Trials and Tribulations.../Thepottingshedder

http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.com/2012/01/trials-and-tribulations.html

Trials and Tribulations...
Liars and fantasists... there have been a fair few over the years. So many that one could be tempted to write a bewk about them... Or has that already been done?

Here's another one...

Leonor Cipriano, accused of an incestuous relationship with her brother, murdering her 8 year old daughter, Joana and disposing of her body by feeding her to the pigs. Absolutely barbaric. Alongside her lover/brother, she was found guilty and sentenced to 16 years in prison. She later claimed she was tortured into confessing, but police said Cipriano tried to commit suicide by throwing herself off a staircase.

The trial commenced... 5 officers stood accused of torture. As co-ordinator of the PJ in Faro at that time, Goncalo Amaral was also made arguido.

Although the judges considered that Cipriano had been beaten, it could not be established by whom. We all know that child rapists and murderers do not fare well in prison, and I can imagine a long line of prisoners vying for their own piece of Cipriano pie.

With no witnesses to the alleged torture acts, the final ruling ended up being based on the reports from forensic experts, which were not founded on a physical examination of Cipriano, but rather on photographs that had been published years earlier by Expresso, and whose authenticity is still questioned.

Three inspectors, Leonel Marques, Pereira Cristovao and Paulo Marques Bom, were all acquitted and cleared of torture.

Senor Amaral was cleared of a charge of failing to report a crime but found guilty of perjury because he upheld, under oath the version that he had been given by his subordinates, that Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide. This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Sr Amaral testified to, could not be proved. His defence 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.

Antonio Nunes Cardoso, was found guilty of falsifying documents and was given a two-and-a-half year suspended jail sentence.

The jurors and the collective of judges at the Court of Faro considered that Cipriano's deposition had "no credibility". According to judge Henrique Pavão, she changed her version several times and lightly accused persons of aggressing her, based on a list of names that she carried into the court room. "She lied about the identification of the aggressors and she lied about other crucial aspects," the judge mentioned.

Concerning the photographs that were taken of Leonor, which were included in the process, the collective considered that they were "of weak quality" and that therefore, "it was not possible to conclude safely about what really happened".

Which leads us onto the recent news that Cipriano's lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia and Pedro Antonio, president of ACED will be tried in early February for the alleged defamation of Goncalo Amaral. At issue is a document dated 8th April 2008 and entitled “Report on Torture Leonor Cipriano”. The section below appears to be the offending passage...

"At the request of prosecutors, Leonor Cipriano tried to identify the inspectors that tortured her. In her mind, she was transported to Evora in 2006 to try to recognize some of the torturers from the six inspectors. Unfortunately, given the lapse of time, and with a bag over her head many times when attacked, and the possibility of not being on-site recognition of all offenders, Leonor was only able to say with absolute certainty, Gonçalo Amaral, the then coordinator of the DIC of Portimão, was present during interrogation, watching the torture with ease, because every time she uncovered her eyes and was beaten, he was there, walking from one side to another, without ever attempting to stop the torture carried out by his subordinates."
Marcos Aragão Correia

Senor Amaral is suing each arguido for €3000. A rather low sum, you may say... however we all know that taking such action in Portugal is all about writing the wrongs and not for monetary gain. Perhaps the reason that the McCanns never sued the Portuguese press, yet settled out of court with the British media for later printing the very same newspaper reports. Remind me just who the money-grubbers are...
Posted by Me, Myself, Moi... at 14:24

Remind me just who the money-grubbers are...

Thats what gave these two away right at the beginning for me there thirst for the fund and making as much from it as possible, strangely Ive been giving the Fund alot of thought of late, I may be wrong but it is my thinking that alot of the fund money hasn't been spent on the wrong things ie: mortgage payments, 4wheel vehicles or 5* Hotels when visiting Countries re: book/press meeting ets.......but in held an account just incase the McCanns (maybe others in there group of friends) are ever arrested, they will then be able to buy the best lawyers/help money can buy because imo if you are seriously rich and get the best of the best regarding lawyers etc in a court of law, more often then not these people often win their cases for their clients. ajimo

Thankyou so much Annabel: It is always,always, worth reminding ourselves that there is never only one side of a story.

A most interesting slant which should at least remind those who denigrate Amaral for no reason other than that he seems to be an ever present threat to the liberty of those involved in the Madeleine McCann Case (which, of itself, is not just about poor Madeleine) that he may be a flawed human being (which of us is not) but that does not mean he is corrupt or lacking in integrity and professionalism.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Thankyou so much Annabel: It is always,always, worth reminding ourselves that there is never only one side of a story.

A most interesting slant which should at least remind those who denigrate Amaral for no reason other than that he seems to be an ever present threat to the liberty of those involved in the Madeleine McCann Case (which, of itself, is not just about poor Madeleine) that he may be a flawed human being (which of us is not) but that does not mean he is corrupt or lacking in integrity and professionalism.

Actually the fact that he is a perjurer might have a little to do with that denigration. It would seem to be a very valid reason actually and rather puts paid to your "for no other reason than" claim. Just putting the other side of the story as you seem so keen for us to do. Most people I know believe it is very unprofessional for a copper to perjure himself in court. They might even look on it as a kind of corruption and certainly would say it smacks of a lack of integrity. They probably would be less inclined to believe other things he had to say as well.

platinum wrote: ............... They probably would be less inclined to believe other things he had to say as well.

Some might.

Fortunately not everyone.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote: ............... They probably would be less inclined to believe other things he had to say as well.

Some might.

Fortunately not everyone.

Well believing perjurers automatically might be your cup of tea. It isn't mine I'm afraid. Just the other side of the story of course.

And his perjury certainly does make him look very unprofessional and very much lacking in integrity to many.

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Thankyou so much Annabel: It is always,always, worth reminding ourselves that there is never only one side of a story.

A most interesting slant which should at least remind those who denigrate Amaral for no reason other than that he seems to be an ever present threat to the liberty of those involved in the Madeleine McCann Case (which, of itself, is not just about poor Madeleine) that he may be a flawed human being (which of us is not) but that does not mean he is corrupt or lacking in integrity and professionalism.

Actually the fact that he is a perjurer might have a little to do with that denigration. It would seem to be a very valid reason actually and rather puts paid to your "for no other reason than" claim. Just putting the other side of the story as you seem so keen for us to do. Most people I know believe it is very unprofessional for a copper to perjure himself in court. They might even look on it as a kind of corruption and certainly would say it smacks of a lack of integrity. They probably would be less inclined to believe other things he had to say as well.

Ah well! By most reputable accounts the 'tortured,' woman and her lawyer are serial liars and there's those other serial liars, the ones who managed to lose one of their three children. So many lies from them and it's not hard to imagine why everything they say is taken with a large pinch of salt.

We'll wait and see how the court case turns out and I'll be particularly interested in the allegation that the nutty lawyer was asked by Spanish detectives to organise evidence against Dr Amaral.

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote: ............... They probably would be less inclined to believe other things he had to say as well.

Some might.

Fortunately not everyone.

Well believing perjurers automatically might be your cup of tea. It isn't mine I'm afraid. Just the other side of the story of course.

And his perjury certainly does make him look very unprofessional and very much lacking in integrity to many.

Who might these, 'many,' be? Can you quote a few of them?

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote: ............... They probably would be less inclined to believe other things he had to say as well.

Some might.

Fortunately not everyone.

Well believing perjurers automatically might be your cup of tea. It isn't mine I'm afraid. Just the other side of the story of course.

And his perjury certainly does make him look very unprofessional and very much lacking in integrity to many.

Who might these, 'many,' be? Can you quote a few of them?

I suggest you look at the way police who have perjured themselves are looked on in general. It usually means instant dismissal from the force here. But of course Amaral had resigned before he was convicted. Interesting.

No I can't quote them as many are friends and colleagues (some serving police officers in this country too) but I am sure you will take that as meaning that I am lying. Thats your prerogative. However I am not a convicted liar like Amaral it would just be your opinion.

I would ask also whether you truly believe that a police officer convicted and sentenced to a suspended prison term for perjury i the course of his duties is truly an honourable man who retains integrity and has behaved professionally. I would be interested in your answer.

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Thankyou so much Annabel: It is always,always, worth reminding ourselves that there is never only one side of a story.

A most interesting slant which should at least remind those who denigrate Amaral for no reason other than that he seems to be an ever present threat to the liberty of those involved in the Madeleine McCann Case (which, of itself, is not just about poor Madeleine) that he may be a flawed human being (which of us is not) but that does not mean he is corrupt or lacking in integrity and professionalism.

Actually the fact that he is a perjurer might have a little to do with that denigration. It would seem to be a very valid reason actually and rather puts paid to your "for no other reason than" claim. Just putting the other side of the story as you seem so keen for us to do. Most people I know believe it is very unprofessional for a copper to perjure himself in court. They might even look on it as a kind of corruption and certainly would say it smacks of a lack of integrity. They probably would be less inclined to believe other things he had to say as well.

Ah well! By most reputable accounts the 'tortured,' woman and her lawyer are serial liars and there's those other serial liars, the ones who managed to lose one of their three children. So many lies from them and it's not hard to imagine why everything they say is taken with a large pinch of salt.

We'll wait and see how the court case turns out and I'll be particularly interested in the allegation that the nutty lawyer was asked by Spanish detectives to organise evidence against Dr Amaral.

We have no need to wait to see how the court dealt with Amarals blatant lies. He was sentenced to a suspended prison term confirmed on appeal. That is the current state of play.

Correct me if i'm wrong but was GA's 'purgery' conviction
based on a legal technicality?
Did he give evidence which supported what was reported to
him by his subordinates without verifying same?
If this was the case, and he believed and trusted the testimony
of his subordinates, and he reported such to a court whilst
believing it to be the actual truth, then is this purgery?
Is it more to do with his lack of verification, thereby undermining
his subordinates as co-ordinator that is at the heart of this
charge?
Thankyou in advance.

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote: ............... They probably would be less inclined to believe other things he had to say as well.

Some might.

Fortunately not everyone.

Well believing perjurers automatically might be your cup of tea. It isn't mine I'm afraid. Just the other side of the story of course.

And his perjury certainly does make him look very unprofessional and very much lacking in integrity to many.

Who might these, 'many,' be? Can you quote a few of them?

I suggest you look at the way police who have perjured themselves are looked on in general. It usually means instant dismissal from the force here. But of course Amaral had resigned before he was convicted. Interesting.

No I can't quote them as many are friends and colleagues (some serving police officers in this country too) but I am sure you will take that as meaning that I am lying. Thats your prerogative. However I am not a convicted liar like Amaral it would just be your opinion.

I would ask also whether you truly believe that a police officer convicted and sentenced to a suspended prison term for perjury i the course of his duties is truly an honourable man who retains integrity and has behaved professionally. I would be interested in your answer.

You certainly are a liar. GA did not resign. He retired.

Claudia79 wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Some might.

Fortunately not everyone.

Well believing perjurers automatically might be your cup of tea. It isn't mine I'm afraid. Just the other side of the story of course.

And his perjury certainly does make him look very unprofessional and very much lacking in integrity to many.

Who might these, 'many,' be? Can you quote a few of them?

I suggest you look at the way police who have perjured themselves are looked on in general. It usually means instant dismissal from the force here. But of course Amaral had resigned before he was convicted. Interesting.

No I can't quote them as many are friends and colleagues (some serving police officers in this country too) but I am sure you will take that as meaning that I am lying. Thats your prerogative. However I am not a convicted liar like Amaral it would just be your opinion.

I would ask also whether you truly believe that a police officer convicted and sentenced to a suspended prison term for perjury i the course of his duties is truly an honourable man who retains integrity and has behaved professionally. I would be interested in your answer.

You certainly are a liar. GA did not resign. He retired.

Oh is there such a difference? Resigning just means handing in your notice whether it is for early retirement, ill health or anything else. I am not a liar whereas Amaral is clearly a convicted liar in the course of his duties and in my book that means he is unprofessional and lacking in integrity.

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote: ............... They probably would be less inclined to believe other things he had to say as well.

Some might.

Fortunately not everyone.

Well believing perjurers automatically might be your cup of tea. It isn't mine I'm afraid. Just the other side of the story of course.

And his perjury certainly does make him look very unprofessional and very much lacking in integrity to many.

Keeping an open mind and looking at individual issues on merit is my cup of tea.

marxman wrote:Correct me if i'm wrong but was GA's 'purgery' conviction
based on a legal technicality?
Did he give evidence which supported what was reported to
him by his subordinates without verifying same?
If this was the case, and he believed and trusted the testimony
of his subordinates, and he reported such to a court whilst
believing it to be the actual truth, then is this purgery?
Is it more to do with his lack of verification, thereby undermining
his subordinates as co-ordinator that is at the heart of this
charge?
Thankyou in advance.

Yes it is perjury because the court found him guilty of that perjury and sentenced him to a suspended prison term of 18 months. A higher court later confirmed that he was a perjurer and upheld the sentence.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote: ............... They probably would be less inclined to believe other things he had to say as well.

Some might.

Fortunately not everyone.

Well believing perjurers automatically might be your cup of tea. It isn't mine I'm afraid. Just the other side of the story of course.

And his perjury certainly does make him look very unprofessional and very much lacking in integrity to many.

Keeping an open mind and looking at individual issues on merit is my cup of tea.

Mine too!

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote: ............... They probably would be less inclined to believe other things he had to say as well.

Some might.

Fortunately not everyone.

Well believing perjurers automatically might be your cup of tea. It isn't mine I'm afraid. Just the other side of the story of course.

And his perjury certainly does make him look very unprofessional and very much lacking in integrity to many.

Keeping an open mind and looking at individual issues on merit is my cup of tea.

Funny kind of open mind that decides a policeman perjuring himself in the course of his duties is not unprofessional, still retains his integrity etc. Most cops who do that are dismissed instantly. But Goncalo Amaral had sensibly taken early retirement before that could happen. Interesting.

And a funny kind of early retirement too if I remember. Isn't it true that Sofia claimed that nobody even said goodbye to him when he left on his last day? Not how we celebrate the early retirement of people in my office. Not at all.

platinum wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

Well believing perjurers automatically might be your cup of tea. It isn't mine I'm afraid. Just the other side of the story of course.

And his perjury certainly does make him look very unprofessional and very much lacking in integrity to many.

Who might these, 'many,' be? Can you quote a few of them?

I suggest you look at the way police who have perjured themselves are looked on in general. It usually means instant dismissal from the force here. But of course Amaral had resigned before he was convicted. Interesting.

No I can't quote them as many are friends and colleagues (some serving police officers in this country too) but I am sure you will take that as meaning that I am lying. Thats your prerogative. However I am not a convicted liar like Amaral it would just be your opinion.

I would ask also whether you truly believe that a police officer convicted and sentenced to a suspended prison term for perjury i the course of his duties is truly an honourable man who retains integrity and has behaved professionally. I would be interested in your answer.

You certainly are a liar. GA did not resign. He retired.

Oh is there such a difference? Resigning just means handing in your notice whether it is for early retirement, ill health or anything else. I am not a liar whereas Amaral is clearly a convicted liar in the course of his duties and in my book that means he is unprofessional and lacking in integrity.

Yes, there is a difference and you know it. And you and I both know why you chose 'resigned' instead of the truth 'retired'. And yes, you're still a liar (and a manipulator) in my book. And we can all see it, Platinum. We're just giving you rope. Got it?

you auntie phil by any chance ? this place has been going ages and your a newbee for a newbee you aint half done a lot of posts today .

Claudia79 wrote:

platinum wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Who might these, 'many,' be? Can you quote a few of them?

I suggest you look at the way police who have perjured themselves are looked on in general. It usually means instant dismissal from the force here. But of course Amaral had resigned before he was convicted. Interesting.

