Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?

[Brietta]

Um  yeah.  lets break this down...

child sleeping - window closed

parent comes in opens window- walks away forgetting to close it

child sees open window  - climbs out.

Yes? No? don't know?

you see what you are suggesting is:  open window + missing child = abduction. That is a suggestion not evidence dear.

You want to make the story fit all nice.... but it just doesn't, no matter how you try.

No HARD  (physical) EVIDENCE to show abductor entered that apartment via window and shutters being jemmied.

Perhaps an unlocked door? hm maybe?

Now lets look back at Team McCanns talking about the shutters being 'damaged' before Maddies disappearance  Gerry had a look at them? what happened to his fingerprints Hmm?

Was the scene being set?

Was the scene being set? ... for what exactly?

[Brietta]

Hmm should I gloat?   

Psst... circumstancial evidence is NOT in anyones book,description HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

so... shall we begin again.

Is there any hard evidence of an abduction via the window?  NO!

Is there any hard evidence that Madeleine McCann was not abducted via the window? NO!

[faithlilly]

Was the scene being set? ... for what exactly?

The defence ?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Oh Lordy, Lordy ~ does that mean ~ %#£% ~ fingerprints and hair samples are not 'evidence' until identified??

No, good hivings whatever made you think that is what I meant..Tsk...

They are evidence that hair and fingerprints are in the apartment!  in fact hair and fingerprints are in ALL the apartments I am informed.. nothing more than that..unless, no! unless, you are saying the evidence found on the open window i.e Kates fingerprints, are evidence she abducted her daughter!  my oh my what a revelation.. How could you think such a thing!

Ofcource you are implying the 'evidence of hair and finger prints are from the 'abductor'.  I am claiming NO that is NOT hard evidence of an abductor!

[Brietta]

Agreed - and in this case,  witnesses can attest to an open window and the fact that the McCanns were stating it was open.  Which when tallied up with the forensic evidence leads to a worrying conclusion.

What hard evidence supports your conclusion?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Is there any hard evidence that Madeleine McCann was not abducted via the window? NO!

OH MY GOD..Hahahahaah you want evidence of something which did NOT happen? seriously hahahaaha how you make me laugh!

No trace of maddies DNA on the window, no Abductors DNA on or near the window, no scuff marks on white wall below the window, now that would take  some doing, with someone stealing a child on a whim with little or no time...

So anyway the unlocked door and the missing child...

[Miss Taken Identity]

The defence ?

Indeed Faith!..to redirect away from any other theory. like woke and wandered via an unlocked door for one example.

[Brietta]

No, good hivings whatever made you think that is what I meant..Tsk...

They are evidence that hair and fingerprints are in the apartment!  in fact hair and fingerprints are in ALL the apartments I am informed.. nothing more than that..unless, no! unless, you are saying the evidence found on the open window i.e Kates fingerprints, are evidence she abducted her daughter!  my oh my what a revelation.. How could you think such a thing!

Ofcource you are implying the 'evidence of hair and finger prints are from the 'abductor'.  I am claiming NO that is NOT hard evidence of an abductor!

This thread is not discussing whether or not Madeleine McCann was abducted ... it is discussing hard evidence ... much of which was destroyed by inept forensic work and lack of preservation of the crime scene.

The middle and forefinger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the window pane. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

Other unidentified prints were circulated abroad for identification.

Clear evidence that people who were not previous occupants of the apartment and who had no legitimate reason for being there on the 3rd May had left fingerprints behind them.

[Brietta]

OH MY GOD..Hahahahaah you want evidence of something which did NOT happen? seriously hahahaaha how you make me laugh!

No trace of maddies DNA on the window, no Abductors DNA on or near the window, no scuff marks on white wall below the window, now that would take  some doing, with someone stealing a child on a whim with little or no time...

So anyway the unlocked door and the missing child...

Do please try to behave like an adult ... you may find it quite a refreshing thing to aspire to.  To reiterate, this thread isn't about abduction ... it is about hard evidence ... so why not try to come up with something along those lines worth discussing.

[faithlilly]

This thread is not discussing whether or not Madeleine McCann was abducted ... it is discussing hard evidence ... much of which was destroyed by inept forensic work and lack of preservation of the crime scene.

The middle and forefinger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the window pane. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

Other unidentified prints were circulated abroad for identification.

Clear evidence that people who were not previous occupants of the apartment and who had no legitimate reason for being there on the 3rd May had left fingerprints behind them.

Or rather clear evidence that the fingerprints left behind were not on any law enforcement data base, which would be the case with most holidaymakers.

As to evidence being destroyed if we don't know if it was there in the first place how can we possibly know if it was destroyed ?

[Mr Gray]

The one piece of hard evidence is the statement by Redwood saying that the McCanns were not suspects. That would indicate that up to that time there was nothing to implicate the McCanns in Maddie's disappearance

[Carana]

No, good hivings whatever made you think that is what I meant..Tsk...

They are evidence that hair and fingerprints are in the apartment!  in fact hair and fingerprints are in ALL the apartments I am informed.. nothing more than that..unless, no! unless, you are saying the evidence found on the open window i.e Kates fingerprints, are evidence she abducted her daughter!  my oh my what a revelation.. How could you think such a thing!

Ofcource you are implying the 'evidence of hair and finger prints are from the 'abductor'.  I am claiming NO that is NOT hard evidence of an abductor!

The topic of this thread, unless it get modified (as many do), appears to be:

"Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?"

Has there been any agreement on what "hard evidence" actually means?

[Miss Taken Identity]

This thread is not discussing whether or not Madeleine McCann was abducted ... it is discussing hard evidence ... much of which was destroyed by inept forensic work and lack of preservation of the crime scene.

The middle and forefinger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the window pane. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

Other unidentified prints were circulated abroad for identification.

Clear evidence that people who were not previous occupants of the apartment and who had no legitimate reason for being there on the 3rd May had left fingerprints behind them.

[/color]

which part of abroad and where were these evidenced finger prints found?

cite please?  Thanks in advance!

[G-Unit]

G-Unit - a young worker named Amy.

She did indeed, but she was in the apartment at the same time as the parents and a friend of theirs. As far as I can tell, none of their friends saw the open shutters/window.

In reply to the question asked, she said that the back door (porta das traseiras) that leads to the parking area was closed, but she doesn't know whether the front door (porta da frente) was locked as when she arrived both the parents and a female friend of theirs whose name she does not know, were there and that is why the door was open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

[faithlilly]

The one piece of hard evidence is the statement by Redwood saying that the McCanns were not suspects. That would indicate that up to that time there was nothing to implicate the McCanns in Maddie's disappearance

Has the statement been repeated since the new investigation was instigated in 2013 ?