Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

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!!

by wgbrother 19.02.12 0:30

rainbow-fairy wrote:
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.

I am not pulling anything. I am simply showing that there are lots of possibilities many of which seem to be dismissed for no logical reason.

by wgbrother 19.02.12 0:32

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

The curtains being closed does not prevent him opening the shutters and looking. It might if there is no gap prevent him from seeing much but he wouldn't know that till he opened the shutters would he.

So you are wrong. He could peep as soon as he lifted the shutter. He might just not get to see what he wanted to see. But then again he might. There might have been a gap. Or the window might not have been locked and he might have opened it. What caused the whoosh if he didn't open it?

by Guest 19.02.12 0:35

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

The curtains being closed does not prevent him opening the shutters and looking. It might if there is no gap prevent him from seeing much but he wouldn't know that till he opened the shutters would he.

So you are wrong. He could peep as soon as he lifted the shutter. He might just not get to see what he wanted to see.

Bit dodgy eh, opening the shutters, making all that noise, only to find you couldn't see a sausage big grin

From the programme Madeleine was here transcript.

I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html

by ShuBob 19.02.12 0:36

By the sound of things, the abductor is so daft even PI Dave Edgar would have caught him without trying lol!

by rainbow-fairy 19.02.12 0:37

wgbrother, you make much of 'logical reason' - what is the 'logical reason' for an abductor to peep in a window to check the children were asleep? Why does it matter if they are asleep or not? Why open the shutter to check (wasting valuable time) when you could just be in the patio door and out again? Its you my friend who is not being logical...

by listener 19.02.12 0:37

wgbrother wrote:
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.

Ok, last post tonight - You can sneak in quietly through the unlocked door for a look - but you decide to lift the noisy shutter for a peak, all the time exposing yourself to any passers/ checkers!

Good plan Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 2 259100

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 2 259100

by wgbrother 19.02.12 1:05

Whatever the reason the potential abductor might have had for opening the shutters, Pat Brown and Peter have put laid to one lie which has been doing the rounds for years. The fact is those shutters are clearly very easy to open from the outside. And if an abductor had decided to enter and leave by that route the fact that the shutters are so easy to open makes it more possible that it happened.

And I just wonder how the curtains went whoosh. Draughts don't come through closed windows do they? Did the abductor just push the window open then? Otherwise how did it happen?

by wgbrother 19.02.12 1:08

listener wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
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.

Ok, last post tonight - You can sneak in quietly through the unlocked door for a look - but you decide to lift the noisy shutter for a peak, all the time exposing yourself to any passers/ checkers!

Good plan

But you may not know the patio door is open. You may try the window in the dark corner of the carpark first and only try the patio doors later when you realise you cannot get in via the window. Incidentally, I don't know how much time you have spent in the part of the world where shutters are common but you very quickly learn not to even notice the noise. There isn't as much as you think if unlike Peter in Pats movie you open them very slowly.

There might not have been much of a plan at all.

by jmac 19.02.12 1:21

Opening the shutters slowly would take more time which would not be a good idea. This was a window at the front of the building where at any moment someone could have stepped out to the car park. Opening the shutters would have left fingerprints. Jane Tanner did not see the alleged abductor wearing gloves. Then again, how would the abductor know for sure that the child he/she was after was in this room? It still seems a bit of a tall story.

by jmac 19.02.12 1:22

Opening the shutters slowly would take more time which would not be a good idea. This was a window at the front of the building where at any moment someone could have stepped out to the car park. Opening the shutters would have left fingerprints. Jane Tanner did not see the alleged abductor wearing gloves. Then again, how would the abductor know for sure that the child he/she was after was in this room? It still seems a bit of a tall story.

Latest topics