Sunday, 7 November 2010

The death of Forensics, Madeleine and hope. The dog’s don’t lie.



With a wealth of information that had been gathered, the investigation was lacking in evidence that would weight that information to make sense and invite the investigators to explore a possible answer as to where Madeleine had gone, armed with proof to justify concentrating on one thesis which would lead to finding the child.  The information needed direction, from proof, to construct a thesis that did not contradict all the information despite there being discrepancies as expected in any complex case. Sightings relying on memory and the pressures of remembering exactly an image that was not so important until the news of its significance. Why the dogs alerted, why in a vehicle hired weeks after Madeleine vanished and why in 5A.

The most considered opinions of what might have happened to Madeleine would be that she simply walked out of her apartment to a fate unknown. No crime. No body has been found in local searches and Madeleine is only known to wake up and get into Kate and Gerry’s bed at night. Some time before the holiday, Kate and Gerry had begun a star chart for Madeleine staying in her own bed. The chart was full of stars. By the time of the holiday, it was rare for Madeleine to wander into their bed. This theory was discounted in the final report.

The abduction theory is likely in that the criminal, or criminals, could perform their abduction without leaving much, if any, evidence. Abduction is a crime that would be completed before the fact of the crime was discovered. With the information available a theory is easily constructed. A planned abduction, reconnaissance of 5A noting the timing of checks applied by the family and friends. The time between the half hourly checks could easily have been utilized to enter the apartment, take the sleeping child, possibly drug her and away she is gone. The PJ considered this possibility but seemed to be of the opinion that Madeleine was taken through a window rather than through the door leading to the street. This was a major concern for them as it did not seem possible for an abductor to climb through a window with Madeleine. I have seen nothing in the files that show the PJ ever considered the window might have been opened to allow street lighting to illuminate the crime scene without switching internal lights on. Or the window could have been a vehicle of communication between the criminal inside 5A and an accomplice watching outside while the main door was the route of escape into the street at night and then simply gone in the time the child was noticed missing and the police could determine any action. A child could work out that possibility and it is a thesis that has been backed up by sightings.  It explains why the window was found open, why Jane saw the person carrying a child, around the time Madeleine had gone unbeknown to her. Abductors wearing gloves would explain the lack of fingerprints. A simple crime to execute with planning and timing.

Staying with the abduction theory. One must wonder, I certainly have, why Amaral made understanding this possibility as difficult as possible. Why insist on discounting this thesis on the basis of getting through a window which is too impractical as a route of escape. Why ignore the obvious? The door!! Why expect proof where none would be likely. Except by forensic analysis, perhaps.

The death and concealment theory, as explained by Goncalo in his book as what he strongly believes is the truth, is the other possibility considered. This theory would meet much more difficulty in my opinion to succeed. Madeleine would have died in the apartment, assumed by the investigators by accident, her death would have left much evidence which would have needed scrupulous cleaning, involved the friends as someone would have turned up to check on the children within half an hour, would have required hiding the body in a freezer to prevent decomposition. This storage would have been completely necessary to prevent the stench and physical evidence of a decomposing body. The body would have had to be stored away from the apartment to avoid detection from the inevitable police invasion expected after Amarals theory that an abduction theory was planned as fake to cover up the death.

OK, lets follow this train of thought. We now have a concealed body, transported and stored away from 5A in a locality unfamiliar except as a holiday resort. The information in the files up to now can be made sense of, to suggest a constructed fake abduction. All the information that would explain an actual abduction could be used to explain a fake abduction. But that now leaves the completion of successfully hiding the body extremely difficult as we all know the worlds media descended upon Praia da Luz and so did the Police. But Goncalo Amaral believes the body was transported from its place of storage weeks later in a vehicle hired by the McCanns to another place, yet to be found while the resort had become a media circus and under the spotlight of the whole world looking at and examining the family and watching their every move. 

So here we have the two main possibilities. The crime of abduction. An easily performed crime, pre planned low evidence due to the fundaments of the crime. Being successfully executed to completion before being detected, before the police were aware and before any media and police attention.

Then we have death and concealment. The death would have to be cloaked by cleaning and much planning would have to be completed to cover up such an elaborate plan  as concealing after cleaning, fabricating an abduction and confirming the support of each and every friend with them. Then they had to carry out that plan, find a hidden freezer, find a freezer in a location to hide the body or even perhaps  not use a freezer but somewhere very cold with the  assurance that a decomposing body would not be found. An extremely difficult, logistically and by sheer impossibility event to carry out successfully.

