Why was the window open ?

[Eleanor]

There are photographs on The Net of a PJ Officer successfully climbing through that bedroom window, and another Video Still of PeterMac opening the shutters to the bedroom from outside when the appartment was unoccupied.
I have tried to Copy and Paste, but failed, I'm afraid.

[Heriberto Janosch]

Hello,

Maybe you find this two links of any help regarding the 5A window.

http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/could-madeleine-mccann-be-abducted-in.html

http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2012/10/the-abduction-of-madeleine-mccann-report.html

Heri.

[AnneGuedes]

Oh good grief. We're into fantasy writing here at the moment.  There is NOTHING to back up this frankly rather hysterical conjecture about doors and windows. It was ably demonstrated by the PJ that it was impossible for anyone to have passed through that window. Furthermore a sleeping child could not have been passed through.

Other theories that have been put forward over the years include the window being open to allow an emergency exit in case of discovery - plausible.  That it was opened to allow the abductor to "check outside before exiting" - well, great, but the front door was around the corner from the window out of sight. No way of seeing if someone was there. "Oh hi Mr. McCann, I'm just taking Madeleine for a late night walk, OK?"

It seems reasonable to believe that Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins were outside the back gate (but which side of the road?) so the patio door couldn't have been used.  The front door was allegedly locked so to believe that was used would mean you have to subscribe to the "spare key" scenario and that doesn't appear online until someone invented it in about 2009. Strange that.  Window can't have been used as there's no physical way and also no forensic evidence.

All in all, it's making an abduction rather implausible to have been achieved by anyone short of Tom Cruise and the Mission Impossible team.

Well, put C. Edwards.

Can't one doubt the McCanns' words and still wish them all the best ?
Interesting is the phenomenon, not at all this couple.

[debunker]

The real situation is:

1/ The McCanns have been investigated by two justice systems, the result being that no charges have been brought.
2/ They have rights to privacy and freedom from harassment.
3/ There is a presumption of innocence, both morally and legally.
4/ Defending the above is the rationale of the Pros and supporting the McCann's presumed innocence is legal and moral.
5/ Attacking the McCanns either by proposing that they may be guilty of a crime or just morally doubtful is an attempt to misuse the legally constrained right to free speech. It is a criminal and civil offence if the McCanns wished to push it. This is [ censored word ].

[debunker]

5/ Attacking the McCanns either by proposing that they may be guilty of a crime or just morally doubtful is an attempt to misuse the legally constrained right to free speech.

Why do you do it then?  You have often criticised the McCanns, you even went so far as to call them "morally reprehensible" on STM.

That is fair comment. To some people it is "morally reprehensible". I have a right of free speech which I exercise.

Alleging criminal actions or engaging in any illegal acts of harassment and defamation is illegal.

That is the difference.

Given your background in the print media, you should recognise the difference.

[Matthew Wyse]

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 ?

I haven't noticed this thread previously but it raises a very good point.  From what I have read it would not have been possible for an abductor carrying a two year old to exit via the window of the bedroom.  Could it have been that the abductor was looking for an alternative escaoe route if he was disturbed or was he trying to attract someones attention??

[Matthew Wyse]

I tend to go with the suggestion that a key was used and this opens up many issues about security at that complex.

ps  Hasn't there been other occasions where this had happened??

[Carana]

I tend to go with the suggestion that a key was used and this opens up many issues about security at that complex.

ps  Hasn't there been other occasions where this had happened??

There were several reports of burglaries and some without signs of a break-in. People may have left a window or door unlocked, keys could have been duplicated...

[gavdalf]

maybe a good  question in relation to the window is where was Maddies bed in relation to the window, would said abductor(s) have to moved her past the twins then to pass her or climb out of said window as theories state?

Could someone provide me with the proof that the window was open

Thanks

[debunker]

Oh good grief. We're into fantasy writing here at the moment.  There is NOTHING to back up this frankly rather hysterical conjecture about doors and windows. It was ably demonstrated by the PJ that it was impossible for anyone to have passed through that window. Furthermore a sleeping child could not have been passed through.

THen how do you account for the video shwing a child size manikin being passed through the window?

[Admin]

You can judge for yourself from these original photo's of the scene.

[gavdalf]

Many thanks, I decided to look for myself. that shot is taken 1 way, and from floor plans  and other pictures that isn't her bed, her bed was on the otherside,  from where the photo is took, I would embed for instance the picture from the telegraph, but would not want to impinge copyright etc.

I could of course could be wrong, I only did a quick search so apologies if incorrect

[Luz]

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 ?

There is not a single testimony on the files from any independent testimony stating that the window was opened. For me that was a failed attempt from the Mccs to induce the idea of an abduction.

[DCI]

Madeleine's bed, on the left of pic. Bottom right pic, is the windowsill. That window slides all the way across the other one.



That window is wider than the man standing there. Now you can't tell me, a child couldn't be passed through that, window. The sill is below the wall.

[gavdalf]

Thanks, I had never seen those pictures before, I don't think I did say a child couldn't be passed through, I just wanted to see proof it was open, which I don't think I have unless I missed it and asked another question on the back of the window topic

But based on that, said abductor would have had to stand on the other bed, lent over it to pass her out, or climbed on the bed to get out dependent on 1 or 2 abductor theory from a logical point of view?