There is no mention of this point in the argument. From the legal point of view, the defense accepts that the body found by the police belongs to Cécile Denise Acosta Reynaud. However, this turns to be extremely doubtful to anyone who knows her personally: Although the DNA test, which allegedly compares a sample taken from the corpse found with one taken from our daughter, results in an extremely high probability of such corpse being that of Cécile, the photography of her face used for the cranial superimposition test is highly deformed, and the facial features corresponding with the skull are not at all like those of Cécile.
When I was arrested (originally under the excuse, precisely, of identifying a corpse which was possibly that of Cécile), I asked the police to show me the body, or at least a picture of it. The police categorically refused to do it. The charge sheet (that is, the document where I am formally accused) also has no picture of the corpse allegedly found by the police. Why is it so? Till today I have not been able to see a photograph of such alleged finding, although somebody commented to me that it appeared in the Indian media (while I was in jail).
Considering the huge amount of put up evidence in my case (like the call details and the deposition of witnesses), it is not even clear that the police actually found (or even put up themselves) a corpse and, if there really was a dead body, it is doubtful that it belonged to Cécile.
Then, how can the results of the DNA test be explained? That kind of procedure is easy to tamper with at two different stages: one is to simply write the results without performing the test. Only a specialist on the topic understands the terms used, but even a specialist cannot know if the written result corresponds to reality or is simply made up by another specialist. The other stage is that of the samples: when performing the test, were the samples actually one from our daughter and the other from the corpse found by the police? What if both of them belonged to our daughter? What if both of them belonged to any other person? Or to another person and her daughter? Because in the first case, the corrupt person must be the specialist himself, but in the second one we must consider the people taking the samples, those who transported them from one place to another, the people who received the samples, etc.
I want to insist in that I am not stating that the results of the DNA test are wrong. I am simply pointing out how relatively easy it is to tamper the test, along with the fact that the cranial superimposition shows clearly that the skull used did not belong to Cécile.
The discrepancy in the cranial superimposition test is evident to anyone who knows Cécile, but is little more than empty words for those who do not. I can show hundreds of photographs, but a person who does not know her cannot be sure if those are real pictures of her, if they are deformed or not, etc.
When I received the report of the cranial superimposition test, I found it very remarkable that the mother of Cécile had not said anything about it, since I knew that she had it too (as she is reported to say in an article appearing in the newspaper Reforma on September 30, 2012). But supposedly she would appear as a witness in about a month, so then I would mention the topic and we both would ask for an explanation from the police. At the end, her deposition at court took place six-and-a-half years later, and during such period of time she told a lot of lies about me (I suppose that several of them came originally from the police, but others clearly did not). Additionally, it was difficult to believe that she had not noticed so remarkable a discrepancy during all that time. Since only she could confirm such situation at court, and the defense was not sure that she would do it, we decided to leave that element out, since mentioning it and not being able to prove it could be interpreted as a desperate attempt to get rid of the case, which could raise suspicions towards me.
Therefore, as already mentioned, this will be especially relevant for anyone who knows Cécile, but just of minor importance for those who do not.
Cranial Superimposition
According to the cranial superimposition test, the skull corresponds with the following facial features:
1) short face (in height)
2) pentagonal facial outline
3) conspicuous postero-lateral jaw prominences (that is, a strong jaw)
4) broad and asymmetric bridge of the nose
5) conspicuously asymmetric lateral bulges (broad and asymmetric upper nose)
6) broad and asymmetric alae of the nose (broad and asymmetric lower nose)
7) moderately bulbous and asymmetric nose tip
8) prominent cheeks
9) moreover, the silhouettes of the skull and the deformed photograph coincide perfectly
However, the facial features of Cécile Denise Acosta Reynaud are:
1) Long face
2) that face does not have a pentagonal form: It is long and thin
3) thin jaw
4) thin and perfectly straight nasal bridge
5) thin and pretty symmetric upper nose
6) thin and pretty symmetric lower nose
7) thin and pretty symmetric nasal tip
8) no prominent cheeks, but quite the opposite
9) the silhouette of Cécile’s face is very different than that of the deformed photograph used in the test
Here appear the images used in the cranial superimposition test, as well as some photographs of Cécile: