuesday that he lied to obtain a written confession from João Cipriano, who revealed that he tried to sell the child.
Aragão Correia had already requested the opening of a new inquiry after Leonor Cipriano confessed to him that she handed over her daughter to her brother, for him to sell her.
www.joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/leonor-ciprianos-lawyer-confesses-to.html#
What's new in that?
Didn't John Cipriano write to his sister begging her forgiveness for implicating her in the murder? And this was prior to her formal affidavit to the appeal court seeking to set the record straight.
I'm sorry but innocent and Cipriano should never be used in the same sentence. As I stated yesterday, the only thing we don't know us who did what?
i dont know much about this case but at the end of the day i do know that most likley a little girl died most likley at the hands of her parent/s and because GA was the police officer in charge for both cases it is a conspricy for mcann supporters yet they attack us for not beliving the mcanns
He was the coordinating detective and as such had access to substantially more information than is in the public domain. Love him or loathe him, as a serving police officer Goncalo Amaral would not have been so stupid as to go on national TV and claim something without being absolutely sure of his facts as doing so could have undermined the prosecutions case.You mean he blabbed on TV before the case was even settled in court?!
i personally think that any putting down of police should be banned on this forum police do the jobs most people are too gutless to do and imo i dont think the PJ especally should be slandered on a public forum i have always thought this way my brother is an police officer and he has seen the most terrible things
Clearly members are divided between guilty and not so guilty when it comes to the Ciprianos, I could be wrong but I dont think anyone has suggested Leonor or Joao are completely innocent. That said, the discussion around the case has invoked much derision and caused a lot of conflict and disruption over the last few days. This cannot be allowed to continue.
A lot of emphasis has been placed on the evidence which may or may not exist in the case. Some refer to it as circumstantial evidence while others refer to an absence of real evidence. Reading over the various articles on the case I was reminded of the timeline in which the investigation developed.
The first police to respond were the GNR from Portimão. GNR police officer Fernando Ferreira later stated, "We received notice via the radio and went to the Aldeia da Figueira … attending Joana's mother and her boyfriend, Leandro Silva. The objective was to try to obtain the maximum amount of information which could help identify the girl: name, age, height and what she was wearing at the time she disappeared. From there, having this information, we searched the village."
The Portimão GNR continued with searches over the following days around the Aldeia da Figueira. Posters about the disappearance were put up. But there were no traces of Joana.
Four days later, the case of the missing 8-year-old girl was transferred to the PJ in Portimão. Another four days later, it is transferred to the PJ Directory in Faro. The inspectors had no idea they now had in their hands one of the most complex cases ever confronted.
In my opinion eight days were lost, days in which crucial evidence was tampered with or destroyed. Ironically, there was no such delay in the McCann case, the PJ were alerted within hours of Madeleine's disappearance and the PJ arrived on site early the next morning. Could it be that the Portuguese learned much from the Cipriano case?
The thread asks the question...Why is there so much support for Leonor Cipriano from McCann supporters?
my answer is that based on the evidence there is a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice imo.....it is a simple as that
It is evidently clear the Cipriano's blame each other for Joana's death.
So, not only are they in denial, others are too.
Now just for a change let's have a look at any evidence which supports her innocence.
Any takers?
The blood that was cleaned on the wall and floor. Have you figured out who's it is yet? A murderer would get rid of the weapon and body. Do you think they purposely leave evidence for police to find? I personally think murderers try to cover up their crime by cleaning and getting rid of evidence. Can't think why I could think that - ok I'm lying @)(++(*
I agree - so why didn't they get rid of the red shoes?
The motive of 'incest' was not accepted by the court. And AFAIK no other motive was established.Does that mean no motive was established?
You are kidding, aren't you.
Does that mean no motive was established?
The thread asks the question...Why is there so much support for Leonor Cipriano from McCann supporters?
my answer is that based on the evidence there is a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice imo.....it is a simple as that
It would seem so
John Cipriano told Leandro Silva that Joana caught them at it and threatened to tell Silva. But maybe Leandro is a liar too...any thoughts??
So if she isn't a killer what is she?
I don't understand your answer. Please expand.
The Court didn't believe it.
John Cipriano told Leandro Silva that Joana caught them at it and threatened to tell Silva. But maybe Leandro is a liar too...any thoughts??
When he was asked if he had sexually abused his niece he said in the presence of his lawyer "I did not harm her, I only killed her".
Its not that they didn't believe it but it was 'unproven' under the law ie the only witness had disappeared,
You wouldn't want me to libel them as regards their respective levels of intelligence, would you ?
So who came up with the claim
Its OK Stephen the court found them wanting..
Facts considered proven.
c) the arguido AA expresses contempt for human life – a result of a poor social adjustment and affective coldness – and has anti-social/psychopathic tendencies with a difficulty to control his impulses, which leads him to be aggressive, trying to solve conflicts through said aggressiveness, feeling no remorse for the consequences of the actions that he thus performs, despising other people's rights, wishes or feelings;
d) through a ruling that has been validated in court, and given on 10.11.1993, arguido AA was condemned to a 4-year prison sentence over the practice, on 2.10.1992, of a crime of attempted homicide, (...). Said ruling includes that the arguido was convinced, by a third party that lived with one of the arguido's sisters (GG) to take the life of another person who had left him blind, in exchange for 20.000$00 and a motorbike (...);
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;
So who came up with the claim
erm... Joana's uncle, John Cipriano
Its OK Stephen the court found them wanting..
Facts considered proven.
c) the arguido AA expresses contempt for human life – a result of a poor social adjustment and affective coldness – and has anti-social/psychopathic tendencies with a difficulty to control his impulses, which leads him to be aggressive, trying to solve conflicts through said aggressiveness, feeling no remorse for the consequences of the actions that he thus performs, despising other people's rights, wishes or feelings;
d) through a ruling that has been validated in court, and given on 10.11.1993, arguido AA was condemned to a 4-year prison sentence over the practice, on 2.10.1992, of a crime of attempted homicide, (...). Said ruling includes that the arguido was convinced, by a third party that lived with one of the arguido's sisters (GG) to take the life of another person who had left him blind, in exchange for 20.000$00 and a motorbike (...);
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;
AA = John Cipriano
BB = Leonor Cipriano
You wouldn't want me to libel them as regards their respective levels of intelligence, would you ?
No need to libel anyone. Can you explain why LC would make posters describing her daughter as wearing red shoes when she disappeared - when both she and her brother knew that they had not disposed of the shoes and that those very shoes were still in the house for the police to find? Especially as apparently so much care had been taken in cleaning the place up, after 'butchering' the body - that no credible evidence of this 'bloody massacre' was established.
On the subject of levels of intelligence. What self respecting policeman would claim that a person wearing a black blouse was evidence that that person was a potential murderer - even though the person wearing the black top was also wearing a red skirt?
Its OK Stephen the court found them wanting..
Facts considered proven.
c) the arguido AA expresses contempt for human life – a result of a poor social adjustment and affective coldness – and has anti-social/psychopathic tendencies with a difficulty to control his impulses, which leads him to be aggressive, trying to solve conflicts through said aggressiveness, feeling no remorse for the consequences of the actions that he thus performs, despising other people's rights, wishes or feelings;
d) through a ruling that has been validated in court, and given on 10.11.1993, arguido AA was condemned to a 4-year prison sentence over the practice, on 2.10.1992, of a crime of attempted homicide, (...). Said ruling includes that the arguido was convinced, by a third party that lived with one of the arguido's sisters (GG) to take the life of another person who had left him blind, in exchange for 20.000$00 and a motorbike (...);
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;
AA = John Cipriano
BB = Leonor Cipriano
Isn't it a fact that psychopaths are also extremely intelligent? Do we know who made this psychological analysis of her and who commissioned the assessment?
So if Jaoa admitted this, why was it Unproven?
Well as contact details were provided by John a couple of weeks ago, why don't you take that to the source.
The motive of 'incest' was not accepted by the court. And AFAIK no other motive was established.
May I suggest that you refrain from making provocative comments like... 'You are kidding aren't you? ...when you have no intention of explaining your stance or providing evidence to justify your comment.
Both in this case and the mccann case...amaral thought that a child could bang their head in a relatively minor fall and die......children bang their heads everyday...it takes a lot to fracture a skull
Wasn't Joana supposed never to have arrived home?
Yes - according to her family.
According to the PJ she arrived home and caught her mother and uncle having incestuous sex - and theatened to 'tell' and that was their motive for killing her. The court did not accept that as a credible motive.
Yes - according to her family.
According to the PJ she arrived home and caught her mother and uncle having incestuous sex - and theatened to 'tell' and that was their motive for killing her. The court did not accept that as a credible motive.
Do you think she got her head bashed against the wall for no reason?
Do you think she got her head bashed against the wall for no reason?
No one proved that she actually did.
So where did that allegation come from then ?
The PJ found some blood that wasn't proved to be Joana's but decided that it was.
So where did that allegation come from then ?
Is there a cite for that ?
So where did that allegation come from then ?
Is there a cite for that ?
What does that have to do with a level of proof necessary to secure a conviction?
Occasionally, erroneous assumptions are made in, nevertheless, safe convictions.
In the Adrian Prout case, it was hypothesised that Prout had strangled his wife in the lounge of the matrimonial house, an erroneous detail based on Eddie's reaction there.
Nevertheless, inferences were drawn from the fact that all Kate's credit cards and bank accounts were intact and untouched (and she would have needed money to live had she been alive) that turned out correct when Prout subsequently confessed and took police to where here actual remains lay.
Is there a cite for that ?
The PJ found some blood that wasn't proved to be Joana's but decided that it was.
What are the pointers that such a thing happened?
I don't think any forensic evidence was offered in the case?
Its OK Stephen the court found them wanting..
Facts considered proven.
c) the arguido AA expresses contempt for human life – a result of a poor social adjustment and affective coldness – and has anti-social/psychopathic tendencies with a difficulty to control his impulses, which leads him to be aggressive, trying to solve conflicts through said aggressiveness, feeling no remorse for the consequences of the actions that he thus performs, despising other people's rights, wishes or feelings;
d) through a ruling that has been validated in court, and given on 10.11.1993, arguido AA was condemned to a 4-year prison sentence over the practice, on 2.10.1992, of a crime of attempted homicide, (...). Said ruling includes that the arguido was convinced, by a third party that lived with one of the arguido's sisters (GG) to take the life of another person who had left him blind, in exchange for 20.000$00 and a motorbike (...);
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;
AA = John Cipriano
BB = Leonor Cipriano
Extracts from Supreme Court of Justice - ruling on the Homicide and concealment of eight-year-old Joana Cipriano's body, 20.04.2006
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the wall’s corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minor’s fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos’ activity;
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living room’s walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
ad) the arguidos ensured that CC was dead, verifying that she neither breathed nor reacted, and then, not wanting to be held responsible over their daughter’s and niece’s death, decided to prevent said death from becoming known to others;
ae) therefore, they soon decided that they would have to ensure that the existence of any signs in the house of what they had just done could not be verified, that the minor’s body would never be found and that, preferably, everyone would be convinced that the minor had been taken by a third party;
af) therefore, arguida BB remained at home, washing the wall and the floor that had signs of blood from CC, as well as the spot where the minor remained slumped after death, using a mop and its bucket to do so.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/04/leonor-cipriano-condemned-to-seven-more.html
Extracts from Supreme Court of Justice - ruling on the Homicide and concealment of eight-year-old Joana Cipriano's body, 20.04.2006
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the wall’s corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minor’s fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos’ activity;
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living room’s walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
ad) the arguidos ensured that CC was dead, verifying that she neither breathed nor reacted, and then, not wanting to be held responsible over their daughter’s and niece’s death, decided to prevent said death from becoming known to others;
ae) therefore, they soon decided that they would have to ensure that the existence of any signs in the house of what they had just done could not be verified, that the minor’s body would never be found and that, preferably, everyone would be convinced that the minor had been taken by a third party;
af) therefore, arguida BB remained at home, washing the wall and the floor that had signs of blood from CC, as well as the spot where the minor remained slumped after death, using a mop and its bucket to do so.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/04/leonor-cipriano-condemned-to-seven-more.html
Based on what?
Chapter 15 The Truth of the Lie
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/chapter-15.html
A BODY TELLS THE STORY OF A CRIME
I remember the Mariana case, about a little three-year-old girl kicked to death by her own father in 1999 - I was working in Açores then, at the PJ's Ponta Delgada Department of Criminal Investigation.
At 8 o'clock one Monday morning, a woman doctor, required to issue the death certificate for a child, notices that her body is covered in suspicious injuries. She alerts us immediately. We arrive at the family home. The mother is sitting on a blood-soaked towel which she is trying, unsuccessfully, to hide. The parents relate that little Mariana died in her sleep, that she allegedly choked on her feeding bottle. A pitiful lie, that does not stand up to even superficial examination of the body. Signs of violent blows are visible on her back and on her buttocks: these are imprints from the soles of the father's boots. Mariana is showing serious injuries to her skull. After having pummeled her with kicks, the father hurled her, with all his strength, against the wall. Then, grabbing her by the hair, he violently hit her head several times against the bedroom wall, under the passive gaze of the mother. Animal violence that killed Mariana. The parents then decided to get rid of the body legally, by requesting a death certificate. Tragic mistake. They faked the crime scene, washed the blood off the walls and places where the father had hit the little girl. To get rid of all trace of the crime, they threw into the bin the denim skirt that the little girl wore for the first time that Sunday. The garment covered in dust and the torn out shoulder straps attest to the violence suffered.
Mariana had simply asked to visit her godmother who lived opposite; the father, jealous, mad with rage, lashed out at her, to the point of killing her.
After the examination of the body, the medical examiner and the investigator were in no doubt: Mariana had been savagely killed by her father with the passive consent of the mother, and in front of her 5 year-old brother. In the present case, the perpetrators of the crime did not seek to hide a body but to cover up the truth.
At the time of the confessions, the man described the scene for us in a very cold way, factually, showing not the slightest regret. I had to leave my colleague to continue the interrogation alone. I was so upset. How could a father come to kill his own child? I had to get a grip on myself, I had experienced such things before.....I needed all my composure if I wanted to continue the investigation with the required objectivity. Truth and justice, that's all that remains for these children.
I have often related this case to colleagues to show them to what extent a body can, "talk," to investigators, help them to discover what really happened. Unlike other individuals, these two had neither the imagination nor the intelligence to hide the remains. In order to conceal his crime, the murderer can hide the body, or alter the crime scene in such a way as to divert suspicion. But this is not always the case. Someone may also get rid of a body without having committed a criminal act. For what reasons? Fear, for example, of being judged by his peers.
########################################################################
I can find no online record of the murder of a Mariana in the Azores, either in English or Portuguese.
Having noticed "certain similarities" with the allegations against Leonor & Joao, I wonder how much of an influence the Mariana case (if it's true) had on the way Amaral dealt with crimes against young children? It would have been interesting to view full details of the crime scene forensics & autopsy report in the Mariana affair.
So misty I've missed the point of your post.
Based on what?
According to the court, it was proved that Leonor Cipriano lied about the way in which the officers had beaten her, having presented in trial different versions of the facts that took place during the questionings to which she was subjected to, in 2004, after the crime.
Words fail me ....
Would it be fair to say the Mariana case had a deep psychological effect on Amaral & perhaps clouded his judgement somewhat when presented with his next crime involving a very young child?
According to the court, it was proved that Leonor Cipriano lied about the way in which the officers had beaten her, having presented in trial different versions of the facts that took place during the questionings to which she was subjected to, in 2004, after the crime.
Words fail me ....
I would be surprised if a case like Mariana's didn't have a deep psychological effect on every police officer dealing with such a crime. Are you saying all policemen will then let it cloud their judgement when presented with a similar crime or just Amaral ?
Not all policemen, no - just some, maybe those who are either affected by the crime itself or the way their fellow officers dealt with the crime. Amaral wrote that he had recounted the story of Mariana many times so clearly it had had an impact on him for whatever reason - just as deaths may or may not have an impact on doctors & surgeons.
Why do words fail ?
The woman clearly lied.
Perhaps it spurned it on to make sure that parents who had harmed their children were brought to justice as with Cipriano.The mother in the Mariana case allegedly sat passively whilst her husband bounced & battered her child around the room.
The mother in the Mariana case allegedly sat passively whilst her husband bounced & battered her child around the room.
Leonor had no apparent history of physically harming her children in any way.
Kate McCann had no apparent history of physically harming her children in any way.
Yet in every case, all involving Amaral, it is the mothers he blamed for consenting to the situation..
The mother in the Mariana case allegedly sat passively whilst her husband bounced & battered her child around the room.
Leonor had no apparent history of physically harming her children in any way.
Kate McCann had no apparent history of physically harming her children in any way.
Yet in every case, all involving Amaral, it is the mothers he blamed for consenting to the situation..
Are you suggesting Goncalo might be a misogynist, Misty?
So am I ....
They were judged to be proven based on "common experience"...
It's a concept that offers leeway in the PT legal system.
That night generally follows day, or being accused of crimes via trial by media could generally be accepted as distressful... I don't have a problem with.
But I'm bewildered as to how that long list of points accepted as "proven facts" could be accepted as such on the basis of "common experience".
Firstly I believe Amaral has never accused Kate McCann of 'physically harming her child'.
Secondly why do you find it unbelievable that a mother would sit passively while her child is hurt by her partner. Every other week in the UK there's a report of a similar crime.
Thirdly you do know that Cipriano's sibling had a rather long and violent criminal record before murdering Joana, don't you ?
He has accused Kate McCann of sedating her child. He has accused Kate of being consensual to the concealment of her corpse.
Yes, I am aware of such crimes in the UK - but they aren't all investigated by the same police officer levelling the same accusations.
Yes, I am aware of Joao's history - but I'm more inclined to believe he sold Joana rather than killed her.
Common Experience also features in US Law. It is interesting how it works.
I'll post a link later to a 600 odd page book for a bit of light bedtime reading!
Who's blood was it?
Gonçalo Amaral: "You can tell that the house had been cleaned, that area where the blood was found had been cleaned. It had been cleaned with petroleum purchased by Leonor on the day she left the Portimão police station. There was an attempt, that you might say worked well, to inhibit any laboratory results. As many vestiges as possible were obtained, given the circumstances, and the conclusion is that it was human blood. According to the court, and I agree, something serious happened in that house, on that day. And the conclusion was that it was a homicide."
Another piece of evidence found at Joana's house by the PJ were the red shoes that Joana was supposed to be wearing the day she disappeared. The PJ believe that the mother and uncle forgot to hide the shoes, just as they did the purchases from the store. The posters put up by the family said that she was wearing red shoes.
Guilhermino da Encarnação: "This is extremely difficult because, in 30 years of criminal investigation, I've never seen the confession of such a serious crime without the arguidos saying they were tortured, attacked or raped so that this, for us police officers, and I tell you, unfortunately, it has become the norm, natural. Therefore I don't give it a lot of credence."
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-without-trace-of-joana.html
The mother in the Mariana case allegedly sat passively whilst her husband bounced & battered her child around the room.
Leonor had no apparent history of physically harming her children in any way.
Kate McCann had no apparent history of physically harming her children in any way.
Yet in every case, all involving Amaral, it is the mothers he blamed for consenting to the situation..
Gonçalo Amaral: "You can tell that the house had been cleaned, that area where the blood was found had been cleaned.There is a potential translation issue here. AFAIK Amaral speaks in Portuguese. 3rd party singular Portuguese covers he/she/it/you and in this case, possibly 'one' i.e. a correct translation may be 'one can tell'. I wouldn't put faith in an English translation until I'd seen the Portuguese, and even then there may be wiggle factor.
"You can tell"
Seem as We policemen, experts
Frozen cadaver remains on the pavement ....
Did Amaral ever visit the house?
Who's blood was it?
Gonçalo Amaral: "You can tell that the house had been cleaned, that area where the blood was found had been cleaned. It had been cleaned with petroleum purchased by Leonor on the day she left the Portimão police station. There was an attempt, that you might say worked well, to inhibit any laboratory results. As many vestiges as possible were obtained, given the circumstances, and the conclusion is that it was human blood. According to the court, and I agree, something serious happened in that house, on that day. And the conclusion was that it was a homicide."
Another piece of evidence found at Joana's house by the PJ were the red shoes that Joana was supposed to be wearing the day she disappeared. The PJ believe that the mother and uncle forgot to hide the shoes, just as they did the purchases from the store. The posters put up by the family said that she was wearing red shoes.
Guilhermino da Encarnação: "This is extremely difficult because, in 30 years of criminal investigation, I've never seen the confession of such a serious crime without the arguidos saying they were tortured, attacked or raped so that this, for us police officers, and I tell you, unfortunately, it has become the norm, natural. Therefore I don't give it a lot of credence."
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-without-trace-of-joana.html
In the same way as "similar fact" has been used in many recent trials in the UK. If a number of individuals make the same allegation then this is seen as increasing the probitive value of such allegations.
The courts seem not to have considered the possibility of collusion between witnesses via social media.
There is a potential translation issue here. AFAIK Amaral speaks in Portuguese. 3rd party singular Portuguese covers he/she/it/you and in this case, possibly 'one' i.e. a correct translation may be 'one can tell'. I wouldn't put faith in an English translation until I'd seen the Portuguese, and even then there may be wiggle factor.
There is a potential translation issue here. AFAIK Amaral speaks in Portuguese. 3rd party singular Portuguese covers he/she/it/you and in this case, possibly 'one' i.e. a correct translation may be 'one can tell'. I wouldn't put faith in an English translation until I'd seen the Portuguese, and even then there may be wiggle factor.
In the same way as "similar fact" has been used in many recent trials in the UK. If a number of individuals make the same allegation then this is seen as increasing the probitive value of such allegations.
The courts seem not to have considered the possibility of collusion between witnesses via social media.
He has accused Kate McCann of sedating her child. He has accused Kate of being consensual to the concealment of her corpse.
Yes, I am aware of such crimes in the UK - but they aren't all investigated by the same police officer levelling the same accusations.
Yes, I am aware of Joao's history - but I'm more inclined to believe he sold Joana rather than killed her.
I believe Amaral theorised that Madeleine was sedated. I don't think he claimed which of the parents may have administered the sedation. Of course I will be pleased to be corrected.
As to your second point it would very much depend on where the crime took place and the circumstances surrounding the death.
Let me get this right. You feel that Amaral's involvement in investigating a similar murder is relevant but not Joao's part in an attempted murder and history of violence and criminality?
I believe Amaral theorised that Madeleine was sedated. I don't think he claimed which of the parents may have administered the sedation. Of course I will be pleased to be corrected.I don't think it matters which parent he accused, it is the fact that he believes in all 3 cases the mother was complicit, either actively or passively, & was therefore either equally or more than culpable than the accused male.
As to your second point it would very much depend on where the crime took place and the circumstances surrounding the death.
Let me get this right. You feel that Amaral's involvement in investigating a similar murder is relevant but not Joao's part in an attempted murder and history of violence and criminality?
Certain mccann supporters are extremely selective in which court judgements they accept or refuse.
Likewise with evidence.
Namely if doesn't serve their needs, ignore it.
I don't think it matters which parent he accused, it is the fact that he believes in all 3 cases the mother was complicit, either actively or passively, & was therefore either equally or more than culpable than the accused male.
In England I believe a person's criminal history is not disclosed when a case such as this is being heard. Does it only become relevant upon the outcome of the trial? I don't know enough about the Portuguese justice system to know how that aspect works. Certainly in a case where the defence offers no counter argument the competence & honesty of the investigating officers cannot be questioned.
In the same way as "similar fact" has been used in many recent trials in the UK. If a number of individuals make the same allegation then this is seen as increasing the probitive value of such allegations.
The courts seem not to have considered the possibility of collusion between witnesses via social media.
In the majority of missing child cases both parents are complicit so not sure what your point is.[/color]
As to your second point, we have an outcome to this trial and the fact that Joao had already been involved in a case of attempted murder simply reinforces that verdict.
Common Experience as in US law would appear to extend beyond your description.
It is covered in section 6.17 of Criminal Evidence by Jefferson Ingram for anyone who is interested.
I find this to be apposite.
"Observers of criminal trials are often confused by the procedures concerning the admission and exclusion of evidence. The form of the objections offered and the arguments presented only add to the confusion. Logically assuming that the purpose of a trial is to seek the truth, the lay observer is likely to be bewildered by objections to the introduction of apparently relevant evidence. Sometimes evidence that could have a direct bearing on the case, in fact, is excluded at the trial. To understand why certain evidence is admitted and other evidence is excluded, it is necessary to study the history and evolution of the rules of evidence".
I don't think it matters which parent he accused, it is the fact that he believes in all 3 cases the mother was complicit, either actively or passively, & was therefore either equally or more than culpable than the accused male.
In England I believe a person's criminal history is not disclosed when a case such as this is being heard. Does it only become relevant upon the outcome of the trial? I don't know enough about the Portuguese justice system to know how that aspect works. Certainly in a case where the defence offers no counter argument the competence & honesty of the investigating officers cannot be questioned.
Common Experience as in US law would appear to extend beyond your description.
It is covered in section 6.17 of Criminal Evidence by Jefferson Ingram for anyone who is interested.
I find this to be apposite.
"Observers of criminal trials are often confused by the procedures concerning the admission and exclusion of evidence. The form of the objections offered and the arguments presented only add to the confusion. Logically assuming that the purpose of a trial is to seek the truth, the lay observer is likely to be bewildered by objections to the introduction of apparently relevant evidence. Sometimes evidence that could have a direct bearing on the case, in fact, is excluded at the trial. To understand why certain evidence is admitted and other evidence is excluded, it is necessary to study the history and evolution of the rules of evidence".
I think this thread has strayed significantly. It is not about the Cipiano case as such but the way in which it plays a significant part in some people's view of the McCann case.
It is quite strange how many internet search for cases involving the disappearance or murder of a kid in the last 10 years seems to pull up significant numbers of McCann links. The Swiss case being an example.
Common Experience as in US law would appear to extend beyond your description.
It is covered in section 6.17 of Criminal Evidence by Jefferson Ingram for anyone who is interested.
I find this to be apposite.
"Observers of criminal trials are often confused by the procedures concerning the admission and exclusion of evidence. The form of the objections offered and the arguments presented only add to the confusion. Logically assuming that the purpose of a trial is to seek the truth, the lay observer is likely to be bewildered by objections to the introduction of apparently relevant evidence. Sometimes evidence that could have a direct bearing on the case, in fact, is excluded at the trial. To understand why certain evidence is admitted and other evidence is excluded, it is necessary to study the history and evolution of the rules of evidence".
I think this thread has strayed significantly. It is not about the Cipiano case as such but the way in which it plays a significant part in some people's view of the McCann case.
It is quite strange how many internet search for cases involving the disappearance or murder of a kid in the last 10 years seems to pull up significant numbers of McCann links. The Swiss case being an example.
In the majority of missing child cases both parents are complicit so not sure what your point is.Would you kindly expand on this point, with cites please - many thanks.
As to your second point, we have an outcome to this trial and the fact that Joao had already been involved in a case of attempted murder simply reinforces that verdict.
the tread title is....Why is there so much support for Leonor Cipriano from McCann supporters?....the answer some of us have given is the evidence...that is then challenged...I agree the thread is a complete waste of time
i think an interesting question would be ..."why is there no support for cipriano from mccann sceptics"
The argument from supporters is a lack of compelling evidence, the question is why is it predominantly only the supporters who think that?Because the "sceptics" can't bear the thought that Amaral, the PJ and the Portuguese justice system are anything less than perfect.
Because the "sceptics" can't bear the thought that Amaral, the PJ and the Portuguese justice system are anything less than perfect.
Because the "sceptics" can't bear the thought that Amaral, the PJ and the Portuguese justice system are anything less than perfect.
Apposite in what sense, Alice? Maybe I have misunderstood but I am not sure what relevance US law has in this context. The rules of evidence in an inquisitorial system are rather different.Apposite in the sense that if I said tell us the difference between Euler-Bernoulli theory of beams and that of Tim O'Shenko several of the usual suspects would post reams of learned looking stuff but it's doubtful they would know what they were bleedin' well talking about. Expand along those lines.
But in any event it underlines the importance of having a good lawyer.
The argument from supporters is a lack of compelling evidence, the question is why is it predominantly only the supporters who think that?
Not true and is the equivalent of ...You claim it is only McCann supporters who believe that there may have been a potential miscarriage of justice but is that true? How do we know who suspects a miscarriage of justice in this instance? Isn't it possible that people with no opinion on the McCann case, or even McCann sceptics in Portugal may believe this case stinks like a kipper? In fact, I'm sure I have in the past read comments by Portuguese nationals to that effect online, but find them now I cannot.
...and the supporters can't bear the thought that Amaral, the PJ and the Portuguese justice system got anything right.
Bit of a stalemate really.
I think everyone agrees apart from the confessions the evidence is not compelling. The question could also be asked as to why sceptics think she is definitely guilty and there is no chance of a miscarriage of justice. I would feel just the same about the case if amaral was not involved
But would you be interested in it?
yes...just as I am interested in a recent case elswhere
Anything that we could agree on?
Not true and is the equivalent of ...
...and the supporters can't bear the thought that Amaral, the PJ and the Portuguese justice system got anything right.
Bit of a stalemate really.
It's a trifle insulting to assume that I think The Cipriano Case could well be a Miscarriage of Justice just because Amaral was involved. I pay more credit to my intelligence than that.
Anyone who gives it more than a passing thought can see that the evidence is decidedly suspect and the proof is non existent.
However, some people seem to think that Amaral's word and deed are never to be questioned. And for a very long time they never were.
But this it seems is exactly what some sceptics think
But this it seems is exactly what some sceptics think
What I find incomprehensible it that most mccann supporters believe Cipriano has told the truth, when it it quite evident the woman is a liar, as his her brother.
Try reading what Angelo posted this morning, as regards 'proved in court'.
It's a trifle insulting to assume that I think The Cipriano Case could well be a Miscarriage of Justice just because Amaral was involved. I pay more credit to my intelligence than that.
Anyone who gives it more than a passing thought can see that the evidence is decidedly suspect and the proof is non existent.
However, some people seem to think that Amaral's word and deed are never to be questioned. And for a very long time they never were.
It is all much more complicated than that, Stephen. What exactly did she lie about that was proven?
Though you would probably never have come across the case had it not been for the McCann case.
But not really on here.
Why not read her various versions of what happened.
The fact is she lied and there is no getting away from that.
I presume you read Angelo's posts this morning, including proven facts.
Why not read her various versions of what happened.
The fact is she lied and there is no getting away from that.
I presume you read Angelo's posts this morning, including proven facts.
It looks like you do not understand what the court means by proven facts
Proven by common experience
Not by evidence
And the Unproven "Facts, which are much more damning in favour of a Miscarriage of Justice.
What "unproven" facts ?
Don't be silly. You know what they are.
What "unproven" facts ?
That happened in the Jo Yeates case... but I think that we're discussing apples and oranges.
In the UK:
One issue appears to be what can be admitted as evidence for a jury to consider (the fact that Tabak had been viewing extreme pornography just prior to the events was considered to be off limits).
An out-of-date concept appears to be that the media are gagged from mentioning prior convictions - which anyone can google for themselves these days.
The reasoning, I presume, is to make the jury focus on the facts of the trial at hand and to avoid being influenced by potential prejudice.
None of that appears to be relevant to the concept of the "rules of common experience" in PT law, as far as I understand it. That seems to concern what any reasonable person could consider to be established fact. I simpy can't understand how the "facts" deemed to be proven under that premise equate to everyday experience of life.
I can understand one or two, but not the rest.
A body doesn't ooze much blood two hours after death... ok. But no one seems to have considered that, according to the reconstruction, the torso was sawn in half in the middle of the living room.
That would have to be one enormous clean-up job without anyone else noticing...
Does anyone seriously believe that blood would be the only substance to consider if that scenario had happened?
An unidentified and undated speck of blood at the back of a single fridge/freezer drawer is somehow proof of this? Seriously? That none of the occupants / visitors to this small home noticed that the fridge /freezer had been emptied?
An unproven fact was the alleged motive: that the child was killed because she'd surprised them having sex.
A "proven" fact, based on "common experience", at random, was that:
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the wall’s corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minor’s fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos’ activity;
My issue is that a) the allegation is not of a nature to be considered of "common experience" and b) there was no forensic evidence to support it.
Well, rather obviously since Joana is dead and she was the witness as regards the above.....
The situation is that under US/UK law there are rules about what is admissible evidence and what isn't furthermore it is decided by the courts and specific advocates what is and what isn't admissible by arcane process not by the proles. Also there are rules governing presumptions and inferences. Once those rules are accepted as the norm in the UK/US system why should similar arcane processes be deemed unacceptable in the Romanesque system? Albeit in the Romanesque system what is admissible is principally at the the judges discretion. Most of the world is subject to a Romanesque system of law...... well it is the most common.
Why do you believe the words of a proven liar ?
Namely Cipriano, and of course her brother.
Well, rather obviously since Joana is dead and she was the witness as regards the above.....
so how did the motive of incest come to light if it unproven...very strange
Why do you believe the words of a proven liar ?
Namely Cipriano, and of course her brother.
What Proof do you have that Joana is dead.
The counter argument works equally as well.
Let's start with the fact that the Cipriano siblings blame each other for the death of Joana.
The counter argument works equally as well.
Let's start with the fact that the Cipriano siblings blame each other for the death of Joana.
In this case, there were also four jurors.
The procedure appears clear as to who votes: the youngest to the eldest of the jurors, then the judges from the newest to the most senior.
However, I've read two conficting accounts as to what they actually vote on. According to one explanation, they go through all the points and decide whether they can be considered as fact or not; a different account of the procedure concerns coming to a conclusion about "questions".
The two are not the same... and I haven't yet found anything conclusive as to how the process does in fact work.
as far as I am concerned it is highly likely that the ciprianos are innocent...all this blaming each other has been expalined...leonor has tried telling the truth and she has been jailed...like someone who is tortured she will now say anything to get out of jail...i don't blame her....we will only learn the real truth when her sentence is served and she can speak freely...all imo
A difficult situation for anyone who is innocent in numerous jurisdictions (whether one or the other of the Ciprianos is innocent or not) is that you are expected to express remorse for your crime in order to get early release.
If you are innocent... what do you do?
- Admit remorse over a crime that you didn't commit simply to get out and / or try to find the truth.
- Refuse to do so and finish your sentence.
A difficult situation for anyone who is innocent in numerous jurisdictions (whether one or the other of the Ciprianos is innocent or not) is that you are expected to express remorse for your crime in order to get early release.
If you are innocent... what do you do?
- Admit remorse over a crime that you didn't commit simply to get out and / or try to find the truth.
- Refuse to do so and finish your sentence.
and if your guilty..........
Not knowing the process and how it is supposed to function we are left a bit stymied.
Given the defendants have to know what they are being accused of and the evidence that will be presented against them, it may go partway to explaining the 200 page "charge" document.
and if your guilty..........
This is a diabolical requirement, especially if one is innocent.
You could play the remorse card whether innocent or guilty.
- If you are guilty, then why not go for it?
- If you are innocent, it could be to just get the hell out of prison and / or to try to find out the truth.
If you are innocent and just want to find your missing child that no one is looking for... what on earth do you do?
- Express "remorse" / "guilt" - whatever you need to do - to get out of jail to try to find what happened to your missing child that no one is looking for?
- Or do nothing?
if you are innocent, with a missing child that no one is looking for... what are your choices?
However long the charge document actually was wouldn't affect the deliberation process.
A point that I find bewildering is that the entire murder trial only lasted 20 hours (or from Wednesday to Friday, depending on court repots). Deliberations may have taken place afterwards, but that's not my question.
How on earth can two people be convicted on such serious charges in a 20-hour / three-day trial on such flimsy evidence?
Assuming we have access to all the evidence.
We haven't seen the charge document which may well list all that was against them.
Given the case is judge driven not police driven so unless there were political pressure why would the judges and jurors "fit up" the defendants. I think it likely there is a lot we don't know but unfortunately being linked slightly tenuously to the McCann case it will always be "four legs good two legs bad" so not much chance of getting to the bottom of it without seeing all the kosher documents.
Assuming we have access to all the evidence.
We haven't seen the charge document which may well list all that was against them.
Given the case is judge driven not police driven so unless there were political pressure why would the judges and jurors "fit up" the defendants. I think it likely there is a lot we don't know but unfortunately being linked slightly tenuously to the McCann case it will always be "four legs good two legs bad" so not much chance of getting to the bottom of it without seeing all the kosher documents.
Yes, I was wondering what this alleged 200-charge sheet was as well. It can't be the list of charges, so I'm guessing that it was the original file sent to the prosecution authority. What else could it be?
I don't know but I am guessing the same as you.
We know, from the Madeleine investigation, that Portugal has a perfectly competent forensic laboratory.
Why wasn't it used in this investigation?
The lab tests for what is submitted to it and what it is asked to do.
how civilised the discussion has been tonight
I don't know but I am guessing the same as you.
the judges and jurors don't fit up the defendants...the police do.....look what happened in the b'ham 6...guildford four...the judge looks at the evidence...the judge does not care if they are innocent or guilty...the judge cares about the law....you are totally wrong to think there are only doubts because of the mccanns...and as for your claiim....there is a lot we do not know...pure speculation
i'm judging the case on the known facts...no guessing...
This is a diabolical requirement, especially if one is innocent.
But isn't a 200-page submission (once you've taken into account birth certificates and all the rest of the bla, bla details) not a bit thin?
...and applies in the UK too.
I am well aware of that. But to me it's a bit like Torture. The results of which are not to be trusted. It can only apply to people who have pleaded Not Guilty, so it's a form of Blackmail.
I agree.
What I find incomprehensible it that most mccann supporters believe Cipriano has told the truth, when it it quite evident the woman is a liar, as his her brother.What strikes me Stephen is that Amaral calls her a liar. Leonor, a brutally tortured and simple country woman. not meaniong dull rather uneducated and somewhat uncultured. Amaral led a team that tortured her, then denied all knowledge.
Try reading what Angelo posted this morning, as regards 'proved in court'.
What strikes me Stephen is that Amaral calls her a liar. Leonor, a brutally tortured and simple country woman. not meaniong dull rather uneducated and somewhat uncultured. Amaral led a team that tortured her, then denied all knowledge.
Amaral, an educated man in a position of trust and power, is a proven liar with a criminal conviction but you prefer to believe him when he calls Leonor a liar?
Strange thinking there Stephen.
Maybe after brutal torture, losing her much loved daughter, awful lies against her and her brother fingering her, she did involved him? Amaral says so, doesn't he? £5%4%
Oh but Amaral is a proven liar? What are we to believe? %&5%£
Same old, same old Sadie. The big difference between Gonc and Leonor is that Gonc told a few lies to protect his comrades while Leonor is either a lying murderer or a liar who covered for a murderer. I know which one I would want on my side in a sticky situation.
Have you never told a lie Sadie when the situation required it?
Only Father Christmas.
I have made mistakes but I dont tell lies.
Dont kid yourself. Amaral was protecting his own back. He was the leader and the head honcho takes the blame
Gonc was supposed to be Justice, but he wasn't.
Oh come come Sadie. Everyone has told a lie sometime in their past and probably later regretted it, I can't see you being any different.
Gonc rose to a senior position within the Portuguese Police on his merits and that sometimes requires that a police officer go just that little bit further. I don't believe he had any option with the Cipriano duo, they brought it all down upon their own heads. They got their just desserts imo!!
Is there any evidence Leonor or Joao were educated enough to know exactly what was written in the "confessions" they signed?
Amaral's lies, on the other hand, were all penned by his own highly-educated hand so he cannot have any complaints about the way the justice system has treated him.
We who support the McCanns readily acknowledge that the Portuguese prosecutors were bang-on right to say the McCanns were innocent. We also acknowledge some genuinely fine work put in by Portuguese officers (both PJ and GNR).
It's only those who fail to see a problem with tying a poorly educated woman to a chair, putting a bag over her head, beating her to a point of near blindess, then extending her sentence because her recollection of those, terrifying sequence of events is deemed not to be exactly spot-on accurate ....
You know the rules ferryman, the Attorney General never stated the McCanns were innocent but full marks for attempting to slip it in. No reminder needed that what he did state was that they lost the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence, not quite the same thing eh??
Oh come come Sadie. Everyone has told a lie sometime in their past and probably later regretted it, I can't see you being any different.
Gonc rose to a senior position within the Portuguese Police on his merits and that sometimes requires that a police officer go just that little bit further. I don't believe he had any option with the Cipriano duo, they brought it all down upon their own heads. They got their just desserts imo!!
