Have we learned anything new from the Cipriano case?

[Angelo222]

There is NOTHING whatsoever to show that Joana is dead.

But it is convenient to certain Police Officers that she be believed dead by the masses.


I believe that I may have two pieces of evidence that she is still alive.  However, I am not sharing them.

Its what in some legal circles is called EVIDENCE.   The jury convicted her on all the evidence which included forensics and witness testimony.  Not forgetting the video confession of her brother of course.

The Cipriano case has little in common with the McCann case.  In Cipriano you have a choice between poor little girl abducted by strangers on Fair Day, a delinquent mother and uncle who chose to sell the child to strangers or a death and disposal/concealment following domestic violence.  In McCann the choice is abducted by a stranger from her bedroom, abducted by a stranger from the street outside, met with an accident in the apartment or in the street outside.

[sadie]

You have already been given the evidence she is dead, but you ignore it. REPEATEDLY.

If you have 'evidence', then take it to the relevant authorities.

After all, failure to do so could hinder an investigation and I believe, render you an accessory.

Show me again solid evidence that Joana is dead.

By solid, I mean:
1)  forensically verified,
2)  backed up by witnesses who were NOT tortured,
3)  not a so called confession that came from a tortured woman, or a man who was below average intelligence  and a druggie, so easily enduced with the aid of drugs and promises and possibly a bit iof the rough stuff.  A man who later apologised to his sister for dropping her in it.
4)  not from the ruminations and mouths of two officers who subsequently turned out to be crooked cops ... one a court confirmed liar (perjurer) ... and with nothing solid to back their claims

Add to this mix, the fact that extreme torture was used against Leonor and lesser stuff against Leandro for him to produce a so called witness statement.  A witness statement which he rescinded as soon as it was safe to do so, which was after the case and unhappily the conviction..
 
This kis an echo of what happened in the Michael Cook case.  The gardener who was the so called witness there also rescinded his witness statement after the case when it was safe to do so .... but unhappily in both cases the guilty verdict had been decided and it was too late

I repeat, stephen, Show me solid evidence that Joana is dead.

[Angelo222]

Show me again solid evidence that Joana is dead.

By solid, I mean:
1)  forensically verified,
2)  backed up by witnesses who were NOT tortured,
3)  not a so called confession that came from a tortured woman, or a man who was below average intelligence  and a druggie, so easily enduced with the aid of drugs and promises and possibly a bit iof the rough stuff.  A man who later apologised to his sister for dropping her in it.
4)  not from the ruminations and mouths of two officers who subsequently turned out to be crooked cops ... one a court confirmed liar (perjurer) ... and with nothing solid to back their claims

Add to this mix, the fact that extreme torture was used against Leonor and lesser stuff against Leandro for him to produce a so called witness statement.  A witness statement which he rescinded as soon as it was safe to do so, which was after the case and unhappily the conviction..
 
This kis an echo of what happened in the Michael Cook case.  The gardener who was the so called witness there also rescinded his witness statement after the case when it was safe to do so .... but unhappily in both cases the guilty verdict had been decided and it was too late

I repeat, stephen, Show me solid evidence that Joana is dead.

Human hair and bone fragments were found in the pig sty.  Human blood was found on the wall where the girl was assaulted, on the floor, on shoes and in the fridge. The girl was seen by a neighbour going home.  Her shoes were found in the house.

[stephen25000]

Show me again solid evidence that Joana is dead.

By solid, I mean:
1)  forensically verified,
2)  backed up by witnesses who were NOT tortured,
3)  not a so called confession that came from a tortured woman, or a man who was below average intelligence  and a druggie, so easily enduced with the aid of drugs and promises and possibly a bit iof the rough stuff.  A man who later apologised to his sister for dropping her in it.
4)  not from the ruminations and mouths of two officers who subsequently turned out to be crooked cops ... one a court confirmed liar (perjurer) ... and with nothing solid to back their claims

Add to this mix, the fact that extreme torture was used against Leonor and lesser stuff against Leandro for him to produce a so called witness statement.  A witness statement which he rescinded as soon as it was safe to do so, which was after the case and unhappily the conviction..
 
This kis an echo of what happened in the Michael Cook case.  The gardener who was the so called witness there also rescinded his witness statement after the case when it was safe to do so .... but unhappily in both cases the guilty verdict had been decided and it was too late

I repeat, stephen, Show me solid evidence that Joana is dead.

This has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

You also do not need a body to prove murder.

I will leave you to your pointers.

Now, as I said earlier, if you have 'evidence', pass it on.

