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: Mr Moderator on July 06, 2014, 04:16:05 PM
-
In his book Madeleine - The Truth of the Lie, Goncalo Amaral writes of the difficulties and trials the Portuguese police faced when they attempted to collect forensic evidence. In particular, he writes...
Lots of people were already in place; however, nobody appeared in the photos. We don't know, for example, how they were dressed. Such observations can turn out to be important later on. The report mentions that the twins were asleep in their bed, but there is no proof to confirm it; on the contrary, in the photographs, you can see empty cots, where only the mattresses remain - the sheets and blankets having been removed. Why have their beds been stripped? If the sheets had not been removed, traces of their presence could have been found there.
The search and examination of the scene were carried out in difficult conditions: when they arrived, the police were met with a large number of people coming and going - family, friends, resort employees, including dogs and members of the National Guard. The contamination of the premises risks bringing serious prejudice, as a consequence, to the investigation. We must ask ourselves if that contamination has been deliberate or not - it can make the search for clues particularly complicated.
Inside the apartment, police forensic specialists proceed to lift finger and palmar prints, a job that is preferably carried out during daylight hours. Others look for traces of blood, samples of fibres and hair. We notice with dismay that one of the technicians, who is working on the outside of the McCann children's bedroom window is not using the regulation suit, thus risking contaminating possible clues. These images of negligence start to circulate world-wide; this isn't, however, the usual behaviour of police judiciaire technicians. It's obvious that no one has broken in and the lock has not been forced. No prints are lifted that are likely to belong to an unknown person, nor the slightest trace of gloves which could have been worn by a hypothetical abductor. In the middle of this desert of clues, two prints are perfectly easily found: the very distinct mark of a palm print on the balcony window at the rear of the apartment, and a clearly visible one of fingers on the window pane of Madeleine's bedroom. The excellent quality of the palm print seemed suspicious to us. Later, analyses confirm our suspicions: it belonged to one of the officers who were present the previous night.
Could more have been done to preserve a potential crime scene?
-
It matters little what leads they may be following, their progress is slow.
Slow, going nowhere.
-
Slow, going nowhere.
SY have not said what progress they have made..no body including you knows...the quote saying they are back to square one was from an un named Portuguese source so is not to be trusted
-
if you have been following the case you will know that things are slow due to the rogatories..initially SY were refused permission to interview the witnesses recently interviewed and had to go through a lengthy procedure to gain permission
And where has it git them ? Back to square one apparently.
-
And where has it git them ? Back to square one apparently.
"Back to square one" according to whom exactly?
-
"Back to square one" according to whom exactly?
Mediar reports, which is all that most have us have to go on.
-
Mediar reports, which is all that most have us have to go on.
I think the quote came from "sources close to the PJ" if I recall correctly, so not SY then. Who apart from them is to know which number square they are on?
-
I think the quote came from "sources close to the PJ" if I recall correctly, so not SY then. Who apart from them is to know which number square they are on?
Which, of course, is why I used the word 'apparently'
-
Which, of course, is why I used the word 'apparently'
So
Just a guess?
Nothing more.
Not good enough.
-
So
Just a guess?
Nothing more.
Not good enough.
No that's right, SY have a plethora of evidence against a beggar & a bus driver.
-
No that's right, SY have a plethora of evidence against a beggar & a bus driver.
i.e. NOTHING at all.
-
No that's right, SY have a plethora of evidence against a beggar & a bus driver.
They are not going to tell YOU or any of us exactly what evidence they have.
-
They are not going to tell YOU or any of us exactly what evidence they have.
They ain't got none.
-
They ain't got none.
Precisely.
if they had anything which would stand up, action would have been taken.
-
Precisely.
if they had anything which would stand up, action would have been taken.
Precisely.
I think the penny may be getting ready to drop.
... "if they had anything which would stand up, action would have been taken." That is why the police have declared that they have no interest in Madeleine's parents. That is why the police are looking for an abductor.
Couldn't be clearer.
-
Precisely.
I think the penny may be getting ready to drop.
... "if they had anything which would stand up, action would have been taken." That is why the police have declared that they have no interest in Madeleine's parents. That is why the police are looking for an abductor.
Couldn't be clearer.
The trouble is , no evidence of abduction, and certainly no forensics, just hyperbole.
-
They ain't got none.
Come on then .
Tell us.
-
The trouble is , no evidence of abduction, and certainly no forensics, just hyperbole.
Stephen, oh Stephen ... please stop quoting the hotel manager and stop to think, very carefully, what the word 'abduction' means in the Queen's english.
The collection of forensic samples was botched beyond belief ... but even at that there are still unmatched samples retrieved from 5a which may be explained someday.
-
Stephen, oh Stephen ... please stop quoting the hotel manager and stop to think, very carefully, what the word 'abduction' means in the Queen's english.
The collection of forensic samples was botched beyond belief ... but even at that there are still unmatched samples retrieved from 5a which may be explained someday.
Not really surprising given that it was a holiday rental property and must have had hundreds of temporary residents.
-
Stephen, oh Stephen ... please stop quoting the hotel manager and stop to think, very carefully, what the word 'abduction' means in the Queen's english.
The collection of forensic samples was botched beyond belief ... but even at that there are still unmatched samples retrieved from 5a which may be explained someday.
I'm not quoting the hotel manager. 8-)(--) That is my view. As it's shared by many others, don't be too surprised.
As to abduction, it really is very simple.
Where is the carte blanche undeniable evidence which shows that and with forensics to back it up.
-
I'm not quoting the hotel manager. 8-)(--) That is my view. As it's shared by many others, don't be too surprised.
As to abduction, it really is very simple.
Where is the carte blanche undeniable evidence which shows that and with forensics to back it up.
Why do you keep repeating this rubbish. The apartment was not a crime scene until after it was established that Madeleine was not in it - or in the immediate vicinity. How could her disappearance from 5A be established without them searching it? Why would anyone expect the frantic parents to behave like policemen? That makes no sense.
It was the police themselves who blundered around the apartment and failed to cordon it off as a matter of urgency as soon as they arrived. It wasn't the McCanns who left dog hairs strewn all over the floor.
All your efforts to delude yourself otherwise will not change the fact that it was the police who did not do their job properly as soon as they arrived.
-
Why do you keep repeating this rubbish. The apartment was not a crime scene until after it was established that Madeleine was not in it - or in the immediate vicinity. How could her disappearance from 5A be established without them searching it? Why would anyone expect the frantic parents to behave like policemen? That makes no sense.
It was the police themselves who blundered around the apartment and failed to cordon it off as a matter of urgency as soon as they arrived. It wasn't the McCanns who left dog hairs strewn all over the floor.
All your efforts to delude yourself otherwise will not change the fact that it was the police who did not do their job properly as soon as they arrived.
The group made a mess of the apartment.
The police arrived after they were finally alerted to the disappearance.
All you and your fellow supporters do is lay the blame at the Portuguese Police.
-
The group made a mess of the apartment.
The police arrived after they were finally alerted to the disappearance.
All you and your fellow supporters do is lay the blame at the Portuguese Police.
the person to blame us the abductor...the one SY are searching for
-
Why are you so incapable of understanding that when the McCanns and their friends searched the apartment they were desperate to find a missing child?
Why do you make the idiotic inference that they should have done such a thing without disturbing things at all? What kind of idiocy is it to suggest that a normal person would not make such a search as thoroughly as possible?
Do you never actually think about the reality of the situation? Do you actually believe that the first thing on the mind of a parent or parental friend when a child has gone missing is to preserve the scene for future police investigation rather than simply to find the child? Seriously?
The problem is that you cannot get beyond that mantra of yours, that the parents in your view are guilty. Were you not stuck in that mindset and were you able to look at things more realistically then you might be able to appreciate that when a child goes missing a caring parent simply panics and tries to find their offspring. And until they have conducted a thorough search then they really don't even know for certain that the child is really missing. That might be the first panicky reaction but a child might be in another place for perfectly normal reasons. You have to check every possible place.
Not in the remotest way comparable but something I remember to this day was an occasion about 20 years ago when I was on holiday. I lost a pair of sunglasses that I had borrowed from a friend who was willing to lend them to me because I didn't have any for the holidays on condition I was careful with them. They were extremely expensive and when I lost them I panicked. My suitcase, hotel room, bathroom and even the rooms of my holiday companions were ransacked by all of us. Luckily I had left them on the table at dinner and the waitress returned them to me the following morning. Do you think I should have remained calm and searched only briefly in case I had to call in the police to report a crime and get a crime number for insurance purposes? A missing child would I am certain instil even greater levels of panic in any normal person. Unfortunately you are utterly incapable of understanding that simple fact.
And as Benice has already explained the genuine damage to the scene was done by the POLICE who turned up and themselves contaminated the scene with cigarette ash, dog hairs etc and who FAILED to ensure that the scene was properly maintained.
-
the person to blame us the abductor...the one SY are searching for
Correct. It is utterly obscene that Stephen excuses the action of any potential abductor simply because he is stuck in a mindset where he can only focus on the blame he wishes to place on the parents who have already stated that they are guilty of what he cannot get past and who will live with the guilt of their actions for the rest of their lives. Stephen is so bitter that he cannot see that the blame is not simply that of the McCanns.
He is making excuses for a vile criminal. That is something most people find disgusting.
-
The group made a mess of the apartment.
The police arrived after they were finally alerted to the disappearance.
All you and your fellow supporters do is lay the blame at the Portuguese Police.
Can you not understand that the police were not involved immediately because the McCanns and their friends had to search the apartment and check that Madeleine was no longer present?
Blame is being laid at the foot of those involved where blame is due.
We all know, because they have admitted their mistake that part of the blame lies with the McCanns. It does not take your spammed mantra for the world to know that they will live with the guilt of that for the rest of their lives.
We all know, though you completely ignore it, that there is clear and absolute evidence that the police are also to blame in that they did not secure the scene even though they knew that should have been done. We also know that the Police introduced the contamination recorded in the apartment.
We all know, though you completely excuse the person responsible for any potential abduction that this person also shares the blame.
-
I can see why the McCanns needed to search their apartment, but not why any of the others had any need to enter. It was not exactly a large apartment and the McCanns would have been perfectly capable of searching it without assistance.
-
Correct. It is utterly obscene that Stephen excuses the action of any potential abductor simply because he is stuck in a mindset where he can only focus on the blame he wishes to place on the parents who have already stated that they are guilty of what he cannot get past and who will live with the guilt of their actions for the rest of their lives. Stephen is so bitter that he cannot see that the blame is not simply that of the McCanns.
He is making excuses for a vile criminal. That is something most people find disgusting.
You are missing the point gilet. Stephen might repeat the same mantra daily to everyones annoyance but it is true, there is no evidence Madeleine was taken by anyone. For all we know even now some 7 years down the line she could have opened the front door, wandered off and fallen down a hole.
