do you think maddie is alive or dead

Donjeta said:

That sounds very James Bond but have you ever seen private searches like that happen in real life and is it even legal in Portugal to use cutting edge listening technology etc. without warrants to spy on the population as a whole, consisting of predominantly innocent people?

Were the 110 houses in Iowa searched by the girls' families or law enforcement?

Click to expand...

Law enforcement.

They are usually the only ones with the resources to engage in such operations. The blitz included infra red aircraft and door to door.

Most private investigators work outside the law. Their goal is information and they will take risks to get it. Profit is their reward, ie, they get paid well. In the case of the McCann, the legality of listening devices and going through garbage bins would be neither here nor there. They had plenty of money and more than enough access to top class investigators well used to skirting the "law". The idea is to get the child, or get information that leads to the child, at all costs.

I don't know about you, but if a private investigator came knocking on my door asking about the guy next door and waving a $50, I'd tell him whatever he wanted to know.

So would most "innocent people"...in my world, anyway.

I live in a world where politicians lie, money can buy most things, doctors are not necessarily saints, and only abusers go out drinking while leaving their babies alone at home.

:dunno:

These things may seem outrageous to you, but they shape my opinion, inevitably.

:cow:

SapphireSteel said:

Law enforcement.

They are usually the only ones with the resources to engage in such operations. The blitz included infra red aircraft and door to door.

Click to expand...

That was sort of my point. I don't find it fair to blame private citizens for not conducting larger-than-life operations. Even that search in Iowa you mention didn't put everybody in a 1000 square km area under constant tracking and surveillance. 110 houses is a far cry from a 1000 sq km area unless they're really big houses. I have never heard of any search operation for any missing person conducted by anyone anywhere that minutely tracked everything and everyone in a 1000 sq km area but I am ready to be enlightened if it actually goes on somewhere.

Most private investigators work outside the law. Their goal is information and they will take risks to get it. Profit is their reward, ie, they get paid well. In the case of the McCann, the legality of listening devices and going through garbage bins would be neither here nor there. They had plenty of money and more than enough access to top class investigators well used to skirting the "law". The idea is to get the child, or get information that leads to the child, at all costs.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know. A lot of people seem to think that doing things legally is either here or there. It might be somewhat difficult for the fund to pay for an illegal operation if they have to keep accounts and report to someone.

I don't know about you, but if a private investigator came knocking on my door asking about the guy next door and waving a $50, I'd tell him whatever he wanted to know.

So would most "innocent people"...in my world, anyway.

Click to expand...

Yeah, quite possibly. But most innocent people, if they knew that the guy next door had hidden Madeleine in his closet would already have called LE many moons ago.

Knocking on every door asking about every guy next door within a 1000 square km area would take so much manpower and generate so much irrelevant information that it would take an army of apes with typewriters to even write it all down let alone find what if anything is useful amid all that random gossip.

I live in a world where politicians lie, money can buy most things, doctors are not necessarily saints, and only abusers go out drinking while leaving their babies alone at home.

:dunno:

These things may seem outrageous to you, but they shape my opinion, inevitably.

:cow:

Click to expand...

I am not in disagreement about any of that but I did not realize that we live in a world where private citizens are at fault if they fail to conduct such impossibly large scale KGB operations that are beyond the capabilities of most if not all law enforcement agencies.

MOO and all that.
Let's blame the McCanns for leaving their children in a hotel room alone and for killing and disposing of Madeleine if that's what they did but not for not achieving the impossible.

While the Madeleine fund is a sizable chunk of money it's not an infinite supply.
According to Wikipedia it had collected £1,095,000 by 30 October 2007. I don't know about the later figures but the rate of donations has probably dwindled down a lot. A few million pounds at most. I wonder how many nanoseconds of constant surveillance of everyone in a 1000 sq km area it would pay for.

It's quite possible that the Fund could have done more in order to try to search for Madeleine with the resources they had but I think the scale of the operation that you call for would be totally unrealistic.

