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

[jassi]

"Non-abduction" theories have the window/shutter being opened (or claimed to be opened) not for entry/exit but to stage the scene to make it look like abduction.
"Abduction" theories - some now have the window/shutter being opened by the "abductor"  not for entry/exit but to to stage the scene to make it look like he came in/out through window to hide that he used door. 

Both sides, radically opposed, yet united in the convoluted conclusion that the open window/shutter was staged?

I take the open window/shutter at face value, crucial evidence, not staged by "abductor", and not staged by "coveruper".
And yes the witness is honest. All IMO.

Crucial evidence of what exactly?

[pegasus]

Crucial evidence of what exactly?

What are the first details of your theory of after 8.30? Like what room do you start in then?
If they include child being in room stated, and possibility that something woke someone up, and that someone may have gone to another room (as Mr A suggested in film), then I can say why window is crucial IMO.
For theories with a different starting room or nothing waking no-one and no-one going to another room, then window not so crucial IMO.

[Redblossom]

What are the first details of your theory of after 8.30? Like what room do you start in then?
If they include child being in room stated, and possibility that something woke someone up, and that someone may have gone to another room (as Mr A suggested in film), then I can say why window is crucial IMO.
For theories with a different starting room or nothing waking no-one and no-one going to another room, then window not so crucial IMO.

48 55

Mr A hypothesises Madeleine woke hearing her father chatting outside and went over to the living room window

[jassi]

What are the first details of your theory of after 8.30? Like what room do you start in then?
If they include child being in room stated, and possibility that something woke someone up, and that someone may have gone to another room (as Mr A suggested in film), then I can say why window is crucial IMO.
For theories with a different starting room or nothing waking no-one and no-one going to another room, then window not so crucial IMO.

As both front and rear doors seem to have been left unlocked (though I accept that Gerry changed his story on this), either door would seem equally possible. Neither can one exclude the possibility of a key, however unlikely that might be.

The problem I have with the window as point of entry/exit is that the positions of the bed under window and the two cots in front of the bed make for a formidable obstacle course for an intruder entering a darkened room.  That there appears to be no physical trace of an intruder in the room suggests to me that he did not blunder his way in or out of the window.

[Redblossom]

It was on this forum , was it yesterday? ... that the PJ said that there was a depression formed by Madeleines body

Snip


But the shape of her body had formed a depressioin so the PJ said.  That is according to reports on this forum, was it yesterday?

Sorry, dont have any pj file statements stating that...besides, how to determine when and who made any "indentation".....as I said I have no idea if she slept there or not

[pegasus]

As both front and rear doors seem to have been left unlocked (though I accept that Gerry changed his story on this), either door would seem equally possible. Neither can one exclude the possibility of a key, however unlikely that might be.

The problem I have with the window as point of entry/exit is that the positions of the bed under window and the two cots in front of the bed make for a formidable obstacle course for an intruder entering a darkened room.  That there appears to be no physical trace of an intruder in the room suggests to me that he did not blunder his way in or out of the window.

I agree completely that no-one climbed in the window, no-one climbed out the window, and no-one was passed out the window.

The explanation IMO is: petty criminal thinking everyone was out opened shutter and window from outside then , immediately realising someone was in, fled.
 
That is why someone opened the shutter and window but did not climb in and did not take anything.
All IMO.

[jassi]

Do you not think a petty criminal might have tried the door before the window? Far less obvious to a passer-by and easier to get in and out with the swag.

Is it not also improbable that a petty criminal/burglar would strike at almost the same time as whoever removed Madeleine?

[pegasus]

Do you not think a petty criminal might have tried the door before the window? Far less obvious to a passer-by and easier to get in and out with the swag.

IMO a petty criminal thinking no-one was home would assume all the doors would be secure against opening from outside.
Anyway had a petty criminal tried the main door to the hall he would have found it secure.
This is why many petty criminals go for windows, people are more likely to leave them unsecured.
Tourists from less shuttered countries like UK do not necessarily realise that if you close the shutter completely and close the sliding window completely but do not also press the window lock button, it may look secure, but unauthorised opening of the shutter and sliding window (and I am referring to the exact models in photos of that bedroom) from outside without force is easy easy.
All IMO.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Is it more realistic to presume that Madeleine was drugged and then abducted by the person who administered the drug. Or is it more realistic to presume that she was in fact ill and complications arose whilst her parents were out at the Tapas? It would explain the "we let her down" comment a bit better given that both parents are doctors and should have known better than to leave an ill child unsupervised?

Interesting thought that she could have been ill and that this explains Kate's statement.

But what kind of illness would have caused tiredness then sudden death in a three year old?

[AnneGuedes]

But what kind of illness would have caused tiredness then sudden death in a three year old?

Heart failure (coloboma is associated to this).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253679/Parents-grief-daughter-Madeline-Campion-Marsh-4-died-heart-attack.html

[sadie]

Apologies for offending but what I was referring to was KM's comment about having to look twice at the bed. I don't believe the abduction theory therefore I don't believe this episode happened. Therefore if the blanket was on the bed it was Kate pretending the blanket was Madeleine.

The problem that I have with the bed is the side that is up against the wall. It is too perfect. On that side the covers have not moved away from the wall at all. I cannot understand how all members of the family could have sat on it prior to bed, then Madeleine slept either in or on the bed depending on which McCann version of events you choose to believe, then possibly more people "flopped" on the bed and yet the covers are still perfectly wedged down the wall side?

This is not indicative of any of my 4 children's beds and all 4 are made up against a wall.

That theory regarding Madeleine's physical state can also be read as the child being unwell.

Is it more realistic to presume that Madeleine was drugged and then abducted by the person who administered the drug. Or is it more realistic to presume that she was in fact ill and complications arose whilst her parents were out at the Tapas? It would explain the "we let her down" comment a bit better given that both parents are doctors and should have known better than to leave an ill child unsupervised?

Buzz, I doubt you will agree, but I think this abduction was planned like a military operation.  Aftere all, several people reported a man watching the apartment    I think it went wrong when the "pick up" driver chickened out cos he witnessed Gerry fairly near and realised that Jane T had witnessed bundleman walking off with Madeleine.

I believe the Pick up car had been parked on the amall car park opposite the Tapad reception and as the driver drew out, he saw what had happened and scooted off in the opposite direction.

I also think that because of what appeared to be detailed planning, it is quite likely that Madeleines and maybe the twins teatime food or drink was tampered with.

Madeleine being so exhausted at, was it, 5.30pm?  That doesn't sound right to me.  Then they were all too tired to go out and play in their jimjams ... on slides and exciting things  ... with their friends?  Most kids would overcome normal tiredness for that.

But I take your point about being unwell.  All three of them tho?

[colombosstogey]

I agree completely that no-one climbed in the window, no-one climbed out the window, and no-one was passed out the window.

The explanation IMO is: petty criminal thinking everyone was out opened shutter and window from outside then , immediately realising someone was in, fled.
 
That is why someone opened the shutter and window but did not climb in and did not take anything.
All IMO.

Too convulated and the window/shutter was in full view of the car park on the ground floor NAH I dont buy a burglar would even bother with it.

Anyway as to being put off by someone inside didnt the late Mrs Fenn nearly apprehend a burglar in her flat so who ever the burglar is he isnt very clever.....and left empty handed then too.

Pages and pages of shutter/window open/closed, patio door/front door, and the conclusion is ?

Ta Dah the child went missing....

Who would know the front and back doors were left unlocked?

Who would know the children were left unsecure and on their own EVERY night of a holiday?

Who would know the parents and friends routine?

................?

when thats been worked out then there might be some answers.......

Its LUDICROUS to believe a gang of child snatchers would know all these things. Why would they risk being caught. The flat was actually the worse one to try and break into as it was located by a common path, and car park, and entrance way to other flats.

Why would they risk taking a child from a holiday flat its far too risky.

As to watching routines. IF they were watching the routine they would have seen it changed every night. This would make it difficult to decide when to go in and take a child etc. Also why did the routine change so much on the 3rd May?

