UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Admin on May 03, 2013, 10:32:00 AM
-
Was the crime scene contaminated even prior to the GNR and the PJ arriving on the scene? Should the police have secured the potential crime scene at the first opportunity?
-
there were a lot of dog hairs though
-
there were a lot of dog hairs though
Ah yes, those police dogs who were allowed to trample over the crime scene before forensics were able to deal with it.
Another example of the almost criminal incompetence of the PJ and GNR.
-
there were a lot of dog hairs though
Ah yes, those police dogs who were allowed to trample over the crime scene before forensics were able to deal with it.
Another example of the almost criminal incompetence of the PJ and GNR.
Thats rich
no different to the criminal incompetence of the mccanns allowing 20 or so people to trample through the flat before police ever got a chance to get there, all footprints in the kids room rendered null and void because of that, the AGs final report confirms this destroying of the crime scene!
In the drama of the moment, nobody - parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel - was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes - apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code - thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.
-
there were a lot of dog hairs though
Ah yes, those police dogs who were allowed to trample over the crime scene before forensics were able to deal with it.
Another example of the almost criminal incompetence of the PJ and GNR.
Thats rich
no different to the criminal incompetence of the mccanns allowing 20 or so people to trample through the flat before police ever got a chance to get there, all footprints in the kids room rendered null and void because of that, the AGs final report confirms this destroying of the crime scene!
In the drama of the moment, nobody - parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel - was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes - apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code - thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.
Not rich at all.
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.
And how does it excuse the pitiful incompetence of the GNR PROFESSIONALS? They were surely aware that a crime scene should be secured?
-
From all reports most of the people were the mccanns and friends and oc employees, remember the damage forensically was done BEFORE police arrived, irresponsible, and that includes gerryand his mates putting their grubby paws all over the shutters, doctors should have known better, pah
So, I take it you have no idea how many people were in the apartment before the GNR officers were on the scene?
And odd that the one of the most significant damages done to the scene that I have read about in the files was done by dogs leaving hair.
I am not aware of any dogs having been in the possession of the McCanns whilst in Portugal.
-
there were a lot of dog hairs though
Ah yes, those police dogs who were allowed to trample over the crime scene before forensics were able to deal with it.
Another example of the almost criminal incompetence of the PJ and GNR.
Thats rich
no different to the criminal incompetence of the mccanns allowing 20 or so people to trample through the flat before police ever got a chance to get there, all footprints in the kids room rendered null and void because of that, the AGs final report confirms this destroying of the crime scene!
In the drama of the moment, nobody - parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel - was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes - apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code - thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.
The AG gives a valid reason why the parents etc. did not treat the scene as a crime scene - and actually it was not a crime scene until AFTER people had searched everywhere and established that Madeleine was not there. Obviously the first thing anyone would do in those circumstances is to search the whole place.
However, they were not policemen and policeman ARE supposed to be 'cold and lucid' enough to view the scene differently. But even one of the policemen who arrived searched the whole apartment in the same way as the parents and others did - and there was no need for the dogs to be inside the apartment at any time.
What the McCanns and others did was natural and understandable. What the police did was unprofessional and incompetent. IMO
-
there were a lot of dog hairs though
Ah yes, those police dogs who were allowed to trample over the crime scene before forensics were able to deal with it.
Another example of the almost criminal incompetence of the PJ and GNR.
Thats rich
no different to the criminal incompetence of the mccanns allowing 20 or so people to trample through the flat before police ever got a chance to get there, all footprints in the kids room rendered null and void because of that, the AGs final report confirms this destroying of the crime scene!
In the drama of the moment, nobody - parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel - was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes - apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code - thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.
Not rich at all.
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.
And how does it excuse the pitiful incompetence of the GNR PROFESSIONALS? They were surely aware that a crime scene should be secured?
Like this one, Pedro Miguel Filipe Goncalo Vilhena, finger print expert.
Two mouth swabs from Pedro Miguel Filipe Goncalo Vilhena.
