Has Gonçalo Amaral been vindicated by the recent Cipriano denunciation?

[Albertini]

Similarly they cannot be accuse dof "failing to prove theor innocence" because that would require them to prove a negative.

Except you can and they indeed were by the AG of Portugal! Twice.

Why are you trying to rewrite the AG report?

[Angelo222]

But as Cipriano is now a convicted perjurer how much reliance can be put on her evidence ? Besides isn't it the supporters view that although she was tortured she didn't know who was there as she had a bag over her head ?

She obviously had the bag put over her head at some stage ergo she had sight beforehand.

[Angelo222]

Luz seems to be convinced that because she was convicted of perjury she was never tortured in the first place, despite the fact that the court didn't dispute that she had been, and that therefore the guilty verdicts had all been overturned.

Several of us have asked her to produce something verifiable, but so far this hasn't happened.

I happen to agree.  The Court accepted that she was tortured but they also accepted that she embellished certain aspects of it.

[faithlilly]

She obviously had the bag put over her head at some stage ergo she had sight beforehand.

That's not what she said.

[DCI]

It is actually quite simple.  The Court ruled that Leonor Cipriano accused certain people without proof, although this is a bit of a mystery to me as I don't think she personally accused anyone as she was unable to identify them.
However some PJ Officers were accused, tried and then acquitted.

There was never any question that she was abused while in PJ custody.  And that Amaral gave false written evidence, of which he was found guilty.

And if Amaral, hadn't been allowed to show the vile reconstruction video, he made, that apparently couldn't be used as evidence, it would probably have been a different outcome. He only showed it to make the jury doubt Leonor and John.

[faithlilly]

And if Amaral, hadn't been allowed to show the vile reconstruction video, he made, that apparently couldn't be used as evidence, it would probably have been a different outcome. He only showed it to make the jury doubt Leonor and John.

The reconstruction video that showed how Leonor and her brother committed the murder you mean ?

[Carana]

I happen to agree.  The Court accepted that she was tortured but they also accepted that she embellished certain aspects of it.

I'm not entirely sure of the substance of the perjury.

She was an uneducated woman at the mercy of ever-changing pro-bono lawyers and a ferocious press prior to her initial trial.

The child disappeared on 12 September 2004. Leonor and her brother were arrested on 21 September. On no hard evidence. And there doesn't ever seem to have been any.

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/atirada-aos-porcos

By the 25th, she signed a confession to accidental death in front of a jdge. Dozens of people were shouting outside the courthouse.

She had a lawyer present at some point during her questioning, but it's not clear how long she was interrogated for prior to this confession, nor whether the lawyer was present for the entirety.

The brother had confessed that he'd killed the child, but when it actually came to signing it, he got cold feet and said it was his sister.

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/noticia.aspx?channelid=00000009-0000-0000-0000-000000000009&contentid=00132134-3333-3333-3333-000000132134

I suspect the police were bluffing, telling each of them that the one had accused the other. I also suspect that the lawyer may have advised her to confess to accidental death rather than face a murder charge.

At the end of the day, there is no evidence that proves that she even got home from the shop, let alone was massacred at home.

Edited to correct wonky link.

[faithlilly]

I'm not entirely sure of the substance of the perjury.

She was an uneducated woman at the mercy of ever-changing pro-bono lawyers and a ferocious press prior to her initial trial.

The child disappeared on 12 September 2004. Leonor and her brother were arrested on 21 September. On no hard evidence. And there doesn't ever seem to have been any.

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/atirada-aos-porcos

By the 25th, she signed a confession to accidental death in front of a jdge. Dozens of people were shouting outside the courthouse.

She had a lawyer present at some point during her questioning, but it's not clear how long she was interrogated for prior to this confession, nor whether the lawyer was present for the entirety.

The brother had confessed that he'd killed the child, but when it actually came to signing it, he got cold feet and said it was his sister.

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/noticia.aspx?channelid=00000009-0000-0000-0000-000000000009contentid=00132134-3333-3333-3333-000000132134

I suspect the police were bluffing, telling each of them that the one had accused the other. I also suspect that the lawyer may have advised her to confess to accidental death rather than face a murder charge.

At the end of the day, there is no evidence that proves that she even got home from the shop, let alone was massacred at home.

And this explains why she lied how ?

[Carana]

And this explains why she lied how ?

Don't you think she'd have relied on the advice of these ever-changing lawyers? They were supposed to know what they were doing.

[faithlilly]

Don't you think she'd have relied on the advice of these ever-changing lawyers? They were supposed to know what they were doing.

Are you really saying her lawyers made her lie ?

[Carana]

Are you really saying her lawyers made her lie ?

No. I didn't say that.

I don't know how well she was helped to prepare for the ordeal.

We're talking about a traumatic experience that took place 5 years previously during the course of a long interrogation with very little rest. Some details may have been clear, others hazy.

Appearing at a trial is stressful for anyone and she apparently has a lower than average IQ.

If she had been told to just tell the truth and everything will be fine, she would have presumably have tried to remember as much as she could.

Since she gave contradictory versions, I am guessing that she was cross-examined. If that's the case, she may not have been prepared for it and panicked. 

Without knowing exactly what happened at the trial, it's hard to tell.

At the end of the day, the court still upheld that she had indeed been beaten.

[Eleanor]

That poor woman has gone through absolute hell, and was then treated like a criminal in a Court of Law simply because she couldn't precisely remember what happened when she was frightened for her life and being knocked senseless for a crime that she almost certainly didn't commit.
There has never been any question that she was beaten in Police Custody, and at least one of The Judges said that he believed that she was innocent.

This latest fiasco has brought more shame on Portugal than even I thought was possible.

There are now more Arguidos amongst her probable tormentors than amongst her and The McCanns put together.

But don't ever doubt that The PJ know precisely who was responsible.  They like her, just couldn't prove it.

[sadie]

No. I didn't say that.

I don't know how well she was helped to prepare for the ordeal.

We're talking about a traumatic experience that took place 5 years previously during the course of a long interrogation with very little rest. Some details may have been clear, others hazy.

Appearing at a trial is stressful for anyone and she apparently has a lower than average IQ.

If she had been told to just tell the truth and everything will be fine, she would have presumably have tried to remember as much as she could.

Since she gave contradictory versions, I am guessing that she was cross-examined. If that's the case, she may not have been prepared for it and panicked. 

Without knowing exactly what happened at the trial, it's hard to tell.

At the end of the day, the court still upheld that she had indeed been beaten.

Additionally having lost the child she loved, to Gawd knows who, or what future

...and then having been exposed to dreadful propaganda put about, accusing her of killing and cutting her own daughters body up, and feeding the bits to their pigs.

Poor woman.  Not only was she mourning and terrified for her lost her daughter, but she had the anger of the world on her shoulders because of malicious propaganda.  And a trial that never should have happened.

Absolutely NO EVIDENCE at all, just tortured out stuff.

[sadie]

That poor woman has gone through absolute hell, and was then treated like a criminal in a Court of Law simply because she couldn't precisely remember what happened when she was frightened for her life and being knocked senseless for a crime that she almost certainly didn't commit.
There has never been any question that she was beaten in Police Custody, and at least one of The Judges said that he believed that she was innocent.

This latest fiasco has brought more shame on Portugal than even I thought was possible.

There are now more Arguidos amongst her probable tormentors than amongst her and The McCanns put together.

But don't ever doubt that The PJ know precisely who was responsible.  They like her, just couldn't prove it.

There are now more Arguidos amongst her probable tormentors than amongst her and The McCanns put together.

But don't ever doubt that The PJ know precisely who was responsible.  They like her, just couldn't prove it.

Did they actually want to prove who was responsible?  Was it perhaps easier and less dangerous to charge a defenceless woman?

Sort of "Case solved.  Next one !" .........  Jeez!

[Eleanor]

Did they actually want to prove who was responsible?  Was it perhaps easier and less dangerous to charge a defenceless woman?

Sort of "Case solved.  Next one !" .........  Jeez!

I simply do not know, Sadie, beyond the fact that The Portimao PJ seems to have been a law unto itself.
They certainly didn't send in a high ranking PJ Officer to clear up the mess left by Amaral in The McCann Case for a bit of fun.  They did this because there was no one in Portimao that they could trust.

Leonor had already been long convicted by then.  And one might remember that the Torture business didn't actually come out for some time after her Trial, and that of Jaoa.  Amaral wasn't made an Arguido until the day after he had taken on The McCann Case.

Sadly, Jaoa Cipriano wasn't the best of witnesses, although I believe that he was threatened with torture, if not actually subjected to it.  And then said anything to avoid a beating.

Quite possibly it was easier for The PJ to allow things to run their course.  But then they didn't expect such an outcry, or that The World would hear about what was done to Leonor Cipriano.  A mere peasant.