The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!

[Benice]

Nobody said anyone found red shoes in the house on the night she disappeared.  What you have totally failed to understand is that Joana wasn't even considered as having been abducted for nearly 4 days.  Only after this period of time did the GNR call in the PJ detectives when they realised that all was not as it seemed. Only then did Leonor claim she had been abducted.

I was referring to the statement on this thread - from Carana. 


BB1 (one of Leadro's sisters).
Na 2ª feira de manhã (dia 13), por volta das 14h, a testemunha foi ver a BB. Em casa estavam também o AA e o II. Nessa altura a BB referiu-lhe como é que a CC estava vestida e calçada quando desapareceu. Mais tarde, a testemunha deparou com os sapatos que a BB tinha dito que a CC tinha calçados e confrontou a BB com isso, tendo ela respondido que então a CC devia ter trocado de sapatos e que tinha levado as chinelas. Porém, posteriormente, a testemunha encontrou uma das chinelas debaixo do sofá da sala e a outra chinela no quarto. Procurou o calçado da CC e encontrou em casa todos os sapatos, sandálias e chinelas que ela usava nesse Verão.

This is what I think it says (paraphrasing). Leandro's sister went to see Leonor at the house at around 2pm. Leandro and João were also there. Leonor said what clothes and shoes Joana had been wearing. Later, the sister found the shoes in the house and asked Leonor about it, who said she must have changed shoes  and gone out in "chinelas" (slippers/flipflops?). Later, the sister found one of the flipflops under the sofa and the other in the room (not sure which room).     She searched for all her footwear and found all the shoes, sandals and slipper/flipflops that she had worn that summer in the house.  
UNQUOTE

I'm well aware that it was while before the GNR called in the PJ.   That doesn't change the fact that  - as instructed by the GNR  - LC formally reported her daughter missing the morning after she disappeared.     

When she had not been located elsewhere  (dead or alive) and did not return -  then of course LC would think she had been abducted.    That is surely what any normal parent would think - and dread  - in those same circumstances. 

IMO It was only the GNR who took their time in coming to that same possible conclusion - not LC.

Is there any evidence that LC claimed anything different to 'abduction' during those first 4 days?




   

[Carana]

I was referring to the statement on this thread - from Carana. 


BB1 (one of Leadro's sisters).
Na 2ª feira de manhã (dia 13), por volta das 14h, a testemunha foi ver a BB. Em casa estavam também o AA e o II. Nessa altura a BB referiu-lhe como é que a CC estava vestida e calçada quando desapareceu. Mais tarde, a testemunha deparou com os sapatos que a BB tinha dito que a CC tinha calçados e confrontou a BB com isso, tendo ela respondido que então a CC devia ter trocado de sapatos e que tinha levado as chinelas. Porém, posteriormente, a testemunha encontrou uma das chinelas debaixo do sofá da sala e a outra chinela no quarto. Procurou o calçado da CC e encontrou em casa todos os sapatos, sandálias e chinelas que ela usava nesse Verão.

This is what I think it says (paraphrasing). Leandro's sister went to see Leonor at the house at around 2pm. Leandro and João were also there. Leonor said what clothes and shoes Joana had been wearing. Later, the sister found the shoes in the house and asked Leonor about it, who said she must have changed shoes  and gone out in "chinelas" (slippers/flipflops?). Later, the sister found one of the flipflops under the sofa and the other in the room (not sure which room).     She searched for all her footwear and found all the shoes, sandals and slipper/flipflops that she had worn that summer in the house.  
UNQUOTE

I'm well aware that it was while before the GNR called in the PJ.   That doesn't change the fact that  - as instructed by the GNR  - LC formally reported her daughter missing the morning after she disappeared.     

When she had not been located elsewhere  (dead or alive) and did not return -  then of course LC would think she had been abducted.    That is surely what any normal parent would think - and dread  - in those same circumstances. 

IMO It was only the GNR who took their time in coming to that same possible conclusion - not LC.

Is there any evidence that LC claimed anything different to 'abduction' during those first 4 days?

Various statements give me the impression that she was more perplexed than panicked that night. Searches in the village and calls to family members might have given a lead, but there was none. It seems to be later that morning that she was getting really worried and had been crying.
 

[Angelo222]

Does anyone else not think it just a little bit strange that the step aunt was checking on shoes even then yet Leonor didn't appear to be perplexed??

[Eleanor]

Does anyone else not think it just a little bit strange that the step aunt was checking on shoes even then yet Leonor didn't appear to be perplexed??

I find it a bit strange that the aunt knew anything much about Joana's shoes, let alone was checking on them.  She can't have been in a position to know exactly how many shoes Joana had.

[Carana]

I find it a bit strange that the aunt knew anything much about Joana's shoes, let alone was checking on them.  She can't have been in a position to know exactly how many shoes Joana had.

I find that rather odd as well. The child had been at a birthday party that day, so it's possible that she'd changed footwear once home. There doesn't seem to be any further information about this, aside from that one person's statement.

The only other thing I've found from the SC doc is what I've posted below (paraphrasing based on what I can decipher) AA9 She's the girlfriend/common-law wife of one of Leandro's half-brothers. On the morning of 13 Sept, BB1 (sister- in-law?) phoned to say that Joana had disappeared and she went to Leonor's home that afternoon, where she found her in a right state and had said that she'd had to pay €2 to go to the GNR station to report the disappearance. On 14 Sept., this lady volunteered to make up a poster on a computer with Joana's photo and made photocopies to pin up (which various people seemed to have done in the area). 

