And again
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
Little bit early isn't it?
Context is everything Mrs B. Below is the quote in context :
'The contradictory statements about the aggressions of which she was a target were made between 2008 and 2009, at the time of the trial1 of the inspectors who investigated the "Joana Case", which resulted in the condemnation of two of the five defendants in that process.
That court considered the aggressions proven even though the identity of the attackers was never established.'
The court that the inspectors were tried at considered the aggression proven ie not the court where Cipriano's perjury was established.
