We’ve discussed this on the forum before (Surprise! Surprise!) Apparently what Kate described has a scientific explanation known as the VENTURI EFFECT.
Our good friend Pegasus brought it to the forum here - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5477.msg197141#msg197141
Here are photos of the kitchen vent AND the 3-story high chimney it connects to.
The high chimney has a strong chimney effect.
Add to that the venturi effect when wind blows over the top of chimney.
It was this kitchen vent and vent chimney which sucked the air in through the open window.
Quote from: John on November 01, 2014, 09:00:51 PM
Mat looked into the kids bedroom a mere 30 minutes before Kate and he never reported open curtains and an open shutter. So what changed?
During the 2130 check, the pressure in the lounge diner kitchen hall was normal atmospheric pressure, with a constant through draught coming in window and out kitchen vent. Same during the first part of the 2200 check. But there is a big change of scenario when the 2200 checker moves the door to almost closed, because this enables the through draught to slam the door shut. Now suddenly the pressure in lounge diner kitchen hall drops from normal to negative because no air can enter apartment to replace air being sucked strongly up vent. And then when the 2200 checker reopens the bedroom door, there is a single extra strong blast of air in through the window to bring the negative pressure in lounge etc back up to normal. It was that one off blast of air which blew the curtains in. So that explains the difference between the 2130 check and the 2200 check.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5477.msg197144#msg197144
Quote from: Brietta on November 02, 2014, 12:34:36 AM
Found this illustration ...
Thanks Brietta, yes venturi effect, and this was increased by 'chimney effect' of that vent reaching high above the 2nd floor, especially after sunset.
Finding that vent indicates even more strongly that KM is telling the exact truth about her check. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5477.msg197145#msg197145
Quote from: sadie on November 02, 2014, 02:09:03 AM
And altho I cannot find it now, I remember that the winds were strengthening, so perhaps the conditions at 10 pm were noticeably rougher than at 9.30pm.
The conditions that I found were for 10 pm IIRC.
Even if the wind was completely constant throughout the 2130 check and the 2200 check, the difference between the observations during those two checks is easily explained:
The 22.00 checker moved the open door to the almost closed position and that is the exact reason why it slammed.
The 22.00 checker then moved the door from a 100% closed position, to open position, and that is the exact reason the curtains blew in.
BTW if those two human actions to the door had been done in the 21.30 check instead, the same slam and the same curtain blow in would have happened then.
IMO the window and shutter were manually opened from outside , and just one or two seconds later the bedroom door was manually pulled open from inside, all this is before the 21.30 check. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5477.msg197148#msg197148
Mr Amaral IMO got many things wrong, and disbelieving the truthful discovery description is one example, however one thing he does get right IMO is going to another room on foot pre-21.30.
It would after all explain the opened door would it not?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5477.msg197149#msg197149
Quote from: pegasus on November 02, 2014, 10:51:57 PM
Why the door slammed as soon as it was placed in the slightly ajar position
Photo
The blue lines show the air currents
There is about 6 metres of chimney sucking air up out of that hood
Very interesting!
Back to my point made about a week ago. Until someone calculates the force required to make the curtains "whoosh" you ain't going nowhere.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5477.msg197398#msg197398
See bedroom net curtain blowing in in Mr Amaral's video.
Also at least the net curtain blows in when the window is opened by Mr Rebelo in this photo.
Do we have video of this day?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5477.msg197401#msg197401
Quote from: sadie on November 02, 2014, 11:09:30 PM
And that would also account for the whooshing curtains, I think?
The bedroom door that was found slightly more ajar earlier on cannot be accounted for by the venturi effect. Once it could be accounted for by Madeleine going to the loo. But it is not likely that the ajar door could be accounted for more than once by Madeleine going to the loo.
Does this mean that an abductor was, or had been already, in the apartment, when Matt checked inside?
If it means an abductor had already been in the apartment, that ties up with Jane Tanners sighting.
And if Madeleine had not been to the loo, then maybe he had been in before Gerry arrived? But could it be that his watcher on the balcony across Rua Dr Francisco GM [block 6 balcony] had warned him that Gerry was coming and he had quietly left via the front door before Gerry came in, leaving the bedroom door slightly more ajar
That would account for the slightly more open bedroom door when Gerry arrived.
Only thoughts, but they are possibilities.
The bedroom door was opened wider by the child pulling it open to go to another room.
If that happened twice, the first time would be to go to the bathroom, which means the second time was to go not to the bathroom but to a different room.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5477.msg197403#msg197403
@Brietta yes KM tells the complete truth, the door slammed and the curtains blew, therefore there was an exit for that strong draught, we know the lounge balcony door was shut, therefore it was the kitchen vent chimney.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5477.msg197412#msg197412
That's a reasonable explanation and I'm familiar with the principles of a venturi. I work in critical care and the principle is employed as a means of ventilation during rigid bronchoscopy.
Your post leads to other questions. Matt implies in his first statement that he believes the shutters of the [master] bedroom were open during his second check which including Gerry's check was the third check on 5A in a 25-30 minute time frame. The statement mentions "the window" was closed during the first check - but this must mean the shutters. Then when describing his second check his account talks about the room being lit from the outside lighting. He doesn't know if the window was open or closed. He doesn't comment on the curtains being open or closed. He does however believe the shutters were raised. Why I wonder didn't this arouse any suspicion? Instead he returns to report everything is fine according to his first statement.
You're correct to point out that if the door was ajar and the window open there would have been a greater through draught than if the door was wide open but I believe a draught would still be noticeable if the windows were open. However, I don't think his first statement reveals much to allow us to conclude if the windows were open or closed at the time of his second check..
Obviously the facts regarding the window are becoming very important and in his second interview on May 10th he offers more detail on the subject. He states that during his first check the shutters are certainly fully closed as best he recalls.However during his second check he reveals that the door was "half open" [therefore through draft if window open greater than if the door was fully open] but he recalls the curtains were drawn closed and doesn't know if the windows were open or closed. He does believe that the shutters were "more open" than his first check. His reasoning for this is the amount of light in the room. Again he attaches no relevance to the position of the shutters changing between his checks and returns to the Tapas Bar to report all is quiet.
In Matt's rogatory interview in the UK. He again states that he is "pretty sure" the shutters were closed during his first check. He touches on Gerry's check and interestingly uses the word "they" meaning Gerry and Jane getting up for this check but when pressed he's not really sure if they left at the same time or one after the other. In the interview Matt states that during the second check (when he entered 5A) the room is lit by a table lamp on the end of the sofa in the lounge area. He recounts that the children's bedroom door was half open and he comments on the lighting. He also comments for the first time on the "through draft" but he qualifies this as a recollection that maybe stemmed from Kate's remarks about the slamming door. So he doesn't say that there was a draught he says he "presumes" there was one based on Kate's account. Then his account differs a little from his first two statements. He states that he can't see the shutters because the curtains are drawn but instead of accounting for the light in the room coming from outside due to the shutters being open he describes the light coming from "behind him from the room". He is also clear that the curtains were
not blowing in the wind as he remembers it. He can't say with any certainty that the shutters were open. His words were "but I definitely didn't see the shutters up, the curtains were definitely not disturbed"
So if the abduction theory is tested it is very difficult to conclude it happened before Matt's second check. Unless the abductor either went in and out through the unlocked patio doors or closed the window and drew the curtains after they left which is impossible unless they left through the patio doors and in any case why close the window and drawer the curtains and then open the window and curtains again before Kate's check?
And finally the post quoted above states the evidence regarding the checks and the windows and doors ties in with Tanner's sighting. But hasn't Operation Grange accounted for that sighting and Totman has been ruled out as a character in the abduction hypothesis. Wasn't he also walking the other way?
