The McCanns' Own Words

[rashomon]

Just for clarity, could the window be opened from the outside or just the shutter?

The shutter could only be opened from the inside. I don't know about the window, but imo it is highly unlikely that it could be opened from the outside.

 

[rashomon]

Just for clarity, could the window be opened from the outside or just the shutter?

The shutter could only be opened from the inside.

I don't know about the window, it seemed to have some sliding mechanism but imo it is highly unlikely that it could be opened from the outside. [edited to add: opened from the outside without leaving signs of forced entry]:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
More info on the window :

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]http://www.mccannfiles.com/id266.html
On Martin Brunt's documentary 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann, aired on 24 December 2007, Prof David Barclay, one of Britain's top forensic consultants said: "I think it's impossible for somebody to get in and out, through that window without leaving a forensic trace. Apart from anything else, the window sills in that area are covered in green lichen. The minute you try and scrape over the window sills you would have left marks and we know that the scenes of crime lady, the next morning, was looking for exactly that."

Interestingly, Clarence Mitchell's statement about the McCanns reversal of their 'break in' story, came one week after Dispatches aired the documentary 'Searching For Madeleine', on 18 October 2007. That documentary effectively proved that it was impossible for anybody to break into the apartment and leave no forensic trace or damage to the lightweight aluminium shutters; which are covered with a fine coating of polyurethane paint which marks extremely easily.

They also tested the thumb prints, that showed up under the red dust of the forensic fingerprint powder, and proved the prints came from somebody moving the shutter from inside the apartment.

Again, Prof Dave Barclay said: "We must be very careful that we're not saying this is actually staging but it's difficult to see how anybody could have interefered with those shutters, from outside, without leaving some trace. In fact, having looked at them, I think it's almost impossible."[/FONT]

 

[brit1981]

Rashamon,
the above is not true, look at the files. the window sills did not have an ounce of lichen on them, they were white and smooth. It is clear from the photos. And the shutters and windows could be opened from the inside too. It has been tried and tested. Also in the files the cleaner states she caught journalists trying to get in the bedroom this way so they were able to open it from the outside

But it is a moot point anyway, as there were two other entry points the unlocked patio doors, and the front door which according to previous occupants could be opened from the outside even when it was locked and had the key in it. So for all anyone knows the intruder came in, quickly opened the window and shutter as an emergency escape route, but as they did not need it exited from the front door.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html


The above link shows the windows at the time - no lichen whatsoever.

 

[brit1981]

Fab,
I am not sure which friend it was that asked jane to go back, but jane saw the man at just past nine.

It was a fairly dark street, and Gerry and Jeremy were engrossed in their conversation, so they would not have to have had noticed Jane ( how many times have we been engrossed in soemthing and not noticed someone walking past us a few metres away). But she was able to say she saw Gerry with Jeremy and Jeremy had a child with him.
As for her sighting she said she did not think anything of it at the time apart from thinking the child was barefoot, and was being carried in an odd way. I know if I saw that my first thought would not be that it was a kidnapper especially as lots of parents would have been carrying children after they picked them up from the creche. And she did tell the police as soon as they turned up, who in turn told Gerry. To be honest for all we know it is some guy carrying his own daughter (pale pink pyjamas are going to be fairly common for a little girl) and he did not come forward because he was scared he would suddenly be pounced on by the PJ, media etc.

But my point about the window and shuter is that yes they could both be opened from the inside and outside (there was no lichen), but we have no way of knowing where the person who opened them was, and if they used it. According to the statements some of the tapas nine used the patio doors and others used the front doors to check, so an intruder could not rely on just one door being used. Imagine if he was there and suddenly someone came in the front door, he would have had to have opened the patio doors, then opened two gates to escape which would have slowed him down and witht he commotion he would have been seen by people at the tapas bar. If, however, he spent a minute opening the window and shutter they would have been able to turn into the bedroom and hop out much more quickly into a darkened car park and was much more likely to make a good escape.

There is also the possibility that in actual fact the cleaner had opened the window and shutter earlier in the day to air the room, and has since been too scared to admit this (and you can understand that). Kate said she only noticed the window was opened because of the breeze as the blinds were shut. So it is not impossible that if there had been no breeze earlier, the window could have been opened with no-one noticing.

 

[fabgod]

If we are working on fact based evidence and not possiblity, we are told that the shutters would not stay open if lifted from the outside, they would fall back down.
I still havent seen any evidence that the window can be opened from the outside, only the shutter.

