Re: The Shutters

by Guest 16.05.11 21:48

HotlipsHealy wrote:
Garth wrote:I wouldnt take the timings to be quite as accurate as has been claimed.

Your saying the McCanns are lying and your not?

Rachael Oldfields statement

Reply “Erm but I mean I remember kind of standing near the window with Kate and Fiona, erm so but I mean I don’t remember the specifics of anyone actually saying to me that, I think it was just sort of a general, Kate and Fi were sort of milling around outside the apartment, outside her and Kate’s apartment and cos I think at, either at that point or perhaps it was later in the night, erm you know Kate had tried to see whether you could lift the shutters from the outside, erm but which you could and they would stay up, erm so I think, I don’t think anyone told me specifically that the windows were open and the shutters were up, it was just erm you know kind of listening to conversations and seeing Kate and Fiona, erm sort of outside the apartment”.
1578 “Did you at any point yourself see the shutters up and the window open”?
Reply “Yes”.
1578 “When was that”?
Reply “When, when Fi and Kate were outside, erm you know

So a third person was trying the shutters from outside. bigshock

by Duh 16.05.11 22:19

So why only 1 set of fingerprints found?

by **PeterMac** 16.05.11 22:20

candyfloss wrote:
So a third person was trying the shutters from outside.

And to do any of that the shutters first had to be pulled down, from inside. Kate said they were up, and we must believe her, because she has said so.
WHO pulled them down and invited or arranged that hordes of people would put their greasy fingers all over the shutters, so that their prints would be found the following morning, and might have smudged those of the "abductor". Exactly who suggested that they all troop outside to give it a go ?
I don't know. I just ask.
Is it in the book ? (Rhetorical - for those who are leaping up and down and wanting to reply !)

by RBxHN 17.05.11 7:37

Duh wrote:So why only 1 set of fingerprints found?

Need we say any more. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 17.05.11 9:01

In the forensic report it says:

From the glass located on the inside of childs window,
5 prints were recovered, 3 from the middle finger of LH, 2 from the index finger of LH, all belonging to Kate McCann.

From outside of the external blinds, i.e., the shutter,
3 inadequate prints were found.
(according to the experts on Dispatches, they are in the opening position of someone who was standing inside)

What appears to be missing:
are the details of the outside of the glass window, which must have been examined the following day.

by Guest 17.05.11 9:39

Sorry, had to dash. The reason I just posted up that section on the forensic report is to show that;

a) Only one person must have touched the shutter, as they only found one set of prints in the opening position, from inside.

b) It therefore shows that, out of all the people who actually claimed to have touched the shutters, all of them are lying or all but one are lying.

c) It clearly shows that no one cleaned the shutter that night.

by **PeterMac** 17.05.11 9:55

And who tampered with the 'crime' scene by lowering the shutter from the inside, so that they could all play with it. Why didn't the noise wake the other children ?
Gerry was on the floor roaring like a bull, Kate was hitting walls or whatever she says she was doing, so who lowered the shutter. Who took the responsiblity for b****** up the scene before the police arrived ? Whose idea was it ?
The Met. team are going to love this !

by Guest 17.05.11 10:11

PeterMac wrote:And who tampered with the 'crime' scene by lowering the shutter from the inside, so that they could all play with it. Why didn't the noise wake the other children ?
Gerry was on the floor roaring like a bull, Kate was hitting walls or whatever she says she was doing, so who lowered the shutter. Who took the responsiblity for b****** up the scene before the police arrived ? Whose idea was it ?
The Met. team are going to love this !

It does seem incredible that intelligent people, would be fiddling the the shutters, when they all seemed positive an abductor had used this window as the point of entry or exit or both!! And yet we had stories, of the bungling police, smoking and dropping cigarette ash etc. angry

by Guest 17.05.11 10:36

It seems to me that the inspection of the inside of the shutter and the outside of the window, appears to be missing from the forensic report, I wonder why?

What happened to the inside of the window and the outside of the shutter?

by **PeterMac** 17.05.11 12:22

candyfloss wrote:
It does seem incredible that intelligent people, would be fiddling the the shutters, when they all seemed positive an abductor had used this window as the point of entry or exit or both!! And yet we had stories, of the bungling police, smoking and dropping cigarette ash etc.

I think 'incredible' is a good word to use here. Have done this to explain the fact that the shutters were down when the police arrived ? If they were.

by Guest 17.05.11 12:29

PeterMac wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
It does seem incredible that intelligent people, would be fiddling the the shutters, when they all seemed positive an abductor had used this window as the point of entry or exit or both!! And yet we had stories, of the bungling police, smoking and dropping cigarette ash etc.

I think 'incredible' is a good word to use here. Have done this to explain the fact that the shutters were down when the police arrived ? If they were.

