14 November 2008

Júlia Pinheiro Talk Show on Cipriano & McCann Cases



Broadcasted by TVI on 31.10.2008

Júlia Pinheiro afternoon Talk Show, with guests Journalist Duarte Levy and Forensic Psychologist Paulo Sargento



view the video bigger here: Joana Morais Blip.Tv

TRANSCRIPT

Júlia Pinheiro (J), Duarte Levy (DL), Paulo Sargento (PS)

Júlia Pinheiro: And now, something that is confusing us all. Happening in the courthouse in Faro, the trial of a group of inspectors and ex-inspectors of the Polícia Judiciária accused of torturing Leonor Cipriano, who was condemned for murdering her daughter, Joana, as we all remember.

What should have lasted two days has become a marathon. All because of an accusation against Gonçalo Amaral, the number one enemy of the McCanns, who was, step-by-step, coordinating the [Maddie] case. It’s a story that deserves our attention and reflection and, perhaps, shows a connection between the two processes.

Because of this, we’ve invited two specialists, known to all of us here at “Afternoons with Júlia”, the journalist, Duarte Levy, and the criminal-psychologist, Paulo Sargento. Applause for them, please.

OK, let’s try to understand: What does one case have to do with the other? The Joana Case, in which her mother, Leonor Cipriano, was condemned, happened before the Maddie Case.

Duarte Levy: Obviously.

J: Obviously. So what do they have to do with each other?

DL: The connection is Gonçalo Amaral. He continues to be, even though he has now left the PJ, a person who “inconveniences” many people. Not just the McCanns, but he also inconveniences many people in Portugal. And in this process, which appears to be connected to [police] brutality, he is the one who is – please excuse the expression - the man to take down. He is the visible target.

J: Let’s review some facts so that everyone remembers. What’s happening in Faro is a process against inspectors and ex-inspectors who interrogated Leonor Cipriano, back when she eventually confessed, right?

DL: She confessed before this interrogation in which she was allegedly beaten. In this current trial, there are three inspectors accused of torture, or aggression, a fourth who is accused of falsifying documents, and Gonçalo Amaral, accused because he was the coordinating inspector, responsible…

J: He is the one that had the ultimate responsibility, right? But, Duarte, how do you read all these facts and all this . . .

DL: To summarize quickly and with a good Portuguese expression, it’s a joke.

J: It’s a joke. Do you agree, Paulo?

Paulo Sargento: I completely agree. The recent history of this Joana Case is very strange. The connections that are made, and the way it appears… there are two connections that I’d like to highlight in terms of the defence for the Joana Case. Two things are strange: first, Dr Marcos Aragão who appears on the scene, we’re not sure how…

J: OK, let’s talk about Marcos Aragão. Who is he?

PS: Marco Aragão is a lawyer…

J: We spoke to him by phone, right, when he was looking for Maddie’s body in the lake.

DL: Near the dam, correct.

PS: He is probably best known for the time when, based on information he received from a psychic or that he received from “out there”… and which is now showing up again in the British newspapers, something which happens there as, every once in a while, the [British press] re-visits stories… but he received this information and with the support of Mr. Clarence Mitchell, he was looking for the girl’s body in the lake of the Arade dam. Which was very interesting because the theory was abduction and not homicide. However, if he was looking for a body, someone left the body there and someone killed the girl.

And now, he’s connected to this case…

J: But how did he end up connected to this [Leonor Cipriano] case?

PS: Because he volunteered to represent her.

J: Sorry, help me here. The original attorney for Leonor Cipriano wasn’t Marco Aragão, correct?

DL: No, no. That was João Grade. Who, for some unknown reason, was removed from the case and this Marcos Aragão – who is from Madeira and has several very curious stories behind him – he appears first in the Madeleine McCann story and then, via an organization in defence of human rights, on the Leonor Cipriano case. But I, after having heard everything happening in the Faro court, don’t believe he is there to defend the interests of Leonor Cipriano, much less the Public Ministry which is driving this process… something we should not forget… He is there, specifically, to go after Gonçalo Amaral. Because Gonçalo Amaral makes many people uncomfortable. Whether related to this case, or the McCann case, or several other cases…

J: So this is a manoeuvre from the past? Because to the public, this can be quite confusing.