The Police photos show the window closed on the evening and the only identified prints are from Kate McCann on the shutters, there are other prints that cannot be identified.
According to the reports there is no evidence of the windows and/or shutters being forced as was reported early on in the case.

It wouldnt be possible for the window to be closed from the outside so that would eliminate the possibility of an abductor closing them on his/her exit.

So, on evidence, the windows were not a possibility as far as I can see.

Going back to the prints, the unidentifed prints have been checked and came back with no match, this also eliminates the two "suspects" linked to the Yeremi Vargas case as they are both now in prison and would have had their prints checked, (eliminated as far as those prints on the shutter/window.

Therefore the lichen point really plays no part as there is no evidence to bring it into play.

 

[brit1981]

If we are working on fact based evidence and not possiblity, we are told that the shutters would not stay open if lifted from the outside, they would fall back down.
I still havent seen any evidence that the window can be opened from the outside, only the shutter.

The Police photos show the window closed on the evening and the only identified prints are from Kate McCann on the shutters, there are other prints that cannot be identified.
According to the reports there is no evidence of the windows and/or shutters being forced as was reported early on in the case.

It wouldnt be possible for the window to be closed from the outside so that would eliminate the possibility of an abductor closing them on his/her exit.

So, on evidence, the windows were not a possibility as far as I can see.

Going back to the prints, the unidentifed prints have been checked and came back with no match, this also eliminates the two "suspects" linked to the Yeremi Vargas case as they are both now in prison and would have had their prints checked, (eliminated as far as those prints on the shutter/window.

Therefore the lichen point really plays no part as there is no evidence to bring it into play.

The reports about the shutter being forced where media reports not police or the mccanns (they also reported that cuddle cta was put on a high shelf when there was no such shelf!). But shutters like this can stay open once opened from the outside, as far as I am aware it is the same mechanism as when they are opened from the inside.

The two suspects in the Yeremi vargas case are in prison in Scotland so would not automatically have their fingerprints checked against a case in another EU country. There is no EU wide database. As far as I am aware the police have never stated whether their fingerprints were checked or not.

The police did not take photos that evening, only the next day and the shutters were down then for fingerprinting.

Witnesses say the window was open in the flat, so someone at some point opened it and did not close it behind them.

But again it makes no difference whether it was opened from the outside or inside, both could have been done by an abductor. There is no reason to suspect that an abductor could not have opened the window and shutter from the inisde anyway. I lean towards this as it was less risky than opening then from the outside and would only take less than a minute to do from the inside.

these are the things we know about the security of the flat:

There were no signs of forced entry into the other flats when someone broke in there.

The patio doors where unlocked.

After the patio doors there were two gates which where both on the latch according to Kate when she checked the flat.

The front door could be opened from the outside without a key even when it was locked and the key in the lock according to previous occupants.

The front door and bedroom window looked onto a darkened and secluded car park and the patio door did not have good liighting and was secluded by shubbery.

As for the window, there was no lichen, but there is no way of telling whether it was opened from the inside or outside, or even if an intruder opened it at all. As i said before kate said she only realised it was open because of the breeze, could it have been opened earlier by the cleaner to air the room and no-one noticed as there was no breeze?

 

[fabgod]

Fab,
I am not sure which friend it was that asked jane to go back, but jane saw the man at just past nine.

It was a fairly dark street, and Gerry and Jeremy were engrossed in their conversation, so they would not have to have had noticed Jane ( how many times have we been engrossed in soemthing and not noticed someone walking past us a few metres away). But she was able to say she saw Gerry with Jeremy and Jeremy had a child with him.
As for her sighting she said she did not think anything of it at the time apart from thinking the child was barefoot, and was being carried in an odd way. I know if I saw that my first thought would not be that it was a kidnapper especially as lots of parents would have been carrying children after they picked them up from the creche. And she did tell the police as soon as they turned up, who in turn told Gerry. To be honest for all we know it is some guy carrying his own daughter (pale pink pyjamas are going to be fairly common for a little girl) and he did not come forward because he was scared he would suddenly be pounced on by the PJ, media etc.

But my point about the window and shuter is that yes they could both be opened from the inside and outside (there was no lichen), but we have no way of knowing where the person who opened them was, and if they used it. According to the statements some of the tapas nine used the patio doors and others used the front doors to check, so an intruder could not rely on just one door being used. Imagine if he was there and suddenly someone came in the front door, he would have had to have opened the patio doors, then opened two gates to escape which would have slowed him down and witht he commotion he would have been seen by people at the tapas bar. If, however, he spent a minute opening the window and shutter they would have been able to turn into the bedroom and hop out much more quickly into a darkened car park and was much more likely to make a good escape.

