1.10 The Rise and Fall of Bruno de Carvalho - The Court Cases: Testimony from the Rozzers

 

In our last part we heard the testimony of the then mister Jorge Jesus and members of his backup team as they gave evidence to the judge in the case against the defendants responsible for the attacks. Jesus confirmed his relationship with Bruno de Carvalho was already past the point of repair and was willing to leave for nothing despite having one more year on his contract worth a minimum of €6m. Less than five days out from the final of the Taça de Portugal you'd a set of players clearly suffering from PTSD who were afraid to ever return to Alcochete for fear of a second attack. Which begs the question I'll ask time and time again and never seem to find an answer to, namely why the game was allowed to go ahead at all?

I thought it might also be useful for added context to read evidence from officers of the GNR who attended the scene on the day of the attack and whose evidence was heard during the second and third sessions of the court. In addition we'll hear testimony from the officers that carried out the search done on Casinha, the headquarters of the Juve Leo situated at the home of Sporting CP, the Estádio José Alvalade.

For reference:

The Guarda Nacional Republicana (GNR) is Portugal's national gendarmerie-type security force, a paramilitary body responsible for policing approximately 94% of the country's territory. Founded in 1911, the GNR operates under the Ministry of Internal Affairs and is responsible for public order, crime prevention, border control, and traffic safety.

The Public Security Police MHTE (PSP; Public Security Police) is the national civil police force of Portugal.

I'll start with the second session, which in this context is the first session, which makes the third session, the second session, and that's a lesson into someone with an autistic brain. You're very welcome.

First to testify on what for the courts are the second session to be heard overall in the process is Tiago Mateus, the commander of the GNR occurrence patrol in Alcochete. Mateus was first to arrive at the academy after the attacks had occurred at the clubs academy. He began by setting the scene following the emergency call for the GNR to attend the scene: "When we arrived, we saw hooded individuals running and leaving the Academy. We went to the entrance and were told that there was no one else inside. A BMW X3 tried to ram the patrol car to escape and we went back to pick up the ones we could."

"We closed the road after the park so that the five or six vehicles that were there could not escape." As there were only three of them, they called for reinforcements from the Setúbal command. One of the parked cars, a BMW x3, tries to flee and rams the patrol car. The BMW eventually fled, as did a Seat Ibiza and a Renault Mégane.

Lawyer Sílvia Peres asks Mateus if the GNR had ever previously been called to Alcochete for any similar incidents? He confirms no, "Only policing the games, nothing else."

Mateus confirms that at first they had to stay at the scene waiting for enforcements to arrive. Once that occurred, they set off in pursuit of the three vehicles, which had fled. Catching both the Seat and Renault he noted that the occupants of both vehicles "offered no resistance" to their arrest. The BMW, however, fled "through the sand" and was pursued by further reinforcements that arrived in the meantime. Mateus confirmed that he learned of BMW's interception "on the radio."

Talking about what he discovered at the academy when they arrived an hour after the attack and enter the dressing room, Mateus states "There was blood on the ground, I didn't see injured players. The dressing room was all overturned." One of the defence lawyers wants to know how the Mateus knew that the stains on the floor were blood? "They were red spots." The lawyer presses the point about the level of disarray in the locker room after the attack to establish whether it was that different from what you might expect to find on a matchday or training day for example. Mateus had previously attended the academy as an INEM rescuer and was able to confirm for the court, that on this visit there was specific evidence of damage, such as the cracked glass of a door.

André Medinas, the driver of the GNR patrol car gives his evidence to the court. He states: "I remember perfectly that a BMW tried to ram us when we blocked the road. I had to brake hard to avoid crashing."

The soldier from the GNR post in Alcochete tells how when they arrived he saw "more than 50 suspects, some hooded and others who were not," fleeing the scene. Medinas confirms that three cars managed to escape, adding that they immediately made some arrests of individuals "who did not offer any resistance."

Medinas states that: "At the time we had no idea what was happening. " After the attack we returned to the Academy and spoke to the players. Some just wanted to go on time, others wanted to go to the hospital. Rui Patrício said he had been assaulted. And Mathieu was one of the most serene."

The commander of the Alcochete post, Márcio Alves is next to be heard. Alves reveals that he was warned by Ricardo Gonçalves, the director of security at Alcochete that "100 individuals were on site to talk to the players and technical team". Alves states upon hearing this that he immediately notified a patrol. Minutes later Gonçalves called him again to say that attacks were already occurring. "I went immediately."

