87/08.8JAFAR Amaral court case from 2008 now coming to a head.

Maybe Sofa is after him for Child Support. But isn't he supposed to be staying with his Dad?

For all we know, his father has kicked him out. Which leaves two possibilities:

1. He is dossing down in the police station on a spare bunk.

2. He's in custody for something we don't know about. Yet

bb1 wrote:For all we know, his father has kicked him out. Which leaves two possibilities:

1. He is dossing down in the police station on a spare bunk.

2. He's in custody for something we don't know about. Yet

Yer. Police Stations do give beds to down and outs, don't they. Or he could have been arrested for being Drunk and Disorderly. I think I like that one best.

This exchange has appeared on the Morais blog:

mc said... 12
Boa tarde!

Começar, começou. O MAC não foi mais uma vez e GA deu como morada a Esquadra da Polícia da zona onde vive actualmente.Indicou como domicílio a esquadra da PSP dos Olivais, em Lisboa.

Será que o Tribunal de Faro não comunicou para a Esquadra?

18/04/2012 16:16
Joana Morais said... 13
Olá boa tarde MC, obrigada pela informação, ainda não vi nada, estive a traduzir e estou fora de PT - vou ver o que encontro. um beijinho

------

mc said ... 12
Good afternoon!

Begin began. The MAC was not once more and GA gave as the address of Police Station area where you live actualmente.Indicou home as a Police station Olivais in Lisbon.

Did the Court of Faro has not communicated to the Police?

18/04/2012 16:16
Joan Mitchell said ... 13
Hello good afternoon MC, thanks for the info, I have not seen anything, was to translate and I'm out of PT - I'll see what I find. a kiss

-----------

Look, dear, if you can't translate honestly and accurately, then don't bother translating at all - Mr Google does far less damage to the truth.

Shouldn't she have known that the Dear Leader appears to have taken up residence in a police station?

ETA for clarification.

The forkers have a sloppy habit of referring to Marcos Correia as MAC, which always makes it look as if they are discussing computers.

A forker is puzzled:

Have I misread this? I thought Correia was suing Amaral, not the other way around!!! Isn't it to do with e "torture" of Cipriani which the Police rejected
saying she fell down the Stairs and Amaral backed them up. I thought Correia got an independent witness to say Ciprianos' injuries did not result from a
fall and it is Amaral who has postponed the Trial twice. I hope I'm wrong



How wrong can you get anything?

The torture was proven and Gonc's part in concealing it by committing perjury resulted in his sentence; the sentence was confirmed when Gonc lost his appeal.

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3341-gonc-guilty-of-torture-yippee

Gonc foolishly decided to take Marcos and ACED to court for insulting his non-existent honour

The only reason the PJ officers who assaulted Mrs Cipriano over a period of some hours were not also convicted is that the cowardly brutes put a bag over her head so she couldn't identify them.

Cristovao was one of those officers.

Thankfully, the overwhelming, decent majority of the PJ have had enough of that shower, and are taking Gonc, Cristovao and the other brutes to CIVIL court to remove their police pensions, etc., rather as happened to OJ Simpson.

Gonc's ex-wife Sofia and the brother he cheated out of a house - court records here:

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3832-gonc-s-debts-and-brothers-court-case

are being called as witnesses by Marcos Correia, to prove for once and for all that

GONC HAD NO HONOUR TO BEGIN WITH

We await further information on why Gonc has given his place of residence as a police cell in Olivais nick, in Lisbon.

Is it possible that none of The Forkers know what has actually been going on for the last five years? That they know nothing about true facts of The Case? That they missed everything except the shrieks of The McCanns are Guilty?

This is niggling; if someone gives their address as c/o a police station, doesn't that mean they are on police bail, or something?

Is it possible Gonc has done something we don't know about yet, and that is why he can't go to the Algarve?

I know, Sabot, it's stunning - they seem to be completely in the dark about everything that is happening in the real world.

No wonder all they do is parrot Morais, they don't seem to have a clue about the situation in the real world.

Is it possible that Gonc has breached the terms under which his 18 month jail sentence for perjury, etc., was suspended?

Because try as I may, I can think of no good reason for his address to be c/o Olivias Police Station.

Surely if he was of no fixed abode, he would have given his lawyer's office as a contact address?

And WHY won't he go to the Algarve?

Same story:

http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/tribunal-processo-difamacao-sociedade-ultimas-noticias-tvi24/1341884-4071.html

Gonçalo Amaral and Aragão Correia fail judgment

Initiation of proceedings had been postponed twice

The lawyer and defendant Aragão Correia, accused of alleged defamation of Gonçalo Amaral, former Inspector of Judicial Police, there was present, this Wednesday, the Court of Faro, as well as the complainant himself. According to Lusa, after two postponements of the first court session, attended only one of the defendants, Antonio Pedro Dores, professor and chair of the Association Against Exclusion for Development (ACED). lawyer Aragão Correia and António Pedro Dores are accused of allegedly defaming the former Inspector, who investigated for nearly eight years the disappearance of Jane, daughter of Leonor Cipriano and aludirem publicly alleged torture, that it would have been targeted during an interrogation. According to the court, Gonçalo Amaral refused to provide your address, indicating how the home Olivais Police station in Lisbon. The trial should have started in February but was postponed to March 29 because of a pending appeal, brought by Antonio Pedro Dores. On 29 March, court again postponed the initial session for today, by Gonçalo Amaral has requested to be heard through videoconferencing, according to the explanation advanced in time by one of the lawyers involved in the process. Absent this session was also the lawyer Marcos Aragão Correia, who lives in Funchal, which have made ​​the same application to the Court of Faro, forcing the trial to be postponed for the second time.

Gonçalo Amaral refused to provide your address, indicating how the home Olivais Police station in Lisbon.

Also here:

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3980-defamation-of-goncalo-amaral-begins-to-be-judged

plus the suggestion that Gonc was criticised in court for lying about his home address.

Well, we all know he couldn't lie straight in bed, but why on earth would he do that? I don't mean lie, he does that whenever his lips move - I mean tell the court he was living in a police station.

I can see someone lying and claiming to be living in the Lisbon Hilton, but not a police station. It doesn't give a court a very good impression, does it - the implication that he is an involuntary guest of his former colleagues.

Any reasonable person could assume that by claiming to be residing in Lisbon nick, he is actually hiding something even worse.

What, I have no idea, and there's no point expecting Morais and co to come clean.

Amaral has called for a video conference because he physically could not be present at the Courthouse? Or he goes into hiding for fear of Sofia ..?

A few options:

1. Amaral was arrested and imprisoned, stuck in a police "all restrictions" no contact with the outside world, except his lawyer.



If that is the case you may wonder what the hell he's been up to, he calls for videoconferencing because he can not leave the policecell.
Now where is the hysterical Sofia spilling the beans...??

2. If Sofia testified against him in the "brother" case, the communication may be weakened somewhat. Understatement.
Amaral is afraid of Sofia and so he chooses alternative the address of a policestation?

3. Less sensational, the service address: choose 'domicile': "I do not want them to know where I live", for numbers of reasons.
For witness, victims, etc.

More and more people have difficulty that their private data may be specified in a court file. Fear plays a role. Experience shows that the police are not always helpful to offer the witness or victim the use to take the option of choose "domicile".

Choose "Domicile" means using the address or your lawyer, a police station, a company address, or the address of an authority, like an Embassy in all official documents in all formal correspondence documents.

I am sure we will know soon what is going on...

I am sure we will know soon what is going on...

I hope so, Rose - we certainly are not going to get any sense from Gonc and the team.

I couldn't think of any good reason for him to give his address as a police station to begin with; I can think of even less reason for him to be lying about it.

What's he doing - living in a cardboard box behind the police station, or something? It's incomprehensible.

More news:

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3980-defamation-of-goncalo-amaral-begins-to-be-judged

Re: Defamation of Gonçalo Amaral begins to be judged
by christabel Today at 11:38 am

Oh no, It is even worse than we thought!

Amaral was contacted by a policeman - for sure at his home, now at Olivais, Lisbon. But apparently because of the trial in the Algarve he asked this policeman to inform that he didn’t want to reveal his address, but, anyway, the court could always send the notifications to the Police Station/Olivais, under the responsibility of the “Intendente Lopes Martins” (“Intendente” is a police – PSP - patent).

Isabel Duarte asked the court to issue a certification, in order to communicate this fact to the High Command of the PSP and to open an inquiry. Which she will do.

--------------------

Nope, don't ask me.

I still can't figure out where on earth he could be living, that giving a police station as his home address is an improvement.

And why would Olivais police station have an interest in his whereabouts, anyway?

More strangeness; J4 have more information from Portugal:

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3980-defamation-of-goncalo-amaral-begins-to-be-judged

Quote:

Gonçalo Amaral missing on trial for alleged defamation.

Seems he didn't show for his videoconferencing, and he was nowhere near the police station
He only told a policeman,the court could always send the notifications to the Police Station/Olivais.

The court tried to contact Gonc by phone and he had the phone disconnected all day. Besides that, the court doesn’t know where he lives, and therefore, doesn’t know to where the court can send the notifications.

The judge determined there should be a deep investigation about the concrete Amaral domicile, to inform the court.


Now, I will stress that I haven't the faintest idea what is going on, though I know J4 do get news from good friends in Portugal.

Why doesn't Morais do something useful for once, like telling the truth about what Gonc is up to, instead of working her shrooms into a frenzy over fake 'PJ sources' stories that have been planted by people not a million miles from her?