There is also the possibility that in actual fact the cleaner had opened the window and shutter earlier in the day to air the room, and has since been too scared to admit this (and you can understand that). Kate said she only noticed the window was opened because of the breeze as the blinds were shut. So it is not impossible that if there had been no breeze earlier, the window could have been opened with no-one noticing.

Ok here is where it gets interesting,
You tell me that Russell O Brien was caring for the sick child and asked a"friend" to get Jane Tanner to help him.

You also tell me that Jane Tanner went to the apartment at a little after 9

Jane Tanner "sees" the abductor in her statement during that trip at the intersection of the road,

Now according to Jane Tanners interview, 4th May 2007 and the drawing of a map of the locations at the time of the sighting, She states that Gerry McCann and Mr Wilkins were talking on the same side of the road as the Ocean club and standing further away from the entrance to the tapas bar.

This means that Jane Tanner had to walk directly past McCann and Wilkins on the same side of the road, yet they didnt see or acknowledge her?

McCann and Wilkins location also made it impossible for an abductor to have exited by the patio doors, since they were standing almost directly to the side of the apartment.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg

Tanner according to her statements wasnt called back to the apartment, she had rushed her meal and was returning in order to let Russell O Brien go and eat his meal.

Tanner left the tapas bar 5 to 10 minutes after Gerrry McCann had left to do his check on the children which was 9.10pm, this means she left at 9.15 to 9.20pm
According to Tanner she "knew" McCann had already done his check when she passed MCCann and Wilkins in the street

Tanner states that the abductor stepped off the pavement joining the apartment block, 5 metres in front of her,
(This pavement runs approximately 14 metres from end to end of the apartments)
looking at the hand drawn map link provided above, Tanners location is 14 metres (almost 46 feet) to the end of the street where she says she saw the "abductor" step off the kerb (3 times the distance she told the police)

She later was quoted in the Sun newspaper as saying it was 10 to fifteen feet

46 feet in poor lighting at night, (the lighting has since been improved) yet Jane Tanner could identify a floral pattern and possibly the colour of the pyjamas of the little girl he was carrying and give a description of the mans clothes down to his shoes and the way he walked at the same time as noticing the child being barefoot, yet she couldnt explain how McCann and Wilkins were standing when she walked within feet of them seconds earlier.



Returning to the positioning of McCann/Wilkins,
as Jane Tanner walked by them, she indicates they are standing on the pavement, they can only be looking in 4 directions,
1 down the road towards the Tapas entrance
2. up the road towards eventual sighting of abductor with child
3.To the apartment wall
4. in to the road
The only position in which they would not see Jane tanner is facing the wal (3)l, both of them, so they wouldnt be looking at each other whilst engrossed in conversation, so engrossed they not only miss their friend Jane Tanner but also the abductor leaving the apartment they are standing at the side of and Gerry McCann had visited in the 5 minutes previously
The same woman then does not inform the parents upon finding out Madeleine is missing, for fear of shattering their world?

In my opinion and from the facts presented by Jane Tanner, her statement is very questionable

 

[fabgod]

The reports about the shutter being forced where media reports not police or the mccanns (they also reported that cuddle cta was put on a high shelf when there was no such shelf!). But shutters like this can stay open once opened from the outside, as far as I am aware it is the same mechanism as when they are opened from the inside.

The two suspects in the Yeremi vargas case are in prison in Scotland so would not automatically have their fingerprints checked against a case in another EU country. There is no EU wide database. As far as I am aware the police have never stated whether their fingerprints were checked or not.

The police did not take photos that evening, only the next day and the shutters were down then for fingerprinting.

Witnesses say the window was open in the flat, so someone at some point opened it and did not close it behind them.

But again it makes no difference whether it was opened from the outside or inside, both could have been done by an abductor. There is no reason to suspect that an abductor could not have opened the window and shutter from the inisde anyway. I lean towards this as it was less risky than opening then from the outside and would only take less than a minute to do from the inside.

these are the things we know about the security of the flat:

There were no signs of forced entry into the other flats when someone broke in there.

The patio doors where unlocked.

After the patio doors there were two gates which where both on the latch according to Kate when she checked the flat.

