An excellent representation of the facts as always Benice. The problem is that we are discussing a case in Portugal and not London. The police in Portugal, Spain and Italy to name but three European countries don't play by the same rules as one might expect to experience in Old Blighty.
As far as Amaral and that other PJ officer is concerned they lied to the court in relation to how Leonor got her injuries in the police station. They both rightly received sentences for their conduct.
A retrial would have been ordered if the only evidence against the Ciprianos had been their confession under duress. Both Leonor and João refused to give evidence at their trial apparently on advice from their respective lawyers. These are not the actions of innocent people. It is very clear that had they taken the stand they would have implicated themselves in the murder. Neither of them were credible witnesses as they are both compulsive liars.
The conduct of Leonor when she testified at the Amaral perjury trial evidences this fact. She received a further conviction for perjury for her efforts on that occasion.
I would disagree that it was proved that they were compulsive liars. People will say anything and agree to any suggestion being put to them by others if they are being tortured at the time, and IMO that is a credible explanation as to why different answers and different scenarios were given or agreed to during interrogation using torture.
I also don't agree that the legal advice given to them NOT to testify in court is a sign of guilt. Why would their own lawyers encourage their own clients to do something which would jeopardise their chances of obtaining justice. That makes no sense to me.
We can only speculate as to why that advice was given. It could be that
(a) LCs lawyer was aware that with no forensic evidence, no motive, no trace of body parts, no cutting tools and no proof that Joana had made it back to her home that night - there was no need for her to testify.
and/or
(b) He did not consider that the poorly educated and apparently non too bright LC would stand a chance against a highly trained, intelligent sophisticated prosecution lawyer - who would run rings round her - in an environment which was his 'second' home, but totally alien to her.
As I say - pure speculation - just as it is pure speculation on my part that the judges/jury were possibly influenced to give a Guilty verdict by the hatred of the general public - which had been whipped up to lynch mob proportions - particularly against LC by a vicious pre-trial press campaign against her and which was so evident from the abuse being sceamed at her from the public gallery.
The fact that the secrecy laws were broken by the PJ in order to promote and aid and abet that smear campaign no doubt would be denied by the PJ - but then they would say that wouldn't they.
