So how did the abductor enter and leave the apartment?

[Redblossom]

So now you are accusing an independent witness of inventing stories Red?   Where will it end? 

Sorry Angelo, but you are wrong, I didnt say nor infer any such thing. You misread my post and assumed that because I said I didnt seen an abuction happening at the time they insist it must have done, that I accused anyone there at the time of lying.

[icabodcrane]

To address the substance of the thread, on the assuption that an abduction occured,  we should look at all possibilites of how an abductor might have entered and exited

We do so on the basis of the evidence available :

The patio doors were closed,  but unlocked

The shutters and window were wide open,  but curtains closed

The front door was closed  (  locked  ?  )

The forensic evidence suggest no-one climbed either in, or out of the open window 

So,  lets take each possibility in turn:

1)   The abductor entered through the open doors,  and exited the same way with the child in his arms

2)  The abductor entered through the patio doors and exited through the front door with the child in his arms

3)  The abductor had a duplicate key and entered through the front door,  and left the same way with the child       in his arms

4)  The abductor had a duplicate key and entered through the front door and exited through the patio doors with     the child in his arms

5  )  The abductor entered through the patio doors and passed the child through the window to an accomplice,     then exited via the front door empty handed

6 )  The abductor had a duplicate key and entered through the front door,   passed the child through the window to an accomplice and exited  through the patio doors empty handed

There are no other possibilites

Speaking for myself,  I think every one of those possibilites raises questions and doubts

[Angelo222]

Sorry Angelo, but you are wrong, I didnt say nor infer any such thing. You misread my post and assumed that because I said I didnt seen an abuction happening at the time they insist it must have done, that I accused anyone there at the time of lying.

Did you not post the following??

The whole Jane Tanner, Jez Wilkins chatting at the side whilst Madeleine is being abducted just does not ring true or right.

So you are calling Jez Wilkins a liar too?

[Redblossom]

When it comes to fingerprints on the window - one would expect (as this was important) that the cleaners would have been specifically asked by the PJ if they had cleaned the windows,  and if so, when.        I have not come across a statement which throws any light on this.    Has anyone else? Why would they? What differende would it make?

Kate and Gerry closed the shutters and window the day they arrived and left them like that for the rest of the week - and so Kate's fingerprints could have been there since that time. Sure

Most people open windows by using the handle, so it's not that surprising if no other prints were found on the actual window pane.     On the other hand  Kate had been in that apartment for 6 days, and so it would not be at all surprising to find her fingerprints anywhere - especially in the children's bedroom  IMO. Sure

Were the window handles forensically tested? Of course they were

[Angelo222]

Sorry but you are so wrong. 

This forum prides itself on exploring and reporting the facts which eventually lead to the truth as has already been seen in cases such as Bamber, Proud, Hall and Craigie to name but some. 

We are not interested in fantasy theories or bizarre speculations.  The truth never changes, only some peoples perspective of it!

Its silly season again       All the potty theories come back to roost.   

[Redblossom]

Did you not post the following??

So you are calling Jez Wilkins a liar too?

yes, I posted that obviously, and no, I wasnt calling him a liar. I meant the whole scene of an abduction taking place at exactly the same time as Gerry just doing his check and sitting outside talking to a friend and another friend coming up the road does not ring right, if it was so masterly planned and they were being watched, this would not have happened IMO! the coast would have to be totally clear and no risks being taken to being spotted. I explained it all in my original post, thats all.


ETa thanks Icab below, thats exactly it.

[icabodcrane]

Did you not post the following??

So you are calling Jez Wilkins a liar too?

I think Redbloosom may be suggesting that an  'abduction'  just happened to be taking place at the exact time  Gerry just happened to be with  an entirely independent witness   ...  that is what seems   almost too  'convient'  and therefore questionable 

[Redblossom]

Sorry but you are so wrong. 

This forum prides itself on exploring and reporting the facts which eventually lead to the truth as has already been seen in cases such as Bamber, Proud, Hall and Craigie to name but some. 

We are not interested in fantasy theories or bizarre speculations.  The truth never changes, only some peoples perspective of it!

Only no truth has been established in this case to date, I wonder what happened to it, will it end up another lord lucan?

