Supreme Court of Justice - 'Joana case' ruling - Part II
The validation of the proven and not proven facts based itself in the global evidence produced at the trial hearing and according to the open conviction that the court has formulated over the same evidence (always taking into attention the rules of experience), observing the expert evidence, written and spoken which was produced, and using, regarding this one, a scientific reasoning and exemption for each of the statements presented.
The arguidos preferred to remain silent.
None of the inquired witness declared to have watched the punishable facts, even thought that some reported facts important for the court’s conviction.
Let see what the witness stated.
The witness OO, mother in law of the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano], declared that her son married the arguida and from that matrimony was born EE [Leonor Cipriano’s oldest daughter], her granddaughter. She referred that arguida BB left home when the daughter was 11 years old, and that she never saw her[BB] again. She also said that arguida BB called once to know if she could pick up EE, but when the witness answered that she would have to speak with EE’s father, she lost interest. The witness also referred, at a time where the disappearance of CC [Joana Cipriano] was already being talked about, that the arguida went to the witness house in Olhão, escorted by the Judiciary Police, to whom the arguida said that CC could be in there.
The witness PP, who lived with the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] for 5 years, said that he is the father of HH, son of the arguida BB, and that she left him when the son was 7 months old. He stated that the arguida left to go and live with II, and left the baby in a chair, secured with a belt, it was a foreigner lady, neighbour, who went to pick him up and who delivered the baby to the witness [PP] when he got home.
The witness QQ, who is still married with the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano], even though that he is separated for several years, only referred that the arguida left him when EE, daughter of both [of QQ and BB] was 11 months, and to the best of his knowledge, the arguida never saw the daughter again.
The witness RR, aunt from the father side of the minor FF (son of the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano], who is now 12 years old and lives with the witness, after being entrusted to her by the Court), referred that the arguida BB never cared about the son and since he was 2 months old it was the mother of the witness and Marcos’ grandmother who took care of him, given that the arguida didn’t even bathe the baby, and more than once she went away from home for a week, even though she returned; until she left for good.
The witness LL, father of the minor CC [Joana Cipriano], said that he separated from the arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] when she was pregnant and that she delivered CC with 5 months old to him, stating that she couldn’t care of the baby. The witness said that had CC under his care for 2 days but then he gave her back to the mother. More, he said that on the 13th of September 2004, around 12h30m, the arguida BB went to look for him and asked him if he had went to pick up CC, because she was missing. The witness answered no. The witness also stated that at the time, the arguida BB did not seemed worried, nor shocked, also she wasn’t crying and that the woman who was with her appeared to be more worried than her.
The witness TT, CC’s teacher at the School of Figueira, from the 20st of January to June 2004, told that CC [Joana Cipriano] arrived on the 1st day to the school late and that she was accompanied by BB3 from the supermarket, CC explained that the reason for her being late was that she was lost. She referred that CC was a quiet girl, some days she would be sadder, others more joyful. She said that at the beginning CC was a student who had learning difficulties, because she had missed school too much, but then she was able to catch the others. CC didn't appear her to be a mistreated child; she didn’t show up dirty or with abuse marks on the body. When she was asked she referred that CC should measure 1,32 meters, or maybe more, but that she had never measured her.
The witness SS, psychologist working at the Protection of Minors Commission of Portimão affirmed that the Commission received a Process of Promotion and Protection of minors which as then sent to the Protection of Minors Commission of Lagoa, where it was referred the fact that CC [Joana Cipriano] was given by the mother to an elderly couple, who were alcoholic and had other problems. Meanwhile the mother had picked her up and they now lived in the Portimão area. At that time the mother said that she had left CC with that couple, just for two or three weeks, so that she wouldn’t miss school while she[BB] arranged her school transference. Later on they [the Protection of Minors Commission] received a report from the school describing negligence at the alimentation and hygienic level. In the sequence of that report, in April or May 2004 the witness made a domiciliary visit to CC’s mother house and verified that BB [Leonor Cipriano] was making lunch and that there were clothes put to dry. She went to the school and the teacher told her there were rumours that CC worked too much at home, but that she never saw anything, and that CC was an average student. They spoke with neighbours who said that they saw CC playing. They spoke with CC, who told them that she enjoyed helping her mother with her brothers, And they decided to archive the process.
more to follow
Previous: Supreme Court of Justice - 'Joana case' ruling - Part I - Fundamentation
in Supreme Court of Justice - ruling SJ200604200003635, 20.04.2006