UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on July 12, 2013, 02:02:18 AM
-
Some of the stuff I have been reading lately leads me to think that the open window and the raised shutter was nothing more than a ruse simply intended to cover up for the fact that the perpetrators had a key to the apartments front door. Whoever carried out the abduction knew very well that suspicion would fall on Ocean Club staff if the PJ ever worked it out that the abductors had effectively just walked in the front door.
All in all it seems that someone went to a lot of trouble to provide a false trail as to the means of entry and exit. The absence of shoe tread marks on both the outer and inner sill is certainly indicative that entry and exit was not via the window.
-
Unless the window was used as either the point of entry, or the point of exit, to accomodate an abduction, then there is only one logical alternative
The window was opened in order to 'stage' a break-in
-
Nonsense. John's exposition in the post above is far more logical - front door used for the abductor's entry and exit (opened with a key) and the window opened by the abductor to confuse the initial investigation.
Itt was a glaring omission on Amaral's part to have ignored the possibility of the abductor having a key.
-
Nonsense. John's exposition in the post above is far more logical - front door used for the abductor's entry and exit (opened with a key) and the window opened by the abductor to confuse the initial investigation.
Itt was a glaring omission on Amaral's part to have ignored the possibility of the abductor having a key.
Cant understand why he would ignore the front door. It is so obviously the means of entry.
Of course, from stuff observed earlier in posts he claimed he had worked it out the day after the event, didn't he?
Suppose he had to make his theory fit. He is good at manipulating evidence
-
BUMPED Good, sensible post John
Some of the stuff I have been reading lately leads me to think that the open window and the raised shutter was nothing more than a ruse simply intended to cover up for the fact that the perpetrators had a key to the apartments front door. Whoever carried out the abduction knew very well that suspicion would fall on Ocean Club staff if the PJ ever worked it out that the abductors had effectively just walked in the front door.
All in all it seems that someone went to a lot of trouble to provide a false trail as to the means of entry and exit. The absence of shoe tread marks on both the outer and inner sill is certainly indicative that entry and exit was not via the window.
-
BUMPED Good, sensible post John
Yes, I agree with the above.
-
Some of the stuff I have been reading lately leads me to think that the open window and the raised shutter was nothing more than a ruse simply intended to cover up for the fact that the perpetrators had a key to the apartments front door. Whoever carried out the abduction knew very well that suspicion would fall on Ocean Club staff if the PJ ever worked it out that the abductors had effectively just walked in the front door.
All in all it seems that someone went to a lot of trouble to provide a false trail as to the means of entry and exit. The absence of shoe tread marks on both the outer and inner sill is certainly indicative that entry and exit was not via the window.
He or she had their their 'false trail' John, the patio doors. Why would the take the time and risk of opening the window when the patio door was already open and virtually invisible from the tapas ?
-
He or she had their their 'false trail' John, the patio doors. Why would the take the time and risk of opening the window when the patio door was already open and virtually invisible from the tapas ?
Sure, the Moyses came back home and noticed nothing. When crossing the car park, a man getting through the door or the window would have certainly attracted their attention.
The other way was open, free and dark ! Ideal.
-
Sure, the Moyses came back home and noticed nothing. When crossing the car park, a man getting through the door or the window would have certainly attracted their attention.
The other way was open, free and dark ! Ideal.
Even if, as John surmises, the alleged abductor had a key, why open the window, with the danger that entailed, as you say, of being seen to set a false trail when they would have known the patio doors were open and would be considered by the police the most likely point of entry.
-
Even if, as John surmises, the alleged abductor had a key, why open the window, with the danger that entailed, as you say, of being seen to set a false trail when they would have known the patio doors were open and would be considered by the police the most likely point of entry.
Imo the shutters/window stuff was a real red herring, but not put on by a stranger.
-
Imo the shutters/window stuff was a real red herring, but not put on by a stranger.
You may well have something there Anne !
-
Nonsense. John's exposition in the post above is far more logical - front door used for the abductor's entry and exit (opened with a key) and the window opened by the abductor to confuse the initial investigation.
Itt was a glaring omission on Amaral's part to have ignored the possibility of the abductor having a key.
Why was that??
