Supreme Court refuses to review Joana case sentence

Supreme Court refuses to review Joana case sentence
9 January 2010 | Posted by astro



by José Manuel Oliveira

Lack of new evidence dictated decision. João Cipriano denies his niece’s death and accuses his sister of having sold her daughter.

The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) deliberated not to carry out the sentence review that had been requested by Leonor Cipriano, who serves a 16-year prison sentence, just like her brother, João Manuel, over the co-authorship of the death of her daughter Joana, who went missing on the night of 12/09/2004, in the village of Figueira, near Portimão, where she lived, and whose body has still not appeared.

The judicial decision is due to not existing “effectively new facts”, nor “truly relevant” evidence” hearing the two inmates within an extraordinary appeal for revision of sentence, in December 2009. The child’s mother’s lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, has lamented the judicial decision and stated to Diário de Notícias, yesterday, that he will gather “new evidence in order to request a new revision”.

The Supreme Court’s decision, that is dated 17/12/2009 and signed by judges Souto Moura, Soares Ramos and Carmona da Mota, which Diário de Notícias had access to, mentions that João Manuel Cipriano, Joana’s uncle, who was heard at the Sentence Execution Court, in Lisbon, “denies having written, denies having signed and does not remember having dictated, to anyone, the contents of a statement that was presented as being authored by him”. Nonetheless, he confirms the visit from his sister’s lawyer, Aragão Correia, to the Carregueira Prison, in Belas (Sintra), where he is held, who asked him to speak about his niece’s case, adding that if he did not say the truth, an inmate from another prison might come to murder him on behalf of the people who wanted to buy Joana.

After recognising, during said meeting with Aragão Correia, that he had murdered his niece after trying to sell her, a deal that failed “because there was no money”, João Cipriano ended up presenting a different version to the Supreme Court’s judges. According to the document, he asserted that he “never tried to sell his niece to anyone, but on the night that she disappeared, his sister told him to come to the door because there was a car near the church that was going to take her daughter, whom she had sold to a foreign couple”. In that statement, Joana’s uncle says that he “saw the car, saw his niece entering the vehicle in which she was driven away. He never saw his niece again.”

On the other hand, Leonor Cipriano confesses that it was her brother who talked her into handing her daughter over to a Spanish couple in exchange for money, but when facing a failed deal, João “killed” the child and buried her body “in the hills of Figueira”.


source: Diário de Notícias, 09.01.2010

Those 3 are totally warped.

A good omen for next week i hope.

Fine!

Good for the Portuguese justiciary. A line has to be drawn somewhere. They simply cannot keep entertaining groundless appeals ad infinitum. Especially when this odious pair's stories change on an almost daily basis. (Not unlike the Tapas 9, I suppose).

The Famous Grouse wrote:Good for the Portuguese justiciary. A line has to be drawn somewhere. They simply cannot keep entertaining groundless appeals ad infinitum. Especially when this odious pair's stories change on an almost daily basis. (Not unlike the Tapas 9, I suppose).

Cipriano's lawyer said he would find new evidence and present another appeal. I guess he's been quite inventive so far in his search for evidence, so I expect he will find some!

The Famous Grouse wrote:Good for the Portuguese justiciary. A line has to be drawn somewhere. They simply cannot keep entertaining groundless appeals ad infinitum. Especially when this odious pair's stories change on an almost daily basis. (Not unlike the Tapas 9, I suppose).

Not quite.
One of the judges declared publicly his strangeness about the method used by Marcos Aragão Correia to obtain this ‘new’ confession from João Cipriano. The word used was ‘illegal’.
If that is the case, an inquiry should be conducted by the Layers Bar and the Public Prosecutor.
After all we may be looking at a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and the production of false evidence in order to free a convicted criminal.

Marcos Aragão Correia is making a mockery of the PT judicial system, with the blessing of the President of the Lawyers Bar Marinho Pinto and the passivity of the Public Prosecutor.
Marinho Pinto has accused publicly many lawyers of being dishonest, yet he keeps turning his blind eye(s) at the behaviour of his protégé Aragão Correia.

Correiro, the Lawyer was the same guy who Amaral tried to get certified, but he is still practising so the
Portugese Judiciary must think he is compus mentis. Surely there is a limit to how many appeals this couple
can have?

Do they get legal aid (or its Portuguese equivalent) to keep funding these pointless appeals? Must costing PT taxpayers a fortune if they do.

Alfiefinn wrote:Do they get legal aid (or its Portuguese equivalent) to keep funding these pointless appeals? Must costing PT taxpayers a fortune if they do.

I don"t know but there should be a limit , maybe now this is the Supreme Court decision any attempt by Correio
to appeal will be denied. BTW What part of Wales are you from?

Beattie, I'm from South Wales!

Alfiefinn wrote:Beattie, I'm from South Wales!

So am I !!!!! Wouldn"t it be funny if you lived down the Road. Give us a clue, is it in the "indeed to goodness
Boyo" area?

No, I'm not in the valleys,though I'm in the South- I'm more of a capital person! Give us a clue where you are!

Alfiefinn wrote:No, I'm not in the valleys,though I'm in the South- I'm more of a capital person! Give us a clue where you are!

If I said there"s a chess piece not very far from where I live would that help?

Beattie, sorry, I'm so clueless I haven't a clue what that clue means Help!

Alfiefinn wrote:Beattie, sorry, I'm so clueless I haven't a clue what that clue means Help!

Chess piece ............CASTLE, near Civic Centre.

Ah, I'm thinking I've an idea now! If I'm right we're not that far apart!

Alfiefinn wrote:Ah, I'm thinking I've an idea now! If I'm right we're not that far apart!

No we"re not......I live (another clue) in an area with the same name as a Chinese town.

Crikey, if I'm thinking right we are close (as long as it's not Nanking ) It's a small world!

Think we parked the car in that Chinese bit of Wales when we went to a match a couple of years ago at the ten year old stadium. Bit to the NW of the stadium if I remember.

I do believe we are all talking about that same area jjp Hope you enoyed your visit by the way!

Alfiefinn wrote:Crikey, if I'm thinking right we are close (as long as it's not Nanking ) It's a small world!

By George he"s got it, I think he"s got it!!! I don"t think I will ever get used to Cyberspace, talking to faceless,
voiceless, genderless people, that"s why it"s good to have a chat now and again. Who"d have thought we lived so near each other when we started posting here.?

jjp wrote:Think we parked the car in that Chinese bit of Wales when we went to a match a couple of years ago at the ten year old stadium. Bit to the NW of the stadium if I remember.

Hi jjp,

Yes you would have but they have a brand new stadium now, very posh.!!!!

That's what cases like this and the internet do - they draw together people all over the world and even some who live just down the road from each other

Look out on the pavements Beattie, they're getting slightly lethal round our way at the moment due to lack of salting/gritting - it's like dancing on ice!