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

[AnneGuedes]

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....

I agree very much with this post.

Moita Flores is much more critical than posters here about the PJ's losing opportunities, but the CCTV isn't one of them.
Had it shown a man carrying a child, this evidence couldn't be used in court.
The Kelly's tickets have all an indication of the time it was registered. The Smith then remembered what they drank, who drank and who paid. Mr Rebelo did find necessary to interview them on that topic or if he did the rog letter got lost.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

Yes, but Nicolas Sarkozy wasn't re-elected.. and, these days, no parliamentary commission is studying such a project.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

Nobody would dream of such an abduction type, you're perfectly right !

[Carana]

Yes, but Nicolas Sarkozy wasn't re-elected.. and, these days, no parliamentary commission is studying such a project.

But there are already cameras in public areas, Sarko or not.

http://owni.fr/2011/12/15/le-palmares-des-villes-sous-surveillance/

http://bugbrother.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/07/28/limpact-de-la-videosurveillance-est-de-lordre-de-1/

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vid%C3%A9osurveillance#En_France

[gilet]

Indeed this article is perfectly clear that Anne Guedes' claim about CCTV in public places is utterly incorrect.

It states that there were already 20,000 public space cameras in France where Anne Guedes is under the bizarre opinion they are not allowed at all.

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

"the current 20,000" and that was back in 2011. Are we being asked to believe that they have all been dismantled? If so, please provide the proof. Are we to believe that none of these 20,000 existed in 2007? If so please provide the evidence.

eta This page shows that those 20,000 cameras actually existed in 2008.

http://observers.france24.com/content/20080624-france-cctv-video-surveillance-cameras

and this page refers to the growing number of cameras in France (2013) and specifically refers to them being used to monitor public places to catch those who allow dogs to foul the pavements or who park on pavements.

http://www.thelocal.fr/20130819/paris-suburb-to-use-cctv-to-fight-dog-poo-plague

The claim that "France doesn't accept CCTV in the public area" is to put it bluntly, a complete untruth and beyond that is quite daft.

When people make rather silly claims such as that they do themselves no credit at all.

[gilet]

To be accurate the regulations in France for the positioning of PUBLIC CCTV cameras (cameras de surveillance) allow for their use (with authorisation) for all the following reasons (from the official government source).

Installation reasons for CCTV

Watching a public place may be authorized in the following cases:

    protection of buildings and public facilities and their surroundings,

    useful safeguard national defense installations,

    regulation of traffic flows,

    finding of violations of traffic rules,

    prevention of harm to the safety of persons and property in areas particularly exposed to the risk of assault, theft or drug trafficking,

    prevention of acts of terrorism,

    prevention of natural and technological risks,

    relief to people and defense against fire,

    Security welcoming the public in amusement parks facilities.


http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/F2517.xhtml

[pathfinder73]

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.

Correct if Matt Oldfield had gone in to the bedroom at 9.30 he would have found Madeleine missing IMO. I believe that camera would have caught Smithman and the child if the range went that far.

[Carana]

What is Luckman going on about if, as he stated, Amaral was upset that his officers hadn't got those CCTV images that might have shown someone carrying a child in that direction if CCTV images couldn't or shouldn't have shown anything on a street?

[AnneGuedes]

But there are already cameras in public areas, Sarko or not.

http://owni.fr/2011/12/15/le-palmares-des-villes-sous-surveillance/

http://bugbrother.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/07/28/limpact-de-la-videosurveillance-est-de-lordre-de-1/

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vid%C3%A9osurveillance#En_France

You are incredibly obstinate, Carana ! It's amazing ! I have nevertheless to thank you for teaching me something. I didn't know of this videocontrol, I ignored it depended on local collectivities and is very variable (Marseille, a city with a highest rate of murders, has a few cameras only!)
I see that the Court of Accounts made a very negative report on them and I'm glad they did (this is a very high institution) because those cameras mean going back to before the age of Enlightenment.

Nicolas Sarkozy was the president of France in 2010. If you could have a good translation of those articles, you would see the benefit of those cameras is almost nul. And they cost a fortune. In which state are they now ? I've never seen someone being arrested after being spotted by a public CCTV in France. Recently (end of November) a man threatened to kill in various places in Paris and almost killed a Liberation photographer, he was spotted by a camera of that newspaper, but he was identified and arrested thanks to DNA !

Have you got a link about CCTVs in public spaces in Portugal ?
I'm not sure too that Portugal has money for it....

[AnneGuedes]

The sightings of the Smith family are much more precise than any image from the resort CCTV could eventually (Smithman was going on the left side, as Peter Smith stated) have caught : an image of Smithman's back.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Are you hoping to get your warning removed? 

You overestimate my powers, Wonderfulspam. I'm still trying to handle the Baker Street Irregulars.

[Carana]

You are incredibly obstinate, Carana ! It's amazing ! I have nevertheless to thank you for teaching me something. I didn't know of this videocontrol, I ignored it depended on local collectivities and is very variable (Marseille, a city with a highest rate of murders, has a few cameras only!)
I see that the Court of Accounts made a very negative report on them and I'm glad they did (this is a very high institution) because those cameras mean going back to before the age of Enlightenment.

Nicolas Sarkozy was the president of France in 2010. If you could have a good translation of those articles, you would see the benefit of those cameras is almost nul. And they cost a fortune. In which state are they now ? I've never seen someone being arrested after being spotted by a public CCTV in France. Recently (end of November) a man threatened to kill in various places in Paris and almost killed a Liberation photographer, he was spotted by a camera of that newspaper, but he was identified and arrested thanks to DNA !

Have you got a link about CCTVs in public spaces in Portugal ?
I'm not sure too that Portugal has money for it....

We seem to have agreed that surveillance cameras do, indeed, exist in France, contrary to your previous assertion. Mistakes happen, we all make them.

Concerning Portugal, I would have thought that those who have asserted that CCTV / video surveillance in public areas in Portugal does not exist, or is illegal should be able to provide objective information on the matter.

[Luz]

The PJ Coordinator in the Madeleine case, Dr Gonçalo Amaral, was pictured in front of a hotel's CCTV camera which he claims captured the image of the man carrying Madeleine on the night she disappeared.  Unfortunately though,  he claims that his officers failed to identify this camera and by the time he found it the hotel had deleted the recordings.



_{Former PJ Coordinator Dr Amaral pictured in front of the elusive CCTV camera.}

Amaral never said it captured the "image of the man carrying Madeleine"... What he said was that if there was anyone carrying Madeleine down the street below, that cam would have captured it.

Since that recording was never retrieved there's no point in speculating around it, in my humble opinion.

[Carana]

Amaral never said it captured the "image of the man carrying Madeleine"... What he said was that if there was anyone carrying Madeleine down the street below, that cam would have captured it.

Since that recording was never retrieved there's no point in speculating around it, in my humble opinion.

Then what was the point of him standing under it for this article? He blamed his officers for not having retrieved the images in time, when he was the coordinator. Did he order them to do so in due time or not? If not, why is he blaming his subordinates?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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....

Indeed, the Smith family sighting was not reported for over a week - but that wouldn't have prevented police from looking at the camera earlier.

An hotel located 200m, as gilet says, from 5A, would surely be a very obvious place to investigate.