UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => The Disappearance of Portuguese youngster Joana Cipriano (8) from the village of Figueira, near Portimão, Algarve, on 12 September 2004. => Topic started by: John on July 20, 2013, 03:23:53 AM
-
On 2nd April 2013, Leonor Cipriano was sentenced to seven months in prison for making false statements. Already serving a sentence of 16 years for the murder of her daughter Joana, who vanished in September 2004, Leonor was now found to have wrongly accused officers of the Judicial Police of having assaulted her during questioning.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/leonorlux.JPG)
Leonor Cipriano, who is currently serving 16 years in prison for murder and concealment of a corpse, gave contradictory statements about alleged abuse she had suffered at the premises of the Judicial Police (PJ) in Faro during questioning that was conducted whilst investigating the disappearance of her daughter, on September 12, from the village of Figueira, Portimão.
In the ruling the collective of judges considered that the statements that Leonor Cipriano produced during the trial sessions contained "flagrant and relevant contradictions", despite having had the "opportunity to reveal the truth". The court has, however, considered the aggressions as proved, although without establishing the aggressors' identity.
In the same case, Gonçalo Amaral, a former coordinator of the PJ's Criminal Investigation Department in Portimão, who was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation, was condemned to one and a half years over the crime of false deposition, with a suspended sentence over a similar period. Inspector António Nunes Cardoso was condemned to two years and three months over forgery of a document, with a suspended sentence over two years.
In turn, the former PJ inspectors Paulo Pereira Cristóvão and Leonel Morgado Marques and Paulo Marques Bom, who all stood accused of the crimes of torture against Leonor Cipriano following the questioning, were acquitted.
-
Amaral ...haven't all those proved to be liars in court
WRONG AGAIN.
Once and for all:
1. His book was released by the Supreme Court in Lisbon and the McCann ordered to restore all the books their stupid lawyer had in her custody - they failed for almost 9 months (this is criminal, they were lucky none of the defendants took measures against them);
2. Leonor Cipriano was condemned this past February to 7 months in jail, for having lied about being tortured by the PJ. Every inspector, including Amaral, were immediately exonerated/the sentences were annulled. If there was no crime they could not have been accused.
-
WRONG AGAIN.
Once and for all:
1. His book was released by the Supreme Court in Lisbon and the McCann ordered to restore all the books their stupid lawyer had in her custody - they failed for almost 9 months (this is criminal, they were lucky none of the defendants took measures against them);
2. Leonor Cipriano was condemned this past February to 7 months in jail, for having lied about being tortured by the PJ. Every inspector, including Amaral, were immediately exonerated/the sentences were annulled. If there was no crime they could not have been accused.
IM referring to 2 and I believe you are wrong. Where is the ruling that annuls the charge against amaral
-
IM referring to 2 and I believe you are wrong. Where is the ruling that annuls the charge against amaral
Was the clearing of amaral reported in any newspaper... I think the answers no ...again
-
IM referring to 2 and I believe you are wrong. Where is the ruling that annuls the charge against amaral
Use google translation
Leonor Cipriano condemned for false declarations (literally)
Leonor Cipriano was sentenced on Tuesday to seven months in prison for false statements, says TVI 24. Already serving a sentence of 16 years for the murder of her daughter Joana, who vanished in September 2004, Leonor was now found to have wrongly accused officers of the Judicial Police of having assaulted her during questioning.
Leonor Cipriano, who is currently serving 16 years in prison for murder and concealment of a corpse, gave contradictory statements about alleged abuse she had suffered at the premises of the Judicial Police (PJ) in Faro during questioning that was conducted whilst investigating the disappearance of her daughter, on September 12, from the village of Figueira, Portimão.
In the ruling the collective of judges considered that the statements that Leonor Cipriano produced during the trial sessions contained "flagrant and relevant contradictions", despite having had the "opportunity to reveal the truth". The court has, however, considered the aggressions as proved, although without establishing the aggressors' identity.
In the same case, Gonçalo Amaral, a former coordinator of the PJ's Criminal Investigation Department in Portimão, who was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation, was condemned to one and a half years over the crime of false deposition, with a suspended sentence over a similar period. Inspector António Nunes Cardoso was condemned to two years and three months over forgery of a document, with a suspended sentence over two years.
