THE FRONT DOOR - WAY IN AND WAY OUT for abductor

[Albertini]

Nobody walked past.  Was a dead end .  Only led to the Mccanns front door.   If someone by a great fluke saw the abductor, he could still flee thru the patio door.  So a non-runner.  Sorry Albertini

Don't think it is to be honest. Anyone walking across the car park or across the car park itself (such as Matt) would have seen the window to 5A. Particularly Matt whose own bedroom is a few metres away. Not forgetting the other 6 backwards and forwards trips by Russ and JT:



I'm busy at the moment i'll come back to the other points later.

[DCI]

Matts door though, is recessed, so I don't think he would see the window, because of the shape of the alleyway, entrance.

[sadie]

Matts door though, is recessed, so I don't think he would see the window, because of the shape of the alleyway, entrance.

Exactly.

Thankyou DCI

Did you miss this on The Distances to 5A thread Albertini?
Post ~ 38.  Think you would find it interesting to read.  Might erradaicate some misconceptions in your mind

and this image too illustrates what DCI is saying



Matts windows are somewhere near that car, betwen W and thev lobby, but he would have turned off first to his front door, so he would never catch sight of Madeleines window [the pink lines are possible routes to the other tapas front doors. 
Likely actually that they would have turned off evern earlier becos peeps are lazy and take the shortest route when walking.

So if you read the full post #38 and study the image, I think you will change your mind.

[Carana]

Sadie

Point P is where the steps are to get down to the passage to then get to the main entrance lobby?

[Albertini]

Nope, not buying it. My picture shows the route Matt would have to walk across from the road through the car park to get to the point of your picture.

On his way there (or indeed back) he must have zero peripheral vision if he cannot see the window to 5A.

On the overhead picture the opening for the car park looks narrower than the car!

[AnneGuedes]

The little window belongs also to Mr Oldfield bedroom.

[Albertini]

The little window belongs also to Mr Oldfield bedroom.

Exactly, so it stretches the bounds of credibility that Matt would not have looked in that direction when checking his own apartment.

And given we are told everyone was checking, then it's a stretch to think no one walking across the car park entrance didnt look in that direction either.

[Carana]

Exactly, so it stretches the bounds of credibility that Matt would not have looked in that direction when checking his own apartment.

And given we are told everyone was checking, then it's a stretch to think no one walking across the car park entrance didnt look in that direction either.

Why would they? They weren't expecting burglars or kidnappers, they just wanted to make sure that the kids were sleeping.

Easy to think of these things in hindsight...

[Heriberto Janosch]

Some pics ...

Note that from point E the 5A window is very hard to see, and the angles from the path in point A, B, C, D are between 50º and 130º ...

And 50º are just the limit of human binocular vision, although the visual field is uneven, it is not uniform and has its maximum definition in its central part. 
 

[Benice]

Why would they? They weren't expecting burglars or kidnappers, they just wanted to make sure that the kids were sleeping.

Easy to think of these things in hindsight...

Yes this is perfect example of 'hindsight' which sceptics use so often.   If Russell and Matt returned together they would most likely be chatting as they walked.    Also they would all be in a hurry to get back to their meal which they had interrupted to make their checks.   And it wasn't broad daylight either as shown in that photograph - and so it is totally misleading.

[sadie]

Brilliant Heri.

so we only have a field of vision of 120*. 

When looking the way we are walking, only 60* visibility on either side.

My screen is extra wide so I cannot accurately measure angles, so I am going to take a print off and get a protractor on that  ... measure the angles that way


What would we do without our resident expert?  Well done Heri

[AnneGuedes]

If the shutters had been open and a curtain flying and flapping (whooshing !) in the wind, at least one person would have seen or more likely heard. As nobody did, the probability is there was nothing to notice.
But there was a rub ! Mr Oldfield couldn't have seen the shutters either closed (ruining Ms Tanner's sighting) or open (ruining his reputation of responsible person). Mr Oldfield was horribly stuck and the only way out was to enter a flat where he never had been.
Gosh, I pity him when he was asked about the bedroom, he couldn't but describe his own, hoping they were all equal (and showing that he likely never stuck his ear against the unique McCann window.
Of course his complacency and his dignity couldn't go up to saying he hadn't seen Madeleine. So Mr Oldfield had to pretend he had done a visual blind check or rather a check on silence ! The cruel and unexpected detail is there was a bed looking like a battlefield in this bedroom and he couldn't miss it, even if he didn't enter ! The devil was in this bed.

[Benice]

Some pics ...

Note that from point E the 5A window is very hard to see, and the angles from the path in point A, B, C, D are between 50º and 130º ...

And 50º are just the limit of human binocular vision, although the visual field is uneven, it is not uniform and has its maximum definition in its central part.

Thank you Heri for posting that.   The first piccie is the one which IMO shows how easy it was for anyone walking across the carpark in the dark and in a hurry, not to notice anything about the window at 5A - unless they had some specific reason for looking across at it, which of course they hadn't.

[Benice]

If the shutters had been open and a curtain flying and flapping (whooshing !) in the wind, at least one person would have seen or more likely heard. As nobody did, the probability is there was nothing to notice.
But there was a rub ! Mr Oldfield couldn't have seen the shutters either closed (ruining Ms Tanner's sighting) or open (ruining his reputation of responsible person). Mr Oldfield was horribly stuck and the only way out was to enter a flat where he never had been.
Gosh, I pity him when he was asked about the bedroom, he couldn't but describe his own, hoping they were all equal (and showing that he likely never stuck his ear against the unique McCann window.
Of course his complacency and his dignity couldn't go up to saying he hadn't seen Madeleine. So Mr Oldfield had to pretend he had done a visual blind check or rather a check on silence ! The cruel and unexpected detail is there was a bed looking like a battlefield in this bedroom and he couldn't miss it, even if he didn't enter ! The devil was in this bed.

Another example of comments made with the benefit of hindsight.  As Matthew couldn't see into the future - I don't suppose for a minute that he went into 5A thinking ''I'd better make a particular note of everything I can see in the children's bedroom, because later on the police will be asking me questions - and I need to convince them I was here'    All he was there for was to make sure the children were asleep.   He was listening rather than looking.

IMO if Matthew had given a detailed perfect description of the bedroom then you would have a valid point - because that would have been suspicious.   

[AnneGuedes]

All he was there for was to make sure the children were asleep.   He was listening rather than looking.

Then why iyo didn't he listen at the window ? Wasn't he in a hurry to eat his food ? What was the point iyo to go inside the flat if listening was enough ?
There's no logical answer, Benice, don't lose time finding one. And the trouble is this is not the only weird detail of those statements...