Joana Case Revision: Leandro Silva's Statement & Comments

Excerpt from a debate on RTP – ‘Pros & Contras’ – last Monday evening, about the current state of the Portuguese Lawyers’ Order. On one side, the current Head of the Order, António Marinho Pinto, accompanied by the President of the District Counsel of Madeira, Fernando Campos, and of the Azores, Eduardo Vieira. On the opposite side, the President of the District Counsel of Lisbon and lawyer to the McCanns, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, the President of the District Counsel of Faro and lawyer to Gonçalo Amaral, António Cabrita, and former Head of the Order and also lawyer to the McCanns, Rogério Alves. The Joana case is subject to discussion, at some point during the debate.



"(3:04) Carlos Pinto de Abreu: “So much is said about the Joana case. The Joana case led Dr António Marinho Pinto to put a few photos in Expresso [newspaper]. But he did nothing more. Except now, a long time after, to nominate a lawyer to be an assistant in the Order’s name. This means that he doesn’t trust the lawyers who have been assigned – because there have been lawyers assigned, on behalf of the victims and on behalf of the arguidos, and so he didn’t trust those lawyers. He didn’t even trust lawyers in the Algarve. Dr Marinho Pinto didn’t present any kind of solution. Contrary to what Dr Marinho Pinto did, which was to publish a photo in the Expresso newspaper, I, for example, wrote a letter to the Attorney General, asking for no criminal police force to investigate that case, precisely to prevent that the Polícia Judiciária, the GNR or the PSP would investigate it, but rather the Public Ministry’s magistrates themselves. These are concrete solutions. Dr Marinho Pinto didn’t propose, in legislative terms, any change to the Penal Process Code to prevent this from happening, either. Apart from filing a complaint with the Public Ministry’s Superior Counsel and another one with the Magistrates’ Superior Counsel, concerning this matter, and I did that nominally, I have also proposed to the committee for the penal reform, and this was accepted, that all interrogations of arguidos have to be made in the presence of their lawyer.

(4:55) António Marinho Pinto: May I just say the following. When you say ‘put a few photos in Expresso’, what I did, as a journalist, which I was at that time, and worked for Expresso, I made a report about a case of torture at a criminal police force. And it took me, and I wish to publicly congratulate Expresso, because the work that I did, took four months. Four months. I went to the Algarve and to Odemira four times. I spoke with people at the prisons, I spoke with medics, I spoke with lawyers, I spoke with countless people, until I discovered the piece of evidence which were the photographs that I knew existed. And I published the article in Expresso. It was that, more than 30 thousand letters one could write, secretly, to the entities, it was that which made justice move forward. That was what made justice move."

Taking advantage of this introduction, I propose a closer look at the early days of the so-called ‘Leonor Cipriano case’, which is largely a separate story from the ‘Joana case’.

On the 12th of September 2004, Joana Cipriano Guerreiro, aged 8, disappears from the village of Figueira, near Portimão. The disappearance takes place at around 8.30 p.m., after the girl left her home to buy milk and canned tuna. For days, her mother, Leonor Cipriano, makes appeals on television, stating that her daughter was abducted.

On the 21st of September, Leonor Cipriano is taken away for questioning by the PJ of Portimão. It is already suspected that Joana was murdered. Then, on the 25th of September, Leonor Cipriano is placed under preventive custody at the prison of Odemira, under special security measures, after confessing to the accidental death and concealment of Joana’s cadaver. Two days later, the Court orders preventive custody for her brother João Cipriano, co-author of the crime.

On Monday, the 27th of September, Leonor Cipriano accuses the PJ inspectors of physically assaulting her to force her to confess to the crime. After simulating intense abdominal pain, while under questioning at the PJ in Faro, and screaming that she was hit in the belly to force her to confess, the inspectors take her to Faro Hospital, where her entry is registered at 8.25 p.m. At the hospital, the spots of blood that Leonor had left on a chair at the PJ, and which she stated were the result of physical aggression by police officers, were unmasked as menstrual bleeding.

During the night of the 14th to the 15th of October, Leonor is questioned overnight, at the PJ building in Faro. No lawyer is present, allegedly because this is an ‘informal questioning’, according to the police officers. In the early morning of October 15, she is taken by the PJ agents themselves to the Health Centre in Odemira, with bruises on her face and body.

On the 7th of January 2005, the Public Ministry opens an inquiry to investigate the alleged aggressions from PJ agents against Leonor Cipriano.

On the 26th of February, weekly newspaper Expresso publishes an article titled ‘Questions without answer’, by journalist António Marinho Pinto, presently the head of the Portuguese Lawyers’ Order. On the front page of the newspaper, the photograph of Leonor’s face, covered with bruises. On the same day, Santos Cabral, then National Director of the Polícia Judiciária, states, in a press release, that it was exclusively through an initiative of the PJ itself that the investigations into the alleged aggressions against Leonor Cipriano were jumpstarted.

Dr Marinho Pinto may well claim that he is the centre of the Universe; it remains a fact that the investigation into the alleged torture was not started by him, as it was well under way when he published his article in Expresso.

