18 July 2009

Joana Case Revision: Leandro Silva's Statement & Comments

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.

26 comments:

  1. Much advantage is being taken of peoples ignorance of the ins & outs of this case. It's blogs like this one that inform in a complete, unbiased manner. Where have the journalists gone? Why is it that it's bloggers that have taken over the journalist's job, and the journos just sit at their desks doing copy/paste???
    Thank you, Astro, an excellent analysis indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. SPOT ON! Thank you Joana and Astro.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A tradução portuguesa deste "post" é horrível, parece feita por iletrados com o 1º ciclo incompleto Joana.
    Veja isto!

    ReplyDelete
  4. ditto. This site is truely awesome. It should always be viewed before reading any other sites/newspapers in my opinion.
    I'd love to know how many people read your entries, but don't actually post any comments. Lots I hope!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joana, was tha story that Maddie was a matter of national security also made up?

    ReplyDelete
  6. If Gerald was using the front door that night(he seems to have alleged that he was avoiding eventual noise at the back door)
    why did he leave the apartment through the noisy way?

    ReplyDelete
  7. When will the McCanns starting suing Amaral?
    I met an ex employed of the Ocean Club who told me they will ask for Amaral's help at the moment they start suing the couple.

    ReplyDelete
  8. According to the British paper the sunday mirror, the Maccanns started the process to sue Mr Amerel on the 29th June, but that is a rag so it may not be true. But for Mr Amerel and the internet with sites like this, The Maccanns would have been woosh woosh as white as snow. and clunk click in the clear.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tony Bennet (Madeleine Foundation} wrote a letter to Brown where he also told he has been threatened by the Mccanns about his booklet "What really happened to Madeleine McCann?".
    The couple would sue him and they still didn't.
    Bennett's work is based on the police investigations, conclusions and on the Mccanns' mistakes during interviews.

    If they still did not start suing Mr. Bennett, they will never start suing Amaral, who knows a lot more about the case, now.
    Hi there, McCanns, we are waiting for your action!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Surely the ex-employees of the Ocean Club have a few brains between them and realize that during a world wide recesssion one cannot blame the McCanns for their being unemployed but then again.... I don't think using Amaral as a witness who is now a convicted felon will help either.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey Anonymous, SOOOOOOOOOOOO sorry to spoil your glee - but Mr Amaral is not a "convicted felon" - his "conviction" is pending appeal. So don't start the fireworks just yet, will you? Or you might end making a very sad little fool of your self. And stop obssessing about Mr Amaral: you're missing the bigger picture, or should I say, the WIDER AGENDA?
    The problem is, there are LAWS in Portugal, which is something you still have to realise, isn't it? There are laws and there is justice and it may be slow but it will arrive. THEN you can gloat - but will you still be around???

    ReplyDelete
  12. A top-notch analysis, as usual. Thank you, Joana and Astro! There is nothing like a handful of FACTS to make the furious pros come out, attacking Amaral with lies, because that's all they have to go on.
    Poor Anon, what IS she going to do when she discovers she has been falsely taught to describe Gonçalo Amaral as a convicted felon? Poor Anon is going to feel so lost when she discovers that there are many more people working on this case apart from Amaral, there always have been, there will always be.
    Let poor Anon focus on Amaral, she wouldn't be able to handle REALITY would she now?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Em Portugal, ninguém é condenado antes de a decisão judicial transitar em julgado. Ora quando há lugar a recurso, a decisão do tribunal fica suspensa. O Dr Amaral, tal como qualquer outro cidadão perante a Lei Portuguesa, é inocente até a sentença do tribunal transitar em julgado.
    Estes marretas ingleses excitam-se muito com coisa nenhuma.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oops, sorry, fireworks were already set up when justice was achieved and amaral was found "GUILTY". I'm sure I'll be setting more fireworks when he is sentenced to jail. The question is not will I still be around but will you? And what will you do when your hero much to your surprise turns out to have clay feet?


    Amaral can appeal all he wants, but I suspect the legal system isn't behind him - he stands alone with a few hero-worshipping fans.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Of course Amaral can be a witness in the Ocean Club case or any other case.
    Imagine, he sees his neighbour shooting a person dead and he has to keep his mouth...
    Or sees a person stealing a wallet and he has to silent about it...
    He can even sue the Mccanns or any other person, during this time.
    When the McCanns were still arguidos, they were also suing people around.
    Don't worry, An, Amaral has still all the rights other people have.

    ReplyDelete
  16. From Mr. Bennett's letter to G. Brown (about the publication of the "60 reasons" booklet and the subsequent empty threats from C. Mitchell):

    ..."I wrote to all of the following: Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann themselves, to Clarence Mitchell, to Carter Ruck, to Bates, Wells & Braithwaite, and to Michael Caplan Q.C., three of the McCann’s many lawyers. In that letter, I offered to correct or remove any statement made about the Madeleine McCann case on our website, or in my forthcoming booklet, which the McCanns or their advisers could demonstrate to be untrue. I have never received even an acknowledgment to any of those five letters. It is clear therefore that the arguments, and the facts supporting those arguments in my book, have gone completely unchallenged by the McCanns and all of their advisers, including the country’s acknowledged top firm of libel lawyers, Carter Ruck. Our booklet has nearly sold out of its first print run and a second editon, which will include additional information, is planned."

    This deafening silence really says it all about the McCanns willingness to sue anyone, if that means going to court... and no chance of out of court settlements!
    Bark your threats fiercely to save face, but then roll over and play dead!


    Referring to Mr. Amaral as "a convicted felon", oh dear, it reminds me of Mitchell claiming that Kate and Gerry have been OFFICIALLY CLEARED by the portuguese police! Unsuficcient(?!) evidence now equals total innocence, in the Mitchellian pink land of happy spinning, that is!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh what a sorry state the Maccanns are now in, They should have come clean that May night in Portugal, and by now it would have all been History. And their little girl laid to rest, They are too far in now unable to back down. The truth will have to be forced from them. and it will all come out rest assured Kate and Gerry you will be exposed for the actors you really are.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sorry off topic so no problem if it doesn't get posted. Does Amaral mention knives in his book? I only ask because I think it's curious that Kate was asked if she put medicine safely away, she replied yes, then when asked the same question about knives, she says she didn't put them out of harms way.

    Why knives? Why was the question asked and why was Kate comfortable saying that they were left out/not put safely away.

    Anger/lashing out with a knife would explain spurts of blood/fluids.

    Similarly if evidence was found that could include the use of a knife either by accident by Maddy or by anger by an adult, then kate has covered her back.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Madeleine's violent unexpected death is very negative for the Ocean Club.
    It means her ghost could be there, crying for justice.
    British people take ghosts very seriously, they believe in them.
    The rest of the Algave seems to have many more tourists than Praia da Luz now.
    I would advise the ex-employés of Ocean Club to investigate why the British tourists are not chosing for that resort.
    I bet it is because of Maddie's mysterious violent death and her body could be somewhere in the resort.
    Who knows people hear her crying during the night.Or they see her spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon, I don't have heroes, and I worship no human being. You, on the contrary, spend a lot of time and energy fighting a mere mortal. Why such an obssession? Why is this man so important to you?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I just responded to your post to me - sorry you didn't like the reply - not my problem.

    If I was a supporter of amaral, I'd be asking him why he is keeping company with Levy who as Joana has written an article suggesting that Levy was a 'FRAUD' and you do know the saying about bird of a feather....

    Never mind, deerie, I hope you have your hankie ready or a least a box of tissue to dry off your tears when Amaral is off, he's off to the wonderful land of Jail......

    ReplyDelete
  22. Remember this Anon, its very important.

    One guilty Amaral does NOT equal two innocent Mccanns.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon, why do you keep making things up to fit your purposes? Who told you Amaral keeps company with Levy? Your imagination? Not good enough. Go look for better arguments. Or should we start comparing the McCann's with the Cipriano's now? One of your guru's favourite comparisons, no? And a rather apt one. Two dead girls.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am from Liverpool in the UK. Kate Maccanns home city and I am all the way behind Mr Amerel If any fund starts for his defence I will donate. Why because I hate Liars and this man stands for justice and truth, he is not going through all this for nothing, he is standing up for what is right and for a child who has been betrayed and is still being betrayed. God forgive all those who are helping to cover this lie
    you will all be exposed your time is nearly up.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon "when Amaral is off, he's off to the wonderful land of Jail......".

    Amaral never will be in jail because he did not do anything wrong. But.... your friends, the Mccann's will live the all life in prison, even if they work free in the streets, because the twins and Madeleine's ghost will come everyday to highlight their guilty about all the bad taste associated with a huge exploration of a child tragedy,,,,, BY THEIR OWN PARENTS. The twins will grow up and they will never forgive their parents for what they have done. THIS IS A FACT WHICH THE TIME WILL NOT ERASE OR CHANGE and in a little and slow way, Maddie will get justice. KATE AND GERRY TIME WAS OVER... ONE DAY SOMEWHERE IN SEPT. 2007 when the world knows that Maddie was not abducted. That day they went in prison because nobody can live free and happy behind that suspicion. If they want some peace, they should start telling the world, SPECIALLY the twins... THE TRUTH. AT LEAST THEY WILL GET SOME FREEDMON.
    AMARAL IS A FREE MAN AND HE WILL LIVE IN THAT CONDITION ALL IS LIFE. WHAT HE HAVE DONE IS A PERFECT, CORRECT AND IMPARCIAL WORK WHICH SHOULD BE AN EXAMPLE FOR ALL POLICE INVESTIGATION.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Joana and Astro you are brilliant, keep relaying the facts - I suspect Team Mccaan regularly read your blog - one day soon they will run out of money there will be nobody left to sue then justice for Maddie will prevail - why our society protects murderers and fraudsters like Kate and Gerry is beyond comprehension, but justice will come. In the meantime - keep up the good work it really is appreciated (shame I can't say the same of our national newspapers)

    ReplyDelete