Did the moving door have any relevance to Madeleine's disappearance?

[icabodcrane]

It has taken on a new significance since Scotland Yard's revelation that the man Jane Tanner saw was most probably NOT an abductor

The McCanns left for dinner at 8.30pm,  and when Gerry returned to do a check at 9.05pm he found the door to the children's room open wider than they had left it

Why  ?  ...  what explanation is there for the door to have been opened wider than the McCanns left it

Gerry reclosed the door until it was only partially open again,  and went back to the restaurant

At 9.30pm  Matthew Oldfield went into the McCanns apartment to do a check   (  in place of Kate )  and,  despite the door having been re- pulled to by Gerry at 9.05pm,  he  (  Matthew  )  found it to  be open quite wide again  (  wide enough for him to see into the room )

Why  ?  ...  what explanation is there for the door to have  again  been opened wider than Gerry had left it  ?

Had the man Jane Tanner saw actually been  the abductor then all this opening/closing of the bedroom door might make some sense  ...  but the man Jane saw was  NOT  the abductor ...  so let's talk about that door.


Admin edit.  Scotland Yard has been very careful, in fact clinical, in respect of what they said about the man Tanner saw.  They said that he was most probably not the abductor, they didn't say he wasn't.

The disreputable British Press have chose to twist Redwoods words.

[jassi]

Gerry clearly discounted any idea that Madeleine might have got out of bed and  gone the lavatory, or raided the fridge for a sandwich. Why ? Was she incapable of getting up ?

[icabodcrane]

Gerry clearly discounted any idea that Madeleine might have got out of bed and  gone the lavatory, or raided the fridge for a sandwich. Why ? Was she incapable of getting up ?

I don't know jassi,  but even if she had  ( giving an explanation for the first occasion that Gerry found the door to be opened wider ),  what is the explanation for it having  been  re-opened by the time Oldfield did his check 25 minutes later  ?

[AnneGuedes]

Gerry clearly discounted any idea that Madeleine might have got out of bed and  gone the lavatory, or raided the fridge for a sandwich. Why ? Was she incapable of getting up ?

It would suggest that Madeleine could leave her bed for other reasons than going to her parents' one. I just now remember Paul Seddon, the priest who suggested immediately that Madeleine had a somnambulism episode (as if it had already occurred).
The too open door had a very important function : as Mr McCann himself said, without this state of the door he wouldn't have looked inside of the bedroom and nothing would guarantee that Madeleine was still in the flat at 9:05/10.

I'm reading this and I don't understand myself.. I meant that Mr McCann didn't contemplate another possibility than the parents' bed, because it would suggest that Madeleine wasn't left alone sleeping but could wake up as well and organize a party !

[faithlilly]

I don't know jassi,  but even if she had  ( giving an explanation for the first occasion that Gerry found the door to be opened wider ),  what is the explanation for it having  been  re-opened by the time Oldfield did his check 25 minutes later  ?

I await davel, gilet, DCI's et al observations with interest.

[icabodcrane]

Another point regarding this door

On both the English and German Crimewatch reconstructions the door was shown to open from the left,  when in reality,  I believe,  it opened from the right 

That might have been an oversight,  but,  I think,  an important one

If the door  had  opened from the left  (  as shown on the reconstructions  )  then it would explain how Matthew Oldfield would have had a clear view into the bedroom,  verifying that the twins were in their cots,  but unable to see Madeleine  ...  given that the door would have been blocking his vision of her bed 

However,  since the door actually opened from the right,  then on peering  into the room Oldfied would have been looking directly at Madeline's bed  ...  and  it would have been the  twins cots that  the door blocked his vision of 

Is that not correct  ? 

