The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!

[AnneGuedes]

The Court accepted she had been beaten, but by unknown.

That's what I read too.
Life in jail for a child's murderer is worse than hell.
Was the intervention of Metodo 3 investigated ? Why was their contract re-conducted in March 2008 after the hoax of Madeleine's return for Xmas ?

[Angelo222]

No, John, it's a tabloid reporting..
The 3 police officers accused of torture were exonerated and GA wasn't accused to falsify a document in order to cover that up.
http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/caso-joana-goncalo-amaral-condenado-a-ano-e-meio-de-prisao-com-pena-suspensa-1382307.

Translation

The Court of Faro today condemned by false allegations to a year in prison with a suspended sentence the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral , in these case relating to the alleged aggressions against Leonor Cipriano by PJ inspectors . However , the accused was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation (failure to report a crime).

The inspector António Cardoso was also convicted with suspended sentence, two years and three months in prison . The remaining defendants were acquitted because despite having been proved that Leonor Cipriano was assaulted on the premises of PJ, we could not identify the perpetrators . According to the chairman of the panel of judges , the case is " particularly serious in people who aim to fight crime."

The court also stated that the testimony in court of the girl's mother was contradictory, which did not help to establish the facts . Similarly it was not possible to prove that she fell from the stairs, as claimed by the defence. The prosecutor or the assistants can now turn, respectively, with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.

The process is related to the so-called " Joana case ", dating back to September 12, 2004 , the day the girl, aged eight, disappeared from the village of Figueira, Portimão, Algarve.

A reading of the judgement was made ​​this afternoon by Chairman of the judges. The charges of the Prosecutor against five inspectors and former inspectors Judicial emerged following the interrogation by the PJ in Faro in 2004 , when Leonor appeared with lesions on her face and body in Prison Beja, where she was on remand.

Three inspectors were accused of the crime of torture, one was accused of the crime of perjury and failure to report and a fifth was accused of the crime of document forgery. The trial began on 27 October 2008.

Joana's mother, Leonor Cipriano, and uncle, John Cipriano were sentenced by the Supreme Court to 16 years in prison each, for the crimes of murder and concealment of a body of the child. Four days ago, 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 John Cipriano confessed in writing that he tried to sell her.

Not so.  She was beaten within the PJ premises.  You might want to read this Portuguese article posted by Anne.  Hint.. take note of the bold text.

So, tell me,  who normally assaults suspects in a police station??

[Benice]

That's what I read too.
Life in jail for a child's murderer is worse than hell.

Was the intervention of Metodo 3 investigated ? Why was their contract re-conducted in March 2008 after the hoax of Madeleine's return for Xmas ?

So do you think the Director of the Prison committed perjury Anne?


Quote from
Statewatch article: RefNo# 29207
 
Portugal: Report on torture suffered by Leonor Cipriano
SPECIAL SECURITY CHAIN ​​OF ODEMIRA

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".END QUOTE

[Angelo222]

There is lots of evidence that Joana was murdered and it is disingenuous for anyone to post the contrary.  Another piece of evidence which clearly points to her having been disposed of is that her shoes were all there in the house.  Does anyone really believe that Joana went out without her shoes??  You can't be that naive surely??

[Benice]

There is lots of evidence that Joana was murdered and it is disingenuous for anyone to post the contrary.  Another piece of evidence which clearly points to her having been disposed of is that her shoes were all there in the house.  Does anyone really believe that Joana went out without her shoes??  You can't be that naive surely??

Nothing to do with naievety imo Angelo.  There is no forensic evidence that Joana was murdered by LC  and the court threw out the motive for a murder to have taken place - given by the PJ.   Those are the facts.  No motive and no evidence.

IMO Apart from that - once torture had been established, the verdict should have been automatically declared 'Unsafe' as nothing which had been presented as evidence incriminating LC could be relied upon to be credible - including evidence put forward by the PJ about shoes.

[Redblossom]

Nothing to do with naievety imo Angelo.  There is no forensic evidence that Joana was murdered by LC  and the court threw out the motive for a murder to have taken place - given by the PJ.   Those are the facts.  No motive and no evidence.

IMO Apart from that - once torture had been established, the verdict should have been automatically declared 'Unsafe' as nothing which had been presented as evidence incriminating LC could be relied upon to be credible - including evidence put forward by the PJ about shoes.

