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

[John]

Interesting points, Pegasus. I'm not aware the forensic teams checked on the shutters of any other apartments for fingerprints that night.

Why would they, the only alleged scene of crime and break-in was 5a?

[Apostate]

Interesting points, Pegasus. I'm not aware the forensic teams checked on the shutters of any other apartments for fingerprints that night.

There's really nothing interesting in this crazy theory that someone was wandering around Luz opening shutters.

[Luz]

Never heard about the GHOST?!!!

Phantoms can pass through walls, windows, shutters,...,or so they say! I bet the McCann front will defend that Praia da Luz was hunted in 2007.

[Wonderfulspam]

There's really nothing interesting in this crazy theory that someone was wandering around Luz opening shutters.

Interesting no but the 'phantom shutter opener of pdl' has some comedy value to it if nothing else.

[Sherlock Holmes]

There's really nothing interesting in this crazy theory that someone was wandering around Luz opening shutters.

I agree, Apostate.

And on a related note, Pegasus asks how a prospective burglar would know if windows were open or not.

By the same token, how would an abductor?

How could an abductor have included the idea of opening the window during an abduction scenario - for one of many reasons previously listed - when he couldn't have known in advance whether  the window was closed or open? (Unless it was tested when the family were away from the house during the day, which seems rather unlikely).

[pegasus]

There's really nothing interesting in this crazy theory that someone was wandering around Luz opening shutters.

It may be constructive to solve it first with no occupants present.

Imagine this scenario:
One evening a family on holiday all go out for a meal, and when they get back they find a shutter and window open, traces of someone climbing in the window, and some cameras phones passports and jewellery missing.
The solution is easy: a thief opened shutter and window from outside, climbed in through the window, and stole small items that can be sold easily for drug money.

But that is not what happened. So now try this one

Now imagine this scenario, it is exactly the same but with just one thing added, which changes everything:
One evening a family on holiday all go out for a meal, and when they get back they find a shutter and window open, but no trace of anyone climbing in, and no valuables missing.
Another easy one to solve: a thief opened shutter and window from outside, but at that moment the thief was disturbed by someone and made a quick exit from the area, thats why the thief did not climb in, and didn't steal anything.

Does not that second scenario match well the scene discovered? Entire post obviously is IMO

[Sherlock Holmes]

It may be constructive to solve it first with no occupants present.

Imagine this scenario:
One evening a family on holiday all go out for a meal, and when they get back they find a shutter and window open, traces of someone climbing in the window, and some cameras phones passports and jewellery missing.
The solution is easy: a thief opened shutter and window from outside, climbed in through the window, and stole small items that can be sold easily for drug money.

But that is not what happened. So now try this one

Now imagine this scenario, it is exactly the same but with just one thing added, which changes everything:
One evening a family on holiday all go out for a meal, and when they get back they find a shutter and window open, but no trace of anyone climbing in, and no valuables missing.
Another easy one to solve: a thief opened shutter and window from outside, but at that moment the thief was disturbed by someone and made a quick exit from the area, thats why the thief did not climb in, and didn't steal anything.

Does not that second scenario match well the scene discovered? Entire post obviously is IMO

It matches except for one glaring omission....

[pegasus]

It matches except for one glaring omission....

Yes but slowly slowly.
It is big progress IMO, to solve the scene for the "everyone out for meal" simplification,
where the "person disturbs thief during entry" seems like the most reasonable explanation.

[sadie]

I agree, Apostate.

And on a related note, Pegasus asks how a prospective burglar would know if windows were open or not.

By the same token, how would an abductor?

How could an abductor have included the idea of opening the window during an abduction scenario - for one of many reasons previously listed - when he couldn't have known in advance whether  the window was closed or open? (Unless it was tested when the family were away from the house during the day, which seems rather unlikely).

Or unless the window was deliberately unlocked by someone intent on helping the abduction.  Thta would mean either the cleaners, the men who were repairing the patio window in the mccanns room, or anyone with an excuse to go in.

I am not sure that the Mccanns knew that the window was locked to begin with.  They knew it was closed, but did they know it was locked?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Or unless the window was deliberately unlocked by someone intent on helping the abduction.  Thta would mean either the cleaners, the men who were repairing the patio window in the mccanns room, or anyone with an excuse to go in.

I am not sure that the Mccanns knew that the window was locked to begin with.  They knew it was closed, but did they know it was locked?

I have always wondered about this.

But presumably if they knew it was locked, they would have commented on the fact that it had been unlocked that night, complete with the opening of shutters, curtains and all, by someone other than themselves.

[AnneGuedes]

I have always wondered about this.

But presumably if they knew it was locked, they would have commented on the fact that it had been unlocked that that night, complete with the opening of shutters, curtains and all, by someone other than themselves.

The window as the way to get in and out lasted as long as they hadn't realized that time required Tannerman to be inside when Mr McCann did his check and if he was inside the window couldn't be open. Then the window became only the way out until the forensic police showed nobody passed there. Finally, almost 3 years later the window became a possible red herring.
How could they know if it was locked or not ? They said they never touched that window.

[AnneGuedes]

IMO it is possible the fairly neat covers are consistent with being on that bed when awakened by noise.
Covers are certainly not staged IMO, anyone staging them would put them in greater disarray.

She was under the covers, she thinks because she was a bit cold.

[pegasus]

Another hypothetical example. After their child is asleep some adults in UK turn out most of the lights and go to a nearby house for a coffee. When they return, the child bedroom window and shutters are open, but no-one has entered, nothing is missing, the child is ok and hiding in another room. Is that hypothetical scene not easy to solve in its entirety by a thief disturbed before climbing in?

[Sherlock Holmes]

The window as the way to get in and out lasted as long as they hadn't realized that time required Tannerman to be inside when Mr McCann did his check and if he was inside the window couldn't be open. Then the window became only the way out until the forensic police showed nobody passed there. Finally, almost 3 years later the window became a possible red herring.
How could they know if it was locked or not ? They said they never touched that window.

So we've made some progress in this case!

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes but slowly slowly.
It is big progress IMO, to solve the scene for the "everyone out for meal" simplification,
where the "person disturbs thief during entry" seems like the most reasonable explanation.

Progress in what aim? Can you remind me why you are going down this road with the open window?  What material difference does it make given that we are fairly certain that it was not a point of entry?