Pattern samples taken from the clothes worn by Pedro Miguel Filipe Goncalo Vilhena.
Seems there's no statement from him, as I can find.
-
there were a lot of dog hairs though
Ah yes, those police dogs who were allowed to trample over the crime scene before forensics were able to deal with it.
Another example of the almost criminal incompetence of the PJ and GNR.
Thats rich
no different to the criminal incompetence of the mccanns allowing 20 or so people to trample through the flat before police ever got a chance to get there, all footprints in the kids room rendered null and void because of that, the AGs final report confirms this destroying of the crime scene!
In the drama of the moment, nobody - parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel - was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes - apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code - thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.
The AG gives a valid reason why the parents etc. did not treat the scene as a crime scene - and actually it was not a crime scene until AFTER people had searched everywhere and established that Madeleine was not there. Obviously the first thing anyone would do in those circumstances is to search the whole place.
However, they were not policemen and policeman ARE supposed to be 'cold and lucid' enough to view the scene differently. But even one of the policemen who arrived searched the whole apartment in the same way as the parents and others did - and there was no need for the dogs to be inside the apartment at any time.
What the McCanns and others did was natural and understandable. What the police did was unprofessional and incompetent. IMO
I absolutely agree.
And the suggestion that there should not have been a thorough search of the apartment by a number of people prior to the calling of the police is madness.
Why am I not surprised?
-
if YOU want to believe the PJ are satans spawn, carry on believing, if it eases your mind
Oh yes, if believing this "eases somebody's mind", good for him/her !
No effect on the PJ, no effect on the flow of things.
and that is a very very telling comment.
so after all the failures that Amaral himself points out in his book it will have no affect on the PJ.
a Police force that doesn't learn by mistakes.
-
if YOU want to believe the PJ are satans spawn, carry on believing, if it eases your mind
Oh yes, if believing this "eases somebody's mind", good for him/her !
No effect on the PJ, no effect on the flow of things.
and that is a very very telling comment.
so after all the failures that Amaral himself points out in his book it will have no affect on the PJ.
a Police force that doesn't learn by mistakes.
But, were they mistakes, amaraltheofficeboy? 8-)(--)
-
apparently not - just normal Police work in Portugal.
-
it has been discussed before on here
And as with this incompetence on the part of the PJ over the bedding, simply dismissed as irrelevant.
It beggars belief that people who claim to seek the truth can be so casual about the importance of forensics at the scene of a crime.
UK police couldnt even fnd a body in a loft on two occasions and using dogs,or have the nous to check the area where April Jones was abducted from, for forensics, if YOU want to believe the PJ are satans spawn, carry on believing, if it eases your mind
Specific examples of potential incompetence in other cases cannot in any way excuse the fact that in this particular case (the disappearance of Madeleine McCann) the PJ showed very high levels of incompetence.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And it was precisely this kind of rank incompetence on the part of the PJ and GNR in the very first moments of the case and onwards which would (in my view) have led to the McCanns and their friends and relatives wanting the fund to focus on any way in which the child might be found. Having seen the shambles of the PJ they wanted anything or anyone that might just give them some kind of hope to be used.
-
there were a lot of dog hairs though
Ah yes, those police dogs who were allowed to trample over the crime scene before forensics were able to deal with it.
Another example of the almost criminal incompetence of the PJ and GNR.
Thats rich
no different to the criminal incompetence of the mccanns allowing 20 or so people to trample through the flat before police ever got a chance to get there, all footprints in the kids room rendered null and void because of that, the AGs final report confirms this destroying of the crime scene!
In the drama of the moment, nobody - parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel - was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes - apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code - thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.
The AG gives a valid reason why the parents etc. did not treat the scene as a crime scene - and actually it was not a crime scene until AFTER people had searched everywhere and established that Madeleine was not there. Obviously the first thing anyone would do in those circumstances is to search the whole place.