The average population density in Portugal is 115 per square kilometer. That would make it 115 000 people within 1000 sq kilometers. The Fund had about one million pounds back at the beginning when the surveillance would have been the most effective. 1 million pounds per 115 000 inhabitants means 8,7 pounds per person. I don't think that 8,7 pounds will buy you a whole lot of effective, constant, high-tech surveillance. Infrared cameras don't know which warm dot could be Madeleine, you need lots of analysis and putting data together to figure out which dots belong to which persons that are accounted for and which dots are tourists, visitors and transients that aren't in your list of residents and which dots may possibly represent abducted children hidden in the closet, and it's going to cost a lot. And this is all assuming that Madeleine was still alive and still in the area by the time they had got that one million pounds together which may or may not be true. If private investigators went around handing 50 dollar bills for everyone so that they'd spill the dirt on their neighbors it would be widely talked about, the abductor would have to get wind of the operation and might decide to leave asap.

It woudl be highly illegal apart from anything else to track people without going through the police.

There is no evidence the parents were involved, no possible way for them to have hidden a body in the time available etc (they either had up to an hour in broad daylight or five minutes in the dark to find madeleine dead, walk through the village they did not know well, hide her body in a public accesible area so well that it was never found, and wlak back again, change for dinner and behave normally - just not possible)
But it is possible an abductor walked in through the unlocked patio doors, picked her up and walked out again in under five minutes. ten people saw a man carrying a child who could have fitted madeleine's description, and as of yet has not come forward. The abductor could have been local, or been based anywhere in the EU and targeted a holiday resort where it was known there were a lot of children).
The police can do door to door searches, but only with eprmission or a search warrant. It does not appear the PJ attempted this. In the UK when a child goes missing, the police are out in force straight away, helicopters are deployed straight away, drones can be used etc. None of this happened for madeleine, it was not the parents fault.

Donjeta said:

That was sort of my point. I don't find it fair to blame private citizens for not conducting larger-than-life operations. Even that search in Iowa you mention didn't put everybody in a 1000 square km area under constant tracking and surveillance. 110 houses is a far cry from a 1000 sq km area unless they're really big houses. I have never heard of any search operation for any missing person conducted by anyone anywhere that minutely tracked everything and everyone in a 1000 sq km area but I am ready to be enlightened if it actually goes on somewhere.




Well, I don't know. A lot of people seem to think that doing things legally is either here or there. It might be somewhat difficult for the fund to pay for an illegal operation if they have to keep accounts and report to someone.



Yeah, quite possibly. But most innocent people, if they knew that the guy next door had hidden Madeleine in his closet would already have called LE many moons ago.

Knocking on every door asking about every guy next door within a 1000 square km area would take so much manpower and generate so much irrelevant information that it would take an army of apes with typewriters to even write it all down let alone find what if anything is useful amid all that random gossip.



I am not in disagreement about any of that but I did not realize that we live in a world where private citizens are at fault if they fail to conduct such impossibly large scale KGB operations that are beyond the capabilities of most if not all law enforcement agencies.

MOO and all that.
Let's blame the McCanns for leaving their children in a hotel room alone and for killing and disposing of Madeleine if that's what they did but not for not achieving the impossible.

While the Madeleine fund is a sizable chunk of money it's not an infinite supply.
According to Wikipedia it had collected £1,095,000 by 30 October 2007. I don't know about the later figures but the rate of donations has probably dwindled down a lot. A few million pounds at most. I wonder how many nanoseconds of constant surveillance of everyone in a 1000 sq km area it would pay for.

It's quite possible that the Fund could have done more in order to try to search for Madeleine with the resources they had but I think the scale of the operation that you call for would be totally unrealistic.

The average population density in Portugal is 115 per square kilometer. That would make it 115 000 people within 1000 sq kilometers. The Fund had about one million pounds back at the beginning when the surveillance would have been the most effective. 1 million pounds per 115 000 inhabitants means 8,7 pounds per person. I don't think that 8,7 pounds will buy you a whole lot of effective, constant, high-tech surveillance. Infrared cameras don't know which warm dot could be Madeleine, you need lots of analysis and putting data together to figure out which dots belong to which persons that are accounted for and which dots are tourists, visitors and transients that aren't in your list of residents and which dots may possibly represent abducted children hidden in the closet, and it's going to cost a lot. And this is all assuming that Madeleine was still alive and still in the area by the time they had got that one million pounds together which may or may not be true. If private investigators went around handing 50 dollar bills for everyone so that they'd spill the dirt on their neighbors it would be widely talked about, the abductor would have to get wind of the operation and might decide to leave asap.

