Court Case in Faro re Correia/Amaral

Claudia79 wrote:I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. No one can refuse to be someone's witness. The fact hat they have been called as witnesses doesn't mean they will testify against him. It also doesn't man they will not. It just means they are witnesses and they can't do anything about it. Only after they testify can we say if they testifies against him or not.

Thanks for reminding us

Panda wrote:
Afternoon TIEN, BTW Iv'e been meaning to ask you where you got your new Avatar...it's disgusting.

I shall change it ..............................

As someone who has more knowledge of the justice system said on another site, it is higly unlikely that the judge will accept MAC trying to smear GA's character by using his ex-wife and brother since the case is not about his family relationships. Gonçalo Amaral could be the worst person on the face of the earth but his character is not what is on trial in this defamation case. You can't defend yourself in court by smearing your opponent, especially with things that are totally unrelated to the case.

Claudia79 wrote:I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. No one can refuse to be someone's witness. The fact hat they have been called as witnesses doesn't mean they will testify against him. It also doesn't man they will not. It just means they are witnesses and they can't do anything about it. Only after they testify can we say if they testifies against him or not.

Thanks Claudia x

You are all welcome.

I'm cconfused now.!!! I thought there were two cases, one brought by Amaral against Correia for Slander or Libel, the other Brought by someone else
regarding a Property transaction and this is the one where Sofia and Amarals Brother are witnesses for the Plaintiff.

Isn`t the property one where GA`s brother is sueing him and Sofia? Allegedly GA and Sofia owe him money on a property, but if all GA`s assets have been frozen, he`s unable to pay him back? I`m confused as well.

Panda wrote:

I'm cconfused now.!!! I thought there were two cases, one brought by Amaral against Correia for Slander or Libel, the other Brought by someone else
regarding a Property transaction and this is the one where Sofia and Amarals Brother are witnesses for the Plaintiff.

Oh, no! Panda, you aren't turning are you? "Confusion is good"!

Oldartform wrote:Isn`t the property one where GA`s brother is sueing him and Sofia? Allegedly GA and Sofia owe him money on a property, but if all GA`s assets have been frozen, he`s unable to pay him back? I`m confused as well.

Hi Oldartform......I think one of our Portugese Members will have to clarify. I was under the impression that the one case concerning Correia and Amaral was slander and should have been tried today. The other one is a Property Transaction where Amaral made a profit from the sale of a Property which his Brother was involved in selling and Amaral jumped in and sold the Property . Something like that. Let's hope there are no problems when the Trial date is finally sert for McCann v Amaral.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Panda wrote:

I'm cconfused now.!!! I thought there were two cases, one brought by Amaral against Correia for Slander or Libel, the other Brought by someone else
regarding a Property transaction and this is the one where Sofia and Amarals Brother are witnesses for the Plaintiff.

Oh, no! Panda, you aren't turning are you? "Confusion is good"!

Hi Tien ...well I'm not sure your new avatar is much of an improvement, although I must admit the constant changes ARE entertaining,.

As for turning , I give up...apparently you can be a Witness but not testify to anything.

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Panda wrote:

I'm cconfused now.!!! I thought there were two cases, one brought by Amaral against Correia for Slander or Libel, the other Brought by someone else
regarding a Property transaction and this is the one where Sofia and Amarals Brother are witnesses for the Plaintiff.

Oh, no! Panda, you aren't turning are you? "Confusion is good"!

Hi Tien ...well I'm not sure your new avatar is much of an improvement, although I must admit the constant changes ARE entertaining,.

As for turning , I give up...apparently you can be a Witness but not testify to anything.

Is the last sentence related to my post?

Claudia79 wrote:

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Panda wrote:

I'm cconfused now.!!! I thought there were two cases, one brought by Amaral against Correia for Slander or Libel, the other Brought by someone else
regarding a Property transaction and this is the one where Sofia and Amarals Brother are witnesses for the Plaintiff.

Oh, no! Panda, you aren't turning are you? "Confusion is good"!

Hi Tien ...well I'm not sure your new avatar is much of an improvement, although I must admit the constant changes ARE entertaining,.

As for turning , I give up...apparently you can be a Witness but not testify to anything.

Is the last sentence related to my post?

Hi Claudia,

Yes it is a bit confusing:-

"I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. No one can refuse to be someone's witness. The fact hat they have been called as witnesses doesn't mean they will testify against him. It also doesn't man they will not. It just means they are witnesses and they can't do anything about it. Only after they testify can we say if they testifies against him or not."

