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

[Eleanor]

That's where you are going wrong.

Please try not to be definitive.  You are only entitled to an opinion.

[Wonderfulspam]

Please try not to be definitive.  You are only entitled to an opinion.

I'm right though.

[sadie]

Easy. First to recognise that KMs account is truthful - she genuinely found the window and shutter open.
Second that the forensics indicate that no third-party entered the apartment.
Therefore a third party, who never ever entered the apartment, must have opened the window and shutter from outside.
Heri's video shows the 3 stage method by which this is possible.
The apparently illogical decision to then not climb in, is actually logical, and can only be because he was disturbed at that exact moment.

Thanks for coming back Pegasus, but the scene was all forensically messed up ... and there certainly were things found ... hairs? ...  I can no longer remember what ... but things were found that the PJ could not match to any known person on the scene... or that was normally allowed access to 5A


Personally, I dont think that we can be at all certian that no-one entered the apartment because of these thngs.


I am being picky again sorry, but I think it is important that we dont make assumptions.

[pegasus]

Thanks for coming back Pegasus, but the scene was all forensically messed up ... and there certainly were things found ... hairs? ...  I can no longer remember what ... but things were found that the PJ could not match to any known person on the scene... or that was normally allowed access to 5A


Personally, I dont think that we can be at all certian that no-one entered the apartment because of these thngs.


I am being picky again sorry, but I think it is important that we dont make assumptions.

I think that, on opening that particular window and shutter from outside, the almost inevitable outcome was that he would be immediately disturbed, and therefore would not enter.

[Anna]

I think that, on opening that particular window and shutter from outside, the almost inevitable outcome was that he would be immediately disturbed, and therefore would not enter.

So the child might have gone out of the front door to see what it was and left it ajar, causing the through draft later, when kate checked.
 The front door would have slammed shut at the same time as the bedroom door.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It gets too complicated when you say she went to another room, and then what happened?

[pegasus]

So the child might have gone out of the front door to see what it was and left it ajar, causing the through draft later, when kate checked.
 The front door would have slammed shut at the same time as the bedroom door.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It gets too complicated when you say she went to another room, and then what happened?

IMO the front door is towards the perceived danger.
The lounge end of the open plan area, or the south bedroom, are away from the perceived danger.

[sadie]

I think that, on opening that particular window and shutter from outside, the almost inevitable outcome was that he would be immediately disturbed, and therefore would not enter.

I dont follow your reasoning Pegasus.

Why would he be almost immediately disturbed ?   It doesn't make sense, to me.

[Miss Taken Identity]

In he absence of any accurate measurements of the door being moved to a certain degree by each person 'listening' at the door- it just blows the whole story out of the water really.

The way 'we ' left it... what way was it left?

Gerry looked in and saw Maddie, did he touch the door?- did he notice it had been moved from when 'we' left it?

How did kate know it was not the way 'we' left it? did she ask Gerry if he moved it? Gerry never mentions the door being moved...

'Jemmied shutters' and 'whooshing' are all an attempt to create a scene or an image in peoples  heads to deflect the responsibility of the parents disgraceful and despicable behavour towards their children's well being.

[Alfred R Jones]

Love the level of analysis here on the detail.

I was a victim of a robbery at a cash point recently.  My girlfriend was right by my side.

I was interviewed within 20 minutes of the event happening.  I gave my statement, and then listened to my girlfriend give hers.  She contradicted me on the clothing, the perp's height, accent, and about 10 other small details.

If you analysed our statements, you might conclude that we made the whole thing up given the spate of contradictions in there.

OR, you might realise accounts are often blurred, and people are fallible as far as the accounts they give.

That's perfectly understandable - unless you're one of the McCanns or their friends, then your statements must marry up exactly, or it's evidence that you lied, according to our resident "sceptics".

[pegasus]

I dont follow your reasoning Pegasus.

Why would he be almost immediately disturbed ?   It doesn't make sense, to me.

Because there were people nearby and one of them would almost inevitably disturb him.

[sadie]

Because there were people nearby and one of them would almost inevitably disturb him.

What people were nearby?   You stated:

I think that, on opening that particular window and shutter from outside, the almost inevitable outcome was that he would be immediately disturbed, and therefore would not enter.

Nothing inevitable about being disturbed, was there?  A slight to fair possibility, but he had an abundance of quite long periods when he would not have been disturbed.  He was much less likely to have been disturbed, it is a possibility however

I think that it is dangerous to state things as almost facts, when they are not.

The danger is pegasus, that they become myths .... and given time and thousands of people reading them, they become "facts" ... and that is one of the ways Injustice happens.




I am sorry, I am being picky again, but I think it is an important point that stuff that we dont actually know, should NOT be presented as almost fact.

[sadie]

What 'pointers' sadie ?

That is a very vague statement.

I have gone thru them several times and I am far to busy atm to go into one of your favourite circular rambles

Look back, Stephen, if you want to find them

[slartibartfast]

I am sorry, I am being picky again, but I think it is an important point that stuff that we dont actually know, should NOT be presented as almost fact.

Hear, hear, that's the abduction put to bed then.

[sadie]

Hear, hear, that's the abduction put to bed then.

Ahhhh, now SY have worked on this.  They will have more information and facts than we do.

They think it was an abduction.  I am happy to go along with SY


Hows about you Slarti, do you think that SY is more likely to have got it right, than you, Stephen; Faith, Spammy and Co? 


Or do you think that you are cleverer than SY ?

[Angelo222]

Ahhhh, now SY have worked on this.  They will have more information and facts than we do.

They think it was an abduction.  I am happy to go along with SY


Hows about you Slarti, do you think that SY is more likely to have got it right, than you, Stephen; Faith, Spammy and Co? 


Or do you think that you are cleverer than SY ?

Clearly SY haven't a baldy clue who dun it if anyone and with Redwood retiring soon I don't think they care for sure.