The ambient lighting and its effect on the children's bedroom window.

[lordpookles]

Grabbed this from google earth. If the light was on I guess this would be an accurate depiction of the situation:

[sadie]

Grabbed this from google earth. If the light was on I guess this would be an accurate depiction of the situation:

Interesting image Lord P, but see how the light of the street lamp is seriously reduced thanks to the actual lamp being in, or on the other side of the tree heads.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/221apartment.JPG
 
[dated 4th May 2007.  The lamp itself is difficult to see, it is within the tree head it seems.]

http://i.imgur.com/Mj3u0Mc.jpg

These sodium lamps were pretty inferior into the bargain and this was positioned about 55 feet away from the window in 5A.,  Not much light I think.

[Brietta]

Interesting image Lord P, but see how the light of the street lamp is seriously reduced thanks to the actual lamp being in, or on the other side of the tree heads.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/221apartment.JPG
 
[dated 4th May 2007.  The lamp itself is difficult to see, it is within the tree head it seems.]

http://i.imgur.com/Mj3u0Mc.jpg

These sodium lamps were pretty inferior into the bargain and this was positioned about 55 feet away from the window in 5A.,  Not much light I think.

I think the light 'pools' under them and illuminates the near vicinity ... it is not directional like a spotlight, nor does it illuminate the same area as the newly installed spotlight on the wall of Block 5 does.

It is a gentle light ... which has largely been replaced (certainly in my locality) by more powerful illumination.  Even if it had been in operation on 3rd May I doubt if its light would have had much impact on Madeleine's window as it is placed more to illuminate the side walk than the internal car park.

[lordpookles]

No not a directional light, but of course all light travels in straight lines as per the image I made. This light of course is not 360, but a hemisphere which as Brietta says would have the greatest intensity directly beneath the light as this is the point at which the light has the least distance to travel. From the pictures posted the light is of course nested in amongst some medium density tree foliage. As a complete guesstimation I would say from that distance you would still get some illumination on the shutters in question. If you were mathematically minded and knew the distance + wattage/luminance value of the light you could reliably work how just how much light would reach the shutters.

[sadie]

Just came across this image which illustrates just how high that wall really is.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00704/a681cc74-e1de-11e3-_704221c.jpg



The above shows just how high that wall opposite the drive out exit from block 6 is, even as it goes around the corner.   The land behind the wall is substantially raised but I truly do not think that the Baptista girl could have seen a car in the parking area as she left the driveway.  Impossible, even with no trees.

As the wall carries on around the cornerand up the street it does diminish in height, but remains well over the eye level (from Memory) until well around the corner and going towards 5A drive in entrance.

All that i am saying is that i think the Baptista girl is unlikely to have noticed anything about parked cars (especially grey in the gloom) because she had to be looking backwards or at right angles to the way the car was moving.  Most people look forward after dark and towards the light.

I think she confused the first flat of block 5 with the first flat of block 4, which, given suitable breaks in the trees, she may well have seen whilst looking in a near forward direction.


I can assure you that even with the newer lighting, the area in front of the window is very gloomy, and in front of the recessed front door almost none ... In any case even if looking in that general area, the eye goes towards the light.  The light is at the centre of block 5  ... and also there is lighting in the lobby which serves most of the apartments.

[Matthew Wyse]

Just came across this image which illustrates just how high that wall really is.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00704/a681cc74-e1de-11e3-_704221c.jpg



The above shows just how high that wall opposite the drive out exit from block 6 is, even as it goes around the corner.   The land behind the wall is substantially raised but I truly do not think that the Baptista girl could have seen a car in the parking area as she left the driveway.  Impossible, even with no trees.

As the wall carries on around the cornerand up the street it does diminish in height, but remains well over the eye level (from Memory) until well around the corner and going towards 5A drive in entrance.

All that i am saying is that i think the Baptista girl is unlikely to have noticed anything about parked cars (especially grey in the gloom) because she had to be looking backwards or at right angles to the way the car was moving.  Most people look forward after dark and towards the light.

I think she confused the first flat of block 5 with the first flat of block 4, which, given suitable breaks in the trees, she may well have seen whilst looking in a near forward direction.


I can assure you that even with the newer lighting, the area in front of the window is very gloomy, and in front of the recessed front door almost none ... In any case even if looking in that general area, the eye goes towards the light.  The light is at the centre of block 5  ... and also there is lighting in the lobby which serves most of the apartments.

I dont understand your inference.  The witness could have observed the car at any time that evening including as she passed the car park entrance.

[sadie]

I dont understand your inference.  The witness could have observed the car at any time that evening including as she passed the car park entrance.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding that she is on record as having said that as her boyfriend drove out of block 6 car park she saw a grey car parked in front of 5A.

All I am saying is that i think she is likely to be mistaken.  She certainly couldn't see one from 6A driveway and she would have had to be well around the corner and looking back into the gloom to have seen one.

You see Matthew, it is very important whether there was a car there in front of 5A, or not ... cos it changes the likelyhood of what might have happened to Madeleine.  How she was removed.

I still like Jane Tanners sighting.  It ticks all the boxes ... and I feel this young ladies statement is probably based on false memories.

[ShiningInLuz]

I have updated the graphic appearing earlier in the thread to add some things relevant to the thread title.

First Maria da Silva's statement is clear.  Her Frontera was parked in the block 6 car park in front of block 6, not to the rear.  You can actually park to the rear, but that is not the block 6 car park, and it is not to the front.  So I have added 605 where the front entrance to 605 is.  (The rear can be entered, but that is a garden gate, patio and patio doors job.)  If you drive out of the block 6 car park, you have to turn right to get to the junction.  Then you turn left to pass the front of block 5, as per Maria's statement.

Second I have added 2 further lights.  In neither case have I bothered with absolute precision.  The one near the block 6 car park entrance has appeared in this thread before.  It is 18m away, just like the one near the block 5 car park entrance.  It also is impeded by the trees that went all the way round the block 5 car park on 3 May 2007.  But you have two street lights to the front, not one.

The other light, by the side of block 6, adds to what you might see in parts of the car park of block 5, but it definitely does not illuminate the front of block 5 itself.  It might or might not illuminate MdS's 'grey car'.

The pink dot is the point at which an average height pedestrian can see over the wall around the block 5 car park.  Obviously, I cannot be precise about this unless I know the exact height of the viewer, and whether we are talking about the bedroom window, or a car in the car park.

The red dot is the point at which someone in a Frontera should be able to see the front of 5A and the car park quite well.  Again, without a Frontera at my disposal, my position is approximate.

Finally, and it has nothing to do with the graphic,  I am getting a quite different interpretation of her sighting from the original Portuguese statement MdS gave.  I am getting one light in block 5, on the level up from the McCann flat, but she is not sure whereabouts on that level it came from.

From the English version, I had made this likely as Mrs Fenn's flat, but the Portuguese version is much less precise.

[John]

Off topic I know but for the sake of clarity.  Window roller shutters as the name suggests roll up vertically into a box housing located above the window.  When one attempts to push them up by lifting them from the bottom they only lift as far as the horizontal slats will allow them.  This is because the shutter is not being rolled up into its housing.  As Heriberto demonstrated in his video, they can be pushed up quite easily as long as even force is applied to the bottom of the shutters at both sides of the window.  If uneven force is used the shutter will jam at an angle.  If lifted, a shutter will rise approximately half the height of the window which is more than sufficient space to be able to reach in and pull the strap which will raise them to their full height.

Most British holidaymakers haven't a clue about these shutters so little wonder the terms forced and jemmied were used.

[Alfred R Jones]

Off topic I know but for the sake of clarity.  Window roller shutters as the name suggests roll up vertically into a box housing located above the window.  When one attempts to push them up by lifting them from the bottom they only lift as far as the horizontal slats will allow them.  This is because the shutter is not being rolled up into its housing.  As Heriberto demonstrated in his video, they can be pushed up quite easily as long as even force is applied to the bottom of the shutters at both sides of the window.  If uneven force is used the shutter will jam at an angle.  If lifted, a shutter will rise approximately half the height of the window which is more than sufficient space to be able to reach in and pull the strap which will raise them to their full height.

Most British holidaymakers haven't a clue about these shutters so little wonder the terms forced and jemmied were used.

Thank you John.

[pathfinder73]

The position of the shutters were down when the police arrived which corroborates with DW statement. She couldn't raise the shutters from trying to lift them from the outside. Gerry said he did lift them but that fact of the matter is they weren't raised when the police arrived so he can say whatever he likes 

[ShiningInLuz]

What Maria da Silva could see, or could not see, strikes me as important.

