Does anyone else find it strange that the timing of Gerry leaving 5a at 9.15pm and Tanner seeing a man carrying a child away from block 5 are too much of a coincidence? Also bearing in mind too that had Gerry not intercepted Jeremy Wilkins then he (Jerry) would have almost certainly bumped into this child carrying stranger at the top of the street because he was seconds ahead of Tanner.
When Redwood all but ruled out Tannerman that was a huge blow to the abduction scenario. A blow some have yet to deal with.Factually incorrect IMO.
Does anyone else find it strange that the timing of Gerry leaving 5a at 9.15pm and Tanner seeing a man carrying a child away from block 5 are too much of a coincidence? Also bearing in mind too that had Gerry not intercepted Jeremy Wilkins then he (Jerry) would have almost certainly bumped into this child carrying stranger at the top of the street because he was seconds ahead of Tanner.When Gerry came up with the idea that the abductor would have been in the apartment at the time he did the check that to me made it nonsense, so unlikely IMO.
Does anyone else find it strange that the timing of Gerry leaving 5a at 9.15pm and Tanner seeing a man carrying a child away from block 5 are too much of a coincidence? Also bearing in mind too that had Gerry not intercepted Jeremy Wilkins then he would have almost certainly bumped into this child carrying stranger at the top of the street because he was seconds ahead of Tanner.
Does anyone else find it strange that the timing of Gerry leaving 5a at 9.15pm and Tanner seeing a man carrying a child away from block 5 are too much of a coincidence? Also bearing in mind too that had Gerry not intercepted Jeremy Wilkins then he would have almost certainly bumped into this child carrying stranger at the top of the street because he was seconds ahead of Tanner.
This could certainly be seen as suspicious but coincidences do occur in life.
Does anyone else find it strange that the timing of Gerry leaving 5a at 9.15pm and Tanner seeing a man carrying a child away from block 5 are too much of a coincidence? Also bearing in mind too that had Gerry not intercepted Jeremy Wilkins then he (Jerry) would have almost certainly bumped into this child carrying stranger at the top of the street because he was seconds ahead of Tanner.
How would Gerry have bumped into tannerman at the top of the street? Gerry was on his way back to the Tapas Bar which is the opposite direction.Jeremy, not Gerry.
They do but so many ? What is it Kate said about coincidences ?
Indeed. Which, imo, takes us neatly back to: "you have to believe six daft things before breakfast to make all this lot hang together".Not really. There was an opportunity for the child to be taken during the time her parents were absent from the apartment which was unlocked, it would have taken minutes or less to carry out, name one daft thing that prevents that scenario from hanging together?
Not really. There was an opportunity for the child to be taken during the time her parents were absent from the apartment which was unlocked, it would have taken minutes or less to carry out, name one daft thing that prevents that scenario from hanging together?
Pretty handy though that Gerry was seen at the same time as the alleged abductor or we might have thought that Martin Smith did indeed see Gerry.
Doesn't really matter what we think!
You do know that this is a discussion forum don’t you ?
Pretty handy though that Gerry was seen at the same time as the alleged abductor or we might have thought that Martin Smith did indeed see Gerry.But in order to believe that this was a deliberate set up we have to believe at least 6 daft things, shall we go through them all?
But in order to believe that this was a deliberate set up we have to believe at least 6 daft things, shall we go through them all?
But in order to believe that this was a deliberate set up we have to believe at least 6 daft things, shall we go through them all?
On you go.I'm not sure I can without breaching the no libel rule of this forum, or without encouraging you to do the same.
I'm not sure I can without breaching the no libel rule of this forum, or without encouraging you to do the same.
But in order to believe that this was a deliberate set up we have to believe at least 6 daft things, shall we go through them all?Well now that you've mentioned them please do so.
Well now that you've mentioned them please do so.You are actively inviting me to put forward a libellous proposition which I believe to be part of Faithlilly's theory and thereby encouraging her to defend it - is that wise of a Moderator?
You are actively inviting me to put forward a libellous proposition which I believe to be part of Faithlilly's theory and thereby encouraging her to defend it - is that wise of a Moderator?
Perhaps you should have not mentioned it in the first place then.Why not, I am entitled to express an opinion even if the rules of this forum forbid me to state my case (which is a shame as I have a very strong one).
Not really. There was an opportunity for the child to be taken during the time her parents were absent from the apartment which was unlocked, it would have taken minutes or less to carry out, name one daft thing that prevents that scenario from hanging together?
Lack of any evidence is a good start point.
Lack of any evidence is a good start point.how on earth does a lack of evidence prevent the abduction scenario from being a plausible one, given the time frame and circumstances? Many cases proceed from a starting point of no firm evidence but that doesn't mean all scenarios are implausible or that a lack of evidence is a "daft" thing preventing a scenario from being considered..
A missing child doesn't count?
I'm not sure I can without breaching the no libel rule of this forum, or without encouraging you to do the same.
Nicely swerved.Unless you both want us to get forum naughty points I'm afraid it had to be swerved - which should come as a great relief to you.
A missing child is evidence of a missing child.but not evidence of a child abduction?
Unless you both want us to get forum naughty points I'm afraid it had to be swerved - which should come as a great relief to you.
I would have preferred to hear your argumentI would rather not break forum rules, and I don't appreciate your attempts at goading me into doing so.
but not evidence of a child abduction?
You are an adult VS. How could I ‘goad’ you into doing anything.Goading is a recognised tactic on internet forums, even those used by so-called adults. Of course, I won't be goaded by you, or anyone else for that matter.
AbductionTherefore it IS evidence of abduction. It may be evidence of other things, but it is still evidence, which if Madeleine turns out to have been abducted, will be proven to be a fact.
Or wandering off.
Or being concealed.
Not really. There was an opportunity for the child to be taken during the time her parents were absent from the apartment which was unlocked, it would have taken minutes or less to carry out, name one daft thing that prevents that scenario from hanging together?
Therefore it IS evidence of abduction. It may be evidence of other things, but it is still evidence, which if Madeleine turns out to have been abducted, will be proven to be a fact.
On you go.Alice suggested them. It's up to Alice to provide them (the six daft things before breakfast)
Unless you both want us to get forum naughty points I'm afraid it had to be swerved - which should come as a great relief to you.The more you talk about it the more I wanted to know what it was about.
Slarti is correct. A missing child is not evidence of anything really except that she is missing.If you left your holiday apartment unlocked, with your passport, camera, wallet and other valuables on the kitchen table, returned 30 minutes later and discovered they had disappeared, would you say that this was evidence that someone had come into your apartment and taken them or not?
Several attempts have been made to legitimise the abduction theory including claims that the window and shutter had been forced, that an abductor was seen carrying Madeleine away from 5a, that various men were seen lurking around 5a and that someone was taking pictures of Madeleine so she must have been abducted but NONE OF THEM have stood up to scrutiny.
If you left your holiday apartment unlocked, with your passport, camera, wallet and other valuables on the kitchen table, returned 30 minutes later and discovered they had disappeared, would you say that this was evidence that someone had come into your apartment and taken them or not?
Somehow I don't think they would have walked out on their own. Interesting you should mention that though since the McCanns locked their apartment during the day when it was empty but left it open in the evening with three toddlers inside. Some logic????So the absence of the items I mentioned would be evidence of someone entering the apartment illegally and stealing them, correct? Of course there may be other explanations, even though these items can't walk - such as - you forgot you absent mindedly locked them in the safe before you left, your other half moved them to the bedroom and didn't tell you, you staged a robbery for insurance, etc. Nevertheless their absence is also evidence of a robbery, if indeed one has in fact taken place. One couldn't report it as a robbery without some evidence of it in the first place, therefore a child's disappearance is also evidence of an abduction, though abduction may not turn out to be the actual reason for the disappearance.
So the absence of the items I mentioned would be evidence of someone entering the apartment illegally and stealing them, correct? Of course there may be other explanations, even though these items can't walk - such as - you forgot you absent mindedly locked them in the safe before you left, your other half moved them to the bedroom and didn't tell you, you staged a robbery for insurance, etc. Nevertheless their absence is also evidence of a robbery, if indeed one has in fact taken place. One couldn't report it as a robbery without some evidence of it in the first place, therefore a child's disappearance is also evidence of an abduction, though abduction may not turn out to be the actual reason for the disappearance.
So the absence of the items I mentioned would be evidence of someone entering the apartment illegally and stealing them, correct? Of course there may be other explanations, even though these items can't walk - such as - you forgot you absent mindedly locked them in the safe before you left, your other half moved them to the bedroom and didn't tell you, you staged a robbery for insurance, etc. Nevertheless their absence is also evidence of a robbery, if indeed one has in fact taken place. One couldn't report it as a robbery without some evidence of it in the first place, therefore a child's disappearance is also evidence of an abduction, though abduction may not turn out to be the actual reason for the disappearance.
Having posted on another thread I have just come up with a good idea in order to avoid the libel pitfalls on this thread. Simply refer to the Amaral theory and then everyone knows what you are implying.
Had the apartment been locked you might have had an argument but as we know the patio door was unlocked and easily opened and the front door could be opened from the inside thus the missing child could have simply walked out given she was distressed at being left alone with her twin siblings night after night. There is also the Amaral theory which I won't go into for obvious reasons.The child's disappearance is evidence that she may have woke and wandered, do you accept that?
Evidence of an abduction requires tangible factors to be at play and none appear in this case.
I always thought evidence was something factual, rather than a possibility.it is factual - a child has disappeared which is evidence to support an as yet proven theory.
it is factual - a child has disappeared which is evidence to support an as yet proven theory.
The evidence is that she is missing. The possible cause(s) is supposition.The fact that she is missing is evidence of a number of possible scenarios, including abduction.
Is there anything of the Amaral theory which has not already been debunked bearing in mind its target was Kate and Gerry McCann?
The child's disappearance is evidence that she may have woke and wandered, do you accept that?
it is factual - a child has disappeared which is evidence to support an as yet proven theory.
Not debunked, doubt cast on the level of proof that exists, very little of the theory has shown to be incorrect. They weren’t a target just a conclusion.
Not debunked, doubt cast on the level of proof that exists, very little of the theory has shown to be incorrect. They weren’t a target just a conclusion.
I don't believe that you can have evidence of possibilities . Possibilities are not evidence.No one has said possibilities are evidence. I can't believe I have to write it again. The disappearance is the evidence, it's evidence of one of two or three scenarios. In the same way that missing valuables from an apartment is evidence that someone may have entered your flat illegally.
There are those who would love to think that Amaral's theory has been debunked but as it stands it is as valid as any. Only time will tell if he was right.
No one has said possibilities are evidence. I can't believe I have to write it again. The disappearance is the evidence, it's evidence of one of two or three scenarios. In the same way that missing valuables from an apartment is evidence that someone may have entered your flat illegally.
Caller: I think someone's entered my house while I was out
Police: What evidence do you have of a break-in?
Caller: Well I left the door unlocked but when I entered the flat I noticed the window was open and my valuables taken.
The police will treat this as evidence that a crime may have been committed and may attend. If you phone up the police and say "I think someone has entered my house while I was out" and can offer no evidence such as missing goods or open window, they're unlikely to take your call that seriously.
Does a theory have a conclusion?
If Amaral's theory had any merit why was he sacked and why didn't subsequent investigations invoke the rule of law guided by his theory?
'His' theory was one of those mentioned in the archiving dispatch, so was never abandoned.
Funny you should mention the archiving dispatch ... that is the document in which the Policia Judiciria intimated that when the Smith family were witnessing the man carrying a child ...I can't get past thinking that means Amaral discounted Gerry being Smithman, in which case if the PJ were to seriously look for Smithman they would need to consider an abduction by a non-family member.
"It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at
the table, in the Tapas Restaurant."
By the time of which the Amaral theory had in my opinion all but had been airbrushed out of the equation ... although he kept it embellished with additions such as the shared coffin 'solution'.
I can't get past thinking that means Amaral discounted Gerry being Smithman, in which case if the PJ were to seriously look for Smithman they would need to consider an abduction by a non-family member.
Or an innocent minding his own business and declining to get involved in the subsequent circus.A man carrying a child in the right time frame within 500 meters from the apartments surely deserved more attention! OK it could have been as you say but was it ever investigated?
Funny you should mention the archiving dispatch ... that is the document in which the Policia Judiciria intimated that when the Smith family were witnessing the man carrying a child ...
"It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at
the table, in the Tapas Restaurant."
By the time of which the Amaral theory had in my opinion all but had been airbrushed out of the equation ... although he kept it embellished with additions such as the shared coffin 'solution'.
I can't get past thinking that means Amaral discounted Gerry being Smithman, in which case if the PJ were to seriously look for Smithman they would need to consider an abduction by a non-family member.
By 'archiving dispatch' I meant the legal summary by the prosecutor in which he orders the archiving of the case. Those words don't appear in that document afaik.
In my opinion Amaral's interest in Smithman was somewhat neglected until he thought Martin Smith could identify Gerry.
Snip
I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.
Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight. Richard McCluskey
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
Two flies in the ointment perhaps. The first being almost exactly the same statement as that made by Mr Smith had already been given by Mr McCluskey in good faith some time before, had been checked and found him to be mistaken.
The second being the number of witnesses who attested to the fact that Gerry was seated at the dining table in the tapas restaurant when a man carrying a child was witnessed by the Smiths.
Not one independent witness puts Gerry at the tapas table at the time of the Smith sightingHow many further sightings would be required to break the alibi do you think and are you of the opinion it's likely that one or more additional witnesses have come out of the woodwork in the last 5 years to confirm with 100% certainty that they saw Gerry carrying a corpse through PdL? And even if further people did after all these years, wouldn't that raise some serious questions about a) their own reliability b) their own motivations?
The problem Rebelo, and Amaral before him, had was that seven witnesses gave Gerry an alibi for the time of the sighting and that alibi would have been almost impossible to break without further eye witness evidence.
How many further sightings would be required to break the alibi do you think and are you of the opinion it's likely that one or more additional witnesses have come out of the woodwork in the last 5 years to confirm with 100% certainty that they saw Gerry carrying a corpse through PdL? And even if further people did after all these years, wouldn't that raise some serious questions about a) their own reliability b) their own motivations?
A few independent witnesses would be required to break the alibi imo. Unfortunately, as far as we know, there are none.Because Smithman's appearance was previously unknown to the general public, and few (apart from die-hard case followers) knew of his existence anyway, whereas Gerry McCann has been in the public eye for nigh on 11 years, so.... I'm just curious to know what evidences you think the Met are actually collecting that means the net is closing in on the McCanns, because short of a signed confession from one of the Tapas group I can't imagine what that might be.
As to additional witnesses, no idea but OG must have thought that there may witnesses who had not come forward previously or why publicise Smithman ?
Because Smithman's appearance was previously unknown to the general public, and few (apart from die-hard case followers) knew of his existence anyway, whereas Gerry McCann has been in the public eye for nigh on 11 years, so.... I'm just curious to know what evidences you think the Met are actually collecting that means the net is closing in on the McCanns, because short of a signed confession from one of the Tapas group I can't imagine what that might be.What about a signed confession from one of the Tapas group as to what they did? I think this is the most possible event, and we are hinting toward it with Heriberto's post where he thinks Jane saw the abductor at 9:50. That is a possibility in real life but can't be supported by the file, so it would require new information.
What about a signed confession from one of the Tapas group as to what they did? I think this is the most possible event, and we are hinting toward it with Heriberto's post where he thinks Jane saw the abductor at 9:50. That is a possibility in real life but can't be supported by the file, so it would require new information.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9418.msg459298#msg459298
Then why don't you as per forum protocol provide the cite to which you refer.
It is similarly a possibility that Ninjas parachuted onto the roof, abseiled down to 5a grabbed MM and were winched up to a helicopter. Incredibly unlikely and not supported by any evidence.So I wonder where Heriberto gets his ideas from.
So I wonder where Heriberto gets his ideas from.
We will have a care of remarks concerning Heriberto.
It is similarly a possibility that Ninjas parachuted onto the roof, abseiled down to 5a grabbed MM and were winched up to a helicopter. Incredibly unlikely and not supported by any evidence.Reductio ad absurdum. With respect your scenario is a lot less likely than someone entering the unlocked apartment, picking up Madeleine from her bed and walking off with her, or anything Heriberto has come up with.
Reductio ad absurdum. With respect your scenario is a lot less likely than someone entering the unlocked apartment, picking up Madeleine from her bed and walking off with her, or anything Heriberto has come up with.
Yes, keep it polite.
It’s not the entering of the bedroom and picking up of Madeleine that isn’t plausible. It’s the peripheral occurrences that don’t stand up to scrutiny.The peripheral occurrences as you call them may for all we know be entirely irrelevant to that scenario.
The peripheral occurrences as you call them may for all we know be entirely irrelevant to that scenario.
There are too many of them for them to be irrelevant.I don't see that that follows. It may be irrelevant that JT saw a man carrying a child, in fact the police have already told us that it is. It may be irrelevant that the Smiths also saw a man carrying a child, in fact we know the police are no longer pursuing that lead. So what are all the other occurrences that there are too many of to make abduction unlikely?
I don't see that that follows. It may be irrelevant that JT saw a man carrying a child, in fact the police have already told us that it is. It may be irrelevant that the Smiths also saw a man carrying a child, in fact we know the police are no longer pursuing that lead. So what are all the other occurrences that there are too many of to make abduction unlikely?
I am taking your lead and not leaving myself open to accusations of libel. Besides what’s the point of answering when it will only be deleted as my answer to you was last night.If they are occurrences then I don't see why mentioning them would be libellous, but up to you.
There are too many of them for them to be irrelevant.
I am taking your lead and not leaving myself open to accusations of libel. Besides what’s the point of answering when it will only be deleted as my answer to you was last night.
As far as I'm concerned there is no occurrence or even series of occurrences that makes it impossible or highly unlikely for a potential abductor to enter the apartment that evening and carry away the child.
A fair enough comment as it stands.I really don't think so - allowing for the fallibility of human memory, which most reasonable investigators do when looking at witness statements, and trying to fit the pieces together like a badly cut jigsaw, I think a fairly cohesive narrative can be drawn. The problem is - trying to do that on here, we get embroiled in the tiny detail, and discounting "x" as a possibility because someone said "x +1" instead, when in fact both recollections may be slightly imprecise and the real answer is "y".
It is the making it fit in with all the other statements and implications that may prove difficult.
I really don't think so - allowing for the fallibility of human memory, which most reasonable investigators do when looking at witness statements, and trying to fit the pieces together like a badly cut jigsaw, I think a fairly cohesive narrative can be drawn. The problem is - trying to do that on here, we get embroiled in the tiny detail, and discounting "x" as a possibility because someone said "x +1" instead, when in fact both recollections may be slightly imprecise and the real answer is "y".
I really don't think so - allowing for the fallibility of human memory, which most reasonable investigators do when looking at witness statements, and trying to fit the pieces together like a badly cut jigsaw, I think a fairly cohesive narrative can be drawn. The problem is - trying to do that on here, we get embroiled in the tiny detail, and discounting "x" as a possibility because someone said "x +1" instead, when in fact both recollections may be slightly imprecise and the real answer is "y".
Should you have done any serious incident investigation you will know that witness statements are generally taken with a bit of salt.I always find this to be a completely "nothing" point. How much of the police investigation has been devoted to "whooshing curtains" do you suppose? Are you telling me that when you open an outside door in one room and the door to the curtain in another room billows out that that is a scientific impossibility?
I was thinking more in terms of the whooshing of curtains [just as a frinstance] and the physical plus meterological conditions that must have obtained to create that phenomenon and why on the face of it flies in face of known laws. More out of interest than anything else. Then why would PdL seemingly have an offshore breeze when the rest of the world would have an onshore breeze. Why in PdL does pressure move from low to high rather than high to low as it does in the rest of the world. Two or three of those will attract attention.
If you are counting on the fallibility of human memory to iron out any discrepancies than you also have to doubt the memories indicating abduction.Sure, if needs be.
I always find this to be a completely "nothing" point. How much of the police investigation has been devoted to "whooshing curtains" do you suppose? Are you telling me that when you open an outside door in one room and the door to the curtain in another room billows out that that is a scientific impossibility?
You are complaining that the police spent time looking at the whooshing curtain claim?.Or the amount of time discussing it. Well, you may have missed this; but the whole abduction theory came from the claims Kate made- jimmied shutters/open window/ whooshing curtains,upon further investigation it was agreed by the investigating team that no abductor entered or left the apartment this way. Therefore, they disbelieved in an abduction. And this was ALL down to Kate making this claim. The police believed it to be 'staged' and I agree with them on this point. Only Kate and Gerry know what really happened as they were the last known people to see her alive in the apartment.Perhaps you could point me to the relevant reference in the police files where it was, discussed, tested and proven that it is impossible for curtains to whoosh in the manner described by Kate McCann, thanks.
Perhaps you could point me to the relevant reference in the police files where it was, discussed, tested and proven that it is impossible for curtains to whoosh in the manner described by Kate McCann, thanks.
Perhaps you could point me to the relevant reference in the police files where it was, discussed, tested and proven that it is impossible for curtains to whoosh in the manner described by Kate McCann, thanks.
Many things are possible. The important thing is 'did it happen'It could have, but some people spout physics to tell us that it couldn't. The police meanwhile haven't commented on "whooshing curtains" to the best of my knowledge.
I never said they discussed it was impossible for the curtains to whoosh. Read again... I said that after discussion and investigation the PJ didn't not believe an abductor entered or exited the apartment via that window. As claimed by Kate McCann.Perhaps you could employ your same advice when reading my posts as my "nothing point" comment referred specifically to the "whooshing curtains". Thanks
It would be most helpful if you would please read the posts in context and stop inventing things which are not said.
Thank you.
It could have, but some people spout physics to tell us that it couldn't. The police meanwhile haven't commented on "whooshing curtains" to the best of my knowledge.
and you also said:"Perhaps you could point me to the relevant reference in the police files where it was, discussed, tested and proven that it is impossible for curtains to whoosh in the manner described by Kate McCann, thanks.Exactly. That's why "whooshing curtains" is a "nothing poin"t IMO. I didn't start this "argument" with you btw. You responded somewhat irrelevantly IMO to the point I was making to another poster and that is why I replied as I did.
"
No one has claimed the police got in a strop about whooshing curtains...
IMO You are just seeking to be argumentative without due cause.
In fact, don't even think about saying anything impolite.Oops!
Exactly. That's why "whooshing curtains" is a "nothing poin"t IMO. I didn't start this "argument" with you btw. You responded somewhat irrelevantly IMO to the point I was making to another poster and that is why I replied as I did.
I'm sorry but I don't believe the GNR and PJ monitor every gust of wind in the PdL vicinity. They were not correct to disbelieve her story, unless yo can provide any proof which makes her story impossible?
The whooshing curtains were a point. as I mentioned before, they form part of the statement by the mother who ascertained the state of the apartment when she discovered her daughter was missing, and the incident which prompted her to look further into the room.
She claimed the door was open much further than she had left it- even though 'others' had 'checked' after she put her daughter to bed. She claimed as she tried to close the door it slammed shut and she discovered the jimmied shutters.open window and whooshing curtains- daughter missing.
The GNR and PJ were in that area and would be aware of the weather! They just didn't believe her story, and they were correct in this instance, as there is no evidence of anyone jimmying shutters or entering leaving that apartment via a window.
I'm sorry but I don't believe the GNR and PJ monitor every gust of wind in the PdL vicinity. They were not correct to disbelieve her story, unless yo can provide any proof which makes her story impossible?
I'm sorry but I don't believe the GNR and PJ monitor every gust of wind in the PdL vicinity. They were not correct to disbelieve her story, unless yo can provide any proof which makes her story impossible?
With that attitude there doesn't seem any point me continuing the discussion with you, however I'd be delighted to read cites by experts which disprove Kate's claim that the curtains whooshed. In your own time of course...
In the big scheme of things... your belief system doesn't count. All they need to know is... WAS IT WINDY THAT NIGHT and WAS there collaborating evidence for her claims ie tampered shutters/window. what position of curtains on their arrival...
They were correct to disbelieve her - further observations by experts have dismissed her claims
Can you provide proof her story is possible? if so do so but who cares anyway...
With that attitude there doesn't seem any point me continuing the discussion with you, however I'd be delighted to read cites by experts which disprove Kate's claim that the curtains whooshed. In your own time of course...
Somehow I don't think they would have walked out on their own. Interesting you should mention that though since the McCanns locked their apartment during the day when it was empty but left it open in the evening with three toddlers inside. Some logic????They left it locked when they went afar, meaning left the complex.
Only in as much as the GNR scent dogs established her scent trial which went from the front door, around block 5 and out across the road opposite mini reception. If they had been following an old scent trail it would not have stopped suddenly.Why ?
Should you have done any serious incident investigation you will know that witness statements are generally taken with a bit of salt.
