The Leonor Cipriano case reviewed... AGAIN!

[Benice]

The George case failed on the forensics, but you know that, and we know certain members of the current SY investigation were involved in that failure.

As to Amarals conviction for perjury in covering up fellow officers, well there are problems there if the testimony of Cipriano is flawed due to her lies.

There was no forensic evidence found which could prove guilt in the Cipriano case.

The case in which LC was found guilty of mis-identifying her torturers is completely unrelated to Amaral's conviction for Perjury, and also completely unrelated to TdA's conviction for torture.

The fact that LC had been tortured was not being questioned by the court.    It was her claim of who the perpetrators were which was the issue under examination by the court.     

The Court's earlier findings  that LC had  been the victim of torture by officers of the PJ whilst in their custody was -  and remains -  a legally proven fact and was not in dispute.    Only her torturers identity remains unproven as a result of that second case against LC.

Amaral's criminal conviction for 'perjury' was also not in dispute and remains a legally proven fact - doubly confirmed when the Courts threw out his Appeal.






 

 

[stephen25000]

There was no forensic evidence found which could prove guilt in the Cipriano case.

The case in which LC was found guilty of mis-identifying her torturers is completely unrelated to Amaral's conviction for Perjury, and also completely unrelated to TdA's conviction for torture.

The fact that LC had been tortured was not being questioned by the court.    It was her claim of who the perpetrators were which was the issue under examination by the court.     

The Court's earlier findings  that LC had  been the victim of torture by officers of the PJ whilst in their custody was -  and remains -  a legally proven fact and was not in dispute.    Only her torturers identity remains unproven as a result of that second case against LC.

Amaral's criminal conviction for 'perjury' was also not in dispute and remains a legally proven fact - doubly confirmed when the Courts threw out his Appeal.

So there is no proof as to who allegedly 'tortured' Cipriano.

She of course carrying a conviction for a heinous crime.

The perjury charge was based I believe on him covering up for his fellow officers over Cipriano,and if there was no proof the officers 'tortured' cipriano................................

[Eleanor]

There was proof that Leonor Cipriano was tortured, just no proof of who tortured her.  But since she couldn't identify who her torturers were, due to having a bag over her head, I fail to see how she can have been guilty of defaming them, if she didn't know who they were.
The PJ Officers in question did not bring the case against her, so who did?  Who actually named them?

Of course, The PJ have a very good idea of who they were.

[Benice]

So there is no proof as to who allegedly 'tortured' Cipriano.

She of course carrying a conviction for a heinous crime.

The perjury charge was based I believe on him covering up for his fellow officers over Cipriano,and if there was no proof the officers 'tortured' cipriano................................

Torture is not 'alleged'' it is a fact established in court.      But because LC could not prove who the officers were who tortured her - the men who she had claimed were the perpetrators could not be found guilty.

Whether she had been tortured or not was not in question during her 2nd court case.   That is an established fact and not altered by her 2nd conviction.   The present situation is that the perpetrators are still at large.

Amarals conviction was for a report he wrote and signed himself.  The courts found that his report was not a true account of what had happened to LC and he (along with another PJ officer )were therefore found guilty of lying.

Once torture had been legally established then IMO the guilty verdict immediately became unsafe.

LC should have been released and if necessary a retrial ordered.  imo.

[stephen25000]

There was proof that Leonor Cipriano was tortured, just no proof of who tortured her.  But since she couldn't identify who her torturers were, due to having a bag over her head, I fail to see how she can have been guilty of defaming them, if she didn't know who they were.
The PJ Officers in question did not bring the case against her, so who did?  Who actually named them?

Of course, The PJ have a very good idea of who they were.

Now where does torture begin, and being beaten up by fellow prisoners end ?

and prisoners attacking other prisoners for similar crimes is hardly unique to Portugal.

Now if Amaral's conviction for perjury is based upon covering up for fellow officiers, when there is no proof these fellow officers  tortured Cipriano, it does not make legal sense.