[AnneGuedes]

will it end up another lord lucan?

I'm afraid it will try to impose as the only politically correct resolution, but times have changed..

[Jazzy]

Only no truth has been established in this case to date, I wonder what happened to it, will it end up another lord lucan?

Scotland Yard's version of their investigation isn't the truth?

How many times have we been regaled by the "truth" on fora? You yourself, amongst others regularly regurgitate the "facts", dogs don't lie, dna in a hire car, none of it establishes anything that even comes near the "truth".

The truth is, as is correct, the parents of a missing child were investigated, no evidence was found, the Portoguese Attorney General said as much, Scotland Yard reinforced it. That's not good enough for the keyboard detectives though.

The truth is a child is missing, whatever happened, she needs to be found. I think that is the only truth anyone would need.

[sadie]

To address the substance of the thread, on the assuption that an abduction occured,  we should look at all possibilites of how an abductor might have entered and exited

The shutters and window were wide open,  but curtains closed[/[/color]

Rubbish!  Why are you blatently making things up Icabod?

1)   The abductor entered through the open doors,  and exited the same way with the child in his arms

2)  The abductor entered through the patio doors and exited through the front door with the child in his arms

3)  The abductor had a duplicate key and entered through the front door,  and left the same way with the child       in his arms

4)  The abductor had a duplicate key and entered through the front door and exited through the patio doors with     the child in his arms

5  )  The abductor entered through the patio doors and passed the child through the window to an accomplice,     then exited via the front door empty handed

6 )  The abductor had a duplicate key and entered through the front door,   passed the child through the window to an accomplice and exited  through the patio doors empty handed

There are no other possibilites

You are wrong Icabod, there are 9 possible combinations.  But exiting by the patio doors is clearly a non -runner, when Gerry and Jez were talking nearby and Jane witnessed Bundleman on JT corner.

THE FRONT DOOR was used, in and out ... almost without doubt.  It was a gift to someone with a key and the whole process would be over in a flash

[sadie]

because of my long posts + a multitude of little ?obfuscating? posts on some other matters, this worthwhile post by Benice got swamped out. so

BUMPED


Reply #47 on: July 13, 2013, 12:38:49 AM »QuoteQuote from: Redblossom on July 12, 2013, 06:45:11 PM

- Five prints (Kates) were identified, not one.
- Windows get cleaned regularly so there will be no dozens of different prints at any one stage, and if there were are you also suggesting thry were wiped by the forensics lady?? i hope not LOL. no one said they touched the window that night except for Kate, BUT the only oddity is that Gerry told the maintenance manager that he had shut the window, because it was cold for the other children sleeping,but none of his prints were found but its very possible he took care and used some material so as not to contaminate evidence any further 
- The shutters will not have prints on them ordinarily as they are opened and closed without touching them at all,from a pulley mechanism from inside the flat
- Re unusable prints, none were on the window of the kids bedroom, three were on the outside of the shutters,but they are accounted for by Gerry and Diane webster testing the shutters, I believe the much used patio door glass had a few though, unusable ones that is, but as I said earlier, all were mentioned in the fingerprints report, useable or not, along with their locations

Edited
When it comes to fingerprints on the window - one would expect (as this was important) that the cleaners would have been specifically asked by the PJ if they had cleaned the windows,  and if so, when.        I have not come across a statement which throws any light on this.    Has anyone else?

Kate and Gerry closed the shutters and window the day they arrived and left them like that for the rest of the week - and so Kate's fingerprints could have been there since that time.

Most people open windows by using the handle, so it's not that surprising if no other prints were found on the actual window pane.     On the other hand  Kate had been in that apartment for 6 days, and so it would not be at all surprising to find her fingerprints anywhere - especially in the children's bedroom  IMO.

Were the window handles forensically tested? 

[John]

The scene of crimes woman who swabbed the window and shutter obviously ignored the smudged useless prints.

[sadie]

The scene of crimes woman who swabbed the window and shutter obviously ignored the smudged useless prints.

Cos there must have been dozens of other prints, dont you think John?

[John]

Cos there must have been dozens of other prints, dont you think John?

Yes, that is my experience.  There will always be prints in varying states of degradation or decay.  A trained SOCO knows what to lift and what not to.