UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Brietta on January 27, 2015, 11:00:58 PM
-
It seems that the preferred time for tourist accommodation to be burgled is the night prior to departure.
Block five had already been subject to two burglary attempts in the weeks preceding the McCann family's arrival where entry was via the window.
If Madeleine had been sleepy and curious enough to approach the window in her room when it was open she could have been easily lifted through it without any necessity for entrance to be made to the apartment by an intruder.
As demonstrated by Heri it can be carried out in under a minute. http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
As recorded in the files ... the outside shutters were capable of being raised in the space of a few minutes without anyone being seen near them either before the event or after.
** snip
– Yesterday at 21.16 the Portimao DIC received a phone call from a security officer who worked for the OC to say that a few minutes ago somebody had forced up the shutters of the window of the bedroom Madeleine had disappeared from. The undersigned, together with two of his colleagues went to the scene, where they saw the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside. However, there were no signs of anyone trying to breach the window.
– These facts were reported by the security guard.
– The guard said that the incident happened between 21.00 and 21.05, when he was making his 21.00 round of the block containing Apartment 5 A and then walked down the side of 5 A, down the road to the Baptista supermarket and then returned up the same road, returning to the surroundings of Apartment 5 A and saw that in that short space of time, someone who he cannot identify as he saw nobody around, had approached the window and forced the shutters. At about 21.06 he alerted reception and the GNR.
– Immediately before he had been talking to a colleague, opposite 5 A and 5 B and neither of them had seen anyone strange,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
31
-
It seems that the preferred time for tourist accommodation to be burgled is the night prior to departure.
Block five had already been subject to two burglary attempts in the weeks preceding the McCann family's arrival where entry was via the window.
If Madeleine had been sleepy and curious enough to approach the window in her room when it was open she could have been easily lifted through it without any necessity for entrance to be made to the apartment by an intruder.
As demonstrated by Heri it can be carried out in under a minute. http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
As recorded in the files ... the outside shutters were capable of being raised in the space of a few minutes without anyone being seen near them either before the event or after.
** snip
– Yesterday at 21.16 the Portimao DIC received a phone call from a security officer who worked for the OC to say that a few minutes ago somebody had forced up the shutters of the window of the bedroom Madeleine had disappeared from. The undersigned, together with two of his colleagues went to the scene, where they saw the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside. However, there were no signs of anyone trying to breach the window.
– These facts were reported by the security guard.
– The guard said that the incident happened between 21.00 and 21.05, when he was making his 21.00 round of the block containing Apartment 5 A and then walked down the side of 5 A, down the road to the Baptista supermarket and then returned up the same road, returning to the surroundings of Apartment 5 A and saw that in that short space of time, someone who he cannot identify as he saw nobody around, had approached the window and forced the shutters. At about 21.06 he alerted reception and the GNR.
– Immediately before he had been talking to a colleague, opposite 5 A and 5 B and neither of them had seen anyone strange,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
There was no evidence of anybody getting in through the window. If anybody got inside it was another way. And if they got in another way, they can exit the same way very quickly and not waste time opening shutters/window that weren't used. There's a reason to open a window that wasn't used, to suggest an abduction happened as the child couldn't do it ?>)()<
-
It seems that the preferred time for tourist accommodation to be burgled is the night prior to departure.
Block five had already been subject to two burglary attempts in the weeks preceding the McCann family's arrival where entry was via the window.
If Madeleine had been sleepy and curious enough to approach the window in her room when it was open she could have been easily lifted through it without any necessity for entrance to be made to the apartment by an intruder.
As demonstrated by Heri it can be carried out in under a minute. http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
As recorded in the files ... the outside shutters were capable of being raised in the space of a few minutes without anyone being seen near them either before the event or after.
** snip
– Yesterday at 21.16 the Portimao DIC received a phone call from a security officer who worked for the OC to say that a few minutes ago somebody had forced up the shutters of the window of the bedroom Madeleine had disappeared from. The undersigned, together with two of his colleagues went to the scene, where they saw the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside. However, there were no signs of anyone trying to breach the window.
– These facts were reported by the security guard.
– The guard said that the incident happened between 21.00 and 21.05, when he was making his 21.00 round of the block containing Apartment 5 A and then walked down the side of 5 A, down the road to the Baptista supermarket and then returned up the same road, returning to the surroundings of Apartment 5 A and saw that in that short space of time, someone who he cannot identify as he saw nobody around, had approached the window and forced the shutters. At about 21.06 he alerted reception and the GNR.
– Immediately before he had been talking to a colleague, opposite 5 A and 5 B and neither of them had seen anyone strange,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
So much disinformation Brietta.
Concerning the two burglaries in 5a. Mrs Fenn caught the burglar escaping through the window, no mention how he got in and the other burglar apparently used a key.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476064/Madeleine-Portuguese-police-examine-burglaries-resort.html
Further it was obvious, from the quote posted above, that when the shutters were raised by persons unknown they were damaged because ' the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside' Was there any similar damage to the shutters following Madeleine's disappearance ?
Further if the raising of the shutters had been loud enough to wake Madeleine surely they would also have woken the twins ?
-
So much disinformation Brietta.
Concerning the two burglaries in 5a. Mrs Fenn caught the burglar escaping through the window, no mention how he got in and the other burglar apparently used a key.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476064/Madeleine-Portuguese-police-examine-burglaries-resort.html
Further it was obvious, from the quote posted above, that when the shutters were raised by persons unknown they were damaged because ' the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside' Was there any similar damage to the shutters following Madeleine's disappearance ?
Further if the raising of the shutters had been loud enough to wake Madeleine surely they would also have woken the twins ?
Isn't it funny how the "sceptics" poo-poo the idea of a burglar entering 5a with a key and exiting via the window yet it's a perfectly acceptable scenario in the burglary that took place above it...
Furthermore, isn't it faulty logic to assume that all forced shutters will behave in an identical fashion?
Furtherfurthmore, is it not also faulty logic to assume that all sleeping children will awaken at the sound of a shutter being raised in their room?
-
Isn't it funny how the "sceptics" poo-poo the idea of a burglar entering 5a with a key and exiting via the window yet it's a perfectly acceptable scenario in the burglary that took place above it...
Furthermore, isn't it faulty logic to assume that all forced shutters will behave in an identical fashion?
Furtherfurthmore, is it not also faulty logic to assume that all sleeping children will awaken at the sound of a shutter being raised in their room?
There was no evidence of anybody going through the window entry or exit.
-
There was no evidence of anybody getting in through the window. If anybody got inside it was another way. And if they got in another way, they can exit the same way very quickly and not waste time opening shutters/window that weren't used. There's a reason to open a window that wasn't used, to suggest an abduction happened as the child couldn't do it ?>)()<
Do take a closer look at what I posted.
I did not say anyone had entered via the window.
Take a look at Heri's blog and watch it being done.
Or if you prefer take a look at PM doing exactly the same thing.
I've given you a cite in support of what I am saying ... would you mind giving me the same courtesy?
-
Isn't it funny how the "sceptics" poo-poo the idea of a burglar entering 5a with a key and exiting via the window yet it's a perfectly acceptable scenario in the burglary that took place above it...
Furthermore, isn't it faulty logic to assume that all forced shutters will behave in an identical fashion?
Furtherfurthmore, is it not also faulty logic to assume that all sleeping children will awaken at the sound of a shutter being raised in their room?
Not sure I said that.
It is highly likely the SAME shutters will behave in the same way when forced.
Isn't it faulty logic when told that the McCanns used the patio doors so as not to wake the children that they weren't light sleepers and a very noisy shutter wouldn't wake them ?
-
Do take a closer look at what I posted.
I did not say anyone had entered via the window.
Take a look at Heri's blog and watch it being done.
Or if you prefer take a look at PM doing exactly the same thing.
I've given you a cite in support of what I am saying ... would you mind giving me the same courtesy?
Have you seen anybody with 10 foot arms? Madeleine must think it's normal for strangers to open shutters and windows and try to get inside that scary dark strange room and went up to the window to say Hi. But it doesn't surprise me that you think it's possible @)(++(*
-
Do take a closer look at what I posted.
I did not say anyone had entered via the window.
Take a look at Heri's blog and watch it being done.
Or if you prefer take a look at PM doing exactly the same thing.
I've given you a cite in support of what I am saying ... would you mind giving me the same courtesy?
Heriberto's video conveniently ignores the lock on the window.
-
Heriberto's video conveniently ignores the lock on the window.
What is the significance of that statement?
-
What is the significance of that statement?
His video assumes the window isn't locked.
-
His video assumes the window isn't locked.
Yes?
-
Yes?
So you speak to the cleaner and the people who were responsible for that apartment before the McCanns arrived. They never touched the window all week so if it is confirmed that it was locked before they arrived it was still locked on the night.
-
Yes?
You should have said so when talking about Heriberto's blog. ?{)(**
-
You should have said so when talking about Heriberto's blog. ?{)(**
Why?
-
Why?
For accuracy.
-
So you speak to the cleaner and the people who were responsible for that apartment before the McCanns arrived. They never touched the window all week so if it is confirmed that it was locked before they arrived it was still locked on the night.
The PJ spoke to the cleaner http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm but for some reason nothing at all was said about whether she had cleaned the window, if she had locked the window, if she had unlocked the window ... in fact the window is not mentioned in her statement.
As we can see from the date of her interview ... 7th May ... there didn't seem to be much urgency about interviewing strangers with access to and knowledge of the McCann family ... nor did there seem to be any interest in asking relevant questions particularly about a window which was found open on the night of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
-
For accuracy.
I am afraid you really have lost me in the fog, Lyall, accuracy of what?
-
I am afraid you really have lost me in the fog, Lyall, accuracy of what?
Accuracy of discussion. Should have said Take a look at Heri's blog and watch it being done (his video assumes the window is unlocked)...
-
Accuracy of discussion. Should have said Take a look at Heri's blog and watch it being done (his video assumes the window is unlocked)...
When Heri raised the shutter and opened the window there was no assumption ... the window was unlocked.
-
The PJ spoke to the cleaner http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm but for some reason nothing at all was said about whether she had cleaned the window, if she had locked the window, if she had unlocked the window ... in fact the window is not mentioned in her statement.
As we can see from the date of her interview ... 7th May ... there didn't seem to be much urgency about interviewing strangers with access to and knowledge of the McCann family ... nor did there seem to be any interest in asking relevant questions particularly about a window which was found open on the night of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
Whatever the cleaner or any other witness may have had to say about that lock was a bit irrelevant considering they weren't the last people in the apartment.
-
When Heri raised the shutter and opened the window there was no assumption ... the window was unlocked.
I know. So if a window is locked his demonstration doesn't work does it.
-
Whatever the cleaner or any other witness may have had to say about that lock was a bit irrelevant considering they weren't the last people in the apartment.
That is a rather strange statement considering the fact the window to which she had access was in a room from which a child had vanished.
I don't think that was an irrelevance at all and I don't think it was an irrelevance to ask other pertinent questions which were not asked.
However I do know exactly what you have been trying to get at from the beginning of this discussion and it might have been better just to have come right out into the open with it and have had the courage of your convictions.
I think it might be worth your while considering that the present investigation includes OC employees of whom Maria Julia Serafim da Silva is not one, but she could have been, and no-one bothered to find out what she might have known about the window in the childrens' bedroom.
-
I know. So if a window is locked his demonstration doesn't work does it.
I believe, that because Kate said that she found the window open and that she hadn't touched them since their arrival in 5A, Heri ,went on that assumption.....That they were left unlocked and opened from the outside.
-
That is a rather strange statement considering the fact the window to which she had access was in a room from which a child had vanished.
I don't think that was an irrelevance at all and I don't think it was an irrelevance to ask other pertinent questions which were not asked.
However I do know exactly what you have been trying to get at from the beginning of this discussion and it might have been better just to have come right out into the open with it and have had the courage of your convictions.
I think it might be worth your while considering that the present investigation includes OC employees of whom Maria Julia Serafim da Silva is not one, but she could have been, and no-one bothered to find out what she might have known about the window in the childrens' bedroom.
The police may have asked her, but it's just not included in that statement.
But what could she have known about the window that the police didn't see for themselves on the Friday?
-
I believe, that because Kate said that she found the window open and that she hadn't touched them since their arrival in 5A, Heri ,went on that assumption.....That they were left unlocked and opened from the outside.
I know he did but considering many people had been in the apartment after the cleaner the window can't be assumed to be in the same locked/unlocked state it was in when the cleaner left it. Madeleine herself could have reversed that state, and nobody including her parents would know about it. There's nothing the cleaner could say that would resolve that issue.
-
I know he did but considering many people had been in the apartment after the cleaner the window can't be assumed to be in the same locked/unlocked state it was in when the cleaner left it. Madeleine herself could have reversed that state, and nobody including her parents would know about it. There's nothing the cleaner could say that would resolve that issue.
I thought That is what I said, Lyall, but I will rephrase it......For some unknown reason, the window was found open and it was assumed, that therefore it must have been unlocked, for it to have been opened from the outside.
That is the theory, I believe Heri was working on.
Nobody knows for certain if, or how the window was unlocked.
-
I thought That is what I said, Lyall, but I will rephrase it......For some unknown reason, the window was found open and it was assumed, that therefore it must have been unlocked, for it to have been opened from the outside.
That is the theory, I believe Heri was working on. Nobody knows if or how the window was unlocked.
That's ok, I follow the logic but it still should be stated that an assumption is being made every time Heriberto's video is being referred to. Because otherwise people may not know there was a lock on the window.
As we know, or think we know, if the window wasn't unlocked it wasn't opened from outside. The McCann book itself says it may not have been used for either entry or exit, so there ought not to be a problem for people to be accurate when discussing the window.
-
Not sure I said that.
It is highly likely the SAME shutters will behave in the same way when forced.
Isn't it faulty logic when told that the McCanns used the patio doors so as not to wake the children that they weren't light sleepers and a very noisy shutter wouldn't wake them ?
Did I say the McCanns used the patio doors so as not to wake the children? I don't think I did. But let's say I did - so what? A parent may take pains to ensure noise is kept to a minimum so as not to wake children, but it doesn't logically follow that any or all loud noises that do occur will certainly wake one or all of them. Also, have you considerered the possibility that a loud noise DID wake all three children, two of whom awakened only momentarily and then went back to sleep again, the other of whom, being older and able to leave their bed did not.
-
I thought That is what I said, Lyall, but I will rephrase it......For some unknown reason, the window was found open and it was assumed, that therefore it must have been unlocked, for it to have been opened from the outside.
That is the theory, I believe Heri was working on.
Nobody knows for certain if, or how the window was unlocked.
Precisely, Anna; I think it was assumed by most that entry was via one of the doors either the unlocked patio door or someone with access to a key for the wooden door.
An opportunistic burglar would probably not have had access to a key nor have been aware of the situation re the patio door.
The Drs McCann being unfamiliar with the shutters were unaware they could be opened from the outside; and indeed it was denied by some that such a thing was possible not even video evidence of it being done being accepted as proof it could be.
-
But I've given a wee bit of thought as to whose expert opinion I would value in this case yours or Heri's ... I know you will be distraught ... but my choice has to be the guy who knows what he is talking about, and that is Heri.
Why was my original post deleted? Heri is no expert. This is a simple case of two moves to keep an alibi.