PS: That’s the objective.

J: That’s the objective?

DL: That is the main objective.

J: To further discredit the investigation Gonçalo Amaral led into the Maddie Case? This is all coming from the Maddie Case and the McCanns, is that what you are saying?

DL: Not just the Madeleine Case but also other cases which do not have a direct connection, but which have served to, um, protect certain interests… I’m referring specifically to the Freeport Case…

J: What does the Freeport Case have to do with this? You blindsided me with this one!

DL: One of the things we published a short while ago, is that there was a meeting between those responsible for the British and Portuguese authorities involved in the Freeport Case. For now, we haven’t gotten very far in this – but for now, we will talk about – excuse the expression – a circumstance in which two individuals go to a brothel and unexpectedly meet. One says to the other, “You don’t say anything to my wife, and I won’t say anything to yours.”

The same thing is happening in the Freeport Case. The British authorities wanted to come to Portugal; they wanted to work with the Portuguese authorities, in order to investigate money transfers …

J: So the Freeport Case is also connected to England…

DL: Right. And the British authorities asked for authorization from the Attorney General to come to Portugal, to create a joint team and investigate money transfers from the UK to some “personalities” in Portugal. Which was refused…

J: [Transfers] to whom?

DL: This… um… [more about this] later… later.

JL: Later. (laughter) OK. Let’s go back to Leonor Cipriano.

PS: Beyond the question of Dr Marcos Aragão, who is currently representing Leonor Cipriano, there’s another question which is strange and has never been well explained, and which, given the institution which is under discussion, deserves a public explanation, which is the role of the National Bar Association in this case.

J: Why?

PS: Because the scenario of Dr Marinho Pinto [head of the Bar Association], a person who deserves respect, decided in support of human rights and, as a bit of justification, to treat this specific crime as a crime against humanity. Of course, every crime in which people are physically mistreated without provocation by the authorities is a crime against humanity. But it’s not understood why, specifically, this crime is a crime against humanity. So that, within this scenario, the Bar Association is, from my point of view, an institution which needs to continue to deserve the respect and credibility of the citizens and, naturally, needs to explain why this is a crime against humanity, why is the National Bar Association partnering and has constituted itself an assistant in this case…

J: It’s not common, then?

PS: No, I’ve never – I don’t know if Duarte has…

DL: No.

PS: I’ve never seen this and, more importantly, the inconsistency between the representative of the Bar Association of this country and his time which appears in the journals with some incongruence… These things need to be explained. What happens? It could be that nothing happens. It could be that everything was done here in total legitimacy, in accordance with the most honest of principals. But they have to be explicit about…

J: Clarify, right?

PS: Yes, it should be clarified. That is, there are always interpretations that leave questions. And the process is already the way it is. The National Bar Association has the superior responsibility…

J: It has to be transparent.

PS: It has to be transparent.

J: Duarte, what do you think? Leonor Cipriano was really beaten or not? That woman contradicts herself a lot, doesn’t she?

DL: I know that just a few days ago we completed an interview with ex-prisoners from the same prison complex, and I know that she was beaten inside the prison. I say this with absolute certainty. And, well, I’m not going to say this is normal but it happens a lot…

PS: It’s frequent…

J: I heard Paulo perhaps say, it’s frequent?

PS: Yes, there is a kind of honour code, that is, we have laws, and within prisons there is another law in which crimes, certain crimes…

J: against children…

PS: against children that involve the death…

J: or rape…

PS: or rape, committed especially by those close to the children, again, they often are… are crimes which the other prisoners don’t …

J: so they met out their own punishment…

PS: They take justice into their own hands. Using a code, not a code from a legal point of view, but it’s quite common.

J: It’s a kind of condemnation.

PS: It’s a custom. A custom.

DL: It’s a custom because, for example, any criminal who is in prison, or I should say that the majority of criminals, are parents and they have families. Just because they stole a car from A, B or C, doesn’t mean …

J: That they don’t have relationships…

DL: Generally, the child murderers and paedophiles are ...

J: They are poorly treated in prison.

DL: They are poorly treated in prison.

J: But these prisoners that were incarcerated at the same time as Leonor Cipriano were witnesses, they saw this…?

DL: They did it!

J: Ah! (laughter) I’m sorry. So it was this woman who hit her… who gave her a slap…

DL: Personally, personally, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, and I say this with all sincerity, if one of the inspectors had not given her a slap, that is, I wouldn’t be surprised. However, one thing is certain: after the interrogation in which she confessed…

J: It wouldn’t surprise us, but it can’t happen…

DL: OK.

J: Even though, considering the woman’s confession, I think she deserves to be run over. (laughter) She killed her daughter in a barbaric way. But this is just what we think, in an emotional way. What justice decides could be something else. She has rights just like everyone else.

DL: She, when she returned from the interrogation, the interrogation in which she was allegedly beaten, on this day, she had already confessed to the crime. There was no justification for being tortured, to confess something which she had already confessed. In fact, there is a guard, the chief guard, who was a witness in this trial who says that, in fact, she did return to prison with some red marks and that she said she had fallen on the stairs. That she was dizzy, she hadn’t eaten…

J: But isn’t there…? There is a document that says the woman was seen in a hospital before returning to the Odemira Prison and there is a document that says that woman had fallen down the stairs.

DL: Yes. That document exists.

J: So why is this being doubted now?

DL: Because, since then, she changed her statements. There exist some concerns about the actions of the Prison Director. In fact, the head of the guards said in court a few days ago that the Director asked him to change the reports…

J: But what was the goal?

DL: That’s a question the court has to put to the Director. Now, when I say this is a circus act, it’s because, if, for example, we have to take Gonçalo Amaral to court for being responsible for this team of inspectors then we also have to sue Alípio Ribeiro, who was responsible for the PJ, we have…

J: The [Public] Minister

DL: The Minister. And so forth. We are wasting time, money, when this country has other more important cases to investigate, principally, the case of Madeleine McCann which is stopped. It’s stopped. Voluntarily stopped.

J: It seems like it’s not. Right, Paulo? Something is happening.

PS: Yes, things are happening every day. That is, things are happening every day which is much due to our Duarte Levy who, thankfully, thankfully, has been very attentive and in a very interesting way, which is mostly via the blogosphere, and things are moving and very well. And new clues have been uncovered. A bit ago I was going to show Julia a British journal advertisement which Duarte says is normal and which is made for those still looking for Madeleine…

J: Do you have a copy? I don’t think we have this picture; it’s so big I think we can see it… Give it to me, Paulo. (takes paper) So here is a British newspaper, from yesterday, and here is Maddie.

PS: This type of poster, one fourth of a page… [shows Daily Mail with the PLEASE HELP FIND MADELEINE poster]

J: Two million pounds, right?

PS: Two million pound reward. The more time that goes by, the larger the reward we can say we will offer. That is, this type of reward, this type of announcement is part of a strategy that we can call relational marketing. Which attempts, at specific times, to respond to attacks. That is, this media…

J: Excuse me for interrupting, but with what frequency does this announcement appear?

DL: Every day.

J: Ah, it comes out every day. That costs a lot of money, doesn’t it?

DL: Normally, yes. A quarter of a page in a British journal costs an immense amount of money. The question is, I don’t know whether this announcement is paid or not. Or if there is an exchange…

J: An exchange of those indemnifications.

PS: An exchange of indemnifications. Or could be it goes to the Madeleine Fund. But the case is not stopped. It’s not and it will not be. Because there are many unanswered questions. In these circumstances, it serves… there is a kind of connection between this Portuguese case and the Joana case (which I’ll mention happened more than two years prior to the Madeleine Case) and the personalities of two people who are serving a sentence, in order to make a bridge to this case. And this is clearly being…

J: But that’s perverse.

PS: It’s completely perverse.

