Documentaries & Articles for Discussion

[Brietta]

Because they choose to, however galling you might find it.

Not to mention that it can prove to be a very lucrative choice for some of the less talented video makers of our generation.

I don't find it galling in the slightest that people like that have a following ... just rather pathetic and sad.

[lordpookles]

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...

[mercury]

Sound likes it may have a blamange type mixture of truth and gumpf, think I will give it a miss. I can check the PJ files which are availablle online for all facts and figures.

[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...

Thank you, LP ;)  You deserve a medal for sitting through that ... I'm not curious enough to subject myself to it yet though and I don't know if I wish to contribute to the coffers of someone who insults what little intelligence I have with a rehash of every disproved conspiracy myth under the sun with a couple of tweeks added.

[Gadfly2.1]

"Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition.   He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment."

May 4.

"He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly MADELEINE had got up to go to sleep in his bedroom, so as to avoid the noise produced by her siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, then went to the bathroom…. He adds that he did not enter any other part of the residence, where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the back door."

May 10.

Why did he change his story?  I know.  Do you?

[Gadfly2.1]

"Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition.   He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment."

May 4.

"He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly MADELEINE had got up to go to sleep in his bedroom, so as to avoid the noise produced by her siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, then went to the bathroom…. He adds that he did not enter any other part of the residence, where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the back door."

May 10.

Why did he change his story?  I know.  Do you?

--

Just wish to add this to:

"And part of the reason we ended up coming through the back was the noise coming through the front door."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY (4 minutes 30 in here).

Again - If you study the development of the first week of the case, you'll understand the evolution of the statement.  That is unless you are willing to accept that the PJ were completely unprofessional and mistranslated...

[Gadfly2.1]

And further to the above notes, this was also distributed to major newspaper outlets via a 'family friend' in mid-September 2007: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1563738/Madeleine-McCann-Gerry-certain-he-was-in-bedroom-with-kidnapper.html

'Agonisingly, he is now sure that standing behind this door was his four-year-old daughter's abductor, waiting to steal her from her bed in the Praia da Luz."  (Telegraph - how the source told it to Caroline Gammell of the DT on the 21st of September).

"According to the friend, the intruder would have hidden himself somewhere else in the flat - possibly the bathroom or the master bedroom -whilst Mr McCann checked on his children." (Daily Mail - how the 'friend' briefed the DM journalist on the 21st September)

Again, I know why the story changed.  Do you?

[Gadfly2.1]

And in the 10th May statement, Gerry 'clarifies' the 4th May statement noting: "Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door."

Again, study what happened in the first week of the case, and you'll understand that there might be a different explanation for this change in memory. 

One of the few decent things to come out of this Hall documentary is that one or two of these themes are accidentally touched upon.

[pathfinder73]

4 May 2007 Channel 4 News Report

[Brietta]

4 May 2007 Channel 4 News Report

Another interesting post PF ... we are familiar with the technician dusting the window wearing one glove ... at 1:17 in the channel four news report did you happen to notice that she was exhaling from her mouth directly onto the area she was dusting.  Surely a rather unique technique.

[misty]

Another interesting post PF ... we are familiar with the technician dusting the window wearing one glove ... at 1:17 in the channel four news report did you happen to notice that she was exhaling from her mouth directly onto the area she was dusting.  Surely a rather unique technique.

I think this Wiki article explains why the technician exhaled onto the dust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint_powder
*snipped*
Powders may be applied with a fingerprint brush, a brush with extremely fine fibers designed to hold powder, and deposit it gently on the fingerprint to be revealed, without rubbing away the often delicate residue of the fingerprint itself. They may also be applied by blowing the powder across the fingerprint, or by pouring the powder onto the print, and then blowing away the excess.

Magnetic powders are also used, where a fine magnetic powder is held by a magnetic applicator, which may then be gently moved across the fingerprint. As no bristles touch the surface, this often damages the print less than other methods of developing the print.

[Brietta]

I think this Wiki article explains why the technician exhaled onto the dust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint_powder
*snipped*
Powders may be applied with a fingerprint brush, a brush with extremely fine fibers designed to hold powder, and deposit it gently on the fingerprint to be revealed, without rubbing away the often delicate residue of the fingerprint itself. They may also be applied by blowing the powder across the fingerprint, or by pouring the powder onto the print, and then blowing away the excess.

Magnetic powders are also used, where a fine magnetic powder is held by a magnetic applicator, which may then be gently moved across the fingerprint. As no bristles touch the surface, this often damages the print less than other methods of developing the print.

Thanks Misty, but don't you think a puffer would be used, some of which have a soft brush attached ... exhaled breath is surely a contaminant?

[misty]

Thanks Misty, but don't you think a puffer would be used, some of which have a soft brush attached ... exhaled breath is surely a contaminant?

The powder itself must surely be a contaminant if DNA sampling is to be undertaken. The purpose of the powder is to stick to the ridges of secretions left by the finger/palm, which can help provide the unique fingerprint profile.

[Brietta]

The powder itself must surely be a contaminant if DNA sampling is to be undertaken. The purpose of the powder is to stick to the ridges of secretions left by the finger/palm, which can help provide the unique fingerprint profile.

Just found a site which gives instruction on methods for successfully lifting prints ... doh! I didn't realise that the powder actually developed the print and that too much can destroy the evidence.

I know that dusting for fingerprints can be a messy business so didn't pay too much attention to the amount used in the apartment ... but that could explain why so many prints were unusable.

It is quite an interesting read and it does say as I thought that blowers should be used but with an admission ...

**snip
Use the brush or a puffer bulb gently to remove any excess powder. (Okay, we admit it; we used our mouths to puff off excess powder, but that’s a horrible practice.) You can also use canned air if you do so extremely carefully, keeping the canned air nozzle far enough away from the dusted print to avoid blowing away everything, including the print. If you have a camera, shoot an image of the revealed print.
http://makezine.com/laboratory-81-dusting-and-lifting-l/

[mercury]

The destruction of evidence at the "crime scene" happened as much if not MORE by the Mccanns and friends

Source: Attorney General's summary

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

section G

Contaminated "crime scene"

edited to add link