Why was the window open ?

[icabodcrane]

This has always been a major sticking point for me

The most rational explanation is that it was opened in order to  'stage'  an abduction    (  to make it look like someone had broken in through the window to abduct a child from her bed )  ...  indeed,  this is the version we were served universally in the press as early as the nexy day  ...  smashed shutters, jemmied window

We now know,  following forensic investigation,  that no-one either entered,  or exited, through that window

So why was it open ?

How can the open window be rationally,  and believably,  incorporated into an abduction theory ?

[debunker]

Well, I don't support the abduction theory, but could it be that it was

1/ opened so that any abductor could check if the escape route was clear
2/ opened so that an abductor could communicate with a colleague
3/ opened to pass Madeleine's drugged body to an accomplice.

THe point is that it is not logically possible to prove that an abduction did not happen. It is possible to suggest what makes it more or less probable, but it will always remain a possibility.

[icabodcrane]

Well, I don't support the abduction theory, but could it be that it was

1/ opened so that any abductor could check if the escape route was clear
2/ opened so that an abductor could communicate with a colleague
3/ opened to pass Madeleine's drugged body to an accomplice.

THe point is that it is not logically possible to prove that an abduction did not happen. It is possible to suggest what Abduction is one of the possibilities,  I agree,  but non of the options  you have given for the open window is convincing, and each presents a need for further explanation

The abductor,  having entered the apartment via the open patio doors,  picks up the sleeping child and leaves hurriedly through the front door

That scenario makes sense  ...  that he stopped,  at some point,  to open the window and heavy shutters,  does not
 

edited  *oops*  ...  I've made a mistake with the quotes there, havn't I  ?     sorry

[marxman]

Well, I don't support the abduction theory, but could it be that it was

1/ opened so that any abductor could check if the escape route was clear
2/ opened so that an abductor could communicate with a colleague
3/ opened to pass Madeleine's drugged body to an accomplice.

THe point is that it is not logically possible to prove that an abduction did not happen. It is possible to suggest what makes it more or less probable, but it will always remain a possibility.

And following on from your three possible points, it was reported that the only finger prints found on the said window belonged to Kate! therefore, applying logic this would mean that Kate was either the abductor or an accomplice to such an abduction would it not?

[debunker]

Well, I don't support the abduction theory, but could it be that it was

1/ opened so that any abductor could check if the escape route was clear
2/ opened so that an abductor could communicate with a colleague
3/ opened to pass Madeleine's drugged body to an accomplice.

THe point is that it is not logically possible to prove that an abduction did not happen. It is possible to suggest
what makes it more or less probable, but it will always remain a possibility.

 Abduction is one of the possibilities,  I agree,  but non of the options  you have given for the open window is convincing, and each presents a need for further explanation

TThe abductor,  having entered the apartment via the open patio doors,  picks up the sleeping child and leaves hurriedly through the front door

That scenario makes sense  ...  that he stopped,  at some point,  to open the window and heavy shutters,  does not

You mashed the coding. I have tried to correct it

Convincing to whom? I find it convincing.

How heavy are the shutters- they are designed toopen from the inside.

If you have an anti-mccann mindset you will find any explanation that supports an anti-mccann theory to be doubtful. Pros will similarly find theories that incriminate the mccanns to. Be doubtful.

I deny that anything unsupported by evidence ( not conjecture) is valid; that is why I am not a Pro- I doubt everything but I also support the McCanns' right to privacy and the right to counter defamation.

[Eleanor]

Why was the head of the child Jane Tanner saw, facing in the opposite direction to how she would have been picked up out of bed?
She was handed to an accomplice, in my opinion, possibly through the window.

[debunker]

Well, I don't support the abduction theory, but could it be that it was

1/ opened so that any abductor could check if the escape route was clear
2/ opened so that an abductor could communicate with a colleague
3/ opened to pass Madeleine's drugged body to an accomplice.

THe point is that it is not logically possible to prove that an abduction did not happen. It is possible to suggest what makes it more or less probable, but it will always remain a possibility.

And following on from your three possible points, it was reported that the only finger prints found on the said window belonged to Kate! therefore, applying logic this would mean that Kate was either the abductor or an accomplice to such an abduction would it not?

