Author Topic: Ciprianos confess before the judge of instruction of the Court of Portimão  (Read 17875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carana

I'll go along with that. 
Especially people who believe themselves to have suffered a Miscarriage of Justice.

The imprisonment of Leonor and Joao Cipriana on the charge of having murdered Joana must be one of the most glaring examples of likely Miscarriage of Justice in the last century.  IMO

Every case has to be considered separately. We all know of cases of familal abuse leading to death.

However, I just can't find anything in this case aside from "confessions" in less than lucid circumstances. And I originally assumed that they must have been guilty until I started examining the case more closely.

Offline mercury

I really don't understand why some people are so convinced that Leonor and her brother are truly guilty concerning Joana.

I'm not naive - I do know of some horrible cases in which family members have been responsible for child abuse deaths whiled claiming an abduction.

In this case, I simply can't find anything of substance beyond the so-called confessions under less than limpid conditions.

What about the plethora of changes in testimony and the accusations and counter accusations between the parties?
You going to blame that on no education and poverty too?


Offline mercury

And of course L C confessed did she not before a magistrate when taken to court BEFORE her "beating " by police ?


Yes. No?

Offline Carana

What about the plethora of changes in testimony and the accusations and counter accusations between the parties?
You going to blame that on no education and poverty too?

Police bluff tactics (including "he/she said that you did...") and inadequate / incompetent / overstretched / bizarre legal defence seem plausible to me.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 12:40:18 PM by Carana »

Offline Carana

And of course L C confessed did she not before a magistrate when taken to court BEFORE her "beating " by police ?


Yes. No?

I don't find it to be a simple yes/no situation.

If she hadn't repeated her "confession" before a magistrate, I don't see any evidence that could have led to the initial charge - assuming that any was required beyond a PJ "suspicion".

If she had, that doesn't appear to be in the same time frame as the later torture episode which was subject to a trial.

On the other hand, a legal representative was only an option once arguido status had been invoked.

How does anyone know what she had been subjected to as a "witness" under interrogation prior to that?


Offline John

Why anyone would believe for a moment that the Cipriano's are totally innocent is beyond me.  They each blamed the other at various stages as the investigation played out.  It cannot be said that Leonor definately killed Joana even by accident and it cannot be said that Joao killed her but one thing's for sure, they are both guilty of some dasdardly deed where Joana was concerned. Nobody except a raving looney would voluntarily confess to having accidentally killed their own child, and what's more, there is no evidence that Leonor fits that profile.

Hopefully in the fullness of time all will be revealed.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 12:30:52 PM by John »
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 mercury

Police bluff tactics (including "he/she said that you did...") and inadequate / incompetent / overstretched / bizarre legal defence seem plausible to me.

Plausible is not necessarily probable

Youre an apologist rather than a "critic of the evidence"

A biased starting place

Offline mercury

I don't find it to be a simple yes/no situation.

If she hadn't repeated her "confession" before a magistrate, I don't see any evidence that could have led to the initial charge - assuming that any was required beyond a PJ "suspicion".

If she had, that doesn't appear to be in the same time frame as the later torture episode which was subject to a trial.

On the other hand, a legal representative was only an option once arguido status had been invoked.

How does anyone know what she had been subjected to as a "witness" under interrogation prior to that?

She confessed to a magistrate days/weeks before her "beating out a confession " in october

why would she do that????

Offline sadie

She confessed to a magistrate days/weeks before her "beating out a confession " in october

why would she do that????
Seems she refused to write "such a confession" down, so no signature.

I don't believe there was such a confession.

Was that why she was tortured later?

I cannot believe the claims of such as Amaral and Cristavao.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 12:32:05 PM by John »

Offline mercury

Seems she refused to write "such a confession" down, so no signature.

I don't believe there was such a confession.

Was that why she was tortured later?

I cannot believe the claims of such as Amaral and Cristavao.
Well she couldnt if she was as you all say illiterate???
She managed though to finger her brother in another "confession letter" make your minds up

Whether you went to provate school or no school , can or  cant read or write, fingering your brother, and as carana speculates, with no evidence under duress, just dont cut the mustard

One of them at least knows what happened to that poor girl and it wasnt a amaral!
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 12:32:18 PM by John »

Offline Carana

Plausible is not necessarily probable

Youre an apologist rather than a "critic of the evidence"

A biased starting place

Nope.

What evidence?

Offline mercury

Nope.

What evidence?

Yes you are an apologist

You accept zero and come up with excuses all the time

Not evenher initital confession in sept to a magistrate is good enough for you

Putting it down to police intimidation

You also put all her andher brothers testimony (you know the psycopathic social delinquent with previous murder charge) and multiple changes of testimony due to intimidation


so yes you apologise for everythng, that is illogical

Oh andbtw carana it is apparently legal for police to torture or murder people in custody in the uk, covered by the law, nothng to do with this case but just came across it today, shocking really
« Last Edit: October 18, 2016, 12:06:53 AM by mercury »

Offline John

Seems she refused to write "such a confession" down, so no signature.

I don't believe there was such a confession.

Was that why she was tortured later?

I cannot believe the claims of such as Amaral and Cristavao.

Regardless of your belief, Leonor confessed to accidentally killing Joana by hitting her head off a wall in the family home, not really the sort of thing one admits to if your child had really disappeared, thought to be abducted by a stranger.

As for the LATER torture, this was an attempt to find the child in case she was still alive somewhere.

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

Regardless of your belief, Leonor confessed to accidentally killing Joana by hitting her head off a wall in the family home, not really the sort of thing one admits to if your child had really disappeared, thought to be abducted by a stranger.

As for the LATER torture, this was an attempt to find the child in case she was still alive somewhere.

Erm... where did you get that idea from John?

Offline mercury

Erm... where did you get that idea from John?

The fact that she confessed to a magistrate when charged ages before "the torture"
did she ever say she was tortured into doing so?