The police told the mccanns not to contact the media as it would jeopardise all chances of finding Madeleine safe. Also that if she was kidnapped the person involved may harm her due to her identifying (non existent) eye defect. They ignored this advice and rang sky news before even looking for their missing child. They wanted the drama and more importantly wanted the gullible U.K. public to be on their side before the PJ got wind of the truth.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I look at what the PJ/police in Portugal did well and what they didn’t do so well, and since they did more of the latter than the former, my conclusion is that they didn’t do a great job of the investigation, in my opinion.
Likely because they simply weren’t used to this type of investigation but also likely due to working cultures within law enforcement. Some of the mistakes they made were inexcusable.
here’s an opinion piece from a gent who was a superintendent at the time. I pretty much agree with his summary of it;
Madeleine McCann: Investigation was flawed from the start, says senior detective who was there
The detective turned criminologist who was sent to help Portuguese police in 2007 says he had misgivings as to how the most basic of tasks were being carried out.
theconversation.com
Last edited:
This reads like this guy was kept at arms length (perhaps for good reason, eg media leaks) so decided to critique from the sidelines.I look at what the PJ did well and what they didn’t do so well, and since they did more of the latter than the former, my conclusion is that they didn’t do a great job of the investigation, in my opinion.
Likely because they simply weren’t used to this type of investigation but also likely due to working cultures within law enforcement. Some of the mistakes they made were inexcusable.
here’s an opinion piece from a gent who was a superintendent at the time. I pretty much agree with his summary of it;
Madeleine McCann: Investigation was flawed from the start, says senior detective who was there
The detective turned criminologist who was sent to help Portuguese police in 2007 says he had misgivings as to how the most basic of tasks were being carried out.
Also why weren’t all the UK authorities coordinating themselves? It sounds so unnecessarily convoluted from the guys own description. The Portuguese probably could have chewed up all their time liasing with all the various British groups if they didn’t shut at least some of it down.
Also the premise of the article is that Brueckner was missed at the time by the PJ but even now he’s not the guy so it’s a moot point.
To balance it’s worth noting the fuckups from the UK side were monumental and hugely embarrassing, so curious the UK police involved don’t write articles about that https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...leine-mccann-investigation-home-office-report
sorry but I think you’ve read this article completely wrong. The premise of the article isn’t to focus on new leads - it’s a brief reflection on errors that occurred and how they should be addressed in future. It’s a call for better processes to be designed should this happen again.
There’s zero accusation that this man was leaking anything to the press, nor is there evidence of it. He wasn’t kept on the sidelines - he was sent there by the U.K. as part of a government response, and he held a senior role at the time. Hardly someone who is being kept on the sidelines. He isnt critiquing from the sidelines - he’s written an opinion piece supported by his anecdotal experience and from his position in academia. Dr Graham Hill is an internationally recognised and respected British Criminologist, he is a Visiting Research Fellow at Leeds University and is a member of the British Society of Criminology. He isn’t some sleazy cop passing stories to the Daily Mail.
Police bodies and police agencies, not working together well, isn’t a new phenomenon. And it’s not specific to law enforcement agencies either. Different agencies have different ways of working, and yes there is an element of pride and ego and territorialism that gets in the way - but that isn’t the crux of the issue.
the most crucial hours are the first handful immediately after a crime occurs. Most valuable evidence is available in those first few hours. That means that the first respondents in a missing persons, are the most important. The U.K. police, were not the first respondents.
Maddie was observed as being missing at around 10pm, the GNR didn’t arrive until about 11.00-11.15pm. So from the offset, they are sluggish to respond. GNR didn’t secure the scene properly and, by their own admission, when the PJ did turn up (accounts vary when they did, but it was roughly between midnight and 1am) they didn’t investigate the crime scene as an abudiction. They investigated it as a burglary.
there’s a catalogue of errors that follow on from that, sadly. But the errors in the first few hours, and the first few days, are the most impactful. They are what determines the case. Mistakes on a working level, as well as a more strategic level.
one that always stood out to me, was reading that an officer dusted for fingerprints on a window, without wearing gloves or protective clothing. As a professional, that made me internally scream. When taking forensic samples, U.K. police will wear THREE gloves. A cotton glove, which really serves to make the latex ones more comfortable (absorbs sweat etc). Then a latex glove, and a top latex glove above that. The top latex glove will be changed frequently to avoid cross contamination of samples.
These pretty basic steps aren’t just to prevent cross contamination though, they also protect the admissibility of evidence in court - aka a barrister can’t argue for evidence to be thrown out if every single step was taken to obtain it correctly. A rookie knows this process.
So for an officer to be casually taking samples that way? When a child has just gone missing? It defies belief. It’s totally unprofessional, it’s careless and worst case scenario; they could be actively destroying valuable evidence. That’s what I mean when I say they botched it. From the low level stuff and actual practical logistics to the more high level, strategic decisions that weren’t made (road blocks, proper alerts etc).
it was pretty much a lost cause by the time the U.K. police bodies became involved, which is why their processes and failings aren’t as significant.
Mainly because there was actually very little to indicate an abduction https://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.com/2009/08/policemens-tales.html?m=1
So disturbing to read the twins did not wake up through everything that night, those poor babies
Where I live, even at the time Madeleine went missing we had no Police in town after 9pm. Everything was based in the nearest big town, 40 miles away. If a child had gone missing here, it would actually probably take The same length of time for even a PCSO to have arrived, let alone CID.
very little to indicate an abuction?Mainly because there was actually very little to indicate an abduction https://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.com/2009/08/policemens-tales.html?m=1
So disturbing to read the twins did not wake up through everything that night, those poor babies
the mother actively claiming an abduction for one? The opened window? The bleeding missing child?
across the U.K, urban police aim to respond to urgent call outs within 15 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes for rural areas. So over an hour is a long time, especially with something as time critical as a missing child.
if a child went missing near you, wherever you are, an officer would be on the scene within half an hour, maximum.
bobbies on the best, aren’t the same as officers stationed at police stations. Just because you don’t have police with a street presence, doesn’t mean they aren’t active.
is there, or has there ever been a case where the police turn up to investigate a missing child and automatically take the word of the parents or people who had care of the child without question?
yes! Of course! Why wouldn’t they? It isn’t about believing the parents without question. It’s about the most likely scenario - if the destrought parents are claiming that their child is gone and has been taken, and there’s a scene with a missing child and suggestion of an intruder (Open windo) then DUH of course you follow that as a line of enquiry.
it doesn’t have to be the only line of enquiry, but it definitely should be followed up as one.
honestly, it’s accepted generally that the Portuguese police didn’t do a great job. I don’t know why people are bending over backwards to try and reach ridiculous logics to exonerate them, or the what-about-ism.
The window wasn’t open though, was it?
It was hard for the pj to conduct their proper investigations as the mccanns and friends had destroyed all evidence. They’d moved things around, touched everything, walked around etc so therefore no evidence would have been found had someone actually broken in and taken Madeleine. Their priority was writing a timeline of events to keep their story straight, when ordinary people would be running the streets calling madeleines name. They went to a lot of effort to make it known she had been kidnapped and refused to believe all other options. She could have appeared at any moment. They knew she wouldn’t be coming back hence the panic before calling the police. When they arrived they didn’t believe the story based on the scene before them, there are photo in the files too. Given they are professionals and probably see a lot of crime, they know what to look for. They commented how the twins wouldn’t wake despite the hysterical noise and full apartment. Kate said a window had been forced open, not possible as it had a lock and wouldn’t open more than a few inches. She said the cat toy was put on a shelf that Madeleine could reach, there was no shelf. They reported it to the news before the police by the way. I don’t blame Amaral for seeing straight through the drama and realising their version of events wasn’t the full truth. The mccanns were the ones who said the police done a terrible job, but no one can defend or dispute them as we wasn’t there. We have take the police files as truth, if the police had lied we’d have found out fairly quickly.
honestly, it's accepted by the McCanns and their friends and followers (team McCann) that the Portuguese Police didn't do a great job, why! because it suits them to believe this!
Now what about the Leicester Police Force who didn't bother sending the Gasper statements to Portamao until after the McCanns were safely back in Rothley! strange how this ineptness fails to get mentioned!
this is what I mean, this what-about-ism is a silly argument.
Leicestershire police, the met, all the U.K. agencies - they could’ve been awful. They could’ve been totally unhelpful.
but that doesn’t detract from the fact that the GNR and PJ, didn’t do a good job. They didn’t secure the scene on arrival. They didn’t treat the issue wi the urgency. They didn’t follow basic forensic protocols. They didn’t seem to know how or when to introduce bigger, more strategic methodology. They didn’t follow all lines of enquiry - That isn’t just an oversight btw, that’s unlawful. Police have a legal responsibility to follow all credible lines of enquiry.
it isn’t the McCanns that have put this out. It isn’t even the media. Indeed, initially the McCanns publicly supported the PJ despite a relationship deteriorating behind the scenes. It’s by the PJ’s own admission that the GNR didn’t secure the scene, that they didn’t treat it as an abduction. Their own admission. It’s third party witnesses who attested to the GNR, saying that a child was missing and had probably just wandered off. It’s journalists themselves who are saying they received tip offs from within the police.
so, how does the actions of Leicestershire police change any of that? Leicestershire police weren’t in Portugal. They weren’t called to the scene immediately. They weren’t responsible for a crime committed outside their own jurisdiction. They weren’t responsible for conducting stop and search of vehicles. They weren’t responsible for organising Interpol alerts etc.
maybe they turned up and were unhelpful, but that doesn’t really bear much weight on the criticism aimed at the GNR and PJ. It’s a redundant argument and a total fallacy.
