catkins wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:05 pmReading through yours and Carana's posts....I agree mostly...... but I'm thinking if there was DNA samples.......and they did tie in with someone who was seen hanging around....then found that it matched. Whilst it wouldn't necessarily mean he was guilty, but would surely make it worth looking into him more deeply.Whiterose wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:49 amTotally agree Carana. They would have to have other reasons why the person is a suspect. For example say it is one of the burglars, they had the telephone conversations, the fact that they admitted to doing burglaries in the area, then if DNA is found on Madeleine's sheet it is a big coincidence isn't it? Don't know if the Portuguese police agreed for any of the burglars to have their DNA taken though did they?
I'm thinking that PT didn't have a DNA base back then (not 100% sure)....so maybe this tactic wasn't familiar to them, as was the not guarding/stopping the 'crime scene' from any more contamination.
I had a long post in anwer that disappeared in a blip in Internet connection.
- There was no national DNA database (although they could call on Europol to ask them to consult those of their members).
- No missing child protocol.
- No way of initially determining a clear-cut "diagnosis" on whether a serious crime had occurred or not.
- Little serious investigative experience in that domain.
- Little communication between the GNR and the PJ.
- Big Brother syndrome over CCTV in public space (except in theory looking towards property or sensitive potential crime areas within them).
- Not a purely domestic potential crime... language barriers, a tourist resort, international media...
- Inadequate initial PJ resources (of all sorts, not just material).
- A transitional phase in terms of internal "corporate" change management.
There were more points...