Alves, as part of his duties, states that when he reached the locker room, he was concerned with 'preserving the crime scene' to allow the collection of evidence. He peeked inside but "doesn't remember" the conditions in which the space was.

Alves confirms this was the first time they were ever called to the academy because of issues with the claques. 

Note - It doesn't feel like the best planned escape in the world does it? I'm wondering did they assume that there was no police presence (using the general term universally understood) at Alcochete that day? Did they have spotters who confirmed there wasn't a presence before they went in? What would have been their plan of action had there been some sort of presence? I'm assuming that from a previous post where an article makes reference to officers being armed that all officers from the GNR are armed in Portugal. (According to Deepseek they are indeed). If I'm armed with just a belt then frankly I wouldn't have taken any chances with an armed officer. 

On the third day of sessions, thus the second in the context of this current post (see it's making sense now isn't it?) testimony was provided by two of the GNR officers. The first witness to be heard is José Monteiro who is the sergeant of the GNR Criminal Investigation Unit. He explains how the investigation took place which allowed the identification of 43 people who had entered the Academy. Seized mobile phones showed a presence on the antenna of Lidl do Montijo (the meeting point) and on the antenna of the Academy of Alcochete.

Melo Alves, the lawyer for one of the defendants, questions Monteiro about the role of the Whatsapp group in identifying the suspects. He responds that 23 were caught red-handed and that the rest were identified in PSP reports. The groups only confirmed the identification of those present.

Note - One lesson you can take if you are planning your own attack, one, don't have it in a WhatsApp group and two, leave your mobile phones at home. Please don't plan an attack of any kind. 

Miguel Matias, a defence lawyer, asks Monteiro if the investigation made it possible to identify who did what at the Academy, who threw flares, who entered the locker room and who assaulted the players? Matias states that it was not investigated at all individually and that the investigation was carried out through the records of viewing the video surveillance images. Inside the bathhouse, for example, there is no video surveillance, but some who had been present have been identified. The sergeant says that the group acted "in a concerted way.” Matias says that this is just "a conclusion" of the sergeant.

Amândio Madaleno, Elton "Aleluia" Camará's lawyer, asks is Monteiro aware that William Carvalho called his client an hour or two after the attack? Monteiro confirms that it was news to him. 

Note - Interesting that William has the phone number of one of the leaders of Juve Leo. No mention here of what was discussed between the pair sadly. Note it was Aleluia who cut his police tag before the trials got underway and I believe his nickname translates to Hallelujah which begs the question was he an alter boy in a former life and if not then how did he get that nickname?

Nuno Torres' lawyer asks Monteiro if he knows if her client is in any of the Whatsapp groups investigated? "On his cell phone there are relevant conversations about the facts." The answer provoked a reaction in the audience room, where family and friends of the suspects are seated' "There are no conversations, liar," is heard in the room.

Monteiro informs the court that Rúben Marques, one of the defendants, was identified by having a belt.

Note - to the best of my knowledge this is the Rúben identified by the Sporting CP player Rafael Leão. They were previously together as students and whilst not specifically mentioned I took it to mean in the report he made to GNR after the attacks that Marques must have at one time been on the books of Sporting as a youth team player. Don't quote me on that, I'm assuming. 

Amândio Madaleno asks: "What did Elton do?" Monteiro thinks Camará was one of the last to enter and stayed outside with Fernando Mendes, Nuno Torres, among others. He will not, therefore, have entered the dressing room.

"The story that the defendants told, that they went to the Academy to support the players, has been completely dismantled," says Monteiro. He also says that Nuno Loureiro, who was dismissed from the process, "was not identified by the PSP", but by a defendant, through the nickname.

One of the lawyers asks a question that had already been raised by Amândio Madaleno, but had remained unanswered: "Had your unit already investigated terrorism crimes?"

"No."

"I'm Nuno Mendes' lawyer, do you know who he is?", asks Rocha Quintal to the witness. "Yes, also known as Mustafá, Musta or Terror," Monteiro replies.

Quintal questions how long Mustafa had been a suspect?

"From the beginning," says the sergeant. For being the leader of the group and because Valter Semedo and Tiago Silva were both present in the Whatsapp groups. "They were his right-hand men."

The statement leads the judge to ask how Monteiro came to this conclusion? "From the Whatsapp conversations, in which it was necessary to ask Nuno Mendes for authorisation".

