The beating and conviction of Leonor Cipriano

[ferryman]

SO BY THAT LOGIC HONESTBROKER, ANYONE CONVICTED OF A CRIME IS GUILTY.

so you must agree CIPRIANO IS GULITY OF HER DAUGHTER'S MURDER ?

A simple 'yes' or 'yes' will do. 

Seeing as Leonor's conviction has not been overturned people are entitled to assert as if "fact" that Leonor murdered her daughter, yes.

And seeing as the governor of the prison had Leonor medically examined, it is a fact, asserted by a medical doctor, that Leonor was tortured.

How the Portuguese system regards the conviction as safe despite that fact is beyond me.

But it does.

[Redblossom]

Confessions are inadmissible in court, therefore she was not convicted on this confession, but for other reasons, thatshe was beaten up by persons unknown has nothing to do with the safety of the conviction

[faithlilly]

Is it a fact that Amaral has a conviction for covering up torture to Leonor Cipriano?

Or is it a fact that Amaral has a conviction for covering up torture to Leonor Cipriano?

A straight "yes" or "yes" will do

And you don't suppose that in this country if the lead prosecution witness had been convicted of perjury while testifying in the very same case Amaral's conviction would have been swiftly overturned ?

[stephen25000]

And you don't suppose that in this country if the lead prosecution witness had been convicted of perjury while testifying in the very same case Amaral's conviction would have been swiftly overturned ?

Indeed, well said Faithlilly.

Meanwhile honestbroker, opn what evidence was Amaral convicted of colluding with 'torture' of the murderer Cipriano ?

[Benice]

And you don't suppose that in this country if the lead prosecution witness had been convicted of perjury while testifying in the very same case Amaral's conviction would have been swiftly overturned ?

Surely not in the Cipriano case though, because Leonor did not accuse Amaral of writing or confirming an erroneous report of what had happened to her.   How could she know who had done that? - she wasn't there.  The same goes for the other police officer who was convicted of forgery.   Surely it would be their own  'paperwork' which those two had submitted that would have been used as evidence against them.   

She was convicted of perjury because she couldn't prove the men who she had named as her torturers were those men.   

If they were innocent then it is understandable they would want that 'slur' on their name removed.  However, someone tortured her at that police station.   But as far as I am aware - the Pj have not been able to find out who the criminals were who perpetrated this atrocity under their very own roof.   Unbelievable!
IMHO

 

 



     

[stephen25000]

Surely not in the Cipriano case though, because Leonor did not accuse Amaral of writing or confirming an erroneous report of what had happened to her.   How could she know who had done that? - she wasn't there.  The same goes for the other police officer who was convicted of forgery.   Surely it would be their own  'paperwork' which those two had submitted that would have been used as evidence against them.   

She was convicted of perjury because she couldn't prove the men who she had named as her torturers were those men.   

If they were innocent then it is understandable they would want that 'slur' on their name removed.  However, someone tortured her at that police station.   But as far as I am aware - the Pj have not been able to find out who the criminals were who perpetrated this atrocity under their very own roof.   Unbelievable!
IMHO

Have you forgotten this woman is convicted of murdering her own daughter.
 

 



     

[Benice]

What has that got to do with content of my post?

[Eleanor]

What has that got to do with content of my post?

What has it got to do with torturing a suspect?  Was she ever made an Arguida with the right to silence?

[Mrs. B]

http://iscte.pt/~apad/ACED_juristas/maddietrab_ficheiros/Acordao%20Leonor%20Cipriano%20contra%20Goncalo%20e%20outros.%2022Maio2009.pdf

Here's the full verdict (case against Amaral) if anyone is interested.

[faithlilly]

Surely not in the Cipriano case though, because Leonor did not accuse Amaral of writing or confirming an erroneous report of what had happened to her.   How could she know who had done that? - she wasn't there.  The same goes for the other police officer who was convicted of forgery.   Surely it would be their own  'paperwork' which those two had submitted that would have been used as evidence against them.   

She was convicted of perjury because she couldn't prove the men who she had named as her torturers were those men.   

If they were innocent then it is understandable they would want that 'slur' on their name removed.  However, someone tortured her at that police station.   But as far as I am aware - the Pj have not been able to find out who the criminals were who perpetrated this atrocity under their very own roof.   Unbelievable!
IMHO

 

 



     

No, she was convicted of perjury because she was proven to have lied. In the UK proving a lead prosecution witness lied would send the case speedily back to the court of appeal where the conviction,  procured on that evidence, would be quashed.