Click to expand...

You know they had the unswerving support of Richard Branson, JK Rowling, and Brian Kennedy, mystery gazillionaire, right?

They didn't even have to PAY the detectives from the fund, nor buy any equipment...in fact the claims are Kennedy paid for most of it in the early days. He allegedly paid for Metodo 3 and is now paying Carter Ruck, for example.

:banghead:

They literally had (have) access to a bottomless well of money...which pretty much translates into a bottomless well of power, too.

:cow:

SapphireSteel said:

You know they had the unswerving support of Richard Branson, JK Rowling, and Brian Kennedy, mystery gazillionaire, right?

They didn't even have to PAY the detectives from the fund, nor buy any equipment...in fact the claims are Kennedy paid for most of it in the early days. He allegedly paid for Metodo 3 and is now paying Carter Ruck, for example.

:banghead:

They literally had (have) access to a bottomless well of money...which pretty much translates into a bottomless well of power, too.

:cow:

Click to expand...

I don't know what Metodo 3 and Carter Ruck charge for their services but I'm certain that it is merely a fraction of the cost of putting 115 000 people and 1000 square miles under the kind of surveillance you suggest. How many detectives were paid for? Have you given any thought how many it would take to comb through the data you suggest should have been collected?

No one has access to a bottomless pit of money, not even Richard Branson, JK Rowling, and Brian Kennedy.

I don't know any of them personally but I think it's a bit of a leap of faith to suggest that they'd have been ready and willing to pay for an illegal operation that must cost billions.

Donjeta said:

I don't know what Metodo 3 and Carter Ruck charge for their services but I'm certain that it is merely a fraction of the cost of putting 115 000 people and 1000 square miles under the kind of surveillance you suggest. How many detectives were paid for? Have you given any thought how many it would take to comb through the data you suggest should have been collected?

No one has access to a bottomless pit of money, not even Richard Branson, JK Rowling, and Brian Kennedy.

I don't know any of them personally but I think it's a bit of a leap of faith to suggest that they'd have been ready and willing to pay for an illegal operation that must cost billions.

Click to expand...

Why would it cost billions? They could sweep a street a night by van.

90% of the technology would be listening, cheap and non invasive. Questioning neighbours and local workers is also cheap - most people are just dying to talk. Going through garbage bins is free.

:cow:

SapphireSteel said:

Why would it cost billions? They could sweep a street a night by van.

90% of the technology would be listening, cheap and non invasive. Questioning neighbours and local workers is also cheap - most people are just dying to talk. Going through garbage bins is free.

:cow:

Click to expand...

I don't think you've quite thought this through.

Have you got any idea how many garbage bins there are in a 1000 square km area and how much manpower you would need to go through all of them? This is the trash from 115 000 people. You would have to accomplish this in a very few days before the trash gets collected since the chances are that if the abductor discarded Madeleine's clothes, or God forbid, her body, or his own clothes that he used in the abduction, they would be found shortly afterwards. If you go through garbage bins later the odds of finding anything are much smaller.How many garbage bins can one guy check in a day? If LE checks dumpsters legally they sometimes tow them away and use machinery but if these private investigators are trying to do a clandestine operation (and avoid getting arrested if someone gets annoyed that trespassers people are going through their garbage bin in their backyard) they probably have to do it in a more difficult way. How many lab technicians you need to analyze the findings and see what, if anything, is related to Madeleine's disappearance? None of the garbage bin searches are of any use if there is a lot of backlog in getting the lab results. If going through all the garbage bins in a 1000 square km area was cheap and easy I'm sure the police would do that more often in missing person searches.

How many vans you would need driving in that area to get it well covered by your cheap listening technology and listen to 11500o people? How much listening time do you think is enough to consider that you have the person "tracked and accounted for"? How big a sample is needed to rule a person out as the abductor? Have you given any thought about what to do with the results? How many hours of random noise and irrelevant conversations would the investigators have to wade through in order to find anything relevant to Madeleine's disappearance? How many people do you think you would need to accomplish that in a reasonably short time? (because we don't want to get the correct tape and listen to it weeks or months or years later only to discover that it's too late to do anything about it to save Madeleine or get the guy) How many people sitting at how many computers putting together the data from the listening devices and the garbage bins and the resident lists to figure out who are plausible suspects?

