Could an intruder have opened the shutter and climbed in the window?

[pegasus]

Yes the sequence I proposed explains the door angle increasing once, it does not explain more than once. Thanks for pointing it out.
P.S modified to remove proposed explanation, because I don't know how to account for that.

[Redblossom]

The theory gives a logical solution for only one room, it does not explain the disappearance.
It is important to get the first room making sense first.
As Mr Redwood said on Crimewatch, start at the beginning, assume nothing.

No, not really


Firstly it is just hearsay and uncorroborated too from a non independent witness that the window and shutter were open
Secondly no forensics were found for opening the shutter and window apart from some bleared prints on the shutter which can be accounted for by the three people from the group who did stick their paws on the shutters (tampering with evidence pdq) tryng to see if they could open them from outside, the purpose of which still escapes me.....
Thirdly no evidence any hypothetical burglar was interrupted...just supposition
Further you have  to make a presumption the window was not closed so could be just slid open by said hypothetical burglar...not even glove prints, just kate mccanns prints in the window...dont add up does it?


All in all just speculation with no evidence let alone proof, sorry

[Redblossom]

Yes the sequence I proposed explains the door angle increasing once, it does not explain more than once. A simple explanation if it was twice is maybe the first is a toilet trip, I don't know, thanks for pointing it out.

Gerry didnt recall this most important thing until a week later then...doors being more open than they should be etc etc

See 1st and 2nd statements


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm



http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm


oh well, Im off >>>>>
 

[pegasus]

No, not really
Firstly it is just hearsay and uncorroborated too from a non independent witness that the window and shutter were open
Secondly no forensics were found for opening the shutter and window apart from some bleared prints on the shutter which can be accounted for by the three people from the group who did stick their paws on the shutters (tampering with evidence pdq) tryng to see if they could open them from outside, the purpose of which still escapes me.....
Thirdly no evidence any hypothetical burglar was interrupted...just supposition
Further you have  to make a presumption the window was not closed so could be just slid open by said hypothetical burglar...not even glove prints, just kate mccanns prints in the window...dont add up does it?
All in all just speculation with no evidence let alone proof, sorry

1. Agreed its important not to assume outright that a sole witness is telling the truth, or is not telling the truth, I considered both those possibilities.
2. A few of the prints on this window were clear and identifiable to one person, the PJ claimed these prove who opened the window, that conclusion is wrong IMO.
3. No statement says anyone saw a burglar at that location that night and no witness has reported interrupting one, so yes it is supposition. IMO it  makes more sense than other suppositions.
4. Yes the scenario depends on the upper button being out, if it is in then the whole scenario fails, unless I missed something.
 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The first observation I would make is that burglars don't abduct children.  Secondly, burglars usually case the premises they target and avoid any which are occupied at the McCanns was.

Wasn't the late Mrs Fenn's apartment 'cased' shortly before the McCanns arrived at 5A? (I am referring to the intruder Mrs Fenn stumbled across in her own apartment and tried to apprehend).

IIRC Mrs Fenn proposes that he entered through the front door (did he have a key perhaps?) and left apparently without taking anything. What was the purpose of his visit?

Does anyone know if the layout of the apartments in this block was the same or similar? If layouts are the same for apartments above and below, perhaps Mrs Fenn's intruder was trying to get an appreciation for the layout of 5A for a later date?
 

[Sherlock Holmes]

He thinks no one is in apartment. Stage 3 of opening, which is reaching in with right hand from outside to pull strap to fully raise shutter, even gently, makes noise inside the room. He is still outside. The noise disturbs someone, who wisely exits into the lounge, and he scared by seeing/hearing that someone is home, rapidly leaves the area. So there you have the open window/shutter, no-one entering, and the increased door angle, all explained. Might be wrong but is there any other theory which explains all those 3 things logically? Not taking sides, just examining the discovered scene.

I don't get it, Pegasus. Who exited the bedroom and went into the lounge? Madeleine? And Abductor?

[icabodcrane]

Wasn't the late Mrs Fenn's apartment 'cased' shortly before the McCanns arrived at 5A? (I am referring to the intruder Mrs Fenn stumbled across in her own apartment and tried to apprehend).

IIRC Mrs Fenn proposes that he entered through the front door (did he have a key perhaps?) and left apparently without taking anything. What was the purpose of his visit?

Well the  'purpose'  was not to steal a child away into the darkness  ....  that it for sure


This  'burglary gone wrong' hypothesis is nonsense,  and I don't believe for a moment that Scotland Yard think any different

[pegasus]

Wasn't the late Mrs Fenn's apartment 'cased' shortly before the McCanns arrived at 5A? (I am referring to the intruder Mrs Fenn stumbled across in her own apartment and tried to apprehend).

IIRC Mrs Fenn proposes that he entered through the front door (did he have a key perhaps?) and left apparently without taking anything. What was the purpose of his visit?

Does anyone know if the layout of the apartments in this block was the same or similar? If layouts are the same for apartments above and below, perhaps Mrs Fenn's intruder was trying to get an appreciation for the layout of 5A for a later date?

The burglar at 5G after entering was disturbed by the brave lady, he then quickly exited through a window, she tried to grab his ankle. IMO it is only supposition that he entered through the door. IMO it is more likely he entered 5G through the same window he exited 5G by. (Yes its an upstairs apartment but this is still possible).
If you wish to find the layout of 5G, her niece's statement describes the layout but not clearly, also the UK dog video shows the interior of 4G (layout of 4G is likely to be the same as 5G) .

[Sherlock Holmes]

The burglar at 5G after entering was disturbed by the brave lady, he then quickly exited through a window, she tried to grab his ankle. IMO it is only supposition that he entered through the door. IMO it is more likely he entered 5G through the same window he exited 5G by. (Yes its an upstairs apartment but this is still possible).
If you wish to find the layout of 5G, her niece's statement describes the layout but not clearly, also the UK dog video shows the interior of 4G (layout of 4G is likely to be the same as 5G) .

Yes but my question is what was he doing in 5G? If he didn't steal anything, what are we to make of his intentions in entering the apartment? Mrs Fenn says he was half way out the window by the time she realised he was there. He doesn't seem to have had anything in his hands.

Shortly after Mrs Fenn's death, her niece speaks of an inventory that had been made before her death of all her valuables. Presumably this was checked after she died. If anything had been discovered missing at that point, that might have been something of note. No mention is made of any missing item by the niece, however.
 
I am wondering if the intruder in Mrs Fenn's apartment could have been there in order to get a better appreciation of the layout and feel of 5A, if the apartments were in any way related, or to explore the feasiblity of various entry and escape points on the block.

There is nothing concrete to suggest that burglary was a motive for anyone entering either 5A or 5G and therefore on the current evidence I don't see why we should consider it is an option. Besides, Mrs Fenn's apartment was a far better source of valuables than 5A, as probably most of the permanently-occupied apartments would have been. Anyone doing their research would have recognised this.

If for the sake of argument the intruder of 5G was the same person as the (as yet unproven) intruder into 5A, or working with him, then why would he leave Mrs Fenn's valuables untouched (she owned expensive jewelry and other valuables) and prefer to focus on attempting to rob 5A, whose temporary residents would only be storing there whatever they needed for a short holiday?

[icabodcrane]

Yes but my question is what was he doing in 5G? If he didn't steal anything, what are we to make of his intentions in entering the apartment? Mrs Fenn says he was half way out the window by the time she realised he was there. He doesn't seem to have had anything in his hands.

Shortly after Mrs Fenn's death, her niece speaks of an inventory that had been made before her death of all her valuables. Presumably this was checked after she died. If anything had been discovered missing at that point, that might have been something of note. No mention is made of any missing item by the niece, however.
 
I am wondering if the intruder in Mrs Fenn's apartment could have been there in order to get a better appreciation of the layout and feel of 5A, if the apartments were in any way related, or to explore the feasiblity of various entry and escape points on the block.

There is nothing concrete to suggest that burglary was a motive for anyone entering either 5A or 5G and therefore on the current evidence I don't see why we should consider it is an option. Besides, Mrs Fenn's apartment was a far better source of valuables than 5A, as probably most of the permanently-occupied apartments would have been. Anyone doing their research would have recognised this.

If for the sake of argument the intruder of 5G was the same person as the (as yet unproven) intruder into 5A, or working with him, then why would he leave Mrs Fenn's valuables untouched (she owned expensive jewelry and other valuables) and prefer to focus on attempting to rob 5A, whose temporary residents would only be storing there whatever they needed for a short holiday?

The only rational answer to your question is that the child's disappearance had nothing whatsoever to do with any imagined attempted burglary  ...  there is simply nothing to support it

In my opinion there is  NO  rational explanation for the little girl disappearing  in the circumstances claimed  by her parents   

[pegasus]

Re the 5G intruder.
Assuming that the lady's bedroom window has shutter down initially. 

If thief enters through window .... the loudest loise is the raising of the shutter.

If thief enters through door then, before hunting for valuables, opens window and shutter (so police don't realise he has a key) .... the loudest noise is the raising of the shutter.

So key or no key, the noise which alerts the lady in the lounge, over the TV noise, is very probably the shutter noise?

[colombosstogey]

I am wondering if the intruder in Mrs Fenn's apartment could have been there in order to get a better appreciation of the layout and feel of 5A, if the apartments were in any way related, or to explore the feasiblity of various entry and escape points on the block.

But why?  8-)(--)

Surely if this was the case the kidnapping/abduction from 5A would have been pre planned wouldnt it, and how would anyone know that 5A would be holding 3 children and they would be left unattended.

I am sorry SH, i am missing your point.

Why risk going into an occupied apartment to just check the layout?

I just think IF 5G was broken into with the occupier inside it was a mistake, and they ran out the way they came pretty quickly....although i would have thought it was a funny apartment to break into being on the second floor. Wouldnt someone climbing in a window leave marks?

Also from Carole Tranmars statement her aunt lived at Apartment 20 Waterside Gardens BLOCK 5G.

Again if youread Mrs Fenns neice Carole Tranmer she mentions her aunt lived on the THIRD FLOOR, and in a statement to police she looked down and saw someone leave the FIRST FLOOR APARTMENT BELOW....the night the child was taken. 5A is on the GROUND FLOOR. Eeeeek...head ache lol, wheres my paracetamol lol.


Snips of Carole Tranmers statement:

CT'We were all seated on the terrace, hummm'talking, and I was inclined to look below and this is when I saw someone leave the apartment of the first floor, closing the gate very gently as they were leaving, opening and closing the gate with much caution and in silence. It appeared to me very strange. They looked to one side and the other, shut the gate and walked very quickly downwards. It was at this point that I turned to my aunt and my husband and exclaimed 'That was really very strange'

Mrs Fenns apartment was third floor according to her neice in her statement.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
DC1485'ground floor... ground floor, first floor'

CT'No, she is the third, I believe that she is on the third floor.

DC1485'Third floor.

CT'There is only one on top, therefore, she is on the third floor, at the end apartment. Once there, you take the elevator or the stairs. There is no other entrance or exit. You go directly to her door. She lives at the end. There is no other access.

DC1485'Therefore, when one leaves the elevator, to which side does one walk, left or right'

CT'You turn left.

DC1485'Sure.

...................................

If you havent read this it is worth a read, as it is confusing.

It sounds as though her aunt was higher then just above 5A.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm

[Apostate]

Still labouring this nonsense I see. The window was opened to make it look like there has been less neglect i.e. the cunning abductor had to break in to snatch Maddie rather than walk in though the (admitted) unlocked door like a normal person.

The positions of the doors is all crap too - details added to give an air of authenticity to the accounts of people too drunk and careless to know what happened that night.

[Redblossom]

But why?  8-)(--)

Surely if this was the case the kidnapping/abduction from 5A would have been pre planned wouldnt it, and how would anyone know that 5A would be holding 3 children and they would be left unattended.

I am sorry SH, i am missing your point.

Why risk going into an occupied apartment to just check the layout?

I just think IF 5G was broken into with the occupier inside it was a mistake, and they ran out the way they came pretty quickly....although i would have thought it was a funny apartment to break into being on the second floor. Wouldnt someone climbing in a window leave marks?

Also from Carole Tranmars statement her aunt lived at Apartment 20 Waterside Gardens BLOCK 5G.

Again if youread Mrs Fenns neice Carole Tranmer she mentions her aunt lived on the THIRD FLOOR, and in a statement to police she looked down and saw someone leave the FIRST FLOOR APARTMENT BELOW....the night the child was taken. 5A is on the GROUND FLOOR. Eeeeek...head ache lol, wheres my paracetamol lol.


Snips of Carole Tranmers statement:

CT'We were all seated on the terrace, hummm'talking, and I was inclined to look below and this is when I saw someone leave the apartment of the first floor, closing the gate very gently as they were leaving, opening and closing the gate with much caution and in silence. It appeared to me very strange. They looked to one side and the other, shut the gate and walked very quickly downwards. It was at this point that I turned to my aunt and my husband and exclaimed 'That was really very strange'

Mrs Fenns apartment was third floor according to her neice in her statement.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
DC1485'ground floor... ground floor, first floor'

CT'No, she is the third, I believe that she is on the third floor.

DC1485'Third floor.

CT'There is only one on top, therefore, she is on the third floor, at the end apartment. Once there, you take the elevator or the stairs. There is no other entrance or exit. You go directly to her door. She lives at the end. There is no other access.

DC1485'Therefore, when one leaves the elevator, to which side does one walk, left or right'

CT'You turn left.

DC1485'Sure.

...................................

If you havent read this it is worth a read, as it is confusing.

It sounds as though her aunt was higher then just above 5A.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm

Confused wasnt she..even though they visited regularly.....Mrs Fenn was first floor not third.....even if CT called the  ground floor flat the first floor due to its being high on the hill, that would still only make Mrs Fenn second floor...oh well, goes to show how witness statements can be wrong though not a big deal here

[Sherlock Holmes]

The only rational answer to your question is that the child's disappearance had nothing whatsoever to do with any imagined attempted burglary  ...  there is simply nothing to support it

In my opinion there is  NO  rational explanation for the little girl disappearing  in the circumstances claimed  by her parents   

There is no rational explanation for the little girl disappearing under any circumstances - other than the possibility of her wandering out of the apartment and falling down a hole.

Parents harming or concealing her - not rational. Burglar deciding to steal the girl instead of a wallet or a flat screen TV - not rational. Paedophilia - not rational.

Something happened to her, however irrational that may have been.