You need evidence for that.

[John]

Torture is not 'alleged'' it is a fact established in court.      But because LC could not prove who the officers were who tortured her - the men who she had claimed were the perpetrators could not be found guilty.

Whether she had been tortured or not was not in question during her 2nd court case.   That is an established fact and not altered by her 2nd conviction.   The present situation is that the perpetrators are still at large.

Amarals conviction was for a report he wrote and signed himself.  The courts found that his report was not a true account of what had happened to LC and he (along with another PJ officer )were therefore found guilty of lying.

Once torture had been legally established then IMO the guilty verdict immediately became unsafe.

LC should have been released and if necessary a retrial ordered.  imo.

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.

[Benice]

There was proof that Leonor Cipriano was tortured, just no proof of who tortured her.  But since she couldn't identify who her torturers were, due to having a bag over her head, I fail to see how she can have been guilty of defaming them, if she didn't know who they were.
The PJ Officers in question did not bring the case against her, so who did?  Who actually named them?Of course, The PJ have a very good idea of who they were.

IIRC  the named PJ officers dropped their own case for libel against LC - after she failed to pick them out in an identity parade.   Apparently they praised her honesty at the time.

If that is the case, I too would like to know whose decision it was to bring this 2nd case against LC.      My own personal opinion is that it was related to the entry in Amnesty International regarding the use of torture in Portugual and may have been politically motivated.     But who knows?  The more I see of how the wheels of 'justice' grind in some cases in PT - the  more bewildering it becomes.

For instance if a police officer is found guilty of breaking the law, it would seem they get treated more leniently when it comes to sentencing.      IMO the opposite should apply.   Policemen who use and abuse their positions of power to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be protecting and defending are the lowest of the low IMO.     

[Eleanor]

Now where does torture begin, and being beaten up by fellow prisoners end ?

and prisoners attacking other prisoners for similar crimes is hardly unique to Portugal.

Now if Amaral's conviction for perjury is based upon covering up for fellow officiers, when there is no proof these fellow officers  tortured Cipriano, it does not make legal sense.

You need evidence for that.

She was not beaten by fellow prisoners because she was kept isolated, due to the nature of her supposed crime. 
She was taken to the police station in the early hours of the morning, and returned to the prison many hours later, covered in bruises.
The Court ruled that she was beaten while in police custody.
She was unable to identify her torturers because she had a bag placed over her head. 
A very sensible precaution if they didn't want to be identified, don't you think.

If a mugger with a balaclava over his face attacked you then you wouldn't be able to identify him.  The time, the place and the state that you would be in would be evidence of the fact that you were mugged.  Unless you weren't actually there.
She was there, and that is proven.
The quantity and position of many of the bruises could not be attributed to falling downstairs.  This is what the court ruled.
I am surprised that you can't see how illogical and ridiculously flawed your argument is.

[stephen25000]

Now where does torture begin, and being beaten up by fellow prisoners end ?

and prisoners attacking other prisoners for similar crimes is hardly unique to Portugal.

Now if Amaral's conviction for perjury is based upon covering up for fellow officiers, when there is no proof these fellow officers  tortured Cipriano, it does not make legal sense.

You need evidence for that.
[/quote

She was not beaten by fellow prisoners because she was kept isolated, due to the nature of her supposed crime. 
She was taken to the police station in the early hours of the morning, and returned to the prison many hours later, covered in bruises.
The Court ruled that she was beaten while in police custody.
She was unable to identify her torturers because she had a bag placed over her head. 
A very sensible precaution if they didn't want to be identified, don't you think.

If a mugger with a balaclava over his face attacked you then you wouldn't be able to identify him.  The time, the place and the state that you would be in would be evidence of the fact that you were mugged.  Unless you weren't actually there.
She was there, and that is proven.
The quantity and position of many of the bruises could not be attributed to falling downstairs.  This is what the court ruled.
I am surprised that you can't see how illogical and ridiculously flawed your argument is.

