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

[lordpookles]

The open window rules out the woke and wandered theory. So why would an abductor rule himself in  It doesn't make any sense never mind noise, risk incriminating oneself (no glove marks lol), time wasting, window facing the world etc. Why an abductor would open it doesn't make any sense if he didn't enter that way - he could take a child quicker than he could open shutters and window.

A predator is the only other credible explanation and that could connect to a lone Smithman and not a team. You would have to investigate everyone who was on the streets that night e.g. the checkers, Jes, tapas diners and compare them to witness efits to get your first suspects in for questioning but the ones who repeat no comment and hide behind lawyers when the going gets tough should be carefully investigated.

The woke and wandered theory could be explained if a burglar opened the window and then left after seeing children in the room imo. Obviously Madeleine then wandered off. How she would exit the apartment though - no idea. Peagasus refers to lounge sliding doors, but where would she go then? Can't see her hurdling the gates etc as they were closed behind.

[pathfinder73]

The woke and wandered theory could be explained if a burglar opened the window and then left after seeing children in the room imo. Obviously Madeleine then wandered off. How she would exit the apartment though - no idea. Peagasus refers to lounge sliding doors, but where would she go then? Can't see her hurdling the gates etc as they were closed behind.

If she was outside on the patio she would be heard before any fall. It's doubtful she would leave the front door way if somebody had opened the shutters on that side. You go away from danger. Madeleine was in a dark room and the first thing she most likely had done in that situation would fetch her parents for help. On not finding them somebody would have heard her screams. Not a peep from her that night.

[Carana]

No one knows how any individual child would react at that age.

Hiding from danger, certainly.

Her family was convinced that she would have screamed the place down (but there's always the possibility that she was somehow persuaded not to).

My own reactions at that age (and, again, children react differently) would have been to either holler, or to move directly away from the perceived danger. In the latter case, moving away could have easily been to move towards the furthest side of the bed (as that would have been directly away) with the covers over my head hoping not to be noticed.

If the furthest side of the bed had been in an open space, I might have scrambled out of the opposite side of the bed, but I very much doubt that I would have moved even temporarily towards the danger (i.e. climbing out towards the window side), or would have scrambled over the bottom of the bed to run.

Other possibilities that I find plausible (in the event of someone attempting to enter via the window) are that she wasn't in bed at the time (e.g., she'd gone for a pee), or had somehow been drugged, "hypnotised" or otherwise cajoled into compliance. Or unfortunately possibly asphyxiated.

If I'd gone for a pee, I wouldn't have taken CC with me. In any other situation, I'm fairly sure that I would kept CC by my side - even if I'd decided to hide under the covers.

[lordpookles]

Kids are different though Carana as you say noone knows how any individual child would behave. I think getting down to the details of taking CC to the toilet is just far to precise to make a judgement on imo. Regarding heading in the opposite direction from danger I agree with this, but what if this is someone Madeleine knows? Perhaps from the day creche or somewhere else. They call out something like "don't worry Madeleine its just such and such and mummy daddy have told me to come get you". Kids can be easily fooled imo. Especially kids this young. I just think under the circumstances this kind of theory on the abduction side could make sense. Though, the perpetrator would be in a lot of trouble if they refused to come to the window I suppose. This does fit the open window and lack of any other visible entry to the apartment.

PS: I didn't think hypnotism even worked - not reliably anyway or at least not in the way one would think.

[Brietta]

I'm suggesting that the clue is in the fact that Madeleine was originally under the covers but around half an hour later she was on top of the covers, apparently asleep. She wasn't clutching CC or her blanket when GM saw her, so clearly not feeing insecure or aware her parents were missing at that stage. The door had moved. Had she left her bed, she would have been aware her parents were not there at that stage because of the darkness & absence of noise.
Tidying up & staging was done after Madeleine had been removed from the apartment & passed to an accomplice.

That explanation neatly ties up why Madeleine was lying on top of the bed the last time she was seen by her father.

With you Misty as far as entry via the recessed wooden door is concerned ... with a key being used.

I don't think Madeleine was taken or passed out that way ... I think she was passed through the window.

• Entry via front door
• Madeleine drugged (and perhaps the twins)
• Window opened and shutter raised from inside
• Madeleine lifted from her bed
• Father enters unexpectedly
• Intruder leaves Madeleine on top of the bed and crouches down behind the cots
• Before leaving, father looks in but does not enter
• As father exits the intruder lifts the child takes her to the window and passes her through to an accomplice
• Intruder exits via the front door

It is possible Madeleine was taken through the front door as I think one of the main purposes of the open window was to distract from the kidnap being thought of as an 'inside job' with a key being used.

I remain to be convinced that Jane Tanner did not witness Madeleine being carried away.

