Proceeds from book

Your post has confirmed an opinion which I have but havent shared with the forum.

The mess that was made out of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, even with the Madeleine's very public profile, will present Portugal as a potential haven for child abductors/traffickers, as they know that they are not likely to even be investigated properly.

This is tragic. And it is only a matter of time before more children go missing in Portugal. And if they are Portuguese, will we even know that it has happened, or will it be like Joanna's case, hidden from the world behind the cloak of secrecy, while a little girl is lost to the world she knew, and her mother is in gaol for a crime she didnt commit.

Hi diane,

There is a thought i have on the J case. I shall try and get it across without me being illegal??Hmmmmmmmm

I read speculation in a paper once that x's mum was abusive towards her..Not sure if the exact details but it said that she was aslo visited by child welfare officers on numerous occasions.
I believed this to be a sick rumour/leak reported and nothing more.But I don't know for sure.She was supposedly visited by child welfare officers because of suspected abuse by her mum

As we have heared from numerous reports, officials, staff, and high up people were all involved in the casa pia scandal. I sometimes wonder if maybe a person in this scandal would have known X as being a child at risk(because they were the visiting child welfare officer?)... and therefore she would be a perfect target by them as they could cover tracks my saying the child was abused/killed by a abusive mum??Lost and abused by those who are suppose to help her like those in casa pia.

Of course this is just a thought i have on a case that as seems to also be twisted and turned in everyway.

I hope you are wrong. Although there is a possibility that you are correct. However, we just dont know enough about the Cipriano case. Perhaps Maria could fill us in.

Was Joanna under the care of social services, for suspected abuse, or was this just another load of crap brought out to discredit her mother?

But these same type of allegations were trotted out by Gonc against the McCanns too. Even if social services had been to the house, it doesnt mean that Leonore killed her daughter. But it seems to be in Portugal that where there's smoke there is fire, so that probably would have been enough to convince the general population she was guilty. So if someone did take her daughter, they could be assured the police were working on the side of the criminal by releasing this type of thing. And if it were true (that SS had visited) then it lends weight to your argument that perhaps someone from SS had involvement, or the SS files were used to target her,knowing that it may be easy to 'convince' the public that Leonore was an unfit mother and therefore a murderer.

This theory of course relies upon there being corruption within the Portuguese govt and their various departments. I would hope that an inquiry into Madleine's case will shed some light on whether or not the corruption exists, and that Portugal implement the strategies needed to remove this possible corruption. Then IF there are 'paedophile rings' at work, they will no longer be abe to flourish in secret, and will hopefully be weeded out, exposed for what they are. Assuming of course that they exist.

The problem with Casa Pia, is that the secrecy that has surrounded the case has done nothing to quell the rumours and suspicion that paedophilia is still existing in a large way in Portugal and through official circles. This in itself is prompting people like us to question whether or not, there has been organised paedophilia involvement in the Joanna and Madeleine cases. Openness, and accountability to the public as well as an independent corruption commission would go a long way to removing that suspicion.

A report I have found on joana..Would love to post a comment on it but




The Joana case returns to court

Posted by Duarte Levy on February 12, 2008

Nothing in common with Maddie

António Pragal Colaço, the lawyer defending the Lisbon-based Polícia Judiciária (PJ) inspectors who have been accused by the public prosecutor of having tortured Leonor Cipriano, told journalists that his clients will be tried “for a political reason”.

Inspectors Leonel Marques, Pereira Cristóvão and Paulo Bom are accused of torture. The fourth, António Cardoso, is accused of falsifying documents for having allegedly lied in the report of what had happened to Joana’s mother.

Joana’s mother has never accused Gonçalo Amaral - the only inspector from the Algarve PJ headquarters - of aggression, as several British media have claimed in an attempt to draw a parallel between the Cipriano and the Madeleine McCann cases. The inspector, who is still waiting to hear whether he will face trial or not, is being heard in court for not having reported the alleged attack. However, despite the fact that Gonçalo Amaral coordinated the investigation, his lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, considers that he does not have “the obligation to know everything”. As he pointed out, if this were the case, then the PJ’s national and assistant national directors would also have to be charged.

Following the preliminary session last Monday at the court in Faro, the judge, Ana Lucia Cruz, has ten days to decide which inspectors will face trial and for what charges.

While Leonor Cipriano, sentenced to 16 years in prison for the murder of her daughter, claims to have been attacked and tortured by three Lisbon inspectors, the PJ has always affirmed that Joana’s mother wanted to commit suicide by throwing herself from the top of the stairs.

The lawyer of the three inspectors accused of torture made reference to a French physician’s report on Diana’s death in Paris in 1997, which confirmed that injuries to the princess’s eyes and face were caused as a result of her car accident. This thus reinforces the possibility that the bruises on Leonor Cipriano’s face could have resulted from her suicide attempt, as the inspectors have always claimed.

Joana’s death

Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro was eight years old the day she disappeared. Her mother and her uncle were tried and sentenced for her death despite the fact that the body was never found.

One month after Joana’s disappearance, the PJ’s national director decided to send three inspectors to Faro to find Joana. By this time her mother and uncle had already confessed to the crime, but had not revealed where her body was. Leonor and João Cipriano were again questioned, but revealed nothing further concerning the body’s whereabouts.

The enquiry revealed that João, Joana’s uncle, is a manipulator and is violent under the influence of alcohol. On the day his niece disappeared, he had spent the afternoon drinking. João and Leonor are part of a family that people in the neighbourhood describe as very strange, with an alleged history “of sexual relationships between the children (brothers and sisters) and their parents, domestic violence and possible consanguinity.”

According to the enquiry, João had had a sexual relationship with both his twin sister, Anabela, and with Leonor, whose mother had forced her into prostitution. At the time of the event, Leonor had three children living with her (including Joana) and a fourth one with whom she was no longer in contact.

To explain their crime, João and Leonor Cipriano stated that Joana had seen them having sex and threatened to report it to her stepfather. The PJ did not accept this explanation as their enquiry pointed to the fact that Joana loved her mother and would probably have kept quiet about the incident.

The investigation concluded that João had raped his niece in front of her passive mother, and that they both beaten the child, thus causing her death. This would explain why they hid the body: João preferred to admit that he had killed Joana rather than to say that he had raped her. Without the body there would be no possibility of proving rape.

João Cipriano admitted aggressing Joana, first to the inspectors and later to his lawyer, and that she “remained on the floor without moving”. However, while the mother pretended to search for her daughter with her boyfriend, he also admitted that he was the one who chopped up the body, hid it in a car that was to go to a scrap-yard, which was then taken to Spain where it was burned and compacted.

This is the account that João Cipriano gave to the inspectors and repeated the next day in the presence of his lawyer. But when they asked him whether he had abused his niece, he answered indignantly: “I didn’t harm her, I just killed her.”

Forensic scientists found the sandals that her mother had said Joana was wearing at the time of her disappearance in the little girl’s home. They also found traces of her face and her hands on the walls, which confirmed her uncle’s statements. Traces of blood were found on the floor and in the refrigerator where João said he had kept the body before moving it to the car. Biological traces - possibly of sperm - were found in Joana’s bed and in a pair of the child’s underwear.

Thinking that João had already confessed, Leonor admitted the facts during her interrogation, and then turned to a photograph of Joana that was stuck on the wall, asking her for forgiveness.

She allegedly then became uncontrollable and shouted that she wanted to kill herself. It appears that the inspector was still busy writing the interrogation report when he heard shouting. According to this inspector, his colleagues told him that Leonor had attempted suicide by throwing herself down the stairs. She was examined by a doctor and then remanded in custody.

The following day the police received an anonymous phone call informing them that people inside the prison were trying to convince Leonor to say that she had been attacked by the inspectors: the prison director sent a letter with photographs of Leonor to the national director of the PJ and to the press, accusing the inspectors of aggression.

A letter sent by another prisoner contradicts this version: she affirms that, while in prison, Joana’s mother had said that she had fallen down the stairs but that after a meeting with the prison director, she changed her version and said instead that she had been tortured and that she hoped to receive damages.

Despite several confrontations with the inspectors, Leonor Cipriano was unable to make any positive identification. The public prosecutor nonetheless decided to proceed with the lawsuit, even though he admitted that he, himself, could not guarantee that the inspectors being charged had anything to do with the alleged assault or whether any such assault had even actually taken place.

The inspectors’ lawyer and Carlos Anjos, president of the Association of Criminal Investigation Staff consider the public prosecutor’s decision to be politically motivated.

This report is so sick,.............................................no evidance but again victims.

no wonder its sick look who wrote the topic.

It reads like a third rate novel.

Truly pathetic.

But the fact remains, there was no forensic evidence to back up the PJ's case, as once the Cipriano's had confessed, then apparently all of the evidence was thrown away without analysis. Or so it was reported in the appeal.

Surely it should be proper procedure to fully investigate the case, to get the evidence to back up the case, to be presented in case of an appeal. It is here in Australia, and in many other countries as well. After all, the judge must be sure that the confession is true, and the details must match with the forensic evidence.

