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

[pegasus]

Yes, but, two years later, Kate McCann explained this in the Madeleine was Here c4 documentary, IE, that the window and shutters were open but curtains closed on her 10pm check, but the gust of wind blew them open (I thnk she described the same again when they went on the USA Oprah show)

ETA video links

Oprah Show, description of Kate Mccanns check at 10 pm, from approx 15.30 mins

Thanks Mercury. It is clear IMO that the curtains were shut.
BTW I have said for a long time that IMO this is a completely truthful and innocent witness and by listening to the account we can learn much to solve the case.

There is in the Oprah footage there is a very interesting account to be heard. After discovering that the child is apparently missing, the witness searches the wardrobes. In the context in which the witness speaks IMO this refers to the wardrobes only in the child bedroom. Then the witness rushes out the balcony door to get help from the others.

So at this point in time, when the witness rushes off to get help, there has been no search behind the sofa, and no search in the wardrobes of other bedroom. Therefore the first search of those two locations must have been later.

[mercury]

You might thnk it is clear Pegasus and that the witness is honest, I beg to differ for a variety of reasons

Both of  us could be wrong of course

[pegasus]

You might thnk it is clear Pegasus and that the witness is honest, I beg to differ for a variety of reasons

Both of  us could be wrong of course

Hypothetically even if Amarals theory were correct up to the time when the chat outside the lounge window ends, his opinion of what happened during the 10pm check is drastically wrong - in fact the check was exactly as this honest witness describes - noticed child missing, noticed window and shutter open, quickly looked in the wardrobes of the child bedroom, ran to get help.

[mercury]

Hypothetically even if Amarals theory were correct up to the time when the chat outside the lounge window ends, his opinion of what happened during the 10pm check is drastically wrong - in fact the check was exactly as this honest witness describes - noticed child missing, quickly looked in the wardrobes of the child bedroom, ran to get help.

There is no possible way you can know this let alone assert it as true..and it's nothing to do with Amaral or his and the PJ theories

you are at liberty to "believe" the witness though as I am to not, as it isn't a crime to suspect someone is not telling the whole truth for X y z reasons although many here and elsewhere would give me and others the epithet  of evil etc etc for even thnking such a horrible thought

[pegasus]

There is no possible way you can know this let alone assert it as true..and it's nothing to do with Amaral or his and the PJ theories

Amaral's theory is relevant, because he claims child went into another room for some trivial reason, and that the window and shutter were staged about 45 minutes later. My suggestion is simpler: someone opening the window and shutter from outside was the reason for going into another room. So there is no need to invent staging of the window and shutter, and it means the 10pm checker's account is truthful.

[mercury]

Amaral's theory is relevant, because he claims child went into another room for some trivial reason, and that the window and shutter were staged about 45 minutes later. My suggestion is simpler: someone opening the window and shutter from outside was the reason for going into another room. So there is no need to invent staging of the window and shutter, and it means the 10pm checker's account is truthful.

Yes, by your theory it's possible but not fact and a credible theory can't ever exonerate a suspect, legal one or otherwise

[pegasus]

Yes, by your theory it's possible but not fact and a credible theory can't ever exonerate a suspect, legal one or otherwise

The witness enters the apartment and finds that a window and shutter are open and a child is not in the bedroom.
It's certainly possible the window and shutter were opened from the outside (the window had no autolock and the shutter had no lock at all). And if that happened it's almost certain the child would awake and leave the room. So it's a very plausible scene and there is no reason to suspect the witness IMO.

[mercury]

The witness enters the apartment and finds that a window and shutter are open and a child is not in the bedroom.
It's certainly possible the window and shutter were opened from the outside (the window had no autolock and the shutter had no lock at all). And if that happened it's almost certain the child would awake and leave the room. So it's a very plausible scene and there is no reason to suspect the witness IMO.r

There are plenty of reasons to suspect the witness! One being a "no comment" answer to her arguido statement questions...err hello?

[pegasus]

There are plenty of reasons to suspect the witness! One being a "no comment" answer to her arguido statement questions...err hello?

Exercising that right is not indication of guilt - see the large amount of expert literature.

What is it in the witness account of the 10pm check which you think is not credible?

[mercury]

Exercising that right is not indication of guilt - see the large amount of expert literature.

What is it in the witness account of the 10pm check which you think is not credible?

I just dont trust that woman, or her husband, is it ok to thnk that? Good.

ETA she never said in two years that those flipping curtains were opened by the bleedin wind...talk about mitigating stories

[pegasus]

I just dont trust that woman, or her husband, is it ok to thnk that? Good.

ETA she never said in two years that those flipping curtains were opened by the bleedin wind...talk about mitigating stories

How does stating that the wind blew the curtains mitigate against anything?

One of the many bad bits of theorising that caused suspicion against this witness was something like this:
"there was no damage to the shutter and window, therefore the window and shutter cannot have been opened from outside, therefore this witness opened the window herself". That is rubbish because it is in fact possible to open the window and shutter from outside without damage in about 10 seconds, if the window isn't locked.

[G-Unit]

How does stating that the wind blew the curtains mitigate against anything?

One of the many bad bits of theorising that caused suspicion against this witness was something like this:
"there was no damage to the shutter and window, therefore the window and shutter cannot have been opened from outside, therefore this witness opened the window herself". That is rubbish because it is in fact possible to open the window and shutter from outside without damage in about 10 seconds, if the window isn't locked.

I thought it went like this;

The witness and her husband told friends and relatives the shutters were forced, which was untrue. The witness and her husband said the curtains were open, later they changed that and said they were closed. 

[pegasus]

I thought it went like this;

The witness and her husband told friends and relatives the shutters were forced, which was untrue. The witness and her husband said the curtains were open, later they changed that and said they were closed.

Your "The witness and her husband told friends and relatives the shutters were forced, which was untrue"
And my "there was no damage to the shutter and window, therefore the window and shutter cannot have been opened from outside, therefore this witness opened the window herself"
They both boil down to the same thing - the incorrect deduction (by the parents that night and by police later and even by Mr Amaral's security expert and by some forum people even now) that fully opening the window and shutter from outside is either impossible or requires force. That simply is a wrong deduction, because they can easily be opened from outside with no force no damage if the window lock button is not pressed in. See Heri video for the method - and it can be done much faster than that.

[pegasus]

(It's easy to prove this from photos and videos of the real 5A window, but some people still won't believe it)

The default state of the window after you fully close it is: unlocked.

[G-Unit]

(It's easy to prove this from photos and videos of the real 5A window, but some people still won't believe it)

The default state of the window after you fully close it is: unlocked.

I have never used metal shutters, but I have used German wooden ones. I never assumed they provided any security as it was clear that they worked a bit like a roller blind. The strap inside raises and lowers the shutters. Gravity keeps them in place when lowered. Their purpose is to keep out daylight and to keep a room cool in hot weather. During German winters they help keep heat in. German ones have some security function as they are extremely heavy.

The McCanns had a broken shutter previously, so would have an  idea how a broken shutter behaved. In particular, they stopped working, which is why OC had to send men out to mend them. The children's bedroom shutter worked fine when Gerald McCann lowered it, so was clearly not broken. They still told people the shutters were broken, although there was no evidence that they were.

The McCanns claimed they never checked the windows to see if they were locked. I would have thought that the default position would be locked as cleaners would understand how the system worked. Pity no-one asked the cleaners what the routine was regarding checking windows on change-over day.