Why did the McCanns leave their children AGAIN after their own daughter questioned them about where they were etc....ok we have been told that this is probably a ruse, but what an odd thing to tell anyway why? It made them appear even more neglectful. OR did they just think by saying that then they were being totally honest and therefore could not have harmed their daughter. Either way it sucks, as if the latter how could you then leave your children AGAIN on their own what for?

A meal, a drink with friends was this so important? Why was it so important? What was the point to it, they were up and down most of the meal why were they up and down? ALL of it seems staged and rehearsed now to me.

Non of it makes any sense.

The only one thing I know now is for certain is a child is missing.

Either way the child had to go out of one of the doors.........but by whose hands no one knows.

[sadie]

Too convulated and the window/shutter was in full view of the car park on the ground floor NAH I dont buy a burglar would even bother with it.

Anyway as to being put off by someone inside didnt the late Mrs Fenn nearly apprehend a burglar in her flat so who ever the burglar is he isnt very clever.....and left empty handed then too.

Pages and pages of shutter/window open/closed, patio door/front door, and the conclusion is ?

Ta Dah the child went missing....

Some of us, who have examined the situation, now accept that the front door was likely used ... but as a matter of principle, you will not accept that the front door is the most likely?  I wonder why, with so many pointers?

Who would know the front and back doors were left unlocked?

To the best of my knowledge, it has not been established that the front was unlocked.  That is a myth, I believe.  Even if not double locked it seems it was on the latch .... so un-openable from the outside without a key, I think.
Please stop spreading myths.  That is creating propaganda

Who would know the children were left unsecure and on their own EVERY night of a holiday?

Insecure?  I think not.
Unless you include the patio door route , which Amaral specifically said WOULD NOT have been used by an abductor/ intruder

More Myths Colom

Who would know the parents and friends routine?

................?

They were watched .  Several witnesses saw a man watching the apartment.  Surely you knew that?

when thats been worked out then there might be some answers.......

Its LUDICROUS to believe a gang of child snatchers would know all these things. Why would they risk being caught. The flat was actually the worse one to try and break into as it was located by a common path, and car park, and entrance way to other flats.

You are wrong.

It was perfect at the front for someone to enter via the front door.  You obviously haven't read previous threads where it has been thoroughly discussed.  Have you been there and seen ?

It was the easiest and the most hidden with the front door, in a deep recess, tucked away out of sight of anyone.  No light.  Virtually pitch black there Colom.  With a key, in and out in less than a minute.  I have a blue disability badge cos of walking probs, but I have tested it ... and I could do everthing in less than a minute ... given a key.

Why would they risk taking a child from a holiday flat its far too risky.

Maybe this child had been selected?

As to watching routines. IF they were watching the routine they would have seen it changed every night. This would make it difficult to decide when to go in and take a child etc. Also why did the routine change so much on the 3rd May?

Only one night that it was different, when they trekked up to the Millennium restaurant , no doubt carry three kids.  After that each night was the same.  Where did you get your misinformation from?

Why did the McCanns leave their children AGAIN after their own daughter questioned them about where they were etc....ok we have been told that this is probably a ruse, but what an odd thing to tell anyway why? It made them appear even more neglectful. OR did they just think by saying that then they were being totally honest and therefore could not have harmed their daughter. Either way it sucks, as if the latter how could you then leave your children AGAIN on their own what for?

Your thoughts are convoluted Colom.  Now that you know that Kate was totally honest and readily admitted Madeleine mentioning that she had cried, you are trying to make out it was a ploy to prove her honesty?   Yeah .. Right !   

What a suspicious mind you must have to even consider such a thought.  Nil points on that one Colom.


A meal, a drink with friends was this so important? Why was it so important? What was the point to it, they were up and down most of the meal why were they up and down? ALL of it seems staged and rehearsed now to me.

Non of it makes any sense.

Having been there and seen, it was like a meal ina gazebo in the back garden
.  The photographs grossly exaggerate the distances.  In fact the whole area is very cozy and brilliantly laid out [by part owner, architect Robin Crossland?] to fit an amazing number of facilities in a very small space.  Do go and see for yourself.  You will be surprised.


The only one thing I know now is for certain is a child is missing.

Either way the child had to go out of one of the doors.........but by whose hands no one knows.