The front door could be opened from the outside without a key even when it was locked and the key in the lock according to previous occupants.

The front door and bedroom window looked onto a darkened and secluded car park and the patio door did not have good liighting and was secluded by shubbery.

As for the window, there was no lichen, but there is no way of telling whether it was opened from the inside or outside, or even if an intruder opened it at all. As i said before kate said she only realised it was open because of the breeze, could it have been opened earlier by the cleaner to air the room and no-one noticed as there was no breeze?

Regarding the fingerprints and the europe wide database, you are very keen on stating that Scotland Yard are reviewing the case, the two persons are in jail in Scotland, if they are or were suspects I think its safe to say the prints will have been checked.

There are no witness reports from anyone I have found especially in the Tapas group of friends that can say the windows were opened prior to the "event" only Kate McCann.
As much as you feel you should believe Kate and Gerrys accounts, we have to concede that they have been suspects in the case and therefore their testimony, should be viewed with an open mind and not as gospel.

On that basis, There is no evidence of the windows or shutters being opened, which only leaves the doors.

According to the timefames allowed and if Jane Tanners sighting is to be considered as you seem to be relying on,

Gerry McCann saw Madeleine after 9.10pm and Jane Tanner "knew" that McCann had checked on the children when she passed him on the street between 5 and 10 minutes later,

Allowing a couple of minutes for McCann to enter the apartment check the children and then leave, then add a couple of minutes for him to become so engrossed in conversation with MrWilkins that he didnt see Jane Tanner walk directly past him on the same side of a sleep town street,

that would leave around 5 minutes for the abductor to open the windows and shutters, pick up Madeleine, walk out through the front door or climb out from the window with the child in his/her arms, then hang around at the top of the street until he/she looks down the road and sees 3 people within as Jane Tanner states 5 metres but as we know more likely 14/15 metres and then decides to walk across the road in plain sight, instead of either waiting for it to become quiet or go the other way which was secluded?

None of the hypothesis you present her as being the way it happened, adds up does it Brit?
5 years and not one part of your theory really holds water, just as much as the family involvement doesnt to you!

 

[brit1981]

nnnnnnnn

Ok here is where it gets interesting,
You tell me that Russell O Brien was caring for the sick child and asked a"friend" to get Jane Tanner to help him.

No, I repeated what you had said about a friend getting jane, all I said was that i did not know who the friend was when you asked.
You also tell me that Jane Tanner went to the apartment at a little after 9

She left to go to her flat at after nine


Jane Tanner "sees" the abductor in her statement during that trip at the intersection of the road,

She said she saw a man with a small child. She did not know if it was the abductor, and it is simply because no-one has come forward to say it was them that it is assumed it was an abductor.

Now according to Jane Tanners interview, 4th May 2007 and the drawing of a map of the locations at the time of the sighting, She states that Gerry McCann and Mr Wilkins were talking on the same side of the road as the Ocean club and standing further away from the entrance to the tapas bar.

This means that Jane Tanner had to walk directly past McCann and Wilkins on the same side of the road, yet they didnt see or acknowledge her?

First Gerry says they were on the other side of the road, they disagreed with each other about that. But to be honest people chatting do nto notice other people, especially when it is dark. You are engrossed in your coversation not paying attention to people walking by.
besides people saw her leave the table and tapas bar at that point, and Jeremy confirms he was talking to Gerry at this point, so if jane was not walkign past them where did she go, and why? The only place she could have gone is in the opposite direction which makes no sense.

McCann and Wilkins location also made it impossible for an abductor to have exited by the patio doors, since they were standing almost directly to the side of the flat.

No-one said anyone did leave by the patio doors. The front door makes more sense as it was more secluded. besides jane's description matches someone coming from the car park not the path in front of the patio.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg

Tanner according to her statements wasnt called back to the apartment, she had rushed her meal and was returning in order to let Russell O Brien go and eat his meal.
I never said she was called back, I just said in reply to you that i did not know who had called her back.