Well they are down is this photo, but don'w know when it was taken

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

by Guest 17.05.11 12:33

In this one they seem to be slightly pushed up a small gap

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

With thanks to Pamalam for photos

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

How did the curtains blow open or go whooosh when they would have been tucked down the side of the bed as they were to the floor?

by Guest 17.05.11 12:43

Just about a minute in where KM says the curtains went whoooosh

[youtube][/youtube]

by Guest 17.05.11 12:44

00.40 a.m. PJ Deputy Specialist, Joao Francisco Pascoa Luis Trigo Barreiras, arrives on the scene and takes the first set of PJ photographs.

02.00-03.00 a.m. The McCann’s ask GNR officer, Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa for a priest, his colleague had tried to contact one for them on his mobile, but did not manage to find one.

03.00-04.00 a.m. approximately. The 1^st forensic team arrives on site, according to GNR officer José Carlos Leal Pimental.

I would think that the photo with the shutter slightly up was how Barreiras found it, as I think that one belongs to his set and the photo with the shutter down was done by forensics. I will go and check the forensic one now.

Correct. Barreiras photographed the shutter raised by about 12 inches, forensics that afternoon had the shutters all the way down. So either they closed them after the initial exam, to check the mechanism. Or Barreiras did and left it down for them.

by **PeterMac** 17.05.11 14:42

candyfloss wrote:Just about a minute in where KM says the curtains went whoooosh

And in that footage, they have used very short curtains, no longer than the length of the window, and made of what appears to be net. The curtains in the apartmant were long, almost down to the floor, and look heavier. Also the left one was clearly trapped by the bed.
It would have taken a Beaufort Force 6 to "Whoosh" them, and Kate would not have been able to hold the door against that pressure. It would have slammed onto her, or into the frame.
As with all things McCann, it does help to go right back to the beginning, and to pick it all apart.

by moroneylm03 17.05.11 14:49

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote: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

[url=http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5656199460257719198&postID=5025712426850926782&isPopup=true

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

just been re-reading this thread and the above comment popped out - my understanding is that Kate is saying she went to close the door a little, then it slammed shut...then she opened the door, and only THEN did she notice Madeleine was gone.... so basically, if the wiind hadnt slammed the door shut, she wouldve left the apartment and gone back to her dinner, safe in the knowledge her 'checking on the children' task was adequate....

so basically they're checks didnt even involve actually looking at the kids - maybe they were just listening to see if they were crying or awake instead... which leads me to belive they possibly didnt check on the kids on any previous night, but given what Madeleine had said that day (about why did no one come to her when her and Sean were crying the pevious night), they decided to check on the kids that night juust to make sure they werent crying.....

I dont know what happened to Madeleine that night...except that it wouldnt have happened if she hadnt been left, but the McCanns need to be charged with child abuse under the Childrens Act 1989 based on her statement above and the sheer neglect they imposed on all three poor children.

by Guest 17.05.11 14:52

In this picture you can see that they are lined. They usually are in hotels and apartments in hot countries.

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

This picture shows they are right down to the floor, so they must have been tucked behind the bed, and not dangling above it.

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

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

by **PeterMac** 17.05.11 17:05

Shutters. Kate says they were Up, then someone, either Kate or Gerry, or a Tapasnik pulled them Down so they could all go and put their fingerprints all over them and try to push them Up, smudging any fingerprints of any possible abuctor in the process.
So the shutters got moved twice. One Up by the alleged perp, and once Down by the destroyers of the scene.
{Someone help. Are they Down when the police arive, and if so, do K and G explain why in their statements. I can't find the reference.}

Now consider. Mrs Fenn, the previous night heard the child crying for hours. She then states that she heard a parent come in by the patio door. She heard the Patio door open. Patio doors are on a rolling slider mechanism and are relatively quiet. But Mrs Fenn heard the patio door open.

The following night no one heard the shutters being pulled up, or forced, nor did anyone report hearing them being lowered again so people could play with them. Anyone who has been to Southern europe knows that shuters of this type make a loud and very distinctive noise.
Do the Tapas7 statements talk about fooling around outside.
If not, why not.
The Curious Incident of the Shutters in the Night-time, perhaps.

“And this shows that sometimes people want to be stupid and they do not want to know the truth.
And it shows that something called Occam’s razor is true. And Occam’s razor is not a razor that men shave with but a Law, and it says…
No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary.”

by RBxHN 17.05.11 18:28

Could the PJ have been instructed to say that Kate's fingerprints were the only ones identifiable as they were trying to pin the blame on her.......which we all know!

Food for thought?

by **PeterMac** 17.05.11 18:45

RBxHN wrote:Could the PJ have been instructed to say that Kate's fingerprints were the only ones identifiable as they were trying to pin the blame on her.......which we all know!
Food for thought?

No. And no.

by RBxHN 17.05.11 19:12

PeterMac wrote:
RBxHN wrote:Could the PJ have been instructed to say that Kate's fingerprints were the only ones identifiable as they were trying to pin the blame on her.......which we all know!
Food for thought?
No. And no.

Any chance you could expand on why you're so sure? Thanks.

by Guest 17.05.11 19:23

PeterMac wrote:Shutters. Kate says they were Up, then someone, either Kate or Gerry, or a Tapasnik pulled them Down so they could all go and put their fingerprints all over them and try to push them Up, smudging any fingerprints of any possible abuctor in the process.
So the shutters got moved twice. One Up by the alleged perp, and once Down by the destroyers of the scene.
{Someone help. Are they Down when the police arive, and if so, do K and G explain why in their statements. I can't find the reference.}

Now consider. Mrs Fenn, the previous night heard the child crying for hours. She then states that she heard a parent come in by the patio door. She heard the Patio door open. Patio doors are on a rolling slider mechanism and are relatively quiet. But Mrs Fenn heard the patio door open.

The following night no one heard the shutters being pulled up, or forced, nor did anyone report hearing them being lowered again so people could play with them. Anyone who has been to Southern europe knows that shuters of this type make a loud and very distinctive noise.
Do the Tapas7 statements talk about fooling around outside. If not, why not.
The Curious Incident of the Shutters in the Night-time, perhaps.

“And this shows that sometimes people want to be stupid and they do not want to know the truth.
And it shows that something called Occam’s razor is true. And Occam’s razor is not a razor that men shave with but a Law, and it says…
No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary.”

PeterMac, if you look at the first few posts in this thread, there are statements from people showing that 3 of the Tapas 9 messed with the shutters. Diane Webster admits to messing with them and twisting them.

by Guest 17.05.11 20:24

Transcript from the CNN interview on this link below in which he states that he fiddled with the shutters. Too long to c & p.

Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Piers Morgan interview with the McCanns May 2011. More anomalies

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

This is the bit I was talking about in my original first post on this thread.............................

GM...
And I ran into the bedroom. And I found it just as Kate described. And when I saw that window pushed wide open and the shutter up, which we'd left down the whole week, it was horrible. And I -- lowered the shutter and I went through the front door. And I was able to lift the shutter from outside which –

by LittleMissMolly 17.05.11 20:51

PeterMac wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
It does seem incredible that intelligent people, would be fiddling the the shutters, when they all seemed positive an abductor had used this window as the point of entry or exit or both!! And yet we had stories, of the bungling police, smoking and dropping cigarette ash etc.

I think 'incredible' is a good word to use here. Have done this to explain the fact that the shutters were down when the police arrived ? If they were.

Sylvia Batista's statement is that they were down when she arrived in the apartment ahead of the GNR thumbsup

by Guest 17.05.11 20:57

It's rather odd too, that with 3 of them raising the noisy shutter, (which the News of the World tried in their investigation) plus the abductor, the twins slept soundly. One of the tapas 7 aludes to this in their statement. I think it may have been DW, I posted it earlier in the thread.

by **PeterMac** 18.05.11 7:33

Thanks for those links. The whole thing is so horribly confused I had lost sight of the "fact" that Gerry himself says he shut them, and then ran outside to play with them. Why were his prints not on them ? Strange, because there would have been an entirely logical explanation if they had been. But they weren't.
He says he could raise them. One of the other said she couldn't. Anyone who knows that type of shutter knows you can't. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE.

by RBxHN 18.05.11 7:55

And so, I go back to my original point regarding the shutters, are we to believe that ALL finger prints had been found or moreover, were disclosed as to being found?

Because if not, as I have speculated...............it answers a lot of questions which seem to be causing a lot of confusion!

by Guest 18.05.11 9:53

PeterMac wrote:Thanks for those links. The whole thing is so horribly confused I had lost sight of the "fact" that Gerry himself says he shut them, and then ran outside to play with them. Why were his prints not on them ? Strange, because there would have been an entirely logical explanation if they had been. But they weren't.
He says he could raise them. One of the other said she couldn't. Anyone who knows that type of shutter knows you can't. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE.

They are all lying PeterMac, don't worry.

From the photo taken by forensics AFTER they had used dragons blood ALL OVER the entire outside of the shutter, ONLY 3 finger prints were found. As confirmed by the various photo's and film footage taken.

British experts confirmed that they had come from the same hand, of someone standing inside the property and pushing up.

One person and one person only touched that shutter.

by Guest 18.05.11 9:57

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

This is the earliest photo taken of the shutter, presumably by Barreiras as he arrived first with a camera and would not have touched anything before forensics had arrived.

by Guest 18.05.11 10:01

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

All areas potentially touched by hands have been swiped.

Latest topics