Re: The Shutters

by Liz Eagles 22.02.12 9:05

Me wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:To the 'friend' who suggested the 'abductor' was 'hiding in the bedroom when Gerry did his check' - please look at above pics and elaborate WHERE EXACTLY you think a fully-grown adult could possibly hide from Gerry in that room?

I had always been under the assumption that the Team claimed the abductor may have hidden in the wardrobe, however when you lool at the phots there was a cot right up against the wardrobe door.

I can't see from those pictures and if the cots were left in that position how anyone could have hidden in that room.

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

If you look at GA's video, he demonstrates that it would be nigh on impossible to have hidden behind the door of the bedroom.

by rainbow-fairy 22.02.12 9:46

aquila, is that your quote under Foto 6? It appears to be written by 'Me'?
Yes, I agree - impossible to hide in that room. Unless he was a leprechaun perhaps?

by aiyoyo 22.02.12 9:56

candyfloss wrote:
T4two wrote:
aiyoyo : Err...are you sure they said "he left via the open window"?

Quite sure - that's always been their story. The entry method may change from smashed shutter and forced window to unlocked patio door and now to duplicate key but the abductor always leaves via the window. Very clever - climbs out of the window carrying a child and doesn't leave a trace.

I'm sure in an interview or article or the book somewhere anyway, Kate said the window might have been left open as a red herring and the abductor went out the front door.

Yeah, an abductor in a hurry spent time jemmied open shutter and window, then decided to exit by the door?
Kate should listen to herself - she's barking mad frog if she expects people to believe that.

So how did he enter then -- the unlocked patio door? When did he open the shutter and window - from the outside or inside.
How did he get time to do all that then managed to leave with the one child without waking the other two, followed by taking his own sweet time strolling leisurely down the lane without a care in the world even though knowing very well there is human activities outside. He must have known that if he was watching them and if he was hiding (under the cot - tongue in cheek) from Gerry?

Besides, if he was already in the apt before Gerry, surely that would scare him off instead, not spur him into action.
I mean the mccanns insinuated he did a dry run, so he'd perfect opportunity but went off empty-handed, yet he stupidly decided to carry out his deed when the risk levels were heightened.

by russiandoll 22.02.12 10:51

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

More pics on link below

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

what I wondered was this section of wall where there appears to be a housing for the cord, which looks at first glance to hang straight and free. when pulled out the cord is attached to the wall, I was wondering if a child climbed on that wicker chair placed where it is on photos on these pages, it is close to the cord housing, so cord not hanging loose but is released from what looks like a housing in the wall, there is imo a hanging risk due to cord attachment to wall. just thought worth thinking about, despite my opinion that children not alone in 5a, just coming from angle they were neglected and left alone there. imo that shutter cord looks like a risk if a toddler is trying to get at the window .
btw no sense for maddie to be in the bed by window, if she needed toilet she would have doubtless hurt hersrlf in trying in a drowsy state to navigate the furniture. that could be a cause of an accident, but would any parent be that stupid to put her in harms way...i guess so if stupid enough to leave them alone every evening.[ IF that happened of course]

by aiyoyo 22.02.12 11:27

The cord in the pic is too low down.
If there was a wicker chair there, then that would prevent the child from tugging at the casing housing the cord which when tug at will release the cord. Even without the chair there, the pulled out cord looks low - not level for hanging risk.
But, if the child were to tug at it then let it snap back in, the pressure might cause the child to fall if the child were already in a sleep drowsy state.

If that was what happened it would have been a pure accident, no need to hide her body - so it cant have been that. JMO.

by jd 22.02.12 11:50

To the 'friend' who suggested the 'abductor' was 'hiding in the bedroom when Gerry did his check' - please look at above pics and elaborate WHERE EXACTLY you think a fully-grown adult could possibly hide from Gerry in that room?

I must admit I always found it extremely hilarious that we are supposed to believe that someone was hiding behind the door when gerry did his check...He needs to remember the rooms are small and there is no where you could hide without being seen, especially behind a door, priceless....But just like jane tanner seeing her whatever it was she saw (it changes so much), again nobody saw....except members of Tapas 9...how so very convenient

by Me 22.02.12 12:27

jd wrote:
To the 'friend' who suggested the 'abductor' was 'hiding in the bedroom when Gerry did his check' - please look at above pics and elaborate WHERE EXACTLY you think a fully-grown adult could possibly hide from Gerry in that room?

I must admit I always found it extremely hilarious that we are supposed to believe that someone was hiding behind the door when gerry did his check...He needs to remember the rooms are small and there is no where you could hide without being seen, especially behind a door, priceless....But just like jane tanner seeing her whatever it was she saw (it changes so much), again nobody saw....except members of Tapas 9...how so very convenient

I think, more than the absurdity of the lack of space behind the door and the wardrobe area we're now also having to accept an abductor heard Gerry come in, realised he had to hide, worked out in the dark where he could conceal himself, moved a cot out of the way hid, then moved it back, all whilst not making a noise, and all within a 10 or 15 second time frame from Gezza entering the apartment.

On top of that this abductor must have superhuman levels of hearing because Gerry claimed he entered via the patio doors. So an abductor heard a patio door sliding back from the kid's bedroom.

I think i've worked out who the abductor is.

It's Superman isn't it?

by jd 22.02.12 12:40

Me wrote:

I think, more than the absurdity of the lack of space behind the door and the wardrobe area we're now also having to accept an abductor heard Gerry come in, realised he had to hide, worked out in the dark where he could conceal himself, moved a cot out of the way hid, then moved it back, all whilst not making a noise, and all within a 10 or 15 second time frame from Gezza entering the apartment.

On top of that this abductor must have superhuman levels of hearing because Gerry claimed he entered via the patio doors. So an abductor heard a patio door sliding back from the kid's bedroom.

I think i've worked out who the abductor is.

It's Superman isn't it?

This abductor is truly amazing and there is nobody on earth like him...Not only can he hide away within 15 secs, while thinks about moving the cot then back without a noise, conceal himself in a tiny minute space smaller than himself still managing to stay unnoticed...drugged the twins to keep them asleep, then got out through the shutters which kept falling on down on him whilst holding a 3 year old child in the other arm all without leaving a single trace of a mere print or DNA!....The SAS need to find this man for special operations as there has never been any human that has ever lived capable of doing what he has achieved in a sleepy little town in Portugal!

by Me 22.02.12 12:53

jd wrote:
Me wrote:

I think, more than the absurdity of the lack of space behind the door and the wardrobe area we're now also having to accept an abductor heard Gerry come in, realised he had to hide, worked out in the dark where he could conceal himself, moved a cot out of the way hid, then moved it back, all whilst not making a noise, and all within a 10 or 15 second time frame from Gezza entering the apartment.

On top of that this abductor must have superhuman levels of hearing because Gerry claimed he entered via the patio doors. So an abductor heard a patio door sliding back from the kid's bedroom.

I think i've worked out who the abductor is.

It's Superman isn't it?

This abductor is truly amazing and there is nobody on earth like him...Not only can he hide away within 15 secs, while thinks about moving the cot then back without a noise, conceal himself in a tiny minute space smaller than himself still managing to stay unnoticed...drugged the twins to keep them asleep, then got out through the shutters which kept falling on down on him whilst holding a 3 year old child in the other arm all without leaving a single trace of a mere print or DNA!....The SAS need to find this man for special operations as there has never been any human that has ever lived capable of doing what he has achieved in a sleepy little town in Portugal!

I think it would be worth drawing up a cohesive list of all these things in one post. If i weren't so busy with work today i'd do it myself.

So things like:

Watching the family for days days despite no viable hiding place (unless an apartment opposite)
Got in the apartment by window / door / patio in a 5 minute window
Hears a silent patio door open
finds a hiding place, moves cots, silently, moves cots back all in 15 seconds
Drugs twins / Maddie Opens window and shutter and clambers out in the 3-5 minutes from Gerry leaving and being seen by Jane

I'm sure there's plenty of other elements i'm missing.

I just think it might be useful to pull all the absurd propositions we're expected to swallow about the amazingness of this abductor into one list.

by aiyoyo 22.02.12 13:00

jd wrote:
Me wrote:

I think, more than the absurdity of the lack of space behind the door and the wardrobe area we're now also having to accept an abductor heard Gerry come in, realised he had to hide, worked out in the dark where he could conceal himself, moved a cot out of the way hid, then moved it back, all whilst not making a noise, and all within a 10 or 15 second time frame from Gezza entering the apartment.

On top of that this abductor must have superhuman levels of hearing because Gerry claimed he entered via the patio doors. So an abductor heard a patio door sliding back from the kid's bedroom.

I think i've worked out who the abductor is.

It's Superman isn't it?

This abductor is truly amazing and there is nobody on earth like him...Not only can he hide away within 15 secs, while thinks about moving the cot then back without a noise, conceal himself in a tiny minute space smaller than himself still managing to stay unnoticed...drugged the twins to keep them asleep, then got out through the shutters which kept falling on down on him whilst holding a 3 year old child in the other arm all without leaving a single trace of a mere print or DNA!....The SAS need to find this man for special operations as there has never been any human that has ever lived capable of doing what he has achieved in a sleepy little town in Portugal!

Oh, perhaps he is British's secret agent, Bond, 007!

by jd 22.02.12 13:10

I must apologise to Louise Mensch MP for behaving like a Ghoul for having the sheer audacity in querying the doubts of this abductor and his amazing never ever seen in life skills that he possesses. And to jeremy vine, I will go seek medical help too....doctors booked....gerry is a doctor maybe he can help with my condition of having my own mind

by russiandoll 23.02.12 15:31

aiyoyo wrote:The cord in the pic is too low down.
If there was a wicker chair there, then that would prevent the child from tugging at the casing housing the cord which when tug at will release the cord. Even without the chair there, the pulled out cord looks low - not level for hanging risk.
But, if the child were to tug at it then let it snap back in, the pressure might cause the child to fall if the child were already in a sleep drowsy state.

If that was what happened it would have been a pure accident, no need to hide her body - so it cant have been that. JMO.

point taken...thank you ! about an accident,which I think was the PJ conclusion, followed by staging...... why in your opnion would it be not necessary to hide a body if an accident happened? could a fear for their careers, twins being taken from them if an accident was due to neglect.....not be a possible motivation for concealing a cadaver as I think the PJ worded it ?

by aiyoyo 23.02.12 16:15

russiandoll wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:The cord in the pic is too low down.
If there was a wicker chair there, then that would prevent the child from tugging at the casing housing the cord which when tug at will release the cord. Even without the chair there, the pulled out cord looks low - not level for hanging risk.
But, if the child were to tug at it then let it snap back in, the pressure might cause the child to fall if the child were already in a sleep drowsy state.

If that was what happened it would have been a pure accident, no need to hide her body - so it cant have been that. JMO.

point taken...thank you ! about an accident,which I think was the PJ conclusion, followed by staging...... why in your opnion would it be not necessary to hide a body if an accident happened? could a fear for their careers, twins being taken from them if an accident was due to neglect.....not be a possible motivation for concealing a cadaver as I think the PJ worded it ?

If it was Maddie's self caused accident, they could have taken her to the hospital and choose not to tell hospital personnel Maddie was alone when the accident happened, then the neglect would not be an issue would it?
If an investigation ensues 'cause she subsequently died in the hospital, then who is going to come forward to accuse them of neglecting their children? At most, Police interviews of witnesses will reveal the holiday group dines out on that fateful night sans children; and unless people know exactly the time of Maddie's accident, who is to say she was alone when that happened. It will just the witnesses words against the mccanns but proving it is something else. Chances of getting away from neglect charges in that sort of circumstances are a lot higher than hiding a crime of homicide. For that reason, I am inclined to think they'd to hide because the body cannot withstand autopsy without implicating them. It had to be something drastic that wasn't self caused - abuse for eg.

Hypothetically speaking, the only self-caused that they'd to hide her IMO is if Maddie had accidentally ingested adult drugs left carelessly laying around - not prescribed drugs for example - that would be reason enough to hide the body in a self-caused situation. Just my opinion as usual.

by Genbug 23.02.12 21:30

russiandoll wrote:
candyfloss wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

More pics on link below

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

what I wondered was this section of wall where there appears to be a housing for the cord, which looks at first glance to hang straight and free. when pulled out the cord is attached to the wall, I was wondering if a child climbed on that wicker chair placed where it is on photos on these pages, it is close to the cord housing, so cord not hanging loose but is released from what looks like a housing in the wall, there is imo a hanging risk due to cord attachment to wall. just thought worth thinking about, despite my opinion that children not alone in 5a, just coming from angle they were neglected and left alone there. imo that shutter cord looks like a risk if a toddler is trying to get at the window .
btw no sense for maddie to be in the bed by window, if she needed toilet she would have doubtless hurt hersrlf in trying in a drowsy state to navigate the furniture. that could be a cause of an accident, but would any parent be that stupid to put her in harms way...i guess so if stupid enough to leave them alone every evening.[ IF that happened of course]

The picture where the cord is being pulled out...it would only be used in that position if you were lowering the shutters. To open them you would just pull it straight down. So if the shutters were closed, as we have been told, they wouldn't physically pull out like that as all of the cord would be in the box at the top. Sorry, not explaining it very well, but I know what I mean!! Also IMO a child of Madeleine's age, unless she was very strong or the shutter was broken, wouldn't be able to operate the cord. I tested mine out on my grandchildren, apart from having no idea how they operated, neither the three year old or the six year old could move that cord more than an inch.

by Guest 23.02.12 22:06

Me wrote:
jd wrote:
Me wrote:

I think, more than the absurdity of the lack of space behind the door and the wardrobe area we're now also having to accept an abductor heard Gerry come in, realised he had to hide, worked out in the dark where he could conceal himself, moved a cot out of the way hid, then moved it back, all whilst not making a noise, and all within a 10 or 15 second time frame from Gezza entering the apartment.

On top of that this abductor must have superhuman levels of hearing because Gerry claimed he entered via the patio doors. So an abductor heard a patio door sliding back from the kid's bedroom.

I think i've worked out who the abductor is.

It's Superman isn't it?

This abductor is truly amazing and there is nobody on earth like him...Not only can he hide away within 15 secs, while thinks about moving the cot then back without a noise, conceal himself in a tiny minute space smaller than himself still managing to stay unnoticed...drugged the twins to keep them asleep, then got out through the shutters which kept falling on down on him whilst holding a 3 year old child in the other arm all without leaving a single trace of a mere print or DNA!....The SAS need to find this man for special operations as there has never been any human that has ever lived capable of doing what he has achieved in a sleepy little town in Portugal!

I think it would be worth drawing up a cohesive list of all these things in one post. If i weren't so busy with work today i'd do it myself.

So things like:

Watching the family for days days despite no viable hiding place (unless an apartment opposite)
Got in the apartment by window / door / patio in a 5 minute window
Hears a silent patio door open
finds a hiding place, moves cots, silently, moves cots back all in 15 seconds
Drugs twins / Maddie Opens window and shutter and clambers out in the 3-5 minutes from Gerry leaving and being seen by Jane

I'm sure there's plenty of other elements i'm missing.

I just think it might be useful to pull all the absurd propositions we're expected to swallow about the amazingness of this abductor into one list.

This is what (Romany) Gypsies are world-famous for and do for a living. Or don't they?

Or was it not a man JT saw walking to the right, but a woman walking to the left; and was that woman JT herself who, as Jez Wilkins stated, was lurking near the appartments earlier in the evening (woman in purple clothes)

Magnificent expert research on the Fund Ltd today, by a chartered accountant no less! Very, very noteworthy.

by plebgate 14.06.13 9:17

ROSA wrote:Philomna McCann: They were going back to check into a locked apartment, where they had left their kids sleeping, you know. They're good parents; they tried so hard to have kids. They've got three beautiful children that they absolutely dote on.
a fat lie?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 14.06.13 9:19

It's clearly a family trait!

I don't think that Philomena is the biggest liar in the family - well, apart from in size.

by Five Star 08.01.14 23:17

Could someone who knows about these shutters chime in please? ....
It would be a lot quicker than me reading all the threads to find the info I need!

Shutters were broken, then fixed by "shutterman" ....were his finger prints, dna or whatever found on them?

Did someone clean them after they were fixed? ...maybe even cleaned by "shutterman" after fixing them?

Sorry if i'm a few years behind you lot again!! It would not be the first time! big grin

by **PeterMac** 08.01.14 23:22

Wrong shutters.
McCann parent's bedroom broken and mended - ALLEGEDLY
Even Lazzeri of the Sun got this spectacularly wrong.

by Five Star 08.01.14 23:27

Another Ozzy moment!! tehehehe.....

by wills 22.03.17 22:08

Scenario. I tell my friends I am going up the road to scratch someones car. I say give me 15 minutes then report it. However when I go up the road to where the target car is, my friend Jez is walking toward me. Blast, he stops to chat. 15 minutes tick by and Jez is still giving idle chat. Time is up and my mates down the road think I have accomplished my mission and report it worldwide. The fact that no one had a watch or phone with them isn't really important. Police arrive to inspect the damaged car, but it isn't damaged. Oh dear, but my mates weren't to know that Jez had messed the plan up. So to save face I try to quickly scratch the car, but miserably fail to cause the damage that my mates had reported. Car/shutters. Jez had messed it all up.

by JRP 22.03.17 22:23

wills wrote:Scenario. I tell my friends I am going up the road to scratch someones car. I say give me 15 minutes then report it. However when I go up the road to where the target car is, my friend Jez is walking toward me. Blast, he stops to chat. 15 minutes tick by and Jez is still giving idle chat. Time is up and my mates down the road think I have accomplished my mission and report it worldwide. The fact that no one had a watch or phone with them isn't really important. Police arrive to inspect the damaged car, but it isn't damaged. Oh dear, but my mates weren't to know that Jez had messed the plan up. So to save face I try to quickly scratch the car, but miserably fail to cause the damage that my mates had reported. Car/shutters. Jez had messed it all up.

Kate McCanns father said that Gerry told him the shutters were jemmied, so that's like setting out to scratch a car, getting delayed by Jez, but still telling your father-in-law you scratched a car.

by wills 22.03.17 22:40

Then it begs the question, why say the shutters were jemmied when they clearly weren't? The Tapas group in parts went along with that because they were told that was the case. Imo, that is what they believed or were told was the case. It was such an obvious mistruth that they must have been told it as fact.No one in their right mind would report this back home unless they believed the shutters had been jemmied or tampered with. It would take the police just minutes to establish it wasn't true. So they must have understood that it had been played about with. Perhaps Mr. in all his haste thought he had done a quick convincing job.But obviously not.

by JRP 22.03.17 22:45

I don't know the answer to why family members said the shutters were jemmied, or the window was forced. His sister Philomena said the doors were locked also, which the McCanns said they had left open.
In all, it's a bit of a mystery.

Unless of course, they were told earlier in the week.

by **Jill Havern** 22.03.17 22:49

Chapter 1: Changes in Story
Video of PeterMac testing shutters of McCann's apartment in Praia da Luz

Changes to the original story

Changing the initial version of events, especially concerning a report of a missing child, is a classic ‘red flag’ warning to police investigators to query both, or all, versions of events in great detail. Indeed when presented with changes the Police may begin to focus on that aspect, to the exclusion of the original report.

First reports

In the 24 hours following the report of Madeleine’s disappearance the following family members and close friends reported almost identical stories to the press

They are of course hearsay as to the state of the shutters and window, but they are direct evidence of what they were told by the McCanns.

That is a crucial difference.

Trish Cameron -
Gerry McCanns sister, said she received a telephone call from her 39-year-old brother, a consultant cardiologist, who was "hysterical and crying his eyes out". She said: "They last checked at half past nine and they were all sound asleep, sleeping, windows shut, shutters shut. Kate went back at 10 o'clock to check. The front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open or whatever you call it and Madeleine was missing...” [1]

Brian Healy -
Madeleine's maternal grandfather, told the Guardian his son-in-law had phoned him shortly after returning "Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone," said Mr Healy. "She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open." [2]

Jon Corner -
a close friend of Kate McCann and godparent of the twins, said she phoned him in the middle of the night distraught. He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing It looks as though someone had gone straight past the twins to get to her. [3]

Jill (or Gill) Renwick -
a family friend told GMTV the McCanns were certain that Madeleine has been abducted. "They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine," she said.” [4]

Observation
1 In all four cases it is reported that the shutters were broken open, smashed, or jemmied.
2 Three of the reports include that the door was open, or hanging open.

As one commentator, Antony Sharples writing under the name John Blacksmith, percipiently noted:

“What must be appreciated, at this point, is that these comments, from closest family and friends - the first to be contacted, are not Chinese whispers. It is not a case that the McCanns rang one person, who got the message wrong, and this got passed on to everyone else. These are four people who received independent telephone calls from Gerry or Kate, in the hours following the 'abduction', and made independent statements. Yet, the statements all recount the same story. The McCanns' apartment was locked, so the 'abductor' must have gained access via the jemmied shutters and left via the front door.” [5]

First change of story.
This change relates to the shutters’ being damaged

The first police statements were taken during the morning of 4th May 2007, by which time the story had already changed in regard to the shutters having been damaged. Now they are merely “raised”.

It is also notable that all reference to the door being open, or hanging open has been quietly dropped.

Gerald McCann, statement, 4 May 2007: 11:15 a.m.
“. . . Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. . .
“. . . At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key and saw right away that the children’s bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed. [6]

Kate McCann, statement, 4 May 2007 2:15 p.m.
“. . . At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did. [7]

Observation
1 The door is now ignored
2 The McCanns and two of their friends were taken from Praia da Luz at around 10 am for the statements to be taken. [8]
Gerry was first. He was interviewed alone. When his statement was completed Kate followed.
Unusually Gerry was permitted to remain in the interview room, whilst Kate was interviewed and her statement was taken. [9]
He was permitted to sit behind her and she states that from time to time he “would place a hand on my shoulder or give me a reassuring squeeze”. [10]
Further observation
3 Physical contact of this sort may be reassuring. It can also be a very effective method of communication.
During the same morning, whilst those two statements were being taken the PJ started the forensic examination of the apartment, including of the shutters, and took photos.

It is clear that the shutters had not been broken, smashed, or jemmied open. [11]

Meanwhile other people with a knowledge of the resort were giving evidence.

John Hill Mr Hill said that despite the report by a family friend that the shutters to the couple's apartment were broken, there was no sign that anyone had forced their way in while the McCanns ate at the tapas restaurant 200 yards away. [12]
"It's still questionable as to whether it's abduction," [13]

Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa, spokesman for the investigation, later confided in British former Chief Inspector Albert Kirby that neither the windows nor their shutters had been tampered with.
Mr Kirby told The Mail on Sunday: "
I had a very interesting chat with the officer in charge. The window shutters are not an issue. Their mechanism makes them almost impossible to open. The door was left unlocked. They did that every night.” [14]

Photos exist of the forensic scientist from the PJ examining the shutters. It is clear that the shutters are in perfect condition. [15]

A short video clip of an attempt to open the shutters from outside may also be seen on YouTube. In this it is clear that the shutters jam into the housing above the window, and do not remain in the raised position once released. [16]

Second change of story

This concerns the point of entry of Gerry and Kate into the apartment

In the second statement, made on 10 May, Dr Gerald McCann changed his story for a second time, this time in relation to his point of entry.