ONe word, GLOVES.

SEe what I mean by mindset?

[debunker]

Why was the head of the child Jane Tanner saw, facing in the opposite direction to how she would have been picked up out of bed?
She was handed to an accomplice, in my opinion, possibly through the window.

THat is of course speculation.

[Eleanor]

Why was the head of the child Jane Tanner saw, facing in the opposite direction to how she would have been picked up out of bed?
She was handed to an accomplice, in my opinion, possibly through the window.

THat is of course speculation.

Only if you don't believe Jane Tanner.  If you do then the child's head had changed position, and without putting the child down somewhere between bed and the Jane Tanner sighting then there has to have been an accomplice.

Some of us do actually believe The McCanns.  Just because you don't, necessarily, does not make you right  And nor do my opinions make me right.  I was just offering an opinion, which is what I said.

[marxman]

Well, I don't support the abduction theory, but could it be that it was

1/ opened so that any abductor could check if the escape route was clear
2/ opened so that an abductor could communicate with a colleague
3/ opened to pass Madeleine's drugged body to an accomplice.

THe point is that it is not logically possible to prove that an abduction did not happen. It is possible to suggest what makes it more or less probable, but it will always remain a possibility.

And following on from your three possible points, it was reported that the only finger prints found on the said window belonged to Kate! therefore, applying logic this would mean that Kate was either the abductor or an accomplice to such an abduction would it not?

ONe word, GLOVES.

SEe what I mean by mindset?

Oh yes the gloves, yes indeed, quite possible of course but gloves although they cover-up prints they do leave smudging and trace of their use on objects.

Mindset? my mind is not set, I question everything that dosn't make sense until I get a logical answer.
I take nothing at face value when the life and welfare of a small child is at stake.

after reading some of your posts, you seem to believe without question what the parents proclaim, and resent any notion of even a glimmer of doubt being afforded their direction. That I find a mystery.

[Eleanor]

Well, I don't support the abduction theory, but could it be that it was

1/ opened so that any abductor could check if the escape route was clear
2/ opened so that an abductor could communicate with a colleague
3/ opened to pass Madeleine's drugged body to an accomplice.

THe point is that it is not logically possible to prove that an abduction did not happen. It is possible to suggest what makes it more or less probable, but it will always remain a possibility.

And following on from your three possible points, it was reported that the only finger prints found on the said window belonged to Kate! therefore, applying logic this would mean that Kate was either the abductor or an accomplice to such an abduction would it not?

ONe word, GLOVES.

SEe what I mean by mindset?

Oh yes the gloves, yes indeed, quite possible of course but gloves although they cover-up prints they do leave smudging and trace of their use on objects.

Mindset? my mind is not set, I question everything that dosn't make sense until I get a logical answer.
I take nothing at face value when the life and welfare of a small child is at stake.

after reading some of your posts, you seem to believe without question what the parents proclaim, and resent any notion of even a glimmer of doubt being afforded their direction. That I find a mystery.

No he doesn't.  Have you really read any of his posts?  The one thing Debunker doesn't do is believe anything that isn't proven.

[icabodcrane]

Why was the head of the child Jane Tanner saw, facing in the opposite direction to how she would have been picked up out of bed?
She was handed to an accomplice, in my opinion, possibly through the window.

Handing Madeleine out of the window to an accomplice would be a reason for the window having been opened during an abduction,  yes

...  but why ? 

If the child had been handed to an accomplice so that he could whisk her away quickly in a waiting vehicle,  that might make some sense  ...  but he did not,  he strode off on foot  directly in front of the street where the child's father, his mate,  and a holiday companion,  could have easily seen him

Why would the abductor in the apartment take the time  (  and risk )  of opening a widow and shutters in order to pass the child out to an accomplice who had no waiting vehicle  ?  to what purpose ?

He could,  far more effiecently,  have left the apartment quickly through the front door with the sleeping child  and met any accomplice once outside

I don't think the 'accomplice'  theory stands up to scrutiny

[debunker]

Thank you mon petit chou

[debunker]

Evidence please for

1/ gloves necessarily leaving smudges
2/ the SOCO looking for smudges
3/ evidence that no such smudge were found.

[Eleanor]

Thank you mon petit chou

Je vous en prie.