If Madeleine walked out of the apartment which door did she exit?

[jassi]

My opinion is that they would have closed it behind them on entry by pushing it back to an almost closed position using the door frame. On exit they just put their hand in the gap and pushed it open again. No need to use the handle.

When doing a quick check its quite likely that the door wouldn't be closed at all while they were in, only closed when they exited again.

[Robittybob1]

The issue of which door is being used for the checks is being discussed in the recent YT videos on the McCann case.  The nidus  for the discussion was the recording made of Philomena McCann where she says Madeleine was taken from a "locked apartment" (Sky news interview I think).

"In his 10th May Statement Gerry agrees that the patio door was unlocked.   https://youtu.be/44Yy29eFx78?t=195  compare that to what Gerry states: "Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door."  So without a doubt the apartment was unlocked.
So Gerry may have continued to state he entered by the front door as per his 4th May statement but then it would be so unlikely that the windows were open at the 9:05 PM check for  the window and front door are side by side and would have been obvious to Gerry.

It is still possible for Gerry to enter by the front door even if the patio door is unlocked provided he had taken the key with him.

So if Gerry had the view an intruder was inside the apartment at his check there are only two entry points available. 
1. the unlocked patio door (no key required)
2.  The front door if the intruder had a key.

[Robittybob1]

I have previously thought Gerry lied but in reality he does not contradict his first statement, he simply states he left by the patio door but reentered via the front door using the key.   So that is not strictly a contradiction but a clarification. 
OK it is not quite logical why one would walk all that extra distance to enter the building, but originally I had proposed it could be that he felt observed.   

[Robittybob1]

https://youtu.be/iEh6Kmfye9w  "Madeleine McCann philomena mcann the( LOCKED) apartment"  Somehow she got that wrong!

[barrier]

https://youtu.be/iEh6Kmfye9w  "Madeleine McCann philomena mcann the( LOCKED) apartment"  Somehow she got that wrong!

Why does she have to be wrong?

[Brietta]

The issue of which door is being used for the checks is being discussed in the recent YT videos on the McCann case.  The nidus  for the discussion was the recording made of Philomena McCann where she says Madeleine was taken from a "locked apartment" (Sky news interview I think).

"In his 10th May Statement Gerry agrees that the patio door was unlocked.   https://youtu.be/44Yy29eFx78?t=195  compare that to what Gerry states: "Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door."  So without a doubt the apartment was unlocked.
So Gerry may have continued to state he entered by the front door as per his 4th May statement but then it would be so unlikely that the windows were open at the 9:05 PM check for  the window and front door are side by side and would have been obvious to Gerry.

It is still possible for Gerry to enter by the front door even if the patio door is unlocked provided he had taken the key with him.

So if Gerry had the view an intruder was inside the apartment at his check there are only two entry points available. 
1. the unlocked patio door (no key required)
2.  The front door if the intruder had a key.

Gerry did not have the view at the time that there was an intruder in the apartment.  Hindsight and thinking about what might have happened led him to think it was possible.

[Carana]

I have previously thought Gerry lied but in reality he does not contradict his first statement, he simply states he left by the patio door but reentered via the front door using the key.   So that is not strictly a contradiction but a clarification. 
OK it is not quite logical why one would walk all that extra distance to enter the building, but originally I had proposed it could be that he felt observed.

Don't forget that Gerry was the first witness to testify. I haven't found anyhing to indicate that PJ officer questioning him on the morning of 4 May had any information on the layout of the flat. Ditto for the "interpreter" who turned up.

I still find the most likely explanation to be that either the officer or the interpeter had established that one door (terrace) was left slightly ajar, and the other was shut, but required a key to enter it. Imagine a scribble on a scrap of paper. Then, a mix-up between all three as to which was the "front" or the "back" door and that's it.

It was later clarified. Some think that Gerry changed his story; others think that what was written wasn't what he'd said in the first place.

[Robittybob1]

Why does she have to be wrong?

No one actually visiting the apartment claims it was locked.  Does that give you a clue?

[Robittybob1]

Gerry did not have the view at the time that there was an intruder in the apartment.  Hindsight and thinking about what might have happened led him to think it was possible.

True - and I should have made that more clear in my post sorry (that view was hindsight only).  But is that a reasonable hindsight.  No it doesn't seem to be if he enters by the front door as he claims.  It was locked, the window would have been down, and just moments before both the Paynes and Matt had been in the area.  What chance was there for a intruder to get in?   

[jassi]

True - and I should have made that more clear in my post sorry (that view was hindsight only).  But is that a reasonable hindsight.  No it doesn't seem to be if he enters by the front door as he claims.  It was locked, the window would have been down, and just moments before both the Paynes and Matt had been in the area.  What chance was there for a intruder to get in?

Slim, very slim, I would say.

[Robittybob1]

Don't forget that Gerry was the first witness to testify. I haven't found anyhing to indicate that PJ officer questioning him on the morning of 4 May had any information on the layout of the flat. Ditto for the "interpreter" who turned up.

I still find the most likely explanation to be that either the officer or the interpeter had established that one door (terrace) was left slightly ajar, and the other was shut, but required a key to enter it. Imagine a scribble on a scrap of paper. Then, a mix-up between all three as to which was the "front" or the "back" door and that's it.

It was later clarified. Some think that Gerry changed his story; others think that what was written wasn't what he'd said in the first place.

I don't see a problem with Gerry saying he went to the front door.  Did Matt only do the listening check from the patio side of the building?  It is not clear if Matt circled the whole building checked all the shutters and listened at the 3 apartments that he said he checked.   Maybe Gerry felt the roadside door needed further checking and went right around to there for security reasons.  Did he have doubts about whether he  had closed that door properly?   He had to use the key to get in (implies it was secure).  It was secured when he arrives, but that does mean the door had been left secure, as it still could have been closed by someone else ahead of Gerry.  (That introduces another option for the intruder - an unsecured front door where no key is required.  In that scenario it is possible to have the shutters down and the intruder inside when Gerry is doing his check.)

[Mr Gray]

No one actually visiting the apartment claims it was locked.  Does that give you a clue?

so she was mistaken..its a simple as that

[Robittybob1]

so she was mistaken..its a simple as that

Why make the claim if she is mistaken.  She is in England and it is happening in Portugal, how would she be able to claim it was locked?  Was it a guess on her part?

[Mr Gray]

Why make the claim if she is mistaken.  She is in England and it is happening in Portugal, how would she be able to claim it was locked?  Was it a guess on her part?

Was it an assumption...most probably

[Robittybob1]

Was it an assumption...most probably

Or was she misinformed?