Documentaries & Articles for Discussion

[Carana]

Extending that logic then: until the manual was written nothing was a crime scene, even it was, because it could not be identified as such in accordance with the manual which was yet to be written. Furthermore if the manual was needed to identify a crime scene how did the manual writer know what a crime scene looked like before he wrote the manual?
I'll go with Roques and his mate knowing what they were looking at.

I guess that makes sense somewhere.

It's not clear what the manual was actually based on. It could have been an adaptation of those that exist elsewhere (e.g., the US or UK ones).

In any case, Roque was a GNR officer... They don't deal with serious crimes.

[Alice Purjorick]

It's not clear what the manual was actually based on. It could have been an adaptation of those that exist elsewhere (e.g., the US or UK ones).

In any case, Roque was a GNR officer... They don't deal with serious crimes.

I don't think you have addressed my point adequately but I think I will pass on that.

[mercury]

More curious is that two experienced officers the first on the scene (Officer Roque and his partner) did not believe it was a crime scene.
The excuse they were know nothing Portuguese pretendy cops don't cut it I am afraid.

Yes, a bit curious

[mercury]

The police are the professionals.  Whether or not they believed Madeleine had wandered on her own and they expected her to return or to be found they should have taken appropriate action to prepare for all eventualities and that was to preserve whatever evidence remained on their arrival.

Thank you for acknowledging the fact that the police were not responsible for the destruction of any potential evidence , as your previous post suggested, and that it had, in fact,been compromised beforehand, thus making any "preservation" of the "crime scene" a bit of a moot point

[Brietta]

Thank you for acknowledging the fact that the police were not responsible for the destruction of any potential evidence , as your previous post suggested, and that it had, in fact,been compromised beforehand, thus making any "preservation" of the "crime scene" a bit of a moot point

Of course the apartment had been compromised prior to the arrival of the GNR by people searching for a missing child.  That was a situation entirely outwith their control.
When they arrived and assessed the situation there is no moot point about the fact they failed to secure the crime scene and indeed added to the contamination.

[mercury]

Of course the apartment had been compromised prior to the arrival of the GNR by people searching for a missing child.  That was a situation entirely outwith their control.
When they arrived and assessed the situation there is no moot point about the fact they failed to secure the crime scene and indeed added to the contamination.

So it comes to who compromised the crime scene and it was as the public prosecutor said the mccanns and friends...unless you can come up with an example of how the police compromised it, you cant slag them off gratuitously, over to you

[misty]

So it comes to who compromised the crime scene and it was as the public prosecutor said the mccanns and friends...unless you can come up with an example of how the police compromised it, you cant slag them off gratuitously, over to you

Dog hairs & discarded cigarette ends spring to mind, before you even consider the unauthorised personnel who crossed the police tape the next morning.

[mercury]

Dog hairs & discarded cigarette ends spring to mind, before you even consider the unauthorised personnel who crossed the police tape the next morning.

Can you give me a link to something that shows fag ends compromised any evidence?

I dont know about dog hairs, I assume dogs are used but nothing has been invented to stop them shedding hairs when used to iinvestigate crimes...you be calling for bald police next

[Brietta]

Can you give me a link to something that shows fag ends compromised any evidence?

I dont know about dog hairs, I assume dogs are used but nothing has been invented to stop them shedding hairs when used to iinvestigate crimes...you be calling for bald police next

All that is required to avoid contaminating a crime scene is appropriate protective clothing and gloves ... nothing spectacular.

**snip

Detectives spent hours poring over footprints found at the scene - which turned out to belong to policemen.
 
Forensic samples sent for analysis contained ash from cops' cigarettes.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id154.html

[mercury]

All that is required to avoid contaminating a crime scene is appropriate protective clothing and gloves ... nothing spectacular.

**snip

Detectives spent hours poring over footprints found at the scene - which turned out to belong to policemen.
 
Forensic samples sent for analysis contained ash from cops' cigarettes.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id154.html

A news of the world article proves fag ash contaminated the crime scene, oh please, you must do better 2\10..hard evidence dear..too funny at best lol


 
ps pls provide a link to any forensic analysis as claimed by the rag re fag ash

You can consult mccannpjfiles.co.uk

The official  police files,not some dirty agenda ridden  rag

[misty]

A news of the world article proves fag ash contaminated the crime scene, oh please, you must do better 2\10..hard evidence dear..too funny at best lol


 
ps pls provide a link to any forensic analysis as claimed by the rag re fag ash

You can consult mccannpjfiles.co.uk

The official  police files,not some dirty agenda ridden  rag

Would that be the same forensic report that stated the CSI's didn't find a single footprint in the apartment gardens, despite all those people trampling all over the place?

09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2319
Photos 41 to 43: Details of the window of the bedroom from which the child disappeared where the non-existence of traces/clues of break-in/forced entry was verified.

After the examination of the inside of the apartment and despite the immediate surroundings of the referred apartment not having been preserved [protected] there proceeded the detailed observation of the exterior there not having been detected the existence of any objects/traces of forensic value and [nor] of any traces of shoe-prints in the garden area of the apartment.
The recovery of cigarette stubs was not viable due to the existence of a reasonable quantity thereof within the referred perimeter                                                                                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------


Would that be the same forensic team who acquired 12 non-human hairs from the apartment?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm

*snip*

 CONCLUSIONS


1st- The macro- and microscopic analysis of 257 hairs revealed 245 human and 12 non-human.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would that be the same CSI team who "missed" the blood that the dogs indicated to?

The Red Tops are OK, though, when it comes to reports of Gerry & Kate playing tennis the day after Madeleine went missing. Etc  etc.

[faithlilly]

Interesting article in the Mail :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049978/Almost-10-years-baby-Rahma-vanished-police-believe-close-finding-took-little-girl.html#ixzz3YbkHUFom

From the article :

'
'There must always be an element of surprise with our strategies so we can’t always let the community know what actions we are taking,' Det Insp Young said.

Indeed.

[Brietta]

Some interesting moments on the whole. I fell asleep twice though, so maybe not that interesting! Think I missed a bit about Robert Murat, but it's mainly all about Tannerman/Sagresman/Smithman.

In the conclusion of the doc he seems to be suggesting some kind of conspiracy involving the 3 sightings; Tannerman, Sagresman and Smithman. Just another theory to be added to the list imo along with bloodlines, woke and wandered, abductors, parents etc... An interesting moment is in regard to the efits that are believed to be from the Smith sighting, but he believes Mr Redwood was economical with his words on Crimewatch and suggests maybe the efits are from witnesses not known to the public or even I assume completely made up as some kind of cunning establishment conspiracy(RM also seems to be part of his theory but not sure how that fits in). I have heard others on here make arguments that the Smith efits were unlikely to be from the Smiths themselves. In fairness at times he makes some compelling points.

I like the effort/research this guy appears to put in, but seems like he's definitely a conspiracy theorist. Some of this is interesting, but at moments he makes massive leaps in conclusion without imo applying the necessary logic or argument. In the absence of information/evidence it's easy to speculate and end up somewhere completely ridiculous...

I have decided LP that you and I must be quite mad.

Like you I have sat through it and I am literally cross eyed (you will note that either no-one else has been daft enough or if they were they're not letting on about it).  He is really quite wrong in his interpretation of so much of his source material it is cringe making imo and I can't see anything new.
Long winded ~ says nothing ~ but is priming his audience for his next round of 'revelations' in his next documentary.

I don't think he is that much of a conspiracy theorist, he has located a target audience ~ which I think is providing a nice little earner for him and he is milking it for all it is worth for as long as he can.

[lordpookles]

Ahaha, you couldn't resist - neither could I. Yeah there were some cringeworthy parts. I can't remember exactly, but obviously not going to have another look to find them. Also, I wouldn't disagree with your appraisal. He made one or two points, which made me think for a moment. I described them as compelling - a tad over the top perhaps as again I cannot remember what they were. The entire conspiracy he was suggesting was absurd imo - such tenuous connections and huge jumps of logic! I was telling him off whilst watching it. And by repeating it a gazillion times doesn't make it anymore believable.

I thought perhaps he was just a member of the tin foil hat brigade, but you may well be right that he's just making this shit up for a few $.

[Brietta]

Ahaha, you couldn't resist - neither could I. Yeah there were some cringeworthy parts. I can't remember exactly, but obviously not going to have another look to find them. Also, I wouldn't disagree with your appraisal. He made one or two points, which made me think for a moment. I described them as compelling - a tad over the top perhaps as again I cannot remember what they were. The entire conspiracy he was suggesting was absurd imo - such tenuous connections and huge jumps of logic! I was telling him off whilst watching it. And by repeating it a gazillion times doesn't make it anymore believable.

I thought perhaps he was just a member of the tin foil hat brigade, but you may well be right that he's just making this shit up for a few $.

There were quite a few instances when I vehemently disagreed with him ... but they are so memorable that like you I've forgotten them entirely.
I think if all else fails he has a career in making audio files for people who have sleep problems (that voice!) he will lull them to unconsciousness in minutes.

That will teach us to be tempted, I doubt if I will fall for it again.