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

[pegasus]

5 prints on the glass ("vidro") are consistent with leaning on an already-open window to look out IMO.

[sadie]

5 prints on the glass ("vidro") are consistent with leaning on an already-open window to look out IMO.

Good point pegasus.  for normal opening and closing, the whole hand would not be needed.  Also most people would slide a window open or clsed using the frame.

Seems kate braced herself against the glass with her left hand and leaned right out.  Presumably the right hand was braced against the wall on the RH side

[slartibartfast]

Good point pegasus.  for normal opening and closing, the whole hand would not be needed.  Also most people would slide a window open or clsed using the frame.

Seems kate braced herself against the glass with her left hand and leaned right out.  Presumably the right hand was braced against the wall on the RH side

Seems and presumably????

[icabodcrane]

The front door was used for entry and departure almost without doubt.  Madeleine went out that way too ! The front door was so hidden within its recess and in virtaully pitch blackness that it was Gods gift to anyone wanting to enter. 
No-one had view of that door. 
No one passed by.
No light on it.


A powerful group is trying to take attention away from the front door ... and the only reason that I can think of , is that it WAS USED AS THE WAY IN .... and also that it gives the game away that someone from OC was likely involved in providing the key

"The front door was used for entry and departure almost without doubt"

That assertion is entirely unjustified 

The  'doubt'  that exists,  regarding the front door being used  (  with the use of an imagined spare key  )  is that there is absolutely no evidence to support it

You can post endlessly about 'recesses'  and how the front door was  'hidden' from view,  but without  actual  evidence,  there is,  quite simply,  nothing   to suggest that the front door was used as a point of entry at all  ...let alone the preposterous claim that it was used  'almost without doubt' 

You are as free to make  unsubstantiated  'guesses'  sadie,  but you really should not present them as anything other than that

[sadie]

"The front door was used for entry and departure almost without doubt"

That assertion is entirely unjustified 

The  'doubt'  that exists,  regarding the front door being used  (  with the use of an imagined spare key  )  is that there is absolutely no evidence to support it

You can post endlessly about 'recesses'  and how the front door was  'hidden' from view,  but without  actual  evidence,  there is,  quite simply,  nothing   to suggest that the front door was used as a point of entry at all  ...let alone the preposterous claim that it was used  'almost without doubt' 

You are as free to make  unsubstantiated  'guesses'  sadie,  but you really should not present them as anything other than that

I find it very interesting that YOU especially do not want the front door to have been used.

Why is that, Icabod ?

[Wonderfulspam]

I find it very interesting that YOU especially do not want the front door to have been used.

Why is that, Icabod ?

Do you think Icabod abducted her?
He really doesn't seem the type to me.
 Now me however, that is a different kettle of fish, everyone knows I smoke hashish & I stole an argos pen once so my criminal profile is much better suited.

[icabodcrane]

I find it very interesting that YOU especially do not want the front door to have been used.

Why is that, Icabod ?

Sadie,  it is not a question of what we  'want'  to have happened  ...  it is a question of what the evidence shows us  'may'  have happened

There is simply no evidence  at all  to suggest the front door was used as a point of entry

[Wonderfulspam]

Sadie,  it is not a question of what we  'want'  to have happened  ...  it is a question of what the evidence shows us  'may'  have happened

There is simply no evidence  at all  to suggest the front door was used as a point of entry

And as there is no evidence of an abductor the front door thesis requires invention of an abductor, abduction & a key.
But the death scenario however requires no such invention, only the possible actions of unimagined people.

[sadie]

Sadie,  it is not a question of what we  'want'  to have happened  ...  it is a question of what the evidence shows us  'may'  have happened

There is simply no evidence  at all  to suggest the front door was used as a point of entry

There likely wouldn't be any.  Key in the lock, turn it and push the door open using the key.
Lift Madeleine (?drugged) and walk out the front door.  Pull it to using the key.

No evidence.

But there is boundless evidence that the front door was a burglars delight.

Nobody passing
Totally hidden in a recess
In the darkest spot
No-one could see.

doesn't take too many brain cells to see the likelyhood of it having been the way in and the way out.

[Benice]

Sadie,  it is not a question of what we  'want'  to have happened  ...  it is a question of what the evidence shows us  'may'  have happened

There is simply no evidence  at all  to suggest the front door was used as a point of entry

IMO It is perfectly possible that a person can open and close a door without leaving any evidence.  Especially if they had a key.   What evidence would you expect to be found?

[icabodcrane]

There likely wouldn't be any.  Key in the lock, turn it and push the door open using the key.
Lift Madeleine (?drugged) and walk out the front door.  Pull it to using the key.

No evidence.

But there is boundless evidence that the front door was a burglars delight.

Nobody passing
Totally hidden in a recess
In the darkest spot
No-one could see.

doesn't take too many brain cells to see the likelyhood of it having been the way in and the way out.

So you should really say that there is a  'possibility'  that the front door was used as a point of entry ...  someone, perhaps,  having got hold of a key somehow

That,  I would take no exception to

It's just that when you present an abstract idea as  'fact',   ( almost without doubt  ),   that I feel there is risk of creating myths

The idea that someone used a duplicate key to enter apartment 5A via the front door really is nothing more than that, afterall  ...  an unsubstanciated, abstract idea,  based on nothing more than imagination

[sadie]

And as there is no evidence of an abductor the front door thesis requires invention of an abductor, abduction & a key.
But the death scenario however requires no such invention, only the possible actions of unimagined people.

Well it's like this Icabod

1)  SY believe there was an abduction
2)  Seems that the PT AG is not against an abduction ... nothing against The Mccanns
3)  All the Tapas group. in their varying ways go for an abduction
4)  Jane Tanner witnessed  a man walking fast in the direction away from 5A, carrying a young child.
5)  The Smiths witnessed a somewhat similar man carrying a young child


Ony Amaral and his cahoots seem to think differently ... apart from some Conspiracy theorists, like you

[sadie]

So you should really say that there is a  'possibility'  that the front door was used as a point of entry ...  someone, perhaps,  having got hold of a key somehow

That,  I would take no exception to

It's just that when you present an abstract idea as  'fact',   ( almost without doubt  ),   that I feel there is risk of creating myths

The idea that someone used a duplicate key to enter apartment 5A via the front door really is nothing more than that, afterall  ...  an unsubstanciated, abstract idea,  based on nothing more than imagination

No you are wriong.

I leave an element of doubt

But I have noticed that YOU especially cannot come to terms with the likelyhood of the front door being used


And that is because it shows Amarals ideas are flawed.  When he siad that no-body could get in to 5A through the front door, it was a nonsense.  There was always the chance that a key had been used.

Have you forgotten, so soon,  the two burglaries in OC during the 2 or 3 weeks before Madeleine was taken.  Both via locked front doors?  How do you think they happened? 

Was the burglar Harry Potter, or another wizard, do you think?

[icabodcrane]

Well it's like this Icabod

1)  SY believe there was an abduction
2)  Seems that the PT AG is not against an abduction ... nothing against The Mccanns
3)  All the Tapas group. in their varying ways go for an abduction
4)  Jane Tanner witnessed  a man walking fast in the direction away from 5A, carrying a young child.
5)  The Smiths witnessed a somewhat similar man carrying a young child


Ony Amaral and his cahoots seem to think differently ... apart from some Conspiracy theorists, like you

I don't  'do'  conspiracy theories sadie

I don't buy into  'elites'  or an  unamed 'powerful'  man being behind this unfortunate child's disappearance  ...  that  s the stuff of conspiracies

I believe the true explanation is probably quite simple  ...  and awfully sad

[sadie]

I don't  'do'  conspiracy theories sadie

I don't buy into  'elites'  or an  unamed l 'powerful'  man being behind this unfortunate child's disappearance  ...  that  s the stuff of conspiracies

I believe the true explanation is probably quite simple  ...  and awfully sad

Fair enough, we dont agree

Now, how about "How The Mccanns managed to pull off the perfect crime" ? ... that is if you believe there was no abduction, of course.

We need some input from your side of the argument Icabod ... otherwise what is there to believe apart from sour grapes towards a bereaved couple.

All the main authorative groups are confirming that there was an abduction, that the Mccanns are innocent of any crime.

Only Amaral and co and a few of you think otherwise.

Please convince us.