You are (a). Windows are usually locked if not used. That window was closed and the room kept dark all week. No evidence of anybody going through the window. Impossible to lift a child out in a struggle from outside without leaving evidence so leave your wild fantasies out of it. Maddy was seen in a deep sleep so you have her wide awake going to the window. It didn't happen! It doesn't explain the dog alerts in the other rooms? No alerts in Maddy's room or at that window. Renowned expert Heri ignores all alerts. Not much of an expert is he?
-
Did I say the McCanns used the patio doors so as not to wake the children? I don't think I did. But let's say I did - so what? A parent may take pains to ensure noise is kept to a minimum so as not to wake children, but it doesn't logically follow that any or all loud noises that do occur will certainly wake one or all of them. Also, have you considerered the possibility that a loud noise DID wake all three children, two of whom awakened only momentarily and then went back to sleep again, the other of whom, being older and able to leave their bed did not.
Read my post correctly. At no time did I say that you had said about the use of the patio doors. In fact it was Gerry who made the statement.
-
bump
-
It seems that the preferred time for tourist accommodation to be burgled is the night prior to departure.
Block five had already been subject to two burglary attempts in the weeks preceding the McCann family's arrival where entry was via the window.
If Madeleine had been sleepy and curious enough to approach the window in her room when it was open she could have been easily lifted through it without any necessity for entrance to be made to the apartment by an intruder.
As demonstrated by Heri it can be carried out in under a minute. http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
As recorded in the files ... the outside shutters were capable of being raised in the space of a few minutes without anyone being seen near them either before the event or after.
** snip
– Yesterday at 21.16 the Portimao DIC received a phone call from a security officer who worked for the OC to say that a few minutes ago somebody had forced up the shutters of the window of the bedroom Madeleine had disappeared from. The undersigned, together with two of his colleagues went to the scene, where they saw the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside. However, there were no signs of anyone trying to breach the window.
– These facts were reported by the security guard.
– The guard said that the incident happened between 21.00 and 21.05, when he was making his 21.00 round of the block containing Apartment 5 A and then walked down the side of 5 A, down the road to the Baptista supermarket and then returned up the same road, returning to the surroundings of Apartment 5 A and saw that in that short space of time, someone who he cannot identify as he saw nobody around, had approached the window and forced the shutters. At about 21.06 he alerted reception and the GNR.
– Immediately before he had been talking to a colleague, opposite 5 A and 5 B and neither of them had seen anyone strange,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
31
Is there evidence of that assertion?
If so it rather smacks of an inside job. Employees were interviewed at the request of The Met with no result as I recall.
-
It seems that the preferred time for tourist accommodation to be burgled is the night prior to departure.
Block five had already been subject to two burglary attempts in the weeks preceding the McCann family's arrival where entry was via the window.
If Madeleine had been sleepy and curious enough to approach the window in her room when it was open she could have been easily lifted through it without any necessity for entrance to be made to the apartment by an intruder.
As demonstrated by Heri it can be carried out in under a minute. http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
As recorded in the files ... the outside shutters were capable of being raised in the space of a few minutes without anyone being seen near them either before the event or after.
** snip
– Yesterday at 21.16 the Portimao DIC received a phone call from a security officer who worked for the OC to say that a few minutes ago somebody had forced up the shutters of the window of the bedroom Madeleine had disappeared from. The undersigned, together with two of his colleagues went to the scene, where they saw the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside. However, there were no signs of anyone trying to breach the window.
– These facts were reported by the security guard.
– The guard said that the incident happened between 21.00 and 21.05, when he was making his 21.00 round of the block containing Apartment 5 A and then walked down the side of 5 A, down the road to the Baptista supermarket and then returned up the same road, returning to the surroundings of Apartment 5 A and saw that in that short space of time, someone who he cannot identify as he saw nobody around, had approached the window and forced the shutters. At about 21.06 he alerted reception and the GNR.
– Immediately before he had been talking to a colleague, opposite 5 A and 5 B and neither of them had seen anyone strange,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
31
So what proof of burglary was there in apartment 5a ?
Good old Mitchell said there was no evidence of a break in.
Is this yet another desperate measure to link to other events,where non exists ? %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
-
Disruptive posts will be removed. Stay on Topic please
-
Mrs Fenn has told friends she heard a noise as she watched television and found a man escaping through her bedroom window. Her niece, who was staying with her, also saw the man.
The widow reported the incident to police but claims no one contacted her after Madeleine vanished - until two weeks ago, when British detectives called on her.
Mrs Fenn's niece is travelling to Portugal from the UK next week to be interviewed by the Policia Judiciaria.
Mrs Fenn said: "I will speak to the police on Monday."
The alleged break-in is said to have happened within days of a second burglary in the same block.
A Scottish holidaymaker said that on the first night of her stay, she and a friend returned to the flat to find their belongings and £500 worth of foreign money had been taken.
But there was no sign of forced entry at the second floor apartment and police called to the scene told the middle-aged book-keeper that they believed someone with a key was the most likely suspect, sparking concerns about security at the complex.
Detectives are understood to be waiting for the results of DNA tests on blood samples before re-interviewing Kate and Gerry McCann and their party of friends.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476064/Madeleine-Portuguese-police-examine-burglaries-resort.html
-
Mrs Fenn has told friends she heard a noise as she watched television and found a man escaping through her bedroom window. Her niece, who was staying with her, also saw the man.
The widow reported the incident to police but claims no one contacted her after Madeleine vanished - until two weeks ago, when British detectives called on her.
Mrs Fenn's niece is travelling to Portugal from the UK next week to be interviewed by the Policia Judiciaria.
Mrs Fenn said: "I will speak to the police on Monday."
The alleged break-in is said to have happened within days of a second burglary in the same block.
A Scottish holidaymaker said that on the first night of her stay, she and a friend returned to the flat to find their belongings and £500 worth of foreign money had been taken.
But there was no sign of forced entry at the second floor apartment and police called to the scene told the middle-aged book-keeper that they believed someone with a key was the most likely suspect, sparking concerns about security at the complex.
Detectives are understood to be waiting for the results of DNA tests on blood samples before re-interviewing Kate and Gerry McCann and their party of friends.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476064/Madeleine-Portuguese-police-examine-burglaries-resort.html
What evidence is there of an entry into the mccanns apartment by another person(s) ?
-
What evidence is there of an entry into the mccanns apartment by another person(s) ?
The same as Mrs Fenn's......None.
-
The same as Mrs Fenn's......None.
Mrs. Fenn was there.
-
Mrs. Fenn was there.
So? It didn't stop them getting in, did it?
-
What evidence is there of an entry into the mccanns apartment by another person(s) ?
What evidence is there that it is not possible for another person(s) to have gained entry to 5A.?
-
What evidence is there that it is not possible for another person(s) to have gained entry to 5A.?
NO EVIDENCE has emerged of a break-in.
Even good old clarence admitted there wasn't.
-
NO EVIDENCE has emerged of a break-in ?
Even good old clarence admitted there wasn't.
Yes it has. The PJ and SY believe that the shutters and window were opened by an intruder.
-
NO EVIDENCE has emerged of a break-in.
Even good old clarence admitted there wasn't.
As with Mrs Fenn, Stephen...Do you understand what I am saying?
-
Yes it has. The PJ and SY believe that the shutters and window were opened by an intruder.
Believe ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Where are the forensics to indicate that ?
-
As with Mrs Fenn, Stephen...Do you understand what I am saying?
The bottom line remains.
NO credible evidence of an intruder
NO credible evidence of an abductor.
-
The bottom line remains.
NO credible evidence of an intruder
NO credible evidence of an abductor.
And as we all already know........................No evidence of anything, but a child disappeared somehow, wouldn't you say?
-
Believe ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Where are the forensics to indicate that ?
They believe the evidence of the eye-witnesses.
The fact that no forensic evidence was found does not prove that it was impossibile for an intruder(s) to enter the apartment.
The fact that the patio door was unlocked is further evidence that it was possible for an intruder to enter 5A.
The fact that an intruder got into the apartment above 5A - leaving no evidence of a forced entry is also evidence that it is possible. Are you saying that Mrs. Fenn's statement should not be considered as truthful because there is no forensic evidence to back up her claims?
-
What evidence is there that it is not possible for another person(s) to have gained entry to 5A.?
None whatsoever, Benice. On the contrary, in fact, since someone did get into Mrs Fenns using a key, I believe and escaped through the window when disturbed......Leaving, no evidence of having done so.
-
NO EVIDENCE has emerged of a break-in.
Even good old clarence admitted there wasn't.
There wouldn't be evidence of a break in if someone got in with a key.
-
They believe the evidence of the eye-witnesses.
The fact that no forensic evidence was found does not prove that it was impossibile for an intruder(s) to enter the apartment.
The fact that the patio door was unlocked is further evidence that it was possible for an intruder to enter 5A.
The fact that an intruder got into the apartment above 5A - leaving no evidence of a forced entry is also evidence that it is possible. Are you saying that Mrs. Fenn's statement should not be considered as truthful because there is no forensic evidence to back up her claims?
Eye witnesses benice.
The mccanns weren't in the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, were they ?
Mind you , can you remind me of kate mccann said out side the court in Portugal when a Portuguese reporter asked them what evidence there was of an abduction ?
-
There wouldn't be evidence of a break in if someone got in with a key.
So why would an abductor p;lay around with a window and shutters as claimed ?
-
Eye witnesses benice.
The mccanns weren't in the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, were they ?
Mind you , can you remind me of kate mccann said out side the court in Portugal when a Portuguese reporter asked them what evidence there was of an abduction ?
[/b]
What has any of that got to do with your question?:-
Quote
What evidence is there of an entry into the mccanns apartment by another person(s)?
unquote
I gathered from that post that unless there is evidence to prove it - you don't believe it is possible for another person to have entered the apartment. Are you standing by that, because IMO that is clearly not the case?
-
They believe the evidence of the eye-witnesses.
The fact that no forensic evidence was found does not prove that it was impossibile for an intruder(s) to enter the apartment.
The fact that the patio door was unlocked is further evidence that it was possible for an intruder to enter 5A.
The fact that an intruder got into the apartment above 5A - leaving no evidence of a forced entry is also evidence that it is possible. Are you saying that Mrs. Fenn's statement should not be considered as truthful because there is no forensic evidence to back up her claims?
I'll write it again because you might have missed it.
The back patio door wasn't used.
The stairgate, door & curtains were undisturbed when Kate entered.
You can't have the polite abductor who tidies up after himself, it's bullshit.
-
[/b]
What has any of that got to do with your question?:-
Quote
What evidence is there of an entry into the mccanns apartment by another person(s)?
unquote
I gathered from that post that unless there is evidence to prove it - you don't believe it is possible for another person to have entered the apartment. Are you standing by that, because IMO that is clearly not the case?
Well at the moment, you could say with equal likelihood, the Madeleine was taken by aliens.
There is as much evidence for that, as there is of burglary and abduction.
-
David Payne Rogatory.
'as we were walking up towards the flat she said err you know they've taken her and it was, you know, and I know there's been a controversy about what was actually said but you know that is very accurately what had been said. Like I say, as I say you know you could just never forget her face and those words, and err as we were, you know, approaching their apartment I was just saying to Kate,
I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera. And from my point of view you know the things that were, I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut I was just saying well what was the state of those two gates, were those gates open when you went up or were they shut, and she was adamant that those two gates were shut. Well you know there was two possibilities, she'd either been taken or she'd wandered off, no child is gonna wander off and shut two gates behind them so at that moment I knew, although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted.
Not via the back door though, eh dave.
-
They believe the evidence of the eye-witnesses.
The fact that no forensic evidence was found does not prove that it was impossibile for an intruder(s) to enter the apartment.
The fact that the patio door was unlocked is further evidence that it was possible for an intruder to enter 5A.
The fact that an intruder got into the apartment above 5A - leaving no evidence of a forced entry is also evidence that it is possible. Are you saying that Mrs. Fenn's statement should not be considered as truthful because there is no forensic evidence to back up her claims?
You mean there were eye witnesses to person or persons breaking into Apt 5A at the appropriate time?
I wonder why these folk did not call the cops?
-
I'll write it again because you might have missed it.
The back patio door wasn't used.
The stairgate, door & curtains were undisturbed when Kate entered.
You can't have the polite abductor who tidies up after himself, it's bullshit.
Nicely said Wonderfulspam.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
-
So why would an abductor p;lay around with a window and shutters as claimed ?
A number of reasons, as an escape route if caught in the apartment [the burglar escaped through the window in Mrs. Fenn's] To distract from the fact this person had a key to the apartment [the police would think he/she got in through the window, or to dispel any smell from a drug used to sedate Madeleine.
-
A number of reasons, as an escape route if caught in the apartment [the burglar escaped through the window in Mrs. Fenn's] To distract from the fact this person had a key to the apartment [the police would think he/she got in through the window, or to dispel any smell from a drug used to sedate Madeleine.
If the window was open already ( I can't see the burglar taking time to open it in his desperate bid to escape ) then in Mrs Fenn's case that is more likely than not how he got in.
-
A number of reasons, as an escape route if caught in the apartment [the burglar escaped through the window in Mrs. Fenn's] To distract from the fact this person had a key to the apartment [the police would think he/she got in through the window, or to dispel any smell from a drug used to sedate Madeleine.
Pure speculation.
That's all the abduction is.
FACT.
-
Pure speculation.
That's all the abduction is.
FACT.
Well, what a ridiculous response.
-
If the window was open already ( I can't see the burglar taking time to open it in his desperate bid to escape ) then in Mrs Fenn's case that is more likely than not how he got in.
What do you mean 'if the window was open already' I meant that the man/woman opened the window after coming in through the door, as maybe a way of escape if caught in the apartment, if this person was taken by surprise in the bedroom, then the window would be a likely way of getting out wouldn't it?
-
Well, what a ridiculous response.
At page 884 and the following, it was added the lophoscopy [study of fingerprints] report where only finger traces of KATE HEALY were found, namely on the window’s frame who would have been opened at the time of the disappearance.
-
What do you mean 'if the window was open already' I meant that the man/woman opened the window after coming in through the door, as maybe a way of escape if caught in the apartment, if this person was taken by surprise in the bedroom, then the window would be a likely way of getting out wouldn't it?
I was talking about Mrs Fenn.
-
I was talking about Mrs Fenn.
Right ok, I was talking about apartment 5a.
-
At page 884 and the following, it was added the lophoscopy [study of fingerprints] report where only finger traces of KATE HEALY were found, namely on the window’s frame who would have been opened at the time of the disappearance.
Kate could have touched it when looking out when she found Madeleine missing, if you fake an abduction, you are normally intelligent enough to wipe finger prints off anything that might incriminate you.
-
This is a debate about what may have happened.
-
This is a debate about what may have happened.
So where is the evidence ?
-
Please refrain from disrupting this thread, with non-constructive comments.
-
So where is the evidence ?
You do this every time.
You asked why the window would be open if someone had got in with a key, I give you three reasons why the window could have been opened.
Now we are back to the 'give me evidence of abduction' which is not what this thread is about.
-
Sorry Anna.
-
Sorry Anna.
Thank you for your effort to bring the thread, back on topic, Lace.
-
You do this every time.
You asked why the window would be open if someone had got in with a key, I give you three reasons why the window could have been opened.
Now we are back to the 'give me evidence of abduction' which is not what this thread is about.
Those 3 'reasons' are speculation without ONE bit of evidence to back them up.
-
Those 3 'reasons' are speculation without ONE bit of evidence to back them up.
Please, please, Stephen, could you produce some evidence for your insistence?
-
Kate could have touched it when looking out when she found Madeleine missing, if you fake an abduction, you are normally intelligent enough to wipe finger prints off anything that might incriminate you.
There would be nothing at all extraordinary or incriminating about fingerprints from the occupants of Apartment 5a being all over the interior of the window. What is extraordinary is that so few fingerprints belonging to any one were found.
Probably worth noting that the handle would have been used to open the window, an attempt to do so by placing the fingers of one hand on the glass and pushing probably would not have done it and it would have resulted in smearing the prints.
The report states "The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time,".
There is no record of the outside of the window or the cill being checked forensically nor does the report mention how many inadequate prints were found.
The report states, "Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate prints were recovered." We know that Madeleine's father and others interfered with the "blinds" because they thought they could not be opened from outside, only to discover that they did.
Fingerprints were sent to other countries, "Several prints were unusable for comparison purposes; all others were compared with no results."
Later one was eliminated, "These were compared to the finger print which was identified as being that of Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa of the Lagos GNR."
So it appears that there are fingerprints lifted from the McCann apartment which remain unidentified ... they are not the fingerprints of anyone who had legitimate access to the apartment and until they are identified it leaves the probability that one may belong to a burglar or an abductor.
I believe there are also unidentified hairs lifted from within the apartment;
unknown hairs + unknown fingerprints = unknown person;
so until that unknown person is identified no-one can state that there is no evidence to support Madeleine's abduction.
Quotes from: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
-
Please, please, Stephen, could you produce some evidence for your insistence?
Perhaps you haven't got the point Eleanor.
With the mccann supporters or the mccanns themselves, trying to link a burglary to an 'abduction', it isn't me who requires the evidence to do so.
Is it ?
All that is visible on many threads on this forum, is a desperation from mccann supporters to link events which have no proof or evidence, to prove they ever took place.
-
Kate could have touched it when looking out when she found Madeleine missing, if you fake an abduction, you are normally intelligent enough to wipe finger prints off anything that might incriminate you.
She didn't mention that fact in her statement and intelligent people lock their apartment.
-
Perhaps you haven't got the point Eleanor.
With the mccann supporters or the mccanns themselves, trying to link a burglary to an 'abduction', it isn't me who requires the evidence to do so.
Is it ?
All that is visible on many threads on this forum, is a desperation from mccann supporters to link events which have no proof or evidence, to prove they ever took place.
But a Court would require this evidence. And since The McCanns have never been charged, one can only assume that there is none.
-
But a Court would require this evidence. And since The McCanns have never been charged, one can only assume that there is none.
and where are the mccanns with no evidence of an abduction ?
-
There would be nothing at all extraordinary or incriminating about fingerprints from the occupants of Apartment 5a being all over the interior of the window. What is extraordinary is that so few fingerprints belonging to any one were found.
Probably worth noting that the handle would have been used to open the window, an attempt to do so by placing the fingers of one hand on the glass and pushing probably would not have done it and it would have resulted in smearing the prints.
The report states "The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time,".
There is no record of the outside of the window or the cill being checked forensically nor does the report mention how many inadequate prints were found.
The report states, "Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate prints were recovered." We know that Madeleine's father and others interfered with the "blinds" because they thought they could not be opened from outside, only to discover that they did.
Fingerprints were sent to other countries, "Several prints were unusable for comparison purposes; all others were compared with no results."
Later one was eliminated, "These were compared to the finger print which was identified as being that of Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa of the Lagos GNR."
So it appears that there are fingerprints lifted from the McCann apartment which remain unidentified ... they are not the fingerprints of anyone who had legitimate access to the apartment and until they are identified it leaves the probability that one may belong to a burglar or an abductor.
I believe there are also unidentified hairs lifted from within the apartment;
unknown hairs + unknown fingerprints = unknown person;
so until that unknown person is identified no-one can state that there is no evidence to support Madeleine's abduction.
Quotes from: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
Very well covered, Brietta
-
and where are the mccanns with no evidence of an abduction ?
The McCanns don't have to produce anything. I thought you understood that.
-
So where is the evidence ?
the evidence is...Maddie is missing....her parents have been ruled out....unlikely to have left apartment on her own and closed all doors behind her...that only leaves abduction or death at the hands of a stranger who then removed the body.....simple
-
the evidence is...Maddie is missing....her parents have been ruled out....unlikely to have left apartment on her own and closed all doors behind her...that only leaves abduction or death at the hands of a stranger who then removed the body.....simple
Wrong wrong wrong!!
Nobody has been ruled out yet and that's gospel. There is every possibility Maddie got up and finding no parents in the apartment yet again she opened the front door and walked out just as she did every morning. This time however she met with an accident.
-
Wrong wrong wrong!!
Nobody has been ruled out yet and that's gospel. There is every possibility Maddie got up and finding no parents in the apartment yet again she opened the front door and walked out just as she did every morning. This time however she met with an accident.
So what happened to her after that. S'il vous plait?
-
Wrong wrong wrong!!
Nobody has been ruled out yet and that's gospel. There is every possibility Maddie got up and finding no parents in the apartment yet again she opened the front door and walked out just as she did every morning. This time however she met with an accident.
Redwood has said the parents are not suspects and has said he is looking for an abductor...that fits perfectly with what I have said
-
So what happened to her after that. S'il vous plait?
That's the $50 million question?
-
Redwood has said the parents are not suspects and has said he is looking for an abductor...that fits perfectly with what I have said
Redwood has gone or hadn't you noticed?
-
Those 3 'reasons' are speculation without ONE bit of evidence to back them up.
Of course it's speculation, I wasn't there!! but so is what Amaral said speculation. We can only speculate as we weren't there.
You asked me why did I think the window was open when I said the abductor could have entered with a key through the front door. I give you three reasons.
-
Several senior detectives arrived at the same conclusion ages ago. For all anyone knows she fell down a storm drain or was hit by a car and carried off possibly by a driver who had initial good intentions to seek medical help.
-
the evidence is...Maddie is missing....her parents have been ruled out....unlikely to have left apartment on her own and closed all doors behind her...that only leaves abduction or death at the hands of a stranger who then removed the body.....simple
Unknown traces in apartment 5a are also a factor.
Had Madeleine exited the apartment either via the door or via the window she would have left a trace. Her fingerprints would have been on the window cill, or the window handle, on the shutter or even on all three; similarly, her fingerprints would have been found on the patio door and on the gates she would have had to open and close to exit that way.
Unlike an intruder, she would not have had to take care not to leave hair, DNA or fingerprints.
IMO the window was opened for one of three reasons
(a) an opportunistic burglary when a sleepy Madeleine may have approached and was lifted out
(b) an escape route for a burglar who entered either via the patio door or who used a key
(c) the window was opened to pass Madeleine to an accomplice
If the latter, IMO it was a targeted abduction.
If either of the former, IMO it was an attempted burglary gone wrong.
I wonder what the exit route was in the burglary when a plasma television was stolen ... bearing in mind these were not the almost credit card size width modern sets are ... they were substantial and heavy pieces of equipment.
-
Unknown traces in apartment 5a are also a factor.
Had Madeleine exited the apartment either via the door or via the window she would have left a trace. Her fingerprints would have been on the window cill, or the window handle, on the shutter or even on all three; similarly, her fingerprints would have been found on the patio door and on the gates she would have had to open and close to exit that way.
Unlike an intruder, she would not have had to take care not to leave hair, DNA or fingerprints.
IMO the window was opened for one of three reasons
(a) an opportunistic burglary when a sleepy Madeleine may have approached and was lifted out
(b) an escape route for a burglar who entered either via the patio door or who used a key
(c) the window was opened to pass Madeleine to an accomplice
If the latter, IMO it was a targeted abduction.
If either of the former, IMO it was an attempted burglary gone wrong.
I wonder what the exit route was in the burglary when a plasma television was stolen ... bearing in mind these were not the almost credit card size width modern sets are ... they were substantial and heavy pieces of equipment.
and not a shred of evidence to prove it ever happened.
Unless you believe in make believe. 8)-)))
PS. Just to remind you, the open window has not been proved.
-
and not a shred of evidence to prove it ever happened.
Unless you believe in make believe. 8)-)))
PS. Just to remind you, the open window has not been proved.
... that predictive text problem again Stephen; I'm sure if you really tried you could get it fixed; for sure if my PC kept repeating on a loop I would trade it in for one I could control and which made sense.
There is no evidence that Madeleine McCann's parents or any connected to them were capable of or responsible for harming her in any way whatsoever and that is inclusive of dumping her little body like so much trash.
There is evidence that burglaries involving assaults on little British girls were prevalent in the Algarve and near Praia da Luz at the time; although back in 2007 we had no idea.
Not only are there numerous accounts of burglaries taking place in the Algarve the latest of which which have become aggravated; the holiday complex and block 5 had incidents of burglaries which as late as last year Paul Luckman was still denying.
Again we had no idea in 2007 just how prevalent these were. I think if people had been aware back then there would not have been such a credulous audience for our old friend - the source close to the PJ - and you and I may not have been having this exchange.
Time maybe you gave some thought to the evidence which is available to you rather than the lack of evidence and allow common sense to prevail.
-
... that predictive text problem again Stephen; I'm sure if you really tried you could get it fixed; for sure if my PC kept repeating on a loop I would trade it in for one I could control and which made sense.
There is no evidence that Madeleine McCann's parents or any connected to them were capable of or responsible for harming her in any way whatsoever and that is inclusive of dumping her little body like so much trash.
There is evidence that burglaries involving assaults on little British girls were prevalent in the Algarve and near Praia da Luz at the time; although back in 2007 we had no idea.
Not only are there numerous accounts of burglaries taking place in the Algarve the latest of which which have become aggravated; the holiday complex and block 5 had incidents of burglaries which as late as last year Paul Luckman was still denying.
Again we had no idea in 2007 just how prevalent these were. I think if people had been aware back then there would not have been such a credulous audience for our old friend - the source close to the PJ - and you and I may not have been having this exchange.
Time maybe you gave some thought to the evidence which is available to you rather than the lack of evidence and allow common sense to prevail.
Just to remind you brietta.
No evidence of a burglary.
No evidence of an abduction.
......and that my dear is common sense.
-
and not a shred of evidence to prove it ever happened.
Unless you believe in make believe. 8)-)))
PS. Just to remind you, the open window has not been proved.
PS. Just to remind you ... Witness statement of Amy Tierney 2007/05/06
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine’s shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
However there was a bed against the window, which could have enabled the girl to climb up onto it and then up to the window, the witness thinks it would not be possible as she would not be able to open the shutters and even if she had done so she would have fallen outside as the window is too high for a child of that age to be able to descend without falling.
You really do not know better than the independent witnesses who were on the premises in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine being discovered missing and who were able to give a witness statement to that effect.
-
PS. Just to remind you ... Witness statement of Amy Tierney 2007/05/06
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine’s shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
However there was a bed against the window, which could have enabled the girl to climb up onto it and then up to the window, the witness thinks it would not be possible as she would not be able to open the shutters and even if she had done so she would have fallen outside as the window is too high for a child of that age to be able to descend without falling.
You really do not know better than the independent witnesses who were on the premises in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine being discovered missing and who were able to give a witness statement to that effect.
That only proves the window was open after the 'alert'.
NOT BEFORE.
-
PS. Just to remind you ... Witness statement of Amy Tierney 2007/05/06
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine’s shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
However there was a bed against the window, which could have enabled the girl to climb up onto it and then up to the window, the witness thinks it would not be possible as she would not be able to open the shutters and even if she had done so she would have fallen outside as the window is too high for a child of that age to be able to descend without falling.
You really do not know better than the independent witnesses who were on the premises in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine being discovered missing and who were able to give a witness statement to that effect.
Give over, Brietta, even the six immediately alerted never said they saw an open window.
It may have been open x minutes later when Tierney showed up however.
-
?>)()< This site must have numbed my brain; I have only just cottoned on to how dozy this thread title is.
Given that you are going to knock over a home and that you are not Zeus (read about Zeus and Danae) or Rubber Bones Webb (Google him if you are much under 70!) there is a limited choice of ways to get in i.e through a door or a window*. So is it a surprise some burglars have used windows as a means of access?
* I suppose a D8 through the walls would work on the ground floor.
-
?>)()< This site must have numbed my brain; I have only just cottoned on to how dozy this thread title is.
Given that you are going to knock over a home and that you are not Zeus (read about Zeus and Danae) or Rubber Bones Webb (Google him if you are much under 70!) there is a limited choice of ways to get in i.e through a door or a window*. So is it a surprise some burglars have used windows as a means of access?
* I suppose a D8 through the walls would work on the ground floor.
I believe this is one of those 'fake' threads started not by the OP but by John when separating a discussion that originated on another thread so perhaps you should address your complaint regarding the 'dozy' title to him...?
-
?>)()< This site must have numbed my brain; I have only just cottoned on to how dozy this thread title is.
Given that you are going to knock over a home and that you are not Zeus (read about Zeus and Danae) or Rubber Bones Webb (Google him if you are much under 70!) there is a limited choice of ways to get in i.e through a door or a window*. So is it a surprise some burglars have used windows as a means of access?
* I suppose a D8 through the walls would work on the ground floor.
many of the threads are dozy seeing as the McCanns are not suspects and have nothing to do with the disappearance of Maddie
-
Everything is a bit dozy and probably will be until we get something new to discuss ... back to (dozy topic) ...
Burglaries seem to be a huge problem in the Algarve.
It seems burglars have no compunction about entering premises whether occupied or unoccupied.
They were happening long before Madeleine vanished from her bed and are still going on today.
I think that possibly the main problem with them, apart from the fact they seem to occur with impunity, is the climate of denial which has allowed them to flourish.
When at last something really valuable was taken the urgency to get the case done and dusted must have been palpable. I think Madeleine McCann and her parents may well have been the victims of ensuring the tourist trade emerged from this hiccup unscathed.
I went to stay at the Villa Kings in...
Although the Villa was nice we were broken into on the 11th day of our stay while we were asleep in bed they took all our money, left us with nothing, Cosmos did not even apologise for this and the patio was damaged as they must of tried to get in through that way but they ended up coming through the window of which my mother in law was asleep at the time and the neighbours Villa the Estelle was also robbed as they were asleep.
https://www.holidaywatchdog.com/35050-Gale-Kings_Villa-Holiday-Review.html
Receptionist Dawn Turp was 17 when burglars struck at her family’s holiday home in Praia da Luz twice in five months.
She saw one man from the back and got a good look at his getaway car, a silver Ford Ka.
In the first burglary in 2001 she saw a man leaving with stolen items in a towel.
Dawn, 29, said: “He was foreign looking, possibly Portuguese, with short dark hair.
"I didn’t get a look at his face but I will never forget the Ford Ka bubble car he got into.
"As soon as he got in, it roared off, so I think there must have been a driver.”
Five months later Dawn and her friend awoke to find phones, cash and credit cards had been taken from their bedroom.
Dawn said: “It could well have been the same people who burgled us before, they seemed to know the layout.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/473937/British-tourist-s-burglary-clue-that-could-help-Madeleine-McCann-mystery
-
....and where is the evidence of burglary in the apartment ?
After all, gerry mccann said himself.........
''Nothing of value was taken from the apartment''
Which was quite true.
No burglary.
Nothing was taken.
-
....and where is the evidence of burglary in the apartment ?
After all, gerry mccann said himself.........
''Nothing of value was taken from the apartment''
Which was quite true.
No burglary.
Nothing was taken.
No-one has ever claimed that a burglary took place at 5A on 3rd May. - so I don't see the point of your post.
-
No-one has ever claimed that a burglary took place at 5A on 3rd May. - so I don't see the point of your post.
So what is the point of this thread ?
-
So what is the point of this thread ?
The clue is in the thread title.
-
The clue is in the thread title.
Indeed, the inference being it happened in the mccanns apartment as well.
So who are you trying to kid.
How many times have we heard recently , it was a burglary gone wrong.
-
Indeed, the inference being it happened in the mccanns apartment as well.
So who are you trying to kid.
How many times have we heard recently , it was a burglary gone wrong.
Just the latest 'idea' of what might have happened. No more likely to be the truth than any of the previous ideas.
-
Indeed, the inference being it happened in the mccanns apartment as well.
So who are you trying to kid.
How many times have we heard recently , it was a burglary gone wrong.
Your post referred to GM confirming that no burglary had taken place as no valuables had been taken. My reply was to point out that NO-ONE has ever claimed otherwise and so I didn't see the point of your post. I still don't.
-
Your post referred to GM confirming that no burglary had taken place as no valuables had been taken. My reply was to point out that NO-ONE has ever claimed otherwise and so I didn't see the point of your post. I still don't.
Surely SY are investigating a burglary gone wrong ?
and what is the point of this thread ?
-
I believe this is one of those 'fake' threads started not by the OP but by John when separating a discussion that originated on another thread so perhaps you should address your complaint regarding the 'dozy' title to him...?
I was in fact addressing it to the forum at large 8(0(*
-
Everything is a bit dozy and probably will be until we get something new to discuss ... back to (dozy topic) ...
Burglaries seem to be a huge problem in the Algarve.
It seems burglars have no compunction about entering premises whether occupied or unoccupied.
They were happening long before Madeleine vanished from her bed and are still going on today.
I think that possibly the main problem with them, apart from the fact they seem to occur with impunity, is the climate of denial which has allowed them to flourish.
When at last something really valuable was taken the urgency to get the case done and dusted must have been palpable. I think Madeleine McCann and her parents may well have been the victims of ensuring the tourist trade emerged from this hiccup unscathed.
I went to stay at the Villa Kings in...
Although the Villa was nice we were broken into on the 11th day of our stay while we were asleep in bed they took all our money, left us with nothing, Cosmos did not even apologise for this and the patio was damaged as they must of tried to get in through that way but they ended up coming through the window of which my mother in law was asleep at the time and the neighbours Villa the Estelle was also robbed as they were asleep.
https://www.holidaywatchdog.com/35050-Gale-Kings_Villa-Holiday-Review.html
Receptionist Dawn Turp was 17 when burglars struck at her family’s holiday home in Praia da Luz twice in five months.
She saw one man from the back and got a good look at his getaway car, a silver Ford Ka.
In the first burglary in 2001 she saw a man leaving with stolen items in a towel.
Dawn, 29, said: “He was foreign looking, possibly Portuguese, with short dark hair.
"I didn’t get a look at his face but I will never forget the Ford Ka bubble car he got into.
"As soon as he got in, it roared off, so I think there must have been a driver.”
Five months later Dawn and her friend awoke to find phones, cash and credit cards had been taken from their bedroom.
Dawn said: “It could well have been the same people who burgled us before, they seemed to know the layout.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/473937/British-tourist-s-burglary-clue-that-could-help-Madeleine-McCann-mystery
Burglaries are huge problem anywhere people with a bit of folding stuff, jewellery, cameras and i-pads etc drop their guard.
Many years ago when the Piccadilly Line opened all the way to Heathrow there was a joke doing the rounds about there being more thieves than tourists on the trains.
The problem is not restricted to the Algarve although there are some who like to portray that it is.
-
Burglaries are huge problem anywhere people with a bit of folding stuff, jewellery, cameras and i-pads etc drop their guard.
Many years ago when the Piccadilly Line opened all the way to Heathrow there was a joke doing the rounds about there being more thieves than tourists on the trains.
The problem is not restricted to the Algarve although there are some who like to portray that it is.
May I remind you of the title of the thread ... we happen to be discussing the Algarve not the Piccadilly line ... possibly because a little girl went missing in the Algarve either as a result of a burglary gone wrong or as a targeted abduction. Is there a parallel with a child being taken from the Piccadilly line? If so I must have missed any mention of it.
The constant attempt to introduce an element of racism into this particular debate is risible to say the least.
Some years ago every other house in my street was burgled ... as far as I know that had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine McCann's case or burglaries in the Algarve, which happen to be a matter of grave concern at the moment to the indigenous population whether native to the area or incomers, and tourists alike ... check it out, but I am sure you do not need to.
There is nothing to support any of the theories put forward in support of parental involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.
There is a myriad of evidence to support a home invasion much of which has been put forward by posters on this forum.
Burglary was common practice prior to 2007 and remains a common occurrence up to the present day ... and one of the common devices to rubbish that fact remains statements of the obvious "The problem is not restricted to the Algarve although there are some who like to portray that it is."
That is the equivalent of saying every evening the sun sets somewhere in the world and it displays that anyone using that redundant argument has nothing else going for them.
Take another look at Paul Luckman's interview with Sky where he is in complete denial ... and note how foolish he is made to look in the process.
From 1:34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcIwprGp7Ew
-
May I remind you of the title of the thread ... we happen to be discussing the Algarve not the Piccadilly line ... possibly because a little girl went missing in the Algarve either as a result of a burglary gone wrong or as a targeted abduction. Is there a parallel with a child being taken from the Piccadilly line? If so I must have missed any mention of it.
The constant attempt to introduce an element of racism into this particular debate is risible to say the least.
Some years ago every other house in my street was burgled ... as far as I know that had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine McCann's case or burglaries in the Algarve, which happen to be a matter of grave concern at the moment to the indigenous population whether native to the area or incomers, and tourists alike ... check it out, but I am sure you do not need to.
There is nothing to support any of the theories put forward in support of parental involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.
There is a myriad of evidence to support a home invasion much of which has been put forward by posters on this forum.
Burglary was common practice prior to 2007 and remains a common occurrence up to the present day ... and one of the common devices to rubbish that fact remains statements of the obvious "The problem is not restricted to the Algarve although there are some who like to portray that it is."
That is the equivalent of saying every evening the sun sets somewhere in the world and it displays that anyone using that redundant argument has nothing else going for them.
Take another look at Paul Luckman's interview with Sky where he is in complete denial ... and note how foolish he is made to look in the process.
From 1:34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcIwprGp7Ew
The Algarve is a tourist resort, in common with other tourist resorts it has a problem with burglaries.
Some of the burglars gain access to properties, they are going to burgle, through the windows.
If I may say this is hardly an earth shattering revelation and is unlikely to get you on the short list for a Nobel Prize.
-
The Algarve is a tourist resort, in common with other tourist resorts it has a problem with burglaries.
Some of the burglars gain access to properties, they are going to burgle, through the windows.
If I may say this is hardly an earth shattering revelation and is unlikely to get you on the short list for a Nobel Prize.
If I may interject here I doubt Brietta was aiming for a Nobel prize, or if indeed such a prize is now given to internet punters discussing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, however surely it is a potentially relevant point when discussing the mysterious disappearance? If not, why not, in your view?
-
Inner sanctum or not, let's try and be nice to each other.
Admin
-
Off topic posts will be deleted, so please try and stay with the topic where possible
-
I don't think it has been established whether burglaries in the vicinity were the result of entry via windows or not.
The GNR would have had the reports and those aren't in the PJ files.
ETA: And whether GNR reports would have been anything more than a statement for insurance purposes isn't clear, either.
-
If I may interject here I doubt Brietta was aiming for a Nobel prize, or if indeed such a prize is now given to internet punters discussing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, however surely it is a potentially relevant point when discussing the mysterious disappearance? If not, why not, in your view?
Mainly because two different sorts of cops said there was no evidence of a break in I suppose.
-
Mainly because two different sorts of cops said there was no evidence of a break in I suppose.
and no evidence of a break in = no break in right? And you reject the sort of cops that consider Madeleine may have been killed or taken as the result of a burglary gone wrong too I guess...?
-
and no evidence of a break in = no break in right? And you reject the sort of cops that consider Madeleine may have been killed or taken as the result of a burglary gone wrong too I guess...?
While it would be wrong to reject this out of hand, as yet, the police have failed to publicly demonstrate anything to support the idea.
-
While it would be wrong to reject this out of hand, as yet, the police have failed to publicly demonstrate anything to support the idea.
Certainly correct to take nothing for granted, but I think it is possible that the review which turned into an investigation might be a pretty sound clue as to present professional thinking about what happened to Madeleine McCann all those years ago.
There is no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann is dead ... DCI Redwood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsP9EVG4XHY
... and at long last Madeleine McCann is being looked for ... co-incidence or not, as part of that inquiry they have spoken to burglars who in case you have forgotten are arguidos ... that tells me that they are much more than persons of interest or witnesses and if not a public demonstration that they support the abduction theory, I have no idea what you think would meet that criteria.
-
Certainly correct to take nothing for granted, but I think it is possible that the review which turned into an investigation might be a pretty sound clue as to present professional thinking about what happened to Madeleine McCann all those years ago.
There is no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann is dead ... DCI Redwood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsP9EVG4XHY
... and at long last Madeleine McCann is being looked for ... co-incidence or not, as part of that inquiry they have spoken to burglars who in case you have forgotten are arguidos ... that tells me that they are much more than persons of interest or witnesses and if not a public demonstration that they support the abduction theory, I have no idea what you think would meet that criteria.
Its a public demonstration that they are looking in that direction, not that they have found anything.
-
and no evidence of a break in = no break in right? And you reject the sort of cops that consider Madeleine may have been killed or taken as the result of a burglary gone wrong too I guess...?
Did I say that? I rather think not!
-
Did I say that? I rather think not!
Why is a discussion about burglaries in the Algarve on a Madeleine McCann forum not relevant then, do tell us again so we can be clear what you did say.
-
Its a public demonstration that they are looking in that direction, not that they have found anything.
One thing certain sure ... if you ain't looking the chances of you finding anything are very slim indeed ... as has been proved by the abysmal conduct of the first investigation.
Although they have had almost eight years to cover their tracks ... is it your suggestion that making the burglars arguidos is just a public demonstration of window dressing?
If you can supply proof positive of that they can sue the cotton socks off two State Policing Authorities in between their visits to the European Court of Human Rights.
-
One thing certain sure ... if you ain't looking the chances of you finding anything are very slim indeed ... as has been proved by the abysmal conduct of the first investigation.
Although they have had almost eight years to cover their tracks ... is it your suggestion that making the burglars arguidos is just a public demonstration of window dressing?
If you can supply proof positive of that they can sue the cotton socks off two State Policing Authorities in between their visits to the European Court of Human Rights.
Metodo 3, Oakley International and AIG were not exactly scintillating in their performances were they?
My understanding was that under Portuguese law a person may ask for arguido status to be granted them.
For all the interviewing and so not too many people have been charged have they?
-
So what exactly have they come up with so far ?
-
Why is a discussion about burglaries in the Algarve on a Madeleine McCann forum not relevant then, do tell us again so we can be clear what you did say.
I don't think I said that either.
Read my previous posts, don thy thinking cap and all will become clear.
-
I don't think I said that either.
Read my previous posts, don thy thinking cap and all will become clear.
Your point seems to be to belittle anyone who suggests that break-ins on the Algarve might have some potential relevance to the case by telling us (as if we needed reminding) that burglaries exist the world over - that much is very clear.
-
I don't think I said that either.
Read my previous posts, don thy thinking cap and all will become clear.
In any case you have already confirmed that you don't think discussion about Algarve burglaries are relevant when you wrote this in response to my question asking you why you felt such a disussion was irrelevant:
"Mainly because two different sorts of cops said there was no evidence of a break in I suppose".
-
Your point seems to be to belittle anyone who suggests that break-ins on the Algarve might have some potential relevance to the case by telling us (as if we needed reminding) that burglaries exist the world over - that much is very clear.
and you want a break-in, since without that what do the McCann's have to fall back on ?
-
Your point seems to be to belittle anyone who suggests that break-ins on the Algarve might have some potential relevance to the case by telling us (as if we needed reminding) that burglaries exist the world over - that much is very clear.
Well that is your opinion to which you are entitled.
-
and you want a break-in, since without that what do the McCann's have to fall back on ?
Evidence or more particularly the lack of evidence to implicate them in any way in involvement in Madeleine's disappearance ... and the firm conviction of the PJ and SY that an intruder was responsible for taking Madeleine ... which is why they are particularly interested in what some burglars may have to say.
-
Evidence or more particularly the lack of evidence to implicate them in any way in involvement in Madeleine's disappearance ... and the firm conviction of the PJ and SY that an intruder was responsible for taking Madeleine ... which is why they are particularly interested in what some burglars may have to say.
So on that note, you would have to say there is as much evidence of accidental death in the apartment, or outside, wouldn't you ?
-
So on that note, you would have to say there is as much evidence of accidental death in the apartment, or outside, wouldn't you ?
As we all know, that is Correct, Stephen. Since there is no evidence of foul play, with which to base any particular suspicion or possibility upon, that we are aware of, as yet.
The cause of Madeleine’s disappearance, could be accidental or intentional, inside or outside of 5A.
However the topic of discussion, on this thread is the possibility of, Burglar/window entry etc. (As heading)
Please, try and keep within the discussion of the topic....This is intended for all posters
-
Any more, OFF TOPIC posts, will be deleted on sight...Please take heed.
-
So on that note, you would have to say there is as much evidence of accidental death in the apartment, or outside, wouldn't you ?
I would have to say there is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine died either accidentally or was murdered either inside the apartment or outside ... I take it you mean at the foot of the stairs or the garden.
No evidence whatsoever.
However, given the history of burglaries within the resort, two that we know of in block 5 in the weeks preceding the McCann holiday in combination with assaults on children in the area I would have to say that the balance of probability is heavily weighted towards Madeleine being abducted by an intruder.
Whether that was a planned abduction or an opportunist abduction I have no idea, but the fact that Madeleine vanished that night and has not been seen since suggests she was removed with great speed very likely across the Spanish border where no-one was checking traffic for a missing child.
-
I would have to say there is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine died either accidentally or was murdered either inside the apartment or outside ... I take it you mean at the foot of the stairs or the garden.
No evidence whatsoever.
However, given the history of burglaries within the resort, two that we know of in block 5 in the weeks preceding the McCann holiday in combination with assaults on children in the area I would have to say that the balance of probability is heavily weighted towards Madeleine being abducted by an intruder.
Whether that was a planned abduction or an opportunist abduction I have no idea, but the fact that Madeleine vanished that night and has not been seen since suggests she was removed with great speed very likely across the Spanish border where no-one was checking traffic for a missing child.
That my dear is a matter of opinion.
Now if Madeleine's body is ever found, that by the way is not being callous. I simply don't believe she is alive, and there has not been any trace of her despite the worldwide publicity over the years,and with a forensic analysis, the dogs indications can become pertinent.
Now as to abduction, well, not a smidgen of evidence, and supposition doesn't count.
-
That my dear is a matter of opinion.
Now if Madeleine's body is ever found, that by the way is not being callous. I simply don't believe she is alive, and there has not been any trace of her despite the worldwide publicity over the years,and with a forensic analysis, the dogs indications can become pertinent.
Now as to abduction, well, not a smidgen of evidence, and supposition doesn't count.
Not even your supposition.
-
That my dear is a matter of opinion.
Now if Madeleine's body is ever found, that by the way is not being callous. I simply don't believe she is alive, and there has not been any trace of her despite the worldwide publicity over the years,and with a forensic analysis, the dogs indications can become pertinent.
Now as to abduction, well, not a smidgen of evidence, and supposition doesn't count.
Should Madeleine's remains be discovered in PDL it would be proof positive of the total ineffectiveness of the dogs and would indicate that the perpetrator was indeed local with local knowledge such as that possessed by the present arguidos.
-
Should Madeleine's remains be discovered in PDL it would be proof positive of the total ineffectiveness of the dogs and would indicate that the perpetrator was indeed local with local knowledge such as that possessed by the present arguidos.
The McCanns were living in PDL for 3 months before the dogs arrived and we know who they alerted to.
-
The McCanns were living in PDL for 3 months before the dogs arrived and we know who they alerted to.
No we dont. That is where YOU are mistaken.
Just knee jerk anti-Mccann responses from your side
No forensic evidence / proofs of anything ... and you know it.
-
Burglary's happen all over the place but its a huge leap from filching cameras to taking toddlers surely. You would have to have a large set of round things to get away with that.
Also the window. Even if you got it open how did you get into it? You would have to use your feet to hoist yourself upwards etc, and it would be awkward and you would leave traces of DNA all over the place. Then you wouldnt be aware there was a bed right under the window.
With all the noise ALL the kids would have woken up, and if i know kids seeing a big dark shape trying to come at you, you would have cried....surely any burglar with half a brain would have then got out of there pretty quick by just jumping back down, they would never have had time to close the shutter back down and the close the window, you would run in a blind panic.
That leaves you with loads of forensics.......................... &%+((£
-
Burglary's happen all over the place but its a huge leap from filching cameras to taking toddlers surely. You would have to have a large set of round things to get away with that.
Also the window. Even if you got it open how did you get into it? You would have to use your feet to hoist yourself upwards etc, and it would be awkward and you would leave traces of DNA all over the place. Then you wouldnt be aware there was a bed right under the window.
With all the noise ALL the kids would have woken up, and if i know kids seeing a big dark shape trying to come at you, you would have cried....surely any burglar with half a brain would have then got out of there pretty quick by just jumping back down, they would never have had time to close the shutter back down and the close the window, you would run in a blind panic.
That leaves you with loads of forensics.......................... &%+((£
from what I have read a proper dna the crime scene was never carried out....that blows rather a large hole in all your reasoning
-
from what I have read a proper dna the crime scene was never carried out....that blows rather a large hole in all your reasoning
From what I have read, there is only Kate & Gerry's word that the window & shutters were discovered open.
And Kate wasn't lying, she assures us of that (gulp).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg#t=1371
So, closed they were then.
-
From what I have read, there is only Kate & Gerry's word that the window & shutters were discovered open.
And Kate wasn't lying, she assures us of that (gulp).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg#t=1371
So, closed they were then.
wrong again...only the first person in the room..kate .,...would have discovered them open...it's probably too subtle a point for you to understand
-
wrong again...only the first person in the room..kate .,...would have discovered them open...it's probably too subtle a point for you to understand
There is no proof the windows were open.
-
There is no proof the windows were open.
There are at least 3 eyewitnesses who saw the open window.
Kate McCann
Gerry McCann
Amy Tierney.
-
There are at least 3 eyewitnesses who saw the open window.
Kate McCann
Gerry McCann
Amy Tierney.
Only one was there first.
-
Only one was there first.
What difference does that make? Three eyewitnesses described the scene as they found it i.e. the window was open. Why should the evidence of any of them be dismissed?
-
What difference does that make? Three eyewitnesses described the scene as they found it i.e. the window was open. Why should the evidence of any of them be dismissed?
Because the window wasn't used and it was left in such a state where everybody would be able to see it. The unlocked door and gates looked like they hadn't been touched so the total opposite - neat and tidy abductor on that side of the apartment and look at the bed lol. So how did he enter - a key? If the abductor had a key why open the window? There's no point unless you want to get caught!
-
I don't think it has been established whether burglaries in the vicinity were the result of entry via windows or not.
The GNR would have had the reports and those aren't in the PJ files.
ETA: And whether GNR reports would have been anything more than a statement for insurance purposes isn't clear, either.
Hi Carana!
This is from Scotland Yard: "There was a fourfold increase in burglaries in the resort peaking in April 2007. Two of the burglaries in April were in Block 5 where Madeleine disappeared from. In both these burglaries entry was via a window."
http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1400020541583 (http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1400020541583)
-
Thanks, Heri.
-
Hi Carana!
This is from Scotland Yard: "There was a fourfold increase in burglaries in the resort peaking in April 2007. Two of the burglaries in April were in Block 5 where Madeleine disappeared from. In both these burglaries entry was via a window."
http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1400020541583 (http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1400020541583)
No evidence was found of anybody passing though the window. It is a narrow window opening. No glove marks or boot marks on bed/chair. Ziltch! Have you tried getting in through that window without leaving a trace of evidence instead of picking up a no weight pillow as Maddy? Maddy was seen in a deep sleep - did she levitate to the window in her sleep to be able get snatched by you in your reconstruction? How did she get to the window in a deep sleep? Then I will carry her through the streets. She was carried for one reason through the streets without a car. To get rid of the evidence because a post mortem would show who was responsible (SY are looking for a body!). Smithman had no choice!
-
Hi Carana!
This is from Scotland Yard: "There was a fourfold increase in burglaries in the resort peaking in April 2007. Two of the burglaries in April were in Block 5 where Madeleine disappeared from. In both these burglaries entry was via a window."
http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1400020541583 (http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1400020541583)
Were the burglaries during the day when it would be less likely the residents would be at home ? Were the shutters on the window down ? Was the window open already or closed and locked ?
-
Because the window wasn't used and it was left in such a state where everybody would be able to see it. The unlocked door and gates looked like they hadn't been touched so the total opposite - neat and tidy abductor - look at the bed lol. So how did he enter - a key? If the abductor had a key why open the window? There's no point unless you want to get caught!
If the open shutters and window were pre planned by the McCanns to be the indisputable proof to the police that an intruder had entered 5A, then Gerry would have guarded that open window with his life to make sure the police found it how he and Kate had planned - and not let anyone near it or the shutters.
It is not impossible that an intruder had a key and various quite valid reasons imo - for why he would want to open the window have been listed numerous times. Just because some people choose to ignore them does not make them invalid.
If an intruder did enter via the patio door then surely he would not be leaving the gates open behind him as that would be a strong clue to the McCanns, who knew that they always closed them when they left, that something could be amiss in the apartment on their next check. A lone intruder would not know for definite the exact time of the next check and could still be in the apartment. Why would he risk pre-warning anyone when it only took seconds to close the gates.
-
If the open shutters and window were pre planned by the McCanns to be the indisputable proof to the police that an intruder had entered 5A, then Gerry would have guarded that open window with his life to make sure the police found it how he and Kate had planned - and not let anyone near it or the shutters.
It is not impossible that an intruder had a key and various quite valid reasons imo - for why he would want to open the window have been listed numerous times. Just because some people choose to ignore them does not make them invalid.
If an intruder did enter via the patio door then surely he would not be leaving the gates open behind him as that would be a strong clue to the McCanns, who knew that they always closed them when they left, that something could be amiss in the apartment on their next check. A lone intruder would not know for definite the exact time of the next check and could still be in the apartment. Why would he risk pre-warning anyone when it only took seconds to close the gates.
Keep living in your fantasy world. I know how it happened and I can't believe SY haven't worked it out yet.
-
Keep living in your fantasy world. I know how it happened and I can't believe SY haven't worked it out yet.
Maybe they have, though proving it would be something else altogether.
-
If the open shutters and window were pre planned by the McCanns to be the indisputable proof to the police that an intruder had entered 5A, then Gerry would have guarded that open window with his life to make sure the police found it how he and Kate had planned - and not let anyone near it or the shutters.
It is not impossible that an intruder had a key and various quite valid reasons imo - for why he would want to open the window have been listed numerous times. Just because some people choose to ignore them does not make them invalid.
If an intruder did enter via the patio door then surely he would not be leaving the gates open behind him as that would be a strong clue to the McCanns, who knew that they always closed them when they left, that something could be amiss in the apartment on their next check. A lone intruder would not know for definite the exact time of the next check and could still be in the apartment. Why would he risk pre-warning anyone when it only took seconds to close the gates.
Wouldn't the fact that Madeleine was missing be a bigger clue ?
-
Hi Carana!
This is from Scotland Yard: "There was a fourfold increase in burglaries in the resort peaking in April 2007. Two of the burglaries in April were in Block 5 where Madeleine disappeared from. In both these burglaries entry was via a window."
http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1400020541583 (http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1400020541583)
You are welcome, Eleanor.
-
I wonder if Sy have got anywhere with Burglar Bill and his associates, or whether it is going to be another dead-end?
-
No evidence was found of anybody passing though the window. It is a narrow window opening. No glove marks or boot marks on bed/chair. Ziltch! Have you tried getting in through that window without leaving a trace of evidence instead of picking up a no weight pillow as Maddy? Maddy was seen in a deep sleep - did she levitate to the window in her sleep to be able get snatched by you in your reconstruction? How did she get to the window in a deep sleep? Then I will carry her through the streets. She was carried for one reason through the streets without a car. To get rid of the evidence because a post mortem would show who was responsible (SY are looking for a body!). Smithman had no choice!
Don't be so ridiculous ... burglars are perfectly capable of entering and leaving premises via a much smaller aperture than that window; one of the reasons why teams usually consist of at least one very small, agile person ... sometimes even a child.
In any case no-one is asserting anything about the window ... for the simple reason no-one knows anything apart from the fact Madeleine's mother found it open and her daughter missing.
There didn't appear to be much of a problem lifting a plasma television from one of the apartments and taking it away without anyone seeing a thing ... suggests to me that the burglars operating in that area were astute enough to
(a) enter and leave premises without being seen ... Mrs Fenn being an exception
(b) were no strangers to the complex being familiar with the layout and the comings and goings of tourists
(c) were either one step ahead of the police ... or ...
(d) the police weren't too bothered about holiday cash, personal items or plasma TVs
Almost everything you assert is speculation with no foundation in either fact or probability ... only enormous prejudice.
-
Maybe they have, though proving it would be something else altogether.
Agreed. I wouldn't have them as suspects either until it could be proved.
-
Don't be so ridiculous ... burglars are perfectly capable of entering and leaving premises via a much smaller aperture than that window; one of the reasons why teams usually consist of at least one very small, agile person ... sometimes even a child.
In any case no-one is asserting anything about the window ... for the simple reason no-one knows anything apart from the fact Madeleine's mother found it open and her daughter missing.
There didn't appear to be much of a problem lifting a plasma television from one of the apartments and taking it away without anyone seeing a thing ... suggests to me that the burglars operating in that area were astute enough to
(a) enter and leave premises without being seen ... Mrs Fenn being an exception
(b) were no strangers to the complex being familiar with the layout and the comings and goings of tourists
(c) were either one step ahead of the police ... or ...
(d) the police weren't too bothered about holiday cash, personal items or plasma TVs
Almost everything you assert is speculation with no foundation in either fact or probability ... only enormous prejudice.
*Irony Klaxon*
-
If the open shutters and window were pre planned by the McCanns to be the indisputable proof to the police that an intruder had entered 5A, then Gerry would have guarded that open window with his life to make sure the police found it how he and Kate had planned - and not let anyone near it or the shutters.
It is not impossible that an intruder had a key and various quite valid reasons imo - for why he would want to open the window have been listed numerous times. Just because some people choose to ignore them does not make them invalid.
If an intruder did enter via the patio door then surely he would not be leaving the gates open behind him as that would be a strong clue to the McCanns, who knew that they always closed them when they left, that something could be amiss in the apartment on their next check. A lone intruder would not know for definite the exact time of the next check and could still be in the apartment. Why would he risk pre-warning anyone when it only took seconds to close the gates.
For the master criminals they are alleged to be ... Madeleine's parents made a terrible mess of setting the scene for an abduction.
-
For the master criminals they are alleged to be ... Madeleine's parents made a terrible mess of setting the scene for an abduction.
If there was no window said to be open and the apartment was unlocked the police would say Maddy left by herself as there's no evidence of an intruder or a break-in. You couldn't cry abduction or they've taken her!
-
For the master criminals they are alleged to be ... Madeleine's parents made a terrible mess of setting the scene for an abduction.
Not master criminals but two panicked parents faced with a situation that could have destroyed both their family and their reputation.
Most of the 'clever' work was done later.
-
Not master criminals but two panicked parents faced with a situation that could have destroyed both their family and their reputation.
Most of the 'clever' work was done later.
Could have destroyed their family and reputation? I think you'll find it did both anyway, with or without their supposedly clever work later. You have to admit though, if not master criminals then extremely and consistently bare-faced, cunning, and quite brilliant to have pulled off the con of he century.
-
Can we please get back on topic
-
Wouldn't the fact that Madeleine was missing be a bigger clue ?
If the intruder was still in the apartment, what would be best for him? Someone arriving in complete ignorance of anything being wrong, or someone entering 5a - already alarmed to find the gates which they had closed were now open?
If it was a lone intruder - once he was inside 5A he would not know whether anyone was heading back or not. What he would know is that when they arrived they would be entering via the patio door. Closing the gates would take seconds and would guarantee no pre-warnings.
-
What difference does that make? Three eyewitnesses described the scene as they found it i.e. the window was open. Why should the evidence of any of them be dismissed?
Only one witness could have "discovered" the open window, any subsequent witnesses would not be able to say who opened the window.
-
Only one witness could have "discovered" the open window, any subsequent witnesses would not be able to say who opened the window.
They wouldn't be expected to know. Are you saying that their statements re the description of how they found the window should not be considered as evidence - because they didn't know who opened the window? Surely not.
-
Amazing how two such panicked people managed to behave perfectly normally when they went to dinner. Apparently the enormity of what had happened - and what was about to happen when the time came to raise the alarm didn't even affect their appetites. Sorry Faith - much too far fetched for me - and for the Portuguese AG also.
Nobody ... including the PJ at the time has come up with a reasonable, workable explanation of how these 'master criminals' who incidentally must have been psychopaths to boot managed to cover their tracks to the extent that they were able to carry out this crime - whatever it was - without leaving a trace.
The finest brains? on the blogosphere have been unable to deduce how they "dunnit" it despite agonising about it for nearly eight years ... yet we are expected to believe that the pivotal proof on which they "fabricated" the case for abduction didn't happen.
In 2007 we now know, keys for the apartment block had gone missing.
We now know that the area was rife with petty burglaries before, during and after Madeleine's disappearance.
We now know about the convicted ex pat paedophiles attracted to the area, there must have been more of different nationalities.
We now know about assaults on British children who were in their own beds ... if newspaper reports are to be believed the PJs own suspect's DNA was tested against a DNA sample taken from the scene of one of these assaults.
There is a sample of unknown DNA harvested from somewhere in apartment 5a.
We know that the present investigation is looking into all of that and more ...
Yet posters still insist that the only possible suspects for abducting Madeleine are her parents ... is it really possible to be as obtuse as that? ... and ignoring the obvious, come up with all sorts of preposterous theories in justification (remember the clone?).
-
Is that your belief?
Wrong thread, Alfred
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.0
-
Off topic posts will be removed shortly. Please try and keep to the topic of the thread, where possible. Thank you
-
I wonder if Sy have got anywhere with Burglar Bill and his associates, or whether it is going to be another dead-end?
It's a dead end. No glove marks found.
"It's obvious that no one has broken in and the lock has not been forced. No prints are lifted that are likely to belong to an unknown person, nor the slightest trace of gloves which could have been worn by a hypothetical abductor. In the middle of this desert of clues, two prints are perfectly easily found: the very distinct mark of a palm print on the balcony window at the rear of the apartment, and a clearly visible one of fingers on the window pane of Madeleine's bedroom. The excellent quality of the palm print seemed suspicious to us. Later, analyses confirm our suspicions: it belonged to one of the officers who were present the previous night." (TOTL)
Under the plan, Yard detectives will seek the assistance of the Portuguese to carry out some inquiries on their behalf. British police do not have jurisdiction in Portugal but they have the right to investigate and prosecute any British suspects who might be linked to Madeleine’s disappearance.
-
It's a dead end. No glove marks found.
"It's obvious that no one has broken in and the lock has not been forced. No prints are lifted that are likely to belong to an unknown person, nor the slightest trace of gloves which could have been worn by a hypothetical abductor. In the middle of this desert of clues, two prints are perfectly easily found: the very distinct mark of a palm print on the balcony window at the rear of the apartment, and a clearly visible one of fingers on the window pane of Madeleine's bedroom. The excellent quality of the palm print seemed suspicious to us. Later, analyses confirm our suspicions: it belonged to one of the officers who were present the previous night." (TOTL)
Under the plan, Yard detectives will seek the assistance of the Portuguese to carry out some inquiries on their behalf. British police do not have jurisdiction in Portugal but they have the right to investigate and prosecute any British suspects who might be linked to Madeleine’s disappearance.
If forensics had been done properly, and in the daylight, who knows what could have been found.
Here's a print that was lifted, likely to have belong to an unknown person
Processos Vol IV
Pages 963 to 964
Policia Judiciaria Department for International Cooperation
National Interpol Cabinet
FaxDate:
11/05/2007
To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, DIC, Portimao
Subject: Madeleine Beth McCann
Following the collection of samples from the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz da L, which we sent to all Interpol offices, we inform you that:
The Interpol General Secretariat Interpol, IPSG Lyon, has informed us that these samples are unknown in the IPSG database
IP Wiesbaden informed us that two of the samples cannot be used for comparison, the other was possible for comparison, nothing being found in our files. However IP Wiesbaden states that this sample could have been left by a woman or a youth, but not by a small girl.
With compliments.
GNI Chief
Ana Mafalda
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_INTERPOL.htm
-
It's a dead end. No glove marks found.
"It's obvious that no one has broken in and the lock has not been forced. No prints are lifted that are likely to belong to an unknown person, nor the slightest trace of gloves which could have been worn by a hypothetical abductor. In the middle of this desert of clues, two prints are perfectly easily found: the very distinct mark of a palm print on the balcony window at the rear of the apartment, and a clearly visible one of fingers on the window pane of Madeleine's bedroom. The excellent quality of the palm print seemed suspicious to us. Later, analyses confirm our suspicions: it belonged to one of the officers who were present the previous night." (TOTL)
Under the plan, Yard detectives will seek the assistance of the Portuguese to carry out some inquiries on their behalf. British police do not have jurisdiction in Portugal but they have the right to investigate and prosecute any British suspects who might be linked to Madeleine’s disappearance.
No glove marks or smudges and no other fingerprints? How did the cleaner close the window, after cleaning them?
-
They wouldn't be expected to know. Are you saying that their statements re the description of how they found the window should not be considered as evidence - because they didn't know who opened the window? Surely not.
So are you saying that anyone arriving at the flat the next morning and finding an open window would be evidence?
-
No glove marks or smudges and no other fingerprints? How did the cleaner close the window, after cleaning them?
The window was a slider so at some stage would need to be shut to clean the fixed and sliding portion.
Easier to do the inside from the inside and the outside from the outside. No need to touch either after cleaning then.
-
The window was a slider so at some stage would need to be shut to clean the fixed and sliding portion.
Easier to do the inside from the inside and the outside from the outside. No need to touch either after cleaning then.
What about the shutters?
-
What about the shutters?
Anna didn't mention shutters in her post.
So what about the shutters apart from their needing to be up to clean the windows outside.
I guess the cleaner raised and lowered them in the conventional manner using the CDA inside.
-
from what I have read a proper dna the crime scene was never carried out....that blows rather a large hole in all your reasoning
Well it doesnt wasnt there a full programme on this, and forensics saying there was NOTHING found over the window sill, no lichen moved, no feet marks........
The window was never used to carry out a child, besides which there was a bed right under it. Someone simply went out of the front door............and came in that way.....with a key.
-
Well it doesnt wasnt there a full programme on this, and forensics saying there was NOTHING found over the window sill, no lichen moved, no feet marks........
The window was never used to carry out a child, besides which there was a bed right under it. Someone simply went out of the front door............and came in that way.....with a key.
There was No Lichen on the window sill.
-
There was No Lichen on the window sill.
Do you have a cite for that?
-
Do you have a cite for that?
Just look at some of the photos of the window sill the next morning when the finger print lady is dusting for prints.
-
So are you saying that anyone arriving at the flat the next morning and finding an open window would be evidence?
But that is not what happened. Witnesses arrived and surveyed the scene even before the police arrived. They gave their evidence to the police as witnesses in the normal way. I have no idea why anyone would think their statements should be discounted.
-
There was No Lichen on the window sill.
Good grief - I can't believe that ancient myth is still circulating.
-
Matt said he left the restaurant at 8:55 to get the Payne's and he met them by the McCanns apartment. He carried on and did a quick window listening check then returned to the table at 9pm. He said as soon as he got back Gerry left so I don't know how it took Gerry so long to get to the apartment by his own time keeping. Jane left at 9:10 and claims to have seen Gerry and Jez - doesn't remember hearing Gerry's unmissable non-stop loud voice but saw them so she never passed close by. Jez said they only talked for 3 minutes. So I already have, Where was Gerry 10-10pm? And now a new one, what was he doing from 9-9:10pm? Everyone else were conveniently sat at the table at this time.
-
Matt said he left the restaurant at 8:55 to get the Payne's and he met them by the McCanns apartment. He carried on and did a quick window listening check then returned to the table at 9pm. He said as soon as he got back Gerry left so I don't know how it took Gerry so long to get to the apartment by his own time keeping. Jane left at 9:10 and claims to have seen Gerry and Jez - doesn't remember hearing Gerry's unmissable non-stop loud voice but saw them so she never passed close by. Jez said they only talked for 3 minutes. So I already have, Where was Gerry 10-10pm? And now a new one, what was he doing from 9-9:10pm? Everyone else were conveniently sat at the table at this time.
Once again you are claiming that witnesses gave precise times of their movements. This is not true.
JT didn't know whether it was 5 or 10 mins or sometime inbetween after Gerry left that she left.
IIRC Jez gave the time spent talking to Gerry as 3 to 5 mins.
IMO trying to pin people's movements down to the last second is a waste of time and energy as they didn't know themselves - and so it can only ever be speculation - which proves nothing.
-
Once again you are claiming that witnesses gave precise times of their movements. This is not true.
JT didn't know whether it was 5 or 10 mins or sometime inbetween after Gerry left that she left.
IIRC Jez gave the time spent talking to Gerry as 3 to 5 mins.
IMO trying to pin people's movements down to the last second is a waste of time and energy as they didn't know themselves - and so it can only ever be speculation - which proves nothing.
Gerry said he looked at his watch - 9:04. That strange watch of his that said Kate left the table at 10:03. Doh!
-
Honest Mr Mitchell said he was not surprised by the inconsistencies in the initial accounts.
The Guardian 06 April 2008
'You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones, and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened.
Yorkshire Post 29 May 2008
"It was made out to be the biggest 'conspiracy' since the Diana 'conspiracy,'" says Mitchell.
"Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn't...
-
...then changed their mind & said they went through the sliding door, without a key, and that the key had infact been left on the kitchen counter.
May 4th
In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine.
May 10th
He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange.
............
Gonçalo Amaral:
Gerald McCann himself goes as far as to say that when he came to see his daughter at about 9pm, that he does not enter through here [sliding doors]; even though he was in a hurry to reach the bathroom. Yet he chooses to walk the longest path [round gesture with extended arm], to open the door [main entrance] with the key.
There is a report from Control Risks, the first private detective agency which was brought to the case [by the McCanns] in the very first days, where they state, after speaking with Gerald McCann and other witnesses in that group [Tapas 9], that the key that Mr. Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, in the kitchen’s counter. Right away, the lies started.
............
Lee Rainbow.
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide.'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-should-be-treated-as-suspects-brit-200689
Why do you insist on taking parts of cites to turn them into misquotes and therefore lies.
Lee Rainbow did not make the comment you have attributed to him ... Mr Amaral's lawyer ... Antonio Cabrita did.
Just another example of the 'spin' which became a myth and which continues to be disgracefully perpetuated to the present day.
**snip
His lawyer Antonio Cabrita, reading from a Portuguese translation of the previously- confidential report, said: 'The family is a lead that should be followed.
Gonzolo Amaral
The McCanns want Gonzolo Amaral (pictured yesterday) to be legally barred from accusing them of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'
The lawyer added: 'Portuguese police had only considered the abduction theory. It was British police who said they must consider homicide as well.'
Mr Cabrita did not outline what ' contradictions' had been found in Mr McCann's statements and refused to give any further details after the Lisbon hearing.
Mr Rainbow, 37, leads a team of five criminal profilers at the NPIA, and specialises in sex crimes and murders.
The Home Office agency, which describes itself as 'part of the police service', aims to improve police use of information, evidence and science and to support operations.
It is understood to have provided Portuguese police with a 'checklist' of how to proceed.
A spokesman said last night: 'In disappearance cases it is common for the NPIA to advise officers to consider the possibility of the involvement of family and close friends.
'This is good practice for investigating cases. The NPIA gave similar generic advice to Portuguese police.'
Mr Rainbow, who has worked on major investigations including the Ipswich prostitute murders and the disappearance of Shannon Matthews, did not say there was any evidence the McCanns were involved.
But his confidential report appears to have been a turning point in the Portuguese investigation.
Madeleine's distraught parents were named as official suspects a few weeks later, despite Portuguese police failing to find any evidence against them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html#ixzz3RcMQiXiu
However ... if we continue to Mr Amaral's book ... (chapter 13) we find ...
FOR THE PROFILERS, MURAT IS THE GUILTY PARTY
All the same, according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party.
Lee Rainbow DID NOT say what you have posted him as saying, I suggest you alter that and attribute it to the person who ACTUALLY said it ... Antonio Cabrita .
-
Gerry said he looked at his watch - 9:04. That strange watch of his that said Kate left the table at 10:03. Doh!
Apart from Gerry - no-one could give accurate times - or even claimed to. In fact IIRC when they did give times, they often preceded them with 'around' or 'about'. To claim that they gave specific times (and actually quote them as if they were facts) in order to make them fit into a certain theory is wrong IMO.
-
Why do you insist on taking parts of cites to turn them into misquotes and therefore lies.
Lee Rainbow did not make the comment you have attributed to him ... Mr Amaral's lawyer ... Antonio Cabrita did.
Just another example of the 'spin' which became a myth and which continues to be disgracefully perpetuated to the present day.
**snip
His lawyer Antonio Cabrita, reading from a Portuguese translation of the previously- confidential report, said: 'The family is a lead that should be followed.
Gonzolo Amaral
The McCanns want Gonzolo Amaral (pictured yesterday) to be legally barred from accusing them of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'
The lawyer added: 'Portuguese police had only considered the abduction theory. It was British police who said they must consider homicide as well.'
Mr Cabrita did not outline what ' contradictions' had been found in Mr McCann's statements and refused to give any further details after the Lisbon hearing.
Mr Rainbow, 37, leads a team of five criminal profilers at the NPIA, and specialises in sex crimes and murders.
The Home Office agency, which describes itself as 'part of the police service', aims to improve police use of information, evidence and science and to support operations.
It is understood to have provided Portuguese police with a 'checklist' of how to proceed.
A spokesman said last night: 'In disappearance cases it is common for the NPIA to advise officers to consider the possibility of the involvement of family and close friends.
'This is good practice for investigating cases. The NPIA gave similar generic advice to Portuguese police.'
Mr Rainbow, who has worked on major investigations including the Ipswich prostitute murders and the disappearance of Shannon Matthews, did not say there was any evidence the McCanns were involved.
But his confidential report appears to have been a turning point in the Portuguese investigation.
Madeleine's distraught parents were named as official suspects a few weeks later, despite Portuguese police failing to find any evidence against them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html#ixzz3RcMQiXiu
However ... if we continue to Mr Amaral's book ... (chapter 13) we find ...
FOR THE PROFILERS, MURAT IS THE GUILTY PARTY
All the same, according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party.
Lee Rainbow DID NOT say what you have posted him as saying, I suggest you alter that and attribute it to the person who ACTUALLY said it ... Antonio Cabrita .
Not according to the very same newspaper a few months earlier.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html
SNIP...
'Gerry McCann was made a suspect in his daughter Madeleine's disappearance after a British expert said he should be investigated for 'homicide', a Portuguese court heard yesterday.
Criminal profiler Lee Rainbow recommended that police on the Algarve investigate the doctor and his wife Kate because of 'contradictions' in his statement.
The report by Mr Rainbow, of the National Policing Improvement Agency, was sent to Portugal in June 2007, a month after the three-year-old disappeared.'
SNIP
'His lawyer Antonio Cabrita, READING FROM A PORTUGUESE TRANSLATION OF THE PREVIOUSLY CONFIDENTIAL REPORT , said: 'The family is a lead that should be followed.
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'
I think that's clear enough, even for the most cerebrally challenged of us.
The information gleaned through the Wikileaks leak also reinforces the idea that the British police were in agreement with Amaral and his team on the subject of the McCanns involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338421/WikiLeaks-British-police-developed-evidence-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html
-
Well it doesnt wasnt there a full programme on this, and forensics saying there was NOTHING found over the window sill, no lichen moved, no feet marks........
The window was never used to carry out a child, besides which there was a bed right under it. Someone simply went out of the front door............and came in that way.....with a key.
I am pleased to be able to agree with you Colom. The FRONT DOOR was used, in and out. Opened by a key and pulled to and closed again using the same key, so NO forensics.
Front door facts:
In a deep recess
In darkness
No one passes
Totally out of sight of anyone coming into the parking lot from any direction ... and walking to the centrallly situated walled pathway that they all needed to use to get to their flat.
Also totally out of sight from that walled pathway
The front doorway, a recessed hidden, and unseen place from any direction that anyone would walk.... and in virtually total darkness.
That was the way in and out, almost without doubt.
-
Good grief - I can't believe that ancient myth is still circulating.
I believe the "sceptic" line on the lichen is that it was grey lichen, virtually invisible to the naked eye. @)(++(*
-
I believe the "sceptic" line on the lichen is that it was grey lichen, virtually invisible to the naked eye. @)(++(*
Well that's plausible isn't it?
Or are you implying grey lichen does not exist or does not thrive in that part of Portugal?
Not that I am a fan of the window theory you understand.
-
I am pleased to be able to agree with you Colom. The FRONT DOOR was used, in and out. Opened by a key and pulled to and closed again using the same key, so NO forensics.
Front door facts:
In a deep recess
In darkness
No one passes
Totally out of sight of anyone coming into the parking lot from any direction ... and walking to the centrallly situated walled pathway that they all needed to use to get to their flat.
Also totally out of sight from that walled pathway
The front doorway, a recessed hidden, and unseen place from any direction that anyone would walk.... and in virtually total darkness.
That was the way in and out, almost without doubt.
Yes that would be the obvious way but the anomaly of the open window discards that theory. You don't risk getting caught if you have a key by wasting time by opening noisy shutters and a window that can be seen by anyone in that car park. You are straight in and out of the recessed door. But nobody saw the window open. David Payne entered the apartment with the McCanns when the alarm was raised and didn't even mention seeing the open window &%+((£
"I didn't actually enter too much into the room but I walked to the edge and you know there was, you know the twins were in their cots, err they were in you know parallel, there was you know I could see, you know I think they were much further into the room but you know I could see Madeleine's bed and then you know it was just like all hell broke loose."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Well that's plausible isn't it?
Or are you implying grey lichen does not exist or does not thrive in that part of Portugal?
Not that I am a fan of the window theory you understand.
Very plausible Alice, just look at the photos - the windowsills are very obviously thick in grey invisible lichen. @)(++(*
-
Very plausible Alice, just look at the photos - the windowsills are very obviously thick in grey invisible lichen. @)(++(*
Well they are very tiny and have a very slow growth rate so would not necessarily show in a photo.
If however amongst your ologies is one on lichens I will bow to your superior knowledge 8(0(*
-
Well they are very tiny and have a very slow growth rate so would not necessarily show in a photo.
If however amongst your ologies is one on lichens I will bow to your superior knowledge 8(0(*
And then of course there is the extensive passages on disturbed grey invisible lichen in the forensics sectionof the files that we should all pay heed to.
-
The Ocean Club would never allow Lichen in their pristine environment. And there is a paint that prevents it. Apart from that, it is very easy to get rid of. I do know because I have some of it on occasions.
But I think that the window was opened by the abductor as a means of escape. Being caught in that bedroom without an escape route would have been rather silly. And any self respecting burglar or abductor would think first about how to get out if trapped
-
Why do you insist on taking parts of cites to turn them into misquotes and therefore lies.
Lee Rainbow did not make the comment you have attributed to him ... Mr Amaral's lawyer ... Antonio Cabrita did.
Just another example of the 'spin' which became a myth and which continues to be disgracefully perpetuated to the present day.
**snip
His lawyer Antonio Cabrita, reading from a Portuguese translation of the previously- confidential report, said: 'The family is a lead that should be followed.
Gonzolo Amaral
The McCanns want Gonzolo Amaral (pictured yesterday) to be legally barred from accusing them of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'
The lawyer added: 'Portuguese police had only considered the abduction theory. It was British police who said they must consider homicide as well.'
Mr Cabrita did not outline what ' contradictions' had been found in Mr McCann's statements and refused to give any further details after the Lisbon hearing.
Mr Rainbow, 37, leads a team of five criminal profilers at the NPIA, and specialises in sex crimes and murders.
The Home Office agency, which describes itself as 'part of the police service', aims to improve police use of information, evidence and science and to support operations.
It is understood to have provided Portuguese police with a 'checklist' of how to proceed.
A spokesman said last night: 'In disappearance cases it is common for the NPIA to advise officers to consider the possibility of the involvement of family and close friends.
'This is good practice for investigating cases. The NPIA gave similar generic advice to Portuguese police.'
Mr Rainbow, who has worked on major investigations including the Ipswich prostitute murders and the disappearance of Shannon Matthews, did not say there was any evidence the McCanns were involved.
But his confidential report appears to have been a turning point in the Portuguese investigation.
Madeleine's distraught parents were named as official suspects a few weeks later, despite Portuguese police failing to find any evidence against them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html#ixzz3RcMQiXiu
However ... if we continue to Mr Amaral's book ... (chapter 13) we find ...
FOR THE PROFILERS, MURAT IS THE GUILTY PARTY
All the same, according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party.
Lee Rainbow DID NOT say what you have posted him as saying, I suggest you alter that and attribute it to the person who ACTUALLY said it ... Antonio Cabrita .
Amarals lawyer just invented it, did he?
You really don't like the truth do you.
Utterly transparent.
-
Amarals lawyer just invented it, did he?
You really don't like the truth do you.
Utterly transparent.
Yes you are, aren't you.
Mr Amaral's lawyer lifted very selectively from a thirty page report ... exactly as you did ... it is worth noting that,
Mr Rainbow did not say there was any evidence the McCanns were involved.
-
Yes you are, aren't you.
Mr Amaral's lawyer lifted very selectively from a thirty page report ... exactly as you did ... it is worth noting that,
Mr Rainbow did not say there was any evidence the McCanns were involved.
I never said he did.
He did confirm though, that there are contradictions in Dr McCann's version, something which your lot tend to ignore or attempt to explain away, which might lead them to suspect a homicide.
Anyways, Maddie is either out there or she's not, so she's out there until proven otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw#t=469
(I'm sticking with not)
-
The Ocean Club would never allow Lichen in their pristine environment. And there is a paint that prevents it. Apart from that, it is very easy to get rid of. I do know because I have some of it on occasions.
But I think that the window was opened by the abductor as a means of escape. Being caught in that bedroom without an escape route would have been rather silly. And any self respecting burglar or abductor would think first about how to get out if trapped
I think the window was certainly opened as a means of escape. I don't think it was used as such because I agree completely with what Sadie has posted that the most likely point of entry and exit was the front door.
However, I'm not at all sure that all burglars do plan ahead ... there are a few cases on record of skeletons being found in chimneys and air conditioning ducts ... and it has been pointed out on numerous occasions that it would be a stupid burglar who would steal a child.
-
The Ocean Club would never allow Lichen in their pristine environment. And there is a paint that prevents it. Apart from that, it is very easy to get rid of. I do know because I have some of it on occasions.
But I think that the window was opened by the abductor as a means of escape. Being caught in that bedroom without an escape route would have been rather silly. And any self respecting burglar or abductor would think first about how to get out if trapped
It would take 10 seconds to grab that child and get back out. It would take longer to open window and noisy shutters and risk leaving evidence. The raised shutters could be seen by anybody in the car park.
-
I think the window was certainly opened as a means of escape. I don't think it was used as such because I agree completely with what Sadie has posted that the most likely point of entry and exit was the front door.
However, I'm not at all sure that all burglars do plan ahead ... there are a few cases on record of skeletons being found in chimneys and air conditioning ducts ... and it has been pointed out on numerous occasions that it would be a stupid burglar who would steal a child.
Who better to know how to break into anywhere and leave with anything, other than a burglar. And these people do have some sort of club amongst themselves if any nefarious deed needs doing for money.
And of course, we know far more about keys in this case these days.
-
It would take 10 seconds to grab that child and get back out. It would take longer to open window and noisy shutters and risk leaving evidence. The raised shutters could be seen by anybody in the car park.
"It would take 10 seconds to grab that child and get back out." Absolutely correct and it seems to have worked out that way as far as the abductor was concerned.
However, he or she would be anxious not to be caught on the premises by an irate parent and the first thing that would have been arranged would have been an escape route.
That was why the window was opened and the shutter raised ... which adds very little time to the ten seconds it takes to grab a child ... watch Heri's video, and he was opening from outside and not using the conventional mechanism.
-
Kate May 4th.
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
..............
Curtains open & not a breath of wind or a slamming door.
Kate was mistaken wasn't she.
Given her patchy recall it's quite possible then that she was also mistaken about the window & shutters, they weren't actually open.
-
It would take 10 seconds to grab that child and get back out. It would take longer to open window and noisy shutters and risk leaving evidence. The raised shutters could be seen by anybody in the car park.
Not necessarily true about people seeing the window from the car park. And no matter how short a time it would take there was always a danger of becoming trapped.
-
Not necessarily true about people seeing the window from the car park. And no matter how short a time it would take there was always a danger of becoming trapped.
That wall is not high on the car park side. Easy to see the window from the car park. You couldn't miss it!
(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/x190/128671_2.jpg)
-
That wall is not high on the car park side. Easy to see the window from the car park. You couldn't miss it!
(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/x190/128671_2.jpg)
In the dark when one is looking ahead to the right and away from a particularly dark corner?
-
In the dark when one is looking ahead to the right and away from a particularly dark corner?
Only a complete idiot would leave that window open for the world to see. Have they brought the village idiot in for questioning yet *&*%£
-
Only a complete idiot would leave that window open for the world to see. Have they brought the village idiot in for questioning yet *&*%£
Is that the best you can do?
-
Is that the best you can do?
Nothing more needs to be said. That window could easily be seen from the car park.
-
Nothing more needs to be said. That window could easily be seen from the car park.
Who do you think, would have been in that corner of the car park at that time of night? Was there witnesses who came forward, saying that they were there?
I think there was a grey car parked in front of that window too IIRC
-
Nothing more needs to be said. That window could easily be seen from the car park.
Only if someone was making a conscious effort to look. And why would they do that?
-
Only if someone was making a conscious effort to look. And why would they do that?
Because they knew kids were left unattended in those apartments. What other reason do you need not to look when passing through the car park.
-
Because they knew kids were left unattended in those apartments. What other reason do you need not to look when passing through the car park.
Oh, the temptation. But never mind. No one thought that a predator would be targeting small children. Can you not see that?
-
http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=5019&start=0 (http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=5019&start=0)
-
http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=5019&start=0 (http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=5019&start=0)
Thanks Heri - an excellent aerial picture there - showing how unlikely it was that anyone would notice the bedroom window - whilst crossing the car park to and from their apartments - especially in the dark.
-
http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=5019&start=0 (http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=5019&start=0)
You are welcome, Benice.
-
...and the fantasy of the mystical burglar for which there exists no proof in this case continues.
-
You are welcome, Benice.
You always were the only one who put any real and educated effort into this, Heri. The rest of us just mess about and speculate.
-
I can't see that pic/thread posted but you would be able to see the window. Nothing is blocking your view of the window and that abductor forgot his car. But wait there wasn't an abductor that's why he had to use his feet to get rid of the evidence. Good job Smithman but people know who you are 8)--))
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5581.0;attach=4517)
You can't see the door so you don't open the window if you had a key. No key was used!
-
http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=5019&start=0 (http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=5019&start=0)
Thank you, Eleanor. But that is not true. I have read many interesting things in this forum.
-
Thanks Heri - an excellent aerial picture there - showing how unlikely it was that anyone would notice the bedroom window - whilst crossing the car park to and from their apartments - especially in the dark.
The bedroom door was allegedly open and there was a light in the lounge which would have illuminated the window somewhat and the darkness surrounding the window would have made that illumination more noticeable.
-
You always were the only one who put any real and educated effort into this, Heri. The rest of us just mess about and speculate.
ORLY?
Heri is exceptional, he has tackled this at a professional level... and is to be applauded
However, I could name a good number who have put very real and very educated effort into this. A fair few are pretty exceptional too in their dedication to sorting out information. Real information based on official documents and indesputable facts. They are to be applauded too.
Well done guys.
All of you.
-
I can't see that pic/thread posted but you would be able to see the window. Nothing is blocking your view of the window and that abductor forgot his car. But wait there wasn't an abductor that's why he had to use his feet to get rid of the evidence. Good job Smithman but people know who you are 8)--))
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5581.0;attach=4517)
You can't see the door so you don't open the window if you had a key. No key was used!
Do you KNOW how much of the window was open ... cos I dont.
That window is very deep and the lower part would be hidden by the pathway wall as people entered the parking area to walk across the centre of the building. Remember they were forced to take the route along that walled pathway to get to their to their flat and would be looking at the centre part of the building.
In the unlikely situation that they turned their heads and looked sideways into the darkness [no-one looks into darkness unless there is a noise] then if the window was only slightly open, the open part could be hidden by the wall anyway.
PFinder
No key was used!
PLease will YOU STOP STATING YOUR THOUGHTS AS FACTS.
It is totally unfair to try and change the scenario like that.
You keep doing it and I cannot understand why this forum keeps a dis / mis-information merchant on board.
You should be permanently banned IMO
-
Do you KNOW how much of the window was open ... cos I dont.
That window is very deep and the lower part would be hidden by the pathway wall as people entered the parking area to walk across the centre of the building. Remember they were forced to take the route along that walled pathway to get to their to their flat and would be looking at the centre part of the building.
In the unlikely situation that they turned their heads and looked sideways into the darkness [no-one looks into darkness unless there is a noise] then if the window was only slightly open, the open part could be hidden by the wall anyway.
-snipped-
So just how wide open was the shutter? We haven't been told, have we?.
To illustrate my point:
In the three photos below you can see how the lower part of the window is well below the level of the wall. So if only a slight part of the lower part were open, no-one COULD see it when walking the path they would have had to have walked to their apartments
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PB/Light_on_Shutters183.jpg
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PB/Light_on_Shutters183.jpg)
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/x190/128671_2.jpg
(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/x190/128671_2.jpg)
this image from slightly above , does not even have the bottom of the shutter on it ! It is taller than we can see.
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/5A_on_left_small.JPG
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/5A_on_left_small.JPG)
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/5aa.jpg
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/5aa.jpg)
See how the bottom of the shutter is not visible from a persons viewpoint as he walks across the parking area to the centre of the building
-
So just how wide open was the shutter? We haven't been told, have we?.
To illustrate my point:
In the three photos below you can see how the lower part of the window is well below the level of the wall. So if only a slight part of the lower part were open, no-one COULD see it when walking the path they would have had to have walked to their apartments
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PB/Light_on_Shutters183.jpg
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PB/Light_on_Shutters183.jpg)
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/x190/128671_2.jpg
(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/x190/128671_2.jpg)
this image from slightly above , does not even have the bottom of the shutter on it ! It is taller than we can see.
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/5A_on_left_small.JPG
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/5A_on_left_small.JPG)
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/5aa.jpg
(http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/5aa.jpg)
See how the bottom of the shutter is not visible from a persons viewpoint as he walks across the parking area to the centre of the building
Kate claimed the shutter was open fully and as there would be light filtering through from the light in the lounge the window would have been illuminated somewhat.
-
Kate claimed the shutter was open fully and as there would be light filtering through from the light in the lounge the window would have been illuminated somewhat.
The light filtering thru is a good point Faith, but not a lot, I think.... and if only the bottom part of the shutters were open, it could not have been seen anyway.
Remember anyone walking across that parking lot was looking in the way they were moving towards the light. And remember Heris information about the limits of periferal vision.
People do not look around in the dark; they look in the direction they are walking or at bright light if it is within their periferal vision.
How far open was the door when Kate arrived? Anyone know?
And now I will leave you to ponder. Byee
-
The light filtering thru is a good point Faith, but not a lot, I think.... and if only the bottom part of the shutters were open, it could not have been seen anyway.
Remember anyone walking across that parking lot was looking in the way they were moving towards the light. And remember Heris information about the limits of periferal vision.
People do not look around in the dark; they look in the direction they are walking or at bright light if it is within their periferal vision.
How far open was the door when Kate arrived? Anyone know?
And now I will leave you to ponder. Byee
According to Kate the shutters were right up as you well know sadie.
-
According to Kate the shutters were right up as you well know sadie.
Yep, the shutter was right up, according to Kate.....
Kate McCann 'shutter was right up' McCanns on Oprah Show May 4th 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNI5up44Nho#t=932
The door was quite open,allegedly.
(It was completely open in her first statement, &, she noticed it immediately, as she did with the open curtains which the wind never blew)
........
Kate McCann statement to police May 4th 2007.
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta4
Here's Kate changing her story...
Cutting Edge 'Madeleine Was Here' 7th May 2009.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw#t=10
-
Matt Oldfield's check:
'we talked also in the interviews about how light the room was and whether I could see the shutters, and I can't see the shutters because the curtains were shut and, they're similar curtains to the ones you've got in there, and you just get an impression of just like green and yellow, but they were closed, they weren't sort of blowing about, because I'm sure I'd have noticed if there was sort of movement like that. But the room seemed light, and we spent a lot of time talking about this, whether it could be light coming in from the street outside, but there was a light behind us in the room and for some reason I thought, I got the impression of light coming through the doorway from behind me, which his why I said that I thought perhaps the moon was out, erm, but there as no sort of, you know, it's a questions of whether, there was no sort of slats of light coming through the back that particularly caught my eye. So I didn't specifically see the shutters and I couldn't say that they were definitely open, but certainly the curtains were shut and everything was quiet'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
-
The view of the front door entrance and the window of apartment 5A was obscured by heavy foliage on the surrounding trees on the night Madeleine disappeared ... the former burglar quoted below would have seen that as perfect cover and perfect opportunity.
**snip
You should also think outside the home, he adds: your garden can tempt criminals, too.
“I was always looking for houses which had lots of tall trees and bushes to conceal me. Or I would look for corner houses, where there weren’t any neighbours who might spot what I was up to.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/advice/9627884/How-to-beat-the-burglars-this-winter.html
Burglars do not like being cornered by irate homeowners and take pains to ensure an escape route in that eventuality ... there are witness statements to the effect that the shutter was raised and and the window opened ... and that fits the known pattern.
Speaking of potential witnesses ... Mr and Mrs Moyes returned to their apartment some time after nine fifteen pm on the 3rd May. We only have their word for that ... no 'independent' witness saw them doing so ... so do we believe that they did or will we call them liars just for the fun of it?
** Snip
CF0468511214 – Chequer Street Fenstanton
Detached bungalow with open drive to the front.
Double gates on one side and single gate on the other.
Top inside bolt on the single gate opened to allow access to the rear garden.
Security light at side pulled from wall.
Security light at rear broken.
Conservatory door handle forced down to open. No instrument used.
General search throughout, but mainly in the master bedroom. Jewellery targeted.
Rear bedroom window handle forced open as a secondary escape route.
Exit could have been via the front door which had a yale lock or as entry.
https://www.ecops.org.uk/da/95130/Fenstanton_Burglary_update_.html
-
The view of the front door entrance and the window of apartment 5A was obscured by heavy foliage on the surrounding trees on the night Madeleine disappeared ... the former burglar quoted below would have seen that as perfect cover and perfect opportunity.
**snip
You should also think outside the home, he adds: your garden can tempt criminals, too.
“I was always looking for houses which had lots of tall trees and bushes to conceal me. Or I would look for corner houses, where there weren’t any neighbours who might spot what I was up to.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/advice/9627884/How-to-beat-the-burglars-this-winter.html
Burglars do not like being cornered by irate homeowners and take pains to ensure an escape route in that eventuality ... there are witness statements to the effect that the shutter was raised and and the window opened ... and that fits the known pattern.
Speaking of potential witnesses ... Mr and Mrs Moyes returned to their apartment some time after nine fifteen pm on the 3rd May. We only have their word for that ... no 'independent' witness saw them doing so ... so do we believe that they did or will we call them liars just for the fun of it?
** Snip
CF0468511214 – Chequer Street Fenstanton
Detached bungalow with open drive to the front.
Double gates on one side and single gate on the other.
Top inside bolt on the single gate opened to allow access to the rear garden.
Security light at side pulled from wall.
Security light at rear broken.
Conservatory door handle forced down to open. No instrument used.
General search throughout, but mainly in the master bedroom. Jewellery targeted.
Rear bedroom window handle forced open as a secondary escape route.
Exit could have been via the front door which had a yale lock or as entry.
https://www.ecops.org.uk/da/95130/Fenstanton_Burglary_update_.html
The robberies listed in Fenstanton, a place with which I am familiar incidentally, say jewellery was targeted.
Your point being?
-
The view of the front door entrance and the window of apartment 5A was obscured by heavy foliage on the surrounding trees on the night Madeleine disappeared ... the former burglar quoted below would have seen that as perfect cover and perfect opportunity.
**snip
You should also think outside the home, he adds: your garden can tempt criminals, too.
“I was always looking for houses which had lots of tall trees and bushes to conceal me. Or I would look for corner houses, where there weren’t any neighbours who might spot what I was up to.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/advice/9627884/How-to-beat-the-burglars-this-winter.html
Burglars do not like being cornered by irate homeowners and take pains to ensure an escape route in that eventuality ... there are witness statements to the effect that the shutter was raised and and the window opened ... and that fits the known pattern.
Speaking of potential witnesses ... Mr and Mrs Moyes returned to their apartment some time after nine fifteen pm on the 3rd May. We only have their word for that ... no 'independent' witness saw them doing so ... so do we believe that they did or will we call them liars just for the fun of it?
** Snip
CF0468511214 – Chequer Street Fenstanton
Detached bungalow with open drive to the front.
Double gates on one side and single gate on the other.
Top inside bolt on the single gate opened to allow access to the rear garden.
Security light at side pulled from wall.
Security light at rear broken.
Conservatory door handle forced down to open. No instrument used.
General search throughout, but mainly in the master bedroom. Jewellery targeted.
Rear bedroom window handle forced open as a secondary escape route.
Exit could have been via the front door which had a yale lock or as entry.
https://www.ecops.org.uk/da/95130/Fenstanton_Burglary_update_.html
In through the front door & then wasting time opening the window & shutters when the door is that close.
It's cobblers.
There is only Kates word that the window & shutters were discovered open.
......& she has changed her version.
Why would the Moyes need to lie?
....They wouldn't.
There's the difference.
-
In through the front door & then wasting time opening the window & shutters when the door is that close.
It's cobblers.
There is only Kates word that the window & shutters were discovered open.
......& she has changed her version.
Why would the Moyes need to lie?
....They wouldn't.
There's the difference.
The Moyes could have been anyone and were in the flat two above the flat Madeleine disappeared from.
Just as anyone could have been inside 5J where the GNR dogs alerted (and you know the omniscience you attribute to dog alerts) after following Madeleine's scent trail to the door.
There's the difference.
In terms of being the perfect scenario for a quick in and out burglary to be committed, Apartment 5A was a burglar's dream down to the broken security light ... darkness, camouflage, hidden doorway ... the lot.
What independent witnesses saw the carpenter family?
What independent witnesses saw Mr and Mrs Moyes?
What independent witnesses saw the young couple passing 5A in their car?
We only have their word to go on ... and in the absence of anything else we have witnesses to the fact that the window was open and the shutter raised ... a fact accepted by GNR or PJ in attendance on the 3rd ... so I am afraid if you selectively choose to disbelieve witnesses because of a personal bias, you are never going to get anything right about this case.
-
The Moyes could have been anyone and were in the flat two above the flat Madeleine disappeared from.
Just as anyone could have been inside 5J where the GNR dogs alerted (and you know the omniscience you attribute to dog alerts) after following Madeleine's scent trail to the door.
There's the difference.
In terms of being the perfect scenario for a quick in and out burglary to be committed, Apartment 5A was a burglar's dream down to the broken security light ... darkness, camouflage, hidden doorway ... the lot.
What independent witnesses saw the carpenter family?
What independent witnesses saw Mr and Mrs Moyes?
What independent witnesses saw the young couple passing 5A in their car?
We only have their word to go on ... and in the absence of anything else we have witnesses to the fact that the window was open and the shutter raised ... a fact accepted by GNR or PJ in attendance on the 3rd ... so I am afraid if you selectively choose to disbelieve witnesses because of a personal bias, you are never going to get anything right about this case.
The Moyes could have been any one, as it was they are the Moyes, not child abducting burglars.
I take the word of some witnesses & see good reason to doubt others.
Like, when them witnesses are the last people to see their missing daughter, & they alter their witness statements, come across as being as shifty as hell & a dadlike figure is seen carrying an inert maddie away , around the time her father is out alone searching, I have my doubts, & not without reason.
-
The Moyes could have been anyone and were in the flat two above the flat Madeleine disappeared from.
Just as anyone could have been inside 5J where the GNR dogs alerted (and you know the omniscience you attribute to dog alerts) after following Madeleine's scent trail to the door.
There's the difference.
In terms of being the perfect scenario for a quick in and out burglary to be committed, Apartment 5A was a burglar's dream down to the broken security light ... darkness, camouflage, hidden doorway ... the lot.
What independent witnesses saw the carpenter family?
What independent witnesses saw Mr and Mrs Moyes?
What independent witnesses saw the young couple passing 5A in their car?
We only have their word to go on ... and in the absence of anything else we have witnesses to the fact that the window was open and the shutter raised ... a fact accepted by GNR or PJ in attendance on the 3rd ... so I am afraid if you selectively choose to disbelieve witnesses because of a personal bias, you are never going to get anything right about this case.
The GNR dogs were following an alive scent trail. Madeleine came though that front key door at 5:40 and was never seen again. Two people disappeared that night - Madeleine and Smithman. Surprise surprise!
-
The Moyes could have been any one, as it was they are the Moyes, not child abducting burglars.
I take the word of some witnesses & see good reason to doubt others.
Like, when them witnesses are the last people to see their missing daughter, & they alter their witness statements, come across as being as shifty as hell & a dadlike figure is seen carrying an inert maddie away , around the time her father is out alone searching, I have my doubts, & not without reason.
With all due respect to Mr and Mrs Moyes ... you cannot possibly know a thing about them which enables you to make such an assertion ... and as a matter of fact, the transcript of what they said about their experience consisted of some inconsistencies.
However the main points I was making were
(a) the isolated nature of 5A which was to all intents and purposes on its own, out of the main drag and the
passageway used only by the occupants of that apartment combined with the darkness and the dense tree
branches ... made it an ideal burglary target
(b) People were coming and going, all unnoticed by anyone else because the streets were so quiet, again ideal
burglar conditions
(c) It was therefore perfectly possible for someone to enter and exit 5A without being noticed.
In my belief the proof of the pudding is in the eating and that is exactly what happened. Whether by design or
by accident it was a very easy assignment for a professional to carry out.
-
With all due respect to Mr and Mrs Moyes ... you cannot possibly know a thing about them which enables you to make such an assertion ... and as a matter of fact, the transcript of what they said about their experience consisted of some inconsistencies.
However the main points I was making were
(a) the isolated nature of 5A which was to all intents and purposes on its own, out of the main drag and the
passageway used only by the occupants of that apartment combined with the darkness and the dense tree
branches ... made it an ideal burglary target
(b) People were coming and going, all unnoticed by anyone else because the streets were so quiet, again ideal
burglar conditions
(c) It was therefore perfectly possible for someone to enter and exit 5A without being noticed.
In my belief the proof of the pudding is in the eating and that is exactly what happened. Whether by design or
by accident it was a very easy assignment for a professional to carry out.
So you have somebody going in before Gerry's check. When Gerry leaves, he moves the door a second time and leaves with the child. Matt comes next and finds the window closed! Then Kate comes and finds the door has moved again and the window is open. So that's two door moves before the window was opened. Once you eliminate the impossible......
8:30 door ajar
9 door half-open and window closed (1st door move) Gerry moves it back ajar
9:30 door half-open and window closed (2nd door move)
9:52 door wide open and window open (3rd door move)
How could an abductor be inside the apartment before 9 and leaves after Gerry's check open a window nearly an hour later. It is not possible. The window was opened by Smithman's partner in crime!
-
The Moyes could have been anyone and were in the flat two above the flat Madeleine disappeared from.
Just as anyone could have been inside 5J where the GNR dogs alerted (and you know the omniscience you attribute to dog alerts) after following Madeleine's scent trail to the door.
There's the difference.
In terms of being the perfect scenario for a quick in and out burglary to be committed, Apartment 5A was a burglar's dream down to the broken security light ... darkness, camouflage, hidden doorway ... the lot.
What independent witnesses saw the carpenter family?
What independent witnesses saw Mr and Mrs Moyes?
What independent witnesses saw the young couple passing 5A in their car?
We only have their word to go on ... and in the absence of anything else we have witnesses to the fact that the window was open and the shutter raised ... a fact accepted by GNR or PJ in attendance on the 3rd ... so I am afraid if you selectively choose to disbelieve witnesses because of a personal bias, you are never going to get anything right about this case.
you have forgot to factor in the second and third translations
-
I resent your tone Faith.
As I said, I do not recall what the situation was and, anyway, would want to check everything you say, Faith, before taking your word. Because the truth from you has often been twisted ... hence, sadly, the need for constant checks with you and a few others.
I no longer have the energy to do that
So I take it by now you've checked sadie and verified that Kate found the shutters fully open and not slightly open as you have previously stated. So how does that alter your ruminations ?
-
I resent your tone Faith.
As I said, I do not recall what the situation was and, anyway, would want to check everything you say, Faith, before taking your word. Because the truth from you has often been twisted ... hence, sadly, the need for constant checks with you and a few others.
I no longer have the energy to do that
Indeed, Sadie ... usually the assertions are made without recourse to providing a legitimate cite as lesser mortals are required to do. I have also discovered that context is all.
-
Indeed, Sadie ... usually the assertions are made without recourse to providing a legitimate cite as lesser mortals are required to do. I have also discovered that context is all.
Oh come, come Brietta I don't think I need a cite for Kate's claim, you supporters yourself repeat it ad nauseum and as to context what more is needed to understand that Kate found the shutters fully open ?