Author Topic: The Joana Cipriano case revisited.  (Read 164 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carana

Re: The Joana Cipriano case revisited.
« Reply #120 on: November 05, 2018, 01:29:31 PM »
I very much doubt that Leonor's 3 years of schooling (cf supposedly a fact in the judgement) would have enabled her to dictate such prose. (In contrast, João's "confession" was a few sentences scribbled on paper after Correia (by his own admission bluffed him into believing that gangsters / other convicts would torture/murder him if he didn't "confess".

The only plausible explanation I can think of is that he may have believed that by getting her to "confess" to simply being an accomplice, she could get early release for time already served. If that was indeed his intention, it backfired rather badly.

I'm afraid I can't take any of the "confessions" seriously as I find the circumstances around all of them to be suspicious and there is no evidence to back them up.

Offline Carana

Re: The Joana Cipriano case revisited.
« Reply #121 on: November 05, 2018, 01:47:22 PM »
That is completely false and extremely disingenuous. There is a lot of evidence in the Joana case from the sighting of her returning home to the blood residues found on the doorframe, walls, floor, shoes etc.  Your denial is diabolical imo.

Angelo, the only sighting was of her returning in the direction of home from the village. None of the blood residues (some were animal as well) were identified as hers. Even if a speck had been hers, kids scrape their knees all the time - there would have to be more than that to cause justified suspicion of such a horrific crime. The "forensic" people didn't even wave a torch around until over 10 days later.




Offline Sunny

Re: The Joana Cipriano case revisited.
« Reply #122 on: November 05, 2018, 04:43:15 PM »
I very much doubt that Leonor's 3 years of schooling (cf supposedly a fact in the judgement) would have enabled her to dictate such prose. (In contrast, João's "confession" was a few sentences scribbled on paper after Correia (by his own admission bluffed him into believing that gangsters / other convicts would torture/murder him if he didn't "confess".

The only plausible explanation I can think of is that he may have believed that by getting her to "confess" to simply being an accomplice, she could get early release for time already served. If that was indeed his intention, it backfired rather badly.

I'm afraid I can't take any of the "confessions" seriously as I find the circumstances around all of them to be suspicious and there is no evidence to back them up.

Why would the Ciprianos' lawyer try to get them both to confess though Carana.  It doesn't make sense.
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline Carana

Re: The Joana Cipriano case revisited.
« Reply #123 on: November 05, 2018, 07:12:06 PM »
Why would the Ciprianos' lawyer try to get them both to confess though Carana.  It doesn't make sense.

He wasn't representing João, as far as I know, just Leonor.

In view of the time already spent in jail, he may have thought that "confessing" to a lesser crime would get her out.
The judges didn't buy the new version, and all she got was an extra sentence. I've no idea whether that was the thinking or not, but if it was, it certainly backfired.

For a long time, I'd simply gone off tabloid media reports, as that was all I could find, and had assumed that they were indeed guilty of a horrendous crime and that the only issue was whether torture had occurred or not. Then I was able to read the judgements (which refers to the alleged facts in the case) and... my jaw dropped. Aside from the various confessions, I couldn't find anything to substantiate what had supposedly happened to her.

I was also gobsmacked by reading the passage that as kids usually do get back home, it could therefore be taken as a common sense fact that she did as well. I think that's when I sat up and wondered what the hell was going on.

I also noticed that the tabloids (pro-PJ) had been whipping up the public into frenzy mode very early on (when the Faro boys took over from the original Portimão PJ team). I can understand the public reaction (similar to the awful Baby P case in the UK), but in the Cipriano case, I simply couldn't find any evidece to back up the "confessions".

If they are guilty of somehow causing her death (if she is dead), I don't see what supports the scenario presented by the prosecution. If there is no robust counter-evidence to refute allegations, the allegations seem to be accepted as "undisputed facts". If there is no robust defence counsel, then who can do the donkey work to find any?

Neither is there any evidence that I've been able to find to support the confessions presented by Leonor's latest lawyer.