Also, read John's comments yesterday, AND try to understand them, above your bias, in trying to attack Amaral.

Again REMEMBER, confessions before the so called 'torture'.

[sadie]

 Reply #67 on: Today at 02:20:14 PM »
Some facts about Leonor Cipriano.

First, she claimed that she had seen who had assaulted her, but later she denied this. She said that there was a blue plastic bag over her head, but soon afterwards changed this to saying it was ˜green or blue".

So Leonor saw people immediately before the torture and after the torture ... and believed that they were the torturers ... and maybe they were? . 

Did they introduce themselves and give her their names?  With all that was going on, was she focussing properly?   Poor battered, terrified and recently bereaved woman.
 
She had a bag over her head, which she initially said was blue but later changed it to saying  it was either ˜green or blue" ....../.  Big deal!!

What colour is this ? 



Blue?  Blue or Green?  Green ?   
 
 

During the investigation into her allegation, she said that she had been assaulted ‘more than once’, but during the trial, she stated it that it happened only once. She said she knew the time of the beating - around 8.00pm - because she had looked at the clock in the room where she had been beaten. However, during the trial, she was asked to describe the room and did so without referring to any clock.

 
So there was a dinner/ coffee break break for the torturers.   Could be classified as tortured once or could be classified as tortured twice.  Think about it.
 
Jeez, John how twee,
In a panicky situation like at her Court trial, she didnn't remember to add the clock ... and that is held against her?  What trite nonsense.  Poor womans head must have been turning cartwheels with all the lies coming out against her and the fear of what lay ahead.

 

Despite having made a full confession before being convicted in 2005, she told the Court: “I don’t remember having confessed�, she told the court. Confessions are not admissible in court in Portugal unless the defendant repeats them in open court. Leonor Cipriano did repeat her confession during her trial in 2005. That makes it all the more strange that she changed her mind two years later, saying she didn’t remember having confessed.

Who says that Leonor confessed publicly in Court?  Was some trick used like we have witnessed on here in the past where people twist ones words to mean something else?   I would likie to read the actual Court transcript on that and even then fear can cause people to acquiesse.  She had plenty of reason for fear after all that torture, disgusting disinformation put out about her .... and knowing the case was largely based upon a tortured out so called confession.  This so called confession would not have happened if it had not been that she just had to escape the pain of that atrocious torture.
 

 

Leonor Cipriano originally claimed she had been beaten by PJ inspectors, but when asked to pick them out of a line-up, she couldn't do so. She then changed her story to say that the PJ inspectors must have arranged for another person or persons unknown to come into the police station and beat her.   Later she changed her mind once again claiming she was beaten by the PJ but couldn't identify them because a bag was placed over her head during the beating.

 
She saw PJ Inspectors before and after the beatings and could hear their voices, even when the bag was over her head.  She naturally thought that they had beaten her, and she was probably right.... but we dont know for certain.  Can you see people when your head is covered with a bag, John ?   Would you expect the people that you saw immediately before and after your torture to be the ones who did it?
 
The PJ Officers, DCCB, knew how to keep themselves "clean" by denying her the sight of them.  Cunning, cruel and devious bast**ds.   Well practiced at deceit and cover up by the sound of things

 

Leonor Cipriano never previously alleged that Goncalo Amaral had personally laid a hand on her until the Court hearing in Faro. Yet, in the Faro court, Leonor Cipriano changed her story once again and alleged that Goncalo Amaral had hit her during the beating

.
 


You have Amarals word for this do you?  If you don't mind my saying so, you are gullible.  He is a proven perjurer.

In her original statement, Leonor Cipriano said she knew the time the assaults on her took place because there was a clock on the wall in the room, and that it was approximately from 6.00pm to 8.00pm. Yet three of the named PJ inspectors accused of beating her were not even in the building at that time; they did not sign into the police station until 8.00 pm on the day in question.

 
Her original statement was taken when she had just been tortured, and to get rid of the on-going pain she would agree to anything ... sign anything.   That is the nature of tortured out statements and the reason that they are not allowed in Court.
 
If one is used to twisting things, it is easy enough to re-arrange the sign in times anyway
 
 

At one point during the beating she claimed she was forced to kneel on broken glass. But there appears to be no record of damage to her knees or legs that would be consistent with such a serious incident. When originally asked by the Prison Governor at Odemira Prison to explain her injuries, Leonor Cipriano failed to implicate any police officers.

 
There is a record of her being forced to kneel on glass ashtrays and also a record of her having the imprint of the glass ashtrays on her knees for a very long operiod afterwards.  Fancy having to kneel on a hard glass surface for a period, the pain from that alone would be excruciating.
 
I think the record was in the report sent to the ECHR, but it might have been somewhere else.   Please tell me if it was not in that report.

 

When Leonor Cipriano was asked in Court to give the names of the people she was accusing, she pulled a piece of paper out of her purse. A senior prison officer gave evidence that he was told by the Director of the Prison where Cipriano was being held (Odemira Prison), to change medical reports.

So Leonor pulled a piece of paper out of her purse?   Ermm ?  So what ?
 
The senior Prison officer could not have been believed by the Court because the senior Judge found that Leonor DID receive her bruises from Torture by the PJ. 
 
This begs the question, did the Prison officer lie or has it been twisted and misreported?
 
*If * he lied, could it be that the senior Prison Officer perchance had been treated like Leandro ?   Roughed up/tortured/ threatened a good bit? .... or even promised some reward? 
 
I doubt we will ever know, but based on photographs and medical evidence, the judge obviously found that Leonor had not fallen down the stairs.  That she had been tortured and that it happened under the interrogation of the PJ under Amarals command.
 
 

Leonor Cipriano denied that she ever had a female lawyer, however, she did have a female lawyer present when she made her original confession.

Did they introduce her ?  Maybe she didn't even know who the strange woman was.  Oh John, you are presuming things here
 

Little wonder therefore that she received an additional sentence for perjury.

That was disgusting and a further black mark against the so called Justice and also the Judiciary in Portugal.  The case was held in Camera

... Unbelievable, it was hidden from the world, case in Camera. 
I wonder why that was? 

Can you answer that?



There was NOTHING SOLID TO CONVICT LEONOR (or Joao) on. 

Just
1)   an unsubstantiated and wild theory from the two crooked Officers in charge of the prosecutions case,
2)   a TORTURED out so called confession which would not stand up in the Courts of any civilized country,
3)   a tortured out witness statement
4)   Some blood in the fridge and on the walls where they butchered their pigs.  None of this was tested in any way and most probably was not even human but the blood of pigs.
5)   A laughable and rediculous video of Joao trying to stuff a blow up doll into a freezer / fridge.  Any druggie would do that fior a fix
etc,


But NO investigation of the white and brown camper van parked near Joanas home?   I wonder why that was?  Especially as it vanished when joana did ... and turned up abandoned at Praia de Luz.

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t287-joana-cipriano

http://amaralfiction2.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/joana-cipriano-goncalo-amarals.html



People rarely abandon such valuable assets as camper vans !       Think about it, John



john, IMHO, you have shown NOTHING at all that is solid to prove Leonors involvement in any way with the disappearance of Joana. 


AIMHO

[stephen25000]

Reply #67 on: Today at 02:20:14 PM »
Some facts about Leonor Cipriano.
 
So Leonor saw people immediately before the torture and after the torture ... and believed that they were the torturers ... and maybe they were? . 

Did they introduce themselves and give her their names?  With all that was going on, was she focussing properly?   Poor battered, terrified and recently bereaved woman.
 
She had a bag over her head, which she initially said was blue but later changed it to saying  it was either ˜green or blue" ....../.  Big deal!!

What colour is this ? 



Blue?  Blue or Green?  Green ?   
 
 
 
 
So there was a dinner/ coffee break break for the torturers.   Could be classified as tortured once or could be classified as tortured twice.  Think about it.
 
Jeez, John how twee,
In a panicky situation like at her Court trial, she didnn't remember to add the clock ... and that is held against her?  What trite nonsense.  Poor womans head must have been turning cartwheels with all the lies coming out against her and the fear of what lay ahead.

 
Who says that Leonor confessed publicly in Court?  Was some trick used like we have witnessed on here in the past where people twist ones words to mean something else?   I would likie to read the actual Court transcript on that and even then fear can cause people to acquiesse.  She had plenty of reason for fear after all that torture, disgusting disinformation put out about her .... and knowing the case was largely based upon a tortured out so called confession.  This so called confession would not have happened if it had not been that she just had to escape the pain of that atrocious torture.
 

 
 
She saw PJ Inspectors before and after the beatings and could hear their voices, even when the bag was over her head.  She naturally thought that they had beaten her, and she was probably right.... but we dont know for certain.  Can you see people when your head is covered with a bag, John ?   Would you expect the people that you saw immediately before and after your torture to be the ones who did it?
 
The PJ Officers, DCCB, knew how to keep themselves "clean" by denying her the sight of them.  Cunning, cruel and devious bast**ds.   Well practiced at deceipt and cover up by the sound of things

 .
 


You have Amarals word for this do you?  If you don't mind my saying so, you are gullible.  He is a proven perjurer.

 
Her original statement was taken when she had just been tortured, and to get rid of the on-going pain she would agree to anything ... sign anything.   That is the nature of tortured out statements and the reason that they are not allowed in Court.
 
If you are used to twisting things, it is easy enough to re-arrange the sign in times anyway
 
 
 
There is a record of her being forced to kneel on glass ashtrays and also a record of her having the imprint of the glass ashtrays on her knees for a very long operiod afterwards.  Fancy having to kneel on a hard glass surface for a period, the pain from that alone would be excruciating.
 
I think the record was in the report sent to the ECHR, but it might have been somewhere else.   Please tell me if it was not in that report.

 
So Leonor pulled a piece of paper out of her purse?   Ermm ?  So what ?
 
The senior Prison officer could not have been believed by the Court because the senior Judge found that Leonor DID receive her bruises from Torture by the PJ. 
 
This begs the question, did the Prison officer lie or has it been twisted and misreported?
 
*If * he lied, could it be that the senior Prison Officer perchance had been treated like Leandro ?   Roughed up/tortured/ threatened a good bit? .... or even promised some reward? 
 
I doubt we will ever know, but based on photographs and medical evidence, the judge obviously found that Leonor had not fallen down the stairs.  That she had been tortured and that it happened under the interrogation of the PJ under Amarals command.
 
 
Did they introduce her ?  Maybe she didn't even know who the strange woman was.  Oh John, you are presuming things here
 
That was disgusting and a further black mark against the so called Justice and also the Judiciary in Portugal.  The case was held in Camera

... Unbelievable, it was hidden from the world, case in Camera. 
I wonder why that was? 

Can you answer that?



There was NOTHING SOLID TO CONVICT LEONOR (or Joao) on. 

Just
1)   an unsubstantiated and wild theory from the two crooked Officers in charge of the prosecutions case,
2)   a TORTURED out so called confession which would not stand up in the Courts of any civilized country,
3)   a tortured out witness statement
4)   Some blood in the fridge and on the walls where they butchered their pigs.  None of this was tested in any way and most probably was not even human but the blood of pigs.
5)   A laughable and rediculous video of Joao trying to stuff a blow up doll into a freezer / fridge.  Any druggie would do that fior a fix
etc,


But NO investigation of the white and brown camper van parked near Joanas home?   I wonder why that was?  Especially as it vanished when joana did ... and turned up abandoned at Praia de Luz.

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t287-joana-cipriano

http://amaralfiction2.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/joana-cipriano-goncalo-amarals.html



People rarely abandon such valuable assets as camper vans !       Think about it, John



john, IMHO, you have shown NOTHING at all that is solid to prove Leonors involvement in any way with the disappearance of Joana.

What is self evident Sadie, is that no matter what is said to you, you won't accept it.

I will leave you to your stories.

Nothing you can say, will change the outcome of the Cipriano case.

[sadie]

What is self evident Sadie, is that no matter what is said to you, you won't accept it.

I will leave you to your stories.

Nothing you can say, will change the outcome of the Cipriano case.

Please stephen I have asked you before ... Show me solid evidence that Joana is dead.

[Angelo222]

Please stephen I have asked you before ... Show me solid evidence that Joana is dead.

How solid do you need it?  A rotting corpse in front of you??

eta. Even that was denied to Joana as her dismembered remains were eaten by the pigs and emptied down the sewers.

[stephen25000]

Please stephen I have asked you before ... Show me solid evidence that Joana is dead.

Show me evidence that she is alive.

[sadie]

How solid do you need it?  A rotting corpse in front of you??

eta. Even that was denied to Joana as her dismembered remains were eaten by the pigs and emptied down the sewers.

How very convenient for the prosecution 

Same sort of convenience as is supplied by Madeleine having been cremated in a coffin with an elderly woman.


Both ensure that no-one can disprove them, cos no remains there to check ... and .... both are from the ruminations of a cop who has committed perjury in the Courts of Portugal ... so is officially a proven liar

[Angelo222]

How very convenient for the prosecution 

Same sort of convenience as is supplied by Madeleine having been cremated in a coffin with an elderly woman.


Both ensure that no-one can disprove them, cos no remains there to check ... and .... both are from the ruminations of a cop who has committed perjury in the Courts of Portugal ... so is officially a proven liar

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that Joana met a dreadful fate and was not sold to strangers as her uncle originally tried to suggest.  His filmed confession was more than sufficient to bring a charge of murder against him.

Excuses are constantly made on behalf of Leonor and John Cipriano but the truth is that they are just pure evil.  John Cipriano previously served an attempted murder conviction and now he has served a sentence for killing his niece.  Why is this wretched character even allowed to walk the streets of Portugal?

[Angelo222]

Leonor Cipriano's final confession.

Joana: Mother says the uncle killed girl by beating her.

Leonor Cipriano altered testimony. Document will be delivered today at the Public Prosecutor's Office
2009-01-16   

By Cláudia Rosenbusch   

Confession of Leonor Cipriano.

Leonor Cipriano, the mother of Joana, the missing girl from Portimão in September 2004, revealed yesterday at the Odemira Prison, that her brother , João Cipriano, also sentenced to prison in the same process, was the sole author of death of the girl .

Leonor's lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, said that the eight-page testimony in which the client tells "the true story" was delivered this morning at the Public Prosecutor's Office and will be provided to journalists. About 3 pm, at the door of the Faro Court.

According to the lawyer, who registered the testimony in writing, the client explains that her brother convinced her to deliver the girl to a couple, who would take her to Spain .

In return, the family would receive money and the promise of a better life for the child.

"Joao told her (Leonor) to be content because they were reliable people," reports the lawyer.

"When Joana left the house, the intention was to surrender her to the people and to simulate a kidnapping ," he continues, citing the client.

The moment Joana leaves the house, the uncle enters and collects some clothes of the girl, leaving soon with a bag.

The business of selling the child will not have gone as expected . "The people did not have the money agreed (a sum that Leonor did not reveal) and João did not give them the girl."

It so happens that the young one "heard the conversation and told her uncle that she was going to tell everything." In this sequence, says the lawyer, quoting Leonor Cipriano, "Joao starts hitting the girl and ends up killing her by beating her ."

When he returned home he tried to hide the murder, but at the insistence of Leonor, who had detected bloodstains on her brother's pants, John eventually confessed to the crime.

João hid her body in a place close to home and the next day buried her "up there for the hills of Figueira," he says, quoting João Cipriano's phrase.

In the face of her brother's "threats," she decided to forget and say that she knew nothing.

The confession of her involvement in her death was made "under torture" when she was heard by PJ inspectors, the lawyer said.

The decision to only tell the 'truth' is justified by 'the confidence' that Leonor made with the new lawyer, as well as the realization that she had nothing to fear. "At the time of the crime, the brother threatened her saying that if she told everything, she would also be arrested, but she is already in prison and so cannot be any worse," claims Marcos Correia.

With this revelation, the defense of Leonor intends : "to restart the searches and recover the body of Joana, make the funeral and ask the court to find out who is the couple who tried to buy the child."

The request for review of the sentence will await the outcome of the process in which five PJ inspectors respond for assaults on Leonor Cipriano during an interrogation.

The extraordinary appeal of sentence review, Which is always upheld by the High Court of Justice, may be lodged, in particular, in the case of new evidence which would upset the justice of a conviction or where a subsequent judgment considers that the conviction resulted from the use of prohibited evidence. Evidence obtained through torture shall be prohibited. Judgment review may imply a repetition of judgment .

It is recalled that in November 2005, Leonor and João Cipriano were respectively sentenced to 20 years and four months imprisonment and 19 years and two months respectively.

In May 2008, the Supreme Court reduced the sentences to 16 years and eight months in prison.

http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/justica/joana-mae-diz-que-tio-matou-menina-a-pancada

[misty]

Human hair and bone fragments were found in the pig sty.  Human blood was found on the wall where the girl was assaulted, on the floor, on shoes and in the fridge. The girl was seen by a neighbour going home.  Her shoes were found in the house.

Please provide a cite for that with the DNA analysis in the forensic report.

[Angelo222]

Please provide a cite for that with the DNA analysis in the forensic report.

Its all already on the forum if you care to look it up.

[Benice]

Human hair and bone fragments were found in the pig sty.  Human blood was found on the wall where the girl was assaulted, on the floor, on shoes and in the fridge. The girl was seen by a neighbour going home.  Her shoes were found in the house.

If human hair and bone fragments were large enough to be found - then there should have been no problem in extracting DNA evidence from them.   That would have been the obvious action for any police force to take at that point in a murder investigation - as it would virtually close the case.      So when was that testing done and what were the results?     I haven't been able to find them - but obviously that does not mean they are not there.

Could you provide them please Angelo.