If the abductor opened the apartment 5a door, why did he close it?

[Benice]

I have some sympathy with that view Redblossom.  Why indeed spend crucial minutes foutering with a shutter when it was obvious that his daughter had been abducted?

Who knows what was racing round his mind at that moment John.    In the first minutes I would imagine he was still in a state of denial almost - that his daughter could possibly have been taken by a stranger.   He desperately didn't want that to be true.  Remember his first words of ''She can't be gone!' when Kate raised the alarm.?     As far as he knew the shutters could only be opened from the inside - and if that was the case then maybe Madeleine had managed to open them herself?    Once he found they could actually be raised from the outside - then that little grain of hope would be gone.

But to expect him to behave logically and even think in terms of 'evidence' at that point is unfair IMO.   When Kate found her daughter missing she ran round every room searching the whole place - and may well have destroyed evidence while she did that - but would any normal mother do any different?  I don't think so.

[Benice]

What Pat Brown did was tampering with the evidence.  Trying to change the situation as to whether the window was seriously overlooked or virtually hiddden.

The question is  "Did she know what she was doing".  Was she part of the arrangement, right from the beginning knowing that the trees had been deliberately cut down and a searchlight fitted to try and change the evidence to get Bennett and Amaral off the hook?   

Or .... Was she set up? 

I rather fancy she knew all along, but am willing to be proven wrong.

IMO Sadie, Pat Brown was just another 'Wannabee,' who saw an opportunity for fame and fortune  - and in her indecent haste to make money off Madeleine's back didn't do any proper research via the files but instead used all the misinformation which was readily available and eagerly offered to her by some sceptics.

Unsurprisingly her resulting book(let) was full of libellous claims and statements - which even some [ censored word] criticised.

As you probably know, there is an excellent rebuttal of her claims on StopTheMyths.

I dont think she cared at all about Amaral or Bennett.  IMO she was just another greedy, self-serving non-entity who tried to use Madeleine's abduction to her own personal advantage - and failed dismally.

However, we do have one thing to thank her for - and that is for providing the video proof -  with the aid of another sceptic  - that the shutters to 5A could be opened from the outside - thus dispelling once and for all the previous oft repeated claim that Gerry had lied when he said that was the case.




   

   

 

   


 

[Carana]

Could you add a little more meat to the bones of this question please Heri.   Are you suggesting that the abductor entered by the window and simply left by the front door?

Does anyone else think that the open window was a red herring intended solely to put investigators off the scent?

Whether that was the sole reason or not, I find that quite likely. It seemed to have worked as no one really investigated the possibility of a key.

[Benice]

Whether that was the sole reason or not, I find that quite likely. It seemed to have worked as no one really investigated the possibility of a key.

I agree.   It could well have been to deflect attention away from the fact that a key had been obtained from someone - and to deter any detailed investigations into whom that person might be.   

[AnneGuedes]

oft repeated claim that Gerry had lied when he said that was the case.

This is not true. Nobody said Mr McCann had lied when he said he managed to lift the shutters from the outside, only that he omitted to say the shutters, not being properly rolled this way, would fall without arms' support.
What people observed is that experimenting with shutters he had in another occasion broken (according to Mrs McCann), instead of calling the police for instance, Mr McCann altered the crime scene.

[AnneGuedes]

IMO Sadie, Pat Brown was just another 'Wannabee,' who saw an opportunity for fame and

 

Could you please correct the quote : I never posted that, Sadie did.

[sadie]

IMO Sadie, Pat Brown was just another 'Wannabee,' who saw an opportunity for fame and fortune  - and in her indecent haste to make money off Madeleine's back didn't do any proper research via the files but instead used all the misinformation which was readily available and eagerly offered to her by some sceptics.

Unsurprisingly her resulting book(let) was full of libellous claims and statements - which even some [ censored word] criticised.

As you probably know, there is an excellent rebuttal of her claims on StopTheMyths.

I don't think she cared at all about Amaral or Bennett.  IMO she was just another greedy, self-serving non-entity who tried to use Madeleine's abduction to her own personal advantage - and failed dismally.