In turn, the former PJ inspectors Paulo Pereira Cristóvão and Leonel Morgado Marques and Paulo Marques Bom, who all stood accused of the crimes of torture against Leonor Cipriano following the questioning, were acquitted.
http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/leonor-cipriano-condenada-a-sete-meses-de-prisao-por-falsas-declaracoes-1589891 (http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/leonor-cipriano-condenada-a-sete-meses-de-prisao-por-falsas-declaracoes-1589891)
-
Use google translation
Leonor Cipriano condemned for false declarations (literally)
http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/leonor-cipriano-condenada-a-sete-meses-de-prisao-por-falsas-declaracoes-1589891 (http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/leonor-cipriano-condenada-a-sete-meses-de-prisao-por-falsas-declaracoes-1589891)
I am well aware of this ....nowhere does it say that amaral was cleared
I also believe the torture was confirmed by the court
I think you are mistaken...again
As I have said, has any newspaper reported amaral has been cleared... the answer is no again
-
The contradictory statements about the aggressions of which she was a target were made between 2008 and 2009, at the time of the trial1 of the inspectors who investigated the "Joana Case", which resulted in the condemnation of two of the five defendants in that process.
That court considered the aggressions proven even though the identity of the attackers was never established.
Gonçalo Amaral, a former coordinator of the PJ's Criminal Investigation Department in Portimão, who was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation, was condemned to one and a half years over the crime of false deposition, with a suspended sentence over a similar period.
The inspector António Nunes Cardoso was condemned to two years and three months for the falsification of a document, with a suspended sentence of two years.
The former Judiciary Police inspectors Paulo Pereira Cristóvão, Leonel Morgado Marques and Paulo Marques Bom, who were accused of having tortured Leonor Cipriano during the questionings2 at the headquarters of the PJ of Faro, were all absolved.
this is from the mccannfiles website after the cipriano trial
it confirms that
1 the torture took place
2 Amaral was not cleared
-
WRONG AGAIN.
Once and for all:
1. His book was released by the Supreme Court in Lisbon and the McCann ordered to restore all the books their stupid lawyer had in her custody - they failed for almost 9 months (this is criminal, they were lucky none of the defendants took measures against them);
2. Leonor Cipriano was condemned this past February to 7 months in jail, for having lied about being tortured by the PJ. Every inspector, including Amaral, were immediately exonerated/the sentences were annulled. If there was no crime they could not have been accused.
So you are claiming that Amaral is not a convicted perjurer then???
Cite, please.
-
you failed to back up any claims you have made so I suppose it is natural that you have now given up the debate and resorted to name calling. Isnt that against forum rules
Amaral wasn't cleraed
I am not calling names. Are you joking?
Amaral wasn't cleared from what? From a crime that wasn't committed?
As soon as the Court found the accused guilty, a "certidão" (official document) was sent to the other Court so that the previous sentences against the Inspectors could be annulled.
-
I am not calling names. Are you joking?
Amaral wasn't cleared from what? From a crime that wasn't committed?
As soon as the Court found the accused guilty, a "certidão" (official document) was sent to the other Court so that the previous sentences against the Inspectors could be annulled.
You really do not know what is going on in your own country. You say Amaral was cleared. Wheres your proof.
-
You really do not know what is going on in your own country. You say Amaral was cleared. Wheres your proof.
I'd be very interested to see this annulment certificate that Luz claims exists, too, davel.
Although I have a feeling that we may we waiting a long time.....
-
I am not calling names. Are you joking?
Amaral wasn't cleared from what? From a crime that wasn't committed?
As soon as the Court found the accused guilty, a "certidão" (official document) was sent to the other Court so that the previous sentences against the Inspectors could be annulled.
Could you provide a link?
-
You really do not know what is going on in your own country. You say Amaral was cleared. Wheres your proof.
I know very well what is going on in my country. I was on the several court sessions that ended up with Leonor's condemnation and I read the documents that were made public at the Court of Faro.
This is not the UK, this is a democratic country.
-
Could you provide a link?
I can't offer links to documents that are in paper format.
-
I know very well what is going on in my country. I was on the several court sessions that ended up with Leonor's condemnation and I read the documents that were made public at the Court of Faro.
This is not the UK, this is a democratic country.
Proof of Amaral being l cleared,... he wasn't
-
I can't offer links to documents that are in paper format.
So no newspaper reported it, and Morais forgot to mention it 8-)(--)
-
Proof of Amaral being l cleared,... he wasn't
I don't want to insult anyone, but a 5 year old using a simple exercise of logic could understand what I have been saying.
It was proven in Court that Leonor Cipriano lied when she said she was tortured by the PJ, she was condemned and sentenced to prison for it.
How could a man stay convicted for omission of reporting something that never happened? DUHHHHH 8-)(--)
-
I don't want to insult anyone, but a 5 year old using a simple exercise of logic could understand what I have been saying.
It was proven in Court that Leonor Cipriano lied when she said she was tortured by the PJ, she was condemned and sentenced to prison for it.
How could a man stay convicted for omission of reporting something that never happened? DUHHHHH 8-)(--)
So where is the court annulment, Luz? Put up or shut up.
-
I can't offer links to documents that are in paper format.
Oh, how convenient! @)(++(*
-
Oh, how convenient! @)(++(*
Not at all, it would be a pleasure to rub it in your face (sorry moderators)
-
I don't want to insult anyone, but a 5 year old using a simple exercise of logic could understand what I have been saying.
