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

[misty]

Why did the others check if the windows in their apartment were locked or unlocked?

Exactly. Checking windows would be a pointless exercise if it was not believed 5a window was  open and the shutters could  be raised from the outside.

[pegasus]

Why did the others check if the windows in their apartment were locked or unlocked?

Because obviously they became much more window-security-conscious immediately after the disappearance which was connected with a window being opened. See the rogs, DW is a good one to start with.

They were also actively trying to work out what had happened in 5A - and in this they were considering whether the window at 5A had been unlocked - I can prove this in a rog.

[pegasus]

I was asking about the mostly unidentifiable prints you mentioned on the window as I've never before come across anything saying this

To open the fully closed but unlocked window from outside requires only a gentle push because it slides so easily, and IMO this would leave only a small mark on the outside of the window or possibly no mark if gloved.

[pathfinder73]

To open the fully closed but unlocked window from outside requires only a gentle push because it slides so easily, and IMO this would leave only a small mark on the outside of the window or possibly no mark if gloved.

No glove marks were found. You're not going to find anything that doesn't exist however long you look at it.

[Miss Taken Identity]

No glove marks were found. You're not going to find anything that doesn't exist however long you look at it.

Good Morning Pathy,

I thought the 'supporters' had moved on from this form of entry for an abduction due to the fact it was proved it was impossible to get in and out of that window carrying a 3 year old child, without leaving ANY marks.

So the next scenario would be- the joint was cased by burglars- how did they miss the unlocked doors when casing the joint?  AND  why not use the door- more effective.

The Burglars wanting to steal money and movable/ easy to 'fence' goods would know when casing the joint that the best option would be to enter a child's bedroom- who were known to wake and cry.

And low and behold ditches the money and movable goods idea, and steals a child instead?

 what? Hahahahahaha

[pegasus]

Good Morning Pathy,

I thought the 'supporters' had moved on from this form of entry for an abduction due to the fact it was proved it was impossible to get in and out of that window carrying a 3 year old child, without leaving ANY marks.

So the next scenario would be- the joint was cased by burglars- how did they miss the unlocked doors when casing the joint?  AND  why not use the door- more effective.

The Burglars wanting to steal money and movable/ easy to 'fence' goods would know when casing the joint that the best option would be to enter a child's bedroom- who were known to wake and cry.

And low and behold ditches the money and movable goods idea, and steals a child instead?

 what? Hahahahahaha

I think you're overestimating the amount of casing for a quick burglary that will probably if lucky make 50 euros.
It looked like everyone was out (that is the most important point to realise, and the only casing needed).
Test the only reachable window (two seconds) and if it's not locked reach in and pull strap, climb in, grab any cash jewellery cameras, out the front door, probably two minutes total or less.

[jassi]

I think you're overestimating the amount of casing for a quick burglary that will probably if lucky make 50 euros.
It looked like everyone was out (that is the most important point to realise, and the only casing needed).
Test the only reachable window (two seconds) and if it's not locked reach in and pull strap, climb in, grab any cash jewellery cameras, out the front door, probably two minutes total or less.

Except they didn't.

[mercury]

To open the fully closed but unlocked window from outside requires only a gentle push because it slides so easily, and IMO this would leave only a small mark on the outside of the window or possibly no mark if gloved.

While that may be true, I was questioning this part of a post you made

There are plenty of marks on the shutter and window, and almost all of them are unidentifiable.

As far as I know there were no unidentified prints on the window....or at least mention of any in the files, that's all, let alone "plenty"

[pegasus]

While that may be true, I was questioning this part of a post you made

There are plenty of marks on the shutter and window, and almost all of them are unidentifiable.

As far as I know there were no unidentified prints on the window....or at least mention of any in the files, that's all, let alone "plenty"

Yes there were lots of unidentified marks on the window. For example around the handle. Do you need to see a photo?

[mercury]

Yes there were lots of unidentified marks on the window. For example around the handle. Do you need to see a photo?

No, if you say there is a photo I trust there is

 

It was my mistake anyway assuming that by marks you meant prints, sorry about that...even though it doesn't necessarily mean an intruder made those marks any more than a stray pidgeon or flying piece of gravel eg

[pegasus]

No, if you say there is a photo I trust there is

 

It was my mistake anyway assuming that by marks you meant prints, sorry about that...even though it doesn't necessarily mean an intruder made those marks any more than a stray pidgeon or flying piece of gravel eg

Yes lots of marks (fingermarks, handmarks, whatever) on this window and shutter, but only 5 were identifiable to an individual, and these were of 2 left fingers on glass.
Obviously any repeat petty burglar will wear gloves, so forensics on an opened window and shutter at an interrupted burglary scene will almost certainly produce no prints of the petty burglar, but probably some prints of occupant(s). KM's prints are from leaning to look out the window IMO, not from opening it.   
 

[pathfinder73]

Yes lots of marks (fingermarks, handmarks, whatever) on this window and shutter, but only 5 were identifiable to an individual, and these were of 2 left fingers on glass.
Obviously any repeat petty burglar will wear gloves, so forensics on an opened window and shutter at an interrupted burglary scene will almost certainly produce no prints of the petty burglar, but probably some prints of occupant(s). KM's prints are from leaning to look out the window IMO, not from opening it.   
 

Cite for other prints or glove marks on window please?

[pegasus]

Cite for other prints or glove marks on window please?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
top right photo - unidentified marks near handle
top left photo - more unidentified marks below handle
ETA also marks on glass 

[pegasus]

Marks around the shutter left stop.
The two stops probably provide a good way to start raising shutter from outside.

[mercury]

Yes lots of marks (fingermarks, handmarks, whatever) on this window and shutter, but only 5 were identifiable to an individual, and these were of 2 left fingers on glass.
Obviously any repeat petty burglar will wear gloves, so forensics on an opened window and shutter at an interrupted burglary scene will almost certainly produce no prints of the petty burglar, but probably some prints of occupant(s). KM's prints are from leaning to look out the window IMO, not from opening it.

lots of marks in themselves can't be evidence of an intruder...anyone or anything can cause a mark

Unless it is known the outside of the window and shutters were clean of all marks directly previously to 3 May
And the police files make no mention of prints partial or otherwise on the outside of the window which is the important bit

The three unidentified prints on the outside of the shutters (and any other marks you mention) are perfectly explained by three of the tapas group fiddling with the evidence that night.  Bye for now