Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults > The Disappearance of Portuguese youngster Joana Cipriano (8) from the village of Figueira, near Portimćo, Algarve, on 12 September 2004.
The Joana Cipriano case revisited.
xtina:
--- Quote from: misty on October 22, 2018, 05:16:18 PM ---Joana disappeared on 12th September. How many days had lapsed during which she could have been injured & dying before Leonor & Joao were tortured to ascertain where Joana was? Even to the uninitiated of Portuguese police methods, your excuse for their actions seems rather "frivolous" IMO.
--- End quote ---
your excuse for their actions seems rather "frivolous" IMO.
What are you on about here..............
Portuguese police methods........
At least they are still alive............
People die here in uk police custody ..........frequently.......
for far less.............imo
Carana:
I was totally gobsmacked when I was finally able to read the initial judgement (which picks up on points in the investigation) and the initial trial. That it ever came to court is beyond my comprehension, whether the mother and / or brother are in fact guilty of some action that resulted in her (as yet unproven) death or not.
Carana:
I'm not disputing the fact that evidence obtained under duress is inadmissible. My concern is that people can be browbeaten, or threatened, into denying it, just as some will falsely claim duress. There were no CCTV recordings of interrogations back then (a recommendation for audio recordings of arguido interviews was only introduced many years later), and would therefore be difficult to establish either way, unless medical treatment were sought.
I can think of at least two key moments (aside from the "slippery stairs" incident) involving the police in which CCTV recordings would have been useful. One concerns what actually transpired during Leonor's first detention and the conditions under which she was held; the other concerns the circumstances leading up to Joćo's "chopping-up" "confession".
I have suspicions about both, but have found no way of verifying them either way. Nor have I been able to ascertain whether their legal counsel ever did either.
A third involves a certain lawyer who freely admitted bluffing Joćo into believing that other convicts were going to kill him unless Joćo agreed to a confession.
Alice Purjorick:
--- Quote from: Carana on October 27, 2018, 06:41:31 AM ---I'm not disputing the fact that evidence obtained under duress is inadmissible. My concern is that people can be browbeaten, or threatened, into denying it, just as some will falsely claim duress. There were no CCTV recordings of interrogations back then (a recommendation for audio recordings of arguido interviews was only introduced many years later), and would therefore be difficult to establish either way, unless medical treatment were sought.
I can think of at least two key moments (aside from the "slippery stairs" incident) involving the police in which CCTV recordings would have been useful. One concerns what actually transpired during Leonor's first detention and the conditions under which she was held; the other concerns the circumstances leading up to Joćo's "chopping-up" "confession".
I have suspicions about both, but have found no way of verifying them either way. Nor have I been able to ascertain whether their legal counsel ever did either.
A third involves a certain lawyer who freely admitted bluffing Joćo into believing that other convicts were going to kill him unless Joćo agreed to a confession.
--- End quote ---
"If you have evidence the codes were not adhered to let's see it".
It would appear there is no evidence then. Just suspicion based on hearsay.
Robittybob1:
--- Quote from: Alice Purjorick on October 27, 2018, 12:49:48 PM ---"If you have evidence the codes were not adhered to let's see it".
It would appear there is no evidence then. Just suspicion based on hearsay.
--- End quote ---
Did the defendant ever claim to have been tortured?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version