Anything and everything

[sadie]

Thank you John

So Amaral has been untruthful and it has been proven in Court.

Now I call that Perjury.  Is there a more correct name ?

Amaral has been telling Porkies on paper, it seems, from the Court findings

[John]

The collective of judges at Faro court - made up of 3 judges and 4 jurors - considered that Leonor Cipriano was tortured; even though it could not be proved by whom.

As a result, the 3 PJ officers accused of aggressions were acquitted.

Gonçalo Amaral was found guilty of false testimony because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his subordinates, i.e. that Leonor Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself over the railing of the stairs inside the PJ building in Faro.

This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Dr Amaral testified to, could not be proved.

His defence, according to what we could read in the papers throughout the trial, and to statements that his lawyer made to the media, outside the court building, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him.

Make of that what you may!

[AnneGuedes]

Wasn't Dr Amaral convicted of falsifying evidence to help cover up for three of his officers who were accused of torture.  He was also cleared of another charge of failing to report a crime.

No, John, it's a tabloid reporting..
The 3 police officers accused of torture were exonerated and GA wasn't accused to falsify a document in order to cover that up.
http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/caso-joana-goncalo-amaral-condenado-a-ano-e-meio-de-prisao-com-pena-suspensa-1382307.

[sadie]

The collective of judges at Faro court - made up of 3 judges and 4 jurors - considered that Leonor Cipriano was tortured; even though it could not be proved by whom.

As a result, the 3 PJ officers accused of aggressions were acquitted.

Gonçalo Amaral was found guilty of false testimony because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his subordinates, i.e. that Leonor Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself over the railing of the stairs inside the PJ building in Faro.

This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Dr Amaral testified to, could not be proved.

His defence, according to what we could read in the papers throughout the trial, and to statements that his lawyer made to the media, outside the court building, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him.

Make of that what you may!

You say that it couldn't be proved, yet it was in Court.  The Court upheld the evidence of a specialist Forensic Doctor that the nature and pattern of the bruises excluded a fall down stairs.  In his opinion the bruises and lacerations were caused by Torture.


In other words Amaral lied in Court, so it was perjury

Thank you John

[sadie]

No, John, it's a tabloid reporting..
The 3 police officers accused of torture were exonerated and GA wasn't accused to falsify a document in order to cover that up.
http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/caso-joana-goncalo-amaral-condenado-a-ano-e-meio-de-prisao-com-pena-suspensa-1382307.

The first paragraph of that says (google transalte)

The Court of Faro today condemned by false allegations to a year in prison with a suspended sentence the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral, in the case relating to the alleged aggressions against Leonor Cipriano by PJ inspectors. However, the accused was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation.

It says he got 12 months but I know that is wrong.  He actually got 18 months

He was guilty of Perjury Anne

Please withdraw you false statements

[Benice]

The collective of judges at Faro court - made up of 3 judges and 4 jurors - considered that Leonor Cipriano was tortured; even though it could not be proved by whom.

As a result, the 3 PJ officers accused of aggressions were acquitted.

Gonçalo Amaral was found guilty of false testimony because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his subordinates, i.e. that Leonor Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself over the railing of the stairs inside the PJ building in Faro.

This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Dr Amaral testified to, could not be proved.

His defence, according to what we could read in the papers throughout the trial, and to statements that his lawyer made to the media, outside the court building, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him.

Make of that what you may!

So in actual fact he was asking the court to believe that his men had lied to him - and he was just an innocent victim of their dishonesty?   IOW he tried to blame his own men to save his own skin.   What a hero!

Giving false testimony under oath - is perjury.

   

[John]

No, John, it's a tabloid reporting..
The 3 police officers accused of torture were exonerated and GA wasn't accused to falsify a document in order to cover that up.
http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/caso-joana-goncalo-amaral-condenado-a-ano-e-meio-de-prisao-com-pena-suspensa-1382307.

Translation

The Court of Faro today condemned by false allegations to a year in prison with a suspended sentence the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral , in the case relating to the alleged aggressions against Leonor Cipriano by PJ inspectors . However , the accused was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation (failure to report a crime).