It was proven in Court that Leonor Cipriano lied when she said she was tortured by the PJ, she was condemned and sentenced to prison for it.
How could a man stay convicted for omission of reporting something that never happened? DUHHHHH 8-)(--)
Again this was discussed at length . you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Funny how Morais has never claimed that Amaral was cleared. Do you think that is odd.
-
All amarals supporters on the net, yet not one , apart from you, has claimed amaral has been cleared...plus...you cannot provide any proof 8-)(--)
-
Not at all, it would be a pleasure to rub it in your face (sorry moderators)
Rub it in our faces then, if you can find a scanner.
I feel we may be waiting rather a long time though....
-
I can't offer links to documents that are in paper format.
Could anyone scan it?
Or even a link from a credible newspaper?
-
Could anyone scan it?
Or even a link from a credible newspaper?
luz doesn't have the document
-
If you recall, Gonçalo Amaral was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation but was condemned to 18 months over the crime of false deposition, with a suspended sentence over a similar period. Inspector António Nunes Cardoso was condemned to 2 years 3 months over forgery of a document, with a suspended sentence over two years.
Neither were convicted of assaulting Leonor Cipriano.
-
Some people hate Amaral so much they can't accept what has apparently happened in the Portuguese Courts.
For them to defend the Mccanns, they attack those who accuse or don't believe their 'heroes'.
Again it needs to be said, it wasn't just Amaral who believed the Mccanns were involved in covering up Madeleine's disappearance, it was the policy of the PJ, after the UK police pointed in the direction of the Mccanns.
-
It seems that some people want to bury their heads in the sand re Amaral and don't understand the ruling in the court. I could explain, it's quite complex, but Amaral was not cleared. No one has suggested he was involved in the assault.
-
Some people hate Amaral so much they can't accept what has apparently happened in the Portuguese Courts.
For them to defend the Mccanns, they attack those who accuse or don't believe their 'heroes'.
Again it needs to be said, it wasn't just Amaral who believed the Mccanns were involved in covering up Madeleine's disappearance, it was the policy of the PJ, after the UK police pointed in the direction of the Mccanns.
I don't think you understand what happened in the Portuguese courts. Do you also think Amaral was cleared.
Its not about hating anyone, its about seeing what is true and what isn't.
The McCanns were cleared by the Portuguese, Amaral was not.
-
Could anyone scan it?
Or even a link from a credible newspaper?
In Portugal, as in most other democratic nations, court decisions are a matter of public record.
If it were true that Amaral's conviction nad been quashed, then that would be recorded. And given the high profile nature of the matter, I imagine it would also have been widely reported.
In this case, and in the absence of any record, I believe Luz is confused. Amaral still has a criminal conviction warranting a sentence of 18 months.
-
I don't think you understand what happened in the Portuguese courts. Do you also think Amaral was cleared.
Its not about hating anyone, its about seeing what is true and what isn't.
The McCanns were cleared by the Portuguese, Amaral was not.
Not quite.
The case was shelved for lack of evidence as you know. Arguido status can be reinstated for up to 20 years after the initial period
As to Amaral, I would like to see the Court judgement after the recent Cipriano verdict of perjury.
As I've said repeatedly, Amaral wasn't the only member of the PJ who thought the Mccanns covered up what happened to Madeleine. As someone put it elsewhere, 'he was a bit player' and many other people have said the same things about the Mccanns he did.
-
Not quite.
The case was shelved for lack of evidence as you know. Arguido status can be reinstated for up to 20 years after the initial period
As to Amaral, I would like to see the Court judgement after the recent Cipriano verdict of perjury.
As I've said repeatedly, Amaral wasn't the only member of the PJ who thought the Mccanns covered up what happened to Madeleine. As someone put it elsewhere, 'he was a bit player' and many other people have said the same things about the Mccanns he did.
try and stay on track, the highlighted parts of your statement are not relavent to the thread.
So there is no evidence that Amaral has been cleared. No newspaper articles , no proclamation from the morais site. Yet we have the archiving report which seems to clear the MCCanns. on the MCcANNFILES sit the translation says that all the evidence used to make them arguidos was found to have no basis(I am paraphrasing , not the) exact words) So they have been cleared on the available evidence, of course if new evidence came to loight they could be re arrested, no one disputes that, but at the moment they have been cleared.
on the same note, do you think Barry George has been cleared?
-
try and stay on track, the highlighted parts of your statement are not relavent to the thread.
So there is no evidence that Amaral has been cleared. No newspaper articles , no proclamation from the morais site. Yet we have the archiving report which seems to clear the MCCanns. on the MCcANNFILES sit the translation says that all the evidence used to make them arguidos was found to have no basis(I am paraphrasing , not the) exact words) So they have been cleared on the available evidence, of course if new evidence came to loight they could be re arrested, no one disputes that, but at the moment they have been cleared.
on the same note, do you think Barry George has been cleared?
Barry George has been tried in Court and on appeal gained his 'freedom'.
The incompetence of Redwood and co. on display there.
The Mccanns haven't been charged, so what's your problem ?
'A lack of evidence does not mean a crime was committed'.
-
Barry George has been tried in Court and on appeal gained his 'freedom'.
The incompetence of Redwood and co. on display there.
The Mccanns haven't been charged, so what's your problem ?
'A lack of evidence does not mean a crime was committed'.
Indeed Stephen. The McCanns have not been cleared because there is nothing to clear them from. Similarly they cannot be accuse dof "failing to prove theor innocence" because that would require them to prove a negative.
And it is for this reason that the legal systems in all democratic countries are based on a presumption of innocence.
To answer the original question, I too would like to see the detail of the judgement. As things stand I do not think Amaral is in any way vindicated, and indeed on sight it does not seem to show the Portuguese legal system in a very good light. The court appears to accept that she was tortured, but have given her an extra 7 months because she is unable to identify her torturers.
-
Barry George has been tried in Court and on appeal gained his 'freedom'.
The incompetence of Redwood and co. on display there.
The Mccanns haven't been charged, so what's your problem ?
'A lack of evidence does not mean a crime was committed'.
You are starting to ramble. Simple question which is very relevant to this case, do you think Barry George has been cleared.
As regards Redwood, it was not his decision to charge Georg it was the CPS. It was not Redwood who found George guilty it was the court.
Do you accept that George has been cleared.
-
Indeed Stephen. The McCanns have not been cleared because there is nothing to clear them from. Similarly they cannot be accuse dof "failing to prove theor innocence" because that would require them to prove a negative.
And it is for this reason that the legal systems in all democratic countries are based on a presumption of innocence.
To answer the original question, I too would like to see the detail of the judgement. As things stand I do not think Amaral is in any way vindicated, and indeed on sight it does not seem to show the Portuguese legal system in a very good light. The court appears to accept that she was tortured, but have given her an extra 7 months because she is unable to identify her torturers.
[/color]
That is exactly the case. The court accepts she was tortured by the police but that some of her statement in her trial were untrue. The sentence against Amaral stays in place
-
You are starting to ramble. Simple question which is very relevant to this case, do you think Barry George has been cleared.
As regards Redwood, it was not his decision to charge Georg it was the CPS. It was not Redwood who found George guilty it was the court.
Do you accept that George has been cleared.
I have not read through all the details of the case, but the verdict was found to be unsafe as you know.
I know that Redwood didn't charge George, that's obvious, but he was part of the team used to gather the 'evidence' which ultimately was overturned on the forensics.
-
I have not read through all the details of the case, but the verdict was found to be unsafe as you know.
I know that Redwood didn't charge George, that's obvious, but he was part of the team used to gather the 'evidence' which ultimately was overturned on the forensics.
So you don't know if George was cleared or not. How odd.
You blame Redwood because you dislike him due to his support of the McCanns. He gathered evidence..that's his job ... the evidence was put before the court. the court could have found him not guilty, they didn't...not redwoods fault
-
So you don't know if George was cleared or not. How odd.
You blame Redwood because you dislike him due to his support of the McCanns. He gathered evidence..that's his job ... the evidence was put before the court. the court could have found him not guilty, they didn't...not redwoods fault
I've read enough on the case to see what's happened. I do surprisingly enough have a life beyond posting on here .
Obviously he was not 'innocent' enough to get compensation.
Meanwhile Redwood help to put the case together. >@@(*&)
-
I've read enough on the case to see what's happened. I do surprisingly enough have a life beyond posting on here .
Obviously he was not 'innocent' enough to get compensation.
Meanwhile Redwood help to put the case together. >@@(*&)
so now there are degrees of innocence..
redwood did his job.. at least he didn't write a book
-
I don't think you understand what happened in the Portuguese courts. Do you also think Amaral was cleared.
Its not about hating anyone, its about seeing what is true and what isn't.
The McCanns were cleared by the Portuguese, Amaral was not.
How exactly were they cleared Dave? They left the country when they realised that they had been made the prime suspects. Was that not in itself suspicious??
Was Kate McCanns refusal to answer police questions not suspicious for someone whose daughter had supposedly been abducted??
It is usual and normal for innocent people to cooperate with police who are investigating the alleged abduction of their child so why not the McCanns??
-
It seems that some people want to bury their heads in the sand re Amaral and don't understand the ruling in the court. I could explain, it's quite complex, but Amaral was not cleared. No one has suggested he was involved in the assault.
Not true as Cipriano claimed he was there standing in the background whilst she was beaten. He was lucky to escape that charge.
As far as Ciprianos denunciation is concerned this has no relevance for Amarals conviction. It has not been annulled as Luz has claimed.