J: It’s completely perverse. We haven’t yet discussed a fact that arises here which is Metodo3… the famous… tell us…

DL: Picking up on what is happening in the Leonor Cipriano Case, it was via Julia Pinheiro, it was here on this show, “Afternoons with Julia”, that the fact that Gonçalo Amaral was being investigated by Metodo3 was discussed for the first time. At that time, when Julia put forth this question, a bit surprised, was not expecting the question, and didn’t know. Now, it’s been confirmed.

J: It was true, wasn’t it?

DL: It’s not only true, but also the report that Metodo3 wrote about Gonçalo Amaral is false. The are many facts that came from people such as Leandro [Leonor Cipriano’s partner] and other individuals connected to the Leonor Case and the Joana Case, all done to undermine the credibility of Gonçalo Amaral.

PS: It’s counter indicative.

J: What do you mean, Paulo? Counter indicative.

PS: The human memory doesn’t improve with time. The human memory is a function, from a psychological standpoint, that deteriorates over time. Amongst the witnesses contacted, who are highly unbelievable, for Leonor Cipriano, there are some that are particularly captivated by the thesis that there is “a cat hidden with his tail sticking out,” as the expression goes. Moreover, there is a fact out there that leaves me completely astounded. How can someone say that they didn’t even recognize the inspector Gonçalo Amaral, and later say, “Oh, now that I think about it, he also hit me. I remembered this after the interview that my husband gave.” This is completely impossible within the functioning of human memory. This type of thing doesn’t happen. This is a lie.

J: Didn’t Leonor Cipriano say that she couldn’t identify the people who beat her? Which is a strange thing…

DL: Ah, but now she can!

J: Ah, today she knows them…?

PS: It was Gonçalo.

J: Ah, Gonçalo! Ah!

PS: She didn’t know at first …

J: But if someone beat me, I think I would never ever forget them. Someone who had slapped me in the face, you know?

PS: Right. But Duarte has hit upon something important. Which is that there’s a fact that can not be excused in any way. That Gonçalo Amaral has been a man who has been consistently persecuted. [Close-up of Sun with photo of Amaral and the headline: “Did Cop Eat Maddie!”] It began with things like alcohol consumption, long lunches, sardines, etc. Which, curiously, you found also in a part of the Portuguese press, I don’t know if it was done on purpose, perhaps to follow a line of investigation that was a bit different, some journals like to do that, fine, it’s an option. However, it’s vital to understand the complete insistence upon denigrating his image and questioning everything Gonçalo Amaral has done in this country… it was investigated, this and everything in his private life. This is something that can’t be set aside by those who are interpreting these facts. And even for those who don’t have major paranoia, nor grand conspiracy theories, even to someone who is utterly uninterested in these things, this stinks. It smells bad. And I return to the idea that when the National Bar Association is involved in these things, it smells even worse. And, so, these things need to be put in their place. They need to be reviewed calmly. And they need to be honestly discussed much more than they have been up until now. And an honest plan relates to principals [ethics], and has to clarify why they are involved in this. And suddenly, this Leonor Cipriano Case arises without anyone understanding why? Without anyone understanding why. Even more than that …

J: It was expected to last two days, right? And Paulo Sargento is participating right? As a witness?

PS: Right. But I can’t talk about that. Nonetheless, it’s strange. And it’s important to understand how this started. How did those photographs appear in the Expresso two years ago? There are things that need to be said. There are relationships that have to be explained. And when things reach this point, people can’t close their eyes and say, “well, this is weird, whatever.”

J: Some say the photographs of Leonor Cipriano’s bruises were manipulated. Were…

DL: It’s a possibility.

J: It’s possible?

DL: They are photographs from the digital era. They could have been manipulated. This is a fact. But I think what Paulo highlighted is very important. It would perhaps be good… In order to have some tranquillity surrounding this case and the Madeleine McCann case, too, for everyone involved, beginning perhaps with Dr Marcos Aragão [Cipriano’s new lawyer] , to clarify …

J: Dr Marcos Aragão said that he volunteered, right? He’s not receiving anything, correct? That’s what I read in the paper.

