The CCTV camera which Amaral claimed captured the image of the man carrying Madeleine.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I imagine that it was because a child was missing and any chance of information was to be grabbed, no matter how slim that chance was.

Yes I suppose that's right, Cariad.

And if there had been some footage, however incomplete, it may have contained at least something of use to us.

[Wonderfulspam]

Just a quick message SH to say congratulations on the appointment of moderator !

Are you hoping to get your warning removed? 

[gilet]

The question of this CCTV camera has arisen before.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2657.15

At that time we were told the same old story that CCTV is not allowed in Portugal. That is patently untrue.

We were told by Montclair that the camera was not pointing to the road but nothing was posted to support that rather odd idea.

We were of course reminded that Amaral himself tells us the PJ failed completely to get hold of the recording before it was wiped. But we are not told precisely how long it took them to get all the way round the corner (about 200 metres) to notice this rather obvious CCTV camera and request the images.

Now we are being told that the camera probably did not cover enough of the street to be of value. But once again nothing is posted to support that guesswork.


To summarise all we do know is that CCTV footage was available which may or may not have assisted in the search for this little girl and that the local police force according to the officer responsible for coordination failed to retrieve that footage. Their error and theirs alone. 

If the camera had been pointing outwards (as almost all security cameras of this type do) then it may have recorded something of critical value. If it was pointing inwards at the complex then it would at least have given an accurate timing for the Smith return to the complex.

No weasel words or random guesswork as to what may or may not have been the coverage of the camera can gloss over the fact that a potentially valuable resource was missed by the PJ.  It was but one of the appalling errors of the team coordinated by Amaral, the senior detective who was later thrown off the case because he overstepped the mark and spoke out of turn.

eta It was even suggested on that previous thread, in a rather futile attempt to mitigate the damage this failure on the part of the PJ might have done to the search, that the PJ may have concentrated on CCTV closer to the crime scene. Rather laughable when according to Anne Guedes there is virtually no CCTV in the country and rather laughable when it is considered that this glaringly obvious pole is a mere 200 metres away where a missing child could have been carried, could have wandered or ....

[Wonderfulspam]

The question of this CCTV camera has arisen before.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2657.15

At that time we were told the same old story that CCTV is not allowed in Portugal. That is patently untrue.

We were told by Montclair that the camera was not pointing to the road but nothing was posted to support that rather odd idea.

We were of course reminded that Amaral himself tells us the PJ failed completely to get hold of the recording before it was wiped. But we are not told precisely how long it took them to get all the way round the corner (about 200 metres) to notice this rather obvious CCTV camera and request the images.

Now we are being told that the camera probably did not cover enough of the street to be of value. But once again nothing is posted to support that guesswork.


To summarise all we do know is that CCTV footage was available which may or may not have assisted in the search for this little girl and that the local police force according to the officer responsible for coordination failed to retrieve that footage. Their error and theirs alone. 

No weasel words or random guesswork as to what may or may not have been the coverage of the camera can gloss over the fact that a potentially valuable resource was missed by the PJ.  It was but one of the appalling errors of the team coordinated by Amaral, the senior detective who was later thrown off the case because he overstepped the mark and spoke out of turn.

Yes & let's not forget either that e fits of the man who may or may not have been caught on that camera were "shut away in a private investigation file for 5 years"  & "now British police are treating them with the utmost importance".

[jassi]

One is making the assumption, of course, that the camera was actually working at that time. It is surprising how often crucial footage can be absent due to camera malfunction.

[mitch]

One is making the assumption, of course, that the camera was actually working at that time. It is surprising how often crucial footage can be absent due to camera malfunction.

hi jassi           

it is a big assumption to right.  a poster made the point earlier in the thread that mr amaral didn't make a big deal about the camera but that is not how i read the article.   from my reading of it he was devastated when he found out about the smiths reported sighting and when he added up the dots and walked the route he was furious that a delay in reporting meant that the old footage from the camera had been over recorded.

[AnneGuedes]

Could you help to find where it is stated that CCTVs or surveillance cameras aren't allowed in Portugal? How are roads monitored for traffic accidents, for example?

What would you classify the webcams (links at the top of this forum) as?

Sure I can help, Carana, just read this : public CCTVs aren't allowed in Portugal.
There are CCTVs in self service gas stations on highways to monitor cars . Traffic accidents would require a camera every 50m to spot an eventual crash.
And please don't think that Portugal, once more, is special. France doesn't accept CCTV in the public area.
Private entities have CCTVs, but as I posted above, they are submitted to a strict regulation.