Did you know Leonor's family have attempted to change her children's name from Cipriano such is the distress and embarrassment she and John Cipriano have caused them?
snip
Joana’s mother’s revolt appears following a letter that was sent to her by Lurdes David, in which she asked her for permission to remove the name “Cipriano” from the children’s identification, leaving only “Domingos”, Leonor’s surname. According to Sara David, the children’s aunt, this would be due to “whenever my niece and nephew go somewhere and are called Cipriano, everyone stares at them, remembering Joana’s mother and the story of her daughter’s disappearance. That was what happened when the children went to the Registry to get their ID cards”.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/05/family-refuses-to-accept-leonor.html?m=1
What strikes me Stephen is that Amaral calls her a liar. Leonor, a brutally tortured and simple country woman. not meaniong dull rather uneducated and somewhat uncultured. Amaral led a team that tortured her, then denied all knowledge.
Amaral, an educated man in a position of trust and power, is a proven liar. A criminal, but you prefer to believe him when he calls Leonor a liar?
Strange thinking there Stephen.
Maybe after brutal torture, losing her much loved daughter, awful lies against her and her brother fingering her, she did involved him? Amaral says so, doesn't he? £5%4%
Oh but Amaral is a proven liar? What are we to believe? %&5%£
Have you been reading this thread Sadie ?
A much loved daughter ???
Where did you get that from ?
and get this Sadie, Leonar and her brother are liars and murderers.
You were happy with Amaral's conviction, so you should be equally satisfied with the Cipriano's as well.
You know the rules ferryman, the Attorney General never stated the McCanns were innocent but full marks for attempting to slip it in. No reminder needed that what he did state was that they lost the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence, not quite the same thing eh??
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
Portuguese prosecutors.
Only Father Christmas.
I have made mistakes but I dont tell lies.
Dont kid yourself. Amaral was protecting his own back. He was the leader and the head honcho takes the blame
Gonc was supposed to be Justice, but he wasn't.
Well to put it mildly, that is your biased opinion.
You are quite happy though to believe the words of a liar and convicted murderer.
Do you have any concern over the safety of the conviction?
No more than you have over Amaral's.
there could be another 100 pages on this thread but posters have made up their minds on the evidence presented and unless new evidence comes to light I can't see anyone changing their mind... I think there is every chance of a serious miscarriage of justice
the attorney general stated that there was no evidence of a crime committed by the mccanns and that the evidence used to make them arguidos was later found to be of no consequence
A failure to find evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The AG neither cleared the McCanns nor did he find them innocent.Same goes for Murat then.
A failure to find evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The AG neither cleared the McCanns nor did he find them innocent.
Portuguese prosecutors.QuoteIt seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
Amaral was not tortured. Cipriano was.
But as you are clearly perfectly happy to condone and support police torture of suspects. I don't think I have anything further to say to you.
Sorry Stephen, but I personally find your attitude to this absolutely despicable.
They weren't on trial.
Precisely why they were never brought to trial is explained in great detail by the AG.
The fact there was no evidence against them entitles them to the presumption of innocence as outlined by judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro in her ruling against Goncalo Amaral. They are innocent.
Amaral was not tortured. Cipriano was.
But as you are clearly perfectly happy to condone and support police torture of suspects. I don't think I have anything further to say to you.
Sorry Stephen, but I personally find your attitude to this absolutely despicable.
So funny. A presumption of innocence under the law doesn't render one suddenly innocent.Same goes for Murat then.
Cipriano deserved all she got. Even if she didn't act alone she was in it up to her neck with her homicidal maniac brother whom as some conveniently forget had been convicted of attempted murder previously.So let's be clear - murder suspects deserve to be tortured, even before they have been found guilty of any crime, is that your view?
So let's be clear - murder suspects deserve to be tortured, even before they have been found guilty of any crime, is that your view?
i think anyone who admits they killed a child deserve what they getIf she'd been killed in custody before ever being tried on the strength of her so-called conviction would that have been OK by you too?
i think anyone who admits they killed a child deserve what they get
One has to wonder whether some posters here are actually in favour of miscarriages of justice, rather than opposed to them.
So Alfred, let's get things clear.
Are you supporting child killers ?
So Alfred, let's get things clear.Does it matter what I say? You believe I do, and as far as you're concerned that's that.
Are you supporting child killers ?
So let's be clear - murder suspects deserve to be tortured, even before they have been found guilty of any crime, is that your view?
We deal in facts here Alfie, the Ciprianos conduct immediately following Joana's disappearance gave rise for concern thus why the GNR passed the file to the PJ in Portimao initially who then passed it to HQ in Faro. Their stories conflicted, they said one thing one day and something else the next.
Leonor eventually admitted to the hitting her head against the wall episode. Her brother John corroborated her tale and admitted that he too did it.
The priority for the police then was to recover the child dead or alive and after eight days if she was being held somewhere she might have needed urgent help. While Leonor was being questioned, John Cipriano was followed in the hope he would lead police to the girl, he didn't.
Leonor was arrested, charged and remanded in custody, John was released on bail on the basis he would show police where Joana was buried. It was at this point that the police lost patience with Leonor who had continually exploited the situation, she was interrogated and beaten in order to extract the truth of where the girl was.
I don't condone what they did but I can understand why they did it.
We deal in facts here Alfie, the Ciprianos conduct immediately following Joana's disappearance gave rise for concern thus why the GNR passed the file to the PJ in Portimao initially who then passed it to HQ in Faro. Their stories conflicted, they said one thing one day and something else the next. Leonor eventually admitted to the hitting her head against the wall episode. Her brother John corroborated her tale and admitted that he too did it.Ermmm...yes you do!
The priority for the police then was to recover the child dead or alive and after eight days if she was being held somewhere she might have needed urgent help. While Leonor was being questioned, John Cipriano was followed in the hope he would lead police to the girl, he didn't.
Leonor was arrested, charged and remanded in custody, John was released on bail on the basis he would show police where Joana was buried. It was at this point that the police lost patience with Leonor who had continually exploited the situation, she was interrogated and beaten in order to extract the truth of where the girl was.
I don't condone what they did but I can understand why they did it.
One has to wonder whether some posters here are actually in favour of miscarriages of justice, rather than opposed to them.
Certainly not pseudo ones.
Ermmm...yes you do!
Angelo: "Cipriano deserved all she got".
Certainly not pseudo ones.Just because you've decided it's a "pseudo one" doesn't make it so. The only way a miscarriage of justice can be properly decided to have occurred is through the legal process. I support the right of all suspects not to be beaten up in custody and to receive a fair trial, both of which Leonor was clearly denied, on the basis of all the evidence we've discussed here.
Police beat up people all the time, I have witnessed it in the UK, Spain and many other places.
Police beat up people all the time, I have witnessed it in the UK, Spain and many other places.That doesn't make it right or acceptable.
Could posters please keep comments amiable today since the expunge button is a bit overheated. TY
Does it matter what I say? You believe I do, and as far as you're concerned that's that.
Just because you've decided it's a "pseudo one" doesn't make it so. The only way a miscarriage of justice can be properly decided to have occurred is through the legal process. I support the right of all suspects not to be beaten up in custody and to receive a fair trial, both of which Leonor was clearly denied, on the basis of all the evidence we've discussed here.
The same can be said in reverse.
You only adhere to the Cipriano case as you and others believe , it helps with the mccann mantra.
im sure you dont support child killers though do you john?This is such a childish accusation. How does being against torture of suspects in custody = being a child killer supporter? Kindly explain your thought processes here. I am against the death penalty. Does that make me a supporter of murderers generally?
We deal in facts here Alfie, the Ciprianos conduct immediately following Joana's disappearance gave rise for concern thus why the GNR passed the file to the PJ in Portimao initially who then passed it to HQ in Faro. Their stories conflicted, they said one thing one day and something else the next. Leonor eventually admitted to the hitting her head against the wall episode. Her brother John corroborated her tale and admitted that he too did it.
The priority for the police then was to recover the child dead or alive and after eight days if she was being held somewhere she might have needed urgent help. While Leonor was being questioned, John Cipriano was followed in the hope he would lead police to the girl, he didn't.
Leonor was arrested, charged and remanded in custody, John was released on bail on the basis he would show police where Joana was buried. It was at this point that the police lost patience with Leonor who had continually exploited the situation, she was interrogated and beaten in order to extract the truth of where the girl was.
I don't condone what they did but I can understand why they did it.
+1. Living in a civilised society imo means we do not physically abuse people even if they are proven to have killed 20 people for instance. Can't believe anyone would think this was OK and beating to get some kind of conviction or statement is obviously a good recipe for a miscarriage of justice. Leaves one with a serious lack of respect for the Portuguese police in this particular circumstance...Thanks for the voice of sanity.
The same can be said in reverse.
You only adhere to the Cipriano case as you and others believe , it helps with the mccann mantra.
MANTRA :: a statement or slogan repeated frequently.
Yes ... one can definitely see why you are board expert on the subject.
+1. Living in a civilised society imo means we do not physically abuse people even if they are proven to have killed 20 people for instance. Can't believe anyone would think this was OK and beating to get some kind of conviction or statement is obviously a good recipe for a miscarriage of justice. Leaves one with a serious lack of respect for the Portuguese police in this particular circumstance...
i happen to belive if everybody had the same opinion about stuff life would be so boring
I certainly do not support child killers
But I don't think the ciprianos are child killers
Even if they were I would support their right not to be tortured
This is the Justice Forum and torture has no place in the justice system
Bang-on right.
Imprisonment is the punishment for offenders.
It is not the job of the police, themselves, to punish ....
Yet implicitly you are supporting convicted murderers.
Yet implicitly you are supporting convicted murderers.
Yet implicitly you are supporting convicted murderers.As much as you are implicitly supporting torture of suspects in custody.
We (I and several others) are upholding the right of the Ciprianos to a fair trial.
It's what's called justice.
Quite aside from the principle of the use of torture, I don't see what it achieved for Joana. It certainly didn't help to discover the truth about what happened to her.
Once the state uses torture in this way they are no better than the child killers
and what about Joana ferryman ?
Doesn't she get a look in ?
I Have never seen anyone beaten this badly in custody....what is astonishing is the fact that the PJ thought they could get away with it. And they did.... An absolute disgrace
(snip)
Leandro Silva did not believe that Joana had ran away. «She was 'certinha' [meaning a good girl]». Leandro confronted them with his doubts up to which they told him the truth, he would not believe them until he saw the cadaver. They threatened him so that he helped to hide the corpse. He ended up agreeing. The parts of the corpse of the girl were hidden in a car and taken to Spain to a scrap metal merchant, where the vehicle was burned and compacted. Inside the vehicle were also the utensils that were used to cut the cadaver.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-in-past.html
Guilhermino da Encarnação, Director, PJ Faro: "In this investigation, we covered about 50,000 kilometres. 2100 official processes were created. We assigned approximately 40 inspectors and requested approximately 40 exams from the Scientific Police Laboratory and the Legal Medical Institute."
Leandro Silva did not believe that Joana had ran away. «She was 'certinha' [meaning a good girl]». Leandro confronted them with his doubts up to which they told him the truth, he would not believe them until he saw the cadaver. They threatened him so that he helped to hide the corpse. He ended up agreeing. The parts of the corpse of the girl were hidden in a car and taken to Spain to a scrap metal merchant, where the vehicle was burned and compacted. Inside the vehicle were also the utensils that were used to cut the cadaver.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-in-past.html
Lisboa, 01 Jul (Lusa) – The Public Ministry has accused former Polícia Judiciária inspector Gonçalo Amaral of aggression on Leandro Silva, the partner of Leonor Cipriano, who was condemned over homicide and concealment of the cadaver of her daughter Joana Cipriano, in 2004, in the Algarve.
The accusation mentions that on the 13th of October 2004, in the PJ building in Portimão, the former inspector grabbed Leandro Silva's neck and punched him twice in the abdomen and slapped him twice in the face, while asking him to indicate where the child (Joana) was.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html
Joana case: Stepfather believes that child is alive three years after the disappearance
"I am Joan of photography at the head of my bed and think of her every day. It continues to live with me until I die," he said today the agency Lusa Leandro Silva, for whom the "story remains poorly told."
Joana Cipriano, eight, disappeared the small village of Figueira, in Portimão (Algarve) on September 12, 2004, around 20:30, after making purchases in a cafe near his home at the request of mom.
Leandro Silva, the Judicial Police (PJ) "did not investigate everything, leaving a lot to explain," pointing to a possible involvement of "a lady, very Joana's friend, who lived in Figueira and then hastily moved to England ".
"It was the owner of a supermarket in the village, left everything and left," said Leandro Silva, stressing that the lady "was very fond of Joan and offered him many things."
"I do not believe that Leonor has hurt the girl. She liked it very much as the other children," he said Leandro Silva, revealing that keeps "the two child care," a boy of five years and a girl of three.
Leandro Silva does not rule out the possibility of his brother, João Cipriano, be involved in the girl's disappearance, because, he says, "he is capable of anything, even sell itself."
"The girl was sold or kidnapped," argues Leandro Silva.
After several months of investigation, the PJ pointed out the murder theory, attributing the prosecution the crime to the mother and his brother. The mother, Leonor Cipriano, and the uncle of little Joana, João Cipriano, were tried and convicted by a jury court, respectively, to 20 years and four months and 19 years and two months in prison for aggravated homicide and concealment of a corpse .
To this day the body was not found.
Claiming that the murder was to prove, lawyers of the accused appealed the sentence to the Supreme Court, which in March 2006 set the sentences in 16 years for first-degree murder and two years for concealment of a corpse, reducing the total to 16 and eight months.
However, the decision of the directors was complex, and the judgment divided the judges, registering three votes in favor and two against.
The mother, Leonor Cipriano, serving their sentence in prison of Odemira, while his brother, João Cipriano, is in Pine chain Cruz.
Three years since the disappearance of her stepdaughter, Leandro Silva believes come to know one day the truth about what really happened and "find Joan".
During her detention preventively, Leonor Cipriano was asked several times by inspectors in the Directory Faro PJ, having one of those movements (in October 2004) returned to Odemira chain with visible bruises on his face, on which was questioned by the own director of prison, stating that he had been beaten.
Following that complaint, was the complaint to the prosecutor, who ordered investigate.
However, the PJ alleged that Leonor tried to commit suicide to allegedly shoot up the stairs in the Directory in Faro, resulting in bruising.
After the investigation, the prosecution decided to charge three elements that police crime of torture, while a fourth agent liable for omission of aid and the fifth for forgery.
One of the accused is the current coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of the PJ of Portimão, Gonçalo Amaral.
The "Joana case" has since been treated in a book entitled "Joan Star", written by former PJ inspector Paulo Pereira Cristóvão, assigned to collaborate on research and wanted to transcribe paper one experience are striking.
"This book is a tribute to Joana, so that his memory is perpetuated, but also to all the police whose job it is not always publicly acknowledged," says the author, who for a month joined the investigation.
JPC / MAD.
Portuguese / End
Guilhermino da Encarnação, Director, PJ Faro: "In this investigation, we covered about 50,000 kilometres. 2100 official processes were created. We assigned approximately 40 inspectors and requested approximately 40 exams from the Scientific Police Laboratory and the Legal Medical Institute."
Leandro Silva did not believe that Joana had ran away. «She was 'certinha' [meaning a good girl]». Leandro confronted them with his doubts up to which they told him the truth, he would not believe them until he saw the cadaver. They threatened him so that he helped to hide the corpse. He ended up agreeing. The parts of the corpse of the girl were hidden in a car and taken to Spain to a scrap metal merchant, where the vehicle was burned and compacted. Inside the vehicle were also the utensils that were used to cut the cadaver.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-in-past.html
Lisboa, 01 Jul (Lusa) – The Public Ministry has accused former Polícia Judiciária inspector Gonçalo Amaral of aggression on Leandro Silva, the partner of Leonor Cipriano, who was condemned over homicide and concealment of the cadaver of her daughter Joana Cipriano, in 2004, in the Algarve.
The accusation mentions that on the 13th of October 2004, in the PJ building in Portimão, the former inspector grabbed Leandro Silva's neck and punched him twice in the abdomen and slapped him twice in the face, while asking him to indicate where the child (Joana) was.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html
Quite aside from the principle of the use of torture, I don't see what it achieved for Joana. It certainly didn't help to discover the truth about what happened to her.
Thank you for that, Pathfinder. What a disgrace.
The extract?
Or Pathfinder?
Guilhermino da Encarnação, Director, PJ Faro: "In this investigation, we covered about 50,000 kilometres. 2100 official processes were created. We assigned approximately 40 inspectors and requested approximately 40 exams from the Scientific Police Laboratory and the Legal Medical Institute."
Leandro Silva did not believe that Joana had ran away. «She was 'certinha' [meaning a good girl]». Leandro confronted them with his doubts up to which they told him the truth, he would not believe them until he saw the cadaver. They threatened him so that he helped to hide the corpse. He ended up agreeing. The parts of the corpse of the girl were hidden in a car and taken to Spain to a scrap metal merchant, where the vehicle was burned and compacted. Inside the vehicle were also the utensils that were used to cut the cadaver.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/cipriano-case-in-past.html
Lisboa, 01 Jul (Lusa) – The Public Ministry has accused former Polícia Judiciária inspector Gonçalo Amaral of aggression on Leandro Silva, the partner of Leonor Cipriano, who was condemned over homicide and concealment of the cadaver of her daughter Joana Cipriano, in 2004, in the Algarve.
The accusation mentions that on the 13th of October 2004, in the PJ building in Portimão, the former inspector grabbed Leandro Silva's neck and punched him twice in the abdomen and slapped him twice in the face, while asking him to indicate where the child (Joana) was.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html
And in the McCann files link there finds itself the following:Isn't it odd how one court can conclude that photographic evidence is deemed weak and hardly worth the paper its printed on, but that another can conclude that Joana was chopped up and fed to pigs based on pretty much thin air.
"The jurors and the collective of judges at the Court of Faro considered that Leonor Cipriano's deposition had "no credibility". According to judge Henrique Pavão, "she changed her version several times" and "lightly" accused persons of aggressing her, based on a list of names that she carried into the court room. "She lied about the identification of the aggressors and she lied about other crucial aspects," the judge mentioned.
Concerning the photographs that were taken of Leonor, which were included in the process, the collective considered that they are "of weak quality" and that therefore, "it was not possible to conclude safely about what really happened" ".
As much as you are implicitly supporting torture of suspects in custody.
And in the McCann files link there finds itself the following:
"The jurors and the collective of judges at the Court of Faro considered that Leonor Cipriano's deposition had "no credibility". According to judge Henrique Pavão, "she changed her version several times" and "lightly" accused persons of aggressing her, based on a list of names that she carried into the court room. "She lied about the identification of the aggressors and she lied about other crucial aspects," the judge mentioned.
Concerning the photographs that were taken of Leonor, which were included in the process, the collective considered that they are "of weak quality" and that therefore, "it was not possible to conclude safely about what really happened" ".
Rather like JP, you prefer to interpret my posts rather than stick to the truth.The truth is - neither JP, nor myself have ever stated that we support child killers. It's a ludicrous and offensive accusation, so kindly desist.
Try reading through what I have said on this matter before.
Otherwise it might give the impression you are deliberately misrepresenting me. 8**8:/:
The truth is - neither JP, nor myself have ever stated that we support child killers. It's a ludicrous and offensive accusation, so kindly desist.
The ciprano's are classified as murderers in a Portuguese court.
So are you supporting them, YES or NO ?
You need to define what you mean by support...I support their right not to be tortured...and I feel they could well be the victims of a miscarriage of justice
would you feel the same way if GA had not been the police officer in that case? your hated for him with the mcann case biases your opinion imo
The ciprano's are classified as murderers in a Portuguese court.
So are you supporting them, YES or NO ?
It has been established in a Portuguese Court that Leonora Cipriano was subject to torture by PJ officers.
She was subsequently convicted as a result of a confession elicited by that torture.
Can you see the problem here, Stephen?
would you feel the same way if GA had not been the police officer in that case? your hated for him with the mcann case biases your opinion imo
Would you care to remind us, when the first confession took place and then when the 'torture' took place ?
And in the McCann files link there finds itself the following:
"The jurors and the collective of judges at the Court of Faro considered that Leonor Cipriano's deposition had "no credibility". According to judge Henrique Pavão, "she changed her version several times" and "lightly" accused persons of aggressing her, based on a list of names that she carried into the court room. "She lied about the identification of the aggressors and she lied about other crucial aspects," the judge mentioned.
Concerning the photographs that were taken of Leonor, which were included in the process, the collective considered that they are "of weak quality" and that therefore, "it was not possible to conclude safely about what really happened" ".
is this a statement by Cabrita...amarals lawyer
For your information the involvement of Amaral is irrelevant to my vehement objection to ANY police torture in ANY case.
It diminishes the police and it diminishes justice.
Completely irrelevant. The torture took place before the case came to court. (fyi threat of torture is frequently used as a means of eliciting confessions - and fyi that is totally unacceptable in a civilised society).
No it isn't.
If they confessed before 'torture'......
No it isn't.
If they confessed before 'torture'......
where is the evidence they confessed before torture
The ciprano's are classified as murderers in a Portuguese court.Your question is beneath contempt and does not deserve or require an answer.
So are you supporting them, YES or NO ?
Tell me JP, is Portugal the only country in the modern era where torture has taken place ?I have argued vigorously with others against the use of torture by the US at Guantanamo Bay as just one example. Do you need any others??
What steps have you taken by the way to demonstrate against torture ?
Not counting mentioning it on here.
By the way that question applies to others who are transfixed by torture in the Cipriano case.
Tell me JP, is Portugal the only country in the modern era where torture has taken place ?
What steps have you taken by the way to demonstrate against torture ?
Not counting mentioning it on here.
By the way that question applies to others who are transfixed by torture in the Cipriano case.
A few points. Are you seriously suggesting that because torture is used in several other countries that somehow makes it ok?
And you often whine about 'goading' posts. Of which yours in a prime example. It seems to be the case that you can 'dish it out' but cannot 'take it'.
Your question is beneath contempt and does not deserve or require an answer.
Well.as you and others keep bringing up the subject of the Cipriano's as it suits your purpose as regards the McCann's.
Expect difficult questions, as you and your fellows ask of the 'sceptics' on a regular basis.
Well.as you and others keep bringing up the subject of the Cipriano's as it suits your purpose as regards the McCann's.
Expect difficult questions, as you and your fellows ask of the 'sceptics' on a regular basis.
Hmmmm ... ???
Wonder if posters have been mentioning Cipriano as a result of the wording of thread title. Just a passing thought.
Hmmmm ... ???
Wonder if posters have been mentioning Cipriano as a result of the wording of thread title. Just a passing thought.
Hmmmm ... ???
Wonder if posters have been mentioning Cipriano as a result of the wording of thread title. Just a passing thought.
Better complain to Slarti who started the thread then.
Cipriano.
The name used by the mccann supporters to claim a link to the mccann case, whereas of course there is nothing in common how the two girls disappeared, is there ?
Cipriano.
The name used by the mccann supporters to claim a link to the mccann case, whereas of course there is nothing in common how the two girls disappeared, is there ?
Cipriano.
The name used by the mccann supporters to claim a link to the mccann case, whereas of course there is nothing in common how the two girls disappeared, is there ?
I'm sure I can think of one or two similarities in Joana Cipriano's case and that of Madeleine McCann.
Both girls vanished without a trace.
The mothers of both girls fell under the suspicion of the investigation.
A virulent media campaign was unleashed on both women.
Let us now continue to where the similarity begins to diverge.
One woman ~ a poor, uneducated Portuguese peasant ~ was subjected to inhumane physical ill treatment while in police custody. The court recognised that she had been tortured.
The other woman ~ a middle class, well educated British subject ~ was subjected to inhumane mental ill treatment while being questioned as an arguida by the police.
One woman is serving out a long prison sentence with added time because she was unable to identify who had tortured her by the same court that ruled she had been tortured.
The other woman eventually had her arguida status lifted for the simple reason there was not a shred of evidence to support it ... or to support that her daughter was dead.
Back to Joana and Madeleine.
The court has convicted Joana's mother of her murder ... so no-one has been looking for Joana or is looking for her.
Madeleine's mother retained her freedom and the search for Madeleine in one form or another has never ceased, which for some reason or other seems to come between some people and their rest.
That we have a thread on this forum asking if Madeleine's parents would "have been tortured too had they been Portuguese?" shows, I think a recognition of just what a near run thing it could have been.
We do not know if there is anything in common between what happened to Joana and Madeleine ... for example if the same predator was responsible.
I would tend to think that may very well be because no-one bothered to look ... for very obvious reasons.
But Stephen you forget smoke and mirrors. The supporters and parents cling to the notion that they the 'innocent parents' were going to be tortured.. oh hivvings sake... Keep up man :)
But Stephen you forget smoke and mirrors. The supporters and parents cling to the notion that they the 'innocent parents' were going to be tortured.. oh hivvings sake... Keep up man :)
I see you have been exercising your typing skills again.
Likewise, still clinging on to a 'predator'.
Well I suppose it makes a change from abduction.
However, the bottom line remains, there is no link between the two disappearances, and mere rhetoric on your part won't change that.
But Stephen you forget smoke and mirrors. The supporters and parents cling to the notion that they the 'innocent parents' were going to be tortured.. oh hivvings sake... Keep up man :)
I see you have been exercising your typing skills again.
Likewise, still clinging on to a 'predator'.
Well I suppose it makes a change from abduction.
However, the bottom line remains, there is no link between the two disappearances, and mere rhetoric on your part won't change that.
they were tortured
Let's do some more similarities:
The McCanns claim mental torture from the book Amaral wrote, faling to prove any such idea. So perhaps some can see where their case was going in so faras trying to link themsleves to torturing, nasty police. For sympathy ofcourse.
However, I will not dismiss the claim that LC may have been tortured, I have no independant evidence, If I concede this did happen, it would not change my mind on her being guilty of her daughters mistreatment/abuse and being involved in her disappearance.
Both children were left to fend for themselves by their mothers.
Troll.
I do not condone torture to extract confessions- unsafe convictions can occur. However, Her own daughter must have ssuffered much worse, that has to be said. The mother is not a victim in her daughters fate.
I do not condone torture to extract confessions- unsafe convictions can occur. However, Her own daughter must have ssuffered much worse, that has to be said. The mother is not a victim in her daughters fate.
LC was tortured ... the evidence is overwhelmingCorrect ; the courts said so.
Correct ; the courts said so.
One court convicted her of murder another upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence for murder then added on a bit for perjury.
You reckon the court was right only once. If you believe they are that kin incompetent to get two wrong why do you believe the only time they were right was to agree LC had been tortured ? Or the other way around if you wish
Bearing in mind all this is subject to Romanesque Law about which the average punter on here seems to know little. Or if they do lights are being hidden under bushels so to speak.
good to see you neither condone/make excuses for torture as some posters have here...there are no excuses for the torture of leonora
Police officers beat people all the time davel, it's a fact of life. Portugal is no different from London, Glasgow, Alicante, Sydney or Timbuktu. If anyone still believes in this perfect police utopia world I suggest they get a reality check.
Police officers beat people all the time davel, it's a fact of life. Portugal is no different from London, Glasgow, Alicante, Sydney or Timbuktu. If anyone still believes in this perfect police utopia world I suggest they get a reality check.
I believe portugal is different... I have never seen a suspect appear in court looking like ciprianio...I don't believe taht would happen in the UK . The PJ didn't care because the knew the could get away with it and they did. I don't think they would get away with that in the Uk. Of course the police assault suspects in the Uk but not to the extent cipriano was...a defenceless woman.
I remember some years ago talking to a policewoman working in a inner city area in the Uk. She said she had arrested a 15 yr old lad for mugging an elderly person...the lad spat in her face... she said if she had reacted she would have lost her job and her pension...that's the real world
Oh Davel seriously? come on have you never seen a victim of police brutality/abuse of power/torture. You need to read up on that subject more. Mr Mendeze was executed! other have died in police custody, of you must have seen pics or read about it. No police force is 'innocent'.
lol @ Alice yeah if you are not right - you must be wrong. The missing point is the torture was not used to extract a confession. Pennies sometimes do not drop.
I have never seen a victim beaten so obviously as leonora
I have every sympathy for de Mendezes but that was a very extreme terrorist situation with possibly SAS with a shoot to kill policy
I Don't need to read up on the subject more...I am extremely well read
deaths in custody in the UK are violent suspects being restrained....not defenceless women
Violent suspects being restrained? hahahahahaha yes that is what the police reports say huh.
I won't press you on the reading up bit... Lot's you don't know is all I will say.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/636398/Sarah-Payne-killer-Roy-Whiting-clubbed-scalded-prison-attack
Someone tortured in Prison...
not by the police...but by a fellow inmate....and a minor injury....how far off topic is this thread going to go ...
The torture of cipriano is wrong...no excuses
The article doesn't say that, so you have made assumptions.
Have I...perhaps you didn't read it properly
Sarah Payne's killer Roy Whiting clubbed and scalded in prison attack
CONVICTED paedophile Roy Whiting was attacked outside his prison cell by a fellow inmate.
we will take action against anyone found to have been involved.
Sorry missed the sub headline, though...
Suggests less certainty.
Sorry missed the sub headline, though...I'm still waiting for you to cite the specific passages in all the tabloid articles about Von Aesch sexually assaulting the girl he murdered which turned out to be false / misleading...
Suggests less certainty.
Does Portugal have an Independent Police Complaints Commission, or anything similar?
Does Portugal have an Independent Police Complaints Commission, or anything similar?
I'm still waiting for you to cite the specific passages in all the tabloid articles about Von Aesch sexually assaulting the girl he murdered which turned out to be false / misleading...
I have never seen a victim beaten so obviously as leonoraI must have missed this. "I have every sympathy for de Mendezes but that was a very extreme terrorist situation with possibly SAS with a shoot to kill policy".
I have every sympathy for de Mendezes but that was a very extreme terrorist situation with possibly SAS with a shoot to kill policy
I Don't need to read up on the subject more...I am extremely well read
deaths in custody in the UK are violent suspects being restrained....not defenceless women
And further to Carana's post there is such a thing.
But a note of caution.
In making a complaint against a police officer, lawyer, or many other classes of public officials, one takes the risk of a counter charge of aggravated criminal defamation (from memory I think its 181 - 185 of the Criminal code but may be wrong on detail).
This is a hark back to the "good old days" days of the regime when complaints about public officials were frowned upon and dealt with very harshly.
I must have missed this. "I have every sympathy for de Mendezes but that was a very extreme terrorist situation with possibly SAS with a shoot to kill policy".
Let me think. Wasn't the senior officer involved a female who got promoted a few years later? Was there really a police officer in charge of "SAS with a shoot to kill policy"? Wasn't there a police enquiry into this? Could a police enquiry investigate the actions of a military unit?
I remember this as coming out, AFAIK from a police spokeman, that Menezes had been acting suspiciously, that he had vaulted a ticket barrier to flee, that he was wearing a bulky jacket that looked like concealment of a bomb. Then it turned out he never vaulted a ticket barrier, and was not wearing a bulky jacket.
The police officers tracking him lost contact with the commanding officer, and decided on their own initiative to kill him.
The enquiry to date concluded that 1) no one in the police should be charged with anything for killing Menezes and 2) that the police should get some radios that worked in tube stations.
What then was Menezes 'crime'? He came out of a block of flats the police were monitoring with relation to the London bombings and went to use the Tube.
Was he to know the block was being monitored? Was he to be aware that use of the tube would be deemed suspicious and dangerous? Why wasn't he stopped before he entered the tube station?
Personally, I hope his mother gets an enquiry that digs a bit deeper than the first one.
This is interesting, Luz. But going Off Topic.
Anyone know why Aragão Correia was suspended as a lawyer/barrister by the Madeira Bar Association on 21 January 2009 - ensuring that he was unable to continue representing Leonor Cipriano when he was expelled from the court in Faro the following day?
Erm.... I think it's safe to say that Shininginluz and Luz are two very different people... 8(0(*
Anyone know why Aragão Correia was suspended as a lawyer/barrister by the Madeira Bar Association on 21 January 2009 - ensuring that he was unable to continue representing Leonor Cipriano when he was expelled from the court in Faro the following day?
The attached link spreads a little light.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/01/justice-leonor-ciprianos-lawyer.html
He appears to have been suspended following a complaint to the "Conselho Distrital de Deontologia" - basically the ethics committee. Which is interesting at a critical stage in a trial.
Whilst on the subject, Ciprianos lawyer at her original trial? Grade? That name rings a bell somewhere.
Not sure.
I find RTP to be more reliable than CdM, but I haven't taken the time to check out what it was all about, nor whether the suspension was upheld.
http://www.rtp.pt/noticias/pais/advogado-de-leonor-cipriano-suspenso-por-seis-meses_n69114
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/marcos-aragao-correia/joana-advogado-de-leonor-cipriano-suspenso
I didn't take much notice of it at the time as I'd originally read somewhere that it was a temporary suspension from a session due to an incorrect address on some court document or other, which I assumed had been quckly resolved.
However, just googling now, it seems to have been more than that.
It looks as though forty witnesses for Leonor Cipriano were unable to testify. Have I got that right?? With only the prison governor being allowed.
Faro, Jan 22 (Lusa) -
Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, Aragão Correia, accused the president of the panel of judges in the trial over alleged aggressions against his client of partiality and announced that he will request the annulment of today's audience.
"I'm going to put [sic] a complaint against the president of the judges' panel to the Superior Council of Magistrature", said Marcos Aragão Correia, adding that judge Henrique Pavão has a "biased attitude", which culminated today with his expulsion from the court room.
In order to justify the judge's "biased attitude", the lawyer said that the magistrate refused 40 requests from assistant Leonor Cipriano, only allowing for the director of Odemira Prison, Ana Maria Calado, to be heard.
Marcos Aragão Correia was preventively suspended today, at the request of the Deontology Council of the Lawyers' Order Madeira section, the reason why he was prevented from exercising his mandate in Leonor Cipriano's defence.
The lawyer says that he was caught by "surprise" by the preventive suspension, which he classified as "a maneuver by the Algarve Lawyers' Order", referring that the complaint was filed by António Cabrita, Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer and the president of the District Council of the Lawyers' Order in the Algarve.
Aragão said that the preventive suspension was based on "accusations from Dr António Cabrita" and stated that there are "interests and differences" behind these accusations.
That is stunningly awful. I think I feel sick.
That is stunningly awful. I think I feel sick.
What is there to feel sick about ?
Correia, I believe, is the one who said Madeleine was at the bottom of a lake, after his psychic vision.
Among his other activities of course at the instruction of Metado3.
What is there to feel sick about ?
Correia, I believe, is the one who said Madeleine was at the bottom of a lake, after his psychic vision.
Among his other activities of course at the instruction of Metado3.
Well, it does look as though some rather unsporting tactics were used.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id398.html is very revealing and pretty relevant to many aspects of this thread.
That so many witnesses in favour of The Ciprianos were prevented from testifying.
Carana is right. 20 Hours for a Trial which held the balance of the lives of two people who were never adequately defended, is a disgrace.
And the more I learn then the worse it gets.
Oh dear Stephen, you have swallowed Amaral's line hook line and sinker! *&*%£
Correia is without doubt a tad eccentric, but he is a pretty successful lawyer.
Don't forget the current score is Correia 2 Amaral 0. One think that is without any doubt is that Amaral is a very poor loser.
eta - Eleanor - I agree with that - something smells extremely fishy.
Oh dear Stephen, you have swallowed Amaral's line hook line and sinker! *&*%£
Correia is without doubt a tad eccentric, but he is a pretty successful lawyer.
Don't forget the current score is Correia 2 Amaral 0. One think that is without any doubt is that Amaral is a very poor loser.
eta - Eleanor - I agree with that - something smells extremely fishy.
It looks as though forty witnesses for Leonor Cipriano were unable to testify. Have I got that right?? With only the prison governor being allowed.
Faro, Jan 22 (Lusa) -
Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, Aragão Correia, accused the president of the panel of judges in the trial over alleged aggressions against his client of partiality and announced that he will request the annulment of today's audience.
"I'm going to put [sic] a complaint against the president of the judges' panel to the Superior Council of Magistrature", said Marcos Aragão Correia, adding that judge Henrique Pavão has a "biased attitude", which culminated today with his expulsion from the court room.
In order to justify the judge's "biased attitude", the lawyer said that the magistrate refused 40 requests from assistant Leonor Cipriano, only allowing for the director of Odemira Prison, Ana Maria Calado, to be heard.
Marcos Aragão Correia was preventively suspended today, at the request of the Deontology Council of the Lawyers' Order Madeira section, the reason why he was prevented from exercising his mandate in Leonor Cipriano's defence.
The lawyer says that he was caught by "surprise" by the preventive suspension, which he classified as "a maneuver by the Algarve Lawyers' Order", referring that the complaint was filed by António Cabrita, Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer and the president of the District Council of the Lawyers' Order in the Algarve.
Aragão said that the preventive suspension was based on "accusations from Dr António Cabrita" and stated that there are "interests and differences" behind these accusations.
Which witnesses ?
By the way, do you believe Correia's 'theories' ?
Clearly he was at the employ of Metado3, who were employed by the McCann's.
I have swallowed nothing.
Correia was paid for.
I have swallowed nothing.
Correia was paid for.
+1. Living in a civilised society imo means we do not physically abuse people even if they are proven to have killed 20 people for instance. Can't believe anyone would think this was OK and beating to get some kind of conviction or statement is obviously a good recipe for a miscarriage of justice. Leaves one with a serious lack of respect for the Portuguese police in this particular circumstance...
What is there to feel sick about ?
Correia, I believe, is the one who said Madeleine was at the bottom of a lake, after his psychic vision.
Among his other activities of course at the instruction of Metado3.
In case you hadn't noticed Portugal is not England and Portuguese police are not the Met. The Portuguese police have their own rules of engagement and that is a matter for them and not us Brits.
You can say that again. Although they do appear to be making some effort to join the 21st Century.
In case you hadn't noticed Portugal is not England and Portuguese police are not the Met. The Portuguese police have their own rules of engagement and that is a matter for them and not us Brits.
I don't find the wording clear in this article, but I'll have a look later. For the moment I don't think "requerimentos" means witnesses - it seems to relate to points he wanted to raise (one of which was that former and currently serving officers turned up to the hearings carrying firearms).
Aragão Correia nota que o juiz-presidente deferiu apenas um dos 40 requerimentos apresentados "até ao momento" (audição da directora do Estabelecimento Prisional de Odemira, onde Leonor Cipriano cumpre pena) e rejeitou todos os outros, um dos quais sobre o facto de antigos e actuais agentes da PJ transportarem armas de fogo para as audiências de julgamento.
O requerimento foi apresentado a 17 de Outubro, antes das sessões de julgamento, e posteriormente a 18 de Novembro, referindo-se no incidente de recusa hoje entregue que apenas na audiência de 16 de Janeiro o juiz-presidente procedeu ao despacho de indeferimento, "alegando de forma espantosa e incrível que todos os arguidos revelaram um excelente comportamento e conduta ética" em todas as audiências.
https://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/advogado-de-leonor-cipriano-pede-afastamento-do-juizpresidente-henrique-pavao-1365686
Sounds like sour grapes to me??
Even given the fact that it was to Cristovao (he who is standing trial/awaiting trial on multiple serious charges) that Leonor made her "confession"? And it was Cristovao who was writing up her "confession" whilst Leonor was outside being beaten up?
In case you hadn't noticed Portugal is not England and Portuguese police are not the Met. The Portuguese police have their own rules of engagement and that is a matter for them and not us Brits.You seem to be suggesting that we as Brits have no right to complain about PT police torture tactics, and that what they decide to do to those in custody is up to them, or have I misunderstood?
I'm still waiting for you to cite the specific passages in all the tabloid articles about Von Aesch sexually assaulting the girl he murdered which turned out to be false / misleading...
Urs Hans von Aesch, 67, shot himself dead after poisoning and sexually abusing Ylenia Lenhard.
Are you suggesting that Portugal cannot be regarded as a civilised society then Angelo?
The court found that she had been tortured by members of the PJ. And as a result of the subsequent confession she was convicted.
Are you entirely happy that the court got it right, and that her conviction was perfectly fair and safe
You have to remember that Portugal only saw democracy from 1974 and before that it had a fascist right wing regime. It takes a long time and many generations for a country to recover from a dictatorial past.
Daily MailWell done, so that's one article - you claimed that this was then picked up as fact and repeated by all the other news media - evidence?
Well done, so that's one article - you claimed that this was then picked up as fact and repeated by all the other news media - evidence?
She confessed before the examining magistrate, no torture on that occasion.
Oh Dear God. But you are almost certainly right. Portugal is The Victim, along with Amaral and his like because they didn't know any better.
Beat up any old suspect some forty years later to get a confession.