On the other hand, it remains unexplained, to this day, how the photographs came into his possession. By making the Lawyers' Order an assistant in the case of Leonor Cipriano - a move that was, and still is, subject to much criticism among lawyers - Dr Marinho Pinto rendered it impossible for him to be summoned onto the witness stand.

Coincidence - or coincidental facts?

sources:

Pros & Contras, RTP, 01.06.2009

Diário de Notícias, 04.09.2007 - "A historic process for the Polícia Judiciária"

Diário de Notícias, 27.02.2005 - "Joana's mother may be freed in March"

Correio da Manhã, 30.09.2004 - "Leonor alleged that she was aggressed by the PJ"

Correio da Manhã, 26.09.2004 - "Mother confesses to daughter's accidental death"

Correio da Manhã, 02.04.2005 - "PJ agents against Leonor"





By Astro

It'll be interesting to find a link between Pinto and Metodo 3 as I'm sure there will be one. Those photos of Leonora are suspicious.









Spot the real beatings

Good comparisons Allstar!!!

You can tell a mile off which is real and which is photoshopped

These are my personal comments on the statement signed by Leandro Silva, that is one of the main documents included in the recent request for extraordinary revision of the Joana case trial, which has been requested by Marcos Aragão Correia, legal representative of Leonor Cipriano - a document that the illustrious lawyer refers to as revealing "very important new facts". Here are the facts:

"Statement I the undersigned António Leandro David Silva, residing at Rua Evangelista Rosado Nunes, 14/1 Andar, Mexilhoeira Grande, 8500 Portimão, hereby declare and swear over my honour that everything that I hence describe is true: I was the partner of the mother of missing girl Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro, Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano, having lived with both for approximately six years. Therefore I know them perfectly well and know that Leonor was incapable to beating her children, something that she never did during all of these years nor do I believe that she would ever be capable of doing it, because Leonor never not once became violent or aggressive, because that was not her temperament.”

From the clinical psychiatric evaluation report during the Joana case trial: “The arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] manifests socially deviant behaviour at the level of norms, values and responsibilities, emotional instability and difficulties in expressing frustration, while her socialisation was marked by immature, superficial and narcissistic interpersonal relationships, where characteristics of manipulation (to satisfy her own needs) and aggressiveness (of mainly sadistic tonality) stand out, while in her personality the absence of empathy and the insensibility are salient, leading to the arguida’s despise for other people’s rights, needs and sentiments, directing her aggressiveness towards them, with a weak capacity to feel remorse. She possesses a borderline personality with anti-social/psychopathic, narcissistic and schizoid traits”.

“When Joana our daughter did anything that Leonor thought was not well done, the mother my companion waited for me to come home from work and spoke to me for me to have a word with Joana and if necessary to give her a punishment like not watching television or going to her room to do her homework.”

Unfortunately, doing homework is considered ‘punishment’ in this family.

“Joana liked her mother very much, and always spoke very well about her. In no way do I believe that Leonor hit Joana even once, and much less that she slapped her to death. In no way do I believe that Leonor my partner had sexual intercourse with anyone except me since the first moment that we met, much less with her brother João Manuel Domingos Cipriano.”

This is one of the facts that the court which tried João and Leonor Cipriano considered that had not been proved. Why the need to insist on this aspect of the case, which was duly excluded from the facts, except to reinforce a suggestion of malicious intentions from the PJ against the arguidos? It should also be noted that Mr Silva's own stepfather testified in court, during the Joana case trial, that João Cipriano told him he was having sexual intercourse with Leonor Cipriano and that they had killed the little girl.

“I can say that I believe one hundred percent in his confession on the 18th of May of this year, in which he finally admitted that he was the sole person responsible for Joana’s disappearance by trying to sell her. Apart from boasting over having tried to kill a man, João also used to present violent and aggressive attitudes whenever he had no money for drugs and whenever someone said something that he didn’t like very much. That story of sexual relationships and of Leonor having killed Joana with João was made up by the Polícia Judiciária and both were forced to say exactly the same so the Police could show they had done their work at any expense.”

The fact that João Cipriano voluntarily and in the presence of his legal representative took part in a reconstruction of the events – a reconstruction that made it possible for the investigators and forensics experts to verify his detailed descriptions’ veracity – is cautiously avoided, and for good reason. The fact that none of the arguidos made a statement in court, thus rendering any previous confessions useless and invalid, is also a fact. Why would the PJ 'beat confessions out of suspects' if those confessions were clearly devoid of any legal utility? On the other hand, Dr Marcos Aragão Correia makes no secret about the fact that he obtained João Cipriano's latest 'confession' through coercion.

“I was aggressed several times at the PJ in Faro by Inspector Gonçalo Amaral and by others that I cannot determine, who over the course of several says punched and slapped me to make me say what they wanted, and I was not condemned in trial merely because I resisted the spanking that I was a victim of.”

Mr Silva was never ‘condemned in trial’ because he never stood trial in the first place. The PJ’s suspicions that Mr Silva sexually abused Joana could never be verified, because a request to test semen found in Joana’s underwear for DNA was never carried out – it was apparently too expensive. Nevertheless, Mr Silva, knowing very well what would have been found if said DNA test had actually been made, was careful enough to offer an explanation for any traces that might be found on Joana’s panties.

