The collective of judges considered that Leonor Cipriano was TORTURED, even though it could NOT be proved by whom.
If she was TORTURED, as the Court stated, then Portugal is within that limited list of countries that is both barbaric and has the stupidest of police forces.
Very few countries can say the same. Only the most ridiculously stupid policeman would TORTURE someone to the state in which Leonor appears to have been left in with all the media around focused on her as they were at the time of the alleged events.
Pretty, pretty stupid, to say the least.
If they waited for after the confession to beat her up for whatever reason, that means exactly that: a beating, not TORTURE.
TORTURE means that you have inflict pain to obtain information. Beating, you just want to inflict pain.
I don’t know the details of the said sentence, but I’m most curious to know to what was fact that made the collective of judges determine as proved the TORTURE.
TORTURE was proved, so it was determined the place, time, and MOTIVE for it to have occurred. I'm really, really curious as to which.
The Court finds that we have 3 inspectors who TORTURED a person, but they couldn’t pinpoint the one that really, really TORTURED the lady in question.
Fine (did I just say fine?!?!), rather let go free a guilty person than condemn an innocent.I agree with the principle, but there seems that a mathematical equation wasn’t adequately addressed.
See if I get this straight: 4 people in a room, 1 is TORTURED, which leaves 3 people to do the TORTURING.
Of the 3 TORTURERS, at least 1 did the TORTURE; otherwise there would be no TORTURE at all.
It could have been all the 3 doing the TORTURE, but we can only guarantee that, at least, there was 1 TORTURER, which the Court wasn’t capable to determine which.
Fine (did I say fine again?!?). Let’s get back to maths.
So, we have 1 TORTURER and 1 TORTURED. What about the other 2?
Most likely, they were accomplices to the TORTURER, or, in the least, were witnesses to a crime of TORTURE that they didn’t report.
So, in front of the collective of judges, we have 3 people, 1 of which TORTURED the crap out of a child-killer and the other 2 that helped this TORTURE, or at least witnessed the TORTURING being done.
Logic would say, if it couldn’t be proved who effectively TORTURED, all 3 should have been punished for concealing a TORTURE.
No innocent would be condemned, only 1 of the 3 would get a much lighter sentence than he should have got.
But no, said the Court, she was just TORTURED, and that’s it, so now let’s all go home.
A WISE decision if they knew that there was never any TORTURE, but had to come up with a guilty verdict come what may...
As said yesterday, this only leaves me sad.
What about forgery of pictures, the role of the Prison Director, the admittance of pressure by prison wards, the confession of those who beat her up?
I pity the Portuguese. They either live in a country where police torture AFTER a confession, as apparently was the case according to the Portuguese Justice, or in one where its Judicial System is so inept that it serves all purposes with the exception of the one for which it was supposed to serve, as is my opinion.
Mine and that of many others.
About the crimes for which Gonçalo Amaral was condemned, I don’t know sufficient detail to pronounce adequately about them. They are completely irrelevant.
Simple droplets in a Force 5 Hurricane.
IF he did what he was accused of, he was correctly punished, for that is what Justice is all about. I maintain my belief in his total innocence, but as to err is human, let me just say that, Sir, you wouldn’t lose one ounce of my total and absolute respect.
IF he didn’t, as I think he didn't, then… well you know what I think.
As Fred says, this would be comical if it weren’t so tragic.