Author Topic: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!  (Read 169204 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1395 on: July 13, 2015, 02:10:17 PM »
I hadn't noticed this bit before...


So... trying to get the gist of it. Leonor's lawyer was arguing that it was illegal to include uncorroborated evidence via João's reconstruction to sentence her for "homicide" and that therefore she should be acquitted. The judges ruled that that didn't apply to crimes of profaning the dead and hiding the corpse, and that it couldn't have happened without her active involvement at the time.

What? That makes no sense whatsoever (unless I've totally misunderstood this).

I haven't found anything concrete that João was involved in either her alleged death or gruesome dismemberment.

However, setting that aside, at one point that evening, Leonor and others had gone back out to try to find her, leaving João to babysit the toddlers. In theory, what would have stopped him from chopping up her remains during that time (i.e., while she was away from the house)?

A valoração das reconstituições sem corroboração quanto à arguida BB, como aconteceu, é ilegal e inconstitucional e devia ter conduzido à sua absolvição pelo crime de homicídio. Já não assim quanto ao crime de profanação e ocultação de cadáver, pois não podia ter sido executado pelo arguido AA sem a colaboração activa da arguida, com ele presente no local e hora do crime.

Pure Googlish:

The valuation of reconstructions without corroboration as to defendant BB, as it did, is illegal and unconstitutional and should have led to his acquittal for the murder of crime. No longer do so as the crime of desecration and concealment of a corpse, for she could not have been performed by AA defendant without the active cooperation of the defendant, with him present at the place and time of the crime.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 02:24:55 PM by Carana »

Offline John

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1396 on: July 13, 2015, 09:36:54 PM »
Does it not strike you as odd that neither Leonor or João saw fit to alert the GNR to the disappearance and ultimately it was left to the lady who owner the pastry shop?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Carana

Re: The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1397 on: July 14, 2015, 12:29:45 PM »
Does it not strike you as odd that neither Leonor or João saw fit to alert the GNR to the disappearance and ultimately it was left to the lady who owner the pastry shop?

It was actually the lady from the bar / mini market called "Pasteleria Celia" that called, not the person where they went much later to get some "bolos".

Yes, I find that a bit odd, but then I've tried to place it in context.

By all accounts, Leonor appears to have been quite placid / reserved in temperament. Even so, a missing child is cause for alarm and no one seems to have found her in a state of panic that evening. By the next morning, several people noted that she'd been crying... although a few others found her more composed than they would have expected.

The context, though, appears to have been that Joana had been to a family birthday party that day and there was a fair on in her home village that evening. I find it plausible that she initially thought that she'd simply been attracted to the festivities or had been invited by friends or relatives for one of those candyfloss things and lost track of time. I've seen clips of the festival on YouTube and it looks quite fun.

It was only when she'd been gone for nearly an hour, instead of an expected 20 minutes or so, that she sent João out to find her as they may well have been waiting for the tuna to make dinner.

João went off to the bar/ shop where she'd been sent on her errand and bumped into Leandro and MM having a beer. It doesn't seem as if they rushed back home upon learning that she hadn't turned up. No one seemed particularly alarmed at that point and they may well have finished their beers before going back home to see if she'd returned in the meantime.

Leandro and MM went off looking for her, while Leonor stayed home with the kids, presumably also with João.

When the men came back and said they hadn't found her anywhere around the festival area, she then took off with them again to ask around herself, apparently leaving João to babysit the toddlers.

They boys hadn't thought to ask the Celia lady whether she'd actually been to get the tuna and milk or not, so she asked. She carried on asking various people if they'd seen her, but nope. They may have checked various routes in case she'd had an accident, but there was still no sign of her.

That evening, she seemed more perplexed than anything else. Could a relative have taken her home for the night for some reason and forgotten to phone her, or perhaps tried, but her phone was dead? The idea that she could have been taken against her will didn't seem to have occurred to her at that point.

The family members then went home for a bit, and were still there when Celia lady then popped over when she closed her bar / shop and thought the GNR ought to be called. As Leonor's phone was dead, the bar lady did so. At which point they went out again to talk to the GNR, who told her to make a formal report to the GNR station in Portimão in the mornng. it's not clear if the GNR undertook any searches or not that night.

Once they had a working phone between them, they called Leandro's parents to see if they'd taken her back home with them - so that was still considered a possibility that night.

ETA: A detail, she, and possibly others had gone to a bolo (cake) shop at around 2 am, and asked if anyone had seen her. This would obviously be after talking to the GNR.

There had been an exciting festival, various relatives would have been out and about, no apparent sign of an accident... Although there appears to have been growing concern over the course of the evening, the idea of a stranger abduction didn't seem to have occurred to any of them, nor to the GNR apparently. The GNR officer said she appeared sad, but wasn't crying.

By the next morning, various people noted that she'd been crying. Was that because she knew her child was dead or because innocent explanations for her absence hadn't materialised?
« Last Edit: July 14, 2015, 08:02:10 PM by Carana »