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

[AnneGuedes]

I appreciate there wasn't a clear view of the apartment from the Tapas area.  The question is whether someone would risk entering / leaving via the patio doors because and take the risk, however small, of being seen. They would feel exposed using that entrance, regardless of the actual visibility.

Yes, but that sliding was open, big advantage to get in. Now to get out and carrying I agree that no.. Though even snooping before, an abductor couldn't know whether the door would be unlocked (openable from the inside) or be locked but with the key in the locker (as it should be in order to let exit free in case of fire) or not.

[Redblossom]

Surely the simple scenario is that the abductor climbed in through the window and opened the door from the inside in order for him to leave

That is assuming the front door was unlocked.....and we will never know if it was or not as the mccanns themselves werent sure! One day they said it was, the other day said it might have been, the next said it probably wasnt, etc etc....like you dont remember when you leave your three kids in and go out night after night whether you lock the door or not!

[Mr Gray]

So why no forensic evidence on the window or sill?

How thorough was the search? We know the pj did not do a proper dna sweep of the bedclothes...just looked for obvious marks

[Mr Gray]

That is assuming the front door was unlocked.....and we will never know if it was or not as the mccanns themselves werent sure! One day they said it was, the other day said it might have been, the next said it probably wasnt, etc etc....like you dont remember when you leave your three kids in and go out night after night whether you lock the door or not!

What type of lock was on the front door...a yale lock is locked from the outside but can be opened from the inside...The patio doors were unlocked and the front door was locked...the confusion about locked/unlocked was down to translation error imo

[Redblossom]

What type of lock was on the front door...a yale lock is locked from the outside but can be opened from the inside...The patio doors were unlocked and the front door was locked...the confusion about locked/unlocked was down to translation error imo

of course it would be....locked and unlocked are the same words in portuguese, sorry

[AnneGuedes]

of course it would be....locked and unlocked are the same words in portuguese, sorry

fechado vs fechado à chave
I've explained at least three times how the most vulgar lock works. Everybody knows that stuff in Portugal.

[Redblossom]

fechado vs fechado à chave
I've explained at least three times how the most vulgar lock works. Everybody knows that stuff in Portugal.

blind and deaf need explaining twenty times though LOL and still will ask hehe

[Benice]

So why no forensic evidence on the window or sill?

Indeed that is the first question anyone would ask - including the police.  It's for that reason that I believe Kate McCann when she said she returned to find her daughter gone and the shutters and window wide open.  And as any normal person would think imo - she assumed, at that very first moment, that someone had broken in via that window and taken her child.   She had no way of knowing at that time that no forenics would be found to prove that.

If, as some people claim,  she was lying as part of a pre-conceived plan to claim the window/shutters were found to be open - as proof of an abduction, then surely the McCanns would have made damn sure that some damage was done to the shutters and maybe a few scuff marks were made on the cills.   And they would have certainly made sure no fingerprints of theirs were left on the window.

 IMO we are being asked to believe that the McCanns were so stupid that it did not occur to either of them that if you are going to claim a forced entry  -  and this is what you are going to hold up as your evidence that a stranger had been in the apartment  -   then there would need to be some evidence to prove a forced entry had actually occurred.   

I do not believe the McCanns were both so idiotically stupid that they would have overlooked that very obvious fact.

It was the McCanns first belief that a stranger had broken into Madeleine's bedroom via the window and abducted her, but as time went on they realised  that it was not the only possible scenario.
 

   

[pegasus]

My opinion of HJ's video is ...
The window does not autolock. Correct.
The shutters do not lock. Correct.
From outside, raise shutter a little, slide window, reach in to pull strap to raise shutter fully. Correct.
Shutter noise wakes child. Correct.
Man never enters apartment. Correct.

Excellent so far.
But then HJ's  theory suddenly departs in the exact opposite direction of reality IMO.

Childs walks to window. INCORRECT. Surely this  direction could not be more incorrect?
Person, who opens window and shutter from outside, is an abductor. INCORRECT.
Person, who opens window and shutter from outside, takes child. INCORRECT.

[pathfinder73]

You make mistakes and forget about things when you're in a panic. If it was staged you would be still be scared and panicking and mistakes are made.

[Redblossom]

My opinion of HJ's video is ...
The window does not autolock. Correct.

No not correct

The window once closed shut is locked for all intents and purposes. You cant open it. It does not matter if it is locked with a key after. Same as the double glazed windows you get in the UK. You shut them and they are shut and you cant open them from the outside.

[AnneGuedes]

Indeed that is the first question anyone would ask - including the police.  It's for that reason that I believe Kate McCann when she said she returned to find her daughter gone and the shutters and window wide open.  And as any normal person would think imo - she assumed, at that very first moment, that someone had broken in via that window and taken her child.   She had no way of knowing at that time that no forenics would be found to prove that.

If, as some people claim,  she was lying as part of a pre-conceived plan to claim the window/shutters were found to be open - as proof of an abduction, then surely the McCanns would have made damn sure that some damage was done to the shutters and maybe a few scuff marks were made on the cills.   And they would have certainly made sure no fingerprints of theirs were left on the window.

 IMO we are being asked to believe that the McCanns were so stupid that it did not occur to either of them that if you are going to claim a forced entry  -  and this is what you are going to hold up as your evidence that a stranger had been in the apartment  -   then there would need to be some evidence to prove a forced entry had actually occurred.   

I do not believe the McCanns were both so idiotically stupid that they would have overlooked that very obvious fact.

It was the McCanns first belief that a stranger had broken into Madeleine's bedroom via the window and abducted her, but as time went on they realised  that it was not the only possible scenario.
 

Your reasoning is perfect, Benice, but it requires 1) believing the McCanns about the state of the window/shutters and 2) forgetting that they were in such a terrible emotional state that they couldn't possibly stage anything.

[AnneGuedes]

Like forgetting to make the bed look slept in?

A little killing detail, yes.

[AnneGuedes]

Why would you need a screw driver when the weapon is the crowbar? I didn't mean go armed with a gun if that's what made you laugh 

What made me laugh was the double use of the crowbar. I happened to see a French video recently about how easy it was to open a double glass sliding door with a screw driver.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Indeed that is the first question anyone would ask - including the police.  It's for that reason that I believe Kate McCann when she said she returned to find her daughter gone and the shutters and window wide open.  And as any normal person would think imo - she assumed, at that very first moment, that someone had broken in via that window and taken her child.   She had no way of knowing at that time that no forenics would be found to prove that.

If, as some people claim,  she was lying as part of a pre-conceived plan to claim the window/shutters were found to be open - as proof of an abduction, then surely the McCanns would have made damn sure that some damage was done to the shutters and maybe a few scuff marks were made on the cills.   And they would have certainly made sure no fingerprints of theirs were left on the window.

 IMO we are being asked to believe that the McCanns were so stupid that it did not occur to either of them that if you are going to claim a forced entry  -  and this is what you are going to hold up as your evidence that a stranger had been in the apartment  -   then there would need to be some evidence to prove a forced entry had actually occurred.   

I do not believe the McCanns were both so idiotically stupid that they would have overlooked that very obvious fact.

It was the McCanns first belief that a stranger had broken into Madeleine's bedroom via the window and abducted her, but as time went on they realised  that it was not the only possible scenario.
 

   

Agree wholeheartedly, Benice. Considering the number of challenging and intricate details they would have had to attend to in concealing their daughter whilst simultaneously staging an abduction,  it is almost inconceivable that they would overlook something as simple and basic as this.