However, they were not policemen and policeman ARE supposed to be 'cold and lucid' enough to view the scene differently. But even one of the policemen who arrived searched the whole apartment in the same way as the parents and others did - and there was no need for the dogs to be inside the apartment at any time.
What the McCanns and others did was natural and understandable. What the police did was unprofessional and incompetent. IMO
The POINT is that evidence was compromised and the PT police get all 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, similar to sayng the police were responsible for losing the golden hour after the abduction, poppycock at best, as no one knows when the alledged abduction occurred, even if it HAD ocurred at 9.15, police were not called till 22.41, and came within 10 mins or so, so, no golden hour
-
if YOU want to believe the PJ are satans spawn, carry on believing, if it eases your mind
Oh yes, if believing this "eases somebody's mind", good for him/her !
No effect on the PJ, no effect on the flow of things.
and that is a very very telling comment.
so after all the failures that Amaral himself points out in his book it will have no affect on the PJ.
a Police force that doesn't learn by mistakes.
Absolutely disgraceful.
-
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?
-
- Failure of the PJ to remove the bedding for proper DNA examination,
Failure of the PJ/GNR to secure the scene of crime
Failure of the PJ to keep hold of the hairs found (many of which if the files are to be believed have simply vanished).
that I have missed and which you think makes me wrong?
What's missing here, Gilet, is simple :
- proof that the scientific police did or didn't remove the bedding, and if not why.
- proof the GNR officers didn't secure the crime scene when ordered to (see above that by Portuguese Law, as a witness on the crime scene before the arrival of the police, you have to secure it)
- proof whoever in the police lost the hairs before they were analised.
-
I got lost trying to catch up several pages ago.
The title of the thread is: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
And it's turned into whether bedding should have gone, or did not need to go, for forensic analysis.
And I posted a link to a different thread, to continue a discussion on that one, asking what happened to the missing hairs on her bed... and the silence is deafening.
I have made it very clear on a number of occasions that the incompetence of the PJ is probably a very, very important factor in why the Fund was pushed so strongly by the McCanns. They knew they needed help other than from the police force they believed were failing them.
So I believe fully exploring that incompetence is a perfectly valid subject especially as some posters were criticising the fund because the McCanns were suggesting it might be used for other professionals to be used in the search.
-
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?
Processos Vol VI
Page 1520
Date: 2007/05/18
Service Information
To: The Coordinator of the Investigation, G. Amaral
From: Assistant Specialist Irene Trovao
Subject: Identification of finger print
I inform you that according to report nº 140/07 there is a single finger print with sufficient value for identification.
It was revealed with Dragon Blood and gathered from the side of the living room window/door of Ocean Club apartment 5 A on 4th May 2007 after the disappearance of the child.
This morning Officer Silva delivered various fingerprints belonging to his officers who were on duty at the apartment on the night of 3 – 4 May 2007.
These were compared to the finger print which was identified as being that of Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa of the Lagos GNR.
-
- Failure of the PJ to remove the bedding for proper DNA examination,
Failure of the PJ/GNR to secure the scene of crime
Failure of the PJ to keep hold of the hairs found (many of which if the files are to be believed have simply vanished).
that I have missed and which you think makes me wrong?
What's missing here, Gilet, is simple :
- proof that the scientific police did or didn't remove the bedding, and if not why.
- proof the GNR officers didn't secure the crime scene when ordered to (see above that by Portuguese Law, as a witness on the crime scene before the arrival of the police, you have to secure it)
- proof whoever in the police lost the hairs before they were analised.
The lack of any evidence in the files for these things to have happened is either
Proof in itself of the fact that they did not happen
or
Proof that the PJ were incompetent in compiling a proper record which fully included all the relevant evidence.
Either way, my case is made.
-
8((()*/ @)(++(*
-
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.
-
The POINT is that evidence was compromised and the PT police get all 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, similar to sayng the police were responsible for losing the golden hour after the abduction, poppycock at best, as no one knows when the alledged abduction occurred, even if it HAD ocurred at 9.15, police were not called till 22.41, and came within 10 mins or so, so, no golden hour
So by your logic, if the golden hour is missed by ten minutes or so then no urgency is required from then on.
