Was the open window and the lifted shutters simply a ruse?

[Benice]

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.




 

[John]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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

[Benice]

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?

[stephen25000]

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.

[Chinagirl]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[sadie]

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.
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 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.



 >@@(*&) >@@(*&) >@@(*&)

[stephen25000]

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.
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 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.

[icabodcrane]

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   

[icabodcrane]

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  ?     

[DCI]

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!

[Benice]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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  ? 

[icabodcrane]

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  ? )