“I believe that João never wanted to tell the truth about what he really did to Joana, probably due to fear of the buyers, and that if the girl’s body was discovered there would be evidence against him but not against Leonor. I can also witness that I heard the investigations’ Coordinator Inspector Gonçalo Amaral trying to turn João against Leonor telling him that if he incriminated Leonor he’d get a lower sentence because instead of just one guilty person killing it would be two and the sentence would be divided.”

João Cipriano was not a novice to crime. He had been widely taught during a previous prison sentence that without a body, there could be no conviction. Mr Cipriano may have a criminal record, but he is no idiot. ‘Divided sentences’ do not exist in Portuguese law. Coincidentally, neither do ‘plea bargains’.

“Two Polícia Judiciária inspectors took João to the toilet when I was there as well and telling him insistently to say what they had discussed, they went as far as putting words in his mouth by insisting: “you tell Leandro here how you have fucked his woman”, being that João said nothing and only after being kicked by one of the inspectors did he say that it was true. The police has always refused to investigate the many rumours that were circling in Figueira that there had been an attempt from criminals to buy the girl, invoking a high cylinder black car that circulated on that day the 12th before Joana disappeared.”

If rumours are now the base for legal proceedings, it might be interesting to recollect some of the actual local rumours at the time when Joana went missing. Those rumours would have placed the entire Cipriano family, friends and distant relatives, on the scaffold, without appeal.

“Finally I can also guarantee that on Monday the 13th of September 2004 João started saying right away that he had to leave Figueira and he looked very nervous and at the same time uninterested, really very uninterested, over what might have happened to his niece Joana. Contrary to Leonor my companion and the girl’s mother who was very sad and upset about her daughter’s disappearance, having cried several times.”

From the court ruling in the Joana case trial (proved facts): “ar) nevertheless, the arguida didn’t inform the police authorities about anything, despite there being GNR officers on duty in Figueira, because a popular fair called “Mussels Party” was taking place, and it was the third person (NN) that did it by telephone, at around 0.44 a.m. on the 13th of September, when she heard that the arguida hadn’t done so yet, and it was following said telephone call that the arguida ended up talking to GNR officers near the church in Figueira;”. Furthermore, several witnesses testified in court that on the following days, Leonor Cipriano appeared only slightly worried about her daughter's disappearance.

“Before he fled Figueira, João called me aside to speak to me alone and told me: “If your wife makes up any story I’ll come back to speak to her”. At the time when he told me this I didn’t see it as suspicious and therefore gave the sentence no importance. But now, analysing it all and Leonor’s confession and then João’s confession in May this year, I realise that João was afraid that Leonor might tell what he really did to our daughter Joana. Therefore I ask for Justice and for Leonor to be freed because she is innocent over the death of our little Joana. Portimão June-5-2009 António Leandro David Silva"

‘Our little Joana’ – from the court ruling in the Joana case trial (proved facts): “q) before arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] moved in with her partner II [Leandro Silva], she wanted to stop having CC [Joana] under her care, and left her, at the age of 5 months, with her father, LL – with whom she had no relationship since the beginning of the pregnancy – who ended up ‘returning’ her 2 days later, and later, she once more handed her over to the father, who didn’t want to keep her; r) in September 2003, arguida BB left CC under the care of a couple of persons with alcoholism problems and with a bed-ridden child that had an infecto-contagious illness, in a house with no conditions whatsoever, for 2 or 3 weeks; s) on the first day of school for minor CC at the Primary School in Figueira, in the school year of 2003/2004, arguida BB didn’t walk the minor to school, and CC arrived with a neighbour, whom she asked for help because she couldn’t find the way;”.

A final wish: may the illustrious lawyer Dr Marcos Aragão Correia and his client, Mr Leandro Silva, earn their day in court. Every once in a while, people actually do get a lot more than they ever bargained for.

+/-

+/-

by astro

I did read:

... Last Friday 15th January 2010 was only for the judge listen to 3 witnesses of Goncalo Amaral's. (Grade, Pinheiro and Cabrita). Leandro was not present, as it was not necessary. This is NOT the trial yet. It is just to confirm the accusation of the Public Prosecutor against Goncalo Amaral by a judge, at the request of Amaral himself. Leandro's lawyer (Dr Marcos Aragao Correia) will be notified by the court of the next date for aditional procedures, (if there are more). Otherwise, the judge will book a date for final allegations, and then decide if the accusation is is OK. If it is then the court will then book the date for the beginning of the trial. Otherwise, Leandro must appeal to the superior court (Tribunal da Relecao de Évora). Marcos believes the accusation of the Public Prosecutor will be confirmed. But if not, then they will definitely appeal...



Now there are lots of ?????? in my small head...

But also !!!!!!

The only thing you need to know is this nutcase lawyer is using the McCanns fund money to try and implicate Amaral....had it been any other detective many people would never have known about the poor little abused and brutally murdered child named Joana Cipriano!