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

[jassi]

Tannerman turned out to be crecheman discovered by SY, I believe and not by the PJ. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 If Crecheman,  gave a statement, which I would have thought to be the case, it must have been withheld.

By whom? Did Creche speak to PJ or LP?  Do we have this information or is it all purely speculation ?

[Mr Moderator]

This is an evidence thread, members must keep to the topic and refrain from speculations.   Posts which are not considered part of the case evidence will be removed as per the forum rules.

Persistent offenders will face sanctions.

MM

[Anna]

By whom? Did Creche speak to PJ or LP?  Do we have this information or is it all purely speculation ?

Best I can do for now, jassi.

After much painstaking analysis, however, the Scotland Yard team has concluded that this man – later depicted in an artist’s impression – was actually nothing to do with the abduction. They noticed that on the evening in question, there was a "night creche" in operation near the apartment block, and after tracking down the families who were using it, found a man whose clothes were "uncannily similar" to the man seen by Ms Tanner. "We are almost certain now that this sighting was not the abductor," said DCI Redwood, who described it as a "revelation moment" for the inquiry.

Instead, detectives are now focusing their efforts on a second man seen carrying a child towards the beach just minutes before Kate McCann went to check on Madeleine. An Irishman, Martin Smith, and his wife reported seeing him at the time. Their e-fits, which have only now been released, were originally produced by a private detective agency which was hired by the McCanns in 2008 when they became dissatisfied with the Portuguese police inquiry.

At the time, though, it was not published, partly because Portuguese detectives thought the other theory more viable, and partly because Mr Smith himself said he thought the man he had seen looked like Gerry McCann, whom several other witnesses had already said had been at the restaurant table at that point.

Now the later sighting is being taken seriously. While DCI Redwood stressed that it could be a yet another innocent holidaymaker carrying his child, it is the key public line of inquiry, if only because of the absence of anything else. Yet it also means that what could be the key e-fit lay under wraps for several years. "It was passed to the Portuguese police at the time and for whatever reason they decided to nothing whatsoever with it," said one source close to the McCann investigation. "It was then handed to the Met two years ago, and they have now deemed it worthy of publication, but frankly it should have been out there a long time ago."

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post271638.html#p271638

[jassi]

Thank you Anna.
So nothing to indicate that a early statement by Crecheman was being hidden or withheld by anyone and his recent  identification is down to orginal work by SY

[Alfred R Jones]

OK. So Kate McCann's statement is evidence that a window and some shutters were open. There is no proof that this is true. Even if it is true, all it means is that a window and some shutters were open. We don't know why they were open.
An open window and shutters is not evidence of an abduction.

Let's say one of your young children disappeared from its bed in the middle of the night and the windows and shutters to their room were open, not as you left them.  Would that not be evidence that they had been abducted?  If not, what would it be evidence of?

[jassi]

As at least two other people had been in the apartment since Kate left at 8pm'ish, how could she be certain of anything?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Let's say one of your young children disappeared from its bed in the middle of the night and the windows and shutters to their room were open, not as you left them.  Would that not be evidence that they had been abducted?  If not, what would it be evidence of?

We only have Kate's word about the shutters, no independent witness statement.

"Would that not be evidence that they had been abducted?  If not, what would it be evidence of?

No, that would be evidence that someone had opened them and did not close them. There is no physical evidence that this was done by a stranger...

[slartibartfast]

Thank you Anna.
So nothing to indicate that a early statement by Crecheman was being hidden or withheld by anyone and his recent  identification is down to orginal work by SY

Though Anna's quote was a story in the Telegraph.

[jassi]

Though Anna's quote was a story in the Telegraph.

Was it ?  Better than the Sun or DM and probably the best we are going to get 

[Alfred R Jones]

We only have Kate's word about the shutters, no independent witness statement.

"Would that not be evidence that they had been abducted?  If not, what would it be evidence of?

No, that would be evidence that someone had opened them and did not close them. There is no physical evidence that this was done by a stranger...

G-Unit stated that open windows and shutters are not evidence of abduction.  Forget for a moment the question of whether they were or not in this case, but refer to the scenario that I gave. Are open windows and shutters evidence of abduction, or are they not?  If not, why not?

[Anna]

Topic please Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case? Thank you

[DCI]

Thank you Anna.
So nothing to indicate that a early statement by Crecheman was being hidden or withheld by anyone and his recent  identification is down to orginal work by SY

Although the Portuguese police did not publicise the sighting and instead made the parents suspects in the case, once their investigation closed the McCanns arranged for a sketch to be drawn showing the man Miss Tanner had seen.

Ever since it has been central to how people have viewed the case.

But Scotland Yard detectives reviewed the evidence and realised that around a dozen holidaymakers had been using a free creche at the Mark Warner resort, and they would have collected their sleeping children during the evening.

One of those parents was contacted by police and he agreed that he may be the man, and he had been wrongly identified as a possible suspect.

He agreed to pose for a photograph so his build could be compared to the sketch.

That, together with evidence that his two-year-old daughter was wearing similar pyjamas as the sketch, has convinced the man leading the inquiry that this sighting is wrong.


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id463.html

[Brietta]

Can you put that in small words and in a less convoluted manner so I at least have half a chance of understanding what you are on about. Language is for communication so if you fail to get your message over you have problems with communicating not the listener / reader is dim.

Now why didn't I think of that ... how remiss.   %£5&%

However back to the nitty gritty ... hard evidence ... can't get much harder than unidentified fingerprints and hair samples. I'm unsure from where in the apartment the so far unidentified prints were lifted or how many are involved.
The middle finger and index finger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the inside of the window pane; were the other three the ones which were circulated to other countries and which remain unidentified?

For an apartment that people were living in there was an extraordinary cleanliness and lack of useable fingerprints from those who were legitimately in the apartment, almost as if someone had taken great pains to wipe down all available surfaces which might have been touched.

Nota bene ... the legitimate occupants would not have required to wipe down the apartment to the extent only Kate McCann's fresh prints and the GNR fresh prints were the only ones deposited.

So to say no hard evidence was left is wrong when there remains unidentified prints and hair samples to be accounted for.

[mercury]

Logical isn't it ... and we are both sometime logical thinkers.   


Borne out by the fact that neither Dr McCann was charged with any offence in relation to their daughter's disappearance ~ there is not a shred of evidence linking either them or their friends to what happened to Madeleine.

That leaves wandering off ... or abduction.

There is no evidence that Madeleine wandered off.

Whether members like it or not there is evidence that there had been an intrusion to the apartment.  Dr McCann's statement to how she found the apartment window on her return is evidence.

Ever wondered why Sylvia Baptista's assessment of the situation has carried such weight in the doubters' lexicon ... her suspicions when Dr McCann requested pastoral support have become legendary ... but no-one mentions that she also claims to have seen Robert Murat ...

**snip
She doesn't remember who was with him, whether he came walking or in some vehicle. That same individual, she was told later, is the son of Morat, his first name is ROBERT.
Robert speaks fluently English and Portuguese. He helped the GNR of Lagos and later the PJ, translating the testimony of some British persons.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

So it is very much a pick and mix of which evidence internet detectives will choose to illustrate their point or their prejudice ... fortunately, with the eyes of the world on Madeleine McCann's case the rule of evidence and therefore the rule of law had to be seen to be being applied.

Baptista never claimed she saw Robert Murat, can't you read  and digest your own quotes?

[mercury]

Now why didn't I think of that ... how remiss.   %£5&%

However back to the nitty gritty ... hard evidence ... can't get much harder than unidentified fingerprints and hair samples. I'm unsure from where in the apartment the so far unidentified prints were lifted or how many are involved.
The middle finger and index finger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the inside of the window pane; were the other three the ones which were circulated to other countries and which remain unidentified?

For an apartment that people were living in there was an extraordinary cleanliness and lack of useable fingerprints from those who were legitimately in the apartment, almost as if someone had taken great pains to wipe down all available surfaces which might have been touched.

Nota bene ... the legitimate occupants would not have required to wipe down the apartment to the extent only Kate McCann's fresh prints and the GNR fresh prints were the only ones deposited.

So to say no hard evidence was left is wrong when there remains unidentified prints and hair samples to be accounted for.

Unidentified fingerprints in a holiday apartment inhabited and visited by so many and which presumably wasnt forensically cleaned daily don't mean that much...they just mean unidentified, they could have been anyones. Likewise, unidentified hairs do not automatically mean an "abductor's hairs"

Try harder on the "hard evidence of abduction" theme.