The inspector António Cardoso was also convicted with suspended sentence, two years and three months in prison . The remaining defendants were acquitted because , despite having been proved that Leonor Cipriano was assaulted on the premises of PJ, we could not identify the perpetrators . According to the chairman of the panel of judges , the case is " particularly serious in people who aim to fight crime."

The court also stated that the testimony in court of the girl's mother was contradictory, which did not help to establish the facts . Similarly it was not possible to prove that she fell from the stairs, as claimed by the defence. The prosecutor or the assistants can now turn, respectively, with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.

The process is related to the so-called " Joana case ", dating back to September 12, 2004 , the day the girl, aged eight, disappeared from the village of Figueira, Portimão, Algarve.

A reading of the judgement was made ​​this afternoon by Chairman of the judges. The charges of the Prosecutor against five inspectors and former inspectors Judicial emerged following the interrogation by the PJ in Faro in 2004 , when Leonor appeared with lesions on her face and body in Odemira Prison, where she was on remand.

Three inspectors were accused of the crime of torture, one was accused of the crime of perjury and failure to report and a fifth was accused of the crime of document forgery. The trial began on 27 October 2008.

Joana's mother, Leonor Cipriano, and uncle, John Cipriano were sentenced by the Supreme Court to 16 years in prison each, for the crimes of murder and concealment of a body of the child. Four days ago, the lawyer for Leonor Cipriano, Aragão Correia, requested the opening of a new investigation in the "Joana case " and the acquittal of the girl's mother, after John Cipriano confessed in writing that he tried to sell her.

[John]

When João Cipriano was asked if he had sexually abused his niece he said in the presence of his lawyer "I did not harm her, I only killed her".

Mas quando lhe perguntaram se abusou da sobrinha respondeu indignado: «Eu não lhe fiz mal, só a matei».

http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/joana-morte-algarve-pj-homicidio/850467-4071.html

[AnneGuedes]

The failure to denounce was dismissed. He signed a document without reading it or inquiring about it, it seems. Luz knows that better than me. I'm not pretending he was not responsible since he was in charge. Not only he got a fine, but he was suspended and as he had quitted the PJ I think he didn't get his pension money for those months.
Call him a criminal is perfectly inept. He was punished, he paid, he should be left in peace.
Who never made an error ?

[John]

The failure to denounce was dismissed. He signed a document without reading it or inquiring about it, it seems. Luz knows that better than me. I'm not pretending he was not responsible since he was in charge. Not only he got a fine, but he was suspended and as he had quitted the PJ I think he didn't get his pension money for those months.
Call him a criminal is perfectly inept. He was punished, he paid, he should be left in peace.
Who never made an error ?

I think his understudies effectively stitched him up Anne.  He took the rap for them and they got off!

[VIXTE]

The failure to denounce was dismissed. He signed a document without reading it or inquiring about it, it seems. Luz knows that better than me. I'm not pretending he was not responsible since he was in charge. Not only he got a fine, but he was suspended and as he had quitted the PJ I think he didn't get his pension money for those months.
Call him a criminal is perfectly inept. He was punished, he paid, he should be left in peace.
Who never made an error ?

IMO this is breaking of professional conduct. Not being honest under oath. For me personally this is a big deal.
Big bad stamp left on the professionalism of the individual.

[Benita]

The failure to denounce was dismissed. He signed a document without reading it or inquiring about it, it seems. Luz knows that better than me. I'm not pretending he was not responsible since he was in charge. Not only he got a fine, but he was suspended and as he had quitted the PJ I think he didn't get his pension money for those months.
Call him a criminal is perfectly inept. He was punished, he paid, he should be left in peace.
Who never made an error ?

 he should be left in peace.Who never made an error ?


why anne ...?

[AnneGuedes]

It has been proved (how ?) that LC was assaulted in the HQ of the PJ.
The "failure to report" was dismissed.

[Kazcutt]

Hi


Does anyone remember someone dying and something to do with a suitcase by the harbour

Racking my brains trying to think if this was connected by forums or papers .
Also the guy who sold his things to search for Madeleine who also died

[Benita]

Anne guedes your quote regarding amaral ...Who never made an error ? leave him in peace ......could say te same regarding the mcCann's  ...but no you hound them like a pack of wolves ...so don't dictate about amaral  8-)(--)