The trial of Leonor and João Cipriano for the murder of Joana.

[sadie]

circumstances?

why would any circumstance change a confession time and time again....is there a specific type that was wanted? It makes no sense to me...leonor made a confession to the judge in sept 04....she then alledgedly made another one under duress n october and then two years later made another...was that the last one? Her brother made at least two different nes didnt he?

this is not normal

Nothing about this case is normal Red. 

Did you ever come across another case where severe torture was used?

Did you ever come across a case where the lead detectives, both, either have a criminal conviction for lying or are about to go thru the Courts on allegedly seven really nasty charges?

Did you ever come across a case where there are NO forensics and NO REAL evidence ?

Did you ever come across a case where the only so-called witness Leandro was allegedly badly roughed up by the lead detective in order seemingly to "persuade" him to give evidence, which  he at the earliest opportunity later rescinded?

Did you ever come across a case where the defendants were publicly derided with salacious propaganda that amounts, it seems, to lies.  Was this salacious propaganda released by the PJ? 

What happened about the so-called secrecy Laws in PT ?


Nothing about this case is normal. 
Even the defending lawyer Joao Grade turned out to be a mate of Amaral.  At his 50th birthday party FGS.  Grade instructed Leonor and Joao to keep their mouths shut in Court.  Wonder why?

I also wonder why he wasn't charged for apparantly taking drugs into a prison he was visiting?  that makes me feel uncomfortable. tbh ... especially as we are told that Amaral was the main drugs Ch Inspector.

[Anna]

a

[sadie]

Can you please show a link or direction of these confessions made by Leonor, because the only one I know of was a statement made by them both on the advice of Leonors lawyer to shorten the sentence, but it was thrown out of court, because Joao denied writing it. Joao did confess to murder (confession by film of him demonstrating how he disposed of the body) I would greatly appreciate direction to the confessions by Leonor that you know of .

anna

Torture was used on Leonor.  was it also used on Joao but it has been kept hidden?

Nothing to do with this case can be trusted because of

1)  the torture.  So called evidence gained from torture is NOT evidence
2)  the fact that the lead detectives both are dicey, it seems.  Amaral having been convicted of perjury (lying) by the courts.  Cristavao allegedly due to be up in  Court on seven really nasty changes.  Of course, he is innocent until proven guilty, but also allegedly he was in trouble with the PJ previously and relieved of his position.  Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
3)  Disinformation put about, deriding Leonor and Joao, which was effectively propaganda designed to denigrade them before the case
4)  One of the judges was vehemently against the court ruling
5)  The defending Lawyer was a mate of Amarals
6)  The defending Lawyer seemingly was not charged with carrying drugs. 
Perhaps Grade was charged?  But surely he would have been struck off had he been found guilty.
7)   Cristavao made big money writing a book about this case.  Both detectives made mega money writing a book about the Madeleine case too.

Plus several other things.


If Joao is a drug addict, even without any real torture, he would be likely to respond in any way asked ... with the provision of drugs ... only my thoughts, I hasten to add

[Anna]

anna

Torture was used on Leonor.  was it also used on Joao but it has been kept hidden?

Nothing to do with this case can be trusted because of

1)  the torture.  So called evidence gained from torture is NOT evidence
2)  the fact that the lead detectives both are dicey, it seems.  Amaral having been convicted of perjury (lying) by the courts.  Cristavao allegedly due to be up in  Court on seven really nasty changes.  Of course, he is innocent until proven guilty, but also allegedly he was in trouble with the PJ previously and relieved of his position.  Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
3)  Disinformation put about, deriding Leonor and Joao, which was effectively propaganda designed to denigrade them before the case
4)  One of the judges was vehemently against the court ruling
5)  The defending Lawyer was a mate of Amarals
6)  The defending Lawyer seemingly was not charged with carrying drugs. 
Perhaps Grade was charged?  But surely he would have been struck off had he been found guilty.
7)   Cristavao made big money writing a book about this case.  Both detectives made mega money writing a book about the Madeleine case too.

Plus several other things.


If Joao is a drug addict, even without any real torture, he would be likely to respond in any way asked ... with the provision of drugs ... only my thoughts, I hasten to add

Yes I believe Joao was the one to weaken under torture IMO too, but any confession was taken as coming from both as they were silent at the trial

[Carana]

I've yet to see what concrete evidence this case was based on...

[John]

î
I've yet to see what concrete evidence this case was based on...

Do you know many innocent people who admit to beating their daughter to death?

[sadie]

Do you know many innocent people who admit to beating their daughter to death?

John,

1.  Do you know any people who were tortured as Leonor (? and Joao ?) were, for was it two days before breaking?

You maintain that Leonor had already confessed, so why was it necessary to torture her?  In fact, why torture anyone?  Torture is NOT ON in a Democracy.  It is the stuff of horror movies and third World Fascist or Communist States.    

So called evidence from a Tortured person IS NOT EVIDENCE at all.  It is the language of fear.

