The disappearance of Joana Cipriano and why was she not reported missing sooner?

[faithlilly]

Cipriano was convicted of lying with regard to details of her torture. Amaral was convicted of perjury based on Cipriano's lies therefore it is Amaral's conviction that is unsafe, not Cipriano 's.

[John]

You are talking nonsense now Sadie.  Icabodcrane and others saw what was posted and that was the link to the Supreme Court review.  It is still there and has never been edited.

When you opened the link you saw it was in Portuguese and that is when you posted your comment.  I then posted the two links for you to the translation.  Again, it is all there for everyone to see.

Why you would suggest that I posted a document much later on is beyond me when the links had already been posted.

And please don't bring my own case into this issue.

[icabodcrane]

You are talking nonsense now Sadie.  Icabodcrane and others saw what was posted and that was the link to the Supreme Court review.  It is still there and has never been edited.

When you opened the link you saw it was in Portuguese and that is when you posted your comment.  I then posted the two links for you to the translation.  Again, it is all there for everyone to see.

Why you would suggest that I posted a document much later on is beyond me when the links had already been posted.

Yes, I was active on the board when John posted the links and can confirm that he is entirely accurate in his description of how the thread progressed

(  perhaps you were tired and misunderstood sadie  ...  it was very late  ) 

[faithlilly]

You are talking nonsense now Sadie.  Icabodcrane and others saw what was posted and that was the link to the Supreme Court review.  It is still there and has never been edited.

When you opened the link you saw it was in Portuguese and that is when you posted your comment.  I then posted the two links for you to the translation.  Again, it is all there for everyone to see.

Why you would suggest that I posted a document much later on is beyond me when the links had already been posted.

And please don't bring my own case into this issue.

Sadie never let's the truth get in the way of a good story John. I thought you'd have realised that by now.

[John]

Sadie never let's the truth get in the way of a good story John. I thought you'd have realised that by now.

 

I don't know what the problem is anyway.  I have never claimed that Leonor was party to the murder of Joana.  There is lots of evidence however that she was a rotten parent.

I must also point out (wrong thread I know) that the photos of Leonor's injuries were altered.  I saw the original and the fake so just goes to show.

[Mrs. B]

No, Amaral was found guilty based on the fact that he repeated, five months after the event, that Cipriano sustained her injuries when falling down the stairs in the police station in Portimao. This was found to be a lie, as the courts established that torture had indeed taken place, though the court could not determine who was responsible for the torture.

Gonçalo Amaral was convicted for simple false statement, since the version of the alleged fall on the stairs of Leonor Cipriano wasn't proved. Thus, the court considered that Amaral had lied, in order to cover the actions of his unknown colleagues.

With reference to Cipriano's perjury case:

That court considered the aggressions proven even though the identity of the attackers was never established.

Both articles are listed here:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html

[faithlilly]

I don't know what the problem is anyway.  I have never claimed that Leonor was party to the murder of Joana.  There is lots of evidence however that she was a rotten parent.

I must also point out (wrong thread I know) that the photos of Leonor's injuries were altered.  I saw the original and the fake so just goes to show.

Thank you for verifying what was strongly suspected already John. So if Cipriano has lied about how she obtained her injuries and the photographs of those injuries have been faked where does that leave Amaral's conviction ?

[Redblossom]

Thank you for verifying what was strongly suspected already John. So if Cipriano has lied about how she obtained her injuries and the photographs of those injuries have been faked where does that leave Amaral's conviction ?

It leaves it in the realm of *politics*, a thoroughly shadowy place of many pathetic shenanigans


IMO

[Mrs. B]

Amaral's conviction stays exactly where it is, he lied about the fall down the stairs, this was established by a court of law in Portugal, not once, but twice.

[Redblossom]

Amaral's conviction stays exactly where it is, he lied about the fall down the stairs, this was established by a court of law in Portugal, not once, but twice.

he signed off a report, he didnt say she fell down the stairs as he wasnt there
 

[Mrs. B]

No, he repeated, IN COURT, the lie that Cipriano had fallen down the stairs in the police station. That was what he was charged with & convicted for. You cannot go to court & repeat hearsay btw. I thought most people knew that. If he'd used that excuse, he probably wouldn't have been charged nor convicted.

[sadie]

Amaral's conviction stays exactly where it is, he lied about the fall down the stairs, this was established by a court of law in Portugal, not once, but twice.

Amaral lied about Leonors fall down stairs and was convicted .  This conviction was was verified twice in the Courts.

Amaral was proven a liar.

He signed off a report, written by him or ...  at his bidding ... so did he lie about it's veracity in court?

[Redblossom]

No, he repeated, IN COURT, the lie that Cipriano had fallen down the stairs in the police station. That was what he was charged with & convicted for. You cannot go to court & repeat hearsay btw. I thought most people knew that. If he'd used that excuse, he probably wouldn't have been charged nor convicted.

Got a link for that? Anyhow what is the difference between signing off your officers reports and sayng what was said in them?

The only way he could have been lying is  if he knew she DIDNT fall down the stairs, got any link to prove that he did?

[Redblossom]

Amaral lied about Leonors fall down stairs and was convicted .  This conviction was was verified twice in the Courts.

Amaral was proven a liar.

He signed off a report, written by him or ...  at his bidding ... so did he lie about it's veracity in court?

Cite please for signing a report written by him or at his bidding, ta

[Carana]

I don't know what the problem is anyway.  I have never claimed that Leonor was party to the murder of Joana.  There is lots of evidence however that she was a rotten parent.

I must also point out (wrong thread I know) that the photos of Leonor's injuries were altered.  I saw the original and the fake so just goes to show.

You did?