And yeah, questioning neighbors may be free as far as paying them goes but have you got enough experienced investigators to question them for free of charge or would you actually have to pay for all the people who go from door to door and ask questions? If you talk to a thousand people for five minutes each for 12 hours per day, (not counting travel time and the time spent knocking on doors with no answer), it takes one guy a week. How many neighbors do you think you have to question before everyone's movements are accounted for?

Where and how are you going to hire all these people so that they get all this done within a few days of Madeleine's disappearance? If they get there months later when enough donations have been collected the chances are there is less evidence left to find. It would be good if they had some investigative experience too to be able to use that high-tech technology and to help them to know what to look for in the garbage bins and the interviews.

Donjeta said:

I don't think you've quite thought this through.

Have you got any idea how many garbage bins there are in a 1000 square km area and how much manpower you would need to go through all of them? This is the trash from 115 000 people. You would have to accomplish this in a very few days before the trash gets collected since the chances are that if the abductor discarded Madeleine's clothes, or God forbid, her body, or his own clothes that he used in the abduction, they would be found shortly afterwards. If you go through garbage bins later the odds of finding anything are much smaller.How many garbage bins can one guy check in a day? If LE checks dumpsters legally they sometimes tow them away and use machinery but if these private investigators are trying to do a clandestine operation (and avoid getting arrested if someone gets annoyed that trespassers people are going through their garbage bin in their backyard) they probably have to do it in a more difficult way. How many lab technicians you need to analyze the findings and see what, if anything, is related to Madeleine's disappearance? None of the garbage bin searches are of any use if there is a lot of backlog in getting the lab results. If going through all the garbage bins in a 1000 square km area was cheap and easy I'm sure the police would do that more often in missing person searches.

How many vans you would need driving in that area to get it well covered by your cheap listening technology and listen to 11500o people? How much listening time do you think is enough to consider that you have the person "tracked and accounted for"? How big a sample is needed to rule a person out as the abductor? Have you given any thought about what to do with the results? How many hours of random noise and irrelevant conversations would the investigators have to wade through in order to find anything relevant to Madeleine's disappearance? How many people do you think you would need to accomplish that in a reasonably short time? (because we don't want to get the correct tape and listen to it weeks or months or years later only to discover that it's too late to do anything about it to save Madeleine or get the guy) How many people sitting at how many computers putting together the data from the listening devices and the garbage bins and the resident lists to figure out who are plausible suspects?

Where and how are you going to hire all these people so that they get all this done within a few days of Madeleine's disappearance? If they get there months later when enough donations have been collected the chances are there is less evidence left to find.

Click to expand...

My original statement is regarding a live Madeleine. (By the way, I do not believe she is alive). They have had 5 years to locate a live Madeleine in or around PDL, or a dead one for that matter.

My statements are always addressing some aspect a McCann supporter has stated is "impossible". In this case, my point (which I think seems to have escaped YOU) is that they spent millions, allegedly on searching, yet have found exactly....nothing. Not a shred, not a whisper, not a rumour. Nothing.

But you're quite right, absolutely ridiculous isn't it, to even try...so why did they accept the money at all?

Why hire investigators and private detectives?

Why bother? As you point out, it's useless.

That would in turn mean that they have accepted the money under false pretences, no?

:banghead:

SapphireSteel said:

My original statement is regarding a live Madeleine. (By the way, I do not believe she is alive). They have had 5 years to locate a live Madeleine in or around PDL, or a dead one for that matter.

My statements are always addressing some aspect a McCann supporter has stated is "impossible". In this case, my point (which I think seems to have escaped YOU) is that they spent millions, allegedly on searching, yet have found exactly....nothing. Not a shred, not a whisper, not a rumour. Nothing.

But you're quite right, absolutely ridiculous isn't it, to even try...so why did they accept the money at all?

Why hire investigators and private detectives?

Why bother? As you point out, it's useless.

That would in turn mean that they have accepted the money under false pretences, no?

:banghead:

Click to expand...

No. I am definitely not saying that it's ridiculous to try to search for one's missing child. Never in a million years.

What I'm saying is that it's ridiculous to blame anybody for not putting up the kind of an impossible espionage operation that you suggest should have been done.

You have to consider the resources available and then the most effective way of using them. I don't think going through thousands of totally irrelevant garbage bins and listening to random conversations is necessarily the most effective way of searching for a missing child.

