It wasn't the first time a burglar got in via a window at the resort!

[Brietta]

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.

[pathfinder73]

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!

[faithlilly]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

[Anna]

Can we please get back on topic

[Benice]

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.
 

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Benice]

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.

[Brietta]

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?).

[Anna]

Is that your belief?

Wrong thread, Alfred

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1249.0

[Anna]

Off topic posts will be removed shortly. Please try and keep to the topic of the thread, where possible. Thank you

[pathfinder73]

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.

[DCI]

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

[Anna]

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?

[slartibartfast]

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?