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

[Redblossom]

I doubt either PJ or SY will make any arrests/charges without solid enough evidence.....

[Sherlock Holmes]

I doubt either PJ or SY will make any arrests/charges without solid enough evidence.....

Agreed, Red. It's not the kind of case where SY will be making arrests out of pressure to please the public or anyone else. Too much time has passed for anyone to want or expect a quick fix.

[pegasus]

There is one piece of logic which is common to and equally wrong in both types of theory.

All variations of the abduction theory say:
"The person who did the abduction is the person who did the opening of shutter and window".

All variations of the staging theory say:
"The person who did the staging is the person who did (or invented) the opening the shutter and window".

Both assumptions incorrect IMO.
In either theory, I think this fits all the indications better:
"A would be burglar opened the window and shutter from outside, was immediatly disturbed, and fled empty handed, before he even entered.".

Applied to the abduction theory, this means the abductor(s) did not open the window and shutter, they were already open.
Applied to the staging theory, this means that the stager(s) did not open (nor invent opening) the window and shutter, they were already open.


 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There is one piece of logic which is common to and equally wrong in both types of theory.

All variations of the abduction theory say:
"The person who did the abduction is the person who did the opening of shutter and window".

All variations of the staging theory say:
"The person who did the staging is the person who did (or invented) the opening the shutter and window".

Both assumptions incorrect IMO.
In either theory, I think this fits all the indications better:
"A would be burglar opened the window and shutter from outside, was immediatly disturbed, and fled empty handed, before he even entered.".

Applied to the abduction theory, this means the abductor(s) did not open the window and shutter, they were already open.
Applied to the staging theory, this means that the stager(s) did not open (nor invent opening) the window and shutter, they were already open.


 

Or they were opened after the abduction by someone wishing to enhance the idea of the scene being one where abduction had taken place.

Or they were never open at any point....after all there is no proof whatsoever of their being open in the first place.

[icabodcrane]

There is one piece of logic which is common to and equally wrong in both types of theory.

All variations of the abduction theory say:
"The person who did the abduction is the person who did the opening of shutter and window".

All variations of the staging theory say:
"The person who did the staging is the person who did (or invented) the opening the shutter and window".

Both assumptions incorrect IMO.
In either theory, I think this fits all the indications better:
"A would be burglar opened the window and shutter from outside, was immediatly disturbed, and fled empty handed, before he even entered.".

Applied to the abduction theory, this means the abductor(s) did not open the window and shutter, they were already open.
Applied to the staging theory, this means that the stager(s) did not open (nor invent opening) the window and shutter, they were already open.


 

I think it stretches credibility to suggest  that during the 45 minutes between 9.15pm and 10pm,  not only was a burglary attempt made in the McCanns apartment,  but,  in an entirely separate incident,  an abductor also struck, and carried off a child never to be seen again

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think it stretches credibility to suggest  that during the 45 minutes between 9.15pm and 10pm,  not only was a burglary attempt made in the McCanns apartment,  but,  in an entirely separate incident,  an abductor also struck, and carried off a child never to be seen again

Truth is stranger than fiction, icabod.

If there was a four-fold increase in local burglaries around that time, it is not actually far fetched to suggest that 5A, being much more vulnerable than most of the other apartments on that block, could have been a target on the night of the 3rd.

What I think is difficult is the notion that at least two separate individuals, possibly even two teams of individuals, would have managed to lurk around the apartment that night and not disturb each other's missions.

Though perhaps they did...

[icabodcrane]

Truth is stranger than fiction, icabod.

If there was a four-fold increase in local burglaries around that time, it is not actually far fetched to suggest that 5A, being much more vulnerable than most of the other apartments on that block, could have been a target on the night of the 3rd.

What I think is difficult is the notion that at least two separate individuals, possibly even two teams of individuals, would have managed to lurk around the apartment that night and not disturb each other's missions.

Though perhaps they did...

The suggestion that an individual stole a child in the circumstances described by the McCanns and their friends is incredible in itself

To further suggest that an attempted burglary  also  occured within that 45 minutes  (  as a way of explaining the open window  )  takes us beyond the incredible and into the realms of fantasy 

[Wonderfulspam]

The suggestion that an individual stole a child in the circumstances described by the McCanns and their friends is incredible in itself

To further suggest that an attempted burglary  also  occured within that 45 minutes  (  as a way of explaining the open window  )  takes us beyond the incredible and into the realms of fantasy

Yep, beyond belief.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The suggestion that an individual stole a child in the circumstances described by the McCanns and their friends is incredible in itself

To further suggest that an attempted burglary  also  occured within that 45 minutes  (  as a way of explaining the open window  )  takes us beyond the incredible and into the realms of fantasy

I am not suggesting that an attempted burglary took place. There is no indication of that as far as we know. But it is a possibility that some of the break-ins in the block are in some way connected with the Madeleine case. Scotland Yard certainly seem to be keen to get as much information about them as possible.

