Anna had found the name of Santos Carvalho as the person who may have been the judge who didn't agree with the verict. However, he didn't find her to be totally innocent of all charges, but innocent of "qualified homicide". He does state that the only element of "proof" that the child had died was João's reconstruction.
An examination of the Supreme Court ruling found that this was perfectly legal and valid as there was no proof of coercion. Well, there wouldn't be if police interrogations (including in prison) aren't recorded...
Leonor Cipriano seeks help from the media just days after Joana disappeared.
IF JOAN DID IT - DOUBTS AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF JUSTICE
Versus poor girl rich girl: where he is a counterpoint to the Maddie case, or as the Court may have two weights and two measures diverge itself to the characterization of the sentence which condemned Leonor Cipriano to sixteen years in prison for the death of her daughter Joana a secluded village on the outskirts of Portimão in September 2004 ... A case continues to drag on in the courts and that this month will be due to the new chapter called 'collateral' effects and strangely the 'media' still neglecting ... maybe by little media attention of the stakeholders in the case of a girl played by existential doom, who was born and died a poor agricultural environment, away from the limelight of large cities and policy makers and economic circles.
"A psychopath who delights in playing with the police and the courts', was this way that PJ traced the psychological profile of Leonor Cipriano. The progress of the plot is known: although the corpse of the child was never found, Leonor and her brother were sentenced to penalties pesdas the murder of Joanna, an accusation essentially based on the discovery of human blood in a freezer at home as a result of Leonor dismemberment of the corpse of the girl, had been discovered in home purchases that her daughter off to the grocery store, the shoes she wore. And, of course, on his own confession to the elements of PJ who investigated the case and came to answer in court under the terrible accusation of having forced Leonor to provide a confession under torture, which ended up being mostly acquitted: were they Paulo Pereira Cristovao, known for capturing the gang CREL and ATM II and current vice president of the Sporting area for Heritage; Leonel Marques, researcher of terrorism cases of the FP25 and the Revolutionary Brigades, Paulo Marques Bom, the "case Passerelle "; Nunes Cardoso, combating banditry in Lisbon, sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment with suspended sentence for the crime of document forgery, and Gonçalo Amaral, the former coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of the PJ of Portimão which investigated the Maddie case (see article on this 'blog') and the disappearance of Joana, sentenced to one year and six months in prison for making false allegations, suspended on probation.
Remarkable that, seven years after the crime, the case Joana continue to drag on in the courts, although due to so-called side effects: Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, starts to be tried next February 9th for allegedly defaming Gonçalo Amaral. The hearings will be held at 2. º Criminal Judgment of the Court of Faro and Gonçalo Amaral seeks compensation of three thousand euros Marcos Aragão Correia and also accused António Pedro Dores, president of the Association Against Exclusion for Development (ACED). At issue is a document of April 8, 2008, entitled "Report on Torture Leonor Cipriano perpetrated by the Judicial Police", which Aragão Correia prepared for ACED and which was broadcast by association.
All obvious, like say the detective Poirot. But he does have small details that do not fit certain parts and overshadowing this case. Justice itself began to have doubts, as can be seen by the wording of the declaration of vote of two judges of the Supreme Court, Dr. Santos and Dr. Carvalho Costa Mortágua, who enjoyed the action brought by Leonor lawyer whose look was defeated by the remaining judges who heard the case.
The voting signed by Dr. Judge. Santos Carvalho, we had access, you can read the following:
'In the project presented, the defendant argued that Leonor Cipriano was to be acquitted of the crime of murder, but convicted of the crime of desecration of a corpse and concealing, while the defendant João Cipriano was to be convicted of two offenses, one offense of integrity severe physical, aggravated by the outcome (death) and qualified for revealing reprehensibility special agent, another desecration and concealment of the corpse. I understand that in this case with gravity, where there is no direct and circumstantial evidence alone, even with regard to the actual death of the victim, the court must be limited to procedural truth, ie, that the results of legality and the objective value of evidence, as the pursuit of any other "truth" can lead to serious and irreparable miscarriage of justice.
"A simple reading of the sentence shows that the only evidence which allowed estabalecer the events that led to the death of Joan is the replenishments of the facts during the investigation conducted with the cooperation of the defendant João Cipriano, but without the presence of the defendant Leonor Cipriano. There were no eyewitnesses, the accused reverted to the silence of the trial, his statements in the investigation could not be evaluated by the Court and has not been possible to directly test the corpse.
"As the court found that the jury was beaten by the lowest two defendants? And how did you bumped his head on the corner of the wall? And that was visible was bleeding from the mouth, nose and temple, the mercy of collisions on the wall? And that such clashes and fall caused the death of the child? And that the two defendants made sure (!) The death of a minor? And then we butchered the corpse and put him in plastic bags in a freezer drawers?
'The answer to these questions was obtained solely by reconstructions of the defendant João Cipriano, as other evidence indicated the sentence let say that there was a death, but not how it happened and who caused it (...)
'The valuation of reconstructions without corroboration as to the defendant Leonor, as it happened, is illegal and unconstitutional and should have led to his acquittal for murder. Have not so much the crime of desecration of a corpse and hiding because he could not have been executed by the defendant João Cipriano without the active cooperation of the defendant, with him present at the place and time of the crime.
'The court jury determined that the defendant acted with João Cipriano intent to kill, even if the title eventual intention. However, the reconstructions results to smack and not produced any useful evidence. If it had been proved a powerful motivation that consisted of pronunciation, it might be possible to conclude that there was intent to kill, even by way of deception possible. But not the motivation of the crime could be established.
"Even after cutting the corpse and its concealment tell us nothing about the intention to kill this defendant, nor the participation of the defendant Leonor bodily harm in the lower, as they are known cases in which the agent did likewise despite the death was not caused intentionally, provided they install the panic and fear of police harassment. And do not conjecture that the child may have died as a result of these cuts, because the prosecution established that the lowest ever was dead and then such facts can not be changed in this Supreme Court.
'In short, it is clear from reading the sentence that the court jury decided the points indicated, against the defendants, and thus violated the presumption of innocence which requires the court to issue a condemnation only when it persists doubt reasonable. And the conviction founded on mere conjecture or possibly perverse and asocial character of the accused is also illegal and unconstitutional '.
The judges of the Court of Appeal that failed to avenge his thesis among their peers, hit a key and worrying aspect: it Leonor may have been the target of a wrong judgment 'the cause' of their social status. Contrary to what happened to the McCanns, Joana's mother did not have at its disposal financial resources to pay for expensive lawyers, much less access to powerful 'lobbies' political powers along instituted to drop the case ruled that the heavy form. It was enough to take a keen advocate of this thesis TR judge to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights and the results there could be others.
LinkOriginal