DL: He’s like a volunteer.

PS: He’s free to do that. I don’t have…

J: Obviously…

PS: I don’t have, I don’t have anything to say against that.

J: [laughing] Duarte has such a sceptical air…

DL: Yes, I’m not convinced. I’m not convinced. It could be that he is not receiving any money from Leonor Cipriano…

J: The lady probably doesn’t have …

DL: Right.

J: Could he be getting money from someplace else?

DL: It’s possible. I think there’s something here that needs to be further investigated, further verified. Just as, in the same way, I would like to see the National Bar Association clarify, in a more explicit way, its presence in this process. As well as the Public Minister.

PS: Definitely.

DL: There exists… If, in the beginning, the woman said then that she didn’t recognize any of the people who beat her, if the woman said at first that she was not beaten and then said that she was, how did those five men end up in court? And why Gonçalo Amaral? If she has said from the beginning that he did not touch her, did not beat her, was not even present, why is he there today? I’m not defending Gonçalo Amaral. I think that Gonçalo Amaral, whether a police officer or not, has become an unavoidable figure in these two processes… more so in the Madeleine McCann case. Because from the point at which he left, and is substituted by Paulo Rebelo, who might be an excellent inspector, I do not doubt that, by coincidence it was he [Rebelo] who was also involved in the Freeport Case…

PS: uh-huh, uh-huh…

DL: I think that Gonçalo Amaral is unavoidable. He was badly treated by the British press without the Portuguese authorities even trying to stop the damage. He is removed from the case because of an article which was false. For an article without veracity. I ended up talking to one of the authors of this article by phone, for on that day I was in London and wanted to talk to this person, and that article was an excuse created in order to remove Gonçalo Amaral.

J: And these are the facts.

DL: These are the facts.

J: And a case that wasn’t going to be very important, wasn’t going to take long to resolve, is now going to take how long to resolve, this case of Leonor Cipriano versus the ex-inspectors that she didn’t recognize that she now recognizes and tomorrow who knows?

PS: I hope that this will very quickly be resolved. Now, it will have consequences… in this there is no doubt.

DL: There will have to be. [consequences]

PS: There will have to be. There are many players in this gigantic soap opera that are going to have to be identified in a much more precise way. Because this puts at risk a very fundamental thing: Portuguese justice. And the impression that people are left with concerning what is Portuguese justice. Such that there is here an inversion of values. Look. We have here the notion that it is possibly our defenders, our judicial police that are becoming the culprits. This is an extremely bizarre thing! It’s absolutely bizarre. It confuses people. Naturally…

J: [It should] not place in doubt, because the case is objective.

DL: Wait. These are not investigators that started two years ago. These are men with 20-30 years in their careers. Who worked on the FP-25 case and others even more important. And who never, until today, had their professional capacities placed in doubt.

PS: It’s obvious, it’s obvious…

J: Your last words, Paulo.

PS: It’s obvious that no one is above the law.

J: Obviously not. No.

PS: No one is above the law. A police officer shouldn’t be on trial? No. He should.

J: If you hit someone, you have to respond to that.

PS: That’s obvious. No one disagrees with that. But this entire case has been bizarre. The players in this theatre, in this great novel, have appeared without anyone understanding how. And this is where we need to start.

J: It is.

PS: People, citizens have the right to understand; those in the process have the responsibility to clearly explain why they are doing this. All the institutions need to do this.

J: We all understand, Paulo Sargento. Applause for Paulo Sargento and Duarte Levy.


Transcription & Translation by Debk, minor Edits by Astro - thank you!


3 comments:

  1. Thank you so much for this. This video is more relevant than it seems at first glance. Some very, very pertinent issues and worrying connections. Will this web ever be untangled, the truth ever known, justice served? God only knows. Madeleine deserved better. Heck, we all did.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks to all concerned and thanks to the TV show for spelling out (simply) the whys and wherefores of the involvement of Pinto and the Bar Association.

    There has been much written about it but by the time it looses little bits in translation it's not hard for me old head to get confused.

    ReplyDelete