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

[Anna]

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?

Anything that can be considered as case evidence, such as forensics, witness statements and anything else that is evidence of the crime that has been committed (whatever the crime may be).............but no speculation as Mr Mod has said already (not exact words) :-


This is an evidence thread. Posts which are not considered part of the case evidence will be removed as per the forum rules.

speculation does not belong on this thread, so please do not post such. Thank you.

Persistent offenders will face sanctions.

[Eleanor]

Okay.  Enough.  I don't want to start deleting but I will if I must.

Hard Evidence, if you please.

[Eleanor]

Anything that can be considered as case evidence, such as forensics, witness statements and anything else that is evidence of the crime that has been committed (whatever the crime may be).............but no speculation as Mr Mod has said already (not exact words) :-


This is an evidence thread. Posts which are not considered part of the case evidence will be removed as per the forum rules.

speculation does not belong on this thread, so please do not post such. Thank you.

Persistent offenders will face sanctions.

Snap, Anna.  You and me both.

[Brietta]

Also, forgot to note the GNR officer, Antonio.

Indeed G-Unit, but the point I was implicitly making was that the very fact that some of these versions of events can be corroborated, means that as Prof. Barclay noted, 'staging' must be considered.

For the record, I do believe the window was open by the time the alert was made.  My next consideration is: who opened it.  If you can gain a firm indication on that point (namely Mrs McCann's fingerprints), then one can start to piece together other pieces of evidence (or lack thereof) to substantiate Mr Barclay's point about staging.

If they were fabricating a scenario why did they allow the 'carefully staged' set piece to be disturbed prior to the arrival of the police?

How about your opinion on that? 

[Gadfly2.1]

If they were fabricating a scenario why did they allow the 'carefully staged' set piece to be disturbed prior to the arrival of the police?

How about your opinion on that?

Who said anything about the scene being 'carefully staged'?  I have simply introduced the hard evidence -- KM's fingerprints and the forensic evidence collected in the bedroom -- as something that Prof. Barclay picked up on as a line of inquiry.

[Brietta]

The point remains: if KM says the window was open, and she is an immediate witness, and this is corroborated by others, then the reason the window was open must be investigated.

Thankfully windows and shutters mark very easily, as Prof. Barclay pointed out, so one can gain a clear viewpoint as to who opened it, especially if there are finger prints.  Alternatively, because gloves still leave a mark, one could also find out if it was opened by someone who concealed their finger prints.  As no evidence was found to suggest this, it is indicative that the window was opened most likely by the person whose prints were upon it.

And in that case, a detective must adapt to reason from the evidence, rather than adapting the evidence to meet a more palatable theory - as indeed the PJ did.

- Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate prints were recovered.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

Who do you know who opens a sliding window by placing the index and middle finger on the glass pane when there is a functioning handle there designed specifically for the task?

[Brietta]

Who said anything about the scene being 'carefully staged'?  I have simply introduced the hard evidence -- KM's fingerprints and the forensic evidence collected in the bedroom -- as something that Prof. Barclay picked up on as a line of inquiry.

Professor Barclay? who he? ... you are the member here hopefully capable of expressing your very own opinion.

Why wouldn't Dr McCann's fingerprints be in the bedroom and/or all over the apartment?  What I find truly amazing is that there were not more family fingerprints to be found all over the place.  Why would that be?

[Alfred R Jones]

My question to you Alfred would be: have ever you worked in a company or institution and have had a 'message' to deliver at the public coalface, that you knew not to be 100% the truth?

No.  Now perhaps you could answer my question?

[Gadfly2.1]

Professor Barclay is a former FSS specialist who helped the shape best practice in forensic work in the UK.  He looked at the shutters and introduced some lines of inquiry.  See 36:30 in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE . 

My view is that his perspective is one that needs listening to.  It is nuanced, fair minded and objective.

[Gadfly2.1]

No.  Now perhaps you could answer my question?

My view is that Andy Redwood believed the Tanner sighting was at best poor recall, and at worst, something more sinister.  Second, I would say that Mr Redwood's key focus of the investigation - the Smith Sighting - is not found on Mr and Mrs McCann's website.  This may suggest - on one reading of the situation - that there is a fundamental disagreement between the two camps.  Further, the Find Madeline website states: "Based or {sic} more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person."  That is strange since Mr Redwood said he is "almost certain" that it is not -- and what's more, he produced a witness, who himself believes he is the man in question. 

[Alfred R Jones]

Professor Barclay is a former FSS specialist who helped the shape best practice in forensic work in the UK.  He looked at the shutters and introduced some lines of inquiry.  See 36:30 in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE . 

My view is that his perspective is one that needs listening to.  It is nuanced, fair minded and objective.

Why is it your view that another expert on the documentary David Canter (who said 'I still feel abduction is the most likely possibility,') should be disregarded?

[Gadfly2.1]

Why is it your view that another expert on the documentary David Canter (who said 'I still feel abduction is the most likely possibility,') should be disregarded?

David Canter is a criminal behaviouralist.  This is a thread about hard evidence, and criminal behaviouralists do not provide hard evidence, they provide potential theories as to who is responsible for the crime - and during that documentary, Mr Canter does his best to provide some answers.  On the other hand, Dave Barclay takes a scientific approach to his analysis - and finds it very hard to make the evidence tally up in the direction we all would like.

[faithlilly]

Why is it your view that another expert on the documentary David Canter (who said 'I still feel abduction is the most likely possibility,') should be disregarded?

Wasn't the documentary made in 2007, long before the files were released ?

[Alfred R Jones]

My view is that Andy Redwood believed the Tanner sighting was at best poor recall, and at worst, something more sinister.

  What has Redwood stated that leads you to believe that JT had either "poor recall" or was involved in something more sinister?

Second, I would say that Mr Redwood's key focus of the investigation - the Smith Sighting - is not found on Mr and Mrs McCann's website.  This may suggest - on one reading of the situation - that there is a fundamental disagreement between the two camps.  Further, the Find Madeline website states: "Based or {sic} more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person."  That is strange since Mr Redwood said he is "almost certain" that it is not -- and what's more, he produced a witness, who himself believes he is the man in question.

That you choose to read something sinister or strange into this is an issue for you and has no bearing on the reality of the situation.  You are merely surmising and speculating, nothing more.

[Alfred R Jones]

Wasn't the documentary made in 2007, long before the files were released ?

What were in the files that were unknown to him then that might have made him draw a different conclusion now?