I agree.  She went out by the front door, almost certainly.  Gerry and Jez were talking, just 20 feet (over 6 metres) from the rear patio gate.  No abductor would have risked going out past them.  Additionally Jane Tanner sighted a man, bundleman ... and that confirmed that he left by the front.

[colombosstogey]

Columbosstogey stole a lot of my thoughts.

Put simply I can't understand why an abductor would go to the lengths of abduction from bed (which is rarer than chickens lips) when a simple snatch would suffice?

Sadie - I do not rule out abduction, never have. For me there is not enough evidence either way so with nothing else to go on I naturally fall back on the balance of probability. When using the balance of probability rather than irrefutable proof it becomes a whole new ball game because all of a sudden the McCann's suspicious activity comes into play. It's even evident in your abduction scenario.

If Gerry is outside with Jez while the abduction takes place, which is subsequently witnessed by Jane, which in turn forces the getaway driver to scarper, then why did Gerry nor Jez hear the shutters open? They were closed when Gerry did his check and with part of your theory also being that Madeleine was passed through the window to an accomplice, then that said accomplice was who Jane witnessed carrying Madeleine. So what happened to the passer and is the getaway driver the passer or now the 3rd person in the scenario? It's getting more complicated and less like a military operation (in fact it's more in keeping with Curly, Larry and Mo). So up to now we have 3 abductors complicit in the abduction of the worlds most famous missing child and what do they usually say on CW? Somebody somewhere must know who these people are? So 3 sets of relatives, 3 sets of friends to go at and still after all this time diddly squat even with a nice juicy 2.5m reward? >@@(*&)

Then's lets not forget whilst this bungled abduction is occurring we have a difference of opinion regarding which side of the road Gerry's on. He's in disagreement with both Jane and Jez which brings us back once again to McCann suspicious behaviour. You see there is no getting away from it. Oh and let's not forget Kate's take on it not being of relevance which side of the street they stood on which for me then begins to square the circle.

People tell lies because they have a need to cover up the truth.

The bits in bold.

I have always said from the beginning if she was abducted she was taken through the front door even on foot. I have always said I believe she knew who took her and was not scared or frightened, hence she didnt make a fuss. IF SHE WAS CARRIED out then that makes it hard for me too, as I believe she would have woken up and cried it was COLD out she would have woken up.

Now this causes me a few problems. Either the front door was UNLOCKED, or someone had access to a key. IF the front door was UNLOCKED why was it unlocked?

So who would have access to a key?

IF the child knew the abductor who would she be in contact with in the week?

IF the child was carried through the window like you said to an accomplice that would mean like you say 3 people probably involved. ~The traffic from the walking Tapas 7 was bad enough without adding another 3 people to the mix lol.

The big reward for me is the cruncher. 2.5 million is enough to turn thieves against one another, yet there was no takers. Very odd.

The fact the window of opportunity was so limited makes it almost impossible for the abduction to have taken place.

I believe IF she was taken it was 9.40 or there abouts as we can discount Tanners sighting which I thought ws totally bogus anyway....

No abductor is going to walk through lit streets......

[pathfinder73]

If Madeleine complained where were you it doesn't explain why Kate and Gerry (who weren't even sitting next to each other at the table) had their backs to the apartment so they couldn't see the patio door. Very strange. If you look at this case from foresight instead of hindsight then things become clear. Unlocked doors being mentioned, crying episode all just before she went missing and they had their backs to the apartment so they couldn't even see if anyone was going in or out. Under those circumstances wouldn't you be facing the apartment so you could watch if it was unlocked?

"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children’s bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door. Perhaps he’d either come in or gone out via the window, not both; perhaps he hadn’t been through it at all, but had opened it to prepare an emergency escape route if needed, or merely to throw investigators off the scent. He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits.
That would explain the movement of the door to the children’s bedroom. At 9.05pm, when Gerry had found it further ajar than it should have been, he had pulled it back to its original position. On his arrival half an hour later, Matt hadn’t gone into the room, he had simply listened at the door, which he hadn’t adjusted. And yet when I returned at 10pm it was open wider once again. How had that happened?"

Yes indeed how did that happen. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.