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

[pathfinder73]

That picture is scary, please don't do that to me!!

Well, apologists for everything and anything will argue its translation errors but we have three versions of the curtains positions and activities, must be three translation errors

The curtains were open
Kate ran over and opened the curtains
The curtains wooshed open
Only one statement was taken in English b English people so can't be attributed to that excuse

Only her statement on 4 May talks about her check and the curtains were open not closed. She wouldn't answer any questions about her check as arguido.

Then there's the book of truth:

As I ran back into the children’s room the closed curtains flew up in a gust of wind. My heart lurched as I saw now that, behind them, the window was wide open and the shutters on the outside raised all the way up. Nausea, terror, disbelief, fear. Icy fear. Dear God, no! Please, no!

[pegasus]

Why did Gerry McCann feel the need to discover how an abductor got into the apartment at all? it's not as if it was a lock stock and barrelled place, was it?

IMO at this point absolutely nothing was staged, neither person knew anything, there appeared to be only two obvious explanations for the open shutter
1. The child had opened it and climbed out.
2. Someone had opened it from outside and stolen the child.
The important thing is that both appeared to be impossible.
This is why GM and later DW tested theory 2 on this shutter, and FP tested theory 2 on another shutter.
To work out whether they were looking for a wandered-out-window child or a stolen-by-window-entry child.

None of them solved the simple full opening method. GM solved only the first of the 3 stages.

IMO theory 1 is wrong and theory 2 is half right (an adult had opened it from outside but had not taken the child).

[mercury]

Only her statement on 4 May talks about her check and the curtains were open not closed. She wouldn't answer any questions about her check as arguido.

Then there's the book of truth:

As I ran back into the children’s room the closed curtains flew up in a gust of wind. My heart lurched as I saw now that, behind them, the window was wide open and the shutters on the outside raised all the way up. Nausea, terror, disbelief, fear. Icy fear. Dear God, no! Please, no!

Exactlly....open (4  may) then not open but ran to open them (10 May) then closed but wind blew them open (her documentary) wish she'd make her mind up

[pegasus]

Exactlly....open (4  may) then not open but ran to open them (10 May) then closed but wind blew them open (her documentary) wish she'd make her mind up

There were curtains and net curtains so it is important to decide which is described

[mercury]

IMO at this point absolutely nothing was staged, neither person knew anything, there were two obvious explanations for the open shutter
1. The child had opened it and climbed out.
2. An adult had opened it from outside and stolen the child.
The important thing is that both appeared to be impossible.
This is why GM and later DW tested theory 2 on this shutter, and FP tested theory 2 on another shutter.
To work out whether they were looking for a wandered-out-window child or a stolen-via-window child.

None of them solved the simple full opening method. GM solved only the first of the 3 stages.

IMO theory 1 is wrong and theory 2 is half right (an adult had opened it from outside but had not taken the child).

Yes I suppose that's quick and clever thinking, IE if a child had opened the shutters from inside to escape the flat or someone opened them from outside to burgle or abduct

But where does that leave Kate McCann saying to all her friends at dinner that night she left the patio door open for Madeleine to go out of and go find them? No need to open shutters and climb out of them
Did she even tell Madeleine she did this for that reason?
is it in her BOOK???

[pathfinder73]

IMO at this point absolutely nothing was staged, neither person knew anything, there appeared to be only two obvious explanations for the open shutter
1. The child had opened it and climbed out.
2. Someone had opened it from outside and stolen the child.
The important thing is that both appeared to be impossible.
This is why GM and later DW tested theory 2 on this shutter, and FP tested theory 2 on another shutter.
To work out whether they were looking for a wandered-out-window child or a stolen-by-window-entry child.

None of them solved the simple full opening method. GM solved only the first of the 3 stages.

IMO theory 1 is wrong and theory 2 is half right (an adult had opened it from outside but had not taken the child).

It makes no sense for Dianne to be examining them if they've just been checked by Gerry. They could have got broken with all this tampering going on hmmm...........

[mercury]

There were curtains and net curtains so it is important to decide which is described

No Pegasus you're not gong to get away with that one

[mercury]

It makes no sense for Dianne to be examining them if they've just been checked by Gerry. They could have got broken with all this tampering going on hmmm...........

I bet she was thinking wtf?

[pathfinder73]

There were curtains and net curtains so it is important to decide which is described

Don't be silly. When you start from zero you accept nothing as the truth unless you can back it up. Nobody else seeing raised shutters raises a big question mark.

[misty]

Don't be silly. When you start from zero you accept nothing as the truth unless you can back it up. Nobody else seeing raised shutters raises a big question mark.

8 witnesses claimed to have seen something elsewhere yet they were all claimed to be mistaken. How much back-up do you require before something can be deemed as the truth?

[mercury]

8 witnesses claimed to have seen something elsewhere yet they were all claimed to be mistaken. How much back-up do you require before something can be deemed as the truth?

Depends how credible the witnesses are and IF they existed at all and weren't media fabrications....plus mistranslations...cuts both ways plus the fact it is NOT important to PJ or SY

[pathfinder73]

8 witnesses claimed to have seen something elsewhere yet they were all claimed to be mistaken. How much back-up do you require before something can be deemed as the truth?

The truth reveals itself when things contradict, don't fit or add up. You soon find out where the answer lies or who is probably lying.

[misty]

Depends how credible the witnesses are and IF they existed at all and weren't media fabrications....plus mistranslations...cuts both ways plus the fact it is NOT important to PJ or SY

They all made statements to the same effect & more than half were independent of each other. Why would they be considered not credible?

[pegasus]

Don't be silly. When you start from zero you accept nothing as the truth unless you can back it up. Nobody else seeing raised shutters raises a big question mark.

It does.
But so does your theory.
You seem to claim that someone decided to stage an open window and shutter, not by the obvious and easy method of opening them, which would have taken about 3 seconds, but instead by the cunning plan of leaving them closed.

[mercury]

They all made statements to the same effect & more than half were independent of each other. Why would they be considered not credible?

j

What statements?