Re: Bloody footprint found in McCanns holiday apartment

by Guest 18.06.13 14:15

Children's shoe sizes in the UK (and maybe elsewhere?) go from size zero to 13 and older child / adult sizes go from 1 to about 15; that I think would be the largest size it's possible to obtain unless specially made.

The average foot length of a child size 5 to 6 would be around 14 centimetres and for the adult size 5 to 6 around 25 centimetres.

We must surely be talking about the adult size rather than the child size and it would certainly be more common for women rather than men.

by sonic72 18.06.13 21:45

Bloody footprint, blood in the car, blood on the wall in the apartment, cadaver scent all over the place, in their apartment, clothes, toys, car, etc, etc, etc....

And the police need to spend millions and have no substance for our taxes they mindlessly spent?!

I demand a full breakdown of how Operation Grange have spent our taxes. How much of the budget was spent on looking into all this blood, and all the cadaver findings (again)???!!!

Answers, we need them...

by AndyB 18.06.13 21:58

sonic72 wrote:Bloody footprint, blood in the car, blood on the wall in the apartment, cadaver scent all over the place, in their apartment, clothes, toys, car, etc, etc, etc....

And the police need to spend millions and have no substance for our taxes they mindlessly spent?!

I demand a full breakdown of how Operation Grange have spent our taxes. How much of the budget was spent on looking into all this blood, and all the cadaver findings (again)???!!!

Answers, we need them...

Unfortunately the purpose of operation Grange was never to establish the truth but was instead to supply the Portugese police with leads for the abduction theory. In the Met's own words (with my emphasis); "The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before. It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter"

Original document here. Linked here

It's no wonder its taking so many men so much time: It must be difficult to convince the PJ to follow leads for something that the PJ don't believe happened

by Guest 27.04.14 20:29

Ayniia wrote:
admin wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Article about the bloody footprint and DNA testing from October 2007..........

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It added that it "appeared to have a blood imprint" that was visible to the naked eye.

The FSS results conclude the footprint matched the pattern of a mark found above the rear bumper of the McCanns' Renault Scenic hire car, a print which Portuguese police apparently believe is consistent with someone lifting a body in or out of the boot. Experts could find no definite traces of blood in that print.

Can this be the "damaging " proof Mr. Amaral talked about? Tough I found strange as was pointed before, that they had a clean footprint that was visible to naked eye when there was obviously such a thorough cleaning done on the apartment.

Could it be the 'damaging proof'? Is it possible that someone staying in the apartment could have inadvertently left the trace of a footprint even after avid cleaning?

What is definite is that if the same print (from the opposite shoe but of the same pair) albeit minus blood was found on the Scenic then, just as there is a link to the cadaver scent between the apartment and the car, there is a link to a person who had access to the apartment and the car as proven by a print form the same pair of shoes being present in both.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They discovered a

'partial footwear mark', believed to be from a size 5 or 6 shoe, just outside the bedroom.

so more likely to be a female than a male shoe,

...patterned as follows:

The FSS report says the footprint found in the apartment 'was made when the foot was heading towards the bedroom'.
'The impression was made up of small circles and square blocks. It is not possible to ascertain whether the shoe print was from an adult or a child but it is estimated that it was a shoe size 5 or possibly 6. It was of a right shoe.
'The shoe print found at the rear of the Renault hire car below the boot area and above part of the rear bumper was a left-sided shoe and the impression has similar pattern component, pattern size and degree of wear to the outer toe region of the sole to match the right shoe, and again has circles and square blocks.

Kate has drawn attention to her pink trainers and the fact that she was bitten by a dog so she bled while out jogging. Is this a typical McCann pre-empt in case awkward questions arise as to bloody footprints OR is she drawing attention to these trainers in order to divert attention from another pair of shoes? In a confusion is good sort of way?

Lets look at the Pink trainers as these are only ones we are given as a clue.

What sort are they?

We have numerous pictures of Kate in Praia jogging and otherwise. The Pink trainers can be identified in several pictures and clearly in a couple. They aren't completely pink, but silver, white and pink with grey trim (a bit of the truth but not the whole truth, there, Kate?):

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I passed the task to my young daughter who eventually identified the trainers as these:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Womens' Saucony Grid Trigon Ride 4, Year 2007.

I've been unable to locate a picture of the soles of theses trainers, but I have found an image of the Mens' version:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There are indeed square blocks but with more of a triangle inside rather than a square. Could a blurred print made by such a trainer appear as circles within square blocks?

Or can we dismiss the Pink trainers as being the source of both marks? Either a double bluff by Kate or the prints have originated from a pair of shoes she knows nothing about?

by Gillyspot 27.04.14 22:37

On this site you can see the bottom of the ladies trainers

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can't get the image to load on here though.

They are running shoes & not cheap either. I though Kate didn't do any running (or not a lot) until AFTER Maddie was "abducted"

by Guest 28.04.14 21:49

Gillyspot wrote:On this site you can see the bottom of the ladies trainers

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can't get the image to load on here though.

They are running shoes & not cheap either. I though Kate didn't do any running (or not a lot) until AFTER Maddie was "abducted"

Thanks Gillyspot.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Looking at it from that better angle it does again beg the question if a faint imprint was made, could it appear as circles within square blocks?

Kate certainly liked them though, and seemingly didn't feel she should hide them away or try to get rid of them perhaps as incriminating evidence, so perhaps they simply aren't the shoes that made the prints. (Mind you she didn't get rid of Cuddle Cat or her clothes with cadaver scent on them either.) She's still wearing them for the marathon in March 2010:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Then again, like you say, they did retail at a RRP of 70 quid back in 2007. titter

I am intrigued by the bloody footprint. Who actually came out and attributed the mark to a police officer's shoe? Was it dear Clarrie? All the 'innocent explanation' assertions seem to have come from 'a source close to the investigation'. Ho hum.

Apparently there is nothing in the files regarding the print so it does make one wonder if this is in the retained files and is therefore considered an important matter that the PJ wish to retain for their own eyes at present. It would be interesting if - like Dr Amaral revealing the new information that a hair is still in the possession of the PJ - they have also kept samples of the blood and other DNA finds, perhaps hoping that forensics would improve, as indeed they have. Or simply being canny enough to know that at a time in the future it may become imperative to retest all the samples. Considering that they seemed to realise fairly quickly that the British had split loyalties in the case, it does seem a tad rash that they would have entrusted the samples in their entirety to the FSS lab.

by worriedmum 17.06.14 14:27

Looking for something else when I found this-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Log in for more topics