Is there proof she was kept isolated ?

Can you prove she was not beaten up by fellow prisoners ?

Now would you care to tell me in the UK, is there any history of where prisoners have been beaten up, criminal or otherwise, by fellow offenders or other parties ?

Is there independent analysis of the injuries which were forensically tested for their cause ?

[Eleanor]

IIRC  the named PJ officers dropped their own case for libel against LC - after she failed to pick them out in an identity parade.   Apparently they praised her honesty at the time.

If that is the case, I too would like to know whose decision it was to bring this 2nd case against LC.      My own personal opinion is that it was related to the entry in Amnesty International regarding the use of torture in Portugual and may have been politically motivated.     But who knows?  The more I see of how the wheels of 'justice' grind in some cases in PT - the  more bewildering it becomes.

For instance if a police officer is found guilty of breaking the law, it would seem they get treated more leniently when it comes to sentencing.      IMO the opposite should apply.   Policemen who use and abuse their positions of power to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be protecting and defending are the lowest of the low IMO.   

This is going to cost Portugal a packet in Compensation.  So I think that this was a legal move in an attempt to decrease that compensation.
It isn't going to work.  The European Courts aren't stupid.  She was tortured in police custody.

[John]

Why are we arguing over known truths?

1. Leonor was tortured by PJ officers in their police station in order to get a confession.

2. Several police officers were involved but the victim was unable to identify them. No officers have ever been prosecuted for this assault.

3. PJ Coordinator Dr Gonçalo Amaral and another officer lied about the event thus securing convictions and suspended prison sentences for themselves.



Now let's stop Andy Pandying around this and move on to what hasn't been established.

[Eleanor]

Why are we arguing over known truths?

1.  Leonor was tortured by PJ officers in their police station in order to get a confession.

2. PJ Coordinator Dr Gonçalo Amaral and another officer lied about the event thus securing convictions and suspended prison sentences for themselves.

Now let's stop Andy Pandying around this and move on to what hasn't been established.

This would be good.  I would love to know who brought the case of defamation against Leonor Cipriano when she doesn't appear ever to have named them because she didn't know who they were.

I would also like to know why she got a further seven months in prison for committing perjury against three men that she never named while Amaral and his oppo got suspended sentences for the same crime in the same case.

PS.  It is on record that she could not and did not identify these men in a line up.  What sort of Justice is this?

[colombosstogey]

Amaral is a discredited cop and a convicted criminal. he got away with his appalling behaviour for 30 years and was finally sacked from the Maddie case. Leonor is innocent in my opinion ...convicted by trumped up evidence from tortured suspects

I REST MY CASE ROFLMAO....you are so predictable really......

It really isnt worth discussing this with you we all have our own thoughts on Cipriano. Mine have nothing to do with Amaral.

I actually followed this case BEFORE the McCanns child was involved...

Anyway I cant be bothered anymore to discuss this case as its going NO WHERE, after all the appeals the women is still in prison.

Lets hope she stays there to rot in hell.

Amen and goodbye on this thread, as I have better things to do then discuss this with anyone who just wants to push AMARAL all the time.

 8-)(--) enjoy yourselves and lets hope you get her out of prison hey...

[sadie]

This would be good.  I would love to know who brought the case of defamation against Leonor Cipriano when she doesn't appear ever to have named them because she didn't know who they were.

I would also like to know why she got a further seven months in prison for committing perjury against three men that she never named while Amaral and his oppo got suspended sentences for the same crime in the same case.

PS.  It is on record that she could not and did not identify these men in a line up.  What sort of Justice is this?

And additionally, I would like to know why this case was held behind closed doors ? 

Something that is usually reserved for cases of National security only

[Eleanor]

And additionally, I would like to know why this case was held behind closed doors ? 

Something that is usually reserved for cases of National security only

The National Pocket, more like.  Trying to reduce the compensation that Portugal will have to pay to both of The Ciprianos.
But the sentence is on record, and court papers can be obtained by The European Courts.