However, we do have one thing to thank her for - and that is for providing the video proof -  with the aid of another sceptic  - that the shutters to 5A could be opened from the outside - thus dispelling once and for all the previous oft repeated claim that Gerry had lied when he said that was the case.

I could agree with you wholeheartedly if it weren't for the fact that a long row of beautiful trees were cut down and a mighty vulgar searchlight fitted where there had been no light fitted before.  Light wasn't there when I visited.  Trees were very  beautiful when I visited, yet all cleared out ... for Pat Brown?


To falsely "prove" prove Amarals libellous theory and Bennetts libel too?


Then the professional quality photograph. 


Jeez it stinks




Several pointers ... altho, I accept I could be wrong

[faithlilly]

Who knows what was racing round his mind at that moment John.    In the first minutes I would imagine he was still in a state of denial almost - that his daughter could possibly have been taken by a stranger.   He desperately didn't want that to be true.  Remember his first words of ''She can't be gone!' when Kate raised the alarm.?     As far as he knew the shutters could only be opened from the inside - and if that was the case then maybe Madeleine had managed to open them herself?    Once he found they could actually be raised from the outside - then that little grain of hope would be gone.

But to expect him to behave logically and even think in terms of 'evidence' at that point is unfair IMO.   When Kate found her daughter missing she ran round every room searching the whole place - and may well have destroyed evidence while she did that - but would any normal mother do any different?  I don't think so.

That would be a compelling argument Benice IF he hadn't already known the unlocked patio doors was the most obvious entry point.

[AnneGuedes]

That would be a compelling argument Benice IF he hadn't already known the unlocked patio doors was the most obvious entry point.

In a state of denial the real is denied, especially the most obvious.
Remember go, go, go said the bird, etc.

[Mr Moderator]

I agree.   It could well have been to deflect attention away from the fact that a key had been obtained from someone - and to deter any detailed investigations into whom that person might be.

The absence of any marks on the outer or inner sills of the childrens bedroom window is highly relevant. As has been seen from the various videos and photos it is nigh impossible to get through the window without standing on the sill unless one goes with the theory that someone was lifted in? 

[DCI]

The absence of any marks on the outer or inner sills of the childrens bedroom window is highly relevant. As has been seen from the various videos and photos it is nigh impossible to get through the window without standing on the sill unless one goes with the theory that someone was lifted in?

But do we know there was an absence of any marks on the outer or inner sills of the childrens bedroom window?
Going by the lack of care taken, on forensic gathering and thier forensic knowledge, did they miss vital evidence.

[Mr Moderator]

But do we know there was an absence of any marks on the outer or inner sills of the childrens bedroom window?
Going by the lack of care taken, on forensic gathering and their forensic knowledge, did they miss vital evidence.

I believe even the most inexperienced scene of crimes or SCI operative would not have failed to notice footprints on the sills.  In fact Gerry probably had a look for himself in the daylight and would have seen for himself had there been any.

[DCI]

I believe even the most inexperienced scene of crimes or SCI operative would not have failed to notice footprints on the sills.  In fact Gerry probably had a look for himself in the daylight and would have seen for himself had there been any.

I'm not so sure, Mr Moderator.
I presume Gerry wouldn't have been allowed near 5A , after they moved to the other apartment. Not if things were done correctly, by the SCI operative!

[Benice]

Could you please correct the quote : I never posted that, Sadie did.

Corrected.   Sorry for that oversight Anne.

[Benice]

That would be a compelling argument Benice IF he hadn't already known the unlocked patio doors was the most obvious entry point.

Gerry knew that Faith, but he had no way of knowing whether the abductor did.         All he knew at that moment was that the window was open and his daughter was gone.   His only thought imo, (as with Kate), would be that someone had got in through that window and abducted her.      At that early stage he would not be considering alternatives, - that came later - when they were told there was no evidence that a break in had occurred via the window and when they began to think it was not an opportunist crime, but a pre-planned one.