As far as I am aware, she is the one and only witness to describe the surroundings to the front of block 5 around the time Madeleine disappeared.  (Please correct me if I am wrong because, trust me, I would like to have more info on what was going on in this area at that time.)

The watchers from the T9 come and go.  What do I learn from this?  Pretty much close to zero.  Matthew says he checked 5B around 9:30.  Whether the shutter on 5A was up or down is critical, and what we get is .... zip.  He checked inside 5A.  His info says the shutter might have been up.  Or then again it might have been down.  The others do their checks, and what I know about what was happening in the car park of 5A, and around the sole entrance point to 5A is ....... zip.

Let me move on to Kate's book.  When she checked around 10, Madeleine was gone, and Kate came to a rapid conclusion that the child had been abducted, with the open bedroom window a likely point of entry, exit or something else.  So she went to the window and looked out, thus explaining her fingerprints on it.

Fine so far, but what did she see?  Given that, at this point, she was thinking along the lines of an abductor to the front of 5A?  At this point her statements and the book give us ........ zip.

There is no tale of an empty car park, a deserted street, an absence of movement or ....... anything.  That view has to be ultra-important, yet I have no idea what Kate saw, or did not see.  Because it is not described.

Now I have to role-play a mother who thinks her child has been snatched and is somewhere to the front of 5A.  What route does my acting take me?  Out of the front of 5A, probably into the car park, quite possibly to the car park entrance for a quick look left and right on that street to find out if Madeleine is still there.

Please do not get too hooked-up on my role-play.  Kate did do, or didn't do, that which she did, or didn't, so my role-play is trivial.

HOWEVER, the facts of the matter are these.

From the point on the graphic that I posted earlier, Kate could see people walking on the street in front of 5A.  She could see cars moving in front of 5A.  And as she went up the hill to enter 5A for her 10:00 check, she could see the rest of the vicinity.

There were checkers a-plenty criss-crossing the front of 5A (and the rear).

What do I know about the front of 5A around the time when the alarm was raised?  Maria da Silva reckons there was light from the block above the level of the McCanns, but she does not know where, and there was a small grey car in the car park.

This is not a lot really, given the number of statements.  And the books.

[G-Unit]

What Maria da Silva could see, or could not see, strikes me as important.

As far as I am aware, she is the one and only witness to describe the surroundings to the front of block 5 around the time Madeleine disappeared.  (Please correct me if I am wrong because, trust me, I would like to have more info on what was going on in this area at that time.)

The watchers from the T9 come and go.  What do I learn from this?  Pretty much close to zero.  Matthew says he checked 5B around 9:30.  Whether the shutter on 5A was up or down is critical, and what we get is .... zip.  He checked inside 5A.  His info says the shutter might have been up.  Or then again it might have been down.  The others do their checks, and what I know about what was happening in the car park of 5A, and around the sole entrance point to 5A is ....... zip.

Let me move on to Kate's book.  When she checked around 10, Madeleine was gone, and Kate came to a rapid conclusion that the child had been abducted, with the open bedroom window a likely point of entry, exit or something else.  So she went to the window and looked out, thus explaining her fingerprints on it.

Fine so far, but what did she see?  Given that, at this point, she was thinking along the lines of an abductor to the front of 5A?  At this point her statements and the book give us ........ zip.

There is no tale of an empty car park, a deserted street, an absence of movement or ....... anything.  That view has to be ultra-important, yet I have no idea what Kate saw, or did not see.  Because it is not described.

Now I have to role-play a mother who thinks her child has been snatched and is somewhere to the front of 5A.  What route does my acting take me?  Out of the front of 5A, probably into the car park, quite possibly to the car park entrance for a quick look left and right on that street to find out if Madeleine is still there.

Please do not get too hooked-up on my role-play.  Kate did do, or didn't do, that which she did, or didn't, so my role-play is trivial.

HOWEVER, the facts of the matter are these.

From the point on the graphic that I posted earlier, Kate could see people walking on the street in front of 5A.  She could see cars moving in front of 5A.  And as she went up the hill to enter 5A for her 10:00 check, she could see the rest of the vicinity.

There were checkers a-plenty criss-crossing the front of 5A (and the rear).

What do I know about the front of 5A around the time when the alarm was raised?  Maria da Silva reckons there was light from the block above the level of the McCanns, but she does not know where, and there was a small grey car in the car park.

This is not a lot really, given the number of statements.  And the books.