-
Not true as Cipriano claimed he was there standing in the background whilst she was beaten. He was lucky to escape that charge.
As far as Ciprianos denunciation is concerned this has no relevance for Amarals conviction. It has not been annulled as Luz has claimed.
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 ?
-
Not true as Cipriano claimed he was there standing in the background whilst she was beaten. He was lucky to escape that charge.
As far as Ciprianos denunciation is concerned this has no relevance for Amarals conviction. It has not been annulled as Luz has claimed.
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
She obviously had the bag put over her head at some stage ergo she had sight beforehand.
That's not what she said.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
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!
-
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
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.
-
Eleanor
There are now more Arguidos amongst her probable tormentors than amongst her and The McCanns put together.[/[/color]b]
What an astute observation. Well done Eleanor.
So all you sceptics /[ censored word ]s prefer to believe a bunch of arguidos / crooks rather than The Ciprianos and the The Mccanns? Neither Leonor and Joao or Kate and Gerry have a single piece of evidence against them.
The only things against any of them is stuff theorised (made up, not even logically) by Amaral and Cristavao and company.
Both "Officers" were/ are:
1) Arguidos themselves
2) Writing books to make a lot of money on the backs of these missing children. The more salacious the tales / drama the better for mega sales of the books
3) Amaral is now a convicted perjurer (liar). Cristavao is presently charged with seven crimes
4) Both men have further cases against them, to be presented in the Courts at a future date
5) Both men were "eased" out of their positions as PJ Officers.
And the sceptics / [ censored word ]s on here prefer to believe these guys and their mates (many were arguidos too) to The Mccanns and the Tapas group ?
Time to start thinking Guys .... and climbing down, aplogizing ... or if you are unable to do that, desisting from posting. Remember you are posting to back these dishonest PJ Officers against defenceless couples who are almost certainly completely innocent.
Poor defenceless Leonor (and Joao). She didn't stand a chance against this cruel mob
-
Thank you, Sadie. Much better put than I could have done, with regard to the peripheral things. I tend to balk at going into too much detail. I wish that I didn't.
But these were all proven to have been dishonourable men long before The McCanns ever set foot in Portugal. It is only now that their misdeeds are catching up with them.
If it had not been for their arrogance and greed we would probably never have known.
I don't really understand them, any more than I understand this sort of behaviour in any Policeman. But I do have some sort of insight into why they do this. Amaral went too far with The McCanns because he was worried that things were catching up with him, and he thought that he could twist things to get him off the hook.
Did he actually believe that The McCanns were guilty? I suppose that he might have done, without face of evidence. I will at least give him that.
And as an aside because I try always to be honest, I once dumped a dead small puppy in a bin because the ground was frozen and I couldn't bury her. So I cannot in all truth castigate him for dumping his dead dog in a bin.
Like I left my small children alone and cannot castigate The McCanns either.
PS. Sorry about all they dead mice. But you try living with hundreds of them eating your mattresses.
-
Thank you, Sadie. Much better put than I could have done, with regard to the peripheral things. I tend to balk at going into too much detail. I wish that I didn't.
But these were all proven to have been dishonourable men long before The McCanns ever set foot in Portugal. It is only now that their misdeeds are catching up with them.
If it had not been for their arrogance and greed we would probably never have known.
I don't really understand them, any more than I understand this sort of behaviour in any Policeman. But I do have some sort of insight into why they do this. Amaral went too far with The McCanns because he was worried that things were catching up with him, and he thought that he could twist things to get him off the hook.
Did he actually believe that The McCanns were guilty? I suppose that he might have done, without face of evidence. I will at least give him that.
And as an aside because I try always to be honest, I once dumped a dead small puppy in a bin because the ground was frozen and I couldn't bury her. So I cannot in all truth castigate him for dumping his dead dog in a bin.
Like I left my small children alone and cannot castigate The McCanns either.
PS. Sorry about all they dead mice. But you try living with hundreds of them eating your mattresses.
8@??)( and @)(++(*
Pure Eleanor. So wise, so fair, so well put .... and yet so witty at the same time
-
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.
The court was not convened to decide whether Cipriano had been beaten but whether she had committed perjury.
-
How can you commit perjury when you can't remember what happened because the blood from your beaten head was pouring into your eyes?
How can you commit perjury when you think you might die?
You have to be aware of what you are doing to commit perjury. Which Amaral obviously was. He was also convicted of perjury.
-
How can you commit perjury when you can't remember what happened because the blood from your beaten head was pouring into your eyes?
How can you commit perjury when you think you might die?
You have to be aware of what you are doing to commit perjury. Which Amaral obviously was. He was also convicted of perjury.
Leonor was blinded for a month, from that blood running down into her eyes. All because of the cruel torture she received at the hands of these wicked people.
It must have affected her mentally.