There is no evidence she was abducted, no evidence she is dead and no evidence she is alive, not even hold up in an Edgar dungeon in Praia da Luz or hidden by some gypsies in a Moroccan fantasy.
ps I never mentioned Sadie.
-
Do try to read the post more carefully. I state that there was a potential abductor. If you cannot accept that then your ability to understand reality is sorely compromised.
There is no proof as to what happened to Madeleine.
There is however a missing person inquiry being undertaken by experts from SY of which a major focus is abduction.
-
You are missing the point gilet. Stephen might repeat the same mantra daily to everyones annoyance but it is true, there is no evidence Madeleine was taken by anyone. For all we know even now some 7 years down the line she could have opened the front door, wandered off and fallen down a hole.
Yes John and I do repeat it fairly often, no quibble on that.
However, I do it in response to the repeated mantra of abduction, and as you rightly pointed out, there is no evidence Madeleine was taken by anyone.
Be careful John, you will now get 'shouted at'.
-
Do try to read the post more carefully. I state that there was a potential abductor. If you cannot accept that then your ability to understand reality is sorely compromised.
There is no proof as to what happened to Madeleine.
There is however a missing person inquiry being undertaken by experts from SY of which a major focus is abduction. If you think we should simply ignore that reality then you are totally deluded.
You stated this..........
'He is making excuses for a vile criminal.'
So who are you referring to then, the tooth fairy ?
-
You are missing the point gilet. Stephen might repeat the same mantra daily to everyones annoyance but it is true, there is no evidence Madeleine was taken by anyone. For all we know even now some 7 years down the line she could have opened the front door, wandered off and fallen down a hole.
There is no evidence she was abducted, no evidence she is dead and no evidence she is alive, not even hold up in an Edgar dungeon in Praia da Luz or hidden by some gypsies in a Moroccan fantasy.
ps I never mentioned Sadie.
No you are missing the point.
One thing we all know is that the McCanns made a mistake.
One thing that we all know is that the McCanns have admitted that mistake.
One thing we can all see is that does not solve the case.
Yet Stephen with his daily mantra cannot see that latter point. He is fixated only on that.
In my post I refer to a potential abductor. Not a proven abductor. Stephen cannot even accept that such a person is a possibility.
[ edited as per policy ]
-
I can see why the McCanns needed to search their apartment, but not why any of the others had any need to enter. It was not exactly a large apartment and the McCanns would have been perfectly capable of searching it without assistance.
Seriously, do you think the parents of a missing child in their panic to find her, would spend time at the door turning away, the friends who were trying to help them?
I really do find such statements stretch the bounds of credulity beyond any sensible limits. They were looking for a child for God's sake, not playing a mystery adventure.
-
Yes John and I do repeat it fairly often, no quibble on that.
However, I do it in response to the repeated mantra of abduction, and as you rightly pointed out, there is no evidence Madeleine was taken by anyone.
Be careful John, you will now get 'shouted at'.
No sane person looking at a missing child case becomes as fixated as you are on one aspect especially when you only have knowledge of part of the evidence in the case.
That would appear to be the mistake that Amaral may have made.
-
Seriously, do you think the parents of a missing child in their panic to find her, would spend time at the door turning away, the friends who were trying to help them?
I really do find such statements stretch the bounds of credulity beyond any sensible limits. They were looking for a child for God's sake, not playing a mystery adventure.
Of course they were looking for a child and they knew she wasn't in the apartment because they had searched it, so there was no need for any of their friends and certainly not all of them to enter in order to confirm that.
-
Of course they were looking for a child and they knew she wasn't in the apartment because they had searched it, so there was no need for any of their friends and certainly not all of them to enter in order to confirm that.
How do you know the intention of all of them was to confirm that? Could it have been to offer sympathy? Not something most of those haranguing the McCanns seem to understand?
Have you ever been in a state of panic? Do you think that you would refuse help of any kind? Seriously?
-
''He is making excuses for a vile criminal.'
When have I made any excuses ?
Pray tell.
-
''He is making excuses for a vile criminal.'
[ moderated ]
You are excusing any potential abductor by claiming that the McCanns are entirely responsible for what happened to Madeleine when NOBODY knows (including you) what actually happened. That is clearly excusing the behaviour of any vile criminal who may be involved in the case.
[ moderated ]
-
Of course they were looking for a child and they knew she wasn't in the apartment because they had searched it, so there was no need for any of their friends and certainly not all of them to enter in order to confirm that.
So in that situation yourself if your friends had attempted to follow you in to the apartment to help you, you would have barred their entry I take it?
-
'He is making excuses for a vile criminal.'
Who am I making excuses for ?
Please define.
Those are the words you used towards me, now back it up.
Why do you never read things in context? The full post refers to the potential abductor as you are aware and the comment about the vile criminal follows directly on from that.
Therefore you are excusing the actions of that vile potential abductor.
Just because you don't believe there was a potential abductor does not make such a crime an impossibility. The fact is that such potential abductors are being seriously investigated by real police.
In your need to maintain your mantra you are excusing the actions of not only a potential vile abductor as I claimed in the post above but also the failures of the Police in Portugal to conduct a thorough investigation.
-
So in that situation yourself if your friends had attempted to follow you in to the apartment to help you, you would have barred their entry I take it?
It is ridiculous for posters to claim that the McCanns would have refused help from the people they knew in PDL in their moment of panic; that they would have simply said to them, "Actually, mate, we've searched the apartment ourselves. Its a mystery where she is but there's no point you looking or you might make a mess."
When posters here try to suggest such a possibility they make themselves look rather silly.
-
Now we have got to the fact that you don't know whether an abductor was involved or not perhaps we could move to the claims you made earlier.
Can you show us the evidence for your claim that the McCanns trashed the apartment please?
And can you show where in any report (never mind a reliable report) there is any proof that "'posters' on the net, acting on behalf of the mccanns" (sic) were shown to exist during the trial in Portugal?
Or are you simply lying?
-
You don't have to be an ex copper to realise that if your child has disappeared and there are indications that she might have be taken out a window that you protect the scene and especially the bedroom and bedding where she was last seen.
-
You don't have to be an ex copper to realise that if your child has disappeared and there are indications that she might have be taken out a window that you protect the scene and especially the bedroom and bedding where she was last seen.
what i dont understand is why did kate wash cuddlecat wouldnt it of had maddies DNA on it from maddie carrying it around etc it would have been easier then gerry going back to the uk for a pillow or whatever
-
You don't have to be an ex copper to realise that if your child has disappeared and there are indications that she might have be taken out a window that you protect the scene and especially the bedroom and bedding where she was last seen.
You don't have to be an ex copper to understand that the mccanns were in a state of blind panic..
Furthermore john you don't have to be a copper to understand that the PJ should have done a thorough investigation on the bed clothes...which was never done
-
You don't have to be an ex copper to understand that the mccanns were in a state of blind panic..
Furthermore john you don't have to be a copper to understand that the PJ should have done a thorough investigation on the bed clothes...which was never done
Blind panic or blind stupidity fuelled by a few glasses of vino?
I have never undertood why the PJ failed to secure the bedclothes, that is basic forensics as was everything else Maddie came into contact with including cuddlecat.
Should the question not really be, was the apartment intentionally trashed? And as for Gerry allegedly going outside to footer with the shutters...how bloody stupid was that!
-
You don't have to be an ex copper to realise that if your child has disappeared and there are indications that she might have be taken out a window that you protect the scene and especially the bedroom and bedding where she was last seen.
There is plenty of evidence that the McCanns did not trash the scene. (Have you not seen the photo of the bed for example?) There is no evidence to support the claim that Stephen made that the McCanns trashed the apartment. It seems he simply lied about that as he did about the Trial in Portugal revealing posters acting on behalf of the McCanns.
However the idea that parents in their panic would be thinking of the preservation of a crime scene rather than just desperately doing everything they could to find the child, understand how she had vanished and that they might refuse help from friends in their desperate searching, is I think, rather naive.
-
what i dont understand is why did kate wash cuddlecat wouldnt it of had maddies DNA on it from maddie carrying it around etc it would have been easier then gerry going back to the uk for a pillow or whatever
There is quite a lot that it appears you don't understand.
The fact that the need was for a sample of DNA specifically related only to Madeleine has clearly passed you by.
You would do well to read the relevant part of the files I think and then might understand the need for a reference sample as opposed to a general family sample. Or did you not realise that cuddle cat might also have had DNA from the twins and from Kate and Gerry?
-
Blind panic or blind stupidity fuelled by a few glasses of vino?
I have never undertood why the PJ failed to secure the bedclothes, that is basic forensics as was everything else Maddie came into contact with including cuddlecat.
Should the question not really be, was the apartment intentionally trashed? And as for Gerry allegedly going outside to footer with the shutters...how bloody stupid was that!
How much wine are you suggesting the McCanns had drunk?
Don't you think that a missing child is sufficient to cause a parent to panic? Or do you think that would only happen if somehow partially intoxicated or worse?
The truth is that a child going missing for only a few seconds can instil blind panic in a parent. When that child remains missing for minutes and longer that panic increases. Whether you have had two, three or more glasses of wine or not makes not a jot of difference.
I am glad, though, that you are agreeing with me that Stephen is wrong when he blames the fact that Madeleine is still missing on ONLY the parents. The flawed PJ investigation may well have been a contributory factor as well. As might any abductor who could have been involved. Madeleine may well have been found had the PJ done a better job.
The apartment was not trashed at all. No matter whether there was intent or not. The photos prove that.
As for the parents trying to understand the way that their child may have been taken from the apartment or may even have left of her own accord, then I can see why that would be part of their actions. I doubt that anyone in the situation they were in would be thinkng as clearly as you appear to suggest.
Parents panic and their actions are not logical when trying to deal with that kind of situation.
As I said before, even though the situation was not comparable, the loss of the sunglasses I had borrowed meant that I was most certainly not acting logically. I even insisted that a friend's room that I had never entered was searched in case they glasses had somehow got in there.
-
You don't have to be an ex copper to realise that if your child has disappeared and there are indications that she might have be taken out a window that you protect the scene and especially the bedroom and bedding where she was last seen.
The first thing the GNR officer who was first to arrive on the the scene did - was to go round searching the whole apartment for Madeleine. IMO It should have been fairly obvious to him that if she was there - she would have been found by the time he arrived. Duh?
The idea that it was the frantic parent's responsiblity to protect the scene and not his and the other police officer's responsibility is too preposterous for words IMO.
-
Blind panic or blind stupidity fuelled by a few glasses of vino?
I have never undertood why the PJ failed to secure the bedclothes, that is basic forensics as was everything else Maddie came into contact with including cuddlecat.
Should the question not really be, was the apartment intentionally trashed? And as for Gerry allegedly going outside to footer with the shutters...how bloody stupid was that!
Intentionally trashed by whom? In what way was the apartment "trashed" prior to the arrival of the GNR? Why is it "bloody stupid" to try and ascertain if the shutters had been tampered with? Do you think it would have been better for the McCanns to have gingerly tip-toed out of the kids' bedroom once they realised that Madeleine was not there and then sit on their hands waiting for the GNR to turn up? Is that what you would have done?