Fortunately, but sadly, it took the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to bring them to their senses. But you still can't see that there was anything to worry about.
There seems to be no confirmation that she confessed before a magistrate with her lawyer present..
The only mention is by the lawyer representing the PJ officers accused of torture who is hardly independent
Maybe the local press made it all up. @)(++(*
You read too much into the McCann case. Surely you don't really think the Portuguese legislators give a stuff?
One might ask what Cristovao was doing on the Algarve at the time.
and Correia was paid to go after Amaral.
Can you let me know how many I need to find before you are satisfied?As many as it takes to prove the point you were trying to make, ie: "In general tabloids take a story from a source or other paper and embroider it. You can identify from where stories have been borrowed by the embroidery they have". If the DM is the source for the claim then which other tabloids picked up on it and embroidered it? If the DM is not the source for the claim then who was?
Correia ousted John Grade just before the five PJ officers went on trial. John Grade represented Leonor during her trial and Sara Rosado represented her brother John.
You have to remember that Portugal only saw democracy from 1974 and before that it had a fascist right wing regime. It takes a long time and many generations for a country to recover from a dictatorial past.
As many as it takes to prove the point you were trying to make, ie: "In general tabloids take a story from a source or other paper and embroider it. You can identify from where stories have been borrowed by the embroidery they have". If the DM is the source for the claim then which other tabloids picked up on it and embroidered it? If the DM is not the source for the claim then who was?
You read too much into the McCann case. Surely you don't really think the Portuguese legislators give a stuff?
He was one of the Lisbon DCCB boys sent down on 11 October 2004 to, erm, give a hand.
5. Em 11 de Outubro de 2004, uma equipa da Direcção Central do Combate ao Banditismo (DCCB) da Polícia Judiciária de Lisboa deslocou-se para o Algarve para dar apoio á Directoria de Faro na investigação daquele inquérito;
6. A equipa era constituída pelo arguido Leonel Morgado Marques, inspector- chefe, que a chefiava; e pelos inspectores Paulo António Pereira Cristóvão, Paulo Afonso Sá da Costa Marques Bom e António Fernando Nunes Cardoso, também arguidos; e ainda pelos inspectores Pedro Baptista Marques, Carlos Dordonnat e um outro inspector;
So are you saying that Correia was respresented Leonora Cipriano at her original trial in 2005?
"Quote from: Angelo222 on Today at 01:32:17 PM
She confessed before the examining magistrate, no torture on that occasion. She only changed her mind after Correia had a word in her ear. Fact!"
I think we need a cite for that "fact" based on the rules of this forum.
From a link cited earlier:
On the day of the last session of this trial, on the 16th of January, Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, read out a press note in which he informed that Joana's mother had revealed new facts concerning the disappearance of her daughter, recently documented and signed at the prison of Odemira, where she is currently being detained.
According to the lawyer, little Joana's uncle, João Cipriano, convinced his sister, Leonor Cipriano, to deliver her daughter into the care of strangers, in exchange for financial help.
Former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral, when confronted with the new facts, on the day of the last trial session, classified the statements that change Leonor Cipriano's initial deposition as "lies".
I'm afraid that I'm bewildered by this....
Whoever's idea it was, as her lawyer, why on earth did Correia find that this was going to be helpful?
Thank you for "correcting" the facts around Grade and Correia.
The problem is that when subject to close examination, the certainties about Leonoro's conviction start to slip away.
For example, there was also a bit of a problem with the subsequent post
"Quote from: Angelo222 on Today at 01:32:17 PM
She confessed before the examining magistrate, no torture on that occasion."
Posters have been threatened with sanctions by "da management" of this forum for suggesting that there is no real evidence against Leonoro Cipriano. Well - what IS the case against her?
So Correia wasn't Leonor's Lawyer at her original Trial? I would like an answer to this.
Why bewildered Carana? Do you not realise by now that Leonor was very easily manipulated both by her brother and by her lawyers.
Correia's involvement with Leonor only came after the Maddie disappearance and only after the McCanns employed Metodo 3. Prior to this he had no interest in the case.
I agree Angelo that Leonor appears to be very easily manipulated by her brother and by others such as the police. And by others such as Grade and Correia - who knows.
Carana - the sanction for an illegal adoption is relatively trivial in comparison with murder. A quick example "It can be quite difficult to obtain accurate statistics concerning adoption fraud. However, below is a sample "603 adoptions were recorded by Greece's courts in 2005, an increase of 20 percent over the previous year, according to government statistics. But fewer than 60 of these adoptions were carried out through state channels",[3] meaning that in some regions of the world up to 90% of adoptions share the potential of being illegal." (source wkipedia - sorry). So that is those what have come to the attention of the courts.
I agree Angelo that Leonor appears to be very easily manipulated by her brother and by others such as the police. And by others such as Grade and Correia - who knows.
Carana - the sanction for an illegal adoption is relatively trivial in comparison with murder. A quick example "It can be quite difficult to obtain accurate statistics concerning adoption fraud. However, below is a sample "603 adoptions were recorded by Greece's courts in 2005, an increase of 20 percent over the previous year, according to government statistics. But fewer than 60 of these adoptions were carried out through state channels",[3] meaning that in some regions of the world up to 90% of adoptions share the potential of being illegal." (source wkipedia - sorry). So that is those what have come to the attention of the courts.
No, it was John Grade. Correia represented Leonor as a plaintiff at the PJ trial.
I'm now going for a lie down in a darkened room! %&5%£
My own belief is that it was her brother who hit Joana and Leonor is guilty by association.
Why bewildered Carana? Do you not realise by now that Leonor was very easily manipulated both by her brother and by her lawyers.
Correia's involvement with Leonor only came after the Maddie disappearance and only after the McCanns employed Metodo 3. Prior to this he had no interest in the case.
My apologies, Correia only became interested in the case when according to him, he was asked by Metodo 3 to look into it.
He ousted John Grade on the eve of the trial of the five PJ officers after secretly visiting Leonor Cipriano in Odemira Prison.
So you agree that Correia didn't influence the 2005 PJ disciplinary inquiry into the "slippery stairs" saga?
Thank You. So it was Grade who let her down and very ill defended her.
PS. Can I join you in that darkened room? My brain is having trouble with all of this bull shite.
Oh, and thanks for being honest.
The defence appears to have weak throughout.... there may be reasons that were beyond anyone's control such as a mundane lack of resources.
Whatever the reason (s), something doesn't appear right if a trial calling for maximum penalties only lasts 20 hours based on such flimsy evidence.
As far as we know Correia didn't involve himself until 2008.
Joana Case: Cristóvão says that only the declaration of Leonor can lead to searches
by Paulo Marcelino
22 January 2009
Paulo Pereira Cristóvão, former inspector of the Judicial Police who investigated the death of Joana in 2004, wants the lawyer of Leonor Cipriano, mother of the girl convicted for her murder, along with her brother João, to "do the rest of the path" and that he [Marcos Aragão Correia] gets the revelation of the exact location where the corpse of the child is.
"Everyone would like Joana to have a decent funeral", said the former inspector to CM.
Cristóvão instigated the idea following the confession of Leonor, disclosed last Friday, in the Court of Faro, by her lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia. According to Leonor, the daughter was buried "up there in the mountains of Figueira", after the deal of her sale failed, by João Cipriano, uncle of the eight years old girl.
"We will not launch a crusade with a shovel in the lands at northern Figueira", said the former inspector. "However if they suggest a place that was not yet a target of searches, the authorities must act", he concluded. In that sense, he asks to the lawyer of Leonor to complete the confession, ensuring that "She knows where the body is."
Aragão Correia answered: "If she knew, she would have said it. João is the one who knows".
www.mccannfiles.com/id203.html
Joana Case: Cristóvão says that only the declaration of Leonor can lead to searches
by Paulo Marcelino
22 January 2009
Paulo Pereira Cristóvão, former inspector of the Judicial Police who investigated the death of Joana in 2004, wants the lawyer of Leonor Cipriano, mother of the girl convicted for her murder, along with her brother João, to "do the rest of the path" and that he [Marcos Aragão Correia] gets the revelation of the exact location where the corpse of the child is.
"Everyone would like Joana to have a decent funeral", said the former inspector to CM.
Cristóvão instigated the idea following the confession of Leonor, disclosed last Friday, in the Court of Faro, by her lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia. According to Leonor, the daughter was buried "up there in the mountains of Figueira", after the deal of her sale failed, by João Cipriano, uncle of the eight years old girl.
"We will not launch a crusade with a shovel in the lands at northern Figueira", said the former inspector. "However if they suggest a place that was not yet a target of searches, the authorities must act", he concluded. In that sense, he asks to the lawyer of Leonor to complete the confession, ensuring that "She knows where the body is."
Aragão Correia answered: "If she knew, she would have said it. João is the one who knows".
www.mccannfiles.com/id203.html
So how did Cristovao know anything about it? What was he doing involving himself in a case that was nothing to do with him?
Yer. And if she had known then she would have said, after the beating that she took.
I can only presume that her brother was a coward, although that is probably a bit unfair.
Cristovão was involved in the Cipriano case as he was one of the ones sent down by Lisbon... to lend a hand.
Ah yes, Cristovão. So he was a PJ inspector from Lisbon then.
Anyone know what he is doing now?
He's currently under house arrest awaiting the outcome of the trial for bribery & corruption whilst employed at Sporting Lisbon. He still has the matter of kidnapping & aggravated burglaries to face yet.
......and in another 100 pages of this thread will anyone believe any different or change the typed mantra ?
......and in another 100 pages of this thread will anyone believe any different or change the typed mantra ?
We'll just keep going & see, shall we?
It am sure it won't to you Stephen.
But some find it interesting to see just how many of the "accepted facts" about the Cipriano case do not bear close examination. The more I see of this, the more convinced I am that the court decision is unsafe.
You mean rather like the SY investigation ?
What accepted facts ?
and of course it won't change the verdict or opinions on here.
......and in another 100 pages of this thread will anyone believe any different or change the typed mantra ?
OK - a very trivial small example. A moderator on this forum stated as a fact, that Correia was Ciprianos lawyer at her original trial.
What accepted facts ?
and of course it won't change the verdict or opinions on here.
OK - a very trivial small example. A moderator on this forum stated as a fact, that Correia was Ciprianos lawyer at her original trial.
SY are still following focussed leads, not resting on their laurels. I realise that displeases those who want to see the parents jailed.
Cristovão was involved in the Cipriano case as he was one of the ones sent down by Lisbon... to lend a hand.
OK - a very trivial small example. A moderator on this forum stated as a fact, that Correia was Ciprianos lawyer at her original trial.
But he has since retracted, so let's not get too picky about this. Eh what.
So why would that have been? Why did The PJ need his expertise? You mean that Portimao couldn't handle this? So much for Amaral then. Totally useless it seams.
I know he has Eleanor, and all due credit. But only after a challenge. It had been stated as "Fact!".
I was merely using this as an example of one of the many things in this case where the "facts" upon which their opinions are founded are, on examination, totally wrong.
i am interested in the claim that leonora confessed in the presence of her lawyer before the torture...is there any verification for this...apart from the lawyer who was representing the PJ
i am interested in the claim that leonora confessed in the presence of her lawyer before the torture...is there any verification for this...apart from the lawyer who was representing the PJ
Well it would seem poignant at this point, for all those who think a miscarriage of justice has taken place, then why not take your concerns to the Portuguese government, rather than being keyboard critics.
I know he has Eleanor, and all due credit. But only after a challenge. It had been stated as "Fact!".
I was merely using this as an example of one of the many things in this case where the "facts" upon which their opinions are founded are, on examination, totally wrong.
Well it would seem poignant at this point, for all those who think a miscarriage of justice has taken place, then why not take your concerns to the Portuguese government, rather than being keyboard critics.
LOL Stephen, this is hardly the only thead on this entire board with keyboard critics, is it?
The case had been originally handed over from the GNR to the Portimão PJ after a few days when the child still hadn't been found. The Portimão team were ok, according to Leandro.
However, four days after that (21 Sept), the case was taken over by the Faro boys (at the time, Amaral was part of the Faro PJ).
Then, the DCCB boys came from Lisbon (11 Oct).
some posters have been treated with contempt on here for simply asking for a cite .......from posters who claim to know all the details on this case. It shows as you say that we are not wrong to question facts and posters should provide cites as forum rules...rather than insult
Yes, I know this. But why? Why did they need the boys from Lisbon? To belt seven bells of shit out of a helpless woman?
What a crock of shit. And this is The PJ as they want us to know them.
Jassi posed pretty much the same question early doors.what would you expect anyone to do... I think there has been an almost certain miscarriage of justice....does that mean I have to go to portugal and do something about it...who made that rule up
No answer came the stern reply.
I don't think anyone knows the rules of appeal in the system.
"I read it the Daily Mail/Mirror/Grauniad or Amaral is convicted perjurer" is unlikely to cut much ice.
Well it would seem poignant at this point, for all those who think a miscarriage of justice has taken place, then why not take your concerns to the Portuguese government, rather than being keyboard critics.
There's a long section in the torture trial as to what the DCCB boys were there to do... in theory. And what they may have done, but perhaps didn't. Or what they may have done, but weren't supposed to.
Just don't ask me to dig it all out tonight.
I am well with you all of the way, Jean Pierre. For God's sake, you know me by now. But Angelo is a Moderator, and us do try not diss each other. Or, at least I do, or not, or whatever.
Yes, so much has been founded on incorrect information, and one of it was who the hell was Leonor's Lawyer. Thanks to Angelo we now know who was. And I for one applaud him.
Now we have to sort out who Grade was, since he suddenly decamped to Amaral, and then offered to employ Amaral. So whose side was he on?
At what point did Grade decide? I have never heard the like of this. One Lawyer was defending Leonor Cipriano and then became the best buddy of the person who was ultimately responsible for convicting her.
This is utter shit.
I'll be attacked from all sides, but - despite his background - I'm not convinced that João was involved in her disappearance either. I still haven't found anything concrete to that effect.
He had a prior criminal history, smoked dope, had no fixed abode. Few witnesses were called for character references (either for or against), but one employer testified that when he was given a job he had no problems with him. That doesn't mean much, but then no one seems to have taken much notice of his possible innocence.
There is no material evidence that he did what he was alleged to have done.
I find the alleged scenario to be highly unlikely... Not totally impossible, as unlikely scenarios do sometimes happen, but I would expect at least a tiny bit of sound forensic evidence, of which there isn't any.
I think the turning point for Grade came when, just after he had tabled the torture case against Amaral and co, he was asked totake some stuff into the prisonlleading to a search and his arrest.
Turned out to contain drugs. Possible 15 year sentence.
Subsequently charges were dropped and he and Amaral became best mates.
Just a coincidence of course.
Is that rather like the coincidence of the brother and sister each blaming each other for Joana's death ?
Mmm.
I don't know how much bluff techniques could have influenced each of them to accuse the other. It's an age-old technique... which may work in some instances, but can also lead nowhere "useful" (depending on how one understands the term).
Is that rather like the coincidence of the brother and sister each blaming each other for Joana's death ?
Mmm.
I think the turning point for Grade came when, just after he had tabled the torture case against Amaral and co, he was asked totake some stuff into the prisonlleading to a search and his arrest.
Turned out to contain drugs. Possible 15 year sentence.
Subsequently charges were dropped and he and Amaral became best mates.
Just a coincidence of course.
I'll be attacked from all sides, but - despite his background - I'm not convinced that João was involved in her disappearance either. I still haven't found anything concrete to that effect.
He had a prior criminal history, smoked dope, had no fixed abode. Few witnesses were called for character references (either for or against), but one employer testified that when he was given a job he had no problems with him. That doesn't mean much, but then no one seems to have taken much notice of his possible innocence.
There is no material evidence that he did what he was alleged to have done.
I find the alleged scenario to be highly unlikely... Not totally impossible, as unlikely scenarios do sometimes happen, but I would expect at least a tiny bit of sound forensic evidence, of which there isn't any.
A couple of simple uneducated people.
Chair, bag over head, fists and couple of glass ashtrays.
Case solved.
Are you really that naive, Stephen?
9. 1. Facts considered to be proved:
a) the arguidos are siblings;
b) the arguido AA [João Cipriano] has never held a regular job or residence, living inside a vehicle or at his siblings’ house, surviving on occasional jobs that he performed on diverse locations;
c) the arguido AA expresses contempt for human life – a result of a poor social adjustment and affective coldness – and has anti-social/psychopathic tendencies with a difficulty to control his impulses, which leads him to be aggressive, trying to solve conflicts through said aggressiveness, feeling no remorse for the consequences of the actions that he thus performs, despising other people’s rights, wishes or feelings;
d) through a ruling that has been validated in court, and given on 10.11.1993, arguido AA was condemned to a 4-year prison sentence over the practice, on 2.10.1992, of a crime of attempted homicide, (…). Said ruling includes that the arguido was convinced, by a third party that lived with one of the arguido’s sisters (GG) to take the life of another person who had left him blind, in exchange for 20.000$00 and a motorbike (…);
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;
u) in the early morning of the 12th of September 2004, arguido AA, after a row with his brother UU, went to the arguida BB’s house, taking his clothes with him, and during the 12th he stayed in that house, which is located in the village of Figueira – Mexilhoeira Grande, in the area of Portimão;
v) in the late afternoon of the 12th, his sister, arguida BB, and her children, CC, [Name removed] and KK, returned home;
x) at around 8 p.m. on that 12th of September, arguida BB sent CC to buy a package of milk and two cans of food, at a shop called “Pastelaria…”, in Figueira, at a distance of approximately 420 metres from the house;
z) the living room of the house where arguida BB lived, is located immediately after the main door and the door that offers access to the street has a handle on the outside that allows for direct entry into the residence;
aa) minor CC returned home from “Pastelaria…”, where she had bought the aforementioned food products;
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the wall’s corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minor’s fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos’ activity;
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living room’s walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
ad) the arguidos ensured that CC was dead, verifying that she neither breathed nor reacted, and then, not wanting to be held responsible over their daughter’s and niece’s death, decided to prevent said death from becoming known to others;
ae) therefore, they soon decided that they would have to ensure that the existence of any signs in the house of what they had just done could not be verified, that the minor’s body would never be found and that, preferably, everyone would be convinced that the minor had been taken by a third party;
af) therefore, arguida BB remained at home, washing the wall and the floor that had signs of blood from CC, as well as the spot where the minor remained slumped after death, using a mop and its bucket to do so;
ag) and, as they knew that arguida BB’s partner – II – and his friend, MM, were about to arrive at home, and could discover what had happened there if they arrived before the traces were cleaned, at around 9.30 p.m. arguido AA left, headed towards “Pastelaria…”, where he met II and MM, who were already there, and whom he told that minor CC had not returned home;
ah) when the three of them returned home, arguida BB had already cleaned the existing blood marks, and equally mentioned that minor CC hadn’t returned home after doing the shopping;
ai) confronted with what the arguida was saying, II and MM decided to go out and look for the minor, while the arguidos remained at home;
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;
am) with said instruments, helping each other, the arguidos cut CC’s body, separating the head from the torso and cutting the legs at the knee area;
an) each one of those body parts was placed inside plastic bags – the head in one, the torso and part of the legs in another and the two legs below the knee in a third one – and after they knotted up the opening of the bag that contained the head, they tried, at least, to place said bags inside the deep freezer’s three compartments, leaving blood from the minor on several areas inside the deep freezer’s second drawer;
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;
ap) as the minor had already been dead for approximately two hours, not a lot of blood left the body;
aq) between 10.30 and 11 p.m., the arguida BB joined her partner II and MM, to whom she reiterated that CC was missing, and only at that point in time did she go to “Pastelaria…” and asked the owner (NN) if CC had been there, then saying that she had disappeared;
ar) nevertheless, the arguida didn’t inform the police authorities about anything, despite there being GNR officers on duty in Figueira, because a popular fair called “Mussels Party” was taking place, and it was the third person (NN) that did it by telephone, at around 0.44 a.m. on the 13th of September, when she heard that the arguida hadn’t done so yet, and it was following said telephone call that the arguida ended up talking to GNR officers near the church in Figueira;
as) at that point in time the arguida said she hadn’t phoned because she had no credit on her mobile phone;
at) later on, at around 2 a.m., the arguida bought cakes in a pastry shop in the same village;
au) on the morning of the 13th, the arguida BB went to the GNR Station, in Portimão, accompanied by arguido AA, where she filed a complaint over the disappearance of CC;
av) and through the intervention of third parties, relatives of her partner II, the alleged ‘disappearance’ truly started to be publicised, with the distribution of photographs of CC, because until then the arguidos had intended not to alert the authorities;
ax) at the end of the night of the 13th, the arguidos left the house together, carrying a bag;
az) the arguido AA remained at the arguida BB’s house until the 14th, a time lapse during which the two arguidos, in a manner that was not possible to determine, transported CC’s mortal remains to an unknown location, thus fulfilling the intention that they had proposed themselves to – to prevent the finding of said mortal remains – and those remains have not been found to this day, just as the cutting instruments, which the arguidos have hidden in an unknown location, haven’t been found;
aaa) the arguida BB gave interviews to the media, trying to make believe that the minor had in fact disappeared, a version that she maintained in front of many of the people who were interested in the minor’s destiny and questioned her about the matter;
aab) during those interviews about the case, arguida BB sometimes mentioned her daughter in the past tense and wore a black blouse;
aac) ticks, namely so-called “little leads” (ticks in their early adult phase) have receptors for chemical stimuli that are associated to temperature, which allow for them to detect the existence of blood-specific chemical compounds;
aad) on the 18th of September, arguida BB bought petrol and a steel scrub-cloth, with which she washed the house, thus seizing the opportunity to erase almost all vestiges of what had happened there, and only traces of human blood which had been contaminated by the products that were used, remained inside the house;
aae) through an indication from arguida BB, Polícia Judiciária agents went to the house of arguida BB’s eldest daughter’s paternal grandmother (EE), in Olhão, searching for CC, and also investigated if an individual of Moroccan nationality had taken the minor;
aaf) when presented to a clinical psychologist, within an examination that was performed within the process’ scope, arguida BB mentioned the existence of neighbours of Brazilian nationality who might have taken CC with them, because they had two “good” cars and left the area on the same date on which the minor had “disappeared”;
aag) following indications from arguido AA, PJ agents searched for CC’s body in a brown earth embankment that is located near the road that accesses Mexilhoeira, then on other locations nearby, further away in Poço Barreto, in a wrecked car, in Silves, under the Arade River bridge;
aah) the arguidos managed to disturb the investigative activities and prevented the mortal remains of minor CC, whose life they took, from being located;
aai) the aforementioned activities were carried out by the arguidos under concerted efforts and intentions, in a deliberate, free and conscious manner, fully knowing that those behaviours are punished by law;
aaj) therefore as far as taking the life of CC, their direct relative (daughter and niece), is concerned, which they did by employing force, taking advantage of the fact that she couldn’t defend herself (taking into account her age and physical build) and using force in the full knowledge that, considering the vital area in which her body was hit (the head) repeatedly and violently, prompting the minor’s head to hit the wall, they could take her life away from her, a consequence which they accepted, still not ceasing their activity;
aal) not seeing as an obstacle the circumstance that the minor depended on her mother and was a direct relative of both, and should be defended instead of victimised by them;
aam) in the same deliberate, free and conscious manner, and knowing that such behaviour is punishable, they carried out the above described action of cutting CC’s body, demonstrating total insensibility, knowing full well that, in this manner, they offended the communitarian respect that is due to the dead, acting with the purpose of CC’s body never being found again, hiding it in a location that is not appropriated for the effect, in order to try to avoid responsibility for her death;
aan) the arguida BB has no criminal record;
aao) the arguido AA, apart from the above mentioned condemnation under item e), was further condemned, in 1995, under a sentence that has been validated in court, for the practise of a qualified theft, to a penalty, accumulating with the penalty that was imputed over the crime of attempted murder, of 3 years and 8 months in prison; in 2001, over the practise of a crime of illegal driving of a vehicle, he was condemned, under a sentence that has been validated in court, to a penalty of 90 days of fine; and in 2003, over the practise of a crime of illegal driving of a vehicle, he was condemned, under a sentence that has been validated in court, to a penalty of 6 months and 15 days in prison, which was suspended in its execution, in exchange for the compliance with conditions, a suspension that was later revoked;
aap) in terms of schooling, the arguida BB completed 3rd grade, never exercised any profession and married at the age of 18;
aaq) in terms of schooling, the arguido AA completed 4th grade and has worked since he left school, but always exercising undifferentiated services and without any contract;
aas) the arguidos were born within a large family (the parents and 9 siblings), where the father’s alcoholic habits and the financial difficulties stood out.