I was thinking more in terms of the whooshing of curtains [just as a frinstance] and the physical plus meterological conditions that must have obtained to create that phenomenon and why on the face of it flies in face of known laws. More out of interest than anything else. Then why would PdL seemingly have an offshore breeze when the rest of the world would have an onshore breeze. Why in PdL does pressure move from low to high rather than high to low as it does in the rest of the world. Two or three of those will attract attention.
Should you have done any serious incident investigation you will know that witness statements are generally taken with a bit of salt.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_breeze
I was thinking more in terms of the whooshing of curtains [just as a frinstance] and the physical plus meterological conditions that must have obtained to create that phenomenon and why on the face of it flies in face of known laws. More out of interest than anything else. Then why would PdL seemingly have an offshore breeze when the rest of the world would have an onshore breeze. Why in PdL does pressure move from low to high rather than high to low as it does in the rest of the world. Two or three of those will attract attention.
"Dry land also cools more quickly than water and, after sunset, a sea breeze dissipates and the wind instead flows from the land towards the sea." This breeze would blow into the window of the kids room.I’m sure an expert will be along shortly to tell us why the science behind this is faulty and that it is a scientific impossibility for the curtains to whoosh in the Children’s bedroom, in the circumstances described.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_breeze
A sea breeze or onshore breeze is any wind that blows from a large body of water toward or onto a landmass; it develops due to differences in air pressure created by the differing heat capacities of water and dry land. As such, sea breezes are more localised than prevailing winds. Because land absorbs solar radiation far more quickly than water, a sea breeze is a common occurrence along coasts after sunrise. By contrast, a land breeze or offshore breeze is the reverse effect: dry land also cools more quickly than water and, after sunset, a sea breeze dissipates and the wind instead flows from the land towards the sea. Sea breezes and land breezes are both important factors in coastal regions' prevailing winds. The term offshore wind may refer to any wind over open water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems to explain the phenomenon that was 5A's whooshing curtains.
Is that not what I said? added to which I said and I repeat pressure always balances from high to low thus giving a direction to any fluid flow. Don't tell me tell Bernoulli.
I think one or two people here get saddled up and are over the horizon before working out what I have actually said!
It's good fun watching it though.
I’m sure an expert will be along shortly to tell us why the science behind this is faulty and that it is a scientific impossibility for the curtains to whoosh in the Children’s bedroom, in the circumstances described.
Of course it flows, from high to low.... So it depends where the lowest pressure was
Well spotted. That is the crutch of the issue, give the man a Kewpie Doll.
Now work out where the low pressure would have been at 21.00 with no prevailing wind blowing then then work out the velocity of the prevailing wind required to shift the direction of balancing pressure flow.
Nobody is going to say that now are they.And did they? If so where is the report? If they didn’t why not? Maybe because it wasn’t really a massively significant point? Who knows!
Those who know a bit about fluid dynamics might point out the variables and why an investigator at first pass might say "that will bear looking at in closer detail".
I cant recall which way the winds were blowing at about the time Madeleine vanished, but using official sources, the info has been posted on here several times. Seems that it has been 'vanished'
However I CAN RECALL a verv recently posted photo showing the net curtains blowing into Madeleines bedroom. Paulo Rebelo was also on the photo. For that to happen, Alice, there had to have been a gusty breeze from more or less the North, blowing in a southerly direction.
i think that proves that your talk about onshore / offshore is incorrect. May I suggest that you modify your post. TY
Well spotted. That is the crutch of the issue, give the man a Kewpie Doll.I find thinking of the effect of thermals makes it easier to work out. Which body of mass is hotter on the surface.
Now work out where the low pressure would have been at 21.00 with no prevailing wind blowing then then work out the velocity of the prevailing wind required to shift the direction of balancing pressure flow.
Blowing the right way too.(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_20_small1.jpg)The crime scene photos appear to show the net curtain and the heavier curtain billowing in a draft from somewhere.
If so it proves that not only could the nets blow in a breeze ... the heavier curtain could also.
Blowing the right way too.
I thought so too, and quite often the argument has been made that the fabric curtains could not have 'whooshed' as per Kate's description because they are too heavy to do so ... I don't know if these ones 'whooshed' or not but I would describe them as billowing out at the least.In Kate's case she had closed the door (stopped the air flow) then opened the door again the air flow restarted, that could be a wooshing effect.