I repeat,
If Leonor had already confessed, why torture her?  I dont believe that she had previously confessed.  My feeling is that that is a fabrication .... but I cant be sure ... and IMO of course


2.  Do you know many ordinary people (as against gangsters) who are advised by their Lawyer not to speak in Court?  Not to defend themselves?

Advised not to defend themselves?   By a lawyer who is not only a friend of Amaral, it seems, but (see below).  Is that a Legal Conflict of Interests?
 

3.   Do you know many Lawyers who, it seems, were not tried for the offence of carrying drugs when entering a prison ?  But then went on to represent their client, (Leonor), against the very man, Amaral ...  who as the Chief Inspector in charge of drug related matters, chose not to prosecute that Lawyer?  Or so it seems.

That is a Legal Conflict of Interests, is it not ?
 

4.  Do you know many ordinary people who are charged with what seems to be a trumped up offence.  Not only a trumped up offence ... but also the person charged, a vocal straight talking woman, was tried behind closed doors.  No public allowed to attend? 

Is that an Injustice?  

Why?  What were they hiding?  What were they frightened of ?  .... There has to be a reason
 
 
 

John, I dont think that you are doing yourself Justice in asking the question
"Do you know many innocent people who admit to beating their daughter to death?"
 
It shows that you haven't thought through the events, the extreme torture and the implications therein ... and sometimes you seem to be blindly supporting Amaral against all the pointers ... and all the odds.
 
Only my opinion, of course 

[Carana]

Do you know many innocent people who admit to beating their daughter to death?

There are obviously cases in which parents have admitted to killing their child. However, in this instance the credibility of the conditions under which these "confessions" took place and the lack of any corroborating evidence seems to be seriously undermined, IMO.

 

[Carana]

Some interesting background reading on false confessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession

An extract:


False confessions can be categorized into three general types, as outlined by Saul M. Kassin in an article for Current Directions in Psychological Science:[2]

    Voluntary false confessions are those that are given freely, without police prompting. Sometimes they may be sacrificial, to divert attention from the actual person who committed the crime. For instance, a parent might confess to save their child from jail. In some cases, people have falsely confessed to having committed notorious crimes simply for the attention that they receive from such a confession. Approximately 60 people are reported to have confessed to the 1947 murder of Elizabeth Short, known as the "Black Dahlia."[3]

    Compliant false confessions are given to escape a stressful situation, avoid punishment, or gain a promised or implied reward. Interrogation techniques such as the Reid technique try to suggest to the suspect that he will experience a feeling of moral appeasement if he chooses to confess. Material rewards like coffee or the cessation of the interrogation are also used to the same effect. People may also confess to a crime they did not commit as a form of plea bargaining to avoid a harsher sentence. People who are easily coerced score high on the Gudjonsson suggestibility scale.

    Internalized false confessions are those in which the person genuinely believes that they have committed the crime, as a result of highly suggestive interrogation techniques.

According to the Innocence Project, approximately 25% of convicted criminals ultimately exonerated had, in fact, confessed to the crime.[4] In Canada, courts of law have recognized as valid confessions that were acquired, even though the interrogators lied by suggesting they had substantial evidence against a given suspect when in fact they did not, something known as the "bluff" technique.[5] The high pressure generated may push innocent individuals to produce a confession.[6]



A 2010 study from CUNY's John Jay College of Criminal Justice used laboratory experiments that test how the bluff technique correlates with confessions gained from innocent parties. Subjects were instructed to complete a task on a computer, then were falsely accused of a transgression such as crashing the computer or collaborating with a colleague to improve their task performance.[7] Bluff evidence, false evidence, and unreliable witnesses were used to test their effect. In the first test, 60% of the subjects confessed to the experimenter to pressing a computer key they had been instructed to avoid when, in fact, they had not; an additional 10% admitted to pressing the key to a study observer. A second group that tested subject reactions to charges of cheating produced nearly identical percentages of false confessions. The authors note, "innocent people who stand accused believe that their innocence will become apparent to others ... which leads them to waive their Miranda right to silence and to an attorney."[7]

False confessions greatly undermine the due process rights of the individual who has confessed. As Justice Brennan noted in his dissent in Colorado v. Connelly,[8] "Our distrust for reliance on confessions is due, in part, to their decisive impact upon the adversarial process. Triers of fact accord confessions such heavy weight in their determinations that 'the introduction of a confession makes the other aspects of a trial in court superfluous, and the real trial, for all practical purposes, occurs when the confession is obtained.' No other class of evidence is so profoundly prejudicial. 'Thus the decision to confess before trial amounts in effect to a waiver of the right to require the state at trial to meet its heavy burden of proof.'"