- See more at: http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/the-joana-case/#sthash.TA5lQl2c.dpuf
9. 1. Facts considered to be proved:
a) the arguidos are siblings;
b) the arguido AA [João Cipriano] has never held a regular job or residence, living inside a vehicle or at his siblings’ house, surviving on occasional jobs that he performed on diverse locations;
c) the arguido AA expresses contempt for human life – a result of a poor social adjustment and affective coldness – and has anti-social/psychopathic tendencies with a difficulty to control his impulses, which leads him to be aggressive, trying to solve conflicts through said aggressiveness, feeling no remorse for the consequences of the actions that he thus performs, despising other people’s rights, wishes or feelings;
d) through a ruling that has been validated in court, and given on 10.11.1993, arguido AA was condemned to a 4-year prison sentence over the practice, on 2.10.1992, of a crime of attempted homicide, (…). Said ruling includes that the arguido was convinced, by a third party that lived with one of the arguido’s sisters (GG) to take the life of another person who had left him blind, in exchange for 20.000$00 and a motorbike (…);
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;
u) in the early morning of the 12th of September 2004, arguido AA, after a row with his brother UU, went to the arguida BB’s house, taking his clothes with him, and during the 12th he stayed in that house, which is located in the village of Figueira – Mexilhoeira Grande, in the area of Portimão;
v) in the late afternoon of the 12th, his sister, arguida BB, and her children, CC, [Name removed] and KK, returned home;
x) at around 8 p.m. on that 12th of September, arguida BB sent CC to buy a package of milk and two cans of food, at a shop called “Pastelaria…”, in Figueira, at a distance of approximately 420 metres from the house;
z) the living room of the house where arguida BB lived, is located immediately after the main door and the door that offers access to the street has a handle on the outside that allows for direct entry into the residence;
aa) minor CC returned home from “Pastelaria…”, where she had bought the aforementioned food products;
ab) at a certain point in time, due to a motive that has not been exactly established, both arguidos started, conjointly, to successively hit minor CC on the head, prompting her to hit her head on the wall’s corner, being visible that she bled, from her mouth, her nose and her temple, due to the hits against the wall, which also caused the minor’s fall and her death, thus ceasing the arguidos’ activity;
ac) traces of blood from the minor remained on the living room’s walls and floor, on various spots, and also near the entrance;
ad) the arguidos ensured that CC was dead, verifying that she neither breathed nor reacted, and then, not wanting to be held responsible over their daughter’s and niece’s death, decided to prevent said death from becoming known to others;
ae) therefore, they soon decided that they would have to ensure that the existence of any signs in the house of what they had just done could not be verified, that the minor’s body would never be found and that, preferably, everyone would be convinced that the minor had been taken by a third party;
af) therefore, arguida BB remained at home, washing the wall and the floor that had signs of blood from CC, as well as the spot where the minor remained slumped after death, using a mop and its bucket to do so;
ag) and, as they knew that arguida BB’s partner – II – and his friend, MM, were about to arrive at home, and could discover what had happened there if they arrived before the traces were cleaned, at around 9.30 p.m. arguido AA left, headed towards “Pastelaria…”, where he met II and MM, who were already there, and whom he told that minor CC had not returned home;
ah) when the three of them returned home, arguida BB had already cleaned the existing blood marks, and equally mentioned that minor CC hadn’t returned home after doing the shopping;
ai) confronted with what the arguida was saying, II and MM decided to go out and look for the minor, while the arguidos remained at home;
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;
am) with said instruments, helping each other, the arguidos cut CC’s body, separating the head from the torso and cutting the legs at the knee area;
an) each one of those body parts was placed inside plastic bags – the head in one, the torso and part of the legs in another and the two legs below the knee in a third one – and after they knotted up the opening of the bag that contained the head, they tried, at least, to place said bags inside the deep freezer’s three compartments, leaving blood from the minor on several areas inside the deep freezer’s second drawer;
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;
ap) as the minor had already been dead for approximately two hours, not a lot of blood left the body;
aq) between 10.30 and 11 p.m., the arguida BB joined her partner II and MM, to whom she reiterated that CC was missing, and only at that point in time did she go to “Pastelaria…” and asked the owner (NN) if CC had been there, then saying that she had disappeared;
ar) nevertheless, the arguida didn’t inform the police authorities about anything, despite there being GNR officers on duty in Figueira, because a popular fair called “Mussels Party” was taking place, and it was the third person (NN) that did it by telephone, at around 0.44 a.m. on the 13th of September, when she heard that the arguida hadn’t done so yet, and it was following said telephone call that the arguida ended up talking to GNR officers near the church in Figueira;
as) at that point in time the arguida said she hadn’t phoned because she had no credit on her mobile phone;
at) later on, at around 2 a.m., the arguida bought cakes in a pastry shop in the same village;
au) on the morning of the 13th, the arguida BB went to the GNR Station, in Portimão, accompanied by arguido AA, where she filed a complaint over the disappearance of CC;
av) and through the intervention of third parties, relatives of her partner II, the alleged ‘disappearance’ truly started to be publicised, with the distribution of photographs of CC, because until then the arguidos had intended not to alert the authorities;
ax) at the end of the night of the 13th, the arguidos left the house together, carrying a bag;
az) the arguido AA remained at the arguida BB’s house until the 14th, a time lapse during which the two arguidos, in a manner that was not possible to determine, transported CC’s mortal remains to an unknown location, thus fulfilling the intention that they had proposed themselves to – to prevent the finding of said mortal remains – and those remains have not been found to this day, just as the cutting instruments, which the arguidos have hidden in an unknown location, haven’t been found;
aaa) the arguida BB gave interviews to the media, trying to make believe that the minor had in fact disappeared, a version that she maintained in front of many of the people who were interested in the minor’s destiny and questioned her about the matter;
aab) during those interviews about the case, arguida BB sometimes mentioned her daughter in the past tense and wore a black blouse;
aac) ticks, namely so-called “little leads” (ticks in their early adult phase) have receptors for chemical stimuli that are associated to temperature, which allow for them to detect the existence of blood-specific chemical compounds;
aad) on the 18th of September, arguida BB bought petrol and a steel scrub-cloth, with which she washed the house, thus seizing the opportunity to erase almost all vestiges of what had happened there, and only traces of human blood which had been contaminated by the products that were used, remained inside the house;
aae) through an indication from arguida BB, Polícia Judiciária agents went to the house of arguida BB’s eldest daughter’s paternal grandmother (EE), in Olhão, searching for CC, and also investigated if an individual of Moroccan nationality had taken the minor;
aaf) when presented to a clinical psychologist, within an examination that was performed within the process’ scope, arguida BB mentioned the existence of neighbours of Brazilian nationality who might have taken CC with them, because they had two “good” cars and left the area on the same date on which the minor had “disappeared”;
aag) following indications from arguido AA, PJ agents searched for CC’s body in a brown earth embankment that is located near the road that accesses Mexilhoeira, then on other locations nearby, further away in Poço Barreto, in a wrecked car, in Silves, under the Arade River bridge;
aah) the arguidos managed to disturb the investigative activities and prevented the mortal remains of minor CC, whose life they took, from being located;
aai) the aforementioned activities were carried out by the arguidos under concerted efforts and intentions, in a deliberate, free and conscious manner, fully knowing that those behaviours are punished by law;
aaj) therefore as far as taking the life of CC, their direct relative (daughter and niece), is concerned, which they did by employing force, taking advantage of the fact that she couldn’t defend herself (taking into account her age and physical build) and using force in the full knowledge that, considering the vital area in which her body was hit (the head) repeatedly and violently, prompting the minor’s head to hit the wall, they could take her life away from her, a consequence which they accepted, still not ceasing their activity;
aal) not seeing as an obstacle the circumstance that the minor depended on her mother and was a direct relative of both, and should be defended instead of victimised by them;
aam) in the same deliberate, free and conscious manner, and knowing that such behaviour is punishable, they carried out the above described action of cutting CC’s body, demonstrating total insensibility, knowing full well that, in this manner, they offended the communitarian respect that is due to the dead, acting with the purpose of CC’s body never being found again, hiding it in a location that is not appropriated for the effect, in order to try to avoid responsibility for her death;
aan) the arguida BB has no criminal record;
aao) the arguido AA, apart from the above mentioned condemnation under item e), was further condemned, in 1995, under a sentence that has been validated in court, for the practise of a qualified theft, to a penalty, accumulating with the penalty that was imputed over the crime of attempted murder, of 3 years and 8 months in prison; in 2001, over the practise of a crime of illegal driving of a vehicle, he was condemned, under a sentence that has been validated in court, to a penalty of 90 days of fine; and in 2003, over the practise of a crime of illegal driving of a vehicle, he was condemned, under a sentence that has been validated in court, to a penalty of 6 months and 15 days in prison, which was suspended in its execution, in exchange for the compliance with conditions, a suspension that was later revoked;
aap) in terms of schooling, the arguida BB completed 3rd grade, never exercised any profession and married at the age of 18;
aaq) in terms of schooling, the arguido AA completed 4th grade and has worked since he left school, but always exercising undifferentiated services and without any contract;
aas) the arguidos were born within a large family (the parents and 9 siblings), where the father’s alcoholic habits and the financial difficulties stood out.
- See more at: http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/the-joana-case/#sthash.TA5lQl2c.dpuf
A couple of simple uneducated people.
Chair, bag over head, fists and couple of glass ashtrays.
Case solved.
Are you really that naive, Stephen?
A couple who blame each other for the murder of a small child.
Have you read their psychological profiles, which Angelo kindly provided on this thread the other day ?
So as regards naivety, I leave that to you, unless of course you have another motive in claiming a miscarriage of justice.
Or, of course, it's the simple truth.
A couple who blame each other for the murder of a small child.
Have you read their psychological profiles, which Angelo kindly provided on this thread the other day ?
So as regards naivety, I leave that to you, unless of course you have another motive in claiming a miscarriage of justice.
Thanks for that Pathfinder.
It serves as a reminder for naive people, as I'm sure jp will agree.
Sadly, Stephen probably is.
Don't you ever dare to suggest, Stephen. I don't have a problem with you. But I will not have this, even from you.
No chance,
However, I am qukte aware of who is, or they have an agrnda to support the Cipriano's.
Tough choice on tbat one.
Thanks for that Pathfinder.
It serves as a reminder for naive people, as I'm sure jp will agree.
Many of those "proven facts" were considered to be so under the rules of "common experience".
I posted them the other day.
I doubt that anyone sensible on here would agree that the majority of those points could be accepted as "common experience", yet they were (in this marathon trial lasting only 20 hours).
It wasn't the defence that wanted a jury trial, so it must have been the prosecution. How convenient.
Many of those "proven facts" were considered to be so under the rules of "common experience".
I posted them the other day.
I doubt that anyone sensible on here would agree that the majority of those points could be accepted as "common experience", yet they were (in this marathon trial lasting only 20 hours).
It wasn't the defence that wanted a jury trial, so it must have been the prosecution. How convenient.
Has it actually crossed your mind the pair got the sentence they deserve ?
If they actually did what they were alleged to have done, they deserve the long sentences that they were given.
However, I am not at all convinced that they are, or if they are, that it happened in the way that was alleged.
In the meantime, there is a little girl whose fate is unknown.
Well I suggest you don't call me naive, or give me orders.
Well, if she was alive, she would be about 18.
As far as her fate, with the murder conviction, she is considered dead as a result of criminal acts.those are the facts.
I find it sad that she is assumed dead because of this speed-dial murder trial.
A few children have been found after years, and others have been eventually found to have died soon after they disappeared.
In this case, no one, aside from Joana and whoever she encountered after leaving the shop (unless she had an accident and disappeared in a ditch, which seems unlikely), knows what happened that night.
I find it sad that she is assumed dead because of this speed-dial murder trial.
A few children have been found after years, and others have been eventually found to have died soon after they disappeared.
In this case, no one, aside from Joana and whoever she encountered after leaving the shop (unless she had an accident and disappeared in a ditch, which seems unlikely), knows what happened that night.
There was a young girl called Joana who went missing. Is anyone still looking for her?
I think it might be two moderators
Not one site of her since she disappeared.
She has been declared dead.
Not one site of her since she disappeared.
She has been declared dead.
A couple who blame each other for the murder of a small child.
Have you read their psychological profiles, which Angelo kindly provided on this thread the other day ?
So as regards naivety, I leave that to you, unless of course you have another motive in claiming a miscarriage of justice.
A couple who blame each other for the murder of a small child.
Have you read their psychological profiles, which Angelo kindly provided on this thread the other day ?
So as regards naivety, I leave that to you, unless of course you have another motive in claiming a miscarriage of justice.
I find it sad that she is assumed dead because of this speed-dial murder trial.
A few children have been found after years, and others have been eventually found to have died soon after they disappeared.
In this case, no one, aside from Joana and whoever she encountered after leaving the shop (unless she had an accident and disappeared in a ditch, which seems unlikely), knows what happened that night.
Were the profiles written by the same guy who administers Amaral's "retirement fund?"
Do try to avoid the personal attacks, Stephen. It just makes you appear petulant and childish. 8(0(*
"Speed dial" when viewed through the prism of an Anglican Law trial where the defence, the prosecution and to a lesser extent the judge all have an "innings" and a summing up.
Under the Romanesque system only the judge really has an innings and there is less faffing about.
One would therefore expect it to be quicker.
"Speed dial" when viewed through the prism of an Anglican Law trial where the defence, the prosecution and to a lesser extent the judge all have an "innings" and a summing up.
Under the Romanesque system only the judge really has an innings and there is less faffing about.
One would therefore expect it to be quicker.
Perfectly illustrated by the speed with which the Amaral appeal progresses. ???
Perfectly illustrated by the speed with which the Amaral appeal progresses. ???
8@??)(
All in the pursuit of more dosh by the mccanns. 8)--))
Sometimes events occur which are beyond your control, Stephen. When the very system you put your faith in to help you actually uses the situation to make personal profit by promoting lies & innuendo I think some sort of compensation is due for the distress caused. Or do you not approve of claiming compensation for anything?
Not for the result of actions the persons themselves caused.
It's called taking responsibility for your actions and not blaming other people for your own failings.
Have Leonor or João ever blamed others for their own failings?
Not for the result of actions the persons themselves caused.
It's called taking responsibility for your actions and not blaming other people for your own failings.
So, in that sense, anyone making a financial investment in a dodgy company or being fleeced out of their life savings by a conman is not entitled to any sympathy or compensation?
Off topic.
@)(++(*
So getting back on topic...the reason there is so much support for the Ciprianos is that based on teh evidence mccann supporters believe they may be innocent
This support for a pair of convicted murderers, where exactly is that ?
I will try to keep it really simple for you Stephen. Lets start with a few baby steps.
____________
If torture was used by the police to extract a confession
And if the confession was used to obtain a conviction
Then they are, in law convicted murderers.
Now - does that mean in your opinion, that everything is right and proper, move on...?
Yes or no?
I'll make it simple for you too.
Has it been proved beyond doubt the pair were both 'tortured' and did this 'torture' occur after the initial confession ?
I presume you understand that.
Bearing in mind of course, they blame each other for Joan's death.
By the way, does Joana get a look in, in your concerns over the case, or this that too much to ask for ?
I think the operative word is MAY.
As far as I am concerned the very fact that police brutality / torture / call it what you will / has been proven means that the original verdict must be unsafe and at the very least a retrial is called for.
I am also very disappointed by the lack of outrage in certain quarters of this forum, and the apparent acceptance of torture by police to extract a confession as "well it happens" (and some even seemingly condoning it as "well, she got what she deserved".
Those who think that way should think very hard about why they are members of an "injustice" forum in the first place.
Police brutality and torture of a suspect can NEVER be justified. And it may get a conviction but it does not solve the crime.
Sorry all - rant over.
It was taken as proved by the court that Leonora was tortured. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html
"It was taken as proven that Leonor Cipriano was beaten by elements of the Judicial police who could not be identified, and she didn't fall on the stairs, as was suggested. However, the court failed to ascertain the perpetrators of the aggressions."
Does the fact that the PJ use torture as part of their professional lives ring any alarm bells with you?
And of course Joan's fate is of the primary concern. I do not see how baning up the wrong person / people will help. Maybe you can?
I'm hoping that the Met and PJ investigating Madeleine's disappearance may shed some light on Joana's disappearance...
What ???
Sorry, Stephen, did I startle you? :)
Seriously, I would have thought that the Met / PJ would have reviewed the evidence (or rather the lack of it) in Joana's case as part of eliminating a possible connection. There are also the sexual assaults to investigate in their own right.
There may, of course, be no connection between any of them, just as there might be between some of them. Without checking, there's no way of eliminating the possibility.
Barring the possibility of a retrial, which I doubt will ever happen, the Joana case can only be reopened if new "credible, pertinent and relevant" evidence comes to light.
It may be far too late to get phone records of people in Figueira that night, for example, particularly in the absence of an open investigation, but if it were technically possible and obtained as part of the Madeleine investigation, and if red flags were to appear, then it would offer a lead to check out.
You really are going off at a tangent.
Why should SY be checking a case 13 years previously to the mccann one, and which bore no resemblance to it whatsoever and simply not under their remit ?
I disagree.
I didn't say that re-investigating the Joana case would be under anyone's official remit.
There's no obvious connection to the Ylenia case, either, but the Met appears to have been in contact with the Swiss police. From memory, the PJ did actually check if there could be a connection with the MariLuz case. In those tragic cases, the children's remains were eventually found.
The sad fact is that there are still two young girls missing (one officially, the other not), whereabouts and fate unknown. They both disappeared within the space of a couple of years not far from each other.
There may be no connection at all, but the possibility of one surely has to be examined, even if only for elimination purposes.
You really are going off at a tangent.
Why should SY be checking a case 13 years previously to the mccann one, and which bore no resemblance to it whatsoever and simply not under their remit ?
Joana disappeared on 12 Sept 2004. Madeleine disappeared on 3 May 2007. I don't make that 13 years apart...
What a pathetic reply.
Talk about clutching at straws.
I wonder what you will come up with next.
What a pathetic reply.
Talk about clutching at straws.
I wonder what you will come up with next.
You avoided my questions.
When did the first confessions take place ?
Was her brother 'tortured' ?
So the PJ are still using 'torture' as part of their professional lives ?
Can you cite more recent examples of that, as you implying it is still a regular occurrence ?
It seems that you are the one who has a complete disregard for Joana Cipriano and what may have become of her.
Combined with your contempt for due process ... that is quite a mixture.
I have not seen any evidence that the McCann supporters on this thread or any another support anyone involved in a heinous crime.
Speaking for myself, I prefer if people are convicted on evidence. I prefer if the right people are apprehended and convicted. I am appalled by those who think the appalling torture suffered by Leonor Cipriano is not of any importance. Particularly as, like you, they attest that she had already confessed before a magistrate.
If that is the case ... should be easy enough for you to cite exactly who the magistrate was and when ... rather than asking other members to disprove it.
That "prior confession" raises the question of why at least five men removed a defenceless woman from prison - took her to a police station, where there was no female presence or legal representation - and beat her over a period of forty eight hours after which she 'confessed' ... and retracted as soon as she could when she was safely out of their hands.
Well, I never.
Trying to speak on my behalf and make interpretations of how I view these cases.
You and other mccann supporters try to pretend you hold the moral high ground, when you do no such thing.
The only motivating force repeatedly apparent in your and your fellow supporters posts is all out back in of the 'Drs Mccann'. Nothing else permeates from your posts, other than that and you tag on to other cases such as the Cipriano one for that very purpose.
Well, let me tell you reasonable people reading through your posts will see through your posts as easily as a hot knife slides through butter.
Make no mistake on that.
You are trying to defect, to avoid answering a very simple question - which is "is a conviction where police torture has been used to be regarded as safe?" - yes or no
You wanted a few examples - off the top of my head and confining to those in the public domain for obvious reasons:
AI 2013
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-portugal-2013
Torture and other ill-treatment
A criminal investigation into the use of a Taser against an inmate in Paços de Ferreira prison in 2010 did not progress despite the findings of an inquiry by the Audit and Inspection services of the General Directorate for prisons that two members of the Prison Security Intervention Group had used the weapon disproportionately. The outcome of disciplinary proceedings against the two prison officers remained pending at the end of the year.
The trial of three police officers accused of torturing Virgolino Borges in March 2000 while in police custody, which started in November 2011, made little progress.
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/activities/ihrc-at-un/10736-2014-upr-report-on-portugal
B. Background
1. During the period 2009-2013, one of the main concerns regarding Portugal’s human rights record was use of excessive force by law enforcement officials including police and prison staff on allegations of torture and other ill-treatment. In 2010, judicial investigation of allegations of Portugal’s involvement in rendition flights to Guantanamo Bay of terror suspects was closed due to lack of evidence. During the same period, there were law enforcement officials implicated in two high-profile cases of torture and other ill-treatment. Their prosecution proceeded very slowly. Details on three cases, including two high profile cases are mentioned in Amnesty International reports on Portugal between 2009 and 2013.
Torture and other ill-treatment
In July 2014, two prison officers were handed an eight-month suspended sentence by the court of Paços de Ferreira for using excessive force against a detainee in the Paços de Ferreira prison in 2010. The two officers had entered the prisoner‘s cell to force him to either clean it or leave in order for the cell to be cleaned. Even though the detainee obeyed orders to stand up, turn his back to the cell door and face the window, the officers used a Taser to immobilize him. The court considered that the Taser was used disproportionately, particularly as the man had not resorted to any violence against the prison officers.
Prison conditions
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/portugal/report-portugal/
In December 2013, the UN Committee against Torture highlighted reports of ill-treatment and excessive use of force, as well as prison overcrowding and deplorable prison conditions, particularly in the Prison of Santa Cruz do Bispo and the Lisbon Central Prison.
http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/prt/1996-31-inf-eng.htm
2. Torture and other forms of ill-treatment
a. introduction
11. In the course of its visit, the CPT's delegation spoke to many persons about their experiences while in police custody. Such persons were interviewed in the police establishments visited and in the Judicial Police Prisons in Lisbon and Oporto. The delegation also visited Oporto Prison with the express purpose of speaking with prisoners on remand about their treatment by the police.
12. A significant proportion of the persons interviewed alleged that they had been ill-treated while in police custody. As during the CPT's visit to Portugal in 1992, the principal form of ill-treatment alleged was physical assault (i.e. kicks and blows with fists, truncheons or batons). Further, the delegation again heard a few allegations that detained persons had been subjected to simultaneous blows to both ears with telephone directories or beaten on the soles of their feet (falaka).
Moreover, there were frequent allegations about the excessive use of force (in particular, the infliction of blows with batons) by police officers at the time of arrest. A number of detainees also alleged that they had been physically assaulted by members of the public, in the presence of police officers who did not intervene to prevent them being injured.
On examination by the delegation's doctors, a number of the persons who alleged that they had been ill-treated were found to display marks or conditions consistent with their allegations.
13. It might be added that the existence of such ill-treatment by the police was affirmed by representatives of non-governmental organisations with which the delegation held talks and supported by other information with which it was supplied
The only one mentioning 'Drs Mccann' is you, Stephen.
Others are more focussed on the unacceptable use of torture by police, and the possibility that the conviction of leonor cipriano may just may, be usafe as a result of the methods used.
Well, I never.
Trying to speak on my behalf and make interpretations of how I view these cases.
You and other mccann supporters try to pretend you hold the moral high ground, when you do no such thing.
The only motivating force repeatedly apparent in your and your fellow supporters posts is all out back in of the 'Drs Mccann'. Nothing else permeates from your posts, other than that and you tag on to other cases such as the Cipriano one for that very purpose.
Well, let me tell you reasonable people reading through your posts will see through your posts as easily as a hot knife slides through butter.
Make no mistake on that.
You and your fellows don't fool anyone.
Your sole aim is to defend the mccanns.
Now JP, as you have spent presumably the last couple of hours looking up that. What don't you now give examples of brutality by UK police forces in the same period, as a comparison.
What you and your fellows want to do is stick the lkabel of 'torture' on the PJ for very obvious reasons.
Now was Cipriano's brother 'tortured' to exact a confession ?
Now JP, as you have spent presumably the last couple of hours looking up that. What don't you now give examples of brutality by UK police forces in the same period, as a comparison.
What you and your fellows want to do is stick the lkabel of 'torture' on the PJ for very obvious reasons.
Now was Cipriano's brother 'tortured' to exact a confession ?
Now JP, as you have spent presumably the last couple of hours looking up that. What don't you now give examples of brutality by UK police forces in the same period, as a comparison.
What you and your fellows want to do is stick the lkabel of 'torture' on the PJ for very obvious reasons.
Now was Cipriano's brother 'tortured' to exact a confession ?
It is quite staggering the lengths McCann supporters will take in order to link the cases.
The ONLY one trying to link the cases is you Stephen. 8(8-))
Incredibly there are more important things! And no - it took roughly five minutes to find those few references.
Many other countries have a poor record too - but the fact that it may be or have been common practice does not make it any more acceptable. And that is on both a human rights level and also on a law enforcement level.
It may be thought that beating a suspect up until they confess is an effective way of solving crimes (and comments on this forum seem to suggest that many hold this view) but there are clear flaws in it as a method - not least of which is that it does not lead to the right people being convicted and locked up.
Stephen - I think by now i "get" that you hate, detest, loath and despise the McCanns but you do seem to be seeing everything through that same lens - even to the point of denying the principle that police brutality and torture is totally unacceptable in a civilised society.
Its very sad.
The only clear thing that is sad, is that again you accuse me of supporting torture.
Now that is libellous.
I have said repeatedly I do not condone torture.
Now either cite otherwise, or you and any others doing the same apologize and withdraw that allegation.
The only clear thing that is sad, is that again you accuse me of supporting torture.
Now that is libellous.
I have said repeatedly I do not condone torture.
Now either cite otherwise, or you and any others doing the same apologize and withdraw that allegation.
You have hedged around the subject, Stephen.
And I suggest you may need to do a bit more research into "libellous". 8(0(*
When have I said I support or condone torture ?
Answers on a post card.
When have I said I support or condone torture ?
Answers on a post card.
Let's make a comparison then, if I am to be accused of condoning torture.
McCann backers support the mccanns who neglected their children, leading to the disappearance of one of them. So by the logic of JP , mccann supporters condone neglect.
I cannot see what is so difficult about an outright condemnation of police torture - you always like to hedge - as in the example below:
Never justified, yet you know it goes on, within the parameters of 'rendition' and in many countries around the world.
And then
I wonder whether you would say the same if a close friend of yours or a relative, could have been saved, or hundreds of peoples lives, say by rendition of a terrorist who under examination/torture revealed the details of a major terrorist operation before it was carried out.
I think we will have to agree to differ on this Stephen.
Where does it say I condone torture.
I merely played the devil's advocate, in asking if you would support the torture of a terrorist suspect to save the lives of potential terrorist victims.
You said NO.
Where does it say I condone torture.
I merely played the devil's advocate, in asking if you would support the torture of a terrorist suspect to save the lives of potential terrorist victims.
You said NO.
It was taken as proved by the court that Leonora was tortured. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html
"It was taken as proven that Leonor Cipriano was beaten by elements of the Judicial police who could not be identified, and she didn't fall on the stairs, as was suggested. However, the court failed to ascertain the perpetrators of the aggressions."
Does the fact that the PJ use torture as part of their professional lives ring any alarm bells with you?
And of course Joan's fate is of the primary concern. I do not see how baning up the wrong person / people will help. Maybe you can?
there was no neglect
And so do I.
Fair enough, Stephen.
Now - the real crux of the thread - are you comfortable that Leonor Cipriano' s conviction is safe, given that it has been established in court that she was tortured by the PJ?
I cannot think of another word to describe leaving three babies alone in an unlocked ground floor apartment in a foreign land. Although on second thoughts STUPID could be better?
Would you say that if one of your relatives was killed by a terrorist, and that death could have been avoided ?
Can we refrain from accusing other posters of holding opinions without basis. These accusations could place the forum under threat of libel action.
are you referring to stephen accusing all mccann supporters of supporting cipriano purely because we support the mccanns
I don't think that would stand up as libel.
Can we refrain from accusing other posters of holding opinions without basis. These accusations could place the forum under threat of libel action.
the word stephen used was neglect....the portuguese said no neglect
I cannot see what is so difficult about an outright condemnation of police torture - you always like to hedge - as in the example below:
Never justified, yet you know it goes on, within the parameters of 'rendition' and in many countries around the world.
And then
I wonder whether you would say the same if a close friend of yours or a relative, could have been saved, or hundreds of peoples lives, say by rendition of a terrorist who under examination/torture revealed the details of a major terrorist operation before it was carried out.
I think we will have to agree to differ on this Stephen.
Did they?
Still worse than police torture is a court ruling that someone is deemed to have 'lied' during interrogation under police torture, and to have had a sentence increased because they were deemed to have 'lied'.
In such circumstances, the only safe, sane and proper course would have been to quash the conviction; at the very least, to have allowed a re-trial.
Don't suppose this post will see light of day, though ....
Did they?
Does anyone have a copy of the "torture" trial judgement in Portuguese?
Yep.
I thought they said this:
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Which appears to say, in the view of the report drafters, the children were neglected, but that neglect did not constitute "exposure or abandonment with intent" which was the only Portuguese law under which a prosecution could be brought under their Penal Code.
were they found guilty of neglect
Does anyone have a copy of the "torture" trial judgement in Portuguese?
The Portuguese Prosecutor didn't seem to think so.
The mccanns got away without being prosecuted, though very unlikely they would have got away with their clear neglect over here and the disappearance of their eldest child.
and from the Portuguese prosecutor................
'This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather NEGLECTING their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.'
and did any of their parents, for 5 successive nights and for prolonged periods, with irregular and unverified checks leave their children whilst they wined and dined ?
No charges brought.
Who said there were?
You will never accept the McCann's did wrong, will you ?
http://home.iscte-iul.pt/~apad/ACED_juristas/maddietrab_ficheiros/Acordao%20Leonor%20Cipriano%20contra%20Goncalo%20e%20outros.%2022Maio2009.pdf
then they are not guilty of neglect
You seem to have short term memory problems.
I refer you to your post 1765.
then they are not guilty of neglect
you are starting to sound like a couple of other posters on here ..... 1765 was your postWell dipseedo so it was but included your post 1758 which was the one in question, but erroneously numbered by me, where you posted:
Well dipseedo so it was but included your post 1758 which was the one in question, but erroneously numbered by me, where you posted:
the portuguese said no neglect
maybe you would like to reconsider "no neglect" in the light of what the archiving report said:
Which was:
"This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner."
Spare us the noun, verb, participial adjective, present participle blx as a means of diverting or ducking.
If I neglected to wear my seatbelt...would I too be guilty of neglect......
the mccanns were not guilty of neglect...in the eyes of the law...that is an inconvenient truth that you wish to avoid...but you cannot.......
You are the one who is perpetually rabbiting about how your scientific training taught you to be precise and so on to the extent that only you among posters know A from a bulls foot.How is it possible to neglect children but not in a reckless manner, as described in the report?
You don't seem to be making a very good fist of being precise in this instance. The McCanns could not be prosecuted under Portuguese law for deliberate Abandonment and Exposure to danger which was the option available [note the lack of the word neglect]. The Portuguese report clearly states they neglected their children.
You are the one who is perpetually rabbiting about how your scientific training taught you to be precise and so on to the extent that only you among posters know A from a bulls foot.
You don't seem to be making a very good fist of being precise in this instance. The McCanns could not be prosecuted under Portuguese law for deliberate Abandonment and Exposure to danger which was the option available [note the lack of the word neglect]. The Portuguese report clearly states they neglected their children.
so you are implying there is no law in Portugal of child neglect
Doesn't look like it...
Similarly, there doesn't appear to be any mention of the word torture in the Cipriano. Judgement.
You are the one who is perpetually rabbiting about how your scientific training taught you to be precise and so on to the extent that only you among posters know A from a bulls foot.
You don't seem to be making a very good fist of being precise in this instance. The McCanns could not be prosecuted under Portuguese law for deliberate Abandonment and Exposure to danger which was the option available [note the lack of the word neglect]. The Portuguese report clearly states they neglected their children.
Cipriano was tortured in the very sense of the word .....as confirmed on the amnesty site..
great to see child neglect and police torture do not exist in portugal
ad hom attack..reported
It appears that the Portuguese are more accurate in their laws and rather than use broad brush words use more detailed descriptions to reduce the amount of wriggle room available to lawyers.
Debatable.
so you are implying there is no law in Portugal of child neglect
I believe the AG was making the point that in order to prosecute it had to be wilful neglect as against simply neglect or carelessness.
so child neglect does exist as a law in Portugal and the mccanns were not charged and are therefore not guilty of child neglect
You are the one who is perpetually rabbiting about how your scientific training taught you to be precise and so on to the extent that only you among posters know A from a bulls foot.
You don't seem to be making a very good fist of being precise in this instance. The McCanns could not be prosecuted under Portuguese law for deliberate Abandonment and Exposure to danger which was the option available [note the lack of the word neglect]. The Portuguese report clearly states they neglected their children.
it is a personal attack on me...not my post...but you have given the green light for me to make similar attacks on other postersI said it was debatable every post and report will be dealt with on its merit.
I said it was debatable every post and report will be dealt with on its merit.
that's right so a similar post by me will be treated exactly the same
It appears that the Portuguese are more accurate in their laws and rather than use broad brush words use more detailed descriptions to reduce the amount of wriggle room available to lawyers.
Criminal neglect yes.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
To get out of the semantic quagmire, let's examine what the prosecutors said:
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.
Now, to pause for a moment, abandonment/neglect. Are they synonymous?
You can't abandon someone without being negligent, and the McCanns were not guilty abandonment.
But can you be negligent without abandonment?
Dunno.
So criminal neglect?
Maybe, in the abstract, such a thing exists.
Or maybe it is a figment of John's imagination.
(In fairness, I think, in English law, there is criminal negligence, probably Portuguese, too).
But none if it applicable to the McCanns.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
To get out of the semantic quagmire, let's examine what the prosecutors said:
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.
Now, to pause for a moment, abandonment/neglect. Are they synonymous?
You can't abandon someone without being negligent, and the McCanns were not guilty abandonment.
But can you be negligent without abandonment?
Dunno.
So criminal neglect?
Maybe, in the abstract, such a thing exists.
Or maybe it is a figment of John's imagination.
(In fairness, I think, in English law, there is criminal negligence, probably Portuguese, too).
But none if it applicable to the McCanns.
The red bit about covers it.
caution = care taken to avoid danger or mistakes.
In ferryman world leaving children unprotected for hours on end whilst wining and dining, is normal.
In the real world it's NEGLECT.
Are we discussing social mores?
Or legal principles?
What crimes were the McCanns guilty of?
The discussion was whether the Portuguese said "neglect". As in davels assertion in post 1758: "the word stephen used was neglect....the Portuguese said no neglect" He further said it was in the archiving report that the Portuguese had not said neglect. However the archiving report it says.... well it's all posted above where they use the word "neglecting" as well as others. It was nowt to do with whether or not a prosecution ensued.
I think it was debatable, so therefor ignored. Any similar post by you will be treated in the same fashion by me, and ignored as well. This is often the case with Reported Posts, in so far as I am involved.
Even if the McCanns had been charged and incarcerated for whatever charge corresponding to the fact that they weren't physically present when Madeleine disappeared...
How would the case as to her disappearance have advanced from there? How could the parents have done so from jail, particularly in view of the fact that the media tabloids would have have massive headlines stating that the parents of missing child were jailed?
Which PT tabloid remained objective over the Cipriano case once the Faro team took over on 21 Sept 2004 over a child who had vanished on the evening of 12 Sept?
Hours on end is Stephen25000 hyperbole.
If literally true, the McCanns would now no doubt be languishing in a Portuguese jail and (arguably) derservedly so ....
You seem to forget Madeleine disappeared when the mccanns b....red off to wine and dine.
You seem to forget Madeleine disappeared when the mccanns b....red off to wine and dine.
I suspect the answer is none.
But it would take someone impartial, fluent in Portuguese and with access to the relevant material to provide the definitive answer ....
You seem to forget Madeleine disappeared when the mccanns b....red off to wine and dine.
I thought libellous posts were not allowed...have I missed something
The post you are replying to probably (just about) passes muster as non-libellous.
It's true they left the children.
It's true they were eating when she disappeared ....
The post is just unpleasant, goading, (almost) gloating.
Is that within forum rules?
I've no idea ...
The post you are replying to probably (just about) passes muster as non-libellous.
It's true they left the children.
It's true they were eating when she disappeared ....