Quintal asks did the investigation take steps to find out the whereabouts of Nuno Mendes at the time of the attack? José Monteiro says no, but that the MP asked for the interception of Mustafa's cell phone because suspicions fell on him.

Note - I believe that is a reference to the prosecutor Cândida Vilar with MP being Ministério Público, not to be confused for anyone reading in England with a member of parliament and in the US - military police. 

Quintal wants to know why the investigation did not analyse the fingerprints of the vial in which the cocaine was found in the "Casinha" home of the Juve Leo which led to the arrest of Nuno Mendes? 

Sadly the response wasn't noted.

Miguel A. Fonseca asks how many Whatsapp messages addressed to Bruno de Carvalho the investigation detected. "There isn't," replies the sergeant. "Zero? Can I point it out then? That's it? And forwarded? Also zero?" Monteiro repeats that there are no messages.

Note - I have a vision of Cândida Vilar sliding down her chair at this point and raising documents to cover her face to avoid the eyes of the Judges in session. Feels like a gust of wind entered the courts and blew down her house of cards against Bruno de Carvalho. 

Faced with the judge's protests, Bruno de Carvalho's lawyer says that at "some point he would like to know why" his client is a defendant.

Note - Based on that testimony you might actually be thinking the same thing if he's supposed to be one of the moral authors. Mind you Paulie in Goodfellas never trusted phones and had people run messages for him in person covering their mouths so they couldn't be lip read. I'm not suggesting de Carvalho is like Paulie in Goodfellas by the way. He's fat but he's not that fat. 

The questioning of Sergeant José Monteiro is over at 1320 hours. 

Note - if this was a YouTube video we'd probably cut away to someone with a pen and a board to break this all down for you in simpler terms. So you'll have to imagine that I'm stood at that board.

The prosecution case presented to the court is to try to prove that three people, namely Bruno de Carvalho, Bruno Jacinto and Nuno Mendes had moral authorship of the attacks. To simplify that - did they plan the attacks and in the case of de Carvalho is there any or sufficient evidence that he ordered the attacks?

So how do the three link together? What does any of the above actually mean in this context?

Let's take Mendes and call him Mustafá for ease as he's more commonly known by. 

Bruno de Carvalho was a one time member of the Juventude Leonina. From evidence shown he maintained a relationship with the head of Sporting's largest claques and Mustafá was present at the meeting with the players and de Carvalho which took place two days after the defeat to Atlético. Now in a previous post I mentioned the distrust between claques and police officers and often why this isn't without genuine merit on their part. There is no smoke without fire.

Here the assumption has been made by the GNR that because Mustafá is the leader of the group, he must therefore have planned the attacks. Why assumption? Good question. Go back up the the question his lawyer asks whether they took steps today identify his whereabouts? The answer was that they hadn't. The officer also uses to name all his known aliases including - Terror. Look at me, I'm clever, I know all about this man. Truthfully what he should have answered was in the infinitive. Yes. I am aware of who your client Mr Mendes is. This is why lawyers get paid the big bucks. At some point all these little points will come flowing out in a grand statement about assumptions made about his clients character and a distinct lack of evidence or investigation on the part of the GNR. Another assumption has been made, that for the attacks to have occurred Mustafá would have had to have given the green light to the attacks. Was there a specific group used for the attacks and most importantly is there evidence that a. Mustafá was in the group and b. That he gave his blessing for the attacks to occur? If the answer is no to both how do you come to the conclusion that Mustafá could have moral authorship?

So why Bruno Jacinto in addition? How does he fit between the two? I've drawn all three names on the board and I'm drawing little arrows from Mustafá to Jacinto in the middle and de Carvalho on the right. Why is Jacinto in the middle? Yes, well done, it's that simple, he's the middle man. See this isn't hard is it? His role is the club liaison between the claques and Sporting. Noting though not specifically to de Carvalho. On matchdays Jacinto would act as the go between the fans and the club security. Any issues the fans have on a Matchday, mistreatment by stewards for example, they go to BJ. What? They're his initials. So go back from right to left. Could it actually be the case that de Carvalho did order the attacks? But instead of going straight to source, he uses Jacinto instead to go to the Juve Leo and have requested an attack and therefore eliminated a direct link between himself and the events? Guess what? If you want to plan an attack, you don't put it in a WhatsApp group. Ah, well actually it turns out you do. If you had any sense, you'd not leave a critical chain of evidence. But critically for the prosecution's case it turns out that it cannot be proven that either Bruno de Carvalho or Mustafá had planned, ordered or given the OK for it to happen. And if there's no evidence of it, as de Carvalho’s lawyer had just asked above, then why was his client on trial? Similarly Mustafá’s lawyer is asking the question of why fingerprints weren't taken because his client is also being held on remand for charges of drug trafficking. Surely you'd test it for fingerprints? There can't be many better identifiers of whether someone has touched something and implied ownership can thus be proven or disproven?

