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

[Brietta]

No hard evidence whatsoever that these shutters and the window were ever open at all. One set of fingerprints on the window only; those of one of the people who said it was open. Incomplete prints on the shutters, the position of which suggested the person who left them was inside, not outside. No evidence to suggest anyone or anything entered or exited via the (narrow) window opening.

Why on earth would someone in the room put their hand on the outer shutter when they had a perfectly good operating mechanism to hand?

Why was the window so spotless that only fingerprints from the person who said she had looked out of it were there on the inside glass? one might almost think forensically clean.

That you chose to ignore the testimony of the first person on the scene of Madeleine's vanishing ... is rather revealing.

No evidence to suggest anyone entered or exited via the window ...  but neither is there evidence to suggest someone didn't.

[G-Unit]

Because no evidence was found doesn't mean it was never there.  The inadequacies of the people collecting forensics - which were commented on by Amaral, may be the reason why evidence could have been overlooked.

As previously mentioned - if the open window/shutters were going to be the McCanns' (preplanned)  evidence that an intruder had entered the apartment - they would have made sure they were kept open for the police to see when they arrived.

Speculation is not the topic so evidence missed or never there isn't relevant. I have seen theories as to why the window and shutters may have been opened and then closed, but that was speculation also.

[Brietta]

Speculation is not the topic so evidence missed or never there isn't relevant. I have seen theories as to why the window and shutters may have been opened and then closed, but that was speculation also.

It is not speculation that the apartment was not made a crime scene and protected as such when it should have been.

That failure plus the botched forensics ensured that, as Benice says, the fact "no evidence was found doesn't mean it was never there" is an entirely relevant conclusion to both the aforementioned facts of professional failure.

It is not speculation ~ based on the fact that the Drs McCann are highly intelligent people ~ that if they had decided to fabricate a tale of jemmied shutters - the shutters would indeed have been jemmied.  Elementary.

[mercury]

%&5%£
To me, that is very obvious.

Try thinking about it mercury.  See if you can work it out.

I have, a little, and sorry, no, cannot figure it out. Britta doesn't seem to have an opinion either! So my question remains unanswered by at least two posters here. Why would an abductor want to make sure there was no lingering smell of chloroform.

[misty]

I have, a little, and sorry, no, cannot figure it out. Britta doesn't seem to have an opinion either! So my question remains unanswered by at least two posters here. Why would an abductor want to make sure there was no lingering smell of chloroform.

A strange lingering smell would be indicative of a third party introducing a substance into the room. Burglars don't routinely carry chloroform or ether.

[sadie]

I have, a little, and sorry, no, cannot figure it out. Britta doesn't seem to have an opinion either! So my question remains unanswered by at least two posters here. Why would an abductor want to make sure there was no lingering smell of chloroform.

The longer that the impression was given to the police that this was a woke and wandered scenario rather than an abduction,  the greater time for the perp to get away.

Also the more mstery, the more time the police will take sorting it out

And the use of chloroform could point to someone with medical experience.  If that were the case this would help point towards the person who administered it.... and make it easier for the Police.

[Brietta]

A strange lingering smell would be indicative of a third party introducing a substance into the room. Burglars don't routinely carry chloroform or ether.

An intruder who had taken pains to leave not a trace behind was hardly likely to allow any residual odour to linger.

[sadie]

Do you have any awareness of the properties of Trichloromethane sadie ?

I used to work with trichlorethalene (sp?).


IIRC I used it to clean grease and dirt off things


We used to use the horrible stuff with gay abandon.... and in enclosed spaces.  I well remember lying under an old van with leaf springs and having the onerous job of cleaning the black grease off them, before regreasing them.


Then they banned it cos if you smoked ( I didn't, but people around me did), it poisoned you, according to my hubby.


No mercury, I wasn't a nurse.  I was a Design Engineer, once trained. 




you, Stephen as a chemist are an expert, I guess ?

[sadie]

A strange lingering smell would be indicative of a third party introducing a substance into the room. Burglars don't routinely carry chloroform or ether.

Quite, it would be a strong indicator of a planned abduction.

[Brietta]

The longer that the impression was given to the police that this was a woke and wandered scenario rather than an abduction,  the greater time for the perp to get away.

Also the more mstery, the more time the police will take sorting it out

And the use of chloroform could point to someone with medical experience.  If that were the case this would help point towards the person who administered it.... and make it easier for the Police.

The evidence for the woke and wandered scenario would have been the discovery of a frightened little girl loudly crying her eyes out in the vicinity of the apartment  that didn't happen, nor was there evidence she had met with an accident as a result of wandering at night.

The volunteer searchers and Mark Warner staff didn't come across her and although they searched till 4 am I have never seen it said that they benefited from any sort of official search co-ordination, a record of which would have been exceedingly useful to the investigation.

Just another piece of evidence which should have been there but is missing because no one bothered to collate it.

 

[misty]

Just looking at the PJ photo again, showing the front of Rachel's apartment, makes you realise just how dark the front of 5a would have been without the artificial lighting source set up for the police to work.

[G-Unit]

However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform.[24] It takes at least five minutes of inhaling an item soaked in chloroform to render a person unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform also involve another drug being co-administered, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being found to have been complicit in its administration. After a person has lost consciousness due to chloroform inhalation, a continuous volume must be administered and the chin must be supported in order to keep the tongue from obstructing the airway, a difficult procedure even for an anesthesiologist. In 1865 as a direct result of the criminal reputation chloroform had gained, medical journal The Lancet offered a "permanent scientific reputation" to anyone who could demonstrate "instantaneous insensibility" using chloroform,[25] and as of 1998 no such demonstration has been forthcoming.[2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform

[Mr Gray]

However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform.[24] It takes at least five minutes of inhaling an item soaked in chloroform to render a person unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform also involve another drug being co-administered, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being found to have been complicit in its administration. After a person has lost consciousness due to chloroform inhalation, a continuous volume must be administered and the chin must be supported in order to keep the tongue from obstructing the airway, a difficult procedure even for an anesthesiologist. In 1865 as a direct result of the criminal reputation chloroform had gained, medical journal The Lancet offered a "permanent scientific reputation" to anyone who could demonstrate "instantaneous insensibility" using chloroform,[25] and as of 1998 no such demonstration has been forthcoming.[2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform

It always makes me laugh how the French police claim that holidaymakers have been rendered unconscious by a gas fed into a railway carriage or camper van...as yet no one has been able to identify this gas...it's basically impossible.

[sadie]

However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform.[24] It takes at least five minutes of inhaling an item soaked in chloroform to render a person unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform also involve another drug being co-administered, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being found to have been complicit in its administration. After a person has lost consciousness due to chloroform inhalation, a continuous volume must be administered and the chin must be supported in order to keep the tongue from obstructing the airway, a difficult procedure even for an anesthesiologist. In 1865 as a direct result of the criminal reputation chloroform had gained, medical journal The Lancet offered a "permanent scientific reputation" to anyone who could demonstrate "instantaneous insensibility" using chloroform,[25] and as of 1998 no such demonstration has been forthcoming.[2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform

That is nonsense G-unit.  I have been chloroformed several times as a child and it was a matter of a couple of seconds before I lost all knowledge of what was going on.

Has the Wiki been got at?  So easy to alter Wikis.



Thank God it wasn't longer than a couple of seconds, it was a horrible experience having a chloroform pad clapped over your nose and mouth and unconsciousness was a great relief.

[Carew]

I wonder what made Madeleine the target of a planned abduction ?

I mean...........apparently, she was one of many left alone on holiday with "listening services" whilst parents were elsewhere.