The post is just unpleasant, goading, (almost) gloating.
Is that within forum rules?
I've no idea ...
Why did you leave out the consumption of alcoholic drinks ?
As to when she disappeared, I stated the truth.
they did not b....r off...but if the mods want to permit you to continue to break forum rules...I'm not particularly bothered...
libellous and off topic
Unless you have your own definition for b....r off, I think you are on very shaky ground.
why am I on shaky ground
Accusing people of libel.
You seem to forget Madeleine disappeared when the mccanns b....red off to wine and dine.
Stehen - may I clarify your position on this. A recurring theme in your posts refers to the McCanns drinking alcohol.
(a) Is this a particular aspect of the case which concerns you?
(b) Do you think parents should not be allowed to drink alcohol at all?
(a) This is old ground. Read up on my previous comments.
-snip-
(a) This is old ground. Read up on my previous comments.Yes this whole group of brit tourists knew that the Tapas restaurant did takeaways - they saw people getting takeaways - and yes with takeaway the free wine was still included.
(b) You don't have to be at a Tapas to consume alcohol and eat. They could have done that in the apartment.
and here's a novel idea for you, they could have used a babysitter.
Why dont you answer the question Stephen, J-P asked it very politely.
Surely you dont expect him to wade thru' 11,000 + comments.
When one simple answer would do, are you trying to waste his time? ... and keep him off the forum?
Or are you feeling the heat?
Same old Sadie. Same old mantra.
Stehen - may I clarify your position on this. A recurring theme in your posts refers to the McCanns drinking alcohol.
(a) Is this a particular aspect of the case which concerns you?
(b) Do you think parents should not be allowed to drink alcohol at all?[/b]
Stehen - may I clarify your position on this. A recurring theme in your posts refers to the McCanns drinking alcohol.
(a) Is this a particular aspect of the case which concerns you?
(b) Do you think parents should not be allowed to drink alcohol at all?
Why dont you answer the questions stephen?
All this side stepping is getting you noticed.
Question.
What would have been the issue if the Ciprianos had taken the stand in the a quo trial?
João Grade (acting on behalf of Leonor) and whoever was defending João Cipriano wanted to keep the "confessions" out of court as inadmissible.
Ok, but testifying should, in theory, have given them the opportunity to explain the circumstances.
There was certainly evidence that Leonor had been bashed about whilst in PJ custody (although I'm not sure that anyone ever bothered to find out about João).
I think the state of law in Portugal is it (then) stood (it has doubtless changed since) was that nothing said to police in police custody (under torture or otherwise) could be used against the defendant in court unless repeated in court, and hence the Ciprianos were advised to remain silent in court.
But remaining silent doesn't raise the elephant in the room, either...
The torture, you mean?
True ...
I think the state of law in Portugal is it (then) stood (it has doubtless changed since) was that nothing said to police in police custody (under torture or otherwise) could be used against the defendant in court unless repeated in court, and hence the Ciprianos were advised to remain silent in court.
Do you believe that anything anyone says under circumstances of torture should be a basis of conviction in court?
This has been gone through numerous times already.
The first confessions occurred before the 'torture'.
The brother, as far as I know, was not tortured.
Can you cite that he was ?
Personally, I think it very likely that fellow prisoners beat her up, whilst the PJ present,looked the other way. I will have to find the links to the case, I believe one of those is on the Morais cite, where prisoners families claimed fellow prisoners beat her up, though the statements were not used in court.
It is a fact that L. Cipriano committed perjury in court.
Angelo, the other day provided a back drop of proven points in court as regards her and her brother.
I do not approve of torture (I have said that repeatedly), but I am not naive enough to believe it won't happen again.
Again playing devil's advocate, as I did the other day, what would you do if you had a terrorist subject or say a kidnapper, who refused to divulge information, and no other means worked, to get them to divulge the plan, or in a kidnapper's case the whereabouts of the victim, and subsequently deaths occurred, what would you say to the victim's families ?
Leonor Cipriano was held to "proven to have lied under torture" and her sentence was increased accordingly.
That was a Portuguese court ruling.
The fact of torture was taken as proven by a court ruling.
And yet Leonor's sentence was extended because she (is deemed to have) lied under torture.
Do you not agree that the only safe, sane and proper course would have been (upon establishment of the fact of torture) to quash the conviction and (at the very least!) order a re-trial?
This has been gone through numerous times already.
The first confessions occurred before the 'torture'.
The brother, as far as I know, was not tortured.
Can you cite that he was ?
Personally, I think it very likely that fellow prisoners beat her up, whilst the PJ present,looked the other way. I will have to find the links to the case, I believe one of those is on the Morais cite, where prisoners families claimed fellow prisoners beat her up, though the statements were not used in court.
It is a fact that L. Cipriano committed perjury in court.
Angelo, the other day provided a back drop of proven points in court as regards her and her brother.
I do not approve of torture (I have said that repeatedly), but I am not naive enough to believe it won't happen again.
Again playing devil's advocate, as I did the other day, what would you do if you had a terrorist subject or say a kidnapper, who refused to divulge information, and no other means worked, to get them to divulge the plan, or in a kidnapper's case the whereabouts of the victim, and subsequently deaths occurred, what would you say to the victim's families ?
'Deemed to have lied under torture' ?
Where do you get that from ?
I also notice, you didn't respond to the point about confessing before the 'torture'.
Her and her brother blame each other for Joana's death.
and of course, you did not respond to my devil's advocate question.
Also, there is NO DOUBT in my mind, that you are pursuing this matter solely because of Amaral.
She was in PJ custody at the police station at the time. How could she have been beaten up by fellow inmates, unless the PJ had also brought them to the PJ station for tea and biscuits?
Where do I get it from?
The court ruling.
Officers of the PJ were found proved by a Portuguese court of torturing Lenonor Cipriano, but the perpetrators could not be identified.
Torture was proved, but officers responsible for the torture could not be identified.
I said Carana, the PJ 'looked the other way'.
I am sure that is not unique to Portugal.
Looked the other way while perpetrating torture?
I doubt it.
And Joana had a bag over her head, so she couldn't see who was torturing her.
For a long while it was touch and go whether the torture would render her permanently blind ....
I said Carana, the PJ 'looked the other way'.
I am sure that is not unique to Portugal.
Why do you doubt that ?
Why not research such other cases first, where this has happened.
Perhaps John would like to give some insight on this. I feel sure he has heard of this happening.
I'm aware of what you said, but the PJ could not have been "looking the other way" as they are not prison guards, and she was in PJ custody at their station at the time.
It's possible that "other people" were at the station during that period, but the question doesn't appear to have been raised.
Not only that, if "inmates" had been present, why make up this slippery stair business?
How do [the generic!) 'you' 'look the other way' while torturing someone
She hadn't been beaten up when she left the prison, but she had been when she was taken back. She was at the police station in-between.
and there would be other prisoners at the station, unless you're saying Portugal is free of crime.
Leonor Cipriano was found guilty of lying to the Court following the trial of the five PJ officers. The collective of judges considered that the statements that Leonor Cipriano produced during the trial sessions contained “flagrant and relevant contradictions”, and therefore determined that a certificate should be extracted, to which a copy of the tape recordings was added.
In the verdict, it is mentioned that the mother of the child that disappeared on the 12th of September 2004, in the village of Figueira, in Portimão, “was offered (…) an extensive opportunity to reveal the truth” during the trial sessions at the Court of Faro, but “essentially seized the opportunity to lie”.
“Leonor Cipriano lied about the manner in which she was beaten, about the identification of the persons that beat her, about the time and the manner how she revealed that she had been beaten, in short, she lied about every essential aspect of the statements that she gave”, the verdict stresses.
Underlining that Leonor Cipriano presented “no plausible reason whatsoever to have done so”, the collective of three judges, presided by Henrique Pavão, considered that Joana’s mother revealed “major contradictions” and that she presented “very different versions for one and the same fact”.
The verdict, which will also be sent to the PJ’s Department of Discipline and Inspection, where an inquiry is being held against present inspectors António Cardoso and Paulo Marques Bom, considered the aggressions as proved, although without establishing the aggressors’ identity, and determined the condemnation of two of the five arguidos in the process.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/03/leonor-cipriano-court-started-today-for.html
Who were all wandering around free and unsupervised no doubt.
so it was proved that cipriano was beaten by the PJ ......they just did not know which officers beat her...and Stephen's claim that she was beaten by other prisoners and that there are statements to support this is utter rubbish
She hadn't been beaten up when she left the prison, but she had been when she was taken back. She was at the police station in-between.
She sustained her injuries while in police custody. She could very well have been attacked by other female inmates but there is no way of knowing.
The court accepted that she sustained her injuries while in police custody thanks to the testimony and photographic evidence provided by the prison governor. She could very well have been attacked by other female inmates but there is no way of knowing for sure.
The court accepted that she sustained her injuries while in police custody thanks to the testimony and photographic evidence provided by the prison governor. She could very well have been attacked by other female inmates but there is no way of knowing for sure.You don't think the PJ would have mounted that as a defence had that been the case then?
You don't think the PJ would have mounted that as a defence had that been the case then?
so why did the pj say she fell down stairs...why did the pj not blame other prisoners ...why did amaral try to cover it up.......your explanation makes no sense...
Why do you deny the ruling of the court?
Geez...why do you think?
if it was true then the pj would have used this as their defence.... the pj beat her knowing they could get away with it...and they were right
As a reminder for ferryman.
I answered your questions yesterday, but you avoided answering most of mine.
If you continue to do so, neutral guests to this forum will see that you are avoiding them, because of your stance in this case.
You make it sound as if they did it for fun? Which part of an 8-year-old child was missing don't you understand Dave?
A dangerous precedent to set Stephen. ?{)(**
John - do you think the PJ were right to beat her up?
Certainly not but then this happens all the time, it is nothing new for cops to rough up a suspect. I have seen police and functionarios beating up prisoners on many occasions in Spain. One lad was strapped to his bed face down while being beaten with a strap. His crime was to have assaulted a functionario with a piece of broken glass. I'm afraid very little is black and white when it comes to inmates in a prison.
Leonor was in a PJ station at the time.
You make it sound as if they did it for fun? Which part of an 8-year-old child was missing don't you understand Dave?
You make it sound as if they did it for fun? Which part of an 8-year-old child was missing don't you understand Dave?
Yes but who knows what happened to her in prison. Child murderers tend to attract unwanted attention.
Yes but who knows what happened to her in prison. Child murderers tend to attract unwanted attention.
Certainly not but then this happens all the time, it is nothing new for cops to rough up a suspect. I have seen police and functionarios beating up prisoners on many occasions in Spain. One lad was strapped to his bed face down while being beaten with a strap. His crime was to have assaulted a functionario with a piece of broken glass. I'm afraid very little is black and white when it comes to inmates in a prison.
Cipriano was taken from the prison to a police station where se was interrogated for 48 hours.
I am aware that "it is nothing new for cops to rough up a suspect", and that it does happen.
The problem is that these methods of beating a confession out of a suspect may be good for the clear up rate, but are spectacularly bad at actually solving the crime, and leads to miscarriages of justice.
What does surprise me is the sanguine acceptance by individuals on this forum, miscarriageofjustice" - er.... right.
Justice means different things to different people depending on the circumstances then prevailing.
What about justice for Madeleine?
Persons who commit acts of torture must get some enjoyment from this. They wouldn't be capable otherwise.
Even a quick skim of YouTube documentaries shows that prison inmates may present a variety of characteristics: a violent disposition, uncontrollable urges, low IQ or social skills, a need to beat their chests as alpha males / females to gain power, authority and privileges within a restricted sphere, a sense of justice (or just recreational fun) in meting out a different form of "punishment" behind bars.
The issue is not what happens in prison by inmates in this case. It concerns what happened at the PJ station, while she was under their protection.
...and Joana.
Even a quick skim of YouTube documentaries shows that prison inmates may present a variety of characteristics: a violent disposition, uncontrollable urges, low IQ or social skills, a need to beat their chests as alpha males / females to gain power, authority and privileges within a restricted sphere, a sense of justice (or just recreational fun) in meting out a different form of "punishment" behind bars.
The issue is not what happens in prison by inmates in this case. It concerns what happened at the PJ station, while she was under their protection.
Justice means different things to different people depending on the circumstances then prevailing.
What about justice for Madeleine?
So rather than just type on here Carana, why don't you take your concerns to the Portuguese Judicial System ?
and likewise admit, Portugal is far from unique in what can happen to some prisoners.
So rather than just type on here Carana, why don't you take your concerns to the Portuguese Judicial System ?
and likewise admit, Portugal is far from unique in what can happen to some prisoners.
So rather than just type on here Carana, why don't you take your concerns to the Portuguese Judicial System ?
and likewise admit, Portugal is far from unique in what can happen to some prisoners.
The PJ couldn't find the child and decided that therefore the Ciprianos had killed her. The PJ was sent off to produce her remains.
Whatever one's stance on whether police brutality is ever justified or not, this wasn't a case of the PJ using excessive force to save a child in imminent danger of death as they were already convinced that she'd been killed.
Well wouldn't you have been convinced since both her mother and her brother claimed to have killed her by accident?
so the PJ did do it...torture like this is not acceptable.....
Even a quick skim of YouTube documentaries shows that prison inmates may present a variety of characteristics: a violent disposition, uncontrollable urges, low IQ or social skills, a need to beat their chests as alpha males / females to gain power, authority and privileges within a restricted sphere, a sense of justice (or just recreational fun) in meting out a different form of "punishment" behind bars.
The issue is not what happens in prison by inmates in this case. It concerns what happened at the PJ station, while she was under their protection.
If she was beaten by fellow inmates why did the pj claim she had fallen down stairs inside the police station...what you are saying doesn't make sense. If she was beaten by fellow inmates why have the pj never claimed this...why didn't amaral use it in his defence....It's obvious she was beaten by the pj...it's what they do
Persons who commit acts of torture must get some enjoyment from this. They wouldn't be capable otherwise.
Even a quick skim of YouTube documentaries shows that prison inmates may present a variety of characteristics: a violent disposition, uncontrollable urges, low IQ or social skills, a need to beat their chests as alpha males / females to gain power, authority and privileges within a restricted sphere, a sense of justice (or just recreational fun) in meting out a different form of "punishment" behind bars.
The issue is not what happens in prison by inmates in this case. It concerns what happened at the PJ station, while she was under their protection.
Well wouldn't you have been convinced since both her mother and her brother claimed to have killed her by accident?
they have also claimed they didn't kill her
Not totally, if Leonor got a bashing in prison too then that is relevant.
Actually it was Leonor who stated she had fallen down the stairs in Faro police HQ but later withdrew it claiming she was told to say it.
Like Dave, you don't understand the pressures which the PJ were put under in order to solve the case.
If there had been full AV videos accounting for their time in police custody, and what they had actually said during that time, I would certainly have reviewed it and may indeed have come to the conclusion that the police, and the equivalent of the CPS, had justified reasons (in conjunction with other cross-referenced evidence) to send the case to trial.
This isn't the situation in that affair.
we do...pressure to solve the case often leads to a miscarriage of justice I would think
Like Dave, you don't understand the pressures which the PJ were put under in order to solve the case.
Like Dave, you don't understand the pressures which the PJ were put under in order to solve the case.
I am assuming that this comes the "making a helpful suggestion to a fellow poster" category, rather than the "goading" one. 8(0(*
The only confessions which matter are those given freely and not as a result oif torture. We are thus left with the original confessions in 2004 and Leonor's confession by affidavit in 2009.
Do you have the content of the original 2004 confessions? I haven't been able to find them as they weren't admissible in court.
In prison she would be under the protection of the prison service...
So Carana, what effect will your posts on here have on the events in 2004 ?
Yes, but she wasn't at the time.
So Carana, what effect will your posts on here have on the events in 2004 ?
Probably no more than yours or those of anyone else.
On the other hand... it seems entirely possible to me that the court of public opinion could have an effect on whether it's worth remaining attentive or not to any particular case.
The Dutroux case may be worth considering in that respect. Two kids had already died (as well as two adolescents elsewhere), although greater suspicion at the time would have saved them but two kids were eventually found alive.
Do you believe awareness of this case by the public will cause the case to be reviewed ?
I believe that if PPC is convicted for many of the offences he is charged with, lawyers will be jumping at the chance to pursue claims for wrongful conviction on behalf of Leonor. I wonder how much all those years in jail would be worth in compensation?
In UK it is capped at £500k max for less than ten years inside and £1MM max for more than ten years inside.
Do Portugal run such a scheme?
The Grauniad ran an article last year about how the UK is now reluctant to pay out compensation for miscarriages of justice. Probably because there are so many over here and only "high profile" cases are reported on (imo).
I believe that if PPC is convicted for many of the offences he is charged with, lawyers will be jumping at the chance to pursue claims for wrongful conviction on behalf of Leonor. I wonder how much all those years in jail would be worth in compensation?
Paulo Sargento apparently tried.
He was the eminent clinical psychologist who testified that Leonor had psycopathic tendencies.
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/ultimas-noticias/leonor-cipriano-tem-caracteristicas-psicopaticas
He appears to be incidentally the person in charge of Amaral's defence fund.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/sufficient.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6716.0
He appears to have tried to reopen the PT investigation into the McCann case, but apparently without much success.
Seemingly the fact that Kate admitted to having washed Cuddlecat because it ponged after 3 months of having clutched it in her hand wasn't deemed to be sufficient evidence to reopen the case, despite the eminent psychologist's view.
Psychologist wants to reopen the Maddie case 24horas
Paulo Sargento
Prosecutor receives the request of Paulo Sargento
By Duarte Levy
18 September 2009
Thanks to Mercedes for Portuguese-Spanish translation,
and Dr Martin Roberts for Spanish-English translation
The man who reconstructed the disappearance of Maddie in 3D does not want the case to die
Public Prosecutor General (PGR), Pinto Monteiro, yesterday received yet another petition for the re-opening of the process in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, this one authored by Forensic Psychologist Paulo Sargento.
Besides the petition sent today to the PGR, Ana Lima, advisor to Pinto Monteiro, confirmed to 24horas that an identical initiative had already been taken by a Spanish citizen, "but without prompting anything of investigative interest, for which reason it was archived."
In the recent document - to which 24horas has had access - Sargento bases his petition on the premise that "the couple were not correctly investigated" by either the Portuguese judiciary or the English authorities following the departure of Goncalo Amaral from the PJ's Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimao.
According to the psychologist, author of a 3-D video simulation based on the testimonies concerning the night of May 3rd 2007 - when Maddie is considered to have been abducted - the McCann couple were never interrogated with regard to the circumstances which prompted the washing of cuddle cat - a pink soft toy belonging to the little girl: "It would be of interest to know if Kate and Gerry were informed of the arrival of the English dogs, when and by whom." said Sargento to 24horas.
Before the dogs arrived
For the psychologist, it is revealing that Kate should wash cuddle cat before the two dogs, 'Eddie and Keela' - trained to detect cadaver odour and the scent of human blood - had arrived in Praia da Luz.
"Today I washed cuddle cat. I hoped not to have to do that until Madeleine's return", Kate wrote in her personal diary which she began after the disappearance of the little girl from the apartment the family occupied in Praia da Luz in the Algarve. In the diary, Maddie's mother justifies her action on the grounds that the soft toy was "a little dirty and smelly", an attitude the psychologist finds strange: "It doesn’t conform to the behaviour expected of a mother in such a situation."
"I determined that the washing of cuddle cat, several days before the arrival of the investigative dogs, as well as the motive for such an act, were NOT made the subject of inquiry within the overall framework of the investigation!" wrote Sargento in the petition sent to Pinto Monteiro, emphasising the fact that 'Eddie and Keela', the dogs brought in from England, had effected a "positive identification of cadaver odour on the soft toy, but not on the bed, nor the sheets where it was found by the investigators."
Besides this formal petition for the re-opening of the process, Ana Lima explained to 24horas that the PGR had received "dozens of e-mails and letters, usually anonymous" concerning the Maddie case, although until now they have had "no judicial relevance, failing to point specifically to concrete and credible facts."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id227.html
I don't think his potential convictions on anything else will have any bearing on the Cipriano case. That just doesn't seem to be how PT law works. It may not in other jurisdictions, either.
I posted some of the code articles about this yesterday, from memory.
I'm not sure if he is going to get off with only a rap over the knuckles if found guilty of what is some very heavy stuff. It seems to me the most outrage has been generated by the football charges.
We will just have to wait till April when the judgement is due. Nothing will surprise me.
Ah - Duarte Levy Again
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3835.0
First post.