But seems there are some on here who condone such cruelty
-
How can you commit perjury when you can't remember what happened because the blood from your beaten head was pouring into your eyes?
How can you commit perjury when you think you might die?
You have to be aware of what you are doing to commit perjury. Which Amaral obviously was. He was also convicted of perjury.
If you are blinded by blood or afraid you might die you say you don't remember because of it.. What you don't do is lie under oath in a court of law.
-
Leonor was blinded for a month, from that blood running down into her eyes. All because of the cruel torture she received at the hands of these wicked people.
It must have affected her mentally.
But seems there are some on here who condone such cruelty
@)(++(*
-
Leonor was blinded for a month, from that blood running down into her eyes. All because of the cruel torture she received at the hands of these wicked people.
It must have affected her mentally.
But seems there are some on here who condone such cruelty
Faith @)(++(*
Yep, that's really funny, isn't it?
Laughing at a woman blinded for a month by torture
Sad ..... that's what you are tbh. 8()(((@#
-
If you are blinded by blood or afraid you might die you say you don't remember because of it.. What you don't do is lie under oath in a court of law.
Oh, I see. You pretend that none of it ever happened, even what little you do remember? Let's not make a fuss about the fact that they beat her nearly witless.
If you find this acceptable or even understandable then I can only suggest that you have got some serious issues about humanity in general. I might even go so far as to suggest that you have no humanity.
God preserve you if you are ever accused of something that you didn't do. You wouldn't last five minutes.
-
The court was not convened to decide whether Cipriano had been beaten but whether she had committed perjury.
I'm aware of that.
But Luz was saying that because she'd been convicted of perjury, no torture had occurred and therefore all the officers had their convictions overturned. Which doesn't appear to be the case.
-
I'm aware of that.
But Luz was saying that because she'd been convicted of perjury, no torture had occurred and therefore all the officers had their convictions overturned. Which doesn't appear to be the case.
It isn't the case. Amaral committed Perjury in Writing. You have to go some to talk your way out of that. The Perjury was in his own hand.
Personally, I believe that Amaral was there when it was happening. But I don't have any evidence to prove this.
-
Oh, I see. You pretend that none of it ever happened, even what little you do remember? Let's not make a fuss about the fact that they beat her nearly witless.
If you find this acceptable or even understandable then I can only suggest that you have got some serious issues about humanity in general. I might even go so far as to suggest that you have no humanity.
God preserve you if you are ever accused of something that you didn't do. You wouldn't last five minutes.
All your rather emotive rhetoric does not divert from the fact that if Cipriano did not remember, or was indeed unclear about anything that happened to her, she should have said so. There is absolutely no excuse for lying under oath. The judge agreed and that is why she now has a conviction for perjury and seven extra months added to her sentence.
-
Never mind. This latest piece of insanity will just give Leonor Cipriano more compensation for inhuman treatment.
The Court of Human Rights does not work by Portuguese rules.
And that seven months will only amount to less than two months anyway.
-
Never mind. This latest piece of insanity will just give Leonor Cipriano more compensation for inhuman treatment.
The Court of Human Rights does not work by Portuguese rules.
And that seven months will only amount to less than two months anyway.
What compensation ?
-
The Compensation that Leonor Cipriano will get, for being tortured in PJ Custody. Even a Portuguese Court has admitted to that.
-
Some people need reminding they are supporting a convicted murderer.
-
Some people need reminding they are supporting a convicted murderer.
Simply as a prop to their hatred of Amaral.
I wonder if these same people would share the same disgust about Cipriano's treatment had Amaral not been involved in the case?
I somehow doubt it, she is simply a convenient stick with which to beat Amaral.
-
Simply as a prop to their hatred of Amaral.
I wonder if these same people would share the same disgust about Cipriano's treatment had Amaral not been involved in the case?
I somehow doubt it, she is simply a convenient stick with which to beat Amaral.
I totally agree Albertini.
The hatred of him oozes from some of the comments.
As has been stated before, by me and others, nothing Amaral has said, is new, it's been said by many others.
-
I totally agree Albertini.
The hatred of him oozes from some of the comments.
As has been stated before, by me and others, nothing Amaral has said, is new, it's been said by many others.
Just as the hatred of the MCCanns oozes from many comments, wouldn't you agree?
-
Some people need reminding they are supporting a convicted murderer.
Some people need reminding that they are supporting a convicted perjurer and fraudster.
-
The hatred of him oozes from some of the comments.
As has been stated before, by me and others, nothing Amaral has said, is new, it's been said by many others.
It is understandable that Mrs McCann hates Mr Amaral, like it is clear in "Madeleine", because her conviction of what happened to Madeleine is challenged by Mr Amaral's account of this reality and no evidence makes one more likely than the other.
But I don't understand the passion Mr Amaral's name seems to produce recurrently on this forum. Do some posters reinforce Mr Amaral's faults and mistakes because in fact they have no arguments to support positively the McCanns ?
