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

[icabodcrane]

Talked themselves into a corner.

Yep ...  there was just no need  to bang on about the  door being  'more open'   ...  but they couldn't resist over-egging the bundleman pudding

[Wonderfulspam]

Yep ...  there was just no need  to bang on about the  door being  'more open'   ...  but they couldn't resist over-egging the bundleman pudding

Problem now is, if they ever decide to spill the beans, how can anyone believe a word they say?

[Sherlock Holmes]

You might like to be called a "pro" (it looks nice), but I find this "anti" (it looks mean) abusive. I don't believe the McCann truth (the more one tries to impose a doxa, the more sceptic I am), but I have nothing "against" these people.

I don't like either of the terms, actually Anne. They are far too simplistic given the multidimensionality of this case and the shades of opinion that go with it - and they are also offensive. I hesitated to use them in my post and I will attempt not to do so again.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think one thing we could all agree on is we are all pro Madeline. It's just that we take very different views on how she was let down.

Welcome to the forum, OpenMinded, and good point.

I applaud your user name, or should I say, the principles behind it - especially in the field of detection.

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's true, and it could now be said that draughts or Madeleine herself moved the door, but the Emma Loach films, and the book, are a record of the apparent wish to suggest the door had been moved by person or persons unknown. There was no suggestion in those sources that the two phenomena may have been unconnected. The films, book, and police statements are the history that cannot be changed now.

Although a substantial part of history is opinion, the historian works from sources - or at least ought to - and I don't think we can count Emma Loach's films (which I must admit I haven't watched) as a credible primary source. The 'facts' as she presents them must surely be second or third hand.

Even if Gerry's account of the door situation is correct (and it may easily be wrong, either because he lied or got confused or forgot) I just don't see enough here as a basis on which to start making - or breaking - 'connections'.

I'm just trying to work it out...

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thank you Anne. So it was actually windier on the 2nd then, yet the door didn't move that night when the patio was opened. I think that no added significance would have been added to it on the 3rd if it had.

It's also worth considering that these were two highly intelligent people who would probably have managed to make a causal link between a windy night and a moving door. They didn't, so we shouldn't.

They have connected it with an abductor. The implication binge that s/he was in the apartment at the same time as Gerry during his 9:05 check. In fact, iirc Gerry actually said at one point that he felt as those he may not have been alone?

Icabod, I'm glad you started this thread. Since the bundleman debunking (sorry Admin, possible debunking) I've been wondering about that door. I can see three options:

1, The abductor was in the apartment before 9:05.

2, The door never moved and we are being asked to believe the abductor was in the apartment before 9:05 to fit in with Bundleman.

3, Madeleine woke twice and left the bedroom twice, once before 9:05, then again before 9:30.

If it's 1 we can dismiss Smithman as the abductor as he's really unlikely to have only got ten minutes away in an hour.

If it's 2 there was no abductor.

If it's 3 What's to say Madeleine didn't leave under her own steam?


I'm sure others can add to the possibilities of  The Tale of the Moving Door.

The one thing I can't do is decide that it's no longer significant because Bundleman was actually Innocentman.

I don't understand this connection, Caraid.

Can you explain more fully?

[AnneGuedes]

Yep ...  there was just no need  to bang on about the  door being  'more open'   ...  but they couldn't resist over-egging the bundleman pudding

Dramas don't happen without some sign that only heroes are capable to decrypt. If there's none, one must be created. In this case the moving door became the sign. Mr McCann claimed he saw that anomaly immediately, showing ipso facto he was an attentive father. But the reality of Madeleine sleeping tight in her bed cheated the unfortunate father, his vigilance was blunt by such touching innocence.
This was his story telling.
In order to confirm that Madeleine was sleeping and alive a few minutes after nine o'clock, he had to have a look. It didn't pass his mind that nobody knew he never touched the door because he found sufficient to listen, no crying being a proof everything was fine. He therefore didn't need to mention the door at all. But he did and the door more open than he had left it was like the prologue of the tragedy.
Engraved in marble or the parents' bedroom door lost in translation ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

And may be never once considering how in the world they were to get out again.

The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well.

It all gets curiouser and curiouser..

[AnneGuedes]

I don't like either of the terms, actually Anne. They are far too simplistic given the multidimensionality of this case and the shades of opinion that go with it - and they are also offensive. I hesitated to use them in my post and I will attempt not to do so again.

Grateful !

[Admin]

Irrelevant posts have been moved to another thread - please keep to the topic.

[VIXTE]

Mathew checked at 9.30pm - no window or curtain was open in the room when he looked inside. An abductor is not going to stay in there once Gerry left and then Mathew checked. How long are you saying an abductor was hiding in there for? Nonsense. The only available time is 9.30 to 10pm for an abductor to get inside.

Oh please.. why don't you read Matthew Oldfield statement before writing it as a fact. Matthew said there was lots of natural light in the room but no lights on.

[VIXTE]

Gerry's statement:

9.10 The door was at 5 degrees when they left, the door was at 45 degrees when he returned. He moved the doors back to 5 degrees. Shutter was not open, the window was not open, the room was dark and Gerry saw Madeleine at this point.

Matthew Oldfield's statement

09.30 The door was open wide enough to see the twins, he believes the shutters were open too due to lots of light, but not the window.

Kate's statement

The doors to children's bedroom were wide open, the window was open, the shutter was open.

This all would mean the abductor was in the apartment for a long period of time before leaving with Madeleine.  Why something like this would not be possible?

[pathfinder73]

An abductor would be in and out as quick as possible. Why would you think different? Now imagine that the door was the same when Gerry left, when Matt came at 9.30pm and when Kate arrived i.e. door was half open and it never moved. Imagine that Unbelievable!

[AnneGuedes]

An abductor would be in and out as quick as possible. Why would you think different? Now imagine that the door was the same when Gerry left, when Matt came at 9.30pm and when Kate arrived i.e. door was half open and it never moved. Imagine that Unbelievable!

Mr McCann left it almost shut, so Mr Oldfield can't have seen it too much open, now that Tannerman is Innocentman.
If Mr Oldfield saw it too much open, the only explanation is the door moved by itself.

[VIXTE]

An abductor would be in and out as quick as possible

Yes, some abductors would.  We don't know what kind of person this was so we cannot really predict his actions.

Following the doors moves, it would be logical to think he hid in the apartment for a while. All until the air was not clear for him to safely leave.