A testemunha AA9, companheira de um meio-irmão do II, contou que na 2ª feira de manhã (dia 13) a cunhada BB1 lhe telefonou a dizer que a CC tinha desaparecido, pelo que nessa tarde foi a casa da BB. Referiu que a BB tinha estado a chorar e que estava em baixo, nervosa, mas contou-lhe que tinha tido que gastar 2 € para vir a Portimão participar o desaparecimento na GNR. A testemunha contou também que, por sua iniciativa, logo na 3ª feira, fez um panfleto no computador com a fotografia da CC a falar no desaparecimento, o qual fotocopiou, sendo que com o companheiro e a cunhada BB1 andaram a espalhar os panfletos por vários locais de Portimão e Lagos.

ETA: John found a reference to the shoes:


9. 1. Facts considered to be proved:

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;

ao) os arguidos não colocaram os sapatos que a menor tinha calçados nos sacos, tendo ficado em casa todos os pares de sapatos que a menor utilizava naquele Verão;

[Mr Gray]

Does anyone else not think it just a little bit strange that the step aunt was checking on shoes even then yet Leonor didn't appear to be perplexed??

 could you tell me where this comes from. Is it a verbatim quote from the aunt.  This sounds like manufactured evidence from the pj to me

[Redblossom]

This is the problem with this case, from the perspective of the English speaker there appears to be little evidence but this is false.  There is an abundance of material and when I get an opportunity I tend to compile it in all.

Well said, that is why many of us are really quite hand tied in many aspects.....


Not sure if this is any use, its all in Portuguese....a 5 page online especial report from Diario da Noticias...not the equivalent of Portugals daily star!....at the bottom of the page there are links to many articles, dated,and going back to sept 2004


http://www.dn.pt/especiais/interior.aspx?content_id=1006691&especial=Caso%20Joana&seccao=SOCIEDADE

[Redblossom]

Does anyone else not think it just a little bit strange that the step aunt was checking on shoes even then yet Leonor didn't appear to be perplexed??

The aunt when visiting the next afternoon asked or was told what joana was wearing that day,including red shoes, which is normal, Ive not read anywhere she went looking for her shoes, just that she found them.....and when she did Leonor said to her she must have changed them before going out again....ie into the orangle flip flops....again no one said she went looking for these, just that she found them under some furniture...when a child goes missing its not strange that relatives will look around the house for clues....sorry angelo, not a reply to your post directly, just a point Im making about this issue and couldnt be bothered to scroll back to the original question on it.....for some posters to suggest all this was manufactured by the PJ borders on stupidity IMO.....i suppose the aunt now was tortured too......

[Carana]

Well said, that is why many of us are really quite hand tied in many aspects.....


Not sure if this is any use, its all in Portuguese....a 5 page online especial report from Diario da Noticias...not the equivalent of Portugals daily star!....at the bottom of the page there are links to many articles, dated,and going back to sept 2004


http://www.dn.pt/especiais/interior.aspx?content_id=1006691&especial=Caso%20Joana&seccao=SOCIEDADE

Well done, Red. I've bookmarked that and will have a look. The Supreme Court document is interesting as well, particularly the witness statements and the legal reasoning, but only bits of it have been translated, unfortunately.

[Redblossom]

Well done, Red. I've bookmarked that and will have a look. The Supreme Court document is interesting as well, particularly the witness statements and the legal reasoning, but only bits of it have been translated, unfortunately.

Youre welcome....Im sure there are other reputable papers with information, will have a stab at them tomorrow

[Mr Gray]

The aunt when visiting the next afternoon asked or was told what joana was wearing that day,including red shoes, which is normal, Ive not read anywhere she went looking for her shoes, just that she found them.....and when she did Leonor said to her she must have changed them before going out again....ie into the orangle flip flops....again no one said she went looking for these, just that she found them under some furniture...when a child goes missing its not strange that relatives will look around the house for clues....sorry angelo, not a reply to your post directly, just a point Im making about this issue and couldnt be bothered to scroll back to the original question on it.....for some posters to suggest all this was manufactured by the PJ borders on stupidity IMO.....i suppose the aunt now was tortured too......

So where does this information come from...does it have a reliable source...in my education I was taught always to question...its a sign of intelligence not stupidity

[Redblossom]

So where does this information come from...does it have a reliable source...in my education I was taught always to question...its a sign of intelligence not stupidity

Amaral obviously told em all what to say from day one to end day or  else...duh thats what youve  been preachng on here so why ask such a silly question when you know the answer.........
 


Night dear
 

[Mr Gray]

Amaral obviously told em all what to say from day one to end day or  else...duh thats what youve  been preachng on here so why ask such a silly question when you know the answer.........
 


Night dear
 

 you see no one wants to answer that sort of question...lots of claims of thing said...but no sources..I'm happy for you to correct me but you cant

[Redblossom]

you see no one wants to answer that sort of question...lots of claims of thing said...but no sources..I'm happy for you to correct me but you cant

the point is even if sources are given you will poo poo them and  insist amaral must have tortured the info out...in other words you will never accept any evidence whatsoever in ths case so yu may as well just go and plant hostas for the winter and stick your fngers in your ears as you are just not interested
 


Too funny what a clown

That is why you and certain others are dead to the debate....for you there IS no debate....Amaral is responsible for fitting up innocent people and you wont hear a word against this.....admit it


Bye now

though Im sure you will come out with some knee jerk rubbish or other....I will let someone else more patient take the relay batton hahaha


Edited as is my prerogative...

[Mr Gray]

the point is even if sources are given you will poo poo them and  insist amaral must have tortured the info out...
 


Too funny what a clown

That is why you and certain others are dead to the debate....for you there IS no debate....Amaral is reaponsible for fitting up innocent people and you wont hear a word against this.....admit it


Bye now

 So you have the sources but don't want to tell..what a load of rubbish...there are no sources...I thought it was against forum rules to post "crap" that you cannot substantiate