Could more have been done to preserve a potential crime scene?

[pegasus]

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.

[ferryman]

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.

[John]

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.

[Brietta]

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

[sadie]

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.

[pegasus]

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.

[pegasus]

Should the PJ have allowed all possessions to be removed on 5th May?

[sadie]

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 ! ).

If that were the case, should he have secured the apartment immediately?  I think so.

[pegasus]

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 ! ).

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?

[Brietta]

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

[pegasus]

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?

[sadie]

I find it odd if he is being criticised for actually searching for the child?

As senior Officer, he should have been in charge

[pegasus]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[stephen25000]

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 ?