Myth #4 - Apartment 5a had lichen on the window sill

[Eleanor]

@ Devil's Advocate. 
Do you know what it means to be The Devil's Advocate?  Have you any conception of how important this is?  Presuming that you believe in a God in the first place.

The Devil's Advocate is an instrument of The Church who is only put in to place to question  of how righteous any of us can be.   Should anyone wish to be a Saint.  Or to be frightfully righteous.

God preserve me from the righteous because I really can't handle them.

[DevilsAdvocate]

@ Devil's Advocate. 
Do you know what it means to be The Devil's Advocate?  Have you any conception of how important this is?  Presuming that you believe in a God in the first place.

The Devil's Advocate is an instrument of The Church who is only put in to place to question  of how righteous any of us can be.   Should anyone wish to be a Saint.  Or to be frightfully righteous.

God preserve me from the righteous because I really can't handle them.

You have singularly chosen one of the many references of the role of Devil's Advocate, and have construed to inextricably shackle your version with religion.

My take on the role is as follows -

Devil's advocate

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.

[comperedna]

Well, I thought I had read most things about this case online, but I have never heard of 'lichen' on the windowsill - only that there was no evidence in terms of scraping or scuffs etc of anyone having been in or out of the flat that way, particularly carrying a child, (pretty much impossible anyway).

I'm new. Are we supposed to leave these myths, or myths of myths, be?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Brilliant work admin. 

The police failed to find any evidence that a person had entered or left by the window because nobody did.  The abductor entered the apartment via the front door and left that way as well.  Obviously he raised the shutter from the inside and opened the window to check if the coast was clear and didn't take time to close them.  It ain't rocket science.   

Not having been to PdL, I am not familiar with what the view out of that little window would actually consist of.

As far as I can imagine, there would be little one could see looking out a crack at the bottom of the shutters in the dark. There is a wall directly in front of the window that runs all the way along the passageway in front of the apartments, as far as I understand. Could one see over this wall kneeling down inside the room looking out of the lower part of the window? Presumably nothing of the street could be seen; maybe just part of the car park over the wall? Would one be able to see right and left along the passageway?

Are we sure, in other words, that the person looked out of the window to see if someone was coming? How good was the view? Would he have had to stick his head out to see anything?

Are we sure this is the reason the window was open?

[sadie]

Not having been to PdL, I am not familiar with what the view out of that little window would actually consist of.

As far as I can imagine, there would be little one could see looking out a crack at the bottom of the shutters in the dark. There is a wall directly in front of the window that runs all the way along the passageway in front of the apartments, as far as I understand. Could one see over this wall kneeling down inside the room looking out of the lower part of the window? Presumably nothing of the street could be seen; maybe just part of the car park over the wall? Would one be able to see right and left along the passageway?

Are we sure, in other words, that the person looked out of the window to see if someone was coming? How good was the view? Would he have had to stick his head out to see anything?

Are we sure this is the reason the window was open?

Even tho you are primarily anti, Sherlock, good to have you on board.  Because you have an enquiring brain and I am not aware of any other anti on here who has that ...

Quite correct:  Sherlock

Are we sure, in other words, that the person looked out of the window to see if someone was coming? How good was the view? Would he have had to stick his head out to see anything?

He would have had to have stuck his head out a good way to see anything for two reasons
!) the window was fairly deeply recessed
2) The walled walkway to the apartments was curved in such a way that I dont think he could have seen anyone coming at a distance, the building wall would be in the way of the view.

Also from memory, that wall was quite high (chest high comes to mind, but the video showing it has been whooshed from my posts) and it hid much of the window to anyone passing by, but someone standing in that room, would, I think, have been able to see people passing by.  Nobody passed close by except for Matt on the one occasion he made a sound check at 9 pm(ish).

The window was almost certainly open for one or more of the following reasons:
-  A quick escape route in case someone entered the flat
-  To pass things thru and give instructions and moral support to the lifter.
-  To communicate with the person outside (bundleman?)
-  To disipate fumes
-  To add a miniscule amount of natural/street light into the room
-  To obfusticate and take the attention off the front door (with the obvious thoughts that as a key had to have been used, a member of OC was involved <<< to possibly take the attention away from that?)
-  To obfusticate and give the false impression that Madeleine had herself gone out that way, off her own violition

There are other reasons which I am unable to think of atm. 

Of course as said above, It might also have been used to keep an eye on any comings and goings, but the lifter would have needed to lean out a hell of a way to see anything much of that curved walled pathway.  There would have been finger prints all over the window frame if he had.

Good to have a logical thinker on board, Sherlock

[Sherlock Holmes]

Agree with you on most of these points, Sadie - bar the certainty about their being a 'passer', of course.

Still don't see enough evidence that his presence is an absolute necessity.

Regarding your 'anti-' labeling, not to be pedantic, but I'm not an anti at all when it comes to the abduction theory. I do not believe that the McCanns did anything remotely sinister with their daughter - and even if I did believe that, I would have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it.

My 'anti-' - ness comes in the form of criticism of the McCanns over they way they have been tacking various aspects of their situation since the abduction. Some of their mistakes are a result of bad advice they have been given, and people in their employ having let them down - not their fault. Other things have been ill- considered.

Even Kate herself says, though, to be fair, that she isn't sure herself if everything they are doing is right. They have never been in this situation before and have no way of knowing if how they are responding to it in the 'correct' way - and wouldn't wish it on anyone else to have to come up with a better one.

[Robittybob1]

I like this thread. 

That's the first one ticked off on the list.



All that proves , is that as the Police were saying there was no break in , and nobody got in or out through a window
i bet Donal MacIntyre is a bit peed as he based his whole theory on the information given to him that there were in fact
two abductors who at the very least had passed Maddy through the window .
of course he was working with the information given to him .by who ?
And of course there  is no evidence apart from the McCanns word for it that any doors were left open , a fact they only remembered some time later , about the time the police had ruled out a break in , funny that !!

Where is the information about "Donal MacIntyre"?  That would be very interesting to say the least.

[mercury]

Its easily googable

[Robittybob1]

Thanks - My scenario is similar but there is a twist to it.  I sent the scenario to the mcCann's Investigation site and to Scotland Yard.  Previously when I sent info to the Investigation site I got an automated email and my original email as a unit. The time I send the scenario only the automated reply came back. 


This is my scenario no names are included so there is no defamation.

"The McCann's rental car is hired 23 days after the disappearance of Madeleine.  One moment Goncalo Amaral says the McCanns (the day after her disappearance) hid Madeleine's body inside a coffin resting in the local church under a body of a woman that was going to be cremated the next day.  Well if that was the case how did the odour get in the car that hadn't yet been hired? 
His reasoning seems rather flawed to me.
 
I'm tending to the view that Madeleine is still alive and that she was taken out of the apartment in a combination of two events that are unrelated but they coincide in a strange way.
It could go something like this:
1.  Person 1 thinks he has caused the accidental death of Madeleine (M1) and takes her out of the apartment and hides her nearby around 9:15 PM.
2.  A family group of 2 males and 1 female (Persons 2, 3 and 4) were planning to kidnap a particular child from the resort.
3.  Person 2 finds the still alive child M1 (maybe just overly sedated) and proceeds with the plan to remove her from Praia da Luz.
4.  Persons 3 and 4 puts a truly deceased child M2 belonging to Persons 2 and 3 back into apartment 5A via the window but they accidently leave the kids bedroom window open. 
5.  Person 1 finds this deceased child in the apartment and hides this other child M2 thinking someone had returned the body of Madeleine (M1) back to the apartment, but Person 1 does not (can't, won't) tell the McCanns of what has happened in steps 1 and 5.
6.  When the search is in full swing Person 1 takes child M2 away from the temporary hiding place and hides her quite a distance from the apartment.
7.  After Danie Krugel has identified the two search areas Person 1 takes the hidden M2 in the McCanns rental car while the McCanns are away on one of their overseas trips.
8. Person 1 goes back to England.
9. Later the cadaver dogs reveal that a cadaver had been in the apartment and the McCanns can't explain it.
 
This really complex scenario can account for all the blood spots and cadaver positions and yet leaves the McCanns in a position of total innocence."

Where my scenario differs from Donal MacIntyre is that there may have been a group planning to kidnap Madeleine but for some other reason she is inadvertently delivered to them at the very time they were still planning their crime.
[delivered in the sense that from the position of their stake-out they saw what was going on with Madeleine.  I know it sounds a long shot, but what other scenario has covered all the findings?]

I notice Donal makes no attempt to explain cadaver odours in the wardrobe or the blood on the wall.