If your child went missing around the same time there were a large number of intruders known to have been operating in the street, wouldn't you expect police to look into their being some kind of connection? Seems pretty basic to me.

As for it being incredible that Madeleine could have disappeared in the circumstances described by the McCanns, we are back to semantics. Yes, it does sound incredible. However, any alternative account has got to be just as incredible, or perhaps even more so, by definition, as an incredible occurrence, namely the complete disappearance of a person, has taken place.

Do you think that if and when we finally get an explanation as to what happened that night and what has happened to Madeleine in the interim it will be something run of the mill? What simple, logical explanation could there be for a person vanishing off the face of the earth without trace?

[icabodcrane]

I am not suggesting that an attempted burglary took place. There is no indication of that as far as we know. But it is a possibility that some of the break-ins in the block are in some way connected with the Madeleine case. Scotland Yard certainly seem to be keen to get as much information about them as possible.

If your child went missing around the same time there were a large number of intruders known to have been operating in the street, wouldn't you expect police to look into their being some kind of connection? Seems pretty basic to me.

As for it being incredible that Madeleine could have disappeared in the circumstances described by the McCanns, we are back to semantics. Yes, it does sound incredible. However, any alternative account has got to be just as incredible, or perhaps even more so, by definition, as an incredible occurrence, namely the complete disappearance of a person, has taken place.

Do you think that if and when we finally get an explanation as to what happened that night and what has happened to Madeleine in the interim it will be something run of the mill? What simple, logical explanation could there be for a person vanishing off the face of the earth without trace?

Yes,  I think it is sensible to consider the burglaries in the vicinity

What do we know about them  ?

How many were there  ?  ...   what dates did they occur on ?  ... what items were stolen ?  ... were any of the cases solved and the thief  caught  ?

If we are going to 'connect'  these burglaries with the disappearance of a child then we need  more than vague allusions to work with

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes,  I think it is sensible to consider the burglaries in the vicinity

What do we know about them  ?

How many were there  ?  ...   what dates did they occur on ?  ... what items were stolen ?  ... were any of the cases solved and the thief  caught  ?

If we are going to 'connect'  these burglaries with the disappearance of a child then we need  more than vague allusions to work with

Good point, icabod. I think I read about these burglaries in the files, though they definitely featured in Crimewatch, so I'll watch it again.

[Sherlock Holmes]

And regarding the use of the word 'incredible' with regard to the various theories as to what has happened to Madeleine, I think the word 'innocent' would help us clarify matters a lot better.

There is only one 'innocent' explanation as to what could have happened, namely that Madeleine left the apartment of her own volition to look for her parents, and fell down a whole which was covered up by workers in PdL who didn't know she was in there.

Absolutely anything else involves something suspect, sinister, incredible, somewhere along the line - even if she died or dissapeared 'by accident'.

Ergo I think it is meaningless to compare the relative levels of incredulity one may have for this theory or that. Every theory is disturbing emotionally and unlikely statistically - but one of them must be correct.

Everything in a situation is relative. In this context, the McCanns' account is hardly strange at all.

[pegasus]

Here's an example of what a burglar took from a apartment in the adjacent block uphill from block 5.
A videocam, some money, a couple of mobile phones.
Everyone was out.
That is the sort of burglar, probably afterwards they sell the camera and phones for a pittance in another town, the money goes maybe straightaway on drugs.

If this sort of burglar gets interrupted while he is still outside and opening the shutter by reaching in to operate the the strap, he will NOT enter, he will run away empty-handed. It is not stretching the imagination, it is what 99.9% of burglars would do, if there is someone in the room.
 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's an example of what a burglar took from a apartment in the adjacent block uphill from block 5.
A videocam, some money, a couple of mobile phones.
Everyone was out.
That is the sort of burglar, probably afterwards they sell the camera and phones for a pittance in another town, the money goes maybe straightaway on drugs.

If this sort of burglar gets interrupted while he is still outside and opening the shutter by reaching in to operate the the strap, he will NOT enter, he will run away empty-handed. It is not stretching the imagination, it is what 99.9% of burglars would do, if there is someone in the room.

Yep, this one's a petty criminal. Not a big operation. Plenty other opportunities in the vicinity so he'll readily flee the scene and take his chances another time.

Where did you get this info, Pegasus?

[Redblossom]

Re burlaries from 1 35

I too would like to see the evidence...not that it would shed any light really....has someone got any stats of burglars turned child abductors? No didnt thnk so