Author Topic: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?  (Read 15951 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline C.Edwards

Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« on: October 18, 2013, 09:24:16 AM »
"truth about amaral" and "agendas"?  Did they descend into name calling?  The Amaral one was crossing into the bounds of straight up harassment of the poor bloke but aside from that seemed to be just about under control and was quite interesting as an expose (dunno how to do the accented "e"!) about how those that really don't like him feel!

I actually thought Icabod was making a good point about Dhingra too, if I'm honest.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 08:53:11 PM by John »

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2013, 09:58:10 AM »
"truth about amaral" and "agendas"?  Did they descend into name calling?  The Amaral one was crossing into the bounds of straight up harassment of the poor bloke but aside from that seemed to be just about under control and was quite interesting as an expose (dunno how to do the accented "e"!) about how those that really don't like him feel!

I actually thought Icabod was making a good point about Dhingra too, if I'm honest.
That's true, but those bitter threads/posts are vim consuming, imo.

Offline davel

Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2013, 03:40:38 PM »
"truth about amaral" and "agendas"?  Did they descend into name calling?  The Amaral one was crossing into the bounds of straight up harassment of the poor bloke but aside from that seemed to be just about under control and was quite interesting as an expose (dunno how to do the accented "e"!) about how those that really don't like him feel!

I actually thought Icabod was making a good point about Dhingra too, if I'm honest.

did you read the thread it was quite bizarre. serendipity posted something from the Amnesty website which he had obviously altered himself... but continued to deny it

Offline C.Edwards

Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2013, 05:50:33 PM »
did you read the thread it was quite bizarre. serendipity posted something from the Amnesty website which he had obviously altered himself... but continued to deny it

I clearly recall serendipity saying he'd added the red text himself.  You were so busy being outraged that you didn't seem to notice, however.  The point I think he was making was that Amnesty International used to have something on their site about the torture of Cipriano and that a part of it had been removed.  I was tired so didn't take it all in properly at the time.  In a nutshell she was found to have lied. Therefore other than a faintly ridiculous (for a given level of ridiculous, of course) legal system judging that even though Amaral did not lie in his document he kind of didn't know he wasn't lying at the time and therefore his suspended sentence remained, it's pretty much all over bar the shouting, isn't it?

I know that you still like to fling other accusations of wrongdoing at him but as there don't seem to be any non-Amaral-hating blogs/sites to back up these alleged other misdemeanours of his, I'll take them with a pinch of salt thanks.  Feel free to provide me with links to prove your point, however, I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I can't find them.

Offline davel

Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2013, 05:56:48 PM »
I clearly recall serendipity saying he'd added the red text himself.  You were so busy being outraged that you didn't seem to notice, however.  The point I think he was making was that Amnesty International used to have something on their site about the torture of Cipriano and that a part of it had been removed.  I was tired so didn't take it all in properly at the time.  In a nutshell she was found to have lied. Therefore other than a faintly ridiculous (for a given level of ridiculous, of course) legal system judging that even though Amaral did not lie in his document he kind of didn't know he wasn't lying at the time and therefore his suspended sentence remained, it's pretty much all over bar the shouting, isn't it?

I know that you still like to fling other accusations of wrongdoing at him but as there don't seem to be any non-Amaral-hating blogs/sites to back up these alleged other misdemeanours of his, I'll take them with a pinch of salt thanks.  Feel free to provide me with links to prove your point, however, I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I can't find them.

