So, would you consider apartment 5a, on the corner and next to two roads, ground floor and unlocked not to be particularly vulnerable then? And yet hasn't this argument been used against the McCanns by those pushing the neglect angle, ie: that they left their children in such a vulnerable location? Vulnerable to outside forces, or not really, in your view?
Hasn't this been raised before? Bit of a hoisted-by-ones-own-petard here, IMO.
Was Luz safe enough that leaving a patio door both unlocked and obviously unlocked made sense?
Or was 5A simply ripe for the plucking and two highly educated people acted as thick as two short planks?
And the hindsight view of some 'expert' pontificating after Madeleine had vanished is of no importance. Goodness only knows how many supposed experts have spouted rubbish even with the benefit of hindsight.
So, should the undoubtedly intelligent McCanns be castigated for failing to recognise the alleged security issues of 5A? Was 5A inherently less secure than 5B or 5D? Both were ground floor, had a front door, the same shutter mechanism, and a rear patio door that locked from the inside only.