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

[Anna]

IMO on Wednesday the cleaner cleaned at least the floor of the big traffic room which is the living-dining-kitchen-hall (all one room) because IMO any good cleaner would do at least that. BTW I don't know about insides of windows, but outsides of some windows in this block were cleaned by a different person but I don't know if that includes 5A. (Edited)

Would the same mop and bucket be used in all the apartments cleaned, or would they have a cupboard in each apartment ?

If the same mop and bucket was used in all the apartments cleaned in that area/level, it could account for the unidentified hairs etc.

I think all the apartment’s tiled floors would be washed during each cleaning session. It doesn’t take long.

I should have thought that one of the handymen would clean all the external windows in a block.

[pegasus]

Would the same mop and bucket be used in all the apartments cleaned, or would they have a cupboard in each apartment ?

If the same mop and bucket was used in all the apartments cleaned in that area/level, it could account for the unidentified hairs etc.

I think all the apartment’s tiled floors would be washed during each cleaning session. It doesn’t take long.

I should have thought that one of the handymen would clean all the external windows in a block.

Good point. Was there a mop in the apartment?

[Carana]

Would the same mop and bucket be used in all the apartments cleaned, or would they have a cupboard in each apartment ?

If the same mop and bucket was used in all the apartments cleaned in that area/level, it could account for the unidentified hairs etc.

I think all the apartment’s tiled floors would be washed during each cleaning session. It doesn’t take long.

I should have thought that one of the handymen would clean all the external windows in a block.

Good point, Anna. Something else the PJ should have checked.

[Anna]

Good point. Was there a mop in the apartment?

I don't know, Pegasus.
I didn't see a cleaning cupboard anywhere though. I suppose they would have to call reception if cleaning was required after spillage or sickness. I would have thought the cleaners would have at least one cleaning cupboard on each floor.

[pegasus]

I don't know, Pegasus.
I didn't see a cleaning cupboard anywhere though. I suppose they would have to call reception if cleaning was required after spillage or sickness. I would have thought the cleaners would have at least one cleaning cupboard on each floor.

I agree probably the cleaning dept use their own equipment.
The lift means there is no need for a cupboard on every floor.

[Anna]

Good point, Anna. Something else the PJ should have checked.

If the same mop and bucket were used after the McCanns left 5a, surely whatever the dogs alerted too in 5A, would also cause an alert in the other apartments on that floor.
Hair can be so easily transferred on brooms, mops and dusters. Strange that it wasn't checked.

[pegasus]

If the same mop and bucket were used after the McCanns left 5a, surely whatever the dogs alerted too in 5A, would also cause an alert in the other apartments on that floor.
Hair can be so easily transferred on brooms, mops and dusters. Strange that it wasn't checked.

For example almost certainly the adult bedroom floor was mopped by cleaners several times between 3rd May and 31st July and if there was scent on floor would it be transferred between many apartments by mop?

[pegasus]

Re: unidentified hairs

Where ever that same mop and bucket was used, would carry hair and all sorts into 5A . The same applies to hair etc being transferred into other apartments from 5a .

Anywhere the cleaning equipment was used between the McCanns leaving 5a and the dogs coming in would also have been contaminated by whatever the dogs alerted too (if they were positive alerts, that is) Therefore being transferred/cross contaminated into other areas being cleaned.

It shows how something possibly useful can come indirectly from discussing hard evidence (prints). But we are straying a little.

[Anna]

It shows how something possibly useful can come indirectly from discussing hard evidence (prints). But we are straying a little.

My apologies, Cleaning posts is what led to my post. So I guess you are correct in saying it is straying from the topic of hard evidence.
Hairs found are evidence of who was there, but the unidentified ones can not be used as such until identified. No more than unidentified fingerprints on the outside of the shutters can be used as hard evidence.

There is no hard evidence that we know of, except for fingerprints that appear to be from kate. Not however on the window handle as one would expect, if one believes that Kate opened the window(as some people do ).

I will put the bucket/mop post somewhere else and we can hopefully get back on the topic of the thread.
 

[pegasus]

The marks on the outside of the shutter are hard evidence. The marks are indisputably there in photos. The fact they cannot be identified does not stop them being hard evidence.

[Anna]

The marks on the outside of the shutter are hard evidence. The marks are indisputably there in photos. The fact they cannot be identified does not stop them being hard evidence.

But we don't know where they came from any more than the unidentified hairs Pegasus.
It could have been an intruder, window cleaner, repair man, or one of many other people who left them there.

[pegasus]

But we don't know where they came from any more than the unidentified hairs Pegasus.
It could have been an intruder, window cleaner, repair man, or one of many other people who left them there.

Yes but the marks are indisputably there. They can be interpreted many ways. Who made them, and whether they have any relevance, are matters of opinion. But no-one can claim they are not there. (Definition of hard evidence IMO).

[Anna]

Yes but the marks are indisputably there. They can be interpreted many ways. Who made them, and whether they have any relevance, are matters of opinion. But no-one can claim they are not there. (Definition of hard evidence IMO).

Unidentified hair.Unidentified fingerprints,Marks on shutters
Yes, they are evidence, but it requires proof or elimination before it is classed as hard evidence.

Recognized fingerprints are Hard evidence as are recognized hair, DNA and several other factors.

The witnessed fact that the twins appeared to be in an unnatural deep sleep, would  also cause someone to believe it was evidence of  some drug being administered to the children. However they tested negative of any drug content. So evidence and suspicion was eliminated.

Open window-Yes evidence. Evidence of what?......that is still to be verified.

It’s all too iffy.Elimination by studying all other possibilities is the only way that a conclusion can be reached(if at all).
We must be careful not to determine verifiability of evidence and put it in the category of hard evidence.
 
That is why I was trying to find evidence that might be a possible and simple reason for the existence of unidentified hairs in 5A.

[pathfinder73]

The missing girl's hair in the boot will solve this case. It shouldn't be there. Case closed and thank you dogs.

[pegasus]

The drug tests commissioned by that company would, if released, be hard evidence that no drug traces were present in the hairs tested. To claim it is hard evidence about hair many months earlier requires providing data of the lengths of the hairs tested. If someone has long hair you can look a long time back. If someone has short hair you can look only a short time back IMO is that correct?