“He is certain that, before leaving home, the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the shutters closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he mentions that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, therefore, without a light being lit in the living room or in the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced. Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside. Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door”. [17]

Observation
This brings his version into line with that of Kate’s statement of 4th May, and incidentally makes it more compatible with the first version given by Dr Matthew Oldfield.
“ 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 in so far as that door is visible from the restaurant.” [18]

It also brings it in line with the statement by John Hill [supra, 14]

Third Change of story

This concerns the first acceptance that the window was not the point of entry.

On 18 October 2007 the Dispatches programme aired “Searching for Madeleine”. In that programme it was effectively proved that there was no way anybody could 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.

David Barclay (Former Head of Physical Evidence UK National Crime and Operations Faculty)
“We must be very careful that we're not saying this is actually staging, but it is difficult to see how anybody could have interfered with those shutters from the outside without leaving some trace. In fact, having looked at them, I think it's almost impossible.” [19]

Important Note: The statements detailed above were not made available for examination and comparison until the case was shelved in July 2008. What follows is therefore a significant announcement, as it was placed into the public domain BEFORE the public at large were made aware of the previous contradictions and changes in stance.

During the week following the Dispatches programme the McCanns’ official spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, announced that the McCanns now reversed their previous stance on the break-in story.
“THE spokesman for the family of Madeleine McCann has reversed a statement made in the early days of the search for the missing child. . . However, in the early part of the hunt, friends and family members told journalists that the shutter on the apartment where the McCanns were staying had been broken. . . "There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell.
"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily.” [20]

David Barclay repeated this view on “Madeleine McCann - The Mystery,” by Sky News 24.12.07 when he said,
“I think it is impossible for someone to get in and out of that window without leaving a forensic trace . . .” [21]

The McCanns’ change of view was reinforced 18 months later by the McCanns themselves, on their “Find Madeleine” web site, where they admit the force of some arguments.

“Lisbon 14th January 2010
There are few points which have been raised in the last few days which I would like to address specifically:

Abduction theory: For us, there is only the abduction theory possible because we were not involved in Madeleine's disappearance and we know Madeleine did not wander off by herself. It is obvious and right that the police should consider other theories initially.

The window: I described to the police officers exactly what I found that night, as it was and is highly relevant and I knew that every little detail could be helpful in finding my daughter which is our only aim. The window which is a ground floor window was completely open and is large enough for a person to easily climb through it. Whether it had been opened for this purpose remains unknown. It could of course have been opened by the perpetrator when inside the apartment as a potential escape route or left open as a 'red herring'. [22]

Observation
1 Kate refers to the “abduction” as a theory. Not as a proven fact.
2 Kate described in her statement an open window and wide open curtains. She described in interviews and in the ‘truthful’ book an open window and completely closed curtains.

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

by JRP 22.03.17 22:53

Thanks Get'em

by Captain_Pugwash 23.03.17 12:25

Who in their right mind is going to break into an apartment in a resort during the early evening period. All it takes is for someone to walk past , see them trying to climb through a window and call the Police to report suspicious activity. Burglars are not that daft. Then to cap it they kill one of the children and run off with the body?

by Guest 23.03.17 12:32

Captain_Pugwash wrote:Who in their right mind is going to break into an apartment in a resort during the early evening period.

Moot point. There was no break-in, there was no abduction.

Move on.

by Captain_Pugwash 23.03.17 12:37

Verdi wrote:
Captain_Pugwash wrote:Who in their right mind is going to break into an apartment in a resort during the early evening period.
Moot point. There was no break-in, there was no abduction.

Move on.

Well Scotland Yard milked this theory half to death. I would love to ask them why? Not that I would get an honest answer IMHO.

by Guest 23.03.17 12:42

Captain_Pugwash wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Captain_Pugwash wrote:Who in their right mind is going to break into an apartment in a resort during the early evening period.
Moot point. There was no break-in, there was no abduction.

Move on.
Well Scotland Yard milked this theory half to death. I would love to ask them why? Not that I would get an honest answer IMHO.

Did they? I was given to understand that Operation Grange were not going to provide a running commentary on their investigation.

Are you sure it wasn't a source close to the family?