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

[John]

An aluminium vertical shutter is very light and can easily be lifted with one finger since the only resistance is gravity.  The only trick is to keep both sides level as you lift it.

The two sticky-out thingys referred to earlier are actually called up-stops.

See video from 5.10  (If slow to load watch on YouTube}

[mercury]

Deleted/wrong question.

[pegasus]

Thanks for facts and video and photos.
If the up-stops are plastic they will have a metal screw inside which adds strength.
The up-stops are strong enough to not break when someone tries to open the shutter too far.
So they are strong enough to use to lift the shutter a liitle.
The gap between the sill and the up-stops this 5A window is IMO plenty to get fingers around it.
Lift it only 10mm is good, then place fingers under shutter.

[jassi]

It is possible that someone came in the front door or balcony door and opened the blinds with the strap and passed madeleine out.
If this was the case, then all of the marks would have been from Gerry and Diane trying to open them.
However if these sticky out things were made of rubber or plastic, they probably wouldn't be strong enough to lift the shutter and they would have to revert to lifting it by the bottom. looking at all the smudges, it appears that someone tried though or they were stronger than they look.

If someone entered by the front door, I cannot see any possible reason why they should have passed Madeleine, or indeed anything else through the window, access to which was partially obstructed by two cots and a bed.

[Brietta]

Thanks for facts and video and photos.
If the up-stops are plastic they will have a metal screw inside which adds strength.
The up-stops are strong enough to not break when someone tries to open the shutter too far.
So they are strong enough to use to lift the shutter a liitle.
The gap between the sill and the up-stops this 5A window is IMO plenty to get fingers around it.
Lift it only 10mm is good, then place fingers under shutter.

The abductor didn't even have to enter the apartment to take Madeleine out, nor was an accomplice inside the apartment required to pass her out through the window.

Madeleine could have been awakened by the shutter being raised; she could have sleepily approached the window to see what was going on and been lifted through.

Heri shows exactly how that could have happened and the timescale it would have involved.

http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html


Added ...
It would also explain why the window was left open and the shutter raised.  A person carrying a child would have been unable to do this.

[stephen25000]

The abductor didn't even have to enter the apartment to take Madeleine out, nor was an accomplice inside the apartment required to pass her out through the window.

Madeleine could have been awakened by the shutter being raised; she could have sleepily approached the window to see what was going on and been lifted through.

Heri shows exactly how that could have happened and the timescale it would have involved.

http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html

Ah yet again, the abductor.

WHAT ABDUCTOR ??? &%+((£

[Mr Gray]

Ah yet again, the abductor.

WHAT ABDUCTOR ??? &%+((£

if we look at all the facts...facts are evidence... in the case we can see that the most likely cause by a mile for Maddie's disappearance is abduction...hence SYs remit

[stephen25000]

if we look at all the facts...facts are evidence... in the case we can see that the most likely cause by a mile for Maddie's disappearance is abduction...hence SYs remit

Well they can say what they wish.

They have found nothing.

Hardly surprising when they don't now what crime occurred.

P.S. Belief of an abduction, does not mean abduction.

[Angelo222]

The abductor didn't even have to enter the apartment to take Madeleine out, nor was an accomplice inside the apartment required to pass her out through the window.

Madeleine could have been awakened by the shutter being raised; she could have sleepily approached the window to see what was going on and been lifted through.

Heri shows exactly how that could have happened and the timescale it would have involved.

http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html


Added ...
It would also explain why the window was left open and the shutter raised.  A person carrying a child would have been unable to do this.

If abduction occurred that is what I think could have happened Brie but it is a big IF.  That would also explain the absence of any incriminating forensics within the apartment.  Could also be a crying child attracted unwelcome attention on more than one night?

[G-Unit]

The only way this guy can support his 'abduction by burglar' thesis is to accuse Jane Tanner of lying about the time of her sighting then? How can his theory be included in a thread about hard evidence then? He has none.

May 3rd. 2007: Jane Tanner saw the abductor carrying Madeleine at approximately 21:50 hours, in the street, near apartment 5A. The abductor trousers were described as “between beige and gold”. Surely it was white or similar, being the color perceived different due to street sodium lamps. Jane stayed at her apartment 5D and Russell returned to the Tapas Bar. 
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html

[Carana]

To interpret the hard evidence of the window and shutter forensics Mr A was relying on crime scene experts including experts from the UK.

Which crime scene experts are you thinking of, Pegasus?

Not lichen-man?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1123.0
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/lichen-or-more-to-the-point-the-lack-of/

[Brietta]

The only way this guy can support his 'abduction by burglar' thesis is to accuse Jane Tanner of lying about the time of her sighting then? How can his theory be included in a thread about hard evidence then? He has none.

May 3rd. 2007: Jane Tanner saw the abductor carrying Madeleine at approximately 21:50 hours, in the street, near apartment 5A. The abductor trousers were described as “between beige and gold”. Surely it was white or similar, being the color perceived different due to street sodium lamps. Jane stayed at her apartment 5D and Russell returned to the Tapas Bar. 
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html

It has been a puzzlement why ... the window was open ... and the shutter was raised.

The most likely time for that to have occurred was after the last witness statement which placed Madeleine McCann sleeping soundly in her bed.

If you wish to discount witness evidence either because you have arbitrarily chosen which witnesses you will believe or because the statement does not fit the particular axe you are grinding ... be my guest ... but it is evidence nonetheless.

Heri has demonstrated  exactly the method that could have been used.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html  and why you have deduced from that, the suggestion that to make it possible he would have to accuse Jane Tanner of lying about anything is beyond me.

His hypothesis explains a lot and makes a nonsense of the accused 'staged' scenario.

(a)  demonstrates method 
(b)  demonstrates time taken 
(c)  demonstrates no entry was required 
(d)  demonstrates that the burden of the child could have precluded closing both window and shutter

Anyone with an awareness that burglaries had been taking place where ingress was via a window, two of which had occurred in the same apartment block as the one from which a child had vanished, would I think have taken that on board to arrive at a different theory from the one which drove the investigation.

[Brietta]

Which crime scene experts are you thinking of, Pegasus?

Not lichen-man?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1123.0
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/lichen-or-more-to-the-point-the-lack-of/

I would have liked to have seen an update of that programme using the same experts when the FSS report was in the public domain and the denied burglaries and assaults which had taken place on British children were known about.
Although they were refused permission to enter the tapas or have access to the apartment ... I think it would have been informative for them to have indulged in a little 'eyeball' exercise without cameras just to familiarise themselves with the area ... in that way the lack of green lichen might have been noticed.

[John]

The abductor didn't even have to enter the apartment to take Madeleine out, nor was an accomplice inside the apartment required to pass her out through the window.

Madeleine could have been awakened by the shutter being raised; she could have sleepily approached the window to see what was going on and been lifted through.

Heri shows exactly how that could have happened and the timescale it would have involved.

http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html


Added ...
It would also explain why the window was left open and the shutter raised.  A person carrying a child would have been unable to do this.

In my view an awake Madeleine might very well have been enticed to the bedroom window on some pretext but would have howled the place down when she saw a stranger, unless she was grabbed and sedated in some way.   There was also the risk that one of the twins would have woke up and saw what was going on.

But I do agree, the claimed but uncorroborated open window and raised shutter are puzzling.

[mercury]

It has been a puzzlement why ... the window was open ... and the shutter was raised.

The most likely time for that to have occurred was after the last witness statement which placed Madeleine McCann sleeping soundly in her bed.

If you wish to discount witness evidence either because you have arbitrarily chosen which witnesses you will believe or because the statement does not fit the particular axe you are grinding ... be my guest ... but it is evidence nonetheless.

Heri has demonstrated  exactly the method that could have been used.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html  and why you have deduced from that, the suggestion that to make it possible he would have to accuse Jane Tanner of lying about anything is beyond me.

His hypothesis explains a lot and makes a nonsense of the accused 'staged' scenario.

(a)  demonstrates method 
(b)  demonstrates time taken 
(c)  demonstrates no entry was required 
(d)  demonstrates that the burden of the child could have precluded closing both window and shutter

Anyone with an awareness that burglaries had been taking place where ingress was via a window, two of which had occurred in the same apartment block as the one from which a child had vanished, would I think have taken that on board to arrive at a different theory from the one which drove the investigation.

That theory does not explain a) how Jane Tanner saw Gerry Mccann and Jeremy Wilkins chatting at 21.50 - totally out by both mens' witness statements and b) why the "abductor" was seen by Jane Tanner walking eastwards and ten minutes later being seen by the Smith family walking westward.
It also does not explain how a near 4 year old could be lifted out of a window without leaving any trace evidence.
It seems ths time has been "invented" to cover the fact that the window and shutters were not open when Matthew Oldfield looked in at around 21.30, IMO.
 &%+((£