-
I dont think anyone hates Amaral. It would be illogical to hate someone whom one has not actually met.
Having failed to prove his "thesis" that the McCanns are guilty of various crimes, and having failed to discover any evidence, he then takes the highly unusal step of writing a book about the case, making a documentary and giving interviews during which he puts forward his thesis that Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents covered this up and disposed of her body. (rather than relying on due process).
He claims that this was to "defend his honour". And of course trousering a few euros out of the story as well (How much was he charging for interviews?). If defending his honour had been his motive, he could have donated the proceeds to charity.
So we have an ex cop exploiting the disappearance of a little girl, and the grief of her parents, to enrich himself. Hate is not the appropraie word.
Despise, maybe.
And pity.
-
Goncalo Amaral grossly botched the investigation. That in itself might have been forgivable. No one is perfect. But his other criminal acts and misdemeanors are on record, so writing that book was an act of enormous stupidity. He brought himself into the public eye, far more so than did The McCanns. So therefor he must expect that his past life will be laid open to discussion.
-
But, Eleanor, don't you think that Gerry, Kate and Gonçalo should be left to justice ? Shouldn't we, as The people, only make sure that what happened to Madeleine McCann isn't tossed onto the garbage heap of history ?
-
But, Eleanor, don't you think that Gerry, Kate and Gonçalo should be left to justice ? Shouldn't we, as The people, only make sure that what happened to Madeleine McCann isn't tossed onto the garbage heap of history ?
Don't tempt me. That would be very silly.
-
Goncalo Amaral grossly botched the investigation.
Do you have direct evidence either from the PJ, the AG report, Leicestershire Police or Scotland Yard that the investigation under Amaral was "grossly botched"?
It's a genuine question Eleanor.
-
Do you have direct evidence either from the PJ, the AG report, Leicestershire Police or Scotland Yard that the investigation under Amaral was "grossly botched"?
It's a genuine question Eleanor.
Have you read his book?
-
Albertini - perhaps you could comment on the passage below.
_________________
Correio da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body?
Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.
How can you state that?
Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk’s right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it’s the only way to explain what happened there.
-
Have you read his book?
Yes, but i asked you what evidence you had from a third party which confirmed the investigation was botched.
Given the nature of LP's involvement and if the investigation was as bad as you said it was then surely LP would have publically stated so, distancing themselves from the investigation?
-
Albertini - perhaps you could comment on the passage below.
_________________
Correio da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body?
Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.
How can you state that?
Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk’s right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it’s the only way to explain what happened there.
That total "misunderstanding" of the DNA results, together with his conviction that if Eddie barked it necessarily indicated a cadaver, his fixation on the window, and a few other gems led him to the conclusion:
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
There was simulation of abduction.
Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter’s body.
The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;
The evidence proves the parents’ negligence concerning the care and safety of the children.
And that is what casual readers would retain.
-
Given the nature of LP's involvement and if the investigation was as bad as you said it was then surely LP would have publically stated so, distancing themselves from the investigation?
I don't think so, police forces have some kind of code of ethics that transcends borders.
But they would likely have tried and corrected errors at an unofficial level. The British lusophone police officer who spent many months with the PJ was willing to testify for Mr Amaral but was forbidden to do it by his hierarchy.
-
I don't think so, police forces have some kind of code of ethics that transcends borders.
But they would likely have tried and corrected errors at an unofficial level. The British lusophone police officer who spent many months with the PJ was willing to testify for Mr Amaral but was forbidden to do it by his hierarchy.
I don't find that particularly surprising. Serving officers wouldn't normally testify in civil cases, as far as I know.
Even if it were possible, he would have found himself at the centre of a diplomatic incident.
-
Mr Amaral wrote :
"Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter’s body."
And that is what casual readers would retain.
They will retain as the AG she more likely died than not. If so, as readers are critical, they'd wonder
If she died accidentally in the flat, her parents couldn't but find her and dispose of her body.
If she died accidentally (time doesn't allow much more) at the hands of a predator in the flat, his taking the body away doesn't make sense, except for matching the carrying way of the man without a face and an eventual knowledge he'd have that his DNA would betray him.
If she died accidentally outside of the flat, either she was disposed of by the person who accidentally killed her or she was found by her parents who disposed of her body because their responsibility was total.
So Madeleine could have died inside or close to the flat without her parents being involved in the disappearance of her body.
-
I don't find that particularly surprising. Serving officers wouldn't normally testify in civil cases, as far as I know.
Even if it were possible, he would have found himself at the centre of a diplomatic incident.
A diplomatic incident ?
At least one Portuguese serving officer testified.
-
A diplomatic incident ?
At least one Portuguese serving officer testified.
The British police have been discreet throughout. Jose de Freitas is British.
-
The British police have been discreet throughout. Jose de Freitas is British.
