Leonor Cipriano, her confession and subsequent silence in the killing of her daughter Joana.

[Carana]

hang on,  you said he refused to admit to "something or other" at the end of an initial interrogation...and didn't  sign something...that can't be the same as a taped confession can it? As a taped confession is not "something or other"


As for coffee and biscuits, being plied as you put it,  I would never ever accuse my innocent sibling of anything so gross or anything at all, they could torture me to death if they wanted, get a grip won't you

That's a perfectly rational response... to an abstract situation.

They don't seem to have been close at all. He had been in trouble with the cops before, had been into drugs and turned up occasionally on her doorstep. From there, it's not that difficult for the PJ to insinuate that he'd been up to no good, that he'd been accusing you to get himself out of a crime, plus you've got the stress of a missing little girl, the police don't believe you, the press is making you out to be a monster, you no longer know who you can trust, you're exhausted, bewildered and terrified.

Have you actually read any of the links I've posted on interrogation techniques?

[Carana]

Que? So? Did he retract his statement or not carana and if  not why not if it was beaten out of him, his sister managed to do so

Also please stop ignoring issues changing the subject and obfuscating

I've no idea which statement you're talking about.

I'm not ignoring issues, changing the subject or obfuscating. What do Leonor's inmates have to do with the subject?

[Redblossom]

That's a perfectly rational response... to an abstract situation.

They don't seem to have been close at all.

of course even siblings who are not in contact accuse each other of murder/abduction/selling....blood is not thicker than water then

[Redblossom]

I've no idea which statement you're talking about.

I'm not ignoring issues, changing the subject or obfuscating. What do Leonor's inmates have to do with the subject?

His confession!!!  Streuth

so, carana, did he retract it ever or not, you seem to be having difficulty answering this considering you know so much more about this case than the rest of us

[Angelo222]

The bit I still don't understand is why she failed to speak at her trial if she didn't kill the girl?  The latest confession (if you believe it) is that her brother tried to sell Joana but something went wrong, at least according to Leonor, that is what Joao told her.

So what Leonor is basically saying is that she only knows what has been told to her by her brother. For all we know the girl was sold and Joao is spinning a yarn to protect his buyer.  The story which Leonor originally told about slapping the girl could have also been a fabrication intended to protect her brother.

However, the forensics (non existent according to some) reveal blood stains on the very wall which Leonor said she pushed Joana against. Leonor could not have known about these blood stains unless there was some truth in what she originally confessed about slapping the girl.

Both Leonor and Joao are involved to some degree or other whichever scenario you choose to accept. Stranger abduction was a non starter!

[Carana]

The bit I still don't understand is why she failed to speak at her trial if she didn't kill the girl?  The latest confession (if you believe it) is that her brother tried to sell Joana but something went wrong, at least according to Leonor, that is what Joao told her.

So what Leonor is basically saying is that she only knows what has been told to her by her brother. For all we know the girl was sold and Joao is spinning a yarn to protect his buyer.  The story which Leonor originally told about slapping the girl could have also been a fabrication intended to protect her brother.

However, the forensics (non existent according to some) reveal blood stains on the very wall which Leonor said she pushed Joana against. Leonor could not have known about these blood stains unless there was some truth in what she originally confessed about slapping the girl.

Both Leonor and Joao are involved to some degree or other whichever scenario you choose to accept. Stranger abduction was a non starter!

Their lawyers advised them not to take the stand. The confessions would have carried considerable weight and there was no proof to present that they'd been beaten or coerced at that early stage.

On the forensics issue, the PJ had gone in with their UV lamp on 22nd Sept, i.e. a couple of days before she was carted off to the magistrate. The PJ therefore did have an opportunity to "assist her memory" concerning which wall the child was supposed to have cracked her head on.

Another point is that although blood was indeed found, the UV lamp would have shown up any biological traces (saliva, sweat, etc.). There is therefore no way of knowing whether the entire fluorescent area was blood or simply specks (possibly even old) of blood within an area of other substances. It's not even clear whether blood was found in all of the areas that fluoresced. Fluorescence close to a light switch or near a door is not necessarily indicative of anythng untoward and the odd speck of blood wouldn't be unusual either. There were six people living in that house and there are bound to be specks of blood in any home. Some of it was human, some animal and some animal and human. As the PJ didn't turn up until 10 days after the disappearance, there's no way of knowing whether when the spots of blood had been deposited. On its own, there doesn't seem to be anything inconsistent with a nicked finger.

[John]

Their lawyers advised them not to take the stand. The confessions would have carried considerable weight and there was no proof to present that they'd been beaten or coerced at that early stage.

On the forensics issue, the PJ had gone in with their UV lamp on 22nd Sept, i.e. a couple of days before she was carted off to the magistrate. The PJ therefore did have an opportunity to "assist her memory" concerning which wall the child was supposed to have cracked her head on.