Serendipity certainly didn't admit to altering the report but as the evidence has been removed I can't show you-..You also have the second part wrong..nothing has been removed from the amnesty website..doesn't change anything...amaral remains a convicted criminal
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 06:02:41 PM by davel »

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2013, 06:03:17 PM »
I am sure serendipity will come on at some stage and repost...their post made sense to me. Just another poster being accused of doctoring etc etc

Offline davel

Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2013, 06:06:27 PM »
I am sure serendipity will come on at some stage and repost...their post made sense to me. Just another poster being accused of doctoring etc etc

as the post has been removed, nothing can be confirmed. perhaps serendipity would like to repost

Offline C.Edwards

Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2013, 06:10:11 PM »
Serendipity certainly didn't admit to altering the report but as the evidence has been removed I can't show you-..You also have the second part wrong..nothing has been removed from the amnesty website..doesn't change anything...a marl remains a convicted criminal

Yes, he did admit to adding the text. "I added it myself" were, I think, his direct words. I'm pretty sure that Serendipity was saying that there used to be a longer section on the Amnesty site which got removed.

The current Amnesty site is wrong as far as I can see. It still shows the "May 22nd" ruling as being current in some way when that is from 2009! In April this year, Cipriano was sentenced to 7 months more in jail for lying about being tortured.  Amaral remains convicted of false testimony, which wasn't actually false testimony! Everyone but the ardent Amaral-bashers has accepted this and moved on.

Offline davel

Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2013, 06:14:46 PM »
Yes, he did admit to adding the text. "I added it myself" were, I think, his direct words. I'm pretty sure that Serendipity was saying that there used to be a longer section on the Amnesty site which got removed.

The current Amnesty site is wrong as far as I can see. It still shows the "May 22nd" ruling as being current in some way when that is from 2009! In April this year, Cipriano was sentenced to 7 months more in jail for lying about being tortured.  Amaral remains convicted of false testimony, which wasn't actually false testimony! Everyone but the ardent Amaral-bashers has accepted this and moved on.

no he didn't admit to altering the text..in fact his behaviour is quite bizarre.  As you have said and I agree with you..amaral remains convicted

Offline Serendipity

Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2013, 07:48:29 PM »
Serendipity certainly didn't admit to altering the report but as the evidence has been removed I can't show you-..You also have the second part wrong..nothing has been removed from the amnesty website..doesn't change anything...amaral remains a convicted criminal

I clearly stated last night that I had taken screenshots of each of the available Amnesty International Reports for Portugal  for the years 2009 to 2013 and had collated them into one screenshot as shown below.  I then added my own text in red which clarified the point I was making which clearly explained the purpose of the screenshot.

Yours and others accusations last night that I have altered or falsified official documents are totally unwarranted and incorrect and I expect a full apology  from you. :)

Here are the supportive links which are all referenced in the screenshot that was posted last night. Compare them all and you will clearly see that they are the same :)

2009 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2009

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

2010 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2010

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

2011 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2011

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

2012 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2012

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

But lookee here at the 2013 report, there is no longer any reference to Goncalo Amaral or Leonor Cipriano under the heading 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2013

So Davel, why do think it is that there is now no mention of either Amaral or Cipriano in the 2013 report given that there has been in all of those years (2009 - 2012) since the original case came to court?

I'll tell you why, it is because in April 2013 Leonor Cipriano had a further 7 months added to her sentence for false testimony for lying about being tortured by the PJ.  Therefore as she lied about it, Goncalo Amaral is no longer of interest regarding the Cipriano case as far as Amnesty International are concerned, hence no mention of the case in the current report.

Like I said last night, it is not rocket science :)

And now I am going out for the evening so I will be logging out and so will bid you adieu and look forward to catching up with you again :)

Oh and here is the screenshot that I posted last night :)










« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 07:52:38 PM by Serendipity »

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2013, 07:51:50 PM »
 8((()*/

have a good night out S




Offline C.Edwards

Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2013, 07:54:04 PM »
I clearly stated last night that I had taken screenshots of each of the available Amnesty International Reports for Portugal  for the years 2009 to 2013 and had collated them into one screenshot as shown below.  I then added my own text in red which clarified the point I was making which clearly explained the purpose of the screenshot.

