Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

by T4two 18.02.12 23:12

Was the roller shutter in the video demonstration the shutter on the window of 5a and was it the same shutter that was there when Madeleine was allegedly abducted May 3 2007?

by Guest 18.02.12 23:14

So the abductor came armed with a piece of wood. Of course it would have to be exactly the right length, he couldn't get his saw out and start cutting it there could he. Too long and it wouldn't fit the gap, too short and the blind go not be raised high enough. And where did this piece of wood go. Did he carry it away with him holding Madeleine out in front of him. If he threw it aside, then the PJ would have found it. Not forgetting of course it would have marked the blinds, and the sill.

by wgbrother 18.02.12 23:14

T4two wrote:Was the roller shutter in the video demonstration the shutter on the window of 5a and was it the same shutter that was there when Madeleine was allegedly abducted May 3 2007?

Are you thinking that Pat Brown might have made a blunder and is profiling the present (which could be very different) and not the situation as it was in 2007 the same way she did with the lighting and the trees?

by wgbrother 18.02.12 23:17

candyfloss wrote:So the abductor came armed with a piece of wood. Of course it would have to be exactly the right length, he couldn't get his saw out and start cutting it there could he. Too long and it wouldn't fit the gap, too short and the blind go not be raised high enough. And where did this piece of wood go. Did he carry it away with him holding Madeleine out in front of him. If he threw it aside, then the PJ would have found it. Not forgetting of course it would have marked the blinds, and the sill.

Wood doesn't mark metal or stone very easily. Sorry to burst that bubble.
And are you forgetting that the abductor is suspected of having been in the area before and would have had the opportunity to recce the place. The wood would not need to be a precise length. Six inches either way would make little difference. And yes he could have carried it away. That might go some way to accounting for his odd carrying position.

by wgbrother 18.02.12 23:19

Nina wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
Nina wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:
Nina wrote:I have shutters at every window small to large and every glass door in my house. I have tried alone, 5 feet 1 and 69 years old to raise them from the outside. Impossible. I have tried with hubby, 5 feet 9 and 79 years old, together and only possible one on each side and the need to prop with bricks. For every inch we raised them they groaned, as we did, and they needed props.

The man on the picture is younger and stronger. I cannot see a video, just the still of him holding the raised shutter. So may I ask, did he let go and it stay up, or, did he let go and it crash down?

These shutters are security shutters. My house insurance clearly states that if I have not got shutters then the premium is raised, that is because they prevent break ins. So in a built up area like PdL any attempt at break in imo would be noisy and in need of more than one person or something to prop the window up.

Hi Nina.

The shutters could be pulled up about 3/4 of height but as PM took his hand away the shutters immediately fell back again.

Gillyspot, thankyou for replying to me. So Pat has shown that an entry from outside using the window shutters is an impossibility.

Not at all. The simplest tool known to man, a stick of wood would wedge the shutters up as long as anybody needed them wedged open. And if discarded later it wouldn't arouse the slightest suspicion and depending on how rough it was wouldn't hold fingerprints either.

The man in the video raised the shutters very, very easily. They aren't security shutters though but the light ones which are designed to keep the place cool and shaded. There is no locking device on them.

Two props actually, one on each edge. And how does he wedge it whilst holding up the weight of the shutters with both hands, with his teeth?

Why two props? One just off centre on the non-opening side would be plenty.

by Guest 18.02.12 23:21

wgbrother wrote:
candyfloss wrote:So the abductor came armed with a piece of wood. Of course it would have to be exactly the right length, he couldn't get his saw out and start cutting it there could he. Too long and it wouldn't fit the gap, too short and the blind go not be raised high enough. And where did this piece of wood go. Did he carry it away with him holding Madeleine out in front of him. If he threw it aside, then the PJ would have found it. Not forgetting of course it would have marked the blinds, and the sill.

Wood doesn't mark metal or stone very easily. Sorry to burst that bubble.
And are you forgetting that the abductor is suspected of having been in the area before and would have had the opportunity to recce the place. The wood would not need to be a precise length. Six inches either way would make little difference. And yes he could have carried it away. That might go some way to accounting for his odd carrying position.

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpHCvOpMfnK4LOPb82DrdX4yryRdFG-5xr-hN8FeMqmO8HGh3Z

by Nina 18.02.12 23:22

candyfloss wrote:So the abductor came armed with a piece of wood. Of course it would have to be exactly the right length, he couldn't get his saw out and start cutting it there could he. Too long and it wouldn't fit the gap, too short and the blind go not be raised high enough. And where did this piece of wood go. Did he carry it away with him holding Madeleine out in front of him. If he threw it aside, then the PJ would have found it. Not forgetting of course it would have marked the blinds, and the sill.

Hi Candyfloss. Two pieces of wood Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 2 302873

, one for each side or the whole lot will collapse as soon as let go of. Then with Madeleine laid across his arms like a roll of lino he removed the two pieces of exaclty equal lengths, again with his teeth and let them drop to the ground knowing full well that two pices of wood in a carpark wouldn't look odd.

by wgbrother 18.02.12 23:26

Nina wrote:
candyfloss wrote:So the abductor came armed with a piece of wood. Of course it would have to be exactly the right length, he couldn't get his saw out and start cutting it there could he. Too long and it wouldn't fit the gap, too short and the blind go not be raised high enough. And where did this piece of wood go. Did he carry it away with him holding Madeleine out in front of him. If he threw it aside, then the PJ would have found it. Not forgetting of course it would have marked the blinds, and the sill.

Hi Candyfloss. Two pieces of wood , one for each side or the whole lot will collapse as soon as let go of. Then with Madeleine laid across his arms like a roll of lino he removed the two pieces of exaclty equal lengths, again with his teeth and let them drop to the ground knowing full well that two pices of wood in a carpark wouldn't look odd.

One piece as I explained. And carrying a child and a piece of wood is not that difficult at all. We are not talking about a great beam of wood. Just a 2" x 2" stick about 60cm long. Hardly any weight in it.

by listener 18.02.12 23:30

So your target is a small child. In your great plan for abduction you arm yourself with a piece of wood cut roughly to useful length. You have planned this so carefully, even knowing the "small window of opportunity"! But you didn't know the door was unlocked!

You're having a laugh Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 2 110921

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 2 110921

wgbrother!

by Guest 18.02.12 23:33

Look at the size of the window, and bear in mind only one half slides open.

[youtube][/youtube]

by wgbrother 18.02.12 23:34

listener wrote:So your target is a small child. In your great plan for abduction you arm yourself with a piece of wood cut roughly to useful length. You have planned this so carefully, even knowing the "small window of opportunity"! But you didn't know the door was unlocked!

You're having a laugh wgbrother!

No. I am simply answering questions as they are put to me. My own belief is that there was probably no access via the window. But I am just pointing out that such access is by no means impossible or even difficult.

I think entrance via the patio and exit via the front door would have been more likely especially as it is known that there were a number of keys for each apartment around the resort.

And please don't say I am having a laugh because I think the abduction or death of a child is too serious for that.

by wgbrother 18.02.12 23:37

candyfloss wrote:Look at the size of the window, and bear in mind only one half slides open.

[youtube][/youtube]

Did you actually bother to read what Pat Brown wrote about the serious distortion as to the height of the window and Peter in the video? Its impossible to judge the actual size with such distortion.

But if the aim of raising ths shutter was simply to look in and see whether the children were there sleeping your comment is irrelevant anyway. Then a quick walk round to the open patio door and so forth.

by listener 18.02.12 23:45

wgbrother wrote:
listener wrote:So your target is a small child. In your great plan for abduction you arm yourself with a piece of wood cut roughly to useful length. You have planned this so carefully, even knowing the "small window of opportunity"! But you didn't know the door was unlocked!

You're having a laugh wgbrother!

No. I am simply answering questions as they are put to me. My own belief is that there was probably no access via the window. But I am just pointing out that such access is by no means impossible or even difficult.

I think entrance via the patio and exit via the front door would have been more likely especially as it is known that there were a number of keys for each apartment around the resort.

And please don't say I am having a laugh because I think the abduction or death of a child is too serious for that.

So the 'man with the stick' theory has ended. Guess this amusing thread is stuck - unless the 'keys' come to its rescue!

by rainbow-fairy 18.02.12 23:47

wgbrother wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Look at the size of the window, and bear in mind only one half slides open.

[youtube][/youtube]

Did you actually bother to read what Pat Brown wrote about the serious distortion as to the height of the window and Peter in the video? Its impossible to judge the actual size with such distortion.

But if the aim of raising ths shutter was simply to look in and see whether the children were there sleeping your comment is irrelevant anyway. Then a quick walk round to the open patio door and so forth.

So this fabled 2"x2" stick wasn't needed after all then???

by Guest 18.02.12 23:51

rainbow-fairy wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Look at the size of the window, and bear in mind only one half slides open.

[youtube][/youtube]

Did you actually bother to read what Pat Brown wrote about the serious distortion as to the height of the window and Peter in the video? Its impossible to judge the actual size with such distortion.

But if the aim of raising ths shutter was simply to look in and see whether the children were there sleeping your comment is irrelevant anyway. Then a quick walk round to the open patio door and so forth.
So this fabled 2"x2" stick wasn't needed after all then???

You can see how small the window is here, and remember only half opens........

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 2 Zzocforensics.jpg.w180h254

by wgbrother 18.02.12 23:53

rainbow-fairy wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Look at the size of the window, and bear in mind only one half slides open.

[youtube][/youtube]

Did you actually bother to read what Pat Brown wrote about the serious distortion as to the height of the window and Peter in the video? Its impossible to judge the actual size with such distortion.

But if the aim of raising ths shutter was simply to look in and see whether the children were there sleeping your comment is irrelevant anyway. Then a quick walk round to the open patio door and so forth.
So this fabled 2"x2" stick wasn't needed after all then???

Possibly not. But had it been needed it would hardly be the most difficult thing to find, prepare, bring, carry or dispose of.

The point is that with one such stick and and an unlocked window (as Gerry McCann says is possible) it would have been perfectly easy enough to get the shutters up and open and to enter and leave by that window if you really wanted to. Not easy but perfectly possible. Anyone saying otherwise I think is deceiving themselves. Only my opinion but nobody so far has suggested a good reason why it wouldn't work. And if two people had been involved then it would have been even easier wouldn't it?

And there is always the other option that the shutter was raised just to look inside.

I think we should all look at all possibilities and dismiss nothing without very good reason.

Now that Pat Brown and Peter have shown us all just how easy it is to open those shutters from the outside we really have to look at this fact and see how it might just change the picture of what happened on that night.

by wgbrother 18.02.12 23:56

candyfloss wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Look at the size of the window, and bear in mind only one half slides open.

[youtube][/youtube]

Did you actually bother to read what Pat Brown wrote about the serious distortion as to the height of the window and Peter in the video? Its impossible to judge the actual size with such distortion.

But if the aim of raising ths shutter was simply to look in and see whether the children were there sleeping your comment is irrelevant anyway. Then a quick walk round to the open patio door and so forth.
So this fabled 2"x2" stick wasn't needed after all then???

You can see how small the window is here, and remember only half opens........

Yes the window is ckearly greater than the height of an adult from waist up and over twice as wide.. Plenty of height to enter and leave for a small adult.

But you are forgetting that the reason for raising the shutter might not even have been to enter or leave. But just to look in. Then a 6" square window would probably have been big enough.

by rainbow-fairy 19.02.12 0:08

wgbrother wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Look at the size of the window, and bear in mind only one half slides open.

[youtube][/youtube]

Did you actually bother to read what Pat Brown wrote about the serious distortion as to the height of the window and Peter in the video? Its impossible to judge the actual size with such distortion.

But if the aim of raising ths shutter was simply to look in and see whether the children were there sleeping your comment is irrelevant anyway. Then a quick walk round to the open patio door and so forth.
So this fabled 2"x2" stick wasn't needed after all then???

Possibly not. But had it been needed it would hardly be the most difficult thing to find, prepare, bring, carry or dispose of.

The point is that with one such stick and and an unlocked window (as Gerry McCann says is possible) it would have been perfectly easy enough to get the shutters up and open and to enter and leave by that window if you really wanted to. Not easy but perfectly possible. Anyone saying otherwise I think is deceiving themselves. Only my opinion but nobody so far has suggested a good reason why it wouldn't work. And if two people had been involved then it would have been even easier wouldn't it?

And there is always the other option that the shutter was raised just to look inside.

I think we should all look at all possibilities and dismiss nothing without very good reason.

Now that Pat Brown and Peter have shown us all just how easy it is to open those shutters from the outside we really have to look at this fact and see how it might just change the picture of what happened on that night.

It has changed nothing for me at all.
A good reason why it wouldn't work?
You said; a piece of wood, slightly off-centre to prop up the sill... That would leave a tiny aperture, width and height-wise. However small is your 'abductor'. Also, the windows, locked or not, only open from inside so there's no point to it is there?
If he'd already 'recced" the place why would he need to look through shutters?
Another possibility you raised - in the open patio door, out the locked front as he had a key? Why would he do that?
Dear oh dear.
For what its worth, I believe the person who took Maddie, 'abducted' her - and someone did - had a key. Knew PdL and OC (despite denying this). Knew the ins and outs of the family routine. I doubt we're talking about the same person though...

by Guest 19.02.12 0:10

And what good would looking through the childrens bedroom window would do. He couldn't see if anyone was in the lounge, kitchen or bathroom. Anyone could have come in through the patio doors at that time and seen him.

by wgbrother 19.02.12 0:20

candyfloss wrote:And what good would looking through the childrens bedroom window would do. He couldn't see if anyone was in the lounge, kitchen or bathroom. Anyone could have come in through the patio doors at that time and seen him.

It would do one key thing. It would confirm whether the children were in that room asleep.

by rainbow-fairy 19.02.12 0:26

candyfloss wrote:And what good would looking through the children's bedroom window would do. He couldn't see if anyone was in the lounge, kitchen or bathroom. Anyone could have come in through the patio doors at that time and seen him.

Indeed candyfloss.
All I can see is, if it really is as easy as all that for 'abductor' to gain entry through the window, the McCanns wouldn't have abandoned that line. It quickly altered to 'er, we left the patio doors open'
We have had half-truths, untruths and ridiculous tales told by Team McCann, who have done everything possible to cloud what really went on in May '07 - including releasing an out-of-date photo of their daughter, when allegedly there was the 'pool pic' taken on Kate's camera that afternoon!
Pull the other one. Its got bells on.

by listener 19.02.12 0:26

So, if I've got this right, you are saying that it is possible the abductor(s) came with a prepared stick, so (after making noise opening said shutter) they could hold it open while they cased the joint - all along knowing the doors were to be used in the few possible minutes they have assesed are available! You prepare yourself for this abduction with a key AND a stick! (Just to have a look).

Well, I guess that is possible but I would have thought that any abductor with that kind of mentality would have beenbehind bars a long time ago Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 2 110921

by wgbrother 19.02.12 0:27

rainbow-fairy wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Look at the size of the window, and bear in mind only one half slides open.

[youtube][/youtube]

Did you actually bother to read what Pat Brown wrote about the serious distortion as to the height of the window and Peter in the video? Its impossible to judge the actual size with such distortion.

But if the aim of raising ths shutter was simply to look in and see whether the children were there sleeping your comment is irrelevant anyway. Then a quick walk round to the open patio door and so forth.
So this fabled 2"x2" stick wasn't needed after all then???

Possibly not. But had it been needed it would hardly be the most difficult thing to find, prepare, bring, carry or dispose of.

The point is that with one such stick and and an unlocked window (as Gerry McCann says is possible) it would have been perfectly easy enough to get the shutters up and open and to enter and leave by that window if you really wanted to. Not easy but perfectly possible. Anyone saying otherwise I think is deceiving themselves. Only my opinion but nobody so far has suggested a good reason why it wouldn't work. And if two people had been involved then it would have been even easier wouldn't it?

And there is always the other option that the shutter was raised just to look inside.

I think we should all look at all possibilities and dismiss nothing without very good reason.

Now that Pat Brown and Peter have shown us all just how easy it is to open those shutters from the outside we really have to look at this fact and see how it might just change the picture of what happened on that night.
It has changed nothing for me at all.
A good reason why it wouldn't work?
You said; a piece of wood, slightly off-centre to prop up the sill... That would leave a tiny aperture, width and height-wise. However small is your 'abductor'. Also, the windows, locked or not, only open from inside so there's no point to it is there?
If he'd already 'recced" the place why would he need to look through shutters?
Another possibility you raised - in the open patio door, out the locked front as he had a key? Why would he do that?
Dear oh dear.
For what its worth, I believe the person who took Maddie, 'abducted' her - and someone did - had a key. Knew PdL and OC (despite denying this). Knew the ins and outs of the family routine. I doubt we're talking about the same person though...

No. It would leave an aperture exactly the width of the part of the window that opens. The height to which the shutter is raised in the video is at least 60cm which is plenty. Do you realise how small windows can be which burglars do enter premises by? Very very much smaller than that.
Just checking whether the child was in the room he expected. It would take less than thirty seconds if the only reason to lift the shutters was to peep in.

I raised a possibility regarding the patio but if as you agree he may have had a key then even easier he would have been in and out in just a minute or two via the main door.

Your presumption that it was someone who knew PDL and had a key could apply to many, many people who worked, lived or holidayed there. Can you explain your reason for being so focused on just one possibility and ignoring all other possibilities?

by wgbrother 19.02.12 0:28

listener wrote:So, if I've got this right, you are saying that it is possible the abductor(s) came with a prepared stick, so (after making noise opening said shutter) they could hold it open while they cased the joint - all along knowing the doors were to be used in the few possible minutes they have assesed are available! You prepare yourself for this abduction with a key AND a stick! (Just to have a look).

Well, I guess that is possible but I would have thought that any abductor with that kind of mentality would have beenbehind bars a long time ago

No. If you have a key you have no need of a stick. The shutter raising then might simply be to get a quick look to see if the children are in the room asleep.

by Guest 19.02.12 0:30

He couldn't peep in cos the curtains were closed, we have been told. They went whoosh!!

Log in for more topics