Does anyone think that Amaral knew more than he was letting on about the possible involvement of a member of the club staff in this despicable crime?
-
Why was that??
Does anyone think that Amaral knew more than he was letting on about the possible involvement of a member of the club staff in this despicable crime?
No but many think the parents know more than they're letting on about this despicable crime.
-
Sure, the Moyses came back home and noticed nothing. When crossing the car park, a man getting through the door or the window would have certainly attracted their attention.
The other way was open, free and dark ! Ideal.
Totally and utterly incorrect Anne
No matter what time they came, they would cross the car park diagonally from the drive in entrance and take a straight line to the middle of the building, block number 5. They would not even be able to see the front door of 5A for that entire route, cos it is recessed deeply back, and out of sight for the whole route. Do you understand that Anne?
They COULD NOT SEE the front door all the way across the car park from drive in (the only way in) to the middle of the building where all the paths to the various flats radiated from. Unless they were into wall climbing, they had to go there and take those walled paths before getting to any of the flats
You have been there IIRC. You should know that.
Additionally the 5A front door corner was dark. Very dark and front door totally out of sight. But the centre of the building and the access hall for the other flats (not 5A) were lit. The eye goes straight to light in darkness .... and also the route being walked.
Surely, as a University Lecturer, you have the intellect to understand this?
-
Some of the stuff I have been reading lately leads me to think that the open window and the raised shutter was nothing more than a ruse simply intended to cover up for the fact that the perpetrators had a key to the apartments front door. Whoever carried out the abduction knew very well that suspicion would fall on Ocean Club staff if the PJ ever worked it out that the abductors had effectively just walked in the front door.
All in all it seems that someone went to a lot of trouble to provide a false trail as to the means of entry and exit. The absence of shoe tread marks on both the outer and inner sill is certainly indicative that entry and exit was not via the window.
I'm not so sure the window wasn't used, John. Two abductors?, one going in by the back door (patio), the other round by the window. One inside could have passed Madeliene through the window, and then, come out of the front door.
-
I'm not so sure the window wasn't used, John. Two abductors?, one going in by the back door (patio), the other round by the window. One inside could have passed Madeliene through the window, and then, come out of the front door.
I go with that as well. It does appear to fit with the evidence available to us all, the same evidence which some appear to want to sweep under the carpet!! 8(0(*
-
Even if, as John surmises, the alleged abductor had a key, why open the window, with the danger that entailed, as you say, of being seen to set a false trail when they would have known the patio doors were open and would be considered by the police the most likely point of entry.
Oh but you are wrong, Faith
Amaral himself when trying to prove his Madeleine died in the apartment, said that no abductor would go in by the patio doors because it was too close to the parents at 50 metres
-
I go with that as well. It does appear to fit with the evidence available to us all, the same evidence which some appear to want to sweep under the carpet!! 8(0(*
Exactly, Angelo. Now why would they want to sweep it under the carpet? I have my own opinions, on the reasons for those deliberate inaccuracies and lies.
-
I'm not so sure the window wasn't used, John. Two abductors?, one going in by the back door (patio), the other round by the window. One inside could have passed Madeliene through the window, and then, come out of the front door.
IIRC DCI, ,there were no fibres on the window frames. Surely there would have been. I can see a multitude of other reasons why the window was open, but personally I think it was unlikely that the lifter would go to the trouble of passing Madeleine thru the window when the front door was almost as close and completely out of sight to anyone passing by. So easy as well.
IMHO the window was left open as a red herring and possibly to allow chloroform fumes, or such, to dissipate. Useful as an emergency escape route too. But that open window also had other uses outlined over and over again elsewhere in the forum
-
I go with that as well. It does appear to fit with the evidence available to us all, the same evidence which some appear to want to sweep under the carpet!! 8(0(*
What 'evidence' are you refering to Angelo ?
As far as I am aware the only evidence available is that the window and shutters were opened from the inside, and forensics suggest no-one exited that way
What evidence ... actual evidence ... is there that someone passed the child out of the window to an accomplice ?
-
I go with that as well. It does appear to fit with the evidence available to us all, the same evidence which some appear to want to sweep under the carpet!! 8(0(*
There is no 'evidence' for DCI's hypothesis. It's speculation at best.
-
Oh but you are wrong, Faith
Amaral himself when trying to prove his Madeleine died in the apartment, said that no abductor would go in by the patio doors because it was too close to the parents at 50 metres
Do you have a cite for that sadie ?
-
IIRC DcI, ,there were no fibres on the window frames. Surely there would have been. I can see a multitude of other reasons why the window was open but, but personally I think it was unlikely that the lifter would go to the trouble of passing Madeleine thru the window when the front door was almost as close and completely out of sight to anyone passing by. So easy as well.
IMHO the window was left open as a red herring and possibly to allow chloroform fumes, or such, to dissipate. Useful as an emergency escape route too. But that open window also had other uses outlined over and over again elsewhere in the forum
But, wouldn't it have been easier, if seen, to get away quickly, without the child in his arms? and had already passed Madeliene through the window.
-
Exactly, Angelo. Now why would they want to sweep it under the carpet? I have my own opinions, on the reasons for those deliberate inaccuracies and lies.
.
From someone who is as closely affiliated to a certain family as yourself DCI I find that statement absolutely hilarious and dripping with irony. @)(++(*
-
.
From someone who is as closely affiliated to a certain family as yourself DCI I find that statement absolutely hilarious and dripping with irony. @)(++(*
Well you've done your fair share, of it, is that hirious? 8)-)))
-
What 'evidence' are you refering to Angelo ?
As far as I am aware the only evidence available is that the window and shutters were opened from the inside, and forensics suggest no-one exited that way
What evidence ... actual evidence ... is there that someone passed the child out of the window to an accomplice ?
Oh, I thought that Petermac illustrated that the blinds could be opened from the outside and if the window had been left unlocked by the cleaners, then it could have been slid aside.
but the passing thru of Madeleine was not the reason that the window was open imo.
However.... I will listen
-
Well you've done your fair share, of it, is that hirious? 8)-)))
Have I ? Of what ?
-
But, wouldn't it have been easier, if seen, to get away quickly, without the child in his arms? and had already passed Madeliene through the window.
Yep, in those circumstances I agree. If trapped.
-
Maybe the window was opened as a second escape route....just in case?
-
What 'evidence' are you refering to Angelo ?
As far as I am aware the only evidence available is that the window and shutters were opened from the inside, and forensics suggest no-one exited that way
What evidence ... actual evidence ... is there that someone passed the child out of the window to an accomplice ?
The evidence that nobody entered or existed that apartment through the window.
The shutter and window could have been lifted and opened from the outside just as easily Ica. Have you ever tried to carry a sleeping 3-year-old toddler out a closed front door or attempted to exit a waist high window the same way? The easiest method of exit was to lay the child in someone else arms through the window and then exit by one of the three routes available.
-
The evidence that nobody entered or existed that apartment through the window.
The shutter and window could have been lifted and opened from the outside just as easily Ica. Have you ever tried to carry a sleeping 3-year-old toddler out a closed front door or attempted to exit a waist high window the same way? The easiest method of exit was to lay the child in someone else arms through the window and then exit by one of the three routes available.
But don't you think Angelo that it would be even easier for one abductor to remove Madeleine via an already opened front door and then pass her down to an accomplice waiting the other side of the wall separating the apartment from the carpark? By doing that they would eliminate the walk that they would need to make by having to make a left turn from outside 5A and walk along that path to get to the entrance into the carpark - which was situated in the middle of the apartment block 5A was situated at the far end of the block - so to pass her straight over the wall immediately in front of 5A would cut all of that out.
-
But don't you think Angelo that it would be even easier for one abductor to remove Madeleine via an already opened front door and then pass her down to an accomplice waiting the other side of the wall separating the apartment from the carpark? By doing that they would eliminate the walk that they would need to make by having to make a left turn from outside 5A and walk along that path to get to the entrance into the carpark - which was situated in the middle of the apartment block 5A was situated at the far end of the block - so to pass her straight over the wall immediately in front of 5A would cut all of that out.
I wondered about that too Benice, certainly a possibility.
-
I remain unconvinced
If the window and shutters were not opened to gain access ( as we now know was the case )
then the most logical explanation is that they were opened in order to 'stage' a break-in
Other reasons may be manufactured to 'fit' an abductor theory ... but none of them hold water
-
I remain unconvinced
If the window and shutters were not opened to gain access ( as we now know was the case )
then the most logical explanation is that they were opened in order to 'stage' a break-in
Other reasons may be manufactured to 'fit' an abductor theory ... but none of them hold water
Opening the window wide, meant that if the abductor heard someone coming in through the patio doors, they could
make an immediate sharp exit via that window - and not have to be confronted by anyone blocking their escape route if they had to leave the room and try to leave through other exits. Why doesn't that hold water Icab?
-
Opening the window wide, meant that if the abductor heard someone coming in through the patio doors, they could
make an immediate sharp exit via that window - and not have to be confronted by anyone blocking their escape route if they had to leave the room and try to leave through other exits. Why doesn't that hold water Icab?
The one simple thing for which there exists nae proof is the abduction.
Och aye.
-
The one simple thing for which there exists nae proof is the abduction.
Och aye.
Of course there's no proof of abduction, which is why Scotland Yard are still investigating the case. There is, however, plenty of evidence that an abduction took place.
And don't bother asking for details of this evidence, as it's been offered here and elsewhere countless times over the last six years.
-
Of course there's no proof of abduction, which is why Scotland Yard are still investigating the case. There is, however, plenty of evidence that an abduction took place.
And don't bother asking for details of this evidence, as it's been offered here and elsewhere countless times over the last six years.
I'm sorry to tell you, but seeing a child being carried in someone's arms is nae evidence of abduction.
As to SY, they would appear in this case to have difficulty in organizing a brew-up in a pissery. ?{)(**
-
I remain unconvinced
If the window and shutters were not opened to gain access ( as we now know was the case )
then the most logical explanation is that they were opened in order to 'stage' a break-in
Other reasons may be manufactured to 'fit' an abductor theory ... but none of them hold water
Opening the window wide, meant that if the abductor heard someone coming in through the patio doors, they could
make an immediate sharp exit via that window - and not have to be confronted by anyone blocking their escape route if they had to leave the room and try to leave through other exits. Why doesn't that hold water Icab?
Exactly Benice, the front door was used almost withouit doubt.
THe front door for two reasons
1) Two burglaries in the same block had happened via the front dooor, with a key, in that block in the few preceeding weeks
2) The Pro Goncs are making far too much effort to try to whitewash the possibility of the front door being used. They avoid mentioning the front door at all times where possible. They have set up a trap for the Mccanns by altering the evidence (Pat Browns escapade) and going on about the window incessantly.
It has become a case of they protesteth too much. It is obvious that they are pushing the window aspect against all the odds. Merely to then prove it wouldn't have happened becos it was too well lit and overlooked
... The window was an escape route in an emergency, as Benice points out. 8@??)(
Also .... a red herring to take the eye off the front door ... and the then likelyhood that people attached to OC were involved
+ about 5 other possible reasons for opening tbe window. The other reasons are listed, on this forum, at least four times before. You are reading what is written, are you Icabod? Do you have a memory problem, perhaps?
I notice that all you [ censored word ]/sceptic guys are determined that the front door will not even be considered. Post after post fails to consider the front door. Most dont even mention it ... to wipe all thoughts of it out of the mind?
.... Yet the FRONT DOOR is the easiest, the most hidden, safest and the fastest route, And the obvious route in and out.
Seems you are trying to do a Pat Brown on it. Erase the front door from everyones minds and push the window
Having seriously changed the evidence by clearing out a beautiful row of trees and fitting a search light, then bring the "famed" Pat Brown over from the US of A ... arranged a professional photographer in to "prove" that no abductor would have dreamed of going in that way.
.... cos LOOK at the Photo 8)-))) would be stupid to attempt it, so overlooked (only since the trees stripped out and light fitted). ... therefore the Mccanns "dunit".
The whole set up is transparently dishonest, including you guys pushing it all, tbh. Just to save a perjurer, Amaral who, at best. bungled the whole thing. Oh and hopefully to save Bennetts bacon too.
I wonder why you are working so hard to attempt to pervert the course of Justice?? There has to be a reason.
>@@(*&) >@@(*&) >@@(*&)
-
Exactly Benice, the front door was used almost withouit doubt.
THe front door for two reasons
1) Two burglaries in the same block had happened via the front dooor, with a key, in that block in the few preceeding weeks
2) The Pro Goncs are making far too much effort to try to whitewash the possibility of the front door being used. They avoid mentioning the front door at all times where possible. They have set up a trap for the Mccanns by altering the evidence (Pat Browns escapade) and going on about the window incessantly.
It has become a case of they protesteth too much. It is obvious that they are pushing the window aspect against all the odds. Merely to then prove it wouldn't have happened becos it was too well lit and overlooked
... The window was an escape route in an emergency, as Benice points out. 8@??)(
Also .... a red herring to take the eye off the front door ... and the then likelyhood that people attached to OC were involved
+ about 5 other possible reasons for opening tbe window. The other reasons are listed, on this forum, at least four times before. You are reading what is written, are you Icabod? Do you have a memory problem, perhaps?
I notice that all you [ censored word ]/sceptic guys are determined that the front door will not even be considered. Post after post fails to consider the front door. Most dont even mention it ... to wipe all thoughts of it out of the mind?
.... Yet the FRONT DOOR is the easiest, the most hidden, safest and the fastest route, And the obvious route in and out.
Seems you are trying to do a Pat Brown on it. Erase the front door from everyones minds and push the window
Having seriously changed the evidence by clearing out a beautiful row of trees and fitting a search light, then bring the "famed" Pat Brown over from the US of A ... arranged a professional photographer in to "prove" that no abductor would have dreamed of going in that way.
.... cos LOOK at the Photo 8)-))) would be stupid to attempt it, so overlooked (only since the trees stripped out and light fitted). ... therefore the Mccanns "dunit".
The whole set up is transparently dishonest, including you guys pushing it all, tbh. Just to save a perjurer, Amaral who, at best. bungled the whole thing. Oh and hopefully to save Bennetts bacon too.
I wonder why you are working so hard to attempt to pervert the course of Justice?? There has to be a reason.
>@@(*&) >@@(*&) >@@(*&)
What a load of cobblers.
-
Opening the window wide, meant that if the abductor heard someone coming in through the patio doors, they could
make an immediate sharp exit via that window - and not have to be confronted by anyone blocking their escape route if they had to leave the room and try to leave through other exits. Why doesn't that hold water Icab?
I don't think it is rational to assume an abductor would take the time and effort ( and considerable risk of drawing attention ) by opening the window and shutter 'just in case' he needed an escape route, when the crime itself would have taken about 30 seconds
I just think any abductor would have been in and out of there as swiftly as possible, leaving everything untouched
-
And about that front door
Let's assume that the would-be abductor did have a duplicate key, and got into the apartment that way
If that were the case, it would be reasonable to assume that, on entering, he would have left the door slightly open ( knowing that it would be difficult to re-open it with a child in his arms
So he opens the window and shutters ( as a red-herring ) then picks up the child across his arms and makes his way out the front door he had left open/ajar
Then what ?
One would think that he would simply make off as quickly as possible, leaving the door open behind him ... no need to close it because he had already set the scene ( entry through the window/exit through the door )
But he didn't
When Kate went to the apartment to check on the children, she found the front door closed
So how did the abductor manage to close the door behind him when he was carrying a child in the manner described by Jane Tanner ?
-
Well there's enough had access to the apartments keys. 8-)(--)
Haven't you ever closed a door with a child in your arms. Whichever way you carry a child, your hands still work!
-
I don't think it is rational to assume an abductor would take the time and effort ( and considerable risk of drawing attention ) by opening the window and shutter 'just in case' he needed an escape route, when the crime itself would have taken about 30 seconds
I just think any abductor would have been in and out of there as swiftly as possible, leaving everything untouched
It seems perfectly rational to me. Why risk a confrontation with someone who might then be able to identify you or even prevent you from leaving, when you could just nip out of the window and be off.
That may not have been the only reason. He may have needed to communicate with an accomplice outside - to find out whether the coast was clear for him to make his exit. The best way he could do that from the bedroom was via the window.
-
It seems perfectly rational to me. Why risk a confrontation with someone who might then be able to identify you or even prevent you from leaving, when you could just nip out of the window and be off.
That may not have been the only reason. He may have needed to communicate with an accomplice outside - to find out whether the coast was clear for him to make his exit. The best way he could do that from the bedroom was via the window.
Why then, having gone to the trouble of preparing this escape route, did he not take it ? ... why risk going back into the living room, carrying a child, where he could, as you say, have come face to face with someone coming through the patio doors at that very moment ?
-
Well there's enough had access to the apartments keys. 8-)(--)
Haven't you ever closed a door with a child in your arms. Whichever way you carry a child, your hands still work!
It would be difficult to close the door if he was carrying a child across his arms the way Jane Tanner described
... and why would he bother ?
He'd left the window and shutters wide open
( and that's another thing ... after opening the shutters and window, why did he close the curtains ? )
-
( and that's another thing ... after opening the shutters and window, why did he close the curtains ? )
Actually he left them open in Mrs McCann's first statement, but closed them in the timeline.
-
It would be difficult to close the door if he was carrying a child across his arms the way Jane Tanner described
... and why would he bother ?
He'd left the window and shutters wide open
( and that's another thing ... after opening the shutters and window, why did he close the curtains ? )
He closed the curtains. This is a big indicator that he left by the front door. Would not be easy to lean back in and close the curtains. Not impossible tho.
If the shutters were down on the patio door as our new friend, Albertino, thinks, then he would have plenty of warning that someone was coming in.
-
Actually he left them open in Mrs McCann's first statement, but closed them in the timeline.
ahh yes, I'd forgotten that Anne
In their first statements to the police,, both Kate and Gerry say the curtains, window, and shutters, were all open when Kate discovered Madeleine was missing ... indeed, it was the open, curtains, window, and shutters that she first noticed, before even realising that Madeleine was not in her bed
That changed later, of course, when the curtains were suddenly closed ... and it wasn't until she had found Madeleine gone, and looked for her in the other room, that she was eventually alerted to the open window following a gust of wind whooshing the curtains up
-
He closed the curtains. This is a big indicator that he left by the front door. Would not be easy to lean back in and close the curtains. Not impossible tho.
If the shutters were down on the patio door as our new friend, Albertino, thinks, then he would have plenty of warning that someone was coming in.
But why did he close the curtains ? ... and why did he bother closing the front door behind him ?
-
Why then, having gone to the trouble of preparing this escape route, did he not take it ? ... why risk going back into the living room, carrying a child, where he could, as you say, have come face to face with someone coming through the patio doors at that very moment ?
Because he didn't need to take it as no-one interrupted him. IMO he left through the front door and handed her down over the wall opposite the front door to an accomplice - who set off with her. We could speculate endlessly about what he did then.
If it was one abductor he could have opened the window so that he himself could look through it to check the area in front of 5A - as this was not possible from the recessed front door. Then once satisfied the coast was clear he left via the front door.
Or he could simply have opened the shutters and window to deflect attention away from his entry via the front door with a key. That certainly seems to have worked with Amaral, who having once mentioned that entry could have been gained through the front door with a key, never mentioned that possibility again.
-
But why did he close the curtains ? ... and why did he bother closing the front door behind him ?
Perhaps he closed the curtains in the timeline because he hoped, hiding the open shutters/window which would have raised suspicion, he had a chance to enjoy longer a charming night in PDL, walking with little Madeleine on his arms ?
And in fact he'd have been right, hadn't the wind popped up with the moon and slammed the door, revealing that you shouldn't trust sleeping water, as we say in French : things are seldom as they appear.
-
Because he didn't need to take it as no-one interrupted him. IMO he left through the front door and handed her down over the wall opposite the front door to an accomplice - who set off with her. We could speculate endlessly about what he did then.
If it was one abductor he could have opened the window so that he himself could look through it to check the area in front of 5A - as this was not possible from the recessed front door. Then once satisfied the coast was clear he left via the front door.
Or he could simply have opened the shutters and window to deflect attention away from his entry via the front door with a key. That certainly seems to have worked with Amaral, who having once mentioned that entry could have been gained through the front door with a key, never mentioned that possibility again.
