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

[G-Unit]

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

Pure speculation, not reasoning. SY accepted Jane's sighting at the time she said and produced the man she saw. How can someone promote a theory which relies on suggesting that a witness forgot, within an hour of the occurrence, when she saw something? Theories should fit the facts as known, not change them. Using the reasoning of your friend Heri we could have numerous theories if we suggest that no witnesses had a clue what time it was. Maybe Gerry and Jeremy were chatting at 9.50 too? 

[Carana]

Why not look at the instinctive direction instead?
And BTW there is a huge physical clue confirming what the direction was.

Kids aren't always predictable and whatever seems logical based on experience with some kids won't necessarily be what a particular child would do, but anyway...

The front door isn't impossible, but if she'd got up and decided to wander off, I'd have thought she'd head towards the light (a light in the living-room was on) and try to get out via the patio and downhill towards the Tapas (noise, possibly familiar voices, and more light). Running that way would make more sense as well if she'd been frightened by someone tampering with the blind / window.

But then, would a child that age have thought to close the patio door, the child gate (unless it automatically sprang back to close) and the bottom gate (unless that, too, had a tendency to swing back to closed)? And wouldn't she have instinctively taken Cuddle Cat with her? I'm less convinced she'd have put shoes on unless she had slip-on sandals (i.e., no straps to fiddle with).


I can only think of a few likely reactions if scared by noise:
- freeze, grab CC and pull the bedclothes over her head. This didn't happen, judging by the way the bed was left.
- scream the place down (but no one heard a child that night), grab CC and run out of the patio. However, that would assume that the handle was accessible to her and that she was strong enough to slide it (possible), and, particularly if scared, would she have thought to close it behind her?

An alternative, which I find plausible, is that she'd got out of bed for a pee (hence bed still tidy and no thought to grab CC) and was already up when an intruder did get in via whichever way. A big hand over a little face to stop her screaming could have unintentially killed her or at least knocked her out. The next question, IMO, would the intruder have carried off a dead / unconscious child or just let her drop and run off?

It may seem intuitive to speculate drop and run as the most likely, but Vincent Tabak went to considerable effort to carry out and hide poor Jo Yeates's body.


The problem with all of that is that there is no hard evidence... Wouldn't a child leave prints on the patio door? Would that necessarily mean anything significant if there had been? (She had lived there for five days.)

[Angelo222]

I don't think a child of Madeleine's age would go out and wander off without her shoes on.

I can't believe you posted that Benice, are you a parent?  Young children routinely wander about without shoes on, maybe she was woken by a burglar opening the window, thought it was mum or dad so jumped out of bed and went over to see.

[Angelo222]

It is debatable whether she could reach the (yale type) lock on the wooden door and be able to open it, but had she done so she would have left prints, there is also the probability she would not have pulled it after her and with no through draft it would not have blown shut .
I wonder if that was an area dusted for prints?

I agree that a child who was almost four would have put her shoes on before walking out.  Of the cases I have looked at, the children have put on outerwear if they are old enough, so I would imagine they would put on their shoes ~ which most are capable of doing ~ or at least slippers.



The toddler, who just turned 3 last week, put on a pair of little ruby red shoes, threw her jacket on over her nightdress, and went out the front door without a sound.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/22/news/down-east/3-year-old-baileyville-girl-leaves-home-walks-nearly-a-mile-to-the-store/

There would have been a through draught if a burglar had opened the shutter and window.

[sadie]

There would have been a through draught if a burglar had opened the shutter and window.

I dont think that you are very scientifically minded, Angelo.  I don't think that you understand the nature of draughts. 


Try and work out what I am saying, there's a good fella. 

[pegasus]

It is debatable whether she could reach the (yale type) lock on the wooden door and be able to open it, but had she done so she would have left prints, there is also the probability she would not have pulled it after her and with no through draft it would not have blown shut .
I wonder if that was an area dusted for prints?

I agree that a child who was almost four would have put her shoes on before walking out.  Of the cases I have looked at, the children have put on outerwear if they are old enough, so I would imagine they would put on their shoes ~ which most are capable of doing ~ or at least slippers.

The toddler, who just turned 3 last week, put on a pair of little ruby red shoes, threw her jacket on over her nightdress, and went out the front door without a sound.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/22/news/down-east/3-year-old-baileyville-girl-leaves-home-walks-nearly-a-mile-to-the-store/

In 5A the shoes were not missing, they were still there.
Any "went outside to find adults" theory needs to insert the word "barefoot" and provide a logical reason for that.

[Benice]

I can't believe you posted that Benice, are you a parent?  Young children routinely wander about without shoes on, maybe she was woken by a burglar opening the window, thought it was mum or dad so jumped out of bed and went over to see.

Yes I am a parent Angelo.   I also know what it's like to step on a tiny pebble with bare feet.    It hurts.    I'm not disputing that an almost 4yr old would go outside with no shoes on - but I can't see them walking any distance on a hard surface like a carpark or a footpath.       A four year old is quite capable of putting on their own shoes in my experience -  and they are also aware that putting their shoes on before they go out is something they always do first.

[pegasus]

Nothing's impossible, but I just can't imagine why a child of that age would happily wander off towards a stranger who'd lifted a noisy blind and opened a window at night.
Wandering off towards a puppy or kitten during the day, yes, but would even that kind of lure work at night?

Why not look at the instinctive direction instead?
And BTW there is a huge physical clue confirming what the direction was.

Heriberto's theory IMO leaves the room in this state:
Bedroom window open.
Bedroom shutter open.
Bedroom door almost closed.

Heriberto's theory after correction by replacing his "walks towards window" with "instinctively goes in the direction away from danger" leaves the room in this state.
Bedroom window= open
Bedroom shutter = open.
Bedroom door = open.

The huge clue which immeditly tells us the real direction is: the bedroom door.
In what position was the bedroom door found at 10pm?
open.

[misty]

Heriberto's theory IMO leaves the room in this state:
Bedroom window open.
Bedroom shutter open.
Bedroom door almost closed.

Heriberto's theory after correction by replacing his "walks towards window" with "instinctively goes in the direction away from danger" leaves the room in this state.
Bedroom window= open
Bedroom shutter = open.
Bedroom door = open.

The huge clue which immeditly tells us the real direction is: the bedroom door.
In what position was the bedroom door found at 10pm?
open.

That theory does not explain why the door had moved on at least one previous occasion that night.
Had Madeleine left her bedroom, where would she have headed? Her parents' room? Had that door moved? Where would she have tried to hide? No evidence of any disturbance to the furniture.
There have been previous discussions about the draught coming through the opening patio door during checks. If that was the case, does that suggest that on previous evenings that either a)there was little or no wind or b)Thursday really was the first night the rear door was used for access?

[Mr Gray]

So as there is no hard evidence...there is no case against the parents

[jassi]

So as there is no hard evidence...there is no case against the parents

As yet there doesn't seem to be a case aginst anyone.

[pathfinder73]

Heriberto's theory IMO leaves the room in this state:
Bedroom window open.
Bedroom shutter open.
Bedroom door almost closed.

Heriberto's theory after correction by replacing his "walks towards window" with "instinctively goes in the direction away from danger" leaves the room in this state.
Bedroom window= open
Bedroom shutter = open.
Bedroom door = open.

The huge clue which immeditly tells us the real direction is: the bedroom door.
In what position was the bedroom door found at 10pm?
open.

Who told you the door moved and the window was open? The one who said the door moved didn't check the apartment and the one who said the window was open didn't check the car park. At least both are consistent with their strange behaviour.

[pegasus]

That theory does not explain why the door had moved on at least one previous occasion that night.
Had Madeleine left her bedroom, where would she have headed? Her parents' room? Had that door moved? Where would she have tried to hide? No evidence of any disturbance to the furniture.
There have been previous discussions about the draught coming through the opening patio door during checks. If that was the case, does that suggest that on previous evenings that either a)there was little or no wind or b)Thursday really was the first night the rear door was used for access?

Door open at 9.05pm would mean the child opened it to leave the room, to have a wee, its of no interest IMO because all is well at this time.

The door open at 10pm means the child opened it to leave the room IMO but obviously for a different reason.

A pint too many of draught beer and its easy for peeps to forget that 99% of times a door is opened, its opened by a person. There were three people in the apartment, only one of them was mobile, therefore that is who opened the door.

BTW the draught direction was the wrong way to open the door, see KM statement.

[Alice Purjorick]

I dont think that you are very scientifically minded, Angelo.  I don't think that you understand the nature of draughts. 


Try and work out what I am saying, there's a good fella. 

OK then Sadie give us uninitiated the full SP on draughts please.

[stephen25000]

OK then Sadie give us uninitiated the full SP on draughts please.

May the wind be all behind us.