Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!

[Robittybob1]

Dianne didn't see Gerry there the first time so he couldn't be lifting the shutters with her. Dianne saw Gerry the second time she went to the apartment after retrieving items from the table.


In that apartment she found that KATE was completely in panic, in "state of shock ".

- Because she was asked, she states that she entered the apartment by the sliding glass door of the patio at the back, which gives access to the lounge. Then she went to the children's bedroom, noting that there she found KATE and the twin siblings of MADELEINE

She added that she did not remember too much detail about the scenario that she found in that bedroom, other that what she said above. However, she states that KATE had repeatedly commented that, on arriving at the bedroom, she had found the window of the room, with its shutter, both open. Yet, she [DW] did not notice, while at the entrance to the room, if the window was or was not open.

- However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed.

She adds that that night, and after the occurrence of the facts under investigation, have been in the the apartment on two separate occasions. At the time described above she remained about 10 minutes in the apartment. After this time she returned to the restaurant to get her handbag as well as the camera of the couple McCANN and "baby monitor" of her daughter, and was soon back again in the apartment.

The question being asked about the people that were inside the apartment of McCANN at that time, the witness said that the McCANN couple were present (although on the first occasion she had no recollection of having seen GERRY).

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm

"Dianne didn't see Gerry there the first time so he couldn't be lifting the shutters with her. Dianne saw Gerry the second time she went to the apartment after retrieving items from the table."  OK so what,  Gerry did it before Dianne did.  I have never implied they did anything "together".   Have I used the word "together"?

[pathfinder73]

The shutters have slight gaps in the crime scene photo so light could get through as Matt thought so your original unfounded response is wrong (the first photo had no gaps and that was not found in the first photos of the crime scene). Gerry or Dianne didn't say they used the cord to change shutter gaps. They said they went to the outside and lifted them. That will not change the gaps shown in the second photo I posted of the crime scene. Dianne found the shutter closed and not raised by Gerry. If you raise the shutters they do not stay in that position from lifting from the outside. If you let go they fall straight back down. Gerry forget to mention that crucial fact. The little details are important!

[Robittybob1]

The shutters have slight gaps in the crime scene photo so light could get through as Matt thought so your original unfounded response is wrong (the first photo had no gaps and that was not found in the first photos of the crime scene). Gerry or Dianne didn't say they used the cord to change shutter gaps. They said they went to the outside and lifted them. That will not change the gaps shown in the second photo I posted of the crime scene. Dianne found the shutter closed and not raised by Gerry. If you raise the shutters they do not stay in that position from lifting from the outside. If you let go they fall straight back down. Gerry forget to mention that crucial fact. The little details are important!

I read Gerry's statement differently than that. I don't think it was necessary for Gerry to say that after lifting them they fell back down.  It might have been helpful, I'll admit that.

[Miss Taken Identity]

 are we still going on the assumption that this 'abductor'  in the room is a stranger, and not known to the family?

[Brietta]

are we still going on the assumption that this 'abductor'  in the room is a stranger, and not known to the family?

Go with whatever you like ... as long as it is within forum rules.