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

[pegasus]

It is possible that someone came in the front door or balcony door and opened the blinds with the strap and passed madeleine out. ...(snip)

It is 10 times quicker and easier to go out the front door.
To make the "out window" theory work you have to add the complication that a checker enters the balcony door while the perp is in bedroom. That is the only way to make perp use window. Then you need another complication, the checker now in the lounge is deaf and cannot hear the shutter being raised in bedroom. I already posted my opinion for the window and shutter: a person opened them from outside and did not enter, but to everyone else that is an illogical laughable nonsense. In all the films I've only ever seen one expert who maybe has the careful logic needed to see the simplicity and inevitability of it.

[jassi]

It is 10 times quicker and easier to go out the front door.
To make the "out window" theory work you have to add the complication that a checker enters the balcony door while the perp is in bedroom. That is the only way to make perp use window. Then you need another complication, the checker now in the lounge is deaf and cannot hear the shutter being raised in bedroom. I already posted my opinion for the window and shutter: a person opened them from outside and did not enter, but to everyone else that is an illogical laughable nonsense. In all the films I've only ever seen one expert who maybe has the careful logic needed to see the simplicity and inevitability of it.

In that case, why bother with the window at all?

[Brietta]

It is 10 times quicker and easier to go out the front door.
To make the "out window" theory work you have to add the complication that a checker enters the balcony door while the perp is in bedroom. That is the only way to make perp use window. Then you need another complication, the checker now in the lounge is deaf and cannot hear the shutter being raised in bedroom. I already posted my opinion for the window and shutter: a person opened them from outside and did not enter, but to everyone else that is an illogical laughable nonsense. In all the films I've only ever seen one expert who maybe has the careful logic needed to see the simplicity and inevitability of it.

The window and shutter could be explained by an opportunist thief ... I can think of no logical reason why people 'staging' an abduction would not have made a better job of it or why they would have raised the alarm when they did rather than wait for a few hours till morning giving themselves much greater scope.

Therefore although no-one knows why the scene was left as it was ... I think it has to stand as evidence.

[jassi]

If it was a staged event, then it worked pretty well, as there has never been any sign of Madeleine since then and no evidence has been found to charge anyone.

[Mr Gray]

If it was a staged event, then it worked pretty well, as there has never been any sign of Madeleine since then and no evidence has been found to charge anyone.

It seems identical to the Ben Needham disappearance

[Brietta]

If it was a staged event, then it worked pretty well, as there has never been any sign of Madeleine since then and no evidence has been found to charge anyone.

One wonders just how much of whatever evidence was available was misinterpreted and aggressively promoted and portrayed as pejorative fact over a period of years.

For example it has taken Pegasus's investigative analysis to reveal that in his video, also in his book and in numerous media appearances over the years Mr Amaral postulated entirely the wrong information about Kate McCann's prints being on the wrong window, as proof she had opened the window contrary to what she said about how she had found it.

How could he have been so wrong? and what else did he misinterpret and get wrong?

[jassi]

Well never fear, SY are here to put things to right. 

[colombosstogey]

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?

Would the child get onto the bed to be lifted though? Surely at 4 she is old enough to be wary of strangers and keep well away thought she would be too scared and it was dark in the room too. 

[G-Unit]

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.

He has put the time of her sighting back  by over half an hour. It is he who is choosing not to believe a witness.

[sadie]

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.

You say that they have found nothing.


So why after all the who-ha about money spent, (made by a vocal minority like you) are they carrying on ?



How wrong you are.  £4%4%

[Angelo222]

Would the child get onto the bed to be lifted though? Surely at 4 she is old enough to be wary of strangers and keep well away thought she would be too scared and it was dark in the room too.

The open window and shutter has always bothered me but there is another possibility which has never to my knowledge been explored.

A burglar could have again targeted block 5 thinking the occupants were all out, lifted the shutter and opened the window.  Realising he had just disturbed a young child he panicks and scarpers.  The scared Madeleine then gets up only to find her parents gone so attempts to look for them, opens the unlocked front door and disappears into the night.

[stephen25000]

You say that they have found nothing.


So why after all the who-ha about money spent, (made by a vocal minority like you) are they carrying on ?



How wrong you are.  £4%4%

So where's Madeleine ?

and tell me sadie,  do the majority of people in this country want more public money being wasted ?

[slartibartfast]

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

You keep saying that even though most missing children either wander, leave home or are removed by a relative.

[Brietta]

He has put the time of her sighting back  by over half an hour. It is he who is choosing not to believe a witness.

Heri does not refute what the witness has said any more than Scotland Yard did ... had you read further you would have been able to follow his reasoning on the vagaries of memory and on why Jane may have got her times wrong.
I recommend reading it as it is interesting in whatever context ... but I suggest that you withdraw the statement that he " is choosing not to believe a witness " ... because you have got that entirely wrong.


**snip
Jane Tanner was in a similar context twice in half an hour: she went from Tapas Bar to Block 5 at 21:15 and at 21:45 that day.

I think she saw Gerry and Jez at 21:15, but she saw the abductor with Madeleine at 21:45.

After the processes of attention, perception, storing in memory, redefinition of the importance of the sighting a posteriori, discussion with her friends, and recalling memories, she mistakenly reports the two situations in a similar context as occurring both at 21:15.

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

[mercury]

Oh LOL, Bend it like Beckham has taken on a new meaning.