Jemmied Shutters ? A Badly Told Story ?

[C.Edwards]

The PJ tried to intimidate and fit up the McCanns. They lost all support after that. The witnesses had no reason to assist a Police force abusing its powers.

Mindreading. Where's your evidence for that assertion?

[gilet]

@ gilet

The McCanns had their backs to the patio doors while dining in the tapas bar so had no clear view of them. Of course if you have evidence to the contrary please post .

OK I concede that point. I believed they were sitting farther apart at the round table and would have had a view.

Nonetheless their belief that the patio doors were visible to members of their party and thus safe remains.

Your correction does not mean that I concede the whole point.

It is still the case that the McCanns have described their shock (perfectly reasonable shock, in my opinion) that the window that could not be seen by them or their friends was found "forced" open when they believed it had been locked.

[C.Edwards]

It is still the case that the McCanns have described their shock (perfectly reasonable shock, in my opinion) that the window that could not be seen by them or their friends was found "forced" open when they believed it had been locked.

But the McCanns *would* describe that shock even if they were "acting the part", yes?  This is the point, when the people upon whom you are relying for information are those who have most to gain from making sure the information given puts them in a reasonable light, you cannot simply take their word for it.  This is why us doubters keep asking for corroboration from independent witnesses. 

e.g. "Gerry and Dave went out searching on the beach" - who says so...?  "Kate McCann".  That doesn't count as evidence as it's in her interests for that information to be believed. 

Take it to an extreme - remember the Shawshank redemption scene? When Red says he's the only guilty man in shawshank as all the others are innocent?  You can't trust the (uncorroborated) words of those who are still not cleared (officially) by either the Portuguese or Leicestershire police forces.

[C.Edwards]

THere is a difference between observing behaviour and drawing reasonable conclusions ( which I have done) and claiming to know what was in the minds of others (which fishfanny does)

Utter tripe. You're making a sweeping (and very "pro") generalisation again and failing to back it up with any evidence as you constantly squawk for when someone posts something not in favour of the McCanns.

Where's your supporting evidence to back up your claim. Oh I know.... "in the files..."

[debunker]

If you cannot tell the difference between observing behaviour and asserting that what happened was reasonably inferred fromthe previous behaviour, and pretending you are privy to people's innermost thoughts, then itis not surprising you get so confused.

EXAMPLE

I saw them running down the street and when I saw the bull chasing them I understood the cause. (INFERENCE)

When Isaw him break down crying, I knew that this was because he was thinking of thedeath of hiis mother (MIND READING)

[C.Edwards]

If you cannot tell the difference between observing behaviour and asserting that what happened was reasonably inferred fromthe previous behaviour, and pretending you are privy to people's innermost thoughts, then itis not surprising you get so confused.

EXAMPLE

I saw them running down the street and when I saw the bull chasing them I understood the cause. (INFERENCE)

When Isaw him break down crying, I knew that this was because he was thinking of thedeath of hiis mother (MIND READING)

Again, utter balls.

What if person A is from wild animal control and is running to get a gun to shoot the bull that's escaped?  What if person B is crying at his mother's funeral?

Without all the knowledge, your inference can be as far off the mark as what you call mind reading.  As pointed out before, it's all down to the beliefs the reader will entertain. I've seen nothing in what Faithlilly has written that makes me think, "that's implausible" and yet you and your fellow pro-leaning neutrals (ha) will no doubt be frothing at your perceived injustice of her words.

[faithlilly]

@ bedbunker

I rest my case.

[John]

Is it truly possible, as we are lead to believe, that the story of the broken, jemmied shutters was a collective misunderstanding by at least four of the McCann's family and friends who had no contact with each other ?

The shutters in these holiday apartments are rarely locked.   It is my experience that the locking mechanism on each side is so rarely used that it is more than often seized up.

[Eleanor]

I have just had a horrible thought.  I manage a holiday property in France, and never once in fifteen years have I ever locked the shutters.  And nor does the owner because I have never had to unlock them either.  I just roll them down with the inside mechanism.

Shock, Horror.

[debunker]

@ bedbunker

I rest my case.

Well codc*nt,

THat case would be that you are a no account busybody [ censored word ] with more time than brains.

[John]

Now you have me wondering too Eleanor?   I usually go to the bother of locking the ones in our home on the Costa Blanca but I wasn't the last one to use it so my friends might not have been as methodical as I usually am.  Shock horror!! 

[AnneGuedes]

@ gilet

Kate knew the patio doors were open so what difference did it make that the windows could be opened from the outside ? Anyone with an ounce of sense would assume if the window had been used at all it would be as an exit rather than an entry point so what difference did the fact that the shutters could be lifted make other than to convince relatives they had not been neglectful.

Scenario 1 Kate calls her family " Madeleine has been abducted. We left the patio doors open while we were in the tapas bar and someone got in"

Scenario 2 Kate calls her family " Madeleine has been abducted. A stranger broke in through the shutters that we thought were secure and took her"

What scenario do you think would guarantee the McCanns the least censure ?

Very right, Faithlilly ! Though we understand the scenario 1 was too tough for desperate parents to tell, the scenario 2 generated a collective belief (whether Madeleine was abducted or not).

[John]

Many people confuse the two mechanisms on the vertical shutters.  Would someone like to explain them both with photos?

[sadie]

What rubbish AG

Your big friend Amaral has gone out of his way to say

1)  That no abductor could have gone in to 5A via the Patio doors.  Too close and overlooked by the Tapas 9

2)  Nobody went thru the narrow window because there were no marks on the sill. 

3)  Neither were there any marks on tha window frame, except amazingly Kates.  Astounding that!  .... seems almost like it is out of fairy land because every single person would have run straight over to that wuindow, grabbed the frame and peered out looking left, right and below.


There should have been finger prints everywhere.  Who do you think cleared them all off but somehow left Kates?

[Eleanor]

Now you have me wondering too Eleanor?   I usually go to the bother of locking the ones in our home on the Costa Blanca but I wasn't the last one to use it so my friends might not have been as methodical as I usually am.  Shock horror!!

Well, you can certainly lift them from the outside because I've seen it done here in France, and none of the neighbours came running to see what the noise was.  And I do have to say that they are incredibly "neighbourly" around here, and next door to the holiday property, although no one has ever broken in there.
And I shall have to have a word with The Owners.