So let me think, in the kitchen there was blood. There probably is in my kitchen too, as my husband has just been cuting up meat to make dog food. And yet, it got there without me killing my daughter, strangely enough. And if forensics went through my fridge, there may even be blood in it. And at times there has been, where the meat has leaked etc. What rubbish that is. It is only Joanna's blood, if that is proven in court with 100% matched forensics.

And then there is this.

However, despite the fact that Gonçalo Amaral coordinated the investigation, his lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, considers that he does not have “the obligation to know everything”. As he pointed out, if this were the case, then the PJ’s national and assistant national directors would also have to be charged.

What a load of cow manure. Where a manager is hands on, as in the case of a police investigation, and there is a direct line of responsibility, then of course the manager bears a measure of the responsibility. After all, he is taking the money for the job. If a manager had no control over the people under him, then he wouldnt be the manager. As for the higher up managers, that is just a stupid comment. These people have not direct contact with the people at the lower level that allegedly committed the crime. And, it is not the job of the person above Gonc to know exactly what the people under Gonc are doing, that is Gonc's job. I would have loved it when I was the manager of a small team, if I could have said in my performance reviews, 'it isnt my fault because I dont always know what the people under me are doing'. I set goals and we have set processes that the people follow, as should the police, and there are indicators when these are not being followed, so we do know what people are doing. Otherwise, they wouldnt be managed.

And last thought on this, I wonder if it looks like any of the underlings are going to lose, will they come clean and tell what realy happened, and if they actually directed to do this by senior police. Of course, that would only happen if they were guilty of what they are accused of. And we dont know yet, because of the presumption of innocence. But I do wonder, is loyalty that high that a person will go to gaol for someone else, amongst the ex PJ officers. I doubt it.

And what about this

The enquiry revealed that João, Joana’s uncle, is a manipulator and is violent under the influence of alcohol. On the day his niece disappeared, he had spent the afternoon drinking. João and Leonor are part of a family that people in the neighbourhood describe as very strange, with an alleged history “of sexual relationships between the children (brothers and sisters) and their parents, domestic violence and possible consanguinity.”

Doesnt this just remind you of the rumours about the McCanns. BEcause obviously if you can prove (or even lie, smear or accuse) the family of being less than conventional, of course it proves they must be murderers. How truly despicable that is.

"I just ask what happened to moral support of official Britain. Passivity is form of evil too."

All that is required of evil, in order to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.

There was another disturbing case involving the way police investigate in Portugal.

Just as they would later do with the McCanns, the PJ soon hit on a suspect who knew the victim and her family. But according to Port, who attended his trial, it had "no real evidence. It was an unjust trial".

The defendant was Michael Cook, a British expat businessman who had taken part in the search, and in 1992 he was convicted and sentenced to 19 years. Having protested his innocence, he was released in 2002. Last week, he told of his ordeal for the first time.

"This has ruined my life," he said. "I still carry the scars from the six times I was stabbed in prison; as for the times I had the s*** kicked out of me, I long ago lost count."

Following Cook's conviction, his then-Labour MP, Bob Spink, became involved in his campaign. In a Commons debate in 1992, he said: "The only hard evidence linking Cook to the murder was bogus" - a claim by an elderly gardener that he had seen Cook bundling Rachel into his car.

However, Spink said, the police had hidden the fact that tyre tracks left by Rachel's abductor "were of an entirely different type" from those that would have been made by Cook's vehicle.

The PJ, Spink told the Commons, claimed Cook confessed - something he has always denied - and that they had tortured him: "Cook appeared in court, with black eyes and a missing tooth, and he was deeply bruised.

"It is claimed that Cook was hung from an upstairs window by his feet, that his feet were beaten until he could not stand, that he was tied to a chair and beaten, that he was deprived of sleep and that a revolver was forced into his mouth and the trigger pulled in a mock execution."

The PJ also claimed Cook had a record as a paedophile, Spink went on. This, too, was "entirely bogus'. The trial judge had asked a PJ witness how he knew this: "The officer replied that someone, unnamed, had told him. The judge accepted that so-called 'evidence' as clear and unequivocal."

It emerged at the trial that while there was no forensic link between Rachel or her clothes and Cook's car, blood had been found under her fingernails - presumably that of her attacker. But when Cook's lawyers tried to obtain it to test it for DNA, they were told the samples had been "lost".

Cook told The Mail on Sunday: "I was with the PJ four days and they gave me no food nor let me go to the lavatory - I literally s*** myself and p****d myself. I was in that state when they first brought me to court.

"What I learnt about Portugal is that once convicted, you never get the chance to get it reversed, because they destroyed the evidence."

