Marcos Aragão Correia stated that on his visit to João Cipriano on 18th May 2009, who is detained at the Carregueira prison, in Belas (Sintra) he saw [as a psychic] "lots of blood running down his face as if he was guilty of an heinous crime" - the same lawyer also said that he is not completely sure that Joana is dead because in another «vision» he saw her "walking accompanied by a couple". The lawyer also presented the 8 page declaration written by Leonor Cipriano on 15 January 2009 [translated here] which gave [another] different version of the events of that night, accusing her brother of murdering Joana, a declaration that at the same time admitted that Leonor was willing to «sell» her daughter Joana to an alleged foreign couple. The lawyer also presented witnesses statements made by elements of the Cipriano family, excerpts of the book written by criminologist Barra da Costa, a private letter and a PJ's old report to which the lawyer admitted receiving in an unclear manner. Marcos Aragão Correia additionally fundamented the appeal using a persistent attack on Gonçalo Amaral, the PJ coordinator of the Joana Case - in the appeal the lawyer stated that «We can not therefore be admired by the calamitous results of a criminal investigation handed to a dangerous and violent alcoholic, even more catastrophic when we are before serious crimes committed against children, to whom, only too late appeared the good sense of removing him from the investigations when the same alcoholic repeated the same gross mistakes without fundamentation and without any evidence against the mother of another missing child in the Algarve (Madeleine Beth McCann)» [in the process document 330/04.2JAPTM-B.S1 and from Marcos Aragão Correia own site.
The Public Ministry understood that the revision should be denied, adding that "Having seen the text of the appeal, there is a clear attempt to tarnish the image of the Judiciary Police, especially of one former element of that Police who was involved in the investigation of the case which led to the conviction" and "this animosity can not serve to justify the application for review of the decision, much less affirmations like «Apparently, II [Gonçalo Amaral] took a course in criminal investigation in Guinea-Bissau or in an analogous country, or was driven by motives for us as yet unknown so that the truth was not to be discovered». The Public Ministry also added «But beyond this, and still under the same scope, the Public Ministry has to raise the question about the legitimacy of joining to the appeal a private letter, referred to as a letter sent by the wife of one PJ element to his hierarchy superior, as well as a service report from the PJ picket, documents that the distinguished lawyer stated to have reached his hands in an illicit manner, which nevertheless did not inhibit the the lawyer of joining them to the process."
On the confession forced by Marcos Aragão Correia «bluff» the Public Ministry stated: "And, in that which refers to the co-defendant CC [João Cipriano], it is understood that the activity of the distinguished lawyer goes beyond all legal and ethical rules to which he owes obedience" and "The description given by the distinguished lawyer himself of how he obtained the 'declaration' signed by the arguido [João Cipriano], who is represented by another lawyer, is almost frightening, and an absolutely forbidden method of obtaining evidence". Regarding the new declaration made by Leonor Cipriano the Public Ministry stated: "It is pathetic the justification that she gave - of only now revealing the facts for being afraid of being arrested for trying to sell her daughter" and "what follows here is a desperate attempt by the defendant/appellant to escape liability for the acts performed by her and for which she is serving a sentence". (...)
- Not being admissible, given the failure to report «new» facts, already known by the defendants at the time of conviction;
- Even admitting the possibility of the review with those facts, it is certain that the «declarations» appended to the process are not valid;
- Even accepting that validity, they do not contain credible evidence;
- And, even if they were understood as that they would not be enough to raise a sufficient doubt to review the final decision, since they are unaccompanied by other elements of evidence;»
The Supreme Court of Justice collective of judges gave a similar fundamentation for the denial of the appeal to revise Leonor Cipriano's sentence.