[faithlilly]

http://sicnoticias.sapo.pt/pais/2013/03/04/comeca-hoje-julgamento-de-leonor-cipriano

The Court of Faro will request the Public Ministry to open a judicial inquiry on Leonor Cipriano over the crime of false statements in the trial of present and former PJ inspectors within the “Joana case”.

In the ruling, that was read out on Friday and which the Lusa Agency accessed today, the collective of judges considered that the statements that Leonor Cipriano produced during the trial sessions contained “flagrant and relevant contradictions”, and therefore determined that a certificate should be extracted, to which a copy of the tape recordings was added.

In the verdict, it is mentioned that the mother of the child that disappeared on the 12th of September 2004, in the village of Figueira, in Portimão, “was offered (…) an extensive opportunity to reveal the truth” during the trial sessions at the Court of Faro, but “essentially seized the opportunity to lie”.

“Leonor Cipriano lied about the manner in which she was beaten, about the identification of the persons that beat her, about the time and the manner how she revealed that she had been beaten, in short, she lied about every essential aspect of the statements that she gave”, the verdict stresses.

Underlining that Leonor Cipriano presented “no plausible reason whatsoever to have done so”, the collective of three judges, presided by Henrique Pavão, considered that Joana’s mother revealed “major contradictions” and that she presented “very different versions for one and the same fact”.

[AnneGuedes]

What was Bill Clinton accused of ? Some intimate relationship in the Oval Office ?
Though an inappropriate place, it isn't the reason why Bill Clinton was impeached.
Perjury was : he had lied.
Requiring a two-thirds majority for a conviction, 45 senators (out of 100) voted guilty on the perjury charge.

[Benice]

http://sicnoticias.sapo.pt/pais/2013/03/04/comeca-hoje-julgamento-de-leonor-cipriano

The Court of Faro will request the Public Ministry to open a judicial inquiry on Leonor Cipriano over the crime of false statements in the trial of present and former PJ inspectors within the “Joana case”.

In the ruling, that was read out on Friday and which the Lusa Agency accessed today, the collective of judges considered that the statements that Leonor Cipriano produced during the trial sessions contained “flagrant and relevant contradictions”, and therefore determined that a certificate should be extracted, to which a copy of the tape recordings was added.

In the verdict, it is mentioned that the mother of the child that disappeared on the 12th of September 2004, in the village of Figueira, in Portimão, “was offered (…) an extensive opportunity to reveal the truth” during the trial sessions at the Court of Faro, but “essentially seized the opportunity to lie”.

“Leonor Cipriano lied about the manner in which she was beaten, about the identification of the persons that beat her, about the time and the manner how she revealed that she had been beaten, in short, she lied about every essential aspect of the statements that she gave”, the verdict stresses.

Underlining that Leonor Cipriano presented “no plausible reason whatsoever to have done so”, the collective of three judges, presided by Henrique Pavão, considered that Joana’s mother revealed “major contradictions” and that she presented “very different versions for one and the same fact”.

But all that is irrelevant to Amaral's crime. She would have nothing to do with the evidence that was used to prove Amaral lied.  How could she know what he had put in a report?    The court ruled that (regardless of who had tortured her ) - she HAD been tortured in that police station, and Amaral was found guilty of helping to cover that up by submitting a false report about the incident.     

Although there may have been a question over the identity of the men who tortured her, there was no question at all about the identity of the person who wrote the erroneous report - i.e. Goncalo Amaral. 



 

[AnneGuedes]

But all that is irrelevant to Amaral's crime. She would have nothing to do with the evidence that was used to prove Amaral lied.  How could she know what he had put in a report?    The court ruled that (regardless of who had tortured her ) - she HAD been tortured in that police station, and Amaral was found guilty of helping to cover that up by submitting a false report about the incident.     

Although there may have been a question over the identity of the men who tortured her, there was no question at all about the identity of the person who wrote the erroneous report - i.e. Goncalo Amaral. 



 

It would certainly be more profitable for Leonor C. to be supported in a concrete way by so well informed posters.
But it seems the purpose here is only to demonize Mr Amaral in order to sanctify Madeleine's parents.

[Eleanor]

Some of us actually care about what was done to Leonor Cipriano.  Torture is a disgrace in a modern day society of any nation.
If Goncalo Amaral had not written his abusive and lying book none of us would have known anything about The Ciprianos or what was done to them.