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

[jassi]

Certainly evidence that a man was carrying a child that night, but that's as far as it goes. No definite connection with Madeleine.

[pegasus]

RE tracing mobile phone number, it does not come up in search engines, to search further is difficult without knowing the context for example the files page number in which it occured.
BTW Heriberto your method of opening window and shutter from outside without force is very good, also the window not autolocking, also your deduction that this is a petty thief, also your having this man never climb in, all those points are correct IMO.
However if I were awoken in that correct scenario I would run in exactly opposite direction to what you propose.

[Mr Gray]

Certainly evidence that a man was carrying a child that night, but that's as far as it goes. No definite connection with Madeleine.

 Thts why it wouldn't amount to proof...but it is evidence

[Redblossom]

RE tracing mobile phone number, it does not come up in search engines, to search further is difficult without knowing the context for example the files page number in which it occured.
BTW Heriberto your method of opening window and shutter from outside without force is very good, also the window not autolocking, also your deduction that this is a petty thief, also your having this man never climb in, all those points are correct IMO.
However if I were awoken in that correct scenario I would run in exactly opposite direction to what you propose.

If you were an teenager or adult, with nous,perhaps,a child of three woudnt be aware of stranger danger.....and not sure where this whole idea of running off is going....

[pegasus]

...well going out that bedroom door you have bathroom on right (unlikely IMO), other bedroom straight ahead, or lounge/diner left.

[John]

whatever the court thought of it ..it would be classed as evidence

Yes, evidence of an unknown man carrying a female child. The inference that it was Madeleine is just that, the sighting means very little on its own.

The opening post title is interesting.  My own view is that an intruder could very well have pushed up the shutter, slid the unlocked window to the side and climbed in.  Problem is that it is an awkward manoeuvre for one person to do on his own.  It can be done by one person but in doing so they will leave a number of marks including prints and scuff marks.  As far as I am aware no such marks were ever found on the window or the shutter.

[Mr Gray]

Yes, evidence of an unknown man carrying a female child. The inference that it was Madeleine is just that, the sighting means very little on its own.

 that's actually more evidence than in Ben Needhams case

[Redblossom]

...well going out that bedroom door you have bathroom on right (unlikely IMO), other bedroom straight ahead, or lounge/diner left.

If that was to me, sorry pegasus, not following....

[pegasus]

Looking at where someone would go when exiting that room
.... in that scenario I would probably hide either behind a sofa or in a cupboard.

[Redblossom]

Looking at where someone would go when exiting that room
.... in that scenario I would probably hide either behind a sofa or in a cupboard.

Ok,and?

[pathfinder73]

Looking at where someone would go when exiting that room
.... in that scenario I would probably hide either behind a sofa or in a cupboard.

Yes a child would hide behind a sofa if they were scared. But nobody went through the window?

[slartibartfast]

Yes it is...not good evidence but it is evidence...witness statements are also evidence

You mean the same as the dogs?

[Heriberto Janosch]

John, I am not giving up. I think it is time to wait for the new data collected by Scotland Yard Operation Grange and Oporto Polícia Judiciária Team to be public (both secret now, the press are only rehashing old "news").

SY are following the "stranger abductor theory" (people monitoring the apartment and/or the burglaries, and the Smith family sighting), and said that the McCann and their seven adult friends are not suspects or persons of interest. PJ Oporto are also following the "stranger abductor theory", ie, the McCann and friends do not seem to be persons of interest or suspects to them.

I agree with SY, except for the "British tourist" allegation, IMO Jane saw the abductor. And about PJ Oporto, I do not know what line of inquiry they are following, so I have no opinion by now (but I trust in Helena Monteiro team).

Pegasus, I am only asking for a web page (directory or inverse search) where you can put a Portugal mobile phone number (no matter the context) and find additional information about ...

Thanks to all of you ... 

[Redblossom]

You mean the same as the dogs?

Dont  mention the dogs LOL kate mccann tells us its abusive to do so.....seriously thats what she said LoL

Proof if you want it

http://www.findmadeleine.com/updates/updates@page=1.html


14 jan 2010


 

[Mr Gray]

You mean the same as the dogs?

no not the dogs because grime said they have no evidential value