Is it not actually true that opening that shutter window and looking out of it would attract more attention and be far riskier to himself than peeking out of a recessed front door?
Wouldn't the front door provide more cover for him to check rather than opening the shutter and being in full view of whoever was walking past at that time that he would have been unable to see whilst the other side of the opening the shutter?
That's surely a massive gamble on his part? After all the shutter is in full view of the main road, the door isn't.
Strikes me that opening a shutter to check who's outside is far riskier than edging out gingerly from behind a recessed door that no one could see from the road.
-
But why did he close the curtains ? ... and why did he bother closing the front door behind him ?
Did Kate actually know if the curtains were fully closed? Or maybe partially open but still whooshed fully open with a gust of wind. Very gusty that night.
Imo Icabod, he closed the curtains, partially at least, after the deed was done. He left the window open to help clear any ?chloroform fumes, but pulled the curtains to a little. In an emergency he could still escape thru the cheap curtains if the window was open.. I think at one stage they were fully open to provide natural moonlight and a little light from street lamps that managed to get thru the trees, to the room. Better to use that light rather than use artificial light within the room.
I think he closed the front door cos the key was left in the lock and it was easy to pull it to using that. That way there wouldn't be any finger prints on the front door, just on the key possibly
And he was taking the key with him.
I think the main purpose of closing the front door and leaving the window and shutters open was to give the impression that Madeleine had left under her own steam, to give them getaway time. It was also important to take the investigators eye off the front door, cos that would point to someone attached to OC, who had accerss to the keys.
-
He closed the curtains. This is a big indicator that he left by the front door. Would not be easy to lean back in and close the curtains. Not impossible tho.
If the shutters were down on the patio door as our new friend, Albertino, thinks, then he would have plenty of warning that someone was coming in.
Had the patio door shutter been lowered access would have been almost impossible for one person on their own as this is not the way the shutters are supposed to work. If Matthew and Kate both entered the apartment via the patio door then the shutter was us.
Question is - who lifted it if what Rachael Oldfield claims in her statement is true?
-
I think the main purpose of closing the front door and leaving the window and shutters open was to give the impression that Madeleine had left under her own steam, to give them getaway time. It was also important to take the investigators eye off the front door, cos that would point to someone attached to OC, who had accerss to the keys.
An excellent suggestion Sadie and a very plausible one at that because that is in fact what happened. They went out searching because they thought she had got out by herself and was wandering the streets.
-
Is it not actually true that opening that shutter window and looking out of it would attract more attention and be far riskier to himself than peeking out of a recessed front door?
Wouldn't the front door provide more cover for him to check rather than opening the shutter and being in full view of whoever was walking past at that time that he would have been unable to see whilst the other side of the opening the shutter?
That's surely a massive gamble on his part? After all the shutter is in full view of the main road, the door isn't.
Strikes me that opening a shutter to check who's outside is far riskier than edging out gingerly from behind a recessed door that no one could see from the road.
Because the front door was recessed so far back it was only possible to see a small part of the car park from there because the view was restricted by the walls either side of the recess, and it was completely impossible to see to the left or right from that door. Someone could be standing outside Madeleine's window and you wouldn't be able to see them from the front door without first walking out of the door a metre or so as far as the path - and then risk being seen. So peeking out of the front door was not an option IMO.
Only people actually going to apartment 5A would ever pass along the front of that apartment - as there was no throughway. So there would be no people walking past the window. The only danger was if someone was actually coming to 5A - but IIRC the whole of the car park could be seen from the window, including the Entrance to it, and so could be checked first by an intruder from inside the room - before they made their exit via the front door.
IMO
-
Actually he left them open in Mrs McCann's first statement, but closed them in the timeline.
The same person served as an interpreter for both Gerry and Kate that day. I'm sure she was doing her best, but what exactly was her experience in working as an interpreter? Strong accents, the use of slang, stressful circumstances, being brought in at short notice, etc., can all lead to misunderstandings.
If Kate had said that the curtains whooshed open, the interpreter may not have understood what she meant by "whooshed" and just said that they were open (as in drawn aside, as opposed to fluttering in the wind).