Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?

[Eleanor]

Amaral's interview with The Locksmith was such a joke.  I know these locks, and you don't need a key to open them from the inside.
I have always thought that The Abductor got in through The Patio Door, before Gerry made his first check, and then hid when he heard Gerry coming.  Hence the more open bedroom door.  And the bedroom door is hard evidence of an Abductor.

[stephen25000]

Amaral's interview with The Locksmith was such a joke.  I know these locks, and you don't need a key to open them from the inside.
I have always thought that The Abductor got in through The Patio Door, before Gerry made his first check, and then hid when he heard Gerry coming.  Hence the more open bedroom door.  And the bedroom door is hard evidence of an Abductor.

Pure supposition and nothing more than that.

Your use of an  'abductor' as a fact is inappropriate.

That has not been determined and a 'belief' in abduction is not evidence.

[Carana]

@Anna. "Observations: The fingerprint forensics collected were identified as the middle finger of the left hand (three prints) and the index finger of the left hand (two prints) of the mother of the missing child. The fingerprint inspection was made only on the interior side of the window, because it was dark. The scene was preserved, so that the when daylight came the inspection could be completed." IMO

BTW elsewhere a forensics document clearly states that her 5 prints were all on the inside surface of the glass, that's the hard forensic evidence, fully consistent with leaning out (and completely inconsistent with an opening acton), which confirms this witness is telling the truth.

Exactly. Over time, people have come up with implausible explanations as to why she would have used two fingers of her left hand on the glass to slide open a window with a view to simulating an abduction, as opposed to simply sliding it via the handle.

I'd always found that odd, but I hadn't realised that he'd confused prints in two different rooms.

Even if he had been correct that Kate's prints were found on the right-hand side of the bedroom windowframe, I still don't understand his logic:

- If she had slid it open by sliding the edge of the window to the left, either she would have opened it using the handle first anyway (so unless it was stuck, why not carry on sliding it via the handle?).

Or
- It had been left partially open and she just had to slide her fingers to push it further open. But why would anyone use the fingers of their left hand to slide open the right-hand side of a window-frame that had to be pushed to the left, again unless it was stuck? I did check to see if there was any mention of the window being hard to open, but found nothing to that effect.

[Eleanor]

Pure supposition and nothing more than that.

Supposition is often a very good pointer.  That bedroom door was moved somehow or another.

I manage a holiday property, and I always know if someone has been in this often empty property because of the way in which I leave the doors.  Although these days I do it deliberately.  But in the beginning it was just my instincts.  And I was never wrong.

[Carana]

Re the door lock demonstration:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1207.0

That never made sense to me, either.

[Eleanor]

Re the door lock demonstration:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1207.0

That never made sense to me, either.

The poor man was looking for obvious signs of breaking in through the front door when in fact there didn't have to be any.
There were two other ways to get into that appartment, neither of which have ever been disproved.

[stephen25000]

Supposition is often a very good pointer.  That bedroom door was moved somehow or another.

I manage a holiday property, and I always know if someone has been in this often empty property because of the way in which I leave the doors.  Although these days I do it deliberately.  But in the beginning it was just my instincts.  And I was never wrong.

You need a lot more than supposition to show abduction.

and more pertinently, how do we know for sure the door had moved ?

[Carana]

The poor man was looking for obvious signs of breaking in through the front door when in fact there didn't have to be any.
There were two other ways to get into that appartment, neither of which have ever been disproved.

But even that demonstration of the alleged unique burglar's tool - the credit card - jamming on an invisible prominent screw doesn't make sense...

And the narration doesn't make sense, either. Let's assume for a second that no burglar has ever used any other implement other than a spare Benfica membership card to force a door open.

Although mentioned, this so-called "hard evidence" glides over the possibility of a spare or duplicate key...

[Wonderfulspam]

The poor man was looking for obvious signs of breaking in through the front door when in fact there didn't have to be any.
There were two other ways to get into that appartment, neither of which have ever been disproved.

It's bleeding obvious the sliding door wasn't used, unless you are stupid enough to believe that the polite abductor closed everything behind him on his way in/out.

[Eleanor]

You need a lot more than supposition to show abduction.

and more pertinently, how do we know for sure the door had moved ?

Why mention the door if it hadn't moved?  It would hardly have been pertinent in the great scheme of a false abduction.

Just dumped the dead body of my daughter.  Must remember to mention a moving door that hadn't moved, just so they think The Abductor done it.

[Eleanor]

It's bleeding obvious the sliding door wasn't used, unless you are stupid enough to believe that the polite abductor closed everything behind him on his way in/out.

There is nothing stupid about me, Sweet Cheeks.  Although I worry about you sometimes.  Which is probably the least offensive thing I can think of to say about you.

[Wonderfulspam]

Why mention the door if it hadn't moved?  It would hardly have been pertinent in the great scheme of a false abduction.

Just dumped the dead body of my daughter.  Must remember to mention a moving door that hadn't moved, just so they think The Abductor done it.

First visual check of the week, there had to be a reason to look in the room & not just listen.

...and so the door had moved.

[stephen25000]

Why mention the door if it hadn't moved?  It would hardly have been pertinent in the great scheme of a false abduction.

Just dumped the dead body of my daughter.  Must remember to mention a moving door that hadn't moved, just so they think The Abductor done it.

I don't believe in the  abductor thesis, never have.

Gerry's story and that it is all that it is has not been verified.

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm


If you really are claiming to believe  it's likely that some polite abductor went closing gates, curtains & doors behind him, then you have to be either stupid, or have an agenda, hence a liar.

It's that simple.

[misty]

It is perfectly feasible that any polite abductor could have entered via the patio door & left by the front door. We know from Mrs Fenn's niece that she saw someone repeatedly testing gates on the day in question.
After all, Kate, Gerry & Matt all entered & exited the apartment that night via the patio, closing doors, gates & adjusting curtains behind them.