Yes, I said he was and was sent for no other reason than some fluency in Portuguese. He was willing to testify but on the first trial day we learnt he hadn't been authorized to. I'm not sure it was reasonable, because of course it fed some conspiracy suspicions.
-
They will retain as the AG she more likely died than not. If so, as readers are critical, they'd wonder
If she died accidentally in the flat, her parents couldn't but find her and dispose of her body.
If she died accidentally (time doesn't allow much more) at the hands of a predator in the flat, his taking the body away doesn't make sense, except for matching the carrying way of the man without a face and an eventual knowledge he'd have that his DNA would betray him.
If she died accidentally outside of the flat, either she was disposed of by the person who accidentally killed her or she was found by her parents who disposed of her body because their responsibility was total.
So Madeleine could have died inside or close to the flat without her parents being involved in the disappearance of her body.
Anne
This post is mumbo jumbo. It has no logic in it, that I can see
Apart from trying by any means to sow the seed in peoples minds that at the very least The Mccanns disposed of a body. That appears to be the only purpose of it.
There was no body Anne. As you say, no abductor would carry away a living child thru the streets.
Think about it Anne
Had the Mccanns engineered the disposal of a dead Madeleine, there is no way that they (Gerry) would have openly carried their dead daughters body thru the streets. That would have been stupid. Had it happened, it would have been hidden in a suitcase or a large bag
Jane Tanners and The Smiths sightings indicate that a LIVING child WAS carried thru the streets.
No man would normally take such a risk. Therefor it points to the abduction having gone wrong
The logical conclusion is that:
The get away driver took fright upon seeing the abduction witnessed by Jane Tanner and drove off in the opposite direction leaving bundleman in the lurch.
Bundleman didn't chose to carry; he was forced into it by circumstances beyond his control.
-
They will retain as the AG she more likely died than not. If so, as readers are critical, they'd wonder
If she died accidentally in the flat, her parents couldn't but find her and dispose of her body.
If she died accidentally (time doesn't allow much more) at the hands of a predator in the flat, his taking the body away doesn't make sense, except for matching the carrying way of the man without a face and an eventual knowledge he'd have that his DNA would betray him.
If she died accidentally outside of the flat, either she was disposed of by the person who accidentally killed her or she was found by her parents who disposed of her body because their responsibility was total.
So Madeleine could have died inside or close to the flat without her parents being involved in the disappearance of her body.
Anne, you are quoting the wrong person. Would you mind correcting that, please?
ETA: I see what happened. You quoted me, quoting Amaral....
-
That's it ! Sorry for that, Carana, I corrected.
-
I thought this was largely The Cipriano Forum. Difficult, I know to leave Amaral out of it, but where do The Mccanns come into this?
No, Amaral is not vindicated. His Perjury was written and signed by him. You can't argue around that.
-
Oh, I see that all this evidence against Amaral has been nicely wiped from the Madeleine forum into a place where people looking at the Madeleine case will never see it.
Clever move. Keep Amarals image clean in the Madeleine Forum. 8**8:/:
HO HUM! >@@(*&)
There has to be a reasion. We all know the reason dont we?
-
Oh, I see that all this evidence against Amaral has been nicely wiped from the Madeleine forum into a place where people looking at the Madeleine case will never see it.
Clever move. Keep Amarals image clean in the Madeleine Forum. 8**8:/:
HO HUM! >@@(*&)
There has to be a reasion. We all know the reason dont we?
The Cipriano Forum is much more interesting at the moment. Although I note that posts are being removed.
-
Oh, I see that all this evidence against Amaral has been nicely wiped from the Madeleine forum into a place where people looking at the Madeleine case will never see it.
Clever move. Keep Amarals image clean in the Madeleine Forum. 8**8:/:
HO HUM! >@@(*&)
There has to be a reasion. We all know the reason dont we?
Its a sane decision to keep the paranoids and tin foil hats at bay......also the legit people who want to discuss the case of what happened to joana Cipriano without the constant bleating of amaral amaral amaral.....he is evil he must die etc
@)(++(*
-
Its a sane decision to keep the paranoids and tin foil hats at bay......also the legit people who want to discuss the case of what happened to joana Cipriano without the constant bleating of amaral amaral amaral.....he is evil he must die etc
@)(++(*
Do you want him to die, Red?
I didn't think he was THAT bad
-
Oh, I see that all this evidence against Amaral has been nicely wiped from the Madeleine forum into a place where people looking at the Madeleine case will never see it.
Clever move. Keep Amarals image clean in the Madeleine Forum. 8**8:/:
HO HUM! >@@(*&)
There has to be a reasion. We all know the reason dont we?
Well that's quite simple isn't it.
What the mccanns allowed to happened to Madeleine is nothing to do with what the Cipriano's did to Joana.
-
Off topic spamming posts will be removed on sight as per forum rules and warnings given on many occasions.