The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Pat Brown - What about the Window

Page 3 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother on 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told by Team McCann, who have done everything possible to cloud what really went on in May '07 - including releasing an out-of-date photo of their daughter, when allegedly there was the 'pool pic' taken on Kate's camera that afternoon!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.

____________________


wgbrother

Posts : 76
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother on 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?

wgbrother

Posts : 76
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Guest on 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
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by ShuBob on 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!

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by rainbow-fairy on 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...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by listener on 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
avatar
listener

Posts : 569
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother on 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?

wgbrother

Posts : 76
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother on 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.

wgbrother

Posts : 76
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by jmac on 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.

jmac

Posts : 121
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by jmac on 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.

jmac

Posts : 121
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Angelique on 19.02.12 1:23

I expect that most of the rental properties in PdL will now get higher insurance premiums if they are that easy to raise up. Maybe the suppliers should also consider renaming their equipment! Something on the lines of "easy to raise shutters". sad

So why the jemmy, Gerry?

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
avatar
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by aiyoyo on 19.02.12 5:35

Are Pat Brown and Peter using 5A's window (the window in question) for their illustration?
Demo window looks wider - 2-pane sliding window , so no matter which side you slide you can only end up with one-opened pane.

I stand corrected, but from photo, 5A's window frame looks smaller, as if a one-pane window, unless the angle of the photo makes it appear smaller.
I wonder if demo- window is same size as 5A; and whether 5a's window is sliding or push out one?

It certainly makes a racket (enough to wake the dead up) in the demo pic, which tallies with what the Police said ie noisy.

To Nina's question, the man in the pic I would say, is in his 50's thereabout, fit looking, big and stocky.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by tigger on 19.02.12 7:01

@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. 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?

How very tiresome. wgbrother. 'Purporting a sort of handyman abductor really doesn't work with the available evidence, which is:

pretty well anything would have left a mark on the sill since it was covered in lichen - there were no marks
the testimony of Diane Webster shows that the shutters could not be raised from outside - that very night - it was the first thing Gerry tried after the alarm was raised - they got stuck
how could the abductor know that that particular window gave onto the children's room -
even if the windows were not locked, these sliding windows have no handhold to move them from outside so the abductor would have needed a suction pad as well as the long stick -
There would have been marks of either gloves or fingerprints left on the outside of the window.
The only prints were those of Kate on the inside -
Manipulating the blind and the windows would make more than enough noise to wake the children -
If he wanted to look around, there was little risk in just walking through the patio window, since - according to the McCs - he must have been watching them, he'd know where they were.

The entry or exit through the window, on the basis of evidence gathered by the police and sheer common sense, never happened.



____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by aiyoyo on 19.02.12 7:33

@tigger wrote:
@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. 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?

How very tiresome. wgbrother. 'Purporting a sort of handyman abductor really doesn't work with the available evidence, which is:

pretty well anything would have left a mark on the sill since it was covered in lichen - there were no marks
the testimony of Diane Webster shows that the shutters could not be raised from outside - that very night - it was the first thing Gerry tried after the alarm was raised - they got stuck
how could the abductor know that that particular window gave onto the children's room -
even if the windows were not locked, these sliding windows have no handhold to move them from outside so the abductor would have needed a suction pad as well as the long stick -
There would have been marks of either gloves or fingerprints left on the outside of the window.
The only prints were those of Kate on the inside -
Manipulating the blind and the windows would make more than enough noise to wake the children -
If he wanted to look around, there was little risk in just walking through the patio window, since - according to the McCs - he must have been watching them, he'd know where they were.

The entry or exit through the window, on the basis of evidence gathered by the police and sheer common sense, never happened.



Historically speaking, has anyone heard of abductor coming through window? I haven't.
Usually it's the burglars who do that.

Abduction usually takes place outdoor in open space, or in the case of family or known-to-the-family abductor then maybe from a house or perimeter of the house compound, when people are not looking or not alert enough.

The only window abduction I heard about is "alien abduction", that of "the Manhattan Abduction" where Linda Napolitano claimed that she was abducted by the so-called "greys," who floated her from a closed bedroom window into a hovering UFO craft waiting for her hovering above a Manhattan's apartment in the early morning.

avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by happychick on 19.02.12 7:44

If the abductor really did use a piece of wood to prop open the shutter and was lucky enough to find the window open and entered the apartment that way why did he kill Madeleine before abducting her? Why did he kill her behind the sofa and leave her there long enough for cadaver odour to develop (90-120 mins, bearing in mind he only had a small window of opportunity) then move her to her parents wardrobe and then the verandah, then the flowerbed. And wasn't he also hiding behind the door when Gerry did his check? All this in 3 minutes?

So, let's assume he did all this in the small window of opportunity. He then came back four weeks later and put dead Madeleine in the car that her parents hired.


avatar
happychick

Posts : 404
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2011-06-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 19.02.12 8:06

Just want to make a couple of points before this thread reaches 20 pages of ever decreasing circles.

If this blind was not locked from the inside, it only proves that it could be lifted externally, rather than the jemmying porky we heard at the outset of the story.

If they cannot be locked from the inside then they are of no value whatsoever other than as a sunshade. This is the crux of it. Was the blind locked or not locked? If one could stroll up to a blind like this and simply lift it, then they are quite pointless accessories.

Forget some bloke staking out the joint with a piece of wood to use as a prop, just too stupid to contemplate - more likely an accomplice would be needed to hold it open or help receive a child being passed through (still too conspicuous to contemplate with any degree of seriousness)

Unless this blind was the one at 5a, still has limited proof of anything.

Well done to Pat and the team for establishing that an unlocked blind can be opened from the outside, because it dispels the story that has been going round for years that it is not possible to open a roller blind externally.

But moving on, if the blind was unlocked, and the internal window either open or unsecured, it does nothing to bolster the McCanns credibility, because when alls said and done they would still have left 3 infants in an unsecured ground floor room with a window looking out onto a public road. It does nothing to truly help their case. Particularly as there were no forensic traces tying the shutter into the case. Only Kates fingerprints.



____________________
The truth will out.
avatar
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by aquila on 19.02.12 9:07

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Just want to make a couple of points before this thread reaches 20 pages of ever decreasing circles.

If this blind was not locked from the inside, it only proves that it could be lifted externally, rather than the jemmying porky we heard at the outset of the story.

If they cannot be locked from the inside then they are of no value whatsoever other than as a sunshade. This is the crux of it. Was the blind locked or not locked? If one could stroll up to a blind like this and simply lift it, then they are quite pointless accessories.

Forget some bloke staking out the joint with a piece of wood to use as a prop, just too stupid to contemplate - more likely an accomplice would be needed to hold it open or help receive a child being passed through (still too conspicuous to contemplate with any degree of seriousness)

Unless this blind was the one at 5a, still has limited proof of anything.

Well done to Pat and the team for establishing that an unlocked blind can be opened from the outside, because it dispels the story that has been going round for years that it is not possible to open a roller blind externally.

But moving on, if the blind was unlocked, and the internal window either open or unsecured, it does nothing to bolster the McCanns credibility, because when alls said and done they would still have left 3 infants in an unsecured ground floor room with a window looking out onto a public road. It does nothing to truly help their case. Particularly as there were no forensic traces tying the shutter into the case. Only Kates fingerprints.



I'm glad Pat has established that the blinds can be opened from the outside. I had the same blinds (there I am saying it again and it's not out of smugness) and broke into my own house twice and was burgled twice. These blinds don't lock, they have a mechanism on the inside that controls the pull strap so when there is no tension on the strap it locks and the blind stays in that position. When I broke into my own house however, because I didn't use the strap to open the shutter from the inside there was a lot of pulling up and down to get the inside mechanism to lock the strap and stop the shutter falling down. Anyway it was very noisy. I lived up a mountain so no-one would have heard me but I remember how noisy it was. In a complex at a quiet time of the season this would have certainly been an unusual noise especially at night when the streets were deserted and not much traffic noise.

Smokeandmirrors, I agree that the forensic evidence discounts all of this anyway. The undisturbed lichen, the fingerprints the lack of disturbance makes us go around in circles, discussing this topic. I'm just really glad it has been investigated and shown for what it is.

There is one thing I must add to this. The PJ, yes, those police officers living in their own country, with their own experience of burglary cases and shutters common to their own homes/holiday apartments etc, have been IMO treated like 'sardine munchers'. They must have turned up to many burglaries in their time and from experience know whether entry to that apartment had happened through the shutters. That says it all really.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8702
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Cheshire Cat on 19.02.12 9:09

A bet the McCann's wish that they had bought into the woke and walked theory as purported by "former detective and authority on paedophile crimes" Mark Williams-Thomas. But Mark suggests that the patio door was not only unlocked, but left slightly open allowing Madeleine to 'escape'. Funny how he doesn't mention the woke, wandered and injured scenario and dismisses the dogs findings (the victim recovery dogs). Anyway, if the McCann's have to accept that the abducter did not enter the property, perhaps Marks theory is sitting there, waiting to be dusted off?
Pat Brown is a strategic thinker, reminds me of a game of chess with a master. Not checkmate yet but certainly one of those points where Pat seems to be saying "check! your move..."


From The Times April 28, 2008
Mark Williams-Thomas: Analysis

‘Madeleine McCann was abducted by an opportunistic paedophile’

The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is like no other I have seen before.

I
have followed this case from the beginning. I visited the village of
Praia da Luz within hours of Madeleine’s disappearance and have returned
on numerous occasions to examine what happened on May 3 last year.

I
believe that Madeleine was abducted outside her family’s apartment by
an opportunistic paedophile with local connections. And I would be very surprised if this person has not been back to the area or still frequents it.

On
the evening she disappeared I believe Madeleine woke up and cried for a
short time while her parents were dining at a nearby tapas bar at the
Ocean Club resort. When she realised that her parents were not there she
climbed out of bed and walked around the apartment. She found the back patio door partly open so she walked out, went down the small flight
of steps, through the metal gate and turned right down towards the
entrance to the tapas bar. It was at this point that she was abducted.
Interestingly, police dogs first tracked a scent down this exact route.
It is a vital clue that has been largely ignored. Unfortunately,
although this area is in range of a CCTV camera at the nearby super-market, it was not working that night.

Statistically
the abduction of a child is very rare. On average it happens to six
children a year in Britain. However, if we look at the abduction and
murder of Sarah Payne in July 2000 we can see that she was snatched by a
passing stranger while her brothers were just steps behind.

Madeleine
became the victim of an opportunist and predatory paedophile. The
abductor either lives in or had contact with Praia da Luz. This is not
the sort of resort you just happen upon. For the past 12 months the
Portuguese police have pursued only two lines of inquiry: that Gerry and
Kate McCann were involved or that their daughter was abducted by a
stranger. They have focused steadfastly on the first line. It is quite
correct for the police to consider the parents as suspects because most
murdered children are killed by a relative or someone they know. But the
police do not seem to have any real evidence against Mr and Mrs McCann
and they have vehemently denied any involvement.

Mr and Mrs
McCann believe their daughter was abducted and trafficked abroad but
Madeleine does not fit the profile. Girls are trafficked into the sex trade
as prostitutes or for domestic slavery, both with financial gain to the
seller and purchaser. Who was to gain from her trafficking?

The so-called sightings
in other countries, although genuinely intended, are a distraction and
prove to be of little value after the initial two weeks. After all who
is going to openly walk out with the most wanted child in the world? For
months it was genuinely assumed the abductor had entered the apartment
and taken Madeleine from her bed. But I do not believe that a paedophile
was watching the apartment or that an offender entered the apartment.

This would be too high risk as the offender would not know that someone was not inside. Britain has not seen a single
case of a predatory paedophile entering premises and abducting a child
where the occupants of the house are unknown to the offender.

The
problem with the police investigation was that it was crucially flawed
from the very start. It was the worst-preserved crime scene I have seen.


The investigation is now all but closed. The police have
insufficient evidence to charge Mr and Mrs McCann and when their arguido
status is lifted the couple could return to Portugal without fear of
arrest or prosecution.

They could then properly coordinate an investigation to find out what really did happen to Madeleine.

Mark Williams-Thomas is a former detective and authority on paedophile crimes
avatar
Cheshire Cat
Madeleine Foundation

Posts : 676
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2010-08-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by tigger on 19.02.12 9:30

It's only just dawned on me that the shutters and the window were chosen for entry and exit because it was the only way of exiting the flat which could be shown to be impossible for Maddie.
She would have been perfectly capable of walking out of the patio door, even sliding that aside(I've seen a video of a smaller toddler doing just that).
If the front door was unlocked, she could have left via that exit.
However, when the shutters turned out to be just as impossible for the 'abductor', Maddie was then deemed incapable of leaving via the patio doors.

The shutters, cuddle cat and the pink blanket were so many props to make it acceptable to the police and general public that Kate would immediately know she was abducted. With an accessible open patio door this was not a logical conclusion.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by aquila on 19.02.12 9:44

@tigger wrote:It's only just dawned on me that the shutters and the window were chosen for entry and exit because it was the only way of exiting the flat which could be shown to be impossible for Maddie.
She would have been perfectly capable of walking out of the patio door, even sliding that aside(I've seen a video of a smaller toddler doing just that).
If the front door was unlocked, she could have left via that exit.
However, when the shutters turned out to be just as impossible for the 'abductor', Maddie was then deemed incapable of leaving via the patio doors.

The shutters, cuddle cat and the pink blanket were so many props to make it acceptable to the police and general public that Kate would immediately know she was abducted. With an accessible open patio door this was not a logical conclusion.

Hi Tigger, the thing to do is to get a 3 1/2 year old back into those apartments to show how easy/difficult it was to open a patio door. The front door (the one that was/wasn't open/double locked - shit I sigh everytime I think about that) test that too. Test the windows, test the doors, get a 3 1/2 year old to try and open one. Those patio doors are heavy to open - especially if they have a locking 'click' thing on the inside and I'm saying 'click thing' because I saw a picture on the forum and I think it was one of the Payne's children at the patio door of their apartment (of course we can't assume that all the apartments had the same doors). That front door may not even have a door handle on the inside that is accessible to a little one.

If the grown ups can't prove how to get in and out of an apartment, test it with a 3 1/2 year old. Out of the mouths of babes.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8702
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by tigger on 19.02.12 10:05

Aquila, if we are to believe the tennis photo was Maddie - 4 yrs old - she even looks capable of raising the shutters to me, never mind sliding doors and opening the front door.
As you must know, children seem to have a marvelous knack for opening kitchen cabinets and all sorts of doors.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Genbug on 19.02.12 10:11

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

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

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

Nina. I agree with you 100%. I too live with exactly the same shutters. I have tried hard to lift them from the outside and couldn't manage more than half an inch (and I'm a fairly fit middle aged woman). They were also making an awful sound. Also like you, we have to make sure our shutters are in good working condition because of insurance. In my opinion, the shutters on that video are faulty or that man has super human strength!

Genbug

Posts : 186
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by rainbow-fairy on 19.02.12 10:19

@tigger wrote:It's only just dawned on me that the shutters and the window were chosen for entry and exit because it was the only way of exiting the flat which could be shown to be impossible for Maddie.
She would have been perfectly capable of walking out of the patio door, even sliding that aside(I've seen a video of a smaller toddler doing just that).
If the front door was unlocked, she could have left via that exit.
However, when the shutters turned out to be just as impossible for the 'abductor', Maddie was then deemed incapable of leaving via the patio doors.

The shutters, cuddle cat and the pink blanket were so many props to make it acceptable to the police and general public that Kate would immediately know she was abducted. With an accessible open patio door this was not a logical conclusion.
tigger, I think you may have just solved the 'why the window?' riddle...
I liked your assessment of wgbrothers 'theories' - tiresome. So much so they sent me to sleep last night!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by rainbow-fairy on 19.02.12 10:22

@tigger wrote:It's only just dawned on me that the shutters and the window were chosen for entry and exit because it was the only way of exiting the flat which could be shown to be impossible for Maddie.
She would have been perfectly capable of walking out of the patio door, even sliding that aside(I've seen a video of a smaller toddler doing just that).
If the front door was unlocked, she could have left via that exit.
However, when the shutters turned out to be just as impossible for the 'abductor', Maddie was then deemed incapable of leaving via the patio doors.

The shutters, cuddle cat and the pink blanket were so many props to make it acceptable to the police and general public that Kate would immediately know she was abducted. With an accessible open patio door this was not a logical conclusion.
tigger, I think you may have just solved the 'why the window?' riddle...
I liked your assessment of wgbrothers 'theories' - tiresome. So much so they sent me to sleep last night!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by T4two on 19.02.12 10:24

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

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

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

Nina. I agree with you 100%. I too live with exactly the same shutters. I have tried hard to lift them from the outside and couldn't manage more than half an inch (and I'm a fairly fit middle aged woman). They were also making an awful sound. Also like you, we have to make sure our shutters are in good working condition because of insurance. In my opinion, the shutters on that video are faulty or that man has super human strength!

I also agree 100%. The video is totally misleading. First the hullabaloo about the view without the trees and now this IMO completely unnecessary exercise. I'm sorry to say that the Pat Brown trip is not helping much at the moment.
avatar
T4two

Posts : 166
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-01-22
Age : 69
Location : Germany

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum