Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?

[ferryman]

Depends what you mean by guilty, legally or morally?

Legally.

Moral is a subjective judgement.

[Robittybob1]

nothing new here...its about parents trying to pass of head injuries caused by a parent as  a low level fall......low level falls rarely cause an  serious problem...if they do its a subdural haematoma which rarely results in death ...but when it does death is of the order of 24 hrs later...we have been through all this before ...amarals thesis does not hold water...thats why SY are looking for an abductor

So it is possible to die after a period of time from a low level fall, and it is likely the doctors there would be aware of this fact.

[Robittybob1]

You just introduced the 24 hours. What if Madeliene had had a nasty bang on the head the day before...?

Good point for Madeleine seemed very quiet that afternoon according to Kate.

[Robittybob1]

when...and how come it went unnoticed...just more ridiculous speculation to desperately try to find some thing to fit the bill

What day did the kids go sailing?  I always thought that sounded a risky activity for a 3-4 year old.

[Robittybob1]

So if Maddie didn't die in an accident
What happened to her

I like this Davel is opening up for new possibilities.

[ShiningInLuz]

Stephen did not conclude there was a body in the Scenic.  The DNA found does not prove a body.  In summary, no proof of a body.

[Robittybob1]

Stephen did not conclude there was a body in the Scenic.  The DNA found does not prove a body.  In summary, no proof of a body.

Same link but in the quote part "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." Goncalo had already seen the amount of fluid that had drained from the car, so he knew there had been a body but they could not tell who it was.
Are you saying CA was entirely wrong about a frozen cadaver being in the boot of the Scenic at any stage?

Would you say the same as you did before?

[John]

Same link but in the quote part "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." Goncalo had already seen the amount of fluid that had drained from the car, so he knew there had been a body but they could not tell who it was.
Are you saying CA was entirely wrong about a frozen cadaver being in the boot of the Scenic at any stage?

The forensics in this case are of extremely low value and cannot prove anything one way or another.  Gonçalo's frozen cadaver theory is just that, a theory, and whats more, a theory based on little or no evidence at all.  In a nutshell, worthless!

[Robittybob1]

The forensics in this case are of extremely low value and cannot prove anything one way or another.  Gonçalo's frozen cadaver theory is just that, a theory, and whats more, a theory based on little or no evidence at all.  In a nutshell, worthless!

But my point John is that we wouldn't all be saying it was worthless if the DNA results had come back positive confirmation it was Madeleine.

[John]

But my point John is that we wouldn't all be saying it was worthless if the DNA results had come back positive confirmation it was Madeleine.

On this forum we consider what is and what has been, not what might have been.

[Carana]

Same link but in the quote part "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." Goncalo had already seen the amount of fluid that had drained from the car, so he knew there had been a body but they could not tell who it was.
Are you saying CA was entirely wrong about a frozen cadaver being in the boot of the Scenic at any stage?

Would you say the same as you did before?

What on earth led you to the conclusion that he'd seen anything whatsoever, let alone fluid that had drained from the car?


There doesn't appear to have been anything to "see" in the first place.

Keela froze, which was her alert to blood (assuming that she is 100% reliable). OK. But there was no forensic corroboration. Assuming that she was correct, there was no way of telling who that molecule or two of blood may have belonged to. 

[Robittybob1]

What on earth led you to the conclusion that he'd seen anything whatsoever, let alone fluid that had drained from the car?


There doesn't appear to have been anything to "see" in the first place.

Keela froze, which was her alert to blood (assuming that she is 100% reliable). OK. But there was no forensic corroboration. Assuming that she was correct, there was no way of telling who that molecule or two of blood may have belonged to.

It was Goncalo that came to the conclusion not me.   They had seen what had dripped from the boot of the car when it was parked up somewhere but that other intelligence led him to state there had been a frozen cadaver in the car.  There can't be any doubt that that was his conclusion.He then combined that with the Eddie alert on the boot of the car, and Keela finding blood in the boot of the Scenic.  There was something found (was it just swabbed), and as you say "there was no way of telling who that molecule or two of blood may have belonged to."

So would GA have to consider that the cadaver he thought was Madeleine's could be someone else?  Would he have to consider he was wrong about who the cadaver belonged to, based on the evidence?

[Carana]

But my point John is that we wouldn't all be saying it was worthless if the DNA results had come back positive confirmation it was Madeleine.

Even if there had been a 100% DNA match with Madeleine in an uncontaminated sample, it still wouldn't necessairly mean much. 

If there had been a 100% DNA uncontaminated match, and forensic evidence of some post-mortem substance in that test area, then it would have raised my eyebrows as well.

But this wasn't the case.

[Carana]

It was Goncalo that came to the conclusion not me.   They had seen what had dripped from the boot of the car when it was parked up somewhere but that other intelligence led him to state there had been a frozen cadaver in the car.  There can't be any doubt that that was his conclusion.He then combined that with the Eddie alert on the booth of the car, and Keela finding blood in the boot of the Scenic.  There was something found (was it just swabbed), and as you say "there was no way of telling who that molecule or two of blood may have belonged to."

So would GA have to consider that the cadaver he thought was Madeleine's could be someone else?  Would he have to consider he was wrong about who the cadaver belonged to, based on the evidence?

Rob, you said: "They had seen what had dripped from the boot of the car when it was parked up somewhere but that other intelligence led him to state there had been a frozen cadaver in the car."

Who had seen what dripping from the car? And where would that be in the files?

[Robittybob1]

Rob, you said: "They had seen what had dripped from the boot of the car when it was parked up somewhere but that other intelligence led him to state there had been a frozen cadaver in the car."

Who had seen what dripping from the car? And where would that be in the files?

I saw that quote the other day. I'll try and locate it again,