Whether the Fund has been effective enough I don't know but I don't think they could have done anything in the scale you're proposing they should have and gotten results. For one thing, that big an operation would create lots of buzz in the neighborhood and if the abductor was still in the area with Madeleine he would have time to stuff her in his trunk and leave.

As for getting money on false pretences, if the McCanns know that Madeleine is dead but yet are soliciting money that is allegedly going for searching for her living, it would of course be very wrong. But in case they're innocent they would hardly be the first parents who get donations to search for their missing child yet never find out what happened to their child.

Donjeta said:

No. I am definitely not saying that it's ridiculous to try to search for one's missing child. Never in a million years.

What I'm saying is that it's ridiculous to blame anybody for not putting up the kind of an impossible espionage operation that you suggest should have been done.

You have to consider the resources available and then the most effective way of using them. I don't think going through thousands of totally irrelevant garbage bins and listening to random conversations is necessarily the most effective way of searching for a missing child.

Whether the Fund has been effective enough I don't know but I don't think they could have done anything in the scale you're proposing they should have and gotten results. For one thing, that big an operation would create lots of buzz in the neighborhood and if the abductor was still in the area with Madeleine he would have time to stuff her in his trunk and leave.

As for getting money on false pretences, if the McCanns know that Madeleine is dead but yet are soliciting money that is allegedly going for searching for her living, it would of course be very wrong. But in case they're innocent they would hardly be the first parents who get donations to search for their missing child yet never find out what happened to their child.

Click to expand...

No, which would lead into yet another pointless debate about why they didn't set the fund up as a charity so it could help all children, not just Madeleine.

At the end of the day, there is no evidence of an abductor.

Not on the night, not at any stage afterwards, despite millions of pounds and the passage of 5 years and the involvement of 2 police forces.

There is however, evidence of a dead body matching a child of the McCanns, in and around 5a.

:cow:

Carter ruck get paid in a conditional fee arrangement. This means that the lawyer takes no money from the mccanns even if the mccanns win. Instead if the defendent loses they have to pay carter rucks fees in addition to any fines/compensation etc, but if the defendent wins then carter ruck are insured. So carter ruck have not received any payment in relation to the mccans.

They did not set up the fund as a charity because they wished to find madeleine, and use all the money for their daughter. If my child got cancer and needed money raised for specialist treatment, and people gave me money for this treatment, I would not say s@d my child I am donating it so it can be split up between all children, why shoudl my child get it. besides the original donations were given specifically for madeleine, so the mccanns did not have the right to donate it to other children.

And it woudl be illegal to track everyone within the range you desribed, I hrdly think refusing to commit a crime means the mccanns are likely criminals. P.Is have to work within the law, and given that Pis cannot be use din Portugal during an investigation it woudl be even more difficult for them to track Portuguese residents.

It is also untrue that eveidence of a dead body of a child belonging to the mccanns was found near or in 5a. No evidence of a dead body was found, no evidence that madeleine mccann was dead was found.

There is no evidence against the mccanns (the ag final report says that the evidence they thought they had did nto come to anything under analysis) and no possible way that between five thirty when madeleine was last seen by those outside the tapas nine, and ten when the alarm was raised that they could have hidden her body so well it was never found (one hour in daylight, five in the dark, to on foot with no digging implements hide a body in a place they did not know, where they only had access to public areas, and if they did it during the hour they also had to change for dinner). Instead we have evidence of an unlocked flat right next to the road with no lighting outside, unidentified fingerprints, and ten witnesses saying they saw a man carrying a child fitting madeleine's description who has yet to come forward.

brit1981 said:

Carter ruck get paid in a conditional fee arrangement. This means that the lawyer takes no money from the mccanns even if the mccanns win. Instead if the defendent loses they have to pay carter rucks fees in addition to any fines/compensation etc, but if the defendent wins then carter ruck are insured. So carter ruck have not received any payment in relation to the mccans.

They did not set up the fund as a charity because they wished to find madeleine, and use all the money for their daughter. If my child got cancer and needed money raised for specialist treatment, and people gave me money for this treatment, I would not say s@d my child I am donating it so it can be split up between all children, why shoudl my child get it. besides the original donations were given specifically for madeleine, so the mccanns did not have the right to donate it to other children.