Otherwise what on earth are you blathering about?
Why am I not surprised?
-
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.
So your child goes missing Anne, and you dont even bother to look under the beds and in the cupboards
AWWWWWWWWWWWWW! 8(8-))
-
there were a lot of dog hairs though
Ah yes, those police dogs who were allowed to trample over the crime scene before forensics were able to deal with it.
Another example of the almost criminal incompetence of the PJ and GNR.
Thats rich
no different to the criminal incompetence of the mccanns allowing 20 or so people to trample through the flat before police ever got a chance to get there, all footprints in the kids room rendered null and void because of that, the AGs final report confirms this destroying of the crime scene!
In the drama of the moment, nobody - parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel - was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes - apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code - thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.
The AG gives a valid reason why the parents etc. did not treat the scene as a crime scene - and actually it was not a crime scene until AFTER people had searched everywhere and established that Madeleine was not there. Obviously the first thing anyone would do in those circumstances is to search the whole place.
However, they were not policemen and policeman ARE supposed to be 'cold and lucid' enough to view the scene differently. But even one of the policemen who arrived searched the whole apartment in the same way as the parents and others did - and there was no need for the dogs to be inside the apartment at any time.
What the McCanns and others did was natural and understandable. What the police did was unprofessional and incompetent. IMO
The POINT is that evidence was compromised and the PT police get all 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, similar to sayng the police were responsible for losing the golden hour after the abduction, poppycock at best, as no one knows when the alledged abduction occurred, even if it HAD ocurred at 9.15, police were not called till 22.41, and came within 10 mins or so, so, no golden hour
IMO the point is that the first searches of the apartment by the McCanns and others were completely normal in those circumstances. It would be the natural reaction of ANYONE - and I repeat until they established that Madeleine was not there - it would not be regarded as a crime scene - what if she had been found hiding away somewhere? And yes I agree that evidence may have been contaminated or destroyed, but that was inevitable - how could anyone search the place without touching anything?
However that was not the situation when the police arrived - by then it was a crime scene and regardless of what had happened prior to their arrival they should have cordoned it off immediately and treated is as one.
The further contamination and possible destruction of evidence caused by the police and their dogs should not have happened and was NOT inevitable. It was purely down to their unprofessionalism and incompetence that it did happen. Full stop.
-
The POINT is that evidence was compromised and the PT police get all 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, similar to sayng the police were responsible for losing the golden hour after the abduction, poppycock at best, as no one knows when the alledged abduction occurred, even if it HAD ocurred at 9.15, police were not called till 22.41, and came within 10 mins or so, so, no golden hour
So by your logic, if the golden hour is missed by ten minutes or so then no urgency is required from then on.
Otherwise what on earth are you blathering about?
Why am I not surprised?
Exactly, Gilet.
And how many hours are in 3 wasted months?
-
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.
-
The further contamination and possible destruction of evidence caused by the police and their dogs should not have happened and was NOT inevitable. It was purely down to their unprofessionalism and incompetence that it did happen. Full stop.
Sniffer dogs start the trail at the exact point (if known) where the missing person was seen for the last time.
Are you suggesting Mr McCann wasn't saying the truth when he said he saw his daughter in her bedroom at 21:10 ?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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.
-
This thread a spin off from another discussion.
-
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?
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00387/SNN1211A_682_387593a.jpg)
-
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.
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00387/SNN1211A_682_387593a.jpg)
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.
-
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
-
can anyone explain Lino?
-
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
There is a massive flaw in your argument.
The contamination that was recorded such as the pawprints and hair came from the dogs that the POLICE brought and not from the McCanns.
What forensic contamination is recorded in the files resulting from the McCanns? Can you provide any links please?
-
red said before - there were 20 people in the apt before GNR arrived.
there was T9
therefore 11 people who contaminated the apt were not connected to the Mccanns.
