Letters From Marcos Aragão Correia and Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano To Portuguese Prime Minister

Sabot wrote:
What about that lovely interview with the Lawyer. I love that interview. Can't remember his name but he thinks Leonor is innocent.

Specially bumped, Sabot:

https://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t27-amarals-interview-at-tv-portuguese-channel#16960

From the summer:

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/ultima-hora/caso-joana-relacao-nao-da-razao-a-ex-inspectores

Evora Court refuted the existence of "nullity"




Gonçalo Amaral is one of the damned in the process of aggressions against Leonor Cipriano, mother of Joan


The Évora refuted the existence of "unconstitutionality and nullity" in ruling that upheld the conviction of former inspectors of the Judicial Police (PJ) in the process of aggressions against Leonor Cipriano, mother of Joan, missing child in the Algarve in 2004.

On 18 March this year, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral and António Nunes Cardoso, with suspended sentences, the Court of Faro in 2009, but the latter required the former agent "to reform and clarification of Judgement. "

According to judicial sources, the Évora understood that "lacks reason" the application of Antonio Nunes Cardoso, sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment with suspended sentence for the crime of forgery of a document.

Understand yet the court of second instance that the use of Évora "completely goes beyond the scope allowed a complaint or request for clarification of errors, lapses, obscurities or nonentities."
In the decision of the resources of the former inspectors, notified on 18 March 2011, the ratio also remained the penalty of one year and six months in prison for making false allegations, suspended in its execution, applied to Gonçalo Amaral, former coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of Portimão.

Following the decision of Appeal, Marcos Aragão Correia, a lawyer for Leonor Cipriano, filed a complaint against the Portuguese State in the United Nations for violating "the most basic gross human rights".

The lawyer said the Lusa agency that asked for the condemnation and expulsion of Portugal's Human Rights Commission of the United Nations.

The case of aggression against Leonor Cipriano was tried in Faro in 2009, but the Court of Faro has not determined the authorship of the attacks on the mother of Joan.
------------------------------------
That was Gonc losing his appeal against his criminal conviction for lying.

funny how the locals don't seem to believe Gonc's grisly 'thesis', isn't it?

Who could blame them? His thesis sounds like something from a raving lunatic, quite frankly. Mind you, he did try to use it again...........

bb1 wrote:

Sabot wrote:
What about that lovely interview with the Lawyer. I love that interview. Can't remember his name but he thinks Leonor is innocent.

Specially bumped, Sabot:

https://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t27-amarals-interview-at-tv-portuguese-channel#16960

Thank you, Bonny. That was the day on which I started to have hope for Justice in Portugal. And the day on which Amaral finally lost all credibility. What a fool he made of himself. Pompous, two faced rat bag.

Just had a thought. If I wrote a Best Seller about Gonc he would probably sue me for Libel in an English Court.

But Your Honour, It's just a Thesis from the known evidence.

Here's the thing; I doubt very much if Gonc expected his actions in the course of the Cipriano case to end up the subject of complaints to the UN, or for himself to be mentioned in dispatches by Amnesty.

I suspect he had gotten away with acting like this for a long time; I also suspect he took croneyism for granted - what else can you call the whole business with his chum Grade being Mrs Cipriano's lawyer?

This is not going to go away, though, these things never do - the scandal is growing with time, not lessening. There is a groundswell of support for Mrs Cipriano and Marcos in Portugal.

Sooner or later things are going to come to a head, so let's suppose there is a FAIR retrial.

Gonc did not bother to actually collect any evidence, forensic or otherwise, of this bloodbath that supposedly took place in the house. This is probably why one of the original judges held out for Leonor's innocence of the crime.

The only 'evidence' was the confession obtained under duress.

Even if Leonor Cipriano is actually guilty, she will be found Not Guilty at any retrial - because Gonc did not bother to collect any actual evidence of guilt. He didn't even bother to find out if the blood in the fridge was human, for goodness' sake - can you get much sloppier?

Any normal police officer, on seeing blood in a domestic fridge, would think it had come off beef or poultry, but have it tested just in case something truly dreadful has happened.

Not Gonc - he jumped straight to the horror movie scenario, and didn't actually bother to check his gorefest 'thesis'.

So, because of Gonc, a guilty woman would be cleared - and compensated for her crime.

Does that sound like justice to anyone?

No, thought not.

If innocent, she has been tortured and imprisoned for a crime she did not commit, while the real criminal watches and laughs.

Does that sound like justice to anyone?

No, thought not.

Thats the whole point, isn't it, really. There is a distinct possibility that the real perpetrator is still out there, which could explain how Madeleine came to be abducted. No one was watching out for this person because so very few people believed he existed.

Personally, I very much doubt that The Ciprianos are guilty. The crime was too sophisticated for two uneducated peasants to have committed. Killing a child in a small village and disposing of a body without trace is far from easy when everyone knows what everyone else is up to.
And if there ever was any blood bath in the house, which I doubt, the parafin that was supposedly used to clean up would not have eradicated every trace.
Leonor said that she had used parafin to get rid of ticks, and if anyone has ever had an infestation of ticks then parafin works.

So who is looking for Joana?

nobody!!!


Was it Joana's mother that gonzo went to prison one Christmas to see and prayed with her or something, or was it the brother? Was that when he hit the brother if it was him? Either way, I can't imagine the visit would have been nice for them with gonzo being handy with his fists

I think...it was the brother Gonc went to see in prison one Xmas?

It's the attack on the step-father he still has to face trial over? He had nothing to do with anything, he just happened to be hauled in with the others, and Gonc (allegedly) beat him up.

Didn't Lovely Sofa paint some Dickensian picture of Gonc bearing gifts on his Xmas prison visit? An excuse to get out of the house, more like - and who knows why he was REALLY at the prison.

My friends, just to remind everyone:

What he amaral likes / wants is fame and fortune, added with writing his lies in his books of lies, with the disgusting of hollywood celebrity style.

To have access to the whole interview conducted by Mr. Miguel Sousa Tavares with gonçalo amaral, look for the topic:

amaral´s interview at TV Portuguese channel.

My friends, at amaral´s interview at TV Portuguese channel: about Cipriano case:

"Miguel says: you also investigated, also no body and you concludes with it was the mother and the brother). GA, nervous: I, I, didn´t conclude it, it was the court of Portimao who concludes it and they were condemned (Miguel says: you only feels satisfied, now, let me ask you: you were convinced, I´m not convinced, I believe you had been satisfied as investigator that the court corroborated your thesis, right? In the case of Joana Cipriano).

GA says: But why my thesis? (Miguel says: now, after being proved that she was beaten, that is also being judged, that she was beaten hard (GA says: who was condemned?) Miguel says: you are condemned with a suspended probation, suspended not for beating her but for making false declarations about the case), GA says: how can false declarations, how can we reach that? I´m going to explain it quickly (Miguel says: a judicial sentence, I´m guided by the sentence now) GA: no, I was listened always and as a witness... (Miguel says: let me ask you a question: you think that in this country (Portugal) many people believes that Leonor Cipriano killed her daughter? A very few people Mr. Amaral, very few people (GA says: You think?) very few people and we don´t believe: how can a woman without any instruction, without any proof, who was beaten hard by PJ (GA says: nothing has been proved, you are going to...) how can she managed, managed to be so clever, that she kills her daughter, hides the body and PJ couldn´t get a single trace?

Miguel continues: where is the body? (GA says: the inspection which was carried 12 days after and then let´s see the circumstances in which he was, there is blood, washing of the apartment itself, a person who never washed the apartment, wash it at that time, there are a series of traces, if you want to talk about that case, let´s talk, I mean (Miguel says: no, some should exist for the court to condemned her, now there is also a revue of the sentence based on something) GA says: yes it was inferred the review of the sentence), Miguel says: it was inferred? I didn´t know that, look, I wish it had been, because that doesn´t convince me) GA says: why doesn´t it convince you?, Miguel says: because it doesn´t convince me, because I have a previous suspicion about defendants who reach court, after confessing to crimes made under beatings, which is obvious, I cannot accept that, therefore, I suspect). GA says: but, do you suspect of me? Miguel says: you signed the confession. GA says: Do you think so? In what time? Miguel says: it´s in the confession in the files, I don´t know or have assumed? What I know is: she was taken out of jail, during night, she was taken back to PJ facilities and they returned her beaten, it was during night, and besides, it was participated by the warden of the jail, right?).

GA says: at night? Took her at night. Yeah, it was, maybe it should be listened better, because you know... if we are going to talk about this case (Miguel says: but we are not going to talk about Joana Cipriano, let´s go back to Maddie´s case), GA says: Let´s talk, look, there is one thing essential, let´s focus here a very fast thing: I was accused in this process of omission of seeing and denounce and I ask: what does that lady do when she thought that she had someone there and she told that PJ doesn´t asked for forensics, didn´t inform the Public ministry, why does she asked to a worker, a person under her dependence, wait, let me finish this, why did she asked for a dependant medic by green tickets to make one medical exam attached to a psychiatric, this is interesting, because there are experts in Odemira, you doctor know where Odemira is and there are forensic experts there, it can be done there. It will not be a German psychiatrist in green tickets dependent of the lady warden that will make forensics..."

This says all about Cipriano case, about GA, which is:

"What he amaral likes / wants is fame and fortune, added with writing his lies in his books of lies, with the disgusting of hollywood celebrity style", also add to this shrimps with big boozes".

rhodes wrote:So who is looking for Joana?

nobody!!!


Was it Joana's mother that gonzo went to prison one Christmas to see and prayed with her or something, or was it the brother? Was that when he hit the brother if it was him? Either way, I can't imagine the visit would have been nice for them with gonzo being handy with his fists

I don't believe for a minute that Gonc went to the prison on Christmas Eve. He was much more likely to have been with one of his mistresses.

Oh dear me! Parts of that interview have made it to the Brunty blog, where half-cut emu has yet again made a fool of herself by saying of Senhor Tavares:

Posted by: emilyb3. on October 23, 2011 11:26 AM

Posted by: shufflin from Spain on October 23, 2011 11:13 AM
Posted by: Rilke55 on October 23, 2011 2:29 AMOh dear, just read the transcript of the latest Amaral TV - interview

He seems to be paddling back at an astonishing rate of knots

Should be an eye opener in February 2012
::::::::::::::::::::

No he isn´t. The interviewer is an idiot that should have checked the facts properly before embarrassing himself!!
------------

correct! perhaps paid by the mccanns portuguese PR image lifting consultancy,(take note children and pensioners and others who donated to the fund to find madeleine) or just a dunce-most probably the former and/or their cohorts

And as for the other thicko who thinks Tavares is an idiot that should have checked the facts properly

Here he is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Sousa_Tavares

He is one of Portugal's most respected commentators and journalists; he writes for Expresso, a 'quality' Portuguese daily.

(Not the Portuguese edition of the Express, as another pitchforker claimed).

http://aeiou.expresso.pt/miguel-sousa-tavares=s23491

Now, what was all that about him being an idiot and a dunce who didn't know what he was talking about?

I wonder why Gonc didn't sue him. Oh. Sorry. I forgot. Freedom of Speach.

he didn´t sued him, because Miguel Sousa Tavares was telling the truth.

This is also being discussed here:

http://www.pfa2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8597

http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/post42058.html?sid=0b1d5800b859755352d70781bd9c75d1#p42058

and

http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/10/23/letters-to-the-heads-of-portugal/

where someone has posted a link to the actual [ Supreme Court] judgement in the Cipriano case:

http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/bfaf1cea93ab75fb8025716200388d89?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,cipriano

which I have waded through in autotranslate. It seems to be very long on hearsay, 'theories', 'must haves' and so on, and short on actual evidence.

The full, gory details of the bloodbath Gonc and co claim occurred in the house are given; if there had been any truth in it, then there would have been blood, etc., everywhere, and it would have needed a bit more than a quick clean-up to get rid of it.

But Gonc didn't even bother to try to find out the source of the blood in the fridge; he doesn't think, This fridge needs a damned good clean. Oh no, he assumes it has come from the chopped-off limbs. I am just surprised he didn't accuse them of cannibalism.

There is yet more of the pitchforkers' beloved cod-science and psychology, and the upshot of it all seems to be that Mrs Cipriano is guilty because:

it was found that the defendant actually spoke of her daughter in the past, because the rest of his interviewer's questions were placed at the same time verbal, and instead of mourning, the defendant was wearing black blouse and, moreover, red pants.

Red pants?? Burn the witch!

There doesn't seem to be a single piece of actual proof of any of Gonc's lurid allegations.

Sorry if I added to the confusion; I should have made it clear that the above document is the Appeal.

So, it was published in 04/20/2006.

Note that Mrs Cipriano, in her letter, says:

my ex-lawyer João Grade dos Santos, who represented me until August 2008

He should have been all over that appeal like a rash, but he clearly wasn't, that so much nonsense was allowed to stand.

A good defence lawyer should have torn the original verdict to shreds.

Why didn't Gonc's friend and mentor Grade win his client's release?

Pedro Silva wrote:he didn´t sued him, because Miguel Sousa Tavares was telling the truth.

Of course he was telling the truth, Pedro.

But we were in dire need of your trustworthy translations. And thank you so much for that.
I think we might actually have them on the run.

I think you have made more of a difference than you will ever know, Pedro, by translating fairly, and reporting news that would otherwise have been buried by all the Gonc propaganda and spin.

bb1 wrote:Sorry if I added to the confusion; I should have made it clear that the above document is the Appeal.

So, it was published in 04/20/2006.

Note that Mrs Cipriano, in her letter, says:

my ex-lawyer João Grade dos Santos, who represented me until August 2008

He should have been all over that appeal like a rash, but he clearly wasn't, that so much nonsense was allowed to stand.

A good defence lawyer should have torn the original verdict to shreds.

Why didn't Gonc's friend and mentor Grade win his client's release?

Why was she ever taken to trial in the first place? One forensic scientist said that she would have been hard pushed to get the cut up body in that small freezer.

And don't tell me that Pigs leave absolutely no evidence of what they have eaten.

It isn't pigs in the appeal, Sabot, it's, Dunno.

AA the defendant remained at the home of defendant BB to 14 days, length of time during which the two defendants, so that was not possible to determine, transported the remains to local DC unknown, thus carrying out the intention that they had undertaken - to prevent the location of those remains - and it is still not located the remains such as could not be found cutting instruments used, that the defendants hid in unknown location;

This is after the chopped-up corpse was in the fridge for two weeks, please note. Does this sound familiar to anyone, by the way?

I second bonny on that, Pedro, você é uma grande pessoa e um crédito em sua nação!

Lamplighter

Here's an odd thing; on Bren's blog, that Gonc fan maripois has taken umbrage at the letters, and is hurling allegations with instructions to googletranslate them...yes, dear, we know how to do that, we don't need a link to googletranslate, thanks very much.

Anyways, in the midst, is this ridiculous statement:


Little Joan was very poor, had a haircut ugly and was not photogenic:

Rubbish! Poor, yes, but every photo here:

http://www.asmeninasquevieramdasestrelas.com/fotos.html

shows a very pretty, happy little girl.



Doesn't quite fit in with the spin from the Gonc camp, does it?

I think the body that the Pigs ate was on it's way to Spain to be crushed in a car by then, Bonny.
They never did produce any evidence of a missing car. But then Joa had buried the body up a mountain by that time because he didn't want the shit beaten out of him again.

You could laugh about this. If you thought it was funny.

More to the point, what on earth did the other two Judges think of this?

Yes, Joana, a very pretty, happy little girl.