Apparently a Witness MUST attend a hearing but no one knows whether they will testify , but if they ARE called, they can be for or against the Defendant.....is that right, it seems a complicated procedure don't you think.? As I remember Amaral had about 6 Witnesses FOR him at the first
Injunction hearing.

Panda wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Panda wrote:

I'm cconfused now.!!! I thought there were two cases, one brought by Amaral against Correia for Slander or Libel, the other Brought by someone else
regarding a Property transaction and this is the one where Sofia and Amarals Brother are witnesses for the Plaintiff.

Oh, no! Panda, you aren't turning are you? "Confusion is good"!

Hi Tien ...well I'm not sure your new avatar is much of an improvement, although I must admit the constant changes ARE entertaining,.

As for turning , I give up...apparently you can be a Witness but not testify to anything.

Is the last sentence related to my post?

Hi Claudia,

Yes it is a bit confusing:-

"I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. No one can refuse to be someone's witness. The fact hat they have been called as witnesses doesn't mean they will testify against him. It also doesn't man they will not. It just means they are witnesses and they can't do anything about it. Only after they testify can we say if they testifies against him or not."

Apparently a Witness MUST attend a hearing but no one knows whether they will testify , but if they ARE called, they can be for or against the Defendant.....is that right, it seems a complicated procedure don't you think.? As I remember Amaral had about 6 Witnesses FOR him at the first
Injunction hearing.

Panda, he didn't have 6 witnesses FOR him. There were six people he called as witnesses. In this case they testified for him as you call it. But they didn't have to. If I decide to go to court because of something, I have the right to call as witnesses whoever I want. People can't say 'Oh, sorry, but I don't want to be a witness'. They are obliged to go unless they prove to the court they can't (health related issues, for example). Generally speaking witnesses go to court to testify (although sometimes they don't because both parties reach a deal, for instance or because on the stand they answer by saying 'I don't know' or 'I don't remember' or 'I have no idea why I'm here) but until they actually testify you can't know for sure if they are going to 'agree' with the person who called them as witnesses. I have personally experience several of these situations. I was once a witness (in this case I told the person in question I would have no problem being her witness) but I didn't testify because they reached a deal. And more recently I was called as a witness by both parties of the dispute. So, was I a defence or a prosecution witness? Until I testified no one knew. I mean, except the parties involved (it was clear the side I was on) which is why I have no idea why one of the parties thought it would be a good idea to call me as a witness...

ETA: a couple of months ago a friend was notified to appear in court as a witness. She had no idea what it was about and why she was a witness until she went to court. It happens that it was related to a fraud about selling cars and the arguido (car seller) called her as a witness because he knew she would say there were no problems at all when she bought a car from him ten years ago. She said that and that was it.

Claudia79 wrote:

Panda wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:


Oh, no! Panda, you aren't turning are you? "Confusion is good"!

Hi Tien ...well I'm not sure your new avatar is much of an improvement, although I must admit the constant changes ARE entertaining,.

As for turning , I give up...apparently you can be a Witness but not testify to anything.

Is the last sentence related to my post?

Hi Claudia,

Yes it is a bit confusing:-

"I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. No one can refuse to be someone's witness. The fact hat they have been called as witnesses doesn't mean they will testify against him. It also doesn't man they will not. It just means they are witnesses and they can't do anything about it. Only after they testify can we say if they testifies against him or not."

Apparently a Witness MUST attend a hearing but no one knows whether they will testify , but if they ARE called, they can be for or against the Defendant.....is that right, it seems a complicated procedure don't you think.? As I remember Amaral had about 6 Witnesses FOR him at the first
Injunction hearing.

Panda, he didn't have 6 witnesses FOR him. There were six people he called as witnesses. In this case they testified for him as you call it. But didn't have to. If I decide to go to court because of something, I have the right to call as witnesses whoever I want. People can't say 'Oh, sorry, but I don't want to be a witness'. They are obliged to go unless they prove to the court they can't (health related issues, for example). Generally speaking witnesses go to court to testify (although sometimes they don't because both parties reach a deal, for instance or because on the stand they answer by saying 'I don't know' or 'I don't remember' or 'I have no idea why I'm here) but until they actually testify you can't know for sure if they are going to 'agree' with the person who called them as witnesses. I have personally experience several of these situations. I was once a witness (in this case I told the person in question I would have no problem being her witness) but I didn't testify because they reached a deal. And more recently I was called as a witness by both parties of the dispute. So, was I a defence or a prosecution witness? Until I testified no one knew. I mean, except the parties involved (it was clear the side I was on) which is why I have no idea why one of the parties thought it would be a good idea to call me as a witness...

I may get called as a witness in a case that has been going on for some time. I imagine that the police think I am their witness, but I don't see myself as that and if the defendant's lawyers were to ask certain questions, I would then be considered to be a defence witness. At the moment, I am just a witness to an event and what a court makes of what I might have to say depends on what questions are asked.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Panda wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Panda wrote:

Hi Tien ...well I'm not sure your new avatar is much of an improvement, although I must admit the constant changes ARE entertaining,.

As for turning , I give up...apparently you can be a Witness but not testify to anything.

Is the last sentence related to my post?

Hi Claudia,

Yes it is a bit confusing:-

"I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. No one can refuse to be someone's witness. The fact hat they have been called as witnesses doesn't mean they will testify against him. It also doesn't man they will not. It just means they are witnesses and they can't do anything about it. Only after they testify can we say if they testifies against him or not."

Apparently a Witness MUST attend a hearing but no one knows whether they will testify , but if they ARE called, they can be for or against the Defendant.....is that right, it seems a complicated procedure don't you think.? As I remember Amaral had about 6 Witnesses FOR him at the first
Injunction hearing.

Panda, he didn't have 6 witnesses FOR him. There were six people he called as witnesses. In this case they testified for him as you call it. But didn't have to. If I decide to go to court because of something, I have the right to call as witnesses whoever I want. People can't say 'Oh, sorry, but I don't want to be a witness'. They are obliged to go unless they prove to the court they can't (health related issues, for example). Generally speaking witnesses go to court to testify (although sometimes they don't because both parties reach a deal, for instance or because on the stand they answer by saying 'I don't know' or 'I don't remember' or 'I have no idea why I'm here) but until they actually testify you can't know for sure if they are going to 'agree' with the person who called them as witnesses. I have personally experience several of these situations. I was once a witness (in this case I told the person in question I would have no problem being her witness) but I didn't testify because they reached a deal. And more recently I was called as a witness by both parties of the dispute. So, was I a defence or a prosecution witness? Until I testified no one knew. I mean, except the parties involved (it was clear the side I was on) which is why I have no idea why one of the parties thought it would be a good idea to call me as a witness...

I may get called as a witness in a case that has been going on for some time. I imagine that the police think I am their witness, but I don't see myself as that and if the defendant's lawyers were to ask certain questions, I would then be considered to be a defence witness. At the moment, I am just a witness to an event and what a court makes of what I might have to say depends on what questions are asked.

Exactly what I meant. But said so much better. And shorter!!!!

Claudia79 wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Panda wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Is the last sentence related to my post?

Hi Claudia,

Yes it is a bit confusing:-

"I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. No one can refuse to be someone's witness. The fact hat they have been called as witnesses doesn't mean they will testify against him. It also doesn't man they will not. It just means they are witnesses and they can't do anything about it. Only after they testify can we say if they testifies against him or not."

Apparently a Witness MUST attend a hearing but no one knows whether they will testify , but if they ARE called, they can be for or against the Defendant.....is that right, it seems a complicated procedure don't you think.? As I remember Amaral had about 6 Witnesses FOR him at the first
Injunction hearing.

Panda, he didn't have 6 witnesses FOR him. There were six people he called as witnesses. In this case they testified for him as you call it. But didn't have to. If I decide to go to court because of something, I have the right to call as witnesses whoever I want. People can't say 'Oh, sorry, but I don't want to be a witness'. They are obliged to go unless they prove to the court they can't (health related issues, for example). Generally speaking witnesses go to court to testify (although sometimes they don't because both parties reach a deal, for instance or because on the stand they answer by saying 'I don't know' or 'I don't remember' or 'I have no idea why I'm here) but until they actually testify you can't know for sure if they are going to 'agree' with the person who called them as witnesses. I have personally experience several of these situations. I was once a witness (in this case I told the person in question I would have no problem being her witness) but I didn't testify because they reached a deal. And more recently I was called as a witness by both parties of the dispute. So, was I a defence or a prosecution witness? Until I testified no one knew. I mean, except the parties involved (it was clear the side I was on) which is why I have no idea why one of the parties thought it would be a good idea to call me as a witness...

I may get called as a witness in a case that has been going on for some time. I imagine that the police think I am their witness, but I don't see myself as that and if the defendant's lawyers were to ask certain questions, I would then be considered to be a defence witness. At the moment, I am just a witness to an event and what a court makes of what I might have to say depends on what questions are asked.

Exactly what I meant. But said so much better. And shorter!!!!

Thanks Claudia! I didn't think I had explained it very well at all!

