Author Topic: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?  (Read 24703 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Brietta

Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« on: May 31, 2016, 06:23:36 PM »
Repetition of erroneous conclusions whatever one's motivation or justification may very well constitute dissemination of libel as far as British Courts are concerned.

However, whatever the legal position may be there must surely be an honourable position with regard to reiterating the content of a flawed and mistaken thesis.

Quite often members sail very close to the wind while discussing an individual's train of thought at a particular time ... it is also worth remembering that as the case co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral may very well have been directing the course the investigation was taking.
The misdirection of which may very well have been at least one of the issues which obliged his removal from the case.

416
« Last Edit: October 30, 2018, 03:14:07 PM by John »
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2016, 06:28:47 PM »
Repetition of erroneous conclusions whatever one's motivation or justification may very well constitute dissemination of libel as far as British Courts are concerned.

However, whatever the legal position may be there must surely be an honourable position with regard to reiterating the content of a flawed and mistaken thesis.

Quite often members sail very close to the wind while discussing an individual's train of thought at a particular time ... it is also worth remembering that as the case co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral may very well have been directing the course the investigation was taking.
The misdirection of which may very well have been at least one of the issues which obliged his removal from the case.

Who said it is a flawed and mistaken thesis.

It has not been disproved.




BTW, this post is not goading.

Offline jassi

Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2016, 06:33:57 PM »
Who said it is a flawed and mistaken thesis.

It has not been disproved.




BTW, this post is not goading.

So true
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -   11 years and still no solution.

Online Davel

Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2016, 06:53:49 PM »
Who said it is a flawed and mistaken thesis.

It has not been disproved.




BTW, this post is not goading.

Calpol is not a sedative
Children cannot die from falling off a sofa
Disproved very easily
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline Brietta

Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2016, 06:58:58 PM »
Who said it is a flawed and mistaken thesis.

It has not been disproved.




BTW, this post is not goading.

Hmmm ... so you believe Mr Amaral's thesis has not been disproved when considering subsequent evidence such as the final FSS report ...
However a belief is one thing, how you choose to express it another.
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2016, 06:59:08 PM »
Calpol is not a sedative
Children cannot die from falling off a sofa
Disproved very easily

You cannot disprove that.

You never have.



BTW, this post is not goading.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2016, 07:00:28 PM »
Hmmm ... so you believe Mr Amaral's thesis has not been disproved when considering subsequent evidence such as the final FSS report ...
However a belief is one thing, how you choose to express it another.

The report was inconclusive.

Please keep to the facts.



BTW, this post is not goading.

Online Davel

Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2016, 07:03:28 PM »
The report was inconclusive.

Please keep to the facts.



BTW, this post is not goading.

Amaral didn't keep to the facts
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline jassi

Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2016, 07:06:57 PM »
Amaral didn't keep to the facts

Do you think the Supreme Court will be taking your opinion into account?
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -   11 years and still no solution.

Online ShiningInLuz

Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2016, 07:13:53 PM »
I'm not sure why things are getting so heated when there is nothing to get heated about.

Tone it down.  Keep it civil.
Portelas installed. Plus Gonšalo!  And F1!  And the World Cup!

Offline Brietta

Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2016, 07:17:30 PM »
The report was inconclusive.

Please keep to the facts.



BTW, this post is not goading.

It is apparent that Goncalo Amaral either failed to understand the DNA results, or that he chose to disregard them, but there is absolutely no reason why anyone should perpetuate that error given that they have been subject to so much discussion and explanation since their release into the public domain.

**snip
In an e-mail dated 3 September 2007, John Lowe of the major incidents team of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) said it was impossible to conclude whether the material taken from the car came from Madeleine.

The e-mail was translated into Portuguese the following day and four days later Portuguese detectives named the McCanns arguidos - formal suspects - citing DNA evidence as grounds for their suspicions.

In his message to Det Supt Stuart Prior, head of the British side of the inquiry, Mr Lowe said a sample from the boot of the McCanns' hire car, which they rented 24 days after Madeleine went missing, contained 15 out of 19 of her DNA components.
But he cautioned that this result - based on the controversial "low copy number" DNA analysis technique which uses very small samples - was "too complex for meaningful interpretation or inclusion".

The expert said the components of the missing girl's DNA profile were not unique to her - in fact some were present among FSS scientists, including himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7541810.stm
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Online Davel

Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2016, 07:18:47 PM »
You cannot disprove that.

You never have.



BTW, this post is not goading.

Anyone who understands pharmacology and medicine would agree with me
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2016, 07:25:54 PM »
It is apparent that Goncalo Amaral either failed to understand the DNA results, or that he chose to disregard them, but there is absolutely no reason why anyone should perpetuate that error given that they have been subject to so much discussion and explanation since their release into the public domain.

**snip
In an e-mail dated 3 September 2007, John Lowe of the major incidents team of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) said it was impossible to conclude whether the material taken from the car came from Madeleine.

The e-mail was translated into Portuguese the following day and four days later Portuguese detectives named the McCanns arguidos - formal suspects - citing DNA evidence as grounds for their suspicions.

In his message to Det Supt Stuart Prior, head of the British side of the inquiry, Mr Lowe said a sample from the boot of the McCanns' hire car, which they rented 24 days after Madeleine went missing, contained 15 out of 19 of her DNA components.
But he cautioned that this result - based on the controversial "low copy number" DNA analysis technique which uses very small samples - was "too complex for meaningful interpretation or inclusion".

The expert said the components of the missing girl's DNA profile were not unique to her - in fact some were present among FSS scientists, including himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7541810.stm

I know this already.

Old news.

Neither affirming or dismissing the possibility of a body.



BTW, this post is not goading.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2016, 07:48:56 PM »
Repetition of erroneous conclusions whatever one's motivation or justification may very well constitute dissemination of libel as far as British Courts are concerned.

However, whatever the legal position may be there must surely be an honourable position with regard to reiterating the content of a flawed and mistaken thesis.

Quite often members sail very close to the wind while discussing an individual's train of thought at a particular time ... it is also worth remembering that as the case co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral may very well have been directing the course the investigation was taking.
The misdirection of which may very well have been at least one of the issues which obliged his removal from the case.

I have not agreed with the report or with Amaral's conclusions so I fail to see what the problem is. If copying part of the official files onto this thread constitutes libel then so does the copying of chunks of the book onto another thread. There's no difference as far as I can see.

Amaral's book matched the findings and conclusions of the investigation just before he was moved off the case, therefore it can't really be judged in the light of what happened later. Had the court case not occurred it would be old out of date news by now.
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Offline jassi

Re: Did Gonšalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2016, 07:55:47 PM »
I think you'll find that many aren't that bothered. It's supporters that get so uptight about Amarel, not us sceptics.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -   11 years and still no solution.