Another point is that although blood was indeed found, the UV lamp would have shown up any biological traces (saliva, sweat, etc.). There is therefore no way of knowing whether the entire fluorescent area was blood or simply specks (possibly even old) of blood within an area of other substances. It's not even clear whether blood was found in all of the areas that fluoresced. Fluorescence close to a light switch or near a door is not necessarily indicative of anything untoward and the odd speck of blood wouldn't be unusual either. There were six people living in that house and there are bound to be specks of blood in any home. Some of it was human, some animal and some animal and human. As the PJ didn't turn up until 10 days after the disappearance, there's no way of knowing whether when the spots of blood had been deposited. On its own, there doesn't seem to be anything inconsistent with a nicked finger.

Regardless of her lawyers advice, if she was 100% innocent of any crime relating to her daughter she had a moral duty to speak out if only to extend the search for her.

Do you not think it just a tad odd Carana, that all these years and she hasn't shown the slightest interest in pursuing a search for Joana?  That includes Joana's father and her stepfather too.  It would seem that everyone connected to Joana is of the opinion that she is indeed deceased.

Why is that do you suggest?

[Carana]

Why is that do you suggest?

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

[John]

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

Do you not think it just a tad odd Carana, that all these years and she hasn't shown the slightest interest in pursuing a search for Joana?  That includes Joana's father and her stepfather too.  It would seem that everyone connected to Joana is of the opinion that she is indeed deceased.

Why no search?

[Carana]

Do you not think it just a tad odd Carana, that all these years and she hasn't shown the slightest interest in pursuing a search for Joana?  That includes Joana's father and her stepfather too.  It would seem that everyone connected to Joana is of the opinion that she is indeed deceased.

Why no search?

What is she supposed to organise from prison? Getting out might have given her a chance to do so.

There were 9 arguidos in this case, I can understand that they were all terrified of being implicated in a crime by the big-boot guys.

What makes you think that those associated with the case, some of whom lived off a scrapyard, could have mounted a campaign? Several people loosely associated with the case were barely literate and this was before the Internet would have taken off in PT ... to fight against a system in which the Supreme Court found that "indirect evidence" was sufficient to reaffirm their sentences and in which the family had no means to actually find any proof to refute the allegations?

Some villagers may well have believed the PJ-tabloid hype and may have assumed that the hype was factual at the time. Many testified in neutral-to-positive terms at the trial, but how many of these witness statements were reflected in the tabloids at the time?

How many of these villagers were likely to have found the Supreme Court judgement on the Internet, let alone tried to work out the evidence?

By the time the dust had started to settle years later... what means would any of them have had to help find a missing child in those circumstances, dead or alive? Particularly in the absence of anything concrete? Who would be willing to put their heads above the parapet (risking criminal libel, with a family to care for and with possibly undeclared odd jobs to make ends meet, which might have attracted unwanted attention) without any proof?

[Redblossom]

more apologist waffle!

[Carana]

more apologist waffle!

How would you have organised a search for a missing child back then if you had found yourself in prison,with limited contact with the outside world, with little or no understanding of the Internet?

Add to that that your country's tabloids, and the courts, all deemed you guilty of one of the most atrocious crimes imaginable for reasons that don't correspond to what actually happened.

Where do you start? And what do you do?

[Redblossom]

How would you have organised a search for a missing child back then if you had found yourself in prison,with limited contact with the outside world, with little or no understanding of the Internet?

Add to that that your country's tabloids, and the courts, all deemed you guilty of one of the most atrocious crimes imaginable for reasons that don't correspond to what actually happened.

Where do you start? And what do you do?

Yes  you are right, it would have been totally impossible to do in any way shape or form imaginable.

[John]

The GNR / rescue services hadn't found her; she wasn't at any of her relatives... ergo adults in the home at the time "did it". No body? No problem. She was chopped up and fed to pigs, taken in a car to be squashed over the border (which hadn't received an alert about the case, apparently) ... But, hey ho, anything goes. Case solved.

Yes indeed...it helps though when the mother confesses and the brother is prepared to take te police out searching twelve locations where he said he buried her remains.  Bizarre!!     8-)(--)

[sadie]

Yes indeed...it helps though when the mother confesses and the brother is prepared to take te police out searching twelve locations where he said he buried her remains.  Bizarre!!     8-)(--)

Confessions after they had been tortured, John?

I know that you will say that they confessed first, but why are you so sure when Amaral is a twice convicted liar and Cristavao is allegedly charged with 7 gangster like offences.  They sopund like two bad pennies to me ... and I am being kind.

He also allegedly personally beat Leandro up, putting him in hospital, in order to give a (false) witness statement, which Leandro has since rescinded.

As lead detective Amaral must have arranged for the DCCB (terrorist squad) to come from Lisbon to do the main torture, but are you so sure that:
1)   He didn't apply a bit of torture himself early on?  He did to Leandro it seems.
2)   He has told the truth about Leonor confessing on a date before the "official" torture dates?

The guy has proved that he cant be trusted, he lied to the Courts.     He is a criminal, yet you still trust him?  Jeez John, are you ever gullible ?

Only my opinion, but the pointers are there.    Plus several more, which I haven't mentioned this time