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

[Fierljepper]

There seems to be plenty of evidence (lichen/sills/bed) that nobody has entered or exitted through the window. This leads to the only alternative being staging. And in the case of staging, you would not logically land on an abductor or burglar but more likely on one of the parents being involved. And if it involves the parents, I'd rather go for one (GM) than both being involved.

I am still bothered by two very strange anomalies in GM's earliest statements. One is that he claimed entering the front door when he checked the kids at 21:00 (that he later corrected) and the other is his peculiar focus on checking whether the shutters could be opened from the outside after the alarm was raised and panic broke out.

The first one is pretty strange given that they always entered through the patio door to check their children in the evenings. If GM however had found Maddie already dead, staged a kidnap by opening the window (avoiding fingerprints) and shutters and then used the front door to move her body out of the apartment, he had to explain why the always double-locked front door, suddenly was found unlocked. Him using a lie of having entered through it the night before is then the safest explanation to mitigate this problem in an official statement the day after, but something he could relax about later and say he went through the patio door. It is however a noticeable and remarkably inaccurate element in his victim statement of May 4th.

The second anomaly around checking the shutters, is the most likely action to focus on when you have to make sure that your staging is feasible. This could even have been his biggest concern whether the staging would be believable or not. Clearly KM (innocent in this scenario) fell for it and immediately assumed an abduction had happened and that message rapidly radiated through the T9 group, the press and was reinforced by the Tannerman sighting.

So, GM reporting the door wider open is untrue, however MO seeing the door wider open and the room being lighter are true, KM seeing the door wider open and it slamming when she tried to close it are also true.

It seems the simplest scenario possible, but of course the key question is where the body then was hidden and later removed to (e.g. in a sports bag and later dumped in a bin).

[pegasus]

The theory that the door angle did increase once is reasonable, and a simple explanation is someone wakes up and walks out of the bedroom into the lounge.

[Heriberto Janosch]

Thank pegassus. The video you mentioned demonstrates 5A window had not an auto-lock, or the auto-lock could be failed.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElN3iLhbmf8

The video lasts only a few seconds ...

And here the method to open an unlocked window from the outside without damage ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzpniKAWvUI

 

[Apostate]

Are you sure the doors were unlocked?!

They only said so after their "jemmied shutters" was blown out....

I think they only admitted about the unlocked doors once they realised the shutters weren't going to wash - they did not want to admit to the scale of their carelessness until forced to. Of course now having started the shutters nonsense they have had to stick with it they can't admit they opened them.

[Redblossom]

Thank pegassus. The video you mentioned demonstrates 5A window had not an auto-lock, or the auto-lock could be failed.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElN3iLhbmf8

Even if true, why does it matter? Forensics proved no one came in or out of that window.......

[AnneGuedes]

Even if true, why does it matter? Forensics proved no one came in or out of that window.......

Not only the Portuguese forensics, but Prof David Barclay and Moita Flores.
And it's valid for way in and way out.
It's reasonable to think neither the shutters nor the window were open.
What was the point of opening them if there was nobody to witness ?

[Lace]

I think they only admitted about the unlocked doors once they realised the shutters weren't going to wash - they did not want to admit to the scale of their carelessness until forced to. Of course now having started the shutters nonsense they have had to stick with it they can't admit they opened them.

Sorry but what do you mean by 'once they realised the shutters weren't going to wash'?

The shutters were not broken.   So do you think that intelligent people would say they were if they weren't?  when someone could look at them and say 'hey they're not broken' .     The McCann's thought someone had opened them from outside,   how?  they did not know,  but by possibly forcing them up.
   
They could be opened from outside as the video demonstrates.   

[pegasus]

Agreed no-one came in or went out of that window.
That window and shutter have confused the GNR, the PJ, the LP, forum posters, even the analysis in the Verdade video, and presumably even today SY and PJ Porto. And at the beginning, they confused three people who tried to experimentally solve the shutter/window puzzle that night. Incorrect logic, incorrect application of Occams principle, meant IMO that none of them solved it.

[Redblossom]

Agreed no-one came in or went out of that window.
That window and shutter have confused the GNR, the PJ, the LP, forum posters, even the analysis in the Verdade video, and presumably even today SY and PJ Porto. And at the beginning, they confused three people who tried to experimentally solve the shutter/window puzzle that night. Incorrect logic, incorrect application of Occams principle, meant IMO that none of them solved it.

The open window and shutter is hearsay...no one saw it....no one had a chance to because gerry mccann went and closed it pdq immediately after the alarm was raised.... to go outside and test it! If it could be  opened from outside...and thus contaminating the evidence......where is the logic in that as some kind of priority? This is before he went out searching!


Edited for spellos

[pegasus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzpniKAWvUI

The first part of the video is very good. Yes it should omit the first two raises of the shutter which are unnecessary. Also I think it would take maybe only 10 seconds to get the window and shutter completely open by this method, if the person has done it before and knows the method well. So the first 40 seconds of the video is very good, but should be compressed IMO to maybe only 10 or 15 seconds for the entire opening method.
 
The second half of the video is impossible IMO. You have the man asking the child to walk across the room to the window? If I was young, on holiday,  asleep, and then awakened and scared by that shutter noise, would I calmly stay in the room to politely await instructions? No way. I would be straight out that door into the lounge.
 

[Heriberto Janosch]

The first part of the video is very good. Yes it should omit the first two raises of the shutter which are unnecessary. Also I think it would take maybe only 10 seconds to get the window and shutter completely open by this method, if the person has done it before and knows the method well. So the first 40 seconds of the video is very good, but should be compressed IMO to maybe only 10 or 15 seconds for the entire opening method.
 
The second half of the video is impossible IMO. You have the man asking the child to walk across the room to the window? If I was young, on holiday,  asleep, and then awakened and scared by that shutter noise, would I calmly stay in the room to politely await instructions? No way. I would be straight out that door into the lounge.

A possibility not to discard:
1. A burglar opened the window.
2. While the window was been opened, Madeleine went to the window, half asleep, thinking he was one of her parents.

[pegasus]

My suggestion for the video is
Edit out the first two raises and compress the entire opening of window and shutter down to about 10 or 15 seconds, because IMO the person has done unauthorised opening of other similar windows/shutters before.
Then while still doing the opening, the person gets suddenly scared by movement/noise inside, so runs away empty-handed, not having set foot inside.
Does this scenario not fit the evidence?
Window and shutter open: Tick.
No evidence of anyone entering or leaving via window: Tick.
Door from bedroom to lounge opened wider: Tick

[Redblossom]

A possibility not to discard:
1. A burglar opened the window.
2. While the window was been opened, Madeleine went to the window, half asleep, thinking he was one of her parents.

So the burglar decided to pull the chlld out and abduct them instead of running off.....he was so scared of being found out for a burglary BY A THREE YEAR OLD he upped his crime to abduction of the chld witness!!!! Gosh a prison sentence twenty times
 

Maybe he thought she could do an efit of him trying to burgle 5a, you do post some stupid stuff heri sometimes.....sorry mate

[Heriberto Janosch]

My suggestion for the video is
Edit out the first two raises and compress the entire opening of window and shutter down to about 10 or 15 seconds, because IMO the person has done unauthorised opening of other similar windows/shutters before.
Then while still doing the opening, the person gets suddenly scared by movement/noise inside, so runs away empty-handed, not having set foot inside.
Does this scenario not fit the evidence?
Window and shutter open: Tick.
No evidence of anyone entering or leaving via window: Tick.
Door from bedroom to lounge opened wider: Tick

Thanks pegassus. The first two rises are not necessary, as I explain in my blog: http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html

[pegasus]

I think the walking direction you suggest (walking towards the window towards the scary noise) is impossible. I agree with the towards parents bit, but surely this would be the exact opposite direction to what you propose. People naturally move away from danger, towards safety. This would also explain the door being slightly wider open.