Tanner left the tapas bar 5 to 10 minutes after Gerrry McCann had left to do his check on the children which was 9.10pm, this means she left at 9.15 to 9.20pm
According to Tanner she "knew" McCann had already done his check when she passed MCCann and Wilkins in the street

Well she could make a good bet based on the timings
Tanner states that the abductor stepped off the pavement joining the apartment block, 5 metres in front of her,
(This pavement runs approximately 14 metres from end to end of the apartments)
looking at the hand drawn map link provided above, Tanners location is 14 metres (almost 46 feet) to the end of the street where she says she saw the "abductor" step off the kerb (3 times the distance she told the police)

She later was quoted in the Sun newspaper as saying it was 10 to fifteen feet

46 feet in poor lighting at night, (the lighting has since been improved) yet Jane Tanner could identify a floral pattern and possibly the colour of the pyjamas of the little girl he was carrying and give a description of the mans clothes down to his shoes and the way he walked at the same time as noticing the child being barefoot, yet she couldnt explain how McCann and Wilkins were standing when she walked within feet of them seconds earlier.

If you look at the aerial maps, it was not 46 feet at all.


Returning to the positioning of McCann/Wilkins,
as Jane Tanner walked by them, she indicates they are standing on the pavement, they can only be looking in 4 directions,
1 down the road towards the Tapas entrance
2. up the road towards eventual sighting of abductor with child
3.To the apartment wall
4. in to the road
The only position in which they would not see Jane tanner is facing the wal (3)l, both of them, so they wouldnt be looking at each other whilst engrossed in conversation, so engrossed they not only miss their friend Jane Tanner but also the abductor leaving the apartment they are standing at the side of and Gerry McCann had visited in the 5 minutes previously

If they were standing chatting to each other they would be looking at each other, not over each others shoulder at whoever might be alking past, and why would they be looking up the street. It was not unusual to see people walking about.

The same woman then does not inform the parents upon finding out Madeleine is missing, for fear of shattering their world?
She told the police, who then told Gerry.

In my opinion and from the facts presented by Jane Tanner, her statement is very questionable
can I just ask where did you think she went, and why she leid about seeing Gerry There. She cannot be lying for Gerry as he says he did notsee her, and everyone at the table says they saw her leave. So where did she go, and why lie, and if she did nto go anywhere, why is everyone lying for her except from gerry?[/quote]

 

[brit1981]

nnnnnnnnnn

Regarding the fingerprints and the europe wide database, you are very keen on stating that Scotland Yard are reviewing the case, the two persons are in jail in Scotland, if they are or were suspects I think its safe to say the prints will have been checked.

You cannot just make that assumption. besides as far as I am aware scotland yard are just reviewing the evidence. There is no EU wide database of fingerprints
There are no witness reports from anyone I have found especially in the Tapas group of friends that can say the windows were opened prior to the "event" only Kate McCann.
As much as you feel you should believe Kate and Gerrys accounts, we have to concede that they have been suspects in the case and therefore their testimony, should be viewed with an open mind and not as gospel.

True, but people did see the window open just after regardless of who opened it. You had made a comment about it being closed from the outside, and I was pointing out it did not matter if it could be closed from the outside because it had certainly be opened, and not closed.
On that basis, There is no evidence of the windows or shutters being opened, which only leaves the doors.

They were opened when people came into the flat so someone at some point had opened them. But again we have no idea if the intruder used the open window, or even if he did open them. It is not impossible like I said before the cleaner opened them to air the room.
According to the time frames allowed and if Jane Tanners sighting is to be considered as you seem to be relying on,

No i am not relying on it, I said for all we know it could be a father and daughter and the father is too scared to come forward. How does that imply I am relying on it?
Gerry McCann saw Madeleine after 9.10pm and Jane Tanner "knew" that McCann had checked on the children when she passed him on the street between 5 and 10 minutes later,

She could make a good guess from the timings.

Allowing a couple of minutes for McCann to enter the apartment check the children and then leave, then add a couple of minutes for him to become so engrossed in conversation with MrWilkins that he didnt see Jane Tanner walk directly past him on the same side of a sleep town street,

that would leave around 5 minutes for the abductor to open the windows and shutters, pick up Madeleine, walk out through the front door or climb out from the window with the child in his/her arms, then hang around at the top of the street until he/she looks down the road and sees 3 people within as Jane Tanner states 5 metres but as we know more likely 14/15 metres and then decides to walk across the road in plain sight, instead of either waiting for it to become quiet or go the other way which was secluded?

None of the hypothesis you present her as being the way it happened, adds up does it Brit?
5 years and not one part of your theory really holds water, just as much as the family involvement doesnt to you!

Not really. firstly we do not know when the window was opened. gerry said the door was further ajar when he went in, and there was a breeze, so for all anyone knows it could already have been opened. If the blinds were down it would not be noticed that it was open unless the blinds move din the breeze. Gerry had spent several minutes talking to jeremy, so the intruder had more like ten minutes to take madeleine, and that is making the assumption that Jane did see the abductor, and at the moment we really have no idea if she did or not as she said she could only say it was a young child in pale pyjamas.

