Is This True? ""partial footwear mark" found just outside Madeleine's bedroom"?

[kizzy]

Robitty, it isn't a pick n mix regarding police deciding which evidence is recorded and which evidence is held back to be used at a later date.
In a criminal investigation every individual piece of evidence gathered has to be considered in relation to all the rest in order to make up the bigger picture.  On its own one item of evidence might be irrelevant until considered in relation to all the evidence gathered.  Remembering that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts ... it is necessary that every piece of evidence has to be slotted into place.

Quite often we hear of cold case reviews turning up information which has been missed ~ as in Madeleine's case ~ and that can only happen if the information is there to be found and not floating around in some policeman's head.

There have been screeds written about the perfidy of the press at the time and the ridiculous unfounded stories they printed of which this is but one.  For this bloody footprint not to have been included in the chain of the evidence harvested and processed by the Portuguese scientific services, would involve the collusion of many honest people in the crime of concealing evidence.  It is inconceivable that they did that.

This is not a smoking gun or an Ace up anyone's sleeve ... it just did not happen.

This is not a smoking gun or an Ace up anyone's sleeve ... it just did not happen.


You don't know that B -  seems GA has not disclosed all he knows .



Recently you said that there is much you know and have not written. Is there something that has been purposely left out?

It is logical that yes.

What and for what purpose?

I cannot disclose it.

It leaves room for a second book, for example?

Maybe. Let's see.



http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id139.htm

[Robittybob1]

Brietta - are you saying the PJ would never hold some evidence as confidential kept for special purposes ?  In many of the cases I have heard that certain information is not divulged.  This information when mentioned by the perpetrator becomes a matter of identification.

If the footwear print is real it is possible the PJ know the brand of shoe that it comes from.  If they see a photo of that type of shoe on a holiday snap from that time it could point to the perpetrator.  John might be able to explain how this works better than I can.

[Brietta]

This is not a smoking gun or an Ace up anyone's sleeve ... it just did not happen.


You don't know that B -  seems GA has not disclosed all he knows .



Recently you said that there is much you know and have not written. Is there something that has been purposely left out?

It is logical that yes.

What and for what purpose?

I cannot disclose it.

It leaves room for a second book, for example?

Maybe. Let's see.



http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id139.htm

In my opinion ... Amaral has released far more than he knows.

[Robittybob1]

In my opinion ... Amaral has released far more than he knows.

It is one or the other.   Gosh he must be forgetting heaps too by now.