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

[Anna]

Was it a deliberate muddle, though, Anna?

As Pegusus said

"The hard forensic evidence (the forensic reports and photos) are correct, but they were then misinterpreted by people who didn't bother reading the forensics reports fully, didn't read the captions on the photos, got the room wrong, got the person wrong, and unjustly arguidaised an honest witness."

Why would they do such a thing, purposely???  &%+((£

[DCI]

Why would they do such a thing, purposely???  &%+((£

I hadn't better reply to that, Anna.

[Anna]

Prints of Kate's 2 fingers were found on the inside window of the children's bedroom.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_884a.jpg

However, I agree that the still taken in that docu drama were from the living-room.

I always wondered where Amaral got the idea that her prints indicated an "opening position". There is nothing in the report on Kate's prints that says any such thing... Did he mix up her prints on the inside of the window with the ones (not hers) in the living-room?

Possibly Carana, That film certainly has them confused.

Report, in a kind of English. Can you improve it?

Method and means of operating:-

1.Number of supposed established authors
2.Abandoned Objects
3.Or objects values on which focused the afraccao (Perpetrator)
4.Prejudice to the importance suffered


observations
The Vestigeos lofoscopicos collected if indentificam with the finger of the left hand middle (3) and index finger of the left hand (2) The mother of the child disappeared.
The lofoscopica inspection was in effect just inside her side window as it was on the night.
Getting local salodo and kept, so that the brightness of the conditions allowed the completion of the inspection of the residence

[pegasus]

However, I agree that the still taken in that docu drama were from the living-room.... (snip)

To be precise, the print at 45.24 and 45:31 is not of KM and is not of the bedroom. Hard evidence (you can't get much harder evidence than a fingerprint), accidentally misinterpreted.

[Anna]

I hadn't better reply to that, Anna.

That may be a wiser option, DCI. 

That evidential film, was in no way hard evidence, however it did demonstrate something...
What can be accepted or presented as evidence, by some, does  not mean that it is.


                                             

[pegasus]

Why would they do such a thing, purposely???  &%+((£

No no no. The error is accidental and similar to equally big mistakes in interpreting hard evidence by for example the experts in Dispatches.

[Anna]

No no no. The error is accidental and similar to equally big mistakes in interpreting hard evidence by for example the experts in Dispatches.

I did not say otherwise, Pegasus.

It was in reply to.........

Was it a deliberate muddle, though, Anna?

As Pegusus said

"The hard forensic evidence (the forensic reports and photos) are correct, but they were then misinterpreted by people who didn't bother reading the forensics reports fully, didn't read the captions on the photos, got the room wrong, got the person wrong, and unjustly arguidaised an honest witness."

[pegasus]

There is hard evidence in this case, including forensics of human hand marks
The problem starts when experts start to interpret the hard evidence.
Check the Dispatches expert solution of these 2 marks - IMO it's unlikely and has no reason.

[pegasus]

I did not say otherwise, Pegasus...(snip)

Agreed.
BTW if you post the original text of "The Vestigeos lofoscopicos collected....." I can translate.

[Anna]

Agreed.
BTW if you post the original text of "The Vestigeos lofoscopicos collected....." I can translate.

Not sure how accurate it is, as I had to copy type it from the files

Modo e Meios de operar
Numero suposto estabelecido de autores
Objectos Abandonados,
Objectos Ou valores sobre os quais incidiu a afraccao
Importance do prejuizo sofrido


Observacoes,,,Os Vestigeos lofoscopicos, recolhidos se indentificam com os dedos  medio da mao esquerda (3) e dedo  indicador  da mao esquerdo (2)  Da mae  da crianca desparecida
A inspeccao lofoscopica foi effectuada  apenas no lado interior la janela visto que era da noite
Ficando o local salado e Preservado,  para que assim que as condicoes de Luminosidade o permitissim   fosse finalizada a inspeccao a residencia

[pegasus]

@Anna. "Observations: The fingerprint forensics collected were identified as the middle finger of the left hand (three prints) and the index finger of the left hand (two prints) of the mother of the missing child. The fingerprint inspection was made only on the interior side of the window, because it was dark. The scene was preserved, so that the when daylight came the inspection could be completed." IMO

BTW elsewhere a forensics document clearly states that her 5 prints were all on the inside surface of the glass, that's the hard forensic evidence, fully consistent with leaning out (and completely inconsistent with an opening acton), which confirms this witness is telling the truth.

[sadie]

What an interesting analysis.

Well done you guys.

 

[pegasus]

What an interesting analysis.

Well done you guys.

 

The best friend of an investigator is the one who critically corrects those points on which the deduction was illogical IMO.

[Anna]

@Anna. "Observations: The fingerprint forensics collected were identified as the middle finger of the left hand (three prints) and the index finger of the left hand (two prints) of the mother of the missing child. The fingerprint inspection was made only on the interior side of the window, because it was dark. The scene was preserved, so that the when daylight came the inspection could be completed." IMO

BTW elsewhere a forensics document clearly states that her 5 prints were all on the inside surface of the glass, that's the hard forensic evidence, fully consistent with leaning out (and completely inconsistent with an opening acton), which confirms this witness is telling the truth.

thank you, for that, Pegasus.

If Kate opened the window with the handle, there would only be fingerprints on outer side of the handle , Surely.

One would put their hand inside the handle (as demonstrated on the film, by moustache man) and your fingers wouldn't come in contact with anything, except possibly the outer side of the handle.
 
There was no such fingerprints on the handle, so the window prints had to be from hanging out of the window.

If the fingerprints were on the handle side of the bedroom window, it was the wrong side according to the film....or did they get that wrong too?

It showed the window handle to the left of the right window, which slid left, so that the handle was up against the left side of the frame, when open.

[Carana]

To be precise, the print at 45.24 and 45:31 is not of KM and is not of the bedroom. Hard evidence (you can't get much harder evidence than a fingerprint), accidentally misinterpreted.

Well done for spotting that, Pegasus. 

The photos of the red powder on the living-room window edge could have been used in the docu drama for "illustrative" purposes (the actual pic of fingerprints on the paper document doesn't have much dramatic visual appeal).

However... although they may have been innocent substitutions by the film's editor, they were nonetheless used to support Amaral's assertion that Kate had opened the window - and he's repeated the same thing in several interviews.



43.25 - Final Evidence
 
43.28 – With the help from one of the major experts from the Scientific Police, who worked for the Polícia Judiciária, Alexandre Simas, Gonçalo Amaral intends to prove, first, that it was impossible for the child to be abducted, starting by demonstrating that the indications prove that the apartment's window and door were not forced.
 
43.47 - How does one open a door like this, without the key?
 
43.51 – Alexandre Simas, Expert (Former Polícia Judiciária): "This type of apartment door, normally there are only three possibilities: to extract the lock's cannon, which didn't happen, or it would have been reported; a false key, a copy or one that was used without permission; or using a malleable material, as long as it's not locked, it's introduced, and it makes the lock go back inside. But when it goes in, even if it did, it would hit this screw. If it hits the screw, no matter how much I force it, it doesn't jump to open the lock for me.
 
44.33 – "If the door wasn't opened without a key, the window doesn't bear any traces of having been forced, either.
 
44.40 – "These windows have a very good characteristic to check if they were forced or not. Being made of lacquered aluminium, any screwdriver, any instrument that is used to make the lock jump, immediately leaves a mark. What we can see here, there is no break-in, the mark that is there belongs to the lock itself as it rotates, sometimes one does this with the lock in place, and it hits there. So, to open this window, all we have to do is this. To close it, it's impossible, because either one has a magnet on his fingers to pull the window…"
 
45.18 – Another important fact is revealed by the fingerprints that are left on the bedroom window, which the McCanns insist they left closed, and is supposedly found open when the mother notices her daughter is missing. The only fingerprints that are found belong to Kate McCann, and reveal that they were made by opening the window.
 
45.42 – These three indications mean that there was no abduction, and that is proved. No abductor entered apartment 5A, through the door or through the window.
 
45.54 – Finally, it was impossible for anyone to leave with the child through the window on his own, without supporting himself on the bed, and leaving traces of abrasion on the window.
 
46.03 – If I carry a child in my arms, a package, in this case, the window is already open, I have to walk through here, and then I have to place my feet here, I can't…
 
46.15 – We tried to prove this difficulty, taking a child through the window, keeping everything the way it was found: the beds, without a trace of being stepped on, and no signs of abrasion on the window sill. It seems to be practically impossible for one single abductor, like the one that Jane Tanner saw, carrying the child on the street.
 
46.37 – Let's review: First, the front door and the window were not forced. Second, the window was opened by the mother. Third, it's impossible for a lone abductor to carry out the child without leaving traces on the beds and on the window.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id225.html