Is This True? ""partial footwear mark" found just outside Madeleine's bedroom"?

[Brietta]

Seriously in what sense?  Well what did you think of the report of a dog attack to her lower right leg.  Wasn't the footwear print from the right foot?  (I'll have to recheck that).

The incident happened after Madeleine's disappearance so even if the dog bite had resulted in a bad bite the resultant blood would have had no significance other than that Kate had been bitten.

[ShiningInLuz]

There is an examination for footprints in the file.

But no footprint, let alone a bloody one.

[Robittybob1]

I don't think it was found at all, Robitty, just a myth.  If there had been such evidence the Portuguese crime scene specialists would have logged it and it would have been photographed and that would have been recorded in the files.

It wasn't.

I believe out of the same stable there was something about a bloody footprint on the Renault bumper.

Well it would hardly be the McCanns saying they left footwear marks on the bumper consistent with them carrying a body into the boot!

[Brietta]

But no footprint, let alone a bloody one.

Footprints were mentioned as being there but there was too much contamination for meaningful analysis.  It is probably the origin of the story ... the dragon's blood used by the scientific team was red.

[Robittybob1]

Whoever wrote that about the bumper can't have realised the Renault wasn't hired till at least 20 days after the event.
When I think about it, blood on a foot print have could come from standing on a mouse.  Therefore blood on a bumper is only really important if it was human blood and then human blood from a female, and even more damning if it was Madeleine's blood.

It was supposedly only a shoe print on the bumper not a bloodied shoe print, and the opposite foot too (one was right and the other was the left foot).

[Brietta]

Well it would hardly be the McCanns saying they left footwear marks on the bumper consistent with them carrying a body into the boot!

Is there a record of a footprint bloody or otherwise on the bumper which was traced to a GNR officer (as the story goes)?

I do not think so.

[Robittybob1]

Pamalam provides a wonderful database, packed with reports and images that we need and use .... Well done Pamalam .... and I thank her for that .


However, from comments on the pages of her website, she presents comments and articles that, IMO, are biased against The Mccanns.

I believe that she is firmly against The Mccanns.     For this reason, apart from facts, I am cautious about what she says on her webpages.


If she were to remove these IMO adverse comments, I would gladly make a decent contribution to help keep her webpage running.   



The long and short of this post is .... Can you trust a biased website to give unbiased information?   I personally find it difficult.

Before the abnormal, bullying, CITES demands come up, I am not providing any cites.  Go and look and judge for yourselves.

From what was written on the page quoted in the OP I'd say she was a firm believer in Madeleine being abducted.  She might blame the McCann's parenting style for allowing that to happen.

[Robittybob1]

Is there a record of a footprint bloody or otherwise on the bumper which was traced to a GNR officer (as the story goes)?

I do not think so.

Was that a question or a FAQ?

[Brietta]

Was that a question or a FAQ?

I've only seen the claim made in blogs ... I've seen nothing concerning it in the forensic reports.

[Sunny]

I've only seen the claim made in blogs ... I've seen nothing concerning it in the forensic reports.

It was actually in the Standard, Brietta.  I had never head about the footprint on the boot so I had a look on google.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-bloody-footprint-found-in-mccanns-apartment-6642364.html

[Robittybob1]

If the paper has seen the reports from the lab and the same reports are not in the released file who's fault is that?

[Brietta]

If the paper has seen the reports from the lab and the same reports are not in the released file who's fault is that?

The papers would not have seen any forensic reports from the Portuguese lab under the secrecy of justice laws.

[Robittybob1]

The papers would not have seen any forensic reports from the Portuguese lab under the secrecy of justice laws.

And if that happened in England?

[Brietta]

And if that happened in England?

The FSS were not involved in the Portuguese investigation at that time ... but in common with their Portuguese counterparts their work was not for public distribution it was information for prosecutors and the police to be considered as probable evidence in a criminal trial.

[Robittybob1]

The FSS were not involved in the Portuguese investigation at that time ... but in common with their Portuguese counterparts their work was not for public distribution it was information for prosecutors and the police to be considered as probable evidence in a criminal trial.

What I meant was what if the person with the information was in England at the time, would they still be bound by the Portuguese laws?