No I can't quote them as many are friends and colleagues (some serving police officers in this country too) but I am sure you will take that as meaning that I am lying. Thats your prerogative. However I am not a convicted liar like Amaral it would just be your opinion.

I would ask also whether you truly believe that a police officer convicted and sentenced to a suspended prison term for perjury i the course of his duties is truly an honourable man who retains integrity and has behaved professionally. I would be interested in your answer.

You certainly are a liar. GA did not resign. He retired.

Oh is there such a difference? Resigning just means handing in your notice whether it is for early retirement, ill health or anything else. I am not a liar whereas Amaral is clearly a convicted liar in the course of his duties and in my book that means he is unprofessional and lacking in integrity.

Yes, there is a difference and you know it. And you and I both know why you chose 'resigned' instead of the truth 'retired'. And yes, you're still a liar (and a manipulator) in my book. And we can all see it, Platinum. We're just giving you rope. Got it?

There is no lie at all in that phrase. I chose the word "resign" which encompasses early retirement, ill health and many other possibilities. No lie at all. You can give me as much rope as you like but the fact is I am not lying.

And I repeat what kind of early retirement was it?

"When Gonçalo went out of the PJ door there was no one saying goodbye to him. No director. No one. After a life dedicated to the PJ, it was what most got him down," says Sofia.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id131.html

cass wrote:you auntie phil by any chance ? this place has been going ages and your a newbee for a newbee you aint half done a lot of posts today .

Just because I have some time today I am now a member of the McCann family. That is pathetic.

On another thread I was a poster called San Souci. Is that the best debate you can offer?

platinum wrote:

marxman wrote:Correct me if i'm wrong but was GA's 'purgery' conviction
based on a legal technicality?
Did he give evidence which supported what was reported to
him by his subordinates without verifying same?
If this was the case, and he believed and trusted the testimony
of his subordinates, and he reported such to a court whilst
believing it to be the actual truth, then is this purgery?
Is it more to do with his lack of verification, thereby undermining
his subordinates as co-ordinator that is at the heart of this
charge?
Thankyou in advance.

Yes it is perjury because the court found him guilty of that perjury and sentenced him to a suspended prison term of 18 months. A higher court later confirmed that he was a perjurer and upheld the sentence.

Thankyou Platinum and apologies for my mispelling of perjury. However,
could you kindly answer my question as fully as you can please?

Would you like a cup of tea?

platinum wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

platinum wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

platinum wrote:
I suggest you look at the way police who have perjured themselves are looked on in general. It usually means instant dismissal from the force here. But of course Amaral had resigned before he was convicted. Interesting.

No I can't quote them as many are friends and colleagues (some serving police officers in this country too) but I am sure you will take that as meaning that I am lying. Thats your prerogative. However I am not a convicted liar like Amaral it would just be your opinion.

I would ask also whether you truly believe that a police officer convicted and sentenced to a suspended prison term for perjury i the course of his duties is truly an honourable man who retains integrity and has behaved professionally. I would be interested in your answer.

You certainly are a liar. GA did not resign. He retired.

Oh is there such a difference? Resigning just means handing in your notice whether it is for early retirement, ill health or anything else. I am not a liar whereas Amaral is clearly a convicted liar in the course of his duties and in my book that means he is unprofessional and lacking in integrity.

Yes, there is a difference and you know it. And you and I both know why you chose 'resigned' instead of the truth 'retired'. And yes, you're still a liar (and a manipulator) in my book. And we can all see it, Platinum. We're just giving you rope. Got it?

There is no lie at all in that phrase. I chose the word "resign" which encompasses early retirement, ill health and many other possibilities. No lie at all. You can give me as much rope as you like but the fact is I am not lying.

And I repeat what kind of early retirement was it?

"When Gonçalo went out of the PJ door there was no one saying goodbye to him. No director. No one. After a life dedicated to the PJ, it was what most got him down," says Sofia.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id131.html

You're reminding me of someone, Platinum. Can't quite recall yet, but I'll get there!

Snowflake??