Yet the death thesis was the one being considered more possible simply because the abduction theory had a window too small to climb through and a lack of evidence. What is needed is proof!! Not likely to be found in an abduction unless the abductor was detected and Madeleine found by a conclusive sighting. But there could be proof of death. There would be DNA, blood, evidence of a cadaver in the apartment. There must be a science that could get proof of death and the confirmation of a death would discount the sheer difficulty of executing such a crime. After all we only need confirmation that Madeleine died in the apartment to get a likely conviction. Difficulty and  impossibility would not even be a factor if the death could be proved.

The scientific tool to provide proof is forensics. The detection of people in the apartment provided by DNA samples taken at the scene of the disappearance. This could be valuable to detect unknown people in the apartment confirmed or disproved by forensic analysis. Matched to confirmed known people and possibly matched DNA of known criminals. Then we have the Dogs, Extremely well trained and successful dogs that could detect blood and cadaver to be eliminated or confirmed by forensic analysis.

The forensic results of the DNA showed that the collected data was too confused to confirm an unknown person. The forensic results of the blood and cadaver was too confusing to confirm Madeleine was detected let alone a dead Madeleine. The forensic results could not confirm a death or the presence of Madeleine.

Yet I wonder as to why Amaral considers the results as confirmation of death. Could it be he did not understand that forensics might find no confirmation of a death? He uses the 15 markers found that were in Madeleines profile and also in several other peoples profiles as being specific to Madeleine and that was enough for his own interpretation of the forensics to confirm proof. He even suggests that LCN data is not strong enough for a forensic analysis and that leads him to believe that the forensic result is of little value but the dog alerts confirm death. That is not justice for the facts or respect for the recognised process of scientific analysis. It is for the forensic scientists to confirm what the dogs found. Not Amaral!!.

I wonder why he devalued the possibility of abduction so easily when it was a relatively simple crime to commit and perfectly made sense of information recorded in the files. Instead choosing to follow the thesis of an infinitely more difficult possibility which needed, by his own earlier determination, the requirement of conclusive proof provided by forensics analysis. The analysis which he de valued and reconsidered as not necessary all of a sudden, after the analysis came through. Replaced by his personal escalation of the dogs alerts to interprete the confirmation and proof status, interpreting the forensic factor of which even Grime, the dog handler insists is necessary, by insisting 15 markers belong to Madeleine, that they are specific to Madeleine. That is just not true!! The information recorded in the files could be used to make sense of death as much as it could be used to make sense of abduction. But in this scenario a very negative view of the McCanns had to be insinuated as well to justify further the Amaral thesis. Everything had to be shown to suggest the McCanns had a motive. Not only has he chosen the most difficult crime to execute and difficult to reasonably suggest a motive for, out of the valid possibilities without forensic confirmation. He even ignored Stuart Priors growing nervousness at accepting the forensic results being conclusive. Amaral wondered why Stuart became nervous and seemed to think the British police involved were backing off the death thesis for a reason other than the obvious. That there was no conclusive proof. 

Amaral ended up criticising the British police which resulted in his expulsion from the case. Still pushing death without proof as if he must not be proved wrong. Perhaps his belief that the media criticised his competence, made him obsessed at wanting to be right as he usually is by one method or another. Maybe he just relied upon the dogs being confirmed as having found Madeleine and death as a high possibility and could not accept that they don’t automatically prove death. He could not contemplate going over the investigation again, if no proof of death or Madeleine could be concluded, knowing he would not have anything to tie it up and give closure, give him success, give him credibility when abduction would be probably, from experience worldwide, a protracted and cold case to investigate.

Goncalo is a man used to getting a result. Even if convincing everyone that forensics can be ignored, for personal interpretation, if the Dogs alert and he can show the McCanns in a bad light. He could not convince the prosecutor and he cannot convince those seeking righteous justice for Madeleine, that proof which could end hope of finding a missing child alive is just not good enough if the forensic analysis interpretation is then interpreted by Amaral without regard for the truth or the actual fact and that fact then ignored completely.

Not only does Goncalo Amaral sell the death of Madeleine. He sells the death of forensics related to CSI dogs, the death of justice within the case of a missing child, the death of the good name of the innocent parents and the death of hope that Madeleine could be found alive.

There is more than one victim created in Amaral’s investigation. There is more than one question as to why he is so determined without proof to follow one theory. His only defence is that dogs can't tell lies.

They cannot tell the truth either. This is why they must be used as a part of a team which must include forensic scientists.


Sign the petition here. Madeleine McCann Case Review

Related Link Questions arising from the investigation

Related Link Motive, means, opportunity, and indicative character history

.