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

[stephen25000]

Madeleine is ruled out as moving the door. Everyone can see it wasn't her. She hadn't woken up before 9pm. So we are left with 3 realistic possibilities:

1. Abductor moved it

2. One of their friends moved it

3. The door never moved

Options 1 & 2 would probably be through unlocked patio door as entry. If it's number 3 then the apartment was locked including the patio door and Gerry did use his key to enter as he said in his first statement.

......and if number 3 is true  >@@(*&)

[pathfinder73]

......and if number 3 is true  >@@(*&)

Yes well it's a big coincidence that Matt finds the door in exactly the same position as Gerry doesn't it? So it's a no brainer to ask if the door ever moved.

[stephen25000]

Yes well it's a big coincidence that Matt finds the door in exactly the same position as Gerry doesn't it?

Indeed it does.

[pathfinder73]

20.35pm check was non-visual
 "listening from the outside ... as there was complete silence ... did not even enter ..." GM 10 May 2007

"The deponent and his wife remained in the apartment to relax and drink a glass of wine until 8.30 pm. After checking the children, the deponent and his wife and the adults went to the "Tapas" restaurant" (GM 4 May Statement)

Checking the children means opening the door and quickly looking inside to see if they're asleep which he said he did on Oprah before they left at 8:30. A week between 1st and 2nd statements  >@@(*&)

[Wonderfulspam]

Madeleine is ruled out as moving the door. Everyone can see it wasn't her. She hadn't woken up before 9pm. So we are left with 3 realistic possibilities:

1. Abductor moved it

2. One of their friends moved it

3. The door never moved

Options 1 & 2 would probably be through unlocked patio door as entry. If it's number 3 then the apartment was locked including the patio door and Gerry did use his key to enter as he said in his first statement because there was possibly something inside 5A that he wanted nobody to find.

Options 1 & 2 would probably be through unlocked patio door as entry.

I aint buyin that....

"Well the shutter was up and the window was open, I'm not lying about that, and even if they want to say theoretically, 'oh she wandered out the back of the apartment', then they're basically saying a three-year old has opened the long curtains, closed them behind her, opened the patio doors, closed them behind her, opened the gate at the top of the stairs, closed that behind her (GM interjecting: 'with the child lock') and done the same at the bottom... you know it's just not... it's not possible."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WLvnfcl-Zkg#t=1372


So, if an abductor entered via the back patio door prior to Gerry's check then he/she must have opened the gate, then closed it behind them, opened the child gate at the top of the stairs & closed behind them, opened the patio doors & curtains again closing both behind them.

Furthermore, if the abductor left that way then he also repeated all of the above in reverse, whilst carrying an inert Madeleine.

'you know it's just ... it's just not probable'

[pathfinder73]

And that's why the alleged moving door is vital because it shows you how Madeleine most probably disappeared. Any abductor would require a key to enter but in that case the window wouldn't have been opened. There was no need for an abductor to open the window and noisy shutters, risk of leaving evidence, wasting valuable time etc. It screams out set up! Any way you look at it all comes back to the same thing. The dog alerts and alleged moving door show you how it all went down.

[pathfinder73]

The brown stain has to be important as to what really happened in case she was found.

"It is now my belief there was somebody either in, or trying to get in, the children's bedroom that night (2 MAY), and that is what disturbed them. The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning (3 MAY) was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine's pink Eeyore pyjama top. It looked like a tea stain.
At the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might well be all it was." (Madeleine)

"During breakfast the “crying episode”, already described, took place. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine’s pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it out to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; nevertheless the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry. (KM 6 Sep)

[pathfinder73]

Sorry, I don't follow the logic. Jane never said she saw anyone going in or out of the patio doors.

Let me be clearer - Gerry's first check at 9:04

4 May Statement - 5A is locked. Nobody can enter without a key. No door moved. Window is closed.

10 May Statement - 5A is unlocked. Anybody can enter through patio door. Door has moved. Window is closed.

Abductor has to be inside before Gerry's check to move the door. Change is statement i.e. unlocked patio door makes this now possible. So when Gerry leaves and talks to Jez abductor is hiding in 5A. He is seen leaving minutes later by Jane Tanner.

[Benice]

Let me be clearer - Gerry's first check at 9:04

4 May Statement - 5A is locked. Nobody can enter without a key. No door moved. Window is closed.

10 May Statement - 5A is unlocked. Anybody can enter through patio door. Door has moved. Window is closed.

Abductor has to be inside before Gerry's check to move the door. Change is statement i.e. unlocked patio door makes this now possible. So when Gerry leaves and talks to Jez abductor is hiding in 5A. He is seen leaving minutes later by Jane Tanner.

But didn't the McCanns state right from the beginning in their statements  that Matt entered 5a via the unlocked patio doors? 

[pegasus]

... It is obvious Madeleine hasn't woken up and moved the door so who moved the door before 9?

I can tell you from real world experience that the time when a parent stops putting nappies on a child tends for good reason to be coincident with the time when the child is capable of knowing when they need to go to the bathroom.
Milk is mainly water. What path do you find is likely to be taken by milk, not immediately, but about an hour or so after someone drinks it?   

[pathfinder73]

I can tell you from real world experience that the time when a parent stops putting nappies on a child tends for good reason to be coincident with the time when the child is capable of knowing when they need to go to the bathroom.
Milk is mainly water. What path do you find is likely to be taken by milk, not immediately, but about an hour or so after someone drinks it?   

Madeleine didn't move the door before Gerry's check. Ask Gerry as you trust him.

[sadie]

I can tell you from real world experience that the time when a parent stops putting nappies on a child tends for good reason to be coincident with the time when the child is capable of knowing when they need to go to the bathroom.
Milk is mainly water. What path do you find is likely to be taken by milk, not immediately, but about an hour or so after someone drinks it?

That is a good analysis Pegasus, but most 4 y. olds (Madeleine was just a few days short of 4) can hold their evening drink until morning, without pressure on their bladder even waking them.  Usually thta is no problem.

[pegasus]

Madeleine didn't move the door before Gerry's check. Ask Gerry as you trust him.

I don't understand how you work that out.

[sadie]

I don't understand how you work that out.

I was thinking the same but didn't say anything !

[pegasus]

Question: "Someone left a room, and the door was wider open, explain the physical connection between the two events"
Answers so far range from "No-one left the room and the door was not wider open" to "Whatever happened it was impossible they went to the bathroom". Maybe time to hang up my deerstalker, how can anyone compete with simple occam-like deductions like that.