-
Intentionally trashed by whom? In what way was the apartment "trashed" prior to the arrival of the GNR? Why is it "bloody stupid" to try and ascertain if the shutters had been tampered with? Do you think it would have been better for the McCanns to have gingerly tip-toed out of the kids' bedroom once they realised that Madeleine was not there and then sit on their hands waiting for the GNR to turn up? Is that what you would have done?
Kate 'knew straight away she'd been taken y'know'.....
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html
...And the shutters were up & the window was open & she's not lying about that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
So it was pretty bleedin obvious this was a crime scene & that she had been abducted, on their version & yet they didn't call the police, either of em. There's absolutely nothing suspicious about that is there.
-
Kate 'knew straight away she'd been taken y'know'.....
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html
...And the shutters were up & the window was open & she's not lying about that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
So it was pretty bleedin obvious this was a crime scene & that she had been abducted, on their version & yet they didn't call the police, either of em. There's absolutely nothing suspicious about that is there.
If you came home and found that your child had been stabbed, with a knife sticking out of his chest and he appeared to be alive still, would you back off and wait for the ambulance and police to arrive so you didn't contaminate the crime scene? I bet you would wouldn't you? Only a fool would trash a crime scene!
-
what i dont understand is why did kate wash cuddlecat wouldnt it of had maddies DNA on it from maddie carrying it around etc it would have been easier then gerry going back to the uk for a pillow or whatever
a. A reference DNA sample is not normally sought from a crime scene, Carly.
b. The PJ didn't ask for it to even check on anyone else's potential DNA.
-
The first thing the GNR officer who was first to arrive on the the scene did - was to go round searching the whole apartment for Madeleine. IMO It should have been fairly obvious to him that if she was there - she would have been found by the time he arrived. Duh?...
The family and the police searched the residence and completely failed to find the missing girl who was actually right there under their noses during their so-called "complete" search of the residence. They all thought they had fully searched the residence. But they hadn't - they omitted places in their search. Like under a pile of clothes. Duh. (Zyia Turner case in Detroit).
-
I don't blame any of the first people on the scene: the parents/friends/OC staff / GNR.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
As far as anyone knew during that first hour or so of panic, she could have been found quickly somewhere in the vicinity.
-
The GNR don't normally deal with this sort of situation in PT from what I can gather... if they suspect a crime that is out of their remit, they have to check first, then contact the PJ.
I don't have a problem that they also checked the apartment to make absolutely sure that she wasn't in there. What I do have a problem with is that Amaral didn't understand why the sofa had been squashed against the curtains in the PJ photo taken later than night and found it suspicious. Didn't he realise that the GNR had checked the apartment?
-
The term "rummaged" was used in the archiving report.
The first GNR officers on the scene said there were four or five people in the apartment when they arrived. The GNR officers looked for the child as they said they did not perceive the apartment to be a crime scene and were sceptical of the claim the child had been abducted.
So we have parents friends and police equally guilty of "rummaging".
Beyond that there is plenty of scope for speculation.
-
The term "rummaged" was used in the archiving report.
The first GNR officers on the scene said there were four or five people in the apartment when they arrived. The GNR officers looked for the child as they said they did not perceive the apartment to be a crime scene and were sceptical of the claim the child had been abducted.
So we have parents friends and police equally guilty of "rummaging".
Beyond that there is plenty of scope for speculation.
Welcome.
Which word in Portuguese was translated as "rummaging"?
-
a. A reference DNA sample is not normally sought from a crime scene, Carly.
b. The PJ didn't ask for it to even check on anyone else's potential DNA.
In Portugal, no one can obtain a DNA sample without a court order.
-
In Portugal, no one can obtain a DNA sample without a court order.
DNA samples in the UK are by consent or by court order. I believe the police may take one compulsorily from suspects who are about to be arrested for serious crime. They certainly cannot be taken willy nilly.
-
Welcome.
Which word in Portuguese was translated as "rummaging"?
Thank you.
I do not know which word was used in Portuguese. I was going only on the translated document on the net.
-
DNA samples in the UK are by consent or by court order. I believe the police may take one compulsorily from suspects who are about to be arrested for serious crime. They certainly cannot be taken willy nilly.
they are taken from everyone who is arrested..not just serious crimes
-
DNA samples in the UK are by consent or by court order. I believe the police may take one compulsorily from suspects who are about to be arrested for serious crime. They certainly cannot be taken willy nilly.
I was under the impression that in UK, a DNA sample can be taken from anyone who has been arrested on suspicion of almost anything.
-
In Portugal, no one can obtain a DNA sample without a court order.
I don't understand your point. What are you referring to?
Ah. Sorry, this one quote rule on here doesn't always make it easy to follow.
My post was:
a. A reference DNA sample is not normally sought from a crime scene, Carly.
b. The PJ didn't ask for it to even check on anyone else's potential DNA.
What court orders were requested?
-
Since April 2004, the police in England and Wales have been able to take DNA samples without consent from anyone arrested on suspicion of any recordable offence.
My point about taking DNA samples willy nilly stands
-
I don't understand your point. What are you referring to?
I was answering your post of 7h10.
-
the word rummaged was not in the archiving report...it was in portuguese
The actual words used are "devassado" and "devassa".
-
I don't have a son.
Is that the best answer you could come up with? Pitiful.
-
I understood that The McCanns did keep people out of the bedroom.
-
the word rummaged was not in the archiving report...it was in portuguese
Had you read my posts properly you would have realised I had conceded that; possibly.
-
Had you read my posts properly you would have realised I had conceded that; possibly.
it isn't a possibility ...its a certainty
-
At least the PJ did, within a few hours of the apparant disappearance, move the family out to alternative accommodation. That was a good move, wasn't it? Not every police force would have taken that measure.
-
Is that the best answer you could come up with? Pitiful.
I just dont, so if I came home, found my daughter had been stabbed & had a big old knife sticking out of her chest... obviously I wouldn't phone an ambulance for at least 40 mins, I don't think.
Infact I probably wouldn't do it myself anyways, I reckon I'd probably faff around with the knife for a bit & just let someone else do it, even though I had known straight away she'd err got a big knife stickin out 'er chest, y'know.
-
I just dont, so if I came home, found my daughter had been stabbed & had a big old knife sticking out of her chest... obviously I wouldn't phone an ambulance for at least 40 mins, I don't think.
Infact I probably wouldn't do it myself anyways, I reckon I'd probably faff around with the knife for a bit & just let someone else do it, even though I had known straight away she'd err got a big knife stickin out 'er chest, y'know.
Predictably pathetic reply. Of course, if you found your child gravely injured your first thought would be to secure the crime scene, come on now, be honest!
-
No actually, I'd chuck err in a bin & then pretend she'd been abducted, because it was my wife that stabbed her.
Yes, you're probably right - you strike me as that type.
-
The term "rummaged" was used in the archiving report.
The first GNR officers on the scene said there were four or five people in the apartment when they arrived. The GNR officers looked for the child as they said they did not perceive the apartment to be a crime scene and were sceptical of the claim the child had been abducted.
So we have parents friends and police equally guilty of "rummaging".
Beyond that there is plenty of scope for speculation.
Good find Alice and welcome, here is the exact quote >>
G – Appreciation and judicial frame
From the analysis of the elements that are part of the files, this first conclusion emerges immediately:
When the GNR officers arrived on location, several people had already touched the window and entered Madeleine's and her siblings' bedroom, and later on, when the PJ arrived at the apartment to collect traces, the space had already been rummaged through and contaminated due to the entrance of all of those people and to the fact that everything had been touched, thus rendering inviable, right away, the collection of important elements for the investigation.
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.
It was only when members of the Polícia Judiciária arrived, at around 0.10 a.m., following a request for their presence, that measures were taken to make the collection of residues and the preservation of the event’s location possible.
www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
-
Welcome.
Which word in Portuguese was translated as "rummaging"?
The Portuguese words are devassado (3rd line down) and devessa (8th line down) representing rummaged and rummaging.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4640.jpg)
ETA Pegasus already posted this info at #61
I find the use of the word a bit odd as it translates literally as debauched. Devastado would be a better word but maybe Montclair can expand on this? I also notice a reverse translation for rummage is something completely different. Could there be a regional variation in the Portuguese being used as occurs in the various regions of Spain?
-
The Portuguese words are devassado (3rd line down) and devessa (8th line down) representing rummaged and rummaging....
The rummaging of the property (by a few guests and maybe one employee and later by a GNR officer) was incomplete.
-
In his book Madeleine - The Truth of the Lie, Goncalo Amaral writes of the difficulties and trials the Portuguese police faced when they attempted to collect forensic evidence. In particular, he writes...
Lots of people were already in place; however, nobody appeared in the photos. We don't know, for example, how they were dressed. Such observations can turn out to be important later on. The report mentions that the twins were asleep in their bed, but there is no proof to confirm it; on the contrary, in the photographs, you can see empty cots, where only the mattresses remain - the sheets and blankets having been removed. Why have their beds been stripped? If the sheets had not been removed, traces of their presence could have been found there.
The search and examination of the scene were carried out in difficult conditions: when they arrived, the police were met with a large number of people coming and going - family, friends, resort employees, including dogs and members of the National Guard. The contamination of the premises risks bringing serious prejudice, as a consequence, to the investigation. We must ask ourselves if that contamination has been deliberate or not - it can make the search for clues particularly complicated.
Inside the apartment, police forensic specialists proceed to lift finger and palmar prints, a job that is preferably carried out during daylight hours. Others look for traces of blood, samples of fibres and hair. We notice with dismay that one of the technicians, who is working on the outside of the McCann children's bedroom window is not using the regulation suit, thus risking contaminating possible clues. These images of negligence start to circulate world-wide; this isn't, however, the usual behaviour of police judiciaire technicians. It's obvious that no one has broken in and the lock has not been forced. No prints are lifted that are likely to belong to an unknown person, nor the slightest trace of gloves which could have been worn by a hypothetical abductor. In the middle of this desert of clues, two prints are perfectly easily found: the very distinct mark of a palm print on the balcony window at the rear of the apartment, and a clearly visible one of fingers on the window pane of Madeleine's bedroom. The excellent quality of the palm print seemed suspicious to us. Later, analyses confirm our suspicions: it belonged to one of the officers who were present the previous night.
Could more have been done to preserve a potential crime scene?
It was all so simple, all persons should have been removed from 5a and sealed off together with all approaches until a complete CSI sweep had been competed.
-
It was all so simple, all persons should have been removed from 5a and sealed off together with all approaches until a complete CSI sweep had been competed.
At least the PJ did move everyone out of the property at about 2AM.
That's how they managed to do the forensics that night.
Can you quote any recent UK missing child case, where UK police took this same sensible measure?
-
Are the GNR trained to follow any specific protocol in such cases? It's a different type of police force to the PJ, and seems to deal with incidents in rural areas. As far as I'm aware, it's only once the incident appears to be beyond their remit that they contact the PJ.
-
At least the PJ did move everyone out of the property at about 2AM.
That's how they managed to do the forensics that night.
Can you quote any recent UK missing child case, where UK police took this same sensible measure?
I thought that it was 4am?
Are you sure that it was the PJ that moved the Mccanns or the racket that moved them?
How many such happenings as Madeleines abduction have you heard of within an hotel type situation?
Very much easier to move them there than in a normal house situation. I dont know, but it is a firly good bet that in any hotel situation with a serioius crime in a room/ suite, the occupants would be accomodated elsewhere
-
It was all so simple, all persons should have been removed from 5a and sealed off together with all approaches until a complete CSI sweep had been competed.
I don't think that it was so simple if you take context into consideration. Again, hindsight is wonderful. At the time, the GNR were brought in due to a report of a missing child. When they arrived, they were trying to gather information about what had happened and searched the apartment themselves to make sure that it wasn't just a false alert. There was also a language problem and general panic which may have delayed matters.
In theory, she could have been found at any moment, in which case there would have been no need to contact the PJ. The OC had taken action to try to find her and there was no sign of her, so it would have become obvious that the situation was more serious than initially thought.
Turn that around. From the parents' perspective, every minute would have seemed like hours. The so-called "golden hours", as they later found out, were missed.
Ironically, one of the points that Amaral & co. found suspicious as supposedly being a restricted publication for law enforcement only found in the villa was, in fact, nothing more than a case management manual for first responders, available to the general public. A simple Google search could have proven that... so why the insinuation that it was "restricted" material?
-
- the bed sheets and the position of the soft toy raised suspicions. bed looks like nobody slept there, soft toy is position symmetrically to the pillow, pink blanket is almost folded. father confirmed that the blanket and the soft toy were in that position when he went to check his daughter
http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/analysing-crime-scene-apartment-5a.html
All of the above items were in place after the McCann family vacated the premises, as verified by the photographic evidence to which Dr Amaral refers in the above clip.
Why was cuddle cat not bagged?
Why was the blanket not bagged?
Why were the bedclothes not preserved for evidence?
These are the last known articles which were close to Madeleine.
If they had been checked they might have shown a trace of an intruder.
Allowing further contamination of CC and the blanket which subsequently vanished and the destruction of the bedclothes as evidence is inexplicable.
The value of careful preservation of evidence enabling use of technology not available at the time to solve a case is illustrated by reference to the solving of the murder of Elaine Doyle in Greenock.
Although the probability of achieving a similar successful outcome from the last known items to be in direct contact with Madeleine and a possible abductor would have been slight ... we can never know because nothing was preserved.
- CLIP - The forensic scientist described years of work on samples taken from the crime scene.
She and her colleagues examined tape which had been laid across Elaine's body in the hope of trapping hairs or fibres which might help track down her killer. She also tested the teenager's clothes for clues.
The court heard how some tiny traces matched the DNA of police who had handled clothing or the body, forensic scientists, and a member of the laboratory staff.
But two results could not be accounted for until Mr Docherty volunteered a sample of his DNA in May 2012 and gave another sample on March last year, when he was arrested and charged with the murder.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27670875
-
I thought that it was 4am?
Are you sure that it was the PJ that moved the Mccanns or the racket that moved them?
How many such happenings as Madeleines abduction have you heard of within an hotel type situation?
Very much easier to move them there than in a normal house situation. I dont know, but it is a firly good bet that in any hotel situation with a serioius crime in a room/ suite, the occupants would be accomodated elsewhere
1. You may be right, it would be interesting to know at what time the family was moved out, 2am or 4am.
2. That night MW offered the family 4G, however the family chose instead to stay in 5H.
3. Hotel situations are irrelevant as this was not a hotel.
-
I thought that it was 4am?
Are you sure that it was the PJ that moved the Mccanns or the racket that moved them?
How many such happenings as Madeleines abduction have you heard of within an hotel type situation?
Very much easier to move them there than in a normal house situation. I dont know, but it is a firly good bet that in any hotel situation with a serioius crime in a room/ suite, the occupants would be accomodated elsewhere
Lots of questions and uncertainty there Sadie.
-
Lots of questions and uncertainty there Sadie.
Actually I will be trying to work out the time the PJ moved the occupants out, as part of examining the differences between the first set of PJ photos (early hours of 4th) and the second set of PJ photos (probably afternoon 4th).
-
Preserving the scene is all very well, but the question is, did the GNR actually fully search the apartment?
-
Lots of questions and uncertainty there Sadie.
Slarti you are not nit picking again are you?
Maybe you dont know, cos you haven't been here that long, but continual unecessary demands on me to prove stuff, which everyone knew was true, caused massive reading for me. The tiny font has damaged my eyesight.
I now rarely refer to the files but rely on my memory. I have a mass of stuff stored there. Because of possibly not remembering properly, I prefer to not state things as fact unless I am totally sure.
I know it is not as good, but I aint ruining my eyesight any more. Hope you understand.
-
Slarti you are not nit picking again are you?
Maybe you dont know, cos you haven't been here that long, but continual unecessary demands on me to prove stuff, which everyone knew was true, caused massive reading for me. The tiny font has damaged my eyesight.
I now rarely refer to the files but rely on my memory. I have a mass of stuff stored there. Because of possibly not remembering properly, I prefer to not state things as fact unless I am totally sure.
I know it is not as good, but I aint ruining my eyesight any more. Hope you understand.
Not good enough, you make statements all the time with 'I think', 'If I remember', 'Good bet' and expect and hope that casual readers will take it as fact then ask for sympathy for your failing eyesight.
If you don't want to ruin your eyesight use a larger font or stop being online as much.
-
Preservation of the crime scene is the responsibility of the police - they are the once with the training and competence to do so. To expect victims, bystanders or others to do this job is not realistic.
-
Preservation of the crime scene is the responsibility of the police - they are the once with the training and competence to do so. To expect victims, bystanders or others to do this job is not realistic.
Most sensible people realise that, Jean-Pierre, even professionals must sometimes disturb a crime scene either through necessity or before it is realised that it is a crime scene.
The criticism the civilians have suffered because the police failed to secure the area would defy belief in any case other than Madeleine McCanns.
As soon as professionals came on scene the responsibility to preserve the scene was theirs from that time onwards.
-
Most sensible people realise that, Jean-Pierre, even professionals must sometimes disturb a crime scene either through necessity or before it is realised that it is a crime scene.
The criticism the civilians have suffered because the police failed to secure the area would defy belief in any case other than Madeleine McCanns.
As soon as professionals came on scene the responsibility to preserve the scene was theirs from that time onwards.
Absolutely Brietta but it seems by the time the GNR arrived the 'scene' was already fatally compromised with much of the forensic evidence destroyed.
-
Absolutely Brietta but it seems by the time the GNR arrived the 'scene' was already fatally compromised with much of the forensic evidence destroyed.
Hmmm ... not quite clear on precisely what evidence you think had been fatally compromised, it would be helpful if you could elucidate.
I know about the dog hairs and the ash dropped from the cigarettes the officers were smoking.
I also know that technicians were able to take samples which as a result of their inexperience were useless for analysis ... Dr Amaral excusing their ineptitude by saying they were a small force who lacked the resources for this.
Wonder what level of destruction was wrought on forensics which might have been of use if harvested properly?
I wonder if you can confirm that people and translators were brought into 5a to have statements taken.
-
Hmmm ... not quite clear on precisely what evidence you think had been fatally compromised, it would be helpful if you could elucidate.
I know about the dog hairs and the ash dropped from the cigarettes the officers were smoking.
I also know that technicians were able to take samples which as a result of their inexperience were useless for analysis ... Dr Amaral excusing their ineptitude by saying they were a small force who lacked the resources for this.
Wonder what level of destruction was wrought on forensics which might have been of use if harvested properly?
I wonder if you can confirm that people and translators were brought into 5a to have statements taken.
Unfortunately because of the compromised state of the apartment we will never know what the forensic team may or may not have found. That is the bald truth.
-
Squarely down to the Portuguese authorities.
-
Don't take Brietta's word for it, take the word of a detective with Surrey Police's Paedophile Unit:
"It was, without doubt, the worst preserved crime scene I have ever seen. In all, I spent a week in Praia da Luz as an analyst employed by broadcasters because of my years of experience as a detective with Surrey Police's paedophile unit".
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457120/It-doubt-worst-preserved-crime-scene-Ive-seen.html#ixzz37RtYgaXy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
Squarely down to the Portuguese authorities.
Either down to the Portuguese authorities or no one to blame.
The McCanns and their friends, firmly in "find Madeleine" mode rather than "preserve a crime scene" mode naturally searched franticly and without heed to thoughts of 'preserving a crime scene' for a missing little girl.
I suspect the vast majority of adults without police training in identical circumstances would have done the same.
Perhaps, by the time the GNR arrived, it was too late to think about those things.
Dunno!
It was unpardonable to re-let the apartment before the first enquiry was shelved ...
-
Don't take Brietta's word for it, take the word of a detective with Surrey Police's Paedophile Unit:
"It was, without doubt, the worst preserved crime scene I have ever seen. In all, I spent a week in Praia da Luz as an analyst employed by broadcasters because of my years of experience as a detective with Surrey Police's paedophile unit".
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457120/It-doubt-worst-preserved-crime-scene-Ive-seen.html#ixzz37RtYgaXy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Heaven preserve us from another Mail article and ex-policeman who makes his money writing to whatever angle the newspaper wants that week.
Now if you have any official confirmation of Brietta's claim written after the files were released I'm all ears.
-
Either down to the Portuguese authorities or no one to blame.
The McCanns and their friends, firmly in "find Madeleine" mode rather than "preserve a crime scene" mode naturally searched franticly and without heed to thoughts of 'preserving a crime scene' for a missing little girl.
I suspect the vast majority of adults without police training in identical circumstances would have done the same.
Perhaps, by the time the GNR arrived, it was too late to think about those things.
Dunno!
It was unpardonable to re-let the apartment before the first enquiry was shelved ...
I'm not claiming it wasn't understandable that the McCanns acted in the way they did but simply that it compromised the crime scene.
-
I'm not claiming it wasn't understandable that the McCanns acted in the way they did but simply that it compromised the crime scene.
I would argue that the point of principal relevance is that the apartment was re-let before the first enquiry was shelved.
That demonstrates how little heed the Portuguese paid to the importance of preserving a crime scene.
-
I would argue that the point of principal relevance is that the apartment was re-let before the first enquiry was shelved.
That demonstrates how little heed the Portuguese paid to the importance of preserving a crime scene.
The apartment was a private residence, what did you expect them to do ?
-
The apartment was a private residence, what did you expect them to do ?
Treat it as a crime scene until completion of the shelved enquiry.
-
Treat it as a crime scene until completion of the shelved enquiry.
And do you really think that happens in the UK ?
Do you think that if a crime is committed in the UK on private premises those premises are cordoned off until the perpetrator is found ? What if they are never found ?
-
I'm not claiming it wasn't understandable that the McCanns acted in the way they did but simply that it compromised the crime scene.
We are all familiar with the scene of the technician dusting the shutters for fingerprints ... minus protective clothing and with her long hair wafting in the breeze.
So if the professionals have not been the subject of vilification for unprofessional conduct ... it makes it all the more extraordinary that civilians in the midst of the biggest trauma of their lives have been roundly criticised because in searching for a missing child they may have inadvertantly contaminated the scene.
-
We are all familiar with the scene of the technician dusting the shutters for fingerprints ... minus protective clothing and with her long hair wafting in the breeze.
So if the professionals have not been the subject of vilification for unprofessional conduct ... it makes it all the more extraordinary that civilians in the midst of the biggest trauma of their lives have been roundly criticised because in searching for a missing child they may have inadvertantly contaminated the scene.
It's not about criticism, it's about admitting to the reality of the situation which is that before the GNR arrived the forensics in the apartment had been severely compromised by people searching for Madeleine.
-
And do you really think that happens in the UK ?
Do you think that if a crime is committed in the UK on private premises those premises are cordoned off until the perpetrator is found ? What if they are never found ?
Usually in the UK a crime scene becomes a sealed area at the time and all necessary work carried out before it is released.
I think it is the fact that 5a was not designated as such until two months had passed that raised eyebrows.
The apartment where Madeleine McCann vanished was used by holiday-makers for nearly two months before police sealed it off as a permanent crime scene, case files have showed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2523523/Madeleine-McCann-Apartment-was-not-made-crime-scene-for-two-months.html
-
Usually in the UK a crime scene becomes a sealed area at the time and all necessary work carried out before it is released.
I think it is the fact that 5a was not designated as such until two months had passed that raised eyebrows.
The apartment where Madeleine McCann vanished was used by holiday-makers for nearly two months before police sealed it off as a permanent crime scene, case files have showed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2523523/Madeleine-McCann-Apartment-was-not-made-crime-scene-for-two-months.html
The apartment was sealed in the early hours of the morning after Madeleine disappeared then when all, assumed, necessary work had been carried out it was then handed back to the owner. That further forensic work may be needed could not be foreseen.
Of course all if this is academic because the crime scene had been fatally compromised before the forensic team had even heard the name Madeleine McCann.
-
The apartment was sealed in the early hours of the morning after Madeleine disappeared then when all, assumed, necessary work had been carried out it was then handed back to the owner. That further forensic work may be needed could not be foreseen.
Of course all if this is academic because the crime scene had been fatally compromised before the forensic team had even heard the name Madeleine McCann.
Allowing the flat to be let out was an absolute farce, and that alone is a convincing argument that Amaral should not have been left in charge of a missing sweet wrapper, let alone the disappearance of a young child.
So lets just get back to the dogs, that some are so fond of quoting as irrefutable evidence. How do you square that with "fatally compromised"?
You really cannot have it both ways.
-
It's not about criticism, it's about admitting to the reality of the situation which is that before the GNR arrived the forensics in the apartment had been severely compromised by people searching for Madeleine.
I have no problem with the fact that various people had been in the apartment prior to the arrival of the GNR, who then also checked through the apartment.
I do have a problem with laying all the blame on one side or the other on that evening. Both the family/friends/OC staff plus the GNR had been in there. It's not within the remit (as far as I'm aware) to conduct forensic examinations, so that couldn't have started until the PJ arrived and were satisfied that she really wasn't anywhere to be found.
On the other hand, the keys to the apartment were handed back one month later and the apartment was then let out to other families, months before the dogs then turned up.
-
The apartment was sealed in the early hours of the morning after Madeleine disappeared then when all, assumed, necessary work had been carried out it was then handed back to the owner. That further forensic work may be needed could not be foreseen.
Of course all if this is academic because the crime scene had been fatally compromised before the forensic team had even heard the name Madeleine McCann.
The ineptitude of the forensic team was matched only by the ineptitude of the lead investigators.
They seemed to be unaware that the laws on ‘judicial secrecy’ were not applicable in the case of a missing child.
They were allowed to issue information and descriptions but they couldn’t quite take that on board.
-
The ineptitude of the forensic team was matched only by the ineptitude of the lead investigators.
They seemed to be unaware that the laws on ‘judicial secrecy’ were not applicable in the case of a missing child.
They were allowed to issue information and descriptions but they couldn’t quite take that on board.
Let's remember the ineptitude of Madeleine's parents, if not for which, this thread would not exist.
Let's remember the contamination of the crime scene before the police arrived. Hardly surprising the inconclusive forensics, even though the dogs indicated.
Let's remember dog's don't lie, people do.
Let's remember the leaks from the 'sources close to the mccanns', when and where it suited them.
-
I have no problem with the fact that various people had been in the apartment prior to the arrival of the GNR, who then also checked through the apartment.
I do have a problem with laying all the blame on one side or the other on that evening. Both the family/friends/OC staff plus the GNR had been in there. It's not within the remit (as far as I'm aware) to conduct forensic examinations, so that couldn't have started until the PJ arrived and were satisfied that she really wasn't anywhere to be found.
On the other hand, the keys to the apartment were handed back one month later and the apartment was then let out to other families, months before the dogs then turned up.
I don't think it could have been considered a crime scene until it had been thoroughly searched. In the circumstances I would imagine that they would be checking and rechecking impossible places in panic and hope.
As they did on arrival the GNR looked for themselves and checked on what others had done.
I do think that when it was determined she was nowhere to be found either in the apartment or in the surrounding area the protocols for missing children should have immediately been implemented ... and the decision to do that would not have been the responsibility of the 'boots on the ground'.
Eddie and Keela could have worked in a fresh crime scene, they were there to be used, and a lot of the ambiguities of Madeleine's case might never have arisen.
-
Two Portuguese officers among the first to investigate Madeleine McCann's disappearance yesterday blamed their superiors for allowing the initial crime scene to be contaminated by a 'circus' of people
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491940/Police-looked-Madeleine-crime-scene-trampled-circus-people.html#ixzz37SkAVnlG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
And before "Faithlilly" rolls her eyes and claims this article was written on behalf of the McCanns by the Daily Mail it's worth noting that these two policemen also had their doubts about the McCanns, from the same article:
One said of the McCann group: "They were upset, panicking, wideeyed, the usual, but there was something else.
"They were scared - not the usual scared, they were jumpy, nervous. It wasn't normal. None of it was normal.
"They'd all been drinking. They weren't falling over but it was hard to deal with them. They were hard to get sense out of."
-
I wonder if they were trying to break the shutters >@@(*&) 3 allegedly had a go at them - GM, DW and FP. Dianne and Fiona couldn't raise them from the outside. The Portuguese paedo gang may have taken the blame for it! Instead of searching they were investigating and tampering with shutters >@@(*&) I'd like to see them explain to the PJ Oh sorry it was us that accidentally broke the shutters or more likely keep your traps shut and say they were found broken. GM knew straight away it was them and still the crime scene was compromised.
-
Witness Statement
João Franciso Páscoa Luis Trigo Barreiras
Date: 2007/11/20
Time: 14h00
DIC Portimão
Occupation: PJ Deputy Specialist
Place of work: Criminal Investigation Department Portimão
He is a specialist in the area of Criminology for the PJ and works in the Criminal Investigation department in Portimão.
His professional responsibilities are to carry out examinations at crime scenes, such as detecting finger prints, biological examinations as well as the identification, signalling and collection of other traces. He is also responsible for making photographic reports and sketches. On the date of the events – 3rd May 2007 he was on duty at the Portimão DIC.
At about 00h10 on the morning of the 4th, he had just finished filing a report about a fire, when he was informed that a child had disappeared in Praia da Luz.
He was brought into service together with an Inspector from the station. It was the inspector’s duty to take notes of the services as well as all the information relating to them. The inspector who accompanied him on that date, Vitor Martins, informed him that the case in question was that of the disappearance of a small girl, of British nationality, who was staying at the Ocean Club with her parents.
They immediately left for the scene and arrived about 30 – 40 minutes later, at about 00h40/00h50.
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.
He said that these people were the friends of the parents of the missing girl and a lady responsible for the resort called Silvia.
He was shown the room the child had disappeared from, having noticed that people also entered and left that room without any care in the sense of preserving traces. Inside this room there were two children, babies, sleeping in two cots placed in the middle of the room.
It was requested that the babies were moved, which was done accordingly, the witness having subsequently put his gloves on to begin the on-site inspection.
At that moment one of the GNR officers told the witness that they had already searched for the girl in the wardrobes and other places in the apartment without having taken any care as to leaving their own traces or for destroying or adulterating any traces that might be of interest to the investigation.
After the arrival of the witness and his colleague Vitor Martins the scene was isolated and the inspection began, namely the collection of statements and inspection of the scene, the respective reports that were subsequently attached to the process documents.
The witness carried out finger print testing on the inside of the bedroom window, where the girl had been sleeping, leaving other examinations for the following day given that on that occasion these tests could not be carried out in the best technical conditions. For this reason, the apartments and the surrounding area were sealed off, watched over by the GNR officers who remained on site.
As far as he knows, after the first examination, other members from the finger print detection service and also officers from the LPC Crime Scene arrived at the scene.
The witness states that, at a given moment, the father of the missing girl led him to understand that he had already contacted the Sky News TV station and informed them of the situation.
As much the father as the girl's mother looked quite worried with the situation and he can even confirm that the mother was very agitated and out of control, crying a lot and shouting in an uncontrolled manner, saying in English "They have taken her".
He remembers that he remained on the scene until about 04.00. There were many people in the street. He does not remember having seen Robert Murat there on that occasion.
When questioned, he says that it was a fresh night with some breeze. It was not a clear night, nor was it very dark. Referring to the light conditions around the apartment, he says they were very dark, and thinks that even on a bright night there would always be little light around the apartment because of the trees and lack of street lights.
-
After the arrival of the witness and his colleague Vitor Martins the scene was isolated and the inspection began, namely the collection of statements and inspection of the scene, the respective reports that were subsequently attached to the process documents.
For me, that is the key paragraph
-
After the arrival of the witness and his colleague Vitor Martins the scene was isolated and the inspection began, namely the collection of statements and inspection of the scene, the respective reports that were subsequently attached to the process documents.
For me, that is the key paragraph
... for me it confirms that statements were taken in the apartment.
-
Two Portuguese officers among the first to investigate Madeleine McCann's disappearance yesterday blamed their superiors for allowing the initial crime scene to be contaminated by a 'circus' of people
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491940/Police-looked-Madeleine-crime-scene-trampled-circus-people.html#ixzz37SkAVnlG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
And before "Faithlilly" rolls her eyes and claims this article was written on behalf of the McCanns by the Daily Mail it's worth noting that these two policemen also had their doubts about the McCanns, from the same article:
One said of the McCann group: "They were upset, panicking, wideeyed, the usual, but there was something else.
"They were scared - not the usual scared, they were jumpy, nervous. It wasn't normal. None of it was normal.
"They'd all been drinking. They weren't falling over but it was hard to deal with them. They were hard to get sense out of."
Are these officers statements in the files Alfred because I have never read that any officer said the McCann's or their friend's was affected by drink ?
-
After the arrival of the witness and his colleague Vitor Martins the scene was isolated and the inspection began, namely the collection of statements and inspection of the scene, the respective reports that were subsequently attached to the process documents.
For me, that is the key paragraph
So the scene was sealed as soon as a PJ officer arrived. Seems the non-isolation of the scene can't be put down to Amaral then.
Pity eh ?
-
Are these officers statements in the files Alfred because I have never read that any officer said the McCann's or their friend's was affected by drink ?
Why pray worry ourselves about the official files when we have a press renowned and admired the world over for its diligence and veracity of reporting? I could find no officers names mentioned in the article...
-
Amaral in his book at page 53 considers the following...
These first observations are not the only ones that lead us to consider a set-up. The way the bed sheets were arranged but also the child's soft toy equally raise doubts. - Do you see how the sheets are lying? You'd think the child got out by herself....or that she didn't sleep there. - Someone could have unintentionally touched the curtains while looking for the little girl inside the apartment. - And the soft toy she slept with? That's not in a natural position either. How would she have found it, along the pillow like that? - The mother says that the soft toy was beside the pillow when she noticed the disappearance, which, according to her, was its usual place. - Which means that the little girl slept without holding it? Children normally clutch their security object to fall asleep. But if that's not the case, the way it's placed doesn't seem natural. She would inevitably have moved it turning over in her sleep. - The pink blanket is also really tidy, almost folded. Where cases of missing children involve the close family, modification of the crime scene is common. But the comings and goings and searches inside the apartment might be the source of these changes. We have to be absolutely sure that it's not a deliberate attempt to put up a smokescreen. - What does the father say? - That when he came to see the children, it was all like that, the blanket and the soft toy. We carry on looking at the photos of the bedroom: the two cots are in the middle of the room and are in the way of an adult moving around. - Why is there nothing more than mattresses? All the bed linen has been removed. I really wonder why...
So who removed the bed linen and why...where did it go?
-
I expect it was removed with the twins when they were taken elsewhere. It would have been needed quite possibly.
I really don't understand what the mystery could be. There is none, as far as I can see.
-
Amaral in his book at page 53 considers the following...
These first observations are not the only ones that lead us to consider a set-up. The way the bed sheets were arranged but also the child's soft toy equally raise doubts. - Do you see how the sheets are lying? You'd think the child got out by herself....or that she didn't sleep there. - Someone could have unintentionally touched the curtains while looking for the little girl inside the apartment. - And the soft toy she slept with? That's not in a natural position either. How would she have found it, along the pillow like that? - The mother says that the soft toy was beside the pillow when she noticed the disappearance, which, according to her, was its usual place. - Which means that the little girl slept without holding it? Children normally clutch their security object to fall asleep. But if that's not the case, the way it's placed doesn't seem natural. She would inevitably have moved it turning over in her sleep. - The pink blanket is also really tidy, almost folded. Where cases of missing children involve the close family, modification of the crime scene is common. But the comings and goings and searches inside the apartment might be the source of these changes. We have to be absolutely sure that it's not a deliberate attempt to put up a smokescreen. - What does the father say? - That when he came to see the children, it was all like that, the blanket and the soft toy. We carry on looking at the photos of the bedroom: the two cots are in the middle of the room and are in the way of an adult moving around. - Why is there nothing more than mattresses? All the bed linen has been removed. I really wonder why...
So who removed the bed linen and why...where did it go?
Does Amaral ever go on to venture a theory as to why the cot bedding has mysteriously vanished? If not what was the point of making a mystery of it in the first place? as Eleanor has pointed out, there's a pretty logical answer, but maybe Amaral doesn't think like like that.
-
I Support The McCanns From France. And Anywhere Else I Happen To Be.
They're all the same, these itinerant McCann-supporters ...
-
Does Amaral ever go on to venture a theory as to why the cot bedding has mysteriously vanished? If not what was the point of making a mystery of it in the first place? as Eleanor has pointed out, there's a pretty logical answer, but maybe Amaral doesn't think like like that.
Logical answer, or just plain wrong ?
-
I expect it was removed with the twins when they were taken elsewhere. It would have been needed quite possibly.
I really don't understand what the mystery could be. There is none, as far as I can see.
I presume one reason being that the twins were wrapped in the blankets they were sleeping in - before taking them outside into a cold, breezy night.
A few simple enquiries by Amaral would have easily cleared that up IMO - but Hey - why miss an opportunity to turn an innocent action into a suspicious one in the minds of his readers.
-
I presume one reason being that the twins were wrapped in the blankets they were sleeping in - before taking them outside into a cold, breezy night.
A few simple enquiries by Amaral would have easily cleared that up IMO - but Hey - why miss an opportunity to turn an innocent action into a suspicious one in the minds of his readers.
Absolutely ... insidious, but it worked.
Obvious that whoever lifted the twins took them wrapped in their bedding, so I don’t think there is much mystery there, just a little bit of sensationalism on the part of the author to plant absurd suspicion.
Two objectives in one sentence ... gets the boot into his target ever so subtly ... and it sells books.
I’m more interested in what happened to the bed linen which was on Madeleine’s bed. Was that bagged and preserved?
We've seen the evidence photographs of markers where hair was lifted ... but I can't see anything about what happened to the bedding subsequently ... am I missing something?
-
The bedding of that single bed was still there afternoon 4th I think.
What happened to it after that I don't know, I find no record of it being kept.
-
The bedding of that single bed was still there afternoon 4th I think.
What happened to it after that I don't know, I find no record of it being kept.
Me neither ... Understandable in 2007 when forensic techniques were not as advanced as now. A pity they were not bagged and preserved as a fresh look using modern methods might have yielded a trace. It was my understanding also that the apartment was allowed to be cleaned and the bedding washed days after the event … but I cannot find a cite to support that.
-
Me neither ... Understandable in 2007 when forensic techniques were not as advanced as now. A pity they were not bagged and preserved as a fresh look using modern methods might have yielded a trace. It was my understanding also that the apartment was allowed to be cleaned and the bedding washed days after the event … but I cannot find a cite to support that.
The apartment was next inhabited on 12th June (see Vol 11 Pages 2945-2956) therefore it must have been cleaned and bedding changed before that date.
All personal possessions were allowed to be removed about lunchtime on Saturday May 5th.
-
The apartment was next inhabited on 12th June (see Vol 11 Pages 2945-2956) therefore it must have been cleaned and bedding changed before that date.
All personal possessions were allowed to be removed about lunchtime on Saturday May 5th.
You might be interested in the following.
The transcript is mine so apologies for anything missed (eg anchor's questions). I think it ties in with the topic of the thread.
Retired FBI special agent Stephen Moore … CNN
NSY are going back to look at what should have been looked at in 2007.
They are essentially having to rebuild this investigation from the ground up.
A crime scene is perishable – investigation is a consumer – it consumes time it consumes evidence the further you get from the actual crime the less chance you have, if anyone can do it SY can do it.
I believe it has been so badly botched by the Portuguese they can’t even start with anything they have they have to rebuild it from its foundation.
They did a classic mistake, they decided on a conclusion very early on + basic forensic mistakes you add basic police mistakes …
It’s like the Amanda Knox case in Italy, they screwed it up from the beginning and now it has to be restarted.
If you do something wrong forensically it sends the investigators off on the wrong tangent – for instance it’s the red herring here where they thought the DNA of the victim was found in the rental car of the parents that’s completely fallacious.
It never happened, investigators wasted years on that
Very optimistic that they are going in the right direction
There is a chance
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/10/14/madeline-mccann-moore-newday.cnn.html
-
That Moore guy makes a crime-scene-preservation comparision with the Knox case.
I am going to make a purely crime-scene-preservation comparision with the Sharp case.
There, the Met, as far as I can see, allowed the family to continue living in the residence?
Surely that was not good for preservation of forensics?
At least the PJ did the right thing to move the family out within a few hours of the "disappearance".
-
That Moore guy makes a crime-scene-preservation comparision with the Knox case.
I am going to make a purely crime-scene-preservation comparision with the Sharp case.
There, the Met, as far as I can see, allowed the family to continue living in the residence?
Surely that was not good for preservation of forensics?
At least the PJ did the right thing to move the family out within a few hours of the "disappearance".
An invalid comparison.
There was no reason, initially, to believe that any crime had been committed in the home.
The first assumption was that she had left the home voluntarily of her own free-will and come to harm subsequently.
-
An invalid comparison.
There was no reason, initially, to believe that any crime had been committed in the home.
The first assumption was that she had left the home voluntarily of her own free-will and come to harm subsequently.
Preservation of the scene should not be omitted because of assumptions or working hypotheses.
It should be done regardless of those factors, in case it is needed later.
The PJ did terminate occupancy that same night. That was correct forensic preservation.
The Met in that UK case IIRC did not terminate occupancy until many days later. That was not good forensic preservation.
-
Preservation of the scene should not be omitted because of assumptions or working hypotheses.
It should be done regardless of those factors, in case it is needed later.
The PJ did terminate occupancy that same night. That was correct forensic preservation.
The Met in that UK case IIRC did not terminate occupancy until many days later. That was not good forensic preservation.
First you need to establish a crime scene.
Initially in the Tia Sharpe investigation, one wasn't.
-
It is unfortunate in cases like this that a fine line has to be trod. Carrying out a complete forensics sweep and asking awkward questions of the parents are often perceived as invasive in circumstances where sympathy would appear to be the order of the day. A detective has to look at all possible outcomes and Amaral and his team would have been negligent had they not done so.
More could and should have been done to preserve forensic material but I fear on the night the investigation was driven by the hope that she had wandered off and would be found as happens in the vast majority of such cases.
By the time the realisation had sunk in that she was not going to be found, the crime scene had been compromised.
-
The point I was proposing is simply that the PJ did do one thing at least right, to preserve the scene, and that was having the occupants move out to a different apartment, as otherwise the mere presence of peeps living there would modify the scene further.
The parents moved out but unfortunately the scene was not preserved until all checks had been completed.
Agent Moore has pointed out that a crime scene is perishable; I would say that further occupancy was fatal for the integrity of 5a.
I've been reading Mark Harrison's statement in the files and it is clear that there was no reason that more should have been attached to Eddie's alerts than was warranted.
- CLIP - "After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
-
Preservation of the scene should not be omitted because of assumptions or working hypotheses.
It should be done regardless of those factors, in case it is needed later.
The PJ did terminate occupancy that same night. That was correct forensic preservation.
The Met in that UK case IIRC did not terminate occupancy until many days later. That was not good forensic preservation.
This is very different tho Pegasus. SY had nothing of substance to indicate that where Hazell lived was the crime scene at the beginning. Tia was 12 years old and as that age able to go out and about. She was a free agent and could have met anyone whilst out.
I think you are wrong to criticize SY on this count.
On the other hand, Madeleine almost certainly vanished from 5A, so that was the crime scene ...... and it should have been secured at the very beginning.
-
The initial situation facing the GNR was: they did not know what had happened.
There were various possibilities.
Some of the possibilities (for example live abduction) would mean that the apartment was a crime scene.
Others (for example woke and wandered) would mean that the apartment was not a crime scene.
So the situation facing the GNR was: the apartment might be a crime scene, or it might not.
-
Should the PJ have allowed all possessions to be removed on 5th May?
-
The initial situation facing the GNR was: they did not know what had happened.
There were various possibilities.
Some of the possibilities (for example live abduction) would mean that the apartment was a crime scene.
Others (for example woke and wandered) would mean that the apartment was not a crime scene.
So the situation facing the GNR was: the apartment might be a crime scene, or it might not.
The original GNR more senior officer took a dislike to The Mccanns and it appears suspected them immediately, because they didn't react as he expected (in his limited knowledge of abductions ! 8)-)))).
If that were the case, should he have secured the apartment immediately? I think so.
-
The original GNR more senior officer took a dislike to The Mccanns and it appears suspected them immediately, because they didn't react as he expected (in his limited knowledge of abductions ! 8)-)))).
If that were the case, should he have secured the apartment immediately? I think so.
The "more senior officer" you mention was the Lagos GNR station commander and was the third GNR to arrive.
So he had a choice - secure the apartment, or conduct external searches.
He chose to take one of the other GNR with him and conduct external searches.
That left just one GNR at the apartment.
I think he got his priority right - searching rather than staying at the apartment.
He was putting the child first - hoping he would find the child - a good call don't you think?
-
The "more senior officer" you mention was the Lagos GNR station commander and was the third GNR to arrive.
So he had a choice - secure the apartment, or conduct external searches.
He chose to take one of the other GNR with him and conduct external searches.
That left just one GNR at the apartment.
I think he got his priority right - searching rather than staying at the apartment.
He was putting the child first - hoping he would find the child - a good call don't you think?
As senior officer at the scene, I am not sure actually joining the search was appropriate.
Establishing a temporary control centre from which to attempt to co-ordinate the activity of the civilian resources available to him and keep a record of what ground had been covered might have been of more use than searching himself.
He was the professional nominally in charge ... it was his duty to take control ... then throughout this inquiry into a missing child no specialist in child protection or searching was deployed: little wonder the case has been such an unmitigated disaster.
Despite extensive searching, I’m not sure that all the bases were covered: according to Mark Harrison the search for Madeleine was not conducted to include consideration of her being a victim of crime. I find that peculiar … I’m not sure why crime was discounted, I would have thought that would have been an immediate consideration.
It was to Madeleine’s parents ... and led to some discord with the police; did this pettiness affect the investigation?
- SNIP - The searches were based on a strategy of searching in "rescue and recovery mode? to locate the missing girl alive or if dead, not as a victim of crime. This search phase lasted for 7 days from the date M McCann went missing. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
-
As senior officer at the scene, I am not sure actually joining the search was appropriate.
Establishing a temporary control centre from which to attempt to co-ordinate the activity of the civilian resources available to him and keep a record of what ground had been covered might have been of more use than searching himself.
He was the professional nominally in charge ... it was his duty to take control ... then throughout this inquiry into a missing child no specialist in child protection or searching was deployed: little wonder the case has been such an unmitigated disaster.
Despite extensive searching, I’m not sure that all the bases were covered: according to Mark Harrison the search for Madeleine was not conducted to include consideration of her being a victim of crime. I find that peculiar … I’m not sure why crime was discounted, I would have thought that would have been an immediate consideration.
It was to Madeleine’s parents ... and led to some discord with the police; did this pettiness affect the investigation?
- SNIP - The searches were based on a strategy of searching in "rescue and recovery mode? to locate the missing girl alive or if dead, not as a victim of crime. This search phase lasted for 7 days from the date M McCann went missing. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
I find it odd if he is being criticised for actually searching for the child?
-
I find it odd if he is being criticised for actually searching for the child?
As senior Officer, he should have been in charge
-
As senior Officer, he should have been in charge
He was in charge. He told one officer to stay at the apartment, while the commander and the other officer searched the area. And he called for more officers. Keeping himself and his two officers at the apartment for some theoretical "securing of the crime scene" or administrative "setting up of a command centre" would have been of no value to the child, if the child was wandering the streets at risk, which was seen as a major possibility at that early time. Searching was the top priority, and that is what the Lagos GNR post commander did. To see him criticised for it surprises me.
-
I find it odd if he is being criticised for actually searching for the child?
Someone has to be in control ... what is the point of searchers going out in a disorganised way with one team not knowing if an area has already been searched or not by another team, leading areas to be searched twice and others not at all?
He could have been on the phone to prevent the civic authorities emptying bins until after the contents had been inspected; he could have organised the few officers he had to organise the civilian searchers;
His job was to take control and co-ordinate the efforts of the searchers and to pass on information to back up when it arrived. He was the officer in charge.
-
Someone has to be in control ... what is the point of searchers going out in a disorganised way with one team not knowing if an area has already been searched or not by another team, leading areas to be searched twice and others not at all?
He could have been on the phone to prevent the civic authorities emptying bins until after the contents had been inspected; he could have organised the few officers he had to organise the civilian searchers;
His job was to take control and co-ordinate the efforts of the searchers and to pass on information to back up when it arrived. He was the officer in charge.
He was the coordinator, and therefore gave instructions to other people to do their jobs.
Do you have a problem with that ?
-
He was the coordinator, and therefore gave instructions to other people to do their jobs.
Do you have a problem with that ?
Once again you have lost me, Stephen.
The discussion was whether the senior officer in charge should have taken overall control of the situation or whether it was more important for him to join the rest of the searchers.
You appear to agree with me on this one … so I don’t really have a problem ... but for the fact we are off topic again because I picked up on this from a point in pegasus's post which was on topic.
- clipped - Searching was the top priority, and that is what the Lagos GNR post commander did. To see him criticised for it surprises me.http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4767.msg173853#msg173853
-
The reason the GNR Lagos commander prioritised searching over staying at the apartment is, in his own words
"His hope was that the child had left the apartment alone and got lost or that someone had seen her and stayed with her temporarily."
I find the ingratitude shown by some to this man surprising.
I would remind you that he he was still searching until
"between 05.30 and 06.00"
If the ingratitude persists I will be asking, while this devoted GNR commander was out searching for the girl contimuously until 5.30 or 6, which other person was taking the alternative approach "we need to get some rest" ?
-
The reason the GNR Lagos commander prioritised searching over staying at the apartment is, in his own words
"His hope was that the child had left the apartment alone and got lost or that someone had seen her and stayed with her temporarily."
I find the ingratitude shown by some to this man surprising.
I would remind you that he he was still searching until
"between 05.30 and 06.00"
If the ingratitude persists I will be asking, while this devoted GNR commander was out searching for the girl contimuously until 5.30 or 6, which other person was taking the alternative approach "we need to get some rest" ?
Was this the officer, whose report to Amaral about his feelings re The Mccanns made Amaral think they were responsible/ involved?
Cos if it was, he wasn't looking for a living Madeleine by the sounds of things.
After a brief initial search, he should have preserved the crime scene and taken charge, imo. As Brietta points out, there were things for him to organise like arranging for the family to move out, securing the crime scene, .... and taking statements from everyone around.
He should have allocated certain areas for certain people to search etc., again as Brietta pointed out.
But in all fairness, I doubt that he had ever encounterd an abducted little girl before .... and he went with the flow, by the sounds of thngs. Anyone who searched for an extended period should be admired, but I think in the panic of the moment he got his priorities wrong. An understandable error.
-
Was this the officer, whose report to Amaral about his feelings re The Mccanns made Amaral think they were responsible/ involved?
Cos if it was, he wasn't looking for a living Madeleine by the sounds of things.
After a brief initial search, he should have preserved the crime scene and taken charge, imo. As Carana points out, there were things for him to organise like arranging for the family to move out, securing the crime scene, .... and taking statements from everyone around.
He should have allocated certain areas for certain people to search etc., again as Carana pointed out.
But in all fairness, I doubt that he had ever encounterd an abducted little girl before .... and he went with the flow, by the sounds of thngs. Anyone who searched for an extended period should be admired, but I think in the panic of the moment he got his priorities wrong. An understandable error.
I think he did the right thing - to search.
It was possible a 3-yr-old child was out there alone on the streets - it would have been very wrong to not to search for her.
SO now let's compare Duarte's approach, so ungratefully treated by some, with an alternative approach.
Can you answer this?
While Duarte was actually out searching the town, who was simultaneously saying "we need to get some rest" ?
-
I think he did the right thing - to search.
It was possible a 3-yr-old child was out there alone on the streets - it would have been very wrong to not to search for her.
SO now let's compare Duarte's approach, so ungratefully treated by some, with an alternative approach.
Can you answer this?
While Duarte was actually out searching the town, who was simultaneously saying "we need to get some rest" ?
Pegasus, I think you must be very young and very unscathed by life
Have you no idea just what had happened would do to the Mccanns ?
They would be emotionally drained and totally exhausted by it all
When my little boy was dying, I used to flop on the carpet and drop off to sleep in a flash, face down. Something I could not do normally, cos it would be hard and hurt my boobs terribly.
The emotional trauma just blanked me out.
-
Pegasus, I think you must be very young and very unscathed by life
Have you no idea just what had happened would do to the Mccanns ?
They would be emotionally drained and totally exhausted by it all
When my little boy was dying, I used to flop on the carpet and drop off to sleep in a flash, face down. Something I could not do normally, cos it would be hard and hurt my boobs terribly.
The emotional trauma just blanked me out.
I'm so sorry that you had to go through seeing your little boy die.
When your child is missing the adrenaline pumps in your body and you are out there searching, not resting, because you need to know what has happened. Often, when someone has committed a crime, during the act the adrenaline is going at full speed but then afterwards it stops rushing through that person's body, exhaustion sets in and they often fall asleep, for example during a police interrogation.
-
The original GNR more senior officer took a dislike to The Mccanns and it appears suspected them immediately, because they didn't react as he expected (in his limited knowledge of abductions ! 8)-)))).
If that were the case, should he have secured the apartment immediately? I think so.
Sadie, what do you know of the senior GNR officers professional experience to make such a claim?
The GNR acted correctly imo, they conducted a search and then called in the PJ which was what their protocol required. If the GNR were to isolate every house and apartment that a toddler routinely goes missing from there would be uproar.
But in all fairness, I doubt that he had ever encountered an abducted little girl before.... and he went with the flow, by the sounds of thngs. Anyone who searched for an extended period should be admired, but I think in the panic of the moment he got his priorities wrong. An understandable error.
Again you are making assumptions about a senior police officer without any evidence. We have rules about these things Sadie.
-
After a brief initial search, he should have preserved the crime scene and taken charge, imo. As Brietta points out, there were things for him to organise like arranging for the family to move out, securing the crime scene, .... and taking statements from everyone around.
He should have allocated certain areas for certain people to search etc., again as Brietta pointed out.
What crime scene? They were looking for a toddler reported missing. No evidence of a break in and no evidence of a struggle in the bedroom thus no reason to designate it a crime. Best stick to engineering Sadie and leave the policing issues to those who have actually practised it.
-
What crime scene? They were looking for a toddler reported missing. No evidence of a break in and no evidence of a struggle in the bedroom thus no reason to designate it a crime. Best stick to engineering Sadie and leave the policing issues to those who have actually practised it.
NO evidence !!!
The bludy window was open and the shutters raised !
-
NO evidence !!!
The bludy window was open and the shutters raised !
An open window and shutter is not proof of an abduction since anyone could have opened them. Why bother to search the grounds at all if the child had been abducted?
They were initially searching for a wandered child, they were not seeking an abducted child...big difference!
-
there are far to many myths about already in this case so cheers for taking a stand against yet more speculations and for what its worth I think the police were right to carry out a search of the vicinity before getting the big cheeses involved. Wouldn't they have looked like right plonkers if she had been found hiding nearby??
-
-- SNIPPED --
One of the Guarda Nacional Republicana agents who was first to arrive at the resort in Praia da Luz and at the McCann couple’s apartment is suspected of having received over 120 thousand euros of “live” money, a short time after Maddie’s disappearance.
This GNR officer is essential to the entire investigation, given the fact that he was among the first to arrive at the location where the little girl disappeared, and also one of the first people to get into contact with the parents.
TVI has established that the case of the sudden 120 thousand euros in the GNR officer’s hands is being investigated by the Polícia Judiciária (PJ).
On the night that Maddie McCann disappeared, the first authorities to arrive on location were the GNR officers. It was their task to search the apartment, to perform the initial searches, to speak with the McCann couple, and to direct the searches on the beach and in the village, namely the open areas where sewer and piping works were under way, only tens of metres away from the resort that the British family had booked for their holidays.
TVI knows that one of the first agents that took care of the event is being targeted by an inquiry. The issue is an amount of over 120 thousand euros that were received in cash, on two bank accounts under his name, one of which at Caixa Geral de Depósitos. The most serious coincidence is that the money started being deposited, on those accounts, only a short time after the disappearance of little Madeleine McCann.
This amount is much higher than that of a GNR officer’s salary and was deposited on “live” money, according to investigation sources, in parts of over 10 thousand euros.
Officer denies deposits
The investigation into these deposits is being carried out by DCICCEF [Central Directory for the Investigation of Corruption and Economical and Financial Crime], which tries to understand the reasons for these payments.
Even if their illegality is proved, a connection to the Maddie case may not exist, despite the strong temporal coincidence and the high amount of money.
Contacted by TVI, the officer denied the existence of said deposits, having offered the possibility that his name was unduly used to open those accounts. Police sources in the area manifested their strangeness concerning the possibility that this officer, whom they consider of honest reputation, could be involved in illegal actions. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/06/maddie-case-gnr-suspect-of-receiveing.html
We know that similar accusations of illegal deposits using other people's accounts wihout their knowledge were made in a football corruption case.
Does anyone know what was the outcome of the investigation into this officer's finances: extraordinary that he was one of the first officers on the scene.
-
I don't think there would be much experience of child abduction cases whether by family or stranger among the ranks of ordinary coppers whatever their nationality. Usually specialists would be called in to investigate a case like Madeleine's.
Since her disappearance a great deal has been learned from America where unfortunately cases like this are not so rare; resulting in a European wide alert sytem being introduced to cover Europe.
So shortfalls have been recognised and are being addressed both here and in Europe; possibly the only positive thing to come out of Madeleine's case and something her parents have worked hard in support of.
-
The original GNR more senior officer took a dislike to The Mccanns and it appears suspected them immediately, because they didn't react as he expected (in his limited knowledge of abductions ! 8)-)))).
If that were the case, should he have secured the apartment immediately? I think so.
Sadie, could we clarify who you are talking about in this post because I fear some members are posting about the wrong officer.
To clarify, the first two GNR officers on the scene (approx 11pm) were Corporal Roque and his junior colleague Officer Nelson Costa. They were joined at about 11.50pm by the watch commander from Lagos, Sgt Conceicao Duarte.
PS It was Corporal (Cabo) Roque who was mentioned in the bank story.
PPS Off topic posts will be removed.
-
Sadie must be one of the worst offenders for taking threads of at a tangent so no wonder she gets so many deleted. I don't know how the editors keep up sometimes. >@@(*&)
Seems the story about Cpl Roque came to nothing after all said and done.
-
I'm so sorry that you had to go through seeing your little boy die.
When your child is missing the adrenaline pumps in your body and you are out there searching, not resting, because you need to know what has happened. Often, when someone has committed a crime, during the act the adrenaline is going at full speed but then afterwards it stops rushing through that person's body, exhaustion sets in and they often fall asleep, for example during a police interrogation.
Who are you referring to?
-
Back on topic, the opening post asks could more have been done to preserve a potential crime scene and in my opinion it couldn't. One has to put oneself in the shoes of those first two officers who attended and whom according to some were inexperienced in such events. Children go missing every day in every part of the world but most are found quite soon afterwards, the two officers who initially attended Ocean Club that night will have come across many such incidents of missing children so did not rush to the scene. They probably thought to themselves that she would turn up before they even got there and it was only because of further contact from their commander that they then decided to rush to the scene.
Their first priority is to gather information before setting up further searches around the perimeter and further afield. The only evidence of anything untoward was the claim of a raised shutter and an open window which the two officers undoubtedly attributed to the missing child. Gerry McCann had himself opened and closed the shutter so I am not in the least surprised that the GNR didn't immediately think 'crime scene'. One has to remember that the officers never saw this missing child, they knew she was almost 4 so they would have thought it very possible that she had opened the window and raised the shutter before going outside by either the window or the unlocked front door.
It was only later (nearly an hour later) when the watch commander arrived on the scene that it was decided that something sinister might have gone on and so it was decided to protect what was left of the potential crime scene.
I don't believe they could have done any better in the circumstances.
-
Back on topic, the opening post asks could more have been done to preserve a potential crime scene and in my opinion it couldn't. One has to put oneself in the shoes of those first two officers who attended and whom according to some were inexperienced in such events. Children go missing every day in every part of the world but most are found quite soon afterwards, the two officers who initially attended Ocean Club that night will have come across many such incidents of missing children so did not rush to the scene. They probably thought to themselves that she would turn up before they even got there and it was only because of further contact from their commander that they then decided to rush to the scene.
I have no problem with your assessment of the initial response of the GNR team, aside from the fact that details in their reports seem to have got mangled due to translation issues. The GNR did seem to have done their best to mobiise everyone to search for her.
A few seem to have later repeated rumours to the press, but this may have been innocent comments by those who believed local rumours to be true or who'd read about rumours and repeated them to tabloid journos.
However, once the PJ were called in...
-
NO evidence !!!
The bludy window was open and the shutters raised !
No. When the first two GNR officers arrived
"the window in the girl's bedroom was closed, with the blind raised up the space of the width of a hand"
Source: Vol 12 Page 3383
The alteration of the crime scene, changing the window from open to closed, and changing the shutter from open to almost closed, was done by GM before the GNR arrived.
There was absolutely no way the GNR could have preserved these two very important elements of the crime scene - the open window and and the open shutter - because these elements were altered before the GNR had even been phoned and before anyone had even asked anyone to phone the GNR.
-
No. When the first two GNR officers arrived
"the window in the girl's bedroom was closed, with the blind raised up the space of the width of a hand"
Source: Vol 12 Page 3383
The alteration of the crime scene, changing the window from open to closed, and changing the shutter from open to almost closed, was done by GM before the GNR arrived.
There was absolutely no way the GNR could have preserved these two very important elements of the crime scene - the open window and and the open shutter - because these elements were altered before the GNR had even been phoned and before anyone had even asked anyone to phone the GNR.
"The alteration of the crime scene, changing the window from open to closed, and changing the shutter from open to almost closed, was done by GM before the GNR arrived."
So why were none of Fiona's, Diane's or Gerry's fingerprints found on that window? Seems Kate was the target from the off. IMO!
-
"The alteration of the crime scene, changing the window from open to closed, and changing the shutter from open to almost closed, was done by GM before the GNR arrived."
So why were none of Fiona's, Diane's or Gerry's fingerprints found on that window? Seems Kate was the target from the off. IMO!
They were trying to raise the shutters from the outside not the window.
-
They were trying to raise the shutters from the outside not the window.
So where are their fingerprints off the shutter?
-
On the north bedroom window and shutter -
- most of the fingerprints were of insufficient quality to be identified AKA too smudged.
- the only identifiable prints were 5 of KM on the inside surface of the window glass.
-
On the north bedroom window and shutter -
- most of the fingerprints were of insufficient quality to be identified AKA too smudged.
- the only identifiable prints were 5 of KM on the inside surface of the window glass.
Yes, most. But we're are those that were of sufficient quality. I only recall one, were a unidentified print of what could have been a woman or young male adult.
After 2 weeks a print was found to be that of GNR Officer.
-
Yes, most. But we're are those that were of sufficient quality. I only recall one, were a unidentified print of what could have been a woman or young male adult.
After 2 weeks a print was found to be that of GNR Officer.
Lots of prints on lounge sliding door - most unidentifiable - the only identifiable prints were of a gnr officer.
Lots of prints on north bedroom window - most unidentifiable - the only identifiable prints were of KM on the glass.
Lots of prints on north bedroom shutter - all unidentifiable.
By unidentifiable I mean the quality of most of the prints was insufficient to work with.
-
I think the police that night accidentally preserved the scene far better than they intended or could imagine.
-
Lots of prints on lounge sliding door - most unidentifiable - the only identifiable prints were of a gnr officer.
Lots of prints on north bedroom window - most unidentifiable - the only identifiable prints were of KM on the glass.
Lots of prints on north bedroom shutter - all unidentifiable.
By unidentifiable I mean the quality of most of the prints was insufficient to work with.
No evidence of an abductor?
-
No evidence of an abductor?
I don't see how the prints on the window and shutter can be considered to indicate live abduction.
Prints simply show where people have left fingerprints. Fingerprints cannot determine motives.
I think the crime scene at about 10pm, as described by KM, indicates a simple burglary attempt via window, which was interrupted before entry when the burglar noticed there was someone in.