What are the discrepancies between the McCann's and the friend's statements?

[Mr Gray]

I think we shouldn't eliminate anyone as a possible suspect yet.

SY rightly have

[Alfie]

You seem to be confusing responsible for and involved in.

No, I think you are choosing to deliberately misunderstand.

[Robittybob1]

Are you deliberately misunderstanding my post or are you accusing the Paynes of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance?

If it was ever found that one or more of the Paynes went into the McCann's apartment after the McCanns left for the Tapas what would you say then?

SY rightly have

OK true but I wouldn't think we are talking about the abduction or the accident/disposal whatever, but we are discussing relatively minor discrepancies in the statements, thinking the discrepancies represent covert reasons to lie.

[Alfie]

If it was ever found that one or more of the Paynes went into the McCann's apartment after the McCanns left for the Tapas what would you say then? OK true but I wouldn't think we are talking about the abduction or the accident/disposal whatever, but we are discussing relatively minor discrepancies in the statements, thinking the discrepancies represent covert reasons to lie.

No offence Rob but I'm not really interested in daft "what ifs". 

[Robittybob1]

I think we shouldn't eliminate anyone as a possible suspect yet.

By suspect I'm not using that word in a way implying that they were involved in the abduction or the hiding the body if it was an accident/disposal of the body, but involved in the situation leading up to the event.  Anyone hiding the true scenario is "suspect" for generating deliberate discrepancies in the statements.

[Alice Purjorick]

Are you saying they could be raised from the outside but only opened from the inside?
Even when they are opened from the inside the person could be standing on the outside.  It was a matter of whether the window was secured or not.

More or less I suppose. But read it as "the shutters when in the lowered position cannot be operated as the design intends, from outside the building".
I have seen the videos and have commented several times. Which part of "the interesting bits are not shown" is difficult to understand?. We rapidly get into conspiracy theories with this one where the perpetrator had to have specific knowledge before the event. I don't do conspiracy theories.

[Mr Gray]

More or less I suppose. But read it as "the shutters when in the lowered position cannot be operated as the design intends, from outside the building".
I have seen the videos and have commented several times. Which part of "the interesting bits are not shown" is difficult to understand?. We rapidly get into conspiracy theories with this one where the perpetrator had to have specific knowledge before the event. I don't do conspiracy theories.

it seems you are wrong and the shutters can be opened from the outside

[Robittybob1]

More or less I suppose. But read it as "the shutters when in the lowered position cannot be operated as the design intends, from outside the building".
I have seen the videos and have commented several times. Which part of "the interesting bits are not shown" is difficult to understand?. We rapidly get into conspiracy theories with this one where the perpetrator had to have specific knowledge before the event. I don't do conspiracy theories.

It could be as simple as a burglar going around checking for insecure doors and windows, i'e no pre-planning at all.
It also could be that the window was deliberately left insecure by the cleaners or maintenance staff to allow them easy access at a later stage.
There was no sign the window itself was forced.

it seems you are wrong and the shutters can be opened from the outside

Only if the window was insecure, so the perpetrator could reach in a raise the shutters.

[Alice Purjorick]

it seems you are wrong and the shutters can be opened from the outside

It seems you cannot read or comprehend properly or have little knowledge how the shutter CDA operates.
Or all three. If you recall I said earlier raised was a more accurate expression.

[Mr Gray]

It seems you cannot read or comprehend properly or have little knowledge how the shutter CDA operates.
Or all three. If you recall I said earlier raised was a more accurate expression.

The shutters can be opened from the outside

[Alice Purjorick]

It could be as simple as a burglar going around checking for insecure doors and windows, i'e no pre-planning at all.
It also could be that the window was deliberately left insecure by the cleaners or maintenance staff to allow them easy access at a later stage.
There was no sign the window itself was forced.
Only if the window was insecure, so the perpetrator could reach in a raise the shutters.

So is the event a planned snatch or a random occurrence?
So the whole shutter/window malarkey has to be engineered to suit the desired outcome.

[Robittybob1]

No offence Rob but I'm not really interested in daft "what ifs".

I think there is evidence that something happened in the McCanns apartment between the time the McCanns left and the first check by Gerry.  We have Gerry's word for that as the door to the kids room was at the wrong angle.

[Alice Purjorick]

The shutters can be opened from the outside

How?

[Robittybob1]

So is the event a planned snatch or a random occurrence?
So the whole shutter/window malarkey has to be engineered to suit the desired outcome.

There may or may not be a connection between the raised blinds and the missing Madeleine. 

The first option (a burglar going around checking for insecure doors and windows) the window is left insecure by accident.  Was it ever checked for security?  (Did the burglar enter the apartment?)
In the second option the situation is engineered.   (Did the burglar enter the apartment?)

Additional options:
There is also the deliberate staging of the "crime scene" before Kate's check (prank theory).

Or as GA thought the deliberate staging of the "crime scene" by the McCanns as a deception.

[Brietta]

How?

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