Well, three judges and three jurors disagree with you and they disagreed on all appeals too....you must know better?

[Eleanor]

Well, three judges and three jurors disagree with you and they disagreed on all appeals too....you must know better?

One Judge refused to find Leonor Cipriano guilty, and said that he believes that she is innocent.

[Mr Gray]

Well, three judges and three jurors disagree with you and they disagreed on all appeals too....you must know better?

 You have been denying she was beaten by the pj for months and now you have been shown the truth..

[Carana]

Leonor Ciprianos actions the night that Joana disappeared says it all in my opinion.  She never went out at all to look for her.  Instead she stayed in the house and 'cleaned up'.

Neither Leonor or Joano contacted the police.  Leonor made the pathetic excuse that she had no credit on her mobile phone.  So what??  Emergency calls to 112 are free!!

What does apologist Sadie say about that??

I really don't know what happened in this case.

Standing back from the unproven suppositions, what I think I understand from the timeline of that night:

Leonor, the 3 kids and João were apparently home. Leandro had gone off to this village fête.

- Joana was sent out on an errand at "around 20:00".

- Joana was last seen walking towards home between 20:30/40.

- 21:30 João went to tell Leandro and friend that she hadn't come home. Leonor stays home with 2 other kids. Shortly after that all three men come home and note that Joana still hasn't come home. Leandro and friend go off to search. João stays home with Leonor.

- Between 22:30-23:00, Leonor goes off to the shop to see if she'd actually been there. João seems to have stayed at home.

- Bearing in mind the "village fête" atmosphere, at around 0:40 (now 13 Sept), the shopkeeper phones GNR. Had Leonor gone off to search / find people she knew who she may have been with? People who may have seen her? Phoned friends/family? (Did anyone from forensics actually check phones?) Then, gone back to the shop to check again, at which point the shopkeeper offered to call?

- At some point, during the night, she apparently talked to the GNR around the church area. (Why is this "around" a certain time? Did the investigation check?

- Later that morning, she and João went to make a formal statement at the GNR station in Portimão.


If my understanding of that timeline is correct (and there is latitude as to the times noted/recorded, as there doesn't seem to be corroboration):

- Are the prosecution allegations:

-- feasible within that timeframe? Yes, they could be, but there was never any corroborating evidence.

-- plausible

---within that timeframe? I have a few problems with that: you send a child on an errand to a bar/shop that is only 420m from home and engage in incestuous sex (for which there is no concrete evidence) in the living-room? In a house to which Leandro and friend could have returned for x, y, or z reasons at any time?

---- If the neighour's approximate timing is more or less accurate, Joana came home, discovered this "bad thing" going on, got her head bashed to death against a wall, (without, presumably the other kids waking up - were they questioned?), the bloodbath cleaned up, her body temporarily hidden from view (presumably), then chopped up in the living-room with an attempt to stuff the dismembered parts in what may have been a  fridge/combo* that anyone in the family could have accessed the following morning.

* What this "arca frigorifica"? It doesn't seem clear. Literally a refrigeration case. What does that mean? A fridge? A fridge/freezer combo? How big - they were quite poor. A separate deep freeze? The term for deep-freeze would seem to be "arca congeladora", which isn't the term that I've found in the Supreme Court judgement.

- If it's a deep-freeze, then ok, but few people would normally check the contents of a deep-freeze on a daily basis.

- If it actually means a fridge (even a small one with a freezer compartment), that could still be feasible if the occupants only opened the fridge part the next morning to get, e.g., milk for breakfast.

With such a massacre, wouldn't forensics have found evidence?

- The traces of (unidentified) blood found in a chink of a drawer of this "arca frigorífica" don't seem to have been identified as belonging to anyone.

-- The body was supposed to have been wrapped in a duvet cover and stuffed in the corner of a bedroom at some point? When? Was this duvet cover analysed? 

I haven't found any forensic evidence about the fate of this child in the Supreme Court judgement.

Perhaps one or both who are serving a long sentence are in fact guilty, in which case they deserve their terms, in my view. But what if they weren't? What hard evidence is there?

[Mr Gray]

I really don't know what happened in this case.

Standing back from the unproven suppositions, what I think I understand from the timeline of that night:

Leonor, the 3 kids and João were apparently home. Leandro had gone off to this village fête.

- Joana was sent out on an errand at "around 20:00".

- Joana was last seen walking towards home between 20:30/40.

- 21:30 João went to tell Leandro and friend that she hadn't come home. Leonor stays home with 2 other kids. Shortly after that all three men come home and note that Joana still hasn't come home. Leandro and friend go off to search. João stays home with Leonor.

- Between 22:30-23:00, Leonor goes off to the shop to see if she'd actually been there. João seems to have stayed at home.

- Bearing in mind the "village fête" atmosphere, at around 0:40 (now 13 Sept), the shopkeeper phones GNR. Had Leonor gone off to search / find people she knew who she may have been with? People who may have seen her? Phoned friends/family? (Did anyone from forensics actually check phones?) Then, gone back to the shop to check again, at which point the shopkeeper offered to call?

- At around 02:00, she apparently talked to the GNR around the church area. (Why is this "around" a certain time? Did the investigation check?

- Later that morning, she and João went to make a formal statement at the GNR station in Portimão.


If my understanding of that timeline is correct (and there is latitude as to the times noted/recorded, as there doesn't seem to be corroboration):

- Are the prosecution allegations:

-- feasible within that timeframe? Yes, they could be, but there was never any corroborating evidence.

-- plausible

---within that timeframe? I have a few problems with that: you send a child on an errand to a bar/shop that is only 420m from home and engage in incestuous sex (for which there is no concrete evidence) in the living-room? In a house to which Leandro and friend could have returned for x, y, or z reasons at any time?

---- If the neighour's approximate timing is more or less accurate, Joana came home, discovered this "bad thing" going on, got her head bashed to death against a wall, (without, presumably the other kids waking up - were they questioned?), the bloodbath cleaned up, her body temporarily hidden from view (presumably), then chopped up in the living-room with an attempt to stuff the dismembered parts in what may have been a  fridge/combo* that anyone in the family could have accessed the following morning.

* What this "arca frigorifica"? It doesn't seem clear. Literally a refrigeration case. What does that mean? A fridge? A fridge/freezer combo? How big - they were quite poor. A separate deep freeze? The term for deep-freeze would seem to be "arca congeladora", which isn't the term that I've found in the Supreme Court judgement.

- If it's a deep-freeze, then ok, but few people would normally check the contents of a deep-freeze on a daily basis.

- If it actually means a fridge (even a small one with a freezer compartment), that could still be feasible if the occupants only opened the fridge part the next morning to get, e.g., milk for breakfast.

With such a massacre, wouldn't forensics have found evidence?

- The traces of (unidentified) blood found in a chink of a drawer of this "arca frigorífica" don't seem to have been identified as belonging to anyone.

-- The body was supposed to have been wrapped in a duvet cover and stuffed in the corner of a bedroom at some point? When? Was this duvet cover analysed? 

I haven't found any forensic evidence about the fate of this child in the Supreme Court judgement.

Perhaps one or both who are serving a long sentence are in fact guilty, in which case they deserve their terms, in my view. But what if they weren't? What hard evidence is there?

As far as I can see no hard evidence..just the confessions.

[sadie]

Leonor Ciprianos actions the night that Joana disappeared says it all in my opinion.  She never went out at all to look for her.  Instead she stayed in the house and 'cleaned up'.

Neither Leonor or Joano contacted the police.  Leonor made the pathetic excuse that she had no credit on her mobile phone.  So what??  Emergency calls to 112 are free!!

What does apologist Sadie say about that??

Leonor Cipriano had two other quite young children.  After all you have said about Kate and Gerry, how do you square Leonor going out and leaving them? 

Remember - the Mccann childrens apartment was within sight and hearing and only about 50 metres away.
The children were soundly asleep before Kate and Gerry went for their meal 50 metres away, and they were checked visually every half hour.


One strandard for the Mccanns and another for Leonor, eh ?

So Angelo, do you think that Leonor should have gone out looking ... and leaving her little ones unattended?  


As for mobiles in 2004 in rural PT. 
Come on pull the other one.  I doubt she had one.  Remember she wasn't working and had little money. 


If there was a mobile, it is most likely that the man the house would have it.
Leonor was not working, apart from keeping a nice clean home and feading and looking after her children in an examplorary manner according to photographs.

[Carana]

I modified a sentence in my previous post that I felt wasn't totally accurate or badly worded.

I have loads of questions - whoever may be responsible for this little girl's disappearance.

Perhaps these two people were in fact responsible. Who knows? However, I have not seen any evidence, aside from shoehorning allegations, strangely taken as "fact",  that could corroborate anything concrete.

How could people be convicted for such long sentences... on the basis of such flimsy evidence?

I really don't understand.

[John]

As far as I can see no hard evidence..just the confessions.

There undoubtedly is evidence Dave but you choose to ignore it for some reason?

They had every means to contact the police Sadie, in fact the police were stationed at the Fair just down the road so no excuses.  In my opinion the Court was correct to find her guilty of collusion certainly given all the circumstances.  I believe the brother did the dirty deed though since he was quite capable of it given his history of monstrous violence.

[Mr Gray]

There undoubtedly is evidence Dave but you choose to ignore it for some reason?

 Im not ignoring it ..where is it ... I haven't seen it

[sadie]

I really don't know what happened in this case.

Standing back from the unproven suppositions, what I think I understand from the timeline of that night:

Leonor, the 3 kids and João were apparently home. Leandro had gone off to this village fête.

- Joana was sent out on an errand at "around 20:00".

- Joana was last seen walking towards home between 20:30/40.

- 21:30 João went to tell Leandro and friend that she hadn't come home. Leonor stays home with 2 other kids. Shortly after that all three men come home and note that Joana still hasn't come home. Leandro and friend go off to search. João stays home with Leonor.

- Between 22:30-23:00, Leonor goes off to the shop to see if she'd actually been there. João seems to have stayed at home.

- Bearing in mind the "village fête" atmosphere, at around 0:40 (now 13 Sept), the shopkeeper phones GNR. Had Leonor gone off to search / find people she knew who she may have been with? People who may have seen her? Phoned friends/family? (Did anyone from forensics actually check phones?) Then, gone back to the shop to check again, at which point the shopkeeper offered to call?

- At some point, during the night, she apparently talked to the GNR around the church area. (Why is this "around" a certain time? Did the investigation check?

- Later that morning, she and João went to make a formal statement at the GNR station in Portimão.


If my understanding of that timeline is correct (and there is latitude as to the times noted/recorded, as there doesn't seem to be corroboration):

- Are the prosecution allegations:

-- feasible within that timeframe? Yes, they could be, but there was never any corroborating evidence.

-- plausible

---within that timeframe? I have a few problems with that: you send a child on an errand to a bar/shop that is only 420m from home and engage in incestuous sex (for which there is no concrete evidence) in the living-room? In a house to which Leandro and friend could have returned for x, y, or z reasons at any time?

---- If the neighour's approximate timing is more or less accurate, Joana came home, discovered this "bad thing" going on, got her head bashed to death against a wall, (without, presumably the other kids waking up - were they questioned?), the bloodbath cleaned up, her body temporarily hidden from view (presumably), then chopped up in the living-room with an attempt to stuff the dismembered parts in what may have been a  fridge/combo* that anyone in the family could have accessed the following morning.

* What this "arca frigorifica"? It doesn't seem clear. Literally a refrigeration case. What does that mean? A fridge? A fridge/freezer combo? How big - they were quite poor. A separate deep freeze? The term for deep-freeze would seem to be "arca congeladora", which isn't the term that I've found in the Supreme Court judgement.

- If it's a deep-freeze, then ok, but few people would normally check the contents of a deep-freeze on a daily basis.

- If it actually means a fridge (even a small one with a freezer compartment), that could still be feasible if the occupants only opened the fridge part the next morning to get, e.g., milk for breakfast.

With such a massacre, wouldn't forensics have found evidence?

- The traces of (unidentified) blood found in a chink of a drawer of this "arca frigorífica" don't seem to have been identified as belonging to anyone.

-- The body was supposed to have been wrapped in a duvet cover and stuffed in the corner of a bedroom at some point? When? Was this duvet cover analysed? 

I haven't found any forensic evidence about the fate of this child in the Supreme Court judgement.

Perhaps one or both who are serving a long sentence are in fact guilty, in which case they deserve their terms, in my view. But what if they weren't? What hard evidence is there?

A brilliant analysis Carana. Well done!

The only thing that I would like to add is that it was reported that the last time she was seen was walking up the steps to the church, which is approximately half way home.  Approx 200 metres to go, according to reports