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Panda wrote:

Hi Claudia,

Yes it is a bit confusing:-

"I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. No one can refuse to be someone's witness. The fact hat they have been called as witnesses doesn't mean they will testify against him. It also doesn't man they will not. It just means they are witnesses and they can't do anything about it. Only after they testify can we say if they testifies against him or not."

Apparently a Witness MUST attend a hearing but no one knows whether they will testify , but if they ARE called, they can be for or against the Defendant.....is that right, it seems a complicated procedure don't you think.? As I remember Amaral had about 6 Witnesses FOR him at the first
Injunction hearing.

Panda, he didn't have 6 witnesses FOR him. There were six people he called as witnesses. In this case they testified for him as you call it. But didn't have to. If I decide to go to court because of something, I have the right to call as witnesses whoever I want. People can't say 'Oh, sorry, but I don't want to be a witness'. They are obliged to go unless they prove to the court they can't (health related issues, for example). Generally speaking witnesses go to court to testify (although sometimes they don't because both parties reach a deal, for instance or because on the stand they answer by saying 'I don't know' or 'I don't remember' or 'I have no idea why I'm here) but until they actually testify you can't know for sure if they are going to 'agree' with the person who called them as witnesses. I have personally experience several of these situations. I was once a witness (in this case I told the person in question I would have no problem being her witness) but I didn't testify because they reached a deal. And more recently I was called as a witness by both parties of the dispute. So, was I a defence or a prosecution witness? Until I testified no one knew. I mean, except the parties involved (it was clear the side I was on) which is why I have no idea why one of the parties thought it would be a good idea to call me as a witness...

I may get called as a witness in a case that has been going on for some time. I imagine that the police think I am their witness, but I don't see myself as that and if the defendant's lawyers were to ask certain questions, I would then be considered to be a defence witness. At the moment, I am just a witness to an event and what a court makes of what I might have to say depends on what questions are asked.

Exactly what I meant. But said so much better. And shorter!!!!

Thanks Claudia! I didn't think I had explained it very well at all!

You did! That is a practical example of what I was trying to say.

Another example of allegiance - or lack of it: In my former work many of my Court appearances were as an "Expert".

In the vast majority of Cases, I was called by the Prosecution ............... BUT my duty was to "assist the Court" and I was bound to relate the facts and express my Expert Opinion (giving an Opinion is the unique privilege accorded to "Experts") regardless of whether ultimately it helped prove or destroy the Prosecution Case.

Similarly, "normal" Witnesses are permitted only to state fact (ie Who, What, Where, When) and will be stopped by the Magistrate, Judge or Coroner if they attempt to express an opinion or are led so to do.

So as they can only deal with fact, if it turns out under Examination, Cross-Examination or Re-Examination that they relate a factual matter which does not support the side that called them ............ TOUGH!

Are prosecution and defense allowed to talk to the witnesses before the trial. If prosecution call A B and C as witnesses are defense allowed to talk to them before the trial and vice versa if defense call A B and C.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Another example of allegiance - or lack of it: In my former work many of my Court appearances were as an "Expert".

In the vast majority of Cases, I was called by the Prosecution ............... BUT my duty was to "assist the Court" and I was bound to relate the facts and express my Expert Opinion (giving an Opinion is the unique privilege accorded to "Experts") regardless of whether ultimately it helped prove or destroy the Prosecution Case.

Similarly, "normal" Witnesses are permitted only to state fact (ie Who, What, Where, When) and will be stopped by the Magistrate, Judge or Coroner if they attempt to express an opinion or are led so to do.

So as they can only deal with fact, if it turns out under Examination, Cross-Examination or Re-Examination that they relate a factual matter which does not support the side that called them ............ TOUGH!

Yes, that's the issue with being a witness. If I am called, then all I will be asked to do is relate facts: what I saw and what I heard. Any opinion i might offer would be seen as speculation. If, however, I were to be asked about personal experience of the victim, outside of the time and place of the event, then I would probably be a witness for the defence.

I wondered who ACED is and this is the link. It appears ACED is supporting Correia then.


http://iscte.pt/~apad/ACED/


http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fiscte.pt%2F~apad%2FACED%2F

I tried to copy and paste the translation to here but when I pasted, it came out in Portugese!!!

Just tested and once it's posted the english translation comes up....bl***y Computers, I'll never understand them./

P.S. You have to scroll down about til you get to "Portugal"

"In Portugal we study the criminalization of the complaint of torture
Two employees have aced the trial scheduled for February 9, 2012, in Faro, accused of defamation and injury to the honor of a police officer accused of torture by a prisoner, whom the ACED gave public voice, as always, by it was his main design.