Also looking out of the window wasn't mentioned at all until the book. Can I ask about shutters? I've used shutters in Germany, wooden ones. If they broke they stayed down because the raising mechanism was what broke. Are these ones the same or is there another possible result if they break? If you wanted to break in from outside would a crowbar be of any use to open the shutters? Thanks!

[pathfinder73]

What Maria da Silva could see, or could not see, strikes me as important.

As far as I am aware, she is the one and only witness to describe the surroundings to the front of block 5 around the time Madeleine disappeared.  (Please correct me if I am wrong because, trust me, I would like to have more info on what was going on in this area at that time.)

The watchers from the T9 come and go.  What do I learn from this?  Pretty much close to zero.  Matthew says he checked 5B around 9:30.  Whether the shutter on 5A was up or down is critical, and what we get is .... zip.  He checked inside 5A.  His info says the shutter might have been up.  Or then again it might have been down.  The others do their checks, and what I know about what was happening in the car park of 5A, and around the sole entrance point to 5A is ....... zip.

Let me move on to Kate's book.  When she checked around 10, Madeleine was gone, and Kate came to a rapid conclusion that the child had been abducted, with the open bedroom window a likely point of entry, exit or something else.  So she went to the window and looked out, thus explaining her fingerprints on it.

Fine so far, but what did she see?  Given that, at this point, she was thinking along the lines of an abductor to the front of 5A?  At this point her statements and the book give us ........ zip.

There is no tale of an empty car park, a deserted street, an absence of movement or ....... anything.  That view has to be ultra-important, yet I have no idea what Kate saw, or did not see.  Because it is not described.

Now I have to role-play a mother who thinks her child has been snatched and is somewhere to the front of 5A.  What route does my acting take me?  Out of the front of 5A, probably into the car park, quite possibly to the car park entrance for a quick look left and right on that street to find out if Madeleine is still there.

Please do not get too hooked-up on my role-play.  Kate did do, or didn't do, that which she did, or didn't, so my role-play is trivial.

HOWEVER, the facts of the matter are these.

From the point on the graphic that I posted earlier, Kate could see people walking on the street in front of 5A.  She could see cars moving in front of 5A.  And as she went up the hill to enter 5A for her 10:00 check, she could see the rest of the vicinity.

There were checkers a-plenty criss-crossing the front of 5A (and the rear).

What do I know about the front of 5A around the time when the alarm was raised?  Maria da Silva reckons there was light from the block above the level of the McCanns, but she does not know where, and there was a small grey car in the car park.

This is not a lot really, given the number of statements.  And the books.

Yes your first thought would go outside the front to check the car park if a window was open and your child gone. Nothing about checking out the front or looking out through the window is in her initial statement. An important oversight.

At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.

Faced with this situation,she verified that the twins were in their respective beds, unlike Madeleine, who had disappeared. The cover was pulled back and the toys were on the pillow as usual. After searching the whole apartment thoroughly, the interviewee went back, scared and shocked, to the restaurant, to alert her husband and the others to the disappearance. (KM 4 May)

In her arguido statement her check was not included so Kate never answered what actually happened to the police.

The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open. (KM 6 Sep)

When she refused to answer questions this was the first one put to her:

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

[ShiningInLuz]

Also looking out of the window wasn't mentioned at all until the book. Can I ask about shutters? I've used shutters in Germany, wooden ones. If they broke they stayed down because the raising mechanism was what broke. Are these ones the same or is there another possible result if they break? If you wanted to break in from outside would a crowbar be of any use to open the shutters? Thanks!

We have various people who raised the 5A shutters from the outside (without a crowbar) and at least one instance on file of somebody jamming the shutters up from the outside.

The construction is described as light aluminium with a polyurethane covering.  I am dubious about that as the shutter appears much more robust.

It surprised me greatly that the shutter could be raised from the outside, but given that it exists on video, I have to go with the evidence that it could be done.

Nothing was broken or marked on either the shutter or the window. 

Therefore, if you wish to posit it as an entry method, you have to assume someone with a knowledge (unlike me) that some shutters can be raised from the outside, a hope or belief that the window was left unlocked, and a daring that while he did this, no one on the inside or outside would see him in action.  I don't wish to sound whimsical, but I would be more likely to suspect Santa coming down the chimney than this lot.  Oh, and after his daring deeds he need to decide to nick Madeleine and scarper.

And no, 5A does not have a chimney.