And it woudl be illegal to track everyone within the range you desribed, I hrdly think refusing to commit a crime means the mccanns are likely criminals. P.Is have to work within the law, and given that Pis cannot be use din Portugal during an investigation it woudl be even more difficult for them to track Portuguese residents.

It is also untrue that eveidence of a dead body of a child belonging to the mccanns was found near or in 5a. No evidence of a dead body was found, no evidence that madeleine mccann was dead was found.

There is no evidence against the mccanns (the ag final report says that the evidence they thought they had did nto come to anything under analysis) and no possible way that between five thirty when madeleine was last seen by those outside the tapas nine, and ten when the alarm was raised that they could have hidden her body so well it was never found (one hour in daylight, five in the dark, to on foot with no digging implements hide a body in a place they did not know, where they only had access to public areas, and if they did it during the hour they also had to change for dinner). Instead we have evidence of an unlocked flat right next to the road with no lighting outside, unidentified fingerprints, and ten witnesses saying they saw a man carrying a child fitting madeleine's description who has yet to come forward.

Click to expand...

Link please

badhorsie said:

Link please

Click to expand...

i know you asked brit1981 bit from what i have read of the files all fingerprints were identified apart from three sets of partial ones onthe outside of the shutters outside the kids bedroom, you know the jemmied shutters by the alledged intruder, however we have from the files the fact from the group themselves that three of the mccann group tried to open the shutters from the outside that very night shortly after maddie was found missing to see if they could be opened from outside, why they did is anyones guess, but so in all probability was theirs.

On the fingerprints, from the PJ's final report -

When the GNR officers arrived on location, several people had already touched the window and entered Madeleine's and her siblings' bedroom, and later on, when the PJ arrived at the apartment to collect traces, the space had already been rummaged through and contaminated due to the entrance of all of those people and to the fact that everything had been touched, thus rendering inviable, right away, the collection of important elements for the investigation.

In the drama of the moment, nobody – parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel – was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes – apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code – thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.

So...the only fingerprints identified were of Kate and the GNR officer.

No abductor.

:banghead:

I also look to Kate and Gerry for failing to preserve the crime scene. They are actually taught about this in their medical training. As "persons of responsibility" they should have been able to not only cope well with the crisis, they should also have had the presence of mind to keep everyone out of that bedroom.

Should have not left their babies alone either, but that's another thread...

ullhair:

SapphireSteel said:

On the fingerprints, from the PJ's final report -

When the GNR officers arrived on location, several people had already touched the window and entered Madeleine's and her siblings' bedroom, and later on, when the PJ arrived at the apartment to collect traces, the space had already been rummaged through and contaminated due to the entrance of all of those people and to the fact that everything had been touched, thus rendering inviable, right away, the collection of important elements for the investigation.

In the drama of the moment, nobody – parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel – was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes – apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code – thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.

So...the only fingerprints identified were of Kate and the GNR officer.

No abductor.

:banghead:

I also look to Kate and Gerry for failing to preserve the crime scene. They are actually taught about this in their medical training. As "persons of responsibility" they should have been able to not only cope well with the crisis, they should also have had the presence of mind to keep everyone out of that bedroom.

Should have not left their babies alone either, but that's another thread...

ullhair:

Click to expand...

Gerry had been in that room for 6 days. None of his fingerprints were found so why is it strange that no fingerprints from an abductor would be found. Especially considering an abductor would have been in and out and would have been careful about leaving prints where as Gerry wouldn't have.

Also, one adequate fingerprint was found on the side of the patio doors but not matched to a known persons. The report doesn't mention the outside of the window and the inside of the shutters ever being examined or the doorknobs.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm#p4p967

If there is any evidence that doctors are taught about crime scene contamination and sealing a crime then provide a link. You can't just assume.

Also, saying that they should have been able to have coped with a crisis and have the presence of mind to keep everyone out of that room is ridiculous. This was their daughter missing! There is a good reason why surgeons, for example, are not allowed to operate on family members.

Keep blaming the McCanns etc for contaminating the crime scene and ignore that the police who certainly knew to do this let people further contaminate the crime scene, brought the dogs in and dropped *advertiser censored* ash everywhere.