The prosecutors and PJ are known in prison for their failure to investigate cases of serious crimes in general, and torture in particular. What is recognized by some attorneys involved in these investigations. In the case mentioned in the above-mentioned process, the torture was not only recognized by court judgment as the police allegedly defamed was convicted of lying to the court and thus obstruct justice. In the same court in Faro. As will have been successful, since no one has been identified as the author of torture recognized.

The victim confirmed the accuracy of the court transcript of his statement that the ACED released. But, apparently, the truth may be offensive to the honor of the state agents involved in crimes that should pursue but that in practice, collaborate. For access to documents HERE

Attorney Joseph Black responded well to the pronunciation, as a way to remember the right of existence of the activity of this association in democratic societies."

Was it this?

gillyspot wrote:"In Portugal we study the criminalization of the complaint of torture
Two employees have aced the trial scheduled for February 9, 2012, in Faro, accused of defamation and injury to the honor of a police officer accused of torture by a prisoner, whom the ACED gave public voice, as always, by it was his main design.

The prosecutors and PJ are known in prison for their failure to investigate cases of serious crimes in general, and torture in particular. What is recognized by some attorneys involved in these investigations. In the case mentioned in the above-mentioned process, the torture was not only recognized by court judgment as the police allegedly defamed was convicted of lying to the court and thus obstruct justice. In the same court in Faro. As will have been successful, since no one has been identified as the author of torture recognized.

The victim confirmed the accuracy of the court transcript of his statement that the ACED released. But, apparently, the truth may be offensive to the honor of the state agents involved in crimes that should pursue but that in practice, collaborate. For access to documents HERE

Attorney Joseph Black responded well to the pronunciation, as a way to remember the right of existence of the activity of this association in democratic societies."

Was it this?

Morning gillyspot, yes, that's the way I read it , that ACED was acting with Correia on the torture of Cipriani.

ACED seems to be taking the prisoners side and trying to publicise any alleged claims by them.

"Deferred adjudication of allegations of torture
The Court of Faro understood the appeal of the defense refuses to Évora, drafted under the auspices of Dr. Joseph Black, who denounced the process (complaint alleging defamation against aced by police under whose tutelage occurred judicially confirmed cases of torture) as being a case against law.

See news about the postponement as this . Description read in case the next module.

The defense filed an objection against the decision of the court, in Feb 2012.

Allegations of torture criminalized
Although Portugal is a state signatory to the Convention against Torture and the UN is expected to repress such crimes is a priority for the Attorney General's Office, in fact, the prosecutor who pursues denounces torture, why yes. "Well they knew" the complainants that such termination would harm the "honor and consideration personal and professional" police explicitly accused by the victim. Victim court however upheld by a court as a victim of torture. Victim confirmed in court have been the source of the information provided correctly transcribed. Text of the indictment can be read HERE .

ACED's interest in this case is registered in a special activity that took place in 2009: a conversation in a hotel in Lagos. Our impression on some of the MP's work in this field is also recorded.

The ACED is rare, if not the only civic organization in Portugal to report cases of neglect, abuse and torture in prisons. If the issue of torture is not a problem in Portugal this is due largely to the fact that there are persistent complaints about cases that have occurred, making us collectively complicit in the torture, at least by default.

The question is whether because they lack organization against torture in Portugal (there are dozens of them in the neighboring country, as indeed throughout Europe). Why are the prisoners and their families do not complain? Part of the answer may lie in the attitude of the courts and before the national legal protection for victims of torture and mistreatment. Often the complaint that defendants were ill-treated before the court deserves indifference or even rebuke. Like the lie recognizable enforcement authorities is beyond repair, despite the oath to tell the truth. Although, window dressing, the State is a signatory of international treaties on human rights, national law resists and opposes him systematically, cf. Joseph Black (2010) AGAINST STATE LAW, Lisbon, Argusnauta. Having been the Portuguese state to be convicted for that reason the European Court of Human Rights, without amendment.

The purpose of the pronunciation of several criminal ACED activists accused of helping to report cases of alleged torture by the victims themselves, we draw readers' attention at the beginning of 2012, as it had done in 2011, for the cases in question. In part, they are exposed HERE .

In 2010 the ACED had written to the RMP for having signs of ill-treatment of the issues of torture by this institution in the State, cf. complaint to the Attorney General's Office December.

Marcos Aragão Correia, author of the transcript of the complaints, complained in January 2012 with the PGR of the behavior of MP. Argues that the case was tried, with the decision that can not be challenged in this way.

Attorney Joseph Black responded well to the pronunciation, as a way to remember the right of existence of the activity of this association in democratic societies."