Yours and others accusations last night that I have altered or falsified official documents are totally unwarranted and incorrect and I expect a full apology  from you. :)

Here are the supportive links which are all referenced in the screenshot that was posted last night. Compare them all and you will clearly see that they are the same :)

2009 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2009

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

2010 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2010

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

2011 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2011

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

2012 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2012

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

But lookee here at the 2013 report, there is no longer any reference to Goncalo Amaral or Leonor Cipriano under the heading 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2013

So Davel, why do think it is that there is now no mention of either Amaral or Cipriano in the 2013 report given that there has been in all of those years (2009 - 2012) since the original case came to court?

I'll tell you why, it is because in April 2013 Leonor Cipriano had a further 7 months added to her sentence for false testimony for lying about being tortured by the PJ.  Therefore as she lied about it, Goncalo Amaral is no longer of interest regarding the Cipriano case as far as Amnesty International are concerned, hence no mention of the case in the current report.

Like I said last night, it is not rocket science :)

And now I am going out for the evening so I will be logging out and so will bid you adieu and look forward to catching up with you again :)

Oh and here is the screenshot that I posted last night :)



 8((()*/

Predicted Davel response: "doesn't matter, he's still a convicted criminal".

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2013, 08:09:39 PM »
I clearly stated last night that I had taken screenshots of each of the available Amnesty International Reports for Portugal  for the years 2009 to 2013 and had collated them into one screenshot as shown below.  I then added my own text in red which clarified the point I was making which clearly explained the purpose of the screenshot.

Yours and others accusations last night that I have altered or falsified official documents are totally unwarranted and incorrect and I expect a full apology  from you. :)

Here are the supportive links which are all referenced in the screenshot that was posted last night. Compare them all and you will clearly see that they are the same :)

2009 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2009

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

2010 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2010

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

2011 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2011

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

2012 Amnesty International Report
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2012

Reference to Cipriano case found under 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

But lookee here at the 2013 report, there is no longer any reference to Goncalo Amaral or Leonor Cipriano under the heading 'Torture and other ill-treatment'

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/portugal/report-2013

So Davel, why do think it is that there is now no mention of either Amaral or Cipriano in the 2013 report given that there has been in all of those years (2009 - 2012) since the original case came to court?

I'll tell you why, it is because in April 2013 Leonor Cipriano had a further 7 months added to her sentence for false testimony for lying about being tortured by the PJ.  Therefore as she lied about it, Goncalo Amaral is no longer of interest regarding the Cipriano case as far as Amnesty International are concerned, hence no mention of the case in the current report.

Like I said last night, it is not rocket science :)

And now I am going out for the evening so I will be logging out and so will bid you adieu and look forward to catching up with you again :)

Oh and here is the screenshot that I posted last night :)



Thank you for that informative post Serendipity!

It makes very interesting reading. Enjoy your night, I'm sure you'll find a full apology from the forum member who made the accusations waiting for you in the morning!

Offline Angelo222

Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #13 on: October 18, 2013, 08:11:31 PM »
According to my information a thread which was started merely to consider Mr Amaral's conviction ended up in the usual spates over the Leonor Cipriano case with Neeley continually posting that there was no forensic evidence.  IIRC traces of Joana's blood was found on a door frame which investigators aleged was the result of a viscous assault by her uncle.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 08:17:51 PM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline C.Edwards

Re: Does Cipriano's convictions let Amaral and the PJ off the hook?
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2013, 08:16:06 PM »
According to my information a thread which was started merely to consider Mr Amaral's conviction ended up with the usual spates over the Leonor Cipriano case with one poster disputing the forensic evidence which convicted her.

It often does.  Those that despise Amaral for his views on the McCanns are unable (or at least unwilling) to accept that the reason he was convicted can very validly be described as a technicality.  He wasn't present, he was told what had happened and he accepted that.  He could hardly carry out a full investigation, he checked with Cipriano at the time and it wasn't until later that she changed her story. I'm not entirely sure what else he could have done.

IF he had denounced his men and said, "you know what, I think you tortured her..." then he'd have been caught out when Cipriano was subsequently found to have been lying!  He was damned if he did and was damned if he didn't.  The Portuguese legal system needs looking at!