[Carana]

Kids are different though Carana as you say noone knows how any individual child would behave. I think getting down to the details of taking CC to the toilet is just far to precise to make a judgement on imo. Regarding heading in the opposite direction from danger I agree with this, but what if this is someone Madeleine knows? Perhaps from the day creche or somewhere else. They call out something like "don't worry Madeleine its just such and such and mummy daddy have told me to come get you". Kids can be easily fooled imo. Especially kids this young. I just think under the circumstances this kind of theory on the abduction side could make sense. Though, the perpetrator would be in a lot of trouble if they refused to come to the window I suppose. This does fit the open window and lack of any other visible entry to the apartment.

PS: I didn't think hypnotism even worked - not reliably anyway or at least not in the way one would think.

I could have been cajoled / persuaded when a little older. Three, going on four, is awfully young to trust a relative stranger in an unusual setting. But that's just my opinion.

I'm fairly sceptical about "hypnotism" as well, which is why I put it in quotation marks (particularly due to scam artists and potential backhanders to members of the public in TV shows, etc.)

On the other hand... I recently watched some of the Derren Brown shows on YouTube, and I'd never heard of him before a few days ago. It's possible that they are all elaborate hoaxes, as many such shows are. However - at the moment - I'm stlll quite impressed, although I might change my mind tomorrow.

One technique involved coaxing someone out of bed in a kind of sleepwalking state. I don't find that impossible in reverse as I've seen it happen myself more than once.

[G-Unit]

That explanation neatly ties up why Madeleine was lying on top of the bed the last time she was seen by her father.

With you Misty as far as entry via the recessed wooden door is concerned ... with a key being used.

I don't think Madeleine was taken or passed out that way ... I think she was passed through the window.

• Entry via front door
• Madeleine drugged (and perhaps the twins)
• Window opened and shutter raised from inside
• Madeleine lifted from her bed
• Father enters unexpectedly
• Intruder leaves Madeleine on top of the bed and crouches down behind the cots
• Before leaving, father looks in but does not enter
• As father exits the intruder lifts the child takes her to the window and passes her through to an accomplice
• Intruder exits via the front door

It is possible Madeleine was taken through the front door as I think one of the main purposes of the open window was to distract from the kidnap being thought of as an 'inside job' with a key being used.

I remain to be convinced that Jane Tanner did not witness Madeleine being carried away.

Madeleine and the twins drugged how? After much discussion on another thread no substance was found which could be used for instant drugging.

Gerald McCann never noticed the draft coming through the window and the open shutters and curtains described by his wife when having his proud father moment?

Why distract from key when patio door is clearly open and being used for checking?

[Alice Purjorick]

Madeleine and the twins drugged how? After much discussion on another thread no substance was found which could be used for instant drugging.

Gerald McCann never noticed the draft coming through the window and the open shutters and curtains described by his wife when having his proud father moment?

Why distract from key when patio door is clearly open and being used for checking?

Not to mention statements saying he [Gerry] went into the room.
So we have some dodgy geeze with a front door key, an accomplice one or both with drugs together with devices for administering them. Geeze or accomplice then wanders off with child through the front door (of course) otherwise Jane Tanner would not have seen him where she says she did cos had he gone out the back way he would have walked smack dab into Gerry, Jane  and Jez.
I have this great idea. Start off with the story we like then bend all the statements and known facts to fit. Including ignoring what "probably the finest police force in the world" said about the Tanner sighting.
Well it's plausible isn't it?

[lordpookles]

I could have been cajoled / persuaded when a little older. Three, going on four, is awfully young to trust a relative stranger in an unusual setting. But that's just my opinion.

I'm fairly sceptical about "hypnotism" as well, which is why I put it in quotation marks (particularly due to scam artists and potential backhanders to members of the public in TV shows, etc.)

On the other hand... I recently watched some of the Derren Brown shows on YouTube, and I'd never heard of him before a few days ago. It's possible that they are all elaborate hoaxes, as many such shows are. However - at the moment - I'm stlll quite impressed, although I might change my mind tomorrow.

One technique involved coaxing someone out of bed in a kind of sleepwalking state. I don't find that impossible in reverse as I've seen it happen myself more than once.

Yes I know Derren Brown well! Seen him live at the theatre and read his book. He's an atheist and very interested in the sciences. Also, he says in his book unequivocally that what he does is in fact an illusion, just entertainment, but he never uses stooges. He's highly skilled at hypnotism, NLP, talking to the dead(which is obviously a fraud and he knows this art well and does what all the so called mediums do and likes to expose them), body language, has a photographic memory apparently and a clever guy imo. There is a section in the book where he goes into hypnotism a great deal and from what he wrote I don't think you could ever hypnotise a child in that manner and definitely not in the time available. It takes from what I have read a certain kind of person to be hypnotised and even then they don't really loose their free will - they are more willing participants though vunlerable to suggestion. He revealed the secret to one of his tricks and it was amazing the lengths he went to to do it.