I will go along with that as a fair assessment
-
red said before - there were 20 people in the apt before GNR arrived.
there was T9
therefore 11 people who contaminated the apt were not connected to the Mccanns.
I will go along with that as a fair assessment
So who were these 11 people and where in the files is there any evidence whatsoever of contamination by anyone other than the GNR?
Redblossom keeps making this claim that the apartment was trashed and contaminated before the police arrived. But where in the files is there any forensic evidence for that?
Is she just relying on the convicted liar Amaral for that information?
-
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
There is a massive flaw in your argument.
The contamination that was recorded such as the pawprints and hair came from the dogs that the POLICE brought and not from the McCanns.
What forensic contamination is recorded in the files resulting from the McCanns? Can you provide any links please?
Paw prints referred to PEOPLES prints, including the PAWprints of the tapas three or four who thought it was an exxellent and timely idea to meddle withthe shutters that they thought the abductor had used to gain entry, thats TAMPERING at best with evidence, and they decided to do this straight away, they should alll have had their ar ses out looking not tryng to solve a crime before police got there and ruining any evidence, LIKE IT MATTERED ghgen and there bow the bleedin abductor got in, PRIORITIES!!!!
so when their asses were out searching they should have been fighting to stop the 11 stranger asses from getting into the apt.
Interesting
-
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
I don't think so, because the PJ Specialist was rather upset about the GNR allowing people in and out of the apartment
When they arrived at the scene, which they immediately identified due to the presence of GNR officers, as well as quite a lot of people who were walking around the street searching for the child, they immediately went to the apartment in question, where they found several people, including some GNR officers, as well as the head of the Lagos GNR station. He states that the people inside the apartment and close to it, entered and left the building and circulated in the whole apartment, completely freely, in other words, without there being any restriction or care in preserving the scene.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_BARREIRAS.htm
And I will try and find it but there is a statement in the files where the GNR Sgt. told the officers on the scene to preserve the crime scene and they failed to do it.
Now the question you should be asking is why did those officers ignore a direct order?
-
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
I don't think so, because the PJ Specialist was rather upset about the GNR allowing people in and out of the apartment
When they arrived at the scene, which they immediately identified due to the presence of GNR officers, as well as quite a lot of people who were walking around the street searching for the child, they immediately went to the apartment in question, where they found several people, including some GNR officers, as well as the head of the Lagos GNR station. He states that the people inside the apartment and close to it, entered and left the building and circulated in the whole apartment, completely freely, in other words, without there being any restriction or care in preserving the scene.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_BARREIRAS.htm
And I will try and find it but there is a statement in the files where the GNR Sgt. told the officers on the scene to preserve the crime scene and they failed to do it.
Now the question you should be asking is why did those officers ignore a direct order?
Irrelevant in the debate that it was the POLICE who allowed the crime scene to be trashed, unless they were time travellers
-
Irrelevant in the debate that it was the POLICE who allowed the crime scene to be trashed, unless they were time travellers
You have claimed that the apartment/crime scene was trashed before the police arrived.
However everyone can see that you have not backed that claim up with any evidence.
The only evidence in the files of any forensic contamination is from the police.
Can you show any forensic (or other) evidence of contamination by the McCanns or their friends?
-
lino is like a man, lay it riight and you can walk all over it
@)(++(*
still, lino has nothng to do with the thread topic, flat5a crime scene was destroyed before police got there, FACT and you should find it disgusting that the police wereblamed for it in the british pathetic media
That's sexist in the extreme
I always suspected that you had an issue with males
But had I posted a sexist post like this aimed at women
I would expect to be banned immediately - and rightly so
Care to think of what admin make of this
-
Redblossom, so if a Police Officer is given a direct order by their superior it is OK to ignore, in your eyes. The Police DID NOT seal the crime scene, there is not dispute whatsoever. If you wish to apportion blame on the McCann family and their friends there is nothing stopping you, but when you fail to see what the files actually say then I am afraid it rather does make the rest of your posting nonsensical.
It clearly states in the files this:
Sargeant Antonio Henrique Conceicao Duarte in his statement said
The witness, from the description and supposed seriousness of the facts related, ordered the immediate preservation of the scene, and said he would go to the site and communicate the facts to the PJ (this was done from the Post, he does not remember which officer did this but thinks it was Officer Patricio).
This was not carried out by those officers as it is clear from the PJ Specialist statement.
Now Redblossom, let me ask you again, what do you think about Police Officers ignoring a superior's orders?
-
lino is like a man, lay it riight and you can walk all over it
@)(++(*
still, lino has nothng to do with the thread topic, flat5a crime scene was destroyed before police got there, FACT and you should find it disgusting that the police wereblamed for it in the british pathetic media
That's sexist in the extreme
I always suspected that you had an issue with males
But had I posted a sexist post like this aimed at women
I would expect to be banned immediately - and rightly so
Care to think of what admin make of this
Just laugh as most normal people would
-
Irrelevant in the debate that it was the POLICE who allowed the crime scene to be trashed, unless they were time travellers
You have claimed that the apartment/crime scene was trashed before the police arrived.
However everyone can see that you have not backed that claim up with any evidence.
The only evidence in the files of any forensic contamination is from the police.
Can you show any forensic (or other) evidence of contamination by the McCanns or their friends?
thats too sad for words,by the mccanns OWN admission they did and the PPs report did, carry onbeing desperate and twisting facts, you will ALWAYS fail because you are a liar x
8((()*/
So no evidence for your claims then just further allegations.
Why am I not surprised?
There are absolutely no lies in my post. Your claim that there are is simple abuse.
Any joy in themark warner sedurity thread no didnt think so
-
Excellent blog article which summarises and links to the evidence in the files which shows that the contamination and problems at the crime scene were largely the fault of the GNR officers.
http://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/preserving-that-crime-scene/
-
Excellent blog article which summarises and links to the evidence in the files which shows that the contamination and problems at the crime scene were largely the fault of the GNR officers.
http://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/preserving-that-crime-scene/
No one here is interested in biased sites and propaganda, ta
-
So, though she has frequently made the claim that the McCanns trashed the crime scene before the Police arrived she has abjectly failed to provide any evidence to back up that claim.
Why am I not surprised?
Perhaps the truth is she has none?
-
Excellent blog article which summarises and links to the evidence in the files which shows that the contamination and problems at the crime scene were largely the fault of the GNR officers.
http://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/preserving-that-crime-scene/
No one here is interested in biased sites and propaganda, ta
You have shown yourself up again. The fact is the article is entirely based on the PJ files.
Oh dear. When you cannot even be bothered to read the evidence how can you ever expect to get to the truth?
-
So, though she has frequently made the claim that the McCanns trashed the crime scene before the Police arrived she has abjectly failed to provide any evidence to back up that claim.
Why am I not surprised?
Perhaps the truth is she has none?
Are you hard of HEARING??? the PP stated such, NOT just ME, the Mccanns and friends have also declared such, I seriously suggest you take your medication for the day as its wearing off
I have given you links to where it states in the files that the crime scene was not preserved by the Police, could you quote me from the files the part where the PP says the McCanns, their family and friends contaminated the crime scene?
-
So, though she has frequently made the claim that the McCanns trashed the crime scene before the Police arrived she has abjectly failed to provide any evidence to back up that claim.
Why am I not surprised?
Perhaps the truth is she has none?
Are you hard of HEARING??? the PP stated such, NOT just ME, the Mccanns and friends have also declared such, I seriously suggest you take your medication for the day as its wearing off
Not hard of hearing at all. I am currently listening to the News.
However I am not blind either and like all other readers here we can see quite clearly that you have not managed to provide any evidence for your claims.
You have blathered about there being evidence but have shown none at all.
Now, what actual forensic (or other) evidence is there in the files for the contamination of the scene of crime prior to the police arrival which you claim occurred?