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

[Lace]

Maybe at the start he believed in the possibility of abduction.

However, there wasn't and that still remains the case.

I do wonder at people who believe in something there is no evidence for. &%+((£

Ah so maybe Amaral in the beginning believed in the possibility of abduction,  but you say there is no evidence of an abduction.

[Lace]

Because, contrary to what some say, he did not just follow one line of inquiry.

In the inquiry it is clear that the PJ never dismissed any information or credible elements that might lead to the revelation of facts, with over 2000 formal and informal diligences carried out over the months, and the PJ having explored, nationally and internationally, all of the information with a higher or lower degree of credibility, with special relevance for tens of supposed sightings or trackings of the child, most of which were widely reported by the press.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

What do you mean he didn't just follow one line of inquiry?   For three months he followed the abduction line of inquiry,  even though he said in his book there was no evidence of one and that the McCann's faked the abduction.

[stephen25000]

Ah so maybe Amaral in the beginning believed in the possibility of abduction,  but you say there is no evidence of an abduction.

You do know lace that nothing has been found, don't you.

At the start they probably believed the parents until they realized the parents accounts were not consistent.

[Mr Gray]

so for those able to follow...enough circumstantial evidence can lead to proof....proof must equate to hard evidence...close the door on your way out

[stephen25000]

so for those able to follow...enough circumstantial evidence can lead to proof....proof must equate to hard evidence...close the door on your way out

There is much circumstantial evidence for abduction as there is for Madeleine being abducted by Entomologists from Gamma Eridani V on a boys night out.

[Mr Gray]

There is much circumstantial evidence for abduction as there is for Madeleine being abducted by Entomologists from Gamma Eridani V on a boys night out.

Richard hall who you greatly admire rates that possibility quite highly

[Lace]

You do know lace that nothing has been found, don't you.

At the start they probably believed the parents until they realized the parents accounts were not consistent.

The fact is that Amaral followed the abduction route even though he said in his book there was no evidence of abduction.    So you see there doesn't have to be evidence does there?

[stephen25000]

Richard hall who you greatly admire rates that possibility quite highly

Now when did I say I greatly admired Hall ?

You need to stop making things up dave, as is your style.

P.S. Have you been to Gamma Eridani V ?

It would place many of your answers in context. *&*%£

[G-Unit]

Ah so maybe Amaral in the beginning believed in the possibility of abduction,  but you say there is no evidence of an abduction.

Abduction was one of the theories they worked on, despite the very small window of opportunity given by the group's statements and the lack of evidence. That theory was just one of several.

[mercury]

A little lesson for Stephen re the relevance of circumstantial evidence...

Validity of circumstantial evidence

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][citation needed] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [3] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Good of you to acknowledge circumstantial evidence. The dog evidence certainly is that.

[pegasus]

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE
Barclay seems to think that the two marks on the exterior of the shutter (36:51) were made from the inside of the room. I think they were maybe made from the outside.

[slartibartfast]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE
Barclay seems to think that the two marks on the exterior of the shutter (36:51) were made from the inside of the room. I think they were maybe made from the outside.

Hmmm, he is a forensic expert?

[Brietta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE
Barclay seems to think that the two marks on the exterior of the shutter (36:51) were made from the inside of the room. I think they were maybe made from the outside.

For its time the Dispatches video presents the very clear, concise and unbiased opinion of experts who have approached the problem in an analytical manner and worked through the problems step by step.
They have come to some very interesting conclusions despite not being in possession of all the facts since at that time much wasn't in the public domain and they were not allowed access to the McCann apartment.

For example ... they obviously did not know that it was possible to raise the window shutters from the outside thinking the internal mechanism was the only means of doing so ... or that the witnesses had interfered with the shutters.
I think Dave Barclay also mentioned lichen on the cill.


36:58  "They're not two thumbs are they?"

"They look thumby"

"Is that from the outside ~ and trying to push it up?  but you would never do that with those shutters because they've got a ratchet handle"[/b]

From 39:40 some very valid points are made about claims which Dave Barclay finds "almost incomprehensible"

40:31  " ... so we should just wait and see what the results show.  It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they will completely exonerate the McCanns."



I wonder what type of conclusions might have been reached had the experts had access to the police files and the final report from the FSS?

The programme as a whole and in particular the summing up at the end gave one a glimpse of how different the approach of a British investigation would have been and the different outcomes which might have been achieved.

One thing which I believe would not have happened would have been the deliberate demonisation of the Drs McCann.

[pegasus]

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.

Lets look at the hard evidence that supposedly shows that KM opened the window.
In https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s
what is your assessment of the photograph at exactly 45:24 ?
and again the close-up at exactly 45.31 ?
What is your opinion of this photo?
Convincing hard evidence that KM opened the window?
wrong wrong wrong 
Here's a clue - that print was definitely not made from just inside the bedroom window, and it was definitely not made from just outside the bedroom window. Work that one out.

[Anna]

Lets look at the hard evidence that supposedly shows that KM opened the window.
In https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s
what is your assessment of the photograph at exactly 45:24 ?
and again the close-up at exactly 45.31 ?
What is your opinion of this photo?
Convincing hard evidence that KM opened the window?
wrong wrong wrong 
Here's a clue - that print was definitely not made from just inside the bedroom window, and it was definitely not made from just outside the bedroom window. Work that one out.

Well spotted, Pegasus. Is the measurement 11 inches from the window handle?

If it was on outside....
The window opens to the inside of the room, so the only way the print could be on the outside, is if it was put there whilst the window was closed and shutters open.

If it was on the inside....
it was a long way from where she could have opened it. However she could have rested her hand there whilst looking out of the open window, which she found open.
In fact she could have left the print, at any time when she slept in that room or checked behind the curtains.

I hope this is what you meant, forgive me if I was wrong and give us the answer to the riddle.