Crazy IMO.

i change my mind weekly on wether i think maddies parents had anything to do with it...i now see it as it being easier for a stranger to take her than her parents killing her hide her and still be actively searching for her without cracking..today i believe she was taken but was killed along time ago..

Gem2626 said:

Gerry had been in that room for 6 days. None of his fingerprints were found so why is it strange that no fingerprints from an abductor would be found. Especially considering an abductor would have been in and out and would have been careful about leaving prints where as Gerry wouldn't have.

Also, one adequate fingerprint was found on the side of the patio doors but not matched to a known persons. The report doesn't mention the outside of the window and the inside of the shutters ever being examined or the doorknobs.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm#p4p967

If there is any evidence that doctors are taught about crime scene contamination and sealing a crime then provide a link. You can't just assume.

Also, saying that they should have been able to have coped with a crisis and have the presence of mind to keep everyone out of that room is ridiculous. This was their daughter missing! There is a good reason why surgeons, for example, are not allowed to operate on family members.

Keep blaming the McCanns etc for contaminating the crime scene and ignore that the police who certainly knew to do this let people further contaminate the crime scene, brought the dogs in and dropped *advertiser censored* ash everywhere.

Crazy IMO.

Click to expand...

id like to see a link from the files stating police dropped *advertiser censored* ash everywhere, ta

As for the inside of the shutters no ones prints would be on there, you dont jemmy shutters from the inside to open them, you dont touch them ever, you dont need to for any reason, you use the cord designed to

The patio door prints could have been anyones anyone who touched that part of the door over ages and it was not cleaned so that is clutching at short straws at best

the bedroom window was not tampered with, no marks or damage were found, which should have been if any alledged intruder entered from there which is extremely unlikely

It just seems to me that either the fingerprint search was rather haphazard or it's the places that they searched had been cleaned very well. It just boggles the mind that more unidentified fingerprints aren't found in a hotel room.

If there was an abductor he would have worn gloves if he had any sense. JMO.

The fingerprint search was not done well according to the reports. Even amaral admits that they did not do it well because they were not usually doing these sort of searches or something. The fingerprint search was done after the flat had been searched by staff, yet their fingerprints were not found either, which seems odd.
But like you say an abductor could easily have worn gloves.

There is also no reaosn the window could nto have been opened by an abductor from the inside, either to pass her to soemone else, or as an emergency escape route. According to police and insurance companies, intruders often make an escape route upon entering so as to avoid being cornered. I do not think an abductor woudl have entered the window, when they coudl have gone in the patio doors much more easily.

Gem2626 said:

Gerry had been in that room for 6 days. None of his fingerprints were found so why is it strange that no fingerprints from an abductor would be found. Especially considering an abductor would have been in and out and would have been careful about leaving prints where as Gerry wouldn't have.

Also,one adequate fingerprint was found on the side of the patio doors but not matched to a known persons. The report doesn't mention the outside of the window and the inside of the shutters ever being examined or the doorknobs.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm#p4p967

If there is any evidence that doctors are taught about crime scene contamination and sealing a crime then provide a link. You can't just assume.

Also, saying that they should have been able to have coped with a crisis and have the presence of mind to keep everyone out of that room is ridiculous. This was their daughter missing! There is a good reason why surgeons, for example, are not allowed to operate on family members.

Keep blaming the McCanns etc for contaminating the crime scene and ignore that the police who certainly knew to do this let people further contaminate the crime scene, brought the dogs in and dropped *advertiser censored* ash everywhere.

Crazy IMO.

Click to expand...

Please link that allegation.

:waitasec:

If you google "training, unexpected death, uk" you will find a million different sources, but every health care professional in the uk from bum wipers up is taught some version of the following. this - admittedly the one I've copied is about a deceased child, but it's the same guidelines for suspicious death which all doctors MUST have. They are trained to preserve the scene.

As health care professionals are concerned with well being, this training should have kicked in for at least one of them for a disappeared one.

Even if the McCann had been stressed beyond rational thought, their friends were doctors and other "professionals" so what's their excuse?

ullhair:

5.5 The first professional on the scene should note the position of the child, the clothing worn and the circumstances of how the child was found. Those remaining at the scene should be asked not to disturb or move items around where the child was found until he/she has been seen by the police. This can be extremely important in helping the family to understand why their child has died.



<modsnip>.

:cow: