Author Topic: So what actual searching was there?  (Read 411402 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mercury

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #495 on: November 13, 2015, 04:04:53 AM »
Well Mercury , just pointing out that the available evidence is that the search (as recorded in statements) inside the property boundaries was incomplete.

you need to say why this might be a problem here

Undiscovered corpse? That was moved somehow later?

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #496 on: November 13, 2015, 12:04:39 PM »
First time any investigator (GNR or PJ or forensics or K9) pulled sofa out to search behind it was IMO over 12 weeks too late.
It would certainly be interesting to ask the Lisbon forensic team if they looked behind that sofa, and if so, how that check was conducted.
What's up, old man?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #497 on: November 13, 2015, 12:19:49 PM »
It would certainly be interesting to ask the Lisbon forensic team if they looked behind that sofa, and if so, how that check was conducted.

Until the arrival of the British in (was it July 2007)? the McCanns (as now) were considered victims of a crime, jointly with their daughter.

So why should anyone have looked behind the sofa?

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #498 on: November 13, 2015, 03:46:38 PM »
Until the arrival of the British in (was it July 2007)? the McCanns (as now) were considered victims of a crime, jointly with their daughter.

So why should anyone have looked behind the sofa?

The only clear cut victim of a crime is Madeleine.

The rest is undetermined.

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #499 on: November 13, 2015, 03:56:05 PM »
Until the arrival of the British in (was it July 2007)? the McCanns (as now) were considered victims of a crime, jointly with their daughter.

So why should anyone have looked behind the sofa?
Why bother with any forensics in the flat if you guess, in advance, where you might or might not find evidence?

Was the parents bedroom checked or not?  Was the bathroom checked or not?  Was the kitchen checked or not? Did the forensics team just go for the children's bedroom and the 'traffic routes' indicated in their report?
What's up, old man?

Offline pegasus

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #500 on: November 13, 2015, 10:21:23 PM »
Why bother with any forensics in the flat if you guess, in advance, where you might or might not find evidence?

Was the parents bedroom checked or not?  Was the bathroom checked or not?  Was the kitchen checked or not? Did the forensics team just go for the children's bedroom and the 'traffic routes' indicated in their report?
The PJ in May did ZERO forensics in the parents bedroom - not a print - not a hair - nothing.

And ZERO forensics near that sofa and window in the lounge - never even pulled it out IMO.

Offline pegasus

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #501 on: November 14, 2015, 12:49:17 AM »
It would certainly be interesting to ask the Lisbon forensic team if they looked behind that sofa, and if so, how that check was conducted.
Here is proof - the plan of forensics done on 4th May
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2322.jpg
The coloured areas numbered 1 to 7 are where they did forensics.
The uncoloured areas are where they did absolutely no forensics.
Behind sofa = no forensics.
South bedroom wardrobes = no forensics.
Garden = no forensics
Bathroom = no forensics.
Obviously IMO the PJ didn't search the uncoloured areas at all.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2015, 01:11:21 AM by pegasus »

Offline mercury

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #502 on: November 14, 2015, 12:59:57 AM »
I think the op ws referring to parental searches

Offline pegasus

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #503 on: November 14, 2015, 01:19:55 AM »
Forensics 4th May

Offline pegasus

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #504 on: November 14, 2015, 01:34:00 AM »
I think the op ws referring to parental searches
It's the same psychology of incomplete search Merc

Offline misty

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #505 on: November 14, 2015, 02:23:00 AM »
It's the same psychology of incomplete search Merc

Not really. The first search of the apartment was for a specific entity i.e. Madeleine. The options for undiscovered concealment were limited.
The forensic search was for non-specific material, the presence of which may or may not have provided part of any evidence as to what happened in 5a that night. The range of possibilities from examination of such materials was extensive, without inclusion of the areas within the apartment & its perimeters the forensic team were presumably told to ignore.
It was a perfect setting for an abduction.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #506 on: November 14, 2015, 12:25:43 PM »
   I thought I WOULD BRING THIS OVER HERE before it got swiped  for not being on topic.
lace had said they searched where Maddie may have wandered; then changed to:
 quote from Lace
"Maybe I should have phrased it differently 'they searched the places where Madeleine had been that week'.   Witnesses saw Gerry searching,   Kate went out too,   the friends searched."


But she hadn't wandered. Kate said she knew instantly that Maddie had been abducted, mind you she forgot to tell the police ON THE PHONE that her daughter was abducted because they were all looking for a child who may indeed have wandred. But let's not let a little thing like that get in the way of a  bloody good story.

What were they searching for?  an abductor who was hiding with a almost naked child, on a cold night outside, who slept through it all? um..sure thing , like that is believable.
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Benice

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #507 on: November 14, 2015, 05:08:52 PM »
   I thought I WOULD BRING THIS OVER HERE before it got swiped  for not being on topic.
lace had said they searched where Maddie may have wandered; then changed to:
 quote from Lace
"Maybe I should have phrased it differently 'they searched the places where Madeleine had been that week'.   Witnesses saw Gerry searching,   Kate went out too,   the friends searched."


But she hadn't wandered. Kate said she knew instantly that Maddie had been abducted, mind you she forgot to tell the police ON THE PHONE that her daughter was abducted because they were all looking for a child who may indeed have wandred. But let's not let a little thing like that get in the way of a  bloody good story.

What were they searching for?  an abductor who was hiding with a almost naked child, on a cold night outside, who slept through it all? um..sure thing , like that is believable.

When did Kate speak to the police on the phone?
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline pegasus

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #508 on: November 14, 2015, 10:17:58 PM »
Huge assumptions were made in search, with no logical justification. See the assumption-map I posted: 50% of the apartment completely ignored by PJ on 4th May, because of nothing but assumptions.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5348.0;attach=5838;image
Next I am making an assumption-map of T6 search

Offline mercury

Re: So what actual searching was there?
« Reply #509 on: November 14, 2015, 10:30:07 PM »
Huge assumptions were made in search, with no logical justification. See the assumption-map I posted: 50% of the apartment completely ignored by PJ on 4th May, because of nothing but assumptions.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5348.0;attach=5838;image
Next I am making an assumption-map of T6 search

Which goes to prove they were looking for evidence of an abductor and not gunnng for the  Mccanns  from day one as some assert
« Last Edit: November 14, 2015, 10:33:39 PM by mercury »