[pegasus]

That didn't happen because nobody heard that child. The Moyes were out on their balcony. Fenn would be aware of any noise after Tue but she heard nowt until 10:30 on 3 May. Kate alone in the apartment is not yet screaming and kicking walls but this happens when the police arrive.

IMO the people at 5K were not sitting out on balcony for any length of time, but just went out on balcony very briefly then went to bed.

"  ...  they had returned to their apartment at around 9.15pm after an evening out.
'We went into the apartment, I went out on the balcony, looking over at the tapas bar, and remarked ... that there were so many people in there eating and drinking'  ... "
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/holidaymakers-tell-of-late-night-search-for-madeleine-309331.html

So if the main event happened about 9.25pm, it's possible the people at 5K were no longer on balcony.

[pegasus]

If she was outside on the patio she would be heard before any fall. It's doubtful she would leave the front door way if somebody had opened the shutters on that side. You go away from danger. Madeleine was in a dark room and the first thing she most likely had done in that situation would fetch her parents for help. On not finding them somebody would have heard her screams. Not a peep from her that night.

I've already posted real cases where a home alone child runs from an attempted window entry by burglar and hides elsewhere in the property deliberately making no sound.

[Carana]

Yes I know Derren Brown well! Seen him live at the theatre and read his book. He's an atheist and very interested in the sciences. Also, he says in his book unequivocally that what he does is in fact an illusion, just entertainment, but he never uses stooges. He's highly skilled at hypnotism, NLP, talking to the dead(which is obviously a fraud and he knows this art well and does what all the so called mediums do and likes to expose them), body language, has a photographic memory apparently and a clever guy imo. There is a section in the book where he goes into hypnotism a great deal and from what he wrote I don't think you could ever hypnotise a child in that manner and definitely not in the time available. It takes from what I have read a certain kind of person to be hypnotised and even then they don't really loose their free will - they are more willing participants though vunlerable to suggestion. He revealed the secret to one of his tricks and it was amazing the lengths he went to to do it.

That's interesting. I hadn't heard of him before a few days ago and have now watched serveral (but my interest was nothing to do with this case).

As I said, I might dismiss the possibility tomorrow. For the moment, I find it an intriguing possibility that I hadn't considered before.

Would a child or an adult be more difficult to coax in a sleep state? On the one hand, a child presumably relies on familar voices, but an an adult would have more life experience.

My thought at the moment isn't about putting anyone fully awake into some kind of deep relaxation, but about coaxing someone with a soothing voice already in a sleeping state. I did watch one in which he explained the gradual planting of ideas. I also found one about using various subliminal triggers quite mind-flipping (unless it's proved to be a hoax).

[pegasus]

The woke and wandered theory could be explained if a burglar opened the window and then left after seeing children in the room imo. Obviously Madeleine then wandered off. How she would exit the apartment though - no idea. Peagasus refers to lounge sliding doors, but where would she go then? Can't see her hurdling the gates etc as they were closed behind.

I already posted the source which states that at about 9.30pm the childgate was "possibly open".
But even if it was open, that doesn't mean it was the child that opened it - for example it could be that not all checkers closed the childgate after their check.
IMO in a home-alone attempted-burglary situation a child would probably hide in another room (not go outside), and this is based on reading real cases where this has happened.

[Brietta]

That's interesting. I hadn't heard of him before a few days ago and have now watched serveral (but my interest was nothing to do with this case).

As I said, I might dismiss the possibility tomorrow. For the moment, I find it an intriguing possibility that I hadn't considered before.

Would a child or an adult be more difficult to coax in a sleep state? On the one hand, a child presumably relies on familar voices, but an an adult would have more life experience.

My thought at the moment isn't about putting anyone fully awake into some kind of deep relaxation, but about coaxing someone with a soothing voice already in a sleeping state. I did watch one in which he explained the gradual planting of ideas. I also found one about using various subliminal triggers quite mind-flipping (unless it's proved to be a hoax).

Reading what LP says about Derren Brown and the time it would take to hypnotise someone making it unlikely ...  I know very little about hypnotism ... but is it possible to 'implant' a command word which a previously hypnotised person will react to, and also make a person forget they have been subject to hypnotism? (don't know if that is nonsense)

Madeleine could have been hypnotised on a previous night and been enticed to the window on command??

[pathfinder73]

Reading what LP says about Derren Brown and the time it would take to hypnotise someone making it unlikely ...  I know very little about hypnotism ... but is it possible to 'implant' a command word which a previously hypnotised person will react to, and also make a person forget they have been subject to hypnotism? (don't know if that is nonsense)

Madeleine could have been hypnotised on a previous night and been enticed to the window on command??

The night they said she said they were crying. She forgot to do it on 3 May. So Tue, Wed crying then silence on Thurs. Yeah that makes perfect sense so now we have hypnotism. Tick tock  *&*%£