But we do know there were three exits from the flat, unlocked patio doors, front door with dodgy security, and the windows. I do not think the window was used, and if an intruder did open it it was only as an emergency escape route. The other intrusions had left no trace of forced entry, so why would 5A be different? There were also cases within an hours distance of someone breaking into holiday flats and abusing tourist children, I wonder how he got in?

I am not really sure how my theory that someone could have walked in and out of unlocked doors does not hold water. walking in and out of unlocked doors is the normal way to enter a flat[/quote]

 

[gord]

so Fabgod - you seem so sure that it was not an abductor.iI would be very intersted to hear your theory on what did happen - It is pretty clear from your tone that you think the Mccans are involved -

It is very easy to rubbish others views - so I would be interested in how you think the Mccanns did it and who else was involved

 

[fabgod]

so Fabgod - you seem so sure that it was not an abductor.iI would be very intersted to hear your theory on what did happen - It is pretty clear from your tone that you think the Mccans are involved -

It is very easy to rubbish others views - so I would be interested in how you think the Mccanns did it and who else was involved

Hi Gord, no, from my tone it isnt clear that I think the McCanns did anything apart from leave the children unattended from which somehting may have happened.
My angle is that even after all the interviews, there is nothing and that means nothing Gord, that leads us to suspect that either there is or isnt involvement from anyone.

That is the reason I am so interested in the case, I have followed it from the start and have remained interested ever since.

It is very intersting to see that you say i am rubbishing others views, my points as far as I can tell are all responses to other posts and making valid points,
I certainly havent put out any theories anywhere about the McCanns hurting their child or worse, maybe you need to have a look at my posts before accusing me eh?

Finally, as above, my interest is trying to find that one thing that may lead to a resolution to this case, I very much doubt I will find it and only through questioning the events and the information available to us, will that ever be possible.
Unfortunately, some people sem to be against such questioning and discussion, but hey, thats how it is!

 

[brit1981]

so Fabgod - you seem so sure that it was not an abductor.iI would be very intersted to hear your theory on what did happen - It is pretty clear from your tone that you think the Mccans are involved -

It is very easy to rubbish others views - so I would be interested in how you think the Mccanns did it and who else was involved

Exactly, how do you think madeleine was taken, who by and who is lying?

And given that the flat had at least two entrances that were unsecure (both doors), why can a stranger not have got in and taken madeleine?
You said we had to look at the facts, not come up with possibilities so what facts are you looking at that dismisses an intruder walking through an unlocked door?

 

[fabgod]

nnnnnnnnnn

Regarding the fingerprints and the europe wide database, you are very keen on stating that Scotland Yard are reviewing the case, the two persons are in jail in Scotland, if they are or were suspects I think its safe to say the prints will have been checked.

You cannot just make that assumption. besides as far as I am aware scotland yard are just reviewing the evidence. There is no EU wide database of fingerprints
There are no witness reports from anyone I have found especially in the Tapas group of friends that can say the windows were opened prior to the "event" only Kate McCann.
As much as you feel you should believe Kate and Gerrys accounts, we have to concede that they have been suspects in the case and therefore their testimony, should be viewed with an open mind and not as gospel.

True, but people did see the window open just after regardless of who opened it. You had made a comment about it being closed from the outside, and I was pointing out it did not matter if it could be closed from the outside because it had certainly be opened, and not closed.
On that basis, There is no evidence of the windows or shutters being opened, which only leaves the doors.

They were opened when people came into the flat so someone at some point had opened them. But again we have no idea if the intruder used the open window, or even if he did open them. It is not impossible like I said before the cleaner opened them to air the room.
According to the time frames allowed and if Jane Tanners sighting is to be considered as you seem to be relying on,

No i am not relying on it, I said for all we know it could be a father and daughter and the father is too scared to come forward. How does that imply I am relying on it?
Gerry McCann saw Madeleine after 9.10pm and Jane Tanner "knew" that McCann had checked on the children when she passed him on the street between 5 and 10 minutes later,

She could make a good guess from the timings.

Allowing a couple of minutes for McCann to enter the apartment check the children and then leave, then add a couple of minutes for him to become so engrossed in conversation with MrWilkins that he didnt see Jane Tanner walk directly past him on the same side of a sleep town street,

that would leave around 5 minutes for the abductor to open the windows and shutters, pick up Madeleine, walk out through the front door or climb out from the window with the child in his/her arms, then hang around at the top of the street until he/she looks down the road and sees 3 people within as Jane Tanner states 5 metres but as we know more likely 14/15 metres and then decides to walk across the road in plain sight, instead of either waiting for it to become quiet or go the other way which was secluded?

None of the hypothesis you present her as being the way it happened, adds up does it Brit?
5 years and not one part of your theory really holds water, just as much as the family involvement doesnt to you!

Not really. firstly we do not know when the window was opened. gerry said the door was further ajar when he went in, and there was a breeze, so for all anyone knows it could already have been opened. If the blinds were down it would not be noticed that it was open unless the blinds move din the breeze. Gerry had spent several minutes talking to jeremy, so the intruder had more like ten minutes to take madeleine, and that is making the assumption that Jane did see the abductor, and at the moment we really have no idea if she did or not as she said she could only say it was a young child in pale pyjamas.

But we do know there were three exits from the flat, unlocked patio doors, front door with dodgy security, and the windows. I do not think the window was used, and if an intruder did open it it was only as an emergency escape route. The other intrusions had left no trace of forced entry, so why would 5A be different? There were also cases within an hours distance of someone breaking into holiday flats and abusing tourist children, I wonder how he got in?

I am not really sure how my theory that someone could have walked in and out of unlocked doors does not hold water. walking in and out of unlocked doors is the normal way to enter a flat[/quote]

Not really getting anywhere on this are we?
for me from what I can see in the files, the windows are questionable as to whether it came into play.
The patio door cannot be used if McCann/Wilkins are outside so that leaves the front door, this then implies that the abductor closed the door on exit, which would be a bit awkward to do with a child in his arms and it not being his priority.

Re the abductor being already in the apartment, it is possible, but so is everything else, there is also the mention that the shutters were noisy?
apart from the children being woken, other people would have heard?

Oh by the way, I am seeing a message that thinks I am rubbishing your posts (i presume its your posts as you are the one I am in correspondence with)
personally, I would say you are rubbishing my posts lol, but let me know if I am out of order as far as you are concerned?

 

[brit1981]

Hi Gord, no, from my tone it isnt clear that I think the McCanns did anything apart from leave the children unattended from which somehting may have happened.
My angle is that even after all the interviews, there is nothing and that means nothing Gord, that leads us to suspect that either there is or isnt involvement from anyone.

That is the reason I am so interested in the case, I have followed it from the start and have remained interested ever since.

It is very intersting to see that you say i am rubbishing others views, my points as far as I can tell are all responses to other posts and making valid points,
I certainly havent put out any theories anywhere about the McCanns hurting their child or worse, maybe you need to have a look at my posts before accusing me eh?

Finally, as above, my interest is trying to find that one thing that may lead to a resolution to this case, I very much doubt I will find it and only through questioning the events and the information available to us, will that ever be possible.
Unfortunately, some people sem to be against such questioning and discussion, but hey, thats how it is!

You are being a bit rubbishing of other people who have made valid points , and ignoring what they say.
For instance I claim that jane Tanner may just have seen a man carrying his own child, your response is to say I am using jane Tanners sighting to rely on?

You claimed that the window could not be closed from the outside, I pointed out that it did nto matter since whoever last opened it (be it an intruder, a cleaner or Kate) did not close it anyway)

You have said that the only way peopel do nto notice those walking near them is if they have their backs to them, but I pointed out that in actual fact if you are engrossed in a conversation you do not notice people walking near you, especially int he dark.

You also to back up your idea that jane is lying need to explain why, and why seven other people backed up h er lie by saying she left the table or if she did leave the table where she went? And if she did not see Gerry and Jeremy, then only Gerry could have told her about the conversation, so why woudl he deny seeing her if he wanted her to lie?

 

[brit1981]

nnnnnnnnnn

Not really getting anywhere on this are we?
for me from what I can see in the files, the windows are questionable as to whether it came into play.
The patio door cannot be used if McCann/Wilkins are outside so that leaves the front door, this then implies that the abductor closed the door on exit, which would be a bit awkward to do with a child in his arms and it not being his priority.

Re the abductor being already in the apartment, it is possible, but so is everything else, there is also the mention that the shutters were noisy?
apart from the children being woken, other people would have heard?

Oh by the way, I am seeing a message that thinks I am rubbishing your posts (i presume its your posts as you are the one I am in correspondence with)
personally, I would say you are rubbishing my posts lol, but let me know if I am out of order as far as you are concerned?

I have never heard the shutters were noisy. But i agree they could just be a red herring. I really think if a cleaner had opened them and there was no breeze no-one woudl have noticed them open so long as the blinds were shut. But I can see why the cleaner might not tell people she left them open, she might have lost her job and been accused of beign involved. It would be terrifying.

The front door could easily have been used, and why nto close it. It gives you extra time before beign noticed, and for most peopel it is automatic to close a door behind you regardless of whether you have a child in your arms or not.

I have also accused you of rubbishing my posts, think that was a bit harsh of me to be honest. Sorry. But about jane Tanner, can you see my point about it being a rather elaborate lie if she is lying?
I tend to go for the simplist explaination. We had a complex thta had been broekn into before, the front door was not secure, so i think someone walked in and out with madeleine.

 

[fabgod]

Exactly, how do you think madeleine was taken, who by and who is lying?

And given that the flat had at least two entrances that were unsecure (both doors), why can a stranger not have got in and taken madeleine?
You said we had to look at the facts, not come up with possibilities so what facts are you looking at that dismisses an intruder walking through an unlocked door?

Brit, see the post above re the exits and entrances.

If I knew what had happened to Madeleine, trust me, everyone would know by now.
I have never known a case as complex with as many dead ends false leads misinformation and so on.

As I have been trying to tell you, as far as I can see, there is no definite evidence in any direction of involvement from anyone.

I think it is wrong to accuse someone of harming a child without evidence of that accusation, but I think it is fair to comment on the case as a great part of it has been released for public consumption.

I think it is fair to say that Kate and Gerry McCann were wrong to leave the children, its very sad to think that a child has disappeared completely because of those actions and I also think you are right, many people do or did very similar in leaving children whilst thinking it was safe to do so.

The fact of the matter is, it wasnt safe as proven by events, I dont agree with the "its legal" thought, just because it is legal doesnt mean its right and events proved it wasnt right.

I personally feel that that way of dealing with events is wrong, it is antagonistic as is using Carter Ruck et al, Hindsight is a wonderful thing but ultimately pointless, but in hindsight, I wish that the McCanns would have shown more humility as to the leaving the children thing, i feel it would have kept more people on side as they were right at the start, maybe it was bad PR but it didnt do them any favours in my opinion.

 

[fabgod]

Brit, Ok, before you tell me I am rubbishing others opinions, tell me where I said the window couldnt be closed from the outside?
I asked for clarity if the windows could be opened from the outside!

Regards Jane Tanners statement, I am not saying 7 other people lied at all, I am not questioning her leaving the table or checking on her children, its a witness statement!

Do you think the police believe every word that is spoken to them, do they not, look at that information, cross reference it, see what fits and what doesnt?

Its no use trying to look at a case if we cannot question anything in that case, its pointless,
How many criminals must have said "I didnt do it"? yet were convicted of that very crime?

I am looking at Jane Tanners statements because they are the only statements that mention the abductor, Jane Tanner is a close friend of KAte McCann who was a suspect or arguida in the case.
There is a possibility that Jane Tanner saw exactly what she said at that time, but for me the statements and susbsequent interviews cast doubt on it having happened exactly that way.

I cannot see how McCAnn/Wilkins did not see Jane Tanner walk past them on a quiet evening, on the same side of the road and that is from statements, not from arguments between them.

 

[brit1981]

I think the fact it was legal is relevant as some people have claimed that the mccanns are involved criminally, and that their motive was to avoid being charged with neglect.

I do not think using carter ruck is wrong either as they have used it in relatively few case, and these have been extreme. It is one thing for someone to say "well i think the parents did it", but another to make up facts (i.e tell outright lies) to back up this theory. If someone is going to go around telling outright lies and then claim that their lies prove a persons involvement then that person can expect to find a court order against them. Especially when they come to your home.

I think most people are on their side, in so much as they feel sorry for them and do not think they were involved. kate was made an ambassador for a missing person's charity, and when soemone started a petition to remove her it did not get many names, and most of these were fake (celebrity names etc), whilst the petition to review the case the mccanns set up got tens upon tens of thousands of names within hours.

 

[Donjeta]

The best thing she could do as an ambassador for missing children would be to campaign for making it illegal in the future to leave your small toddlers alone because I do not see how it differs from neglect.