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

[Carana]

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?

[John]

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.

[Carana]

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...

[pegasus]

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.

[DCI]

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!

[pathfinder73]

"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.

[DCI]

They were trying to raise the shutters from the outside not the window.

So where are their fingerprints off the shutter?

[pegasus]

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.

[DCI]

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.

[pegasus]

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.

[pegasus]

I think the police that night accidentally preserved the scene far better than they intended or could imagine.

[ferryman]

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?

[pegasus]

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.