[Carana]

And this is without being beaten up during interrogation:

Reid technique
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Reid technique is a method of questioning subjects to try to assess their credibility and to extract confessions of guilt. Supporters argue the Reid technique is useful in extracting information from otherwise unwilling suspects, while critics have charged the technique can elicit false confessions from innocent persons, especially children. Indeed, Reid's breakthrough case resulted in an overturned conviction decades later.[1]

The term "Reid Technique" is a registered trademark of the firm John E. Reid and Associates, which offers training courses in the method they have devised. The technique is widely used by law-enforcement agencies in North America. However it has been widely discredited as it has a long history of eliciting false confessions.[2]

Contents

    1 Process
        1.1 Nine steps of interrogation
    2 Criticism
    3 Notes
    4 External links

Process

In the Reid technique, interrogation is an accusatory process in which the investigator tells the suspect that there is no doubt as to his or her guilt. The interrogation is in the form of a monologue presented by the investigator rather than a question and answer format. The demeanor of the investigator during the course of an interrogation is ideally understanding, patient, and non-demeaning. His or her goal is to make the suspect progressively more and more comfortable with acknowledging the presumed truth about what he or she is alleged to have done. This is accomplished by the investigators' first imagining and then offering the subject various psychological constructs as justification for their behavior.

For example, an admission of guilt might be prompted by the question, "Did you plan this out or did it just happen on the spur of the moment?" This technique uses a loaded question that contains the unspoken, implicit assumption of guilt. The idea is that the person under interrogation must catch the hidden assumption and contest it to avoid the trap. Critics regard this strategy as hazardous, arguing that it is subject to confirmation bias (likely to reinforce inaccurate beliefs or assumptions) and may lead to prematurely narrowing an investigation.
Nine steps of interrogation

The Reid technique's nine steps of interrogation are:[3]

    Step 1 - Direct confrontation. Lead the suspect to understand that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.

    Step 2 - Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.

    Step 3 - Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt. Reid training video: "If you’ve let him talk and say the words ‘I didn’t do it’[...]the more difficult it is to get a confession."[citation needed]

    Step 4 - At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the confession.

    Step 5 - Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.

    Step 6 - The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.

    Step 7 - Pose the “alternative question”, giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.

    Step 8 - Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.

    Step 9 - Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).

Criticism

Critics of the technique claim it too easily produces false confessions,[4] especially with children.[5][6] The use of the Reid technique on youth is prohibited in several European countries because of the incidence of false confessions and wrongful convictions that result.[7]

In Canada, a Provincial Court judge ruled in 2012 that "stripped to its bare essentials, the Reid Technique is a guilt-presumptive, confrontational, psychologically manipulative procedure whose purpose is to extract a confession."[8] John E. Reid and Associates maintains that "it’s not the technique that causes false or coerced confessions but police detectives who apply improper interrogation procedures."[8]

It was discovered in December 2013 that an unredacted copy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interrogation manual had been impermissibly placed in the Library of Congress and was available for public view. The manual confirmed American Civil Liberties Union concerns that the agency used the Reid technique.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_technique

[Anna]

Fantastic research by you both...............As is expected now 

[Angelo222]

And this is without being beaten up during interrogation:

Leonor Cipriano wasn't beaten up before she confessed before the examining magistrate.   Have you not yet learned this?

[Carana]

Leonor Cipriano wasn't beaten up before she confessed before the examining magistrate.   Have you not yet learned this?

She told Leandro that she had been, although when asked, he said that he hadn't noticed any bruising on her face or arms. He said that he and others had also been beaten whenever they were interrogated by the Faro PJ. João also said he was regularly beaten. On the balance of probabilities, I don't see why she would have been spared.

Even if she hadn't, there are lots of other ways to exert some form of coercion, including bluffing about evidence, or that the other person being interrogated (João) had insisted she'd done it.

If it's true that they both had a below average IQ, it wouldn't be difficult to manipulate confessions out of them.

[Angelo222]

She told Leandro that she had been, although when asked, he said that he hadn't noticed any bruising on her face or arms. He said that he and others had also been beaten whenever they were interrogated by the Faro PJ. João also said he was regularly beaten. On the balance of probabilities, I don't see why she would have been spared.

Even if she hadn't, there are lots of other ways to exert some form of coercion, including bluffing about evidence, or that the other person being interrogated (João) had insisted she'd done it.

If it's true that they both had a below average IQ, it wouldn't be difficult to manipulate confessions out of them.

A bit of wishful thinking on your behalf Carana.  Lets keep to the facts eh?

[Carana]

Sadie,

There may have been a valid reason for the lawyers to advise them not to testify in court, but it was a two-edged sword. The lawyers knew that unless they repeated their confessions in court, they were inadmissible. A disadvantage was that, by the same token, they couldn't actually clarify anything either.

What they hadn't counted on was a legal loophole which meant that João's "reconstruction" could be presented to the court (and was), despite the fact that his confession couldn't.

The lawyers' seem to have assumed that without the "confessions" or the "reconstruction", the case would have been thrown out as there was nothing else of any significance.

After all the build-up due to "leaks" and the ensuing media frenzy, finding them not guilty after being shown this "reconstruction" might well have been psychologically near impossible.