Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #27

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no reason to go through a window when a seasoned burglar can easily open identikit door locks. The window is for light (so one does not have to switch on the lights in a dark apartment and alert tenants.) and sound (in case somebody is coming into apartment from another direction.)
Didn't MO say he could see the twin's cots ? As I've understood it a lamp was left on . Don't forget also what GM said . There must have been light enough for that? Also M would need a light should she waken ,open the patio door and go out looking for her parents ?
Although that's what they've said we don't have to believe a word of it ?
 
Didn't MO say he could see the twin's cots ? As I've understood it a lamp was left on . Don't forget also what GM said . There must have been light enough for that? Also M would need a light should she waken ,open the patio door and go out looking for her parents ?
Although that's what they've said we don't have to believe a word of it ?

Are you meaning a lamp was left on in childrens bedroom…?…have never heard of that before..
Believe light was left on perhaps in lounge area and door to MM bedroom was left slightly open to allow some of that light into kids bedroom for comfort.
Maybe that’s what you were meaning ?
 
Last edited:
There is no reason to go through a window when a seasoned burglar can easily open identikit door locks. The window is for light (so one does not have to switch on the lights in a dark apartment and alert tenants.) and sound (in case somebody is coming into apartment from another direction.)
Ruling something out on the basis that he could have got in another way doesn't make much sense though does it?. Whichever way he got in and out of there remains a fact, regardless of the logistics. We can debate til we're blue in the face about what is the easiest or most logical way to get in but it doesn’t make it true. Unless you can rule out a specific method of abduction, it is just your opinion of what you think happened.
 
Didn't MO say he could see the twin's cots ? As I've understood it a lamp was left on . Don't forget also what GM said . There must have been light enough for that? Also M would need a light should she waken ,open the patio door and go out looking for her parents ?
Although that's what they've said we don't have to believe a word of it ?
What are you talking about? The lamp was in the lounge. Who has said MM would "need a light should she awaken"? That sounds like a load of made up BS.
 
Didn't MO say he could see the twin's cots ? As I've understood it a lamp was left on . Don't forget also what GM said . There must have been light enough for that? Also M would need a light should she waken ,open the patio door and go out looking for her parents ?
Although that's what they've said we don't have to believe a word of it ?
Patio door too heavy for her to open.
 
Ruling something out on the basis that he could have got in another way doesn't make much sense though does it?. Whichever way he got in and out of there remains a fact, regardless of the logistics. We can debate til we're blue in the face about what is the easiest or most logical way to get in but it doesn’t make it true. Unless you can rule out a specific method of abduction, it is just your opinion of what you think happened.
The window is obviously a problematic exit point when you are carrying loot, as well as noisier and more awkward. Occam’s Razor, bruh…
 
The window is obviously a problematic exit point when you are carrying loot, as well as noisier and more awkward. Occam’s Razor, bruh…
Applying Occam's razor gives credence to the window being the exit/entry point though. When they went out the window was closed and MM was tucked up in bed. At 10 o'clock, the window was open and MM is gone. Logistics aside, what is the simplest and most logical conclusion?

I still maintain it would be possible (although difficult) to take a sleeping child through that window. But, in the same breath, we don't know if she was sleeping by that point so why does everyone assume it? She could have been dead... or knocked out... or drugged....or awake and confused. Stating X couldn't have happened because of Y makes no sense when you have zero evidence that Y even took place. Instead, we should consider that Y perhaps didn't happen in light of X.
 
Last edited:
The case in Australia with the little girl being kidnapped while asleep in the tent could be used to show that kids do not wake up so easily when carried away by a stranger unfortunately. MM didn't need to be drugged or dead by that point for a "well-trained" burglar to take her and carry her out of the window.
 
What are you talking about? The lamp was in the lounge. Who has said MM would "need a light should she awaken"? That sounds like a load of made up BS.
The patio door was left unlocked May 3rd so that should M waken again ( after she had rebuked her parents " where were you when me and Sean were crying ?"on a previous night , according to the tale told by her mother in several tv interviews )
Are you saying M would be expected to get up in the darkness of the bedroom ?
 
Applying Occam's razor gives credence to the window being the exit/entry point though. When they went out the window was closed and MM was tucked up in bed. At 10 o'clock, the window was open and MM is gone. Logistics aside, what is the simplest and most logical conclusion?

I still maintain it would be possible (although difficult) to take a sleeping child through that window. But, in the same breath, we don't know if she was sleeping by that point so why does everyone assume it? She could have been dead... or knocked out... or drugged....or awake and confused. Stating X couldn't have happened because of Y makes no sense when you have zero evidence that Y even took place. Instead, we should consider that Y perhaps didn't happen in light of X.
I’ve seen this window up close. Occam’s razor is that he went through the door. He’s not an extra from Cirque du Soleil. Why he opened it? Razor says for practical reason like getting more light, for sound.
 
The case in Australia with the little girl being kidnapped while asleep in the tent could be used to show that kids do not wake up so easily when carried away by a stranger unfortunately. MM didn't need to be drugged or dead by that point for a "well-trained" burglar to take her and carry her out of the window.
One trip to Luz would disabuse you from any notion that somebody climbed in alone, let alone that two people climbed out.
 
The patio door was left unlocked May 3rd so that should M waken again ( after she had rebuked her parents " where were you when me and Sean were crying ?"on a previous night , according to the tale told by her mother in several tv interviews )
Are you saying M would be expected to get up in the darkness of the bedroom ?
Unlocked but closed. A child could not swing it open.
 
Perhaps his remark doesn't relate to an alibi? Perhaps there's something else that FF is in possession of that 'undermines' the case against CB? It's so hard to know, isn't it, when we know so little...
Applying Occam's razor gives credence to the window being the exit/entry point though. When they went out the window was closed and MM was tucked up in bed. At 10 o'clock, the window was open and MM is gone. Logistics aside, what is the simplest and most logical conclusion?

I still maintain it would be possible (although difficult) to take a sleeping child through that window. But, in the same breath, we don't know if she was sleeping by that point so why does everyone assume it? She could have been dead... or knocked out... or drugged....or awake and confused. Stating X couldn't have happened because of Y makes no sense when you have zero evidence that Y even took place. Instead, we should consider that Y perhaps didn't happen in light of X.
Looking to your incisive posts, knowing all that was already reported and debated about doors and window, it's difficult to capture why you reiterate and insist on window as a possible logical entry/exit to what really happened. Even more when knowing the place in-loco, and apartment/street orientation/exposition.
 
Last edited:
IMO it's easy to conceive that he could have have either entered/exited through the window. We'll probably never find out anyway unless they have, indeed, matched the partial print.

From this pic it looks even more conceivable that the skinny, athletic CB could get through with or without a small child..........
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_969.jpg

A witness who gave evidence at the rape trial said he had seen Brueckner “climb through open windows in one or another holiday flat”.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-climbed-through-22144222

Wolters explained there were stark parallels between the attack on Ms Behan, the rape of an American tourists - for which Brueckner was convicted - and the 'abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann.'
He said: 'In each case the person has come into the person's apartment or property by breaking and entering, often not through the door.'

Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner is to be with 2004 rape of Irish tour rep | Daily Mail Online

Christian Brueckner would take night time strolls around Praia da Luz and sometimes crawl through windows to steal passports, including once while the occupant was sleeping

THE Madeleine McCann prime suspect was nicknamed “The Climber’’ as he was so good at breaking into holiday apartments
Maddie suspect nicknamed 'The Climber' due to skill at breaking into apartments


JMO
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
3,528
Total visitors
3,694

Forum statistics

Threads
592,586
Messages
17,971,398
Members
228,833
Latest member
ddph
Back
Top