The whereabouts of Gonc would do for starters. He launched this ridiculous complaint; if he now doesn't want to go through with it, then he should man up and say so.

I suspect that if he lied to a UK or US court like this, he would find himself up on charges PDQ.

I shouldn't think Portuguese courts much like being made fools of, either.

Shroom:

Anonymous said... 21
Dear Joana would you kindly keep us up-to-date with the developments in Faro? Much obliged! Is Marino Pint attending?

What's the point in asking Morais? She hasn't a clue what's going on, and even if she did, she wouldn't tell the truth.

Making a big hoo-ha about fake, planted stories in Catholic news sites is all Team Gonc trust her with these days.

J4 are never far off the mark. In fact they are particularly careful of what they say with regard to the truth.
Although I doubt that anyone knows why Goncalo Amaral is unavailable at the moment. Absolutely nothing is going his way. And this was the most stupid case he has ever brought.
I suppose he might have had a point if he was Defamed before he was convicted, but after he was convicted then his case ceased to be relevant. I think.
But personally, I worry about Portuguese Law. Is it possible to Defame someone who hasn't actually been convicted even if they later are convicted?

Please don't discard my question. It might be pertinent to what is happening.

No wonder Portugal are in such debt.

Just look at the waste of money, they spend on NONE trials!!

The whole thing is beyond bizarre, so anything is possible, Sabot.

Remember when news of this ridiculous case first broke? I idly speculated that perhaps the State were giving Gonc enough rope to hang himself, letting it go forward.

He has certainly lived down to expectations so far.

Apparently being scared to go to the Algarve is bad enough, but this business of claiming he lived in a police station, when he seemingly doesn't - madness.

I could see him being charged with perjury over it.

Again.

I don't suppose that Sans Souci or Jean Pierre could raise their heads on this one, could they?
Is it possible to Defame someone before they are convicted when they are later convicted of the afore mentioned Defamation?

Knowing when Goncalo Amaral was convicted and when he filed his suit would help, except that the conclusion of the Appeal could also be important. Did Marcos Correia and his co defendant accuse Goncalo Amaral before he was finally convicted? In which case it could be seen as Defamation at that time.

Please don't mock me. I just want to see some sense to why this is still ongoing.

I wouldn't dream of mocking you, Sabot, I can't make head nor tail of any of it.

Sabot wrote:
I don't suppose that Sans Souci or Jean Pierre could raise their heads on this one, could they?
Is it possible to Defame someone before they are convicted when they are later convicted of the afore mentioned Defamation?

Knowing when Goncalo Amaral was convicted and when he filed his suit would help, except that the conclusion of the Appeal could also be important. Did Marcos Correia and his co defendant accuse Goncalo Amaral before he was finally convicted? In which case it could be seen as Defamation at that time.

Please don't mock me. I just want to see some sense to why this is still ongoing.

Try this Sabot.

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3758-gonc-tries-dirty-tricks-with-marcos

Seems he didn't show for his videoconferencing, and he was nowhere near the police station
He only told a policeman,the court could always send the notifications to the Police Station/Olivais.

So where is he? Why wouldn't he answer the phone? He brought the ridiculous case, after all.

Never mind the Portuguese police, I hope the Portuguese tabloids are trying to track him down.

Sabot wrote:
I don't suppose that Sans Souci or Jean Pierre could raise their heads on this one, could they?
Is it possible to Defame someone before they are convicted when they are later convicted of the afore mentioned Defamation?

Knowing when Goncalo Amaral was convicted and when he filed his suit would help, except that the conclusion of the Appeal could also be important. Did Marcos Correia and his co defendant accuse Goncalo Amaral before he was finally convicted? In which case it could be seen as Defamation at that time.

Please don't mock me. I just want to see some sense to why this is still ongoing.

This case I presume - the one in question here where Amaral is alleging defamation by Marcos Aragao Correia and Pedro Dores - was initiated way back in 2008 well before Amaral was actually convicted of any involvement in the torture of Cipriano.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/102810/McCann-detective-guilty-of-perjury

My reason for claiming this is based on the case number which is 87/08.8JAFAR, the 08 I am almost 100% certain refers to the year. Compare it to the case number nº. 330/04.2JAPTM which is the case number of the original investigation into the disappearance of Joana Cipriano who disappeared in September 2004.

I think Amarals actual conviction of perjury in the case was in May 2009 so the defamation would have preceded the actual conviction.

This is complete speculation on my part, but I wonder if Amaral started this in 2008 when he was riding high, never expecting to be convicted, and for the conviction to be upheld on appeal?

The situation is very different four years on, and it is possible he now regrets it - but as he set the wheels in motion, he is stuck with it?

I don't know; the whole situation is peculiar.

GI it was after the first trial, where Amaral was found guilty; and then appealed, the sentence was set aside until all appeals were heard.