What evidence would one expect to find in an ABDUCTION?

[Wonderfulspam]

The clearest evidence for abduction would be one in which a missing person alert is immediately issued, due to evidence of several witnesses, preferably with a snapshot of someone being stuffed into a car with evidence of a licence plate number and full descriptions.

How often does that happen?

Like, if the parents phoned the police..... themselves, right away, or even, bothered to try....

Perhaps not evidence of abduction, but a lot more convincing, to me at least, than 'it was paedos wot dunnit, I hope her arms don't get cold'.

[Carana]

What irrefutable evidence for abduction was there for other cases?

[Wonderfulspam]

What irrefutable evidence for abduction was there for other cases?

Not a parent seen carrying them away.......unless it was familial of course.

[Brietta]

Not a parent seen carrying them away.......unless it was familial of course.

Wow ... well researched posts like this one fair put Carana's posts firmly where they should be ... and that is right at the top of the tree.

[Carana]

Glove marks.

TECHNICAL FAULTS

Inside the apartment, police forensic specialists proceed to lift finger and palm 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 judiciary 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. (TOTL)

According to the PJ forensic report, they were looking for prints with sufficient points of reference for identification purposes. It doesn't mention potential glove marks at all: neither the absence of any, nor the presence of any.

What would have indicated glove marks as opposed to any other unidentifiable smudge mark?

[Carana]

Oft quoted is that when children are the victims of crime or abuse the perps are most likely to be their parents...family member ...friend of family..whilst tis is true it is interesting to note the definition of parent...

The term 'parent' is defined as a biological parent, step parent, adopted parent of the victim or the resident or non resident partner of the victim's parent

So the statistics are skewed by mom's new boyfriend who happens to have a serious drug problem...but for these statistics he is classed as a parent

That's the definition used by the NSPCC in the context of child homicide, isn't it?

The definitions used by the US and the UK in terms of child abduction aren't identical. Even in the few studies that I've seen on missing children in the UK, the criteria are different from one study to the other.

[pathfinder73]

According to the PJ forensic report, they were looking for prints with sufficient points of reference for identification purposes. It doesn't mention potential glove marks at all: neither the absence of any, nor the presence of any.

What would have indicated glove marks as opposed to any other unidentifiable smudge mark?

Of course they will look for glove marks because it is evidence of an abductor unless you wear gloves to open doors and windows in your own house.

TPN: What did you find at the apartment?
 
GA: No signs of forced entry. There were no signs of glove marks on the window. We compiled a report of the evidence we collected, but we are not here to accuse anyone.

TPN: What evidence was there that someone had been watching apartment 5A prior to Madeleine’s disappearance?
 
GA: We spoke to a number of people who came forward.
 
TPN: Anyone suspicious mentioned in these statements?
 
GA: No. Perhaps just a British musician we later tracked down.

TPN: At what stage did you become suspicious of the McCanns and why?
 
GA: There were a number of inconsistencies detected during the first interrogations.
 
TPN: Such as?
 
GA: We were initially told by the parents that when they checked on the children they would use the front door. But Kate later said they used the other door. Because had they used the front door, they would have detected someone had forced their way into the room [where Madeleine and the twins had been sleeping].
 
But during these initial rounds of questioning, my team and I believed these inconsistencies were due to the McCanns and their friends trying to cover the fact they had left their children unattended, along with their possible lack of trust in the Portuguese police. This had a lot of weight for me in the beginning, especially as the law in Britain is far tougher concerning the abandoning of children.
 
TPN: Did you look into sex offenders, and what was the outcome?
 
GA: It is very difficult that a paedophile pre-selected Madeleine. It had to be very well planned. But all known sexual predators were investigated.
 
TPN: Did you have any evidence that Robert Murat and the McCanns or their friends knew each other previous to Madeleine's disappearance?
 
GA: We tried to confirm this, but along with the assistance of the British police, we were unable to establish any connection. But we looked into all possibilities. Robert Murat purchased a last-minute ticket to come to Portugal a couple of days before Madeleine went missing, perhaps as it was cheaper to do so. But we had to investigate whether or not his visit coincided with Madeleine's disappearance a couple of days later and whether he had been contacted to come here.

[Carana]

Of course they will look for glove marks because it is evidence of an abductor unless you wear gloves to open doors and windows in your own house.

TPN: What did you find at the apartment?
 
GA: No signs of forced entry. There were no signs of glove marks on the window. We compiled a report of the evidence we collected, but we are not here to accuse anyone.

TPN: What evidence was there that someone had been watching apartment 5A prior to Madeleine’s disappearance?
 
GA: We spoke to a number of people who came forward.
 
TPN: Anyone suspicious mentioned in these statements?
 
GA: No. Perhaps just a British musician we later tracked down.

TPN: At what stage did you become suspicious of the McCanns and why?
 
GA: There were a number of inconsistencies detected during the first interrogations.
 
TPN: Such as?
 
GA: We were initially told by the parents that when they checked on the children they would use the front door. But Kate later said they used the other door. Because had they used the front door, they would have detected someone had forced their way into the room [where Madeleine and the twins had been sleeping].
 
But during these initial rounds of questioning, my team and I believed these inconsistencies were due to the McCanns and their friends trying to cover the fact they had left their children unattended, along with their possible lack of trust in the Portuguese police. This had a lot of weight for me in the beginning, especially as the law in Britain is far tougher concerning the abandoning of children.
 
TPN: Did you look into sex offenders, and what was the outcome?
 
GA: It is very difficult that a paedophile pre-selected Madeleine. It had to be very well planned. But all known sexual predators were investigated.
 
TPN: Did you have any evidence that Robert Murat and the McCanns or their friends knew each other previous to Madeleine's disappearance?
 
GA: We tried to confirm this, but along with the assistance of the British police, we were unable to establish any connection. But we looked into all possibilities. Robert Murat purchased a last-minute ticket to come to Portugal a couple of days before Madeleine went missing, perhaps as it was cheaper to do so. But we had to investigate whether or not his visit coincided with Madeleine's disappearance a couple of days later and whether he had been contacted to come here.

I'm aware of that, but the PT forensic report makes no mention of glove marks... so where did he get his information from if it's not in the files (which I thought his account was supposed to be based on)?

[Brietta]

Of course they will look for glove marks because it is evidence of an abductor unless you wear gloves to open doors and windows in your own house.

TPN: What did you find at the apartment?
 
GA: No signs of forced entry. There were no signs of glove marks on the window. We compiled a report of the evidence we collected, but we are not here to accuse anyone.

TPN: What evidence was there that someone had been watching apartment 5A prior to Madeleine’s disappearance?
 
GA: We spoke to a number of people who came forward.
 
TPN: Anyone suspicious mentioned in these statements?
 
GA: No. Perhaps just a British musician we later tracked down.

TPN: At what stage did you become suspicious of the McCanns and why?
 
GA: There were a number of inconsistencies detected during the first interrogations.
 
TPN: Such as?
 
GA: We were initially told by the parents that when they checked on the children they would use the front door. But Kate later said they used the other door. Because had they used the front door, they would have detected someone had forced their way into the room [where Madeleine and the twins had been sleeping].
 
But during these initial rounds of questioning, my team and I believed these inconsistencies were due to the McCanns and their friends trying to cover the fact they had left their children unattended, along with their possible lack of trust in the Portuguese police. This had a lot of weight for me in the beginning, especially as the law in Britain is far tougher concerning the abandoning of children.
 
TPN: Did you look into sex offenders, and what was the outcome?
 
GA: It is very difficult that a paedophile pre-selected Madeleine. It had to be very well planned. But all known sexual predators were investigated.
 
TPN: Did you have any evidence that Robert Murat and the McCanns or their friends knew each other previous to Madeleine's disappearance?
 
GA: We tried to confirm this, but along with the assistance of the British police, we were unable to establish any connection. But we looked into all possibilities. Robert Murat purchased a last-minute ticket to come to Portugal a couple of days before Madeleine went missing, perhaps as it was cheaper to do so. But we had to investigate whether or not his visit coincided with Madeleine's disappearance a couple of days later and whether he had been contacted to come here.

We did this ... we did that ... Dr Amaral tends to imply that the “we” includes him ... even "my team and I" is designed to give that impression.

His team certainly were on the ground doing the work and reporting back ... but you would have thought he might have stirred himself just for curiosities sake to interview Madeleine's parents.

[pathfinder73]

We did this ... we did that ... Dr Amaral tends to imply that the “we” includes him ... even "my team and I" is designed to give that impression.

His team certainly were on the ground doing the work and reporting back ... but you would have thought he might have stirred himself just for curiosities sake to interview Madeleine's parents.

Amaral was after the right man all those years ago i.e. Smithman. The yard are after the same man. Everything connects to his secret mission - dog alerts, exact times, moving door, etc.

[Mr Moderator]

I've added your suggested indicators in bold and my comments in regular type. My comments are not necessarily case-specific. They are mostly generic, with some case-specific reflections.

Adding a few of my own to the list.

* Unexplained fibres or hairs.
There are hairs that have still not been identified. A sweep for hairs / fibres doesn't appear to have taken place throughout the flat. She could have been taken while in the bathroom or in her parents' bedroom, for example.

* Unexplained disturbance of objects.
The only thing that seems unexplained is the door apparently being found further open than usual, although a breeze when one or other people walked in / out or a child walking out could possibly explain that.

* Abandoned belongings of the person.
Clothes, bag, phone, jewellery, bike (for an adult or older child). Only pyjamas would apply in this case and none seem to have been recovered. However, the search of bins took place quite some time after with only a couple of municipal employees to attempt to cover the totality in a very short space of time. If the PJs had been made difficult to recognise, e.g. by burning or shredding, and mixed in with household rubbish, it seems unlikely that they would have been found. The search was, by all accounts, not a fingertip forensic search. PJs could also be weighted down and thrown down a well or in the sea or dumped elsewhere anyway.

* CCTV.
This can often shed light in areas that have CCTV coverage and presumed trajectories / timings / suspected vehicles / unexplained presence in certain areas can be checked. CCTV isn't common in PT, let alone in sleepy villages. The PJ didn't seem to have checked existing security cameras thoroughly as a priority. The only one that might have shown something significant in the vicinity got wiped. The one checked in a nearby petrol station wasn't her. The one at the Paraiso café established the presence of the majority of the group at the time they'd stated, but nothing of direct significance.

A few others could be indicators:

* Unusual phone activity. This was partly checked at the time, but is now being investigated more thoroughly.

* Unfamiliar cars appearing to prowl or suddenly screech off.
No sudden screeching appears to have been noted. "Prowling" is subjective and could simply mean someone innocently searching for a parking spot.

* Family / professional situation.
No known history of familial abuse, complex family situations, desperate financial situations, mental illness, unwanted babies, known enemies in search of revenge, kidnapping for political or financial purposes, etc.

* Indicators related to previous crimes in the area.
- Numerous burglaries or attempted ones had taken place.

- Several assaults or attempted ones on other children had taken place in the area, some of which involved entry to the living space of the families involved, even when parents were there.

- The lack of resources to overhaul the judicial system, a potential lack of coordination between police forces and the absence of a sexual offenders and DNA database may mean that suspects are still out there, moving within PT or even in other European states, or could even be in jail for unrelated offences.

ETA:

* Cigarette butts on a balcony that could have been a potential vantage point. These don't appear to have been collected.

This is the type of post I like to see, structured and informative and to the point.  Great work Carana.

[Carana]

Carana raises an excellent point on another thread and rightly asks what evidence would one reasonably expect to find in an abduction?

Evidence of an abduction can include the following:

* A missing person.
* Stolen property.
* A break-in or forced entry.
* Unusual footprints including soiling on sills/floors/carpets.
* Persons acting suspiciously nearby.
* A ransom demand.
* Sightings of the missing person.

Please feel free to add to the list and discuss.

Those who shout the loudest at the lack of evidence of an abduction have been the quietest on this thread.

Sooo... Bump.

[Carana]

One of my own points that I would add to concerns:


* Unexplained disturbance of objects.
The only thing that seems unexplained is the door apparently being found further open than usual, although a breeze when one or other people walked in / out or a child walking out could possibly explain that.

I'd add the fully open window / shutter witnessed by Kate and Gerry. However, I agree that there were no independent witnesses who saw them fully open at the time, only partially so.

