Was the crime scene contaminated?

[gilet]

why would anyone look under a divan bed that sits on the floor, as if a nearlyy 4 yr old could be under it, not even a cat could be

Again that lack of empathy.

No recognition that in a state of panic or desperation about a precious little child, a parent might pull a divan bed away from a wall or a cupboard door open wide just hoping in their heart that their child might be there.

Not even a willingness to consider such a state of panic never mind the ability to empathise.

[Eleanor]

why would anyone look under a divan bed that sits on the floor, as if a nearlyy 4 yr old could be under it, not even a cat could be

Don't be silly.  You are just splitting hairs to no purpose.

[Redblossom]

The POINT is that evidence was compromised and the PT police get the blame for it, when obviously it was not them that compromised it as it had been before they even got there, any rational person would and shouldagree with this

You are simply wrong.
It is simply not true to state as you do that it was not the PT police who compromised the scene.
It was the GNR and the dogs who littered the apartment with hair and not the McCanns for example.

And maybe someone else can recollect but was there not some other specific contamination later identified as coming from a GNR officer?

Fag ash?

To be fair, I have never seen anything in the forensic reports concerning fag ash in the apartment.

The only reference to cigarettes was that butts were not picked up within an area that could have been important.

PJ  flicking fag ash everywhere is a malicious pro MYTH

[Mo Stache]

The POINT is that evidence was compromised and the PT police get the blame for it, when obviously it was not them that compromised it as it had been before they even got there, any rational person would and shouldagree with this

You are simply wrong.
It is simply not true to state as you do that it was not the PT police who compromised the scene.
It was the GNR and the dogs who littered the apartment with hair and not the McCanns for example.

And maybe someone else can recollect but was there not some other specific contamination later identified as coming from a GNR officer?

Fag ash?

To be fair, I have never seen anything in the forensic reports concerning fag ash in the apartment.

The only reference to cigarettes was that butts were not picked up within an area that could have been important.

PJ  flicking fag ash everywhere is a malicious pro MYTH

Pro? You surely mean Press.
"British detectives have expressed dismay over flaws in the Portuguese police’s investigation, in which dozens of people were allowed to trample over the crime scene and evidence was found to be contaminated with cigarette ash." - Telegraph 25 Apr 2012

[Redblossom]

The POINT is that evidence was compromised and the PT police get the blame for it, when obviously it was not them that compromised it as it had been before they even got there, any rational person would and shouldagree with this

You are simply wrong.
It is simply not true to state as you do that it was not the PT police who compromised the scene.
It was the GNR and the dogs who littered the apartment with hair and not the McCanns for example.

And maybe someone else can recollect but was there not some other specific contamination later identified as coming from a GNR officer?

Fag ash?

To be fair, I have never seen anything in the forensic reports concerning fag ash in the apartment.

The only reference to cigarettes was that butts were not picked up within an area that could have been important.

PJ  flicking fag ash everywhere is a malicious pro MYTH

Pro? You surely mean Press.
"British detectives have expressed dismay over flaws in the Portuguese police’s investigation, in which dozens of people were allowed to trample over the crime scene and evidence was found to be contaminated with cigarette ash." - Telegraph 25 Apr 2012

no difference is there, no evidence for it, next

[Mo Stache]

The POINT is that evidence was compromised and the PT police get the blame for it, when obviously it was not them that compromised it as it had been before they even got there, any rational person would and shouldagree with this

You are simply wrong.
It is simply not true to state as you do that it was not the PT police who compromised the scene.
It was the GNR and the dogs who littered the apartment with hair and not the McCanns for example.

And maybe someone else can recollect but was there not some other specific contamination later identified as coming from a GNR officer?

Fag ash?

To be fair, I have never seen anything in the forensic reports concerning fag ash in the apartment.

The only reference to cigarettes was that butts were not picked up within an area that could have been important.

PJ  flicking fag ash everywhere is a malicious pro MYTH

Pro? You surely mean Press.
"British detectives have expressed dismay over flaws in the Portuguese police’s investigation, in which dozens of people were allowed to trample over the crime scene and evidence was found to be contaminated with cigarette ash." - Telegraph 25 Apr 2012

no difference is there, no evidence for it, next

You have accused pro's of fabricating that myth when it was the press who did it. There is a difference. There may not be evidence of such in the files, but it doesn't change the fact that you accused pro's of fabricating that myth.   

[DCI]

why would anyone look under a divan bed that sits on the floor, as if a nearlyy 4 yr old could be under it, not even a cat could be

You would look everywhere Red, even in places where you knew she couldn't possibly be.   As for the divan beds, they are covered by bedspreads which cover the sides,  and so unless you'd make a point of noticing that - you would lift the covers and look  - and even if you HAD noticed they were divans, you would still look.

The policeman who searched the apartment also looked 'under the beds.'

But weren't they divans with legs on, rather than small wheels?

[Benice]

why would anyone look under a divan bed that sits on the floor, as if a nearlyy 4 yr old could be under it, not even a cat could be

You would look everywhere Red, even in places where you knew she couldn't possibly be.   As for the divan beds, they are covered by bedspreads which cover the sides,  and so unless you'd make a point of noticing that - you would lift the covers and look  - and even if you HAD noticed they were divans, you would still look.

The policeman who searched the apartment also looked 'under the beds.'

But weren't they divans with legs on, rather than small wheels?

I'm not sure DCI.   It's difficult to know without seeing pictures of the beds without the bedclothing on them.

[AnneGuedes]

Are you bizarrely suggesting that there should have been nobody looking for Madeleine in that apartment prior to the Police being called and their subsequent arrival?

That would be madness?  You seem to be advocating madness.

An open window, lifted shutters and flying curtains are more than suggestive of an abduction, Gilet. Looking under beds or in cupboards would be time lost if not criminal madness, to use your terminology.

I have rarely read such a ludicrous post anywhere on any subject ever.

You really expect us to believe that a parent who finds their child is missing from the bed would NOT look under the bed or in cupboards and would NOT get friends or others to assist them in the search?

I am truly astounded that you could post such a statement.

This has gone beyond what I would have expected.

It is sheer madness being used to try to defend the PJ when the reality is that any normal parent would be frantic and searching high and low throughout the apartment and getting others to do the same.

And in a previous post I noticed you referred to the Penal Code or some other such rule saying that in PT the onus is on everyone to secure crime scenes. Firstly, I doubt the McCanns or their mates (or even the OC staff really were aware of that specific law) but even if they were it wasn't, as Benice, pointed out, a crime scene till they were certain (HAVING CHECKED ALL POSSIBLE HIDING PLACES FOR EXAMPLE) that there had been a crime.

I would have expected Mrs McCann to look and scream in the car park, Gilet, since a window and shutters that always had been closed were open.
Please note that the first forced, then open window and shutters were first the way in, then the way out and after 3 years possibly a red herring.
Preservation of the crime scene is in the Portuguese law, but it is common sense, don't you think?  Not only among educated people, but among Crimewatchers !
 

[gilet]

Are you bizarrely suggesting that there should have been nobody looking for Madeleine in that apartment prior to the Police being called and their subsequent arrival?

That would be madness?  You seem to be advocating madness.

An open window, lifted shutters and flying curtains are more than suggestive of an abduction, Gilet. Looking under beds or in cupboards would be time lost if not criminal madness, to use your terminology.

I have rarely read such a ludicrous post anywhere on any subject ever.

You really expect us to believe that a parent who finds their child is missing from the bed would NOT look under the bed or in cupboards and would NOT get friends or others to assist them in the search?

I am truly astounded that you could post such a statement.

This has gone beyond what I would have expected.

It is sheer madness being used to try to defend the PJ when the reality is that any normal parent would be frantic and searching high and low throughout the apartment and getting others to do the same.

And in a previous post I noticed you referred to the Penal Code or some other such rule saying that in PT the onus is on everyone to secure crime scenes. Firstly, I doubt the McCanns or their mates (or even the OC staff really were aware of that specific law) but even if they were it wasn't, as Benice, pointed out, a crime scene till they were certain (HAVING CHECKED ALL POSSIBLE HIDING PLACES FOR EXAMPLE) that there had been a crime.

I would have expected Mrs McCann to look and scream in the car park, Gilet, since a window and shutters that always had been closed were open.
Please note that the first forced, then open window and shutters were first the way in, then the way out and after 3 years possibly a red herring.
Preservation of the crime scene is in the Portuguese law, but it is common sense, don't you think?  Not only among educated people, but among Crimewatchers !

You are still completely ignoring the fact that it wasn't a CRIME SCENE till it had been searched thoroughly and Madeleine had been found not to be there.

Once scenario could have been that the window had been opened from the outside and Madeleine had fled to another part of the apartment for example.

You have no idea whether the McCanns then considered more carefully their actions within that crime scene.

Your repetition of the same points without seeming to give any consideration to other options (as evidenced by your complete ignoring of such options) is quite amazing.  Most academics are open-minded and willing at least to consider other views.

[Admin]

This thread a spin off from another discussion.

[DCI]

why would anyone look under a divan bed that sits on the floor, as if a nearlyy 4 yr old could be under it, not even a cat could be

You would look everywhere Red, even in places where you knew she couldn't possibly be.   As for the divan beds, they are covered by bedspreads which cover the sides,  and so unless you'd make a point of noticing that - you would lift the covers and look  - and even if you HAD noticed they were divans, you would still look.

The policeman who searched the apartment also looked 'under the beds.'

But weren't they divans with legs on, rather than small wheels?

I'm not sure DCI.   It's difficult to know without seeing pictures of the beds without the bedclothing on them.

Its certainly, not small castors, Benice. So Red, sits on the floor, does it?

[gilet]

why would anyone look under a divan bed that sits on the floor, as if a nearlyy 4 yr old could be under it, not even a cat could be

You would look everywhere Red, even in places where you knew she couldn't possibly be.   As for the divan beds, they are covered by bedspreads which cover the sides,  and so unless you'd make a point of noticing that - you would lift the covers and look  - and even if you HAD noticed they were divans, you would still look.

The policeman who searched the apartment also looked 'under the beds.'

But weren't they divans with legs on, rather than small wheels?

I'm not sure DCI.   It's difficult to know without seeing pictures of the beds without the bedclothing on them.

Its certainly, not small castors, Benice.

Having seen that I know that I would search under and around such a bed for a toddler, even if the likelihood of her fitting there is low. I would still search every single possible location. Pulling beds out. Tipping them up and so on.  Only after I was certain she wasn't hiding in the apartment either from fear of seeing someone at a window or even as part of a game she was playing would I see the place with certainty as a crime scene.

[Redblossom]

The POINT is that evidence was compromised and the PT police get the blame for it, when obviously it was not them that compromised it as it had been before they even got there, any rational person would and shouldagree with this

You are simply wrong.
It is simply not true to state as you do that it was not the PT police who compromised the scene.
It was the GNR and the dogs who littered the apartment with hair and not the McCanns for example.

And maybe someone else can recollect but was there not some other specific contamination later identified as coming from a GNR officer?

Fag ash?

To be fair, I have never seen anything in the forensic reports concerning fag ash in the apartment.

The only reference to cigarettes was that butts were not picked up within an area that could have been important.

PJ  flicking fag ash everywhere is a malicious pro MYTH

Pro? You surely mean Press.
"British detectives have expressed dismay over flaws in the Portuguese police’s investigation, in which dozens of people were allowed to trample over the crime scene and evidence was found to be contaminated with cigarette ash." - Telegraph 25 Apr 2012

they shouldnt be spreading press myths then and in the next breath accusng others of doing so

In answer to the Op, again, the crime scene was contaminated before police got there, fact, but thats ok for some because it was a result of panic, forenaically aware dodtors would never let a whole bunch of people inside leaving their pawprints and hair and shoeprints all over the place, crime scene destroyed before police got there

[amaraltheofficeboy]

can anyone explain Lino?