Spink, who is still MP for Castle Point, Essex, said yesterday that as the Madeleine case had unfolded, he had become increasingly concerned by the "disturbing parallels' between the way the PJ had dealt with Maddie and the murder of Rachel Charles.

yer id forgotton about micheal cook! thanks for the re cap

First of all, I should state that IMHO there is no connection between Casa Pia and Joana or Madeleine. None. IMHO. Well, if we take away the systematic political blame, which very common to other situations, criminal or otherwise, whenever 'we lose'.

Also, I believe there is no connection between Joana and Madeleine. In spite of being geographically close to each other, the modus operandi, their ages, make, in my opinion, some important differences. Again, the common denominator is only external to the cases: a PJ team accusing or trying to, the close family of murder and concealment without any evidences provided.

Minnea, no I do not deny the possibility of portuguese paedophile ring(s).My big question mark is the timely uncovering of the 'socialist' one. And by the way, I wouldn't rely much on information sources like Wikipedia or Daily Mail. I rather prefer to read everything I can, listen to as many people I can and draw my own conclusions. As well as following the case instruction and trial, of course. And Minnea, as Portuguese, I resent the affirmation of my Country being a paedophilia haven or any other criminal haven for the matter. From there to infer that my People is intrinsicly criminal is one step, it has already been taken by some and I find that outrageous and despicable.

Claire, Sian, Diane.

There are two different cases relating to Joana: her disappearence, Leonor's 'bruising'.

I'm not sure she was refered to the SS, but that doesn't mean much. It could only be because her mother didn't live a very 'orthodox' life, and that doesn't mean she or her brothers were mistreated. She actually loved her stepfather very much and was loved by him as well (stepfather being her mother's current boyfriend at the time). Now, if there were rumours that some consanguinity could exist in the family, isn't the SS' (and later the police's) duty to take the necessary steps to verify that, instead of feeding the rumours? As matter of fact, I see this rumour echoing as another tecnique to create an atmosphere of hostily surronding the whole case and start blaming others for what was coming, the lack of hability to solve the case (no possibilty of blaming the politicians or the media, blame the SS for not doing their job properly). Other techniques are the killing story. As you said, Diane, there are very good reasons to find blood traces in a house, let alone a kitchen or a freezer. Funny is that theses traces, along the semen traces found in her bed and underware, were not analised. Oh I remember, the blood was bleached, with exception of that on the freezer, which was thrown away... I don't know about other countries, but here it is common, even traditional, to wash the whole house with bleach -- with the exception of food containers. And why 'chop up the body' if it was going to be 'hidden in a car that was to go to a scrap-yard, which was then taken to Spain where it was burned and compacted'? And where did he chop the body? Any residues? Oh I see he did in the car itself. And how did he chop the body? Any traces? Were did he hide the chopping instrument? Oh, with the body, I guess. All of this is a whitch tale made up by PJ unable to solve the mistery of Joana's disappearance. By now, people in Figueira would lynch both of them if they were released from prison. A conviction was certain at a trial by jury.

But before the conviction comes the bruising. Leonor, in the absence of a Mercedes driven at high speed through the avenues of Paris and colliding with a pillar, throws herself down a staircase in order to kill herself. Diana ended up dead and bruised, Leonor just bruised. If she was punched and kicked she could also end up bruised, couldn't she? And some people have actually died of punches and kicks. Although they can end up dead from falling down the staircase... So, what does Diana's accident have to do with Leonor's? What does it prove??? I simply can't follow such an intelligent deduction! I'm sure that the instruction judge that sent the case to court couldn't either, and he also didn't agree that a team coordinator does not have to know what his people are doing while in their work as he sent Amaral to court as well. A court jury that will hear that the 'smear' of torture came from inside the prison, its director no less. Finally, the politics! They didn't do anything, the prison director did.

I never said that Leonor or João were innocent in Joana's disappearance. What I said and maintain is that the investigation was a mockery and torture is never justifiable.

PS I'm sorry if this post is not very clear, I feel drained today.

My big question mark is the timely uncovering of the 'socialist' one.

What timely uncovering of the 'socialist' one?

You claimed the whole Casa Pia process was some kind of cabal of Social democrats against Socialists.

"The whole process was built to behead the socialist party, in disgusting and shameless investigation under the secrecy laws, while PS (Socialist Party) were in the opposition and very probably were going to win the previsible elections (the social democrats were already in total disarray, with Barroso moving to EU), as they actually did."

I said it was not true.

Scandal broke in September 2002 and next elections came in 2005. Socialists were not going to win nothing when scandal broke.

"The Prime Minister at the time, José Manuel Durão Barroso, whose Social Democratic Party ousted the Socialists in March 2002, promised to bring life and honor back into the Casa Pia child's homes and allow new director Catalina Pestana reform to the institution. As a result, several senior staff of Casa Pia were fired after the 2002 revelations."

When Socialists got power 2005 next year they relaxed law, ahead of the forthcoming Casa Pia trial (if it never comes), meaning that repeat offences against the same child would merit only a single charge - and a lesser sentence. These Casa Pia abusers abused hundreds of children.

Why Socialists want to protect Casa Pia abusers and arrange lesser sentences for them?

I'm not a mod on here but I do think that, if you are going to have political discussions on the forum, you should not call people rude names. Whatever Maria's political views may be, her posts about this case have been thoughtful and informative. If you have issues you want to talk to her about, it is easy to send a pm.

This is just my opinion. Others may disagree.

Maria has as much right to her opinions as anyone else on this forum. In fact I have found it very interesting to hear an unbiased view from Portugal.
I for one thank Maria and hope she continues to post her very interesting views for us to consider.
Like Tulip, I find it rude and offensive to call members of this forum names. If you have issues with a member...then use the Private Message service.
The last thing we want is for this forum to become bitchy like the Sky Forum.

About Joana case:

Leonor Cipriano and Kate McCann are both ordinary women. When their child disappeared, they cried, were afraid of and tried desperately find their daughter. Leonor Cipriano was in public too and spread posters of Joana.

Here is Leonor Cipriano after Joana disappeared. She's have younger child too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlO2tONCyvE&feature=related


I think this article: Madeleine McCann possibly eaten by Portuguese pigs tells clearly what kind of miscarriage of justice happened in Joana's case.

http://fondationprincessedecroy.over-blog.org/article-12736754.html

Should we really believe Leonor Cipriano chopped her own child in pieces, and then gave her for the pigs to eat and she was never beaten by PJ (Amaral, Christovao and two others), her injuries and black eyes developed only because she commited"suicide" by "throwing herself down stairs"?

This kind of material was showed in Portugal to manipulate portuguese people to believe Joana's mother chopped her own daughter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtIBzhWPf9Y

tulip wrote:I'm not a mod on here but I do think that, if you are going to have political discussions on the forum, you should not call people rude names. ...
This is just my opinion. Others may disagree.

Absolutely - many people came to this forum to get away from all that.

Here is beautiful video about Joana and Madeleine. Where are they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKn18PTSyuk&feature=related

Minnea wrote:Here is beautiful video about Joana and Madeleine. Where are they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKn18PTSyuk&feature=related

Thank you Minnea x

sass wrote:

tulip wrote:I'm not a mod on here but I do think that, if you are going to have political discussions on the forum, you should not call people rude names. ...
This is just my opinion. Others may disagree.

Absolutely - many people came to this forum to get away from all that.

I'm sorry. It won't happen again.

Kiitos!

Great video by the way. :cheers:

In my post to Claire earlier, I put in SS but I meant Social Services or Child Welfare Services. This was in response to Claire's post. Basically, saying that any visits by the Child Welfare Services have been used to imply or infer that they were not good people, and therefore killed Joanna. I know it sounds ridiculous but it is exactly the same approach as taken towards the McCanns.

I didnt mean SS as in police.

And I like your posts. It is so good to get an opinon from someone who has been able to read and watch the news in Portuguese and make up their own mind. Everything we see has already been filtered based upon the ideals of whoever is doing the translating. Look forward to more posts.

And good to see you here as well Minnea. All opinions are valued on here, except of course those of the rabid anti's. So having different opinions doesnt matter, as long as we are polite to each other and respect the other's opinion. :)

dianeh wrote:In my post to Claire earlier, I put in SS but I meant Social Services or Child Welfare Services. This was in response to Claire's post. Basically, saying that any visits by the Child Welfare Services have been used to imply or infer that they were not good people, and therefore killed Joanna.

I didnt mean SS as in police.

Can I ask what is SS?

The SS is the Secret Police. Or at least I think that is what Maria meant.

dianeh wrote:The SS is the Secret Police. Or at least I think that is what Maria meant.

Oh, thanks.

SS can be "Secret Service" which is police intelligence agency in the US. (Etsivä Keskuspoliisi)

SS for social services is Sosiaalihanke

Diane, Minnea and Sass

Sorry, I haven't been following this thread and didn't realise how big a confusion I have created. In fact, I meant SS as Social Services, although I knew could be confused with secret services... I wrote it because I thought that the context would help understanding the meaning and in the assumption that you all knew that our secret police is so secret that it never shows up anywhere...

My apologies to you all.