The first thing the police need to do in any situation like that is rule out the parents. The McCanns seemed to take this as a huge personal insult which is bizarre behaviour on its own. Why wouldn’t you corporate to have the best chance of finding your daughter?
It’s particularly bizarre given the McCanns massively fucked up by knowingly taking the risk to leave the children in the first place, let alone leaving the doors unlocked and leaving them for considerable chunks of time. (Madeleine was heard sobbing for over an hour the night before). Instead of holding their hands up they doubled down. Add to that all the red flags the Portuguese police were picking up - eg Madeleines bed being left ‘too tidy’, Kate failing to even mention why she thought it was an abduction, the struggle to establish a basic timeline, the twins not waking up, etc - you can see why it turned into such a mess.
no, the first thing to do is secure the scene and preserve evidence. Only after these actions can you use evidence to rule out suspects. The police, failing to find any other credible leads - all the while using questionable policing methods, allowed their suspicion to fall on the McCanns.
this isn’t problematic in and of itself - everyone and their granny knows a child abucution or murder usually comes from within the family and/or is someone known to the child.
the issue with this case is that the police came to this suspicion because of the absence of any other strong leads and, according to them, inconsistencies in Gerrys account. They misunderstood DNA evidence which just served to support their confirmation bias.
inconsistencies don’t mean guilty, necessarily btw.
Didn’t the McCanns allow the Tapas 7 in and out of the apartment before the GNR (local police) attended? Again just bizarre behaviour if you supposedly believed your daughter had been abducted from her bed.
is it bizarre? They were looking for her in case she’d run off somehow. It seems perfectly logical to me that if you couldn’t find your child you’d start looking for them, and you’d look at the area you’d last seen them. It’s perfectly plausible and rationale.
But they didn’t, did they … the first arguido was made after 12 days and was nothing to do with the holiday party. At all. And it was the press going wild over this and the reluctance to find out what being an Arguido actually constituted that came back to bite them when the parents arrived there
You only have to read the released investigation files to see that the Portugese police were following 3 lines of what happened from the start. Tracker dogs were used, Cars and lorries were being stopped at the borders, searches were being carried out locally and as soon it was feasible to do so with light and tides, helicopters and coastguards were deployed.
it wasn’t just inconsistencies in Gerry’s account. It was inconsistencies in all of them, particularly around the checking regime which seems to have been an unworkable tag relay involving not actually seeing the people they were supposed to be checking on the first place. You can see why that needed firming up, but according to the holiday group, the whole timeline hung on one person seeing someone possibly carrying a child and everything else was irrelevant.
i
the McCanns and their cronies contaminated the crime scene from the start! judging by your long posts you seem to have invested a lot of effort in to wanting to blame the Portuguese Police
ok… here goes
1. the arguido stuff - I’m not sure what you’re saying or what your point is here? Because the police named a suspect your logical conclusion is that they therefore must’ve been following all lines of enquiry? They arrested and search the premises of Robert Murat which I think is what you’re referring to, all while using some very suspect techniques. Aka: Using unauthorised surveillance against him... taking him out for a drink in the hopes of getting a drunk confession. A tactic that frankly, is deeply unethical and breaks international human rights law. Yes, really. If Murat HAD killed maddie (he didn’t), the evidence could very well have been made total inadmissible because of how the police collected it. That’s how bad it was. Arresting someone else under dubious circumstances, doesn’t equate to following all reasonable lines of enquiry.
2. Using tracker dogs isn’t a line of enquiry… it might provide a line of enquiry but it isn’t a LoI itself. It’s intelligence gathering. Cars and Lorries were being stopped but this, again, not a LoI (and the process was weak and began too late). None of those things are lines of enquiry… they are procedural. Lines of enquiry are questions you are trying to answer - using dogs, searches etc are simply the methodology you are using to answer those questions.
3. Inconsistencies in witness accounts aren’t unusual, nor are they indicative of guilt. It’s normal for witnesses to have slightly different version of events. It’s normal for people to change details occasionally in their story. It’s normal to misremember during a time period of high stress. Witnesses NEVER have the exact same account in every detail. That would indicate dishonesty if they did a because it isn’t normal behaviour.
If a witness changes their story significantly = dodgy
Changing smaller details = normal
yes, technically they did contaminate the crime scene by virtue of being there, but there is zero real evidence that they purposefully did so. And it was never their responsible to preserve it as such.
blood wasn’t found in the car
Last edited:
- Status