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

[Benice]

That black item is still seen on the sofa.

Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot. (PS)

If that was Gerry's jacket and he had  carried a dead body against it - it would reek of cadaverscent, and so would the settee where it had lain for hours on end.    But no alert by Eddie from that settee.   

[pegasus]

Early photos are hard evidence, useful for the observation of trifles
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foto1.jpg

[Brietta]

No statement mentions looking under the pile  of clothes, or in the bag, or in the left top or right top cupboards.
So I assume each person didn't, until proven otherwise.
Never trust to general impressions.

I quite often get castigated when I remark on what I think may be the shortcomings in the police investigations.  I have criticised some of the aspects of the search, but it has never occurred to me that they failed to open cupboard doors to check clothing or the contents of bags some think large enough to hold a child's body.

[Carana]

Police were completely unable to obtain a door key for 5J (and there is hard evidence for that).

Picking up on this, Pegasus. Where did you find that the police were unable to find a key for 5J?

All I can find from the files is this, which doesn't make it clear whether they'd found a key or not. If they hadn't, the PJ would have presumably needed a search warrant (and I haven't checked that yet). On the other hand, I haven't found anything to suggest that there was any follow-up to this.



On 10th May at about 20.10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.

All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5 J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.

After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.

During the searches carried out in the apartments no sign of the girl was found by the dogs.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm

[Alice Purjorick]

I quite often get castigated when I remark on what I think may be the shortcomings in the police investigations.  I have criticised some of the aspects of the search, but it has never occurred to me that they failed to open cupboard doors to check clothing or the contents of bags some think large enough to hold a child's body.

How do you know they didn't?

[pathfinder73]

Please stop obsessing over the colour of clothing items rather than admitting it is almost impossible to categorically determine from the photos the exact type of attire it is.
The statement from TA can equally be applied to clothing seized at Casa Liliana.

The efits don't look like Robert Murat nor the man's physical description (Average build, in good shape) and the dogs didn't alert at his property or his vehicles.

Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately. (MS)

And what's it doing on the sofa? It had to be worn that night. You wear a jacket when it's cold at night not in the daytime. Both items were worn that night or they would be in the wardrobe IMO.

[pegasus]

I quite often get castigated when I remark on what I think may be the shortcomings in the police investigations.  I have criticised some of the aspects of the search, but it has never occurred to me that they failed to open cupboard doors to check clothing or the contents of bags some think large enough to hold a child's body.

Just saying, in that early 4th May photo are several spaces we can't see into, that's all, examining the evidence, not making any assumptions based on theories.

[pathfinder73]

He gave them the key to the church on the 7th or 8th May upon the suggestion of John Geraghty, a resident of the parish, so that they could calmly go to the church without any media pressure. Someone from the church gave the key to John Geraghty, who then passed it on to the McCann's, with Father Pacheco's permission.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FATHER_PACHECO.htm

Why hasn't John Geraghty ever been interviewed? Did they get another set of keys?

[pegasus]

@pathfinder IMO there is nothing suspicious about a friend returning a hire car.

[pathfinder73]

@pathfinder IMO there is nothing suspicious about a friend returning a hire car.

It was kept in his garage. Was it searched? Was his properties searched? No he wasn't even interviewed. Why not?

[misty]

The efits don't look like Robert Murat nor the man's physical description (Average build, in good shape) and the dogs didn't alert at his property or his vehicles.

Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately. (MS)

And what's it doing on the sofa? It had to be worn that night. You wear a jacket when it's cold at night not in the daytime. Both items were worn that night or they would be in the wardrobe IMO.

Smithman was not RM, I agree 100%.

Would Gerry have left his jacket off whilst he was out searching in the cold of the night? How many jackets do you think he had with him?

[pathfinder73]

Smithman was not RM, I agree 100%.

Would Gerry have left his jacket off whilst he was out searching in the cold of the night? How many jackets do you think he had with him?

If he was wearing those items then it matches the description. If there's no photos you have to talk to eye witnesses who saw him out searching on the night.

[misty]

If he was wearing those items then it matches the description. If there's no photos you have to talk to eye witnesses who saw him out searching on the night.

What about the shoes?

[pathfinder73]

What about the shoes?

What about them? It don't matter they can't get him on that if it's him but it will put them on the right path.

[misty]

What about them? It don't matter they can't get him on that if it's him but it will put them on the right path.

Of course the shoes matter. Did Gerry have a pair of shoes in 5a on that holiday which matched the description given by the Smiths? Is there any photographic evidence of them?