Hypothetically if you are verbally agreeing an attack and using Jacinto as a go between and you're facing charges of terrorism, then you're not likely to turn on one another especially in the absence of any evidence. So no evidence in the WhatsApp groups, no evidence of talks in person. What is the prosecution pining its case on in terms of evidence and why has the court agreed to the prosecution? 

Anyways I'm going to step away from my board, and back to the post…

The session restarts after recess with the testimony of the GNR Corporal João Oliveira. The witnesses responded to questions about the layout or the academy and methods of identification which I'll forgo the retelling of here because they don't add much all told or anything interesting. 

De Carvalho's lawyer, Miguel A. Fonseca, asks for a document to be shown to Oliveira which is signed by the officer in which he described that Rui Patrício fled to the center of the field at the Dérbi de Lisboa at home to Benfica almost two weeks before the attack on the Academy. "Are you sure you saw him?"

"Yes, I am."

Note - Did he roll his eyes at that point I wonder?

The court reporter notes - What seemed to be a dialogue between lawyer and witness is interrupted by the judge, appealing to them to stay with the facts.

Maybe he did roll his eyes at the lawyer?

Oliveira discusses the search that took place at the headquarters of the Juventude Leonina. He tells the court that flares were found under the kitchen counter, small amounts of hashish, some sticks and t-shirts and a Benfica shirt. He also confirms the presence of Jójó, the retired carpenter who "takes care of the space.” 

Note - what kind of sticks isn't noted. Pooh sticks? Glow sticks? And ah yes, what you'd expect to find in the headquarters of the largest Sporting claques - a Benfica shirt. Hmmmm. 

The judge then asks Oliveira several questions. The officer confirms that alongside the presence of Jójó were Mustafá's wife and others "whose names I don't remember but who all belong to the Leonina Youth.” He adds about 15 grams of cocaine were found. 

Note - The volume differs here from the previous stated 20 grams. Perhaps someone enjoyed a little bump?

The lawyer Sívila Rosa insists the attic door had to be broken into. João Oliveira states that Mustafá, accompanied officers through the entire search process. "Everything was very messy, it was an unhealthy space.”

Asked if Mustafá' and Jójó exchanged words when the drugs were discovered, Oliveira reports: "Jójó said that they were not his, Nuno Mendes said he had nothing to do with them.”

The judge asks the lawyers if they have any specific questions? Mustafá's legal representative Rocha Quintal wants to find out where Juve leader Leo was detained, saying he "doesn't understand" why Nuno Mendes was present in the first search and not in the second. In addition asks how long Nuno Mendes had been monitored before the searches took place? Oliveira cannot say whether Mustafá was in Casinha in the 48 hours prior to the searches. "Do you know if, at that time, Nuno Mendes was in Portugal?". "I wasn't the one who was responsible for that,” replies Oliveira.

Quintal focuses on the searches of the attic. He wants to know who went up first, the leader of Juve Leo or Jójó? Oliveira confirms it was Mustafá. He then asks about Mustafá in relation to the drugs found, and who had free access to the headquarters. "Did you find this out? Did they do this screening? So, whose drugs were they?" The GNR corporal replies that he did not know who had gone there and, to the third question, about drugs, he answers. "Wasn't mine.”

The lawyer rebuts the questions surrounding narcotics and who will be credited with their possession. "Therefore, they were unable to identify the seized narcotics. But the truth is that he is accused of drug trafficking."

Notes - so after a day's testimony the leader of the investigation that involved a mixed team of officers from the GNR and PSP, José Monteiro stressed in court that there is no message sent or resent to or by Bruno de Carvalho in the three Whatsapp groups analysed. In regards to Nuno Mendes who is held in remand on charges of drug trafficking, owing to the amount of drugs found at Casinha: For reference in UK law 15g of cocaine is highly likely to be classed as possession with intent to supply given it is above what is typically considered for personal use. However, in UK law, they'd look for supplementary evidence to connect the amount found to an intent to supply, i.e. was the cocaine found in smaller bags? Here the answer is no as it was in a single vial. On that count one assumes, if you could prove it, it belonged to Mustafá, then the defendant could still claim personal use. But no steps had been taken as we'd ascertained. It doesn't mention how much hashish was discovered though, which whilst classified as a lesser drug in terms of penalties for trafficking would you assume be harder to claim was for personal use especially given where it was found.

So all in all it feels like after two days of testimony that on the second day especially, the bungling French fictional detective Inspector Clueso might have led the investigation better. We do have at least evidence of those who carried out the attacks being at the location because of their mobile phones. We've the WhatsApp groups to which various attackers are in the group. None of the three accused of moral authorship of the attacks have had evidence provided to the judge by the GNR or prosecution that specifically links any of them to ordering the attack, green lighting it or if acting as a go between all parties. The attacks have never been disputed, we've had it confirmed how they identified who were responsible but the main question remains why are De Carvalho, Mustafá and Jacinto on trial. Join us in the next part when we'll look at the testimony of the clubs liaison officer Bruno Jacinto. Will he provide any damning evidence against the other two?

Some Additional notes from a more detailed report:

The messages exchanged between the defendants in the WhatsApp groups were fundamental to the investigation to help identify and find new suspects.

The GNR officer José Monteiro assured that there were no messages sent or forwarded by any of the invaders to Bruno de Carvalho.

Monteiro was one of the signatories of the final report.

The investigation team was a mix between the PSP Intervention Unit (or more specifically the so-called spotters) and the Criminal Investigation Center of the GNR of Montijo.

23 individuals were caught in the act on the day, noting most of the identifications were made by the PSP team.

He confirms most of those present met it LIDL. (I always felt this attack was a bit low budget to be fair).

He confirms only 19 messages between Tiago Silva and Bruno Jacinto were included because had they presented everything stored on the phones 50,000 pages wouldn't have been enough. 

He confirms that Jacinto was the one who transported Nuno Torres to pick up the car (which is what Fernando Mendes is driven away in to avoid arrest on the day). 

He confirms the reason Mustafá fell under suspicion is because of historical knowledge of organised groups. He confirms his two lieutenants Valter Semedo and Tiago Silva created all three groups. Members of the groups reference that permission would have been required from Mustafá. Again the insinuation being he's the leader of the Juve Leo so he must have known. 

He confirms the IRS fully investigated Mustafá's finances. 

He admitted that no fingerprints were found on the "jar with rice,” where the cocaine was found hidden. 

Nuno Mendes was arrested in Charneca da Caparica.

Pedro Silveira and Diogo Amaral e Silva were two additional names found within the groups but had not been present on the day. 

The conversation between Miguel A. Fonseca, Bruno de Carvalho's lawyer and Monteiro: "Is there a message sent to Bruno de Carvalho? No, there isn't. Is there a forward, sent message or an email? No, there isn't.” The lawyer then immediately addressed Judge Pires: “Sorry, Madam Judge, it's just that at some point I'll have to understand why my client is being judged".

Officer Rui Rolo confirmed that the clothes worn by defendant Joaquim Costa on the day or the attack were recovered. 

It's Rolo who confirms that Patrício in the Dérbi de Lisboa does not run when the flares are being thrown into his goal area. (In fairness he wasn't lying having watched it. He doesnt even look over his shoulder just calmly keeps on walking). 

GNR corporal João Oliveira confirmed they also went to Mr Jorge's house, better known as Jojó who initially refused to let them enter without a lawyer present before finally relenting. 

He confirms the search on Casinha began late afternoon and everyone present was searched and identified some of whom were in possession of narcotics and issued reports. The others were allowed to simply leave. Despite having officers present he confirms some did manage to get rid of offending items around their persons. 

It's noted that Mustafá's wife Cristina and another woman were present in the office. His wife being the bar manager and this being game day with Sporting set to face GD Chaves at 8pm. 

He confirms the 15g of cocaine found along with hashish and liamba (which I assume to be cannabis resin). 

He claims the attic was broken into for security reasons (What they were he doesn't confirm). It transpires that it was a storage space for rags and towels. (Sounds like a huge security risk to me). Also the Benfica shirt was found here (To be fair he did say it was a storage for rags so…) Here they found the vial of cocaine. Mustafá denies it was his as did Jójó. The keys were found … on top of a refrigerator.