Fingerprints

[jassi]

Did she contaminate the scene with her print ? If not, I don't see how it matters.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If I remember correctly, which I usually do, then the lady who dusted the window for fingerprints was wearing only one glove.  Her other hand was bare.

That’s because she was a Michael Jackson fan. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Did she contaminate the scene with her print ? If not, I don't see how it matters.

Why bother wearing one glove?  I’m surprised she didn’t have a fag on, frankly.

[Eleanor]

Did she contaminate the scene with her print ? If not, I don't see how it matters.

Who knows since they almost certainly didn't have her prints on record.

[jassi]

Who knows since they almost certainly didn't have her prints on record.

So just a guess, then?

[Eleanor]

So just a guess, then?

Isn't that what we are all doing?  But The Police might be expected to do a bit better.

[Robittybob1]

So just a guess, then?

Quite an educated guess you'd have to admit!

[Robittybob1]

Indeed you will. Not that it makes any difference if you think otherwise.

Do you ever think of a cover-up?   Well here's a theory: if it was a woman's finger print, OK well blame the GNR for incompetence as  distraction away from the actual perpetrator.

[Holly Goodhead]

We just have to take the PJ's word that it was the GNR officer's fingerprints.

Why?  Have you reason to believe the fingerprint evidence is no longer in evidence making a reevaluation impossible?

[Holly Goodhead]

Especially of those who alledgedly were in and out every 30 minutes. If the cleaner cleaned those doors on Wednesday then the McCanns opened and closed the patio door 12 times on Wednesday evening and 6 times on Thursday evening. Matthew touched it twice on Thursday.

The fingerprint under question is from the side of the patio door. 

I believe it is possible to identify more recent prints over older ones. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Do you ever think of a cover-up?   Well here's a theory: if it was a woman's finger print, OK well blame the GNR for incompetence as  distraction away from the actual perpetrator.

Its how most miscarriages of justice occur.  A theory/suspect is developed and anything that presents that contradicts the theory/suspect is dismissed. 

The wit stat of the GNR officer, Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa, describes how he entered 5A via the front door and thereafter searched the apartment.  He does not mention at any time exiting the apartment via the patio doors and/or searching the patio/garden area below.

[Holly Goodhead]

That's up to YOU to make such a case re Portugal 2007.  And for your 'most countries' claim, which you repeat without any supporting evidence.  While you are at it, please provide supporting evidence that in 2007, it was the norm for officers responding to a missing child call to wear gloves.

Frankly, you appear to be on a mission to support your assertion in the face of the facts.

The Trovão response clearly shows Portugal did NOT have such a facility in 2007.

Hopefully, your theory is more robust than your current argument.

Using capitals just makes you seem shouty. 

Your argument is that it was better for PJ to fire off numerous requests all over the globe before eliminating officers at the soc.

Please supply a copy of Portugal's police training manual for 2007.  I would be most surprised if I  discovered that when called to an incident where the parents of a missing child are screaming abduction officers take it upon themselves to search an apartment ungloved.  If this is the case then it does not support the idea PJ were fit for purpose.

I wouldn't concern yourself with my theory.  I'm sure yours is infinitely superior given the hours/posts you have dedicated to this single case.   

[jassi]

Using capitals just makes you seem shouty. 

Your argument is that it was better for PJ to fire off numerous requests all over the globe before eliminating officers at the soc.

Please supply a copy of Portugal's police training manual for 2007.  I would be most surprised if I  discovered that when called to an incident where the parents of a missing child are screaming abduction officers take it upon themselves to search an apartment ungloved.  If this is the case then it does not support the idea PJ were fit for purpose.

I wouldn't concern yourself with my theory.  I'm sure yours is infinitely superior given the hours/posts you have dedicated to this single case.   

ONLY IF THE WHOLE OR A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE MESSAGE IS IN UPPER CASE.   

[ShiningInLuz]

Using capitals just makes you seem shouty. 

Your argument is that it was better for PJ to fire off numerous requests all over the globe before eliminating officers at the soc.

Please supply a copy of Portugal's police training manual for 2007.  I would be most surprised if I  discovered that when called to an incident where the parents of a missing child are screaming abduction officers take it upon themselves to search an apartment ungloved.  If this is the case then it does not support the idea PJ were fit for purpose.

I wouldn't concern yourself with my theory.  I'm sure yours is infinitely superior given the hours/posts you have dedicated to this single case.   

You've ducked the question yet again.

I am beginning to detect a trend.

[Holly Goodhead]

ONLY IF THE WHOLE OR A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE MESSAGE IS IN UPPER CASE.   

Not when the emphasis is on the pronoun. 

Anyway lets get back on topic, shall we?