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

[pegasus]

The first observation I would make is that burglars don't abduct children.  Secondly, burglars usually case the premises they target and avoid any which are occupied at the McCanns was.

Precisely.  The burglar is disturbed before he enters, so he immediately flees empty-handed, he does not abduct or physically harm anyone.
And about casing: 1: Low light level coming from inside (just one small lamp in lounge). 2. No noise coming from inside. 3. Possibly sees adults leaving. Do not all three indicate clearly that everyone is out?
 

[stephen25000]

Mr Redwood treats the possibility of interrupted burglary seriously.

There is a clear witness account by someone who returns to their apartment and finds the window and shutter open. Surely it would be wise to consider the possibility of burglary.
It is by far the single commonest cause of unauthorised opening of shutters and windows. 

The evidence, that no burglar entered through the window, does not contradict the burglar hypothesis at all. It gives the valuable extra information that the burglary was disturbed just after opening, and just BEFORE entry.

'There is a clear witness account by someone who returns to their apartment and finds the window and shutter open. '

Merely because t is a witness statement, does not make it true.

[Kazcutt]

Could an intruder have just opened the shutter
No one had to go in or out from it

[pegasus]

If one decides definitely that the opening of the window and shutter is staged or invented, and if one is correct, then that will be of great value, for it will avoid wasting time on impossible scenarios, like for example one would then automatically rule out the scenario of it all starting with shutter noise waking someone, because that would be impossible if the shutter noise was invented or staged?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Did we ever look at this case from 2012?

Very similar to Madeleine in that there is no conclusive evidence for abduction despite the presence of an open window in the child's bedroom.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/isabel-celis-6-year-old-girl-vanishes-from-tucson-arizona-home/

[pegasus]

That Tucson case was Apr 2012, reports say FBI used 2 dogs of two types, supposedly one dog gave an indication indoors, but can't find which dog?
However back to the main case discussed here and I am now fairly convinced that a burglar started to break in but left empty-handed without entering due to being interrupted. It sounds like a ludicrously unnecessary introduction of a random extra complication, but it is not, it is the careful application of logic (which even top detectives from both countries possibly do not have a huge surplus of). It explains the contradiction of open window yet no entry/theft, it explains the door angle, and it may explain much more.

[Cariad]

That Tucson case was Apr 2012, reports say FBI used 2 dogs of two types, supposedly one dog gave an indication indoors, but can't find which dog?
However back to the main case discussed here and I am now fairly convinced that a burglar started to break in but left empty-handed without entering due to being interrupted. It sounds like a ludicrously unnecessary introduction of a random extra complication, but it is not, it is the careful application of logic (which even top detectives from both countries possibly do not have a huge surplus of). It explains the contradiction of open window yet no entry/theft, it explains the door angle, and it may explain much more.

Can you elaborate?

[pegasus]

Can you elaborate?

If a burglar opens the shutter and window from outside, intending to climb in and steal cash, cards etc, but gets interrupted before he climbs in, he will run away. So that explains perfectly the discovered scene which includes: 1. the window and shutter being open, and 2: the absence of evidence that anyone passed through that opening.
For any other theory (of both types) it is difficult to realistically explain the big contradiction between 1 and 2.

[Cariad]

If a burglar opens the shutter and window from outside, intending to climb in and steal cash, cards etc, but gets interrupted before he climbs in, he will run away. So that explains perfectly the discovered scene which includes: 1. the window and shutter being open, and 2: the absence of evidence that anyone passed through that opening.
For any other theory (of both types) it is difficult to realistically explain the big contradiction between 1 and 2.

Yes, I see that. I don't see how it solves The Mystery Of The Moving Door though.....

[Redblossom]

Yes, I see that. I don't see how it solves The Mystery Of The Moving Door though.....

>@@(*&)

madeleine went out of it or the wind blew it open a bit after the hypothetical burglar opened the window.....


Mystery of the Moving Door...so Miss Marple/Poirotesque..even Midsommer Murders....

[pathfinder73]

Yes the moving door. They were obsessed by the position of the door to show that an abductor was hiding inside the apartment and it's turned into being their Achilles heel. The door is the best evidence that an abductor was never inside that apartment. It was nearly closed at 8.30pm. It was found half-open at 9.08pm then it was nearly closed, it was half-open again at 9.30pm and then it was more open on the last check. That door moved three different times in an hour. No I don't think so. There's a simple explanation for the alleged moving door.

[pegasus]

He thinks no one is in apartment. Stage 3 of opening, which is reaching in with right hand from outside to pull strap to fully raise shutter, even gently, makes noise inside the room. He is still outside. The noise disturbs someone, who wisely exits into the lounge, and he scared by seeing/hearing that someone is home, rapidly leaves the area. So there you have the open window/shutter, no-one entering, and the increased door angle, all explained. Might be wrong but is there any other theory which explains all those 3 things logically? Not taking sides, just examining the discovered scene.

[Redblossom]

He thinks no one is in apartment. Stage 3 of opening, which is reaching in with right hand from outside to pull strap to fully raise shutter, even gently, makes noise inside the room. He is still outside. The noise disturbs someone, who wisely exits into the lounge, and he scared by seeing/hearing that someone is home, rapidly leaves the area. So there you have the open window/shutter, no-one entering, and the increased door angle, all explained. Might be wrong but is there any other theory which explains all those 3 things logically? Not taking sides, just examining the discovered scene.

so after an attempted burglary where he ran off madeleine was snatched as well...

[Cariad]

He thinks no one is in apartment. Stage 3 of opening, which is reaching in with right hand from outside to pull strap to fully raise shutter, even gently, makes noise inside the room. He is still outside. The noise disturbs someone, who wisely exits into the lounge, and he scared by seeing/hearing that someone is home, rapidly leaves the area. So there you have the open window/shutter, no-one entering, and the increased door angle, all explained. Might be wrong but is there any other theory which explains all those 3 things logically? Not taking sides, just examining the discovered scene.

As Pathfinder says above, the door moved between 8:30 and 9:00, was repositioned, then moved again between 9:10 and 9:30. Your explanation perfectly explains everything up until 9:10, but doesn't explain the further movement after 9:10.

[pegasus]

so after an attempted burglary where he ran off madeleine was snatched as well...

The theory gives a logical solution for only one room, it does not explain the disappearance.
It is important to get the first room making sense first.
As Mr Redwood said on Crimewatch, start at the beginning, assume nothing.