[AnneGuedes]

But it was of considerable importance whilst the general concensus was that Jane Tanner had seen the abductor at 9.15pm

...  it was  'corroborating evidence'  if you like

Now though,  now that we know Jane did not see an abductor at 9.15pm,  the repeated opening and closing of that bedroom door needs another explanation

I wonder if, simply, they just forgot to erase this ex-significant detail that now, remaining, gains another value.
This detail was in fact not important at all. Mr McCann didn't need it for his story (he actually spoke of that door in his first "statement" to the PJ, on the ground). He could just have said that he had pushed a little bit the door to listen better and doing so had seen Madeleine in her bed. But, when you tell a story, you can't abstract yourself totally of reality. Mr McCann, who never looked into the bedroom, had to find the door more open than he had left it to have a reason to do look inside.
Something else : Mr Redwood repeatedly said they focused on 8h30-10h. Why not 9h10-10h ?

[Lyall]

I think the focus on the door is a red herring. Actually it feels more like a magicians sleight of hand... Focus on what he wants us to focus while he does something else.

It's almost inconceivable that an abductor would stay in the apartment and open and close the door while the various members of the tapas 9 came and went. So the obvious options are Madeline went to the toilet, the wind blew it open or Madeline opened it to go and look for her parents. I guess there is an other option that one of the tapas 9 opened it and neglected to tell anyone else. Eitherway, it's unlikely to be of any importance regarding an abduction.

The importance lies in the importance that was given to it.

[AnneGuedes]

However,  since the door actually opened from the right,  then on peering  into the room Oldfied would have been looking directly at Madeline's bed  ...  and  it would have been the  twins cots that  the door blocked his vision of 

Is that not correct  ?

No, the door didn't block the vision of the cots. Staying at even 1 meter from the door and even stretching his neck, he couldn't see Madeleine, he was able to see one twin, he couldn't see the other because of a plain thick cloth (not a net) at the bottom.

[Admin]

We have altered the op slightly to reflect what was said by Redwood on the BBC Crimewatch show.

Scotland Yard spokesman DCI Redwood did not say that the man Jane Tanner supposedly saw was not an abductor.  He stated simply that he probably wasn't, a big difference and one which the Press have chosen to misinterpret.

Could members adjust their posts accordingly please.

[icabodcrane]

No, the door didn't block the vision of the cots. Staying at even 1 meter from the door and even stretching his neck, he couldn't see Madeleine, he was able to see one twin, he couldn't see the other because of a plain thick cloth (not a net) at the bottom.

ah yes,  thankyou Anne  ...  I'v just looked at a plan of the apartment and can see how Matthew,  standing at the open door  (  without popping his head in  )  would not see  Madeleine

[jassi]

No, the door didn't block the vision of the cots. Staying at even 1 meter from the door and even stretching his neck, he couldn't see Madeleine, he was able to see one twin, he couldn't see the other because of a plain thick cloth (not a net) at the bottom.

Did he even go into 5A ? Were his fingerprints found on the patio door, as they should have been, if that had been his mode of entry.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The importance lies in the importance that was given to it.

Absolutely.

We do not know the truth about the doors, and have no way of working it out. It is what we make of it.

What seems significant to me is the fact that there would be a focus on things that seemed to relate to the 9.15 abduction scenario, when - officially at least - this seems to have been ruled out.

I am normally hesitant to resort to labels, but here I think I have to make the following point. (I have been very busy the past few days and have not been able to keep up with everything that is written here, so please forgive me if this observation is not new).

It seems to me that a lot of '[ censored word]', dismissive hitherto about the Tanner sighting - Jane's accuracy or lack of; her motive for claiming to have sighted this man; the idea that the sighting constituted any kind of evidence of abduction - are now questioning how much sense the case makes taking the Tanner sighting out of the equation:

'How can SY can be sure that they have good enough grounds to rule this man out?'

'What do you mean he was coming from the night creche - he was coming from the front door of the apartment! Isn't that a bit  of a coincidence!'

All this about a man who was supposed to be a figment of Jane's imagination - or a concoction of the McCanns'.

And now we are talking about a door relating to the 9.15 scenario...

[Admin]

Remember that it was gusty in the Luz area on 3 May 2007.  The minute someone opened the patio door there would be an increase in pressure within the apartment which very well could account for a door opening slightly.

[C.Edwards]

Remember that it was gusty in the Luz area on 3 May 2007.  The minute someone opened the patio door there would be an increase in pressure within the apartment which very well could account for a door opening slightly.

Not unless the window was open really I'd have thought.