[AnneGuedes]

At that time we were told the same old story that CCTV is not allowed in Portugal. That is patently untrue.

No.

[AnneGuedes]

We were of course reminded that Amaral himself tells us the PJ failed completely to get hold of the recording before it was wiped.

No. Kindly avoid tabloids if you pretend to be correctly informed.

[Redblossom]

Do police forces normally seize any and all cctv tapes in existence around a crime scene? How far out do they go? (Are all cctv cameras registered with police?)


Or do they pinpoint those of immediate interest  based on information and leads?

GA does say he asked all cctv footage to be collected around the village but his officers never got to that particular one in time

When he asked for that is not known..its not something that would appear in the files, only the results of such exercises, if any

Unless the PJ were to seize any and all cctv footage immediately  or asap there is every chance this footage if it existed could have been wiped over asap as..no one knows what the roll was in that hotels camera, it may have been deleted the same night or the next day or even before may 3

Dont forget the PJ never had the Smiths evidence for over a week.....who knows if their efforts were trained in retrieving cctv camera footage as a priority in that >>>>>>> direction vis a vis the Tanner sighting rather than <<<<< in  the Smiths direction which they had no inkling of at the time


Im thinking GA regretted not acting fast enough in collecting any and all and was a lost opportunity, nothing more nothing less, just my take, a possibility that could have helped but by no means any gaurantee of anything really lost

No police force is perfect....

[AnneGuedes]

To summarise all we do know is that CCTV footage was available which may or may not have assisted in the search for this little girl and that the local police force according to the officer responsible for coordination failed to retrieve that footage. Their error and theirs alone. 

No.
Are you aware of an ignorance that should advise you not to judge ?

[AnneGuedes]

No weasel words or random guesswork as to what may or may not have been the coverage of the camera can gloss over the fact that a potentially valuable resource was missed by the PJ.  It was but one of the appalling errors of the team coordinated by Amaral, the senior detective who was later thrown off the case because he overstepped the mark and spoke out of turn.

Blame Mr Amaral, your obsession !   

[AnneGuedes]

Rather laughable when according to Anne Guedes there is virtually no CCTV in the country

Instead of attacking me, kindly provide a link denying what I said.

[mitch]

mr amaral had no reason to believe an abductor on foot would walk so far with a abducted child in his arms and I still don't believe it since there was every chance that they would be seen and challenged.

[Carana]

Sure I can help, Carana, just read this : public CCTVs aren't allowed in Portugal.
There are CCTVs in self service gas stations on highways to monitor cars . Traffic accidents would require a camera every 50m to spot an eventual crash.
And please don't think that Portugal, once more, is special. France doesn't accept CCTV in the public area.
Private entities have CCTVs, but as I posted above, they are submitted to a strict regulation.

'Vidéoprotection' ...or Big Brother?
Connexion edition: March 2011

Privacy campaigners are worried about a nationwide plan to treble the number of public CCTV cameras in cities, towns and villages across France.

President Sarkozy wants 2011 to be the year that "vidéoprotection" goes mainstream, and has set a target of 60,000 cameras watching public spaces around the country by the end of this year, up from the current 20,000.

Nice has recently led the way by installing hundreds of cameras linked to a state-of-the-art surveillance centre, and Paris is set to follow. The word videosurveillance is rarely used, with public officials preferring terms such as vidéoprotection, vidéoprévention and even vidéotranquillité.

However, the biggest growth has been in the private use of CCTV. The French data protection authority, Cnil (the Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés) says it is aware of more than 400,000 privately run CCTV cameras in France. Cnil is concerned that the safeguards in place to protect people cannot cope with a sharp rise in the use of videosurveillance.

Despite this, Cnil research suggests that 71 per cent of French people approve the idea of videosurveillance in public places. Jean-Claude Vitran, a member of the Ligue des Droits de l'Homme and the group's national campaigner on CCTV, fears people are coming to accept that France is "becoming a surveillance society".

Mr Vitran said: "The state is lying when it uses the word vidéoprotection; video has never protected anyone. When you install a camera, the crime moves elsewhere. Criminals put on a crash helmet or balaclava: they're not idiots."

The interior ministry has previously said it is keen to avoid the "Anglo-Saxon" approach to CCTV, and France is certainly still a long way behind the UK, which has four million cameras.

http://www.connexionfrance.com/cctv-video-surveillance-protection-paris-nice-france-privacy-11499-news-article.html