[Brietta]

It was not immediately apparent to Karla T’s ( mother's changed name, but I will call the child the same) parents that there was anything amiss in the immediate aftermath of her assault. Only later when a bruise in the shape of a handprint came out on her face was it discovered what had happened to her and that her abductor had first tried to gain entry via a window using a ladder.

Thankfully she had not been taken further afield nor was she killed … but one wonders what would have happened had she not been returned to her room.

Despite her testimony about the intruder and DNA on her top which eventually identified her abductor, Karla T’s father and brother came under suspicion.

Had she not been there to tell what happened and had there been no corroborating forensics what would we have had?  Most certainly accusation of a ‘simulated’ abduction … with either her father or brother being accused of staging the scene and disposing of Karla T’s body.

The only evidence of an intruder was the child's story and the foreign DNA on the child’s top. 

If she had been taken what weight would the her father’s ‘evidence’ have carried about being alerted by the open front door? and the ‘simulation’ of the ladder and attempt at entry via the window?



Porter girl abducted from bedroom, assaulted

Posted: Monday, March 28, 2011 12:33 am |  Updated: 10:29 am, Tue Mar 29, 2011.   

 By VANESA BRASHIER

>>snip<<

“When a child predator sets his sights on a victim, nothing will stand in his way. Not a locked door, a locked window or even an occupied house.”

Karla T., whose name has been changed to protect her family’s privacy, knows all about such monsters.
 
In July 2010, while she and her family were sleeping in their Porter, Texas home, a man broke in and stole her 6-year-old daughter’s innocence.

The child was sexually assaulted before being released. When he freed the girl outside her home, the kidnapper reportedly warned: “Tell your parents what I did and I will come back and hurt them.”

The crime wasn’t noticed until hours later. It might have been overlooked altogether had the kidnapper not left a tell-tale sign.

The morning after the assault, Karla’s husband was the first to see that things were not quite right. When he walked into the dining room to put on his boots to go to work, the front door was standing wide open.

Alarmed, he ran to his children’s rooms to see if they were OK. When he found them both asleep in their beds, he locked the front door and left for work, assuming the wind must have blown open the front door during the overnight hours.

>>snip<<

Home was no longer safe and based on the evidence found around the home, it appeared that the predator might have first attempted to gain access to the child through her bedroom window.

“We found that the pool ladder had been placed outside her bedroom. It appears he also tried to pry open a window with a butter knife,” said Karla.

When that failed, he took a more direct path to the child through the front door.

With an unknown predator now targeting her daughter, Karla took drastic steps and moved the two of them in with a relative.

>>snip<<
An unintentional victim of the crime against the 6-year-old girl was her brother, who in the past had always been her protector. After his sister’s attack and before a suspect was named, he was, by his own admission, the focus of the law enforcement investigation.

Looking back now, he knows why and even blames himself a little.

At around the time his 6-year-old sister was abducted, he had been wearing headphones and playing video games. He and his mother now speculate about whether or not the kidnapper could have walked right past him because he was so engrossed in the game.

“The police had perfectly good reasons for being suspicious of me. I was in the next room and I was the last one to see her before bedtime,” he said. “But after a while they seemed to throw out the evidence. I knew I was their target.”

Before this incident happened, “I had a lot of respect for law enforcement. I wanted to be a police officer. Now I can’t help but see a cop and think, ‘How is he going to mess up my life,’” he said.

His advice now for friends who are questioned by police: “Get a lawyer before talking to police. Being in that room for questioning, just with them, they can say and do anything they want. Now I know that basically they have a job and they need to get it done.

“And I know why defense attorneys exist,” he said.

Karla is more forgiving even though it took a few months to entirely clear her husband and son of any wrongdoing. She even praises the Montgomery County sheriff’s detectives who investigated her daughter’s case.

“The detective in the case, Ken Bivens, has been a godsend. If not for the work of Bivens, the other detectives and the forensic scientists, we would still not know who hurt my daughter," said Karla.

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/article_4187ed83-fed3-5276-b6c2-2166c8720c11.html

[lordpookles]

This section here from the channel 4 despatches documentary they talk about what looks like 2 thumb prints on the outside of the shutters which they believe were most likely opened from the inside. Were these prints matched? Can't find anything...

Skip forward to 36.02: