Just for balance (and people can summise where my stance is on the McCanns), what I find strange is that ONLY Kate's fingerprints were found. How likely is that? I appreciate that some maids have higher standards than others but are we to accept that the apartment is forensically cleaned every week, removing all traces of previous guests? I believe the McCanns are guilty of at least neglect but there's a suspicion from me that the Portuguese plod are forcing the issue and as far as I'm concerned, it weakens their case.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Madeleine McCann
- Thread starter mcfc22
- Start date
Machiavelli
Well-Known Member
Poor you. Stop playing the victim, you mentioned the window again even though you’ve been provided with information totally ruling out the window being the point of entry/exit. I quoted another of your posts where you’d mentioned the window again.For god sake man.
I’m just saying the whole place could have been locked and that would have been better.
I’m not saying 100% the window was used - although many investigators think it was.
My point wasn’t on the actual abductors entry - it was on what the parents could have done.
The amount of times I get miss quoted is ridiculous
Just for balance (and people can summise where my stance is on the McCanns), what I find strange is that ONLY Kate's fingerprints were found. How likely is that? I appreciate that some maids have higher standards than others but are we to accept that the apartment is forensically cleaned every week, removing all traces of previous guests? I believe the McCanns are guilty of at least neglect but there's a suspicion from me that the Portuguese plod are forcing the issue and as far as I'm concerned, it weakens their case.
They were only found on the window I think, which isn’t all that strange if she’s been attending to the kids more than Gerry has - thus opening and shutting the window all week.
Could be wrong but that’s my understanding.
Machiavelli
Well-Known Member
After all Gerry said it was practically like dining in the garden!Waved, according to everyone there they could see the apartment, why run back? Why not just shout and wave frantically at the rest of the selfish cunts?
Some fucking big garden that.
Poor you. Stop playing the victim, you mentioned the window again even though you’ve been provided with information totally ruling out the window being the point of entry/exit. I quoted another of your posts where you’d mentioned the window again.
I’m not playing the victim, I’m asking for you to fucking quote me correctly if you’re going to.
The window hasn’t been ruled out by the authorities - yet Bluemoon’s Department for kidnapping know more.
I’m not even saying it was definitely the window - no argument I’ve made is enhanced by it being the window - I’m just taking it from the investigators.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
Just for balance (and people can summise where my stance is on the McCanns), what I find strange is that ONLY Kate's fingerprints were found. How likely is that? I appreciate that some maids have higher standards than others but are we to accept that the apartment is forensically cleaned every week, removing all traces of previous guests? I believe the McCanns are guilty of at least neglect but there's a suspicion from me that the Portuguese plod are forcing the issue and as far as I'm concerned, it weakens their case.
They wouldn't search the entire apartment for either DNA or fingerprints, just a few select areas. So it's possible that that's all they collected but that doesn't mean that other fingerprints or other DNA wasn't there (they obviously were).
johnmc
Well-Known Member
I wonder if they left cash and passports out in the apartment or locked them away.
Machiavelli
Well-Known Member
I’m not playing the victim, I’m asking for you to fucking quote me correctly if you’re going to.
The window hasn’t been ruled out by the authorities - yet Bluemoon’s Department for kidnapping know more.
I’m not even saying it was definitely the window - no argument I’ve made is enhanced by it being the window - I’m just taking it from the investigators.
Yes - as the window was closed before they left and was then open.
It could be that the intruder opened the window to look and then used the patio door but the window was used.
The window was wide open when they came in.
It wasn’t open before.
They didn’t necessarily escape through the side window, the side window was on the road so they may have opened it to view or climbed through it on the way in and left out of the patio door.
I’m not sure how stating this aspect of it is defending the indefensible, it’s in the official reports given by Kate that the window was wide open when she got back in.
Didn’t the private investigators on the documentary say they think it was the window?
Watch the Netflix documentary.
Scotland Yard and the private investigators think the window.
I’m not saying 100% the window was used - although many investigators think it was.
@Prestwich_Blue even posted this (saying he’d pm you a warning for trolling if he was still a mod) in response to you continually posting about the window.
Jesus H Christ we’ve been through all this a million times. If I was still a mod I’d be pm’ing you with a warning about trolling so it’s probably a good job I’m not.
The window was open because Kate opened it from the inside. They claimed it’d been forced open from the outside but it was proven conclusively by forensics that it hadn’t been.
They were desperate to paint a picture that a third-party had somehow got in. Gerry first claimed he’d gone in through the front door, using the key. But once the forced window story was proven to be false, he admitted the patio door had been unlocked. It couldn’t be locked from the outside so had to be left unlocked if anyone went out. You can speculate whether that was because they were initially frightened about being accused of negligence or because they were desperate to divert attention from something more sinister.
It doesn’t matter in one sense what the reason was as, one way or another, they lied to the police and potentially obstructed an in-progress criminal investigation. Should have been done for that alone but that probably wouldn’t have helped anyone.
It’s an inescapable fact that the false trail they seemingly tried to lay once it was known that Maddy was missing renders them liable to the deepest suspicion. All their actions were seemingly designed for the express purpose of covering their own arses rather than finding their child and, for that reason, I find it hard to believe that they don’t have some knowledge of what really happened that night.
@Prestwich_Blue even posted this (saying he’d pm you a warning for trolling if he was still a mod) in response to you continually posting about the window.
Prestwich blue isn’t the ultimate authority on this, why do you keep referring people who agree with you as evidence? I haven’t done the same.
And anyway, he hasn’t commented on the window since I last mentioned the police and the private investigators both stated in the Netflix documentary that they think the window was used.
I’m trying not to be rude here but you’re confusing the neglect argument to what the intruder used as an entrance/exit and it’s a little thick how you can’t see the difference in the two discussions.
Plus in every single quote you’ve highlighted there it’s always COULD or MAY have used the window - nothing I’ve said is definitive over how the intruder got in or out.
The window or the patio being used doesn’t alter my argument on why I don’t think it was gross negligence - that is the point I’m making.
Machiavelli
Well-Known Member
“I never mentioned the window”Prestwich blue isn’t the ultimate authority on this, why do you keep referring people who agree with you as evidence? I haven’t done the same.
And anyway, he hasn’t commented on the window since I last mentioned the police and the private investigators both stated in the Netflix documentary that they think the window was used.
I’m trying not to be rude here but you’re confusing the neglect argument to what the intruder used as an entrance/exit and it’s a little thick how you can’t see the difference in the two discussions.
The window or the patio being used doesn’t alter my argument on why I don’t think it was gross negligence - that is the point I’m making.
*posts several posts where you have
*ignores the several posts
“It’s a little thick you can’t see the difference”
I’m going to leave you to it.