The Shutters

by Guest 16.05.11 11:17

For me, these are one of the most important bits of evidence in the case. Early on we have stories all over the papers saying that they had been jemmied. Phil McCann in an interview said this too. We now know of course, that they weren't.

What I found interesting though is that in his interview of CNN with Piers Morgan, GM states, that when he got to the apartment after the alarm was raised, the window was wide open, and the shutter pushed up. He then states he went throught the front door, outside to the window and was able to lift the shutter. (It is in his statement too)

The first thing which is really odd, is that in interviews, the McCanns had said they were conscious about not disturbing evidence. Now surely, if you walked into an apartment and the window was wide open and the shutter up, you would of course assume someone had broken in, only natural. But what is so strange is, that you would know that the perpatrator had done this. So it begs the question...............

Why did GM go outside and tamper with what might have been the only bit of crucial evidence in the case. The shutter may have contained fingerprints of the abductor. So GM by raising them etc. would have ruined any prints, or smudged them by doing this. In her statement Diane Webster also said she had a go at raising the shutter, and she couldnt, and it got all twisted. WTF.

Why on earth would you spend your time, going outside playing with the shutters, when your daughter had just been snatched. What difference would it make if you could open them or not, they state, they were open when they entered the apartment, so they knew someone had been in. I just can't get my head around that!!

It has been proved that these shutter make a horrible noise when lifted. Some of the posters who live in Portugal have said the same thing. The News of the World had exclusive access to apartment 5a to investigate and this is what they said.................

[quote]

And our team heard for themselves how much noise an intruder would have made— reinforcing the theory that this was not an opportunistic snatch but carefully planned.

When the bedroom shutter is opened by a pull-cord it makes a loud piercing creak that could easily have woken the youngsters or alerted Pamela Fenn, the woman living upstairs.
This is crucial evidence as it shows the difficulty of entering the property by the window and suggests the likelihood that the kidnapper gained access by the front door or even the rear patio doors.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (some interesting reading about apartment 5a on this link)

Mrs Fenn, or someone around would have heard this dreadful noise. Also you would need something like a screwdriver to try and get under them, and inevitably they would be scratched or some marks would have been left.

by **Jill Havern** 16.05.11 11:25

This comment was left on my blog yesterday:

James Pembroke said...
There is one point in Kate McCann's story that keeps niggling me and that is when she returned to the apartment on the night Madeline went missing. She Said, "I came in through the patio door and I noticed that the bedroom door was slightly more opened that what we had left it, I went to close the door a little but it slammed closed when a draught caught it and I look around to see if i had left the patio door open. I had not so I open the door again and the room was very dark but I could see that Madeline was not in the bed".
If the window and shutter was wide open in Madeline's bedroom as is claimed then the draught would have closed the bedroom door immediately.When Kate McCann returned she should have found a closed bedroom door not a partial open one?

15 May 2011 11:37

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 16.05.11 11:31

This from Matt statement

He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex. That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked because that door is visible from the restaurant.......

Then further down he says

at around 10pm, Kate, Madeleine's mother, went to her apartment to check on her children. She came back totally shocked, shouting, saying that Madeleine was no longer in her bedroom. At that time all the adults were in the restaurant. Then, the whole group went to Madeleine's bedroom and checked that the twins were sleeping OK. That there was no signs of a burglary in the apartment. Only, one window in the children's bedroom was open. The window and the shutters were open.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 16.05.11 11:56

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Where's the other window??? Was he in the right apartment?

by Wendy 16.05.11 12:09

I thought that white thing to the left side of Madeleine's bed might have been a window, but that would look into the bathroom according to the diagram. And where's the high shelf that Kate said Cuddlecat was on? Didn't she say that was how she knew Madeleine had been taken? There doesn't seem to be a high shelf.

by Guest 16.05.11 12:12

Wendy wrote:I thought that white thing to the left side of Madeleine's bed might have been a window, but that would look into the bathroom according to the diagram. And where's the high shelf that Kate said Cuddlecat was on? Didn't she say that was how she knew Madeleine had been taken? There doesn't seem to be a high shelf.

I think the cuddle cat story was just the press, I don't think its in the statements anywhere.

by Guest 16.05.11 12:27

Back to the shutters here is D Websters statement 10th May.....................

However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed.

And in her rogatory statement (Date of Interview: 11.04.08)
she says this............

4078 “It’s all, you know, even at that early stage there wasn’t a lot more that you were able to say. Did you check the blind at Kate’s apartment on the window that obviously the relevant window? Did you go out and check the blind?”
Reply “Oh the shutter?”
4078 “Yeah, sorry.”
Reply “Yeah I mean I can remember going out there and in fact there was me and somebody else, I don’t know who else there was, to see if it could be raised from, from outside, I didn’t spend too long err trying it.”
4078 “And were you able to?”
Reply “I think, I think I got it up so far but it became sort of err twisted. But everybody was in such a panic really.”
Reply “I think, I think I got it up so far but it became sort of err twisted. But everybody was in such a panic really.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So now we have at least two people going out fiddling with the shutters, unbelievable!!

by Wendy 16.05.11 12:32

But only 1 set of fingerprints. Kate's.

-----------------

Admin: Adding a link to the PJ files as "Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate prints were recovered." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Garth 16.05.11 18:57

Interesting reading.

The first thing you have to ask yourself is that if Kate was lying then why would Diane Webster claim she tried to open them if she never? Why would she lie?

The other interesting aspect is that if the forensics was so good then why did they only find Kates finger prints when others had handled them?

Either the forensics weren't too clever or Diane is lying. But why would she?

With regard to the door slamming, she may have thought she had closed the patio door but how can she be sure it was completely closed? ie it only takes the patio doors to be open a couple of mil and a gust will cause a draft enough to slam a door.

by Guest 16.05.11 19:08

I don't know if anyone is lying. I wasn't there, my point was, If you knew your daughter had been taken, which you obviously would think that given the described scene, what would be the first thing you would do, call the police. Not go outside and tamper with the shutters, in all probability destroying any forensice evidence. And it seems not one but two people at least messed with these shutters. These were not stupid people, they would know the value of keeping a crime scene sterile. If they were up and open you would know in an instance someone had entered that apartment, and as GM said they were conscious of not disturbing the crime scene. Wouldn't that the the most important aspect of the crime scene, the entry point of the abductor?

.

by Garth 16.05.11 19:23

They never checked the windows straight away. Gerry was running around panicking and doing all sorts. And if I was in their shoes, although the window was open, I would want to check it to make sure they hadn't been forced in the hope that our deepest fears were unfounded. In a panic stricken state, common sense goes out the window........ [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by rose58 16.05.11 19:27

That does not tally with them saying Maddie could not have opened them. So who did? Presumably they asked MATT first. Or Kate ask Gerry if he had for some reason on his check.

If they saw they were not forced then why relay that information to all and sundry then that night? Also seeing as Gerry said they were easy to open any abductor would not have felt the need to force, jemmy, break, smash, etc.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Garth 16.05.11 19:35

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] rose58 Today at 7:27 pm

That does not tally with them saying Maddie could not have opened them. So who did? Presumably they asked MATT first. Or Kate ask Gerry if he had for some reason on his check

If they saw they were not forced then why relay that information to all and sundry then that night? Also seeing as Gerry said they were easy to open any abductor would not have felt the need to force, jemmy, break, smash, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,

Again, I think people take things literally, in that, because they were of the opinion that they had been jemmied or forced, just because there was no evidence of damage due to forcing them, does not automatically mean they weren't. Infact, the reason that they checked to see how they could be raised just confirms what I said earlier, in that they were checking to see if they could have been forced to try and alleviated the darkest fear.

When they informed their family, of course they are going to believe they had been forced because they certainly didnt believe Madeleine would or could have opened them. They certainly didn't open of their own accord.

by Guest 16.05.11 19:53

Those shutters cannot be opened from the outside unless something is used to push them up like a screwdriver or something. They would leave marks. They also make a terrible racket.

Why on earth would you have to go outside to see if they had been forced. They were open, and the window was open wouldn't that be enough, and your child gone, why would you have to go outside and test them.

As we know though, that was not the way in or out, the bed under the window didn't have any footprints on it, and the sill was undisturbed, and GM himself said on the CNN Piers Morgan show, he didn't know how the abductor got in. GM said he may have had a key, as he wouldn't have gone out through the patio door, which of course we all know was impossible, as Gerry and Jez were standing there. So why was the window open and the shutter up?

A lot of interesting info here on this new video, it is long but very interesting.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by rose58 16.05.11 19:55

How do you force open heavy security shutters with no signs of damage?

In any case, those heavy security shutters cannot be opened from outside as Gerry makes out he found so easy to do. I would like to see him doing so in any reconstruction. Their whole mechanism makes it impossible. If it were that easy that business would go out of business!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Garth 16.05.11 20:11

I don't see anything wrong in trying to see if the shutters were forced for reasons I have already explained.

And with regard to the shutters being opened, I have explained my belief many times why they were open and in imo they were opened from the inside. But definitely not by Madeleine.

by Guest 16.05.11 20:18

Garth wrote:I don't see anything wrong in trying to see if the shutters were forced for reasons I have already explained.

And with regard to the shutters being opened, I have explained my belief many times why they were open and in imo they were opened from the inside. But definitely not by Madeleine.

So who opened them from the inside?

by Garth 16.05.11 20:24

The person who took Madeleine McCann.

by Guest 16.05.11 20:36

Garth wrote: The person who took Madeleine McCann.

Well he couldn't get in that way, or out. See crime scene photos. Windows shutters not damaged. Bed not stepped on. Algea on sill not disturbed, and the height would make it impossible to climb out holding a child, and over a bed. How did he do it?

by ufercoffy 16.05.11 20:39

This is very much like the 'hole in my bucket' song where it goes round and round and round and back to the beginning. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Garth 16.05.11 20:46

Candyfloss, the McCanns are right to believe imo that the person entered the apartmen via the front door, knowing full well the parents were in the tapas bar on the other side of the apartment. I believe this person was in the apartment on GM's check. Contrary to what many believe, the apparent last photos showing the cots apart and one next to the wardrobe were NOT the photos taken as the cots were found, because the twins had been removed and the cots bedding stripped. So, it is my belief that when GM entered the abductor was disturbed and his in the wardrobe. When Gerry left, the abductor must have waited and then carefully opened the window to see if all was clear before making his hasty exit with the child in his arms via the front door.

by ufercoffy 16.05.11 20:51

Garth wrote:Candyfloss, the McCanns are right to believe imo that the person entered the apartmen via the front door, knowing full well the parents were in the tapas bar on the other side of the apartment. I believe this person was in the apartment on GM's check. Contrary to what many believe, the apparent last photos showing the cots apart and one next to the wardrobe were NOT the photos taken as the cots were found, because the twins had been removed and the cots bedding stripped. So, it is my belief that when GM entered the abductor was disturbed and his in the wardrobe. When Gerry left, the abductor must have waited and then carefully opened the window to see if all was clear before making his hasty exit with the child in his arms via the front door.

So the abductor hid in the wardrobe then when he came out he cleaned up the apartment cos non of his or Madeleine's DNA was found, then abducted a dead child when there were two living children in the cots?

by Guest 16.05.11 20:57

Garth wrote:Candyfloss, the McCanns are right to believe imo that the person entered the apartmen via the front door, knowing full well the parents were in the tapas bar on the other side of the apartment. I believe this person was in the apartment on GM's check. Contrary to what many believe, the apparent last photos showing the cots apart and one next to the wardrobe were NOT the photos taken as the cots were found, because the twins had been removed and the cots bedding stripped. So, it is my belief that when GM entered the abductor was disturbed and his in the wardrobe. When Gerry left, the abductor must have waited and then carefully opened the window to see if all was clear before making his hasty exit with the child in his arms via the front door.

But he would have had to raise the shutter, as well in order to see, how do you account for the noise. They are not silent. (see my opening post where the News of the World actually tested them and said they made a terrible row) Why didn't all 3 children wake up and start crying?

by Garth 16.05.11 20:58

None of Madeleines DNA was found? What, do you think she is just a figment of the imagination..............she may be of yours, because it does appear a bit wild.

Anyway, keep up the cynicism, you obviously cannot debate sensibly.

by Garth 16.05.11 21:00

Candy

They may not be silent if you raise them normally, but Im sure, done slowly, anything would be quiet.

by ufercoffy 16.05.11 21:05

But according to Donal McIntyre, the abductor only had 3 mins to clean up the apartment and (raise the shutters slowly) and abduct a dead child.

by Guest 16.05.11 21:06

Garth wrote:Candy

They may not be silent if you raise them normally, but Im sure, done slowly, anything would be quiet.

I don't think that a reasonable argument, they were noisy. Anyway how slowly, GM left about 9.05 to check and JT left 5 mins after, so really there was only about 5 minutes, till JT saw him strolling accross the top of the road. In that time he would have had to lift Madeleine out of her bed, and don't forget he was carrying her in front of him, how did he open the door and close it behind him carrying her like that. And why bother closing the front door again?

by ufercoffy 16.05.11 21:07

Garth seems to know an awful lot. Maybe he's the abductor?

by Garth 16.05.11 21:27

I don't think that a reasonable argument, they were noisy. Anyway how slowly, GM left about 9.05 to check and JT left 5 mins after, so really there was only about 5 minutes, till JT saw him strolling accross the top of the road. In that time he would have had to lift Madeleine out of her bed, and don't forget he was carrying her in fro nt of him, how did he open the door and close it behind him carrying her like that. And why bother closing the front door again?

Opening slowly would most definitely been quieter.

And if as you say JT left 5 mins after GM then unfortunately that cannot be right, because then you would have to believe that GM checked on Madeleine and then returned to see JW and be in deep conversation.

I wouldnt take the timings to be quite as accurate as has been claimed.